San Bruno City Council
January 24, 2023

Currently, there are no known mobile homes or manufactured residences in San Bruno. There are no mobile home parks. Pursuant to state law, any site that can be developed for site-built residential development is also available for the development of factory-built (manufactured) housing or for mobile homes. There are no specific restrictions upon the development of manufactured housing or mobile home parks within the code but they must comply with the Residential Design Guidelines if located within the R-1 or R-2 residential zones.

6. EMERGENCY SHELTER
The California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801[e]) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” In 2015, the City amended the Municipal Code to create an Emergency Shelter Overlay which permits emergency shelters by right in the M-1 district. The sites in the M-1 District have mainly light industrial, auto repair, manufacturing activities that are separated from established residential neighborhoods.

Catholic Worker Hospitality House operates the city’s only emergency homeless shelter on the grounds of St.

Bruno’s Catholic Church at 555 W. San Bruno Avenue. Every night they operate a year-round emergency homeless 791 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-15
shelter with space for up to nine guests. Guests usual stay from 2-3 weeks, but length of stay varies according to guest circumstances. In addition to operating a homeless shelter, five mornings a week they operate a free dining room for 70 - 80 guests. Guests can also use the shower, get food to go, and see about availability in their homeless shelter.

The City will annually review and amend as necessary the Municipal Code to ensure consistency with State Housing Government Code requirements and remove or lessen constraints on new housing development, and to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii). Furthermore, the City will adopt development standards for emergency shelters and ensure they are consistent with State law per California Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii).

7. LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS
Government Code section 65662 requires that the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers be developed as a use by right in zones where mixed-uses are allowed or in non-residential zones that permit multi-family housing.

For a navigation center to be considered “low barrier”, its operation should incorporate best practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may include, but is not limited to, the following:
 Permitting the presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth.
 Pets.
 Ability to store possessions.
 Providing privacy, such as private rooms or partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms with multiple beds.

A program has been included to comply with State Law allowing low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless by right in zones that allow for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses, per Government Code Section 65662.

8. SHORT-TERM RENTALS
In 2020, the City adopted a short-term rental ordinance to establish regulations governing the short-term rental of residential dwelling units in order to ensure proper regulation of their use. At that time, the City identified 222 short term rentals in the city. The daily average room rental rate was about $102, and the daily average house rental rate was $262. The highest concentration of existing short-term rentals was found near the downtown and near the Caltrain station. This area of the city is more attractive for short term rentals because it is more accessible to airport staff who often need places to sleep temporarily while working. The area is also attractive because of its proximity to major transit stops that provide access to San Francisco, thus serving as a more affordable option to staying in San Francisco. Though clearly short-term rentals remove housing from the housing stock, more research would be needed to determine if short-term rentals are having a major impact on housing supply in the city.

9. HOUSING FOR EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
AB 2634 requires the quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households. Extremely low-income households typically comprise persons with special housing needs, including, but not limited to, persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, persons with substance abuse problems, and farmworkers. Housing Elements must also identify zoning to encourage and facilitate supportive housing and single-room occupancy units. Currently, there are no single-room occupancy units in San Bruno and the 792 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-16
use is not explicitly mentioned in the code. A program has been included to assist with the development of singleroom occupancy units.

10. EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Consistent with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, employee housing is permitted by right in every residential zone, including single family zones. Currently, there are no known employee housing units in San Bruno and the use is not explicitly mentioned in the code. A program has been included to permit employee housing by right in residential districts.

11. BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT
The Building Department in conjunction with Code Enforcement is responsible for enforcing both state and City regulations governing maintenance of all buildings and property. The purpose of code enforcement of housing in need of rehabilitation is to ensure the safety of the City’s residents; without basic living standards being met, life and safety are threatened. The City does have a code enforcement division to address health and safety concerns in the community. The code enforcement division will respond to complaints and investigate violations to ensure compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Complaints can be submitted by a neighbor or other resident who is affected by the violation. Violations can be reported by calling the code enforcement division or by submitting a complaint form, which is available on the City’s website. The code enforcement division also helps educate property owners who are the subject of a violation how to reach compliance. A program has been included for the Community and Economic Development Department to regularly meet with the Code Enforcement Division to review housing violations.

12. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Generally, all projects undergo a development review process through the Planning Division to ensure compatibility and safety of development throughout San Bruno. Building and construction permits, and approvals reviewed by the Building Division are also required after planning entitlement is obtained. Table 3-4 summarizes the types of permits required for housing projects and typical processing time. Although residential uses are principally permitted uses, most new construction projects require an Architectural Review Permit at a minimum- a process that requires public hearing and approval by the Architectural Review Committee, a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. If the project is located within the Transit Corridors Plan Area, then the Design Guidelines contained in Chapter Five, Private Realm Development Standards and Design Guidelines, are used to evaluate project design. Although good design suggestions are provided in these guidelines, often the guidelines are perceived in an objective manner, which has led to additional review meetings and redesigns by applicants. Having comprehensive objective design guidelines for projects would reduce the design dialogue and expedite the development review process for multi-family housing.

Depending on the conformity of a project application with theCity’s applicable regulatory standards such as the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and the complexity of the development proposal, the time that is required from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Factors which can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include a rezoning or General Plan amendment requirement, public meetings required for community outreach, Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission or City Council review, or a required CEQA clearance, such as a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For a typical single-family (infill) addition or rebuild project, required planning review ranges from two to three months and building permit review requires three weeks for the first review. A large single-family residential subdivision requires 12 to 18 months for planning review, depending on the type of CEQA clearance required. Large multi-family projects generally require three to four months for planning review and up to four months for building review, in addition to time for CEQA review and engineering review as shown in Table 3-5. 793 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-17
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT
Housing Types

ZONING DISTRICTS
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C-B-D TOD-S TOD-1 TOD-2 MX-R
SF-Detached P P P P
SF-Attached P P P P
Duplex P P
3+ DU P P P P P P
Residential Care Facilities P P P P P P P P P
Mobile-Homes CUP CUP CUP CUP
Manufactured Homes P P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P
Boardinghouse CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Live/Work CUP P P P P
Multi-Family Homes CUP P P P P P P P
Source: City of San Bruno Planning, Zoning Code.

TABLE 3-5 TIMELINES FOR PERMIT PROCEDURES IN SAN BRUNO
Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time Approval Body Site Plan Review 3 - 4 weeks Planning staff
Architectural/Design Review (minor) 4 - 8 weeks Planning Staff Architectural/Design Review (major) 8 - 16 weeks Architectural Review Committee Conditional Use Permit 8 - 16 weeks Planning Commission Zone Change 12 - 24 weeks City Council
General Plan Amendment 12 - 24 weeks City Council
Subdivision Maps 12 - 24 weeks City Council
Final Subdivision Maps 4 - 6 weeks City Engineer/City Council Parcel Maps 8 - 12 weeks Planning Commission
Negative Declaration 7 - 12 months Planning Commission
Environmental Impact Report 10 - 18 months Planning Commission Source: City of San Bruno, Planning Division.

The length of San Bruno’s review process is comparable to other Bay Area cities, but improvements can be made to further expedite the review process. Table 3-6 below shows typical application combinations by type of residential project.
794 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-18
TABLE 3-6 TYPICAL SAN BRUNO PROCESSING PROCEDURES BY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TYPE Single-Family Unit Subdivision Multi-Family Units
Site Plan Review Site Plan Review Site Plan Review
Architectural Review Design Review Design Review
Tentative Map Initial Study
Final Map Negative Declaration / EIR
Initial Study
Negative Declaration / EIR
Approximately 12 weeks 8 months + CEQA processing time 6 months + CEQA processing time Source: City of San Bruno, Planning Division.

One way in which the City has expedited the review and approval of affordable housing projects in the past is through the adoption of the US Navy Site Specific Plan. The Specific Plan prescribed specific requirements, such as environmental review, design guidelines, and parking. Individual projects built within the Specific Plan area are processed more expeditiously. However, Specific Plans take a considerable amount of time to develop because they are regulated by state law and are a legislative act of the local jurisdiction.

The Transit Corridor’s Specific Plan (TCP) includes provisions to expedite certain projects within the TCP area.

Specifically, mixed-use residential projects are permitted uses under the corresponding zoning, so projects can be approved with one hearing before the Planning Commission after completing the pre-application review process. In addition, an environmental clearance under CEQA is typically evaluated as an infill project or specific plan consistency exemption.

While the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance bring uniformity and fairness to the regulation of the community’s housing stock, they do not adequately address many unique conditions that result from the city’s historic development patterns and great diversity. Therefore, the City developed and implemented Residential Design Guidelines in 2010 to assist the staff, Planning Commission, and City Council when considering exterior design of single-family and two-family residences in the city that require discretionary approval or a building permit. The design guidelines are intended to assist homeowners and builders in designing their projects with sensitivity to their neighbors and to communicate the community’s expectations regarding new residential construction. The guidelines address important planning and design issues that are not covered by the City’s primary regulatory documents, including enhancing the identity of residential neighborhoods, assuring compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods, controlling development of hillside lots, and encouraging the construction of Green Buildings. The purpose of the design guidelines is not to be cost prohibitive but to streamline the design review process by more clearly communicating community expectations to property owners and builders. All new singlefamily and two-family homes and additions thereto are subject to review for consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines. Residential additions that only require a building permit are subject to staff level design review. Singlefamily and two-family projects that require a discretionary permit from the City are reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee prior to entitlement. There are no objective design guidelines for multi-family projects in the city.

The TCP includes design guidelines, but they are not all objective in nature and subject to interpretation. Adopting objective design guidelines as part of the zoning code for large and small multi-family housing and mixed-use projects will improve and shorten the review process for these projects. Similar amendments can be made to the to the City’s current Residential Design Guidelines to include objective design guidelines for missing middle housing. 795 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-19

DENSITY BONUS
In 2021, the City updated its Density Bonus regulations for compliance with California Government Code Section 65915. Since adoption, the City has received three development applications (840 San Bruno Avenue, 732 – 740 El Camino Real, and 170 San Bruno Ave.) proposing a total of 596 units that sought to utilize the City’s density bonus provisions. The City anticipates receiving more density bonus applications in the future because the City requires a 15% affordable housing requirement, the minimum affordability requirement needed to exercise density bonus provisions. One unique provision of the City’s density bonus ordinance is the requirement for a base density study for projects in zoning districts that have unlimited density standards. This study requires applicants to provide schematic plans for a code complying project which then establishes the base density for the development site. The study has been confusing for applicants and has taken some time to do correctly.

SB330PROJECT REVIEW
The City’s permitting process is consistent with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Consistent with SB 330, applicants must request review pursuant to SB 330 by submitting an SB 330 preliminary application. If the submitted housing project complies with applicable General Plan and zoning standards, then it is subject only to the development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal. This applies to all housing projects unless the project square footage or unit count changes by more than 20% after the preliminary application is submitted.

SB35PROJECT REVIEW
The City processes SB 35 applications consistent with Senate Bill 35. In 2021, the City successfully processed and approved its first and only SB 35 project to date. The project, located at 732 – 740 El Camino Real, included a density bonus request and entitled 136 residential units. The City learned a lot in processing the application and will continue to refine the review process as appropriate to streamline the approval process. Most notably, the City will need to establish comprehensive objective design standards for eligible projects, as set forth under California Government Code Section 65913.4.

12. DEVELOPMENT FEES AND EXACTIONS
Local government development fees affect the cost of new housing. San Bruno has established fees for building permits and planning services for all residential developments which have traditionally been far lower than neighboring jurisdictions. In 2021 the City Council adopted a “cost recovery” fee structure based on a comprehensive permit fee nexus study. As shown in Table 3-10, entitlement review and building permit fees total approximately $58,209 for a single-family home, $72,148 for a multi-family unit in a small apartment complex, and $39,412 for a unit in a large apartment complex. These costs are estimates of potential building and planning fees, and do not include environmental review costs or the costs of providing new, or upgrading existing, infrastructure.

Planning related fees are listed in Tables 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9. Though the fees are reasonable, they increase the development cost of residential units. The City’s fees are a small portion of overall housing development costs. They are commensurate with nearby jurisdictions and therefore do not pose a unique constraint to development.

13. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All development in San Bruno is urban infill development on sites that are currently occupied or have been previously occupied by prior uses. Therefore, off-site improvements to serve the project are generally limited to project frontage sidewalk, curb improvements, landscape, utility infrastructure improvements to provide service to 796 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-20
development, and in some cases project intersection improvements to address public health and safety impacts of the project pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, and/or truck traffic.

For residential subdivisions, applicants are required to provide new public streets, sidewalks, and lighting up to city standards to be maintained by the project. Although new streets are private, they are required to grant public access easements and be maintained by the project. Several developers have proposed private rights-of-way that are narrower than city standards, with sidewalks only on one side of the street. These proposals have been approved by the City provided that adequate access is provided for fire safety. It does not appear that the off-site right-of-way improvements required for residential subdivisions are a constraint to housing development because of the flexibility provided.

San Bruno has aging water and wastewater infrastructure that needs replacement, which is most notable in the neighborhoods east of El Camino Real. The City’s CIP has focused on repairing the water and wastewater infrastructure in these neighborhoods but there is much more work to be done. All of the Housing Element housing opportunity sites are already served by utilities with existing infrastructure in place, but the infrastructure doesn’t always have the capacity for new multi-family development. To ensure water and wastewater infrastructure can accommodate the needs of a specific project, the City requires that project applications for new development be reviewed for adequate infrastructure. Utility improvements are evaluated at the project level to ensure the infrastructure exists to service new developments. Needed off-site water and wastewater infrastructure improvements are often a major constraint for new development, requiring tens of thousands of dollars in infrastructure upgrades.

The location of the City’s capital improvements doesn’t always match the project where it is immediately needed. A program has been added to improve staff coordination to assist in prioritizing water and wastewater infrastructure improvements where it benefits residential development the most.

BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
The City of San Bruno has adopted and administers the California Building Standards Code. The City’s building permit review process ensures project compliance with State of California plumbing, electrical, mechanical, building, and other building code requirements. For large residential subdivisions, the construction permit plan check usually involves the review on the model homes for each discrete floor plan. This review process is typically completed in less than five weeks. The amount of time between the completion of the review and the issuance of a Building Permit is determined by the speed at which the applicant is able to make any necessary corrections to the Construction Drawings and resubmit for approval.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND IN-LIEU FEE
San Bruno’s Affordable Housing Program, which was amended in March 2021, requires new residential developments of five or more units to provide a minimum of 15% of total units at below market rates to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. For ownership housing, 10% of units must be affordable to moderateincome households and 5% of the units must be affordable to low-income households. For rental housing, 5% of the units must be affordable to very low-income households, 5% of the units must be affordable to low-income households, and 5% of the units must be affordable to moderate-income households. The Ordinance requires that affordable units are comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance, and overall quality of construction to market rate units in the same project. Affordable units must be provided on-site unless an alternative is approved by Council, which includes an affordable housing impact fee. All affordable housing units are deed restricted for 55 years for rental units and 45 years for for-sale units. Council has made it clear they would prefer all affordable housing units to be provided on-site, therefore, all residential projects, regardless of density, will be required to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA.
797 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-21
The ordinance requires construction of the affordable units; however, the City Council may approve payment of an
affordable housing in-lieu fee. All of the City’s pipeline housing projects include on-site below market-rate units. In addition, the City adopted commercial linkage fees in 2019 for all
nonresidential development projects. All in-lieu fees and linkage fees are adjusted annually and are contributed to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Trust Fund. To date, developers have paid fees totaling approximately $3.9 million instead of building the required affordable units.

There has been extensive debate over the question of who bears the cost of an inclusionary requirement. Depending on the relative strength of the housing market, the costs may be incurred by:
 Landowners, who may receive a lower price for their land if developers are expecting a lower profit margin from the inclusionary requirement;
 Developers, who may have to accept lower profits if housing prices cannot be raised; or  Purchasers of market-rate units, who may have to pay higher housing prices if the local and regional housing supply is limited and prices are at least as high in areas outside the city.

The fact that landowners, developers, and/or purchasers of market-rate units may incur a portion of the cost of providing affordable units may be construed as a constraint to the overall development of housing in San Bruno.

However, the ordinance offers flexibility that could lessen the economic impact of providing affordable units. The City Council may approve alternatives to the construction of new inclusionary units where the proposed alternative supports specific housing element policies and goals and assists the City in meeting its state housing requirements.

Alternatives may include, but are not limited to:
 Construction of affordable units off-site;
 Acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units;
 Conversion of existing market units to affordable units;  Dedication of land to the City suitable for the construction of affordable units; and  Construction of affordable second dwelling units.

IMPACTS ON TIMING,COST,AND SUPPLY OF HOUSING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM During the development of the affordable housing linkage fee, San Bruno retained an economic consultant to calculate reasonable in-lieu fees for new residential rental and ownership developments. This analysis included an assessment of impacts of the proposed in-lieu fees on the feasibility of residential projects and compared the parameters of San Bruno’s Affordable Housing Program to inclusionary requirements in neighboring jurisdictions.

The analysis concluded that while San Bruno’s ordinance would make development projects in the city somewhat less profitable than the status quo, the requirements would be within the range of practices in neighboring jurisdictions. In practice, the Affordable Housing Program is a reliable mechanism for creating affordable housing units. The City has been able to negotiate more affordable housing units (greater than 15%) and more units at the low or very low-income categories for some projects as a community benefit when a housing entitlement is accompanied by an unusual request (e.g., Mills Park, Glenview Terrace, 111 San Bruno Avenue).

TABLE 3-7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING LINKAGE FEE
Unit Type
Fee
(per sq ft)
Single-Family $35.10
Condominium (per sq ft) $32.50
Apartment (per sq ft) $32.50
Office (per sq ft) $16.25
Retail (per sq ft) $8.12
Hotel (per sq ft) $16.25
Source: City of San Bruno, Master Fee Schedule, 2022
798 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-22
Since this ordinance has been in place, most multi-family residential projects submitted to the City have included a density bonus request which adds units to the project (often more affordable units) which serves to make projects economically viable.

FEES FOR PROJECT ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS
The development fees for projects requiring entitlement applications, as contained in Table 3-8, are not a constraint to housing development. Residential uses are permitted by the General Plan on all the city’s identified housing opportunity sites, except for the Tanforan mall site. Most of the opportunity sites identified in this Housing Element would not require higher application fees associated with a General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendment or from Planned Development permits.

TABLE 3-8 OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEES, PROJECTS REQUIRING ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION (2022) Application Fee ($)
Architectural Review – Single Family Residential $2,594 Architectural Review - Multi-Family Residential Deposit* Use Permit – Single Family Residential $2,992
Pre-Application Consultation Review Deposit*
Transit Corridors Plan Pre-Application Review Deposit*
Use Permit – Multi-Family Residential Deposit*
Development Agreement Deposit*
General Plan Amendment Deposit*
Minor Modification $1,287.50
Parking Compliance Deposit*
Planned Development Permit Deposit*
Planned Unit Permit Deposit*
Variance – Single Family Residential $3,175
Variance – Multi-Family Residential Deposit*
Zoning Amendment Deposit*
SB 330 Application Deposit*
SB 35 Application Deposit*
Density Bonus Application Deposit*
Mitigated Negative Declaration Deposit*
Environmental Impact Report Deposit*
Expanded Categorical Exemption Deposit*
* This type of application requires a deposit whereby the applicant is responsible for the actual cost of staff and consultant time.

Source: City of San Bruno Community and Economic Development Department, 2022.

Typical deposits range from $8,000 to $75,000 with the exact amount set by staff based on review of similar housing projects in the past. The typical deposit for a multi-family TOD project would be closer to the $75,000 threshold and would cover environmental review and engineering studies in addition to the typical staff review. All entitlement fees are listed on the City’s website in the Master Fee Schedule. 799 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-23
A typical new single-family house would require a public meeting for Use Permit review ($2,992) for development on an infill lot. This process includes a separate public meeting by the Architectural Review Committee for design review for no additional fee. Additional application fees would be required if the project is seeking a relief from development standard(s). A categorical exemption would be issued to address CEQA. The applicant can apply for a building permit once the entitlement is secured. The City’s development impact fees ($29,454.53) are due prior to building permit issuance. The balance of fees ($25,762.47) are attributable building permit fees, school fees, and utility connection fees. The entitlement review fees are substantially more for multi-family projects, but the cost is spread out over a larger number of units. Larger multi-family projects generally require pre-application review ($15,000 deposit). Once the pre-application process has been completed, multi-family projects generally require Architectural Review ($50,000 deposit), which covers the cost for environmental review and engineering studies, and all staff review. The amount of deposit would increase with the level of project complexity. All deposits are established to cover actual staff and consultant time spent reviewing the project. Leftover deposit funds are returned to the applicant.

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
In 2019, the City prepared a nexus study and adopted a citywide Development Impact Fee (DIF) ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to impose fees upon development projects that fully or partially offset the costs of public facilities that are needed to serve demand created by that development project. The amount of fees does not include the costs attributable to demand generated by existing development. The DIF represents a fair share contribution to a specific list of public infrastructure improvements, park improvements, public safety facility improvements, transportation, and general government necessary to support projected growth in the city. Fee payment is due at building permit issuance for all development. Table 3-9 lists the citywide Development Fee structure which can also be found on the city’s website in the Master Fee Schedule.

TABLE 3-9 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY2022 - 2023
Land Use Community Public Safety
General
Government Transportation Utilities Total
Single-Family (per unit) $19,128.33 $1,420.38 $2,010.06 $4,183.92 $2,751.84 $29,454.53 Multi Family (per unit) $17,957.16 $1,419.21 $1,886.04 $3,237.39 $2,583.36 $27,083.16 Source: City of San Bruno, Master Fee Schedule, 2022.

COMPARISON TO OTHER SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
According to the survey conducted by San Mateo County through its 21 Elements process, total fees for singlefamily housing vary significantly by jurisdiction from $15,941 to $104,241 (see Table 3-10). Total fees for small and large multi-family housing developments also vary between jurisdictions. In this context, San Bruno’s fees associated with multi-family residential development are within the range of jurisdictions in the county and thus would not be considered a barrier to housing development.
800 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-24
TABLE 3-10 SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS TOTAL FEES (2022) 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: Fees survey conducted by 21 Elements (2022).

14. PERMITTING TIMES
San Bruno entitled many more residential projects in the last planning cycle than received building permits. Despite approvals issued by the city, in some cases years ago, projects in the TCP have not taken shape. The only project built in the specific plan area is the 83 multi-family units at 406 – 418 San Mateo Ave. Some of the reasons projects have failed to move forward is based on circumstances outside the city’s control. But it is unclear why other projects have failed to move forward. Anecdotally, projects that have been submitted by experienced developers have tended to move forward with building permit submittal and through to project completion. A number of projects by smaller developers have been put up for sale after entitlement. The City might benefit from having a more in-depth conversation with developers to gain a better understanding of the roadblocks that prevent them from proceeding with their project after entitlement. A program has been added for the City to start this outreach.

15. INFRASTRUCTURE

THE NETWORK
As a built-out community, San Bruno’s infrastructure network has been extended to virtually every corner of the city.

All the housing opportunity sites proposed in this Housing Element are on existing developed property connected or adjacent to all city services. Redevelopment of these infill sites may require infrastructure improvements by the City or the developer to upgrade aging infrastructure or to increase capacity. Developers are required to upgrade infrastructure to service their projects. The provision of on-site improvements, such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, utility undergrounding, drainage, water, and sewer infrastructure, are standard conditions of development approval and have not been barriers to affordable housing development in the past. If off-site infrastructure improvements are required, these are the responsibility of the developer if the upgrade is not currently 801 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-25
in the Capital Improvement Program. Infrastructure costs are not incorporated into the total residential development project costs discussed under Market Constraints below.

WATER SUPPLY
Water supplied through the city’s water system is a combination of purchased water and groundwater pumped from the city’s groundwater supply wells. The City purchases its treated surface water from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). According to the San Bruno Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (2021), the city receives water from two major supply sources: wholesale surface water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System and local groundwater from the Westside Basin. San Bruno has historically used SFPUC regional water supplies to meet demands that could not otherwise be met through local groundwater production.

The city’s Public Works Department (Water Division) owns, operates, and maintains the potable water distribution system that serves drinking water to users within its water service area. The City currently (2020) serves a population of approximately 45,300 and anticipates population growth and future planned development in its water service area.

Future service area population is based on projections provided in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040. The city’s 2045 population is projected to be approximately 56,800.

Identified developments are projected to increase water demand by approximately 1.1 million gallons per day (mgd).

Most demand from identified developments are in the Transit Corridors Plan area (0.42 mgd) and the Bayhill Specific Plan area (0.52 mgd). Also included in the projected buildout demand is an additional 0.55 mgd of water demand from unidentified future development to account for additional growth that could potentially occur by 2040 (e.g., ADUs and additional units created by density bonuses). Therefore, an additional 0.55 mgd of future demands was allocated to Zone 1 to 4 to accommodate future development in the TCP. Table 3-11shows that the total projected city water demand at buildout of 4.78 mgd. This is consistent with the 2040 demand projection presented in the city’s 2020 UWMP. As such, water supply is not expected to be a constraint to future housing development.

TABLE 3-11 SAN BRUNO WATER DEMAND COMPARISON
Urban Water Management Plan (2021)
UWMP 2021 Population Estimate 45,257
UWMP 2021 Total Water Demand Estimate (mgd) 4.23
UWMP 2021 Total Water Demand Estimate (mgd) at 2040 Buildout 4.78 UWMP 2021 Avg. Residential Consumption per Capita 2.22
Source: City of San Bruno Urban Water Master Plan (December 2021).

WASTEWATERTREATMENT
The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 150 miles of pipeline and seven lift stations. Currently, 2.8 mgd of effluent goes to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (SSF/SB WQCP) treatment plant that the City of San Bruno owns jointly with the City of South San Francisco. The treatment plant is nearly 50 years old but has been updated several times to provide primary and secondary treatment. Its most recent upgrade project was completed in 2001. The facility expansion allows a dry-weather capacity of 13 mgd and a wet-weather capacity of approximately 62 mgd. San Bruno is entitled to 0.5 mgd of the additional 4.0 mgd capacity, and currently utilizes about 30% of the plant’s total capacity. There is no formal agreement as to the proportion of water treatment capacity entitled to each city.
802 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-26
Most of San Bruno’s sewer collection system was installed 30 to 80 years ago, its age reflecting the decades of the city’s most rapid growth. It contains large sections of aging pipe that will require upgrading and/or replacement. The gravity-flow lines were constructed primarily with vitrified clay pipe, a material that tends to crack with age. Small sections of Orangeburg (an inferior substitute cardboard-based material used during wartime) pipe installed during the 1940s still exist.

Buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase of approximately 105,400 gpd of wastewater created.

Together with existing and pending flows, the city’s 2025 flows are projected at 3.1 mgd of wastewater, which is still only a third of plant dry season capacity. Wastewater treatment is therefore not expected to be a constraint to housing development during this RHNA cycle.

PRIORITY FOR WATER AND SEWER
Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted Housing Element, a local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the element to area water and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. Chapter 727 was enacted to improve the effectiveness of the law in facilitating housing development for lower-income families and workers.

To comply with SB 1087, upon adoption, this Housing Element will be forwarded to the city’s Public Works Department – Water Division, so it can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower income households.

DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities, including electricity and telephone service, are available to all areas within the city. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides gas and electrical service to the city and can provide this service to the anticipated housing units. The City provides its own cable and internet service to most neighborhoods. Those areas not served by city cable and internet are serviced by AT&T.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
San Bruno has been diverting at least 50% of solid waste from landfill since 2000. Materials that are not recycled are transported to the 173-acre Ox Mountain facility, a Class III (non-hazardous) facility managed by San Mateo County and serving other jurisdictions as well. The county anticipates the landfill to reach capacity in 2034. San Bruno does not anticipate RHNA housing development to be constrained by solid waste disposal capacity.

16. BUILDING CODE AND ENFORCEMENT
The City has adopted the most current California Building, Building Conservation, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire codes and the California Energy Efficiency Standards as the basis of its building standards. The City has also adopted the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Permits are required for all electrical and plumbing work and other major home improvements and modifications. San Bruno has several requirements in addition to the standard California Codes. These include:
 Complete removal of old roof materials required before replacement.  Minimum roof quality required is Class B.
 Addition of sprinklers required in the rehabilitation of any building over 7,500 square feet. 803 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-27
 Noise insulation required for residential structures within the 65 dB community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or greater (necessary to meet Federal Aviation Administration standards).

In general, the city’s building codes represent basic construction standards within the State of California and thus do not place an undue burden on the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The one exception to this may be the noise insulation requirement. However, noise insulation is federally required in areas where noise levels meet or exceed 65 dB CNEL.

It may be costly to rehabilitate or remodel older buildings that were constructed under less stringent building codes.

San Mateo County offers a loan program enabling owners of such buildings to achieve contemporary building standards, yet still maintain affordability.

The City will be considering the adoption of reach codes and an EV charging station ordinance in late 2022 that will likely include requirements for all electric construction for new residential projects.

17. HOMEOWNERSHIP FINANCING
Home ownership can be constrained by mortgage interest rates, loans, and homeowners’ insurance. Interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions. The Federal government has raised interest rates sharply since Q2/2022 in an effort to curb inflation. As a result, mortgage interest rates in the San Francisco Bay Area are averaging 7.24% for a 30-year fixed loan, 6.43% for a 15-year fixed loan, and 6.63% for a 5-year ARM according to Realtor.com. By contrast, in August 2021, mortgage interest rates for new home purchases were approximately

2.875% for a fixed-rate 30-year loan (wellsfargo.com). The sharp rise in mortgage interest rates has led to more households being priced out of the housing market. First-time homebuyers and households of color are the groups most impacted by increased mortgage rates. High housing prices and rising mortgage rates has made homeownership unaffordable for lower-, moderate-, and many above moderate-income households in San Bruno who generally experience more difficulty saving enough money for the down payment required to buy a home. As more households get priced out of the homeownership market, more pressure will be placed on the rental market and some households will choose to leave the region altogether in search of more affordable housing options.

18. BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Building affordable housing is just as costly as building market-rate housing in California, if not more expensive in some cases. LIHTC data show that altogether, these cost drivers led the total development costs for affordable housing to reach $480,000/unit and $700/square foot across California in 2019. Affordable housing projects are subject to the same trends and volatility in construction costs, which often account for more than 60% of a project’s costs. Rising costs have been particularly pronounced in the Bay Area, where the average total development cost was closer to $600,000/unit as of 2020. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle estimated it cost almost $1.2 million per unit on the high end to build an affordable unit in San Francisco. In the 10-year period between 2008 and 2018, hard costs increased 119% in the Bay Area compared to 25% statewide when accounting for inflation.

Materials and labor are two of the primary drivers of these increases due to shortages in both markets. Material costs—particularly in wood, insulation, roofing, and appliances—have escalated in recent years due to COVID-19, climate change, global trade patterns and federal macroeconomic policy decisions. The labor market in the Bay Area has also tightened, as the high cost of living has led some to relocate outside the Bay Area, resulting in increased transportation costs, a general shortage of labor, fewer specialists in the multi-family sector, and substantially higher wages overall.

Beyond construction costs, local development fees, long entitlement processes, parking requirements, and heightened design scrutiny can contribute to inflated hard and soft costs. State and local regulations and requirements may aim to achieve important policy goals, but also load up projects with considerable costs. For example, 60% of LIHTC projects between 2008 and 2019 were subject to prevailing wage requirements, which led to projects that were 10% 804 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-28
and 35% more expensive than non-prevailing wage projects, depending on location. Moreover, while “deep affordability” in income targeting (targeting extremely low- and very low-income households) has become more of a public policy priority, the fact is that costs of new construction do not change under this scenario, requiring an even greater subsidy from public sources to offset the financing gap created by the lower rents. With less income available to a project and escalating development costs, the puzzle of securing project financing becomes increasingly challenging.

19. FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The enactment of ABx1 26 dissolved all redevelopment agencies in California on February 1, 2012 and created successor agencies to wind down their operations. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing (LMIH) tax increment generated from the San Bruno Redevelopment Project Area was the city’s main source of funding for affordable housing. San Bruno had one Redevelopment Project Area, which was established in July 1999. During its 13 years of operation, the Redevelopment Agency facilitated the development of 97 units of affordable to very low-income households. The City monitors new state legislation that may restore some state funding for affordable housing but does not have dedicated staff to carry out the mission of the former Redevelopment Agency.

B. FUNDING SOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable housing projects usually require multiple subsidy sources to close the funding gap between the cost to develop and the size of the mortgage based on affordable rents. As a result, the process of assembling financing for affordable housing development is lengthy, challenging and expensive, involving multiple competitive applications (and their respective deadlines) and negotiations with lenders, investors, and other funding partners. Affordable housing projects typically take 4-6 years to complete, from the initial identification of a site, partner or funding opportunity, through the process to assemble funding, get local approvals, work with the community, design and construct the building, to leasing the building to residents.

1. FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING This section describes several federal, state, and local housing programs that provide funding for predevelopment, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, conversion and preservation. Also included is funding that provides financial assistance to very-low, low and moderate-income households for monthly housing costs, home rehabilitation, and down payment assistance.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The U.S. Department of Housing manages and disburses federal resources like the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Section 8 Rental Voucher Programs. CDBG and HOME funds are invested in a wide spectrum of housing and community development activities, including the creation of affordable housing units. ESG funds are used solely to support the operations of homeless facilities, rapid rehousing services, and ancillary services.

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, was signed into law and provided supplemental funding to states and local governments through Community Development Block Grants Coronavirus (CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions Grants Coronavirus (ESG-CV), and other funding programs. In 2021, the Federal American Rescue Plan (ARP) appropriated $5 billion to help communities provide housing, shelter, and services for people experiencing homelessness and other qualifying populations. HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program – American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) funding 805 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-29
gave jurisdictions like San Mateo County significant new resources to address homeless assistance needs by creating affordable housing or non-congregate shelter units and providing tenant-based rental assistance or supportive services.

While the County is a pass-through agency that administers the above listed resources, some federal funds are accessed directly by developers for specific projects such as the HUD 202, HUD 811, the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program, and the Federal Low-Income Tax Credit program.  Tax Credit Equity: The biggest affordable housing program in the country is run by the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which offers a credit against federal income taxes in exchange for investments in affordable housing. States, including California, also offer a state housing tax credit. Corporations or banks with federal tax liability put upfront cash into a project in return for 10 years of credits against their taxes. This program can fund about 30-70% of a project’s development costs. In California the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) is responsible for allocating federal and state tax credits to projects.  Tax-Exempt Bonds: Affordable housing projects can be financed in part by the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, which provide funds in the form of a loan to the project, resulting in less expensive debt and larger loans for projects. A local government agency usually acts as the bond issuer. In California, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) is responsible for granting the ability to issue these bonds.  Loans and Grants from the Federal Government: The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides block grants (HOME, CDBG and others) that are distributed to states, counties and cities to support affordable housing and community development. HUD was once the primary funder for the development and subsequent redevelopment of public housing. However, in recent years, HUD funds have generally only been a minor source of funding for affordable housing.

Federal Programs include:
 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): HUD awards CDBG grants to jurisdictions through a statutory formula based on estimated need. CDBG funds can be used to assist extremely low- to moderateincome persons through housing acquisition, rehabilitation of housing, provision of housing and public services, improvement of community facilities, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and similar activities.

In San Mateo County, CDBG funds are split between community development and housing development programs. The County’s CDBG funding has slightly decreased or plateaued over the last five years, and it is anticipated that the CDBG grant will remain at the current level or decrease further. Given the limited amount of CDBG and other HUD funding received by the County, the County currently targets these funds primarily to very low- and extremely low-income and special needs households.  HOME: The HOME Program is a federal grant to participating jurisdictions from which funds are directed to housing programs assisting persons earning 60% of median income or less. HOME Program funds can be used for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition and rehabilitation of both single family and multifamily housing projects.  Section 8 Rental Assistance Program: The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program, also known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) is administered by the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM) and is targeted to very low-income individuals and families, including seniors, formerly homeless, and persons with disabilities. Funded by HUD, the HCV Program is the major program for assisting eligible lowincome families to rent decent, safe, and sanitary privately-owned housing. Under the HCV program, eligible families may rent private market units from willing owners whose units meet Housing Quality Standards (HQS) set by HUD. After a contract is executed between the owner and the Housing Authority, the family pays its portion of the rent to the owner. The tenant rent is based on the family’s income, generally 30% to 40% of its monthly adjusted income. The balance of the rent is paid to the owner by HACSM. The HCV program delivers many benefits to the County of San Mateo. First and foremost, it enhances the quality of life for families who 806 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-30
may otherwise find it difficult to live in one of the highest rent areas in the nation. It plays a critical role in expanding the supply of affordable housing in all San Mateo County neighborhoods.

PRO GRAM A D V A N T A G ES
 On-Time Payments. The Housing Choices Voucher Program offers real estate investors guarantees and safeguards unmatched by the private sector rental market. The government pays on-time, every time. It arrives in the mail the first of the month every month. This alone may outweigh all negatives from the perspective of a landlord.
 Longer Contracts. The program lease agreements are typically 1-year and sometimes 2-year contracts. Although the tenant can attempt to break the lease and move, tenants must first locate the new property and go through the entire approval process again. The general rule is that if the investor keeps up the property, tenants tend to stay the length of the contract and often will renew to avoid having to go through placement again.  Tenants. Most tenants must meet certain requirements to qualify for vouchers and could lose their voucher if they breach their obligations as a tenant.

PRO GRAM D IS A D V A N T A G E S
 Difficulty of Move-In: There is a lengthy process of paperwork and inspections before a tenant can move in and use the program.
 Wear and Tear: Most program tenants have large families and limited work, which means they are at home more often than a working family with fewer children. As a result, the property experiences more wear and tear.  Project-based Section 8: Housing authorities can allocate Section 8 or Housing Choice Vouchers to projects, rather than to individual households. This can be an important source of stable rental revenue for affordable housing developments. Furthermore, these projects can borrow against that anticipated income, increasing the amount of upfront capital available during the development process.  Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is the most important resource for creating affordable housing in the United States today. Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program gives State and local LIHTC-allocating agencies the equivalent of approximately $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower-income households.

The federal government issues tax credits to state and territorial governments. State housing agencies then award the credits to private developers of affordable rental housing projects through a competitive process. Developers generally sell the credits to private investors to obtain funding. Once the housing project is placed in service (essentially, made available to tenants), investors can claim the LIHTC over a 10-year period.

STATE PROGRAMS
The State of California has been a longtime major funder of affordable housing through the Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP), which is primarily supported by periodic statewide housing bonds. In recent years, several other major state programs have been key funding sources for transit-oriented development, infill development, housing for veterans, housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, housing for people with mental health challenges, and other groups of people with special needs. These programs, primarily administered by HCD, have been a critical source of gap financing, as the loans are of significant size, but they can only fund a limited number of projects and are often very competitive. State Programs include:
 Multi-family Housing Program (MHP): This State HCD program assists the new construction, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable rental housing for lower income households. MHP funds are currently available 807 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-31
through the Multi-family Finance Super NOFA released in March 2022. However, as these funds are authorized from the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 (Proposition 1), they will most likely be fully exhausted with this next round of NOFA funds. It is unknown if future funds will continue to be available through this program beyond 2022.
 Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG): This State HCD program provides funds for capital improvement projects that are an integral part of, or necessary to facilitate the development of an affordable residential/mixeduse infill development. Infill projects can include new construction, acquisition, and substantial rehabilitation of an affordable resident development. IIG funds are currently available through the Multi-family Finance Super NOFA released in March 2022.
 Veterans Housing and Homelessness Preventions Program (VHHP): This State program assists the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable multi-family housing for veterans and their families to allow veterans to access and maintain housing stability. VHHP funds are currently available through the Multi-family Finance Super NOFA released in March 2022.  Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant (FWHG) Program: This State program finances the new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of owner-occupied and rental units for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower-income households. FWHG funding for rental units is currently available through a NOFA released in March 2022 and FWHG funding for owner-occupied units will be available through a NOFA released in late 2022.
 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC): This State program makes grants and affordable housing loans available for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions through ongoing cap and trade revenues. AHSC encourages compact, infill development with active transportation and transit use.

Affordable housing developments that qualify may be new construction or acquisition/substantial rehabilitation projects, including preservation of affordable housing at-risk of conversion. The State anticipates releasing a NOFA in late 2022.
 State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (State LIHTC): State tax credits allow federal 4% tax credits to stretch further, resulting in more homes affordable to lower-income households, including people experiencing homelessness. Currently, affordable housing projects are eligible for state tax credits if they are in designated areas (Qualified Census Tract or Difficult Development Areas) and qualify for a Special Needs housing type.  Tax-Exempt Bond Financing: Many affordable developments also use tax-exempt bond financing provided by the state (CalHFA), as well as other public agencies such as cities and counties. These entities originate loans with attractive interest rates compared to conventional financing. Federal law allows state and local governments to issue a defined amount of tax-exempt “private activity” bonds each year in order to facilitate private development, including the development of affordable housing. The California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) within the State Treasurer’s Office allocates this private activity bond authority in California. The primary beneficiary is affordable rental housing. Tax-exempt bonds lower the interest rate that developers pay on their mortgages. Projects that receive tax-exempt bond funds also automatically receive federal 4% low-income housing tax credits. Due to the oversubscription of tax-exempt bond financing, the bonds are now administered by CDLAC via a competitive application process.  California Housing Accelerator Program (CHAP): In 2021, a $1.75 billion investment was made to provide bridge funding to shovel-ready projects that were otherwise unable to begin construction because of a shortage of federal tax credits and bonds. The State awarded half of the funding through its first round and released a second round of funds in March 2022. It is unknown if future funds will continue to be available through this program beyond 2022 without additional resources approved for the program.  CalHFA: Established in 1975, CalHFA is an independent California state agency within the California Department of Housing and Community Development that makes low-rate housing loans through the sale of taxable and tax exempt bonds. CalHFA provides housing assistance in two main areas: below-market interest 808 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-32
rate mortgages and down payment assistance for low- and moderate-income, first-time homebuyers, many of whom are ethnic minorities not well-served by market rate products and loans for the development and preservation of affordable multi-family rental housing.

LOCAL PROGRAMS
 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA): In September 2017, the California Legislature approved Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act (Act), which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable housing. The Act establishes the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The PLHA provides a permanent source of funding to cities and counties to help meet the unmet need for affordable housing and increase the supply of affordable housing units.

Pursuant to PLHA funding requirements, jurisdictions seeking funds must submit a PLHA plan outlining how the jurisdiction intends to use the funds on eligible activities over the course of five years, how the local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60% of AMI, and how the plan relates to the local jurisdiction’s Housing Element. The plan is meant to guide the City and County in developing collaborative projects to achieve our housing goals.  CALHome: Provides grants to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist individual first-time homebuyers through deferred-payment loans for down payment assistance, home rehabilitation, including manufactured homes not on permanent foundations, acquisition and rehabilitation, homebuyer counseling, selfhelp mortgage assistance, or technical assistance for self-help homeownership. All funds to individual homeowners will be in the form of loans. Direct, forgivable loans are provided to assist development projects involving multiple ownership units, including single-family subdivisions, loans for real property acquisition, site development, predevelopment, construction period expenses of homeownership development projects, or permanent financing for mutual housing and cooperative developments. Project loans to developers may be forgiven as the loans convert into deferred payment loans to individual homeowners. Assistance to individual households will be in the form of deferred-payment loans payable on sale or transfer of the homes, when they cease to be owner occupied, or at maturity.
 Loans and Grants from Regional Government: Until now, MTC and ABAG have had a somewhat limited role in funding affordable housing. The Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund (TOAH) was one exception.

However, in 2019, state legislation created the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), which intends to put a revenue measure on the ballot to fund affordable housing across the Bay Area. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the decision to delay a planned November 2020 ballot measure.  Loans and Grants from Local Government: Local government also provides important gap funding to affordable housing. Sources include housing bonds issued primarily at the county level, sales tax measures, inclusionary in-lieu fees paid by market-rate development and jobs-housing linkage fees that new commercial development may pay. Other taxes are being explored by local jurisdictions. The end of this section includes more on county funding.
 Local Programs include:
 Affordable Housing Program: see discussion above.
 Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF): see discussion above.
 Private Loans and Grants: Community-minded banks, community development financial institutions (CDFIs), philanthropy and other private sources are a potential source of funding for affordable housing. In recent years, technology companies based in the Bay Area have been particularly encouraged to participate in solutions to the region’s housing crisis and have made commitments to support affordable housing through both loans and grants.
809 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-33
 Private For-Profit and Nonprofit Sources include:
 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
 Private Developers
 Non-Profit Agencies
 Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART)
 San Mateo County: As a small city, San Bruno has limited resources for implementing housing programs and participates in several State and Federal programs through the San Mateo Department of Housing, a key affordable housing partner for cities in San Mateo County. The County of San Mateo Department of Housing includes both Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM). The department issues two annual Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs)—a HUD program NOFA in the winter and one local funding NOFA in the summer. The county’s local funds NOFA (the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) is the larger of the two NOFAs and makes funds available from several state and county sources, including Measure K, the county’s 2016 ½ -cent sales tax measure, for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Cities should reach out to the county early and often to understand whether the AHF, housing authority vouchers, or other county resources may be appropriate for affordable housing projects in their jurisdictions. The HUD programs NOFA and the AHF NOFA are regularly oversubscribed. As a result, the county has developed funding priorities to inform the selection of projects to fund through its NOFAs.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Environmental factors such as topography, soils, seismic hazards, noise, and storm flooding are constraints to housing development in the city. In some cases, development is entirely precluded due to human health and safety risks or environmental sensitivity. In other cases, environmental constraints can be mitigated through appropriate residential design. None of these environmental constraints disproportionately impact affordable housing, and policies are provided in the San Bruno 2025 General Plan to specifically address each of these areas in the context of all potential types of development. The General Plan provides maps of floodplains, wildfire hazards, geologic hazards, and other natural resource constraints to development throughout the city. None of the housing opportunity sites fall in a flood or wildfire hazard zone, and none of the sites were found to contain special status wildlife species or their habitat. Redevelopment of these corridors as mixed-use and transit-oriented development was analyzed at a programmatic level in the EIR on the General Plan Update. A summary of pertinent findings is included below.

1. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Geologic hazards, including landslides, mudslides, and erosion, can be related to seismic activity but can also occur independently. The potential for future landslides is low east of Interstate 280 and west of Skyline Boulevard and is low to moderate (with some pockets of high potential) in the Crestmoor and Rollingwood/Monte Verde neighborhoods. Areas of the highest potential for landslides are in Junipero Serra County Park and along the Park’s eastern edge.

The active San Andreas Fault runs in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction through western San Bruno, roughly along Skyline Boulevard. Two inactive faults—Serra and San Bruno—are also present in the western and eastern portions of the city. Because of its active status, surface rupture potential is considered moderate to high along the San Andreas Fault and in western San Bruno. A strong earthquake along the fault could result in moderate to severe damage of nearby structures. Soils and subsurface materials east of Skyline Boulevard have good earthquake stability.

Soils in the vicinity of Pacific Heights, Skyline College, and parts of the Crestmoor neighborhood have poor to good earthquake stability. Eastern portions of the city that are located on filled marsh lands may experience damage from soil liquefaction in the event of an earthquake.
810 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-34
The San Andreas Fault Special Studies Zone runs roughly along either side of Skyline Boulevard. State law requires cities and counties to regulate development within such zones and precludes construction of a structure for human occupancy, except certain wood-frame single-family dwellings, on an active fault trace or within 50 feet of an active fault. This is a major constraint to adding housing in the western (high resource) portion of the city, particularly for sites along Skyline Boulevard, such as the Church of the Highlands, the Caltrans parking lot, or the Caltrans staging lot at Skyline Boulevard. and San Bruno Avenue. W. None of the housing opportunity sites in this Housing Element are in earthquake zones.

2. STORM FLOODING
Occasional flooding occurs in low-lying areas in the eastern portion of San Bruno, which consists of filled marshlands. Flooding occurs in these areas because of old storm drain infrastructure and low elevation, which subjects the areas to tidal influences. Spot flooding can occur in residential areas if debris blocks the city’s drainage channels. High tide combined with heavy rains results in storm flooding adjacent to residential areas in the eastern portions of the city. This is not considered to be a constraint because none of the housing opportunity sites in this Housing Element are within flood zones.

3. AIR QUALITY
San Bruno is well served by major freeways, I-280, I-380, and U.S. 101. However, the air quality impacts from the freeways are primarily borne by neighborhoods adjacent to the freeways. Though some of the emission is carried away due to strong winds that come through the San Bruno Gap, air pollution is more prevalent in the under resourced neighborhoods that are adjacent to the I-380 and U.S. 101 freeways. As a result, the neighborhoods in census tract 6041.04 have been identified as neighborhoods with poor environmental scores pursuant to Calenviroscreen. These neighborhoods are also under resourced and have a higher population of Hispanic residents and residents who are burdened by housing costs.

4. NOISE
Aircraft overflight noise is an important issue in San Bruno due to the city’s proximity to SFO. SFO is located to the east of San Bruno, across U.S. 101. The airport has four runways, of which two are east-west (10R-28L and 10L-28R) and two are north-south (1L-19R and 1R-19L). Northeastern portions of San Bruno are situated beneath flight tracks for arrivals and departures on runways 10R-28L and 10L-28R. The overflight noise primarily impacts the neighborhoods east of San Mateo Avenue.

The eastern portions of the city closest to SFO are most affected by overflight noise. Average noise levels are measured by decibels (dB) and community noise equivalent levels (CNEL). At a noise level of 65-69 dB CNEL, new residential development is required to have noise reduction analysis and noise insulation as needed. At 70 dB CNEL and above, new residential development is inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), which essentially means that new residential development and/or redevelopment requires an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) override by the San Bruno City Council in the areas surrounding the BART and Caltrain stations, as well as in portions of the Belle Air Park North neighborhood. The Tanforan site falls within the 70 dB airport noise contour, therefore, housing development on this site is considered an incompatible use in the ALUP. The City will need to override the SFO ALUCP with a 2/3 vote of City Council in order to provide housing on the Tanforan site. If the override is successful, new housing construction on the Tanforan site will be held to higher standards for noise insulation which will result in higher costs for development relative to development on parcels not impacted by overflight noise.

Many of the same neighborhoods (Census Tract 6041.04) in San Bruno that are impacted from overflight noise are also exposed to noise generated by traffic on I-280, I-380, and U.S. 101. El Camino Real is another heavily traveled 811 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-35
roadway that generates higher than normal amounts of noise. Traffic noise from El Camino Real depends primarily on traffic speed.

There is also a railroad in San Bruno which impacts the noise environment of nearby neighborhoods. These tracks run adjacent to Huntington and Herman Avenues and service Caltrain and several freight trains.

The eastern neighborhoods in San Bruno that are impacted by noise are impacted from all the noise sources described above. Noise is considered a constraint to housing production in the eastern portion of the city because the housing units will need to be built to higher noise insulation standards which will increase building costs. The City requires new housing units in noise impacted neighborhoods to include insulation which reduces interior noise levels to 45 dBA or less.

5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials regulations, which are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations must be implemented, as appropriate, and are monitored by the state (e.g., Cal OSHA in the workplace or the DTSC for hazardous waste) and/or local jurisdictions.

As with many infill urban locations, many of the housing element housing opportunity sites are nonvacant commercial properties. These properties sometimes have environmental issues related to the prior use. The extent of hazardous materials within the housing element sites is unknown but will be evaluated when a development application is submitted. Any hazardous materials discovered as a result of the environmental review process will be remediated of hazardous materials to allow for residential use.

D. MARKET AND OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Market constraints significantly affect the cost of housing and can pose barriers to housing production and affordability.

1. VACANT/UNDERDEVELOPED LAND
San Bruno is in an urbanized portion of San Mateo County and has no unconstrained vacant land on which new housing can be constructed. Steep slopes and seismic constraints limit development in the hilly western portions of the city, while the central and eastern portions have been built out since the 1960s. New development over the last 7 years has been limited to redevelopment opportunities. As part of the development of the Transit Corridors Plan (TCP), redevelopment and intensification opportunities have been identified along the city’s main commercial corridors: the sites identified in this Housing Element are primarily located along El Camino Real (Highway 82), San Mateo Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, and at the Tanforan mall site. Parcels within the TCP are relatively small.

Because of high densities permitted, significant projects can be achieved even on small sites, and sites adjacent to each other and could be assembled into a larger development opportunity site.

2. OVERCOMING CHALLENGES OF SMALL SITES
San Bruno recognizes the challenges associated with building affordable housing on small sites. Of the over 60 parcels listed as housing opportunity sites in the next chapter, the majority are already consolidated under existing ownership into lots that are about 20,000 square feet in size or larger. Furthermore, the General Plan allows unlimited housing density for sites 20,000 square feet or larger within the TCP area, which encourages lot consolidation.
812 of 1863
CHAPTER 3 | HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
3-36

3. RESIDENTIAL LAND COSTS
Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the county, and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and within jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density. It is anticipated that land costs within the city’s Priority Development Area will increase over time as new development replaces existing, older land uses, infrastructure improvements take place and the desirability of living closer to transit and amenities increases. Rising land values resulting from the area becoming more desirable may lead to increased market rents. This may impact existing lowerincome residents through increased housing costs, housing overpayment, overcrowding, and deteriorating housing conditions. Lower income households will disproportionately experience substandard housing conditions. These households may experience direct displacement caused by the redevelopment of sites with existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increasing rents. The Housing Element includes several programs to address the issue of displacement of lower income residents.
813 of 1863
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-1
4 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
A. WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING?
Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development (Gov. Code, Section 8899.50, subd. (a)(1)).

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

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

AB 686 requires that the Housing Element’s evaluate sites relative to their effect on fair housing. The purpose of the site inventory is to identify and analyze specific sites that are available and suitable to accommodate the regional housing need, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of:
 Replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.  Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Sites must be identified and evaluated relative to the full scope of the assessment of fair housing, which includes:
 Segregation and integration.
 Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence. 814 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-2
 Access to opportunity.
 Disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk.

B. FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
As part of the 21 Elements process which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions, Root Policy provided a Fair Housing Assessment for the San Bruno which follows the April 2021 State of California Guidance for AFFH. The report includes a history of segregation in the region, an assessment of Fair Housing in San Bruno, a resident needs survey, and an analysis of contributing factors and associated Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) outlining policies and actions to address those factors. The assessment is included as Appendix C. Please note, only portions of the FHAP have been incorporated into the City’s programs in Chapter 7.

Appendices C to I include the following supplemental AFFH materials:
 Appendix C: San Bruno Fair Housing Assessment
 Appendix D: San Bruno AFFH Map and Data Packet
 Appendix E: San Bruno AFFH Segregation Report
 Appendix F: AFFH Resident Survey Analysis
 Appendix G: San Bruno Sites Inventory AFFH Supplement  Appendix H: Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities  Appendix I: State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations
Chapter 4 of this Housing Element is San Bruno’s assessment of fair housing and site inventory analysis and includes the following sections:

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

Fair Housing Assessment: Integration and Segregation, identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation, including measures of segregation within San Bruno and between San Bruno and other Bay Area jurisdictions.

Fair Housing Assessment: Access to Opportunity, examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Fair Housing Assessment: Disproportionate Housing Needs, identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the Fair Housing Assessment (Integration and Segregation, Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs) include analysis of the City’s site inventory and specific findings that evaluate San Bruno’s RHNA sites relative to their impact on fair housing. The site inventory findings in part evaluate whether the development of the sites in the inventory will further exacerbate or help reverse patterns of segregation and/or concentrations of protected classes and/or vulnerable populations. The analysis reviews concentrations of fair housing factors alongside the distribution of sites in the city and the expected income levels of future housing.
815 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-3
C. RESIDENT NEEDS FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
Appendix F reports findings from a San Mateo County resident survey conducted by Root Policy to support the AFFH analysis. 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.

1. CITY OF SAN BRUNO RESIDENT NEEDS FAIR HOUSING SURVEY FINDINGS Among San Bruno residents, there were 99 survey responses. Of the 99 responses, 48 were homeowners, 41 were renters, 36 were White, 19 were Asian, and 13 were Hispanic. Forty respondents earned over $100,000/year, 22 earned $50,000-$99,999/year and 11 earned less than $25,000/year. Thirty-seven households that responded had children under the age of 18, 34 households had a household member with a disability, 32 households had an older adult (over age 65+), and 21 households were single parent households.

The following is a summary of survey findings that were unique to the City of San Bruno survey respondents.

HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHALLENGES
The survey asked about different housing challenges experienced by residents. While some jurisdictions reported certain housing challenges at a higher rate than the Countywide average, San Bruno respondents did not. When identifying housing challenges, San Bruno residents responded in the same way as the average county resident on all questions. Both the county average (31%) and San Bruno (30%) most frequent challenge was “I would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available/my income is too low.” The second most frequent challenge was “My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family” (20% countywide and 20% for San Bruno). In 4 of the 11 challenges included in the survey, San Bruno respondents experienced challenges at a lower frequency than the average county resident. For the most part San Bruno residents experienced specific neighborhood challenges at a similar rate as county residents, however, San Bruno residents responded that “Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality” at a higher rate than the county average.

DENIED HOUSING TO RENT OR BUY
The survey looked at the proportion of those who looked for and were denied housing to rent or buy for the county and jurisdictions. While “Income too low” was a major reason for denial for almost all jurisdictions, in San Bruno it was not. Another top denial reason was “landlord didn’t accept the type of income I earn (social security or disability benefit or child support).” San Bruno was among the jurisdictions that were more likely to have denial rates of 25% or higher because of “type of income earned.”

DISPLACEMENT
Respondents that had experienced displacement were asked to identify which city they moved from and which city they moved to. One of the most common moves to and from cities included San Bruno residents moving to South San Francisco (nine respondents).
816 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-4

IMPROVING HEALTH
When asked what could improve a respondent’s health situation, most respondent groups by jurisdiction, race/ethnicity, tenure, income, and other selected housing characteristics selected “Make it easier to exercise” and “More healthy food.” Additionally, 29% of San Bruno respondents identified “Better access to mental health care” as a solution to help improve their health situations.

2. COUNTYWIDE SURVEY FINDINGS
A total of 2,382 residents participated in the county-wide survey. The survey data present a unique picture of the housing choices, challenges, needs, and access to economic opportunity of San Mateo County residents.

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
Overall, 19% of survey respondents countywide felt they were discriminated against when they looked for housing in the area. African American survey 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 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%).

DENIED HOUSING TO RENT OR BUY
Nearly 4 in 10 county respondents who looked for housing experienced denial to rent or buy. 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.

DISPLACEMENT
Overall, 21% of county-wide 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%). 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,” “feel less safe at the new school,” and “are in a worse school” after moving.

VOUCHERS
The limited supply of housing that accommodates voucher holders presents several challenges. Specifically, eight out of 10 voucher holders represented by the survey find a landlord that accepts a housing voucher to be “difficult” or “very difficult.” According to the survey, 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 for African American, Asian, and Hispanic residents, households with children under 18, single parents, older adults, and households with a member experiencing a disability. 817 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-5
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 bathrooms or benches in showers (34%), supportive services to help maintain housing (33%), and ramps (26%).

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. On average respondents are fairly satisfied with their transportation situation.

3. RESIDENT SURVEY CONCLUSIONS
Overall, San Bruno survey data tends to mirror countywide average survey results. The survey shows that in both the county and San Bruno, being low-income is a barrier to accessing housing. The impacts are highest for Hispanic households. In San Bruno, 27% of overall households are Hispanic and 44% of households are low-income. Hispanic households are also more likely to experience overcrowding and to be cost burdened (the rates of overcrowding and rates of cost burden in the county and Bay area overall are similar to the rates in San Bruno).

D. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
The following is a summary of Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity for San Bruno and figures referenced are in Appendix D (San Bruno AFFH Map and Data Packet).

1. ENFORCEMENT
Four of the 57 total fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 were in San Bruno, or 7%. The city accounts for 6% of the County’s population. Issues cited were refusal to rent, refusal to rent and negotiate for a rental, discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to a rental, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. All four fair housing complaints in the city were on the basis of disability status.

Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to five, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached six by mid-2021. The City of San Bruno has not been a party to state or federal fair housing complaints or legal action in the past nor has the City been required to operate under a state or federal consent decree related to fair housing. There have been no fair housing enforcement actions at the local level.

San Bruno enforces and complies with fair housing laws and regulation by regularly reviewing City policies and programs for impediments to fair housing choice and compliance with state and federal law and by referring fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies.

The City of San Bruno is compliant with state laws that promote fair and affordable housing including the Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1. Chapter 4.3, Density Bonuses and Other Incentives amended and effective January 1, 2021) and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov 818 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-6
Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations.

The City also has an implementation program in this Housing Element to increase fair housing education and support.

Figure 4-1 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
Source: HUD.

2. OUTREACH
San Bruno residents are served by multiple fair housing service providers, including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County.

Fa ir Ho u s in g Co m p la in t s a n d In q u irie s
HUD Fa ir Ho u s in g Co m p la in t s , b y Ba s is , Sa n Ma t e o Co u n t y, 20 17-20 21 Num ber Percent
Disa bilit y 32 56%
Ra ce 11 19%
Fa m ilia l St a t u s 8 14%
Nat ion al Origin 3 5%
Re ligion 2 4%
Se x 1 2%
Tot a l ca se s 57 100%
HCD Fa ir Ho u s in g In q u irie s (20 13- 20 21) a n d HUD Fa ir Ho u s in g Co m p la in t s (20 17- 20 21) 26 24
16 9
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
Sa n Ma te o
Red wood Cit y
Da ly Cit y
Menlo Park
Be lm on t
Pa cifica
Ea st Pa lo Alto
Fost er City
Bur lin ga m e
Sou th Sa n Fr a ncis co
Sa n Br u no
Sa n Ca rlos
Wood sid e
Ha lf Moon Ba y
9 6
8 5
2 3
5 0
5 4
4 2
0 1
HUD Fa ir Hou sin g
Com pla in t s
HCD Fa ir Hou sin g
In qu iries
819 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-7
The City of San Bruno could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on its website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. Although the City’s website provides information regarding fair housing resources, it is not easily found and is not located on the main housing webpage.1 Overall, the accessibility of fair housing information could be improved by providing information on the Fair Housing Act, AFFH-related information for the state of California, contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and general information in one consolidated place. Additionally, a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing approved by HUD in November 2017 could be provided.

3. HOUSING POLICIES ENACTED LOCALLY
The City of San Bruno identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city. The policies illustrate the capacity of San Bruno to further fair housing within the city and are described in the Programs chapter of this Housing Element.

Local policies in place to encourage
housing development.
 Mixed Use Zoning
 Condominium Conversion Ordinance
 Housing Development Impact Fee
 Commercial Development Impact Fee
 Second Unit Ordinance
 Density Bonus Ordinance
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
 Height limits on multi-family developments
 Voter initiatives that restrict multi-family
developments, rezoning for higher density,
height limits or similar measures
 Excessive parking requirements
 No policies to mitigate displacement of lowincome households Local policies that are NOT in place but
would provide the best outcomes in
addressing housing shortages.
 Rental assistance or rent subsidies
Local policies that are NOT in place but
have potential for further exploration.
 Community land trusts
 Dedicating surplus land for affordable
housing
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low-income households.
 Affordable housing impact/linkage fee on new
residential and commercial development
 Inclusionary zoning
 Promoting streamlined processing of ADUs

4. PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING VOUCHERS
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer, the City of San Bruno does not have any public housing buildings. However, the City does have one census tract with a sizable share of household units with housing vouchers (15% to 30%), three tracts with a moderate share (5% to 15%), and three tracts with some (5% or less) housing voucher utilization (Appendix D, Figure I-7). Compared to nearby Millbrae, Burlingame, and Hillsborough, San Bruno appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the city has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities. The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city. 1 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/gov/city_departments/commdev/housing/default.htm. 820 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-8
E. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by some protected classes and vulnerable populations, including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. It describes concentrations of vulnerable populations geographically throughout the city. The section also describes patterns of segregation and integration at a local level and at a regional level, comparing the city to the region and to other Bay Area jurisdictions.. The section also discusses how the proposed site inventory and the potential income levels of units to be developed in the future may impact existing patterns of segregation and integration.

To support this analysis of segregation and integration within San Bruno and a regional comparison, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the University of California at Merced (UC Merced) completed an analysis of segregation in San Bruno (Appendix E). Several indices were used to assess segregation in the City and determine how it differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region. The dissimilarity, isolation, and Theil’s indices are used below to analyze race/ethnicity and income in San Bruno and regionally.

Figure 4-2 Segregation and Integration Key Fair Housing Factors Source: HUD.
821 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-9

1. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION: RACE AND ETHNICITY

HOW DOES SAN BRUNO COMPARE TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SAN MATEO COUNTY San Bruno’s residents are more racially and ethnically diverse than residents in the county and the Bay Area overall because San Bruno has a higher share of residents who are Asian and Hispanic. The largest proportion of the population of the City of Bruno is Asian (34%), followed by non-Hispanic White (33%), Hispanic (27%), other or multiple races (6%), and Black (1%). Older residents are less diverse, with 62% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 40% of the population for children less than 18 years old.

San Mateo County is primarily made up of White majority census tracts. The County has pockets of Hispanic majority census tracts along the Highway 101 corridor adjacent to the San Francisco Bay—primarily in East Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco—and San Bruno. In the county overall, concentrations of Asian majority census tracts are primarily in Daly City and South San Francisco; San Bruno has fewer Asian concentrated areas than these peer cities. There are also fewer concentrations of Asian residents in Millbrae and Foster City.

The isolation and dissimilarity indices show that segregation exists in San Bruno, particularly in the Latinx/Hispanic and Asian communities as well as in lower-income communities. While segregation patterns appear to be declining over time, San Bruno is slightly more racially segregated than other Bay Area jurisdictions.

SAN BRUNO ISOLATION AND DISSIMILARITY INDICES:RACE AND ETHNICITYAT THE LOCAL LEVEL  In San Bruno, Asian residents are the most segregated compared to all other racial groups and Hispanic residents are most segregated from White residents. Neighborhood racial segregation in San Bruno has declined over the last decade.
 As of 2020, Asian residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in San Bruno, as measured by the isolation index. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter other racial groups. The reason for this may be that this is a geographical area where a particular ethnic group is spatially clustered and socially and economically distinct from the majority group. The west side of San Bruno, West of Skyline Blvd. includes census tracts with predominant Asian majority by a sizeable gap of more than 10% (Appendix D, Figure II-8). This area coincides with San Bruno’s High Resource Areas and is associated with highly positive economic outcomes, according to TCAC/HCD, suggesting residents within these neighborhoods face fewer barriers to economic mobility (Appendix D, Figure III-14).
 According to the dissimilarity index, within San Bruno the highest level of racial segregation is between Hispanic/Latinx and White, Non-Hispanic residents.
 Among all racial groups, the White, Non-Hispanic resident population isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.  According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in San Bruno declined between 2010 and 2020.
822 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-10
SAN BRUNO ISOLATION AND DISSIMILARITY INDICES:RACE AND ETHNICITYAT THE REGIONAL LEVEL  On average across the Bay Area, San Bruno has a lower proportion of Black residents (1% versus 6% in the Bay Area), a higher proportion of Latinx residents (27% versus 24%), a higher proportion of Asian residents (34% versus 28%), and a lower proportion of White residents (33% versus 36%).  Regionally, the Bay Area average isolation index is lower for Asian and Latinx/Hispanic residents, but higher for White and Black residents (compared to San Bruno), indicating that Hispanic/Latinx residents are more segregated in San Bruno than in the Bay Area. White residents are more integrated in San Bruno than in other Bay Area cities.
 Compared to other Bay Area jurisdictions, the Thiel’s index for racial segregation in San Bruno is slightly above average, indicating that San Bruno neighborhoods are slightly more segregated compared to other Bay Area jurisdictions.

2. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS FINDINGS: RACE AND ETHNICITY Geospatially, San Bruno has three census tracts with sizable White majorities and one census tract with a slim White majority (Figure 4-3). Additionally, two other census tracts have sizable Hispanic majorities and three other have Asian majorities—two sizable and one slim. It’s worth noting that these census tracts of majority populations by race and ethnicity are relatively segregated. White majorities are located in the southern portion of the city, Asian majorities are located in the north and northwestern portions, and Hispanic majorities are in the eastern portion of the city.

As shown in Figure 4-3, San Bruno’s proposed RHNA sites are distributed relatively evenly among the three predominant populations within the city boundaries, with slightly more sites in areas with higher concentrations of Asian and Latino households. However, because the Tanforan Development opportunity accounts for 1,000 housing units, significantly more than half of San Bruno’s site inventory is located within this census tract (with a predominantly Asian population). The Tanforan site is in a relatively diverse area with a predominantly Asian/Asian Pacific Islander population (49%) but also Hispanic (17%) and White NonHispanic (25%) populations present. The ATT Center which will provide 320 units is another significant San Bruno site located across the street from the Tanforan development and will provide much needed affordable units in this area. Tanforan and the ATT Building are also adjacent to census tract 6041.04, which is predominantly low-income and Hispanic. As a result, these housing developments will also serve lowerincome Hispanic neighborhoods nearby. Providing affordable units in an area of the city that is in close proximity to neighborhoods with multiple dominant racial groups in the city as well as in close proximity to lower and moderate-income neighborhoods is an important strategy for preserving affordability in existing moderate- and lower-income neighborhoods.
823 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-11
Figure 4-3 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Predominant Populations by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 824 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-12
The proposed site distribution will not exacerbate race and ethnic segregation because:
 Due to the number of units in the Tanforan development (350 lower and moderate income units) and other significant sites such as the ATT Building (170 lower and moderate income units), Bayhill Shopping Center (112 lower and moderate income units), Traeger Office Building (109 lower and moderate income units), and the Chili’s Restaurant (53 lower and moderate income units) the majority of San Bruno’s proposed sites will create the most housing in one census tract (6041.02) that has a concentration of Asian residents. However, these sites are adjacent to an area of the city with majority Hispanic and lower income population (census tract 6041.04) and will therefore provide needed lower and moderate-income housing for existing residents.
 The sites located in census tract 6041.02 (Tanforan, ATT Building, etc.) are accessible to multiple neighborhoods with excellent access to transit as well as close proximity to neighborhoods with multiple races and ethnicities represented.
 The Tanforan site and surrounding sites such as the ATT Building site will provide affordable units accessible to lower income residents.
 Although the occupants of the new housing will ultimately determine how new development contributes to racial and ethnic concentrations, the proposed distribution should reduce segregation by providing additional housing options in a central area that is easily accessible and in close proximity to Asian and Hispanic neighborhoods that are moderate and low income.  Figure 4-4 shows census tracts by neighborhood segregation typology, specifically the predominant racial and ethnic makeup of renter households in those tracts. Nearly all of the City’s proposed RHNA sites are located in the “4 Group Mixed” typology — a combination of Asian, Latino, Other Race, and White renter households. The remainder of the sites are located in the “3 Group Mixed” typology — a combination of Asian, Latino, and White renters. In relation to these typologies, overall, no one racial/ethnic group has disproportionately “less access” (i.e., further in proximity) to the proposed RHNA sites. Development of the sites will not exclude or isolate any racial or ethnic groups from accessing the units based on proximity from cultural enclaves and/or established communities.  Census Tract 6041.03 and 6041.04 are two of three of San Bruno’s lowest income census tracts and are also predominantly Hispanic. These were analyzed together because they have the same scores/measures for all fair housing indicators for segregation and integration, access to opportunity and disproportionate housing need and there are only 6 housing units in 6041.03. This area encompasses a large swath of the city extending from Lomita Park in the south to I-380, between El Camino Real and Huntington Ave (central part of the city which encompasses downtown). There are 10 opportunity sites located in this area which include 443 housing units and are expected to produce 289 moderate and above moderateincome units and 154 very low- and low-income units. Providing lower-income units in this area will provide needed housing to lower-income groups that reside there. In addition, the sites within this census tract are adjacent to or in close proximity to 634 very low-income and low-income units expected to be developed nearby on the edge of Census Tract 6041.02 (Tanforan and other sites in 6040.02).  Census Tract 6042 is San Bruno’s lowest income census tract and is also predominantly Hispanic. This census tract encompasses neighborhoods east of Huntington Ave and west of Highway 101, between Huntington Ave and Herman Street across the street from Tanforan. There are no opportunity sites in census tract 6042 because residential areas are built out and while there are nonvacant commercial sites available for development, the area is encumbered by SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) which specifies residential as an incompatible land use because of noise. 825 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-13
Figure 4-4 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Neighborhood Segregation Typologies Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 826 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-14
 These lower income, predominantly Hispanic census tracts (6041.03, 6041.04 and 6042) have no concentrations of households with a disability and no concentrations of female-headed households, but they do have higher poverty, more environmental hazards, and also concentrations of cost burdened and overcrowded households.

3. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION: INCOME

HOW DOES SAN BRUNO COMPARE TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SAN MATEO COUNTY The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in San Bruno is similar to the county (Appendix D, Figure II-25). However, the city has a smaller proportion of households making greater than 100% AMI (42%) than the county (49%). There are three census tracts in the city that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of $87,100 for a family of four, but most census tracts have median incomes well above that (Figure 4-5). There is a concentration of census tracts west of Interstate 280 with median incomes greater than $125,000. All census tracts in San Bruno have poverty rates below 10% (Appendix D, Figure II-28).

Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty compared to the non-Hispanic White population in San Bruno (Appendix D, Figure II-4 and Figure II-5). Additionally, Other/Multiple races, American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic households have lower household incomes compared to non-Hispanic White households in San Bruno.

The isolation and dissimilarity indices show that segregation exists in San Bruno, particularly in the lowerincome communities. Some groups, however, such as higher income residents, are less segregated in San Bruno compared to the Bay Area.

SAN BRUNO ISOLATION AND DISSIMILARITY INDICES: INCOME AT THE LOCAL LEVEL  In San Bruno, upper income neighborhoods are more segregated from other income groups, but the level of segregation has declined over time.
 Above moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in San Bruno as measured by the isolation index. Above moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.  Among all income groups in San Bruno, the above moderate-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
 According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents in San Bruno and residents who are not lower-income in San Bruno has decreased between 2010 and 2015.  According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood income segregation declined between 2010 and 2015.

SAN BRUNO ISOLATION AND DISSIMILARITY INDICES: INCOME AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL  In 2015, the income segregation in San Bruno between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.  For low-income residents (50%-80% AMI), San Bruno has an isolation index of 27; one of the highest among Bay Area jurisdictions and indicating that low-income residents in San Bruno live in neighborhoods that are more than one-quarter (25%) low-income. 827 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-15
 In San Bruno, the isolation index for above moderate-income is 30, which is well below the above moderate-income average isolation index among Bay Area jurisdictions. This indicates San Bruno’s above moderate-income residents are more integrated than above moderate-income residents in other jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
 Low-income residents make up 25% of San Bruno’s overall population (the third highest proportion for 109 jurisdictions in the Bay Area). Moderate-income residents make up 24% of San Bruno residents (the 4th highest in the Bay Area).
 Conversely, San Bruno has a lower proportion of above moderate-income residents. San Bruno ranks 103 out of 109 jurisdictions, which means most Bay Area jurisdictions have a larger proportion of above moderate-income residents than San Bruno (25% of San Bruno residents are above moderate-income).

4. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS FINDINGS: INCOME
The majority of the City’s proposed RHNA sites are in areas with moderate incomes (between $87,500 and $125,000). Almost all the sites are situated in census tracts that reflect San Mateo County’s median income of $116,200 in 2022. Figure 4-5 shows almost all the proposed sites are situated in census tracts where the median income is between $87,100 (the state median income) and $125,000. There are three sites located in census tracts where the median income is greater than $125,000 and just one site located in a census tract where the median income is lower than the state median.

The proposed site distribution will not exacerbate income segregation in San Bruno because:
 Placement of the RHNA sites in moderate income neighborhoods throughout the city is expected to lead to further opportunity, by providing additional housing options that are accessible to residents of various income levels and locations throughout the city.
 Most San Bruno housing units (1,910 units) are in a census tract that has a similar proportion of lowincome residents (45%) as the city-wide rate of 44%. It is important to note that most San Bruno’s units are close or adjacent to Census Tract 6041.04, which is predominantly low-income. These 1,910 units (including approximately 669 lower income units and 346 moderate income units) will serve neighborhoods that both reflect the city’s overall moderate-income levels and are also close to lowerincome neighborhoods.  San Bruno also has four sites located in census tracts with higher income levels which will provide additional opportunities for housing in higher income neighborhoods. The site inventory includes a potential to develop 86 lower income units and 56 moderate income units in these higher income neighborhoods. Additional lower and moderate-income capacity in higher resource areas is expected through infill and ADU production. Providing more affordable housing options in areas of higher opportunity can help provide access to opportunity to lower income residents and help reverse patterns of segregation by income.
 Census Tract 6041.03, 6041.04 and 6042 are San Bruno’s lowest income census tracts and are also all predominantly Hispanic. There are no concentrations of households with a disability and no concentrations of female-headed households in these areas. These areas have higher poverty rates, more environmental hazards, and concentrations of cost burdened and overcrowded households.  There are nine sites located in census tract 6041.04 which include 437 housing units and are expected to produce 286 moderate and above moderate-income units and 154 very low- and low-income units.

Providing lower-income units in this area will provide needed housing to lower-income groups that reside there.
828 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-16
Figure 4-5 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Median Income by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 829 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-17
 San Bruno’s Fair Housing programs prioritize approaches that are focused on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty as well as protecting existing residents from displacement using strategies that protect residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserve housing choices and affordability.

5. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION: DISABILITY STATUS

HOW DOES SAN BRUNO COMPARE TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SAN MATEO COUNTY The share of the population living with at least one disability is 8% in San Bruno, same as San Mateo County (Appendix D, Figure II-13). The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (3.6%), independent living (3.4%), and cognitive (2.8%) (Appendix D, Figure III-18). For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases (Appendix D, Figure III-19). San Mateo County is rapidly aging and this population with a disability is likely to increase.

San Bruno is home to 326 people with developmental disabilities of whom 207 are adults and 119 are under age 18. This represents approximately 8% of the San Mateo County population of people with developmental disabilities. San Bruno’s total population is about 6% of the total county population. San Bruno’s neighbor, South San Francisco, has a higher prevalence of residents living with developmental disabilities, with 967 people with developmental disabilities. This represents approximately one-quarter of the San Mateo County population of people with developmental disabilities, while South San Francisco’s total population is about 10% of the total county population.

Between September 2015 and June 2021, the California Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 33%.

This is not due to migration of senior citizens with developmental disabilities to high-cost San Mateo County, but rather to well-documented gains in life span among people with developmental disabilities. With longer life expectancy, more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are the single largest source of housing for adults with developmental disabilities. Longer life spans also slow the pace of resident turnover in the county’s limited supply of licensed care facilities, which further reduces opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to secure a space in a licensed care facility.

The California Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, San Mateo County lost 5% of its supply of licensed care facilities for people with developmental disabilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities), increasing the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the Regional Center.

The California Department of Developmental Services has documented a 12% decline in the age group 42 to 51 and a 10% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in San Mateo County between September 2015 and June 2021. 4-17his loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks.

6. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS FINDINGS: DISABILITY STATUS
Almost all census tracts in San Bruno reflect the citywide percent of households with a member with a disability. There is one census tract in San Bruno that has a higher rate of population with a disability (11%) than the citywide rate (census tract 6037) in the northwest of the city located east of Skyline Boulevard and 830 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-18
north of Sneath Lane (Figure 4-6). While there are no opportunity sites in this census tract, there is one large site, the Engvall Site, which is expected to produce 118 units, although only 18 of these units are expected to develop at low- or moderate-income levels). There is one census tract (6040) that has a slightly higher rate of 9% of households with a disability and has one site (Walgreens) with 150 potential units in the site inventory of which 53 are expected to develop for lower incomes and 27 for moderate incomes.

Census Tract 6037, which has the only concentration of households with a disability in the city, also has a slim gap Asian majority and a neighborhood segregation typology. The predominant racial and ethnic makeup of renter households in those tracts is 4-group mixed race (Asian-Latino-Other –White Figure 4-4). Portions of Census Tract 6037 have an average household income above $125,000, higher than some of the other areas of the city. This census tract has a concentration of cost burdened homeowners (40% to 60%) and is designated a high resource area according to TCAC opportunity maps (Figure 4-14). Some portions of this census tract have no access to public transportation, and this area is the furthest away from the city’s job centers. Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate the area has access to a support network, including people living with family members, services, amenities, and transportation. While not all of census tract 6037 has access to these services and resources, some are available in the southern portion of the census tract along Sneath Lane and I-280.

7. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION: FAMILIAL STATUS

HOW DOES SAN BRUNO COMPARE TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SAN MATEO COUNTY 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 one- and two-bedroom units. In San Bruno, over 70% of married couple households and a slim majority of residents living alone live in owner occupied housing (Appendix D, Figure II-19). The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is generally consistent with the familial status of the households that live in San Bruno (Appendix D, Figure II-16 and Figure II-20).

Compared to the county, San Bruno has a slightly smaller proportion of family households and greater proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in the city (Appendix D, Figure II-19, and Figure II-20). The largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 53% of the total, while Female-Headed Family Households (who live with and support other family members) make up 10% of all households. The distribution of households by family type are mapped at the census tract level in Appendix D Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. Gender inequality may result in lower wages for these households. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. In San Bruno, 16% of female-headed households with children fall below the poverty line, while 4% of female-headed households without children live in poverty. The most vulnerable households can be single parent female-headed households; San Bruno has 770 such households. 831 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-19
Figure 4-6 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Percent of Population with a Disability by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 832 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-20

8. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS FINDINGS: FAMILIAL STATUS
 As shown in Figure 4-7, San Bruno has one census tract (census tract 6040) where between 20% to 40% of the households are comprised of female-headed households.  Census tract 6040 is a predominantly White census tract with a neighborhood segregation typology, specifically the predominant racial and ethnic makeup of renter households in those tracts as “3 Group Mixed” typology—a combination of Asian, Latino, and White renters.  Census tract 6040 has an average household income that is above $125,000, higher than some of the other areas of the city.
 Census tract 6040 is a moderate resource area that has similar opportunities and vulnerabilities as most of the city. The area has positive environmental indicators relative to the rest of the city, adequate access to transit, and similar access to jobs and educational outcomes. There are no concentrations of cost burdened renters or homeowners, nor are there concentrations of overcrowded households and the area is not identified as being vulnerable to displacement.
 Just two of the city’s proposed RHNA sites are in this census tract. The two sites have the potential of producing 87 housing units. Census tract 6041.02 has several additional significant sites that are across the street from census tract 6040 (Bayhill Shopping Center, the ATT Building, Traeger Avenue Office Building), totaling 735 potential housing units, of which 542 are designated for lower income households.  In addition to San Bruno, regionally there are other jurisdictions that have at least one census tract with concentrations of female-headed households with children including South San Francisco, Daly City, and Pacifica.
 While 31% of all households in San Bruno have children, census tracts vary widely on concentrations of households with children. For example, census tract 6041.02 (where Tanforan and other significant sites are located) has a percent of households with children of 14%, well below the citywide average. This census tract also includes approximately 60% of the city’s RHNA units. On the other hand, the moderate resource census tract 6040.00 and low resource census tract 6041.04have a much higher concentration of households with children of 41% and 34%, respectively.
 The moderate resource census tract with concentrations of households with children will be served by three opportunity sites including Walgreens (80 lower and moderate-income units), Edgemont ES (only two lower or moderate-income units) and 529 El Camino Real (42 lower and moderate-income units).  The low resource census tract with concentrations of households with children will be served by nine opportunity sites that will include 233 lower and moderate-income units.  These neighborhoods with higher concentrations of households with children are also close to the 1,910 units in census tract 6041.02 (Tanforan and six other significant sites) and will provide housing at various income levels for households with children.
833 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-21
Figure 4-7 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to the Percentage of Female Headed Households by Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 834 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-22

9. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION: ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF SITE INVENTORY UNITS

BY CENSUS TRACT
This section summarizes the fair housing factors related to segregation and integration by census tract as well as the potential units to be developed by income level. Tables 4-1 to 4-5 include the detail on individual sites in San Bruno’s site inventory by census tract including future opportunity sites which are vacant and nonvacant, totaling 2,708 future housing units. The tables include the income distribution of the expected RHNA units (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate). San Bruno will need to plan for 3,165 new units between 2023 and 2031 to comply with state law, potentially expanding the City’s current housing stock of roughly 15,000 housing units by more than 20%. Of this number, 345 units are projected to be ADUs, and 670 units are Pipeline Projects and are not included in this analysis. (See Section 6.6 and 6.8 of Chapter 6 for description of ADUs and pipeline projects.)
CENSUS TRACT 6041.02
TABLE 4-1 SITE INVENTORY IN CENSUS TRACT 6041.02
Address Site Name
Very
Low-Income
Units
Low-Income
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Units Total Units
1122 & 1150 El Camino Real &
1292 Huntington Tanforan 222 128 181 469 1,000
851 Cherry Avenue Tract Bayhill Shopping Center 47 27 38 98 210 801 - 851 Traeger Avenue Office Building 46 26 37 96 205 840 San Bruno Avenue AT&T Building 71 41 58 150 320
899 El Camino Real Chili’s Restaurant 22 13 18 47 100
1151 El Camino Real San Bruno Pet Hospital 13 8 11 28 60 1101 El Camino Real Russo Dental 3 2 3 7 15
Total 424 245 346 895 1,910
Source: City of San Bruno 2022
The largest site with the most RHNA units is the Tanforan Site, with 1,000 units (approximately 30% of San Bruno’s site inventory) and is in Census Tract 6041.02. Between Tanforan and the additional 5 sites located in this Census Tract, it will include approximately 60% of San Bruno’s Site Inventory– Tanforan Site, Bayhill Shopping Center, Traeger Office Building, AT&T Building, San Bruno Pet Hospital and Russo Dental, and Chili’s Restaurant(1,910 units). These sites are in a relatively diverse area with a predominantly Asian population. These sites are also located in a census tract that has a similar proportion of low-income residents (45%) as the city-wide rate of 44%. Census Tract 6041.02 has three predominant racial groups (17% Hispanic, 25% White Non-Hispanic, and 49% Asian/API). The city has three predominant racial/ethnic groups, which include 27% Hispanic, 33% White, Non-Hispanic and 34% Asian/API Non-Hispanic.

It is important to note that the 1,910 units are in close to or adjacent to Census Tract 6041.04, which is predominantly low-income and Hispanic. As a result, these units will also serve lower-income Hispanic neighborhoods. These sites, which include the four largest sites in San Bruno’s inventory, are expected to produce a mix of units at all income levels. The development of these sites is not expected to exacerbate concentrations of low-income residents (Table 4-1).
835 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-23
CENSUS TRACTS 6041.03AND 6041.04
TABLE 4-2 SITE INVENTORY IN CENSUS TRACTS 6041.03/6041.04 Address Site Name
Very
Low-Income Low-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
475 San Mateo Avenue Citibank 13 8 11 28 60
850 El Camino Real Former Budget Motel 13 8 11 28 60
465 San Mateo Avenue Bank of America 10 6 8 21 45
170 San Bruno Avenue Vacant 9 5 8 20 42
750 El Camino Real Melody Toyota Lot &
Showroom 17 9 13 34 73
104 San Bruno Avenue Vacant 6 3 5 12 26
590 El Camino Real IHOP 10 6 7 19 42
426 El Camino Real Bedroom Express 11 6 9 23 49
401 San Mateo Avenue San Bruno Gas Station 9 5 7 19 40
117 San Juan Avenue,
116 & San Marco Avenue
Other 0 0 0 6 6
Total 98 56 79 210 443
Source: 2020 Census Data American Factfinder and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).

Fourteen percent of San Bruno’s Site Inventory is in Census Tracts 6041.04 and 6041.03 which have a predominantly Hispanic (49%) and low-income population (62%) (Table 4-2). The percent Hispanic and percent low-income is higher than the citywide averages. These sites include Citibank (60 units), former Budget Motel (60 units), Bank of America site (45 units), 170 San Bruno Vacant Lot (42 units), Melody Toyota (73 units), 104 San Bruno Ave Vacant Lot (25 units), IHOP Parking Lot (42 units), Bedroom Express (50 units), San Bruno Gas Station (40 units), and 117 San Juan Avenue and 116 San Marco Avenue (six units).

Together these sites include 443 RHNA Units and are expected to produce 289 moderate and above moderate-income units and 154 very low- and low-income units. Providing lower-income units in this area will provide needed housing to lower-income groups that reside there. In addition, the sites within this census tract are adjacent or close to 669 very low-income and low-income units, 346 moderate income units, and 895 above moderate income units expected to be developed nearby on the edge of Census Tract 6041.02 (Tanforan and other large sites). The addition of a mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate-income units to a census tract that is 62% low-income will not exacerbate concentrations of low-income units in the area.

Census Tract 6041.03 and 6041.04 are two of San Bruno’s lowest income census tracts which encompass a large area of the city extending from Lomita Park in the south to I-380, between El Camino Real and Huntington Ave (central part of the city which encompasses downtown). These neighborhoods are the furthest away from the Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence outside of the city limits to the west. They have a neighborhood segregation typology, (specifically the predominant racial and ethnic makeup of renter households), as “4 Group Mixed” typology—a combination of Asian, Latino, Other and White renters. Households in this area earn between $87,700 and $125,000 which reflects the median income for the city and county (census tracts 6041.03 and 6041.04). This area is adjacent to the eastern most households in the city (census tract 6042) which is the lowest income area and has an average household income of less than $87,700. There are no concentrations of households with disabilities and no concentrations of female headed households with children in this area. However, these census tracts have higher poverty, more environmental hazards, and concentrations of cost burdened and overcrowded households. 836 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-24

10. CENSUS TRACTS 6038.02, 6039 AND 6040
TABLE 4-3 SITE INVENTORY IN CENSUS TRACT 6038.02
Address Site Name
Very
Low-Income Low-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
2101 Sneath Lane Engvall MS 0 6 12 100 118
Source: City of San Bruno 2022
TABLE 4-4 SITE INVENTORY IN CENSUS TRACT 6039.00
Address Site Name
Very
Low-Income Low-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
333 El Camino Real Walgreens 34 19 27 70 150
Source: City of San Bruno 2022
TABLE 4-5 SITE INVENTORY IN CENSUS TRACT 6040.00
Address Site Name
Very
Low-Income Low-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
500 Acacia Ave Former Edgemont ES 0 1 1 13 15
529 El Camino Real Car sales lot 19 7 16 30 72
Total 19 8 17 43 87
Source: City of San Bruno 2022
Census Tract 6038.02, 6039.00 and 6040.00, together contain approximately 12% of San Bruno’s Site Inventory RHNA units. Census Tract 6038.02 (Table 4-3) includes one site (Engvall MS) totaling 118 units located on the northwest side of the city; the area has a relatively large Asian and White population compared to the Hispanic population and a lower percentage of low-income residents than the city. This site is expected to produce primarily above moderate-income units
Census Tract 6039.00 (Table 4-4) contains one large site expected to produce 150 units (Walgreens), located just west of the El Camino Real corridor. This Census Tract has a below average low-income population of 28% compared to the city and is majority White (45%). However, the area is still diverse with a Hispanic population of 23%, (compared to 27% citywide) and with an Asian population of 25% (compared to 34% citywide). Table 4-4 shows the site is expected to provide units priced at a mix of incomes including 80 lower and moderate-income units and 70 above moderate-income units.

Census Tract 6040.00 (Table 4-5) contains two sites totaling 87 units, Former Edgemont ES (15 units) and a Car Sales Lot (72 units), located west of El Camino Real and have a low-income population reflecting the citywide rate, and a predominantly White population (46%). The census tract does have significant proportions of Hispanic (21%) and Asian residents (25%) as well. These two predominantly White census tracts (6040.00 and 6039.00) (totaling 237RHNA units), are located on the edge of a predominantly Hispanic and Low-Income 6040.00/6039.00 and the associated units are likely to serve the lower-income population living east of El Camino Real and not the higher income neighborhoods to the west.

While census tract level data provides some insight into demographic trends, a more granular analysis would show that sites are just as likely to meet the housing needs of surrounding census tracts depending on the exact location of the actual housing development. Many of San Bruno’s sites are on the edge of a large census tract and adjacent to transit corridors. For example, the AT&T building (320 Units) is in a predominantly 837 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-25
Asian/White census tract, but the project may serve the predominantly lower-income neighborhoods that are closer to the actual site located just across the street.

SUMMARY OF INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION FAIR HOUSING FACTORS AND SITE INVENTORY RHNA TABLE 4-6 FAIR HOUSING FACTORS FOR INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION AND SITE INVENTORY BY CENSUS TRACT Fair Housing Factor 6041.02 6041.03/04 6038.02 6039 6040 6140 6037 6042 6038.01 Low-Income Mod Low High Mod Mod High High Low
Predominant Race Asian Hispanic White White White Asian Asian Hispanic White Percent HH Disability No No No No No No Yes No No
Percent Female Headed HH No No No No Yes No No No No
Lower-Income Units 634 154 6 53 62 0 0 0 0
Moderate-Income Units 328 79 12 27 35 0 0 0 0
Above Moderate-Income Units 848 210 100 70 90 0 0 0 0
Total Units 1,810 443 118 150 187 0 0 0 0
Percent RHNA in Census Tract 72% 13% 5% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: City of San Bruno 2022.

F. RACIALLY/ ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREA OF POVERTY
(R/ECAP) OR AFFLUENCE (R/ECAA)
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty or R/ECAPs are neighborhoods where residents are largely people of color and also have lower incomes. State statute requires the Housing Element’s Assessment of Fair Housing to analyze R/ECAPs as well as racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs). In contrast to R/ECAPs, RCAAs are neighborhoods where the population is disproportionately white and affluent. The HUD poverty threshold used to qualify a census tract as a R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the threshold, the Housing Assessment identifies edge or emerging R/ECAPs which meet two-thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty—two times the average tract poverty rate for San Mateo County (12.8%). In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualified as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in San Mateo County and 14 that qualified as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs or edge R/ECAPs were in San Bruno. However, there was an edge R/ECAP located just northeast of the city border in South San Francisco. South San Francisco has higher concentrations of households with disabilities, more lower income residents than San Bruno as well as higher concentrations of households that are overcrowded and cost burdened. However, South San Francisco faces some of the similar challenges as San Bruno in areas of access to opportunity such as educational outcomes, environmental hazards, social vulnerability, and risk of displacement.

HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is “[a] census tract with a median income 1.25 times higher than in the region and a White population of 1.5 times higher than the region.” San Bruno does not have any census tracts that meet the definition of racially concentrated areas, as shown in Figure 4-8.

However, there are racially concentrated areas of affluence to the west of the city in Pacifica, as well as south of San Bruno in Burlingame and Hillsborough.
838 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-26
Figure 4-8 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 839 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-27

HOW DOES SAN BRUNO COMPARE TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SAN MATEO COUNTY Compared to San Mateo County, the proportion of non-Hispanic White residents is six percentage points lower in San Bruno. For the areas in proximity to San Bruno with racially concentrated areas of affluence, historical local, state, and federal housing policies outlined in Appendix C contributed to these patterns in neighborhood characteristics and disparities as many policies excluded people of color from accessing the same opportunities as White residents. The R/ECAPs located to the west of San Bruno are not unique to San Bruno alone but are a pattern established throughout the entire peninsula. These census tracts to the west of peninsula cities tend to be larger and more rural and contain a significant amount of publicly protected land for parks and open space (42% of land in San Mateo County is permanently reserved for parks and open space) and an additional 20% to 30% is land at low risk of development because it is zoned for farming or other rural uses.

G. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
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. The higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. Geospatially, the area of the city east of El Camino Real is disproportionately impacted by lower education opportunity, lower economic opportunity, lower environmental scores, and high social vulnerability scores.

Figure 4-9 Access to Opportunity Key Facts
Source: HUD.
840 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-28

HOW DOES SAN BRUNO COMPARE TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND SAN MATEO COUNTY TCAC’s composite opportunity score for San Bruno shows census tracts west of Interstate 280 fall within high resource areas while the rest of the City’s census tracts east of Interstate 280, west of El Camino Real, and south of Interstate 380 are within moderate resource areas. The tracts east of El Camino Real are designated as low resource areas (Figure 4-14). Relative to the northern portion of the county, the only census tracts considered low opportunity areas are in San Bruno and South San Francisco. Most of the census tracts in this portion of the county are considered moderate resource areas, with a handful of higher resource census tracts in San Bruno, South San Francisco, Pacifica, and Daly City.

1. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY: EDUCATION
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, about half of the census tracts in San Bruno score between 0.5 and 0.75—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes (Figure 4-10). All census tracts with this score are located west of Interstate 280. Conversely, the other half of census tracts are all located east of Interstate 280 and score between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city.

This area also has lower economic opportunity scores, lower environmental scores, and higher social vulnerability compared to the rest of the city.

The pattern of areas east of Interstate 280 with lower educational opportunity scores is not unique to San Bruno. Except for a couple census tracts, the entire northern part of San Mateo County—ranging from San Bruno to the south up to Daly City—also sees areas east of the Interstate with lower educational opportunity scores.

Racial and ethnic minority students in San Bruno—served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Bruno Park Elementary School District—experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students. Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. However, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards. Although San Mateo Union High School 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 H).

2. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND EMPLOYMENT TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The census tracts adjacent to Interstate 280 and west of Skyline Boulevard have the best economic scores (0.5-0.75) in San Bruno (Appendix D, Figure III-7). The lowest economic opportunity scores in the city are within tracts east of El Camino Real, as well as in the central and northwestern areas of the city.

HUD’s job proximity index shows that job proximity varies widely in San Bruno (Figure 4-11). On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs, most of the city scores between 40 and 60.

However, all census tracts west of Skyline Boulevard have scores below 40 while all tracts in the eastern portion of the city have scores above 60. Compared to the northern part of the county, San Bruno, as well as South San Francisco, have the best access to employment opportunities. 841 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-29
Figure 4-10 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to TCAC Education Opportunity by Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 842 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-30
Figure 4-11 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Job Proximity Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 843 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-31

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

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. 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 Bruno and the county overall.

The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership.

The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.

In 2013, the San Bruno City Council adopted the San Bruno Transit Corridors Specific Plan to revitalize commercial corridors located in proximity to the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station.

The eastern portion of San Bruno is home to or adjacent to a significant amount of regionally significant transportation infrastructure, including Caltrain, the Union Pacific railway, and highways (U.S. 101, I-280, I380, SR 82 and SR 35). Significant traffic along these corridors, along with production, distribution, and repair uses, may be associated with more diesel trucks, hazardous material storage, and/ or contaminated land.

As shown in Figure 4-12, all the proposed RHNA sites have access to SamTrans transit stops, with no site further than a few blocks away from a stop. Additionally, most of the proposed sites have relatively good access to the city’s Caltrain station. The sites will further access to public transportation and jobs within the city, county, and region. In addition, the area has access to transit serving the region with the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station serving the area.

4. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY: ENVIRONMENT
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

Environmental outcomes vary by census tracts in San Bruno. Most census tracts have relatively positive environmental outcomes—these tracts are all located west of El Camino Real. The tracts east of El Camino Real have the lowest environmental scores in the city—primarily due to traffic on the highways, groundwater threats, and diesel particulate matter (Appendix D, Figure III-9, and Figure III-10). However, the City scores moderately well compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Appendix D, Figure III-11). While most tracts score between 80% and 100%, there are tracts in the northwest, central, and eastern areas of the city that have scores between 60% and 80%, the same tracts that have low economic opportunity scores. The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare. 844 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-32
Figure 4-12 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Proximity to Transit Stops Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 845 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-33

5. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY
San Bruno has one disadvantaged community—the tract directly east of El Camino Real and west of Huntington Avenue—which is defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations” (Figure 4-13). Compared to the northern portion of the county, the only other jurisdiction with census tracts designated as “disadvantaged communities” is South San Francisco.

Figure 4-13 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Environmental Health and Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 846 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-34

6. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY: SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS FINDINGS

EDUCATION
Figure 4-10 shows where the City’s proposed RHNA sites are in relation to TCAC’s assessment of educational opportunity. Except for one site, all the city’s proposed sites are in areas with scores between 0.25 and 0.5—indicating lower educational outcomes.

K-12 educational environments can be sensitive to new housing. An influx of residents with moderate to high resources can provide the supports needed to improve learning environments. On the other hand, concentrating affordable housing in neighborhoods with low educational opportunities can compromise economic mobility. The city’s housing sites provide a mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate-income housing in some of the more diverse and accessible areas of the city (housing sites will be accessible from multiple neighborhoods throughout the city).

The City will leverage other place-based investments with the aim of improving educational outcomes in lower opportunity areas. The City intends to address low educational outcomes in the RHNA site areas to the extent possible through agreements with developers to include features in new developments that can help facilitate early and K-12 learning. For larger scale redevelopments, this could include reserving/offering reduced leases in community space for nonprofits who work with kids to improve educational outcomes, which offer subsidized childcare, and which offer afterschool activities. The City is prepared to have conversations with area schools about how the City can support improving educational outcomes.

EMPLOYMENT
Figure 4-11 shows that approximately half of the proposed RHNA sites have very good access to jobs, while the other RHNA sites also have relatively good access. The western most census tracts have the furthest distance to job centers and are also the highest resource/highest income areas. The census tracts east of El Camino Real consistently have the closest proximity to jobs sites in the city. The housing developed on the sites will further resident’s access to employment and economic mobility. While the area which includes census tract 6041.04 and 6040.03 east of El Camino Real is economically disadvantaged, it is also the area that has the most access to employment opportunities, access to transit, and public infrastructure investments to support high density residential development.

TRANSPORTATION
The eastern portion of San Bruno is home to or adjacent to a significant amount of regionally significant transportation infrastructure, including Caltrain, the Union Pacific railway, and highways (U.S. 101, I-280, I-380, SR 82 and SR 35). Significant traffic along these corridors, along with production, distribution, and repair uses, may be associated with more diesel trucks, hazardous material storage, and/ or contaminated land. As shown in Figure 4-12, all the proposed RHNA sites have access to SamTrans transit stops, with no site further than a few blocks away from a stop. Additionally, most of the proposed sites have relatively good access to the city’s Caltrain station. The sites will further access to public transportation and jobs within the city, county, and region. In 2013, the San Bruno City Council adopted the San Bruno Transit Corridors Specific Plan to revitalize commercial corridors located in proximity to the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station.
847 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-35

ENVIRONMENT AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY
Environmental outcomes vary by census tracts in San Bruno. Most census tracts have relatively positive environmental outcomes—these tracts are all located west of El Camino Real. The tracts east of El Camino Real have the lowest environmental scores—primarily due to traffic on the highways, groundwater threats, and diesel particulate matter (Appendix D, Figure III-9, and Figure III-10).

The census tracts directly east of El Camino Real (6041.04 and 6041.03) are designated as an SB 535 Disadvantaged Community. As shown in Figure 4-13, several of the city’s proposed sites are located within the census tract designated as a disadvantaged community. Together these sites include 443 RHNA Units and are expected to produce 289 moderate and above moderate-income units and 154 very low- and low-income units. Providing lower-income units in this area will provide needed housing to lower-income groups that reside there. To mitigate some of the environmental challenges in the area, San Bruno has a priority fair housing action to prioritize capital improvement investments (e.g., enhance walkability, reduce pollutants) in this specific area of the city to address current environmental challenges.

COMPOSITE OPPORTUNITY SCORE
The TCAC/HCD map measures access to positive economic outcomes based on incidence of poverty, adult educational attainment, adult employment, proximity to jobs, and median home value. Almost every proposed RHNA site is located within a moderate resource area in San Bruno (Figure 4-14). Two sites cross boundaries—one in both a high/moderate resource area and the other in a moderate/low resource area. Two other proposed sites sit completely within a high resource area and low resource area, respectively.

According to HCD and TCAC’s opportunity maps, the eastern portion of the city has the highest concentration of low- to moderate-income populations who face poor opportunity outcomes. Hispanic households are primarily concentrated in the eastern portion of the city. As previously mentioned, 443 RHNA units located on 10 sites are projected to develop in this area. Many of the sites located in this area are near the Tanforan development at the intersection of El Camino Real and I-380, which include approximately 60% of San Bruno’s RHNA units.

Data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to nonHispanic White residents (Appendix D Figure III-12). Conversely, Non-Hispanic White residents are more likely to live in moderate and high resource areas (Appendix D, Figure III-12). The distribution of racial and ethnic minorities in moderate and high resources areas is relatively similar. Nearly 40% of the population living in high resource areas are non-Hispanic White, compared to less than 20% in low resource areas.

Conversely, Hispanic and Other/Multiple race residents are more likely to live in low resource areas. On the south side of the city both east and west of Highway 280, there are census tracts with predominant White residents by a sizeable gap of more than 10% (Appendix D, Figure II-7). The southern portion of the city includes both high resource and moderate resource areas according to the TCAC/HCD map. San Bruno does not have any highest resource areas on the TCAC/HCD map.

Census Tract 6038.02 (Table 4-3) contains the only site that is in a highest resource area, Engvall MS, totaling 118 units located on the northwest side of the city. The area has a relatively large Asian and White population compared to Hispanic population and a lower percentage of low-income residents than the city. The site will include 6 low-income units, 12 moderate income units and 100 above moderate-income units. 848 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-36
Figure 4-14 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to TCAC Composite Opportunity Areas Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 849 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-37

SUMMARY OF ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY FAIR HOUSING FACTORS AND SITE INVENTORY RHNA TABLE 4-7 FAIR HOUSING FACTORS FOR ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY AND SITE INVENTORY BY CENSUS TRACT Fair Housing Factor 6041.02 6041.03/04 6038.02 6039 6040 6140 6037 6042 6038.01 Citywide
Rate
Educational Opportunity
Score Lower Lower Higher Lower Lower Higher Higher Lower Higher N/A Proximity to Employment Medium Closest Medium Closest Closest Far Medium Closest Medium N/A Access to Transit Medium Closest Medium Closest Closest Far Medium Closest Medium N/A Composite Opportunity
Score Mod Low High Mod Mod High High Low Mod N/A
Disadvantaged
Community No Yes No No No No No Yes No N/A
Lower Income Units 634 154 6 53 62 0 0 0 0 0
Moderate Income Units 328 79 12 27 35 0 0 0 0 0
Above Moderate-Income
Units 848 210 100 70 90 0 0 0 0 0
Total Units 1,810 443 118 150 187 0 0 0 0 0
Percent RHNA in
Census Tract 72% 13% 5% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Source: City of San Bruno 2022.

H. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
Geospatially, the area of the city east of El Camino Real is disproportionately impacted with high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and vulnerability to displacement. In San Bruno, the easternmost census tracts in the city display concentrations (60-80% of households) of cost burdened and overcrowded households. Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in San Bruno.

Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households, with 66 units permitted for above moderate-income households compared to 55 permits for moderate very low households. Forty-seven permits were issued for moderate income households while no permits were issued for low-income households (Appendix D Figure IV-2). The Housing Needs Data Report for San Bruno indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.”
The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominantly single family (60%) and medium to large scale multifamily (35%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory increased more than single family, however, the city has a greater share of detached single-family housing compared to other communities in the region.

Over three quarters of the housing inventory in San Bruno was constructed from 1940 to 1980 (Appendix D Figure IV-3). As such, the city’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements. 850 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-38
Figure 4-15 Disproportionate Housing Needs Key Facts
Source: HUD, Root Policy Research 2022.
851 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-39
Compared to San Mateo County, the city’s owner-occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—32% of units in the city fall within this price range compared to 23% in the county (Appendix D Figure IV-4). Conversely, units priced above $2 million make up a smaller proportion of the city’s housing stock compared to the county with 1% and 19%, respectively. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the city and county (Appendix D Figure IV-5).

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for-sale market—however, median rents increased more rapidly from 2017 to 2019 (Appendix D Figure IV-7). Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, San Bruno has fewer luxury rental units—19% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the city compared to 22% in the county (Appendix D Figure IV-6).

1. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS: COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

Forty-six percent of all renter households in San Bruno are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Appendix D, Figure IV-9). This is nearly identical to the rates of cost burden in the county and Bay area overall, suggesting that San Bruno is providing housing at similar affordability levels as the county and region overall.

A slightly greater portion of households in San Bruno (38%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%) (Appendix D, Figure IV-8). In San Bruno, most census tracts have between 40-60% of renter households experiencing cost burden, similar to other nearby jurisdictions in the northern part of the county.

Relative to adjacent jurisdictions, there is a greater concentration of census tracts with cost burdened homeowners in the very northern areas of the county (Daly City, Colma, and Brisbane).

Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Two out of every three households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low-income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to only 1% of households earning more than 100% of AMI (Appendix D Figure IV-10).

There are disparities in housing cost burden in San Bruno by race and ethnicity and family size. Hispanic (53%) and Black or African American households (46%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Non-Hispanic White (32%) and Asian (33%) households experience the lowest cost burden (Appendix D, Figure IV-11).

Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience cost burden at a rate of 43% compared to all other households at 37% (Appendix D, Figure IV-12). Cost burdened renter households are primarily concentrated in the far west and east areas of the city (Appendix D, Figure IV-13, and Appendix D Figure IV-14).
852 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-40
Figure 4-16 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Percentage of Cost Burdened Homeowners by Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 853 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-41
Figure 4-17 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Percentage of Cost Burdened Renters by Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 854 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-42

2. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS: OVERCROWDING
The vast majority of households (92%) in San Bruno are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room (Appendix D, Figure IV-15). However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 11% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 6% of owner households (Appendix D, Figure IV-16). Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated north and south of Interstate 380, as well as the areas east of El Camino Real (Appendix D, Figure IV-19).

Nearly all the city’s proposed RHNA sites are in areas that experience overcrowding at a rate higher than the statewide average (Figure 4-18). San Bruno, along with Daly City and South San Francisco, are the jurisdictions in the northern part of the county that have census tracts with higher proportions of overcrowded households. New housing in these areas should alleviate overcrowding to the extent that overcrowded residents can afford to move.

3. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS: SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Data on housing condition is limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS). This captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in census surveys. In San Bruno, renter households are more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to owner households. A low share of households lack a kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 0.4% are lacking kitchen facilities while 0.1% are lacking plumbing. For owners, 0.1% are lacking plumbing facilities while no owner households lack kitchen facilities (Appendix D, Figure IV-20). The city’s code enforcement department estimates that 5% (800+ units) of the city’s housing stock primarily concentrated in the neighborhoods east of El Camino Real need rehabilitation due to poor or substandard conditions.

4. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS: HOMELESSNESS
In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency or transitional shelters while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. Most unsheltered people were in households without children. Most people in transitional housing were in households with children (Appendix D, Figure IV-21).

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 (Appendix D, Figure IV-22 and Appendix D Figure IV-23). 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 D Figure IV-24).

5. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS: DISPLACEMENT
Owner households experience a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently). Households in the city were slightly less likely to have moved in the past year compared to the households in the county (11% compared to 12% in the county) (Appendix D, Figure IV-25, and Appendix D Figure IV-26).

In San Bruno none of its income assisted rental units are at high or very high risk for displacement. San Bruno has 323 income assisted units, all designated as low risk for conversion. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county (Appendix D, Figure IV-27). 855 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-43
Figure 4-18 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to the Percentage of Overcrowded Households by Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 856 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-44
Figure 4-19 Proposed RHNA Sites in Relation to Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resource 2022, City of San Bruno 2022. 857 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-45
UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project has mapped out “sensitive communities,” which are places where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the context of rising property values, increased redevelopment, and drastic shifts in housing costs. Using their methodology, five census tracts in San Bruno are particularly vulnerable to displacement—the majority of which have high shares of renter households (Appendix D, Figure IV-28). This vulnerability extends throughout the northern portion of the county, with almost all census tracts vulnerable to displacement. The majority of proposed RHNA sites in San Bruno are in areas vulnerable to displacement (Figure 4-19).

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The area east of El Camino Real is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Appendix D, Figure III-15).

6. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS: SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS FINDINGS

OVERPAYMENT
Figures 4-16 and 4-17 show where the City’s proposed RHNA sites are in relation to cost burdened homeowners and renters. As shown in Figure 4-17, nearly all the City’s proposed RHNA sites are located within census tracts with concentrations of cost burdened renters (more than 40% of renter households are const burdened). However, this reflects most census tracts in San Bruno, which have between 40-60% of renter households experiencing cost burden. There are three sites that in a census tract where there is a smaller proportion of cost burdened renters (between 20-40%). The City anticipates that adding more than 900 units of lower income housing, as shown in the site inventory, will provide housing for resident groups who are cost burdened. In addition, the programs under Goal 3 (improve the City’s management of its affordable housing portfolio, affordable housing funds, and preserve the affordability of existing affordable housing.) will collectively help the City better support and monitor housing programs that serve extremely low-income residents in the city. As demonstrated in the site inventory, the City has sites located throughout the city and most of its sites will serve moderate- and low-income neighborhoods. The city’s Fair Housing programs will strive to protect existing residents from displacement by including strategies that protect residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserve housing choices and affordability.

OVERCROWDING
The most significant RHNA sites are located on census tracts with a rate of overcrowding between 8-12%.

There are also several sites in a census tract with a rate of overcrowding between 15-20%, higher than most of the other census tracts in the city. More than half the city has an overcrowding rate that is less than the statewide average of 8.2%.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Hispanic (12% of households), Other/Multiple race (11%), and Asian households (11%) experience the highest rates of overcrowding (Appendix D Figure IV-17). While low-income households have the greatest proportion of more than 1.5 occupants per room in the city, households making between 51% and 100% AMI have the greatest proportion of households with 1 to 1.5 occupants per room (Appendix D Figure IV-18).
858 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-46

DISPLACEMENT
Almost all the RHNA sites are in census tracts that are vulnerable to displacement. There are only three sites located in census tracts not considered vulnerable. The City’s Fair Housing Programs strive to protect existing residents from displacement by including strategies that protect residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserve housing choices and affordability. One example is to prioritize City capital improvement investments to address the challenges of the areas east of El Camino, which are disproportionately occupied by Hispanic residents. Additional affordable housing is essential to reducing displacement pressures throughout San Bruno neighborhoods. The production of more housing affordable to lower and moderate-income residents is a key component of San Bruno’s housing strategy in this Housing Element. San Bruno’s housing strategy includes a site inventory with more than 900 lower income units and more than 480 moderate income units, programs and policies to encourage infill and ADU production, as well as significant number of lower and moderate-income pipeline projects, which will together help counter displacement vulnerabilities throughout the city.

SUMMARY OF DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS FAIR HOUSING FACTORS AND SITE INVENTORY RHNA TABLE 4-8 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS FAIR HOUSING FACTORS AND SITE INVENTORY SUMMARY BY CENSUS TRACT
Fair Housing Factor 6041.02 6041.03/04 6038.02 6039 6040 6140 6037 6042 6038.01 Citywide
Rate
Overpayment Renters Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Overpayment Homeowners No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No
Overcrowded Medium Yes No No No No No Yes No
Vulnerable to Displacement Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Lower Income Units 634 154 6 53 62 0 0 0 0 0
Moderate Income Units 328 79 12 27 35 0 0 0 0 0
Above Moderate-Income Units 848 210 100 70 90 0 0 0 0 0 Total Units 1,810 443 118 150 187 0 0 0 0 0
Percent RHNA in Census Tract 72% 13% 5% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Source: City of San Bruno 2022.

7. SAN BRUNO’S SITE INVENTORY IMPACT ON FAIR HOUSING
San Bruno is an economically, racially, and ethnically diverse community. It has a mix of housing developments, including approximately 6,460 multi-family units, which provide housing to many lowerincome and racially and ethnically diverse residents and workers in the region. San Bruno will need to plan for 3,165 new units between 2023 and 2031 to comply with state law, potentially expanding the city’s current housing stock of roughly 15,000 housing units by more than 20%. Of this number, 345 units are projected to be ADUs, 670 units are pipeline projects that have been approved, and 2,708 are opportunity sites in the site inventory (See Section 6.6 and 6.8 of Chapter 6 for description of ADUs and pipeline projects). If these projects are built in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing in San Bruno, San Bruno has an opportunity to begin to replace existing segregated living patterns with truly integrated living patterns, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and address some of the challenges of residents with disproportionate housing needs.
859 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-47
San Bruno’s physical landscape is nearly built out and there are few opportunities for large residential projects within the city’s existing land inventory. As a result, most development will occur at sites that are currently developed and will undergo intensification or redevelopment. Most employment and residential growth is anticipated in the eastern portion of the city. The potential 1,000 units of housing proposed to replace the Shops at Tanforan is a key element of San Bruno’s long-term housing strategy and provides the largest increase in the city. While most San Bruno’s sites are in one area of the city, this area is centrally located, close to areas of the city with disproportionate housing needs and lower resources, and has access to transit to serve existing residents.

Overall, the Site Inventory in San Bruno provides housing to accommodate a mix of incomes across several distinct areas of the city. While there is a concentration of units near the Tanforan site and Bayhill Shopping Center, which is predominantly Asian and White, these sites are located just north of San Bruno’s Hispanic lower-income neighborhoods. The proximity of these units will provide a mix of lower-income units that serve the lower-income neighborhoods nearby. Adding additional low-income options will not exacerbate the concentration of low-income units in the area, buy create a more mixed-income neighborhood.

As demonstrated in the site inventory, new housing is dispersed throughout the city with a concentration of housing near the Tanforan site. However, these concentrations of housing density will also provide much needed housing (more than 630 lower income units and more than 325 moderate income units). San Bruno’s site inventory is not anticipated to increase segregation in the city because the sites provide a much-needed mix of housing types at a mix of income levels to expand housing options for residents.

The sites inventory includes sites that are suitable for high-density residential development based on factors such as land availability, land use, transit, and infrastructure. The sites are concentrated within areas that are moderate or mixed stable neighborhoods and are in moderate resources areas. The San Bruno sites inventory includes housing developments that, combined with the Fair Housing programs and actions discussed in Chapter 7, will affirmatively further fair housing by:
 Increasing housing choice and access to housing by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability.
 Promoting the development of housing units in San Bruno located in areas with access to services, infrastructure, and transit.
 Increasing access to neighborhoods of greater opportunity, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and service for people within protected classes.  Promoting land-use and funding policies to encourage development of new affordable housing across the city.
 Adding resources to traditionally under-resourced neighborhood with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock.
 Improving place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing.
 Protecting existing residents from displacement.
 Providing people with a disability affordable housing with access to services and transit.

The City anticipates that adding units of lower and moderate-income housing, as shown in the site inventory and pipeline projects, will provide housing for resident groups who are more racially and ethnically diverse than the city overall due to their disproportionate needs. The City is prepared to pair the construction of new affordable housing with city programs under Goal 4 (support the needs of households with low incomes and 860 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-48
special needs). Goal 8 (promote equity in housing) will ensure that residents with disproportionate needs in the region benefit from the new housing opportunities. In addition, the programs under Goal 3 (improve the city’s management of its affordable housing portfolio , affordable housing funds, and preserve the affordability of existing affordable housing.) will collectively help the City better support and monitor housing programs that serve extremely low-income residents in the city. As demonstrated in the site inventory, the City proposes housing sites located throughout the city. As such, the City does not anticipate the new housing to increase segregation in the city.

I. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
This section describes and prioritizes contributing factors and proposes implications for the policies, programs, and implementation actions included in this Housing Element that may help reverse existing patterns of segregation.

The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, limited resources to respond to needs.

Fair Housing Issue: Hispanic, Other/Multiple Race, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black households, and large families have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are evident in high levels of cost burden.

Contributing factors:
 HIGH PRIORITY: Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in areas east of El Camino Real.

According to HCD, these areas have the highest concentration of low- to moderate-income populations and face poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.  MEDIUM PRIORITY: There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the city.

Fair Housing Issue: Hispanic residents are concentrated in areas of the city with the lowest opportunity scores—except for employment access.

Contributing factors:
 HIGH PRIORITY: The Census Tract directly east of El Camino Real is designated as a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, which is defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.” Hispanic households are primarily concentrated in this portion of the city.  HIGH PRIORITY: According to HCD and TCAC’s opportunity maps, this area has the highest concentration of low- to moderate-income populations who face poor opportunity outcomes. However, the area has the best access to employment opportunities.  MEDIUM PRIORITY: Although affordable housing (as captured in the HCD Location Affordability Index) is not as highly concentrated in San Bruno compared to other cities throughout the county, the eastern area of the city offers the most affordable homes. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. Preference may be at play as well: A recent article in Cityscape found that Hispanic homebuyers—when controlled for demographics, loan characteristics, and finances—are more likely to purchase homes in neighborhoods with fewer non-Hispanic White homeowners and lower economic opportunity.
861 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-49
Fair Housing Issue: Persons with disabilities are most likely to file complaints of housing discrimination due to refusal to rent or negotiate for a rental, discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges, and failure to make reasonable accommodations.

Contributing factors:
 MEDIUM PRIORITY: There were four complaints filed with HUD in San Bruno from 2017 to 2020— all on the basis of disability—where the issues cited included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request.
 HIGH PRIORITY: Lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by landlords and property owners.
 HIGH PRIORITY: Lack of knowledge about fair housing laws by landlords and property owners.

Fair Housing Issues in education:
 Students of color face disparities in subject proficiency compared to the overall student population at both San Bruno Park Elementary School District and San Mateo Union High School District. Overall, 50% of San Bruno Park Elementary District students meet or exceed English language arts and literacy standards and 41% exceed math standards. For Black or African American students, however, 39% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 23% are math proficient. For Hispanic students, 36% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 25% are math proficient.  Overall, 70% of San Mateo Union High School District students meet or exceed English language arts and literacy standards and 50% exceed math standards. For Black or African American students, however, 55% are English language arts and literacy proficient. For Hispanic students, 50% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 22% are math proficient. For Pacific Islander students, 34% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 20% exceed mathematics testing standards.  Hispanic and Pacific Islanders face higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall school population at both local school districts. Hispanic and Black or African American students have the highest dropout rates in San Mateo Union School District.  Hispanic students face high rates of suspension compared to their representation among student bodies.

Contributing factors:
 HIGH PRIORITY: The reasons for these disparities are unclear and should be examined. The gaps suggest that Hispanic students need more support and that schools in the San Bruno area need to focus more closely on efforts to close proficiency gaps and ensure equity in education.

J. GOAL 4 OF THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS: PROMOTING EQUITY IN HOUSING
As a part of San Bruno’s Goal of Promoting equity in housing, protect residents from displacement, and support the needs of households with low incomes and special needs (Housing Element Goal 4, See Chapter 7), the City has identified four fair housing programs that will enhance housing mobility, remove barriers to housing in areas of opportunity, promote housing supply, choices and affordability in higher resource neighborhoods, and improve strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization and protect existing residents from displacement.
862 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-50
Examples of implementing actions in the Fair Housing Programs include:
 Prioritize City capital improvement investments to address the challenges of the areas east of El Camino, which is disproportionately occupied by Hispanic residents.  Improve landscaping and tree cover and parks, reduce pollutants, and create more walkability and pedestrian safety.
 Bolster the City's reasonable accommodations in housing by adding resources on the City website (e.g., modeling the City of San Francisco's website on service and support animals), conducting resident and property owner awareness training, and clearly defining reasonable accommodations in housing in the City code.
 Partner with local fair housing organizations to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants, in addition to enforcing fair housing laws, with a focus on disability violations  Engage developers to produce housing with amenities that can help to reduce the disparities in outcomes among the schools that serve San Bruno.

Programs that support fair housing and equity in housing were incorporated into this Housing Element’s Goals, Policies and Programs in Chapter 7, and will help reverse patterns of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the city. These programs are targeted to ensure that local actions on housing will address residents with disproportionate housing needs.

KEY POINTS: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Resident Needs Survey
Among San Bruno residents, there were 99 survey responses. Overall, San Bruno survey data tends to mirror the countywide averages. The most frequent issues mentioned for San Bruno were related to affordability, overcrowding and quality of schools. The survey shows that in both the county and San Bruno, low-income is a barrier to accessing housing. The impacts are highest for Hispanic households.

Outreach, Enforcement, and Compliance
The City of San Bruno has few fair housing complaints and there is evidence of less exclusionary behavior from landlords in San Bruno relative to neighboring communities. No fair housing enforcement actions have been taken against the City and the City is in compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations. The City has several housing policies enacted locally that encourage housing development and mitigate displacement. The City has also identified barriers to affordable housing development and policies that can help address those barriers as well as actions to strengthen its capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.

Integration and Segregation
San Bruno’s residents are more racially and ethnically diverse than residents in the county and the Bay Area overall because San Bruno has a higher share of residents who are Asian and Hispanic. San Bruno also has a higher proportion of lower-income residents than most Bay Area jurisdictions. The City’s Fair Housing Programs in Chapter 7 will help reduce racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the city.

Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty The City of San Bruno has no R/ECAPs or edge R/ECAPS.

Access to Opportunity
The area east of El Camino Real is disproportionately impacted by low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and low resource scores.
863 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-51
Disparate Housing Needs
Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in San Bruno. Additionally, racial, and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan.

Site Inventory Analysis
Overall, the Site Inventory in San Bruno provides housing to accommodate a mix of incomes across several distinct areas of the city. There is a concentration of units near the Tanforan site and Bayside Shopping Center, which is predominantly Asian and White. The area has a similar proportion of low-income residents as the citywide rate. The sites are also located in proximity to San Bruno’s Hispanic, lower-income neighborhoods and will provide a mix of lower-income units to serve these neighborhoods. Adding additional low-income options nearby will not exacerbate the concentration of low-income units in the area and create a more mixed-income neighborhood.

The sites inventory includes sites that are suitable for high-density residential development based on factors such as land availability, land use, transit, and infrastructure. The San Bruno sites inventory includes housing developments that combined with the policies and programs in this Housing Element will AFFH.

Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
The City has identified four fair housing issues: 1) Hispanic and large families have disproportionate housing needs, in particular with high levels of cost burden; 2) Hispanic residents are concentrated in areas of the city with the lowest opportunity scores; 3) Persons with disabilities are most likely to experience housing discrimination based on fair housing complaints; 4) Students of color face disparities in subject proficiency, higher rates of chronic absenteeism, and higher dropout rates and rates of suspension.

Fair Housing Policies and Programs
Fair Housing Policies and Programs are included in Goal 8, “Promote Equity in Housing” (see Chapter 7).

Implementing programs that support fair housing and equity in housing were incorporated into this Housing Element’s Goals, Policies and Programs in Chapter 7 and will help reverse patterns of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation in the city. These programs are targeted to ensure that local actions on housing will address residents with disproportionate housing needs.
864 of 1863
CHAPTER 4 | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
4-52
This page intentionally left blank
865 of 1863
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 5-1
5 PUBLIC OUTREACH
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that, “The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).

Another important source of guidance in the development of this Housing Element was the wider San Bruno community. As outlined in the description of public outreach that follows, the Housing Element has incorporated input from the residents at public meetings, the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as from affordable housing providers, advocates, and developers whose recommendations were received at 21 Elements Outreach Panels. A discussion of community outreach and engagement is provided below.

All the community outreach activities were advertised through the City Manager’s newsletter which has 6,030 subscribers, the Housing Element Interested Party List, and through the City’s NextDoor account which reaches over 15,000 people. The City also sent announcements through its Facebook and Instagram accounts which have 950 and 1,050 followers, respectively. The City posted public notices at City Hall and in the local paper for all City Council and Planning Commission public meetings held to discuss the Housing Element.

Additionally, meetings and surveys were publicized on Channel 1, the City’s Local Origination channel, which has 9,500 viewers, and in materials distributed to downtown businesses and in residents’ utility bills which reached over 10,600 households in San Bruno.

Key accomplishments of the community outreach efforts included:
 Launch of a Housing Element Update website that included links to past event video recordings, meeting materials, outreach and survey summaries, and information about upcoming meetings and ways to get involved.
 A citywide flyer distributed in resident utility bills in April and May 2022—inviting community members to participate in community workshops, public meetings, and online surveys. The same flyer was hand distributed to downtown businesses and made available in English and in Spanish.  Three Housing Element public workshops, three presentations/discussions at City Council, and two Planning Commission public meetings.
866 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
5-2
 The first public workshop was held on April 8, 2021 with 21 Elements and focused on educating the public on Housing Elements and the RHNA process; 264 people registered and 80 questions were answered over 3 hours.
 The second public workshop was held on May 4, 2022 and presented options for how the City could meet its RHNA obligation and solicited feedback on potential sites and programs. The meeting’s white board exercise can be found in Appendix J.
 The third public workshop was held on May 26, 2022. At the meeting staff shared how input from the May 4th meeting has been integrated into the City’s draft sites inventory list and draft programs and provides opportunity for review and public comment.

Below is a summary of the feedback received from the public at the May workshops.  Expand the TCP and end single-family zoning.
 Relax setback requirements to allow use of the entire site.  We need policies beyond the BMR ordinance to get more affordable housing.  Consider preauthorized ADU designs to facilitate their production.  Consider a rental registry.
 Need more outreach to renters in this process.
 Prioritize housing for teachers.
 Consider housing at Towne Center.
 Ensure units are a variety of sizes.
 The City has a difficult permitting process that needs to be simplified.  Lower parking requirements.
 Need to educate landlords about their responsibilities.  Consider a countywide rental registry.
 Reduce development standards to encourage development.  Explore raising height limits in low-density residential neighborhoods.  Support for raising building height limits along El Camino Real outside the TCP area.  Increase density downtown.

A related Housing Element Survey was circulated by the City from March 3, 2022 to June 24, 2022 and more than 445+ responses were received. Survey flyers were in English and Spanish. Most survey respondents were longtime residents (62%) in the 50+ age group (72%), in the White, non-Hispanic ethnicity group (53%), more likely to own their home (85%) and were predominantly living in a single-family home (92%). Most expressed support for more single-family housing options with multi-family housing options (condominiums, apartments, and townhomes) their second preference. Survey respondents expressed that housing dedicated for teachers, police, fire, and related safety workers is needed in San Bruno. Survey respondents also expressed significant interest in supporting housing in the city’s mixed-use and commercial areas. The summary data for the survey can be found in Appendix J.

A. CREATING AN AFFORDABLE FUTURE WEBINAR SERIES
San Bruno and 21 Elements offered a four-part countywide webinar series in the fall of 2021 to help educate community members about local housing issues. The sessions were advertised and offered in Cantonese, Mandarin, and Spanish, though participation in non-English channels was limited. All meetings and materials can be found here. The following topics, and how each intersects with regional housing challenges and opportunities, were explored:
867 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 5-3
 Why Affordability Matters: Why housing affordability matters to public health, community fabric, and to county residents, families, workers and employers.
 Housing and Racial Equity: Why and how our communities have become segregated by race, why it is a problem, and how it has become embedded in our policies and systems.  Housing in a Climate of Change: What is the connection between housing policy and climate change and a walk through the Housing & Climate Readiness Toolkit.  Putting it All Together for a Better Future: How design and planning for much-needed new infill housing can be an opportunity to address existing challenges in our communities.

The series included speaker presentations, audience Q&A, breakout sessions, and debrief discussions.

Participants were eager to discuss and learn more about housing challenges in their community. They asked questions, commented in the chat and shared their thoughts in a post-event survey. Overall, comments were mostly positive and in favor of more housing. Some were focused on the need for new affordable housing.

There was a lot of interest in seeing more housing built (especially housing that is affordable), concern about change or impact to schools, parking, quality of life, and personal struggles with finding housing that is affordable and accessible. Some participants wanted more in-depth education and discussion of next steps, while others had more basic questions.

In total, 754 registered for the series. Of those who shared, the majority identified as White (55%) or Asian (24%) and ranged between 30 and 70 years old. Over half have lived in the county for over 21 years and nearly two-thirds owned their homes.

B. OUTREACH PANELS
The 21 Elements team facilitated a series of panel discussions to solicit input from stakeholders throughout the county on housing issues. Four meetings were held, with focused stakeholder participants, including housing developers, housing advocates and funding providers, and special needs service providers.

1. FAIR HOUSING PANEL
On September 27, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the first of four Housing Element stakeholder listening sessions with organizations focused on fair housing issues.

Key themes included:
 Concern about the upcoming end of the eviction moratorium.  The importance of transit-oriented affordable housing and stronger anti-displacement policies.  The need for more education around accessibility regulations and reasonable accommodation.  The ability of jurisdictions to use their platform (including jurisdiction websites) to promote education and resources for tenants and landlords.

Policies and programs suggested for consideration:
 More funding for subsidized affordable housing near transit or good access to transit.  Stronger just cause protections.
 Rent stabilization and rent registries as a tool.
 Tenant and community first right of purchase or right of first refusal (TOPA and COPA).  Creation of more ADUs and programs to increase access to these units for lower-income people. 868 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
5-4
Fair Housing stakeholder groups on the panel included the following:
 Center for Independence www.cidsanmateo.org
 Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) www.clsepa.org  Housing Equality Law Project www.housingequality.org
 Legal Aid for San Mateo County www.legalaidsmc.org
 Project Sentinel www.housing.org
 Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org
 Public Interest Law Project www.pilpca.org
 Root Policy Research www.rootpolicy.com

2. HOUSING ADVOCATES PANEL
On October 18, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the second housing element stakeholder listening session with housing advocacy organizations. Five stakeholder advocacy organizations participated in the panel. Detailed information about speakers and attending jurisdictions is below and in Appendix J.

Key themes included:
 Ongoing outreach needed to underserved and diverse communities.  Production of new housing is critical to the county’s workforce.  Greatest need for deeply affordable housing, dense infill.  Connecting labor, environment and equity to housing.
 Rent increases are a primary concern.
 Protecting vulnerable renting populations with assistance from the government.

Policies and programs suggested for consideration:
 Additional funding for affordable housing through commercial linkage fees, inclusionary zoning, vacancy tax, sales tax, etc.
 Protections: eviction assistance, anti-harassment measures, stronger just cause, tenant right-to return, relocation assistance, improvements to the building inspection process, rental registries as a tool.  Production: Increase density within existing communities in non-high fire severity zones, eliminating harmful restrictions on density, eliminating parking minimums, streamlining housing building process, fair and inclusive zoning policies.
 Prioritize BIPOC families in housing policies, outreach, and practice (all stages of the practices).  Manage the threat of climate risk by adding green infrastructure.

Housing Advocates on the panel included the following:
 Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org
 Faith in Action www.faithinactionba.org
 Greenbelt Alliance www.greenbelt.org
 San Mateo County Central Labor Council www.sanmateolaborcouncil.org  Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org
 San Mateo County Association of Realtors www.samcar.org 869 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 5-5

3. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PANEL
On September 27, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the third housing element stakeholder listening session with housing developers and builders, including both affordable housing developers and market-rate housing developers. Detailed information about speakers and attending jurisdictions is below.

Key themes for affordable housing development included:
 Primary constraints to affordable housing include: the limits of local funding, tax credit availability (the county’s pool is small, limiting the size of a development that could get an award), appropriate sites.  Key policies and programs: sufficient and flexible local funding; either public land or land that is eligible for SB 35; streamlined process and alignment across city departments.  Local governments should be aware of state and tax credit policies/requirements; be cognizant of the cumulative impacts of multiple layers of funding requirements; be prepared for community pushback now that high-resource areas are being targeted.

Key themes for market-rate housing development included:
 Primary constraints include competition for sites (with other uses) which drives up land costs; construction costs; City process and zoning; all the “easy” sites have already been developed, leaving sites with environmental, political (close to single-family homes), or other challenges.  Key policies and programs: Specific plans and master plans and form-based zoning have been successful; removing CEQA from the equation is helpful; seek a balance of flexibility and predictability.  Localities should exercise caution with parking and ground-floor commercial requirements.  Property tax exemption is likely best tool for encouraging moderate/middle income housing created by the market.
 Need for flexible parking requirements.
 Reduce entitlement processes.
 Remove CEQA from the review process.

Builders and developers on the panel included the following:
 Affirmed Housing (Affordable) www.affirmedhousing.com  BRIDGE Housing (Affordable) www.bridgehousing.com
 The Core Companies (Affordable, Market Rate) www.thecorecompanies.com  Eden Housing (Affordable) www.edenhousing.org
 Greystar (Market Rate) www.greystar.com
 Habitat for Humanity (Affordable) www.habitatsf.org
 HIP Housing (Affordable) www.hiphousing.org
 Mercy Housing (Affordable) www.mercyhousing.org
 MidPen Housing (Affordable) www.midpen-housing.org
 Sand Hill Property Company (Affordable, Market Rate) www.shpco.com  Sares | Regis (Market Rate) www.srgnc.com
 Summerhill Apartment Communities (Market Rate) www.shapartments.com 870 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
5-6

4. SERVICE PROVIDERS PANEL
On November 15, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the fourth housing element stakeholder listening session with San Mateo County service providers. Detailed information about speakers (see Appendix J for organizational information) and attending jurisdictions is below.

Key themes included:
 Key location characteristics were similar for most groups: access to transit, groceries, medical services, pharmacy, schools/parks/community centers/senior centers, jobs and job training.  Most of these stakeholder groups serve people with a range of incomes—focused primarily on the low end of the income spectrum but also into moderate levels.  Need affordable housing (or access to vouchers/subsidies that help with access to market-rate housing) of all shapes and sizes: mostly smaller units (studios to 2BR) but there is a need for larger units. It is hard for larger families (5-8 people) to find appropriately sized housing. Space, closets and storage, design for people with disabilities.
 Some people need onsite supportive services; others just need to be able to easily access services, whether by transit or if it can come to them.
 Work with service providers and people experiencing issues firsthand before creating programs.  Use your networks and power to encourage business/tech/philanthropy to support service providers.

Policies and programs suggested for consideration:
 Actively partner with affordable housing developers to streamline and facilitate development.  Stabilize market rents.
 Use public land for affordable housing.
 Create more workforce housing.
 Increase inclusionary housing.
 Encourage and facilitate more homesharing.
 Educate landlords on their rights so they are more willing to partner with Housing First service providers.

Service providers on the panel included the following:
 Abode Services www.adobeservices.org
 Daly City Partnership www.dcpartnership.org
 El Concilio www.el-concillio.com
 HIP Housing www.hiphousing.org
 LifeMoves www.lifemoves.org
 Mental Health Association of San Mateo County www.mhasmc.org  National Alliance on Mental Illness www.namisanmateo.org  Ombudsman of San Mateo County www.ossmc.org
 Samaritan House San Mateo www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org  Youth Leadership Institute www.yil.org
871 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 5-7
C. EQUITY ADVISORY GROUP
In partnership with 21 Elements/Let’s Talk Housing and in alignment with community outreach best practices, it was important to include the guidance of and foster partnerships with community organizations to help ensure everyone’s voices were heard during the Housing Element update. In response, an Equity Advisory Group (EAG) was formed consisting of 15 organizations or leaders across the county that are advancing equity and affordable housing. EAG members have facilitated and hosted community meetings in partnership with 21 Elements, collected community housing stories to put a face to housing needs, advised on messaging, and amplified events and activities to their communities. All participating organizations are featured on the Let’s Talk Housing website. In May 2022, staff gave a presentation to the EAG who gave valuable feedback on draft programs and policies. The EAG provided positive feedback on San Bruno’s draft policies to improve equity in housing policy and decision making. The participating organizations included the following:
 Ayudando Lations A Soñar (ALAS) www.alashmb.org
 Community Legal Services www.clsepa.org
 El Comite de Vecinos del Lado Oeste (El Comite) www.tenantstogether.org/resources/el-comité-devecinos-del-lado-oeste-east-palo-alto  EPACANDO www.epacando.org
 Faith in Action www.faithinaction.org/federation/faith-in-action-bay-area/  Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org
 Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org
 Menlo Together www.menlotogether.org
 Nuestra Casa www.nuestracasa.org
 One San Mateo www.onesanmateo.org
 Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org
 Puente de la Costa Sur www.mypuente.org
 San Mateo County Health www.gethealthysmc.org
 Youth Leadership Institute www.yli.org/region/san-mateo  Youth United for Community Action www.youthunited.net D. SAN MATEO COUNTY FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
In partnership with 21 Elements/Let’s Talk Housing, and conducted by Root Policy, the San Mateo County Fair Housing Survey gathered 99 responses from San Bruno residents as of April 21, 2022 (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5 for a summary of the survey findings). Key takeaways from the survey include:
 It is difficult for voucher holders to find an affordable unit.  Low income is a barrier to finding housing.
 Single parent households and BIPOC households reported higher rates of housing denial and housing discrimination.
872 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
5-8
 Single parent households and BIPOC households reported higher rates of housing displacement.  Students of displaced households often need to change schools and suffer worse educational outcomes as a result.
 Housing units are too small.
 Precariously housed respondents, single parent households, and households with a member experiencing a disability had issues finding housing.
 Better access to mental health care as a solution to help improve their health situations.  San Bruno households moved to South San Francisco to find less expensive housing.  For respondents with disabilities, housing units do not meet accessibility needs.  Schools in the community are under resourced and result in worse educational outcomes for students.  When asked what type of help they needed to improve their housing security, top answers included: Help me with a down payment/purchase (39%); Help me get a loan to buy a house (27%); and Help me with the housing search (23%). Other resources to improve quality of life were also identified in the survey results.

E. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Below is a summary of key takeaways that emerged throughout the outreach process.  Housing is personal: People often have differing views on housing because it is a very personal issue tied to feelings of safety, belonging and identify. Often the comments reflected people’s current housing situation. Those with safe, stable housing that they can afford were more concerned with change. Those without were more interested in bolder policies and more housing generally. Many people shared meaningful stories of being priced out of their communities or of their children not being able to live in the community where they grew up. Click here for a sample story.  The price of housing is a major concern: Many voiced concerns about the high cost to rent or buy a home today, either for themselves, friends, or family. It is an issue that touches a lot of lives.  More housing is needed: Generally, people believe we need more housing, particularly affordable housing. However, there are diverging views on how to accomplish this, where housing should go, and what it should look like.
 Single-family neighborhoods are polarizing: While some people voiced their interest in upzoning single-family neighborhoods or eliminating them altogether, other homeowners want to protect them and in turn, the investment they have made.
 Affordable housing is a top concern: Many felt that more needed to be done to promote affordable housing. They also felt that developers should be eligible for incentives and opportunities that make them more competitive.
 The process is too complicated: There was significant concern that the development process was too slow and there was too much uncertainty.
 Better information resources: People wanted to know how to find affordable housing in their communities and navigate the process of applying for it. 873 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 5-9
 Issues are connected: Transportation, climate change, access to living wage jobs and education opportunities are all tied to housing and quality of life. These issues are not siloed in people’s lives and there is a desire to address them in interconnected ways.  Equity is on people’s minds: People want to talk about housing inequities and, even more so, discuss how to solve them. There was interest in ways to create new opportunities for housing and asset building for all that also address past exclusions.
 Regional input matters but there’s more to figure out: It was valuable to build a broader sense of community and share resources at the countywide level. However, it was challenging to engage nonresident community members on jurisdiction-specific input.  Diversity in participation was a challenge: Despite partnering with organizations to engage with the hardest to reach communities and providing multilingual outreach, achieving diversity in participation was challenging. In the wake of Covid-19, organizations already operating on limited resources were focused on supporting immediate needs, while the added stresses of life coupled with the digital divide added additional barriers for many.

INCORPORATING WHAT WE HEARD INTO THE PLAN
Public outreach and community engagement conducted over the past year played a significant role in the development of the goals, policies, and programs within the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The following is a summary list of topics and the associated policy(s) that were added or improved as a result of that community and stakeholder feedback.
 Support the development of larger units with more bedrooms for families.  Improve the City’s management of its affordable housing portfolio.  Develop objective design standards to expedite the review of multi-family housing types.  Adopt tenant anti-harassment ordinance.
 Improve awareness and availability of resources for landlords and tenants.  Streamline the permitting process and simplify the rules and regulations for new housing development.  Adopt rules for existing tenants first right of refusal.  Improve walkability and access to transit in disadvantaged communities.  Provide training/education about fair housing laws to landlords.  Support the construction of more accessory dwelling units (ADUs).  Provide incentives for the construction of housing that is affordable to very low- and extremely low-income households.
 Remove dwelling unit density standards in all mixed-use zoning districts.  Establish a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit set-aside for tenants with physical or developmental needs.  Adopt a Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance.
 Improve public information on the ADU application and permit process so it is clear and comprehensive.  Provide homesharing information on the City’s website.  Give displaced residents (former jurisdiction residents) preferential access to new affordable housing.  Revise the parking ordinance to provide more flexibility in the number of spaces provided.  Establish a rental assistance program with the City’s affordable housing funds. 874 of 1863
CHAPTER 5 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
5-10
 Explore increasing height limits within the El Camino Real corridor.  Create housing in the community to meet the needs of essential workers and lower wage earners.

Appendix J includes all the community feedback, communications and documentation that support the findings and conclusions in this section. The affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) resident survey is included in Appendix F for the AFFH chapter.
a. City of San Bruno Housing Element Workshop – April 8, 2021: Survey Responses b. City of San Bruno Housing Policy Workshop Summaries – May 4, 2022 c. Survey Data from the City of San Bruno Housing Element Survey which was open from March 3, 2022 to July 31, 2022
d. 21 Elements Stakeholder Listening Sessions Summary
e. Community Correspondence received by the city as of December 22, 2022 875 of 1863
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-1
6 SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
For the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City must identify enough potentially developable land zoned for residential use to meet the City’s new Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity/production target and develop policies and programs that create opportunities to increase production. While the City does not build housing on property that is privately owned or owned by other government agencies, the State requires each jurisdiction to demonstrate where housing can reasonably be expected to be added within this cycle and how the City will facilitate and incentivize its production.

In each Housing Element cycle, the City is allocated a regional housing needs target (RHNA target) that is a share of the Bay Area region’s projected housing needs for all income groups for the next eight years. For San Bruno, the proposed RHNA is 3,165 units, a significant increase from the previous cycle which proposed 1,155 units. The total number of housing units and the distribution by income category is as follows:

TABLE 6-1 SAN BRUNO’S RHNA BY AFFORDABILITY
Income Category
Very Low
(Up to 50% of AMI)
Low
(51% to 80% of AMI)
Moderate
(81% to 120% of AMI)
Above-Moderate
Market Rate Total
Housing Allocation 704 405 573 1,483 3,165
Housing Allocation
w/15% buffer 810 466 659 1,705 3,640
Note: AMI = Area Median Income
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

A. NO NET LOSS LAW
In estimating realistic capacity on sites in the Sites Inventory, California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommends jurisdictions consider the No Net Loss Law. This law was amended by Chapter 367, Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 166), which requires sufficient and adequate sites to be always available throughout the RHNA planning period to meet a jurisdiction’s remaining unmet housing needs for each income category. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, as jurisdictions make decisions regarding zoning and land use, or as development occurs, jurisdictions must assess their ability to accommodate new housing in each income category on the remaining sites in their housing element site 876 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-2
inventories. A jurisdiction must add additional sites to its inventory if land use decisions or development results in a shortfall of sufficient sites to accommodate its remaining housing need for each income category.

In particular, a jurisdiction may be required to identify additional sites according to the No Net Loss Law if a jurisdiction rezones a site or if the jurisdiction approves a project at a different income level than shown in the Sites Inventory. Lower density housing development means fewer units than the capacity assumed in the site inventory.

To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, it is recommended the jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15% to 30% more capacity than required,
especially for capacity to accommodate the lowerincome RHNA. Jurisdictions can also create a buffer by projecting site capacity at less than the
maximum density to allow for some reductions in
density at a project level. San Bruno has added a
15% buffer to its allocation, which brings the total
RHNA including buffer of up to 3,640 dwelling
units.

Table 6-2 below explains how San Bruno can meet
its RHNA obligation.

B. PURPOSE OF SITES INVENTORY
This chapter is designed to address the requirements of Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3), 65583 (c)(1), and 65583.2. It describes the inventory of land in San Bruno that is suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and underutilized sites with the potential for redevelopment. This chapter also includes an analysis of the relationship of the General Plan, zoning, and public facilities and services to the site inventory as well as an assessment of realistic development capacity for the planning period. Quantified housing construction and rehabilitation objectives are identified for extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income households.

The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with appropriate zoning to meet the City’s RHNA goal. It is based on the City’s current land use designations and zoning requirements.

Preliminary analysis indicates the City might need to rezone or amend the P-D for the Tanforan site to permit housing. The analysis does not include the economic feasibility of specific sites, nor does it take into consideration the owner’s intended use of the land now or in the future. It does not dictate where residential development will actually occur, and the decision whether or not to develop any particular site always remains with the owner of the property, not the City. Based on previous Housing Elements, the City anticipates that some of the sites on the list will be developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will be built on sites not listed in the inventory. Although the Sites Inventory was prepared after extensive analysis, it represents the City’s best estimate as to which sites are most likely to develop within the next planning cycle.

The City will continue to monitor the Sites Inventory and its progress towards development over planning cycle to determine if the rate and density of development is consistent with our projections and make adjustments if necessary. The Sites Inventory is further outlined in the following tables: Table 6-3 provides a summary of housing production during Housing Element cycle 5 (2015-2023 and Table 6-4 shows housing production underway or under review. The complete Sites Inventory broken down by affordability level is included in Appendix K.

TABLE 6-2 MEETING SAN BRUNO’S RHNA
Project Type Units
RHNA Goal +
15% Buffer
Pipeline Project 670
3,640
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) 240
Sites Inventory 2,709
Housing Units Constructed since
July 1, 2022 43
Total 3,662
Source: City of San Bruno 2022.
877 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-3
TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF HOUSING PRODUCTION UNDER LAST RHNA (2015-2023) Project Name APN Status Category
Units
per Acre
Tenure
(Renter v
Owner)
Units by Household Income Category
Total
Units
Assistance Programs for Each Development Deed,
Restricted Units, Units Affordable without Financial
or Deed Restrictions
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
1721 Earl 019041170 Built SF O 1 1 None
1655 Claremont 019023360 Built SF O 1 1 None
991 Glenview 019043530 Built SF O 1 1 None
2735 Concord 019023350 Built SF O 1 1 None
1115 Fairmont 019014310 Built SF O 1 1 None
1110 Glenview 019014180 Built SF O 1 1 None
1100 Glenview 019014170 Built SF O 1 1 None
1641 Claremont 019023340 Built SF O 1 1 None
1711 Earl 019041020 Built SF O 1 1 None
406-418 San Mateo
Ave 020364360 Built MF R 41 42 83
83 apartments with market rate rents. City estimates
that roughly half of the units (41 units) are affordable to moderate income households, based on market
rents of comparable projects in San Bruno.

Skyline College,
Multi-Family
Residential
017080150 Built MF R 6 5 19 30
The project includes 11 deed restricted affordable
units. San Mateo County Community College District
has confirmed that, even though the remaining 19
units are not deed-restricted but are intended to
serve the low-income level faculty families.

Skyline College,
Single-Family
Residential
117550010
through
11755040
Built SF O 40 40
As part of the Skyline College project, the district
sold a portion of the property to a housing developer
to finance the construction of the 30 multi-family
dwelling units (MFDs). The affordable units for the
project are in the MFD portion of the project.
847 Mills Ave 020112090 Built SF O 1 1
164 Elm Ave 020414420 Built SF O 1 1
ADUs Various Approved ADU n/a R 21 66 21 13 121
Total Units Created 21 72 69 124 286
2015-2023 RHNA 358 161 205 431 1,155
RHNA Remaining Needed for the 2015-2023 Planning Period 337 89 136 307 869 Source: City of San Bruno, 2022.
878 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-4
TABLE 6-4 HOUSING PRODUCTION UNDERWAY AND APPROVAL PIPELINE FOR 2023-2031 RHNA Project
Name/Address APN Status Category
Units
per Acre
Tenure
(Renter v
Owner)
Units by Household Income Category
Units per
Project Assistance Programs for Each Development, Deed
Restricted Units, Units Affordable without Financial
or Deed Restrictions
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
2023-2031 RHNA 704 405 573 1,483 3,165
Pipeline Approvals
Mills Park
020075110,
100, 090,
080, etc.

Approved Multi-Family 79 O 26 19 20 362 427 Project subject to a Development Agreement. The project includes 65 deed restricted affordable units.
732–740 El
Camino Real
020126080,
020126160
Approved
June 2022 Multi-Family 224 R 7 26 7 96 136 Vacant vehicle sales lot. SB 35 and Density Bonus project, with 29.4% deed restricted affordable units.

Glenview Terrace 019042150,
160, 170
Approved
July 2022
SingleFamily 9 O 0 1 3 25 29
Vacant former gas station and church properties.

Developer will provide affordable units on-site and
pay the affordable housing fee for a partial lowincome unit, per San Bruno’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program. The project includes four deed
restricted affordable units.
111 San Bruno
Ave. 021176010
Est.

Approval
2023
Multi-Family 111 R 5 0 0 41 46
Vacant former bank property. Developer will provide
affordable units on-site. Density Bonus requested.

The project proposes seven deed restricted
affordable units.
271 El Camino
Real
020364320,
020364120,
020364130,
020364140
Approved
Sept. 2021 Multi-Family 40 O 0 1 2 20 23
Vacant former restaurant property. Developer will
provide affordable three deed restricted units on-site
and pay the affordable housing fee for a partial lowincome unit and partial moderate-income unit, per San Bruno’s BMR Program.
500 Sylvan Ave. 020145480 Approved Multi-Family 53 R 0 0 0 9 9 The Affordable Housing In-lieu fee was paid for this project.

Total Units in Pipeline, by Income Category 38 47 32 553 670 RHNA Remaining Need, by Income Category 666 358 541 931 2,495 Source: City of San Bruno, 2022.
879 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-5
C. EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
San Bruno’s gross acreage (all land uses including streets and roads) is approximately 3,600 acres. The majority (approximately 52%) of San Bruno’s net land area (excluding streets and roads) is devoted to residential uses with land used for single-family residences comprising the great majority (44% of total). Commercial and industrial/ auto-related land uses make up approximately 8% and 2% of San Bruno’s net land area, respectively. Of these areas regional retail uses occupy the greatest. Public and quasi-public land uses make up approximately 20% of the city’s net land area. The public/quasi-public uses include several non-local governmental uses, including the Golden Gate National Cemetery and Marine Reserves Center. Parks and open space make up about 13% of the city’s net land area. Around 2% of the city’s net land area is vacant land and surface parking lots.

1. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS
The majority of San Bruno’s land area consists of residential use, and neighborhoods are its most prominent feature. The city’s older, eastern half (east of I-280) contains the greatest diversity of land uses and residential types. Streets in this relatively flat area are organized in a grid pattern that reflects their early 20th century roots.

San Bruno’s newer, western half is comprised primarily of single-family subdivisions, but also several large multifamily complexes. The curvilinear street pattern in this area, commonly used in post-1950 residential subdivisions, is adapted to the steep, hilly terrain.

Citywide, San Bruno’s average residential density is 10.6 housing units per net acre. East of El Camino Real mixed single and multi-family neighborhoods average 16.3 housing units per net acre. Single-family neighborhoods between El Camino Real and I-280 average 10.5 housing units per net acre, with the notable exception of the Crossing development, which averages 50 to 60 units per acre. West of I-280 in lower-density hillside neighborhoods residential densities average 6.7 housing units per net acre. Aside from the Crossing, the other large multi-family complexes average 29.1 housing units per net acre.

The Transit Corridors Specific Plan (TCP) provides for 1,610 new housing units in the roughly 150-acre TCP area along the city’s main commercial corridors surrounding the new San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station. The City completed the Zoning Code update to establish the mixed-use zoning standards for the area and new development standards in March 2021.

Preliminary analysis indicates the City will need to rezone or amend the P-D District for the Tanforan site to accommodate 1,000 housing units.

D. SUMMARY OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ENTITLEMENTS
San Bruno issued building permits for a total of 286 dwelling units over the current planning period through 2021 against the RHNA of 1,155 new units. This leaves a remaining obligation of 868 housing units. Furthermore, the City did not meet its allocation for housing units at any income level against the RHNA target. A majority of the approved units are attributable to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which highlights their importance in providing an additional housing type in the city. The City has entitled many more housing units over the course of the planning period which are not reflected in Table 6-3 because only building permit issuance counts towards the RHNA. Most of the delay is attributable to interruptions in the update of the Zoning Code and to an uncertain housing market during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the City did not meet its RHNA target, it entitled 670 additional housing units in the current planning period which are now in the pipeline for the sixth Housing Element cycle. Below is a list of major residential projects that were entitled during the current planning period but are pending building permit submittal/issuance. 880 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-6
All of the projects remain active and therefore are considered pipeline projects for meeting the City’s RHNA-6 allocation.
111 San Bruno Avenue – The proposal is to demolish the shopping center at 761–767 Huntington Avenue and construct a five-story, mixed-use building with a total of 62 dwelling units. The project would include a total of 11 affordable units, exceeding the City’s affordable housing requirements. Six low-income and five moderate-income units would be provided. Approved density is 84 units per acre. The applicant reduced the proposed number of units to 46 after negotiations to consolidate lots failed with an adjacent property owner. Staff anticipates this project will be entitled late Winter 2022/23. The project is located in the TCP area, across the street from the Caltrain Station and near a number of other potential development sites. 500 Sylvan Avenue – This TCP project proposes nine multi-family market-rate rental units in a three-story building. Dwelling unit density is 53 units per acre. The project was approved in May 2019, and the project entitlements were first extended in June 2020 and then automatically extended for 18 months pursuant to Assembly Bill 1561. Building permits for the project are ready for issuance.

Mills Park Center (601-611 and 643-799 El Camino Real; 701-751 Camino Plaza; 711-777 Kains Avenue) – The mixed-use development with 427 multi-family residential units and ground floor commercial space was approved in August 2020. The project includes a total of 64 on-site affordable units, including 26 very low-income units, 19 low-income units, and 19 moderate-income units, consistent with the City’s affordable housing requirements. Building permits have yet to be submitted. Approved density is 79 units per acre. This project also represents successful parcel consolidation to maximize development within the TCP. 271 El Camino Real – The project proposes to construct a three-story, approximately 39,643 gross square-foot condominium complex that would provide three affordable housing units and 20 market-rate units (23 units total) on a 0.57-acre development site. The project was approved in September 2021 and is pending building permit submittal. The project will provide three affordable units on-site, one low-income unit and two moderateincome units and pay a partial in-lieu fee, consistent with the City’s affordable housing requirements. Approved density is 40 units per acre, the maximum permitted in the zoning district.

Glenview Terrace – The project consists of 29 for-sale single-family dwelling units on the corner of San Bruno Avenue and Glenview Drive. The project site is 3.28 acres and consists of three parcels that will be merged into one parcel. The site formerly contained a gas station on San Bruno Avenue and a church on Glenview Drive. The gas station has been demolished and the church and parsonage will be demolished as part of the project. Proposed home sizes range from 1,700 to 2,600 square feet in size and all 29 homes will be constructed with attached garages. The project required a General Plan Amendment to change the general plan designation for the site from high density residential and low density residential to medium density residential, and the site was rezoned from R-1/P-D to P-D. The project includes four on-site affordable housing units, one low-income unit and three moderate-income units, consistent with the City’s affordable housing requirement. Approved density is 9 units per acre. The project was approved July 2022 and is pending building permit submittal. 732–740 El Camino Real – The project was submitted pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 35 and also requested a density bonus to construct a six-story, residential building on a 0.612-acre site with 136 rental dwelling units.

Proposed density for the project is 227 units/acre with a 2.3 FAR. Twenty-nine percent of the units would be affordable, exceeding the City’s affordable housing requirement of 15%. The project would provide seven very low-income units, 26 low-income units, and seven moderate-income units. The project is in the TCP area. 881 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-7
E. ASSISTED HOUSING SUPPLY
As described in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment, San Bruno has three assisted housing developments which were completed before the third Housing Element cycle, Avalon1, completed in 2005 and Avalon2, completed in 2007 (formerly known as Meridian and Paragon and then Archstone I and II); and Village at the Crossing, also completed in 2007, all of which were built before the third Housing Element cycle. All three projects are rental apartments; the two Avalon developments (formerly named Archstone I and II) are for all household types with a total of 485 units of which 97 are affordable to very low-income households and the Village at the Crossing is for senior households only with 228 units, all of which are affordable to low-, very low-, and extremely low-income seniors. None of these assisted units are at risk of conversion during this Housing Element cycle.

F. HOUSING PRODUCTION UNDERWAY

1. ENTITLED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Approximately 521 housing units are in the pipeline as of the start of this Housing Element cycle. This pipeline housing production is expected to be built within this Housing Element cycle. However, no pipeline projects are under construction. The only housing development currently under construction is Skyline College Multi-Family, consisting of 30 multi-family rental units, which is expected to receive its certificate of occupancy Fall, 2022.

Most pipeline units are expected in one project, a 427-unit mixed-use development on El Camino Real, called Mills Park, approved in July 2020. The project is also expected to accommodate a portion of the affordable housing allocation with 65 affordable units. The project is designed at 79 units to the acre which has informed the City’s density assumptions for projects within the vicinity.

2. DWELLINGS CONSTRUCTED SINCE JUNE 30, 2022
Not including the housing units entitled and under construction, ten new dwellings have been constructed in the city since June 30, 2022. These units are ready for occupancy and include three detached ADUs, six attached ADUs, and one new single-family home. None of these new housing units were deed-restricted affordable units.

The affordability level for the single-family dwelling is considered above market-rate. Affordability for the ADUs is based on the default ABAG affordability mix assumptions. Units constructed are indicated in Table 6-8, Total Quantified Objectives, at the end of this chapter.

G. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
As described in Chapter 3, Housing Constraints, San Bruno is located in an urbanized portion of San Mateo County and has no unconstrained vacant land on which new housing can be constructed. Nonetheless, this was also true during the last Housing Element cycle and the City demonstrated that affordable housing can be built in San Bruno despite a lack of vacant land. In fact, high land costs and a limited supply of vacant land constitute conditions ripe for more intensive, compact, infill redevelopment in line with the goals of the General Plan and this Housing Element. To address the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(g) regarding non-vacant sites, the following section provides the supporting rationale behind the additional affordable housing development potential identified for 2023-2031, including development trends and recent and ongoing planning efforts.
882 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-8

1. THRIVING MARKET FOR MIXED-USE WITH RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT ANCHORS DOWNTOWN
In July 2020, the City approved entitlements for the development of a five-story mixed-use commercial and residential building on an approximately 5.38-acre site at the southwest corner San Bruno Avenue and West El Camino Real. The project involves the demolition of a number of commercial buildings, including the Mills Park Shopping Center, and construction of approximately 7,950 square feet of commercial space at the ground level, 427 residential units, and 676 covered parking spaces. The approvals included a Zoning Classification Change, Architectural Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, and a Development Agreement. This project is an important example of how San Bruno has consistently supported mixed-use, higher density development in the city, especially in proximity to transit.

2. PLANNING FOR HOUSING ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS

GENERAL PLAN GOAL AND POLICY ALIGNMENT
The identification of additional realistic future housing sites for San Bruno is based on the goals and policies in the 2025 General Plan (LUD-A, LUD-B, and LUD-C) as updated by the 2013 Transit Corridors Specific Plan, which promote, among other things:
 Residential development to increase walkability and transit use;  Intensification of land uses around the San Bruno BART Station and planned San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station; and
 The reuse and intensification with multi-use, transit-oriented development of El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The San Bruno 2025 General Plan re-designated three major commercial corridors, El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue and Huntington Avenue, with a TOD (Transit Oriented Development) designation to allow for a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses and capitalize on the proximity of these corridors to BART and Caltrain.

The Transit Corridors Specific Plan, adopted in 2013, expanded the TOD designation to encompass the Central Business District along San Mateo Avenue. In March 2021, the City updated the Zoning Code for consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan, thus streamlining mixed-use development within the TOD designation by making residential and residential mixed-use permitted uses in the zone. The rezoning was the final major implementation step for the TCP. The land use designations are described in detail in the Chapter 3 discussion of governmental constraints and resources. Most of the new housing opportunity sites identified in this Housing Element are located in these mixed-use transit corridors.

TCP ZONING CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN DENSITY
The 2025 General Plan took the first big step toward accommodating the development of transit-accessible, affordable infill housing in San Bruno. The TCP does not assign a maximum density for individual residential development projects within the TCP area. Instead, the TCP identified a maximum of 1,610 units for the entire area but allows flexibility in the size of each project based on market conditions and development standards set forth in the Plan.
883 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-9
The TCP provides for higher density development along transit corridors—the location characteristics, proximity to transit, jobs, and shopping that make the area appealing to the changing housing preferences of groups such as seniors, millennials and workers, and market conditions have demonstrated the financial feasibility and demand for such housing projects. A number of higher density residential projects have been built, are under construction or in the approval process along the El Camino Real corridor in San Bruno.

Since the rezoning, there has been strong developer interest in investing in residential development in the TCP area. Four project applications or pre-applications have been submitted and staff has met with several interested property owners and developers about other sites. The TCP provides a guide to developers with detailed development standards and design guidelines and a Program Environmental Impact Report that will facilitate the application process and minimize additional environmental review for projects.

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT SITES WITH MULTIPLE LOTS
This Housing Element relies on development of mixed-use sites within the TCP area to accommodate the City’s RHNA. The TCP envisions mixed-use projects to be residential above retail uses, however the Plan does allow 100% residential projects along El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue, with the exception that key corners should be anchored with ground floor retail. Many of these development sites consist of multiple parcels and will need to be assembled. Development sites that are 20,000 square feet or greater have no limit on floor to area ratio (FAR), making it more likely that smaller sites will be consolidated under single ownership.

H. OPPORTUNITY SITES AND REALISTIC CAPACITY

1. REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT
Recent development trends suggest that San Bruno is ripe for redevelopment based on development approved and redevelopment interest in the last planning period and that housing density for the development is much higher than the City anticipated in the previous planning period. Housing densities in the city’s transit corridors has ranged from a low of 53 dwelling units per acre for the 500 Sylvan Avenue project, to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives for the 732–740 El Camino Real project. Because San Bruno has a minimum below market rate (BMR) requirement of 15%, many developers are choosing to exercise the city’s density bonus provisions, resulting in denser housing projects than previously anticipated. The City expects this trend to continue throughout the planning period.

2. SITES
Under the land uses designated in the San Bruno 2025 General Plan and the Zoning Code, many acres of commercial land in San Bruno’s transit corridors have eligible capacity for redevelopment with mixed uses including housing at or above metropolitan regional default densities. Therefore, the City focused on this area to accommodate housing.

However, for the purposes of specificity in this Housing Element, the City has identified a specific set of housing opportunity sites within the transit corridors, as well as the potential reuse of some former school sites, and sites located outside the TOD designation, all of which are especially appropriate and likely for redevelopment over the period of this Housing Element cycle. Figure 6-1 and Table 6-5 illustrate and list by parcel the specific opportunity sites identified for development or redevelopment of mixed-use or residential projects that are counted towards the City’s RHNA obligation. Table 6-4 shows housing opportunity sites for housing to be consistent with the General Plan and TCP. The table indicates both the maximum and realistic development capacity of each parcel, as well as the connections to existing city infrastructure and services. The table also describes the existing uses on each site.
884 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-10
Figure 6-1 Map of Housing Opportunity Sites
Source: City of San Bruno 2022.
885 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-11
TABLE 6-5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (COUNTED FOR RHNA) Map
ID APN Address
Description of
Current Use
General Plan
Land Use
Zoning
Designation
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Maximum
Units per Acre
(by General Plan
Land Use)
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
Infrastructure
Capacity Opportunities or Constraints?
Included
in Prior
HE
Requires
Rezone
1 020071050 840 San Bruno Ave AT&T Building TOD TOD-2 1.57 n/a 320 Yes Vacant office building No No 2 020362180 465 San Mateo Ave Bank of
America
TOD CBD 0.73 n/a 45 Yes Underutilized property with
viable bank Yes No
3 020012190 851 Cherry Ave
Bayhill
Shopping
Center
TOD BNC 9.21 210 Yes Existing commercial shopping
center No No
4 020256130
529 El Camino Real Vacant used
car sales lot TOD TOD-2

0.11 n/a 72 Yes
Underutilized, marginal use;
One owner; Majority of site is
surface parking with small
1-story commercial building; 10
parcels under the same
ownership would be
consolidated into a .82-acre site
Yes No
020256140 0.11
020256150 0.17
020256160 0.06
020256170 0.06
020256180 0.06
020256190 0.06
020256250 0.04
020256260 0.11
020256270 0.14
020256280 0.07
5 020362190 475 San Mateo Ave Citibank TOD CBD 0.70 n/a 60 Yes Underutilized property with
viable bank and surface parking
lot
Yes No
6 019270260
2101 Sneath Ln
Former Engvall
ES, current Golf
driving range
Low Density
Residential
R-1 11.11 8
118 Yes Vacant former school site
Yes No
019270270 R-1 10.0 8 yes No
7 020116310 850 El Camino Real Former Budget
Motel TOD TOD-2 0.62 n/a 60 Yes Vacant site Yes No
8 020253050 500 Acacia Ave
Former
Edgemont MS,
current district
offices
Low Density
Residential R-1 2.20 8 16 Yes
Underutilized school district
property that has gone through
the disposition process
Yes No
886 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-12
TABLE 6-5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (COUNTED FOR RHNA) Map
ID APN Address
Description of
Current Use
General Plan
Land Use
Zoning
Designation
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Maximum
Units per Acre
(by General Plan
Land Use)
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
Infrastructure
Capacity Opportunities or Constraints?
Included
in Prior
HE
Requires
Rezone
9 020145020
590 El Camino Real IHOP
Restaurant TOD TOD-2

0.10 n/a
42 Yes
Underutilized property with
viable restaurant and surface
parking lot
Yes No
020145030 0.10 n/a Yes
020145010 0.01 n/a Yes
020145470 0.30 n/a Yes
10 021172130 116 San Marco Ave Single-family
dwelling (SFD)
Low Density
Residential R-2 0.10 8 2 Yes Vacant site No No
11 020126050
750 El Camino Real Former vehicle
sales lot TOD TOD-2

0.1 n/a
41 Yes
Vacant former vehicle sales lot
No No
020126140 0.3 n/a Yes No No
12 020126200 750 El Camino Real Former vehicle
showroom TOD TOD-2 0.3 n/a 34 Yes Vacant building, currently for sale No No 13 020017020 801–851 Traeger Dr. Office Building Regional Office BRO 6.1 n/a 205 Yes
Office building recently rezoned
for housing option at owner’s
request
No No
14 014316330 1150 El Camino Real
Tanforan Regional
Commercial P-D

11.8 n/a 1,000 Yes Aging mall that has lost its
anchor tenants No Yes
014316360 1150 El Camino Real n/a
014316300 1122 El Camino Real n/a
014316240 1122 El Camino Real n/a
014311060 1292 Huntington Ave n/a
15 020111160 170 San Bruno Ave W Vacant lot TOD TOD-1 0.29 n/a 42 Yes Vacant site, across the street from Caltrain Station Yes No
16 021172120 San Marco Ave Vacant Lot Low Density
Residential R-2 .10 8 2 Yes Vacant site adjacent to a residential building No No 17 020293030 333 El Camino Real Walgreens TOD TOD-2 1.3 n/a 150 Yes Existing Walgreens store onsite. Developer interest No No 18 020213200 1101 El Camino Real Russo Dental High Density Residential P-D .10 40 15 Yes Dental Office No Yeso
19 020013100 1151 El Camino Real San Bruno Pet
Hospital Multi Use C-N 0.60 n/a 60 Yes Vet Office No Yeso 20 020019080 899 El Camino Real Chili’s
Restaurant TOD TOD-2 1.3 n/a 100 Yes Existing restaurant on-site No No 21 020111150 104 San Bruno Ave W Vacant lot TOD TOD-2 0.17 n/a 26 Yes Vacant site, across the street from Caltrain Station Yes No
887 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-13
TABLE 6-5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (COUNTED FOR RHNA) Map
ID APN Address
Description of
Current Use
General Plan
Land Use
Zoning
Designation
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Maximum
Units per Acre
(by General Plan
Land Use)
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
Infrastructure
Capacity Opportunities or Constraints?
Included
in Prior
HE
Requires
Rezone
22 020362240 426 El Camino Real Bedroom
Express TOD CBD .30 n/a 49 Yes Retail furniture store Yes No 23 020362210 401 San Mateo Ave San Bruno Gas TOD CBD .20 n/a 40 Yes Gas station at entrance to downtown Yes No
Grand Total All Opportunity Sites 2,709
a Exclusive of state-mandated affordable housing density bonus, which would further increase the achievable maximum units per acre.

Source: City of San Bruno, 2022.
888 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-14
These sites allow for the development of a wide variety of housing by right, including single-family, duplex, multi-family, ownership and rental, factory-built or other manufactured housing, transitional housing, supportive housing, senior housing, and more. Most of the sites are occupied by very low value or transitional uses such as vacant buildings or lots, parking lots, and used-car or used-goods dealers, making all the sites particularly attractive targets for redevelopment in the near-term. None of the sites are currently residential uses, thus redevelopment poses no risk of displacing households.

Throughout the TOD designation no maximum dwelling unit density is prescribed. Instead, maximum density is limited by development standards that limit the building envelope. The calculations used to estimate realistic development capacity along the transit corridors assume complete redevelopment of each site primarily based on conversations with developers and based on the density of similar housing developments that were approved or proposed nearby. In all cases, the estimated densities are considerably lower than could be permitted using the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance.

The TOD designation only specifies commercial uses at key intersections, and developers have indicated a preference for a minimal amount of commercial space unless they have already partnered with a high-quality tenant. Therefore, the projected residential development capacity for mixed-use sites assumes mostly residential development to produce the quantified objectives; for the TOD designation it is assumed that about 5-percent of a project could be for non-residential uses. Furthermore, the assessment of sites that may undergo change is very conservative, focusing on properties where developers have expressed interest, properties that have marginal uses, or properties that have underutilized surface parking lots. Additionally, the City has not received much developer interest in office uses within its TOD districts.

While nonresidential uses are permitted in the TOD districts, there has not been strong demand for nonresidential or new office uses in these districts. Office uses are a strong competing use for those properties that are concentrated near other office uses, such as the two properties (851 Cherry Avenue and 801-851 Traeger Drive) within the Bayhill Specific Plan area. Properties within the Bayhill Specific Plan area were included in the inventory because those property owners expressed an interest in the Housing Overlay during development of the specific plan. It has been difficult to find tenants for commercial storefronts in recent years and some developers are finding ground floor retail to be cost prohibitive in the city. Furthermore, many of the sites in the inventory are too small for feasible large scale nonresidential development.

3. SENATE BILL 9 PROJECTIONS
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 9 into law, with an effective date of January 1, 2022. SB 9 mandates ministerial approval of duplexes on lots zoned for a single-family residence and requires ministerial approval of subdivisions of a single-family lot into two lots, creating the theoretical possibility of four units on each single-family parcel in the state (with some exceptions). The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley conducted extensive analysis statewide to determine how many parcels could feasibly utilize the provisions of SB 9 and found that approximately seven percent of single-family parcels throughout the state may redevelop in this way. Included in the Housing Element is Program 2-D to adopt implementing ordinances to facilitate SB 9 compliance. However, San Bruno has no track record for SB 9 projects, thus the market feasibility for these units could not be determined. Therefore, no SB 9 units are included in the Sites Inventory.

4. DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY ASSUMPTIONS
Due to the predominantly built-out nature of San Bruno, most development will occur as infill on underutilized sites. Sites that allow densities of at least 30 units per acre may be counted as meeting the lowerincome RHNA, based on the provisions of state law allowing developments at “default densities” (at least 30 units per acre in San Bruno). This rule applies to sites located in the TCP where there isn’t a density 889 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-15
limitation. The affordability assumptions for these sites is 35% lower income and 65% moderate income and above.

Sites located in the R-1 and R-2 zones have a General Plan designation of Low-Density Residential, allowing

2.1 to 8 units per acre. These sites, such as the former Engvall School site, will develop at densities less than 30 units per acre, and thus be subject to the City’s affordable housing program which requires 15% of the units to be affordable.

5. ASSEMBLY BILL 1397: SITE SUITABILITY, REALISTIC CAPACITY AND RE-USE OF SITES
Assembly Bill (AB) 1397 amended Housing Element Law, specifically Government Code Section 65580, 65583 and 65583.2.2, to strengthen the obligation of local governments to identify a supply of adequate sites available to meet their housing needs for all income levels in their housing elements. For other sites, the number of affordable units is based on those entitlements or the applicable inclusionary housing requirement of 15% citywide.

AB 1397 imposes stricter requirements for sites smaller than ½ acre or greater than 10 acres in size. The Sites Inventory includes several sites that are less than one-half acre in size. Lot consolidation is encouraged by the City within the Transit Corridors Plan area, but it can be difficult to achieve. Several recent multi-family developments in the Transit Corridors Plan area have been proposed on lots that are smaller than 0.5 acres at densities greater than 30 units per acre, therefore, these sites are counted as meeting the lower-income RHNA, based on the provisions of state law allowing developments at “default densities”.

Due to the built-out nature of San Bruno, most sites have existing uses. AB 1397 adds specific criteria for assessment of the realistic availability of non-vacant sites during the planning period. If non-vacant sites accommodate half or more of the lower-income need, the Housing Element must present “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment for additional residential use on the site.

Non-vacant sites included in the inventory have been chosen due to their location, existing uses, and potential for intensification. To ensure that appropriate sites have been chosen, properties that show recent investments or updates or that contain unique uses are not included.

AB 1397 also requires that specific parameters be placed on sites used in previous planning cycles that were not developed but are used in the current Housing Element to meet the lower income RHNA. Under AB 1397, the site must meet the required default densities (i.e., zoned to allow 30 dwelling units/acre); and the site must allow residential use ‘by right’ for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. ‘By right’ means that no review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless a subdivision is required, and the project can only be reviewed using 'objective' design standards. As noted in HCD guidance documents due to updates in the prior planning period to the general plan or other planning activities, some sites previously identified in the housing element may have been rezoned allowing a higher density and therefore, increase the potential housing capacity of the site. In these instances, sites can be counted towards the lower income RHNA for the housing element inventory because the zoning characteristics have changed. In 2021, since the City rezoned all the sites within the TCP area to align with the specific plan and the General Plan, all TCP sites are considered new sites.

6. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ON FORMER SCHOOL SITES
Former school sites available for residential reuse within San Bruno include the former Edgemont School and former Willard Engvall School sites. While these former school sites will primarily be market rate, they represent opportunities for redevelopment in lower density neighborhoods that are not in the TOD districts 890 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-16
or major corridors. The former school sites require no zoning changes prior to redevelopment with residential use. The realistic development capacity of these sites is 6-8 units per acre because they are designated Low-Density Residential under the General Plan and Zoning (a maximum of eight units to the acre). Development of these sites assumes a provision of 15% affordable housing as required by City ordinance. The affordable housing units in these projects will be single-family units affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

In addition to the Edgemont and Engvall school sites, the City has received an application to redevelop the former Crestmoor High School site. The site requires no zoning changes prior to redevelopment with residential use. The realistic development capacity of this site is 6-8 units to the acre. Development of the site assumes a provision of 15% affordable housing as required by City ordinance. The affordable housing units in this project will be single-family units affordable to low- and moderate-income households. In addition to housing, the project will include dedicated park and field space. This site is not included in the Sites Inventory but described here as an example of redevelopment of a former school site.

7. EVIDENCE OF DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
The majority of San Bruno’s Sites are located in San Bruno’s TOD-1, TOD-2, C-N, C-B-D, and P-D zoning districts and adequate evidence exists for the development of these sites consistent with this Housing Element based on recent development in San Bruno’s high-density corridors. For example, recent development or development proposals at 406–418 San Mateo Ave (88 dwelling units per acre) and 111 San Bruno Avenue (84 dwelling units per acre) provide evidence of development potential for similarly situated sites within the TOD and C-B-D districts. Neither of these approved projects exercised the City’s density bonus provisions. It is assumed that opportunity sites such as such as 104 San Bruno Avenue or 401 San Mateo Avenue will be developed at densities consistent with similar past projects located nearby in the same zoning district which informed the site inventory estimates.

In estimating the development potential of San Bruno’s opportunity sites, the City also considered the following factors:
 Recent housing development in the city’s transit corridors has ranged from 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. Additional incentives were not considered in estimating dwelling capacity for properties listed in the Sites Inventory. However, local incentives were considered for projects with submitted applications which included the request.  TOD designation San Bruno’s transit corridors have eligible capacity for redevelopment with mixed uses including housing at or above metropolitan regional default densities.  TOD designation allows for no maximum dwelling unit density. Instead, maximum density is limited by development standards that limit the building envelope.  Several recent multi-family developments in the Transit Corridors Plan area have been proposed on lots that are smaller than 0.5 acres at densities greater than 30 units per acre.  Nonresidential uses are also permitted in the TOD districts.  Further justification for site development is provided in Table 6-6 below.

In all cases, the estimated densities of San Bruno’s opportunity sites are lower than could be permitted using the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. The assessment of sites that may undergo change is very conservative, focusing on properties where developers have expressed interest, properties that have marginal uses, or properties that have underutilized surface parking lots. 891 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-17
TABLE 6-6 SITE INVENTORY JUSTIFICATION
Site Name Address Evidence of Development/Redevelopment Potential 1 AT&T Building 840 San
Bruno
Avenue
Vacant office building (former owned and occupied by
AT&T) in the TOD Zoning District. The property was
purchased in 2021 for the purpose of redevelopment. An
applicant has submitted an application requesting a density bonus to construct two 10-story residential buildings
containing 445 total dwelling units, which is more than 280 dwelling units per acre. Staff has reviewed the submittal and determined it to be overly ambitious because it
proposes to go multiple floors over the height limit,
therefore, the dwelling unit estimate for the site has been reduced to 340 units to reflect a smaller potential project with fewer floors.
2 Bank of America 465 San
Mateo
Avenue
Underutilized property with underutilized bank in the Central Business District. In 2018 Bank of America had 1,720 fewer branches than in 2008, a 28% drop. The rapid adoption of mobile banking has allowed banks to reduce the number of branches they operate. In 2018 Bank of America (BAC)
announced that deposits made on mobile devices like
smartphones and tablets are outpacing those made at
branches for the first time. The bank building occupies a quarter of the site which is otherwise developed with
surface parking that services the bank use. It is included in the inventory due to its downtown location, existing
underutilized use which is ripe for downsizing, and potential for intensification. There have not been any recent major investments in the property that would discourage
redevelopment. 45 dwelling units are estimated for the site which is a dwelling unit density of 83 units per acre, which is within the range of other projects approved within the TOD and C-B-D districts. Additionally, the site has three street frontages which affords it multiple opportunities for dwelling exposure.
3 Bayhill Shopping
Center
851 Cherry
Avenue
Viable commercial shopping center that is part of the Bayhill Specific Plan adopted in 2021 and rezoned per request of the owner of the property to include a residential zoning overlay. This site has been included because of its location, potential for intensification, and the owners' interest in the residential zoning overlay. The dwelling unit density is consistent with the maximum dwelling unit density permitted on the site pursuant to the zoning overlay.
4 Vacant used car
sales Lot
529 El
Camino
Real
This is a vacant site in the TOD-2 Zoning District that was formerly used as a vehicle sales lot. A majority of the site is surface parking with a small 1-story commercial building.

Ten parcels under the same ownership would be
consolidated into a 0.82-acre site. Vehicle sales is a nonconforming use in the zoning district. If such nonconforming use ceases for a continuous period of six months, the
subsequent use of such conforming structures shall be in conformity with the zoning regulations and General Plan designations for the district in which said building is located.

The site was included in the City’s past two Housing
Element sites inventories. 72 housing units are estimated for the site, which is a density of 88 units per acre, similar to the approved Mills Park project located two blocks away in the City’s TOD district and greater than the default density of 30 units per acre.
892 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-18
Site Name Address Evidence of Development/Redevelopment Potential 5 Citibank 475 San
Mateo
Avenue
Similar to the Bank of America site above, the subject site is an underutilized bank surrounded by a surface parking lot within the Central Business District. Advances in mobile banking has allowed banks to shrink the size and number of branches they operate. This site is included in the inventory due to its downtown location, existing underutilized use which is ripe for downsizing, and potential for intensification.

There have not been any recent major investments in the property that would discourage redevelopment. The site can accommodate 60 dwellings which is a density of 78 units per acre, within the density range of the approved 111 San Bruno Ave. project and the built 406–418 San Mateo Ave. project.
6 Engvall MS 2101 Sneath
Ln.

This is the former Engvall Middle School, which was
formerly a golf driving range. A project proposal has been submitted to the City for 118 single-family dwelling units which is currently under review. A maximum of eight
dwelling units per acre are permitted in the Low-Density Residential General Plan designation and the R-1 Zoning.

The site does not require a zoning change prior to
redevelopment with residential use. The site was included in the City’s past two Housing Element sites inventories with an estimate for 127 total dwelling units. Fifteen percent of the units would be affordable pursuant to the City’s
affordable housing ordinance.
7 Former Budget
Motel
850 El
Camino
Real
Vacant parcel in the TOD-2 Zoning District that was
included in the Sites Inventory for the past two housing elements with an estimate of 25 total dwelling units. For the current Housing Element, the dwelling unit estimate was reevaluated based on recent housing development in the
city’s Transit Corridors Plan area which has ranged from 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. San Bruno’s TOD
designations have eligible capacity for redevelopment with mixed uses including housing at or above metropolitan
regional default densities. 60 dwelling units are estimated for the site, which is a density of 83 dwelling units per acre, within the density range of the approved 111 San Bruno
Ave. project and the built 406–418 San Mateo Ave. project but much lower than the 280 units per acre proposed at 840 San Bruno Ave. located nearby
8 Former Edgemont
ES
500 Acacia
Ave.

This is an underutilized school district property that has gone through the disposition process and is currently being used for school district administrative offices. The site was included in the City’s past two Housing Element sites
inventories with an estimate for 13 total dwelling units. Staff has reevaluated the site and estimates the site could yield 15 dwelling units, which is the maximum number of dwelling units per acre permitted in the Low-Density Residential General Plan designation and the R-1 Zoning District. The site does not require a zoning change prior to
redevelopment with residential use at this density. The site would likely be developed with small lot residential
development with reduced setbacks and yard. Fifteen
percent of the units would be affordable in compliance with the City’s affordable housing ordinance.
893 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-19
Site Name Address Evidence of Development/Redevelopment Potential 9 IHOP 590 El
Camino
Real
Underutilized property including 4 parcels with viable
restaurant and surface parking lot located in the TOD-2 Zoning District. The IHOP chain experienced financial
troubles during the Coronavirus Pandemic and is still trying to recover. Although the financial situation for this particular location is unknown, it was chosen because of its location, existing uses, and potential for intensification. There haven’t been any recent investments or updates to the site that would discourage redevelopment. In October 2020, IHOP
announced plans to close nearly 100 locations across the U.S. by mid-2021. That was after IHOP already closed 16 locations in the previous quarter. San Bruno's IHOP is
situated on a large 0.6-acre lot which is primarily surface parking. The lot is located just across the street from San Bruno City Hall, the City's main fire station, and its main library, as well as Allen Elementary School, and less than a half mile from San Bruno's Caltrain Station. These
neighborhood assets as well as the location in the TOD
district make this an ideal location for encouraging
walkable, well-connected, moderate intensity mix of retail, restaurant, and residential development. 42 dwelling units are estimated for the site, which is a density of 60 dwelling units per acre. The estimated density is lower than other TOD sites in the inventory because the site is not
contiguous and is bisected by a street (Hensley Ave.).
10 Vacant site 116 San
Avenue
Vacant 5,000 sq. ft. site on San Marco Avenue. Currently for sale for $450K. Likely limited to two total dwelling units due to the low-density residential land use classification. No affordable units are required if the site yields fewer than five total dwelling units.
11 Former Melody
Toyota Sales Lot
750 El
Camino
Real
Vacant surface parking lot that was once part of the Melody Toyota sales lot. The site was vacated a few years ago
when Melody consolidated their operations at another
location and has been vacant for over two years. The site is within the TOD district, adjacent to the proposed 6-story multi-family building at 732–740 El Camino Real. 34 units are estimated for the 0.30-acre development site which is a density of 113 units per acre. This density is higher than other TOD sites but lower than the adjacent approved
project at 732–740 El Camino Real.
12 Former Melody
Toyota Showroom
750 El
Camino
Real
Vacant 2-story commercial building that was once the home of the Melody Toyota showroom who vacated the site and
consolidated their operations at another location a few years ago. A new conditional use permit would be needed to resume vehicle sales at this location. The site is within the TOD district, adjacent to the proposed 6-story multifamily building at 732–740 El Camino Real. 41 units are estimated for the 0.40-acre development site which is a density of 103 units per acre. This density is higher than other TOD sites but lower than the adjacent approved
project at 732–740 El Camino Real which was approved at 222 units per acre.
894 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-20
Site Name Address Evidence of Development/Redevelopment Potential 13 Office Building 801 - 851
Traeger
Avenue
Office building recently rezoned for housing option at
owners' request. This site has been included because of its location, potential for intensification, and the owners' interest in the residential zoning overlay. The dwelling unit density is consistent with the maximum dwelling unit density permitted on the site pursuant to the zoning overlay.
14 Tanforan 1122 El
Camino
Real-1150 El
Camino
Real
Aging mall that has lost many of its anchor tenants that is designated a Planned Development Zoning District. The
site was purchased in 2021 for redevelopment and the City has been in discussion with the developer on site
redevelopment and the developer is committed to including 1,000 housing units in the project. The project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as part of the Housing Element review. In Fall 2022, the developer
submitted an application for full redevelopment of the site with a minimum of 1,000 housing units. The planned
development plan amendment, CEQA review, and project
entitlements are anticipated to be completed by Fall 2024. 15 Vacant 170 San
Bruno Ave.

Vacant site, across the street from Caltrain Station in the TOD Zoning District. The applicant has submitted a density bonus application to the City for a project with 42 dwelling units, which is 140 dwelling units per acre. Recent housing development in the city’s transit corridors has ranged from 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. The proposed project falls within this range.
16 Vacant San Marco
Ave.

Vacant 5,000 sq. ft. site adjacent to 116 San Marco
Avenue. Currently for sale for $450K. Likely limited to two total dwelling units due to the low-density residential land use classification. No affordable units are required if the site yields fewer than 5 total dwelling units.
17 Walgreens 333 El
Camino
Real
Viable Walgreens store in the TOD Zoning District. Prepandemic, Walgreens said it would pare its real estate, announcing in 2019 that it would close 200 U.S. locations.

This is in addition to an additional 200 stores Walgreens previously closed starting in 2015. In November 2020
Amazon began to compete in the prescription medication
market by offering home delivery for prescription
medications online, making a difficult market even more competitive. The City has received confirmed developer
interested in developing this site with 150 dwellings units but no application has been submitted. The property has a large surface parking lot and shows no signs of recent
investments that would preclude redevelopment.
895 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-21
Site Name Address Evidence of Development/Redevelopment Potential 18 Russo Dental 1101 El
Camino
Real
Single story dental office located in Planned Development Zoning District. This site has been chosen due to its
location, existing use, and potential for intensification. To ensure that appropriate sites have been chosen, properties that show recent investments or updates or that contain unique uses are not included. The dental office is located within the P-D District, within a half-mile of the San Bruno BART Station and located across the street from a key
opportunity site (Tanforan) where San Bruno expects to see the development of 1,000 residential units. This area is particularly saturated with dental offices with 16 existing dentist offices within 1-mile of the site. The P-D district would need to be amended to allow for housing at this
location.
19 San Bruno Pet
Hospital
1151 El
Camino
Real
General Plan designation allows housing but the zoning is Neighborhood Commercial which does not allow residential uses. The site would need to be rezoned to accommodate
housing. The site was included in the inventory because of its proximity to transit, existing use, and potential for intensification. The pet hospital is located on a 0.6-acre lot that is primarily occupied by surface parking. It is located across the street from a key opportunity site (Tanforan) where San Bruno expects to see the development of 1,000 residential units. There are two existing pet hospitals within

1.5 miles of the site.
20 Chilis 899 El
Camino
Real
Viable restaurant on-site located in a TOD Zoning District.

Standalone, large format restaurants with significant surface parking lots, are not expanding and will likely contract over the next decade. These restaurants operate in a highly
competitive market and there is a trend towards increasing demand for local restaurants or regional chains. Recent housing development in the city’s transit corridors has ranged from 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. TOD designation San Bruno’s transit corridors have eligible capacity for redevelopment with mixed uses including
housing at or above metropolitan regional default densities.

Recent housing development in the city’s transit corridors has ranged from 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. TOD designation San Bruno’s transit corridors have eligible capacity for redevelopment with mixed uses including
housing at or above metropolitan regional default densities. 21 Vacant 104 San
Bruno Ave.

Vacant site, across the street from Caltrain Station located in the TOD-1 Zoning District which has no density limitation. 25 housing units are estimated for the site which is a
density of 147 dwelling units per acre. Recent housing
development in the city’s transit corridors has ranged from 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. Estimated number of units based on similarly situated properties (e.g., 111 San Bruno Ave. and 170 San Bruno Ave.) developed or
proposed on nearby or adjacent sites, not based on zoning designation.
896 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-22
Site Name Address Evidence of Development/Redevelopment Potential 22 Bedroom Express 426 El
Camino
Real
Retail furniture store located in Central Business District.

The site was included in the past two housing elements as part of the triangle development site. It is proving difficult to consolidate the sites for the triangle development so the subject site has been included as a standalone
development project where it is more likely to redevelop.

While demand for furniture and retail furniture sales have increased over the last several years, the retail furniture industry has adopted e-commerce as essential channel for home delivery and has resulted in skyrocketing sales
through Wayfair, Amazon, Etsy, Macy’s, Home Depot,
Lowes and others. Local trends suggest that without
significant investments that meet e-commerce needs, and a loyal customer base, local retailers may face redevelopment pressure in the next decade, especially when located in a TOD corridor. This location is within a half-mile of the San Bruno Cal Train Station and within 1 mile of three other furniture retailers.
23 San Bruno Gas 401 San
Mateo
Avenue
Gas station located at the southern entrance to downtown San Bruno in the Central Business District. The site is included in the inventory because of its prominent location and because it is underutilized, having discontinued its vehicle service bays. The site was included in the past two housing elements as part of the triangle development site.

But it is proving difficult to consolidate the sites for the triangle development so the subject site has been included as a standalone development project. 40 dwelling units are estimated for the site which is a density of 200 dwelling units per acre. This density is within the range of recent housing development in the city’s transit corridors which has ranged from a low of 53 dwelling units per acre to a high of 224 dwelling units per acre with state and local incentives. A higher density is anticipated for the site because it has multiple street frontages, providing more design flexibility and opportunity for dwelling exposure. Site remediation may be required but is not expected to
preclude residential development on the site.

Source: City of San Bruno 2022.

Non-vacant sites included in the inventory have been chosen due to their location, existing uses, and potential for intensification. To ensure that appropriate sites have been chosen, properties that show recent investments or updates or that contain unique uses are not included. San Bruno’s opportunity sites allow for the development of a wide variety of housing by right, including single-family, duplex, multi-family, ownership and rental, factory-built or other manufactured housing, transitional housing, supportive housing, senior housing, and more.

8. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The City complies with AB 1866 by permitting accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning districts by right. In 2021, the City amended its zoning ordinance to provide for approval of ADUs through a ministerial building permit process that includes review by planning staff for conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The zoning code also allows for administrative relief through the use permit process when proposed ADUs do not comply with the standard requirements. Since ordinance adoption, the number of building permits issued for ADUs has significantly increased. In 2021, the City issued 70 building permits for ADUs, the most building permits for ADUs ever issued. To date, the City has issued 32 building permits for ADUs in 2022.
897 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 6-23
Jurisdictions can count accessory dwelling units towards meeting its overall RHNA obligation based on the average number of building permits the jurisdiction issued for ADUs over the previous three years (2019- 2021), as specified in its annual progress report. San Bruno has an ADU ordinance pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2 which was updated in March 2021 in response to changes in state law.

The ADU review process was streamlined in conjunction with the update and as a result 70 building permits were issued for ADUs in 2021, after issuing building permits for 7 ADUs in 2020, 17 in 2019, and 6 in 2018.

Overall, the City was successful in permitting 121 ADUs over the course of the last Housing Element cycle.

Based on this record, and anticipation of continued demand for ADUs in a difficult housing market and economy, the City anticipates the desire for ADUs to be near 2021 numbers as a result of the streamlined process. Projecting forward, staff estimates the City will permit 240 ADUs over the eight-year planning period, an average of rate of 30 units per year during this housing cycle. The changes to state ADUs laws that took effect in 2021 eliminated many of the barriers to ADU construction in the city and resulted in a steep increase in production in 2021. Continued ADU production in San Bruno is needed to further housing diversity and access to housing in higher resource areas in the western portion of the city.

The City’s ADU affordability estimates are based on ABAG’s ADU affordability assumptions. The break down is 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30% Moderate, and 10% above moderate as follows.

TABLE 6-7 ADU AFFORDABILITY ASSUMPTIONS
Affordability
ABAG Affordability
Percentage Projected ADUs
Very Low 30% 72
Low 30% 72
Moderate 30% 72
Above Moderate 10% 24
Total 100% 240
Source: City of San Bruno 2022.

I. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Housing Element law requires that quantified objectives be developed with regard to new construction, rehabilitation, conservation, and preservation activities that will occur during the eight-year Housing Element cycle. Table 6-8 summarizes the City of San Bruno’s quantified objectives for the provision of affordable housing opportunities based on its programs during the eight-year 2021-2029 Housing Element cycle. The quantified objectives in Table 6-8 establish the maximum number of housing units by income category that could be developed or rehabilitated during this Housing Element cycle. The table shows that the City’s quantified objectives for 3,723 units includes units constructed since July 1, 2022, units in the pipeline, projected ADUs, plus units on sites that are already zoned for residential, as follows:
898 of 1863
CHAPTER 6 | SITES INVENTORY AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
6-24
TABLE 6-8 TOTAL QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Target
Extremely
Low-Income*
Very
Low-Income Low- Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Totals
RHNA 352 352 405 573 1,483 3,165
New Construction 249 250 613 589 1,904 3,605
Rehabilitation 0 0 5 0 0 5
Conservation/Preservation 0 0 0 0 0 0
* Pursuant to AB 2634, in estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. The extremely low-income figure shown above is based on the 50% rule.

Source: City of San Bruno 2022.
899 of 1863
CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-1
7 GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
FOR 2023-2031
The goals, programs, and implementation actions presented in this chapter serve to support the State of California’s overarching aim of providing “decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian” (Government Code Section 65583(b) and (c). The housing goals, programs, and implementation actions were created for the purpose of meeting the housing needs of the citizens of San Bruno from 2023- 2031 given the limitations imposed by current political, economic, and social conditions, and in consideration of available state and federal funding.

Each program includes quantified objectives, the agency responsible for implementation, and a schedule of actions to be taken during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation. Some programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs throughout the planning period.

This Element carries over some programs from previous adopted Elements and amends them to better facilitate the creation and retention of housing for lower-income households and households with special needs. Some programs have been eliminated because they were completed in the previous RHNA cycle or they were not very effective.

Housing Element goals are listed in Table 7-1 under Goals.

A. KEY INPUT AND DIRECTIONS
Based on the community engagement and the analysis of needs and the obligation to AFFH, San Bruno heard we need to streamline a complicated review process, provide more information on our website and conduct more proactive outreach to resident on fair housing issues.

1. APPROVAL PROCESS
San Bruno staff heard that developers are struggling with the approval process. To help address this concern, we propose the following new programs:
 Streamlining CEQA.
900 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-2
 Establish a pre-submittal conference.
 Establish by-right standards.
 Offer fee deferrals.
 Offer Priority processing.
 Reduce parking requirements.
 Remove zoning constraints.

We heard the City can do a better job providing information. To help address this concern, we propose the following new programs:
 Consolidate fee schedules.
 Create a public dashboard.
 Provide more information on the City’s website.

2. ENSURING ADEQUATE LAND ZONED FOR HOUSING
While San Bruno has a lot of land zoned for housing, more is needed to satisfy the city’s RHNA obligation for this cycle. The current zoning is not a constraint on housing; however, the City needs to look for new opportunities, such as:
 Evaluate a ballot measure to increase heights along El Camino Real.  Amend the R-2 district to permit two dwellings on all lots.  Amend the Planned Development Plan for the Tanforan site to allow for a minimum of 1,000 housing units.

B. GOALS
TABLE 7-1 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS SUMMARY
Goal
Number Goal Description
1 Remove constraints to housing development and improve the development review and approval process. 2 Increase the availability of housing throughout the city, especially affordable housing. 3 Improve the city’s management of its affordable housing portfolio. 4 Promote equity in housing, protect residents from displacement, and support the needs of households with low incomes and special needs.
901 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-3
GOAL 1: Remove constraints to housing development and improve the development review and approval process.

Program 1-A: Identify ways to streamline the CEQA review process through the use of exemptions or by tiering off existing CEQA documents.

Where feasible, use categorical exemptions to expedite the environmental review of housing developments.

A C T IO N S :
 Identify categorical exemptions for infill housing development and use them to reduce environmental review timelines.
 Develop a list of required environmental background studies needed to support categorical exemptions and add them to the application submittal checklist.
 Develop and adopt standard environmental conditions of approval for development projects.

M E T R IC :
 Reduce environmental review timeline for projects that qualify for a categorical exemption(s) by 25%.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: One-year from certification
Program 1-B: Establish a streamlined pre-application development conference process with applicants.

Establish a formal pre-application development conference process for a reasonable fee that is voluntary for housing developers in order to reduce application processing time.

A C T IO N S :
 Develop a pre-application submittal application and application submittal checklist.  Provide a 30-day response to all pre-application submittals.  Hold a meeting with potential applicants where staff may provide preliminary feedback on preapplication materials.

M E T R IC :
 For 75% of voluntary pre-applications, reduce the number of incompleteness letters for projects that are subsequently formally submitted for review to two rounds of review.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund, Developer Funded Pre-Application Timeframe: One-year from certification
Program 1-C: Establish priority building permit processing and reduced plan check times for multi-family housing projects affordable to lower-income households.

Create a process that prioritizes review by all city departments for any housing development with two or more units that are 100% affordable to lower-income households. 902 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-4
A C T IO N S :
 Create a priority permit processing program by first getting input from other reviewing departments and assessing staffing resources. Monitor project processing times every two years.

M E T R IC :
 Reduce the review timeline for first round plan check comments by 25% for priority projects. Ongoing; monitor project processing times every two years.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: One-year from certification
Program 1-D: Review current design standards for compliance with recent case law and adopt additional design standards.

Adopt objective design standards for multi-family residential projects and amend the existing Residential Design Guidelines to clarify design expectations and expedite the development review process.

A C T IO N S :
 Engage a consultant and/or staff to produce objective design standards.  Once adopted, post the design standards document to the Planning Division website and reference it in all pre-application and development application materials.

M E T R IC :
 25% reduction in design review processing time.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Two-years from certification
Program 1-E: Publicly post status updates on housing project permit approvals on the city website.

Create a housing dashboard for all active housing projects on the planning division website with the number of housing units indicated.

A C T IO N S :
 Along with other project information provided, provide total number of housing units by affordability among other project information to be updated quarterly.  Provide updates to the Planning Commission on progress when necessary.

M E T R IC :
 Increase transparency around housing development in the city.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: One-year from certification
903 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-5
Program 1-F: Continue to consolidate fee schedules across departments to simplify administration and allow people to obtain schedules and documentation in one location. This includes providing a link to outside agency fee information.

Create a list of all pertinent housing development fees across all relevant city departments and provide links to fees for outside agencies so housing developers can easily review the information in one location.

A C T IO N S :
 Create a comprehensive list of all housing development fees, with links to fees for outside agencies, and post them to the city website.

M E T R IC :
 Fee list posted on website and update it after any updates to the Master Fee Schedule are adopted by the City Council.
 All counter staff able to answer questions about approximate amounts of fees for various projects.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: One-year from certification
Program 1-G: Continue to implement the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance to allow for payment of certain types of development impact fees for 100% Affordable Housing projects to certificate of occupancy, instead or prior to building permit issuance.

Implement the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance which allows for payment of certain types of development impact fees for qualifying housing development (e.g., 100% affordable projects) at certificate of occupancy, to reduce developer construction financing costs and overall upfront development costs.

A C T IO N S :
 Implement the Development Impact Fee Ordinance of the Zoning Code and communicate to developers the ability to pay certain types of development impact fees for qualifying housing at certificate of occupancy.

M E T R IC :
 Lower up front project costs for eligible projects (request information from developers to assess impact).

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Three-years from certification
Program 1-H: Monitor short-term residential rentals.

Property owners have an incentive to use rental properties as vacation rentals as opposed to having long-term tenants in order to maximize profits which reduces the supply of long-term housing units for sale or rent.

The city regulates short-term residential rentals through a zoning permit process. To observe their impact on housing supply for long-term residents, the city will implement an annual monitoring procedure. 904 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-6
A C T IO N S :
 Maintain an inventory of all approved short-term residential rentals in the city.  The city will actively pursue code enforcement for unapproved short-term residential rentals in the city.  The findings from the city’s short-term residential rental monitoring will be presented to the public with the Housing Element’s annual progress report.

M E T R IC :
 To better understand the impact of short-term residential rentals on overall housing supply.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, City Attorney Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Three years from certification
Program 1-I: Zoning Code amendments to remove constraints.

The City will annually review, and amend as necessary, the Zoning Code to ensure consistency with State Housing Government Code requirements and remove or lessen constraints on new housing development, pertaining to, but not limited to:

A C T IO N S :
 Amend the parking requirement for emergency shelters to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii). Adopt development standards for emergency shelters and ensure they are consistent with State law per California Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii).  Amend the Zoning Code to allow low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless by right in zones that allow for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, per Government Code Section 65662.
 Amend the Zoning Code for compliance with changes in California's density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915, as revised).

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Two years from certification
GOAL 2: Increase the availability of housing throughout the city, especially affordable housing.

Program 2-A: Evaluate the possibility of putting forth a ballot initiative to amend Ordinance 1284 to increase residential density throughout the city. building heights and number of floors along the El Camino Real corridor.

Among the provisions of Ordinance 1284 is a limit on changes to previously established residential density in low-density residential districts and limits on building height and number of floors within the El Camino Real corridor outside the TCP.
905 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-7
A C T IO N S :
 Amend the R-2 zoning district to remove the minimum lot area requirement of one dwelling unit per 2,900 sq. ft. of lot area and allow two dwellings per lot regardless of lot size, and require a minimum of two dwelling units per lot for new development.
 Amend the zoning for the area along the El Camino Real corridor, outside the TCP area, to increase the permitted height limit and permitted number of floors.
 Conduct proactive citywide outreach to determine community support for the measure. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings and community input will be included staff reports.
 Conduct a zoning study of sites outside of the TCP area along the El Camino Real corridor that would be appropriate for residential and high-density residential zoning, including sites that currently do not allow housing.
 Hold study sessions with City Council to discuss findings and conflicts with Ordinance 1284.  When directed by City Council, initiate rezonings.

M E T R IC :
 Increase the number of newly entitled housing units in the El Camino Real corridor over the eight-year planning period.
 Approve a minimum of 10 new housing units in the R-2 District over the eight-year planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Three years from certification
Program 2-B: Support the development of identified housing opportunity sites.

Work with property owners and the community to support and encourage the redevelopment of identified opportunity sites into housing with onsite affordable housing units.

A C T IO N S :
 Actively engage property owners and the community about options to redevelop the proposed housing opportunity sites. Outreach to property owners will be conducted on a semiannual basis.  Provide early consultation to assist density bonus projects and potentially utilize incentives to reduce barriers to development on housing opportunity sites. Some incentives may include: zoning incentives, density bonus, direct subsidies, as well as state, federal and local financial incentives such as grants, loans and tax credits.
 The city will identify and apply for state, federal and local financial incentives such as grants, loans and tax credits to support projects that include affordable housing. The city will seek to identify and apply for affordable housing financial incentive programs annually if available.  Engage with property owners and developers to identify obstacles to developing sites..  Create a webpage that lists the sites on the city’s housing sites inventory list.  Where feasible, encourage and facilitate lot consolidation in the TCP in support of the redevelopment of housing opportunity sites.
906 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-8
M E T R IC :
 Develop all of the housing opportunity sites within the current eight-year planning period, at the densities specified for a total of 2,709 housing units.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 2-C: Prepare Senate Bill (SB) 9 implementing zoning ordinance with objective standards for residential lot splits.

Update the Zoning Code to allow duplexes and lot splits on applicable single-family sites that are consistent with SB 9, to increase the production of lower-cost housing options in high resource neighborhoods.

A C T IO N S :
 Encourage the development of SB 9 projects throughout R-1 Districts, especially in the high resource neighborhoods located west of Skyline Boulevard (SR 35).  Conduct an analysis two years after rezoning to determine success and identify more actions if needed.  Conduct proactive outreach throughout R-1 Districts, especially in the high resource neighborhoods located west of Skyline Blvd. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meeting on the Zoning Code update and community input will be included in staff reports.

M E T R IC :
 Approve five new SB 9 housing units in the R-1 District over the eight-year planning period with at least two of those units within the city’s higher resource neighborhoods.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: One year from certification
Program 2-D: Amend the Tanforan Mall Planned Development Plan to require a minimum of 1,000 housing units to be included within the redevelopment of the Tanforan Mall project proposal.

Require a minimum of 1,000 housing units, as documented in the city’s Reimagining Tanforan visioning document, at the Tanforan mall site during the redevelopment project review process.

A C T IO N S :
 Tanforan mall will be entitled and approved with a minimum of 1,000 units and at least 15% deed restricted affordable units.
 Complete rezoning through an amendment to the current Planned Development Plan to allow residential uses on-site within three years.
 Encourage the developer to provide for more affordable units or deeper unit affordability than what is required by the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (inclusionary requirement). Encourage the developer(s) to set aside units within the development for persons with disabilities. 907 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-9
 Provide incentives for residential developer(s) through parking reductions, direct subsidies, fee waivers, processing time and/or density bonuses, to increase the number of affordable units beyond the inclusionary requirement.

M E T R IC :
 Achieve a set aside of affordable units specifically for persons with disabilities.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Developer Fees
Timeframe: Three years from certification
Program 2-E: Publicize affordable housing financing strategies.

Publicize the various financing strategies for development and expansion of affordable housing.

A C T IO N S :
 The City will continue to participate in and promote San Mateo County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program for first-time homebuyers. Advertising the availability of the program through informational handouts available at City Hall, the Public Library, and the Senior Center and through the City website.
 Study and publicize available financing strategies for the development of new affordable housing on a semiannual basis.
 Inform property-owners and local non-profit and institutional groups of available resources through brochures, flyers in utility bills, cable TV, newspapers, department website, city’s social media platforms, and the city’s Focus newsletter. This outreach will occur at least once every six months.  Coordinate and build relationships with affordable housing developers and advocates to raise awareness of potential financing sources.
 Develop a strategy to prioritize the use of San Bruno’s affordable housing in-lieu and impact fees to create and preserve affordable housing in San Bruno, including supporting non-profit affordable housing organizations and providing financial support to new or rehabilitated affordable housing. See also Program 3-B (Affordable Housing Fund). This strategy will be developed two years from certification.

M E T R IC :
 Increase the number of affordable housing development applications submitted to the city.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development Department Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 2-F: Encourage the production of extremely low-income units as well as a variety of housing types to meet the needs of populations with special and disproportionate housing needs.

In order to encourage building housing that will enhance access for extremely low-income households and residents with disproportionate housing needs (i.e., Hispanic residents, Other/Multiple race residents, American Indian or Alaskan Native residents, Black residents, large families, seniors, female-headed households, homeless, farmworkers, residents needing disability accommodations, overcrowded households and extremely low-income households) the City proposes strategically reducing development constraints on this type of housing production by pursuing the following actions. 908 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-10
A C T IO N S :
 Encourage the inclusion of a few larger housing units in all new residential developments to serve the needs of larger households.
 Encourage the inclusion of a few larger housing units in all development for residents with disproportionate housing needs by prioritizing projects that serve populations with disproportionate housing needs for any project that is a recipient of a public subsidy, public land, or land, or any project entering into a community benefit agreement.
 Continue to develop new ways to implement a streamlined review process in order to expedite development review on projects providing 100% affordable housing or housing for special needs residents such as seniors and persons with disabilities. An example includes providing a streamlined checklist to facilitate expedited application processing.  Commit the City to granting fee waivers or fee deferrals for projects that include housing units that will serve extremely low-income households or households with disproportionate housing needs.  Consider allowing for the modification of development standards, granting of concessions for housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households or that serve households with disproportionate housing needs.
 Where competitive proposals for any City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds, the city shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by providing a greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
 The City will conduct proactive outreach to stakeholders about how to encourage the production of housing for households with disproportionate housing needs and extremely low-income households, including to both developers as well as residents in need. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings and community input will be included in staff reports.  The City will hold a study session with the City Council.  The City will support and pursue funding applications for grant and loan programs to support the development of housing units for extremely low-income households or households with disproportionate housing needs. The City will seek to identify and apply for these programs annually if available.
 The City will provide outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers to support the development of units for extremely low-income households or households with disproportionate housing needs.
 The City will prioritize available funding (including from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (see program 3-B) for housing affordable to extremely low-income households and households with disproportionate housing needs. When available, the City will offer financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage a variety of housing types to meet the needs of extremely low-income households and households with disproportionate housing needs.  Encourage diversity in unit size to ensure that 3- and 4-bedroom affordable rental housing units are provided for large families.
909 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-11
M E T R IC :
 Increase percentage of housing units built to accommodate residents with disproportionate housing needs and extremely low-income households during the planning period. Ongoing; monitor project processing times for development projects every two years.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund, Affordable Housing Fund
Timeframe: Within three years of certification
Program 2-G: Reduce parking requirements to encourage production of affordable housing units, housing units for extremely low-income households, and housing units for special needs populations.

While the City updated its citywide site development regulations for parking in 2019, in order to eliminate development constraints to affordable housing production the city proposes to strategically reduce parking requirements. In addition, the City shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing.

A C T IO N S :
 The City will recommend citywide reduction of or removal parking requirements for housing developments that serve developmentally and other disabled populations and extremely low-income populations.
 The City will adopt reduced parking requirements in the TCP for projects that include units affordable to lower incomes.
 The City will revise its ordinances to provide flexibility to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental and other disabilities to 0 spaces for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and .5 spaces for an affordable 2-bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units.
 The City will conduct proactive outreach to stakeholders on this topic. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council Study Sessions and meetings and community input will be included in staff reports.
 The City will hold a study session with the City Council.

M E T R IC :
 Increase percentage of housing units built to accommodate residents with disproportionate housing needs and extremely low-income households during the planning period Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Within five years of certification
Program 2-H: Conduct a robust evaluation of the inclusionary housing program that evaluates the effectiveness of delivering extremely low-income units and units for residents with the greatest housing needs (e.g., single parent families, child-friendly housing, accessible units for persons with disabilities and disproportionate housing needs).
910 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-12
Continue to implement the required 15% affordable housing requirement for all projects with five or more units. Consider modifications to the ordinance to lessen or eliminate the moderate-income unit requirement and increase the low-income unit requirement, given the larger need for lower income units.

A C T IO N S :
 Analyze the impact of changing our affordable housing inclusionary requirements for on-site affordable housing for each affordability level to maximize housing production for populations with the most housing needs (i.e., Very Low, Low, and Moderate) and bring forward to a study session with the City Council for direction at a future meeting.
 The City will conduct proactive outreach to stakeholders on this topic. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council Study Sessions and meetings and community input will be included in staff reports.
 The City will hold a study session with the City Council.  Review and amend, if necessary, the City’s current affordable housing program requirements based on best practices, market feasibility and housing trends and implement the recommendations of the study.

M E T R IC :
 Increased number of inquiries from developers about affordable housing projects and increase the number of affordable housing applications submitted to the city.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development Department Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Identify a consultant to perform the study within three years of certification. Implement the recommendations of the study within six years of certification.

Program 2-I: Issue an RFP for an affordable housing development feasibility study for Cityowned sites.

To expand the stock of affordable housing sites, the City will conduct an affordable housing development feasibility study that evaluates available City-owned land that could potentially be developed with a dedicated affordable housing project.

A C T IO N S :
 The City will issue an RFP for an affordable housing development feasibility study for City-owned sites.

The study will including the following components:
 Analysis of whether City-owned sites are subject to the Surplus Land Act and if so, the required steps to ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act for each identified site.  Analysis of the option of selling or entering into a long-term ground lease for the site(s).  Implementation actions along with a schedule to facilitate development of city-owned sites with affordable housing. This may include for example that the City will pass a resolution stating that its City-owned parcels will be used for the public purpose (and the deed may be restricted for such a public purpose).
 Findings from outreach with developers and other stakeholders on developing City-owned sites.  Identification of incentives for the development of City-owned sites including zoning incentives, fee waivers, direct subsidies, priority processing, and state, federal and local financial incentives such as grants, loans and tax credits.
911 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-13
 Recommended local, state, and federal funding programs for affordable housing development.  Should an appropriate site or sites be identified and selected for disposition, the City will apply regulatory and zoning incentives necessary to evaluate if affordable housing development is feasible on the site(s).  The City will conduct proactive outreach to the public and stakeholders when developing the study.

Outreach will be conducted before holding the City Council study session. A section on public engagement will be included in the City Council staff report.  The City will hold a study session with the City Council to review the findings of the study and obtain direction on the follow up actions to implement the study.

M E T R IC :
 Number of affordable housing units development on city-owned sites.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund
Timeframe: Three years from certification
Program 2-J: Sites inventory monitoring.

The City will implement an annual monitoring procedure of the capacity of affordable to lower income units on identified sites to accommodate the RHNA.

A C T IO N S :
 Maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request.
 The City will identify and designate appropriately zoned sites to accommodate the shortfall, should approval of a development on a lower-income site result in a reduction of potential units to below the capacity needed to accommodate the RHNA.
 The City will monitor whether development on lower-income sites is occurring as expected related to development types, densities, and quantities. As necessary, in the event that the lower-income or moderate-income RHNA sites are not meeting intended objectives, the city will identify the availability of alternative sites with appropriate zoning in place.
 The City will monitor development in the new high-density mixed-use zones; if development is not proposed or occurring at expected levels, the City will implement additional incentives to facilitate expedited housing production. Specifically, the City will conduct additional outreach to property owners on RHNA and other multifamily zoned sites, waive preapplication meeting fees, and/or provide technical assistance to developers and property owners no later than 48 months from adoption.  The City will annually report on the status and implementation of the Housing Element, including development occurring on identified sites.
 The City will act as a liaison between property owners and developers to facilitate housing production on non-vacant sites.

M E T R IC :
 Ensure the city issues building permits for a minimum of 2,709 dwelling units from the sites identified in the inventory at the specified affordability levels.
912 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-14
Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Annual monitoring
Program 2-K: Promote sustainable residential development that is energy efficient and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

A C T IO N S :
 Adopt and implement the updated Energy Code and Green Building Standards Codes with each Building Standards Code Revision (every 3 years), and also consider local code amendments that increases energy efficiency in housing construction. In order to promote energy efficiency, a local ordinance may require more stringent building standards than those required through Title 24.  Provide more information on the City’s website on ways to improve home energy efficiency, such as information on energy efficiency and electrification incentives from PG&E, BayREN, Peninsula Clean Energy, and others.
 Continue to review residential landscape plans for consistency with the City’s Water Efficiency, Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and Municipal Code Section 10.16, Water Conservation.  Provide additional informational brochures about drought-resistant and low-water landscaping options in the same locations where residential building standards guidelines can be found.

M E T R IC :
 Increased utilization and participation in home energy efficiency programs.  Number of new projects that include drought-resistant landscaping.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, Parks Department, Department of Public Works Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Within one year of next Building Standards Code Revision (every 3 years); Ongoing Program 2-L: Maintain and expand the supply of small lots.

Conserve and expand the City’s supply of small residential lots, where compatible with surrounding neighborhood character.

A C T IO N S :
 Continue zoning that allows development of small, flexible parcels with a Planned Unit Permit in the Zoning Ordinance Update.
 Study opportunities to preserve and facilitate development on small residential lots throughout the city.

M E T R IC :
 Approve a minimum of 118 housing units at the Engvall site that utilize small lot development.  Approve a minimum of 150 additional housing units that utilize small lot development elsewhere in the city, with a focus on higher resourced neighborhoods.

Responsibility: Community Development Department
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
913 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-15
GOAL 3: Improve the city’s management of its existing affordable housing portfolio, affordable housing funds, and preserve the affordability of existing affordable housing.

Program 3-A: Join with other cities in San Mateo County to hire shared housing staff to implement affordable housing programs and help manage affordable housing with a focus on fair housing.

Enhance the city’s ability to support and monitor housing programs.

A C T IO N S :
 When opportunities arise, the City can consider participating with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to share housing staff.

M E T R IC :
 Increased utilization of housing programs in the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Five years after certification
Program 3-B: Affordable Housing Fund. Develop funding priorities for the use of the Affordable Housing Fund which imposes a housing impact fee on new commercial development in the city to fund affordable housing.

A C T IO N S :
 The City will identify funding priorities for affordable housing projects and programs funded by the city’s AHF.
 The City will conduct proactive outreach to identify community priorities for AHF resources. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings, and input will be included in staff reports.
 The City will issue an initial Housing Trust Fund “Notice of Funding Availability” (NOFA) for affordable housing production, rehabilitation, and/or preservation, unless the City identifies another funding priority that requires a large balance.
 Use a small percentage Affordable Housing Funds on an annual basis to support city staffing and/or outside consultants who will administer and deploy these funds in a timely, efficient, and productive manner.
 Consider allocating a portion of the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) to administer a program for use of AHF resources. Use of AHF could include:
 Accounting and fiscal services;
 Interfacing with housing developers,
 Development of funding NOFAs;
 Evaluation of proposals and selection of awardees;
 Loan document drafting; and
 Evaluation of public, agency and institutional properties for potential affordable housing use. 914 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-16
M E T R IC :
 Increased staffing support for the administration of city housing programs in the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Housing Trust Fund
Timeframe: Two years from certification
Program 3-C: Revise the Affordable Housing Ordinance to ensure that all new affordable housing remains affordable for 99 years or the life of the project.

State law allows jurisdictions to impose housing affordability requirements for 99 years or the life of the project. Although the City doesn’t have any affordable units at risk of conversion, increasing the affordability term would prevent the loss of affordable housing in the future.

A C T IO N S :
 Research the feasibility Amend the city’s Affordable Housing Ordinance to change the term from not less than 55 years for rental units and not less than 45 years for owner-occupied units to 99 years or for the life of the project.
 If feasible, amend the Affordable Housing Ordinance to include the extended term.  If this action is deemed infeasible, the City will research affordable housing financing strategies and engage with affordable housing developers to create a financial plan to ensure that affordable units remain affordable long term.

M E T R IC :
 If directed by City Council revise the Affordable Housing Ordinance, or alternatively engage with affordable housing developers to ensure that affordable units remain affordable long term.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Three years from certification. Alternatively, create a financial plan with affordable housing developers to ensure the long-term affordability of affordable units will be completed within one year.

Program 3-D: Consider a policy to retain public land over the long term in order to support affordable housing projects on public land.

Ground leases allow the City to retain control over its land while simultaneously benefitting the community.

By retaining land, the city can ensure that public land sites are used for affordable housing long-term.

A C T IO N S :
 Research the economic feasibility of the policy of doing ground leases rather than selling property for affordable housing projects on City-owned land.
 Hold a study session with City Council on how the city can increase the number of affordable housing projects long term by entering into ground leases for affordable housing projects on City-owned land.

M E T R IC :
 If directed by City Council adopt a policy to retain public land over the long term in order to support affordable housing projects on public land.
915 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-17
Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, City Manager Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Two years from certification
Program 3-E: Facilitate the rehabilitation of the City’s existing housing stock to correct housing deficiencies, increase the useful life, and increase accessibility for all residents.

To facilitate the habitability of homeowner’s homes in San Bruno and especially those owned by low-income households, the city will educate homeowners and make available financial resources to aid in the repair or rehabilitation of homes owned by lower income residents. This program will be targeted to single-family homes or condominiums in low-resource areas.

A C T IO N S :
 Develop a minor home repair program that will provide life safety and accessibility repairs to low-income seniors and disabled homeowners at no cost. Funding sources may include local, regional, and/or state funds.
 The City will evaluate opportunities to create rehabilitation programs to address all housing units in need of repair in low-resource areas and to improve the overall conditions of that area.  The City will create and distribute surveys to condominium developments with Homeowners Associations to ascertain the housing conditions and rehabilitation or accessibility needs for existing homeowners and properties.
 The city will add home maintenance education resources to its website.

M E T R IC :
 Number of minor home improvements projects funded through local assistance; number of homeowner improvement permits pulled; number of low-income homeowners assisted Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, CDBG
Timeframe: Survey HOAs (one year from certification); Develop new financial incentive (three years from certification); Update Website and Marketing materials (Annually) Program 3-F: Develop a Community Benefits Expenditures Policy to prioritize affordable housing funds.
 The City anticipates revenues from approved Development and /or Community Benefit Agreements over the next eight years. City staff will study a Community Benefits Expenditures Policy that sets aside a portion of funds received through these Agreements for the development of programs that support affordable housing production once enough funds are received.

A C T IO N S :
 The City will study a policy that sets aside a portion of funds received through these Agreements for the development of programs that support affordable housing production once enough funds are received.  The City will proactively reach out to public and stakeholders on this topic. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings, and input will be included in staff reports.  The City will hold a study session with the City Council. 916 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-18
M E T R IC :
 If directed by City Council adopt a Community Benefits Expenditure Policy.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund, CBA Revenues
Timeframe: Four years of certification
Program 3-G: Preserve the affordability of existing at-risk affordable housing by requiring replacement of below market rate units lost during any construction, redevelopment, or demolition projects.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66300, projects that demolish existing “protected” units, or build on a site that has had “protected” units demolished in the last five years are required to replace them with a project that will include at least as many protected units as the greatest number of protected units that existed on the project site within the last five years.

A C T IO N S :
 Amend the Zoning Code to incorporate specific requirements stipulated by SB 8.

M E T R IC :
 Compliance with state law and no net loss of existing affordable housing.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Eighteen months from certification
Program 3-H: Begin a plan to preserve the City's deed restricted affordable units with restrictions that will expire in the next 5 to10 years and develop a plan for preservation of the units to keep them affordable long term.

To facilitate the preservation of “at-risk” affordable rental units, the City will engage in the following efforts to engage affordable housing developers and make available financial resources to aid in the preservation of at-risk units.

A C T IO N S :
 Prevent low-income residents from displacement or housing-cost burden due to expiration of covenants.  This will include proposing the use of commercial linkage fees to work with affordable housing developers to acquire properties and keep deed restrictions for the long-term.  The City will monitor “at-risk” affordable rental units and work with nonprofits and explore available funding sources to preserve affordability.

M E T R IC :
 Public funding available for affordable housing.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Four years of certification
917 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-19
GOAL 4: Promote equity in housing, protect residents from displacement, and support the needs of households with low incomes or special needs. Many of these programs are based on the findings of the AFFH analysis in Chapter 4.

AFFH POLICY 1
Protect existing residents from displacement by pursuing strategies that protect residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing choices and affordability.

Program 4-A: Maintain and distribute accurate information about fair housing law and policies.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of knowledge about fair housing laws by renters, landlords and property owners and lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by renters, landlords and property owners.
 Fair Housing Issue: San Bruno has a concentrated population of low-income Hispanic residents on the east side of the city.
 Fair Housing Category: Segregation/integration patterns; disparities in access to opportunities A C T IO N S :
 Research other cities to create an affirmative marketing strategy for Fair Housing information and resources.
 Include multi-lingual, especially Spanish, marketing materials and ensure bilingual interpretation services are available.
 Continue to inform realtors, builders, city staff, and the community at large about fair housing law and policies, through information posted on city’s website and handouts available at City Hall and the Senior Center and other city facilities.
 Conduct proactive outreach by sharing information about fair housing laws and policies with residents and other stakeholders. Outreach will be conducted at least twice per year during the planning period and may include sharing information via newsletters, email communication, events, or social media.  Advertise Accessibility Requirements when residential buildings are inspected for occupancy, check for posters that explain the right to request reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.

M E T R IC :
 Fewer fair housing complaints in the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development and Building Department Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Within two years after adoption of the Housing Element; Ongoing. 918 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-20
Program 4-B: Partner with local fair housing organizations to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of knowledge about fair housing laws by renters, landlords and property owners. Lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by renters, landlords and property owners.
 Fair Housing Issue: All of San Bruno’s fair housing complaints were on the basis of disability and a majority of San Bruno’s fair housing complaints are on the basis of disability. Households of color are disproportionally impacted by displacement.
 Fair Housing Category: Outreach capacity and enforcement A C T IO N S :
 Partner with local fair housing organization to provide training for landlords and tenants at least annually.  Promote training sessions in areas identified as lower resource areas and areas with disproportionate housing need. Ensure training is available in multiple languages.  Promote training sessions by including the information on the City’s website.  Develop training curriculum to increase knowledge about fair housing laws and reasonable accommodation requirement and provide information to landlords on fair housing laws and reasonable accommodation.

M E T R IC :
 Fewer fair housing complaints in the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, Partners may include Project Sentinel Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Two years from certification. Contact Project Sentinel or similar organization within one year and schedule the training within two years. At a minimum one training per year will be held.

Program 4-C: Improve the landing page for housing resources on the city's webpage and add a fair housing section.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of fair housing information online. Currently fair housing resources appear in the "Tenant Information and State Assembly Bill 1482" webpage which is difficult to find and does not suggest it contains fair housing resources.
 Fair Housing Issue: Lack of information accessible online; A majority of San Bruno's fair housing complaints are on the basis of disability, indicating some landlords may not understand fair housing laws.  Fair Housing Category: Outreach capacity and enforcement A C T IO N S :
 Update the city’s website to include a robust fair housing section that is consistent with “best practices”.  Add information on the city’s website to clearly define reasonable accommodations in housing in accordance with state fair housing law.
 Modify the City’s webpage to include more information about reasonable accommodations.  The City shall ensure that its website and handout materials regarding housing resources, requirements, and services for the disabled are updated annually and made available to the public. 919 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-21
 Conduct proactive outreach by sharing the city’s landing page with information about fair housing issues, including on reasonable accommodations, with residents and other stakeholders. Outreach will be conducted at least twice per year during the planning period and may include sharing information via newsletters, email communication, events, or social media.

M E T R IC :
 Maintain low number of fair housing complaints or receive fewer fair housing law complaints in the City of San Bruno.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Timeframe: Within one year after adoption of the Housing Element; Ongoing Program 4-D: Continue to adhere to state and federal fair housing and non-discrimination laws to ensure that housing opportunities are provided for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, family status, or disability. Enforce fair housing laws, with a focus on disability violations.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of information and understanding of Fair Housing laws.  Fair Housing Issue: All of San Bruno's fair housing complaints were on the basis of disability.  Fair Housing Category: Outreach capacity and enforcement.

A C T IO N S :
 Partner with local fair housing organization to complete a study session with City Council on fair housing laws.
 Ensure fair housing laws are adequately reflected in the Zoning Code Update, including the removal of barriers to the reasonable accommodation process.
 Clearly define reasonable accommodations in housing in the city code.

M ET R IC :
 Fewer fair housing complaints in the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Two years from certification
Program 4-E: Support legal counsel and advocacy assistance for renters and residents with disproportionate housing needs.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of information and understanding of regional Fair Housing laws.  Fair Housing Issue: All of San Bruno's fair housing complaints were on the basis of disability.  Fair Housing Category: Outreach capacity and enforcement.

A C T IO N S :
 Persons requesting information or assistance related to housing discrimination will be referred to one or more fair housing groups for legal services.
920 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-22
 Brochures providing information on fair housing and tenants’ rights will be available at City Hall, public libraries and on the City’s website. The brochures will also be available at nonprofit organizations serving low-income residents. The brochures will be available in multiple languages.  As funding allows, the City shall provide annual funding assistance to non-profit organizations that provide fair housing, tenant/landlord, and habitability counseling and other general fair housing assistance.

M E T R IC :
 Reduce the number of fair housing complaints below the county average. Amount of funding provided to support renter advocacy and number of referrals to advocacy organizations.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Complete all tasks within three years of certification and then evaluate activities on an annual basis.

Program 4-F: Establish an ordinance that provides for tenant and community first right of purchase or right of first refusal (TOPA and COPA).
 Contributing Factor: Affordable housing is typically located in areas where land costs are lower and density is easier to achieve.
 Fair Housing Issue: Neighborhoods east of El Camino Real are vulnerable to displacement.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate Housing Needs, Displacement.

A first right of purchase or refusal is a preemptive right which gives the right-holder a contractual right to buy the asset or real property if the owner decides to sell. Such an ordinance could help renters stay in their homes, avoiding displacement.

A C T IO N S :
 Research the feasibility of this policy including conducting outreach to stakeholders.  Hold a study session with City Council by December 2024.  If directed by City Council, initiate the ordinance adoption process Conduct proactive outreach on this topic before the development of the program. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings on the program and community input will be included in staff reports.

M E T R IC :
 Hold a study session with City Council by January 2025.  If directed by City Council and if feasible, initiate the ordinance adoption process.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, City Attorney Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Three years from certification
921 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-23
Program 4-G: Develop a program that gives displaced residents (former residents of the jurisdiction) preferential access to new affordable housing units.  Contributing Factor: Affordable housing is typically located in areas where land costs are lower and density is easier to achieve.
 Fair Housing Issue: Neighborhoods east of El Camino Real are vulnerable to displacement.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate Housing Needs, Displacement.

In order to limit the impacts of displacement, the City will research the possibility of enacting a policy that prioritizes displaced residents for new affordable housing opportunities in the City when they become available.

A C T IO N S :
 Research the legality and administration for a policy that gives displaced resident priority access to new affordable housing units in the city.
 Conduct proactive outreach on this topic before the development of the program. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings on the program and community input will be included in staff reports.
 Develop a list of individuals who would qualify for units.  Hold a study session with City Council and seek direction.  When directed by City Council, initiate the ordinance adoption process.

M E T R IC :
 Reduce resident displacement
Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund
Timeframe: Four years from certification
Program 4-H: Identify funding and other resources to develop an anti-displacement plan for neighborhoods east of El Camino Real.
 Contributing Factor: Residents with disproportionate housing needs and high displacement risk live east of El Camino Real.
 Fair Housing Issue: Displacement.
 Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing needs and risk of displacement.

In order to limit the impacts of displacement in the future, the city will identify funding sources and other resources to create an anti-displacement plan for neighborhoods east of El Camino Real which are vulnerable to displacement pressures.

A C T IO N S :
 Review existing displacement plans in San Mateo County cities and identify financial and other resources needed to complete an anti-displacement plan for the neighborhoods East of El Camino Real. 922 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-24
 Identify private and public funding sources and apply for funding to support an anti-displacement plan such as the Bay Area Planning Challenge Grant or an HCD SB2 Planning Grant.  Identify City staff resources required to complete an anti-displacement plan.  Identify the outreach that needs to be conducted for conducting an anti-displacement plan and develop an outreach plan including list of stakeholders and how to reach them.

M E T R IC :
 Complete at least one grant application to fund the anti-displacement plan.  Complete an outreach strategy for an anti-displacement plan.  If directed by City Council and if financially feasible, initiate the anti-displacement plan.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Three years from certification
Program 4-I: Evaluate and develop a local just cause for eviction ordinance to go above California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA), the state’s just cause for eviction law adopted in 2019.
 Contributing Factor: Residents with disproportionate housing needs and high displacement risk live east of El Camino Real.
 Fair Housing Issue: Displacement.
 Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing needs and risk of displacement.

The state law explicitly authorizes cities to pass stronger local ordinances, because the state legislature intended the state law to be a floor, not a ceiling, on tenant protections.

A C T IO N S :
 As part of developing the local ordinance, the city will seek to regulate existing loopholes related to substantial remodels, bad faith Ellis Act evictions, and owner move-in evictions.  Evaluate relocation payment requirements.
 Provide transparency in local procedures.
 Provide tenants with recourse for violations of the law.

M E T R IC :
 If directed by City Council adopt a local just cause for eviction ordinance.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Five years from certification
923 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-25
AFFH POLICY 2:

Improve place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing, conserving, and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty.

Program 4-J: Prioritize city capital improvement investments to address the challenges of the areas east of El Camino Real, which include areas with lower access to opportunity and disproportionate housing need
 Contributing Factor: Affordable housing is typically located in areas where land costs are lower and density is easier to achieve.
 Fair Housing Issue: Lower environmental outcomes in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of Hispanic residents and the most affordable housing.
 Fair Housing Category: Segregation/ integration patterns; disparities in access to opportunities.

A C T IO N S :
 Prioritize capital projects that improve landscaping, tree plantings, parks, and pedestrian safety in lower resourced neighborhoods west of El Camino Real.

M E T R IC :
 Amount of City expenditures on capital improvements east of El Camino Real.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development, Public Works Funding Source: Departmental Budget, CIP
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 4-K: Engage the school districts in a plan to reduce the disparities in educational outcomes among the schools that serve San Bruno.
 Contributing Factor: Students living on the east side of San Bruno face disparities in educational outcomes.
 Fair Housing Issue: Disparities in educational outcomes.  Fair Housing Category: Access to Opportunity.

A C T IO N S :
 The City will conduct outreach to school officials on how the City can support area schools.  The City will share data and information on issues the community faces and discuss those issues in tandem to help allocate resources strategically.
 The City will focus its engagement in particular geographic areas with identified need.

M E T R IC :
 Two meetings per year.
924 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-26
Responsibility: City of San Bruno; other cities within the district; school district officials Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Two years from certification
Program 4-L: Engage developers to produce housing with amenities that can help to reduce the disparities in outcomes among the schools that serve San Bruno.  Contributing Factor: Students living on the east side of San Bruno face disparities in educational outcomes.
 Fair Housing Issue: Disparities in educational outcomes.  Fair Housing Category: Access to Opportunity.

A C T IO N S :
 When feasible, the city will use community benefit agreements to encourage developers to include features in new developments that can help facilitate early and K-12 learning. For larger scale redevelopments, this could include reserving/offering reduced leases in community space for nonprofits who work with kids to improve educational outcomes, that offer subsidized childcare, or that offer after school activities.

M E T R IC :
 New development projects built with community space that can be used for educational activities and childcare or other amenities that address disparities for people with special housing needs.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Seven years from certification
AFFH POLICY 3:

Encourage new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas by promoting housing supply, choices, and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty.

Program 4-M: Encourage, facilitate, and promote home sharing opportunities throughout the city.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of affordable housing in high resource areas  Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of Hispanic residents in lower resource areas.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

Continue to support home sharing programs and promote such programs through the Senior Center and other local agencies.

A C T IO N S :
 Continue to support the Housing Investment Partnership (HIP) Home Sharing program, which facilitates living arrangements among two or more unrelated people. Homeowners or renters (Home Providers) who have a residence with one or more bedrooms are matched with persons seeking housing (Home Seekers). People who home share include seniors, working persons, low and extremely low925 of 1863 CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-27
income residents, students, persons with disabilities (including developmental), families, veterans, emancipated foster youth and others.
 Update the city’s website to promote home sharing opportunities throughout the city.  Continue to consider appropriation of monies for support of various organizations during annual budget review. (City allocated annual grant of $30,000 to HIP)  Conduct proactive outreach by sharing information about home sharing resources with residents and other stakeholders. Outreach will be conducted at least twice per year during the planning period and may include sharing information via newsletters, email communication, events, or social media.

M E T R IC :
 Increase community participation in home sharing programs.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 4-N: Continue to participate in San Mateo County Housing Authority’s Housing Choices Voucher program (formerly the federal Section 8 program).  Contributing Factor: Lack of affordable housing in high resource areas  Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of Hispanic residents in lower resource areas.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

Continue to participate in CDBG cooperative agreement with San Mateo County Housing Authority’s housing Choices Voucher program Voucher program (formerly Section 8).

A C T IO N S :
 Encourage new housing developers to participate in the Housing Choices Voucher program during preparation of future development agreements/affordable housing programs.  Publicize availability of this program to residents through the city’s website and promote this program as a way of providing a mix of affordable and market rate units.  Follow up with owners who have opted to participate in the Housing Choices Vouchers program to ensure a “good faith effort” by participating apartment owners to advertise available units and that they are being listed on the Housing Choices Voucher vacancy list.

M E T R IC :
 Increase community participation in the Housing Choices Voucher program.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Sources: County Housing Voucher Program
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 4-O: Establish an affordable unit set-aside for tenants with physical or developmental needs.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of housing for people with disabilities who tend to have extremely low incomes.
926 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-28
 Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of people with disabilities in one area of the city.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

Residents with a disability find it more difficult to find appropriate housing in the city.

A C T IO N S :
 Recommend requiring a subset of units within affordable housing development projects for people with disabilities or alternatively for all citywide housing development projects to provide 10 percent accessible units for households with persons with disabilities.
 The City will conduct proactive outreach to stakeholders about this program. Outreach will be conducted before holding City Council study sessions and meetings and community input will be included in staff reports.
 If the recommendation find it is feasible to establish an affordable unit set-aside for tenants with physical or developmental disabilities, develop an implementation program for consideration by City Council.

M E T R IC :
 Goal of creating five housing units for people with disabilities during the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Sources: Developer Funded
Timeframe: The research will be completed three years from certification and the recommendations will be completed five years from certification.

Program 4-P: Increase the number of affordable rental and homeownership units in higher resource areas of San Bruno through targeted redevelopment and infill.  Contributing Factor: Lack of affordable housing in high resource areas.  Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of Hispanic residents in lower resource areas.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can offer an additional source of affordable housing to homeowners and the community. The City last updated its ADU ordinance in March 2021 and now has an up-to-date ordinance considered compliant with State Government Code Section 65852.2.

A C T IO N S :
 Continue to inform homeowners about the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance which permits second units by-right on appropriate residential sites.
 Promote the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Conduct proactive outreach by sharing information about ADU resources with residents and other stakeholders. Outreach will be conducted at least twice per year during the planning period and may include sharing information via newsletters, email communication, events, or social media
 Continuing to implement a public information and proactive outreach campaign via the city’s website to encourage residents to construct ADUs, inform property owners of the standards for ADU development, permitting procedures, construction resources, and the importance of ADUs, including ADUs affordable to lower-income households. Outreach will be conducted at least semiannually. 927 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-29
 Promote the construction of ADUs in high resource areas and areas of concentrated affluence by supplying informational materials in community gathering places such as high-resource areas or mailers to residents of high-resource areas. The city has submitted its ADU ordinance to the State for review.

Should HCD require revisions to the ordinance, the ordinance will be modified to comply within one year upon receipt of the comments. Encourage ADUs in new single-family subdivisions to accommodate multi-generational and other housing needs.
 Promote pre-approved ADU plans developed by Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART), a non-profit corporation that seeks to increase housing in the county.  Continue to monitor state laws regarding accessory dwelling units and amend the City’s ordinance as needed.

M E T R IC :
 Goal of issuing building permits for 30 accessory dwelling units per year.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 4-Q: Participate in a regional down payment assistance program.  Contributing Factor: Lack of affordable housing in high resource areas.  Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of Hispanic residents in lower resource areas.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

A C T IO N S :
 Establish a regional partnership with HEART.
 Include affirmative marketing to households with disproportionate housing needs including Hispanic households, persons with disabilities, and single parents (e.g., Spanish and English, targeted to neighborhoods east of El Camino Real).
 Conduct homebuyer education quarterly in partnership with HEART.

M E T R IC :
 Number of San Bruno residents participating in regional down payment assistance program.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development and HEART Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Every three years and within three years of certification.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 4-R: Marketing Plan for Accessible Units.
 Contributing Factor: Lack of housing for people with disabilities who tend to have extremely low incomes.
928 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-30
 Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of people with disabilities in one area of the city.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

A C T IO N S :
 As a condition of entitlement approval, the city shall require that a housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for physically accessible units included in the project which will provide disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply.

M E T R IC :
 Number of housing development applications received with accessible units.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing with each entitlement application
Program 4-S: Support social services for housing and homeless prevention and shall work with homeless service providers to prioritize legal help, housing assistance, and other social services for unhoused families in San Bruno.  Contributing Factor: Lack of housing for people with extremely low incomes which are also people with disproportionate housing needs.
 Fair Housing Issue: Concentration of low-income people with disproportionate housing needs east of El Camino Real; Vulnerability to displacement in neighborhoods east of El Camino Real.  Fair Housing Category: Disproportionate housing need.

A C T IO N S :
 The City shall support non-profits, such as LifeMoves, that offer housing solutions and services for homeless: The City shall support with staff expertise and funding, as available, for non-profit organizations that offer solutions to solving homelessness and/or provide housing related services for the homeless or at-risk homeless.
 The city shall support Continuum of Care planning: The City shall be an active participant in the Continuum of Care planning process and support its efforts to address the needs San Bruno residents in need of emergency shelter or temporary housing by attending at least ¾ of all meetings during a calendar year.
 The city shall provide referrals to the YMCA Community Resource Center (San Mateo County Core Services Agency) helping families with social services for housing and homeless prevention.  The city shall provide referrals to Veterans and their immediate families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Resources for referrals include the Veteran’s Administration (VA) National Call Center of Homeless Veterans at 1-877-4AID-VET and to the HUD-VASH program that is a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing through a voucher program that allows homeless Veterans to rent privately owned housing.  The City will annually review, and amend as necessary, the Municipal Code to ensure consistency with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii).
929 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 CITY OF SAN BRUNO HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 7-31
M E T R IC :
 Reduction of the Point in Time homeless count in the City of San Bruni over the planning period.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Program 4-T: Facilitate noise insulation retrofits. Continue to pursue funding for noise insulation from the San Francisco International Airport and educate residents about program benefits.

A C T IO N S :
 Continue to seek funds through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Noise Insulation Program.
 Educate targeted homeowners on the benefits of participation in the program.  Provide technical assistance necessary to help qualifying homeowners apply for the funding and implement the insulation retrofits.

M E T R IC :
 Facilitate the upgrading of 100 existing homes in the city that still qualify for the program.

Responsibility: Community and Economic Development
Funding Source: Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Noise Insulation Program Timeframe: Ongoing
930 of 1863
CHAPTER 7 | GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATOIN ACTIONS FOR 2023-2031 7-32
This page intentionally blank
931 of 1863
A-1
Appendix A
Previous Cycle
Housing Element Accomplishments
932 of 1863
A-2
Appendix A: Detailed Program Accomplishments
During Last Cycle (2015-2023)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development requires that each housing element review the effectiveness of the previous housing element (specifically, its goals, policies and programs); describe progress in implementation; and analyze the appropriateness of these measures (i.e. whether and how these policies/programs should continue). This appendix assesses the achievements of the 2015 Housing Element, in accordance with State housing law. These results are quantified where appropriate and compared to what was projected in the 2015 Housing Element. This evaluation provided a basis for the new Housing Element policies, as successful programs were retained and/or expanded, while unsuccessful programs were discarded or revised. Specific implementation and responsible agencies were identified in the revised Housing Programs (see Chapter 7).
933 of 1863
A-3
GOAL 1: Protect the quality and stability of existing neighborhoods through the conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement of the existing housing supply. (GC 65583(c)(4)) Program 1-A: Support infrastructure upgrades.

Continue to seek funding to upgrade and maintain infrastructure needed by San Bruno’s housing supply.

Actions:
▪ Identify funding sources necessary for infrastructure improvements on a project-by-project basis. Funding sources may include gas tax, CDBG, etc.
▪ Formulate a development impact fee to finance the upgrade and maintenance of infrastructure related to new residential and commercial development in the Transit Corridors Plan area, as a condition of project approval. ▪ Continue to incorporate infrastructure requirements in the fee structure for development proposals.
▪ Implement upgrades and maintenance through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, Public Works Dept Funding Source: Staff time, Gas Tax, Measure A, grants (e.g., C/CAG TOD-HIP), development fees
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• The City adopted development impact fees in 2019 to help fund infrastructure improvements.
• The City made several pedestrian safety improvements along San Bruno Ave. and replaced water and sewer mains in the Avenues neighborhoods. Benefitting the neighborhoods east of El Camino Real.
• The water and sewer mains along San Mateo Ave. were replaced. • However, the infrastructure upgrades weren’t always done in areas that benefit new development, leaving developers to do additional infrastructure upgrades.

Has the program been successful? Yes, but infrastructure upgrades should be more targeted, if possible, to benefit the development anticipated in the sites inventory which are mostly located in the TCP specific plan area. This program will be continued but modified to address this shortcoming.
934 of 1863
A-4
Program 1-B: Maintain and expand the supply of small lots.

Conserve and expand the city’s supply of small residential lots, where compatible with surrounding neighborhood character.

Actions:
▪ Continue zoning that allows development of small, flexible parcels with a Planned Unit Permit in the Zoning Ordinance Update.
▪ Study opportunities to preserve and facilitate development on small residential lots throughout the City.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 2 years of Housing Element adoption, Measure A, grants (e.g., C/CAG TODHIP), development fees Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• The City approved two residential subdivision projects which utilized small lot development with reduced setbacks. Forty housing units were approved at Skyline Ridge and 29 housing units were approved at Glenview Terrace. Where the Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft., the average for these projects was 3,500 sq. ft. A 30% reduction in lot size which allowed each project to achieve the maximum dwelling unit density permitted under the General Plan for the land use designation.

Has the program been successful? This program has been successful. Small lot development allows more housing to be built on a low-density development site because maximum density can rarely be achieved in a low-density residential subdivision with a 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. 935 of 1863
A-5
Program 1-C: Conserve and facilitate legalization of second units in R-1 and R-2 zones.

Continue to legalize excess housekeeping units in R-1 and R-2 zones that were constructed prior to June 30, 1977 and that met the California Building Code at time of construction.

Actions:
▪ Continue to provide informational handouts to inform residents how to legalize second units in R-1 and R-2 zones at the Planning Department and the Public Library. ▪ Create a program to legalize second units constructed between 1977 and 2003, including alleviated existing barriers such as parking standards. ▪ Update application materials for excess housekeeping units to improve clarity. ▪ Aim to facilitate construction and/or legalization of second units at a rate of 4 per year, slightly above the recorded annual average from the prior Housing Element cycle due to the likelihood that second units are more attractive in a strong economy. Second units are assumed to qualify for the very-low income category.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 2 years after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation
• Second units became Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) during the planning period. With changes to state law, the city was very successful in promoting and approving accessory dwelling units, approving 68 in 2021. ADUs will continue to be a strategy for the city to meet its RHNA requirement for the next planning cycle.

Has the program been successful? Through the code enforcement process, the city continues to recommend legalization of accessory living spaces where feasible and where life safety considerations are not an impediment. Though a formal legalization program was never created, the program has been successful overall. However, it will not be continued because it is outdated and superseded by changes to state ADU law that provide more flexible development standards. 936 of 1863
A-6
Program 1-D: Pursue and promote resources for preservation and rehabilitation.

Publicize federal, State, and local resources, both financial and programmatic, to assist homeowners in preventative maintenance and to preserve and rehabilitate the City’s existing housing supply.

Actions:
▪ Continue to work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing Residential Rehabilitation Program, including providing referrals during Code enforcement. ▪ Continue to maintain a comprehensive list of available resources and publicize through the City’s Resource Guide, flyers, cable TV, newspaper, the Focus newsletter, and the City’s website. Ensure the Resource Guide contains details on whom to contact for more information on each program or resource.
▪ Promote local non-profit agencies that assist low-income homeowners with housing repairs. ▪ Explore opportunities to create a City-sponsored program to assist homeowners with rehabilitation and preventative maintenance, including potential funding from the City’s BMR Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• Due to lack of resources, the city did not implement this program.

Has the program been successful? This program was not implemented but a version of it has been added to the 2023-2031 programs, see program 4-E.
937 of 1863
A-7
Program 1-E: Ensure replacement housing.

Develop a comprehensive program to replace housing throughout the City to accommodate all income levels.

Actions:
▪ Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require replacement of demolished legal housing units in all areas of the city.
▪ Require replacement equal to or more than the number of legal units previously on the site.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation
• Though the city did not amend the Zoning Ordinance it did not approve any projects proposing the removal of housing that was not replaced.

Has the program been successful? This program was not implemented but will be retained and updated for the 2023-2031 programs, see program 4-G. The city will update its ordinance to require replacement of housing that is lost through demolition.
938 of 1863
A-8
Program 1-F: Improve legally non-conforming residential uses.

Work to facilitate improvement and expansion of existing legal non-conforming residential uses if compatible with adjacent uses.

Actions:
▪ Review City policies to determine whether they can currently accommodate the demolition and reconstruction of existing substandard non-conforming structures with the same (nonconforming) number of units. ▪ Clarify permissible reconstruction/expansion of non-conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance Update.
▪ Create an informational handout and provide public outreach to property owners with structures that may fall into this category.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation
• This program was not completed due to lack of resources.

Has the program been successful? n/a
939 of 1863
A-9
Program 1-G: Support historic preservation.

Support preservation and reuse of properties with historic character.

Actions:
▪ Preserve historic structures and resources during reuse and intensification within the city’s older neighborhoods. (General Plan Policy ERC-44)
▪ Implement rehabilitation, renovation, or reuse of historic resources in coordination with the standards of the Secretary of the Interior and the Office of Historic Preservation. (General Plan Policy ERC-36)
▪ Provide technical assistance to property owners in determining appropriate rehabilitation techniques for historic properties, including providing referrals to the San Mateo County Historic Society.
▪ Continue to use the 2001 Historical Resources Survey to guide decisions about preservation and reuse of historic properties.
▪ Continue to use historic resources consultants as necessary for reviewing planning applications.
▪ Consult the Residential Design Guidelines as necessary during project review.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• The city did not receive any historic preservation projects during the 2015-2023 planning cycle, which indicates there isn’t much of a need for this type of work. The city requires a historic resource evaluation for major alteration and demolition of properties that are 50 years old or more.

Has the program been successful? This program was not successful and will be removed. 940 of 1863
A-10
Program 1-H: Allow fee waivers for affordable rehabilitation.

Waive permit fees for affordable housing rehabilitation achieved through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as well as through other San Mateo County programs or through nonprofit agencies.

Actions:
▪ Continue to waive permit fees for housing rehabilitation conducted through CDBG, as well as through other San Mateo County or non-profit agencies.
▪ Consider amending Master Fee Schedule to reflect this policy. ▪ Continue to allow Master Fee Schedule fees to be waived by City Council based on need for any project, including affordable projects.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, City Council Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• The city did not receive any projects that proposed housing rehabilitation using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds or through other San Mateo County programs or through non-profit agencies.

Has the program been successful? This program was not successful because it was not implemented due to lack of resources. The city is not in a fiscal position to grant fee waivers and will therefore only implement those fee waivers and deferrals required per state law.
941 of 1863
A-11
Program 1-I: Continue lead-based paint abatement.

Provide information on local lead-based paint abatement programs to ensure safe and healthy living environments for all residents.

Actions:
▪ Display and distribute informational handout on local lead-based paint abatement programs at City Hall and the Public Library.
▪ Provide information on local lead-based paint abatement programs on the City website.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• The City will continue to provide lead-based paint abatement information on its website.

Has the program been successful? This program will be removed because it has been completed. 942 of 1863
A-12
Program 1-J: Ensure renovations are compatible with neighborhood character.

Maintain design standards to ensure that residential additions and renovations are compatible with overall neighborhood character. (See Program 2-E regarding new housing development.) Actions:
▪ Review and update the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that design standards applicable to residential additions and renovations are based on the Residential Design Guidelines. ▪ Require applications for residential additions and renovations to comply with all standards set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines.
▪ Prepare informational handouts on the Residential Design Guidelines. ▪ Amend Guidelines as necessary to ensure they clearly reflect neighborhood character goals.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, Planning Commission Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation
▪ The City reviews all residential projects for compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines.
▪ The Residential Design Guidelines are accessible to the public on the Community and Economic Development Department’s webpage.

Has the program been successful? The successfully applies its Residential Design Guidelines to all residential projects in low-density residential districts. Objective design guidelines are needed for multi-family residential projects. A program has been added for the City to develop objective design standards. 943 of 1863
A-13
GOAL 2: Accommodate regional housing needs through a community-wide variety of residential uses by size, type, tenure, affordability, and location. (GC 65583(c)(1)) Program 2-A: Update the Zoning Ordinance to make available adequate sites to accommodate San Bruno’s share of regional housing need.

Revise the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the San Bruno 2025 General Plan and Transit Corridors Plan (2013), including land use designations allowing mixed-use development.

Actions:
▪ Update the Zoning Ordinance to create Mixed Use and Multi Use–Residential Focus zoning districts with a minimum density of 20 units per acre that promote high-intensity mixed-use development, including retail, office, services, and housing to provide adequate sites to meet San Bruno’s RHNA. Limit retail development along El Camino Real to those sites north of Crystal Springs Road, thus reinforcing the existing retail activity in Downtown. ▪ Allow residential uses by right without a conditional use permit, planned development permit or other discretionary action in Mixed-Use and Multi-Use Residential Focus zoning districts, consistent with Section 65583.2(h) & (i).
▪ Update the Zoning Map to match the designations indicated in General Plan and TCP. ▪ In the interim before the Zoning Ordinance is updated, encourage and facilitate approval of projects that adhere to the General Plan and TCP land uses and densities/intensities. ▪ Ensure that Zoning Ordinance amendment to rezone sites from nonresidential use to residential use is in accordance with Section 65583.2 of the California Government Code as amended by Assembly Bills No. 1690 and 1537.
▪ Treat agriculture-related employee housing providing accommodation for six or fewer employees the same as any single-family structure within all residential zoning districts, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 3 years after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
• The City updated its Zoning Ordinance in March 2021 to implement the Transit Corridors Plan, replacing commercial district zoning with the TOD zoning district and making it possible to construct the 1,610 housing units envisioned in the TCP. • Since the update, the city has experienced an increase in development applications for multi-family residential projects within the plan area. • Several housing projects were entitled within the TCP during the delay but the entitlements took longer than if the zoning had already been in place.

Has the program been successful? Including all applications, the city has entitled 715 housing units within the TCP. The program will not be retained because the rezoning has been completed. 944 of 1863
A-14
Program 2-B: Transit Corridors Plan Implementation.

Develop strategies to implement the adopted Transit Corridors Plan with the goal, amongst others, of increasing residential options in Downtown and transit corridors in the vicinity of the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station completed in 2014.

Actions:
▪ Promote new or different housing products or arrangements (e.g., shared housing, cube housing, co-housing, etc.) that better meet current housing needs in the TCP area. ▪ Organize a working group of staff from various City Departments to review and propose strategies to carry out the implementation action plan recommended in the TCP, including infrastructure upgrades to accommodate new residential development. ▪ Develop a program to accomplish implementation actions in the adopted Transit Corridors Plan with the goal, amongst others, of increasing residential options in Downtown and transit corridors in the vicinity of the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station. ▪ Provide information materials on the TCP development standards and design guidelines on the City website and handout materials.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city adopted the Transit Corridors Plan in 2014 and is now several years into the implementation phase of the plan.

Has the program been successful? In the early years after plan adoption, the TCP was not that successful because the zoning had not yet been updated. In 2021, the city updated the zoning to fully implement the plan and there has been a lot of development interest since. This program will not be retained because TCP implementation would benefit most from objective design standards. 945 of 1863
A-15
Program 2-C: Support identified housing opportunities.

Work with property owners and the community to support and encourage the redevelopment of identified opportunity sites into mixed uses with affordable housing components.

Actions:
▪ Actively engage the community about options to redevelop the proposed housing opportunity sites listed in Table 4.4-1 and shown in Figure 4.4-1.
▪ Prioritize review of development proposals and permitting procedures for identified housing opportunity sites.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ After plan adoption, the city met with regional developers to champion the TCP development opportunities and facilitate coordination among property owners. However, sites that required several lot to be consolidated proved difficult to achieve.

Has the program been successful? The TCP is now one of several areas in the city anticipated for growth.

Therefore, this program will be retained and broadened to promote the entire sites inventory properties, see program 2-K.
946 of 1863
A-16
Program 2-D: Reuse former school sites.

Facilitate the reuse of former school sites to accommodate affordable housing.

Actions:
▪ Work with the School District regarding the following reusable school sites (designated low density residential in the General Plan) to encourage the development of a variety of housing types to address the needs of all incomes. Densities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses, consistent with available service capacities and environmental constraints, and in accordance with existing City ordinances:
o Willard Engvall School site
o Crestmoor High School site
o Edgemont School site
▪ Allow the redevelopment of the Crestmoor site to utilize clustering of new housing units to facilitate the preservation of open space and playgrounds according to General Plan Policy OSR-8 while not reducing the overall number of units achievable on the site. ▪ Work with the School District to increase access to information on how their low-density residential sites may be suitable for affordable housing development. ▪ Initiate a dialog with affordable housing developers about what kind of partnerships and financial leverage would be necessary to reuse the school sites in a profitable way for the District and the developers.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, San Bruno Park School District, San Mateo Unified High School District
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Initiate actions within 2 years after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city is in the process of working with applicants to develop the Willard Engvall and Crestmoor High School sites.
▪ Preliminary plans indicate development on the sites will be clustered, with small lots similar to other more recent residential subdivision projects.

Has the program been successful? Two of the three school district properties mentioned in this program have been sold or are under contract to private developers and have applications for redevelopment under review by the city. Edgemont is the only school site that remains under district control. This program will not be retained since projects are under review.
947 of 1863
A-17
* Program 2-E: Consolidate Lots.

Use City funds to facilitate lot consolidation in support of the redevelopment of housing opportunity sites with affordable housing.

Actions:
▪ Starting with the Housing Opportunity Sites cited in Program 2-C, work with property owners to facilitate consolidation of adjacent parcels.
▪ Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance Update implements the General Plan and Transit Corridors Plan density and intensity standards (General Plan Table 2-1) which allow mixed use development density/intensity to increase with the size of the development site.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 2 years after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city worked with the developers of Mills Park and 111 San Bruno Ave. to consolidate adjacent lots to produce more substantial projects with increased housing density. ▪ The 2021 Zoning Ordinance update implemented the density and intensity standards of the General Plan and Transit Corridors Plan, allowing unlimited FAR for lots 20,000 square feet or more.

Has the program been successful? Lot consolidation is an important mechanism for ensuring housing opportunity sites in the inventory can achieve unlimited housing density. Therefore, this program will be retained and incorporated into program 2-B.
948 of 1863
A-18
Program 2-F: Ensure compatibility of new housing with neighborhood character.

Use Residential Design Guidelines and Transit Corridors Plan Design Guidelines to ensure that new housing development proposals are compatible with existing neighborhood character. (See Program 1-J regarding additions and renovations to existing homes.) Actions:
▪ Use the new Transit Corridors Plan Design Guidelines to ensure that new housing development proposals are compatible with existing neighborhood character. Require applications for new multi-family residential and mixed-use development in the TCP area to comply with the design guidelines, development standards, and Mixed Use to Residential Transition Measures set forth in the TCP.
▪ Require applications for new single-family housing to comply with the standards set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines to ensure that the design, scale, and buffering retains existing neighborhood character.
▪ Require applications for new multi-family residential and mixed-use development in Transit Corridors Plan area to comply with the design guidelines, development standards, and Mixed Use to Residential Transition Measures set forth in the Transit Corridors Plan. ▪ Develop design standards during the Zoning Ordinance update for new multi-family residential projects in R-3, R-4, and new General Plan multi-use residential focus districts, to ensure compatibility of design and scale with surrounding uses. ▪ Use the development standards and processing procedures within the Residential Design Guidelines and Transit Corridors Plan Design Guidelines to increase applicant certainty, and periodically evaluate the implementation of the guidelines to ensure they do not unduly constrain residential development.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing, within one year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city applies the Residential Design Guidelines and Transit Corridors Plan Design Guidelines to all projects within these districts to ensure neighborhood compatibility. ▪ Prior to application submittal, the city encourages dialogue to ensure submittals are reflect staff guidance regarding the guidelines.

Has the program been successful? Objective design guidelines are needed to facilitate the review process for multifamily dwellings. This program will be revised to apply to objective design standards, see program 1-D.
949 of 1863
A-19
* Program 2-G: Provide senior housing for a range of income levels.

Identify opportunities for the creation of affordable units for seniors who do not qualify for deedrestricted units due to equity in their current homes.

Actions:
▪ Encourage the development of small rental and for-sale units close to transit and services, especially in the Transit Corridors Plan area, which would appeal and be affordable to seniors on fixed incomes.
▪ Encourage developers to market “senior” units mixed with family units. ▪ Work with the Senior Center, AARP, and others to educate seniors about affordable housing options as they become available.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The City advertises home sharing opportunities through the Senior Center and encourages developers to include housing units of varying sizes but it is unclear to what extent these efforts have assisted senior residents.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because it is difficult to track its effectiveness. However, the City will continue to advertise home sharing opportunities. 950 of 1863
A-20
* Program 2-H: Encourage moderate-income for-sale housing.

Encourage moderate-income for-sale housing within the Multi Use-Residential Focus area along El Camino Real.

Actions:
▪ Notify the development community about the City’s desire for more moderately-priced forsale housing along the transit corridors, potentially in the form of multi-family condominiums. ▪ During project review, discuss with developers options for using density bonuses and smaller unit sizes to increase affordability while maintaining building quality and amenities. ▪ Consider reduction of parking requirements as outlined in program 3-I.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ In 2021, the city approved 271 El Camino Real, within the MX-R District, a proposal for 23 multi-family units, eight of which would be larger for-sale units. ▪ During pre-submittal discussions with applicants, the city references the density bonus ordinance, and as a result has four projects under review that are proposing to exercise density bonus provisions.

Has the program been successful? Moderate-income households find it less difficult to find suitable housing than do low- and very low-income households. This program will not be retained so more emphasis can be placed on those households who find it harder to find housing. 951 of 1863
A-21
Program 2-I: Provide affordable housing education.

Develop and implement an ongoing voter education program to inform residents of the need for affordable housing and ways the electorate can support its development.

Actions:
▪ Develop a voter education program addressing provision of affordable housing. Potential media to be used include newspaper articles, bulletins and informational handouts, cable television, community workshops, the Focus newsletter, and the City website. ▪ In the voter education program, highlight The Crossing site as an example of successful affordable housing production using voter-approved increased building heights.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 2 years after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ This program was not completed due to lack of resources.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because most residents understand the need for affordable housing. Instead, the City must focus its efforts on providing resources and access to affordable housing for those who need it.
952 of 1863
A-22
Program 2-J: Conduct annual performance evaluations and ensure consistency with the General Plan and Transit Corridors Plan.

During annual review of the General Plan, monitor, evaluate, and document housing program performance and consistency with General Plan goals and policies.

Actions:
▪ Annually review and evaluate implementation of housing programs. This can be facilitated through the draft annual performance report provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
▪ Use the annual review as an opportunity to meet with Code Enforcement staff to discuss the overall condition of the housing stock and any particular concerns that may arise. ▪ If an inconsistency is identified between a General Plan policy or goal and a Housing Element program or action, City Staff will prepare and propose a prioritized list of possible remedies to the Planning Commission for consideration. If City Council action is necessary, they will be notified of Planning Commission and Staff recommendations prior to taking action.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The city updated its zoning code in 2021 to fully incorporate the TCP’s development standards and establish the TOD zoning district.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because it was addressed when the zoning code was updated to incorporate the TCP development standards. 953 of 1863
A-23
GOAL 3: Expand the variety of construction and financing techniques available to achieve new affordable housing and maintain it over time. (GC 65583(c)(2)) Program 3-A: Publicize affordable housing financing strategies.

Publicize the various financing strategies for development and expansion of affordable housing.

Actions:
▪ Study and publicize available financing strategies (see descriptions in policies below) for the development of new affordable housing. Inform property-owners and local non-profit and institutional groups of available resources through brochures, flyers in utility billings, cable TV, newspapers, and the City’s Focus newsletter.
▪ Coordinate and build relationships with affordable housing developers and advocates to raise awareness of potential financing sources.
▪ Develop a strategy to prioritize the use of San Bruno’s BMR housing in-lieu fees to create and preserve affordable housing in San Bruno, including supporting non-profit affordable housing organizations and providing financial support to new or rehabilitated affordable housing. See also Program 5-J.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation
• Due to lack of resources, the city did not implement this program to the extent needed.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained, see program 2-F. 954 of 1863
A-24
Program 3-B: Support the Housing Choices Voucher Program.

Continue to participate in San Mateo County Housing Authority’s Housing Choices Voucher program (formerly Section 8).

Actions:
▪ Encourage new housing developers to participate in the Housing Choices Voucher program during preparation of future development agreements/affordable housing programs. ▪ Promote this program as a way of providing a mix of affordable and market rate units. ▪ Publicize availability of this program to residents. Inform residents about the Housing Authority’s application process for the Section 8 Moving-To-Work (MTW) program. ▪ Follow up with owners who have opted to participate in the Housing Choices Vouchers program to ensure a “good faith effort” by participating apartment owners to advertise available units and that they are being listed on the Housing Choices Voucher vacancy list.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ Due to lack of resources, it is unclear how successful this program has been in San Bruno.

Has the program been successful? This program is important for providing access to higher resource neighborhoods, therefore, it will be retained and revised, see program 4-N. 955 of 1863
A-25
* Program 3-C: Monitor compliance with financing terms.

Ensure that units built with long-term affordability requirements are actually occupied by lower-income households. (See also Program 5-E)
Actions:
▪ Maintain a list of developments with affordability covenants and check compliance with the agreement annually in conjunction with General Plan and Housing Element progress review. ▪ Monitor compliance of Avalon Bay at The Crossing, which includes 97 units with affordability covenants that receive annual subsidies from the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency.
▪ Monitor compliance of The Village at The Crossing senior apartments include 228 affordable units with affordable housing covenants.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The developments in the city which are subject to affordable housing requirements, are required to submit yearly reports regarding their occupancy which staff reviews for compliance.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained and incorporated into program 3-H. 956 of 1863
A-26
Program 3-D: Promote the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program.

The City will continue to participate in and promote San Mateo County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program for first-time homebuyers.

Actions:
▪ Continue to advertise the availability of the program through informational handouts available at City Hall, the Public Library, and the Senior Center and through the City website. ▪ Continue to encourage and promote seminars by local realtors to inform first-time homebuyers of financing options. Informational seminars are also offered by the California Dream Alliance (a non-profit organization) in English and Spanish.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time; Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ First time homebuyers in the city can access homebuying programs through the San Mateo County Department of Housing. However, this resource was not wide publicized.

Has the program been successful? No residents used this program to purchase a home in San Bruno during the planning period but the program is important for helping underrepresented households enter the housing market. The program will be retained and incorporated into program 2-F. 957 of 1863
A-27
Program 3-E: Facilitate reasonable accommodations.

Facilitate the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities by implementing Reasonable Accommodations program.

Actions:
▪ The City will implement the adopted reasonable accommodations procedure that provides exception in zoning and land use for housing for persons with disabilities. This procedure is a ministerial process, with minimal or no processing fee, subject to approval by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, who would apply the following decision-making criteria:
▪ The request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual with a Disability protected under fair housing laws.
▪ The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available to an individual with a disability protected under fair housing laws.
▪ The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
▪ The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's land-use and zoning program.
▪ The City will inform service providers about the City’s adopted Reasonable Accommodation Program.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within one year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city updated its reasonable accommodation ordinance in 2021 in response to changes in state law.
▪ The city approved two reasonable accommodate requests during the planning period.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained and revised to ensure the city’s reasonable accommodation process remains consistent with state law, see program 4-D. 958 of 1863
A-28
Program 3-F: Accommodate manufactured housing.

Continue to permit manufactured housing in single family zones.

Actions:
▪ Permit manufactured housing on permanent foundation systems in all single family zones, provided that the unit is no more than ten years old on the date of application and meets federal and local standards specified in Government Code Section 65852.3. ▪ Require applications for new manufactured housing to comply with standards set forth in the new Residential Design Guidelines.
▪ Ensure that no special restrictions on manufactured housing are included in the Zoning Ordinance Update or the Residential Design Guidelines beyond those that apply to regular single family construction.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city permits manufactured housing though it is not explicitly stated in either its ordinances or guidelines. Manufactured housing is subject to the same design standards as conventionally built housing.
▪ The city did not receive a request during the planning period to permit a manufactured home within a single-family district.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because the city does apply the same standards to manufactured housing and conventional housing. 959 of 1863
A-29
* Program 3-G: Permit childcare by right in residential zoning districts.

Ensure that land use regulations consistently allow childcare services by right in all residential zones in accordance with State law.

Actions:
▪ In accordance with San Bruno 2025 General Plan Policy LUD-10 and the California Child Day Care Act, revise the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to ensure consistent and streamlined definitions of small and large childcare facilities.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2021 to allow childcare facilities as a permitted use in all residential zones. The city recently entitled two childcare centers that were made possible by the ordinance change.

Has the program been successful? This program will be removed because it has been completed. 960 of 1863
A-30
Program 3-H: Reduce parking requirements.

Reduce parking requirements for new or reuse housing projects along transit corridors and adjacent to transit stations, as well as within the Medium Density (R-3) and High Density (R-4) zones.

Actions:
▪ Consider ways to reduce parking standards for housing near transit and units with residents with reduced automobile use, such as seniors and persons with disabilities, and clarify and implement reduced parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance Update. ▪ Update parking standards pursuant recommendations of the Transit Corridors Plan. ▪ Update parking standards pursuant to Government Code 65915(p) affordable housing density bonus requirements.
▪ Consider allowing—but not mandating—“unbundled” parking as part of residential developments (mandating this could create financing issues for purchase of these spaces). ▪ Consider updating parking standards to allow tandem parking to satisfy the parking requirement for second units by right as suggested by State law (Government Code Section 65852.2(e)). Currently tandem parking is only allowed by securing a parking exception from the Planning Commission.
▪ Consider updating parking standards to allow tandem parking to satisfy the parking requirement in R-3 and R-4 zoning districts.
▪ Review and consider revising zoning enforcement criteria and procedures to address localized problems with street parking availability due to the use of garages for storage of personal belongings rather than cars.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city updated its parking requirements in 2020 to reduce parking requirements for residential uses within the Transit Corridors Plan area and provide more flexibility in how parking is provided.
▪ The parking update removed the parking requirement for ADUs proximate to transit and created a process to address parking impacted neighborhoods.

Has the program been successful? Parking continues to be a challenge in the city even with the updates to the parking ordinance. In many instances, state law has superseded the city’s requirements to give developers more flexibility in how they park their projects. This program will not be retained because it was completed with the update to city’s parking standards in 2020.
961 of 1863
A-31
Program 3-I: Support condominium conversions, cooperatives, and other affordable housing ownership options.

Facilitate condominium conversions, limited equity stock cooperatives, and community apartments to ensure affordable ownership choices within the housing supply.

Actions:
▪ Evaluate each condominium, stock cooperative, and community apartment project on its own merits.
▪ Consistent with the municipal code, continue to ensure residents of existing apartments have the first opportunity to buy their unit in the instance of condominium conversion. ▪ Coordinate with the California Association of Housing Cooperatives (CAHC), a nonprofit organization, about how to market and support cooperatives in San Bruno. ▪ Consider making condominium conversions subject to the City’s existing Below Market Rate Housing Program, which provides for 15 percent of new for-sale units to be affordable to lowand moderate-income households.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ The city updated its condominium conversion standards to add a nondiscrimination requirement and add additional tenant protections but did not add a below market rate requirement for conversions.
▪ The city did not receive any requests for condominium conversion during the planning period.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because the condominium conversion requirements have been sufficiently updated.
962 of 1863
A-32
* Program 3-J: Adopt an affordable housing impact fee.

Conduct a nexus study that demonstrates the relationship between new housing or jobs and the need for affordable housing in San Bruno and determine a permissible and reasonable fee level for both residential and commercial development.

Actions:
▪ Continue to participate in the San Mateo Countywide Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study and Feasibility Study that will estimate the increase in demand for affordable housing associated with new residential and commercial development. ▪ Determine a permissible and reasonable impact fee level for both residential and commercial development based on local conditions that will not discourage development.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ In 2019, the city adopted development impact fees to partially offset the costs of public facilities and services that are needed to serve demand created by new development. ▪ In 2015, the city participated in a multi-city nexus study through 21 Elements, which led to the adoption of a new affordable housing ordinance to impose affordable housing impact fees in 2016.

Has the program been successful? This program has been successful, as the city has collected over $14M in affordable housing impact fees. However, the program will not be retained since it has already been implemented.
963 of 1863
A-33
GOAL 4: Achieve energy and environmental conservation in residential design—particularly techniques that would also reduce noise impacts on housing—while maintaining the affordability of housing units. (GC 65583(b)(8))
Program 4-A: Promote energy conservation.

Continue to publicize and encourage energy conservation programs, including weatherization programs.

Actions:
• Maintain an updated list of residential energy conservation opportunities, programs, and funding resources. Include information about programs available through PG&E, the State, and the federal government.
▪ Provide available information about energy conservation programs and state and federal grants at City Hall, the Public Library, on the City website, and intermittently in utility billings. ▪ Study new opportunities for providing rebates or incentives for homeowners’ investments in energy-saving techniques (upgrading thermostats, insulation, windows, etc.) ▪ Consider structuring incentives as tax credits or improvements funded through voluntary longterm assessment on property tax bills. ▪ Promote the California HERO Program in San Bruno, endorsed by the City Council on October 14, 2014 (Resolution No. 2014-107), to provide for the financing of renewable energy distributed generation sources, energy and water efficiency improvements and electric vehicle charging infrastructure property owners in financing the cost of installing Improvements.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 2 years after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation
• The city provides information about energy conservation from handouts through the Building division and information on the department’s website. Program partially implemented.

Has the program been successful? The city will continue to provide energy conservation information in handouts and on its website, but this program will not be retained because its effectiveness was unclear. 964 of 1863
A-34
* Program 4-B: Support household and business participation in energy conservation and efficiency programs through PG&E and the State.

City Staff will work to promote and support participation energy efficiency and conservation programs described in Chapter 2 in order to help reduce long-term housing costs for residents (including lowincome residents), help meet local greenhouse gas reduction targets under AB 32, and increase the sustainability of the local energy supply.

Actions:
▪ Promote programs through informational brochures made available where all residential building standards guidelines can be found.
▪ Provide links to the programs through the City website. ▪ Work with CHPC to identify households eligible for programs.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E, Staff time Timeframe: Within one year after adoption of the Housing Element, ongoing Implementation:
▪ The city provides information about energy conservation from handouts through the Building division and information on the department’s website. Program partially implemented.

Has the program been successful? The city will continue to provide energy conservation information in handouts and on its website. This program will not be retained because its effectiveness was unclear. 965 of 1863
A-35
Program 4-C: Facilitate noise insulation retrofits.

Continue to pursue funding for noise insulation from the San Francisco International Airport and educate residents about program benefits.

Actions:
▪ Continue to seek funds through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Noise Insulation Program.
▪ Facilitate the upgrading of 154 existing homes in San Bruno that still qualify for aircraft noise insulation retrofits.
▪ Educate targeted homeowners on the benefits of participation in the program. ▪ Provide technical assistance necessary to help qualifying homeowners apply for the funding and implement the insulation retrofits.
▪ Encourage adoption of noise insulation standards by San Francisco International Airport to mitigate impacts from airplane back blast, and expand the CNEL threshold level for insulation from 65 CNEL to 60 CNEL.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Noise Insulation Program Timeframe: Within 4 years after adoption of the Housing Element, ongoing Implementation:
▪ The city continued its partnership with the San Francisco International Airport to administer the window insultation retrofit program. In total, 90 homes were utilized the program during the planning period.

Has the program been successful? This program has been successful and will be retained as it primarily impacts the neighborhoods west of El Camino Real. See program 4-T. 966 of 1863
A-36
* Program 4-D: Ensure adequate water and sewer service and reduce water waste.

Work with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and local departments to ensure that there are adequate water and sewer services for new development, affordable housing receives priority for these services, and new development uses best management practices to reduce water waste.

Actions:
▪ Deliver a copy of the adopted Housing Element to the SFPUC and the Public Works Department’s water and wastewater divisions within one month after adoption. ▪ Adopt procedures to ensure that affordable housing developments are granted priority for service allocations.
▪ In accordance with General Plan policies ERC-19 through ERC-24 and PFS-19, work with developers and residents on an on-going basis to minimize the surface water run-off and pollution, increase water conservation during construction and operation phases of new residential development, and make recycled water available for appropriate uses.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept; Public Works Funding Sources: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 month to 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element; ongoing Implementation:
▪ The city provided a copy of the adopted Housing Element to the SFPUC after its adoption to ensure the continuation of water service.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because state law now mandates this coordination through Housing Element law.
967 of 1863
A-37
Program 4-E: Encourage drought-resistant landscaping.

Implement water conservation and drought-resistant landscaping guidelines and standards.

Actions:
▪ Adopt standards for water conservation and drought-resistant landscaping as part of the zoning code update.
▪ Continue to evaluate landscape plans for residential development projects for consistency with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines and Transit Corridors Plan Design Guidelines. ▪ Continue to review residential landscape plans for consistency with the City’s Water Efficiency, Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and Municipal Code Section 10.16, Water Conservation.
▪ Provide informational brochures about drought-resistant and low-water landscaping options in the same locations where residential building standards guidelines can be found.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, Parks Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element; ongoing Implementation:
▪ The city requires MWELO compliance for all projects that meet the threshold.

Has the program been successful? The city will continue to encourage drought-resistant landscaping, but this program will not be retained because it is mostly superseded by MWELO requirements. 968 of 1863
A-38
GOAL 5: Ensure the continued availability of affordable housing for very-low, low-, and moderate-income households, seniors, persons with disabilities, single-parent households, large families, and other special needs groups. (GC 65583(c)(5)) * Program 5-A: Support the Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance.

Through education and enforcement of the Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance (adopted 2008), provide guidelines for developers to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

Actions:
▪ In accordance with the BMR Ordinance, require new residential developments with 10 or more housing units to provide a minimum of 15 percent of total housing units affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income households through construction, donation of land, and/or payment of in-lieu fees.
▪ In accordance with the BMR Ordinance, require maintenance of subsidized housing units as affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income households for a period of at least 55 years from date of occupancy for rental units and 45 years for ownership units. ▪ Monitor State actions and court cases regarding validity of local inclusionary housing programs. Modify the City’s BMR program as appropriate to maximize efforts to achieve affordable housing objectives in San Bruno.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Once a year
Implementation
• The city was revised in 2016 to apply to rental projects. The program was revised gain in 2021 to codify its preference for onsite affordable units and include provisions which incentivize units with deeper affordability.

Has the program been successful? Through this program, the city was successful in entitling more than 90 deed restricted affordable housing units during the planning period. The program will be retained and revised, see program 3-C.
969 of 1863
A-39
Program 5-B: Implement San Bruno’s density bonus regulations.

Offer a density bonus of up to 35 percent and incentives or concessions based on the number of affordable units in the development and a flat density bonus of 20 percent for all senior housing in accordance with State density bonus regulations (Government Code 65915).

Actions:
▪ Continue to meet State requirements (California Government Code 65915) for provision of density bonuses.
▪ Promote density bonus opportunities to property owners and developers at the earliest stages in pre-development review and consultation process.
▪ Ensure that State density bonus parking standards are allowed in qualifying density bonus projects. (See also Program 3-I)
Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within one year after adoption of the Housing Element, ongoing Implementation:
▪ The city updated its density bonus ordinance in 2021, as a result, it is currently reviewing four density bonus projects (170 San Bruno Ave., 111 San Bruno Ave., 732-740 El Camino Real, and 840 San Bruno Ave.) which would produce 644 dwelling units.

Has the program been successful? There have been a number of changes to state density bonus laws since the city adopted its density bonus ordinance in 2021. This program will be retained and revised to ensure continued compliance with state law, see program 1-I.
970 of 1863
A-40
* Program 5-C: Provide financial incentives for affordable condominium conversions.

Create incentives for condominium conversions that provide affordable housing.

Actions:
▪ Revise regulations to offer financial incentives for lower-income condominium conversions during the Zoning Ordinance Update.
▪ Offer financial incentives for condominium conversions which include at least 20 percent lowor moderate-income units or at least 15 percent very-low income units. ▪ Distribute information on this program and zoning update through project review processes, as well as through informational brochures at City Hall and the Public Library, and on the City’s website.
▪ Consider providing financial assistance through the City’s BMR In-Lieu Fee Fund for the creation of affordable units during condominium conversions. (See Program 3-J).

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: BMR In-Lieu Fee Fund, General Fund, fee waivers, staff time Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element Implementation:
▪ Program not implemented due to lack of resources.

Has the program been successful? This program will not be retained because the city did not receive any interest in condominium conversions during the planning cycle. 971 of 1863
A-41
Program 5-D: Provide financial assistance to facilitate affordable housing development.

Use the Below Market Rate Housing Fund to increase, improve, and preserve the community’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing in San Bruno.

Actions:
▪ Provide financial assistance where necessary and appropriate to facilitate affordable housing development, based on diligent analysis of a project’s financial feasibility and desirability. ▪ Prepare an Owner Participation Agreement to ensure that proposed financing resources are dedicated to the construction, rehabilitation, or rental costs of affordable housing projects. ▪ Study the incorporation of monitoring compliance with Owner Participation Agreements within the regular project permitting and approval processes.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, City Council Funding Source: Staff time, BMR In-Lieu Fee Fund
Timeframe: Evaluate once a year
Implementation:
▪ Program not implemented due to lack of resources.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained and incorporated into other programs now that the city has a substantial affordable housing fund. The city will develop funding priorities for the fund, see program 3-B.
972 of 1863
A-42
Program 5-E: Increase the supply of housing for large families.

Encourage diversity in unit size to ensure that 3- and 4-bedroom affordable rental housing units are provided for large families.

Actions:
▪ Negotiate development of large (3- and 4-bedroom) units in future development agreements. ▪ Exclude senior housing developments from this expectation.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, Planning Commission Funding Source: Staff time, incentives such as fee waivers, parking reductions, etc.

Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The city approved the multi-family project at 271 El Camino Real in 2021 which includes 8 units designed for larger families. Additionally, the city approved the Glenview Terrace project which includes four below market rate for sale housing units.

Has the program been successful? The city’s zoning ordinance does not mandate larger units be included in all housing projects, but they are encouraged. This allows the developer the flexibility to determine the right unit mix for the market. This program will be retained and incorporated into program 2-G. 973 of 1863
A-43
Program 5-F: Expedite review and waive fees for affordable housing.

Continue to expedite review and waive planning and building fees for developers of affordable housing and housing for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Actions:
▪ Expedite permit review and waive planning, building, and license fees on projects providing housing affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income households, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
▪ Negotiate expedited permit review and fee waivers in future development agreements.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, City Council Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The city did not receive any request for fee waiver during the planning period.

Has the program been successful? Fee waivers require Council approval which sets a high bar. The city will consider fee waivers for future 100% affordable housing developments. This program has been incorporated into Program 2-G.
974 of 1863
A-44
Program 5-G: Modify regulations to encourage affordable housing.

Modify development regulations in specific zoning districts to encourage housing affordable to verylow, low-, and moderate-income households.

Actions:
▪ The adopted Transit Corridors Plan recommends modification of development regulations appropriate for development of affordable housing, in accordance with the San Bruno 2025 General Plan.
▪ Modify development regulations accordingly during the Zoning Ordinance Update. ▪ Encourage the development of small-size housing with small lots, studio apartments, shared housing, and other similar solutions to promote high quality of life in a small space. ▪ See also Program 3-I regarding reducing parking requirements.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: General fund, Staff time
Timeframe: Within 1 year after adoption of the Housing Element, ongoing Implementation:
▪ The city approved two residential subdivisions (Glenview Terrace, Skyline Ridge) during the planning period which utilized small lot development.
▪ In 2019, the city updated its parking requirements to add more flexibility. ▪ In 2021, the city updated the Zoning Ordinance to codify the TCP development standards.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained because it allows single-family residential subdivisions to reach their full dwelling unit density potential by allowing smaller lots and flexible development standards. This program will be applied to the Engvall development and potentially other former school sites in R-1 districts that might be disposed.
975 of 1863
A-45
Program 5- H: Prevent Potential Displacement of Existing lower-income residents within San Bruno’s Priority Development Area (PDA).

Quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. Displacement might be direct, caused by the redevelopment of sites with existing residential properties, or indirect, caused by increased market rents as an area becomes more desirable.

Actions:
▪ Coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements, to quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents.
▪ Based on this evaluation, develop measures and implement programs to address housing displacement, as appropriate.
▪ Monitor such programs annually for effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept, City Council, 21 Elements Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Evaluate programs and policies and provide recommendations by the end of 2015.

Provide recommendations to City Council by mid-2016. Adopt appropriate programs and policies to address displacement within 2 years of adoption of the housing element. Monitor programs and policies annually for effectiveness.

Implementation:
▪ Program not implemented due to lack of resources.

Has the program been successful? In 2021, the city amended its zoning ordinance in regards to condominium conversions to require greater protections for existing tenants, however, no other tenant protection policies were implemented. This program will be replaced by program 3-G. 976 of 1863
A-46
Program 5-I: Promote the Second Unit Ordinance.

Continue to inform homeowners about the Second Unit Ordinance which permits second units byright on appropriate residential sites.

Actions:
▪ Inform property owners of the Second Unit Ordinance through the Focus newsletter and other City outreach resources.
▪ Encourage second units in new single-family development to accommodate multigenerational and other housing needs, with a goal of approving 32 second units during the planning period.
▪ Review development standards to create more opportunities for new 2nd units that are compatible with the neighborhood during zoning code update.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Evaluate once a year
Implementation:
▪ The city updated its Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance in 2021 in response to state law, and experienced a significant increase in ADU approvals as a result. The city has issued 36 permits to construct ADUs so far in 2022. ADUs will be an important strategy for increasing housing opportunities in low-density residential districts, particularly in higher resource neighborhoods.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained and revised, see program 4-P. 977 of 1863
A-47
Program 5-J: Explore and consider new strategies to increase affordable housing.

Given the loss of redevelopment agencies and the state court decision in Palmer v. City of Los Angeles (2009), which invalidated San Bruno’s BMR program for rental housing, the City will explore new opportunities and strategies to facilitate financing and development of affordable housing.

Actions
▪ Identify affordable housing strategies that could be appropriate for San Bruno, such as:
affordable housing impact fees, commercial linkage fees, rent stabilization, just cause eviction, rededication of boomerang funds back to affordable housing, public benefit zoning, funding for substantial rehabilitation, partnering with employers to fund and assist in facilitating affordable housing.
▪ Consider a policy to voluntarily set aside 20% of returned tax increment from the former redevelopment agency to be used for affordable housing, sometimes referred to as “boomerang” funds.
▪ Hold public workshops and meetings with the City Council, Planning Commission and residents to review and receive input on affordable housing strategies to determine whether the City should pursue the adoption of new housing program(s).

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding source: Staff time
Timeframe: within 2 years of Housing Element adoption
Implementation:
▪ The city adopted affordable housing impact and linkage fees in 2016 and to date has more than $14 million in its affordable housing fund, from fees collected from YouTube and other developers.
▪ The city revised its Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2021 to strengthen its provisions for onsite affordable units. The city has 117 affordable units in entitled pipeline as a result of the onsite requirement.

Has the program been successful? This program will be revised and retained, see program 1-G. 978 of 1863
A-48
GOAL 6: Support the needs of those with extremely-low incomes, including access to counseling, referrals, dispute resolution, supportive housing, and emergency shelter. (GC 65583(c)(5), SB 2)
* Program 6-A: Promote fair housing.

Continue to adhere to State and federal fair housing and non-discrimination laws to ensure that housing opportunities are provided for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, family status, or disability.

Actions:
▪ Continue to inform Realtors, builders, city staff, and the community at large of the fair housing law and policies, through informational handouts available at City Hall and the Senior Center, and through information about fair housing services on the City’s website. ▪ Ensure fair housing laws are adequately reflected in the Zoning Ordinance Update, including additions and revisions to definitions as necessary.
▪ Develop a non-discrimination policy State and federal fair housing and non-discrimination laws.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Within one year after adoption of the Housing Element, ongoing Implementation
• In 2021, the city updated its zoning ordinance to include nondiscrimination requirements in housing. However, the city did not complete the outreach portion of this program due to lack of resources.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained and revised, see new programs 4-D and 4- E.
979 of 1863
A-49
Program 6-B: Support organizations that provide housing services.

Cooperate with and support organizations providing housing information, counseling, and referral services, and handling complaints of housing discrimination.

Actions:
▪ Continue to provide referrals to fair housing services during Code enforcement. ▪ In annual budget deliberations, consider opportunities to provide financial assistance to support various organizations providing housing services for home repair, painting, case management, emergency food and shelter, crisis intervention, and assistance with rent and utility bill payments to low-income homeowners.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept (Building Div), City Council Funding Source: Staff time, General fund
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The city continues to provide annual funding to HIP and LifeMoves. ▪ The city provides partners with and provides referrals to LifeMoves when engaging homeless individuals during Code enforcement activities.

Has the program been successful? This program will be retained and revised, see program 4-S. 980 of 1863
A-50
Program 6-C: Support shared housing programs.

Continue to support shared housing programs and to promote such programs through the Senior Center and other local agencies.

Actions:
• Continue to support the Housing Investment Partnership (HIP) Home Sharing program, which facilitates living arrangements among two or more unrelated people. Homeowners or renters (Home Providers) who have a residence with one or more bedrooms are matched with persons seeking housing (Home Seekers). People who home share include seniors, working persons, students, persons with disabilities (including developmental), families, veterans, emancipated foster youth and others.
• Continue to consider appropriation of monies for support of various organizations during annual budget review. (City allocated $30,000 last year and this year to HIP) Responsibility: Community Development Dept, City Council Funding Source: Staff time, BMR In-Lieu Fee Fund, General fund Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The city continued its financial support of HIP Housing throughout the planning period.

Has the program been successful? Through its partnership with HIP Housing, the city has helped connect residents with additional rooms with individuals in need of housing. This program will be retained and revised, see program 4-M.
981 of 1863
A-51
Program 6-D: Accommodate city’s share of emergency (homeless) shelter need.

Complete the process to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency (homeless) shelter facilities by right (that is, as a permitted use, without requiring a conditional use permit) to meet the City’s identified need for 32 beds, in accordance with State law.

Actions:
• Study alternatives and conduct public meeting(s) to designate a preferred location for an emergency shelter zone. Alternatives include the TOD area identified in the previous Housing Element and the M-1, Light Industrial Zone.
• Both alternative locations have sufficient and reasonably available acreage (vacant or underutilized) to meet the City’s identified need, including the potential for reuse or conversion of existing buildings. The TOD land use district includes 26 acres and 150 parcels and the M1 zone includes 5.5 acres and 45 parcels. • Prepare reasonable and objective development and performance standards permissible by law. Emergency shelters shall be subject to the same development standards as any other use within the identified zone, except that San Bruno may develop and apply written, objective standards in the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with SB2 that do not impede the City’s ability to meet its identified need.
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish new emergency shelter zoning district standards and map.
• Continue to support the 10-bed shelter run by St. Bruno’s Church, and support future faithbased efforts to supply emergency and transitional housing to those in need.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time
Timeframe: Designate the emergency shelter zone within six months after adoption of the Housing Element. Amend the Zoning Ordinance establishing the zone Implementation:
▪ The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2015 to create the Shelter Overlay Zone in the city.

The ordinance was amended in 2020 and 2021 to include additional provisions.

Has the program been successful? This program was partially implemented with the update of the Zoning Code and the continued support for the emergency housing at St. Bruno’s Church. The program will be modified because the city’s emergency shelter zoning requires further refinement for compliance with state law.

See program 1-L.
982 of 1863
A-52
Program 6-E: Address identified need for extremely-low income and supportive housing.

Evaluate and amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to comply with state law (GC Section 65583(a)(5) and investigate opportunities to create supportive housing units in accordance with the City’s share of countywide need identified in the San Mateo County HOPE Plan.

Actions:
▪ Evaluate and amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to allow transitional and supportive housing uses within residential zones in accordance with state law (GC Section 65583(a)(5). ▪ Partner with local or regional agencies and non-profits that specialize in supportive housing development and management to identify opportunities for the development of supportive housing in San Bruno. Supportive housing may be organized as:
o Apartment or single-room occupancy (SRO) buildings, townhouses, or single-family homes that exclusively house formerly homeless individuals and/or families; o Apartment or SRO buildings, or townhouses that mix special-needs housing with general affordable housing;
o Rent-subsidized apartments leased in the open market; or o Long-term set-asides of units within privately-owned buildings. ▪ Work with partners to identify the range of local resources and assistance needed to facilitate the development of housing for extremely low-income households and to pursue access to specialized funding sources.
▪ Develop an action plan with partners, which will include assisting with site identification and acquisition, providing local financial resources, streamlining entitlements and providing incentives.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Staff time, BMR In-Lieu Fee Fund, Community Development Block Grant, staff time
Timeframe: Evaluate and amend the Zoning Code as appropriate within one-year of adoption of the Housing Element. Evaluate program at least once a year.

Implementation:
▪ The city’s Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2021 to permit supportive housing in all zoning districts that allow housing. However, due to lack of resources, the city did not partner with any regional or non-profit agencies to identify opportunities for the development of supportive housing.

Has the program been successful? This program was not successful because it was not fully implemented due to lack of resources. However, the program will be kept, modified, and incorporated into other programs.

See program 2-G.
983 of 1863
A-53
Program 6-F: Participate in regional coordination on homelessness.

Work with other cities, agencies, and the County to address needs of the homeless.

Actions:
▪ Assist homeless service providers in seeking CDBG money to support local homeless programs.
▪ Provide technical assistance to emergency and transitional shelter providers by finding appropriate sites within San Bruno and connecting with potential clients.

Responsibility: Community Development Dept
Funding Source: Community Development Block Grant
Timeframe: Ongoing
Implementation:
▪ The city continues its financial support of LifeMoves, an organization on the peninsula that helps homeless people find housing. Additionally, Police staff coordinate with LifeMoves to connect unsheltered individuals in the city with services and housing through the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT). LifeMoves provides the city with semiannual reports on their work in the city.

Has the program been successful? This program has been successful because it has helped many unsheltered individuals find housing and services in the city. The program will be kept and incorporated into Program 4-S.
984 of 1863
A-54
Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs
Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs.

As shown in the Detailed Program Accomplishments During Last Cycle matrix above, the 2015-2023 Housing Element included programs that addressed senior housing needs, emergency shelters, and needs for persons with disabilities. Some of the accomplishments include:
• The city rezoned the Skyline College property, now known as Skyline Ridge, and approved entitlements for 30 multi-family housing units, which included onsite 11 affordable housing units.
• The city approved an SB 35 application for 134 units housing, of which 24% will be affordable to lower income households.
• The city partnered with LifeMoves to find housing and services to help unsheltered individuals find housing and services.
• The city supported in HIP Housing’s home sharing program to help partner residents with available rooms with individuals in need of housing.
• The city negotiated a $10M payment from YouTube to the City’s affordable housing fund. 985 of 1863
Appendix B
Housing Construction
and Development Costs
986 of 1863
PAGE 1
BAIRD + DRISKELL
TO: Baird + Driskell
FROM: Century Urban, LLC
SUBJECT: San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Cost & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research
DATE: April 7, 2022
Century | Urban has been engaged by Baird + Driskell to perform research on the development costs of certain residential prototypes in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties as well as the unit mixes of residential projects delivered since 2013 in San Mateo County. The research findings shown below in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 are based on Century | Urban’s recent work on other assignments as well as on third-party data sources, further detailed below, which Century | Urban considers credible but has not independently verified.

The estimated prototype project costs shown below reflect high-level averages and do not represent any specific project budget. Project costs vary by geography, topography, site conditions, finish level, entitlement and permit status, contractor type, and time among other factors. Key elements of the prototypes were provided by Baird + Driskell.

The San Mateo County unit mix results represent the data available to Century | Urban through its research and does not represent every project built in each market or market-level conclusions.

However, the data does present over 100 projects and over 13,000 units and as such is informative with respect to the types and sizes of units built during the period surveyed.

With respect to the unit mix data, please note that a lack of data for a given city does not necessarily mean that no projects or units were built in that city, but rather that no relevant data was available for that city.

Land prices range substantially across the surveyed transactions. To convey the range of land costs reviewed, Century | Urban provided the averages of the bottom third of the land sales, the middle third, and the highest third. Further detail on the land sales that were available is reflected in Exhibits 3 and 4.
987 of 1863
PAGE 2
Research and Data Sources
The estimates shown below are based on data and sources including but not limited to: similar projects Century | Urban has underwritten and/or priced; specific project economics Century | Urban has reviewed; direct conversations with developers and cost estimators; database research including CoStar, MLS, Redfin, and title databases; online research sources including City and project websites; market reports compiled by real estate sales and research organizations; and, Century | Urban’s general experience assessing residential project feasibility in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Single Family Home Land Price Data
To generate the single-family land values utilized in the development cost estimates, Century | Urban collected sales data for land lots totaling one acre or less which transacted over the past three years across the surveyed jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Over 250 data points were collected. The data does not include properties with existing homes or infrastructure that were redeveloped as new single-family homes, and the data for some cities is limited.

As the data collected is not comprehensive, summaries and averages may be valuable for reaching overall conclusions about the range of land prices in the counties, but they may or may not be representative of a given city’s average or median land price or the land price for a given parcel. The table in Exhibit 3 should therefore be reviewed noting the limited number of data points for certain cities. Land prices vary substantially by location, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, neighboring uses, access, noise, and many other factors. In addition, completed sales are necessarily past transactions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.

Multi Family Home Land Price Data
Century | Urban collected available multi family land sales data from 2013 to the present in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Over 65 data points were collected. In certain cases, the multi family projects designated for the sites have not been completed. In those cases, Century | Urban based unit counts based on approved or the reported number of units planned. The data includes both sites with for-rent and for-sale projects.

Similar to the single family data points, the available information is not comprehensive and is more informative at a county level. Summaries and averages by city may not be valuable for reaching definitive conclusions about a given city’s average or median land price or the land price for a given parcel. Particularly in cities with a less than five data points, any given sale or set of sales could represent an outlier or outliers which may affect median and average calculations. As noted above, land prices vary substantially by location, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, neighboring uses, access, noise, and many other factors. In addition, completed sales are necessarily past transactions and may not represent the current state of the market and expected future land sale prices.
988 of 1863
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
989 of 1863
PAGE 4
Exhibit 1: Total Development Cost: Multi-family
Baird and Driskell
Total Development Costs - San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Large numbers rounded to nearest $'000 or nearest $'0,000 Total $ / SF $ / Unit Total $ / SF $ / Unit
Prototype Elements
1) Gross Residential Square Feet 10,000 93,750
2) Parking Square Footage 3,750 40,000
3) Parking Type Surface Lot Standalone above grade
4) Units 10 100
5) Avg Net SF / Unit 850 750
6) Efficiency 85% 80%
Hard Costs
1) Residential Hard Costs $4,150,000 $415 $420,000 $39,840,000 $425 $400,000 2) Site improvements and utilities $605,000 $1,165,000
3) Grading and erosion control $110,000 $335,000
4) Parking Hard Costs $100,000 $28 $4,800,000 $120
5) Contingency 5% $250,000 $21 $21,000 $2,310,000 $21 $20,000 Total Hard Costs $5,215,000 $522 $521,500 $48,450,000 $517 $484,500 Soft Costs
1) Soft Costs 25.0% $1,303,750 $130 $130,000 $12,110,000 $129 $120,000 2) City Fees $350,000 $35 $35,000 $2,800,000 $30 $28,000 3) Soft Cost Contingency 5% $80,000 $8 $8,000 $750,000 $8 $7,500 Total Soft Costs $1,733,750 $165 $165,000 $15,660,000 $159 $148,000 % of hard costs 33% 32%
Land Costs Total Per Unit Per Unit
1) Land Costs - San Mateo $1,000,000 $100,000 $10,000,000 $100,000 2) Land Costs - Santa Clara $600,000 $60,000 $6,000,000 $60,000 Range of Land Costs
Apts/Condo- Lower Price Tier $400,000 $40,000 $4,000,000 $40,000 Apts/Condo- Middle Price Tier $800,000 $80,000 $8,000,000 $80,000 Apts/Condo- Higher Cost Tier $1,600,000 $160,000 $16,000,000 $160,000 Total Development Cost - San Mateo $7,948,750 $795 $786,500 $74,110,000 $791 $732,500 Total Development Cost - Santa Clara $7,548,750 $755 $746,500 $70,110,000 $748 $692,500 Total Development Cost by Range of Land Cost
Apts/Condo- Lower Land Price Tier $7,348,750 $726,500 $68,110,000 $672,500 Apts/Condo- Middle Land Price Tier $7,748,750 $766,500 $72,110,000 $712,500 Apts/Condo- Higher Land Price Tier $8,548,750 $846,500 $80,110,000 $792,500 Multi-Family Small Multi-Family Large
990 of 1863
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
991 of 1863
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
992 of 1863
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
993 of 1863
PAGE 8
Exhibit 4: Multi Family Land Sale Data Summary
Multi Family Land Sites - Available Data
Available Per Multi Family Unit
County City Data Points Min Max Median Average
San Mateo San Mateo 3 $135,000 $180,000 $151,000 $155,000 San Mateo San Carlos 4 $33,000 $333,000 $262,000 $222,000 San Mateo Millbrae 2 $64,000 $92,000 $78,000 $78,000
San Mateo Redwood City 6 $78,000 $400,000 $95,000 $157,000 San Mateo South San Francisco 2 $44,000 $77,000 $61,000 $61,000 San Mateo Burlingame 3 $59,000 $117,000 $73,000 $83,000 San Mateo Menlo Park 3 $37,000 $98,000 $50,000 $62,000
San Mateo Daly City 2 $29,000 $60,000 $45,000 $45,000
San Mateo Pacifica 2 $117,000 $118,000 $117,000 $117,000 San Mateo Belmont 1 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 San Mateo Total 28 $29,000 $400,000 $95,000 $123,000
County Weighted
Average $96,000
Per Unit Land Amount Applied $100,000
Available Per Multi Family Unit
County City Data Points Min Max Median Average
Santa Clara San Jose 17 $16,000 $125,000 $50,000 $52,000 Santa Clara Gilroy 1 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000
Santa Clara Morgan Hill 1 $86,000 $86,000 $86,000 $86,000 Santa Clara Campbell 3 $42,000 $184,000 $59,000 $95,000 Santa Clara Santa Clara 6 $18,000 $146,000 $92,000 $83,000 Santa Clara Sunnyvale 6 $55,000 $306,000 $238,000 $215,000 Santa Clara Palo Alto 1 $73,000 $73,000 $73,000 $73,000 Santa Clara Mountain View 4 $45,000 $736,000 $120,000 $256,000 Santa Clara Los Altos 1 $513,000 $513,000 $513,000 $513,000 Santa Clara Total 40 $16,000 $736,000 $60,000 $117,000
County Weighted
Average $63,000
Per Unit Land Amount Applied $60,000
The data in the table above represents the available multi 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. 994 of 1863
Appendix C
San Bruno Fair Housing Assessment
What is AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

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

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.

City of San Bruno Fair Housing Assessment
995 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 2 meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.

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

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

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

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

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed This history of segregation
in the region is important
not only to understand how
residential settlement
patterns came about—but,
more importantly, to
explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not
all residents had the ability
to build housing wealth or
achieve economic
opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.
996 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 3 to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

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

The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These agents then sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto.

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

In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today. The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”3 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm-residential-segregation.html 3 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 997 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 4 the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.”4The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native populations today.5 The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page.

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

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

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

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.
4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 5 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ 998 of 1863
Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing 999 of 1863
Maps and data referenced in this section. Throughout this section, there are references to maps created by HCD to support the AFFH and data tables created by HCD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the consultant team. Those maps and tables appear in an Appendix and follow the organization of this section and the state guidance. The maps, in particular, are useful in demonstrating how the City of San Bruno compares with surrounding jurisdictions and the county overall in offering housing choices and access to opportunity.

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

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

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

Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

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

Appendices.
 Map and Data packet—includes data tables and maps that support this section  [Available March or April 2022] Resident survey results—findings from a survey of San Mateo County residents on their experience finding and remaining in housing  Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class.  State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations—summary of key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice 1000 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 7 Primary Findings
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Bruno including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.  Seven percent of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 (57 total) were in the City of San Bruno (4 total), higher than the city’s share of the county’s population (6%). Issues cited in the city were refusal to rent, refusal to rent and negotiate for a rental, discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to a rental, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. All fair housing complaints in the city were on the basis of disability status (4 complaints).  San Bruno’s residents are more racially and ethnically diverse than residents in the county overall: San Bruno has a higher share of residents who are Asian, Hispanic, and report “Other” and Multiple races.
 The city’s non-White and Hispanic residents are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, mortgage loan denials, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of San Bruno. Specifically,
➢ Residents reporting Other/Multiple races have very high rates of poverty (Figure II-5) and American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic households have lower household incomes (Figure II-4) compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of San Bruno. On the positive side, African American households have a comparable income distribution to nonHispanic, White households, and Asian households have higher income distributions.
➢ Hispanic households are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding (Figure IV-17), as are Asian households, which is unusual given their higher income distributions. Low and moderate income households are also more likely to be overcrowded (Figure IV-18). ➢ Hispanic and Other/Multiple race residents are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to high resource areas. Conversely, Non-Hispanic White residents are more likely to live in moderate and high resource areas (Figure III-12).
➢ People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black, White, and Hispanic are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22).
1001 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 8 ➢ American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Hispanic households have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Figure IV-33).
 Forty six percent of all renter households in the City of San Bruno are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). This is nearly identical to the rates of cost burden in the county and Bay area overall, suggesting that San Bruno is providing the affordable housing at the same level as the county and region overall.  There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Bruno by race and ethnicity and family size (Figure IV-11 and Figure IV-12), with Other/Multiple race, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Hispanic residents and large families facing the highest rates of cost burden.
 Geospatially, the area of the city east of El Camino Real is disproportionately impacted by low educational opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and low resource scores. This area is characterized by:
➢ Education opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5—lower education scores compared to the rest of the city (Figure III-1). ➢ Low economic opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5 (Figure III-7). ➢ Low environmental scores (less than 0.25)—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Figure III-9).

The area east of El Camino Real in the City of San Bruno has particularly poor environmental outcomes for traffic, groundwater threats, and diesel particulate matter.
➢ The composite opportunity score for the City of San Bruno shows census tracts east of El Camino Real fall within low resource areas. Census tracts east of Interstate 280 fall within moderate resource areas while census tracts west of Interstate 280 fall within high resource areas (Figure III-14). ➢ The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation.

The area east of El Camino Real is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
1002 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 9 ➢ A concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened households (Figure IV-13).
➢ Overcrowded households, concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households (Figure IV-19).
➢ These areas are also partially within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV31) and are vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).  The City of San Bruno has the same proportion of residents with a disability (8%) as the county (Figure III-17). Residents living with a disability in the city are more likely to be employed and are largely concentrated in the northwest area of the city. Finally, the aging population is putting a strain on paratransit access countywide.  Racial and ethnic minority students in the City of San Bruno—served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Bruno Park Elementary School District— experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students. Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. However, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards. Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low drop out rates—4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, drop out rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher (Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix).

Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan. The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Specifically, Fair housing issue: Hispanic, Other/Multiple Race, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black households, and large families have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are evident in high levels of cost burden.

Contributing factors:
➢ Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in areas east of El Camino Real. According to HCD, these areas have the highest concentration of low to moderate income populations and face poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.
➢ There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the city.

Fair housing issue: Hispanic residents are concentrated in areas of the city with the lowest opportunity scores—except for employment access.

Contributing factors:
➢ The Census Tract directly east of El Camino Real is designated as a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, which is defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% 1003 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 10 scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.” Hispanic households are primarily concentrated in this portion of the city.

According to HCD and TCAC’s opportunity maps, this area has the highest concentration of low to moderate income populations who face poor opportunity outcomes. However, the area has the best access to employment opportunities.
➢ Although affordable housing (as captured in the HCD Location Affordability Index) are not as highly concentrated in the City of San Bruno compared to other cities throughout the county, the eastern area of the city offers the most affordable homes. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. Preference may be at play as well: A recent article in Cityscape found that Hispanic homebuyers —when controlled for demographics, loan characteristics, and finances—are more likely to purchase homes in neighborhoods with fewer non-Hispanic White homeowners and lower economic opportunity.6
Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities are most likely to file complaints of housing discrimination due to refusal to rent or negotiate for a rental, discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges and failure to make reasonable accommodations.

Contributing factors:
➢ There were four complaints filed with HUD in the City of San Bruno from 2017 to 2020 —all on the basis of disability— where the issues cited included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request.
➢ Lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by landlords and property owners
➢ Lack of knowledge about fair housing laws by landlords and property owners
Fair housing issues in education:

Students of color face disparities in subject proficiency compared to the overall student population at both San Bruno Park Elementary School District and San Mateo Union High School District.
➢ Overall, 50% of San Bruno Park Elementary District students meet or exceed English language arts and literacy standards and 41% exceed math standards. For Black or African American students, however, 39% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 23% are math proficient. For 6 Sanchez-Moyano, R. (2021). Achieving spatial equity through suburban homeownership? Neighborhood attributes of Hispanic homebuyers. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. Volume 23(3). 1004 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 11 Hispanic students, 36% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 25% are math proficient.
➢ Overall, 70% of San Mateo Union High School District students meet or exceed English language arts and literacy standards and 50% exceed math standards. For Black or African American students, however, 55% are English language arts and literacy proficient.7 For Hispanic students, 50% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 22% are math proficient. For Pacific Islander students, 34% are English language arts and literacy proficient and 20% exceed mathematics testing standards.
➢ Hispanic and Pacific Islanders face higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall school population at both local school districts. Hispanic and Black or African American students have the highest dropout rates in San Mateo Union School District.

Hispanic students face high rates of suspension compared to their representation among student bodies.

Contributing factors:
➢ The reasons for these disparities are unclear and should be examined. The gaps suggest that Hispanic students need greater support to succeed, and that schools in the San Bruno area need to focus more closely on efforts to close proficiency gaps and ensure equity in education.

The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) below details how the City of San Bruno proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.

SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and
Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers). 7 No data for Black or African American students related to their proficiency of mathematics. 1005 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 12 The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.8 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD.

DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.9 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County (Figure I-1).

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure I-2)—7% of complaints were in the City of San Bruno (4 complaints) (Figure I-3). Most complaints submitted to HUD cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). In the City of San Bruno, the most common issues cited were refusal to rent, refusal to rent and negotiate for a rental, discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to rental, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation.

Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park (Figure I-3, Figure I-4, and Figure I-5).

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

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). 8 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
9 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
1006 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 13 Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.  Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.  Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.10
10 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ 1007 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 14 Outreach and capacity. The City of San Bruno could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The city’s website does provide limited information on fair housing resources, but it is not located on the city’s main housing webpage.11 Overall, the 11 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/gov/city_departments/commdev/housing/default.htm Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 26 24
16 9
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
9 6
8 5
2 3
5 0
5 4
4 2
0 1
HUD Fair Housing
Complaints
HCD Fair Housing
Inquiries 1008 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 15 accessibility of fair housing information could be improved by providing information on the Fair Housing Act, AFFH-related information for the state of California, and contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and general information in one consolidated place. Additionally, a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing— approved by HUD in November 2017—could be provided.

Compliance with state law. The City of San Bruno is compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The city has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:

Housing specific policies enacted locally. The City of San Bruno identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city.

Local policies in place to
encourage housing development.
 Mixed Use Zoning
 Condominium Conversion
Ordinance
 Housing Development Impact Fee
 Commercial Development Impact
Fee
 Second Unit Ordinance
 Density Bonus Ordinance
Local barriers to affordable
housing development.
 Height limits on multifamily
developments
 Voter initiatives that restrict
multifamily developments,
rezoning for higher density, height
limits or similar measures
 Excessive parking requirements
 No policies to mitigate
displacement of low income
households
1009 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 16 Local policies that are NOT in place
but would provide the best
outcomes in addressing housing
shortages.
 Rental assistance or rent subsidies
Local policies that are NOT in
place, but have potential Council
interest for further exploration.
 Community land trusts
 Dedicating surplus land for
affordable housing
Local policies in place to mitigate
or prevent displacement of low
income households.
 Affordable housing impact/linkage
fee on new residential and
commercial development
 Inclusionary zoning
 Promoting streamlined processing
of ADUs
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), the City of San Bruno does not have any public housing buildings (Figure I-6). However, the city does one census tract with a sizable share of household units with housing vouchers (15% to 30%), three tracts with a moderate share (5% to 15%) and three other tracts with some (5% or less) housing voucher utilization (Figure I-7).

Compared to nearby Millbrae, Burlingame, and Hillsborough, the City of San Bruno appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the city has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities (Figure I-7).

The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city. 1010 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 17 SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

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

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

Race and ethnicity. Generally, the demographic characteristics of the City of San Bruno are consistent with the overall characteristics of San Mateo County. The population distribution by race and ethnicity is slightly different than the county with the largest proportion of the population being Asian (34%) followed by non-Hispanic White (33%), Hispanic (27%), other or multiple races (6%), and Black (1%) (Figure II-1). 12 Older residents
are less diverse with 62% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 40% of the population for children less than 18 years old (Figure II-3).

Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of San Bruno (Figure II-4 and Figure II-5). Additionally, Other/Multiple race, American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic households have lower household incomes compared to non-Hispanic White households in San Bruno.

Geospatially, the City of San Bruno has three census tracts with sizable White majorities and one census tract with a slim White majority (Figures II-6, II-7, II-8, II-9, and II-10). 13 Additionally, two other census tracts have sizable Hispanic majorities and three other have 12 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%. 13 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 1011 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 18 Asian majorities—two sizable and one slim. It’s worth noting that these census tracts of majority populations by race and ethnicity are relatively segregated— White majorities are located in the southern portion of the city, Asian majorities are located in the north and northwestern portions, and Hispanic majorities are in the eastern portion of the city. 14 [PLACEHOLDER] Dissimilarity and isolation indices. [ABAG DI and isolation indices were not available at the time this report was prepared].

The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community.

The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

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

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

Disability status. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 8% in the City of San Bruno, same as San Mateo County (Figure II-13). There is one census tract in the city that has a 10% to 20% share of the population living with a disability, which is located east of Skyline Boulevard and north of Sneath Lane (Figure II-14). Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.

Familial Status. The City of San Bruno is home to more single-person households than the county, with 25% of households compared to only 22% in the County (Figure II-16).

Collectively, there are slightly fewer married-couple families and families with children in the city (Figure II-17 and Figure II-18).

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 one and two bedroom units. 14 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.
1012 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 19 Over 70% of married couple households and slim majority of residents living alone live in owner occupied housing (Figure II-19). The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is generally consistent with the familial status of the households that live in the City of San Bruno (Figure II-16 and Figure II-20).

Compared to the county, the City of San Bruno has a slightly smaller proportion of family households and greater proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in the city (Figure II-19 and Figure II20). The distribution of households by family type are mapped at the census tract level in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Household income. The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in the City of San Bruno is similar to the county (Figure II-25). However, the city has a smaller proportion of households making greater than 100% AMI (42%) than the county (49%). There are three census block groups in the city that have median incomes Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
City of San Bruno San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 34% 30%
Black or African American, NH 1% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 33% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 6% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 27% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 8% 8%
Without a disability 92% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 10% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 5% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 53% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 8% 8%
Single-person Households 25% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 13% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 11% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 20% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 13% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 42% 49%
0%
34%
1%
33%
6%
27%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
8%
92%
8%
92%
10%
5%
53%
8%
25%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
13%
11%
20%
13%
42%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
1013 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 20 below the 2020 state median income of $87,100 for a family of four, but the majority of block groups have median incomes well above that (Figure II-26 and Figure II-27). There is a concentration of block groups west of Interstate 280 with median incomes greater than $125,000. All census tracts in the City of San Bruno have poverty rates below ten percent (Figure II-28).

Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly 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.15
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 (majorityminority) 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 (majorityminority) 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. 15 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 1014 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 21 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 qualified as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualified as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of San Bruno in 2010 (Figure II-29).

In 2019 there were two Census tracts that qualified as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualified as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of San Bruno in 2019 (Figure II-30). However, there was an edge R/ECAP located just northeast of the city border in South San Francisco. [PLACEHOLDER] RCAAs. [ABAG/HCD data on RCAAs was not available at the time this report was prepared] HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence 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.

SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

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

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or 1015 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 22 poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low income residents—particularly children.

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

Education. TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, about half of the Census tracts in the City of San Bruno score between 0.5 and 0.75—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes (Figure III-1). All census tracts with this score are located west of Interstate 280. Conversely, the other half of Census tracts are all located east of Interstate 280 and score between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city. This area also has higher lower economic opportunity scores, lower environmental scores, and higher social vulnerability compared to the rest of the city.

According to the Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix, the City of San Bruno is served by the San Mateo Union High School District and San Bruno Park Elementary School District. San Mateo Union increased enrollment by 16% from 2010 to 2020 while the elementary district enrollment decreased by 12% over the same time.

However, both districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.

San Mateo Union 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 San Bruno Park Elementary District has a high share of English learners compared to the countywide proportion (28% compared to 20% countywide) but a much smaller share of students who qualify for reduced lunch (18% compared to 29% 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, San Mateo Union High had the second highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 68%, just behind Sequoia Union (69%). Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 29%, 46%, and 46% respectively. 1016 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 23 Although San Mateo Union High School 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 (6%) students are higher.

Employment. The top three industries by number of jobs in the City of San Bruno include professional and managerial services, arts and recreation services, and health and educational services (Figure III-2 and Figure III-3). The City of San Bruno has a lower job-to-household ratio when compared to the county at 1.07 and 1.59 respectively— which means there are fewer employment opportunities per household in the City of San Bruno (Figure III-4 and Figure III-5). The city also has a slightly higher unemployment rate of

6.7% compared to the county at 6.6% (Figure III-6).

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The census tracts adjacent to Interstate 280 and west of Skyline Boulevard have the best economic scores (0.5-0.75) in the City of San Bruno (Figure III-7). The lowest economic opportunity scores in the city are within tracts east of El Camino Real, as well as in the central and northwestern areas of the city.

HUD’s job proximity index shows that job proximity varies widely in the City of San Bruno (Figure III-8). On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs the majority of the city scores between 40 and 60. However, all census tracts west of Skyline Boulevard have scores below 40 while all tracts in the eastern portion of the city have scores above 60.

Transportation. [TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report] This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the City of San Bruno and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the city. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Bruno and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County. “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 1017 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 24 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.” 16 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.”17
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.18 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.19
In 2013, the San Bruno City Council adopted the San Bruno Transit Corridors Specific Plan to revitalize commercial corridors located in proximity to the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station. This document articulates a vision that includes “…existing architecture and welcoming gateways, convenient transportation connections, pedestrian-oriented ‘green’ 16 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 17 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
18 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilit ies.html
19 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 1018 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 25 streets, and more housing, jobs, shops, and restaurants, while maintaining a sense of the City’s history.”20 Implementation efforts are currently underway.

Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

Environmental outcomes vary by Census tracts in the City of San Bruno . The majority of Census tracts have relatively positive environmental outcomes— these tracts are all located west of El Camino Real. The tracts east of El Camino Real have the lowest environmental scores in the city—primarily due to traffic on the highways, groundwater threats, and diesel particulate matter (Figure III-9 and Figure III-10). 21 However, the city
scores moderately well compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III-11). While the majority of tracts score between 80% and 100%, there are tracts in the northwest, central, and eastern areas of the city that have scores between 60% and 80%, the same tracts that have low economic opportunity scores.

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.22
Disparities in access to opportunity. Data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents (Figure III-12). The distribution of racial and ethnic minorities in moderate and high resources areas is relatively similar. Nearly 40% of the population living in high resource areas are non-Hispanic White, compared to less than 20% in low resource areas.

Conversely, Hispanic and Other/Multiple race residents are more likely to live in low resource areas. The share of the population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is 6% compared to 7% in the county (Figure III-13).

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for the City of San Bruno shows Census tracts west of Interstate 280 fall within high resource areas while the rest of the city’s Census tracts east of Interstate 280, west of El Camino Real, and south of Interstate 380 are within moderate resource areas. The tracts east of El Camino Real are designated as low resource areas (Figure III-14). The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center 20 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/634/Transit-Corridors-Plan 21 Specific environmental issues listed are sourced from: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40 22 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
1019 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 26 for Disease Control (CDC)—which 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. Again, the tract directly east of El Camino Real is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).

The City of San Bruno has one disadvantaged community— the tract directly east of El Camino Real and west of Huntington Avenue— which is defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”23
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Eight percent of the population in the City of San Bruno are living with at least one disability, same as the county (Figure III-17). The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (3.6%), independent living (3.4%), and cognitive (2.8%) (Figure III-18).

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.

For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases (Figure III-19). As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore, this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment among residents living with a disability (1%) is lower compared with residents without a disability (4%) in the City of San Bruno (Figure III-20). Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%, compared to 3% for residents without a disability.

Residents with a disability are concentrated in the northwest area of the city (Figure III-21). 23 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
1020 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 27 Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of San Bruno San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 1.07 1.59
Unemployment Rate 7% 6%
LEP Population 6% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of San Bruno Employment by Disability Status
96%
99%
4%
1%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of San Bruno
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County
0%
0%
35%
37%
1%
1%
39%
37%
5%
6%
19%
20%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx 1021 of 1863 DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 28 SECTION IV. 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.

Housing needs. Population growth in the City of San Bruno has lagged behind the pace of growth countywide. The City of San Bruno experienced relatively sizable population decreases in 2000 and during the Great Recession. While population growth rebounded after the recession, it has remained relatively stagnant since 2016 (Figure IV-1).

Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate income households, with 66 units permitted for above moderate income households compared to 55 permits for moderate very low households. Forty seven permits were issued for moderate income households while no permits were issued for low income households. (Figure IV-2) The Housing Needs Data Report for the City of San Bruno indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 24 The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominantly single family (60%) and medium to large scale multifamily (35%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily 24 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 1022 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 29 inventory increased more than single family, however, the city has a greater share of detached single family housing compared to other communities in the region. 25 Over three quarters of the housing inventory in the City of San Bruno was constructed from 1940 to 1980 (Figure IV-3). As such, the city’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.

Compared to San Mateo County, the city’s owner occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—32% of units in the city fall within this price range compared to 23% in the county (Figure IV-4). Conversely, units priced above $2 million make up a smaller proportion of the city’s housing stock compared to the county with 1% and 19% respectively. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the city and county (Figure IV-5).

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for sale market—however, median rents increased more rapidly from 2017 to 2019 (Figure IV-7). Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the City of San Bruno has fewer luxury rental units—19% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the city compared to 22% in the county (Figure IV-6).

Cost burden and severe cost burden. Forty six percent of all renter households in the City of San Bruno are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened— spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

A slightly greater portion of households in the City of San Bruno (38%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%) (Figure IV-8). Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Two out of every three households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to only 1% of households earning more than 100% of AMI (Figure IV10).

There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Bruno by race and ethnicity and family size. Hispanic (53%) and Black or African American households (46%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Non-Hispanic White (32%) and Asian (33%) households experience the lowest cost burden (Figure IV-11). 25 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 1023 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 30 Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience cost burden at a rate of 43% compared to all other households at 37% (Figure IV-12). Cost burdened renter households are primarily concentrated in the far west and east areas of the city (Figure IV-13 and Figure IV-14).

Overcrowding. The vast majority of households (92%) in the City of San Bruno are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room (Figure IV-15). However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 11% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 6% of owner households (Figure IV-16).

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Hispanic (12% of households), Other/Multiple race (11%), and Asian households (11%) experience the highest rates of overcrowding (Figure IV-17). While low income households have the greatest proportion of more than 1.5 occupants per room in the city, households making between 51% and 100% AMI have the greatest proportion of households with 1 to 1.5 occupants per room (Figure IV-18).

Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated north and south of Interstate 380, as well as the areas east of El Camino Real (Figure IV-19).

Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys.

In the City of San Bruno, renter households are also more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to owner households. Generally, a low share of households are lacking kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 0.4% are lacking kitchen facilities while 0.1% are lacking plumbing. For owners, 0.1% are lacking plumbing facilities while no owner households lack kitchen facilities (Figure IV-20).

Homelessness. In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children (Figure IV-21).

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 (Figure IV-22 and Figure IV-23). 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 (Figure IV-24).
1024 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 31 Displacement. Owner households generally experience a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently).

Households in the city were slightly less likely to have moved in the past year compared to the households in the county (11% compared to 12% in the county) (Figure IV-25 and Figure IV-26).

In the City of San Bruno none of its income assisted rental units are at high or very high risk for displacement. The City of San Bruno has 323 income assisted units, all designated as low risk for conversion. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county (Figure IV-27).

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
➢ Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017 ➢ AND
➢ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.
1025 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 32 Five census tracts in the city are vulnerable to displacement—the majority of which have high shares of renter households (Figure IV-28). Additionally, areas of the city with the highest cost burden and overcrowding—along the waterfront—are included in the Special Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1% chance of flooding annually (Figure IV-29, IV-30 and IV31).

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates (Figure IV-32). American Indian or Alaska Native (60% denial rate), Black or African American (36%), and Hispanic households (33%) had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic Asian (21%) and White households (23%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time (Figure IV-33).

Zoning and land use.
1026 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 33 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of San Bruno, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of San Bruno, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of San Bruno, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of San Bruno San Mateo County Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 8%
19%
33%
42%
70%
91%
15%
29%
41%
25%
8%
67%
38%
17%
5%
1%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.0%

0.1%

0.4%

0.1%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

6.1%

5.1%

4.0%

1.8%

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

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room 1027 of 1863
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN BRUNO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 34 Placeholder for Site Inventory Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Once sites are identified, the analysis will be placed here and will consist of:
 Map of identified sites by lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income units;
 Identification of sites within or proximity to R/ECAPs and edge R/ECAPs and/or low income/poverty concentrations;
 Proportion of low and very low income units located in that area, as well as concentrations of Housing Choice Vouchers,
 How the distribution of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units—and the share located in low, moderate, and high resourced areas—will change with proposed site inventory development;
 Proximity to:
➢ High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
➢ High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas; ➢ Low social vulnerability;
➢ Good jobs proximity;
➢ Access to transportation;
➢ Healthy places; and
➢ Flood hazards.
1028 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1
Appendix D
AFFH Map and Data Packet
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
Figure I-1.

Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization Websites
Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440
https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website
1029 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2
Figure I-2.

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

HUD
Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total
1030 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3
Figure I-3.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021)
Source: Organization Websites
1031 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4
Figure I-4.

FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, San Mateo County, 2013-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 1032 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 5
Figure I-5.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 9 16
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 9
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 15 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 16 26
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Color
None
Disability Race Cited Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex
1033 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 6
Figure I-6.

Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 1034 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 7
Figure I-7.

Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
1035 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 8
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
Race and ethnicity.

Figure II-1.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-2.

Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1036 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 9
Figure II-3.

Senior and Youth Population by Race, City of San Bruno, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-4.

Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1037 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 10
Figure II-5.

Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1038 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11
Figure II-6.
% Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018
1039 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-7.

White Majority Census Tracts
1040 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-8.

Asian Majority Census Tracts
1041 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 14
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-9.

Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
1042 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 15
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-10.

Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019
1043 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 16
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-11.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
1044 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-12.

Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
1045 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 18
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Disability status.

Figure II-13.

Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1046 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 19
Figure II-14.
% of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 1047 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 20
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Familial status.

Figure II-15.

Age Distribution, City of San Bruno, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-16.

Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1048 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 21
Figure II-17.

Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-18.

Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1049 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 22
Figure II-19.

Housing Type by Tenure, City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure II-20.

Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1050 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 23
Figure II-21.
% of Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 1051 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 24
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-22. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 1052 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 25
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-23. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019
1053 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 26
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-24. [legend missing in HCD provided map]
% of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019
1054 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 27
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Household income.

Figure II-25.

Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1055 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 28
Figure II-26.

Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019
1056 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 29
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-27.

Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group
1057 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 30
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-28.

Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
1058 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 31
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure II-29.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2010
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 1059 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 32
Figure II-30.

R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2019
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.1% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a nonwhite population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (12.8% in 2019).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 1060 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
Education
[Available December 2021] Appendix item: Access to education supplement—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class. 1061 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 34
Figure III-1.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 1062 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 35
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Employment
Figure III-2.

Jobs by Industry, City of San Bruno, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1063 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 36
Figure III-3.

Job Holders by Industry, City of San Bruno, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-4.

Jobs to Household Ratio, City of San Bruno, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1064 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 37
Figure III-5.

Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, City of San Bruno, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-6.

Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1065 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 38
Figure III-7.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 1066 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 39
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure III-8.

Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
1067 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 40
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Transportation
[TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report]
Environment
1068 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 41
Figure III-9.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 1069 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 42
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure III-10.

CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
1070 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 43
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure III-11.

Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021
1071 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 44
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Patterns in disparities in access to opportunity.

Figure III-12.

Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-13.

Population with Limited English Proficiency, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1072 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 45
Figure III-14.

TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 1073 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 46
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure III-15.

Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018
1074 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 47
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure III-16.

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
1075 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 48
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Disparities in access to opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Figure III-17.

Population by Disability Status, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-18.

Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1076 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 49
Figure III-19.

Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure III-20.

Employment by Disability Status, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1077 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 50
Figure III-21.

Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 1078 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 51
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure III-22
[PLACEHOLDER] San Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis
[Updated Matrix Available December 2021]
Source: ABAG.
1079 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 52
SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing needs.

Figure IV-1.

Population Indexed to 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-2.

Housing Permits
Issued by Income
Group, City of
Bruno, 2015-2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook
1080 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 53
Figure IV-3.

Housing Units by Year
Built, City of San Bruno
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-4.

Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1081 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 54
Figure IV-5.

Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-6.

Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1082 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 55
Figure IV-7.

Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Cost burden and severe cost burden.

Figure IV-8.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1083 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 56
Figure IV-9.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-10.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1084 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 57
Figure IV-11.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-12.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1085 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 58
Figure IV-13.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 1086 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 59
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure IV-14.

Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 1087 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 60
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Overcrowding.

Figure IV-15.

Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-16.

Occupants per Room by Tenure, City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1088 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 61
Figure IV-17.

Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2019 Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-18.

Occupants per Room by AMI, City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1089 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 62
Figure IV-19.

Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019
1090 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 63
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Substandard housing.

Figure IV-20.

Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, City of San Bruno, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Homelessness.

Figure IV-21.

Homelessness by
Household Type
and Shelter Status,
San Mateo County,
2019
Source:

ABAG Housing Needs Data
Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children 1091 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 64
Figure IV-22.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-23.

Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1092 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 65
Figure IV-24.

Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Displacement.

Figure IV-25.

Location of Population One Year Ago, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 46 0 70 31 10
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 46 3 46 4 14
Unsheltered 20 0 189 34 103
Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
1093 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 66
Figure IV-26.

Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-27.

Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, City of San Bruno, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
San Bruno 323 0 0 0 323
San Mateo County 4,656 191 359 58 5,264
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
1094 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 67
Figure IV-28.

Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
1095 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 68
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure IV-29.

Location Affordability Index by Census Tract
1096 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 69
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure IV-30.

Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 1097 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 70
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Figure IV-31.

Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000
1098 of 1863
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 71
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Other considerations.

Figure IV-32.

Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure IV-33.

Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Bruno, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
1099 of 1863
Appendix E
San Bruno AFFH Segregation Report
1100 of 1863
1 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: SAN
BRUNO
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:55:48
1101 of 1863
2 0.1 Table of content

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

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

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Purpose of this Report............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Defining Segregation............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5

1.4 Segregation and Land Use......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of San Bruno............................................................................. 8

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of San Bruno)........................................ 8

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between San Bruno and other jurisdictions)..............................16 3 Income Segregation in City of San Bruno ......................................................................... 21

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within San Bruno) ..............................................21

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between San Bruno and other jurisdictions).............................27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31

4.1 Segregation in City of San Bruno ...............................................................................31

4.2 Segregation Between City of San Bruno and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region .............31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References.............................................................................................................. 37 1102 of 1863
3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of San Bruno (2020) ............................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)..14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)...........................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of San Bruno and Surrounding Areas (2020) ................................................16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of San Bruno Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020).....................18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in San Bruno and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ...........19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of San Bruno (2015)...........................................................................22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...................................................................................................................................24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................................26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................................27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of San Bruno and Surrounding Areas (2015) .............................................28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of San Bruno Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ..............29

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Bruno ............................................10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Bruno........................................13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within San Bruno............................................15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, San Bruno and the Region......................................................17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ..........................................................................20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Bruno...................................23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Bruno ..............................25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within San Bruno ..........................................26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, San Bruno and the Region ....................................................28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in San Bruno......................................................33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in San Bruno ....................................................34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures.........................................................................35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, San Bruno and the Region ....................................................36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, San Bruno and the Region...................................................36 1103 of 1863
4 1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability.1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.23 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:

A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk

1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.

This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures

1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021. 1104 of 1863
5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.

The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.

1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 1105 of 1863
6 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”4 However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).5 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I. 1106 of 1863
7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.

6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.

However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people. 1107 of 1863
8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.7 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:

White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race8
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)9

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of San Bruno) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of San Bruno in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher.

7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 9 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
1108 of 1863
9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of San Bruno (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

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

There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within City of San Bruno the most isolated racial group is Asian residents. San Bruno’s isolation index of

0.369 for Asian residents means that the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 36.9% Asian. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in San Bruno for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
1109 of 1863
10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.10 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.