Attachment 4 - Exhibit B Housing Element dated 1.11.2024 (clean) — Foster City City Council, March 20, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

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.

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 neighborho od 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
2020 2000 2010 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.042
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 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.

3.3 R EGIONAL 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.

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.

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

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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-37

3.4 L OCAL 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 p opulation) 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 populatio n, since 2010, non -Hispanic White residents have declined throughout the city with an overall decrease of 14%.

Table 5 : P opulation 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 non- Hispanic 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 th e 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.

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.

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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-40 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

3.5 I NCOME 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 Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Sa nta Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo- Fairfield 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 low- income 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.

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.

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 lower - income (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households. 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 Tabl e 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.

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.

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 Low- and 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.

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 Moderate- Income 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 indi ces 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 re sidents 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.

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 C ounty 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 p overty (Figure 20).

Table 1 1: 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%).

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

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

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.

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-50 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

3.6 D ISABILITY 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%.

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

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

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

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

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.

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
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 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.

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

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 E DUCATION
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 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 a nd 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.

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 th e 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 disabilit ies 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 ar e 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.

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-68 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.2 E MPLOYMENT
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 j ob 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 low er 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.

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

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

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

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 Figure s 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 hous ehold 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 econ omic 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 alig nment 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.

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-76 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.3 T RANSPORTATION
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% o f 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’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. Figure s 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/.

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

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

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 a rea 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%.

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 elementa ry 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/.

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

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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-83
The San Mateo County Transit District update d 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 E NVIRONMENT
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 care 34— 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.

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

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

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 li kely 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 incl uding 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.

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-87

4.5 D ISPARITIES 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.

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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-89

4.6 D ISPARITIES 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

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.

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

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 H OUSING 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.

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.

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 C OST 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
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
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.

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

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

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 (9 5%) 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
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 renter - occupied 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

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

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
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, t here 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

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-104 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

5.4 S UBSTANDARD 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 self- reported in Census surveys. No owner households in Foster City report living in su bstandard 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 T able 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 H OMELESSNESS
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.

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.

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

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

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 wil l 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.

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, d isparities 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.

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

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 g eographic 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 1 6 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 an d 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.

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

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
Neighbor-
hooda
Total
Existing
Unitsb
Existing
Restricted
BMR
Unitsc
Site
Inventory
Total New
Capacity
Very
Low Low
Mod-
erate
Above-
Mod-
erate
TCAC
Opp.

Categoryd
R/ECAP
or
R/CAAg
% Non-
White5
%
Renter
% LMI
Pop.f
% Over-
crowdedh
% 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.

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
Above-
Moderate Total
Tract
Total
6081 Franciscan 21 14 14 32 81 81
6082 1601 Beach Park Boulevard 3 13 16 16
6083
Eaves 16 10 10 23 59
166 Eaves ADUs 7 7 7 1 22
Shadow Cove 23 14 14 34 85
6080.01 Beach Cove 46 29 29 69 173 173
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 236 154 154 363 907
1,419
Sand Cove 29 19 19 45 112
Lagoons 33 22 22 51 128
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 2,885 2,885
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.

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

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 den sity 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 a n ADU Financial Incentive Program, a preapproved ADU designs and expedited review, and improved public information on ADUs.

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 APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-117
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 lowe st 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 ethni c 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 Housin g 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 educ ation. 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 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 APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-118 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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 popul ation 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.

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 c ity (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 infl uence 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

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 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

 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
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 mid-
cycle 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 multi-
family 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
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 Anti-
Displacement 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
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
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).

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 B-125
Table 1 8: 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
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
Promote 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
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 multi- family 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-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
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 (10 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.
191 units total spread among
diﬀerent programs with diﬀerent
income levels, totals: 79 very
low, 64 low, 35 moderate, and 13
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
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
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 low-
income 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
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.

Target expanding
choices in single
family areas
24 ADUs by 2031

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 single-
family 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
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 multi- family 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 single-
family 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
At least 5 new matches annually
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.
choices in single-
family areas.

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
.

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 lower-
income 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 Anti-
Displacement 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
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 lower-
income 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 non-
proﬁt 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

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.

APPENDIX B: FOSTER CITY FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
B-136 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

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.

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 self-selected nature of the survey prevents the collection of a true random sample. Important insights and themes can still be gained from the survey results, however, with an understanding of the differences among resident groups and between jurisdictions and the county overall. Overall, the data provide a rich source of information about the county’s households and their experience with housing choice and access to opportunity in the communities where they live. Jurisdiction-level data are reported for cities with 50 responses or more. Response by jurisdiction and demographics are shown in the figure below. Overall, the survey received a very strong response from typically underrepresented residents including: people of color, renters, precariously housed residents, very low income households, households with children, large households, single parents, and residents with disabilities.

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY APPENDIX, PAGE 3
Figure 1. Resident Survey Sample Sizes by Jurisdictions and Selected Characteristics Note: Numbers do not aggregate either due to multiple responses or that respondents chose not to provide a response to all demographic and socioeconomic questions. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.

Total Responses 2,382 82 173 1305314863 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 White757 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 Housed309 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
BayHillsboroughMilbraePacifica
Redwood
City
San
BrunoCountyBrisbaneBurlingame
Daly
City
East
Palo
Alto
Foster
City
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.

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 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.

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)
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)
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.

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 Count y average
2,159 73 158 11849 13559 50 53 79 151 93163 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
FranciscoMilbrae
Housing or Neighborhood
Condition
Valid cases
Half
Moon
BayHillsborough Pacifica
Redwood
City
San
Bruno
San
MateoCountyBrisbaneBurlingame
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
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. .

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 Count y average
2,130 73 157 1155113458 50 50 77 147 93160 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
BayHillsboroughMilbraePacifica
Redwood
City
San
BrunoCountyBrisbaneBurlingame
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
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.

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 Count y average
2,079 72 153 11648130 56 53 46 75 145 91151 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
FranciscoNeighborhood Challenges
Valid cases
My neighborhood does not have good
sidewalks, walking areas, and/or
lighting
Schools in my neighborhood are poor
quality
Half
Moon
BayHillsboroughMilbraePacifica
Redwood
City
San
BrunoCountyBrisbaneBurlingame
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
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.

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 Count y 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
AmericanAsianHispanic
I would like to move but I can't afford anything that is available/income too low
HomeownerRenter
Precariously
HousedHousing or Neighborhood Condition
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
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.

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 Count y 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%
73% 32% 70% 63% 64% 83% 84% 61% 54%None of the above
County
African
AmericanAsianHispanic
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 HomeownerRenter
Precariously
HousedAffordability Challenges
Other
Race
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.

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 Count y 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
AmericanAsianHispanic HomeownerRenter
Precariously
HousedNeighborhood Challenges
Valid cases
Other
Race
Non-
Hispanic
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
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.

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 Count y 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
$100,000Housing or Neighborhood Condition
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
ParentDisability
Adults
(age 65+)
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.

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 Count y 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-
$99,999Affordability Challenges
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
ParentDisability
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.

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 Count y 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
$100,000Neighborhood Challenges
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
ParentDisability
Adults
(age 65+)
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 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.

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
Count y 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 Alt o 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 Francisco47% 24% 13% 56%248
Race/Ethnicity
African American80% 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 White46% 29% 20% 48%263
Tenure
Homeowner 36% 25% 15% 54%183
Renter 75% 29% 22% 43%641
Precariously Housed74% 23% 32% 26%188
Income
Less than $25,00071% 30% 36% 29%182
$25,000-$49,99960% 39% 32% 27%149
$50,000-$99,99958% 24% 20% 45%251
Above $100,000 48% 19% 14% 64%216
Household Characteristics
Children under 1866% 30% 29% 33%447
Large Households60% 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
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.

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 Alt o 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 Francisco47% 26% 18% 16% 57%251
Race/Ethnicity
African American80% 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 White46% 29% 23% 54%250
Tenure
Homeowner 36% 29% 17% 54%332
Renter 75% 32% 27% 46%467
Precariously Housed74% 36% 36% 30% 30%154
Income
Less than $25,00071% 32% 25% 26% 41%131
$25,000-$49,99960% 42% 40% 29%106
$50,000-$99,99958% 35% 30% 38%216
Above $100,00048% 22% 13% 10% 64%296
Household Characteristics
Children under 1866% 33% 28% 40%443
Large Households60% 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 t o
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
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.

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
Count y 39%115418% 44% 19% 21% 449
Brisbane 42%38 25% 19% 31% 16
Burlingame 30%7124% 29% 21
Daly City 49%7328% 53% 28% 19% 36
East Palo Alt o55%2938% 44% 25% 16
Foster City 30%63 25% 40% 30% 19
Half Moon Bay41%34 29% 29% 14
Hillsborough23%22 40% 5
Milbrae 36%33 67%25% 33% 25% 12
Pacifica 38%39 47% 27% 33% 15
Redwood City41%10528% 63%26% 26% 43
San Bruno 25%51 31% 31% 38% 13
San Mateo 48%11230% 38% 28% 53
South San Francisco30%33119% 58% 28% 17% 98
Race/Ethnicity
African American79%107 25%25% 25% 28% 27% 85
Asian 42%281 38% 28% 21% 21% 117
Hispanic 49%25328% 60% 26% 26% 125
Other Race 43%10522% 49% 24% 45
Non-Hispanic White31%351 40% 19% 23% 25% 108
Tenure
Homeowner 26%348 24% 22%23% 91
Renter 45%687 48% 20% 24% 310
Precariously Housed61%208 42% 22% 25% 126
Income
Less than $25,00064%199 47% 31% 29% 127
$25,000-$49,99965%158 48% 21% 20% 20% 103
$50,000-$99,99938%30221% 51%24% 114
Above $100,00018%346 27% 16% 20% 16%64
Household Characteristics
Children under 1851%558 42% 26% 19% 283
Large Households43%17127% 64%41% 74
Single Parent74%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
speakForeclosuren
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
HousingTotal n
Bad
Credit
Evict ion
history
Income
too low
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.

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 cove r the
re nt 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 fi nd 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
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 Francisco4% 11% 33% 56% 27 63% 50% 71% 63% 8% 24 Race/Ethnicity
African American60% 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 White8% 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 Housed30% 14% 66% 20% 86 57% 54% 35% 26% 7% 74 Income
Less than $25,00029% 17% 58% 25% 84 47% 41% 47% 37% 10% 70 $25,000-$49,99918% 17% 52% 31% 48 63% 55% 63% 40% 5% 40 $50,000-$99,99912% 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 1821% 20% 60% 20% 179 59% 51% 44% 35% 1% 143 Large Households7% 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 8Othern
Percent
with a
Housing
Voucher
Not
difficult
Somewhat
difficult
Very
difficultn
Voucher is not
enough to cover the
rent for places I
want to live
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) 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%206629% 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 Alto32% 50 20% 20% 20% 15
Foster City 11%130 21% 21% 21% 43% 14
Half Moon Bay31% 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 City29%146 31% 21% 42
San Bruno 25% 89 33% 29% 24% 21
San Mateo 37%153 35% 31% 20% 54
South San Francisco12%712 42% 15% 16% 81
Race/Ethnicity
African American59%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 White14%757 27% 20% 31% 102
Tenure
Homeowner 8% 975 27% 25% 31% 75
Renter 34%905 32% 18% 22% 292
Precariously Housed48%280 23% 24% 23% 132
Income
Less than $25,00045%282 28% 20% 20% 20% 127
$25,000-$49,99930%265 31% 19% 18% 78
$50,000-$99,99922%517 32% 22% 18% 115
Above $100,0008% 721 27% 20% 23% 60
Household Characteristics
Children under 1830%840 27% 20% 19% 249
Large Households20%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
DisplacedTotal 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
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.

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 Bay58% 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 Francisco36% 56 26% 26% 26% 19
Race/Ethnicity
African American87% 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 White60% 60 28% 31% 44% 28% 36
Tenure
Homeowner 74% 66 39% 29% 31% 49
Renter 58% 213 25% 30% 25% 122
Precariously Housed78% 104 35% 34% 30% 80
Income
Less than $25,00065% 92 22% 32% 35% 60
$25,000-$49,99966% 56 25% 28% 28% 25% 36
$50,000-$99,99955% 85 30% 28% 23% 47
Above $100,00059% 44 35% 31% 38% 26
Household Characteristics
Children under 1867% 237 32% 23% 25% 158
Large Households45% 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
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.

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).

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 Alto29% 23%54%15% 8% 13 38% 38% 23% 23% 13
Foster City 18% 15%40%45% 0% 20 38% 24% 24% 21
Half Moon Bay26% 27%55%9% 9% 11 27% 36% 36% 11
Hillsborough15% 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 City24% 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 Francisco13% 30%40%23% 6% 82 59% 27% 83
Race/Ethnicity
African American62% 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 White12% 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 Housed39% 21%54%20% 4% 98 24% 28% 35% 26% 100 Income
Less than $25,00036% 29%51%11% 9% 100 39% 30% 25% 102
$25,000-$49,99924% 31%41%22% 6% 64 42% 36% 25% 22% 64
$50,000-$99,99919% 27%45%25% 3% 97 44% 29% 18% 97
Above $100,00011% 28%45%21% 7% 76 45% 22% 16% 16% 76
Household Characteristics
Children under 1826% 21%57%15% 6% 216 36% 31% 26% 218
Large Households19% 26%52%9% 13% 54 65% 24% 15% 55
Single Parent44% 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
complaintOther
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
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%).

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 Alto44% 64%22 63% 8
Foster City 31% 83%40 29% 29% 7
Half Moon Bay45% 68%22 29% 29% 7
Hillsborough26% 100%13 n/a
Milbrae 40% 82%17 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
Pacifica 39% 93%29 100% 2
Redwood City42% 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 Francisco30% 68%210 35% 28% 32% 57
Race/Ethnicity
African American71% 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 White32% 77%241 33% 27% 21% 52
Tenure
Homeowner29% 82%280 35% 37% 37% 43
Renter 39% 73%347 41% 40% 27% 88
Precariously Housed56% 71%154 37% 26% 33% 43
Income
Less than $25,00059% 71%167 42% 27% 23% 48
$25,000-$49,99940% 67%107 45% 45% 45% 31
$50,000-$99,99935% 77%180 43% 26% 24% 42
Above $100,00023% 82%167 52% 34% 41% 29
Household Characteristics
Children under 1835% 78%293 40% 29% 32% 63
Large Households35% 70%99 41% 45% 34% 29
Single Parent58% 81%139 48% 28% 41% 29
Older Adults (age 65+)46% 76%337 44% 29% 30% 79
Alarm to
notify if a
non-
verbal
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
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.

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 Francisco34% 48% 15% 3% 666
Race/Ethnicity
African American22% 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 White32% 45% 17% 5% 757
Tenure
Homeowner 31% 45% 18% 6% 905
Renter 27% 44% 23% 6% 834
Precariously Housed20% 36% 35% 9% 254
Income
Less than $25,00022% 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 1825% 43% 25% 6% 840
Large Households29% 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
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% 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% 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% 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% 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.

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

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

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 pol icies 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 extensi ve 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;

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 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 20-60 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.

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.

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 3350 sq.ft.**
(13 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% 47% 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
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. Th e 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. Fo r 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 Genera l Plan. The smallest lot in the City developed under R-3 (1431 Beach Park Boulevard) is 1.0 acres.

Lot Width. T he 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 re development 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 regulatio ns to ensure the densities allowed by the General Plan can be achieved.

Building C overage 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 show s 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 include s 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 3 8 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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-6 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 4: Recent Developments with As -Buil t Development Standards

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.

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 began 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 5. 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 i f 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 reductio ns 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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-9
Table 5: 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 transit - oriented 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 two - bedroom 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.

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 Planned Development Permit 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.

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 t he 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 corre ct 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 speci fic 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 202 2. The inclusionary units are dispersed in mixed -income developments 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 requireme nts 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 polici es 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 housi ng, 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 off - site 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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-13
counted toward density bonus (Section 17.90.040.B) and that the 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 moderate- income 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 rates 3 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 6 below illustrates the different rental inclusionary scenarios that were considered.

Table 6: 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.

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 7 below indicates the estimated profit margin for several scenarios.

Table 7: 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, low - income 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 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 habitabi lity, 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/Bridgepoint e area of San Mateo.) Although the water supply 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 inc ludes 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 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 2024.35 5 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.

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.

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 indus try 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 capa cities 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 Boule vard 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.

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, e ntitlement 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 single - family 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 single - family 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 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 8 and compared to neighboring jurisdictions in Table 9.

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 12 . 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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-21
Table 8: 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, pa rks, 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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-22 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 9: 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 10: 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

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-23
Table 11: 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 12: 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 multi- family unit, as indicated in Table 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 but APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-24 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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 13: 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/residential - development-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-service- charges-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 14.

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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-25
Table 14: 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.

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 publ ic 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.

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 a nd 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 us e, 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 applicat ions 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) c ombining 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.

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 off - street 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 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 15.

Table 15: 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

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 jurisdic tion. 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 16 .

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 Upda te 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.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 C-31
Table 16: 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 requ ired 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.

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 single - family 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 6 5852.22, 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.

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 high- quality 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 enc ourage 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 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 a re 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.

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.

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 17 below summarizes the acreage and number of parcels in each of the relevant zoning districts.

Table 17: 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
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 17, 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 b uildings. 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 cap acity for low-income housing in their housing elements. AB 2339 requires written, objective standards limited to certain topics. Program H-F- 2-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 Ordinance 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=.

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 i s 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 ju risdictions 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 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 multi- family 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 note d 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 conditi ons, 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.

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 two- thirds 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 opposi tion 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 develope d 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/interest- rates.

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 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).

3.7 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 18 below identifies the links between the constraints issues and the highlights of the actions proposed to address these constraints.

APPENDIX C: CONSTRAINTS
C-42 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 18: 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-a: 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
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

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.

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 Exhibit s 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, p lease 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.

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 d oes 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 l imited 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 transa ctions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.

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

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 LargeMulti-Family Small

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

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

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

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 .................................................................................................................. 33

4.4 Proposed Projects ............................................................................................................... 34

4.5 Accessory Dwelling Units .................................................................................................... 43

4.6 Summary of Credits Toward the RHNA from Pipeline and Proposed Projects and ADUs ..... 46

4.7 Non-Vacant Residentially Zoned Sites ................................................................................. 46

4.8 Commercial Site to be Rezoned ........................................................................................... 51

4.9 Non-Residential Site to Rezone to Residential ..................................................................... 52

4.10 Sites Inventory List .............................................................................................................. 53

4.11 Progress in Meeting the RHNA ............................................................................................ 56

4.12 Additional Housing Potential ............................................................................................... 58 5 FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSING RESOURCES ......................................................... 60

5.1 Financial Resources ............................................................................................................. 61

5.2 Administrative Resources .................................................................................................... 63 6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION ......................................................................... 64

6.1 State Codes and Guidelines ................................................................................................. 64

6.2 Foster City Climate Action Plan ........................................................................................... 65

6.3 Local and Regional Programs .............................................................................................. 65

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 ............................................................................................ 44 Figure 2: Sites Inventory Map ............................................................................................................. 55

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Foster City Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2023-2031 ................................................... 2 Table 2: Multi-Family Development Densities: 2002-2022 .................................................................. 8 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 ...................................... 32 Table 8: Pipeline Projects .................................................................................................................. 33 Table 9: Proposed Projects ............................................................................................................... 34 Table 10: Lantern Cove Summary ....................................................................................................... 35 Table 11: Schooner Bay Summary ...................................................................................................... 38 Table 12: Estimated Affordability of Projected ADUs ......................................................................... 46 Table 13: Sites Inventory of Pipeline Projects, Proposed Projects, and ADUs ..................................... 47 Table 14: Potential Housing Sites – Apartment Developments ........................................................... 47 Table 15: Capacity of Other Non-Vacant Residential Sites .................................................................. 50 Table 16: Capacity of Other Non-Vacant Sites .................................................................................... 52 Table 17: Sites Inventory..................................................................................................................... 54 Table 18: Progress in Meeting the RHNA – Status of Pipeline/Proposed/Preliminary Projects ............ 56

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 complet ing 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.

The analysis demonstrates that there is adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 1,896 units, including housing for very low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate income households. The chapter starts with a description of the City’s housing target for the 2023 -2031 planning period, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It then provides an analysis of suitable sites, including residential units in the pipeline, anticipated Accessory Dwelling Units, and sites where housing is or will become an allowed use. The chapter then provides an overview of financial and administrative housing resources.
2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
RHNA is the State -required process that seeks to ensure each California jurisdiction is planning for enough housing to accommodate their “fair share” of the S tate’s housing needs for all economic segments of the community. The RHNA process for the nine-county Bay Area is described below.

2.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with a Regional Housing Needs Determination of 441,176 units. This is the number the Bay Area must plan for between 2023 and 2031. It represents the number of additional units needed to accommodate the anticipated growth in the number of households, to replace expected demolitions and conversions of housing units to non-housing uses, and to achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market. The Regional Housing Needs Determination for the first time ever also included adjustments related to the rate of overcrowding and the share of cost- burdened households, which resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

2.2 RHNA METHODOLOGY
ABAG developed a RHNA methodology to allocate the Regional Housing Needs Determination across all cities, towns, and counties in the region. The RHNA methodology must be consistent with State APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
objectives, including but not limited to promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The allocation also takes into account factors such as employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, and type and tenure of housing need. ABAG developed the RHNA methodology in conjunction with a committee of elected officials, staff from jurisdictions, and other stakeholders called the Housing Methodology Committee. More information about ABAG’s RHNA methodology is available at https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation .

2.3 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATES
Each jurisdiction must then adopt a Housing Element that demonstrates how it can accommodate its assigned
RHNA for each income category through its zoning. HCD
reviews each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for
compliance with State law. Foster City’s Housing Element must demonstrate capacity to accommodate 1,896 units
as further described below.

2.4 FOSTER CITY’S FAIR SHARE
In determining a jurisdiction’s share of new housing
needs, ABAG splits each jurisdiction’s allocation into four income categories:
 Very Low-Income – 0% to 50% of Area Median Income
(AMI)
 Low-Income – 51% to 80% of AMI
 Moderate-Income – 81% to 120% of AMI
 Above Moderate-Income – more than 120% of AMI
In December 2021, ABAG identified the Foster City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs as 1,896 new housing units, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 : Foster City Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2023 -2031 Income Category Units Percent of Total
Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 520 27%
Low-Income (51-80% AMI) 299 16%
Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) 300 16%
Above Moderate-Income (Over 120% of AMI) 777 41%
Total 1,896 100%
Note: AMI = Area Median-Income. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan, 2021.

Income Levels in San Mateo County
The Area Median Income (AMI) in San Mateo
County for a family of four is $149,600. How
this breaks down into income categories for
different household sizes is shown below.

Income
Level
Persons Per Household
1 2 4
Very Low $63,950 $73,100 $91,350
Low $102,450 $117,100 $146,350
Moderate $125,650 $143,600 $179,500
Source: Department of Housing and Community
Development, 2021.

Where this Housing Element refers to
housing that is affordable to the different
income levels shown above, we mean a
household spends no more than 30 percent
of their income on housing.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-3
In addition, each jurisdiction must also address the projected need of extremely low-income households, defined as households earning 30 % or less of AMI. The Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data provided by the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) indicates that approximately 50 % of the very low -income households are in the extremely low -income category. As such, there is a projected need for 260 extremely low-income housing units.

2.5 RHNA BUFFER
Recent changes to State law require jurisdictions to
continually maintain adequate capacity in their sites
inventories to meet their RHNA. The State’s “No Net
Loss” requirements (Government Code Section 65853)
stipulate that a jurisdiction must provide sufficient sites at all times throughout the RHNA planning period. A
jurisdiction can fall out of compliance if they take actions such as:
 Reduce a site’s residential density.
 Approve development applications with fewer units on the site than identified in the Housing Element.
 Approve development applications with higher income units than stated in the Housing Element.

In the event that a site is developed below the density projected in the Housing Element or at a different income level than projected, a jurisdiction must have adequate sites available to accommodate the remaining balance of the RHNA. If a jurisdiction does not have adequate sites, it must identify and potentially rezone additional sites that can accommodate the remaining need. In order to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the Planning Period, HCD recommends th at jurisdictions create a buffer of at least 15 % to 30% more capacity than required, especially to accommodate the lower-income RHNA.

For these reasons, the City is including an additional capacity buffer of at least 15 % above the RHNA in the very low-, low- and moderate-income categories to ensure sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA. 3 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The HCD Site Guidebook states that for purposes of the sites inventory, AFFH means that sites identified to accommodate the lower-income need are not concentrated in low-resourced areas (lack of access to high performing schools, proximity to jobs, location disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty. Instead, sites identified to accommodate

RHNA CYCLES
This current RHNA cycle is the sixth time the
State has gone through the RHNA/Housing
Element process. When referring to the
current RHNA and current Housing Element
planning period, the term “6
th cycle” may be
used.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-4 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
vfthe lower-income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. 1
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 access to public services, recreation amenities, educational and employment opportunities, and other essential services such as grocery stores and medical services. Foster City has, since its beginning, provided a mix of housing types in each neighborhood. Higher density developments in the R -3 and R -4 zones are included in each of th e nine original neighborhoods as well as the Town Center and Pilgrim Triton neighborhoods.

Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing. As indicated in the AFFH analysis, all of Foster City is considered a high resource area. In addition, there are not concentrations of poverty or significant racially segregated housing areas. Foster City’s primary issue is the high cost of housing and the need for more affordable housing.

3.1 LOCATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The geographic distribution of existing deed restricted below market rate housing is shown in Figure 2.

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. Accessory dwelling units ( ADUs) and the Existing Unit Purchase Program provide scattered additional affordable housing units throughout the single-family neighborhoods.

3.2 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 combined with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements will expand deed restricted affordable housing to the southern edge of the c ity 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 . In addition, ADUs distributed throughout the single -family neighborhoods will increase housing options in these areas. 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 site s, religious sites, and commercial sites.

3.3 POTENTIAL EFFECT ON PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION
Although Foster City doesn’t have significant segregation issues within the City, from a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower -income housing opportunities and additional choices of unit types, such as ADUs and small units, in a high resource community such as Foster City will improve

1 HCD Site Guidebook, p. 8-9.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-5
housing choice and mobility, thereby help ing 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. Housing Policy H-E-10 and Housing Program H-E-10-a identify a group of actions included to improve housing mobility and promote housing choices and affordability throughout the c ity, by increasing missing middle housing choices (duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes), ADUs, home sharing, pursuing opportunities for housing on institution-owned sites, supportive housing, lower-income homeowner rehabilitation, and encouraging the use of housing vouchers.

3.4 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 overcom e 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. 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.

3.5 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 rel evant 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.” 2 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 26.20% and 46.50%). 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. Despite Foster City’s comparably high housing costs, cost burden is on par with the County and Bay Area.

There are not existing patterns of socio -economic concentrations that could be exacerbated by the inclusion or exclusion of housing sites. The increased quantity and distribution of affordable housing as proposed in the Sites Inventory will address disproportionate housing needs by providing more

2 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-6 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
affordable housing in a wider variety of locations in the c ity. 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.
4 SITES INVENTORY
The Site s Inventory include s several categories of sites. Th is section describe s the Sites Inventory Methodology and then includes a detailed discuss of the sites in each category. The categories of sites in Foster City include:
 Pipeline projects (units permitted or under construction but not completed as of June 30, 2022).  Proposed Projects (projects that have submitted an application but are not yet approved).  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
 Sites from the previous (5th) cycle Housing Element.
 Non-vacant residentially zoned sites capable of additional development.  Non-vacant non-residentially zoned sites capable of residential or mixed-use development.

There are no sites in the Sites Inventory that meet the definition of “vacant” meaning “a site without any houses, offices, buildings, or other significant improvements on it…such as a paved parking lot, or income production improvements.3…”

4.1 SITES INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
The City has identified adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA and a healthy buffer for all income categories after credits are applied. To identify suitable sites, the City identified sites that currently allow residential uses or are appropriate to rezone to allow residential uses. Sites that are appropriate for residential development include the following:
 Sites identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element that are still available;  Underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity; and
 Non-residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and/or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions).

From the remaining sites, the City and consultant team used HCD guidance and trends from recent projects to calculate the realistic capacity of sites, as described in this section.

3 California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), 2020. Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook , page 24.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-7
Realistic Capacity
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. Consistent with HCD guidelines, methodology for determining realistic capacity on each identified site must account for land use controls and site improvements.

The Housing Element sites inventory surveyed large-scale residential development projects approved or built within recent years to develop estimates related to potential development by General Plan designation and zoning , as described in the section on Recent Development Trends below . Specific circumstances for each site were then evaluated, such as surrounding development, constraints such as PG&E transmission lines , configuration of existing buildings , and other factors to arrive at a realistic capacity. The realistic capacity is identified in the Sites Inventory.

Recent Development Trends
The original Master Plan for Foster City included a wide range of densities throughout the City, but most of the relatively low-density areas developed first. The City has had several multi -family developments built in recent years, including a 100% affordable senior apartment housing development in Foster Square. Table 2 lists multi-family developments built between 2002- 2022 within the c ity. These developments represent the redevelopment of two shopping centers and the completion of the Pilgrim Triton and Foster Square master planned areas. Each redevelopment project area or master planned area was subject to a negotiated Development Agreement that established the maximum number of units including below market rate units. Each development included at least 20% below market rate housing.

The Miramar and Marlin Cove redevelopment projects included 30% below market rate units. Foster Square included the 66-unit Alma Point 100% affordable senior apartments, owned and managed by Mid-Pen Housing. The developments in Pilgrim Triton included 20% below market rate units mixed with market rate units or in the case of Laguna Vista, included The Pilgrim, an apartment building containing 22 affordable units purchased by the City.

These recent developments demonstrate that the City has allowed the higher densities necessary to accomplish the City’s housing goals and to create more vibrant mixed -use neighborhoods. Although individual pieces of the Foster Square development exceed the density of 20 -35 units per acre ( later amended to allow 20 -60 units per acre by Resolution 2023-49 adopted May 22, 2023 [see Appendix H] upon adoption of the Housing Element) specified in the Civic Center Mixed Use Land Use Plan designation at net densities of 94.9, 79.5, and 34.1 units per acre for Atria, Alma Point, and Foster Square Condos, respectively, the gross density for the mixed-use development including the large area subject to a PG&E easement is 26. 4 units per acre. The Pilgrim Triton development as amended in 201 8 when Phase C was changed from office to residential, results in a gross density of 4 1.1 units per acre and net densities as high as 57.9 units per acre. Although density bonus law was used in the Triton Apartments and One Hundred Grand portions of Pilgrim Triton to utilize lower parking ratios, density bonus was not needed to achieve the number of units. The apartment developments built between 2002 and 2022 also illustrate the City’s commitment to allowing higher densities for apartments. The apartment developments total 1,351 units on 28.2 acres for an average density of 47.9 units per acre, well above the 35 units per acre allowed under the Apartment Residential Land Use Plan designation , which applies to

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-8 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 2: Multi -Family Development Densities: 2002 -2022 Project Name
Site
Size
(Acre)
Zoning
District
Unit
Count
Built
Net
Density
(du/ac)
Built
Gross
Density
(du/ac)
Allowed
Gross
Density
Approved
& Built
Percent of
Allowed
Density
Exceptions
Granted Status
Foster Square
Alma Point Senior Apartments 0.83 CM/PD/SHO 66 79.5 227% Incentives granted
under SHO: unit
sizes
Completed in 2016
Atria Assisted Living Apartments 1.38 CM/PD/SHO 131 94.9 271% Completed in 2016 Foster Square Condos 5.87 CM/PD/SHO 200 34.1 97% Completed 2017-2021 Retail Parking (PG&E Easement),
Public Plazas & Streets 6.93 CM/PD/SHO 0 0
Subtotal 15 397 26.4 35a 76%
Note: the size of the
area in the PG&E
easement limited the
gross density
Pilgrim Triton
The Plaza Apartments 6.1 CM/PD 307 50.0 PD Waiver – unit size minimume Completed 2013
One Hundred Grand Apartments 3.5 CM/PD 166 47.0
Density Bonus –
Parking only; PD
Waiver – unit size
minimume
Completed 2015
Triton Apartments 3.8 CM/PD 220 57.7
Density Bonus –
Parking only; PD
Waiver – unit size
minimume
Completed 2016
Waverly Cove Townhouses 1.5 CM/PD 20 13.2 Completed 2020 Workforce Apartments 0.7 CM/PD 22 31.4 -- Completed 2022 APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-9
Project Name
Site
Size
(Acre)
Zoning
District
Unit
Count
Built
Net
Density
(du/ac)
Built
Gross
Density
(du/ac)
Allowed
Gross
Density
Approved
& Built
Percent of
Allowed
Density
Exceptions
Granted Status
Laguna Vista Condominiums 4.1 CM/PD 70 17.1 -- Partially Completed 2022-23
Subtotal 19.7 805 40.9 N/Ab
Shopping Center Redevelopment
Miramar Apartments 4.2 R-4/PD 159 38.31 38.31c 35 109% Density Bonus- Additional Units Completed 2002
Marlin Cove Apartments 7.6 CM/PD 280 36.84 36.84 N/Ad Completed 2002 Total 46.6 1,641 35.21
a Land Use Plan designation for Foster Square: Civic Center Mixed Use with densities of 20-35 units per acre allowed at time of approvals; amended in 2023 to allow up to 60 units per acre.
b Land Use Plan designation for Pilgrim Triton: Service Commercial with Housing, no maximum density specified for this Land Use designation at time of project approval; amended in 2023 to allow up to 60 units per acre.
c Density bonus granted to provide density above General Plan maximum. d Land Use Plan designation for Marlin Cove: Apartment/Neighborhood Commercial, no maximum density specified at time of approval; amended in 2023 to allow up to 35 units per acre.
eMinimum floor area requirements were rescinded by Ordinance 660, adopted January 17, 2023.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-10 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
most of the sites in the Sites Inventory. In addition, the active applications for apartment redevelopment under the R-/3/PD/AHO zoning are for 35 units per acre at Lantern Cove, 41.7 units per acre at Schooner Bay I, and 37.8 units per acre at Schooner Bay II.

The Marlin Cove, Miramar, and Pilgrim Triton developments are examples of redevelopment of nonvacant nonresidential land to residential use . All three of these examples were initiated by the City and included working with multiple property owners to create plans to replace economically obsolete buildings with housing and/or mixed-use development.

The Pilgrim Triton, Foster Square, and Marlin Cove master planned areas are examples of Foster City’s use of both the Commercial Mix (CM) and the Planned Development (PD) zoning to provide flexibility in the zoning requirements to facilitate housing development for a variety of needs. The CM District has been used for mixed-use areas to provide maximum flexibility in development standards. The PD zoning provides for flexibility in the typical standards including but not limited to parking, heights, yards, coverage, floor areas, and road widths without requiring a zoning variance. In both the Foster Square and Pilgrim Triton developments, the minimum floor areas were waived. Parking standards were reduced in One Hundred Grand Apartments and The Triton Apartments through the use of density bonus.

With the exception of the 1010 Metro Center Boulevard site, 1601 Beach Park Boulevard, and Foster’s Landing, the properties in the Sites Inventory are or will be zoned R-3/PD or R-4/PD, including some with the AHO Combining District. The R-3 and R-4 zoning designations allow up to 35 units per acre. The R-3 and R -4 zoning designations provide development standards that can accommodate the allowed densities up to 35 units per acre (as shown in the Miramar Apartments example at 38.31 units per acre) or more with the use of density bonus. 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 density of 35 units per acre for the entire site, the maximum allowed on -site with the R-3 or R-4 zoning.
1601 Beach Park Boulevard was rezoned to R -2/PD by Ordinance 664 adopted on June 5, 2023 (see Appendix H). Amendments to the Two-Family Residential General Plan designation and the R-2 zoning district have been adopted concurrently with the Housing Element by Resolution 2023-29 and Ordinance 666 to provide an allowed density of 13 units per acre (see Appendix H).

Foster’s Landing is proposed to be included in the Civic Center Mixed Use General Plan designation and rezoned to CM/PD. The Civic Center Mixed Use and Town Center Land Use designation (for the site at 1010 Metro Center Boulevard) allow up to 60 units per acre.

Site Criteria
The City examined several factors to assess the suitability and feasibility of properties for residential development, using the criteria included in Housing Element Program H-D-1-a, which are closely related to the recommended “Best Practices” in the HCD Site Inventory Guidebook. In order to have measurable indicators, the following were used:
 Distance to major roadways. The City’s roadway system is classified into arterials, collectors, and local streets as indicated on Map G-5 in the Land Use and Circulation Element. Proximity to an arterial would minimize impacts on local streets.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-11
 Distance to an evacuation route. Foster City is basically an island with limited ingress/egress points:

East Hillsdale Blvd. to San Mateo, SR 92 on/off ramps at Edgewater Blvd. and Foster City Blvd., and East Third Avenue to San Mateo. From the areas south of SR 92, access to East Hillsdale Blvd. was used to gauge distance to a major evacuation route.
 Distance to a park.
 Distance to a grocery store.
 Distance to a bus stop (excluding the routes intended for school children).  Distance to the public library or City Recreation Center.  Adjacencies. The percentage of border not adjoining single- family or townhouse development was used to identify sites with more ability to locate new units away from existing low -density development.
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing by expanding the geographic distribution and variety of housing types and sizes in the City.

The application of these site criteria to the sites is provided in Table 3.

Infrastructure Availability
Parcels included in the sites inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities available and accessible to support housing development. The Housing Element must describe existing or planned, water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, inclu ding the availability and access to parcels on the sites inventory, distribution facilities, general plan programs or other mandatory program or plan to support housing development on the site. The Housing Element must include sufficient detail to determin e whether the service levels of water delivery/treatment systems and sewer treatment facilities are sufficient and have the capacity to accommodate development on all identified sites. If infrastructure is not available, the Housing Element must include a program that ensures access and availability to infrastructure to accommodate development within the planning period.

All of the sites in the Sites Inventory are currently developed and therefore have infrastructure available at the site.

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 agreement and accompanying water supply contract expire in 2034, the supply assurance survives their expiration and con tinues 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 (WS CP) 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.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-12 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 3: Housing Site Selection Criteria
Site Name
Distance
to
Arterial
Street
Distance to
E. Hillsdale
Blvd
(Evacuation)
Distance
to
Park
Distance
to
Grocery
Store
Distance
to
Bus
Stop
Distance
to Rec
Center
or
Library
%
Border
with SF
or TH
AFFH-
Expand
Locations Size
Pipeline Projects
Laguna Vista Condos
& Apartments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 0 N
Project Applications
Lantern Cove 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.8 2.0 13% Y 16.8
Schooner Bay 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.0 1.1 2.2 0% Y 24.8
Eaves Apartments
MF ADUs 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 42% Y 11
RHNA 5 Sites
Franciscan
Apartments 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 30% N 6.4
Sand Cove
Apartments

0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0% Y 8.77
The Lagoons
Apartments 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0% Y 9.64
Beach Cove
Apartments

0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 14% Y 18.7
Shadow Cove
Apartments

0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.9 15% Y 7.9
Harbor Cove
Apartments

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 Y 15.1
Other Residential Sites
Eaves Apartments 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 42% Y 11.0
Foster's Landing
Apartments

0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0% N 29.1
Commercial Site to Allow Mixed Use
1010 Metro Center
Blvd. 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0% N 6.345
Non-Residential Site to Rezone to Residential
1601 Beach Park
Blvd. 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.1 0.0 1.9 25% Y 1.35
Notes: = Up to 0.5 miles; less than 30% border with SF or TH = 0.6 to 0.9 miles; 30% or more border with SF or TH
= 1.0 miles or more
Y = would expand geographic area of BMR housing
N = would not expand geographic area of BMR housing
Source: Urban Planning Partners and Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-13
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:

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”, APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-14 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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 Plan t (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 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 2024.35 5 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 hots pots 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 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 infrastruct ure to remain in conformance with California Public Utilities Commission tariffs and regulations and to serve customer demand in the city.

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.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-15
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.

Environmental Constraints
All properties in Foster City are affected by constraints related to geologic conditions and high water table that are due to being on engineered fill adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Because the City is constructed on engineered fill, 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.

The potential hazards related to geologic conditions are mitigated by enforcement of building codes that require site-specific geotechnical analysis and corresponding design.

The high water table throughout the City has made construction of underground parking or basements not economically feasible. Potential impacts to underground piping are mitigated by code requirements for appropriate materials.

The City’s levee system combined with the management of the lagoon for stormwater purposes protects the City from flooding. The Levee Improvements Project to be completed in 2023 will also help the City address sea level rise. The land area within the levee is not in a Special Flood Hazard area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Large PG&E transmission lines extend along the length of Foster City Boulevard south of Highway 92 , along Baffin Street , and a few other locations. The lines are located within easements that preclude structures in order to mitigate potential hazards.

See additional discussion in Appendix C, Non-Governmental Constraints Specific to Foster City.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
This means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” For purposes of the sites inventory, this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower-income need are not concentrated in low-resourced areas (lack of access to high performing schools, proximity to jobs, location disproportionately exposed to pollution or ot her health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty. Instead, sites identified to accommodate the lower-income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Default Density
The statute allows jurisdictions to use higher density as a proxy for lower -income affordability, in other words—be able to skip detailed analysis of the economic feasibility of providing lower-income units on a site if the site is zoned to accommodate a d efault density. Parcels must be zoned to allow sufficient density to accommodate the economies of scale needed to produce affordable housing. Because San APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-16 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Mateo County is considered a “metropolitan county,” the default density is at least 30 units per acre. “At least” means the density range allowed on the parcel must include the default density.

Size of Sites
Parcel sizes between 0.5 acres and 10 acres in size are considered to be able to accommodate development for lower- incomes. Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres or larger than 10 acres in size require additional analysis to demonstrate that they can accommodate the lower -income RHNA. Otherwise, they can be used in the sites inventory to count toward the moderate or above -moderate RHNA. The sites inventory does not include any sites less than 0.5 acres. For the sites that are larger than 10 acres in size, additional analysis is included for each site.

Realistic Capacity Analysis
The statute requires an analysis of the realistic capacity of each site. This can include:
 Use of minimum densities provided by the zoning of the parcel, or  Utilize various factors to calculate realistic capacity and describe the methodology used including:
o Typical densities of existing or approved residential development at a similar affordability level (see Table 2).
o Current or planned availability and accessibility of infrastructure. o Applicable land use controls and site improvement requirements. o Adjust for any areas that cannot be developed.

The capacity calculation must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development, including factors such as local or regional development trends, track records/past production trends for similar sites, and current or planned availability of infrastructure.

Affordability/Inclusionary Requirements
Foster 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 requirement 20% inclusionary housing beginning in 2001. In March 2022, the City adopted Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program, establishing objective standards for the inclusionary housing requirements. The required percentages are: 10% very low -income, 5% low-income, and 5% moderate-income for rentals and 20% moderate-income for ownership units. Projects of fewer than five units are exempt. The option to pay in-lieu fees is provided for housing developments of five to nine units and for fractional unit requirements.

Concurrent with 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: 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. (See Appendix C for additional information.)
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-17
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
There are special considerations and analysis required to include nonvacant sites in the Sites Inventory.

A nonvacant site is a site with any sort of existing use, including sites with structures, improvements, or income production. If the inventory identifies non- vacant sites to address a portion of the RHNA, the Housing Element must describe the realistic development potential of each site within the planning period (2023-2031). The analysis must consider the extent that the non-vacant site’s existing use impedes additional residential development, the jurisdiction’s past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards that encourage additional housing development on the non-vacant sites.

For jurisdictions that rely on non- vacant sites for more than 50% of the lower -income RHNA, the non - vacant site’s use is presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be discontinued during the planning period. Foster City’s Sites Inventory relies on non-vacant sites for more than 50% of the lower- income RHNA.

Examples of substantial evidence that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the current planning period include, but are not limited to:
 The lease for the existing use expires early within the planning period;  The building is dilapidated, and the structure is likely to be removed, or a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses;
 There is a development agreement that exists to develop the site within the planning period;  The entity operating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow residential development within the planning period; or  The property owner provides a letter stating its intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period.

Indicators for Redevelopment of Nonvacant Sites
For the redevelopment of existing apartment properties, the existing use does not have to be discontinued, but would instead be reconfigured or new buildings added. Unlike a commercial property, there are not long -term leases to be terminated. The City looked at several factors to evaluate the potential for redevelopment of these properties:
 Existing Density. Sites with lower existing densities may be more likely to consider redevelopment if they can increase their density. Many of the older apartment developments have a density of less than 20 units/acre.
 Percent Increase at General Plan Density. Sites with the potential to increase existing densities by more than 50% are considered more likely to have substantial economic incentive to redevelop.  Land to Improvement Ratio (LIR). A parcel’s land to improvement ratio can help identify properties that have potential for redevelopment. An LIR lower than 1.0 means that the value of the land is lower than the value of the improvements. An LIR higher than 1.0 means the value of the improvements is lower relative to the land value. Recently developed projects in Foster City (Plaza Apartments, Triton APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-18 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Apartments, 100 Grand Apartments, and Atria) have an average LIR of 0.16 , in other words, the improvements had a value 6.25 times the value of the land . Properties that have a higher LIR than

0.16 present opportunities to redevelop the property to achieve LIRs closer to those of the recently redeveloped properties.
 Land Area. A larger site could mitigate potential impacts with increased setbacks and/or lower heights near the adjacent developments. The larger developments also provide more opportunity to relocate existing tenants within the development if needed for the construction. With the exception of 1601 Beach Park Boulevard, all the sites are more than five acres in size.  Age. The older apartment developments are believed to be more likely to be considering making significant investments in either upgrading or redeveloping their property to remain competitive in the marketplace and/or to correct existing problems. The active applications for Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay, both constructed 38 years ago, indicates that developments 35 years or older are likely to be considering making significant investments.
 Owner Interest. Interest by the property owner in adding units to the site is an indication they have done some research into the economics of redeveloping their site. Submittal of an application is a stronger indication of the viability of a proposal. Two of the 12 sites do not have property owner interest at the present time, but as indicted in Table 4, they have similar characteristics to properties that do have owner interest, indicating that the y are also likely to be viable sites for additional housing units.
 Infill Potential. Some apartment developments have areas of clustered parking or recreational uses that could be redeveloped with housing and not require removal of existing housing units.  Adjacent Uses. Sites that border streets and/or the lagoon will be able to redevelop with less significant impacts on adjacent development compared to sites that have more adjacencies to single- family developments.

Table 4 below summarizes factors related to redevelopment on non-vacant sites with green highlights indicating where the factors may indicate favorable conditions for redevelopment.

Additional Analysis of Two Sites Without Owner Interest As noted above, the two developments without stated owner interest have many characteristics in common with other sites that have several favorable indicators for additional housing development. One of these, The Franciscan, at 59 years of age, is the oldest property in the Sites Inventory. The potential to increase density by 84% is higher than several of the other sites. The Land to Improvement ratio at 0.3 is also higher than several of the other sites, indicating that the value of the buildings relative to the v alue of the land is relatively low.

The other property without owner interest is The Lagoons, although this property submitted build ing permit applications for two ADUs in mid -2023. The Lagoons and Sand Cove were originally one development and have identical building types and other features. The Lagoons has no neighbors other than the Lagoon, streets, and Boat Park , which would facilitate redevelopment without impacting adjacent properties. The potential to increase density by 92 % is higher than several of the other sites.

The Land to Improvement ratio at 0. 67 is also higher than several of the other sites , indicating that the value of the buildings relative to the value of the land is relatively low.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-19
Table 4: Summary of Site Indicators for Redevelopment Site
Existing
Use
Land
Area
(acres)
Existing
Density
General
Plan
Allowed
Density
Additional
Unit
Potential
at GP
Density**
Percent
Increase
at GP
Density LIR Age
Owner
Interest Infill
Adjacent Uses;
% Border with
Residential
Harbor Cove 400 apts 15.1 26.49 35 128 32% 1.0 57 Y Y Lagoon; 16% condo Beach Cove 416 apts 18.7 22.25 35 238 57% 0.25 50 Y Y
Lagoon, Marlin Cove Apts
& Shopping; 14% single-
family
Franciscan 122 apts 6.4 19.06 35 102 84% 0.30 59 N 22% apts; 30% single- family
Sand Cove* 168 apts 8.77 19.16 35 138 83% 0.25 53 Y Lagoon; park Lagoons* 178 apts 9.64 18.26 35 161 92% 0.67 53 N Lagoon; park Shadow Cove 164 apts 7.9 20.84 35 112 69% 0.25 53 Y Y Lagoon; 15% single- family
Lantern Cove 232 apts 16.8 16.8 35 356 153% 0.29 38 Y Lagoon; 13% townhouse Schooner Bay 312 apts 24.8 14.8 35 556 178% 0.25 38 Y Belmont Slough; park Eaves 288 apts 11.0 11.0 35 97 34% 0.43 53 Y Y 33% Single-family; 11% condo
Foster’s Landing 490 apts 29.1 16.8 60 1256 256% 2.5 36 Y Y PJCC 1601 Beach Park
Vacant
church
building

1.35 NA 13 17 NA 1.0 NA Y 19% Single-family
1010 Metro Center
Vacant
retail
building

6.345 NA 60 380 NA 1.83 NA Y Office building; child care * Sand Cove and Lagoons were originally one development with identical buildings. ** Not including ADUs.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-20 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Likelihood of Redevelopment of Nonvacant Sites
The applications to redevelop the Lantern Cove Apartments and Schooner Bay Apartments with additional units illustrate the strong owner interest and economic viability of redeveloping older, larger, existing apartment developments and the high likelihood that these sites will develop within the RHNA 6 Planning Period. The age of the sites reused from the previous Housing Element are more than ten years older than Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay, making redevelopment of them even more likely to be economically viable. The relatively large size of the sites provides options to place the higher density portions of the development away from edges that border existing lower density uses.

The owner of three of the RHNA 5 sites, Beach Cove, Sand Cove, and Shadow Cove, has expressed interest in developing additional units at their sites. City staff has walked these sites with the owner’s representatives to discuss the specific opportunities at each site. These indications of owner interest as well as the examples of redevelopment and multi-family ADUs provide evidence that the addition of units at properties similar in terms of age, density, and size is economically feasible.

Other examples of redevelopment of apartment properties approved or constructed in the Peninsula region are further evidence of the economic viability of redeveloping existing apartment sites , as indicated in Table 5 below. These sites have similar characteristics to the apartment properties in the Sites Inventory, including age of buildings, existing densities, and other features.

Table 5: Example Apartment Redevelopment Projects
Site City
Existing
Use
(Apts)
Proposed
Use
(Apts)
Land
Area
(Acres)
Existing
Density
General
Plan
Allowed
Density
Proposed
Density Age
LIR
(2022) Status
Village Lake
777 W.

Middlefield
Mountain
View 208 716 9.84 21.1
25 (amended
to 80)

72.8 53 NA
Approved
5/21/2019;
under
construction
Laguna Clara
3131
Homestead
Road
Santa
Clara 264 477 12.43 21.2 36 38.37 52 0.58 Under
construction
Reserve
870 E. El
Camino Real
Mountain
View 180 371 9.14 19.7 25 40.6 53 1.01 Approved
9/27/2022
555 Middlefield Mountain
View 402 725 14.5 27.7
25 (amended
to 50)
50 54 1.19 Approved
5/1/0/2022
Source: Mountain View sites: City of Mountain View, Development Update-October 2023; Laguna Clara site: Laguna Clara II Development Project (Equity) webpage.

Likelihood of Construction Post-Entitlements
Various conditions, primarily economic, can impact whether a development project mo ves forward to construction after receiving entitlements. Typically , if a housing project receives entitlements , it proceeds to submitting a building permit and then construction. The recent developments in Table 2 are APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-21
examples of projects that moved forward to construction after receiving entitlements. In the case of Pilgrim Triton, the basic entitlements were obtained in October 2009 and the first phase including the Plaza Apartments, obtained a building permit in 2011. This was followed by the other phases of the development by other developers in 2014 (100 Grand Apartments), 2015 (Triton Apartments), 2019 (Waverly Cove Townhouses), and 2020 (Laguna Vista and Workforce Apartments). The recovery from the 2008-2009 recession probably contributed to the timing of the developments.

Foster Square moved more quickly from entitlements to building permits for the various phases. Foster Square obtained the basic entitlements in November 2013 and followed with building permits in 2014 (Alma Point Apartments), 2015 (Atria), and 2015-2016 (Lennar Condominiums).

There have been very few housing developments that filed for preliminary review but then did not apply for a formal application after the Gatekeeper process. There have also been a few ADU building permit applications that have not followed through to construction. There have been no housing developments that have received entitlements and then not proceeded with construction.

Potential for Multi-Family ADUs
The addition of ADUs at multi -family properties is another way to add units to existing apartment developments. Foster City has received a preliminary application for 22 multi-family ADUs, at The Eaves.

A similar proposal for 21 multi-family ADUs at Harbor Cove was submitted in 2021. Building permit applications were submitted for two ADUs at The Eaves and two ADUs at The Lagoons in mid-2023.

Summary of Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
Discussion is included analyzing the specifics for each site regarding why its nonvacant status is not an impediment to housing development. After analysis of each site, it is noted that the nonvacant status is not an impediment for any of the sites . Barriers to redevelopment include factors applicable to any development such as availability of financing and time required for the entitlement process , as well as factors applicable to redevelopment such as provision of a n anti -displacement plan for the existing tenants, as required by Program H-C-3-a; see the site-specific discussion below.

City Initiatives to Encourage Redevelopment
The Housing Element includes policies and programs to remove regula tory constraints and encourage redevelopment of sites for housing . Some of these actions have already been taken. These include the following programs:
 H-A-5 Funding for Housing Programs
 H-D-1 Housing Opportunity Areas (zoning map changes adopted in 2023)  H-D-2 Potential Re-Use of Commercial Sites
 H-D-3 Planned Development Process
 H-D-6 Reduce Regulatory Constraints (several zoning text changes adopted in 2022-2023)  H-E-3 Incentives for Affordable Housing
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-22 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.2 SITES FROM THE PREVIOUS (5TH) CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT Sites that were used in the previous Housing Element can be reused if certain requirements are met:
 A program is included requiring rezoning to allow residential use “by right” at specified densities for projects that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower-income households – OR –  If a site is rezoned to a higher density, it can be considered a “new” site (only if it was not utilized to accommodate a shortfall of sites to accommodate the previous RHNA).

Sites that were used in the previous RHNA 5 Housing Element cycle but not yet redeveloped are shown in Table 6. No sites from RHNA 4 Housing Element are proposed to be reused. The location of these sites is shown on Figure 2.

Table 6: Sites Used in Previous RHNA 5 Housing Element (2015 -2023) Site Acres
Existing
Uses**
General
Plan
Designation
Zoning in
RHNA 5
Housing
Element
Previous
Zoning
Zoning as
Adopted
on
1/17/2023
Existing
Density
(Units/Acre)
Density per
General Plan
(Units/Acre)
Harbor Cove 15.1
400
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-3 R-3 R-4/PD 26.49 20-35
Beach Cove 18.7
416
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-4/PD R-4/PD/
AHO
R-4/PD/
AHO/By
Right
Housing
Overlay

22.25 20-35
Franciscan 6.4
122
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-3 R-3/AHO R-4/PD/
AHO 19.06 20-35
Sand Cove* 8.77
168
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-3/PD R-3/PD/
AHO
R-4/PD/
AHO 19.16 20-35
Lagoons* 9.64
176
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-3/PD R-3/PD/
AHO
R-4/PD/
AHO 18.26 20-35
Shadow
Cove 7.9
164
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-4/PD R-4/PD/
AHO
R-4/PD/
AHO/By
Right
Housing
Overlay

20.84 20-35
* The Lagoons was formerly part of Sand Cove.
**All sites are non-vacant.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-23
As in the previous Housing Element, these sites were deemed appropriate for additional development after analysis of the following factors:
 Existing Density. Sites with lower existing densities may be more likely to consider redevelopment if they can increase their density. Many of the older apartment developments have a density of less than 20 units/acre.
 Land Area. A larger site could mitigate potential impacts with increased setbacks and/or lower heights near the adjacent developments. The larger developments also provide more opportunity to relocate existing tenants within the development if needed for the construction.  Age. The older apartment developments are believed to be more likely to be considering making significant investments in either upgrading or redeveloping their property to remain competitive in the marketplace and/or to correct existing problems.
 Adjacent Uses. Sites that border streets and/or the lagoon will be able to redevelop with less significant impacts on adjacent development compared to sites that have more adjacencies to single- family developments.

In addition, the RHNA 5 sites are located in the central part of the city, near public transit, parks, retail, major public amenities such as the Recreation Center and Library and are all located adjacent to major arterials providing direct access to the City’s major evacuation routes.

Harbor Cove
Location and Size. This site borders Edgewater Boulevard on the west, East Hillsdale Boulevard on the north, Foster City Lagoon on the east and the Isle Cove condominium development on the south. The

15.1-acre site contains 400 apartment units at an existing density of 26.49 units per acre. The apartment buildings are three stories with a combination of carports and surface parking concentrated in three large carport areas.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20-35 units per acre. The zoning of the site was changed from R-3 to R-4/PD in January 2023.

Realistic Capacity. Harbor Cove was built in 1966 but the owner made significant investments in building renovations in 2015 -2016, making it less likely that those buildings would be redeveloped. However, there is potential to redevelop the parking areas with units above parking. The concentration of the existing parking into three areas of the site provides potential to redevelop those portions of the site with units located above parking without removing existing buildings. Given that the two largest existing parking areas occupy more than two acres, a reasonable additional capacity in these two par king areas is 70 units at 35 units per acre plus providing replacement parking for the existing units. Combining the capacity for 70 units in the carport areas and 21 ADUs yields a reasonable capacity of 91 additional units.

The zoning capacity for the 15.1-acre site at 35 units per acre would permit an additional 128 units .Non- Vacant Status. Harbor Cove is an example of why, in the case of redevelopment of an existing non-vacant apartment site, a larger site makes redevelopment more feasible. The larger site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings, relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary, and include a buffer or lower buildings o r additional setbacks on the one small border with an adjacent development. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-24 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

The City’s 20% inclusionary requirements will ensure that any new housing development includes affordable units restricted in perpetuity. In addition to the City’s inclusionary requirements, if any units are removed and replaced, replacement units must comply with Government Code Section 66300(d) and proposed new Municipal Code Chapter 17.55 which requires that any units occupied by lower income households must be replaced with units restricted for lower income households.

Application Status. The owners of Harbor Cove submitted preliminary plans to the City in 2021 for the addition of 21 ADUs in some of the existing unused storage rooms and two free standing unused laundry rooms with unit sizes ranging from 250 to 475 square feet. The small size of ADU units and corresponding smaller rent amounts makes them naturally more affordable. In May 2023, the owner indicated they are interested in pursuing the ADU proposal and are in the process of engaging an architect to work on plans for redevelopment of other portions of the site.

Public Comments. Public comments on the Harbor Cove site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were nearly evenly split between 10 “thumbs up” and 12
“thumbs down”. Inclusion of the Harbor Cove site is
consistent with general comments favoring sites near 4- lane arterials/ evacuation routes, near public transit, including underutilized existing older apartment sites, and not adjacent to single-family development.

Beach Cove
Location and Size . This site is located on Catamaran Street between Marlin Avenue and Clipper Lane.

The site borders the Martinique Cove single family homes on the west, Foster City Lagoon and Marlin Cove mixed use site on the north, a small section of Marlin Avenue on the east, and Catamaran Street on the south. The 18.7-acre site contains 416 apartment units at an existing density of 22.25 units per acre.

It was built in 1973. The apartment buildings are two -stories with a combination of carports and open surface parking.

Harbor Cove Apartments Site
Harbor Cove Apartments
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-25
Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20-35 units per acre. Beach Cove is zoned R-4/PD/AHO, which allows up to 35 units per acre. A zoning map amendment was approved in January 2023 to add the By -Right Overlay for development proposals with 20% lower income pursuant to State Law requirements for reuse of RHNA 5 sites that are not rezoned for higher density.

Realistic Capacity. The site includes two large parking areas near the center of the site that have potential for hosting additional units without displacing existing tenants. The rows of carports along the western and eastern edges also have some potential. The owner has indicated that some of the amenity spaces are under-utilized and/or redundant and may also provide potential space for additional units. The owner has indicated an interest in developing additional units at the site.

The Beach Cove site has several characteristics that would facilitate redevelopment given that the site borders the Lagoon, existing multi -family, or streets , and a relatively short border with Clipper Lane.

None of the property lines abut single family or townhouse yards. The site is adjacent to the Marlin Cove Shopping Center and near parks, transit, and two arterial streets. The adjacent Marlin Cove Apartments are developed at 36.8 units per acre even though 2 of the 7.6 acres are encumbered by a PG&E easement.

Development at 35 units per acre would yield 238 additional units. A more conservative realistic capacity of 90% of the General Plan capacity is included in the Sites Inventory, yielding 173 additional units.

Non-Vacant Status. Beach Cove is another example of why, in the case of redevelopment of an existing non-vacant apartment site, a larger site makes redevelopment more feasible. The larger site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings, relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary, and include a buffer or lower buildings or additional setbacks on the one small border if needed along Clipper Lane. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

The City’s inclusionary requirements will ensure that any new housing development includes affordable units restricted in perpetuity. The site is zoned with the AHO Combining District, which requires 15% extremely low-, very low -, and low-income units. In addition to the City’s inclusionary requirements, if any units are removed and replaced, replacement units must comply with Government Code Section 66300(d) and proposed new Municipal Code Chapter 17.55 which requires that any units occupied by lower income households must be replaced with units restricted for lower income households.

Application Status. The owner of Beach Cove Apartments, Woodmont Companies, has submitted a letter dated March 24, 2022 indicating they are interested in working with the City to create a plan for additional units and have requested that their site be included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory (see p. F-64).

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-26 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Public Comments. Public comments on the Beach Cove site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were overwhelmingly in favor of including it as a housing site with 23 “thumbs up” and three “thumbs down”. Inclusion of the Beach Cove site is consistent with general comments favoring sites near public transit, including underutilized existing older
apartment sites, and not adjacent to single -family
development.

Franciscan
Location and Size. This site has frontages on both Foster City Boulevard and Comet Drive and borders Kula Kai and Tradewinds Apartments on the west and single -family homes on the east. The 6.45 -acre site contains 122 apartments at an existing density of 18.91 units per acre. It was built in 1964 , making one of the oldest apartment properties in Foster City. The apartment buildings are two stories with parking provided primarily in carports.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20 -35 units per acre. The Franciscan was re zoned from R-3/AHO to R-4/PD/AHO in January 2023.

Realistic Capacity. The Franciscan site has several characteristics that would facilitate redevelopment given that the site is in the heart of the City and on an arterial with public transit. The adjacent apartment properties, the Tradewinds and Kula Kai, are developed at 34.1 and 22.6 units per acre respectively. The site is large enough that massing could be set back from the one border adjoining single -family homes.

The site is near shopping, parks, transit, and City services. Development at 35 units per acre would yield 104 additional units. Because the property owner has indicated they have no plans to pursue additional housing development at this time, a lower capacity of 81 additional units (90% of General Plan capacity) is projected in the Sites Inventory.

N0n-Vacant Status. The size of the Franciscan site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings, relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary, and include a buffer or lower buildings or additional setbacks on the border with single -family homes. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

Beach Cove Apartments Site
Beach Cove Apartments
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-27
The City’s inclusionary requirements will ensure that any new housing development includes affordable units restricted in perpetuity. The site is zoned with the AHO Combining District, which requires 15% extremely low-, very low -, and low-income units. In addition to the City’s inclusionary requirements, if any units are removed and replaced, replacement units must comply with Government Code Section 66300(d) and proposed new Municipal Code Chapter 17.55 which requires that any units occupied by lower income households must be replaced with units restricted for lower income households.

Although the current owner of the Franciscan has not indicated an interest in redeveloping the property in the next eight years, owner interest at properties with similar characteristics is an indication that creating additional units at the Franciscan would also be economically feasible. The Franciscan, at 59 years of age, is the oldest property in the Sites Inventory. The potential to increase density by 84% is higher than several of the other sites. The Land to Improvement ratio at 0.3 is also higher than several of the other sites, indicating that the value of the buildings relative to the value of the land is relatively low.

Public Comments . Public comments on the Franciscan site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were evenly split regarding including it as a housing site with eight “thumbs up” and eight “thumbs down”. Inclusion of the
Franciscan site is consistent with general comments favoring sites near public transit, on four-lane arterials/ evacuation routes, and including underutilized existing older apartment sites.

Sand Cove
Location and Size . This site borders Shell Boulevard, the Recreation Center tennis court parking area, and the Foster City Lagoon. The 8.77-acre site contains 168 apartment units at an existing density of 19.16 units per acre. It was built in 1970. The apartment buildings ar e two stories with parking provided primarily in carports. The site is one of the two RHNA 5 sites (with the Lagoons) with no borders adjoining other existing residential uses.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20 -35 units per acre. The zoning of the site was changed from R- 3/PD/AHO to R- 4/PD/AHO in January 2023.

Franciscan Apartments
Franciscan Apartments Site
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-28 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Realistic Capacity. The carports are arranged along the Shell Boulevard frontage and the border with Leo Ryan Park to the north. The setback on Shell Boulevard is larger than across the street at Foster’s Landing and could provide additional buildable area compared to the current layout.

The Sand Cove site has several characteristics that would facilitate redevelopment given that the site is in the heart of the City and on an arterial with public transit. The site is near shopping, parks, transit, and City services. Development at 35 units per acre would yield 139 additional units. A more conservative realistic capacity of 90% of the General Plan capacity is included in the Sites Inventory, yielding 112 additional units.

Non-Vacant Status. The size of the Sand Cove site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings and relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional reside ntial development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

Application Status. The owner of Sand Cove Apartments, Woodmont Companies, has submitted a letter dated March 24, 2022, indicating they are interested in working with the City to create a plan for additional units and have requested that their site be included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory (see p. F-64).

Public Comments. Public comments on the Sand Cove site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were overwhelmingly in favor of including it as a housing site with 54 “thumbs up” and one “thumbs down”.

Other comments included that the waterfront provides
an opportunity to provide some community use along it.

Inclusion of the Sand Cove site is consistent with general comments favoring sites near public transit, on four-
lane arterials/evacuation routes, including underutilized existing older apartment sites, and not adjacent to
single-family development.

Sand Cove Apartments Site
Sand Cove Apartments
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-29
The Lagoons
Location and Size. The Lagoons was originally part of the Sand Cove development built in 1970 and has the same architectural style. The site borders Bounty Drive on the north, Shell Boulevard on the west, Boat Park on the east, and the Lagoon on the south. The site is one of the two RHNA 5 sites (with Sand Cove) with no borders adjoining existing residential uses. The 9.64-acre site contains 176 apartments for a density of 18.28 units per acre. The apartment buildings are two stories with parking provided primarily in carports.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20 -35 units per acre. The zoning for the site was changed from R- 3/PD/AHO to R- 4/PD/AHO in January 2023.

Realistic Capacity. The carports are arranged along the Bounty Drive frontage and the border with Boat Park to the east. The setback on Bounty Drive is larger than across the street at Foster’s Landing and could provide additional buildable area compared to the current layout.

The Lagoons site has several characteristics that would facilitate redevelopment given that the site is in the heart of the City between two arterials with public transit. The site is near shopping, parks, transit, and City services. Development at 35 units per acre would yield 176 additional units. A more conservative realistic capacity of 90% of the General Plan capacity is included in the Sites Inventory, yielding 128 additional units.

Non-Vacant Status. The size of the Lagoons site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings and relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additi onal development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

Although the owner of the Lagoons has not indicated an interest in redeveloping the site, owner interest at similar properties is an indication that creating additional units at the Lagoons would also be economically feasible. The Lagoons and Sand Cove were originally one development and have identical building types and other features. The Lagoons has no neighbors other than the Lagoon, streets, and Boat Park, which would facilitate redevelopment without impacting adjacent pro perties. The potential to increase density by 92% is higher than several of the other sites. The Land to Improvement ratio at

0.67 is also higher than several of the other sites, indicating that the value of the buildings relative to the value of the land is relatively low.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-30 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Application Status. Although the owner of the Lagoons indicated they are not interested in redeveloping the site at this time, they submitted building permit applications in August 2023 for two ADUs to be converted from former laundry rooms.

Public Comments . Public comments on the Lagoons site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were overwhelmingly in favor of including it as a housing site with 17 “thumbs up” and two “thumbs down”.

Inclusion of the Lagoons site is consistent with general comments favoring sites near public transit, on four-lane arterials/evacuation routes, including underutilized
existing older apartment sites, and not adjacent to
single-family development.

Shadow Cove
Location and Size. The site borders Foster City Boulevard on the west, Foster City Lagoon on the north, single family development on the east, and Marlin Avenue on the south. The 7.9 -acre site contains 164 apartments for a density of 20.76 units per acre. Shadow Cove was built in 1970. The apartment buildings are two stories with parking provided primarily in carports.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20-35 units per acre. The zoning for the site is R-4/PD/AHO. A zoning map amendment was adopted in January 2023 to add the By-Right Overlay for development proposals with 20% lower income pursuant to State Law requirements for reuse of RHNA 5 sites that are not rezoned for higher density.

Realistic Capacity . The carports are arranged along the Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue frontages with a long wall screening views of the site. There is also a large lawn area in the center of the site that may provide opportunities for new units.

The Shadow Cove site has several characteristics that would facilitate redevelopment given that the site is in the heart of the City and on an arterial with public transit. The site is near shopping, parks, transit, and City services. Development at 35 units per acre would yield 113 additional units. A more conservative realistic capacity of 90% of the General Plan capacity is included in the Sites Inventory, yielding 85 additional units.

The Lagoons Apartments Site
The Lagoons Apartments
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-31
Non-Vacant Status. The size of the Shadow Cove site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings and relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

Application Status. The owner of Shadow Cove Apartments, Woodmont Companies, has submitted a letter dated March 24, 2022 indicating they are interested in working with the City to create a plan for additional units and have requested that their site be included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory (see p. F-64).

Public Comments. Public comments on the Shadow Cove site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were overwhelmingly in favor of including it as a housing
site with 30 “thumbs up” and four “thumbs down”.

Inclusion of the Shadow Cove site is consistent with
general comments favoring sites near public transit,
on four -lane arterials/evacuation routes, and
including underutilized existing older apartment
sites.

Rezoning Program for Reuse of RHNA 5 Sites
Per the requirements for reusing sites, these RHNA 5 “carry over” sites would need to be either: 1) rezoned to allow residential use “by right” at specified densities for development proposals that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower-income, or 2) to rezone them to a higher density.

Shadow Cove Apartments Site
Shadow Cove Apartments
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-32 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Several zoning actions were adopted in January 2023 in conformance with the requirements for “carry over” sites. As identified in Table 7, three (3) of the sites were zoned R-3, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence or R-3/PD, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence/Planned Development and two (2) of the sites were zoned R-4/PD, High Density Multiple -Family Residence. Prior to January 2023, t he R-3 zoning allowed a maximum density of 19.89 units per acre. Following the addition of minimum densities into the General Plan providing a range of 20-35 units per acre for the Apartment Residential designation, the R-3 zoning became technically inconsistent with the General Plan because it allowed only 19.89 units per acre instead of 20 units per acre.

Table 7: Capacity of Sites Reused from Previous RHNA5 Housing Element
Site Name APN Address Acres
Previous
Zoning

Zoning
Adopted
January 2023
Affordability
Category
Additional
Capacity
Harbor
Cove 094-470-420 900 E. Hillsdale
Blvd 15.1 R-3 R-4/PD Lower 91
Beach
Cove
094-320-040,
094-330-010
699-703
Catamaran St 18.7 R-4/PD/
AHO
R-4/PD/AHO
with by-right for
redevelopment
with 20% lower
income
Lower 173
Franciscan 094-091-020 888 Foster City
Blvd 6.4 R-3/
AHO R-4/PD/AHO Lower 81
Sand Cove 094-470-160 777 Shell Blvd 8.77 R-3/PD/
AHO R-4/PD/AHO Lower 112
Lagoons 094-472-010 611 Bounty Dr 9.64 R-3/PD/
AHO R-4/PD/AHO Lower 128
Shadow
Cove 094-312-420 1055 Foster City
Blvd 7.9 R-4/PD/
AHO
R-4/PD/AHO
with by-right for
redevelopment
with 20% lower
income
Lower 85
Total 670
Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

Pursuant to the HAA and recent court cases, the General Plan density prevails with respect to any zoning regulation that may describe a lower density. The Rezoning Program also included amending the R -3 and R-4 zoning regulations to more clearly reflect the minimum and maximum densities described in the General Plan.

Housing Program H-D-1-b includes zoning actions to facilitate housing on the sites in the Sites Inventory, including these actions that relate to the RHNA 5 sites, all of which were adopted in January 2023:
 Rezone R-3 RHNA 5 sites to R-4. These sites include Harbor Cove, Franciscan, Sand Cove, and The Lagoons.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-33
 Rezone R-4 RHNA 5 sites to allow by right development for projects with 20% or more lower- income units. These sites include Beach Cove and Shadow Cove.  Amend R-3 (Chapter 17.18) and R-4 (Chapter 17.20) for consistency with General Plan minimum and maximum densities.

Amending the R-3 zoning to be consistent with the General Plan minimum density provides the City with the ability to designate some properties for lower building heights than the R -4 District. Rezoning the carryover R-3 sites in the Sites Inventory to R-4 is appropriate given the locations of these properties near the center of the City with access to arterials, transit, shopping, parks and other amenities. The relatively large size of the sites provides opportunities to add new units with minimal impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. These sites have been previously analyzed in the 2015 -2021 Housing Element and deemed to be suitable for additional units due to their size, location, and surroundings.

Amending the R -4 zoning to provide a range of 20 to 35 units per acre did not increase the maximum density but establishes a minimum density for any redevelopment of these sites.

4.3 PIPELINE PROJECTS
Units permitted or under construction but not yet completed as of June 30, 2022, will count toward the 2023-2031 RHNA. The only residential units permitted or under construction as of June 30, 2022 are in the Pilgrim Triton Phase C (Laguna Vista) development, Workforce Apartments, and four ADUs, as shown in Table 8. Of the 70 Laguna Vista condominiums, 22 were granted occupancy as of June 30, 2022, leaving 48 units under construction, all of which are above -moderate income. In addition, the 22 -unit Workforce Apartments were not completed as of June 30, 2022 and will therefore count toward the 2023- 2031 RHNA. In addition, there are four ADUs under construction, for a total of 74 Pipeline Units.

Table 8: Pipeline Projects
Site Name APN Address Zoning
Affordability
Category Capacity
Units
Completed as
of 8-11-23
Laguna Vista 094-013-020 Pilgrim Drive CM/PD Above Moderate 48 26 Workforce Apts 094-013-020 501 Pilgrim Drive CM/PD Very Low, Low, Moderate 22 22
ADUs Various Various R-1
Very Low, Low,
Moderate, Above
Moderate
4 4
Total 74 52
Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

The affordability of the 22 Workforce Apartments units has been established in the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and subsequent redesignation of moderate-income units to very low- and low-income units by Resolution No. 2022-22 and Resolution No. 2022-42, resulting in a total of 5 very low -income units, 12 low -income units, and 5 moderate income units.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-34 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Affordability of ADUs is projected based on surveys of existing ADUs as reported in “Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units,” prepared by ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team with Funding from REAP, dated September 8, 2021. Based on a comprehensive statewide survey of ADUs by the Center for Community Innovation at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley), the ABAG recommendation is 30% very low -income, 30% low -income, 30% moderate -income, and 10% above - moderate income. To be conserv ative, for the four ADUs under construction as of June 30, 2022, they were assumed to be 25% very low -income, 25% low -income, 25% moderate -income, and 25% above - moderate income.

4.4 PROPOSED PROJECTS
Proposed projects are those that have submitted an application but have not yet been approved.

Affordability must be based on the projected sales prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability. There are several proposed project applications in this category as listed in Table 9.

Table 9: Proposed Projects
Site
Name APN Address Acres
Existing
Uses
General
Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Affordability
Category Capacity
Lantern
Cove 097-160-110 244 Rock Harbor
Lane 16.8
232
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-3/PD/
AHO
Extremely
low, very
low, low,
above
moderate
356
Schooner
Bay
097-150-050,
-110, -120,
097-140-070,
-080
South end of
Edgewater Blvd 24.8
312
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential R-3/PD/
AHO
Extremely
low, very
low, low,
above
moderate
646
Eaves
Apts
ADUs
094-141-010 700 Marlin Ave 11.0
288
apartment
units
Apartment
Residential
R-4/PDa
Very low,
low,
moderate,
above
moderate
22 Total 1,024
a Eaves zoning was amended from R-3 to R-4/PD by Ordinance 664, adopted June 5, 2023.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

Lantern Cove
Location and Size. Lantern Cove is located on the southern boundary of the City with access from Port Royal Avenue between Biscayne Avenue and Boothbay Avenue. The 16.8-acre site currently includes 232 apartments in two-story buildings built in 1985. The existing site density is 13.8 units per acre.

Application S tatus. A preliminary application was submitted by Equity Residential in 2020 for 356 additional units at Lantern Cove. An application for Use Permit was submitted April 25, 2022.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-35
The applicant waited for the City to complete and certify the City’s EIR for the 20 23-2031 Housing Element to tier off of the City’s EIR. Upon certification of the EIR (May 22, 2023), City staff met with the applicant on June 7, 2023 to discuss next steps for the application. A letter advising the applicant of incomplete items was issued on June 14, 2023. City staff has initiated the process to engage a consultant to prepare the environmental document for the proposed project . The status of the project is summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: Lantern Cove Summary
Application
Status Acres
New Unit
Capacity
Units
Proposed
Approvals
Required Approval Authority Next Steps
Use Permit
Application
Submitted;
Incomplete

16.8 356 356
Environmental
review
Use Permit
Planning
Commission
Preparation of
environmental
document
Use Permit
Building Permit Ministerial Building Permit
Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

The conceptual site plan below is taken from the applicant’s submittal package of May 2022.

Lantern Cove Proposal Site Plan
Remaining Steps. The following steps are necessary to process the application:
 Step 1A. Environmental Review. The review will tier off of the City’s certified EIR for the Housing Element, reducing the burden of a full EIR. Depending on the technical studies, the application will require either an addendum or supplemental EIR to be approved by the Planning Commission. The City has begun the process to engage a consultant for completion of the environmental document.  Step 1B. Specific Development Plan/Use Permit. The project is in a planned development district and thus requires the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. (Lantern Cove does not require a General Development Plan Amendment because at the time they submitted their application, the zoning was not consistent with the General Plan.) The application has been submitted. The Specific Development Plan/Use Permit requires approval by the Planning Commission. This review can occur concurrently with environmental review in Step 1A.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-36 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
 Step 2. Building Permit Review. The applicant has indicated (per email dated 8/14/23-See Appendix F, p. F222) they intend to move forward with the building permit review as soon as the entitlements are obtained, with a goal to begin construction in 2024.

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 and only needs to prepare an addendum or supplemental EIR.
o D ensity Regulations. On January 17 , 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 657 to amend the R-3 zoning regulations to align with the 35 units per acre density allowed by the General Plan (see Appendix H). This eliminates the need for the applicant to apply for a zoning amendment. o O bjective 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 Overlay Combining District that establish objective standards for below market rate housing, clarifying the City’s requirements for affordable housing (see Appendix H). o I mpact 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).  N on -Governmental Constraints.
o Cost of Land. Typically, the cost of land is known to be a significant constraint. However, in this case, Equity Residential has owned the property since the early 90s (see Appendix C). o E conomic Conditions. Construction costs, availability of financing, and availability of labor can create constraints (see Appendix C). The applicant has indicated that they use their cash flow to finance construction and so are not subject to availability of financing. o D isplac ement of Existing Households. The applicant is proposing to remove 64 existing dwelling units and add 420 new dwelling units, resulting in a net addition of 356 dwelling units. This will result in displacement of existing residents. However, the applicant has indicated that the apartment complex has an average annual turnover of 38% and will be able to accommodate all the displaced households in the same apartment complex. In addition, 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 (see Appendix H).

Non-V
acant Status . The application includes removal of 64 units in the southeast corner of the site and constructing a new building with 420 units for a net new 356 units. The proposal to replace several buildings at the southeast corner of the site with a single larger building is an illustration of why a larger site facilitates partial redevelopment and does not constitute an impediment. The larger site provides APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-37
the flexibility to place a larger building in a portion of the site where it can be buffered from the adjoining uses. Redeveloping only a portion of the site also provides flexibility to relocate tenants into vacant units on the property. In a communication from the applicant dated April 17, 2023 (see Appendix F , p. F-208- 2011) they indicate that the annual average turnover rate at Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay with a combined total of 544 units is 37 percent, which provides ample opportunity for any existing residents of the apartments targeted for densification to relocate. Tenants will be provided options to: 1) relocate within the Lantern Cove or Schooner Bay apartment communities, 2) relocate to another Equity Residential apartment community, or 3) select a cash option. In addition, an anti-displacement plan will be required pursuant to Program H-C-3-a.

Zoning and Density. T he General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20-35 units per acre. The zoning of the Lantern Cove site , R-3/PD/AHO, includes the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining District, which requires 4% extremely low -income, 4% very low-income, and 7% low-income units for the net new units in development. The below market rate units required by the AHO include 14 extremely low -income, 14 very low -income, and 26 low -income units.

In addition, the 64 replacement units replacing units removed would either need to include lower (very lo
w- and low -income) units at the same ratio as the existing tenants or replacement units would be required to match the citywide average of lower -income renter households per Program H-C-2-c. If the incomes of the current tenants are not known and the most current data (2015 -2019) from the U.S.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is used, the replacement units would include 18.5% or 12 very low-income units and 11.3% or 7 low-income units.

Replacement units cannot also be counted as inclusionary units required by the AHO.

Public Comments. Public comments on the Lantern Cove site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were generally in favor of including it as a housing site with 53 “thumbs up” and 32 “thumbs down”. Concerns expressed by neighbors include a potential increase in traffic on local streets and the location not on a major arterial street. Other comments included that its location near the bike connection to Belmont provides convenient bicycle access to Caltrain. Inclusion of the Lantern Cove site is consistent with general comments favoring inclusion of underutilized existing older apartment sites.

Lantern Cove Apartments
Lantern Cove Apartments Site
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-38 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Schooner Bay I and II
Location and Size. Schooner Bay is located in the southeast corner of the City at the end of Edgewater Boulevard. The 24.8-acre property includes 312 apartment units built in 1983-1985. The existing density is 12.58 units per acre. Schooner Bay consists of two properties: Schooner Bay I located south of Edgewater Boulevard , containing 168 units on 12.46 acres and Schooner Bay II located north of Edgewater Boulevard, containing 144 units on 11.55 acres.

Application Status . E quity Residential submit ted a preliminary application in April 2022 for 646 additional units at Schooner Bay Apartments.

The applicant has indicated they intend to move forward with their application now that the City’s EIR for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is completed so that the environmental review of their application can tier off of the City’s EIR. Equity Residential has indicated they intend to begin construction in 202 6, 24 months after beginning construction at Lantern Cove (see email dated 8/6/23 in Appendix F, p. F-222).

The applicant indicated that the construction would be phased to follow construction at Lantern Cove in order to not put too many new apartments on the market all at once, to provide more options for tenant relocation, and to make management of the projects easier. The status of the project is summarized in Table 11.

Table 11 : Schooner Bay Summary
Application
Status Acres
New Unit
Capacity
Units
Proposed
Approvals
Required
Approval
Authority Next Steps
Preliminary
Review
Completed

24.8 556
646
(with Density
Bonus units)
Environmental
review
General
Development Plan
Amendment
Use Permit
Planning
Commission /
City Council
Preparation of
environmental
document
General
Development Plan
Amendment
Use Permit
Building Permit Ministerial Building Permit
Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

The conceptual site plans below are taken from the applicant’s preliminary review package of April 2022.

Remaining Steps. The following steps are necessary to process the application:
 Step 1A. Environmental Review. The review will tier off of the City’s certified EIR for the Housing Element, reducing the burden of a full EIR. Depending on the technical studies, the application will require either an addendum or supplemental EIR.
 Step 1B. General Development Plan Amendment. The project is in a planned development district and thus requires the approval of a General Development Plan Amendment by the City Council.  Step 1C. Specific Development Plan/Use Permit. The project is in a planned development district and thus requires the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. This can be processed concurrently with the General Development Plan Amendment and Environmental Review.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-39

Schooner Bay I Site Plan Schooner Bay II Site Plan

 Step 2. Building Permit. The applicant has intended they intend to move forward with the building permit review to enable a start of construction for Schooner Bay I in 2026, 24 months after the start of construction for Lantern Cove, followed by Schooner Bay II in 2028, 24 months after the start of construction for Schooner Bay I (see email dated 8/6/23 in Appendix F, p. F-222).

Successful Actions to Remove Constraints.
 Governmental Constraints. Several steps have been taken to reduce known barriers, including:
o Environmental Review Process. Certification of an EIR for the Housing Element that can be used in subsequent project-specific environmental review to reduce the applicant’s time and expense.

The applicant can now tier off of the City’s certified EIR and only needs to prepare an addendum or supplemental EIR.
o Density Regulations. In Jan uary 2023 the City adopted Ordinance 57 to amend the R-3 zoning regulations to align with the 35 units per acre density allowed by the General Plan. This eliminates the need for the applicant to apply for a zoning amendment. o Objective Standards for Inclusionary Units . In 2022 t he City adopted Ordinance 644, cr eating Chapters 17.90 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program and 17.92 Affordable Housing Overlay Combining District that establish objective standards for below market rate housing, clarifying the City’s requirements for affordable housing. o Objective Design and Development Standards. The City is also in the process of developing objective design and development standards. These will apply to Schooner Bay if the standards are adopted prior to submittal of applications for Schooner Bay.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-40 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
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.  Non-Governmental Constraints.
o Cost of Land. Typically, the cost of land is known to be a significant constraint. However, in this case, Equity Residential has owned the property since the early 1990s. o Economic conditions. Construction costs, availability of financing, and availability of labor can create constraints (see Appendix C). The applicant has indicated that they use their cash flow to finance construction and so are not subject to availability of financing. o Displacement of existing households. The applicant is proposing to remove 64 existing dwelling units and add 420 new dwelling units, resulting in a net addition of 356 dwelling units. This will result in displacement of existing residents. However, the applicant has indicated that the apartment complex has an average annual turnover of 38% and will be able to accommodate all the displaced households in the same apartment complex. In addition, 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 (see Appendix H.

Non-Vacant Status. The applications include removal of 112 units and construction of 758 new units for a total of 646 net new units. The new units would be developed in two phases, starting with Schooner Bay I. The proposed plans include replacement of several buildings at the southeast corner of each site with a single larger building. This is an example of why a larger site facilitates partial redevelopment and does not constitute an impediment. The larger site provides the flexibility to place a larger building in a portion of the site where it can be buffered from the adjoining uses. Redeveloping only a portion of the site also provides flexibility to relocate tenants into vacant units on the property.

In a communication from the applicant dated April 17, 2023 (see Appendix F, p. F-208-211) they indicate that the annual average turnover rate at Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay with a combined total of 544 units is 37 percent, which provides ample opportunity for any existing residents of the apartments targeted for densification to relocate. Tenants will be provided options to: 1) relocate within the Lantern Cove or Schooner Bay apartment communities, 2) relocate to another Equity Residential apartment community, or 3) select a cash option. In addition, an anti-displacement plan will be required pursuant to Program H-C-3-a.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20 -35 units per acre. At 35 units per acre, the general plan density would allow 868 total units, or 556 net new units. The two preliminary applications included the use of density bonus to achieve the proposed 646 net new units, with affordable housing to achieve 90 density bonus units. The proposed density for Schooner Bay I is 41.7 units per acre. The proposed density for Schooner Bay II is

37.8 units per acre. The zoning of the Schooner Bay site, R -3/PD/AHO, includes the AHO Combining District, which requires 4% extremely low-income, 4% very low-income and 7% low-income units for the net new units in development. The below -market rate units required by the AHO include 26 extremely low-income, 26 very low-income, and 45 low-income units.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-41
In addition, the 112 replacement units replacing units removed would either need to include lower (very low- and low -income) units at the same ratio as the existing tenants or replacement units would be required to match the citywide average of lower-income renter households. If the incomes of the current tenants are not known and the most current data (2015 -2019) from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is used, the replacement units would include 18.5% or 21 very lo w-income units and 11.3% or 13 low -income units. Replacement units cannot also be counted as inclusionary units required by the AHO.

Public Comments. Public comments on the Schooner Bay site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were generally in favor of including it as a housing site with 78 “thumbs up” and 44 “thumbs down”. Concerns expressed by neighbors including a potential increase in traffic on local. Other comments included that the City should explore the potential connection of Edgewater Boulevard across Belmont Slough to Redwood Shores. Inclusion of the Schooner Bay site is
consistent with general comments favoring including
underutilized existing older apartment sites.

Eaves Apartments Multi-Family ADUs
Location and Size . The Eaves is located at the southeast corner of Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue. The Eaves Apartments includes 288 units on 11 acres built in 1970.

Zoning and Density. The site was zoned R-3, but was rezoned in June 2023 to R -4/PD upon adoption of the Housing Element . The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20 -35 units per acre. State law and Chapter 17.78 of the Foster City Municipal Code allow multi- family ADUs up to 25 % of the existing number of dwelling units. For The Eaves, this would allow a maximum of 72 ADUs. Multi-family ADUs are limited to 850 square feet for a studio or one- bedroom unit and 1,000 square feet for an ADU with two or more bedrooms. Up to two detached ADUs are permitted on a multi-family property and have the same size limits.

Application Status. Preliminary plans were submitted in March 2022 for 22 multi -family ADUs at The Eaves Apartments. The ADUs would be created from existing tuck -under parking spaces, an existing second floor lounge, and also include two of the ADUs in freestanding structures. The non-freestanding ADUs would be studio apartments of about 500 square feet each. In June 2023, applications were submitted for two prefabricated freestanding ADUs of 743 square feet each. The two freestanding ADUs Schooner Bay Apartments
Schooner Bay Apartments Site

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-42 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
will occupy an existing lawn area in the center of
the site and will not displace any existing units.

The owner has indicated they are working on
plans for the remaining 20 ADUs.

Affordability of ADUs is projected based on
s
urveys of existing ADUs as reported in “Draft
Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units,”
prepared by ABAG Housing Technical Assistance
Team with Funding from REAP, dated September
3, 2021. Based on a comprehensive statewide
survey of ADUs by the Center for Community
Innovation at the University of California at
Berkeley (UC Berkeley), the ABAG
recommendation is 30% very low- income, 30%
low-income, 30% moderate -income, and 10%
above-moderate income.

Remaining Steps .

The following steps are
necessary to process the application:
 B uilding Permit Review. The building permit
review is a ministerial action that will be
reviewed against the city’s objective
standards and building codes.

Successful Actions to Remove Constraints.

 Governmental Constraints. Several steps have been taken to reduce known barriers, including:
o Building Permit Review Time. Recent state laws have specified short turnaround times for plan checking of applications.
o Non-Governmental Constraints. There are no
known barriers to the addition of ADUs to the
Eaves Apartments.

Public Comments. Public comments on the Eaves site
in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were
overwhelmingly in favor of including it as a housing site with 34 “thumbs up” and 6 “thumbs down”. Inclusion of
the Eaves site is consistent with general comments
favoring sites on public transit routes, on four -lane
arterials/evacuation routes, and including underutilized existing older apartment sites. Note that potential
redevelopment of the Eaves site in addition to the
preliminary proposal for ADUs is discussed separately
below in the section on Non -Vacant Residentially
Zoned Sites.

Site Plan for Eaves Freestanding ADUs
Eaves Apartments Site
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-43

Summary for Proposed Projects
The analysis above indicates that the proposed projects are likely to move forward to be constructed within the 2023 -2031 planning period. The sites do not face any known barriers that would preclude development from moving forward. Furthermore, the City has taken many actions including zoning text and map amendments, environmental review, preliminary project review , others that will facilitate the developments. Each si te has several favorable indicators for additional development, as shown in Table 4.

4.5 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
In addition to pipeline projects, HCD guidance stipulates that a projection of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) expected to be built within the eight -year planning period can also be counted as part of the inventory. The units projected in this section include ADUs and Junior ADUs ( JADUs) at single family houses (not multi-family ADUs). The City has had a few ADUs permitted and constructed at single family houses in recent years, particularly since 2018 State legislation was enacted to facilitate the construction of ADUs. Figure 1 shows the City’s issuance of ADU building permits since 2015. The City issued two ADU permits in 2019 and 2020, three permits in 2021, and four permits in 2022. This is an average of 2.75 permits per year over the past four years.

The significant growth in ADUs, including four permits issued in 2022, indicates that the City can reasonably expect increased ADU production at the 2021 rate of three per year through the duration of the planning period, especially since the COVID -19 pandemic disrupted permitting and construction during much of 2020. At a rate of 3 ADUs/year, a total of 24 ADUs would be constructed in Foster City during the eight-year planning period this cycle. This number is conservative given additional changes in State law, the City’s efforts to further facilitate ADU construction, actual ADU production over the last two years, and new programs to promote the production of ADUs. The City currently promotes ADUs by:
 A dedicated webpage on ADUs.
 Allowing on-line permit submittal.

The Eaves Apartments
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-44 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

Figure 1: Foster City ADU Permit Trends
Note: 2022 number is for January through March.

Source: City of Foster City and Urban Planning Partners, 2022.  Special provision for unpermitted ADUs built before January 1, 2020 that a homeowner can request to the City’s Chief Building Official to delay enforcing any building standards if the Building Official determines that the unpermitted ADU meets health and safety standards. (this provision shall sunset on January 1, 2025.)
The city has adopted amendments to the municipal code regarding ADUs and JADUs to conform to State law. These amendments were recommended by the Planning Commission in Resolution P -11-23 on August 17, 2023 and adopted by the City Council in October 2023 (see Appendix H). These amendments will clarify the options for multiple ADUs on one single-family property, including the option to have up to four units, including the main dwelling unit plus a JADU up to 500 square feet, a conversion ADU, and a newly constructed ADU up to 800 square feet . In addition, several new programs are included in the Housing Element to encourage the production of ADUs, including:

H-D-4-b ADU Financial Incentive Program. Provide or partner with another organization to provide a financial incentive program for 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 on-site services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
0 1
0 0
2 2
3 4
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
4 4.5
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Building Permits
Year
ADU Permits
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-45
Timeframe: Implement program by December 2024
Quantifiable Objectives: 10 restricted ADU units by 2031 (included in 24 in H-D-4-a) Performance Metric(s): Number of restricted units produced; amount of incentives offered
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund
H-D-4-c Preapproved ADU 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 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.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Implement program by December 2024
Performance Metric(s): Number of preapproved ADU/JADU designs/plans adopted Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund
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.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Improve website and counter information by December 2023 Funding Source: General Fund
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.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Implement program by December 2025
Performance Metric(s): Number of unpermitted ADUs formally legalized Funding Source: General Plan Maintenance Fund
H-D-4-f Objective Design Standards for ADUs. Develop and adopt objective design standards for ADUs.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt standards by December 2024
Funding Source: General Plan Maintenance Fund
To determine assumptions around ADU affordability in the Bay Area, ABAG further examined the data from a survey conducted by the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation in collaboration with Baird + Driskell Community Planning. The survey received responses from 387 Bay Area homeowners who had constructed ADUs in 2018 or 2019. The analysis found that many ADUs are APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-46 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
made available to family members, often at no rent. Of the ADUs that were on the open market (i.e., not rented to family or friends), most charged rents between $1,200 and $2,200. The ABAG analysis found that these market rate units were usually affordable to low- or moderate-income households. The ABAG recommendation is 30% very low -income, 30% low -income, 30% moderate -income, and 10% above - moderate income.

Table 12 shows the assumptions for affordability based on the survey findings and Foster City’s estimated ADU projections based on the data. ABAG concluded that 60% of ADUs were affordable to lower-income (i.e., very low- and low-income households). Based on these affordability assumptions, Foster City’s 24 ADUs projected in this planning period are estimated to fall into the income categories as follows: 7 ADUs would be affordable to very low -income households, 7 ADUs would be affordable to low -income households, 7 ADUs would be affordable - to moderate -income households, and 3 ADUs would be affordable to above moderate-income households.

Table 12: Estimated Affordability of Projected ADUs
Income Level
Percent of
ADUs
Projected
Number of ADUs
Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 30% 7
Low-Income (51-80% AMI) 30% 7
Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) 30% 7
Above Moderate-Income (Over 120% AMI) 10% 3
Total 100% 24
Notes: AMI = Area Median-Income.

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2021.

4.6 SUMMARY OF CREDITS TOWARD THE RHNA FROM PIPELINE AND PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADUS
Table 13 shows the inventory of pipeline projects and proposed projects compared to the RHNA. The remainder of the sites inventory must demonstrate the ability to meet the remaining housing needs, after subtracting the pipeline project and proposed project units.

4.7 NON-VACANT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED SITES
In addition to the previous Housing Element sites, the City has selected some other non -vacant residentially zoned sites with potential for additional residential development , as shown in Table 14 .

Given the difficulties of aggregating and redeveloping ownership units, this leaves other apartment developments as the most likely candidates in the “residentially zoned” category. These sites were selected based on the same criteria discussed above. The location of these sites is shown in Figure 2.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-47
Table 13: Sites Inventory of Pipeline Projects , Proposed Projects , and ADUs
Site Name
Extremely
Low,
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Pipeline Projects
Laguna Vista 48 48
Workforce Apartments 5 12 5 22
ADUs Under Construction 1 1 1 1 4
Proposed Projects
Lantern Cove 28* 25 303 356
Schooner Bay 52* 45 549 646
Eaves Apartments MF ADUs 7 7 7 1 22
ADUs 7 7 7 3 24
TOTAL 101 97 20 904 1,122
RHNA 520 299 300 777 1,896
Remaining RHNA (Surplus) 413 196 274 (127) (774)
* Half of the very low-income units in these developments will be extremely low-income pursuant to AHO requirements.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

Table 1 4: Potential Housing Sites – Apartment Developments Site Acres
Existing
Units
Year
Completed
General Plan
Designation
Prior
Zoning
Current
Zoninga
Existing
Density
(units/acre)
Density
per
General Plan
(units/acre)
Eaves Apts 11.0 288 1970 Apartment
Residential R-3 R-4/PD 16.36 35
Foster's
Landing 29.1 490 1987 Apartment
Residential R-3/PD CM/PD 16.84 35
a Ordinance 664 adopted on June 5, 2023 rezoned Eaves from R-3 to R-4/PD and Foster’s Landing from R-3/PD to CM/PD.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

Eaves Apartments
Location and Size . In addition to the current preliminary application for ADUs discussed above under Proposed Projects, the Eaves also has potential for redevelopment to create additional units , with or without removing existing units. The Eaves is located at the southeast corner of Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Apartment Residential, which allows densities of 20-35 units per acre. The site is zoned R-3 but proposed to be rezoned to R-4/PD upon adoption of the Housing Element, which allows up to 35 units per acre . The Eaves includes 288 units on 11 acres for an existing density of 26 units per acre.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-48 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Non-Vacant Status. The parking for the property is concentrated mostly in two large parking areas, which could be replaced with new building(s) with units above parking. One large parking area is located near the center of the site with access from Foster City Boulevard. The other large parking area is located at the southeastern end of the site with access from Foster City Boulevard. The site could also be redeveloped where either carports or a combination of carports and some of the existing units are removed and replaced with units above parking. An example of this type of redevelopment is the Lantern Cove and Schooner Bay proposals.

The site is on a major arterial, close to shopping and transit. It is not encumbered with PG&E easements or other unusual constraints. The size of the Eaves site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings and relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commer cial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

The City’s inclusionary requirements will ensure that any new housing development includes 20 percent affordable units restricted in perpetuity. In addition to the City’s inclusionary requirements, if any units are removed and replaced, replacement units must comply with Government Code Section 66300(d) and proposed new Municipal Code Chapter 17.55 which requires that any units occupied by lower income households must be replaced with units restricted for lower income households.

Realistic Capacity. The General Plan and zoning density for this site would be 35 units per acre, which would yield a potential for 100 additional units in addition to the previously discussed ADU proposal . A more
conservative realistic capacity of 90% of the General Plan capacity is included in the Sites Inventory, yielding 59 additional units.

Public Comments. Public comments on the Eaves site in
the Housing Sites Map Feedback were overwhelmingly in
favor of including it as a housing site with 34 “thumbs up” and six “thumbs down”. Inclusion of the Eaves site is
consistent with general comments favoring sites on
public transit routes, on four-lane arterials/ evacuation routes, and including underutilized existing older
apartment sites.

The Eaves Apartments
Eaves Apartments Site
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-49
Foster’s Landing Apartments
Location and Size. Foster’s Landing is located between Foster City Boulevard on the northeast and Shell Boulevard on the southeast, Bounty Drive to the southeast, and South Road to the northwest. The 29.1- acre site contains 490 apartments for a density of 16.84 units per acre, built in 1987. The site is bordered by streets, sharing no borders with other residential properties. The apartment buildings are two and three stories with the two-story buildings along the Bounty Drive and Shell Boulevard frontages and taller buildings in the interior of the site. P arking is provided in a combination of garages, carports, and uncovered stalls.

Zoning and Density. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site was Condominium Residential, which allows densities of 15-35 units per acre. The zoning for the site was R-3 /PD. Concurrent with adoption of the Housing Element, the zoning was changed to CM/PD and the General Plan designation was changed to Civic Center Mixed Use. The Civic Center Mixed Use designation and CM/PD zoning allow a gross density of 20-60 units per acre.

Non-Vacant Status. Approximately one-third of the site is encumbered with a PG&E easement that runs parallel to Foster City Boulevard. The PG&E easement is used for parking, recreation facilities and landscaping, as it does not permit structures to be located within the easement area. Foster’s Landing also has a long -term agreement with the adjacent Peninsula Jewish Community Center ( PJCC) for the PJCC’s use of approximately 1.3 acres for a parking area in the PG&E easement at the north corner of the site adjacent to South Road and Foster City Boulevard.

Three large areas of carports on t he northeast side of the site provide opportunities to add additional units over parking with or without removing existing residential buildings. In addition, the garages provide opportunities for ADUs. The limitation on the number of ADUs is 25 % of the existing units, or 122 units. H igher density buildings on the site would be compatible with the higher densities at the nearby developments in the Civic Center Mixed Use area including the Foster Square development, with densities of 82.5 units per acre at Alma Point, 92.9 units per acre at Atria, and 40 units per acre at the Lennar Foster Square condominiums.

The size of the Foster’s Landing site provides the opportunity to retain some or all of the existing buildings and relocate existing tenants within the property if necessary. In an email communication from the applicant on May 15, 2023 they indicate that the annual average turnover rate at Foster’s Landing is 40 percent, which provides ample opportunity for any existing residents of the apartments targeted for densification to relocate. The non -vacant status of the site does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because: 1) it does not have to be discontinued for the additional development to occur; 2) unlike a commercial property, there aren’t multi-year leases that need to expire or be purchased for additional development to occur; and 3) the rental housing market conditions on the Peninsula remain strong.

The City’s inclusionary requirements will ensure that any new housing development includes 20% affordable units restricted in perpetuity. In addition to the City’s inclusionary requirements, if any units are removed and replaced, replacement units must comply with Government Code Section 66300(d) and proposed new Municipal Code Chapter 17.55 which requires that any units occupied by lower income households must be replaced with units restricted for lower income households.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-50 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Realistic Capacity . The large size of the site, street frontages on four sides, and lack of adjacent residential uses provide significant flexibility to place buildings outside of the PG&E easement and utilize the easement for recreation, parking, and landscaping. A conservative realistic capacity of 80 percent of the allowed General Plan density , resulting in an average density of 48 units per acre is in keeping with the other development in the Civic Center Mixed Use area, yielding 907 additional units, as included in Table 15.

Table 1 5: Capacity of Other Non -Vacant Residential Sites Site Name APN Address Acres Zoning
Affordability
Category
Additional
Capacity
Eaves 094-141-010 700 Marlin Avenue 11.0 R-4/PD Lower 59 Foster’s Landing 094-980-070 700 Bounty Drive 29.1 CM/PD Lower 907 Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

Application Status . The property owner, Essex Property Trust, has provided a letter dated April 6, 2022, expressing their interest in developing additional units at Foster’s Landing, citing similar efforts at many of their other
properties in Southern California (see Appendix F, p. F-65).

Essex has also reviewed with staff preliminary plans for a proposal to remove 60 units in the northwest corner of the site and replace them with a larger podium style building above parking with approximately 360 units for a net gain of approximately 300 units.

Public Comments . Public comments on the Foster’s
Landing site in the Housing Sites Map Feedback were
overwhelmingly in favor of including it as a housing site with 54 “thumbs up” and 12 “thumbs down”. Specific
comments were that it would be nice to have mixed use
Foster's Landing
Foster's Landing Site
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-51
and that existing tenants should be protected from displacement. Inclusion of the Foster’s Landing site is consistent with general comments favoring sites on public transit routes, on four -lane arterials/ evacuation routes, not adjacent to single-family development, and including underutilized existing older apartment sites.

4.8 COMMERCIAL SITE TO BE REZONED
The City has included one non-vacant commercial site in the Sites Inventory. 1010 Metro Center Boulevard – OSH Building
Location and Size . The building at 1010 Metro Center Boulevard was formerly occupied by Orchard Supply Hardware and is now vacant. The site is 6.345 acres with frontage on both Metro Center Boulevard and Foster City Boulevard . The main entrance on Metro Center Boulevard is opposite the SR 92 eastbound on- and off-ramps. The site is bordered on the southeast by the four-story Century Plaza office building and on the southwest by the one -story KinderCare building at 1006 Metro Center Boulevard .

Also nearby at the rear of the property is the eight-story Parkside Towers building.

Zoning and Density. The property is zoned C-2/PD and is part of the Metro Center General Development Plan. The General Plan Land Use designation is Town Center. The Town Center designation allows densities of 15 to 60 units per acre, pursuant to a General Plan Amendment adopted in December 2022.

Non-Vacant Status. Approximately 2 acres of the 6.345-acre site is encumbered with a PG&E easement along Foster City Boulevard that precludes buildings but can be used for parking, recreation, and landscaping. The site is also encumbered with access and parking easements.

Although the property is non-vacant with an existing building and improvements on the site, there is no current lease that would impede redevelopment of the site. Given that there are no existing uses on the site makes it very likely that the site will be redeveloped with a mix of commercial and residential uses.

The owner has been unable to secure a commercial tenant for several years. The site is one of the best located commercial or housing sites in the City with direct freeway access as well as convenient access to services, transit, parks and civic amenities. Development of the site will not impact existing residential neighborhoods.

Realistic Capacity. Given the large area of the property encumbered with easements, a realistic capacity for a mixed -use development is 35 units per acre applied to the entire site but with the development concentrated in the buildable portion of the site. This is the same as a density of 51 units per acre (85% of General Plan density) applied to the 4.345 -acre buildable area. A building of 4 to 8 stories would be similar to the height of other buildings adjacent to this site. Similar scale mixed-use residential buildings have been constructed nearby at the Atria (6 stories), Alma Point (4 stories), The Plaza (5 stories), The Triton (6 stories), and 100 Grand (6 stories). At 35 units per acre, a realistic capacity is 222 units.

The site is included in the Sites Inventory as a mixed -use site. The property will be rezoned concurrent with adoption of the Housing Element (pursuant to Housing Program H -D-1-b) to allow either mixed commercial-residential use or commercial use. Because the owner has the option of developing with commercial use only, the realistic capacity has been adjusted to 50% of the estimated realistic capacity, or 111 units instead of 222 units, included in Table 16.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-52 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 16: Capacity of Other Non -Vacant Sites
Site
Name APN Address Acres
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Affordability
Category
Additional
Capacity
OSH 094-281-010 1010 Metro Center
Blvd. 6.345 Town Center C-2/PD Lower 111
1601
Beach
Park Blvd.
094-211-550 1601 Beach Park
Blvd. 1.35 Public/Semi-
Public PF
Moderate &
Above-
Moderate
16 Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

Application Status. The property owner has provided a letter dated April 8, 2022 , expressing interest in redevelopment of the site, indicating he is analyzing residential development scenarios and that the property could “accommodate a first-in-class multi-family rental or other residential type of community that would add to the housing options in Foster City
and complement the surrounding mix of
neighborhood uses” (see Appendix F, P. F-211).

Public Comments . Public comments on the 1010
Metro Center Boulevard site in the Housing Sites
Map Feedback were overwhelmingly in favor of
including it as a housing site with 22 “thumbs up”
and 11 “thumbs down”. Specific comments were the
property should be mixed use due to its location
near Highway 92. Inclusion of the 1010 Metro Center
Boulevard site is consistent with general comments
favoring sites on public transit routes, on four -lane
arterials/evacuation routes, and not adjacent to
single-family development.

4.9 NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE TO REZONE TO RESIDENTIAL
The City has included one non-vacant non-residential site in the Sites Inventory. 1010 Metro Center Boulevard
1010 Metro Center Boulevard
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-53
1601 Beach Park Boulevard
Location and Size. The City has included the non-vacant non-residential former Lutheran Church site at 1601 Beach Park Boulevard in the Sites Inventory. The site is 1.35 acres with frontage on Beach Park Boulevard, Gull Avenue, and Sea Island Lane.

Zoning and Density. A General Plan Amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Two-Family Residential and a rezoning from PF Public Facilities to R- 2 Two -Family Residential is included in Program H-D-1- b, approved concurrently with adoption of this Housing Element in May-June 2023 (see Appendix H).

Realistic Capacity. A realistic capacity under the R -2 zoning for the 1.32-acre site is 16 units, included in Table 16. The proposed project would be subject to the City’s inclusionary housing regulations in Chapter

17.90, requiring 20% affordable housing. Developments of for-sale units require 20% moderate-income units.

Application Status. A preliminary application was submitted in 2019 for 32 townhouse style condominiums on 1.35 acres at 1601 Beach Park Boulevard. An application for a demolition permit to remove the old church building was submitted in
December 2022 but was incomplete as of May 5, 2023 .

The property owner proposed a Condominium
Residential General Plan designation and R- 4 zoning
rather than the Two -Family Residential General Plan
designation and R- 2 zoning that was adopted.

The property owner submitted several emails and letters (see Appendix F, pages F-129, F-140, F-149, F- 151, F-154, F-190, and F-213).

Public Comments. Sur vey feedback on potential residential use of this site was generally favorable with 32 “thumbs up” and 15 “thumbs down” votes, although many of the adjacent neighbors were opposed to the proposed townhouse development.

4.10 SITES INVENTORY LIST
The Sites Inventory List with realistic capacities including the sites discussed above is provided in Table 17. The location of these sites is shown on Figure 2.

1601 Beach Park Boulevard Site
1601 Beach Park Boulevard Existing Building
APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-54 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Table 17: Sites Inventory
Site Name
Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Capacityb
Pipeline Projects
Laguna Vista Condominiums 48 48
Workforce Apartments 5 12 5 22
ADUs Under Construction 2 1 1 4
Proposed Projects
Lantern Covea 14 14 25 303 356
Schooner Bay 26 26 45 549 646
Eaves Apartments MF ADUs 7 7 7 1 22
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs 7 7 7 3 24
RHNA5 Sites
Franciscan Apartments 21 14 14 32 81
Sand Cove Apartments 29 19 19 45 112
The Lagoons Apartments 33 22 22 51 128
Beach Cove Apartments 46 29 29 69 173
Shadow Cove Apartments 23 14 14 34 85
Harbor Cove Apartments 25 15 15 36 91
Other Residential Sites
Eaves Apartments 16 10 10 23 59
Foster’s Landing Apartments 236 154 154 363 907
Commercial Site to Allow Mixed Use
1010 Metro Center Boulevard 30 18 18 45 111
Non-Residential Site to Rezone to Residential
1601 Beach Park Boulevard 3 13 16
Total 560 392 322 1,611 2,885
RHNA 520 299 300 777 1,896
Total with EL, VL, L = Lower 952 322 1,611 2,885
RHNA 819 300 777 1,896
Remaining Need (Surplus) 133 22 934 989
Percent of Surplus 16% 7% 107% 52%
a Numbers of units per project application including City’s inclusionary requirements per Chapter 17.90 and if in AHO, 17.92. b Realistic Capacity based on analysis provided in Appendix D.

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-55
Figure 2: Sites Inventory Map
Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-56 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

4.11 PROGRESS IN MEETING THE RHNA
Many of the sites in the Sites Inventory are either under construction, have submitted applications, or are actively preparing plans for review. The status of these sites is summarized in Table 18 with additional comments provided below.

Table 18: Progress in Meeting the RHNA – Status of Pipeline/ Proposed/ Preliminary Projects
Site Name
Extremely
Low
Very
Low  Low  Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Capacity
Project Status as of August
2023
Laguna Vista
Condominiums          48  48  Under Construction
Workforce
Apartments    5  12  5    22  Under Construction
ADUs Under
Construction    2  1  1    4  Four ADUs are Completed
Lantern Cove  14  14  25    303  356  Formal Application Under Review
Schooner Bay  26  26  45    549  646
Preliminary Application
Reviewed; Comments
Provided by IDEC in May
2022
Eaves
Apartments MF
ADUs
7  7  7  1  22
Comments Provided by
IDEC in April 2022; Building
permits under review for 2
ADUs
Sand Cove
Apartments  29  19  19  45  112
Multi-department on-site
meeting with the
applicant in October 2022
Beach Cove
Apartments  46  29  29  69 173
Shadow Cove
Apartments  23  14  14  34  85
Harbor Cove
Apartments  25  15  15  36  91
Comments Provided by
IDEC in May 2021; Virtual
Preliminary Meeting with
the Applicant in May 2022,
applicant request for
additional follow-up in May
2023
Foster’s Landing
Apartments  236  154  154  363  907
Preliminary Review of the
Redevelopment Plans
(Phase I) in August 2022
1601 Beach Park
Boulevard  – – 3  13  16
Demolition Permit Applied
by the Applicant in
December 2022
Total – – – – 2,482

Source: Foster City Community Development Department.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-57
Laguna Vista Condominiums  – The project includes 70 townhouse -style condominium units known as Laguna Vista. Out of 70 townhomes, 22 units wer*e completed by June 30, 2022, leaving 48 units to count toward the RHNA 6 cycle. As of August 11, 2023, 48 units are complete and were granted occupancy. The remaining 22 units are expected to be completed by the end of 2023. 22 Workforce Housing Apartment – A ll the 22 workforce housing units are complete as of July 2022 and 19 are occupied by tenants as of August 23, 2023.

ADUs Under Construction – Al l four ADUs that were under construction in as of June 30, 2022 have been completed. Since June 30, 2022, additional ADUs have been permitted. Between January -August 2023, six ADU applications were submitted.

Lantern Cove – T he applicant submitted a formal application in May 2022. Since then, the applicant has been in regular contact with the city staff . Upon certification of the EIR for the Housing and Safety Elements Update (May 22, 2023), City staff met with the applicant on June 7, 2023 to discuss next steps for the application. A letter advising the applicant of incomplete items was issued on June 14, 2023. City staff has initiated the process to engage a consultant to prepare the environmental document for the proposed project.

Eaves Multi-f
amily ADUs – The applicant submitted permit applications for two freestanding ADUs that will occupy a lawn area. The applicant indicated they are continuing to work on plans for conversion ADUs.

Schooner Bay  – T he applicant submitted a Preliminary Review Application in May 2022. The same month, the application was reviewed by Interdepartmental Evaluation Committee including representatives from the Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Community Development Departments . The committee provided comprehensive comments to the applicant for revising the plans to meet City standards before the formal application is submitted. The applicant has been in regular contact with the city staff and has indicated they are ready to move forward with his application now that the City’s EIR for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is completed so that the environmental review of their application can tier off of the City’s EIR. Equity Residential has indicated they intend to begin construction in 2026, 24 months after beginning construction at Lantern Cove.

Beach Cove, Shadow Cove and Sand Cove – t
he Applicant organized an on-site walk through these three (3) apartment complexes with representatives from Fire, Planning and Building divisions to discuss redevelopment potential of the sites.

Harbor Cove Apartments – T he applicant had a virtual meeting with the Planning Division to discuss the redevelopment potential and timeline for adoption of the Housing Element. In May 2023 the applicant indicated they plan to move forward with the ADU application and are in the process of engaging an architect to prepare plans for the additional development of other units on the site.

Foster’s Landing Apartments - T he applicant presented preliminary plans for review to the Planning Division to remove 60 units and replace them with approximately 3 60 units to result in approximately 300 net new units. The applicant has been waiting for the Housing Element to be adopted and associated EIR to be completed to move forward with their application.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-58 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
1601 Beach Park Boulevard – The applicant has applied for a demolition permit in December 2022 for the existing building on the site.

4.12 ADDITIONAL HOUSING POTENTIAL
There is potential for additional housing development during the 2023-2031 Planning Period beyond the sites identified in the Sites Inventory. Several options were considered during the preparation of the Housing Element but not included in the Sites Inventory for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to not being zoned for housing, lack of substantial evidence that the site is likely to develop or redevelop during the Planning Period, lack of owner interest, environmental constraints, community opposition, and other issues. Housing potential - or the basis for concluding there is not housing potential - on sites not included in the Sites Inventory is described below.

Senate Bill 9 Units
Senate Bill (SB) 9, effective on January 1, 2022, requires cities and counties to provide for the ministerial approval of a housing development containing two residential units (duplex) of at least 800 square feet in floor area and a parcel map dividing one existing lot i nto two parts (lot split) of at least 1,200 square feet within a single-family residential zone. Foster City adopted “Interim Guidance Rules and Regulations for SB 9 Projects” With the adoption of Resolution No. 2022-17 on February 22, 2022. As of December 1, 2022, no SB 9 applications have been filed.

Given the average lot size in Foster City of 5,000 to 6,000 square feet, many single -family lots are not conducive for a lot split. Foster City has approximately 3,420 R-1 lots and 1,120 R-1/PD lots (total: 4,540 lots), that would be subject to SB 9. Of the 4,540 single -family lots, approximately 378 lots are 8,000 square feet and above. While SB 9 increases the potential number of residential units in single -family neighborhoods, market conditions and other factors are likely to limit the impacts of SB 9.

Recent changes that were made to the State ADU law suggest that only a small percentage of owners may choose to use SB 9. For reference, in the last five years, a similar number of parcels in the City were eligible to build two units in addition to the primary dwelling unit (a full sized ADU of 1,200 square feet or 50% of the primary dwelling, whichever is less and a JADU that is no more than 500 square feet).

However, the City has issued 2 to 4 ADU permits per year in the last three years, and all of those were for one ADU per lot.

No SB 9 units were included in the Sites Inventory because of the uncertainty that property owners will submit applications for this type of housing development.

Religious and Nonprofit Owned Properties
Several religious or nonprofit -owned properties have portions of their sites that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. Section 65913.6 of the California Government Code provides reduced parking requirements for the development of housing on sites owned by religious institutions. Religious or nonprofit-owned properties that may have housing potential include but are not limited to:
 The Island United Church at 1130 Balclutha Drive has a n approximately 0.4 -acre portion of their 1-acre site that is undeveloped. The site is in the central portion of the City near transit, shopping, APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-59
and other amenities. Staff tried several times to make contact with the decision makers at the congregation but was not successful.
 The Peninsula Jewish Community Center (PJCC) has an area near the center of their site that was originally planned for a performing arts center. It is currently being used as outdoor space for the Ronald C. Wornick Jewish Day School. Staff had a discussion with the Executive Director who indicated that the PJCC had no immediate plans to develop the site but might be interested in development with housing in the future.

No religious or nonprofit-owned properties were included in the Sites Inventory due to the lack of plans that are likely to develop within the eight-year planning period. Housing Program H-D-5-b is included to pursue opportunities for provision of housing on these sites.

School Properties
AB 2295 adopted in 2022 and effective January 1, 2024, deems a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency. The housing development is required to comply with local objective standards that do not preclude the housing development from achieving specified height and density. Housing development on schools in Foster City operated by the San Mateo-Foster City School District is not part of the District’s current plans.

Commercial Properties
AB 2011 and SB 6 passed in 2022 allow for ministerial, by -right approval of affordable housing developments on commercial lands in some circumstances. For AB 2011, among other requirements the proposed housing must be in a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, be one hundred percent affordable to lower-income households, not within 500 feet of a freeway, and meet locally adopted objective standards. For SB 6, among other requirements the proposed housing project must commit to both prevailing wages for workers and to workforce requirements. The property owner at 1291-1295 East Hillsdale Boulevard has expressed interest in converting the office building on the site into mixed use. The City Council discussed changing the land use designation in this area of East Hillsdale Boulevard to allow mixed use and concluded they prefer to consider a specific proposal instead of first changing the allowed uses.

An application was submitted to convert unused retail space at The Triton Apartments into ADUs. These ten units were included in earlier drafts of the Housing Element. After review, and including consultation with HCD, it was concluded that the unused retail space does not qualify as space that must be approved ministerially for conversion to ADUs. If the property owner wishes to pursue conversion of the retail space, they will need to submit an application to amend the entitlements for the property.

Early in the Housing Element process staff contacted the owner of 5A Rent-a-Space who in previous years had proposed a change to residential use. The owner stated he has no interest in converting to residential use. The findings and evidence required to support inclusion of a non -vacant commercial site was considered not likely to be successful.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-60 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Staff contacted Hudson Pacific Properties, owners of The Marketplace at Metro Center, who indicated they have no interest in converting to mixed use. The findings and evidence required to support inclusion of a non-vacant site with existing commercial leases was considered not likely to be successful.

Edgewater Place Shopping Center was the subject of a mixed -use proposal several years ago . The findings and evidence required to support inclusion of a non-vacant site with existing commercial leases was considered not likely to be successful. Survey feedback on potential residential use of this site was mixed with 27 “thumbs up” and 28 “thumbs down” votes. Specific comments favored retaining commercial uses.

Mariners Point Golf Center
This site has been mentioned as a potential housing site. Some of the drawbacks are that it would remove/reduce a popular recreational amenity and it is isolated from other residential areas of the City.

Public feedback on potential residential use of the site was mixed at the beginning of the Housing Element process but seems to have become predominantly opposed.

Marina Site
The owner’s representative for this site submitted a n email requesting inclusion as a housing site. The property is outside the levee flood protection and is subject to other environmental challenges due to its location on Belmont Slough and San Francisco Bay. The City’s General Plan designation of Waterfront Commercial clearly states the designation allows only for commercial development that is directly related to and enhances the public use of the waterfront without damaging environmental effects.

Caltrans Properties
The City asked Caltrans if any of their properties in the City could be available for housing. Caltrans representatives responded that one of their sites is being held for environmental mitigations and they do not have any intentions of consolidating their other sites.

Chess Drive Office Site
As pointed out by Gilead Sciences in their letter dated March 21, 2022, this site is subject to a Development Agreement that provides Gilead with vested rights to develop the property with nonresidential uses.
5 FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSING RESOURCES
In addition to physical resources such as housing sites, the City also has financial and administrative resources that can be utilized to assist the development of housing as well as address other housing needs. This section will discuss the financial and administrative resources available to the City to address housing needs.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-61

5.1 FINANCIAL RESOURCES
City Financial Resources
Successor Agency Affordable Housing Fund
From the creation of the Community Development Agency in 1981 to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies by the State in 2012, the City’s major source of funds for affordable housing was the Community Development Agency’s housing set-aside fund. At the time the Agency was dissolved, the State “swept” $12.1 million on the Agency’s funds that were not already obligated. During that tenure of the Agency , 383 units of affordable housing were created, including both rental and ownership units (including First- Time Homebuyer Loans).

In 2012, the City Council exercised its right to become the Successor Housing Agency to the former Community Development Agency. All non-cash housing assets and obligations, including the affordable housing units formerly owned and operated by the Agency, and loans receivable from the Metro Center Senior Housing Project and individual borrowers under the former First Time Homebuyer Loan Program, were transferred to the Successor Agency. Continuing affordable housing obligations of the Successor Agency, including affordable housing obligations related to Marlin Cove and Mi ramar and monitoring affordable housing covenants in various developments, are funded from the tax increment received by the Successor Agency.

The budget for the Successor Agency includes continued expenditures related to operating and maintaining the six City -owned affordable housing units, property management services, landscaping, and other maintenance costs, as well as initiatives that were formerly funded by the Agency that support and enhance the availability of affordable housing in Foster City, such as the HIP Housing Homeshare Program and HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) dues. Revenues going into the fund include rental income and loan repayments.

City Affordable Housing Fund
The City created a City Affordable Housing Fund in 2012 with initial funding from the one -time “boomerang” of $3.3 million that was the City/EMID share of the one -time “sweep” of Community Development Agency funds. The City dedicated these funds to the development of the 100% affordable Alma Point Senior Apartments.

In 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance 606, establishing Chapter 17.88, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. This fee provides a mechanism for commercial development to pay a fee to offset the impacts of the development on the need for affordable housing. The first revenue of $360,580 into this fund occurred in FY 2020-2021.

In March 2022, the City adopted Ordinance 644 , establishing Chapter 17.90, Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Program, which allows payment of a Below Market Rate Housing I n-Lieu fees for developments of five (5) to nine (9) units . F ractional fees are also allowed for all development for requirements of less than 0.50 below market rate units. These fees will also be placed into the City Affordable Housing Fund.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-62 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Federal, State, and County Financial Resources
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) allocate s federal and state tax credits to the developers of affordable housing for households at 30% to 60% of median income. This is a competitive process. Metro Senior Apartments, Miramar Apartments, and Alma Point Senior Apartments utilized tax credits.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
CDBG is a federal program providing funds to jurisdictions that meet certain population thresholds. The jurisdiction can use the funds for a wide variety of purposes such as social services, capital projects, and affordable housing developments. Foster City does not meet the 50,000- population requirement to be an “entitlement city” and receive its own allocation of CDBG funds. The City has participated with San Mateo County via a Cooperation Agreement since 1975. Participation as part of the “Urban County” increases the amount of funds that come to the County for housing programs and makes the City eligible for grant oppo rtunities or other programs that utilize these funds. The City has utilized th ese funds through the Rehabilitation Loan Program (now discontinued) and funding through other organizations, such as Rebuilding Together Peninsula. The Alma Point affordable housing project by MidPen Housing was able to use HOME funds, in part because the City had a Cooperation Agreement.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
PLHA funds are awarded similar to the CDBG program . The funds can be used for a variety of projects and programs that assist in addressing housing needs. The City is able to participate through the County.

In 2021, Foster City was awarded a grant of $643,636 from San Mateo County to provide tenant relocation assistance and rental subsidies to tenants being displaced due to expiration of affordable housing covenants at Foster’s Landing Apartments.

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.

The Housing Choice voucher program is a federal program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority . The voucher provides rental subsidies to low- income households to pay the difference between 30 % of their income and the federally approved payment standard. The program allows households to find their own housing. Foster City adopted Chapter 5.72 in 2013 requiring landlords of a structure with more than ten units to accept Section 8 and other types of rental vouchers. Effective January 1, 2020, California source of income protections went into effect requiring all landlords in California to accept Section 8 and VASH (Veteran) vouchers and other forms or rental assistance.

Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers
The VASH voucher program combines HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-63
Other State Resources
Many other housing funding programs are administered by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Housing developers and housing organizations are also eligible to apply for many of these programs.

Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART)
HEART is a 501(c)(3) that was founded in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities in San Mateo County, the County, and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities to create more affordable housing in San Mateo County. To date, HE ART has invested over $19 million to fund over 1,300 affordable homes. HEART’s programs include First -Time Homebuyer down payment assistance loans, loans to nonprofit developers to build or renovate affordable apartments near transit, and ADU plans and handbook.

HIP Housing
HIP Housing, under agreement with the City, provides a Home Sharing program that matches people who have space in their home to share, with people who are searching for an affordable place to live. HIP also provides a Self Sufficiency Program that provides housing scholarships and intensive trauma - informed case management to low -income parents and emancipated foster youth . HIP Housing Affordable Ventures (HHAV) also manages the six City -owned units in the Existing Unit Purchase Program as well as the 22-unit City-owned Workforce Apartments.

5.2 ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
Foster City
The Community Development Department ’s three divisions each play a key role in supporting the provision of housing. The Planning /Code Enforcement Division ensures that new developments meet City standards as provided in the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other City policies. The City recently created the position of Housing Coordinator and filled it as of January 2023. The staff also monitors the developments with below market rate units subject to Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreements, including review of annual reports and advising on issues as they arise. This includes the six City-owned units in the Existing Unit Purchase program and the new 22 -unit Workforce Apartments project. The Planning/Code Enforcement Division staff also oversee implementation of other programs of the Housing Element. The Code Enforcement program is responsible for maintaining the appearance of the community in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code.

The Building Division is responsible for ensuring that all construction project permitting within the City comply with the California Building Code, the Foster City Municipal Code and all other applicable codes and regulations.

San Mateo County
The San Mateo County department of Housing includes the Housing & Community Development (HCD) and t he Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM) . The HACSM administers the HUD APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-64 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The HCD team administers the County’s Affordable Housing Fund and other housing programs.

The San Mateo County Human Services Agency coordinates programs to address homelessness in San Mateo County.

Partnerships
Foster City works with many local partners to provide and support housing opportunities. Some of these include:
 Bridge Housing: Owns and operates Metro Senior Apartments; City staff serves on the Board of Directors for Metro Senior Apartments.
 CALL Primrose Center: Provides food assistance to low-income individuals, families, and seniors.  LifeMoves: Homeless services provider.
 MidPen Housing: Owns and operates Alma Point Senior Apartments.  Rebuilding Together Peninsula: Home repairs for low-income homeowners.  Samaritan House: Homeless services provider.
6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Housing Elements are required by the State of California to include an Energy Conservation section that provides “an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development” (Government Code Section 65583(a)(8)).

Energy conservation is needed in response to high energy costs that have continued to increase the cost of housing for the past several decades as well as concerns regarding climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Lowered mont hly utility costs resulting from energy conservation also has the added benefit of contributing to the long -term affordability of housing. The sections below describe the ways Foster City requires and encourages energy conservation in housing.

6.1 STATE CODES AND GUIDELINES
The State of California is a nationwide leader in sustainable building practices. Written into the State Building Code are several sets of requirements and guidelines to facilitate the production of more environmentally friendly buildings. These requirements are updated every three years. The most recent version, the 2019 California Building Standards Code took effect on January 1, 2020. Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) contains building standards that provide for energy efficiency. and focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards, residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements.

The California Building Code also includes green building regulations, referred to as CALGreen that requires minimum conservation standards. CALGreen includes some mandatory measures and some voluntary measures which can be adopted locally.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 D-65
The City has included provisions for enhanced green building standards in development agreements for specific projects, such as LEED Silver or equivalent standards for Gilead Sciences, Pilgrim Triton Master Plan, and Chess/Hatch Offices.

6.2 FOSTER CITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Foster City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2016 and is in the process of updating it in 2022-2023.

The CAP includes targets, strategies, and measures to reduce GHG emissions. The City earned Beason Awards from the Institute for Local Government in 2017 and 2019 for its GHG reduction programs.

Programs specifically related to residential buildings include elimination of some permit fees and expedited processing for solar permits.

6.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS
The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BAYREN) is a coalition of the Bay Area’s nine counties working to promote resource efficiency at the regional level, focusing on energy, water, and greenhouse gas reduction. BAYREN provides rebates and financing for a variety of energy upgrades.

PG&E offers financial and energy-related assistance programs for its low-income customers, including:
 Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH). The REACH program helps low- income qualified customers who experience uncontrollable or unforeseen financial hardships.  Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This federally funded program provides financial assistance to help offset eligible household’s energy costs, including heating, cooling, and home weatherization expenses.
 CARE/FERA Discount Programs . CARE and FEA help eligible customers pay their energy bills. A monthly discount is applied on electricity and/or gas for eligible households.  Medical Baseline Allowance. Customers who are eligible for Medical Baseline receive an additional allotment of electricity and/or gas per month. This helps to ensure that more energy to support qualifying medical devices is available at a lower rate.  Vulnerable Customer Program. The Vulnerable Customer Program was designed to help address the needs of our customers whose life or health would be at risk should their electric or gas service be disconnected. Customers who self-certify that they have a serious illness or condition th at could become life threatening if their electric or gas service is disconnected for nonpayment will receive an in-person visit from a PG&E representative before disconnection.

APPENDIX D: HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES
D-66 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 E-i
APPENDIX E | REVIEW OF PREVIOUS H OUSING

ELEMENT

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
E-ii CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 E-1
Foster City Previous Housing Element Evaluation
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
H-A Reinforce the City’s Commitment to Meeting Housing Needs: Establish and monitor goals, policies, and programs to address the City's housing needs, encourage public participation in all housing policy matters and promote equal housing opportunities.

H-A-1: City Leadership. Provide an active leadership role in helping to attain the objectives of the City's Housing Element by following through on the actions prescribed in the Housing Element in a timely manner and monitoring progress annually to review housing goals and target achievements.

H-A-1-a: Annual Tracking of
Housing Activity
The City will provide a statistical summary of
residential building activity tied to various
types of housing, household need, income and
Housing Element program targets.

Target: Annually as part of General Plan
Implementation Report and consistent with the
annual monitoring requirements for the Housing
Element
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Annual; included in
General Plan Annual
Report; all Annual
Reports were reviewed by
the Planning Commission
and City Council and
submitted by deadline of
April 1 each year

Successful: Retain Update with new RHNA
H-A-1-b: Construction of New
Units
The Association of Bay Area Governments,
through the San Mateo County sub-region,
has calculated Foster City's regional housing
share at 430 units for the 2015-2023 period.

The City will continue to review residential
proposals as they are received.

Target: Potential for up to 1,752 housing units
between 2015-2023, including sites identified in
Housing Program H-D-2-a, Tier 1 Housing
Opportunity Sites
Responsible Agency: City Council; Planning
Commission; Community Development
Department and Community Development
Agency
2015 – 2023; As indicated
in Table 6-1 811 new
housing units were
completed as of 6/30/22,
including 84 very low-
income (57% of RHNA),
38 low-income (44% of
RHNA), 18 moderate
(24% of RHNA), and 671
above-moderate units.

Not needed because this
program reiterated RHNA
requirements covered
elsewhere
Remove
H-A-1-c: Future Housing
Element Update
The City will update its Housing Element,
consistent with State Law requirements.

Target: Next update by January 2023
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
By January 2023 Successful: Update Update with new date H-A-2: Public Participation. Encourage and support public participation in the formulation and review of the City's housing policy, including encouraging neighborhood-level planning and working with community groups and the building and real estate industry to advocate programs which will increase affordable housing supply and opportunities.

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
E-2 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
H-A-3: Cooperation with Other Agencies. Continue participation in County-wide housing assistance programs and coordinate with other public and private agencies in the use of available programs to provide lower-cost housing in Foster City.

H-A-3-a: Community
Outreach
The City will improve citizen awareness of
rehabilitation and disaster assistance loan
subsidy programs, code enforcement, energy
conservation programs, fair housing laws and
affordable housing programs by: (1) providing
packets of housing information at City Hall
and the library, with water bill inserts and
through the mail to those who inquire; (2)
contacting neighborhood groups and
associations; (3) providing special
presentations to community groups, service
organizations, and senior citizens periodically;
and (4) providing public information through
articles in the local newspaper, on the City’s
web site and with cable TV public service
announcements. Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Agency
Ongoing. Continued to
provide housing
information on website,
printed materials, and
through social media.

Successfully ran Foster
City Community Dialogue
series, parts one and two,
including pop-up tents at
commercial centers and
coffee shops, issuing
surveys, primarily pre-
pandemic. Participated in
21 Elements community
workshops and listening
sessions in Fall of 2021.

Launched housing section
of engagefostercity.org in
October 2021.

Successful: Retain and
expand. Combine Outreach
to Community Service Clubs
and Organizations with
program to Facilitate Non-
Profit Rehabilitation-
Maintenance Assistance.

Update and move to under new
Policy H-A-2, Community
Engagement, to reflect City’s
expanded outreach programs:

H-A-2-a Community Outreach
to build on previous success and
expand to reach underserved
and/or underrepresented
H-A-3-b: Technical Assistance
to Non-Profits
The City will provide technical assistance to
non-profit groups organized to encourage
provision of affordable housing and sponsors
of affordable housing projects and programs.

The City will facilitate provision of affordable
housing by providing technical assistance in a
liaison role with non-profit housing groups and
managers of affordable housing units in the
city.

Target: Annual and ongoing outreach and when
a unique development opportunity arises
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department and Community Development
Agency
Annual and Ongoing. The
City worked with Mid-
Peninsula Housing to
develop and implement
the Alma Point Senior
Apartments. Hired HIP
Housing Affordable
Ventures to manage new
22-unit City-owned
affordable housing. The
City works with BMR
property managers on an
ongoing basis to respond
to inquiries and issues.

Successful: Retain and
expand to incorporate update
of existing BMR
Administrative Guidelines.

Update as H-A-3-a and
incorporate update of BMR
Administrative Guidelines
APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 E-3
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
H-A-3-c: Water and Sewer
Agency Coordination
Annually review water and sewer procedures
and priority for water and sewer service
allowances for developments with units
affordable to lower-income households.

Target: Upon Housing Element adoption; review
annually
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department and Public Works Department
Annual and Ongoing.

Priority policy included in
2020 UWMP.

Successful: Retain/update
and coordinate with UWMP
update in 2025
Add new policy re: Adequate
Water Supply and Sewer
Capacity. Update legal
requirements for delivery of
Housing Element to water/
sewer provider; add program to
work with EMID on water
conservation requirements.

H-A-3-d: Outreach to
Community Service Clubs
and Organizations
The City will contact community service clubs
and organizations to determine their interest
in establishing a volunteer labor-assistance
housing improvement program for
homeowners physically or financially unable to
maintain their properties.

Target: By 2015
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
2015. One-two cases were
referred and assisted by
service clubs.

Not successful/Remove but
retain H-A-2-b for referrals
with targets included and H-
B-2-b for rehab rebate
program for very low-income
owners.

Remove
H-A-4: Review Potential Environmental Impacts of New Housing. When a new housing development is proposed, perform a review of potential environmental impacts to ensure that the impacts on existing and prospective residents are considered.

H-A-4-a: Air Quality Impact When site-specific development is proposed and/or a Rezoning application is processed,
potential air quality impacts from project
traffic shall be studied, and mitigation
measures to ensure compliance with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
standards in effect at the time shall be
recommended if necessary.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. An Addendum
to a Final EIR was
prepared for Pilgrim
Triton Phase C to study
potential environmental
impacts.

Successful: Retain Retained as H-B-5-a.

H-A-4-b: Geotechnical
Studies
Prior to any residential or retail construction
on the project sites, geotechnical studies
would be required by the City unless a site-
specific study is already on file with the City.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. Geotechnical
studies are required as
part of project
environmental review and
prior to building permit.

Successful: Retain Retained as H-B-5-b.

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
E-4 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
H-A-4-c: Uniform Building
Code and Title 24
Buildings shall conform to the requirements of
the latest adopted edition of the California
Building Standards Code to reduce potential
seismic-related hazards.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. Building
permits are reviewed for
conformance with
adopted codes.

Successful: Retain Retain as H-B-5-c, renamed as
Seismic Hazards.

H-A-4-d: Site Consolidation When a site-specific development is proposed for a site that was previously used for
commercial or industrial uses, a Phase I and II
Site Investigation shall be conducted to
identify the extent of contamination and the
clean-up measures necessary to meet the
requirements of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. Site specific
studies were required as
part of the review of
Pilgrim Triton Phase C
prior to conversion to
residential use.

Successful: Retain Retain as H-B-5-d, renamed as
Environmental Site Assessment
H-A-4-e: NDPES
Requirements
All National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements will be met or
required as mitigation measures when
Rezoning applications are processed for the
subject sites.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. NPDES
requirements are met
through standard
conditions of approval.

Successful: Retain Retain as H-B-5-e.

H-A-4-f: Noise Studies Noise studies shall be undertaken for each site when a site-specific development is proposed
and/or a Rezoning application is processed.

These studies will identify needed mitigation
measures to reduce noise levels to an
acceptable level for residential uses of the sites
as identified in the Noise Element of the
Foster City General Plan.

Target: Ongoing
Ongoing. A noise study
was prepared for Pilgrim
Triton Phase C to mitigate
potential noise impacts.

Successful: Retain Retain as H-B-5-f.

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 E-5
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department.

H-A-4-g: Traffic Evaluation Traffic evaluations shall be completed when site-specific development is proposed and/or a
Rezoning application is processed. Each site-
specific evaluation will consider intersection
and freeway impacts, parking, transit, and
pedestrian/bicycle safety. If necessary,
mitigation measures to ensure compliance
with the Level of Service standards identified
in the City of Foster City General Plan shall be
incorporated in the project.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. An Addendum
to a Final EIR was
prepared for Pilgrim
Triton Phase C to study
potential environmental
impacts, including traffic.

Successful: Retain/update to
include CEQA language
regarding VMT.

Retain as H-B-5-g and add
requirement to evaluate VMT.

H-B Protect Existing Housing, Community Character, and Resources: Maintain the high quality of existing housing and community character and assure energy efficiency in new and existing housing.

H-B-1: Encourage Maintenance of Existing Housing. Encourage maintenance of the existing housing stock by enforcing zoning and property maintenance regulations, housing, and other codes for all types of residential units.

H-B-1-a: Continue Code
Enforcement
Continue the existing Zoning and Building
Code Enforcement and Property Maintenance
programs. In addition, continue the
mandatory fire code inspection program.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department; Fire Department
Ongoing. Between 2018-
2021, the Department has
handled between 752-
1044 code enforcement
cases per year, including
191-317 property
maintenance and 13-58
building without permit.

Successful: Retain Retain as H-B-1-a.

H-B-2: Encourage Rehabilitation of Existing Housing. Encourage rehabilitation, to the extent possible and when necessary, for low- and moderate-income homeowners and rental property owners with lower income tenants.

H-B-2-a: Rehabilitation Loans The City will encourage rehabilitation loan and disaster assistance programs to the extent
possible given program funding criteria and
local need.

Target: 20 new loans by 2023
Responsible Agency: San Mateo County
Housing Authority, San Mateo County
Department of Housing and Community
2023. No loans issued. Not successful. County no
longer has this program -
remove OR retain and find
new funding source and
administration capability
Retain as H-B-2-a to provide or
partner with a regional program
to provide loans to lower
income homeowners.

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
E-6 CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
Development and the Community Development
Agency
H-B-2-b: Facilitate Non-Profit
Rehabilitation and
Maintenance Assistance
The City will, if a source of funding can be
found, initiate a program to provide up to
$1,000 in funding for very low-income
households 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 and cleaning gutters.

To help the disabled and elderly maintain or
rehabilitate their homes the City will identify
possible non-profit organizations (such as
Rebuilding Together, churches, service clubs,
or Girl or Boy Scouts) that can provide
assistance and will provide information on the
City’s website and handouts at City Hall.

Target: 2016 and ongoing thereafter
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
2016 and Ongoing. No
source of funding was
found and therefore no
program established.

Rebuilding Together did
perform repairs for 9 low-
income ownership
households since 2015.

The City contributes
funding indirectly through
a CDBG Cooperation
Agreement with San
Mateo County.

Not successful. Retain/update
with funding.

Retained as H-B-2-b and
Increase funding amount to
$5,000.

H-B-3: Encourage Energy Conservation in Housing. Encourage adoption of energy conservation measures; promote energy conservation programs and City staff training that provide assistance for energy conservation improvements.

H-B-3-a: Energy Conservation
Assistance
Consider adopting measures for new
residential development and rehabilitation
projects to incorporate sustainable
construction and green building practices as
part of a Climate Action Plan or other
program.

Target: 2015
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
2015; Solar Rebate
Program adopted in 2016
to provide $1,000 rebate
for solar PV systems. 89
rebates provided between
2016-2022. Adopted new
CalGreen codes.

Successful but funding source
no longer available.

Incorporate assistance for
energy conservation into H-B-
2-a Lower-Income
Homeowner Rehabilitation
Loans.

Reference waiver of permit fees
for solar; include target in new
H-B-3-a Encourage Energy
Conservation and other
incentives included in
new/revised H-B-3-b and H-B-3-
c. Add H-B-3-d referencing
update of Climate Action Plan
in progress.

H-B-3-b: Increased Energy
Conservation
The City will continue to enforce CALGreen
Energy requirements, consider fee waivers and
fast-track incentives for energy conservation
improvements, and will review its
development ordinances to determine if
Ongoing; The City has
waived building permit
fees for photovoltaic solar
panels and has issued
between 43 and 104 solar
Successful: retain/update. Modify/expand to include
expedited permitting, partner
with regional agencies, and
implementation of Climate
Action Plan update in progress.

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HE POLICIES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 E-7
Housing Element Program
Name/Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements
Program Evaluation
and Recommendation Proposed Change
zoning, building, subdivision, and others
discourage the use of energy conservation
measures (placement of solar panels, energy
conserving architectural designs, building
orientation, etc.).

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
PV permits per year since
2016. The City issued 14
EV charging permits in
2020, 21 in 2021 and 24 in
2022.

H-B-4: Housing Design. Assure excellence in project design consistent with existing community character (architecture, site planning, and amenities).

H-B-4-a: Architectural
Review
Continue the City’s Architectural Review
requirements contained in Chapter 17.58 of
the Foster City Municipal Code to ensure that
development preserves the architectural
character and scale of the neighborhoods and
community and is well designed.

Target: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Department
Ongoing. Multi-family
objective design
standards are being
developed, to be
completed in 2023.

Successful; update to refer to
Objective Design Standards.

Modified H-B-4-a to reference
updating of Architectural and
Solar Guidelines for Single
Family Homes; Added H-D-6-e
to reference completion of
Multi-Family Objective Design
Standards.

Foster City City CouncilMarch 20, 2024

Foster City City Council
March 20, 2024