Outdoor waiting for clients, if any, may not be in the
public right -of-way, must be physically separated from the public right -of-way, and must be large enough to
accommodate the expected number of clients.
• Minimum Hours of Operation. At least eight hours every day between seven a.m. and seven p.m.
• Supervision. On-site supervision must be provided at all times.
• Toilets. At least one toilet must be provided for every fifteen shelter beds.
• Management Plan. The operator of the shelter must
submit a management plan for approval by the Director.
The plan must address issues identified by the Director, including transportation, client supervision, security, client services, staffing, and good neighbor issues.
The standards listed above are common across many cities in California and do not constrain the production of emergency shelters.
Recent State Law (AB 101) requires that Low -Barrier Navigation Centers be allowed as a by right use in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zoning district s permitting (by right or conditionally) multi-family uses. The City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the City meets the requirements of AB 101 (Action HOU-5.1).
Transitional and Supportive Housing
State law requires cities to allow transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all zoning districts that allow similar residential uses (SB 2). In San Carlos, transitional and supportive housing are considered single-family or multi-family uses and are permitted by right in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 371
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
76 GENERAL PLAN
Effective January 1, 2019, AB 2162 (Supportive Housing Streamlining Act) requires supportive housing to be considered a use by right in zoning districts where multi -family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zoning district s permitting multi -family uses, if the prop osed housing development meets specified criteria. The law prohibits the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within one -half mile of a public transi t stop. AB 2162 also require local entities to streamline the approval of housing projects containing a minimum amount of supportive housing by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the
requirement for a CUP or other similar discretionary
entitlements. The City of San Carlos is currently in compliance with this law as it allows by right transitional and supportive housing in all RS, RM and MU districts in San Carlos. Action HOU-5.1 is included in the Housing Plan to ensure compliance with the processing and parking requirements associated with AB 2162.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Single-room occupancy hotels and/or boarding homes are
collectively referred to as SROs. SRO units are one -room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. It is distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. Buildings that provide SRO dwellings are
conditionally permitted in Residential Multifamily and Mixed - Use zoning districts, but may not be located on the ground floor along Laurel Street and San Carlos Avenue frontages.
Manufactured/Factory-built housing
State law requires that factory built/ manufactured homes be considered a single-family dwelling and permitted in all zoning districts that allow single-family housing. Manufactured housing can be subject to design review . The San Carlos Zoning Ordinance includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code under the definition of a single-unit dwelling, in compliance with State law.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is a residential dwelling unit that is detached from, attached to, or located within the living area of an existing primary dwelling unit on the same site. ADUs provide independent livin g facilities for one or more persons with a kitchen and bathroom facility and can be an important source of affordable housing since they are smaller than primary units and do not have direct land acquisition costs. ADU development expands housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods.
The State Legislature has passed numerous changes to the ADU requirements (previously known as second units) to promote the development of ADUs. These include allowing ADUs to be built
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 372
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
77 GENERAL PLAN
concurrently with a single -family home, opening areas where ADUs can be built to include all multi-family and mixed -use zones, modifying fees from utilities such as special distr icts and water corporations, and reducing parking requirements . The City updated the ADU ordinance to comply with recent changes to State law in November 2020. In San Carlos, consistent with the Government Code Section 65852.2, ADUs are permitted by right in all single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use zoning districts.
Action HOU-3.3 is included in the Housing Element to ensure continued compliance with State laws as they may change over the course of the planning period and identifies additional measures to encourage and incentivize ADUs in the community.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Housing element law requires that, in addition to the needs analysis for people with disabilities, the Housing Element must analyze potential governmental constr aints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for people with disabilities; demonstrate local efforts to remove any such constraints; and provide for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities through programs that remove
constraints.
Zoning and Land Use
A residential care facility is a single-family dwelling unit or multi- unit facility licensed or supervised by a Federal, State, or local health/welfare agency that provides 24-hour nonmedical care of unrelated persons who are handicapped and in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual in a family -like environment. Under State Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Servi ces Act ( “Lanterman Act ”), small State -licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be permitted in all zoning districts that allow single- or multi -family uses, subject to the sam e pe rmit processing requirements and development standards; San Carlos is compliant with the Lanterman Act. The Zoning Ordinance subclassifies residential care facilities as follows:
• General – More than six persons
• Limited – Six or less persons
• Senior – Voluntary housing arrangement serving persons aged 60+ ; i ncludes “continuing care” and “life care”
facilities.
Limited Residential Care Facilities are permitted by -right in all residential and m ixed-use zoning districts. General and Senior residential care facilities are permitted with a minor use permit in the RM-20, RM-59, MU-D-100 and 120, and MU -SC-120 zoning districts. All residential care facilities are subject to provisions of Section 18.23.200 of the San Carlos Municipal Code:
• Minimum distance between residential care facilities shall be 300 feet
• A six-foot-high fence shall be required to screen outdoor recreational areas
• All residential care facilities must be licensed and certified by the State of California.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 373
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
78 GENERAL PLAN
• Drug and alcohol use on -site by staff and/or residents shall be prohibited.
Additionally, parking requirements for General and Senior Residential Care Facilities differ from those of single and multi - family residential developments as they are based on the number of employees rather than units. Limited Residential Care Facilities follow the same parking standards as the base requirement.
Requiring a Conditional (or Minor) Use Permit for residential care facilities for seven or more persons is viewed by the State as a potential constraint to housing for persons with disabilities. To address this constraint, the City will remove the requirement for a Minor Use Permit and allow residential care facilities for seven or more persons (both senior and limited) in all zoning districts where multi-family uses are allowed (Action HOU-5.3).
Definition of Family
The definition of “family” may limit access to housing for persons with disabilities when municipalities narrowly define the word, illegally limiting the development of group homes for persons with disabilities, but not for housing similar sized and situated families. “Family”, as defined in the San Carlos Municipal Code, means: one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living together as a single n onprofit housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members of a family need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, or sorority house. This definition does not discriminate nor limit access to housing for persons with disabilities or other household types.
Reasonable Accommodation
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to provide reasonable accommodation to rules, policies, practices, and procedures where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities.
While fair housing laws intend that all people have equal access to housing, the law also recognizes that people with disabilities may need extra tools for equity. Reasonable accommodation is one of the tools intended to further housing opportunities for people with disabilities. For developers and providers of housing for people with disabilities who are often confronted with siting or use restrictions, reasonable accommodation provides a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain restrictions or requirements because it is necessary to achieve equal access to housing. Cities and counties are required to consider requests for
accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and the case law interpreting the statutes.
The City adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance in 2011 (Chapter 18.33 - Waivers of the San Carlos Municipal Code). This chapter outlines applicability, procedures, required findings,
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 374
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
79 GENERAL PLAN
conditions of approval, and appeals in the process of applicants obtaining a reasonable accommodation. Applications are
reviewed for approval by the Planning Director. Required findings include:
• The waiver is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances, including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or o ther unusual circumstance.
• There are no alternatives to the requested waiver that could provide an equivalent level of benefit to the
applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding
owners and occupants or to the general public.
• The granting of the requested waiver will not be
detrimental to the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or result in a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the
requirements of this title.
• In the RS districts, the review authority must also make the following findings in addition to any other findings that this chapter requires:
o There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
related to the design of the existing house or Uniform
Building Code compliance or other code co mpliance
that make it difficult of impossible to enlarge the
house within the base requirements, and the addition
is of superior design quality and compatible with the
existing neighborhood character;
o The change is only intended to increase the
habitability and function of the structure;
o Granting the waiver is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood
character which would not otherwise be
accomplished through the strict application of the
provisions of the regulations; and
o It can be demonstrated that the design of the proposed addition is of superior quality; compatible with the
existing neighborhood character, effective in
minimizing the perceived size of the dwelling, not
overly intrusive to the privacy of neighbori ng
dwellings and is in substantial compliance with the RS
district regulations.
• That the housing or other property which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual or organization entitled to protection;
• If the request for accommodation is to provide fair access to housing, that the request for accommodation is
necessary to make specific housing available to an
individual protected under State or Federal law;
• That the conditions imposed, if any, are necessary to further a compelling public interest and represent the
least restrictive means of furthering that interest; and
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 375
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
80 GENERAL PLAN
• That denial of the requested waiver would impose a
substantial burden on religious exercise or would conflict with any State or Federal statute requiring reasonable
accommodation to provide access to housing.
Fees and Exactions
Housing construction imposes certain short- and long-term costs upon local government, such as the cost of providing planning services and inspections. As a result, the City relies upon various planning and development fees to recoup costs and ensure that essential services and infrastructure are available when needed.
Impact fees are also charged to cover the cost or providing municipal services or mitigating projec t impacts. These fees are summarized in Table 4.4-9. The total amount of fees varies from project to project based on type, existing infrastructure, and the cost of mitigating environmental impacts. Most cities do not control school and water impact fees. These services are managed by separate districts.
Table 4.4-9: Development Fees
Fee Category Fee Amount
Planning Application Fees
Variance $11,983 (per project)
Conditional Use Permit – Planning Commission $8 ,987 (per project) Minor Use Permit – Zoning Administrator $4,493 (per project) Use Permits (Development Standards) $3,595 (per project) Design Review – Single Family
Single Family, New Home (RDRC) $8,216 (per project)
Single Family, First Floor Addition (RDRC) $5,689(per project) Single Family, Second Floor Addition (RDRC) $8,216 (per project) Single Family, First Floor Addition (Staff) $1,959 (per project) Single Family, Second Floor Addition (Staff) $3,161 (per project) Design Review – Multi-Family/Mixed-Use
New Building – Planning Commission
$13,483 (per project)
Major Alteration – Planning Commission $9,101 (per project) Minor Alteration – Planning Commission $6,573 (per project)
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 376
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
81 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.4-9: Development Fees
Fee Category Fee Amount
Below Market Rate Housing Plan or Builder Alternative $2,097 (per project) Below Market Rate Housing Agreement $2,696 (per project) Plan Check for Building Permits
Major (New Multi-Family/Mixed Use) $3,035 (per project) Moderate (New Single-Family) $1,265 (per project)
Minor (Single-Family Additions, ADUs) $399 (per project) Pre-Application Development Review
Major $6,500 (per project)
Minor $3,500 (per project)
Architectural Peer Review $3,000 initial deposit (per project) General Plan Amendment $11,983 (per project)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Major Rezone/PD/Map and Text $23,965 (per project)
Moderate Rezone/PD/Map and Text $11,983 (per project)
Minor Rezone/PD/Map and Text $5,991 (per project)
Subdivision Fees
Subdivision, major (5 or more lots) $23,965 (per project) Subdivision, minor (up to 4 lots) or for Condominium
Maps
$3,595 (per project)
Lot Line Adjustment, Parcel Mergers $1,198 (per project) Conditional Exceptions $5,991 (per project)
Lot Verification $599 (per project)
Map Extension $1,198 (per project)
Building Fees
Building Permit Fee Based on valuation and square footage Plan Check Fee Based on valuation and square footage
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 377
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
82 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.4-9: Development Fees
Fee Category Fee Amount
Electrical Permit – Multiple Family $206 plus $0.08 for each square foot over 1,700 Plumbing Permit – Multiple Family $206 plus $0.08 for each square foot over 1,700 Mechanical Permit – Multiple Family $206 plus $0.08 for each square foot over 1,700 Capital Facilities Fees
SFR MFR
Parks (1)
Park Facility Development Fee $2,651per bedroom
In-Lieu Fee In-lieu fee:
Units in proposed subdivision
X
Acreage req. per dwelling unit within subdivision for
park / rec. facilities
X
Fair market value per acre of land in subdivision
Sewer Capacity Charges $13,242 per dwelling unit $6,125 per dwelling unit Traffic Impact Fee $7,243 per dwelling unit $4,097 per dwelling unit Affordable Housing Impact Fee Incremental and applied only to rental projects with fewer than 7 units and ownership projects with fewer
than 5 units
Technology Fee 0.4% of total permit fee amount
Notes:
(1): Not divided by single-family or multi-family development types.
Source: City of San Carlos, 2020. Effective 2020-2021
The City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance requires either the building of affordable housing units or the payment of in-lieu fees. Rental projects with seven or more units and ownership projects with five or more units must build the affordable units on site. Projects smaller than this threshold pay an in -lieu fee.
Projects that result in a fractional unit of less than 0.5 can opt to pay an in -lieu instead of providing an additional unit. Any calculation that results in a fraction greater than 0.5 is required to build the additional unit.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 378
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
83 GENERAL PLAN
Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) requires jurisdictions to post all up -to-date fees on their website. San Carlos’ latest fee schedule can be accessed on the City’s website at
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/government/departments/a dministrative-services/finance/city-fees-cost-of-services. In addition to fees, all zoning and development standards are posted on the website, along with inclusionary requirements, and as fee schedules are updated, th e City’s website is updated as well. To determine fees charged by San Carlos and the other jurisdiction in San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the c ounty, asking that each provide fee information for various types of residential developments.
Table 4-4.10: Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit 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 $36,590 $17,030
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 $17,913
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Carlos $72,046 $29,137 $18,182
San Mateo $89,003 $60,728 $41,547
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $15,088 $3,344
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 379
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
84 GENERAL PLAN
Jurisdiction-imposed fees represent a small percentage of the overall cost to develop new housing. However, there are situations in which fees or permitting processes may pose a constraint on housing production. If a jurisdiction’s fees are significantly higher than neighboring or peer jurisdictions, the fees could have the impact of discouraging projects within the jurisdiction. With construction costs high, it is difficult (near impossible) for moderate - or low -income housing to be profitable. High fees can be a constraint to housing development.
This is particularly challenging for deed restricted affordable housing developers.
Most, if not all, developers consider any fee a significant constraint to the development of affordable housing. For 100% affordable housing projects, financing generally includes some form of state or federal assistance, with rents set through the funding program. As such, fees cannot and do not increase the rents. Although the various fees account for a significant portion of the development cost, the fees collected are necessary to pay for much needed infrastructure and to help mitigate new growth throughout the c ity. San Carlos provides impact fee reductions and waivers to help support 100% affordable housing projects.
For example, all development impact fees were waived for 817 Walnut (unless the fees were collected by an agency other than the City of San Carlos).
Out of the jurisdictions that provided data, San Carlos’ fees are fifth highest for single family development (out of 1 9 jurisdictions), but sixth lowest for small multifamily development (out of 1 5 jurisdictions) and sixth lowest for large mul tifamily development (out of 1 2 jurisdictions). If fees (per dwelling unit) are higher for multi -family construction than for single family construction within a jurisdiction, this could be seen as a constraint on naturally affordable multi-family housing and also a fair housing issue. This is not the case in San Carlos . Fees for both small and large multi-family construction are lower than for single family development. Similarly, a permitting process that is more onerous or uncertain for multi -family units than for single family may present a fair housing concern and could be
considered a constraint on multi-family housing. In San Carlos , permitting time s for multi -family project s are not significantly longer than for single family projects when accounting for the size and scope of the project.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 380
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
85 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4-4.11: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs Single family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family
Atherton 0% No Data No Data
Brisbane 1% 1% No Data
Burlingame 3% 4% 3%
Colma 0% 4% 2%
Daly City 1% 4% 2%
East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4%
Foster City 3% 6% 2%
Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data
Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data
Millbrae 2% 8% 7%
Pacifica 1% 5% No Data
Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data
Redwood City 1% 2% 2%
San Bruno 2% 8% 5%
San Carlos 3% 4% 3%
San Mateo 3% 7% 5%
South San Francisco 3% 9% 4%
Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 2% 0%
Woodside 2% 9% No Data
Note: Calculations use average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 381
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
86 GENERAL PLAN
Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, San Carlos’ fees were found to be comparable and do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in the community.
Processing and Permit Procedures
Processing and permit procedures may pose a considerable constraint to the production and improvement of housing.
Common constraints include lengthy processing time, unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval. These constraints increase the final cost of housing, uncertainty in the development of the project, and overall financial risk assumed by the developer.
Processing Timelines
The City of San Carlos’s development review process is designed to accommodate housing development applications of various levels of complexity and requiring different entitlements.
Processing times vary with the complexity of the project. The tables below outline the typical timelines for various residential projects in the City of San Carlos. Table 4.4-12 focuses more specifically on the individual entitlement approvals that may be required, providing estimated processing timelines for each as well as identifying the approving body. Table 4.4-13 generally identifies the typical app rovals required for single -family and multi-family projects along with the estimated processing times of the planning and building divisions.
Table 4.4-12: Timelines for Permit Procedures
Type of Approval, Permit, or Review Typical Processing Time These time periods begin when a complete application is submitted and are extended when additional information is requested by the City. The timeframes below are target issuance date—when the applicant can expect a decision on their application.
Ministerial Review 30 days
Conditional Use Permit 45-120 days
Zoning Amendment (Zone Change) 9-12 months
General Plan Amendment 9-12 months
Site Plan Review 30 days
Design Review - Single Family
Design Review - Multi-Family (small)
Design Review - Multi-Family (large)
Design Review - Mixed Use
3-5 months
5-8 months
7-12 months
7- 12 months
Tract Map 4-6 months
Parcel Map 2-4 months
Initial Environmental Study 2-3 months
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 382
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
87 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.4-12: Timelines for Permit Procedures
Type of Approval, Permit, or Review Typical Processing Time Environmental Impact Report 6-8 months
Building Permits
New Multi-Family 6-8 weeks
New Single Family Residence 4-6 weeks
Single-Story Addition 2-4 weeks
Second-Story Addition 3-5 weeks
Single-family dwelling unit applications typically take two to six months to receive planning approval for a single residential unit on one lot ; and four to six weeks for building permit issuance .
Subdivisions to obtain a tentative map are typically processed within six to nine months; building permits are generally issued within three to five months. Review time always varies based upon response time of the applicant to plan review comments.
Most projects typically receive comments within 15 to 20 working days, and rechecks are always performed within 10 to 15 working days. Multi-family development applications general ly receive entitlements within six to nine months ; followed by building permits which are typically issued within six to eight weeks.
Table 4.4-13: Permitting Requirements per Development Type Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential and/or Mixed- Use District
Typical Approval
Requirements
Staff Level Design Review Design Review Permit
Residential Design Review
Committee (RDRC) Review (1)
Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC)
or Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission (2) Planning Commission (2)
Est. Total Processing Time Planning = 4-6 weeks
Building Permits = 3-6 weeks
Planning = 6-8 months
Building Permits = 6-8 weeks
Notes:
1. New homes and projects that result in greater than 3,000 square feet in area and meets or exceeds FAR thresholds identified in Table 18.29.030-A(1)
2. Planning Commission conducts design review for projects requiring Planning Commission approval, such as conditional use permits and variances.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 383
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
88 GENERAL PLAN
Projects that exceed the minimum BMR requirements receive priority permit processing status. This means the project is assigned to senior staff and is expedited and placed as a priority on the case planner’s workload. These projects are often vetted with a two-member City Council Housing Subcommittee early on for support and program development. City planners then work closely with the applicant and the City’s Economic Development and Housing Manager as part of the BMR Housing Agreement Plan to determine levels of affordability and concessions. The Community Development Director is also involved throughout the process to ensure expedited review.
Long permitting processing times and permit processes that have a high degree of uncertainty (i.e., discretionary reviews or processes with multiple public meetings) increase the cost of housing development for developers, either by increasing their carrying costs as they wait for permits, or by increasing the chance that a project will be rejected after significant costs toward design and waiting have been incurred . In either case, a developer working in a jurisdiction with an onerous permitting process will generally demand higher profits to account for the increased risk, thereby increasing the overall development cost.
The processing times in San Carlos are comparable to
surrounding jurisdictions (Table 4-4.14). The City has worked to establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development applications.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 384
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
89 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4-4.14: Permit Processing Times (in Months) – San Mateo County Jurisdictions Jurisdiction ADU Process Ministerial By-
Right
Discretionary By-
Right
Discretionary
(Hearing Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Atherton 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 2 to 4 2 to 6
Brisbane 1 to 2 2 to 6 N/A N/A 4 to 12 6 to 14
Burlingame 1 to 2 2 to 3 2 to 3 N/A 3-4; 12 if major 13 months Colma 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 8
Daly City 1 to 2 2 to 4 N/A N/A 4 to 8 8 to 12
East Palo Alto 1 to 3 8 to 12 6 to 14 20 to 40 20 to 40 20 to 40 Foster City 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 3 to 6 6 to 12
Half Moon Bay 1 to 2 2 to 4 3 to 6 4 to 12 6 to 15
Millbrae 0 to 2 3 to 6 1 to 3 3 to 8 3 to 8 4 to 9
Pacifica 1 to 2 2 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 to 8
Redwood City 2 to 3 3 to 4 N/A 8 to 10 12 to 18 18 to 24 San Bruno 2 3 to 6 N/A 3 to 6 9 to 24 9 to 24
San Carlos 1 to 3 1 to 3 2 to 4 6 to 12 6 to 12 8 to 12 San Mateo 4 to 8 1 to 2 4 to 7 N/A 9 to 12 9 to 13
South San Francisco 1 1 2 to 3 2 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9
Unincorporated San
Mateo
1 to 3 3 to 6 4 to 9 6 to 12 6 to 18 9 to 24
Woodside 1 to 2 1 to 2 N/A N/A 2 to 6 3 to 8
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 385
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
90 GENERAL PLAN
The permit process only increases in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental review component of the process. H owever, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in reviewing the impacts of development projects. To extent possible, categorical exemptions or other statutory exemptions and streamlining are prioritized.
Ministerial Review
Planning review of routine over the counter permits includes zoning clearances, interpretations, modifications to existing permits, and accessory dwelling units.
Design Review
Most development projects in San Carlos are subject to Design Review, either by the Director, the Residential Design Review Committee, or the Planning Commission. The Design Review Permit process begins with the submittal of an application that is filed with the Planning Division. The application is checked for completeness within 30 days of submittal and fee payment.
Additions to single-family residences that result in less than 3,000 square feet of total floor area (including garages) are reviewed by the Director. All new homes in the RS zoning district, additions that result in floor area greater than 3,000 square feet on lots less than 7,500 square feet, projects on sloped lots that pass FAR thresholds, and projects that require additional review at the direction of the Community Development Director require review by the Residential Design Review Committee. The Residential Design Review Committee (RDRC) is comprised of three members: a Planning Commissioner appointed by the Planning Commission; a resident volunteer appointed by the City Council; and an architect or design professional appointed by the City Council. New single-family homes in the RS zoning district involve a public hearing with the RDRC.
Projects in Multi-Family and Mixed-Use districts require a Design Review Permit and are approved by the Planning Commission , including standard public hearing requirements . Projects are reviewed against standards and provisions within the following:
• Title 18, Zoning, of the San Carlos Municipal Code;
• The General Plan and any applicable specific plans the City Council has adopted;
• Any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City
Council;
• Any approved tentative map, use permit, variance, or
other planning or zoning approval that the project
required; and
• Design review criteria (Chapter 18.29.060 of the San
Carlos Municipal Code):
o The overall design of the project including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping
will enhance the appearance and features of the
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 386
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
91 GENERAL PLAN
project site and surrounding natural and built
environment.
o The project design is appropriate to the function of
the project and will provide an attractive and
comfortable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community.
o Project details, materials, signage and landscaping
are internally consistent, fully integrated with one
another, and used in a manner that is visually
consistent with the proposed architectural design.
o The project has been designed to be compatible with
neighboring developme nt by avoiding big
differences in building scale and character between
developments on adjoining lots in the same zoning
district and providing a harmonious transition in
scale and character between different districts.
o The project contributes to the creation of an
attractive and visually interesting built environment
that includes a variety of building styles and designs
with well-articulated structures that present varied
building facades, roof lines, and building heights
within a unifying context that encourages increased
pedestrian activity and promotes compatibility
among neighboring land uses within the same or
different districts.
o The design of streetscapes, including street trees,
lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with
the character of activity centers, commercial districts and nearby residential neighborhoods.
o The proposed design is compatible with the
historical or visual character of any area recognized
by the City as having such unified character.
o The project design preserves major public views and
vistas from major public streets and open spaces and
enhances them by providing areas to stroll, benches
to rest and enjoy views, and similar amenities.
o Parking areas are designed and developed to buffer
surrounding land uses; complement pedestrian -
oriented development; enhance the environmental
quality of the site, including minimizing stormwater
run-off and the heat-island effect; and achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development.
o Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to
complement buildings, be of appropriate scale,
provide adequate light over walkways and parking
areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and
avoid creating glare.
o The proposed building design and landscaping
supports public safety and security by allowi ng for
surveillance of the street by people inside buildings
and elsewhere on the site.
o Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and
enhance the architectural character and features of
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 387
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
92 GENERAL PLAN
the buildings on site, and help relate the building to
the surroun ding landscape. Proposed planting
materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting,
infrastructure, utilities, and signage.
Design review projects may be appealed through the City’s standard appeal process.
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Sec tion 65589.5) states that local jurisdictions may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need unless, based on a preponderance of evidence, adverse health or safety impacts exist. In order to ensure compliance with the Housing Accountability Act , Action HOU-4.4 is included to ensure compliance with the Housing Accountability Act requirements, through a study of the City’s Design Review process, procedures, and standards.
Conditional Use Permits
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review process is intended to apply to uses that are generally consistent with the purposes of the district where they are proposed but require special consideration to ensure that they can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties or adversely affect the city’s infrastructure, the built or natural environment, city resources, or the City’s ability to provide public services. Residential uses subject to discretionary review that require a Conditional Use Permit (reviewed by the Planning Commission) and a Minor Use Permit (reviewed by the Director) are outlined in Table 4.4-2 (Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District) . Processing for CUP applications normally does not exceed six months. Required findings for approval of Use Permits include:
• The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this title and all other titles of the municipal code; • The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
• The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor
detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements;
• The proposed use complies with any design or
development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this title;
• The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity; and
• The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 388
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
93 GENERAL PLAN
Environmental Review
State regulations require environmental review of discretionary project proposals (e.g., subdivision maps, design review, use permits, etc.). Design review of residential proj ects generally result in exemptions for single -unit dwellings and accessory dwelling units. Most multi-unit and mixed-use projects are found exempt based on the Infill exemption allowed by State law. In rare circumstances for complex projects, an Initial S tudy (and related Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) or even an Environmental Impact Report may be warranted. The timeframes associated with environmental review are regulated by CEQA. In compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act, Ci ty staff ensures that non -legislative proposals are heard at the Planning Commission within 60 days of receipt of an application being deemed complete.
SB 35 Approval Process
SB 35 requires cities and counties to streamline review and approval of eligible affordable housing projects by providing a ministerial approval process and exempting such projects from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). When the state determines that jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their l ower-income RHNA (very low and low income), these jurisdictions are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process ( SB 35 [Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017] streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50 percent affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward their above -moderate-income RHNA, then they ar e subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 10 percent affordability. SB 35 will automatically sunset on January 1, 2026.
As of 2022 , the City of San Carlos was determined to be subject only to SB 35 streamlining for proposed developments with 50 percent or greater affordability. The City has not received any applications or inquires for SB 35 streamlining. To accommodate any future SB 35 applications or inquiries, Action HOU-4.4 calls for the City to create and make available to interested parties an informational packet that explains the SB 35 streamlining provisions in San Carlos and provides SB 35 eligibility information. The development standards and regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are objective; however , Design Review Criteria are subjective. Action HOU-4.4 also specifies that City will revisit the Design Review Criteria to provide local guidance on design and standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law.
Environmental Constraints
The City of San Carlos is bounded by San Francisco Bay to the east and the coastal range foothills. The hillside areas of San Carlos are subject to special seismic and stru ctural engineering issues, which can raise the cost of housing in those areas. Most of the East Side and Downtown are in a floodplain or have a high water table, which can hinder development, particularly if underground parking is being considered. Areas in the hillsides are in very high fire severity zones.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 389
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
94 GENERAL PLAN
San Carlos is a “built -out” city with scarce land available for development. The City of San Carlos has pursued a public investment strategy to create a pedestrian -friendly environment and encourage private residential investment on El Camino Real (the City’s designated Priority Development Area — PDA), in Downtown, and along San Carlos Avenue, within priority infill development areas.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 390
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
95 GENERAL PLAN
Contents
95 Availability of Sites of Housing
123 Administrative and Financial Resources
Availability of Sites for Housing
A critical component of the Housing Element is the identification of sites for future housing development, and evaluation of the ability of these sites to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) . San Carlos is a highly urbanized
community that has very little vacant, uncommitted land for new development. Sites along El Camino Real and San Carlos Avenue provide an opportunity to develop high density housing in proximity to high q uality transit. The following discussion summarizes the residential growth potential areas along these corridors and concludes with an assessment of how these sites can address the City’s share of regional housing needs.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
California State law requires that each city and county has land zoned to accommodate its fair share of regional housing need. To determine whether a jurisdiction has sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income This section analyzes the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in San Carlos. This includes an evaluation of the availability of land resources, the City’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing needs, the financial resources available to support the provision of affordable housing, as well as the administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City’s housing programs.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 391
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
96 GENERAL PLAN
groups, that jurisdiction must identify “adequate sites.” Under State law (California Government Code §65583[c][1]), adequate sites are those with appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types suitable for all income levels.
The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing needs determination (RHND) (segmented by income levels) for each region’s planning body. ABAG is responsible for adopting a methodology to distribute the RHND to jurisdictions in the Bay Area. This process is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA for the ABAG
region covers an 8.5 -year projection period (June 30, 2022 – December 15, 2030) and is divided into four income categories:
very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. HCD determined that the projected housing need for the Bay Area region is 441,176 new housing units for this Housing Element planning period.
ABAG allocated this projected growth to the various cities and unincorporated county areas within the ABAG region, creating the RHNA. San Carlos’ RHNA for the sixth cycle planning period is 2,735 housing units, with the units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table 4.5-1. As illustrated in this
1 Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low -income households (0 -30% AMI). 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 chapter, San Carlos has sufficient capacity under existing land use policy to meet its 2023-2031 RHNA obligations.
Table 4.5-1 San Carlos RHNA
Income Group % of County MFI RHNA
(Housing Units)
Percentage
of Units
Very Low1 0-50% 739 27.0%
Low 51-80% 425 15.5%
Moderate 81-120% 438 16.0%
Above Moderate 120% + 1,133 41.4%
Total 2,735 100%
Progress towards RHNA
The “projection period” is the time period for which the RHNA is calculated (Government Code Section 65588(f)(2)). Projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development.
Proposed and approved residential development projects
credited toward the 2023-2031 include a variety of affordable and market rate projects. Many of these projects are concentrated within an d around the City’s Priority Development Area and Census data. Therefore, the City’s very low -income RHNA of 650 units can be split into 325 extremely low-income and 325 very low-income units.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 392
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
97 GENERAL PLAN
Downtown, which provides a high level of opportunity for access to services and transit. As of 2021, t he City is in the process of reviewing applications and preliminary plans for over 350 new units in San Carlos (Table 4.5-2).
Projects providing affordable units are either 100-percent affordable housing developments with related deed restrictions or are providing a portion of the units affordable to comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance. The BMR
Ordinance requires that 1 5 percent of units in market rate developments are provided at affordable r ates (10 percent moderate- and 5 percent low -income for ownership projects; 10 percent very low and 5 percent low-income for rental projects).
Projects that include seven or more units must provide these units on site; projects with fewer units may pay in in-lieu fee. Revisions to the BMR Ordinance were adopted in June 2022. Revisions to the Ordinance lower the threshold for constructing units on site for ownership projects to 5 units; the threshold remains at seven for rental developments. The revisions also require ownership projects to provide 20 percent low -income units and provide an option for rental projects to provide 15 percent very low-income units, to correlate with State density bonus law.
Approved Projects
Approved projects have been reviewed for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received planning entitlement approval. Projects will proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and construction process in 2022.
626 Walnut (approved in 2020) will provide 3 low -income, 1 moderate-income, and 35 market-rate units
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 393
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
98 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.5-2 Approved and Proposed Projects
Project Project Status
Extremely/
Very Low-
Income (0-
50% AMI)
Low-
Income
(50-
80%
AMI)
Moderate-
Income
(80-120%
AMI)
Above
Moderate-
Income
(+120%)
Total
626 Walnut Planning Approval 0 3 1 35 39
782 Elm Planning Approval 0 0 0 4 4
1257 Magnolia Planning Approval 0 0 0 9 9
616 Cedar Planning Approval 0 0 0 4 4
560 El Camino Real Under Construction 0 1 2 21 24
1525 San Carlos Ave Under Construction 0 1 2 15 18
1240 El Camino Real Under Construction 0 0 1 7 8
1232 Cherry City Project/Design Phase 0 35 0 0 35
155-160 Vista Del Grande Submitted/Under Review 0 11 0 78 89 308 Phelps Submitted/Under Review 1 2 1 10 14
806 Alameda de las Pulgas Submitted/Under Review 0 10 0 77 87 1360 Cherry Submitted/Under Review 0 0 0 6 6
1383 Laurel Submitted/Under Review 2 0 0 13 15
Total 3 63 7 279 352
Remaining RHNA 736 362 431 854 2,383
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 394
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
99 GENERAL PLAN
626 Walnut
This five-story mixed-use project located in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-CD) zone on a .61-acre lot will include 2,303 square feet of commercial space, and 35 units including three low-income and one moderate (as required by the City’s BMR Ordinance), resulting in a density of 58 du/ac. The applicant has submitted plans for a building permit, which is under review with the City. Previously, the site was occupied by an 8-unit apartment building, a two -story commercial building, and a one -story commercial building containing a restaurant and office space.
782 Elm
This four-story residential project located in the Medium Density (RM-59) zone on a .16-acre lot will include four units (25 du/ac). The applicant applied for and was issued a building permit in 2020. The property was sold, which resulted in a project dela y, but is now moving forward. The property was previously occupied by one single-unit residence.
1257 Magnolia
This four-story residential project located in the RM -59 zone on a .22 -acre lot will include nine units (42 du/ac). The applicant submitted plans for a building permit (under review as of June 2022). The property was previously occupied by one single -unit residence and an accessory dwelling unit. This project is conservatively counting only above moderate -income units; however, it will be subject to the BMR ordinance upon conversion to ownership units.
616 Cedar
Approved in 2019, this three -story infill project (0.18 acre) in the RM -59 zone will provide four above moderate condominium units with at grade covered parking (22 du/ac). A building permit was approved, but has not yet been issued as of June 2022. The pr operty was previously occupied by two single -unit residences.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 395
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
100 GENERAL PLAN
Under Construction Projects
These projects are under construction, with anticipated completion and building permits finaled after June 30, 2022. 560 El Camino Real
This four-story mixed-use project located in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-D) zone on a .43-acre lot will include 2,756 square feet of commercial space, and 24 condominium units, including one low -income and one moderate income unit , consistent with the City’ s BMR Ordinance (55 du/ac). Building permits were approved, but not issued yet as of June 2022. Property was sold and will move forward with a new owner.
The property was previous occupied by two commercial buildings containing restaurant/bar uses. 1525 San Carlos Ave
This four-story mixed-use project located in the Mixed -Use San Carlos Avenue (MU -SC) district on a .3 - acre lot will include 740 square feet of commercial space, and 18 residential units, including one low - income and 2 moderate inco me units consistent with the City’s BMR Ordinance (60 du/ac ). Under construction as of June 2022, t he property was previously occupied by one single -unit residence and an accessory dwelling unit.
1240 El Camino Real
This four-story mixed-use project located in the Mixed-Use South Boulevard (MU-SB) district on a .15-acre lot will include 6,683 square feet of commercial space, and 8 residential units, including one moderate income unit consistent with the City’s BMR Ordinance , resulting in a den sity of 53 du/ac. Under construction as of June 2022, the property was previously occupied by a single -story commercial building containing a bakery/restaurant.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 396
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
101 GENERAL PLAN
Proposed Projects
Proposed projects listed here are either City -initiated projects or have a n active submitted planning entitlement application under review with the Community Development Department.
1232 Cherry
In 2021, the City acquired the property at 1232 Cherry Street through eminent domain. Concept plans are being developed. This project will combine two parcels, one currently owned and operated by HIP Housing with six units of affordable housing and the other underutilized retail , to create a new housing project with 35 total units, all aff ordable to low- income households. The City’s uniform relocation policy will apply for the existing affordable units.
150 - 160 Vista Del Grande
This low density residential development in the RS -6 zone is slated to develop 89 townhomes. Consistent with the City’s BMR Ordinance, 11 units will be reserved for low -income households. With a lot size of
12.2 acres, the resulting density will be 7.3 du/ac. As of June 2022, the application was deemed incomplete and City staff is awai ting the applicant’s resubmittal . The applicant is working with the City to develop more specifics for the BMR plan. The site was previously vacant. 308 Phelps
This low density residential development in the RS-3 zone is slated to develop nine single family residences and five accessory dwelling units. With a lot size of three acres, the resulting density will be approximately 3 du/ac (not including the accessory dwelling units). The site was previously vacant.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 397
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
102 GENERAL PLAN
806 Alameda de las Pulgas
This low density residential development in the RS -6 zone is slated to develop 87 townhomes, including 10 below market rate units. With a lot size of 11.4 3 acres, the resulting density will be 7.7 du/ac. The site was previously vacant. The application is under review as of June 2022 with release of the EIR anticipated in September and hearings in October and December 2022. The applicant is targeting summer 2023 for construction.
1360 Cherry
This four-story mixed-use project located in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-CD) district on a 0.18-acre lot will include 937 square feet of commercial space, and 6 condominium units, resulting in a density of 34 du/ac. The application is under review as of Jun e 2022. The site was previously occupied by a single -unit residence.
1383 Laurel
This four-story mixed-use project replaces a one -story auto-service and parts shop and includes ground - floor retail, a parking garage, and three levels of residential units above (15 units; including two very low- income units in compliance with the City’s BMR Ordinance). The planning application is currently (as of June 2022) under review.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 398
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
103 GENERAL PLAN
Sites Inventory
The Housing Element Sites Inventory consists of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections , SB 9 duplex construction projections, and vacant and underutilized sites in residential and mixed-use areas. Together, these sites ensure that the remaining RHNA can adequately be accommodated during the planning period. The sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Table 4.5-3 summarizes the s ites inventory, which is graphically represented in Figure s 4.5-1 and 4.5-2. Appendix A includes site specific information for each identified site.
Table 4.5-3: Sites to Meet the RHNA
Project
Extremely/
Very Low-
Income (0-
50% AMI)
Low-Income
(50-80%
AMI)
Moderate-
Income
(80-120%
AMI)
Above
Moderate-
Income
(+120%)
Total
RHNA After Approved/Proposed Projects
are credited (Table 4.5-2) 736 362 431 854 2,383
Projected ADU construction 61 61 61 20 203
Projected SB 9 duplex construction -- -- -- 160 160
Vacant/Underutilized Residential Sites 82 0 159 184 425 Vacant/Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites 1,482 0 466 507 2,455 Total Sites 1,625 61 686 871 3,243
RHNA Status (+surplus/-deficit) +889 -301 +255 +17
Redistributed RHNA Status (+surplus/-deficit) +588 +255 +17 +860 Notes:
AMI: Area Median Income
Estimated ADU production is credited toward the RHNA consistent with HCD guidelines and ABAG affordability distribution assumptions (ABAG Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units, 2021)
Sites identified to meet the very low-income RHNA are also qualified to meet the low-income RHNA. As such, the redistributed RHNA is intended to show how the City is meeting the lower income RHNA, inclusive of both the very-low and low-income RHNA.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 399
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
104 GENERAL PLAN
ADU Projections
Since 2017, the Legislature has passed a series of new laws that significantly increase the potential for development of new ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize their development. Interest in constructing ADUs is high in San Carlos and continues to grow. In 2018, 19 ADUs received building permits; in 2019, 14 ADUs re ceived building permits; in 2020, 29 ADUs received building permits; and in 2021, 33 ADUs received building permits. Although there was a 26 percent decrease between 2018 and 2019, there was a 107 percent increase between 2019 and 2020, and a 13 percent in crease between 2020 and 2021. The City estimates that interest will continue to increase over the next few years before leveling off.
San Carlos ’s diverse built environment includes many single - family neighborhoods; as such there is ample capacity for additional ADUs. As of 2021, there were 8,228 parcels zoned R-3 and R-6, totaling 1,542 acres. In addition, ADUs are permitted in multi-family developments and mixed-use developments, which are allowed within a significant share of San Carlos, including Downtown, the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown, and
large portions of the major corridors . The ongoing increase in ADU development experienced in recent years is likely to be
2 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs in the Bay Area as follows: 30% extremely low - and very low -income, 30% low -income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate -income. ABAG Housing Technical representative of ADU production moving forward, based on trends in San Carlos, new and pending favorable legislation that creates new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs, and the pent-up demand for additional housing in San Carlos and the Bay Area region at large. While it is impossible to predict with certainty the exact number of ADUs that will be developed in the planning period (2023-2031), the City conservatively estimates:
• An average of 24 ADUs per year will be constructed
throughout the planning period. This reflects the average number of building permits issued for ADUs between
2018 and 2021. Given the anticipated increase in ADUs
over the near term, this is a conservative estimate.
• Between July 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, an estimated 12 units are anticipated (as the RHNA planning period
starts July 1, 2022).
• In 2030, an estimated 23 units are anticipated (as the RHNA planning period ends December 15, 2030).
• A total of 203 ADUs can be predicted to be constructed during the planning period.
The affordability assumptions for the ADUs are based on the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team ADU affordability analysis for the 6 th cycle RHNA, which was pre-certified by HCD2. This analysis used a conservative interpretation that assumes more moder ate and above moderate ADUs than the Assistance Team: Affordability of Accessory Dw elling Units: A report and recommendations for RHNA 6, September 8, 2021.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 400
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
105 GENERAL PLAN
research found and as such represent a conservative assumption of affordability for San Carlos.
SB 9 Projections
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 9 into law, with an effective date of January 1, 2022. SB 9 (1) mandates ministerial approval of duplexes on lots zoned for a single-family residence and (2) 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 3 and found that approximate ly seven percent of single -family parcels throughout the State may redevelop in this way. In San Carlos, the Terner Center identified 8,100 single-family parcels, of which 6,400 are eligible for SB 9 development. The Terner Center eliminated parcels where market feasibility would deter SB 9 use and concluded that approximately 500 new units were market feasible under SB 9 regulations (rounded to nearest 100). The Terner analysis does not set a horizon year for this buildout. A GIS analysis shows that there are 8,229 parcels zoned for single family development (RS- 3 and RS -6). Assuming that larger parcels would be easier to develop with additional units or split lots, the City identified
3 Ben Metcalf, David Garcia, Ian Carlton, Kate MacFarlane. “Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single -Family Create New 2,136 parcels greater than or equal to 0.2 acres ( greater than the average lot size for the RS -3 and RS -6 zones of 0.18 acres).
Removing parcels that contain any use other than a single-family home or vacant, and removing parcels located in fire severity zones yield s 1,068 remaining parcels, shown on Figure 4.5-2.
Conservatively estimating that 15 percent of this ultimate projection could occur in the next eight years, a projection for an additional 160 housing units through SB 9 lot splits and duplex provisions are assumed for the next planning period. Because the affordability of such units is unknown at this time, they are allocated to the above -moderate income category. In 2022, t he City adopted an urgency ordinance to align with State law for SB 9 units and lot splits and has initiated the drafting of objective design standards.
Density, Capacity, and Affordability Assumptions
Consistent with HCD guidelines, methodology for determining realistic capacity on each identified site must account for land use controls and site improvements. The Housing Element sites inventory surveyed large-scale residential and mixed -use development projects approved since 2015 to develop estimates related to potential development. Most recent projects have achieved built densities very near maximum densities,
particularly those in mixed use areas . Some projects have exceeded maximums due to the use of density bonuses in
Homes? Assessing the Viability of New Housing Supply Under California’s Senate Bill 9.” A Terner Center Report, July 2021.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 401
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
106 GENERAL PLAN
exchange for the provision of affordable housing. Combined, all approved residential and mixed -use projects since 2015 had an average density of 86 percent of the maximum allowable density (Table 4.5-4). Residential zones had a lower average, of 53 percent of allowed capacity. Mixed use zones had an actual density of 107 percent of allowed density, due to extensive use of the State Density Bonus law. In residential zones, many zoning changes will be implemented concurrently with the Housing Element that will encourage higher levels of density in the zones. In particular, the maximum density of multifamily zones is being increased and a minimum density requirement is being implemented. As such, for realistic capacity of future sites, the minimum required density is used for capacity calculations.
In mixed use zones, past precedence in San Carlos shows a density of 107 percent of allowed density. In conjunction with the Housing Element, the zones are also being revised to increase the maximum densities. To be conservative, rather using 107 percent of allowed density, the realistic capacity calculations assume 100 percent of density for mixed use zones. In addition, to account for the potential that a site in a mixed -use zone may develop with nonresidential uses, and an additional multiplier of 85 percent for mixed use sites was applied to determine realistic capacity . The sections that follow provide more detail on these assumptions.
Based on state law ( California Government Code Section 65583.2[c][3]), sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA. The Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population -based criteria set by state law (at least 30 units per acre for San Carlos), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower -income households. Sites that can qualify for 100 percent affordable units based on the allowed density but do not meet the size parameters established by AB 1397 (0.5-10 acres) are split evenly between the moderate- and above moderate-income categories.
Opportunities and affordability for renting and ownership differ in San Carlos. Historically, many cities throughout the State have actively discouraged the provision of multi-family or entry-level housing. As a result, San Carlos has disproportionately accommodated single fam ily homeowners and provided fewer opportunities for renters (28 percent of San Carlos households are renters). As noted in Chapter 3 (Needs Assessment), average rents are within the fair market rent for the region, but median home sale prices in San Carlos are $500,000 more than the median for San Mateo County. Due to the significantly higher housing costs in San Carlos relative to other San Mateo County
communities, the City has decided to upzone residential zones in proximity to major corridors up to 100 dwelling units per acre and mixed-use zones up to 120 dwelling units per acre (doubling existing densities) to facilitate the development of affordable housing for all households.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 402
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
107 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.5-4: Recent/Active Projects’ Density
Year Approved Project Name Zone Units Acres Allowed
Density
Actual
Density
% of Allowed
Density
2015 1312 Laurel Street MU-N 2 0.11 20 18.99 95%
2015 1501 San Carlos Ave MU-SC 6 0.16 59 36.55 62%
2015 1525 San Carlos Avenue MU-SC 18 0.30 59 60.31 102% 2015 530 Walnut Street RM-59 9 0.20 59 46.01 78%
2015 545 Walnut Street MU-D 9 0.17 50 52.04 104%
2015 657 Walnut Street PD 109 2.90 N/A 37.59 N/A
2015 977 Laurel Street MU-D 8 0.14 50 58.08 116%
2016 520 El Camino Real MU-DC 9 0.19 50 46.73 93%
2017 1667 San Carlos Avenue MU-SC 6 0.18 59 33.91 57%
2017 500 Walnut Street RM-59 4 0.12 59 33.19 56%
2018 1040-1052 Laurel Street MU-N 6 0.28 20 21.78 109%
2018 1257 Magnolia Avenue RM-59 9 0.22 59 41.79 71%
2018 549 Prospect Avenue RM-59 4 0.15 59 26.84 45%
2018 575 Prospect Avenue RM-59 3 0.13 59 23.93 41%
2018 782 Elm Street RM-59 4 0.16 59 24.89 42%
2019 1240 El Camino Real MU-SB 8 0.15 50 52.14 104%
2019 560 El Camino Real MU-DC 24 0.43 50 55.46 111%
2019 616 Cedar Street RM-59 4 0.18 59 22.50 38%
2019 817 Walnut Street MU-DC 24 0.24 50 99.15 198%
2020 626 Walnut Street MU-DC 35 0.61 50 57.52 115%
Approved Projects Total Average: 86%
Approved Projects Residential Zone Average: 53%
Approved Projects Mixed-Use Zone Average: 107%
In Review 1360 Cherry Street MU-DC 6 0.18 50 33.96 68%
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 403
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
108 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.5-4: Recent/Active Projects’ Density
Year Approved Project Name Zone Units Acres Allowed
Density
Actual
Density
% of Allowed
Density
In Review 1383 Laurel Street MU-SB 15 0.19 50 78.57 157% In Review 308 Phelps Road RS-3 14 3.00 3 4.67 156%
In Review 806 Alameda De Las Pulgas RS-6 68 11.24 6 6.05 101% In Review Vista Del Grande RS-6 89 12.20 6 7.30 122%
Anticipated Project 11 El Camino PD-17 231 2.20 N/A 105.00 N/A Anticipated Project 1232 Cherry MU-DC 34 0.32 50 106.25 213% Residential Zones - Site Assumptions
The analysis of land for residential sites utilized City Geographic Information System (GIS) data to identify vacant and
underutilized parcels in the four residential zones: RS -3, RS -6, RM-59, and RM-100. To calculate realistic potential units in residential areas, potential site constraints and applicable development standards were considered. In residential areas, underutilized parcels generally are occupied by only one or two single-family homes, parking lots, and nonconforming uses. Sites in the RS -6 (maximum density of six units per acre) and RS -3 (maximum density of 3 units per acre) zones are identified to meet the above moderate-income RHNA. Sites in the RM-59 and RM-100 (maximum density of 59 and 10 0 units per acre
respectively) are identified to meet the lower-income RHNA.
Small sites (less than one-half acre ) are credited toward the moderate- and above-moderate income categories to account for a potential variety of types, sizes, and amenity levels in future higher-density development projects . Action HOU-3.8 is included in the Housing Plan requiring the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site consistent with those
requirements set forth in Government Code section 65915(c)(3).
Due to the predominantly built -out nature of San Carlos, most development occurs as infill development and replaces less intense uses. The scarcity of land makes higher -density development highly cost effective in the RM -59 and RM -100 zones. Recycling to higher intensity uses is expected to continue.
Even so, the City acknowledges that small lot development in residential areas may be more difficult and thus has only identified properties that have t he potential for sufficient added capacity to make recycling of land economically feasible. In the multifamily zones, 19 of the 26 parcels (73 percent) are currently developed with single family homes and the zoning allows for an increase in units that ran ges from 600 percent to 2,600 percent.
The calculations presented in Tables 4.5-7 and 4.5-8 do not include potential density bonus units. Many of the sites identified in the RM-59 and RM-100 zone offer opportunities for
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 404
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
109 GENERAL PLAN
lot consolidation. For lower income sites, consolidation is only assumed if the properties are under common ownership.
Existing Uses
Demand for higher density housing in San Carlos is high even for sites developed with residential uses. Tables 4.5-5 shows that in residential zones, redevelopment of sites has occurred throughout the city, often replacing single -unit residential, with or without accessory dwelling units already on site. As indicated in Table 4.5-5, several residential projects were developed below the allowable densities in recent years . To encourage higher density construction , the City is implementing multiple mechanisms:
• By January 2023, the Zoning Ordinance will be revised to add a new residential zone that allows up to 100 units per acre.
• Concurrent with the Housing Element, the Zoning
Ordinance will be revised to add minimum densities to
all residential zones , at approximately 75 percent of
maximum density.
• In June 2022, the City revised the Below Market Rate Ordinance to reduce the threshold for providing
inclusionary units on site for ownership projects from
seven to five units.
Table 4.5-5: Recent/Active Projects on Residential Land Project Name Zone Acres # of
Units
Allowed
Density
(du/ac)
Developed
Density
(du/ac)
Year
Approved
Affordability
Level Previous Use
530 Walnut Street RM-59 0.20 9 59 46.0 2015 AM Single family home 500 Walnut Street RM-59 0.12 4 59 33.2 2017 AM Single family home 1257 Magnolia Avenue RM-59 0.22 9 59 41.8 2018 AM Single family home and ADU 549 Prospect Avenue RM-59 0.15 4 59 26.8 2018 AM Single family home 575 Prospect Avenue RM-59 0.13 3 59 23.9 2018 AM 1 residential unit, plus 1 commercial office unit 782 Elm Street RM-59 0.16 4 59 24.9 2018 AM Single family home 616 Cedar Street RM-59 0.18 4 59 22.5 2019 AM 2 single family homes 806 Alameda De Las Pulgas RS-6 11.24 68 6 6.0 In Review L, AM Vacant 155-160 Vista Del Grande RS-6 12.20 74 6 6.1 In Review L, AM Vacant 308 Phelps Road RS-6 3.00 14 3 4.66 In Review AM Vacant
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 405
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
110 GENERAL PLAN
Mixed-Use Zones - Site Assumptions
The potential for development of residential units in mixed -use areas is predicated on the interest from developers and on the limited opportunities for higher-density development elsewhere in the immediate surrounding areas. Most projects in mixed -use areas occur at or near maximum density and several have utilized density bonuses to exceed max imum densities. Demand for housing is high in mixed-use zones; at the same time there is to a lesser degree demand for office and hotel space. To determine realistic capacity in mixed-use zones, two factors are considered:
(1) estimated average densities o f residential and mixed -use development and (2) the likelihood that nonresidential
development may occur rather than residential development.
To determine average densities, a review of all approved projects in mixed use zones since 2015 was conducted. Re sidential and mixed-use projects in Mixed Use Zones averaged 107 percent of the allowed capacity for the zone, due to extensive use of the State Density Bonus law. (See Table 4.5-4.) To consider the potential for nonresidential development, the City review ed all projects (residential and nonresidential) in mixed -use zones since 2015.
During that time, 23 projects were developed (Table 4.5-6), of which three (13 percent) were nonresidential. The remaining 20 projects (87 percent) were residential or mixed-use. To provide a conservative estimate of realistic capacity for the sites inventory, a 85 percent multiplier is applied in mixed-use zones to account for the potential redevelopment with nonresidential uses.
The City h as undertaken a comprehensive zoning update
(anticipated adoption in January 2023) , whereby the City will increase housing capacity by revising zoning standards for mixed-use areas to allow up to 120 units per acre and minimum densities at approximately 75 percent of maximum. All mixed - use sites are in zones that will have adopted minimum densities that range from 30 units per acre to 90 units per acre. State guidance indicates that if the jurisdiction has adopted a law, policy, procedure, or other regulati on that requires the development of a site to contain at least a certain minimum residential density, the jurisdiction can utilize that minimum density to determine the capacity of a site. In this inventory, the capacity calculation used is lower than the minimum as a way to account for the development of non -residential uses on mixed - use sites by creating a very conservative capacity estimate. In addition, a significant surplus of sites has been identified well beyond the City’s required RHNA.
Previous an d pipeline projects in mixed use areas have accommodated a mix of incomes. For example, 817 Walnut Street (approved in 2019) includes 23 very low -income units and one moderate/caretaker unit. In addition, projects comply with the City’s BMR Ordinance to provide a portion of housing affordable to lower -income households throughout the city. These trends indicate that sites in mixed use areas are appropriate for accommodating the very low, low, and moderate-income RHNA.
Small sites (less than one-half acre ) a re credited toward the moderate- and above-moderate income categories to account for
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 406
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
111 GENERAL PLAN
a potential variety of types, sizes, and amenity levels in future higher-density development projects.
The summary of recent projects where residential development is currently occurring (Table 4.5-6) shows that there are a variety of existing uses that are being recycled and replaced with more intense housing, ranging from single -unit residential , small apartment buildings, commercial buildings, offices, and parking lots.
Site Selection
To identify additional sites with potential for new development or recycling opportunities, the following criteria were used:
• Parcel is currently vacant; or
• If parcel is not vacant:
o Existing uses are multi -family residential
(condominiums or apartments) only if the additional
potential capacity is at least three times the existing number of uses and no developments with more than
10 units.
o Characteristics of existing uses such as older or
declining uses or uses developed significantly below
potential realistic capacity.
o Land values vs. improvement values. In some cases, a
parcel is included with a higher improvement value if
the structure is older or shows obvious signs of
deferred maintenance or if the site is underutilized
(characterized by large surface parking or unused
surface area on the site or have a signi ficant increase in capacity potential ). On residential sites, most sites with higher improvement values are developed with
single-family homes on properties designated for
multi-family uses at densities of 45 to 59 units per acre.
These sites have the potential for at least a seven-fold increase in capacity.
o No recent, significant enhancements have been made
(exempt enhancements include site cleanup or paint)
Identifying potential sites must balance available information on the site with a visual and contex tual assessment. While data pointing at older structures or high improvement value can give a good sense of the redevelopment potential, for many sites visual cues are important. There are a few sites where the data indicates a higher improvement value or a newer structure, but a visual assessment shows that a structure shows signs of disrepair or is underdeveloped in comparison with development nearby. On the other hand, a site with older structures and a very high land value may not be an ideal site due t o a new tenant that has invested in façade improvements such as paint and signage or the nature of the use limits the redevelopment potential, such as a convalescent home. While any of these properties can redevelop, this sites inventory presents the City’s good faith effort to identify sites that show the most potential for redevelopment.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 407
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
112 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.5-6: Recent/Active and Anticipated/Conceptual Projects in Mixed Use Zones Project Name Zone Acres # of
Units
Allowed
Density
(du/ac)
Developed
Density
(du/ac)
Year
Approved
Affordability
Level Previous Use
545 Walnut Street MU-D 0.17 9 50 52 2015 AM Single family home 977 Laurel Street MU-D 0.14 8 50 58 2015 VL,AM 7-unit multifamily building 1312 Laurel Street MU-N 0.11 2 20 19 2015 AM Single-story commercial building; sandwich spot 657 Walnut Street PD 2.90 109 50 37.6 2015 AM public parking lot and commercial buildings 1525 San Carlos Avenue MU-SC 0.30 18 59 60 2015 L,M,AM Single family home and ADU 1501 San Carlos Avenue MU-SC 0.16 6 59 37 2015 AM Single family home and ADU 520 El Camino Real MU-DC 0.19 9 50 47 2016 M,AM Vacant
644-685 Laurel Street MU-DC 0.25 Office 50 -- 2016 -- Retail 26 El Camino Real MU-NB 0.63 Hotel 50 -- 2017 -- Hotel
1040-1052 Laurel Street MU-N 0.28 6 20 21 2018 AM 2 single family homes 1240 El Camino Real MU-SB 0.15 8 50 52 2019 M,AM Single-story commercial building with restaurant/bakery
560 El Camino Real MU-DC 0.43 24 50 55 2019 L,M,AM 2 commercial buildings; 1 bar and 1 restaurant 817 Walnut Street MU-DC 0.24 24 50 99 2019 VL 7-unit multifamily building 1667 San Carlos Avenue MU-SC 0.18 6 59 34 2017 AM 3-unit multifamily building 626 Walnut Street MU-DC 0.61 35 50 58 2020 L,M 2-story commercial building, 1-story commercial building, 2-story residential building (8 units)
993 Laurel MU-D 0.21 Office 50 -- 2020 -- Hair Salon
1360 Cherry Street MU-DC 0.18 6 50 34 In Review AM Single family home 1383 Laurel MU-SB 0.19 15 50 78.95 In Review Auto Repair 11 El Camino Real MU-NB 2.2 231 50 105 Anticipated TBD CVS store 1232 Cherry MU-DC 0.32 34 50 106 Anticipated L 6-unit affordable multi-family building, 1 story- commercial
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 408
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
113 GENERAL PLAN
Small Sites and Lot Consolidation Potential
The scarcity of land makes higher-density development very cost-effective and development most often occurs on small lots in San Carlos. As indicated in Table 4.5-4, very few projects occur on sites that are over 0.50 acres. Of the 26 major development projects that have occurred in recent years, half occurred on lots that were 0.19 acres or less , with projects occurring on lots as small as 0.11 or 0.12 acres . 100-percent affordable housing developments have also been constructed/are being proposed on small lots, including 817 Walnut (23 affordable units on 0.24 acres) and 1232 Cherry (34 affordable units on 0.32 acres).
Many of the sites identified in the RM -59 and the new RM-100 zone offer opportunities for lot consolidation. As density increases, the likelihood of lot consolidation increases as well. For example, the City has received a request for a lot consolidation for a potential residential project at 240 -260 El Camino Real. For lower income sites, consolidation is only a ssumed if the properties are under common ownership.
Residential Sites Inventory
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. As a fully built-out community, very little vacant land remains in the city.
A total of 14.1 acres of vacant and underutilized parcels in residential zones were identified.
Combined, there is the potential to yield 425 new dwelling units on vacant and underutilized land in residential zones (Table 4.5- 7). All but one site zoned for lower density (RS -3 and RS -6) are vacant. In the multifamily zones, 19 of the 26 parcels (73 percent) are currently developed with single family homes and the zoning allows for an increase in units that ranges from 600 to 2,600 percent.
Table 4.5-7: Vacant and Underutilized Residential Land
General Plan
Designation Zoning Density
# of
Parcels Acres
Potential
Dwelling Units
Affordability
Level*
Single Family - 3 RS-3 3 du/acre 3 4.14 13 Above Moderate Single Family - 6 RS-6 6 du/acre 10 4.41 25 Above Moderate Multiple Family - 59 RM-59 45 to 59 du/acre 5 0.91 42 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Multiple Family - 100 RM-100 4. 21 4.61 345 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Total 39 14.08 425
*Note: Based on state law (Government Code Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)), sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA. Sites that can qualify for 100 percent affordable units based on the allowed density but do not meet the size parameters established by AB 1397 (0.5-10 acres) are split evenly between the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA categories.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 409
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
114 GENERAL PLAN
Given the scarcity of developable land in San Carlos and the continuing demand for housing in the Bay Area, nearly all of the recent residential construction in the city has involved infill development on underutilized properties. The analysis of residential capacity on recyclable land included in this section includes underutilized parcels in the RS-6, RM-59, and the newly upzoned RM-100 residential zones. One of the parcels identified in the RS-6 zone has a nonconforming commercial uses and is a large site. Parcels identified in the RM-59 and RM-100 zones are underutilized based on presence of single-family homes and are able to significantly increase the number of units on the site.
Thirteen of the residential parcels are vacant. For the remaining 47 non-vacant sites with available land and improvement value data, 56 percent have land values that exceed site improvement values. In most cases these are sites with single family homes on properties designated for multi -family uses at densities of 45 to 59 units per acre.
Mixed-Use Sites Inventory
Nearly all of San Carlos is developed; there is an extremely limited amount of vacant land within City limits. The City’s Mixed Use zoning districts facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized properties to create vibrant, walkable centers and corridors. New housing in these areas is an integral part of the vision for San Carlos; a balance of housing opportunities for both affordable and market-rate housing is essential to meet this goal.
A survey of land was conducted in areas that permit mixed -use development, and a total of 32.2 acres of underutilized parcels in mixed-use zones was identified, with the potential to yield 2,455 new dwelling units (Table 4.5-8).
There are a number of underutili zed properties along the major corridors that allow mixed use. The sites chosen are significantly underutilized given their size and given the development potential under the mixed-use development standards. All the sites with existing residential uses pro vide the opportunity to more than double the unit capacity. Over 67 percent of sites have land values that exceed site improvement values.
Most of the mixed -use sites are located within one block of El Camino Real (State Route 82), San Carlos Avenue, and/or the San Carlos Caltrain station. The rail line connects San Carlos to San Francisco and the Silicon Valley region. Several new and under construction projects in this area demonstrate the interest in developing housing in proxim ity to these major transportation corridors (see Table 4.5-6).
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 410
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
115 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.5-8: Mixed-Use Sites by Zone (see Figure H-4.5-1 Sites Inventory Map) General Plan Designation Zoning Density
# of
Parcels Acres
Potential
Dwelling
Units Affordability Level*
Mixed Use – 100 MU-D-100 75 to 100 du/acre 1 0.1 6 Above Moderate/ Moderate
Mixed Use – 120 MU-D-120 90 to 120 du/acre 14 3.0 305 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Mixed Use – 100 MU-DC-100 75 to 100 du/acre 10 3.0 256 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Mixed Use – 50 MU-N-40 30 to 40 du/acre 36 9.8 335 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Mixed Use – 50 MU-N-50 38 to 50 du/acre 5 1.5 63 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Mixed Use – 120 MU-N-120 90 to 120 du/acre 5 2.1 217 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Mixed Use – 120 MU-NB-120 90 to 120 du/acre 6 6.1 619 Very Low Mixed Use – 100 MU-SB-100 75 to 100 du/acre 11 1.7 142 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Mixed Use – 120 MU-SB-120 90 to 120 du/acre 23 3.2 330 Above Moderate/ Moderate
Mixed Use – 120 MU-SC-120 90 to 120 du/acre 5 1.8 182 Above Moderate/ Moderate/Very Low
Total 116 32.2 2,455
*Note: Based on state law (Government Code Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)), sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA. Sites that can qualify for 100 percent affordable units based on the allowed density but do not meet the size parameters established by AB 1397 (0.5-10 acres) are split evenly between the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA categories.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 411
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
116 GENERAL PLAN
Site Suitability, Realistic Capacity and Re -use of
Sites (Assembly Bill [AB] 1397)
Consistent with updated Housing Element law (Assembly Bill 1397) related to the suitability of small and large sites, the lower- income sites inventory presented in this section is limited to sites of between 0.5 and 10 acres in size, as HCD has indicated these size parameters best accommodate lower-income housing. In this inventory, several sites include multiple parcels that are less than one-half acre in size , however when consolidated with adjacent parcels are more than 0.5 acres . Small lot development is very common in San Carlos, and Actions HOU-2.1 and HOU-2.2 are included to identify additional incentives as needed . Small sites (less than one-half acre) are credited toward the moderate - and above-moderate income categor ies to account for a potential variety of types, sizes, and amenity levels in future higher-density development projects. For very low-income sites, all but two of the 23 parcels in the inventory are at least 0.5 acres in size. The two parcels that are smaller are included only because they have the potential for lot consolidation with an adjoining parcel that is under common ownership and make up a site over 0.5 acres in size.
AB 1397 also 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. Due to the built -out nature of San Carlos , most site s have existing uses. 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 uses of local importance are not included, and clear criteria were used to evaluate all sites within San Carlos, as described above.
AB 1397 also requires that specific parameters be placed on sites that were used in previous planning cycles but did not develop and are now used in the current Housing Element to meet the lower income RHNA. However, as noted in HCD guidance
documents, due to updates in the prior planning period to the general plan or other planning activities, such as the creation of a specific plan, some sites previously identified in the housing element may have been rezoned allowing a higher density, and therefore inc reasing the potential housing capacity of the site.
Because the zoning characteristics of this site have changed, it can be considered a new site for the purposes of the housing element inventory. All of the lower-income sites in the Housing Element have b een rezoned to significantly increase densities and thus none are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397.
No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can
accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 412
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
117 GENERAL PLAN
approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. Program HOU-3.7 is included in the Housing Element to set up a process for compliance.
Comparison of Sites Inventory and RHNA
Approved and proposed project credits and the sites inv entory identified in this chapter total 3,595 units, 1,752 of which are in the lower-income RHNA categories. Overall, the City can adequately accommodate —and have excess capacity for —the RHNA. Table 4.5-9 shows a shortfall of low -income units but those can be addressed with the surplus of site capacity in the very low-income category.
The identified sites and the densities allowed will provide opportunities to achieve remaining RHNA goals for all income categories as well as provide surplus of units, which help support no net loss provisions consistent with State law.
The identified sites can realistically be redeveloped with residential units during the planning period. These areas are considered highly likely to experience recycling for two key reasons: 1) the high demand for more affordable housing throughout San Mateo County, and 2) the availability of underutilized land in areas designated for mixed -use, with the potential for high -density residential development. The sites chosen are signific antly underutilized given their size and location and recent development trends . Interest is especially high in areas identified in this Housing Element, including mixed-use areas. San Carlos makes every effort to support development that contributes to th e city and facilitates a walkable, pedestrian-oriented community, consistent with land use policy. Developers continue bring forward new projects in San Carlos, due to the city’s convenient location, available transit, maximum allowable densities, and liva ble community. As market forces continue to push toward higher densities, recycling of underutilized land is expected to occur at an increasing rate.
Given the newly increased densities associated with new zones in residential and mixed -use areas , the City can anticipate increased recycling of land, particularly in higher -density areas where economies of scale can be realized.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 413
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
118 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.5-9: Comparison of Sites, Pipeline Projects, and RNHA Project
Extremely/
Very Low-
Income (0-
50% AMI)
Low-
Income
(50-80%
AMI)
Moderate-
Income (80-
120% AMI)
Above
Moderate-
Income
(+120%) Total
2023-2031 RHNA 739 425 438 1,133 2,735
Approved and Proposed Projects 3 63 7 279 352
Projected ADU construction 61 61 61 20 203
Projected SB 9 duplex construction -- -- -- 160 160
Vacant/Underutilized Residential Sites 82 0 159 184 425 Vacant/Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites 1,482 0 466 507 2,455 Total 1,628 124 693 1,150 3,595
RHNA Status (+surplus/-deficit) +889 -301 +255 +17 +1,860 Redistributed RHNA Status
(+surplus/-deficit)
+588 +255 +17 +860
Sites identified to meet the very low-income RHNA are also qualified to meet the low-income RHNA. As such, the redistributed RHNA is intended to show how the City is meeting the lower income RHNA, inclusive of both the very-low and low-income RHNA.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 414
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
119 GENERAL PLAN
F i g u r e 4 . 5 - 1
S i t e s I n v e n t o r y
M a p
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 415
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
120 GENERAL PLAN
F i g u r e 4 . 5 - 2
S B 9 – P o t e n t i a l l y
E l i g i b l e P a r c e l s
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 416
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : HOUSING RESOURCES
121 GENERAL PLAN
Consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
State law requires that sites to meet the RHNA must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities (Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)). Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity. For purposes of the Housing Element site s inventory, this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower -income need are not concentrated in low-resourced areas ( for example, with a lack of access to h igh performing schools, proximity to jobs, location
disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty.
HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC) coordinated efforts to produce opportunity maps that evaluate specific economic, environmental , and educational characteristics that have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low - income families. Figure 4.5-3 shows the TCAC opportunity areas in San Carlos, with the exception of a small area in the northeast corner of the city, all of the city categorized as highest and high resource.
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) are HUD-designated Census tracts with relatively high
concentrations of non-white residents living in poverty. There are no R/ECAPs within San Carlos . The distribution of identified sites impro ves fair housing and equal opportunity conditions because sites are mostly distributed in highest and high resources areas.
A thorough AFFH analysis based on the City’s most current Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice is include d in the Housing Constraints section of this Housing Element.
Infrastructure Capacity
The sites inventoried in this Housing Element all lie within urban areas well served by street and utility infrastructure. Drinking water in San Carlos is provided by Cal -Water. Wastewater originating in San Carlos is treated by the South Bayside System Authority (SBSA). As part of the environmental analysis completed for the Housing Element update, the availability of sufficient water supply and wastewater treatment capacity to meet the demand for San Carlos’ General Plan projections and the current RHNA will be analyzed. Aside from the non-
governmental and governmental constraints discussed in
Chapter 4 (Constraints), no additional constraints would impede the development of new hous ing units in the future on the identified sites.
San Carlos is fully developed , and full urban -level services are available to each site in the inventory. Specifically, water , sewer, and dry utility services are available for all the sites included in the inventory. To ensure that infrastructure needs of specific projects are addressed, the City requires that project applications for new development be reviewed for adequate infrastructure.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 417
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
122 GENERAL PLAN
F i g u r e 4 . 5 - 3
O p p o r t u n i t y
A r e a s a n d S i t e s
I n v e n t o r y M a p
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 418
123 GENERAL PLAN
2023 - 2 0 3 1 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
Applications are evaluated on a case -by-case basis to ensure the capacity exists to service new developments.
Administrative and Financial Resources
Financial Resources
Most projects that are exclusively affordable housing (especially for extremely low - and very low-income households) cannot be developed without financing and other subsidies required to write down the cost of land or other development incentives necessary to reduce construction costs. Funding sources include U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
funds, Tax Credits, and other loans and grants.
Federal Resources
CDBG/HOME: Through the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program, HUD provides fund s to local
governments for a wide range of community development
activities. These funds can be used for the acquisition of land for affordable housing units, rehabilitation through a nonprofit organization for housing, development of infrastructure and facilities, and public service activities. Another source of HUD funds is available under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). These funds can be used to assist tenants or homeowners through acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or the rehabilitation of affordable housing. A federal priority for use of these funds is preservation of the at-risk housing stock. The City is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County Consortium to receive CDBG and HOME funds
Housing Choice Voucher Prog ram: The Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo administers the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for San Carlos residents. The program provides rental subsidies to low -income families who spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. The program pays the difference between 30 percent of the recipients’ monthly income and the federally approved payment standard.
The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard , but the tenant must p ay the extra cost.
State Resources
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program encourages the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower -income
households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a 10 -year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low -income occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be affordable to households at 50 percent of AMI or 40 percent of the units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of AMI. The total credit over the 10 -year period has a present value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value.
Additional State housing resources include:
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
(AHSC)
• CalHFA Single and Multi-Family Program
• CalHome Program
• Homekey
• Housing-Related Parks Grant
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 419
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
124 GENERAL PLAN
• Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG)
• Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• No Place Like Home
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
Local Resources
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART): HEART was formed in 2003 as a public/private
partnership among the San Mateo cities and county, and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities. HEART raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County.
Affordable Housing (BMR) Ordinance : The City’s Below
Market Rate (BMR) Housing Ordinance requires that 15 percent of units in market rate developments are provided at affordable rates (10 percent modera te- and 5 percent low -income for ownership projects; 10 percent very low - and 5 percent low - income for rental projects). Projects that include seven or more units must provide these units on site; projects with fewer units may pay in in -lieu fee. Revisions to the BMR Ordinance were adopted in June 2022. Revisions to the Ordinance lower ed the threshold for constructing units on site for ownership projects to 5 units; the threshold remains seven for rental developments. The revisions also require ownership pr ojects to provide 20 percent low-income units and provide an option for rental projects to provide 15 percent very low-income units, to correlate with State density bonus law. Projects smaller than this threshold pay an in- lieu fee. Projects that result in a fractional unit of less than 0.5 can opt to pay an in-lieu instead of providing an additional unit.
Any calculation that results in a fraction greater than 0.5 is required to build the additional unit.
The City of San Carlos has also adopted a Commercial
Development BMR Housing Program that requires developers of commercial projects to mitigate their impact on affordable housing by paying a Commercial Linkage Fee. The Linkage Fee applies to commercial projects including changes in use, additions in floor area and new development as follows:
• Restaurant, & Personal Service $5.00 per square foot • Hotel: $10.00 per square foot
• Office, Medical Office, Research & Development : $20.00 per square foot
San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund: To date, the San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund, together with its Preservation sub-fund, has allocated over $120 million to assist 2,761 units in San Mateo County —supporting development of 2,403 new affordable rental and homeownership units, and preservation as affordable housing of 358 multifamily rental units.
Redevelopment Agency : When the City’s Redevelopment
Agency was dissolved on Feb. 1, 2012, in accordance with California State law , the city formed a Successor Agency to handle the unfinished bu siness of the former Redevelopment Agency. The former Redevelopment Agency had a
geographically defined Project Area where a portion of the
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 420
125 GENERAL PLAN
2023 - 2 0 3 1 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t
property taxes from the properties within the area went to support the activities of the Agency, including capital p rojects, economic development and affordable housing. The City
adopted a last and final Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule (ROPS) filed for July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2035, totaling in approximately $18 million.
Administrative Resources
The following agencies and organizations contribute to the goal of preserving and increasing affordable housing in San Carlos.
Both government agencies and partnerships with nonprofit agencies and for -profit developers are necessary to implement many housing programs.
San Carlos
Community Development Department: The Community
Development Department is home to the Building, Economic Development and Housing, and Planning Divisions which help advance the city’s housing needs. The Economic Development and Housing Division manages the City’s housing efforts , participating in both local and regional housing efforts as well as evaluation of housing opportunities as they become available, programs to increase the supply of workforce housing , and funding support for key housing programs. The Planning Division is responsible fo r advance planning, current planning (ensuring that development projects are consistent with the General Plan, the Development Code, and State codes), and land use regulation.
San Mateo County
The Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo administers the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for San Carlos residents. In addition, the San Mateo County Housing & Community Development (HCD) Division coordinates
homelessness response for the County and serves as the
organizing agency for local jurisdictions.
Partnerships
Creative approaches and partnerships are often necessary in order to finance and build affordable housing. Nonprofit and for- profit organizations provide housing, including affordable housing, and a wide range of supportive services for residents with special housing needs throughout the county. Partners also help manage homeownership programs and assist in other
housing and community development activities. Some of these local partners include:
• Bridge Housing (designs, develops, and manages
affordable housing)
• Center for Independence of the Disabled (provides
support services, community awareness, and advocacy
for people with disabilities)
• Eden Housing (designs, develops, and manages
affordable housing)
• First Community Housing (designs, develops, and
manages affordable housing)
• HIP Housing: Human Investment Project (supports
home sharing, self -sufficiency, and property
development/housing rehabilitation)
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 421
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMEN T: HOUSING RESOURCES
126 GENERAL PLAN
• Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco (builds and rehabilitates homes for affordable purchase)
• Lesley Senior Communities (senior living provider)
• LifeMoves (homeless services provider)
• Mercy Housing (designs, develops, and manages
affordable housing)
• MidPen Housing (designs, develops, and manages
affordable housing)
• Mental Health Association of San Mateo County
(housing and services provider)
• PARCA (services provider for people with
developmental disabilities)
• Rebuilding Together Peninsula (housing renovation and repair services)
• Samaritan House (homeless services provider)
For-profit developers also provide affordable units in larger-scale projects in San Carlos , both through density bonuses and the City’s BMR Ordinance requirements.
The Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs outline the City’s plan to continue to work with a network of nonprofit and for -profit organizations to build affordable housing, rehabilitate and preserve housing, and provide an extensive m enu of supportive services to San Carlos residents, families, and persons with special needs. Moreover, the Housing Element sets forth policies and programs to continue to facilitate the development and maintenance of housing, remove constraints to housing development and housing access, and to form partnerships to meet housing needs.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 422
127 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Fair Housing Assessment
Contents
128 Primary Findings
131 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
137 Integration and Segregation
177 Displacement Risk
179 Disproportionate Housing Needs
196 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Action Plan
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.
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.
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status, ancestry, age, marital status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, sexual orientation, source of income, or any other arbitrary factor. The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (A B 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 th eir 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.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 423
128 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Primary Findings
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for San Carlos.
• San Carlos residents filed only two fair housing
complaints and made four fair housing inquiries to the
state in the past 5 to 7 years (Figure 4.6-2).
• The City’s Housing Resources & Information webpage
includes guidance on housing discrimination and how to
file a fair housing complaint, intended to help current and prospective residents who have fair housing concerns
find needed resources more quickly.
• San Carlos’ demographics do not represent the
demographics of the county or Bay area overall (Figure
4.6-3): 68 percent of San Carlos residents are White
(compared to 39 percent in the county and Bay area); 16 percent are Asian (compared to 30 percent in the county and 27 in the Bay area ); one percent are Black/African American (versus 6 percent in the Bay area); and 9 percent are Hispanic/Latinx (versus 24 percent in the county and Bay area). The city in on par with the county and Bay area for other and mixed-race residents.
• Mapping conducted by HCD shows the city is nearly
entirely predominantly White, an unusual pattern for
cities in San Mateo County, as most have some pockets of diversity.
• Like most of the county, San Carlos is aging —although the city’s youth are also increasing. The largest drop
between 2000 and 2019 is in residents aged 35 to 44,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking
meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing
segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, t ransforming 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).)”
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.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 424
129 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
followed by 25 to 34. This could indicate that the city has trouble retaining working age residents.
Sixteen percent of San Carlos households earn less than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI) compared to 24 percent in the county. All but one block group in the city has a median income of greater than $125,000, and no areas of the city have concentrated poverty.
• The city has few disparities in housing access among
racial and ethnic groups, likely due to the high barriers to entry in the housing market. Lower income households
have few opportunities to rent and buy in San Carlos.
• The largest disparities that exist are in education.
Proficiency gaps exist by race and ethnicity:
Black/African American students attending both San
Carlos Elementary and Sequoia High have some of the
lowest rates of mathematics proficiency in the co unty.
Black/African American students represent one percent
of the San Carlos Elementary District and two percent of the Sequoia High district. Hispanic students also have
proficiency gaps, but they are not as pronounced. Only
three percent of English lang uage learners and nine
percent of students with disabilities in the Sequoia Union High School District meet or exceed math standards —
some of the lowest proficiency among schools in the
county.
2 https://cfsancarlos.org/21-day-11
• In the regional context, San Carlos represents a high opportunity area with relatively low accessibility to low - and moderate-income households, which are more likely
to be racial/ethnic minorities. The City should continue to look for opportunities to increase affordable housing
supply in the community.
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 discriminat ory 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 th e region’s non -White residents settled. Rothstein’s research—and other sources of past discriminatory acts in Peninsula—are featured in the 21 Day Social & Racial Equity Challenge sponsored by the Community Foundation of San
Carlos.2 Examples of these di scriminatory behaviors are summarized below.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 425
130 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
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 w here they were allowed to occupy housing — housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal
developments.
The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged ( blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. In the City of San Mateo, builders of the Hillsdale neighborhood in the mid-1900s recorded deeds that specified that only “members of the Caucasian or White race shall be permit ted” to occupy sold homes —the
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm-residential- segregation.html
exception being “domestics in the employ[ment] on the
premises.”3 This developer went on to develop many race - restricted neighborhoods in the Bay Area, became president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), be came national president of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and was inducted into California’s Homebuilding Foundation Hall of Fame.
The segre gatory 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 percent African American. The FHA prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto.
Throughout the county, n eighborhood 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
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 426
131 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
race) found that th eir 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.
As shown in t he timeline of ma jor federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use (Figure 4.6 -1), exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory, and allowed those that would be consider ed 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.
Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
Fair Housing Legal Cases and Inquiries
The San Mateo County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) serves as the fair housing planning document for the San Mateo County r egion. The AFH is completed on behalf of the county and local cities that receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds directly from HUD. HUD provides annual funding allocations through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); HOME Investment
Partnerships (HOME); and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). The four largest cities in San Mateo Cou nty (Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo, and Redwood City) meet HUD’s definition of “entitlement” cities, and each receive their own separate CDBG grant from HUD. HOME funds are received by the County as a “HOME Consortium,” which consists of the Ur ban County and the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo, which are entitlement cities and could receive their own HOME allocations but have chosen to remain with the Urban County in the HOME Consortium. San Carlos is part of the Urban County and receives CDBG and HOME funds through the County as the entitlement jurisdiction.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 427
132 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 1
M a j o r P u b l i c a n d L e g a l A c t i o n s t h a t I n f l u e n c e F a i r A c c e s s t o H o u s i n g
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 428
133 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
The purpose of the AFH is to help communities analyze
challenges to fair housing choice and establish their own goals and priorities to address fair housing barriers in their communities. Additionally, the report aims to help communities move toward an “access to opportunity philosophy” when
making planning and h ousing policy decisions. The “access to opportunity” focus of the AFH is rooted in the text of the 1968 Fair Housing Act (FHA). According to the July 2015 Final Rule establishing the AFH, “The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination, but, in con junction with other statutes, directs HUD’s program participants to take significant actions to overcome historical patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communitie s that are free from discrimination.” Many court decisions have supported this interpretation of the FHA.
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”.4
4 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
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.5 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for
investigation.
Additionally, San Carlos residents have access to several local organizations active in fair housing law. These include Project Sentinel, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and
Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, all of which receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions. The San Francisco Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) office of HUD and in the State of California Depa rtment of Fair
Employment and Housing also investigate fair housing
violations and allegations of discrimination based on a person’s status as a member of one of the State or Federal ly protected categories.
These organizations investigate allegations of d iscrimination based on a person’s status as a member of one of the State or Federally protected categories.
From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and 5 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 429
134 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Urban Development (HUD), two of which were from San Carlos residents. Most complaints countywide cited disability status as the bias (56 percent) followed by race (19 percent), and familial status (14 percent). In San Carlos, the two complaints were based on disability and familial sta tus. Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints.
Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 1 8 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to five, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached six by mid-2021.
Fair housing inquiries made to the state in 2020 were primarily submitted to HCD from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park.
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 percent) and race (17 percent). Familial status represented eight percent of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14 percent of cases in the county.
NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
6 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report- shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/
• 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 percent 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.6
In 2018, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
(DFEH) settled a disability discrimination lawsuit against a San Carlos apartment landlord who refused to grant their tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation for an
exception to the property’s no-pets policy for an emotional support animal unless they paid a pet deposit and signed a pet addendum. The complaint was filed in 2016 and DFEH
filed a civil complaint in 2017 in San Mateo Superior Court alleging violations of California’s Fair Employmen t and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The settlement requires the landlords to pay $27,500 to the tenants. The
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 430
135 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
landlords are also required to undergo annual fair housing training, post materials, and submit compliance reports to DFEH.
Outreach and Capacity
San Carlos has information about how to find affordable housing in the city on its website but there is not specific information or resources for residents experiencing discrimination in housing or the Fair Housing Act. Program HOU-6.1 is in cluded in the Housing Plan to improve access to fair housing information by providing contact information for local fair housing
organizations, legal assistance, and general information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination.
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 2
F a i r H o u s i n g C o m p l a i n t s/ I n q u i r i e s
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 431
136 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Housing Specific Policies Enacted Locally
San Carlos has implemented the following housing policies that promote housing production, funding for housing affordability, and stabilizing neighborhoods:
Reduced parking requirements. Parking requirements in mixed use and residential zones are low and do not increase based on the number of bedrooms (one space per unit plus guest parking is required). Affordable housing projects can request the jurisdiction reduce parking requirements for projects near qualifying transit areas that are applying for a density bonus.
Inclusionary housing ordinance. The City has a Below Market Rate Housing Ordinance that requires developers to set aside a share of units in new housing developments for affordable housing. The ordinance was updated in 2022 to encourage the development of more affordable housing.
Condominium Conversion. Regulates conversion of apartment buildings into condominiums and generally provides tenant protections.
City Density Bonus. The City Density Bonus was updated in 2022 to provide additional incentives for affordable rental housing with density bonuses that exceed the State Density Bonus.
Uniform Relocation Policy. The City requires a minimum one-to-one replacement of any housing units demolished due to public action.
Objective Design Standards. The City has initiated the process to complete objective design and development standards for all multi-family residential and mixed-use development, to streamline review and provide certainty in the development process.
Financial Assistance. Funds from the Housing in-lieu fee and the Commercial Linkage fee are pooled to support affordable housing construction in the city.
Commercial development impact fee. Levies a per square foot development fee levied on non-residential development that is used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
Reduced fees of waivers. Reduces fees or permit waivers for 100% affordable housing development.
Acquisition/Preservation. The City has acquired existing affordable housing to preserve long-term affordability.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 432
137 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
According to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data
viewer), San Carlos does not have any public housing buildings.
However, the city does have one census tract with a moderate share of households using housing vouchers (5 percent to 15 percent). Most other areas of the city have no data on voucher usage.
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.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.
Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. San Carlos’ demographics do not represent the demographics of the county or Bay area overall (Figure 4.6-3). More than two thirds (68 percent) of San Carlos residents are White ( compared to 39 percent in the county and Bay area); 16 percent are Asian (versus 30 percent in the county and 27 percent in the Bay area ); one percent are Black/African American (versus 6 percent in the Bay area); and 9 percent are Hispanic/Latinx (compared to 24 percent in the county and Bay area). The city in on par with the county and Bay area for other and mixed -race residents. Since 2000, however, San Carlos has grown more diverse (Figure 4.6-4), primarily due to the growth of Asian and other and mixed-race residents.
Figure 4.6-5 shows the distribution of non-White residents in San Carlos. Most of the City block groups show a population that is 20 percent or less non -White. Overall, concentrations of non - White residents in San Carlos are minimal. Block groups northwest of El Camino Real, and along San Carlos Ave. and Cherry St. have non -White populations that are in the 41 to 60 percent. Compared to neighboring jurisdictions , San Carlos has less concentrations of non-White residents than cities of Redwood City, Belmont, San Mateo, and Foster City.
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 s tatus, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 433
138 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 3
P o p u l a t i o n b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y, 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4
P o p u l a t i o n b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y, S a n C a r l o s 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 434
139 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 5
N o n - W h i t e P o p u l a t i o n
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 435
140 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Poverty rates are fairly consistent across races and ethnicities except for Hispanic/Latinx residents (7.3 percent live in poverty versus 2.7 percent for White residents) and other and mixed race residents (12 percent poverty rate).
San Carlos has much less racial diversity than surroundin g communities. Mapping conducted by HCD shows the city is nearly entirely predominantly White (Figure 4.6 -7). This is an unusual pattern for cities in San Mateo County. HCD maps also show much of San Carlos’ neighborhoods with Asian/White segregation (Figure
4.6-8). The city is one of the least diverse, as measured by the HCD diversity index (Figure 4.6 -9 and 4.6 -10)—less so than Belmont, Hillsborough, and Burlingame.
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 6
P o v e r t y R a t e b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 436
141 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 7
W h i t e M a j o r i t y C e n s u s T r a c t s
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 437
142 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 8
N e i g h b o r h o o d S e g r e g a t i o n b y C e n s u s T r a c t
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 438
143 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 9
D i v e r s i t y I n d e x b y B l o c k G r o u p , 2 0 1 0
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 439
144 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 10
D i v e r s i t y I n d e x b y B l o c k G r o u p , 2 0 1 8
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 440
145 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Dissimilarity Index
According to HUD, “The dissimilarity index (or the index of dissimilarity) is a commonly used measure of community -level segregation. The dissimilarity index represents the extent to which the distribution of any two groups (frequently racial or ethnic groups) differs across census tracts or block groups. The values of the dissimilarity index range from 0 to 100, with a value of zero representing perfect integration between the racial groups in question, and a value of 100 representing perfect segregation between the racial groups.” 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 genera lly indicate a high level of segregation. The dissimilarity index compares a particular racial group’s distribution in the county against the distribution of White, non‐ Hispanic residents.
While data is not available at the city level, the San Mateo County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) provides
countywide information. As reported in the 2017 AFH, African Americans are the only racial group facing consistently high segregation in the county. This segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity inde x, has decreased over time and was
approaching a moderate level in 2017. African American/White segregation decreased or was stable in all participating jurisdictions. In contrast, Hispanic and Asian residents are more segregated (relative to White, non‐Hispanic residents) today than
7 More diverse communities usually have higher dissimilarity indices —and less diverse communities, lower indices. This is due to a number of factors, including settlement in 1990. These groups have also experienced the strongest growth in the county. Residential settlement patterns of these two groups during the past 25 years appear to have influenced segregation.
In general, San Mateo County is relatively well integrated — particularly given its racial and ethnic diversity. 7 Compared to the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward regional dissimilarity index (see Table 4.6-1), San Mateo County has lower or similar levels of segregation.
Table 4.6-1: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends-San Mateo County Consortia Jurisdictions, 2017
Racial/Ethnic
Dissimilarity Index
San Mateo County Consortia
Jurisdictions (Urban County)
San Francisco-
Oakland-
Hayward
Region
1990
Trend
2000
Trend
2010
Trend Current
Non-White/White 42.06 42.27 40.66 43.86 45.89
Black/White 64.58 58.70 49.75 56.78 63.49
Hispanic/White 44.44 51.30 49.36 53.36 51.24
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White
38.73 38.80 39.70 42.17 48.21
The Bay area is one of the least affordable housing markets in the country. All types of households, except for very high -income households and households who have owned property in the area for decades, have difficulty finding affordable housing. A variety of factors present even greater challenges in securing patterns and formation of ethnic enclaves, historical practices and policies leading t o segregation, and limited housing choices.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 441
146 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
affordable housing, such as households with very low incomes or needing to secure housing in certain locations to accommodate jobs or schools and/or housing with special features. As employment continues to expand in the region, larger households and households with special needs are likely to experience greater housing pressures than households with fewer housing needs. This could lead to greater segregation of certain households if housing accommodating a varie ty of residents is not available.
In sum, in the county and the greater region, continued growth and demand for housing – especially naturally occurring affordable rental housing – could lead to increased segregation.
This segregation is mostly likely to occur in areas where affordable housing can still be found, such as Redwood City or East Palo Alto. It is also logical to assume that residents with the lowest incomes, special needs households, and larger household sizes will be most affected.
Persons with Disabilities
In San Carlos, 1,988 residents (7 percent) are living with a disability. Many of these residents with disabilities are 75 years and older (41 percent). Figure 4.6-11 shows the population of persons with a disability by census tract (2015-2019). At a regional level, San Carlos is generally similar to neighboring cities and the county as a whole where eight percent of residents have disabilities. In the Bay area at large , 10 percent of residents have a disability. Overall concentration of resid ents living with disabilities in San Carlos is minimal. In the area north of Cherry St and along El Camino Real, there is a higher percentage of residents with disabilities (10 to 20 percent of residents).
Familial Status
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households could indicate a higher share of people living alone and an increased need for one- and two-bedroom units. Figure
4.6-12 shows that most households in San Carlos are made up of married couples (61 percent), which is moderately higher than for the county (55 percent) and Bay area overall (51 percent) . The city’s distribution of residents by household size resembles the county and Bay area (Figure 4.6-13). Figure 4.6-14 shows the percentage of children in married couple households is fairly consistent throughout the city, and Figure 4.6-15 parallels this, instead showing the percentage of children in female-headed (no spouse) households. Single -parent hou seholds require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for daycare, health care, and other services. In particular, female - headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and greater need for affordable housing and acce ssible daycare, and other supportive services. Within San Carlos, there is no one census tract that has a concentration of children living in married or single female headed households.
San Carlos’ renters are mostly spilt between being married - couples and living alone (Figure 4.6 -16). While owners most commonly occupy homes with 2 to 4 bedrooms (Figure 4.6 -17), renters typically live in 1 and 2 bedroom homes. The city’s household sizes and types and bedroom distributions appear to be consistent.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 442
147 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 11
P o p u l a t i o n w i t h a D i s a b i l i t y , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 443
148 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 12
S h a r e o f H o u s e h o l d s b y T y p e , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 13
S h a r e o f H o u s e h o l d s b y S i z e , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 444
149 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E H - 4. 6 - 14
P e r c e n t o f C h i l d r e n i n M a r r i e d - C o u p l e H o u s e h o l d s , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 445
150 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 15
P e r c e n t o f C h i l d r e n i n F e m a l e H e a d e d H o u s e h o l d s ( N o S p o u s e / P a r t n e r ) , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 446
151 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 1 6
H o u s i n g T y p e b y T e n u r e , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 447
152 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 1 7
H o u s i n g U n i t s b y N u m b e r o f B e d r o o m s a n d T e n u r e , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 448
153 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Household Income
The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) skews higher in San Carlos than in the county. Sixteen percent of San Carlos households earn less than 50 percent AMI compared to 24 percent in the county (Figure 4.6 -18). All but one block group in the c ity has a median income of less than $125,000 (Figure 4.6-19 and Figure 4.6 -20). That block group, located in the central part of the city, has a concentration of low and moderate (LMI) residents, with between 75 and 100 percent LMI. Still, no areas of the city have concentrated poverty (Figure 4.6-21).
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 18
S h a r e o f H o u s e h o l d s b y A r e a
M e d i a n I n c o m e ( A M I ) , 2 0 1 9
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 , as well as a composite map. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 449
154 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 19
M e d i a n I n c o m e b y C e n s u s B l o c k G r o u p , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 450
155 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 20
L o w t o M o d e r a t e I n c o m e P o p u l a t i o n b y B l o c k G r o u p , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 451
156 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 21
P o v e r t y S t a t u s b y C e n s u s T r a c t , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 452
157 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 22
S e g r e g a t i o n a n d I n t e g r a t i o n S u m m a r y
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 453
158 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 2 3
R a c i a l l y C o n c e n t r a t e d A r e a s o f A f f l u e n c e ( R C A A ' s ), 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 454
159 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
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 (Figure 4.6 -24), all census tracts in San Carlos score higher than 0.75 —indicating strong educational
environments. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
San Carlos is served by the Sequoia U nion High School District; San Carlos Elementary School is the local elementary school.
Sequoia Union gained students between the 2010-2011 and 2020- 2021 period, and had the largest increase in student body among schools serving the county. San Carlos Elem entary’s enrollment was stable. During the pandemic, the high school enrollment was stable; San Carlos Elementary declined by four percentage points.
The Sequoia Union district enrollment by race and ethnicity is less likely to be Asian and more likely to be Hispanic and White than all students in the county (Table 4.6 -2). San Carlos Elementary school differs from the high school district in that it is more likely to be Asian and White, and less likely to be Hispanic. Compared to the county overall, both Sequoia Union and San Carlos Elementary have fewer English Language Learners. San Carlos Elementary has far fewer students qualifying for free and reduced lunch (six percent in the elementary district compared to 30 percent for the high school district and 29 percent
countywide).
Educational proficiency among Sequoia Union High School students and San Carlos Elementary School students exceeds or matches countywide proficiency except for English language arts for boys. San Carlos Elementary students have high rates of proficiency across the board (Table 4.6 -3). Yet proficiency gaps exist by race and ethnicity: Black/African American students attending bo th San Carlos Elementary and Sequoia High have some of the lowest rates of mathematics proficiency in the county:
just 11 percent (elementary) and 18 percent (high school) of Black/African American students are proficient in math, compared to 22 percent in Redwood Elementary, 36 percent in Las Lomitas Elementary, and 40 percent in Menlo Park
Elementary (Table 4.6-4). The same differences occur for English language proficiency: In San Carlos Elementary School District, 80 percent of the student body met or e xceeded English testing standards, but only 19 percent of Black/African American students met or exceeded testing standards —a 61 percentage point gap (Table 4.6 -5). Hispanic students also have proficiency gaps, but they are not as severe. Only three percen t of English language learners and 9 percent of students with disabilities in the Sequoia Union High School District meet or exceed math standards—some of the lowest proficiency among schools in the county (Table 4.6-6).
Employment. San Carlos’ job opport unities have changed significantly since 2002 due to a large decline in Manufacturing jobs and a rapid increase in Professional & Managerial Service jobs (Figure 4.6-25). The city’s jobs to household ratio mirrors the county and Bay area (Figure 4.6 -26) and the unemployment rate is slightly lower (4.9 percent in San Carlos compared to 5.9 percent in the county and 6.6 percent in the Bay area).
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 455
160 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 2 4
T C A C O p p o r t u n i t y A r e a s E d u c a t i o n S c o r e b y C e n s u s T r a c t , 2 0 2 1
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 456
161 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Table 4.6-2: Student body by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-2021
School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 1% 0% 1% 52% 0% 40% 5%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 0% 1% 63% 0% 35% 1%
South San Francisco 14% 1% 23% 48% 2% 6% 6%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 1% 29% 31% 1% 14% 7%
Bayshore Elementary 19% 3% 21% 41% 4% 3% 8%
Brisbane Elementary 20% 1% 12% 28% 0% 24% 11%
Jefferson Elementary 19% 2% 25% 36% 1% 11% 5%
Pacifica 8% 1% 9% 26% 0% 39% 16%
San Mateo Union High School 23% 1% 5% 32% 2% 28% 10%
Burlingame Elementary 27% 0% 3% 16% 0% 41% 9%
Hillsborough Elementary 32% 0% 2% 5% 0% 48% 12%
Millbrae Elementary 46% 1% 6% 20% 2% 16% 8%
San Bruno Park Elementary 16% 1% 10% 41% 5% 15% 1%
San Mateo-Foster City 26% 1% 3% 37% 2% 21% 9%
Sequoia Union High School 9% 2% 1% 45% 2% 35% 5%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 32% 1% 3% 12% 1% 34% 14%
Las Lomitas Elementary 18% 1% 1% 13% 0% 53% 14%
Menlo Park City Elementary 13% 1% 1% 17% 1% 55% 11%
Portola Valley Elementary 6% 0% 0% 14% 0% 66% 13%
Ravenswood City Elementary 0% 5% 0% 84% 7% 1% 2%
Redwood City Elementary 4% 1% 1% 70% 1% 19% 4%
San Carlos Elementary 18% 1% 1% 14% 0% 49% 13%
Woodside Elementary 4% 2% 0% 16% 1% 64% 11%
Total 17% 1% 8% 38% 2% 26% 8%
White Asian
Two or
more racesHispanicFilipinoBlack
Pacific
Islander
Note: In almost all school districts, less than 1% of students were Native American, so they are not included in this table.
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 457
162 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Table 4.6-3: Students who Met or Exceeded Testing Standards, by Gender and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research
District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 41% 55% 34% 31% 38%
La Honda-Pescadero 43% 36% 49% 31% 34% 28%
South San Francisco 52% 45% 60% 44% 42% 45%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 52% 63% 37% 38% 35%
Bayshore Elementary 27% 24% 31% 27% 27% 28%
Brisbane Elementary 64% 56% 72% 54% 56% 53%
Jefferson Elementary 48% 43% 54% 37% 39% 35%
Pacifica 60% 55% 65% 57% 57% 57%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 66% 76% 50% 50% 50%
Burlingame Elementary 80% 75% 84% 78% 78% 78%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% 81% 89% 85% 86% 84%
Millbrae Elementary 63% 57% 70% 58% 58% 58%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 47% 53% 41% 43% 38%
San Mateo-Foster City 62% 58% 67% 56% 56% 56%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 64% 72% 50% 50% 50%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 78% 86% 79% 78% 80%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 84% 88% 82% 84% 80%
Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 81% 87% 83% 82% 83%
Portola Valley Elementary 87% 83% 91% 83% 84% 82%
Ravenswood City Elementary 22% 20% 23% 15% 16% 13%
Redwood City Elementary 54% 49% 59% 46% 46% 46%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 77% 83% 75% 76% 74%
Woodside Elementary 88% 85% 91% 84% 85% 83%
Total 62% 57% 67% 52% 52% 52%
English Language Arts/Literacy Mathematics
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 458
163 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Table 4.6-4: Students who Met or Exceeded Mathematics Testing Standards, by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019
School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 34% 65% (no data) 38% 16% (no data) 54% La Honda-Pescadero 31% (no data) (no data) (no data) 20% (no data) 46% South San Francisco 44% 75% 19% 60% 29% 33% 46%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 37% 75% (no data) 36% 17% (no data) 42% Bayshore Elementary 27% 44% (no data) 38% 17% 14% (no data) Brisbane Elementary 54% 67% (no data) 65% 38% (no data) 60% Jefferson Elementary 37% 61% 15% 42% 23% 20% 30%
Pacifica 57% 74% 38% 48% 38% (no data) 66%
San Mateo Union High School 50% 84% (no data) 46% 22% 20% 63% Burlingame Elementary 78% 92% 53% 66% 50% (no data) 81% Hillsborough Elementary 85% 92% (no data) (no data) 76% (no data) 82% Millbrae Elementary 58% 75% 31% 63% 27% 11% 51%
San Bruno Park Elementary 41% 69% 23% 64% 25% 27% 50%
San Mateo-Foster City 56% 87% 30% 61% 23% 27% 69%
Sequoia Union High School 50% 81% 18% 53% 22% 11% 76%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 79% 92% 37% 77% 52% 43% 79%
Las Lomitas Elementary 82% 93% 36% (no data) 44% (no data) 87% Menlo Park City Elementary 83% 94% 40% (no data) 55% 35% 88% Portola Valley Elementary 83% 89% (no data) (no data) 56% (no data) 89% Ravenswood City Elementary 15% (no data) 9% (no data) 15% 11% (no data) Redwood City Elementary 46% 92% 22% 76% 34% 44% 75%
San Carlos Elementary 75% 91% 11% 85% 51% (no data) 78% Woodside Elementary 84% 92% (no data) (no data) 52% (no data) 89% Total 52% 82% 18% 50% 27% 21% 71%
Overall WhiteAsian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 459
164 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Table 4.6-5: Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research
School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 78% (no data) 54% 28% (no data) 71% La Honda-Pescadero 43% (no data) (no data) (no data) 27% (no data) 61% South San Francisco 52% 76% 36% 66% 38% 44% 56%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 81% (no data) 60% 43% (no data) 59% Bayshore Elementary 27% 49% (no data) 33% 20% 14% (no data) Brisbane Elementary 64% 63% (no data) 75% 51% (no data) 79% Jefferson Elementary 48% 62% 28% 59% 34% 33% 43%
Pacifica 60% 65% 32% 52% 45% (no data) 68%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 88% 55% 79% 50% 34% 81% Burlingame Elementary 80% 88% 61% 73% 55% (no data) 83% Hillsborough Elementary 85% 89% (no data) (no data) 77% (no data) 83% Millbrae Elementary 63% 74% 46% 68% 42% 23% 61%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 72% 39% 76% 36% 31% 56%
San Mateo-Foster City 62% 85% 41% 68% 34% 37% 77%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 87% 44% 92% 47% 31% 88%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 91% 44% 81% 64% 61% 83%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 91% 45% (no data) 65% (no data) 89% Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 92% 60% (no data) 62% 40% 88% Portola Valley Elementary 87% 92% (no data) (no data) 58% (no data) 93% Ravenswood City Elementary 22% (no data) 24% (no data) 21% 18% (no data) Redwood City Elementary 54% 91% 35% 73% 43% 47% 83%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 90% 19% 76% 60% (no data) 83% Woodside Elementary 88% 92% (no data) (no data) 58% (no data) 92% Total 62% 82% 34% 64% 40% 31% 79%
Overall WhiteAsian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 460
165 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Table 4.6-6: Students who Met or Exceeded Math Testing Standards, by Special Case and District, 2018-2019
School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 34% 4% 5% 4% 9%
La Honda-Pescadero 31% 4% (no data) (no data) 2%
South San Francisco 44% 20% 25% 4% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 37% 5% (no data) (no data) 6% Bayshore Elementary 27% 11% (no data) (no data) 9%
Brisbane Elementary 54% 4% (no data) (no data) 12%
Jefferson Elementary 37% 15% 36% (no data) 11%
Pacifica 57% 22% (no data) (no data) 17%
San Mateo Union High School 50% 10% (no data) (no data) 13% Burlingame Elementary 78% 40% (no data) (no data) 29%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% (no data) (no data) (no data) 48% Millbrae Elementary 58% 26% 16% (no data) 25%
San Bruno Park Elementary 41% 12% (no data) (no data) 9% San Mateo-Foster City 56% 11% 15% (no data) 14%
Sequoia Union High School 50% 3% 33% (no data) 9%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 79% 42% (no data) (no data) 43%
Las Lomitas Elementary 82% 54% (no data) (no data) 28%
Menlo Park City Elementary 83% 31% (no data) (no data) 38% Portola Valley Elementary 83% 14% (no data) (no data) 39% Ravenswood City Elementary 15% 5% 11% (no data) 2%
Redwood City Elementary 46% 14% (no data) 29% 14%
San Carlos Elementary 75% 24% (no data) (no data) 21%
Woodside Elementary 84% 27% (no data) (no data) 41%
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
DisabilitiesOverall
Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 461
166 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 2 5
J o b s b y I n d u s t r y , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 0 2- 2 0 1 8
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 462
167 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 2 6
J o b s t o H o u s e h o l d R a t i o , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 1 8
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 463
168 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The vast majority of the city ranks very high on economic opportunity, with the areas around Highway 101 offering moderate opportunity (Figure 4.6-27). The areas abutting Highway 101, however, offer the best job proximity (Figure 4.6- 28).
Transportation. This section provides a summary of the
transportation system that serves the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access. 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 Sa n 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 Mateo County. Pertinent feedback in that plan included:
8 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf “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 bic ycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right -of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.
While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”8
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 comm unication 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.”9
9 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 464
169 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 2 7
T C A C O p p o r t u n i t y A r e a s E c o n o m i c S c o r e b y C e n s u s T r a c t , 2 0 2 1
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 465
170 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 28
J o b s P r o x i m i t y I n d e x b y B l o c k G r o u p
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 466
171 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
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 fundin g sources. 10MTC 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.11 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, hazardou s waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and
10 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Pla n_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilities.html
hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low bi rth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethn icities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. In San Carlos, there are more significant disparities in environmental outcomes than in other opportunity indicators (Figure 4.6-29).
The neighborhoods aligning Highway 101 have low to moderate outcomes, while the balance of the city has moderate outcomes (but for two census tracts with more positive outcomes).
Disparities in access to opportunity
TCAC’s composite opportunity score for San Carlos shows census tracts along Highway 101 fall within high resource areas while the rest of the city is within the highest resource areas (Figure 4.6-30). The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Nearly all of the city has the lowest vulnerability, with one tract, in the northeast part of the city abutting Belmont, as low to moderate vulnerability (Figure
4.6-31).
11 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity- mobility/clipperr-startsm
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 467
172 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 29
T C A C O p p o r t u n i t y A r e a s E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c o r e b y C e n s u s T r a c t , 2 0 2 1
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 468
173 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 3 0
C o m p o s i t e O p p o r t u n i t y S c o r e , 2 0 2 1
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 469
174 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 3 1
S o c i a l V u l n e r a b i l i t y I n d e x b y C e n s u s T r a c t , 2 0 1 8
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 470
175 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
San Carlos does n ot have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “ the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”12
State law requires that for housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair hous ing opportunities (Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)). Figure H-
5.3 in Chapter 4.5 (Housing Resources) shows that capacity for multi-family residential development is fairly evenly distributed among the high and highest resources areas and that no
concentration of lower income sites exists.
Disparities Specific to the Population Living with a Disability Seven percent of the population in San Carlos is living with at least one disability, compared to eight percent in the county. The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (3.3 percent), independent living (2.7 percent), and cognitive (also 2.7 percent).
For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with a disability: 15.6 percent of seniors have an ambulatory disability,
12.1 percent have an independent living disability, and 12 percent have hearing difficulty. As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore, this population with a disability is likely to increase.
12 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self -care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.”
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 471
176 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 3 2
S u m m a r y o f A c c e s s t o O p p o r t u n i t y
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 472
177 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Displacement Risk
Displacement refers to instances where a household is forced or pressured to move from their home against their wishes. Areas with high demand for homes drive up housing costs and
increases pressure for redevelopment, resulting in the potential for displacement. A report produced by the University of Berkeley (UC Berkeley)’s Institute of Government Studies “Displacement in San Mateo County, California” in 2017
indicated that there are a variety of outcomes of displacement.
Key findings included:
• Displacement can take many forms. Formal eviction is not the only way households become displaced. Landlords
may refuse to make improvements and engage in
negative behavior to discourage tenants from staying.
About 14 percent of survey respondents reported this
type of experience. Sometimes tenants are “code
enforced” out of their units, a result of neighbors
repeatedly complaining about conditions in the unit or
complex.
• Displaced households commonly end up in substandard
or overcrowded housing conditions.
• Displaced households are five times more likely to
become homeless than non‐displaced households.
• After being displaced, just 20 percent of households
remained in their neighborhoods (defined by the study as within one mile of their former home). Thirty ‐three
percent left the county, generally moving to the Central Valley or East Bay communities.
• Two o ut of three children in displaced households
changed schools.
• These moves resulted in displaced households residing in neighborhoods with fewer job opportunities on average,
leading to lengthened commutes. These neighborhoods
also had more environmental challenges and lower access to health care.
UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project also examines
patterns of gentrification in the region. In 2015, the project released a tool that provides an early warning sign for displacement. The tool combines current signs of displacement with indicators that are part of past neighborhood
transformations to “paint a comprehensive picture of the extent and nature of displacement” in the Bay Area. As of 2017, the Urban Displacement Project found that more than half of low - income households in the region live in neighborhoods at risk or already experiencing displacem ent and gentrification. At that time, displacement was occurring for moderate to high -income neighborhoods, as well as traditionally lower -income
neighborhoods (Figure 4.6-33). In San Carlos at the time, much of the city was either in the very early stages of displacement or undergoing displacement. However, as of 2021, the city is mostly experiencing stages of advanced exclusion, as a result of rapidly increasing housing costs. Today housing is mostly affordable to high or mixed high-income households (Figure 4.6-34). The areas near Big Canyon Park and east of El Camino Real are stable and have a mix of moderate and high-income households.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 473
178 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Given the changing diversity in the region, employment
expansion, and rapidly increasing home prices, it can be difficult to determine which populations are most affected by
displacement pressures. The Urban Displacement Project
compared the racial and ethnic makeup of residents in 2010 and 2015 by neighborhood and revealed that in the region:
• The largest loss of African A merican residents by
neighborhood occurred in two Census tracts in East Palo Alto. This was offset by growth in White and Hispanic
households.
• Patterns in the loss of Hispanic residents by neighborhood are far less distinct. Many neighborhoods show decline s in Hispanic households – and many show increases.
• Neighborhoods that lost Asian residents sometimes
gained White and Hispanic residents, although there is no clear pattern of displacement.
• Neighborhoods with losses in families were commonly
those that experienced losses in Hispanic residents.
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 redevelopmen t
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
No census tract in the city are vulnerable to displacement.
The State of California has some of the strongest residential housing and fair housing regulations in the country. These regulations are intended to mitigate the negative effects that land use, zoning, and siting of housing can have on affordability and access to opportunity. In general, because of these laws, California cities generally have more in their “affordability toolkit” than comparably si zed communities in other western states. Yet citizen opposition, lack of political will, and the lag between identifying housing affordability challenges and implementing housing policy can reduce the effectiveness of the best-intentioned regulations.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 474
179 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
One frequently criticized policy is the limited enforcement (in lieu of advocacy pressure or legal action) of Housing Elements, which require that communities identify and plan for affordability gaps.
In San Mateo County, Housing Elements are produced
collaboratively. This approach not only provides transparency, it facilitates coordinated planning and regional affordability goal - setting.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing need generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in certain groups of residents experiencing a category of housing need when
compared to the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the a pplicable geographic area. This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, and other considerations.
Source: California Departm ent of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
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.”
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 475
180 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 3 3
D i s p l a c e m e n t R i s k i n S a n M a t e o C o u n t y a n d C i t y o f S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 7 Source: San Mateo County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 476
181 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E H - 4. 6 - 3 4
D i s p l a c e m e n t R i s k , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 2 1
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 477
182 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Cost Burden (Overpayment)
State and federal programs define whether a household
experiences a housing cost burden (or is considered overpaying) as any household spending more than 30 percent of its gross annual income on housing. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care or education. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of
employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to beco me homeless or double up with other households. Cost burden is an issue that is seen throughout the region.
In San Carlos, 28 percent of households are overpaying for housing. The situation is exacerbated for lower income
households, where 67 percent are overpaying for housing.
Almost three-quarters (73 percent) of lower income renters are overpaying for housing, and 61 percent of lower income owners are overpaying for housing. Figure H-4.34 show the distribution of housing overpayment by homeowners, and Figure H -4.35 shows the distribution of housing overpayment by renters in the city. San Carlos homeowners generally experience lower levels of cost burden than renters . The map indicates that the levels of housing overpayment fall in the 20 to 40 percent range, while there is one tract that has a range less than 20 percent, which means that these households experience even less cost burden than majority of the city. As for renters in the city, the map demonstrates that there are higher levels of co st burden throughout the tracts, some tracts reach levels in the range of 40- 60 percent of homeowners.
Cost burden in San Carlos is lower than in the County and the Bay area overall, largely due to the high barriers to entry in the City’s market (Figure 4 .6-37). Lower income households —who generally have the highest levels of burden —have few
opportunities to rent and buy in San Carlos.
There are few disparities in housing cost burden in San Carlos by race and ethnicity and family size. Hispanic/Latinx ho useholds face the highest level of burden at 35% --which is still relatively low compared for the county. Large family households —
considered households with five or more persons —face lower levels of burden than other household types.
Overcrowding
In resp onse to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space. Overcrowding can occur when housing costs are so high relative to in come that families double up or reside in smaller units, which tend to be more affordable, to devote income to other basic living needs. Households with more than one person per room are considered overcrowded. According to both California and federal stan dards, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if it is occupied by more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and halls). Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are
experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 478
183 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 3 5
O v e r p a y m e n t b y H o m e o w n e r s, 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 479
184 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4. 6 - 3 6
O v e r p a y m e n t b y R e n t e r s , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 480
185 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 3 7
O v e r p a y m e n t ( C o s t B u r d e n ) b y J u r i s d i c t i o n , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 38
O v e r p a y m e n t ( C o s t B u r d e n ) b y T e n u r e , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 481
186 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 39
O v e r p a y m e n t ( C o s t B u r d e n ) b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 9 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 482
187 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 0
O v e r p a y m e n t ( C o s t B u r d e n ) b y F a m i l y S i z e , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 483
188 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Figure H-4.37 identifies the levels of overcrowding across census tracts in the city, and it demonstrates that households across the city experience very low levels of overcrowding. Areas southwest of El Camino Real are generally below 8.2 percent overcrowded, while tracts east of El C amino Real experience more
overcrowding with levels between 8.2 and 12 percent. The vast majority of households (98 percent) in San Carlos are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room.
However, renter households are more likely to be ov ercrowded than owner households. Hispanic households (4.9%) and
households with other or mixed races (8.4%) have the highest levels of overcrowding. San Carlos households are less likely to experience overcrowding than the county and Bay area as a whole.
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 San Carlos, 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, 0.2 percent are lacking kitchen facilities while 2.9 percent are lacking plumbing. For owners, less than one percent are lacking either kitchen or plumbing facilities.
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. Throughout the county, the majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children.
People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native ( six percent of the homeless population compared to less than one percent of the total population), Black (1 3 percent , 2 percent), White (67 percent, 51 percent), and Hispanic (38 percent, 28 percent) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population. People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represented a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019. In San Carlos, 30 persons experiencing homelessness were identified as unsheltered in 2019. Demographic information on these persons is not available.
The 2022 One -Day Count reported a 21 percent increase in the number of unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness (1,092 persons) as compared to the 2019 One-Day Count and an increase in 17 percent in the number of individuals living in group shelters and hotels that have been converted to interim housing (716 persons) for a total of 1,808 persons. Additional geographic and demographic information is not yet available for 2022.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 484
189 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 1
O v e r c r o w d e d H o u s e h o l d s , 2 0 1 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 485
190 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 2
O c c u p a n t s p e r R o o m b y J u r i s d i c t i o n , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 486
191 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 3
O v e r c r o w d i n g b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 9
Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 487
192 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 4
S h a r e o f G e n e r a l a n d H o m e l e s s P o p u l a t i o n s b y R a c e , S a n M a t e o C o u n t y , 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 488
193 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Displacement
In San Carlos, no assisted rental units are at risk for displacement due to expiring affordability covenants during the next 10 years.
Access to Mortgage Loans
Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications to buy in San Carlos, particularly in denial rates. Except for American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants and Black/African American applicants, denial rates are similar across races and ethnicities (Figure 4.6-46).
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 489
194 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 5
M o r t g a g e A p p l i c a t i o n s b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y , 2 0 1 8- 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 490
195 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
F I G U R E 4 . 6 - 4 6
M o r t g a g e A p p l i c a t i o n D e n i a l R a t e b y R a c e a n d E t h n i c i t y , S a n C a r l o s , 2 0 1 8- 2 0 1 9
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 491
196 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors and Fair
Housing Action Plan
The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical action s, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and limited resources to respond to needs. Three fair housing issues have been identified in San Carlos. The contributing factors to each are discussed below.
In prioritizing contributing factors, San Carlos gave highest priority to factors that:
• Limit or deny fair housing choice,
• Limit or deny access to opportunity, or
• Negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance.
The City also gave consideration to how much influence/ability to change a factor the City has, in order to identify priorities that are feasible and meaningful.
• High Priority items will be prioritized for more near-term investments and City policy changes.
• Moderate Priority items are generally issues of concern but where the City’s impact may not be as broad.
• Low priority items remain issues of concern, but over which the City has limited power to address directly.
Items in the high priority and moderate priority
categories are intended to address these items as well, although indirectly.
As such, the follow ing issues of concern, priority contributing factors, and actions are established:
Insufficient and Inaccessible Housing Options in High Opportunity Area
The County’s 2020 AI and the Fair Housing Assessment found there was a need to expand access to opportunity for people who identify with any protected classes. Contributing factors affecting the lack of sufficient and accessible housing options in high opportunity areas include:
• Location and type of affordable housing [High]
• Lack of access to opport unity due to high housing cost [High]
• Lack of fair housing outreach and enforcement [High]
• Availability of affordable housing [High]
• Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes [High] The City of San Carlos is nearly entirely an area of opportuni ty.
In order to address historic growth patterns and allow additional access to areas of opportunity for people of color and other protected classes, the City identified a multi-faceted approach to provide additional opportunities. The Housing Plan contains 12 program actions specifically targeted to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing units in the city, including a significant upzoning of higher density neighborhoods and corridors. This effort will increase the number of affordab le housing units thereby alleviating the lack of housing choice.
These programs include the following:
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 492
197 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
ACTION HOU-4.1 Adequate Sites to Meet Regional Fair Share of Housing Growth.
The City will:
• Continue to provide appropriate land use designations and zoning districts consistent with regional housing
needs for mixed -use and infill development near transit and other amenities.
• Maintain an inventory of potential sites to provide to developers in conjunction with information on
development incentives for affordable units.
• As part of the Housing Element annual reporting process, evaluate project development against the sites inventory to ensure compliance with Government Code Section
65863.
• Continue to pursue implementation of the General P lan through completion and adoption of implementing
zoning regulations and specific plans.
• Encourage senior housing and housing suitable for
persons with disabilities and other special needs
(including assisted living).
ACTION HOU-3.1: Funding Low-, Very L ow-, and Extremely Low- Income; and Special Needs Housing.
• Continue to apply the commercial/housing linkage fee to fund affordable housing. Identify ways to encourage on - or off-site production of affordable housing, in lieu of fee payment.
• Collaborate wi th existing and new major employers to encourage the development of more affordable housing to balance the jobs:housing ratio.
• Monitor and pursue funding for housing that meets the needs of low -, very low -, and extremely low - income
households. Monitoring of funding availability will be
done on an ongoing basis through coordination with 21
Elements and by City staff.
• Offer financial and technical assistance for housing
development projects for persons with special needs.
ACTION HOU-3.2: Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance.
• Continue to implement the City’s Below Market Rate
(BMR) Ordinance requirements for rental and ownership
development.
• Establish a process for granting priority permit processing status for approved housing projects that exceed the
City’s minimum BMR requirement.
• Evaluate the BMR Ordinance’s density bonuses,
incentives, and concessions to determine they continue to make the production of affordable housing feasible. As part of this process, consult with local non -profit
affordable housing d evelopers to identify potential
revisions that would better support development of
affordable housing, and especially Low -Income Housing
Tax Credit financed housing. Revise as necessary.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 493
198 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
ACTION HOU-3.3: Accessory Dwelling Units Construction
Facilitation.
• Support the development of 203 accessory dwelling units during the planning period and as new State laws modify accessory dwelling unit requirements, update the City’s ordinance to comply.
• Collaborate with surrounding jurisdictions through the 21 Elements working group to determine best approach for
tracking affordability throughout the planning period.
• Encourage the legalization of unpermitted accessory
dwelling units to better ensure that they are safe and
habitable. As sunset date of Section 18.23.210( H)
approaches, consider an extension, based on history of use of this provision and anticipated ongoing need.
• Work with 21 Elements to identify potential funding
sources for ADU construction and offer pre -approved
construction plans.
• Review and as new in formation is available, update
public education materials on accessory dwelling units, including planning and building requirements,
streamline processing, funding possibilities, and other resources.
• Encourage local agencies, districts, and utility provide rs to reduce hook -up or other fees to facilitate the
development of accessory dwelling units.
ACTION HOU-3.4: First-time Homebuyer Program s. Direct
prospective first -time homebuyers to HEART or other County programs intended for first time homebuyers. Encourage the use of these programs though outreach and education. Maintain and provide information on local BMR ownership unit s that are resold.
ACTION HOU-3.5: Rental Voucher Program.
• Continue to implement the BMR ordinance, which
specifies Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) eligibility in the BMR program.
• Continue to work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing and nonprofit organizations to i mplement
Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance programs.
Continue to provide information on the Housing Choice
Voucher program, including new legal requirements
pursuant to SB 329, which prohibits housing
discrimination on the basis of source of income (including Housing Choice Vouchers).
• Continue to work with 21 Elements, other regional
organizations, and/or nonprofit organizations to evaluate and quantify potential discrimination against Housing
Choice Voucher users or other rental assistance voucher programs. Continue to develop and act upon measures to
address these issues.
ACTION HOU-3.9: Development on Nonvacant Sites. Promote residential development on nonvacant sites by:
• Targeting nonvacant sites identified in the Housing
Element as priorities for fund allocation as funds are available.
• Proactively outreaching to property owners with a survey on how the city can support redevelopment/new housing
efforts.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 494
199 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
ACTION HOU-3.11: Access to Opportunity. Noting historical inequities amplified/perpetuated by single family zoning, encourage small units in residential neighborhoods through development of ADUs, JADUs, and SB 9 units.
• See Action HOU -3.3 for specific measures to incentivize ADUs in San Carlos.
• Review the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance and implement updates as needed to provide
clarity and facilitate housing development under SB 9.
These include adopting updated definitions, use
regulations, development standards, and ministerial
processes based on the outcome of a complete SB 9
analysis. Staff anticipates bringing the ordinance to City Council by early 2023.
ACTION HOU-3.12: Reduce Costs Associated With The
Development Of Affordable and Special Needs Housing.
Reduce or waive development impact fees (as needed) to
facilitate 100% affordable and special needs housing, including housing for extremely low -income and persons living with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities).
ACTION HOU-4.2: Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Enact the
following zoning changes:
1) Create new zones; increase density, heights, number of stories; and provide minimum densities as shown in Table
4.6-7.
2) Remove requirement for ground floor nonresidential uses along portions of El Camino Real an d Old County Road,
south of E. San Carlos Avenue.
3) Remove minimum private open space requirement for
residential in Mixed Use and Multi -unit zoning districts (retaining only the common/public open space requirement). 4) For residential only development, remove additional required setbacks (i.e., removing requirement to follow RM-59 zoning setbacks) in Mixed Use zones (resulting in no setbacks in most conditions).
5) Remove guest parking in all RM and Mixed-Use zones.
6) Remove side and rear yard setback requirements for mixed use and multi -family housing developments, specifically pertaining to portions of the building wall containing living rooms, primary rooms, sleeping rooms, and walls containing windows.
7) Allow multi -family residential use i n the Public (P) zoning district as an accessory use to allowed uses such as onsite religious institutions and schools.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 495
200 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Table 4.6-7: Summary of Proposed Zoning Changes
Zone Maximum Density
(du/ac)
Minimum Density
(du/ac) Building Height (feet) Building Stories (stories) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed MU-N MU-N-40 20 40 30 30-50
depending
on
distance
from RS
zone
50 4 4
MU-N MU-N-50 20 50 38 50 (40 adjacent to RS
zone)
4 4
MU-N MU-N-120 20 120 90 75 4 6
MU-DC MU-DC-100 50 100 75 50 4 4
MU-D MU-D-100 50 100 75 60 4 5
MU-D MU-D-120 50 120 90 75 4 6
MU-SC MU-SC-120 59 120 90 75 4 6
MU-NB MU-NB-120 50 120 90 75 4 6
MU-SB MU-SB-100 50 100 75 60 4 5
MU-SB MU-SB-120 50 120 90 75 4 6
RM-20 RM-20 20 20 15 35 35 3 3
RM-59 RM-59 59 59 45 50 50 4 4
-- RM-100 n/a 100 75 n/a 60 n/a 5
*Note: The City of San Carlos Zoning Ordinance does not have a minimum density requirement; with this update, a minimum density threshold is proposed.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 496
201 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
ACTION HOU-4.2: Outreach: New Development Standards.
Prepare, publicize, and provide applicants and developers with materials highlighting the City’s revised zoning standards (Action HOU -4.2) intended to encourage the production of housing at all income levels.
ACTION HOU-4.3: Objectivity and Streamlining in
Development Regulations. Reduce the cost of building housing through, streamlining and clear and objective standards in development regulations.
• Review the Zoning Ordinance and craft revisions that
support objective design standards consistent with the Housing Accountability Act. Adoption of objective design standards will facilitate high -quality residential
development and compliance with State objectives.
• Revisit the Design Review Criteria to provide local
guidance on design and standards for by-right projects as allowed by state law, removing subjectivity from findings and approval processes.
• Identify ways to reduce the permitting time for residential projects (especially 100% affordable projects) through
consideration of by -right approvals, reduced number of hearings, and objective design standards.
• To accommodate future SB 35 applications and inquiries, create and make available an informational packet that
explains SB 35 streamlining provisions in San Carlos and provides SB 35 eligibility information.
Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement
San Carlos has become a town that is largely affluent and has limited existing affordable housing. As of 2021, the city is mostly experiencing stages of advanced exclusion, as a result of rapidly increasing housing costs . Efforts listed above to provide more affordable housing in San Carlos are intended to increase access to opportunity. The analysis found no Census tracts in the city with concentrations of households vulnerable to displacement.
However, households that are most vulnerable to displacemen t are where more rental housing is located . Overpayment by renters is identified in areas north of U.S. 101 and in the southeastern portion of the city. Contributing factors affecting potential displacement include:
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
[Moderate]
• Availability of affordable housing [High]
• Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
[Moderate]
In order to address the potential displacement of existing lower income households , the City identifie d 12 program actions to provide additional housing opportunities and further encourage more affordable housing in the community, as described above .
The Housing Plan also contains Program HOU-3.10 specifically targeted to identify anti-displacement strategies for San Carlos:
ACTION HOU-3.10: Anti-Displacement Strategies. Explore the following strategies to minimize resident displacement:
• Tenant protection policies
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 497
202 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
• Community land trust or a housing preservation fund
Access and Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities
In San Mateo County, the most common fair housing complaint cited disability status as the bias (56 percent of complaints) .
Contributing factors affecting access and inclusion for persons with disabilities include:
• Lack of supportive services for persons with disabilities [Moderate]
• Lack of access to resources, such as schools,
transportation, and other in -home or community
resources, for persons with disabilities [Low]
In 2011, the City adopted a Reasona ble Accommodation
Ordinance to provide persons with disabilities equal access to housing opportunities. The City identified six implementation programs in the Housing Plan to increase services, housing, and support for persons with disabilities, including:
ACTION HOU-5.2: Large Rental Units and Supportive
Services. Discuss with developers the ability to provide larger rental units appropriate for families with children, including the provision of supportive services.
ACTION HOU-5.3: Residential Care Facilities and Group
Homes. San Carlos encourages the development of residential care facilities and group homes. Consistent with State law, the City permits group homes with six or fewer residents in all residential zoning districts by right.
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance code to allow group homes
with seven or more residents as a permitted use in all
zones that allow multi-unit or single-unit dwellings.
• Facilitate discussions with neighborhoods and adjacent uses so that good neighbor relationships are fostered and impacts to adjacent uses are mitigated.
• Seek opportunities to assist nonprofit housing providers to acqui re and/or rehabilitate residential housing for group homes.
ACTION HOU-5.4: Special Needs Service Providers
Contributions.
• On an annual basis, provide financial contributions to non-profit organizations and outside agencies that serve the housing needs o f special needs households in and
around San Carlos. These organizations and agencies may include but are not limited to: The Center for
Independence of the Disabled (CID), HIP Housing,
Shelter Network, Samaritan House, CALL Primrose, San
Mateo County Chil dren’s Fund, and HEART, among
others.
• Evaluate City contributions to outside agencies to assess whether to continue funding and/or adjust funding
amounts or to consider other agencies for funding,
particularly those organizations and agencies that
provide housing with support services for persons with
disabilities. As part of the evaluation, require outside agencies receiving City contributions to submit annual
reports detailing how funds have been used and how
programs have benefited San Carlos residents.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 498
203 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
ACTION HOU-5.5: Revised Development Standards to
Support Special Needs Housing.
• Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that development standards that allow for separate cooking
and/or bathroom facilities in home sharing programs,
and universal design (including “visitability”) in all new residential development and significant remodeling
projects.
• Encourage the development of well-designed new
accessory dwelling units in existing neighborhoods by
implementing objective standards for the approval of
accessory units. Include an ADA accessible design option in pre-approved ADU plans.
• Encourage unhoused service or navigation cente rs to be located within or near SROs, transitional, and
or/supportive housing.
ACTION HOU-5.6: Equal Access to City Services . Adopt an accessibility policy establishing standards and procedures for providing equal access to City services and programs to al l residents, including persons with limited proficiency in English, and persons with disabilities.
ACTION HOU-5.7: Community Governance. Conduct public
meetings at suitable times, accessible to persons with disabilities, and near public transit. Resources will be invested to provide interpretation and translation services when requested at public meetings.
In addition, Housing Action HOU-6.1 outlines the City’s Fair Housing Plan . The City has identified multiple actions to implement that w ill increase affordable housing in the community, curtail displacement, and provide opportunities for special needs households, achieving multiple goals and
simultaneously affirmatively furthering fair housing.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 499
204 GENERAL PLAN
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT :
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
This page intentionally left blank.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 500
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
205 GENERAL PLAN
Contents
205 Housing Element Program Accomplishments
217 Quantified Objectives
Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
State housing element law requires communities to assess their achievements under adopted housing programs as part of the update of an existing housing element. These results should be quantified where possible but may be qualitative where
necessary. Past accomplishments are compared with what was projected or planned as part of the earlier housing element.
Where significant shortfalls exist between what was planned and what was achieved, the reasons for such differences must be discussed.
This evaluation helps San Carlos identify the extent to which adopted programs have been successful in achieving stated objectives and addressing local needs, and how such programs continue to be relevant in addressing current and future housing needs. The evaluation prov ides the basis for recommended modifications to policies and programs in the updated element and provides meaningful guidance for establishing new
objectives.
The 2015 -2023 Housing Element contains a series of
Implementation Programs. Table 4.7-1 provides a program -by- program review considering progress to date in implementation of these program actions, and the continued appropriateness of identified programs. The results of this analysis form the basis for developing the comprehensive housing program strategy
presented in the Housing Plan.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 501
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
206 GENERAL PLAN
San Carlos made great strides in efforts to create more affordable housing, including implementing the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing o rdinance, affordable housing impact fee, and linkage fee for new job -generating uses to support affordable housing during the 2015 -2022 planning period. San Carlos continues to support land use and development standards that facilitate housing and has, as part of the efforts toward the 2023 Housing Element, identified significant areas in multi -family and mixed- use zones to increase allowable densities significantly, to further encourage housing and especially affordable housing.
The City has also made considerable progress in addressing the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness) , guided by the goals, policies, and related actions of the 2015 -2022 Housing Element. In particular:
• The City coordinated with HIP Housing to promote home sharing with local seniors.
• The City provided funding to tw o group homes for
persons with disabilities during the planning period,
through PARCA (Partners & Advocates for Remarkable
Children & Adults) and HIP Housing.
• The City contributed $7.3 million to support the
construction of Walnut Studios, a 4-story 100% affordable housing development, consisting of 23 studio units and 2- bedroom staff unit. Of the 23 studios, six are restricted for tenants at or below 30% AMI, six at 40% AMI, six at 50% AMI, five at 60% AMI, and two for formerly homeless
tenants. Catholic C harities will provide service
coordination for the residents and case management for
the formerly homeless tenants.
• The City acquired property at 1232 Cherry Street through eminent domain to support affordable housing
development at this site. This project is expected to include 34 affordable units, 9 of which will be 3-bedroom units.
The City provided funding to LifeMoves and Samaritan
House for the purpose of supporting overnight shelter,
case management, transitional housing, and other
homelessness prevention services.
• In 2020, the City established a Tenant Assistance Program to provide direct assistance to renters at risk of eviction with initial funding of $112,000. In 2021, the City
appropriated an additional $151,000 to this program.
• Annually, the Ci ty typically receives one or two
reasonable accommodation requests for accessibility for persons with disabilities (often ramps for wheelchair
access) which are prioritized for approval.
• As of 2022, City staff is working with PARCA/HIP to
entitle two additional units on an existing housing site. • The City updated the BMR ordinance in 2022 to further encourage more affordable housing, especially at very
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 502
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
207 GENERAL PLAN
low-income levels, which supports housing development
for special needs populations. Changes included
increasing the affordable housing requirement for
ownership projects to 20% low -income; including an
option for rental projects to provide 15% very low-income units; decreasing the threshold requiring a BMR unit be built (rather than payment of an in-lieu fee) from seven to five units for ownership projects; changing affordability periods to run in perpetuity; and increasing incentives associated with the City Density Bonus for rental projects to exceed those provided by the State Density Bonus.
Table 4.7-1 outlines the City’s progress toward meeting objectives identified in the 2015-2022 Housing Element. Following Table 4.7- 1, Table 4.7-2 summarizes quantified objective performance.
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H-1.1: Continue the Rental Inspection Program. Continue the Rental Inspection Program as provided in San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 15.34, as implemented by the Building Division.
The City’s Rental Inspection Program supports ongoing property maintenance of critical rental housing stock and provides a process to address tenant complaints of Code violations. Approximately 110 housing units are inspected annually. The Building Division oversees and implements this program, including the mandatory deck inspection. The program remains important and is updated and continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H -1.2: Promote Home Repair Assistance. Promote the availability of free or inexpensive home repair services for low -income households, including households with special needs, provided by the most suitable organizations. Organizations providing such services may include but are not limited to:
• North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center, Inc.
• Community Action Agency of San Mateo County, Inc. (CAA) • Center for the Independence of the Disabled (CID)
• Rebuilding Together Peninsula
• Generating Renewable Ideas for Development Alternatives (GRID Alternatives)
• Promote the preservation and improvement of the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods.
While the City does not have funding to directly support home repair services, the City refers individuals to the Rebuilding Together Peninsula organiza tion for renovation and repair services: http://rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org. In addition, the City’s Code Enforcement is proactive in connecting various church groups, Boy Scouts, and other community groups such as the Lions Club and Kiwanis Clubs with homeowners in need. Volunteers remove overgrown vegetation, remove trash and debris, and complete very minor repairs to structures for elderly residents.
Continued residential rehabilitation ensures the longevity of the local housing stock. This program will be consolidated with existing Program H -1.3 and H-1.4 and continued in the Housing Element, with a focus on identification of new funding sources and p roviding clear information to the public about regionally available resources.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 503
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
208 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H-1.3: Identify and Implement Residential Improvement Programs. Evaluate residential improvement programs that are or could be made available and consider re -establishing and expanding the City’s Life Safety Home Repair Grant program.
The City will continue to evaluate opportunities as they arise ; during the planning period, no additional funding sources were identified to support this program. This program will be consolidated with existing Program H -1.2 and H-1.4 and continued in the Housing Element, with a focus on identification of new funding sources and providin g clear information to the public about regionally available resources.
Program H-1.4: Publicize Rehabilitation Loan Programs. Promote the availability of any city, county, State or federal housing rehabilitation loan programs for San Carlos residents, including San Mateo County’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Programs. As part of this outreach program, the City will identify rehabilitation opportunities linked to improving seismic safety in older multi-family housing developments in San Carlos.
San Carlos is a participating city within the San Mateo County Consortium Consolidated Plan. The 2018 -2022 Consolidated Plan identified a goal to explore a multifamily rehabilitation and acc essibility improvement program using CDBG revolving loan or other public funds to provide an incentive for landlords to participate in the H ousing Choice Voucher program; however, CAPERs indicate this has not yet been completed. This program will be consolidated with existing Program H -1.2 and H -1.4 and continued in the Housing Element, with a focus on identification of new funding sources and providing clear information to the public about regionally available resources.
Program H-1.5: Require Replacement Housing. Require the adoption of a minimum one -to-one replacement requirement of any housing units demolished due to public action.
The City adopted a Uniform Relocation Policy in 2017 . This program is complete and removed from the Housing Element; replac ed with a program to comply with Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3), requir ing the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site identified in the Housing Element.
Program H -1.6: Publicize Weatherization and Water
Conservation Programs. Promote low -income weatherization assistance and water reduction programs.
The City provide s links and information on the City website pertaining to water conservation and housing reh abilitation. Water conservation is an important goal for the City and is directed by the City’s Sustainability Office and Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (CMAP). This program is complete and will be removed from the updated Housing Element.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 504
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
209 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H-1.7: Undertake Actions to Reduce the Potential for Displacement of Lower Income Residents. Quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address displacement of lower income residents. Based on this evaluation, measures will be developed and the City will implement programs, as appropriate, to address the risk of displacement of existing lower income residents. Once actions are identified and actions taken by the City, the City will monitor such programs annually for effectiveness and mak e adjustments as necessary. If possible, the City will coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements.
The City collaborates with 21 Elements, which prepared a report on displacement strategies most effective for San Mateo County jurisdictions in 2017. To address potential displacement of lower income residents, t he City adopted a Uniform Relocation Policy in 2017 . In 2019, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1556 to approve cause eviction prot ections in the interim before the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 went into place. This program is removed and replaced with programs to continue to identify special circumstances where existing affordable housing can be acquired and preserved and to continue collaboration with 21 Elements to enhance the exchange of information and identification of solutions to regional housing issues.
Program H-2.1: Implement the California Green Building Standards Code. Implement and promote incentive programs that encourage the use of green-building techniques in the development of all new housing and remodels, especially in affordable housing. This includes impleme ntation of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code for new residential buildings, additions or alterations.
The City implement s green-building techniques through implementation of CALGreen, consistent with State requirements. In 2021 , San Carlos adopted an all-electric Reach Code Ordinance. A reach code is a local building energy code that “reaches” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating opportunities for local governments to lead the way on clean air, climate solutions, and the renewable energy economy . This program is complete and be implemented as a matter of regular business; as such it will be removed from the Housing Element.
Program H-2.2: Funding for Green Building. Leverage federal, State and regional funding sources to subsidize incentive programs for green building.
Funding for green building opportunities remains limited. The City has focused the limited available funding to support affordable housing d evelopment, and encourages projects to implement sustainable features, seeking additional sources as opportunities are available. This program is removed from the Housing Element.
Program H -2.3: Implement Energy Conservation. Continue to implement, sugge st and promote up -to- date energy conservation policies, energy-efficient materials and devices as part of housing development projects and remodels of existing housing stock.
The City's Zoning Ordinance offers an increase in FAR for mixed use projects that include car share, electric car facilities, green roofs, solar panels, and other green building measures. Several mixed-use projects have incorporated one or more of these in recently approved projects. In addition, the City continues to imp lement CALGreen and in 2021, San Carlos adopted an all-electric Reach Code Ordinance.
This program is complete and will be removed from the updated Housing Element.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 505
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
210 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H-3.1: Implement Complete Streets Policies and Programs.
Continue to implement the Complete Streets Policy of the City of San Carlos (Resolution 2012-066), including infrastructure up -grades such as streetscape improvements, and “Complete Streets” programs, to create a pedestrian - friendly environment and encourage private residential in vestment in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, including El Camino Real (Grand Boulevard Initiative).
The City adopted a complete streets policy in 2012. Successful, completed projects include El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Initiative, East Side Connect, El Camino Real Landscaping and Lighting. Ongoing projects include removal of Eucalyptus trees along San Carlos Avenue and installation of new sidewalks to facilitate safe, walkability into the downtown and Caltrain. Projects underway are contributing towards sid ewalk and pedestrian enhancements. In addition, San Carlos completed and adopted on June 9, 2020 its first pedestrian plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This program is complete and will be removed from the updated Housing Element.
Program H -3.2: Provide Incentives for Higher -Density, Mixed -Use Development That Include Affordable and Special Needs Units.
Reduce or waive development impact fees where necessary and appropriate to make infill higher-density, mixed-use development that i ncludes affordable and special needs housing, including housing for extremely low income and persons living with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities) to be feasible in the Downtown area and along El Camino Real. The City will st rive to incentivize development, such as allowing height limit bonuses, for projects that exceed the affordability levels or number of BMR units required by the BMR Program, (2) accommodate BMR units for special needs households, or (3) include Single Room Occupancy units.
The City provides Financial Assistance for qualifying projects through the BMR ordinance (SCMC 18.17.030, F.) . In addition, funds from the Housing in -lieu fee and the Commercial Linkage fee are pooled to support affordable housing construction in the city. Cumulatively, for fiscal year 19/20 and 20/21, $4.37M and $2.37M in revenues were collected, respectively. T he City also provides density bonuses and concessions to projects that include affordable housing units. For example, the affordable housing project at 817 Walnut received a density bonus and concession and the City waived all impact and processing fees. T he City has also provided funding to support services for a group home for persons with disabilities.
This program is updated and continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-3.3: Develop Incentives for Lot Consolidation. Develop a lot consolidation program for owners of small and odd -shaped lots in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3. The program may include incentives for lot consolidation such as:
• Relaxed development standards
• Streamlined permitting process
• City financial contri butions, as well as other density bonuses, incentives and concessions that are otherwise required by State density bonus law for the provision of higher levels of affordable housing.
The City will review the program on an annual basis to evaluate its effectiveness and revise as needed.
The City continues to evaluate the ability to consolidate lots in the downtown and best practices and incentives for consolidation of small lots , as well as ways to support development on small lots. As part of the 2023 Housing Element update, the City increased the allowable density on parcels throughout the multi -family and mixed use zones, which is a key mechanism to encouraging/facilitating housing on small lots. This program is continued in the updated Housing Element an d modified to address the removal of constraints for small lot development and the City’s upcoming Downtown Specific Plan.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 506
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
211 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H -4.1: Develop Second Unit (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Information Materials. Develop informational materials to educate the public on second accessory dwelling units , including alternatives to the affordable housing impact fee as compared to the construction of a second unit.
The Planning and Building Divisions provide informatio n to the public regarding the provisions for accessory dwelling units. During this Housing Element cycle, there has been significant change to State laws and resulting growth in the number of applications for ADUs. For example, in 2015 only 5 ADUs were ap proved; in 2016, there were 6; in 2017 there were 8; and in 2018 the numbers more than doubled to 19 ADUs permitted in San Carlos. In 2019, 14 ADUs were permitted and in 2020, 29 ADUs received building permits. Accessory dwelling units remain an important component of the housing stock in San Carlos; this program will be consolidated with other ADU programs and continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H -4.2: Modify Second Unit Development Standards.
Eliminate the 400-foot distance standard currently required between secondary dwelling units and continue to review the effectiveness of second unit development standards on a periodic basis.
The 400-ft distance standard has been eliminated. In 2020, San Carlos adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, permitting ADUs and JADUs consistent with State law. This program is complete and will be removed from the updated Housing Element.
Program H-4.3: Identify Possible Sources of Funding for Secondary Dwelling Units. Identify potential funding sources for remodels of existing homes to create an autonomous second unit within the existing structure.
In 2020, San Carlos adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, permitting ADUs and JADUs consi stent with State law. The City participates in regional efforts to encourage and facilitate accessory dwelling units; this program is modified accordingly and consolidated with other ADU programs in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-4.4: Legalize Existing Unpermitted Secondary Dwelling Units. Extend and promote the amnesty program to legalize existing unpermitted second units. Encourage the legalization of unpermitted second units to better ensure that they are safe and habitable.
In 2020, San Carlos adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, allowing for previously constructed ADU property owners to apply for a delay of correction to building standard violations for five years, if the building standard violation is not necessary to protect health and safety (Section 18.23.210, H.) This program is complete and will be consolidated with other ADU programs in the updated Housing Element.
Program H -4.5: Undertake Design Review of Secondary Dwelling Units. Continue to evaluate the design of second unit applications through the minor design review process, which establishes objective standards for application review and approval of secondary dwelling units.
In 2020, San Carlos adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, establishing a ministerial review process for ADUs. This program is obsolete and will be removed from the updated Housing Element.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 507
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
212 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H -4.6: Establish a Process and Standards to Allow the Conversion of Accessory Buildings and Structures to a Secondary Dwelling Unit. Allow converted accessory buildings/structures that do not comply with the current secondary dwelling unit ordinance to be reviewed through a new process that establishes an allowance for one or more exceptions from the secondary d welling unit development regulations. Modify the existing development regulations of accessory buildings/structures to more clearly distinguish how accessory buildings/structures can be used (such as modifying the regulations to prohibit living areas witho ut main dwelling unit setbacks and/or the number of plumbing fixtures) and consider reduction or waiver of fees. Reevaluate the effectiveness of this program in producing secondary dwelling units and consider other options after one year from adoption of the ordinance.
In 2020, San Carlos adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, permitting ADUs and JADUs conversions consistent with State law. This program is obsolete and will be removed from the updated Housing Element.
Program H-5.1: Implement Below Market Rate (BMR) Requirements.
Continue to implement the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance and revise the ordinance to change the length of time for very low and low-income unit affordability from 30 to 55 years, as is standard prac tice in most BMR ordinances.
The City's BMR Ordinance requires deed restrictions of 45 years for for-sale units and 55 years for rentals. In 202 2, the City updated the BMR Ordinance to encourage more affordable housing in the community . The BMR Ordinance remains an important component of the City’s affordable housing strategy and is included in the updated Housing Element as an ongoing program.
Program H-5.2: Implement First-time Homebuyer Programs. Direct prospective first-time homebuyers to County programs intended for first time homebuyers. Encourage the use of these programs though outreach and education.
The City continues to refer interested homeowners to HEART, which provides first-time homebuyer programs and loans. As a condition of sale for a ll owner- occupied below market rate units, deed restrictions are required and include the City’s purchase option, resale restrictions, and procedures and policies regarding changes in title to ensure that owner -occupied below market rate units remain affordable for not less than 45 years. This program will be updated and include information on local BMR ownership units that are resold, and included in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-5.3: Encourage the Use of the HUD Section 8 and Other Rental Voucher Programs. Encourage the use of federal, state and local rental housing progr ams and encourage nonprofit service providers to refer eligible clients, especially those with extremely low incomes, to the Section 8 program for assistance.
The City refer s eligible clients to appropriate resources and continues to implement its BMR Ordinance, which specifies Section 8 eligibility in BMR projects.
This program will be continued in the updated Housing Element and consolidated with existing Program H-5.4 and H-5.5.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 508
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
213 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H -5.4: Work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing to Publicize Available Rental Assistance and Other Programs. Continue to publicize the availability of rental assistance and other assistance programs and work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing to implement the Section 8 Rental Assistance Progra ms effectively in San Carlos and, as appropriate, assist non -profit housing rental assistance efforts.
The City publicizes information on its website and partners with the County and local nonprofit housing providers. This program is consolidated with existing Program H-5.3 and H-5.5 and included in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-5.5: Study and Consider Measures to Address Potential Discrimination Against Section 8 Voucher Recipients. Conduct an evaluation to quantify, develop and evaluate potential strategies to address the potential for discrimination against Section 8 or other rental assistance voucher programs. Based on this evaluation, measures will be developed and the City may implement programs, as appropriate, to address this issue. If possible, the City will coordinate with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, under the umbrella of work to be undertaken by 21 Elements.
During the planning period, the City participated in the regional collaboration with 21 Elements. During this time, new Statewide legal requirements were enacted pursuant to SB 329, which prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of source of income (including Housing Choice Vouchers). This program will be consolidated with existing Program H -5.3 and H -5.4 and included in the updated Housing Element.
Program H -5.6: Work with the Business Community to Address Workforce Housing Needs. Publicize and promote affordable workforce housing programs to the busine ss community and to City, school and other local government employees and recruits.
On the City’s website, local affordable housing resources are publicized. San Carlos also has in place a commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing in tandem with new nonresidential construction projects. The Linkage Fee applies to commercial projects including changes in use, additions in floor area and new development with variations in cost based on use:
Retail, Restaurant, & Personal Service: $5/SF; Hotel: $10/SF; Office, Medical Office, R&D: $20/SF.
This program is consolidated with programs pertaining to affordable housing funding sources and City’s commercial linkage fee, and continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-5.7: Explore Opportunities to Rehabilitate and Convert Existing Housing to Affordable Housing. Explore partnerships with housing operators, non-profit organizations and developers to rehabilitate and convert existing market rate rental housing into affordable housing for extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households.
The City continues to engage developers and affordable housing providers on this issue. The upcoming program at 1232 Cherry Street will redevelop six existing affordable units and, in combination with the adjacent lot housing a retail building, result in 34 affordable unit s. This program is consolidated with programs pertaining to partnerships and collaboration and continued in the updated Housing Element.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 509
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
214 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H-5.8: Establish Priority Processing Procedures. Establish a process for granting priority permit processing status for approved housing projects that exceed the City’s minimum BMR requirement.
The Planning Division continues to work with applicants who propose affordable housing at deeper levels for fast tracking. This program will be consolidated wit h a program to pursue review streamlining, especially through adoption of objective design standards, and continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H -5.9: Maintain an Inventory of Sites Eligible for LIHTC Funding. Identify locations and encourage projects that will score well based on the criteria set forth for Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding.
During the planning period, the City maintained an inventory of sites to meet the RHNA. Sites in the previous Housing Element were identified in transit and service rich areas, consistent with LIHTC funding criteria. During the planning period, 817 Walnut which includes 23 affordable studio units, received LIHTC funding and was constructed. This program will be modified to indicate that the City will ma intain the inventory of sites throughout the planning period, and address no -net loss provisions of State Housing Element law.
Program H-5.10: Update for Consistency with State Density Bonus Law. Update the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the latest changes to State Density Bonus Law, including modifications to comply with AB 2222, which requires replacement of pre-existing affordable units to be eligible for the bonuses, incentives and waivers provided under State Density Bonus Law.
While the Density Bonus portion of the City’s Zoning Ordinance was not updated, the City complied with State Density Bonus law throughout the planning period.
In 2022, t he City updated Chapter 18.16 (Affordable Housing Programs) and Chapter 18.17 (Affordable Housing Incentives) to encourage more affordable housing in the community, including an update to provide additional incentives through the City’s density bonus ordinance . A program to update the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance to reflect State law is included in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-5.11: Pursue Funding for Lower Income Housing. Monitor and pursue funding for housing that meets the needs of lower income households. Monitoring of funding availability will be done on an ongoing basis through coordination with 21 Elements and by City staff. At least annually, the City will take actions to pursue specific funding sources for lower income housing either alone or in coordination with ot her jurisdictions or entities involved in the provision of lower income housing.
The City has implemented a commercial linkage fee and an in -lieu fee for smaller affordable housing projects to comply with the BMR Ordinance. These funding sources are important to provide a local match for projects seeking other affordable housing funds. This program will be updated and consolidated with other programs pertaining to affordable housing funding sources.
Program H -6.1: Evaluate Incentives for BMR Housing. Periodically evaluate the density bonuses, incentives and concessions in the BMR Ordinance to determine whether they are adequate to make the production of affordable housing feasible.
The City updated the BMR Ordinance in 202 2 to comprehensively evaluate its effectiveness and parameters . This program will be c ontinued in the updated Housing Element, with a focus on implementation and tracking of the BMR Ordinance.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 510
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
215 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H-6.2: Adopt Priority Procedures for Providing Water and Sewer Service to Affordable Housing Developments. Consistent with SB 1087 (Government Code Section 65589.7), the City will provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to water and sewer providers immediately upon adoption and will work with water and sewer providers to adopt written policies and procedures that grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower income households.
The City delivered a copy of the adopted Housing Element to water and sewer providers after adoption. This program r emains a requirement of State law and will be included in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-7.1: Contribute to Special Needs Service Providers. On an annual basis, provide financial contributions to non -profit organizations and outside agencies that serve the housing needs of special needs households in and around San Carlos. These organizations and agencies may include but are not limited to:
• The Center for Independence of the Disabled (CID)
• HIP Housing
• Shelter Network
• Samaritan House
• CALL Primrose
• San Mateo County Children’s Fund
• HEART
The City supports organizations that serve special needs persons through the allocation of Housing In-Lieu Fees. Grants to seven organizations totaled:
FY 18/19: $105,000
FY 19/20 $105,000
FY 20/21: $154,500
FY 21/22: $157,600
This program is an important resource and will be continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-7.2: Evaluate the Effectiveness of City Contributions to Special Needs Service Providers. Evaluate City contributions to outside agencies to assess whether to continue funding and/or adjust funding amounts or to consider other agencies for funding, particularly those organizations and agencies that provide housing with support services for persons with disabilities.
The City tracks funding by cost/household served and units preserved/assisted.
This program will be updated and consolidated with Programs H -7.1 and H -7.3 and continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-7.3: Require Annual Reports from Special Needs Service Providers. Require outside agencies receiving contributions from t he City to submit annual reports detailing how funds have been used and how programs have benefited San Carlos residents.
The City requires annual reports for grants issued. This program will be updated and consolidated with Programs H -7.1 and H -7.3 and co ntinued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-7.4: Maintain an Inventory of Sites for Senior and Other Special Needs Housing. Identify locations and encourage senior housing, including assisted living facilities, in multi-family areas, and maintain an inventory of suitable sites for senior housing and for persons with disabilities or other special needs.
The Housing Element incl uded ample sites to accommodate the RHNA and provide for a variety of housing options for special needs groups, seniors, and those with disabilities. This program is consolidated with the Adequate Sites program (Program 5.9) and included in the updated Housing Element.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 511
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
216 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H -7.5: Provide Assistance to Projects for Persons with Special Needs Housing. Offer financial and technical assistance for housing development projects for persons with special needs. Financial support may come in the form of redevelopment housing set - aside funds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and other State and federal sources that the City will continue to pursue in partnership with local developers and agencies. On an annual basis, contact developers and agencies to discuss the City’s ability to support special needs housing development projects. Evaluate the effectiveness of this program twice within the planning period.
The City no longer has redevelopment housing set -aside funds to support local projects. The City participates in the San Mateo County Consolidated Plan and is distributed CDBG funds through th e County Consortium. This program will be consolidated within a funding program in the updated Housing Element.
Program H -7.6: Facilitate Home Sharing and Tenant Matching Opportunities. Work with non -profit groups (including HIP Housing — hiphousing.org/programs/home-sharing-program) to create home sharing/matching opportunities for renters as a means of efficiently using the existing housing stock. Tasks would include:
• Assist in outreach in identifying potential owners, such as seniors who wish to remain in their home or new buyers who could afford single - family homes with the extra income potential.
• Assist in publicizing and helping to identify potential renters interested in home sharing opportunities.
• Consider opportunities for renters who do not have vehicles to be matched at locations that have limited parking available. • Coordinate with HIP Housing and develop standards that would allow separate cooking facilities if tied to a home sharing program.
The City continues to work with HIP Housing and promotes its home sharing program with flyers and information to the public. This program is combined with other partnership programs and updated/continued in the updated Housing Element.
Program H-8.1: Ensure Fair Housing in City Policies and Procedures.
Continue to review City policies and procedures to ensure that the City is promoting fair housing goals to the fullest extent possible.
The City continues to explore opportunities to promot e fair housing. This program is consolidated with Programs H-8.2 – 8.6 and continued in the updated Housing Element under an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
Program H -8.2: Provide Public Handouts on Fair Housing. Provide information to residents about service providers that assist with fair housing complaints and violations, including, but not limited to, providing materials at City Hall and the San Carlos Library, as well as links on the City’s website.
The City provides information and has links on the City's website pertaining to affordable housing and staff makes referrals to Project Sentinel. This program is updated to provide additional information on the City’s website about fair housing and consolidated with Programs H-8.1 – 8.6 and continued in the updated Housing Element under an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
Program H -8.3: Provide Education and Training on Fair Housing Laws. Provide education and training on fair housing laws to City staff who interact with residents on housing matters.
Staff is educated and trained on fair housing and uses Project Sentinel as a resource to those in need. This program is consolidated with Pro grams H-8.1 – 8.6 and continued in the updated Housing Element under an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 512
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
217 GENERAL PLAN
Table 4.7-1: 2015-2022 Program Accomplishments
2015-2021 Housing Element Program Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program H -8.4: Conduct Community Outreach on Fair Housing Laws. Broaden public knowledge of fair housing laws through outreach efforts by including information in City newsletters and on the City’s website. The City will also coordinate annually with other agencies and organizations, including 21 Elements, to identify other means of informing residents about fair housing laws.
The City wil l also provide non -English language translation of all fair housing information provided to the public on an as-needed basis.
The City provides information and has links on the City's website pertaining to affordable housing and makes referrals to Project Sentinel. This program is consolidated with Programs H -8.2 – 8.6 and continued in the updated Housing Element under an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
Program H-8.5: Refer Discrimination Complaints. Refer discrimination complaints to the appropriate legal service, County or State agency.
The City provides information and has links on the City's website pertaining to affordable housing and makes referrals to Project Sentinel. This program is consolidated with Programs H -8.2 – 8.6 and continued in the updated Housing Element under an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
Program H -8.6: Provide Funding for Fair Housing Counseling Agencies. Continue to provide funding to agencies that provide free counseling to San Carlos residents on issues relating to fair housing.
The City participates in the San Mateo County Consortium, which distributes CDBG funds. Through this mechanism, Project Sentinel is provided grant funds for operation. This program is consolidated with Programs H -8.2 – 8.6 and continued in the updated Housing Element under an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
Program H-8.7: Implement Employee Housing Requirements. On an ongoing basis, ensure that the City is in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, which concerns employee housing that serves six or fewer employees.
The City treats employee housing located in single-family homes and occupied by six or fewer employees as a single -family use , consistent with State law . This program is implemented and removed from the Housing Element.
Quantified Objectives
Table 4.7-2 summarizes San Carlos’s quantified objectives for the 2015-2022 Housing Element planning period and the progress the City has made, including progress meeting the City’s fifth cycle RHNA. Through 2021, although total construction exceeded the full RHNA allocation, this was largely due to the development of above-moderate income units. Only 11 percent of very low - income units, 13 percent of low-income units, and 13 percent of moderate-income units were built during this period.
The City established rehabilitation objectives for 36 units during the planning period. While funding was more limited than anticipated, each year the City funded maintenance and repairs at the 100% -affordable Laureola Oaks property (16 units) . In addition, the City refers individuals to the Rebuilding Together Peninsula organization and Code Enforcement has proactively connected homeowners in need with community groups to
support minor repair work.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 513
4 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
218 GENERAL PLAN
The conservation goal was to preserve existing affordable housing projects; no units were at risk of converting to market rate due to expiration of deed restrictions. No deed restricted affordable units converted to market rate during the planning period.
Table 4.7-2: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives Objectives
Income Level
Total
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Construction Objectives (RHNA)
Goal 195 107 111 183 596
Progress (through 2021) 22 14 14 572 622
Rehabilitation Objectives
Goal 16 8 10 10 36
Progress -- 16 -- -- 16
Conservation and Preservation Objectives
Goal 90 50 20 20 140
Progress* 90 50 20 20 140
*No affordable housing was converted to market rate during the planning period.
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 514
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : APPENDIX A
A-1
GENERAL PLAN
4 Table 4.A-1: San Carlos Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory APN Address General Plan New Zoning Old
Zoning Size (acres)
Max.
Density
(du/ac)
Lot Consolidation
Potential Existing Land Use Very
Low Low Mod Above
Mod
Total
Units
045316130 240 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐120 MU‐N 0.35816291005 120 Yes retail 37 0 0 0 37 045316140 260 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐120 MU‐N 0.72986151373 120 retail 74 0 0 0 74 050054320 366 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐50 MU‐N 0.21775731992 50 Yes retail 0 0 4 5 9 050054330 356 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐50 MU‐N 0.15040583942 50 office/commercial 0 0 3 3 6 050074130 1148 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.11006724477 100 Yes
office/commercial 0 0 4 5 9
050074140 1156 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.04614011285 100 retail 0 0 2 2 4 050074150 1178 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.07393201292 100 retail 0 0 3 3 6 050074160 1188 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.07693864108 100 retail 0 0 3 4 7 050074170 577 LAUREL ST MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.08856562650 100 commercial 0 0 4 4 8 046114100 575 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.30662549202 40 Yes mixed use 0 0 5 5 10 046114110 1059 MC CUE AVE MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.08642487515 40 warehousing 0 0 1 2 3 046124110 1064 CHERRY ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.11931539237 40 Yes
industrial 0 0 2 2 4
046124280 663 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.23168642064 40 warehousing 0 0 4 4 8 046124290 681 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.11824554300 40 retail 0 0 2 2 4 046126290 701 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.17845497158 40 Yes
warehousing 0 0 3 3 6
046126300 1070 HALL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.08613398935 40 single family residential 0 0 1 2 3 046126320 713 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.12097634511 40 warehousing 0 0 2 2 4 046128240 749 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.17565192090 40 Yes retail 0 0 3 3 6 046128280 MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.18993049362 40 vacant 0 0 3 3 6 050034080 1620 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐MH MU‐SC‐120 MU‐SC 0.11364707300 120 Yes
office/commercial 0 0 6 6 12
050034090 1622 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐MH MU‐SC‐120 MU‐SC 0.11483114102 120 office/commercial 0 0 6 6 12 050034230 1660 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐MH MU‐SC‐120 MU‐SC 0.12653867271 120 office/commercial 0 0 6 7 13 050033130 525 SYCAMORE ST MU‐M RM‐59 RM‐59 0.12963884137 59 Yes single family residential 0 0 3 3 6 050033140 529 SYCAMORE ST MU‐M RM‐59 RM‐59 0.12865995591 59 single family residential 0 0 3 3 6 050034120 575 PROSPECT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.13093538224 100 Yes
office/commercial 0 0 5 5 10
050034130 565 PROSPECT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.14019658422 100 single family residential 0 0 6 5 11 050034140 557 PROSPECT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.14465043612 100 single family residential 0 0 6 5 11 050062070 508 ELM ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.13214334969 100 Yes single family residential 0 0 5 5 10 050062090 510 ELM ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.12445253902 100 single family residential 0 0 5 4 9 050133310 620 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.13031135444 120 Yes retail 0 0 6 7 13 050133420 628 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.16254681598 120 mixed use 0 0 8 9 17 050133320 630 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.05680766157 120 Yes
retail 0 0 3 3 6
050133330 634 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.05346730209 120 retail 0 0 2 3 5 050133450 638 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.08054951935 120 retail 0 0 4 4 8 050133170 648 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.07977545714 120 Yes retail 0 0 4 4 8 050133440 640 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.08410986270 120 commercial 0 0 4 5 9
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 515
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : APPENDIX A
A-2 GENERAL PLAN
4 Table 4.A-1: San Carlos Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory APN Address General Plan New Zoning Old
Zoning Size (acres)
Max.
Density
(du/ac)
Lot Consolidation
Potential Existing Land Use Very
Low Low Mod Above
Mod
Total
Units
050154130 777 LAUREL ST MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.16287882480 100 Yes retail 0 0 7 7 14 050154140 769 LAUREL ST MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.16316384766 100 retail 0 0 7 7 14 050164350 850 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.63648715767 120 retail 65 0 0 0 65 051358200 964 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.07944911106 120 Yes office/commercial 0 0 4 4 8 051358310 980 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.28364155667 120 retail 0 0 14 15 29 051357160 920 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.11730424897 40 Yes single family residential 0 0 2 2 4 051357170 926 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.12265748231 40 single family residential 0 0 2 2 4 051347080 1036 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.13599380936 40 Yes office/commercial 0 0 2 3 5 051353070 1028 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.13753459896 40 office/commercial 0 0 2 3 5 051347130 1074 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.08939331030 40 Yes single family residential 0 0 1 2 3 051347140 1200 BRITTAN AVE MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.07730965807 40 office/commercial 0 0 1 2 3 051343130 1100 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.57784103798 40 Yes office/commercial 20 0 0 0 20 051343140 1140 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.22215556492 40 office/commercial 8 0 0 0 8 051343150 1158 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.11220420326 40 Yes
mixed use 0 0 2 2 4
051343160 MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.10977571821 40 office/commercial 0 0 2 2 4 051343170 1176 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.10917855285 40 mixed use 0 0 2 2 4 051336110 1200 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.17179385481 120 Yes
retail 0 0 9 9 18
051336120 1216 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.07625969487 120 retail 0 0 4 4 8 051336130 1224 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.07798897623 120 mixed use 0 0 4 4 8 051344350 1168 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.22753242311 120 Yes retail 0 0 11 12 23 051344480 1188 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.26535820992 120 retail 0 0 13 14 27 051364060 1494 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.06628962093 120 Yes retail 0 0 3 4 7 051364170 1482 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.34280143716 120 retail 0 0 17 18 35 051368010 1500 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.10881521668 120 Yes
mixed use 0 0 5 6 11
051368020 1510 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.05800081503 120 mixed use 0 0 3 3 6 051368030 1524 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.06013901995 120 office/commercial 0 0 3 3 6 051373090 1682 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.06203487484 40 Yes office/commercial 0 0 1 1 2 051373250 1696 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.17400473719 40 retail 0 0 3 3 6 051372170 1665 LAUREL ST NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.05770881596 100 Yes mixed use 0 0 2 3 5 051372180 1659 LAUREL ST NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.05581004951 100 mixed use 0 0 2 3 5 051372120 NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.11916272378 100 Yes
parking 0 0 5 5 10
051372130 1689 LAUREL AVE NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.05733369341 100 office/commercial 0 0 2 3 5 051372140 1683 LAUREL ST NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.05607233533 100 retail 0 0 2 3 5 051372080 1668 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.05830324217 120 Yes
office/commercial 0 0 3 3 6
051372090 1670 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.05822187273 120 retail 0 0 3 3 6 051372110 1692 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.17372427226 120 mixed use 0 0 9 9 18
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 516
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : APPENDIX A
A-3
GENERAL PLAN
4 Table 4.A-1: San Carlos Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory APN Address General Plan New Zoning Old
Zoning Size (acres)
Max.
Density
(du/ac)
Lot Consolidation
Potential Existing Land Use Very
Low Low Mod Above
Mod
Total
Units
051372280 NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.05899350989 120 retail 0 0 3 3 6 051372290 1682 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.05722549956 120 retail 0 0 3 3 6 051375040 1776 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.06190015423 120 Yes
mixed use 0 0 3 3 6
051375050 1784 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.06553236499 120 office/commercial 0 0 3 4 7 051375060 1792 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.07775514950 120 retail 0 0 4 4 8 051379100 1209 EATON AVE MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.26724803255 40 Yes office/commercial 0 0 4 5 9 051379220 MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.19293201450 40 office/commercial 0 0 3 4 7 051379040 MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.07996560878 40
Yes
retail 0 0 1 2 3
051379050 1131 EATON AVE MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.07399725697 40 office/commercial 0 0 1 2 3 051379060 MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.07227468274 40 office/commercial 0 0 1 1 2 051375020 1748 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.28984000000 120 Yes retail 0 0 15 15 30 051375030 1768 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.05719200000 120 retail 0 0 3 3 6 051358020 987 LAUREL ST MU‐M MU‐D‐100 MU‐D 0.07045755980 100 office/commercial 0 0 3 3 6 050133350 676 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.11264416158 120 mixed use 0 0 5 6 11 050133410 656 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.11226488903 120 office/commercial 0 0 5 6 11 050154280 796 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.66749067310 120 retail 68 0 0 0 68 051358190 950 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐D‐120 MU‐D 0.46383690514 120 retail 0 0 23 24 47 050072380 1250 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 1.12910759078 100 office/commercial 96 0 0 0 96 050154190 745 LAUREL ST MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 0.08094603967 100 retail 0 0 3 4 7 050163450 810 LAUREL ST MU‐M MU‐DC‐100 MU‐DC 1.07607547073 100 retail 91 0 0 0 91 045316050 129 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐120 MU‐N 0.06620055565 120 retail 0 0 3 4 7 045316060 180 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐120 MU‐N 0.67376495019 120 retail 69 0 0 0 69 045316080 100 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐120 MU‐N 0.29754873451 120 office/commercial 0 0 15 15 30 046111250 495 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.86495051928 40 retail 29 0 0 0 29 046112260 555 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.37564745392 40 warehousing 0 0 6 7 13 046112530 535 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.83680700161 40 warehousing 28 0 0 0 28 046112950 501 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.49898184210 40 warehousing 17 0 0 0 17 046122140 1031 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 1.93692938390 40 industrial 66 0 0 0 66 046122150 615 OLD COUNTY RD MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.28591229156 40 warehousing 0 0 5 5 10 051347110 1058 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.14217134171 40 single family residential 0 0 2 3 5 051357280 990 LAUREL ST MU‐L MU‐N‐40 MU‐N 0.48585233347 40 office/commercial 0 0 8 9 17 050054290 380 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐50 MU‐N 0.37904519785 50 office/commercial 0 0 8 8 16 050054310 378 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐50 MU‐N 0.18908750821 50 office/commercial 0 0 4 4 8 050054370 300 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐L MU‐N‐50 MU‐N 0.55336544302 50 office/commercial 24 0 0 0 24 045315200 40 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐NB‐120 MU‐NB 0.60553104727 120 retail 62 0 0 0 62 045320170 11 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐NB‐120 PD‐17 1.08610931529 120 retail 111 0 0 0 111
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 517
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : APPENDIX A
A-4 GENERAL PLAN
4 Table 4.A-1: San Carlos Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory APN Address General Plan New Zoning Old
Zoning Size (acres)
Max.
Density
(du/ac)
Lot Consolidation
Potential Existing Land Use Very
Low Low Mod Above
Mod
Total
Units
045320200 81 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐NB‐120 PD‐17 0.87965084610 120 retail 90 0 0 0 90 045320220 11 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐NB‐120 PD‐17 1.17358196843 120 retail 120 0 0 0 120 045320230 21 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐NB‐120 PD‐17 1.39536266237 120 retail 142 0 0 0 142 045320240 259 EL CAMINO REAL MU‐M MU‐NB‐120 MU‐NB 0.92624675374 120 retail 94 0 0 0 94 051334010 1365 LAUREL ST NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.17216329427 100 retail 0 0 7 8 15 051334200 1313 LAUREL ST NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.50256979989 100 office/commercial 43 0 0 0 43 051348010 1178 BRITTAN AVE NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.11654706325 100 office/commercial 0 0 5 5 10 051348050 1055 LAUREL ST NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.14479091164 100 office/commercial 0 0 6 6 12 051348190 NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.08982440513 100 office/commercial 0 0 4 4 8 051348260 NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐100 MU‐SB 0.28435825483 100 parking 0 0 12 12 24 051336200 1264 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.32281270600 120 retail 0 0 16 17 33 051368050 1580 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.25234417308 120 retail 0 0 13 13 26 051375010 1700 EL CAMINO REAL NR+MU‐M MU‐SB‐120 MU‐SB 0.22401932788 120 retail 0 0 11 12 23 050064290 1324 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐MH MU‐SC‐120 MU‐SC 1.25354447276 120 retail 128 0 0 0 128 050122060 606 CEDAR ST MU‐MH MU‐SC‐120 MU‐SC 0.16866199945 120 single family residential 0 0 8 9 17 050034150 549 PROSPECT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.15086636813 100 single family residential 0 0 6 5 11 050034160 543 PROSPECT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.14731472653 100 single family residential 0 0 6 5 11 050062180 575 CHESTNUT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.14451620670 100 single family residential 0 0 6 5 11 050063090 1338 HOLLY ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.24062124865 100 multifamily residential 2 units 0 0 9 9 18 050063100 1360 HOLLY ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.11806205738 100 single family residential and duplex 0 0 5 4 9 050121100 1785 SAN CARLOS AVE MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 1.09713179928 100 office/commercial 82 0 0 0 82 050123070 664 CHESTNUT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.17253852104 100 single family residential 0 0 7 6 13 050123090 1524 CHERRY ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.16320989847 100 single family residential 0 0 6 6 12 050124080 621 CHESTNUT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.35371416029 100 multifamily residential 8 or more units 0 0 14 13 27 050141290 774 CHESTNUT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.11114440658 100 single family residential 0 0 4 4 8 050151030 722 ELM ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.17846960963 100 single family residential 0 0 7 6 13 050151060 768 ELM ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.17993580611 100 single family residential 0 0 7 6 13 050151260 1427 CHERRY ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.17088399522 100 single family residential 0 0 7 6 13 050152060 720 WALNUT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.17775224806 100 single family residential 0 0 7 6 13 050152100 750 WALNUT ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.18696918514 100 multifamily residential 3 to 4 units 0 0 7 7 14 050163050 1341 OLIVE ST MU‐M RM‐100 RM‐59 0.34517934014 100 single family residential 0 0 13 13 26 050033160 560 PROSPECT ST MU‐M RM‐59 RM‐59 0.13488381823 59 single family residential 0 0 3 3 6 050073110 491 LAUREL ST MU‐L RM‐59 MU‐N 0.12242452213 59 retail 0 0 3 3 6 050073180 1159 BUSH ST MU‐L RM‐59 MU‐N 0.39400286381 59 institutional 0 0 9 9 18 049080290 SF‐L RS‐3 RS‐3 3.74612490831 3 vacant 0 0 0 11 11 049101080 SF‐L RS‐3 RS‐3 0.17079387955 3 vacant 0 0 0 1 1
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 518
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT : APPENDIX A
A-5
GENERAL PLAN
4 Table 4.A-1: San Carlos Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory APN Address General Plan New Zoning Old
Zoning Size (acres)
Max.
Density
(du/ac)
Lot Consolidation
Potential Existing Land Use Very
Low Low Mod Above
Mod
Total
Units
049430020 735 CRESTVIEW DR SF‐L RS‐3 RS‐3 0.22667570863 3 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 049133460 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.08136100213 6 vacant 0 0 0 0 0 049221130 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.11455099939 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 049234160 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.23856893281 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 049341390 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.23323846023 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 049341410 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.24518618516 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 049342050 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.15456982481 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 049372010 5 CORONADO AVE SF RS‐6 RS‐6 2.69129318914 6 retail 0 0 0 16 16 049373020 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.13499770890 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 050204290 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.18718213517 6 vacant 0 0 0 1 1 050512050 SF RS‐6 RS‐6 0.33345942391 6 vacant 0 0 0 2 2
9.a
September 26, 2022
Packet Pg. 519