San Mateo City Council
May 23, 2022

APPENDIX A | Attachment 1 – Countywide Housing Needs

INTRODUCTION

San Mateo County is a great place to work, live and play. But like the rest of the region, we are experiencing housing challenges. While a lack of housing to meet the demands of our dynamic economy and growing workforce remains a key issue, our housing needs are also diverse and changing. Just as our individual housing needs change over the course of our lifetime, the housing needed by our communities change too.

Understanding those changes is critical to shaping housing policies and programs that ensure our communities are places where all of us can thrive, regardless of our age, income, and specific circumstances.

Here are some highlights of trends related to the people, jobs, and households of San Mateo County, and what they mean for our housing needs today and into the future.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

People

Housing

Jobs
 By 2026, one out of five residents will be 65 or over  San Mateo County’s population is becoming more diverse

 The number of households will continue to grow
 Housing rent and prices continue to increase

 The number of jobs will continue to grow
 Although the median income is high, many jobs pay low wages 157 of 955

PEOPLE
By 2026, one out of
five residents will
be 65 or over
Under 25 25-44 45-64 65+

San Mateo County makes up 10 percent of the total Bay
Area population, which is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the country. The number of people living here has steadily grown the past few decades. In 2020, the population was estimated to be 773,244, an increase of 19 percent since 1990 1. That trend is expected to continue despite the impact of the recent pandemic because more jobs continue to be added.

People are also living longer, with those 65 and over
expected to make up nearly 20 percent of the population by 2026. Equally important is the fact that Millennials recently surpassed the Baby Boomers as our largest generation. As Millennials enter their 40s, they will continue to shape countywide housing needs. By 2026, people 25 -44 and 45 - 64 will make up more than 50 percent of the population2.

What does this mean for housing needs?

Both generations have been showing a preference
for more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, that are close to work, schools, parks, and amenities. The majority of seniors prefer to stay in their homes and communities, or age-in-place.

Yet many live on fixed incomes and may have mobility issues as they age, which require supportive services.

Simultaneously, Millennials are less likely to own homes and have less savings than previous generations; are more likely to live alone and delay marriage; and as they start families, may be in greater need of support when purchasing their first home.

Coupled with increasing housing prices, it is harder for younger generations to rent or purchase a home than it was for current residents.

With more people 65 and over than there were 10 or 20 years ago we have to address how to support our seniors as they get older so they can stay in their homes and communities, and make sure young people, new families and our workers can find housing they can afford that meets their needs.

1 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
2 Claritias Population Facts 2021
15%
28%
Age
2020
27% 29%
19%
28%
Age
2026
27% 26%
158 of 955

Our population is
becoming more
diverse
Asian Latinx Other *

.5%

21.8%

4.6%

29.6%
Black White

*

San Mateo County is a very diverse place to live, even when compared to the State of California. Countywide, more than one-third of the population are foreign born and almost half speak a language other than English at home. By contrast, a quarter of all Californians are foreign born and less than a quarter speak a language other than English at home. Over 120 identified languages are spok en in San Mateo County, with top languages including Spanish (17 percent), Chinese (8 percent) and Tagalog (6 percent).

Our population has become increasingly more diverse over time. In 2000, more than half of people identified as White, which fell to 39 percent in 2019, and is expected to
decrease further to 35 percent by 2026 . However, while the Asian and Latinx populations increased during that time, the Black population decreased by almost half, from 3.5 to

2.2 percent3.

What does this mean for housing needs?
When planning for housing, we need to consider a variety of housing needs —like larger homes for multi- generational families or those with more children—and how to create
opportunities for everyone to access quality, affordable housing near schools, transit, jobs, and services.

Past exclusionary practices have prevented people of color from purchasing homes, living in certain neighborhoods, and building wealth over time. As a result, they are more likely to experience poverty, housing insecurity, displacement, and homelessness. And while many of our communities are very diverse, we are still contending with segregation and a lack of equitable opportunities. To help prevent displacement due to gentrification and create a future whe re it is possible for everyone to find the housing they need, it will be important to plan for a variety of housing types and affordability options in all neighborhoods.

3 U.S. Census, American Community Survey

39.2% 24.4%

2.2%
Race +
Ethnicity
2019

51.5% 22.6%
Race +
Ethnicity
2000

3.5%
*Due to small percentage, Other is grouped as American Indian, Alaska Native, “Other” or Multiple Races
61%
65%

DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)

49%
2000
2019
2026
2000 to 2019:

BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%

Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%

Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%

12.3%

7.8%

2.2%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other than
English

different languages are spoken

DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)

49%
2000
2019
2026
Since 2000:

BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%

Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%

Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%

12.3%

7.8%

2.3%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other than English

different languages are spoken
159 of 955

for
every
HOUSEHOLDS + HOUSING

The number
of households
will continue to
grow
That’s a
48%
increase

Over the past 30 years, new home construction has not kept up with the number of jobs our economy keeps adding. This has led to a housing shortage.

In 2020, there were 265,000 households in San Mateo
County. By 2050 we expect that to increase by almost half to 394,000 4. This growing demand will continue to put
pressure on home prices and rents. And given that nearly 75 percent of our housing was built before 1980 there will also be the need to upgrade older homes. While this will be essential to make sure housing is of high quality and safe to residents, redevelopment or repair can sometimes result in a loss of affordable housing, especially in older multi- unit buildings.

For every six low-wage jobs ($20 an hour) there is one home in the county that is affordable to such a worker (monthly rent of $1,500)5.

What does this mean for housing needs?
We not only need to plan for more housing, but also consider how to best support the development of low and moderate income housing options while preserving existing affordable homes. This includes transitional and supportive housing options for the unhoused, and universal design to meet accessibility and mobility needs.

Although the majority of housing produced in the past few decades has been single -family homes or larger multifamily buildings, some households have become increasingly
interested in “missing middle” housing — smaller homes that include duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, garden apartments and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

These smaller homes may provide more options to a diversity of communit y members across income, age, and household size.
28%
5+ unit
multifamily

Housing
stock
55%
single family
homes

68%
of households
are families

76%
of existing housing
was built before 1980
2-4 unit multifamily and
mobile homes
6 1

17%

5,264

4 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern, U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5 Association of Bay Area Governments Jobs Housing Fit
61%
17%

Built 1975
$

265K
Households in 2020
394K
Households in 2050
low wage jobs
(153,000 in total)
affordable home
(25,000 in total)
2-4 unit multifamily and
mobile homes

of households spend
half or more of their income on
housing
existing affordable units are at
risk of being converted to
market rate
160 of 955

Housing rent
and prices
continue to
increase

2009 to 2020

per m

The Bay Area is a great place to live. But throughout the region and county there just isn’t enough housing for all income levels, which has made costs go up. Home prices and rents have been steadily increasing the past two decades, but in recent years the jump has been dramatic. Since 2009, the median rent increased 41 percent to $2,200, and
median home values have more than doubled to
$1,445,000 6.

Overall, many residents are paying too much on housing, while many others have been priced out entirely. If a
household spends more than 30 percent of its monthly
income on housing, it is considered cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50 percent, it is considered severely cost- burdened. Renters are usually more cost-burdened than
homeowners. While home prices have increased
dramatically, homeowners often benefit from mortgages at fixed rates, whereas renters are subject to ups and downs of the market.

In San Mateo County, 17 percent of households spend half or more of their income on housing, while 19 percent spend between a third to a half. However, these rates vary greatly across income and race. Of those who are extremely low income—making 30 percent or less of the area med ian
income (AMI) —88 percent spend more than half their
income on housing. And Latino renters and Black
homeowners are disproportionately cost burdened and
severely cost-burdened. Given that people in this situation have a small amount of income to start with, spending more than half what they make on housing leaves them with very little to meet other costs, such as food, transportation, education, and healthcare. Often very low -income
households paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent are at a greater risk of homelessness 7.

As a result, more people are living in overcrowded or unsafe living conditions. They are also making the tough choice to move further away and commute long distances to work or school, which has created more traffic. Since low income residents and communities of color are the most cost
burdened, they are at the highest risk for eviction,

6 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, Zillow
7 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
displacement, and homelessness.

What does this mean for housing needs?
Although there are complex supply, demand and economic factors impacting costs, not having enough housing across all incomes has meant rents and prices are just higher. Programs and policies that can support more homes across all income levels, particularly very low, low, and moderate income, are essential, as are more safe, affordable housing options to address homelessness.

$2.2K
per month

RENTER SNAPSHOT
54% are under 44 years old
76% are people of color and at a
higher risk of being displaced

1 in 4 renters...
spend 50% of income on rent
live in overcrowded households –
89% of these renters are BIPOC
Latinx are the most cost burdened
31% spend more than half and
18% spend a third to half of their
income on rent
$1.4M
$1.56K
Median rent increased 41% Home values more than doubled $675K $675K
161 of 955

JOBS
The number of jobs
will continue to grow

The Bay Area and San Mateo County have had very strong economies for decades. While some communities have more jobs, and some have less, we have all been impacted by the imbalance of job growth and housing.

Since 2010 we have added over 100,000 jobs but only
10,000 homes8. At the same time, our population is growing naturally, meaning more people are living longer while our children are growing up and moving out into homes of their own. All of this impacts housing demand and contributes to the rising cost of homes. We need more housing to create a better balance.

In 2020, there were 416,700 jobs and by 2050 we expect that to increase 2 2 percent to 507,000 9. While some jobs pay very well, wages for many others haven’t kept up with how costly it is to live here.

That’s a
22%
increase

What does this mean for housing needs?
As we plan for housing, we need to consider the needs of our workforce—folks who are a part of our communities, but often end their day by commuting long distances to a place they can afford. Many have been displaced in recent decades or years, as housing and rent prices soared along with our job- generating economy. The lack of workforce housing affects us all, with teachers, fire fighters, health care professionals, food service providers and many essential workers being excluded from the communities they contribute to every day. The long -term sustainability of our communities depends on our ability to create more affordable and equitable housing options.

NEW JOBS TO NEW HOUSING
2010 - 2020

New jobs continue to
outpace new homes added
to the County
Jobs Homes

More people
living longer

8 U.S. Census American Community Survey, State of CA Employment Development Dept (EDD) 9 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern
children growing
up and moving
out

natural growth
and more
housing needed
100K

416.7K
Jobs in 2020
507K
Jobs in 2050
10K
162 of 955

Our median
income is high, but
the wage gap
continues to grow

2021 Household Income:

H

To be considered low or moderate income in the Bay Area means a very different thing than in most parts of the country. The income or wage gap —the difference between the highest and lowest wages —is large in our region.

Affordable housing here can mean that your favorite
hairstylist, your child’s principal, or the friendly medical assistant at your doctor’s office can qualify for—and often needs—below market rate or subsidized affordable housing so they can live close to their work.

The starting point for this calculation is the Area Median Income (AMI) —the middle spot between the lowest and
highest incomes earned in San Mateo County. Simply put, half of households make more, and half of households make less. Moderate income is 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, low income is 50 to 80 percent AMI and very low income is 30 to 50 percent AMI. Below 30 percent AMI is considered
extremely low income. The rule of thumb is households
should expect to pay about a third of their income on
housing.

In San Mateo County, the AMI is $1 04,700 for a single
person, $119,700 for a household of two and $149,600 for a family of four. When we talk about affordable housing, we mean housing that is moderately priced for low or moderate income residents so that new families and the workforce can live in our communities. Affordable housing programs are generally for those who earn 80 percent or below the AMI, which is $102 ,450 for a single person, $117,100 for a household of two and $146,350 a year for a household of four 10.

What does this mean for housing needs?
Given the price of land in San Mateo County and what it costs to build new housing, creating affordable housing is
extremely challenging—and often impossible without some form of subsidy. Sometimes this is in the form of donated land from a local government or school district. Sometimes this is in the form of incentives to

10 State of CA Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

developers or zoning rules requiring affordable units to be included. And most commonly, this is through special financing, grants, and tax credits. Often all of these factors and more are needed to make affordable housing work. The housing element process is an opportunity for each community to look at what’s possible and put in place supportive policies and programs to help make affordability a reality.

$117K $102K

$120K

$105K
80% AMI
100% AMI
INCOME LEVELS + WAGES
Extremely
Low

30% AMI Grocery Store Clerk or
Barista
$29K/Yr or $15/Hr
83% of income spent on housing*
Very Low

50% AMI Hair Stylist
or Administrative Assistant
$38K/Yr or $20/Hr
63% of income spent on housing*
Low

80%
AMI
Medical Assistant
or Preschool Teacher
$52K/Yr or $27/Hr
46% of income spent on housing*
School Administrator or
Social Worker
$86K/Yr or $45/Hr
28% of income spent on housing*
*income spent on housing based on 2k per month/studio or 1 bedroom

$146K
Household of 1 Household of 2 Household of 4 Income
Income
Income
$150K

163 of 955

APPENDIX A | Attachment 2 – Inventory of Assisted Units Table 1 - City of San Mateo Assisted Rental Housing
Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development
Total
Units
Total Aff.

Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance
Lesley Plaza
1961
Senior Rental
New Const. 56 56 56 2055 NP HUD Section 202 Elderly Program
Lesley Towers
1965
Senior Rental
New Const. 200 200 200 2015 NP HUD Section 202 Elderly Program
Flores Gardens
1984
Senior Rental
New Const. 72 72 72 2035 Private HUD Sec 221 (d)(4) Rotary Haciendas
1988-89
Senior Rental
New Const. 82 82 81 1 2044 NP Bought land w/RDA ;
LIHTC
Belmont Bldg.
1993-94
Family Rental
Conversion 6 6 6 2032 Private CDBG Loan; RDA Loan
12 N. Idaho
1994
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 6 6 1 4 1 2034 NP RDA; HOME ; SM Co.

HOME
Darcy Bldg.
1995
Family Rental
Conversion 8 8 8 2034 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan;
SM Co Hsg Authority
106 N. Eldorado
1996
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 6 6 1 4 1 2036 NP HOME Loan
Hotel St. Matthew
1996
SRO
Acq./Rehab 56 56 56 2051 NP HOME Loan; RDA Loan;
LIHTC
Edgewater Isle
1998
Senior Rental
Acq./Rehab 92 92 25 66 1 2072 NP HOME Loan; RDA Loan; CalHFA Loan
Bridgepointe
Condominiums
1999
Family Rental
New Construct 396 59 24 35 2027 Private BMR units
200 S. Delaware
1999
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 16 16 2 2 5 7 2049 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan
Humboldt House
2000
Supportive Hsg.

Rehab 9 9 9 2041 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan

164 of 955

Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development Total Units Total Aff.

Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance
Jefferson at the Bay
2001-02
Family Rental
New Construct 575 58 58 Life of property Private BMR units Santa Inez Apt.
2001
Family Rental
New Construct 44 44 0 42 2 2055 Private RDA Loan , LIHTC 11 S. Delaware
2002
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 11 11 5 6 2034 NP HOME Loan, SM Co
HOME Loan
Chamberlain
2003
Family Rental
New Construct 21 2 2 Life of property Private BMR units The Metropolitan
2003
Family Rental
New Construct 218 22 18 4 Life of property Private BMR units CSM Teacher
Housing
2005
Family Rental
New Construct 44 4 4 Life of property NP BMR units
Nazareth Plaza
2005
Family Rental
New Construct 54 5 5 Life of property Private BMR units Rotary Floritas
2005
Senior Rental
New Const. 50 50 49 1 2060 NP RDA Loan, SM Co. HOME
Loan ; LIHTC
Fountain Glen
2007
Senior Rental
New Const. 135 14 14 Life of property Private BMR units The Vendome
2009
Supportive Hsg.

Acq./Rehab 16 16 16 2063 NP RDA, HOME, SM Co
CDBG Loans
Peninsula Station
2010
Family Rental
New Const. 68 67 21 32 14 2065 NP RDA, HOME and SM Co.

CDBG Loans, LIHTC
888 Apartments
2012
Family Rental New
Const.
155 15 15 Life of property Private BMR units
Park 20 2012 Family Rental New
Const.
197 20 20 Life of property Private BMR units
Delaware Pacific
2013
Family Rental
New Const. 60 59 10 49 2068 NP
RDA, HOME, SM Co.

CDBG/HOME, Section 8,
CalHFA, LIHTC
165 of 955

Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development Total Units Total Aff.

Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance
MODE by Alta 2013 Family Rental New
Const.
111 11 11 Life of property Private BMR units
Fieldhouse
2013
Family Rental New
Const.
108 11 11 Life of property Private BMR units
Alma Point
2013
Family Rental New
Const.
66 3 3 2069 NP HOME
Russel
2015
Family Rental New
Const.
158 16 16 Life of property Private BMR units
2000 S. Delaware
2015
Family Rental New
Const.
60 60 60 2067 Private Land subsidy, Perm loan
Quimby 2015 Family Rental New
Construct
70 7 7 Life of property Private BMR units
Station Park Green 1
2015
Family Rental New
Construct
121 12 12 Life of property Private BMR units
1110 Cyprus
2016
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab
16 16 16 2071 NP HOME, RDA Successor,
County, Perm loan
Station Park Green 2
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
199 20 20 Life of property Private BMR units
Station Park Green 3
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
172 17 17 Life of property Private BMR units
Windy Hill (405 E 4th
Ave)
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
15 2 2 Life of property Private BMR units
The Addison
2018
Family Rental New
Construct
60 5 5 Life of property Private BMR units
The Morgan
2018
Family Rental New
Construct
82 8 8 Life of property Private BMR units
Windy Hill (406 E 3rd
Ave)
2019
Family Rental New
Construct
25 3 3 Life of property Private BMR units
Montara
2020
Affordable New
Construction
68 67 14 36 17 2072 NP Land lease subsidy, RDA
Successor, LIHTC, County
AHF, County HOME, AHP
Azara
2021
Family Rental New
Construct
73 6 6 Life of property Private BMR units
Totals 4,041 1,303 52 545 111 491 104
166 of 955

Table 2 - City of San Mateo Assisted Ownership Housing
Project & Year
Completed
Total
Units
Total Aff.

Units
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
65%
AMI
80%
AMI
120%
AMI
Affordability
Expiration Financial Assistance
Meadow Court
1987-88 78 70 70
30-40 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
Bought land w/
CDBG; CalHFA
mortgages for
buyers
Gateway Commons
1989 96 93 16 77
30-40 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
Bought land w/
CDBG & RDA;
CalHFA mortgages
for buyers
Summerhill I
1996 54 6 6
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Summerhill II
1997 70 6 6
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Rushmore Townhomes
1998 13 1 1
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Humboldt Square 1998 26 8 8
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
RDA write down of
land
St. Matthews Place
2000 34 5 2 3
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Ryland Homes
2001 153 15 15
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
The Madrid
2000 13 1 1
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Norfolk
2002 57 7 5 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Bay Meadows Mix Use
2003 19 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Classic Communities
2003 25 3 3
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Grant St Condos
2003 17 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Baywood Place
2005 17 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Palm Residences
2007 19 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Stonegate
2007 45 9 9
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Park Bayshore
2008 21 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
The Versailles
2008 61 6 1 5
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Claremont Townhomes
2010 18 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
167 of 955

Project & Year
Completed
Total
Units
Total
Aff.

Units
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
65%
AMI
80%
AMI
120%
AMI
Affordability
Expiration Financial Assistance
Arbor Rose
2012-2013 74 7 7
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Verona Ridge
2014 34 3 3
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Amelia
2013-2014 63 6 6
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Lansdowne
2013-2014 93 9 9
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Canterbury
2014-2015 76 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Brightside
2015 80 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Tidelands Mariners
Island
2016
76 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Meadow Walk
2017-2018 74 7 7
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Classics
2017-2018 27 3 3
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Promenade
2017-2018 42 4 4
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Meadow Walk 2
2018 55 6 6
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Totals 1,530 311 0 7 0 23 281

BMR units = Below Market Rate Program
RDA units = Redevelopment Agency-funded

168 of 955

APPENDIX B

CONSTRAINTS

169 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-2
APPENDIX B | CONSTRAINTS

0.1 Table of C ontent

0.1 Table of Content ............................................................................................................................. 2

0.2 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 3

0.3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................4 2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................5

2.1 Land Use Controls ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Planning and Zoning Code ....................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Specific Plans and Transit Oriented Development .................................................................. 9

2.1.3 Planned Developments ........................................................................................................... 9

2.1.4 Parking Standards.................................................................................................................. 10

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

2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance .............................................................................................................. 12

2.4 Building Codes and Code Compliance ........................................................................................... 13

2.4.1 Local Amendments to State Building Code ........................................................................... 13

2.4.2 Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Ordinances ....................................................... 13

2.4.3 Code Compliance .................................................................................................................. 14

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

2.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements .................................................................................................... 16

2.7 Local Entitlement Fee and Procedure ........................................................................................... 17

2.7.1 Planning Application Entitlement Fee ................................................................................... 17

2.7.2 Planning Application Entitlement Processing Time and Procedure ...................................... 18

2.7.3 Process Time ......................................................................................................................... 18

2.7.4 Senate Bill 35 Streamline Processing .................................................................................... 20

2.7.5 Senate Bill 330 Processing Procedure ................................................................................... 21

2.7.6 Site Plan and Architectural Review ....................................................................................... 21

2.7.7 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Cultural Resources................................................... 23

2.7.8 Special Use Permit Process ................................................................................................... 23

2.8 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, and Process ...................................................... 24

2.8.1 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees .................................................................... 24

2.8.2 Building Permit Process ......................................................................................................... 27

2.9 Housing Special Needs Groups ..................................................................................................... 28

2.9.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities .................................................................................... 28

2.9.2 Residential and Family Care Facilities ................................................................................... 28

2.9.3 Definition of Family ............................................................................................................... 28

2.9.4 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance ............................................................................... 29

2.9.5 Emergency Homeless Shelters .............................................................................................. 29

2.9.6 Zoning Capacity for Emergency Shelters ............................................................................... 30 170 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-3

2.9.7 Strategies for Providing Emergency Shelters ........................................................................ 30

2.9.8 Collaboration with County to Address Homelessness .......................................................... 31

2.9.9 Low Barrier Navigation Centers ............................................................................................ 32

2.9.10 Transitional/Supportive Housing .......................................................................................... 32

2.9.11 Housing for Farmworkers ...................................................................................................... 32

2.9.12 Accessory Dwelling Units ...................................................................................................... 33

2.9.13 Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks .................................................................... 34 3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................ 36

3.1 Development Costs ....................................................................................................................... 36

3.1.1 Availability of Financing ........................................................................................................ 36

3.1.2 Cost of Land ........................................................................................................................... 36

3.1.3 Constructions Costs ............................................................................................................... 37

3.1.4 Labor Costs ............................................................................................................................ 39

3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application ............................................ 40

3.2 Requests for Housing Developments at Reduced Densities.......................................................... 41

3.3 Physical Site Constraints ............................................................................................................... 41

3.4 Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................................... 41

3.4.1 Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 41

3.4.2 Topography/Slope ................................................................................................................. 42

3.4.3 Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise ......................................................................................... 42

3.4.4 Fire Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 43

3.5 Voter Approved Requirements ..................................................................................................... 44

0.2 List of F igures
Figure 1: Average Per Unit Cost Construction of New BMR Housing by County (2019) ............................ 39 Figure 2: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas............................................ 43

0.3 List of T ables
Table 1: Residential Use Type by Zones ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 2: Residential Development Standards ............................................................................................... 7 Table 3: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use ......................................................................... 10 Table 4: Planning Application Fees ............................................................................................................. 18 Table 5: Planning Application Timelines ..................................................................................................... 20 Table 6: Building Permit and Impact Fee Estimate (New Construction), 2021........................................... 26

171 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-4
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the constraints analysis section, per Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6), is to identify and analyze governmental and non -governmental factors (constrain ts) that inhibit the development, improvement or maintenance of housing that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its share of the regional housing needs.

The analysis in this appendix assesses the specific governmental standards and processes; and identifi es local efforts to remove these constraints. Examples of such constraints include land use controls, development standards, entitlement and permit fees, review processes, and compliance with Federal and State laws intended to facilitate housing for lower-income and special needs households.

Additionally, non-governmental constraints that inhibit the development, improvement or maintenance of housing are evaluated in this document, including the availability of financing, price of land, cost of construction, access to credit, requests to develop housing at reduced densities, and length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development.

The analysis within this appe ndix has informed the City of San Mateo’s policy approach in the current Housing Element cycle to reduce constraints and make it easier and more affordable to develop housing including housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.

172 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-5
2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRA INTS
Governmental policies and regulations can result in both positive and negative effects on the availability and affordability of housing. This section, as required by Government Code Section (a)( 5), describes City policies and regulations that could potentially constrain the City’s ability to achieve its housing goals.

Potential constraints to housing include zoning regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impac t fees, and the development approval processes. While government policies and regulations are intended to serve public objectives and further the public good, the City of San Mateo recognizes that its actions can potentially constrain the availability and affordability of housing to meet the community’s future needs. The City has implemented several measures to reduce development costs and streamline the approval process, as described in this section.

2.1 Land Use Controls

2.1.1 Planning and Zoning Code
The Zoning Code has the most immediate effect on the built environment. Zoning regulates the use of land and structures, the density of development and population, the height and bulk of structures, parking provisions, open space requirements, landscaping standards and other design requirements. The City of San Mateo’s Zoning Code has been written to accommodate residential uses throughout the city, as shown in Table 1. This includes single-family housing, multifamily housing, emergency shelters, and senior housing, among others. A summary of the City’s residential development standards for all zoning districts is provided as Table 2.

Single-family neighborhoods include the zones R1 -A, R1-B, and R1-C. The R1-A zone consists of the San Mateo Park neighborhood and College of San Mateo campus. These parcels are generally larger in size and have a floor area ratio (FAR) allowance of 0.4 and minimum parcel area of 10,000 square -feet. The R1-B and R1-C zones represent most single-family neighborhoods throughout the city. Both zones have a maximum FAR of 0.5 and the minimum parcel size is 6,000 square-feet for R1-B and 5,000 square-feet for R1-C. Most of the city’s single -family neighborhoods are developed but the City has seen a significant increase in permit applications for accessory dwelling units since 2020.

A substantial amount of land is zoned for multi -family residential uses, mixed -use residential and commercial development. Multi -family uses are concentrated around the Downtown core, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zone, El Camino Real and highway corridors. Commercial and office districts also permit housing development through residential overlay zones (/R, /R4, and /R5). There are also special standards to allow increased density for senior citizen housing units and for affordable housing projects pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.

The setbacks for multifamily residences are modest and vary by location. Open space requirements apply to Multi-family (R3, R4 -D, R5-D, R6-D) zones and Residential Overlay (/R, /R4 and /R5) zoning districts.

However, this requirement can be provided as private open space, such as patios and deck area, or by 173 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-6
incorporating public open space, such as common plaza and garden areas, or a combination of both.

Additionally, landscaped areas located within the required building setback areas also count towards meeting the open space requirement. The City allows maximum flexibility in meeting these requirements.

In addition, density and floor area ratio increase for larger land areas located within multi- family zoning districts. Multi-family residential density is based on land area and ranges from 17 to 50 dwelling units per net acre. Projects may also request up to 75 dwelling units per net acre with the City’s Community Benefits Program, as discussed further in the following sections.

Through community outreach conducted for this Housing Element, staff convened a focus-group of local housing developers to discuss constraints associated with past projects. A key theme that emerged related to constraints due to existing height limits and floor area definitions that do not allow projects to build to the maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. Most projects apply the State Density Bonus in order to exceed existing density and height limitations. The City recognizes these constraints and is in the process of developing Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family housing projects under SB 35 and evaluating the potential for a joint Density Bonus and Community Benefits Program that provides greater flexibility to developers and enhanced op tions when projects exceed minimum state requirements for affordability.

Table 1: Residential Use Type by Zones
Residential Use Type Zones
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R4-D R5-D R6-D E1 E2 C1 C2 C3 C4 CBD CBD/S M1 A One-Family Dwelling P P P P P P P P P
Two-Family Dwelling P P P P P P P
Multiple Family
Dwelling P P P P P P P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S P P
One Family Row
Dwelling P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 S1 S1 P1 P1 P1
Accessory Dwelling
Units(1) P P P P P P P P P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Manufactured
Home P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Emergency Shelter P P1
Senior Citizen
Housing S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 Apartment Hotels S S S S P P
Boarding and
Lodging Houses S1 S S S S S S P P P P1 P P
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022
Notes: Blank indicates not permitted; P = Permitted and subject to compliance with development standards; P1 = Permitted and subject to additional regulations; S = Special Use Permit; and S1 = Special Use Permit and subject to additional regulations. 1) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are allowed in all residential zoning districts, including commercial and office districts that contain a residential overlay.
174 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-7
Table 2: Residential Development Standards
Zone
District
Max
Number
of Units
Floor Area
Ratio
Max
Height
(1)
Min. Yard Setback Min
Lot Width
Min
Lot Size(2)
Min
Open
Space Front Rear Interior Side Street Side
(Corner Lot)
Residential Districts (Single-Family, Two-Family and Multi-Family) R1-A
1 unit
per lot

0.4(3) 24’ to
plate
line;
32’ to
roof
peak
25’
15’;
25’ above
1st floor
7’ to 10’(4)
15% lot width
(10’ min;
25’ max);
20’ to garage
75’ 10,000 sf
N/A R1-B

0.5(3)
15’;
(20' to
garage)
5’
15% lot width
(7.5’ min;
15’ max);
20’ to garage
60’ 6,000 sf
R1-C 50’ 5,000 sf
R2 2 units
per lot 0.5 to 0.6(5) Same as R1-B 30’ 5,000 sf N/A
R3
17 to 35
units per
net acre

0.85 35’ to
55’
15’;
> 3 stories =
½ bldg ht.;
15’ or equal
to bldg. ht.(6)
15’;
> 3 stories = ½ bldg.
ht. or max 25’(6)
1-2 units = 5’;
>2 units = 6’;
> 2 stories =
½ bldg ht.;
max of 25’(6)
1-2 units = 5’;
> 2 units =

7.5’;
> 2 stories = ½
building ht.
max of 25’(6)
50’ 5,000 sf
200 sf
per
bedroom
for 1st
DU;
100 sf
per
bedroom
for
addition
al DU
R4 17 to 50
units per
net acre

1.5 N/A R5 2.0
Downtown Residential Districts
R4-D 17 to 50
units per
net acre

3.0;
45% max.
lot cover 35’ to
55’ 15’ to 20’(7)
25’ or 25% of lot
width, whichever is
greater; 40’ max
15’ 15'
50’
5,000
sf(8)
Private =
80 sf/du;
or
Common
= 150%
of
Private
R5-D 3.0
25’ R6-D
50 units
per net
acre

3.0;
55% max.
lot cover
N/A
Commercial, Office Districts with Residential Overlay(9) C1 17 to 50
units per
net acre 0.5 to 3.0(10)
25’ to
55’
R3 zone standards apply for /R, /R4 and /R5 overlays;
Buffers required for parcels adjacent to residential parcels or with frontage on El Camino Real(11)
50’ 5,000 sf
Private =
80 sf/du
Common
= 150%
of
Private
C2
C3
CBD 50 units
per net
acre CBD-S
E1 17 to 50
units per
net acre

0.4 to 3.0(10);
65% max.
lot cover
15’ along any street frontage and any required buffers(12) E2

0.5 to 3.0(10);
80% max.
lot cover

7.5’ along any street frontage and any required buffers(12) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Zone
TOD
(Rail
Corridor
Plan)
25 to 50
units per
net acre

2.0 to 3.0

35’ to
55’ N/A

N/A N/A N/A
TOD
(Hillsdale
Station)

1.0 to 2.0

24’ to
55’
See Hillsdale Station Area Plan for El Camino Real
setback and streetscape standards(13)
175 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-8
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.

1. Building height shall not exceed the standards set forth on the Building Height Plan of the General Plan. Parcels located within the Downtown Specific Plan area shall not exceed the standards set forth in Chapter 27.40.

2. For all zones except the Downtown Residential, a reduced minim um parcel area of 4,000 square -feet and 40’ lot width is permitted for a parcel located northeast of El Camino Real and recorded prior to March 3, 1947.

3. In the R1 zones, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is determined by the following: R1 -A allows 0.4 FAR for the first 10,000 square-feet of parcel area plus 0.2 for any additional parcel area over 10,000 square -feet; and R1-B and R1-C allow 0.5 FAR for the first 6,000 square-feet of parcel area plus 0.2 FAR for any additional parcel area over 6,000 square -feet. However, in no case shall the maximum FAR exceed 6,000 square-feet total.

4. R1A zone parcels in the San Mateo Park Planning Area require an interior side yard setback of 7’ for lot widths less than 75’ or 10’ for lot widths equal to or greater than 75’.

5. R2 zone parcels located in the Central Neighborhood and North Central Neighborhood shall not exceed 0.5 FAR for parcels up to 7,500 square feet and 0.6 FAR for parcels greater than 7,500 square feet.

6. For R3, R4, and R5 zone properties along El Camino real from 9th Ave. south to the City limits, buildings over 2 stories in height shall provide a minimum 10’ setback from El Camino Real. Properties abutting an R1 or R2 zone require additional setbacks of 15’ or ½ the building height, whichever is greater. Spe cial downtown yard requirements are provided within

27.22.095, 27.22.097, 27.28.023, 27.28.053.

7. Downtown Residential zoned properties (R4 -D, R5-D, R6-D) within the Gateway area, as defined in the Downtown Specific Plan, shall conform with the building height and special yard requirements within Sections 27.28.023 and 27.28.053.

8. In the Downtown Residential Zones (R4-D, R5-D, R6-D), a reduced minimum parcel area of 4,400 square-feet and 40’ lot width is permitted for a parcel located northeast of El Camino Real and recorded prior to March 3, 1947.

9. Residential units permitted on parcels designated with a residential overlay district (/R, /R4, /R5 or /Q) for all C and E districts.

10. Residential development may exceed the floor area ratio of the underlying district provided that the maximum floor area ratio, including the residential overlay, shall not exceed the following: 2.0 FAR in /R4 districts; 3.0 FAR in /R5 districts; and the underlying zoning district FAR in /R districts.

11. Commercial zones (C1, C2, and C3) re quire additional buffers, setback and built -to-line standards as described in Sections

27.30.060, 27.30.070, 27.32.060, 27.32.070, 27.34.060, 27.34.070, 27.38.100, 27.38.120, 27.39.090 and 27.39.110.

12. E1 and E2 zones require buffers when the parcel is conti guous to any residential district as described in Sections 27.44.090 and 27.48.100.

13. Hillsdale Station Area Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/59484/Hillsdale-Station-Area-Plan

176 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-9

2.1.2 Specific Plans and Transit Oriented Development
The City of San Mateo uses Specific Plans to facilitate a diversity of housing opportunities not allowed under standard zoning districts. 1 This allows great er flexibility in design and facilitates larger housing developments. Examples of specific plans include Bay Meadows and the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD), as described further below.

The Bay Meadows Specific Plan (BMSP), first adopted in 1997, envisioned redevelopment of the former horse racetrack into a vibrant, transit oriented, mixed -use community. The plan permitted a variety of housing types that includes live -work units, small lot single -family dwellings, townhouse units, multi- family residential units and accessory dwelling units. Today, Bay Meadows is largely built -out with housing, office, and commercial uses, as well as improved vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation throughout the plan area.

The San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan was adopted in 2005 to incentivize transit supportive land uses and housing policies near the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain Stations.

The Plan provides for mixed use development at the highest residential densities and buildi ng heights near the train stations to encourage a vibrant, transit oriented, and pedestrian friendly environment.

Building upon these efforts, the city also adopted the Hillsdale Station Area Plan in 2011 to establish a TOD zone west of the Hillsdale Caltrain station. The Plan allows high -density multi-family housing that range between 25 to 50 units per net acre, as well as mixed -use buildings with ground floor retail combined with residential or office uses. This Plan compliments the Bay Meadows developme nt by concentrating density on both sides of the Hillsdale station. Major development projects that have been approved in the plan areas include Station Park Green and Concar Passage, located near the Hayward Park Caltrain station.

2.1.3 Planned Developments
The purpose of Planned Development (PD) is to allow greater flexibility of site design while also preserving the natural, scenic environment. Under Chapter 27.62 of the Zoning Code, PD projects are processed under a Special Use Permit and may be approve d if projects demonstrate that deviating from the underlying zone’s development standards will result in better site design. PD regulations emphasize preserving open space and recreation areas at a minimum of 6 acres per 1,000 population. Most of the City’s PDs occurred in the 1980s, when larger vacant lands were available. The most recently approved PD is the Waters Technology Office Park in 2019, which redeveloped an existing 11.1 acre office park with 190 new dwelling units, including 19 Below Market Rate (BMR) units that are affordable at the low, lower or moderate income levels.

1 The City’s Specific Plan documents are available online: www.cityofsanmateo.org/1135/Planning-Resource-Documents 177 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-10

2.1.4 Parking Standards
Parking requirements for residential development are summarized in Table 3 and vary by residential use type. The City also allows reduced parking requirements for new residential uses located within a parking assessment and special district. The Central Parking Improvement District (CPID) includes the downtown and allows developments to pay in -lieu fees for required parking not provided on site. Additionally, the CPID allows projects to conduct a parking demand study to determine a lower, project -specific parking standard.

The San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit -Oriented Development Plan requires Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for all new development projects located within TOD zones. Parking requirements are generally reduced in conjunction with transit -oriented development projects. This allows projects to implement trip reduction goals with minimal automobile traffic impacts. Within the TOD zone, the Hillsdale Station Area Plan specifies the reduced parking ratios as provided in Table 3.

Consistent with State law, the city allows reduced parking standards of 0.5 to 1 stall per unit for affordable or senior housing projects located near transit. No additional parking is required for accessory dwelling units located within a quarter mile of transit.

While state laws provide some parking relief for projects seeking density bonus, ADUs, and SB 9, the City’s parking requirements present some constraint to the development of housing that do not fall within this category. At the Builders Focus Group, participants commented that existing parking requirements often constrain project feasibility due to development costs and floor area limitations for above-grade parking facilities. Recognizing these constraints, the city is currently evaluating code amendments to allow automated and mechanical parking facilities for multi-family or mixed-use residential projects. This allows larger residential projects to utilize land more efficiently and avoid high costs associated with underground parking facilities. The City will also be evaluating all its parking requirements for residential projects to allow increased flexibility and evaluate if the minimum requirements need to be modified or maximum requirements need to be added.

Table 3: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use
Minimum Parking Spaces per Unit
Residential Use All TOD - Hillsdale Station Area Central Parking Improvement District (CPID)
Single-Family, Detached 2 enclosed garage spaces, plus 1 space per 750 sq. ft. over 3,000 sq. ft.

Accessory Dwelling Unit Maximum 1, where required; uncovered parking allowed Multi-Family Uses (minimum of 1 covered stall per unit) Studio 1.5 1.0 1.2
1 Bedroom 1.8 1.2 1.5
2 Bedroom 2.0 1.5 1.7
3 Bedroom or more 2.2 1.8 2.0
1,400 sq. ft. or more,
regardless of # bedroom 2.2 N/A N/A
Senior Citizen Housing 0.25 space per rental unit; 1.0 space per for-sale unit Source: City of San Mateo Zoning Code, 2022.
178 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-11

2.2 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Program
The City originally adopted the Below Market Rate (BMR) Inclusionary Program in 1992 (with subsequent revisions in 2010 and 2020), requiring developments to provide a certain percentage of housing units at prices affordable to low- and very low-income households. Under the current program, effective February 3, 2020 for developments consisting of 11 or more units, 15 percent of ownership units are required to be affordable to moderate income families, and 15 percent of rental units are required to be affordable to low-income families.

Inclusionary zoning programs – of which the City’s local BMR program is one variant – are sometimes perceived as adding to the cost of housing by requiring the market -rate units to subsidize the affordable units. This is an area of much dispute, both in the Bay Area and nationally. A study conducted by the National Housing Conference’s (NHC) Center for Housing Policy (2000) highlighted several important contributions to inclusionary zoning to communities, n ot the least of which is the creation of income- integrated communities without sprawl. Several studies specifically address the issue of who pays for inclusionary zoning.

Some of these studies assert that the costs associated with inclusionary programs ar e passed on to the market priced homes, while other studies state that the cost is not borne by the end users at all. A study from 2004 asserts that market- rate buyers (and to some extent, renters) will be forced to pay higher amounts than they otherwise would for their units because of inclusionary zoning’s implicit tax on other units2. However, an article published in the Hastings School of Law Review in 20023 noted that ultimately, the price for a unit is dependent on what the market will bear based on t he land price which over time absorbs the increased costs of development within the community; it is not directly affected by the affordability requirement. Developers can charge market rate rents and sales prices on the unrestricted units regardless of the development costs. Although the BMR program does impact the developer’s profit, it is difficult to determine at what point those impacts are great enough to discourage the project from moving forward or decreasing the number of units on a site. Jurisdict ions implement a number of incentives and cost benefits to mitigate these impacts so that whatever constraint has been identified, there is an offset offered to mitigate it.

Specifically in San Mateo, developers are given the option of utilizing the City’s Interim Community Benefits Program or the state Density Bonus program that provides up to a 35 percent increase in units in exchange for additional affordable units in the BMR program plus 1 to 4 development concessions depending on the level of affordabi lity of the housing units provided. The City has also revised its BMR requirements over the years to include more flexibility in the size and amenities of the affordable units to help offset some of the costs to the developer and has identified several dev elopment standards that

2 Reason Foundation (Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham) , Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? (April 2004), https://reason.org/policy-study/housing-supply-and-affordabili/, Accessed on April 1, 2022 3 Barbara Ehrlich Kautz, In Defense of Inclusionary Housing: S uccessfully Creating Affordable Housing, 2002. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=usflawreview Accessed on April 1, 2022. 179 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-12
could be modified using incentives without causing public health and safety impacts. The City, under the current Housing Element cycle, will also be updating its BMR requirements to provide developers with an alternative means of compliance to provide additional flexibility.

Therefore, the City has considered the pros and cons of providing affordable housing through the City’s BMR program and has determined that the benefits far outweigh the costs, especially since developers are afforded incentives to mitigate the costs.

2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance
State law (California Government Code, section 65915 -65918) requires cities and counties to approve density bonuses for housing developments that contain specified percentages of affordable housing units or units restricted to occupancy by seniors. A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Projects that qualify for density bonus are also eligible for reduced parking standards, additional concessions or incentives that provide “identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs”, or waivers from deve lopment standards that would physically preclude the project at proposed densities. The legislature has made frequent changes to State density bonus law over the years. Assembly Bill (AB) 1763, passed in 2019, significantly increased density bonus provisions for 100 percent affordable projects to 80 percent, including allowing for additional 33 feet or 3 stories of height, and up to four concessions. AB 2345, in 2021, also allows for 50% density bonus to be granted to housing projects consisting of a mix of affordable and market-rate homes, up from the previous maximum 35 percent density bonus for mixed income developments; lowers some thresholds for obtaining incentives and concessions from local jurisdictions, and adopts density bonus reporting requirements. Both these bills also further reduced parking requirements for many projects qualifying for a density bonus.

The City’s density bonus law is outlined in Chapter 27.15 of the Zoning Code. The code was last updated in 2018 and does not reflect the recent changes in State law. As describe d in Housing Element Policy H

1.3, the City will update its density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law requirements, and further streamline and incentivize projects that exceed minimum state requirements by combining it with the Community Benefits Program.

180 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-13

2.4 Building Codes and Code Compliance
Building codes apply to all dwellings and include plumbing, mechanical, electrical installations and accessibility and energy compliance. Building codes ensure that development is constructed in compliance with applicable code standards to protect general welfare and public health. The City of San Mateo requires all new development to comply with the California 2019 Building Standards Code that went into effect January 1, 2020. Building code amendments and City code compliance practices are described below.

2.4.1 Local Amendments to State Building Code
On September 3, 2019, the City of San Mateo adopted mandatory local green building and energy code amendments, also known as reach codes. These reach codes went into effect on January 1, 2020, concurrent with the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and apply to new construction and rehabilitation of housing projects. Local building code amendments are found in Chapter 23 of the San Mateo Municipal Code. These local code amendments are not considered onerous to the cost or construction of housing, as analyzed in the Cost -Effectiveness Studies released by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Program.4

2.4.2 Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Ordinances The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies building electrification and electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure as key strategies in reducing greenh ouse gas emissions (GHGs). On October 5, 2020, the City adopted an ordinance to require all new residential buildings and office buildings to be all- electric.

Applicable residential building types include new single-family and two-family dwellings, as well as multi- family buildings and accessory dwelling units. Building electrification costs for installation and utility are generally lower than natural gas devices and infrastructure, leading to overall cost saving benefits in the long term.

The City amended its Green Building Ordinance in 2020 to mandate electric vehicle (EV) charging capacity for new developments. New single -family and two -family dwellings, as well as town houses require a complete EV outlet. New multi -family buildings are required to provide 15 percent EV capable spaces.

Requiring EV ready spaces at the onset of new construction provides significant cost reduction, when compared to retrofits to add EV capacity later. Collectively, these measures are not considered constraints and have ability to significantly reduce GHGs from the built environment, lower construction costs and improve air quality and public health.

4 Cost-Effectiveness Studies, 2021: https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/jurisdiction/san-mateo-city/ 181 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-14

2.4.3 Code Compliance
Building, Zoning, and other related code standards are enforced through the Code Enforcement Division.

The city's code enforcement program is an important tool to maintain existing housing stock and protect residents from unsafe or substandard building conditions. Local enforcement includes state and federal codes that set minimum health and safety standards for buildings. Like many jurisdictions, the City of San Mateo responds to code violations largely on a complaint basis. The City aims to address all alleged violations in a timely manner, with priority given to violations that pose the most imminent thre at to health and safety or the environment.

To minimize displacement associated with substandard dwellings, the City’s tenant relocation ordinance requires property owners to provide relocation assistance and payments when tenants are displaced from unsafe or substandard units. The City also requires discretionary review for projects requesting to demolish 50 percent or more of an existing residential structure. To encourage rehabilitation of existing dwellings, the City offers a Housing Rehabilitation Loan program to assist low-income homeowners with needed repairs. This program includes services to correct code violations and general property improvements related to deferred maintenance. This approach allows the city to identify housing problems early on, before requiring more extensive repairs or demolition in some case. Therefore, the City’s code enforcement practices and regulations are not considered additional constraints to the provision of housing.

182 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-15

2.5 Infrastructure Requirements
Various City departments implement on- and off-site improvement requirements, including standards for street construction, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, on -street parking and bicycle lanes. Residential development may also necessitate constructing water, sewer, and drainage i mprovements. All improvements are generally required as conditions of approval and are developer financed. Complying with certain infrastructure improvements may be perceived as a constraint on the provision of housing for all income levels.

For infill projects, the City’s Municipal Code requires the construction of standard improvements that may include repair of defective sidewalks, construction of standard driveways, and maneuvering areas to ensure that the public’s access to/from and around the site is safe and meets Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. In cases where a project is proposing to remove and replace full- street or alley frontages to accommodate the project’s desired site layout, and where access is necessary for emergency egress and ingress, the City’s Municipal Code also requires dedication of an access easement to ensure access is not blocked and is maintained. The City’s Planning Commission and City Council may review and approve exceptions from City’s Municipal Code requirements or standards based on hardship considerations on a case-by-case basis. For example, San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.78 Variance allows deviations from standard number of parking spaces and stall dimensions, number of loading spaces and shared loading z ones, and other requirements for infill and other projects. A developer could also request concessions or waivers from such requirements if proposing projects that utilize density bonus provisions.

Although infrastructure requirements represent a cost to developing housing, these improvement standards are intended to ensure the public’s safe access and meet ADA requirements, and are not unreasonable nor do they represent a significant constraint. However, the City recognizes there are issues with infrastructure adequacy in certain areas of the City, including infill areas with aging infrastructure.

These infrastructure deficiencies are a recognized constraint for infill development in the City.

Additionally, there are Housing Element programs that are desig ned to help fund infrastructure capital improvement projects in low-income neighborhoods to address infrastructure inequalities. One Example is the North Central Bike Lanes Project which received funding from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to implement pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the North Central neighborhood which is an identified disadvantaged community.

In addition to the above, the City continues to collaborate with regional agencies on infrastructure projects or adaptation strategies intended to address impacts due to climate change. Portions of the City, primarily east of Highway 101 and a portion of the North Central neighborhood, are located in the flood zone and projected to be impacted by sea level rise in future years. The City has initiated infrastructure projects such as the North Shoreview Flood Improvement Project which will provide improvements to the Coyote Point and Poplar Avenue Pump Stations to increase pump capacity and raise a 1,300 -foot levee segment l ocated between the San Mateo and Burlingame border off Airport Boulevard. Construction began in September 2020 and is anticipated to continue through 2022. While regional collaborations on 183 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-16
infrastructure projects and other adaptation strategies are necessary to address impacts due to climate change, the actual funding for infrastructure improvement projects come from a variety of sources including federal or state grants, local bonds, taxes, as well as, contribution from new developments in the form of impact fees. The impact fees paid by new developments may be perceived as a constraint; however, the City’s impacts fees are determined based on the project’s proportionate share of infrastructure projects, or the nexus, and vetted through a public process. Th e City hires professional consultants to evaluate permit and impact fees; and holds public meetings to obtain input prior to updating fees. The most recent Development Impact Fee Study was completed in 2021, and following multiple public meetings, the upda ted fees were incorporated into the Comprehensive Fee Schedule in November 2021. As the City periodically evaluates and updates its fees through a public process that includes ensuring appropriate nexus, the City’s fees are not generally viewed as a constraint. The City’s Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.18) to ensure the City continues to periodically review and update planning entitlement, building permit and impact fees consistent with AB 6025.

2.6 On - and Off -Site Improveme nts
The City has adopted on -site and off-site improvement requirements as codified in the City’s Municipal Code, and in citywide infrastructure plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan. Additionally, the City’s Department of Public Works has developed detailed engineering standards that work in combination with the Municipal Code and adopted plans to help ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained, and adequate levels of street improvements are provided. Per these adopted plans and standards, right of way widths in the majority of the city are already established and vary depending upon the street typology (i.e. freeways, arterials, collectors and local street as defined in the City’s General Plan).

Minimum lane widths are required to be no less than 11 feet to ensure safe through traffic for vehicles, and sidewalks are required to be no less than five feet to ensure safe pedestrian access as well as meeting ADA requirements. For infill developments, exceptions may be reviewed and considered by the city’s Director of Public Works on a case-by-case basis as part of the city’s development review process provided that the alternative design meets the city’s findings for safety and meets ADA requirements. The street design guidelines and standards have a potential to affect housing costs; however, they are necessary to provide a minimum level of design and construction quality in the City’s neighborhoods, ensure the community’s ability to access housing developments and maneuver around it on safe surfaces, and meet ADA requirements. From an equity standpoint, the minimum standards help to ensure that improvements are of a consistent quality regardless of the average income in the neighborhood.

5AB 602, September 29, 2021: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB602 184 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-17

2.7 Local Entitlement Fee and Procedure
The development application and environmental review process necessary to obtain the necessary entitlements and a building permit may significantly affect the cost of a project, both in processing fees and time. San Mateo’s planning application fees and pr ocess has been updated in 2020-2021 to reduce inefficiencies, minimize project delays and provide transparency for the applicant and public. Additionally, the development review process in San Mateo has been structured to minimize processing delay, while providing opportunities for public input. However, the Builders Focus Group identified the local permitting processing time, specifically the non -SB330 Pre -Application for large projects, as a constraint, see discussion in the process section below for background and status of changes.

2.7.1 Planning Application Entitlement Fee
At the planning stage, projects are subject to planning fees in addition to building and impact fees shown in the following table ( Table 4). City Council Resolution directs that planning application charges reflect the actual costs of staff time spent on each project and all direct costs associated with the processing of the application including, but not limited to: initial review, project routing, site visits, letters to applicants, review of revisions, coordination with other departments and agencies, public outreach, preparation of staff reports, legal noticing, public meetings/hearings and costs for technical consultants. Planning Application fee deposits for residential developments are listed in Table 4. The majority of housing development projects heard at the commission level are requesting entitlements for subdivision (tentative maps) and projects heard at City Council level are those requesting entitlements for Planned Development amendments, rezones, and/or General Plan amendments.

Costs associated with processing planning applications will vary between development projects due to variations in project complexity. While much of the cost of development is born by the applicant, the City of San Mateo has in the last 20 years systematically re-evaluated and explored alternative fee structures, and development processes with the goal of streamlining processes and achieving cost efficiencies. Most recently, in 2021, the City conducted an evaluation of total costs for planning applications processed at different approval levels (i.e. Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council). The evaluation considered initial deposits, number of invoices, staff time, project delays and total costs associated with the processing of sample projects. It found that project delays and unnecessary staff time was spent seeking additional funds from applicants, some resulting in processing delays of several months due to lack of payment. Following the evaluation, the city consolidated the planning entitlement fees to require a larger initial deposit which was based on an average of similar projects in previous years. In the eight months since the new fee adoption, staff has seen a reduction in time spent processing invoices and payments, and there are no project delays due to lack of funds.

185 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-18
Table 4: Planning Application Fees
PLANNING APPLICATION DEPOSIT/FEE TYPE REQUIRED DEPOSIT or

FLAT FEE AMOUNT
Planning Application for single family and up to 6 units (Zoning Administrator) $4,000
Planning Application for multifamily and mixed-use developments with 20 units or less (Planning Commission) $10,000
Planning Application for multifamily and mixed-use developments over 20 units (Planning Commission) $50,000
Planning Application for multifamily and mixed-use developments over 20 units (Planning Commission and City Council) $100,000
Large Project Non-SB330 Pre-Application for multifamily and mixed-use developments over 20 dwelling units (Planning Commission study session) $25,000 Planning Application for Day Care Facilities which require a Special Use Permit (Planning Commission)
$2,000
(flat fee)
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.

Notes:
1) Fee deposit at application includes concurrent processing of multiple planning approvals, environmental exemption, reviews by development review departments (including: planning, building, fire, public works, police, arborist and parks departments).
2) Consistent with City Council resolution, if the total deposit is not expended when the final decision is made, the balance is refunded to the applicant. Additionally, exceptions for the initial deposit can be made to the Director of Community Development and considered on a case-by-case basis.
3) Day Care Facilities means “any facility which provides non-medical care to persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a 24-hour basis” (SMMC 27.04.030).

2.7.2 Planning Application Entitlement Processing Time and Procedure Development review procedures exist to ensure that proposals for new residential development comply with local regulations and are compatible with adjacent land uses. The development review process in San Mateo has been structured to minimize processing delay, while providing opportunities for public input. This is accomplished in multiple ways: process improvements and processing goals.

2.7.3 Process Time
During the discretionary review process, the final approval body determines the action on development proposals by making the appropriate findings. These findings are based primarily on conformance to the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and environmental review is based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Typical City of San Mateo findings by permit type for residential uses are listed below. If a development proposal meets the required findings for approval, the City’s Municipal Code directs that th e project shall be approved. It should be noted that all projects need to meet the outlined findings below. Projects that include affordable units, whether the project has just one unit or is a 100 percent affordable, are treated the same as projects that have no affordable units. 186 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-19
Review times differ on a case-by-case basis depending on the type and complexity of the project as shown in Table 5. The City’s process is streamlined based on the approval body. As codified in the City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 27.06), the Zoning Administrator has authority to approve development projects with up to six -units, including any associated Variances and Parcel Maps; with typical review s between 2 -7 months, depending upon project complexity.

Planning Commission has authority to approve development projects with more than six-units, including associated Variances, Tentative Maps, some Special Use Permits. The typical review period for Planning Commission-level projects are between 9 – 12 months.

Development projects that rise to City Council -level are those that require rezoning, General Plan Amendment, Planned Developments, Special Use Permit for high rise buildings and projects that are fully or partially funded by the City. The typical review p eriod for City Council-level projects are between 9 – 13 months.

In addition to the formal planning application process, the City since 1990s requires a non -SB330 pre- application planning process (Pre-App) for applicants to hold meetings with neighborhood residents and the Planning Commission (for large developments over 20 units) to allow for early input into the design of a project before submitting a formal planning application for public review. While this process adds additional time in the early stages of a development, the applicant obtains public comments and direction from the Planning Commission which helps to expedite the formal planning approval process.

In 2021, the City held focus group meeting with builders and received feedback that inclu ded the Pre - Application process. While developers generally appreciated the opportunity to obtain early feedback on the project before they expend resources in developing plans for the formal planning application submittal, some commented that the requests to revise conceptual plans during the Pre -Application added time to the process. The City responded quickly by holding a Planning Commission study session meeting in February 2022 to discuss a streamlined approach for Pre -Applications to reduce processing times from 0.5- 1 year to 3-4 months and obtain broader feedback. The City has started to refine the Pre- Application process and provided training for all development review staff to ensure alignment across all departments.

From an implementation standpoint, the City of San Mateo has established timing goals for the processing of formal planning application development projects. When a developer has submitted all materials and a project is determined to be complete, the following processing goals have been established: 24 calendar days for Zoning Administrator decisions; 40 calendar days for Planning Commission decisions for projects that are exempt from CEQA; 60 calendar days for projects requiring Negative Declarations; and 90 calendar days for projects requiring approval by the City Council.

The City uses an efficient and comprehensive approach toward development review and permitting that allows for quick response to developer applications. The City uses many practices to expedite formal planning application processing, reduce costs, and clarify the process to developers and homeowners.

Increased development costs resulting from delays in the City’s formal planning application review, public 187 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-20
hearing, and permitting process are not considered a constr aint on housing development. The City has also responded quickly by adjusting the non-SB330 Pre-App process for large projects (over 20 units) and will continue to further refine and streamline the process. The City’s development review process as a whole is not generally viewed as a constraint to the development of housing because the City has consistently demonstrated its willingness to receive feedback, be pro -active in re -evaluating and make adjustments to streamline processes. Further descriptions of permits and their processing procedures are provided in the following subsections.

Table 5: Planning Application Timelines
Application Type Approval Body Estimated Time from Application Date to Approval Date
Single-Family Dwelling Unit Zoning Administrator 2-5
Residential Development with or without Tentative
Parcel Maps (6 units or less) Zoning Administrator 4-7 Residential Development with or without with
Tentative Maps (more than 6 units) Planning Commission 9-12 months Residential Development needing Special Use
Permit Planning Commission 9-12 months
Residential Development as a Planned
Development (reduced setbacks, reduced parking,
increased floor area,
Planning Commission and
City Council 9-13 months
General Plan Amendment Planning Commission and
City Council 9-13 months
Residential Development with Environmental
Impact Report
Planning Commission or
City Council 9-13 months
Residential Development with Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planning Commission or
City Council 9-13 months
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.

2.7.4 Senate Bill 35 Streamline Processing
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing projects to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing dev elopments that incorporate affordable housing. Per SB 35, the review and approval of proposed projects with at least 50 percent affordability in the City 6 must be based on objective standards and cannot be based on subjective design guidelines. However, to be eligible, projects must also meet a long list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements for projects. In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4(10)(b)(1)(a)(et seq.) they need to submit a No tice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. The City of San Mateo

6 HCD, SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary, Accessed April 1, 2022: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/docs/sb35_statewidedeterminationsummary.pdf
188 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-21
has developed a Notice of Intent form consistent with the law. Additionally, the City is in the process of developing Multifamily and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (ODS), which once complete will help facilitate the review and approval of residential developments. The ODS project is projected to be completed in 2022, prior to City Council action on this Housing Element. The City is also in the process of streamlining its pre -application and design review process to further introduce efficiencies during planning application reviews.

2.7.5 Senate Bill 330 Processing Procedure
Senate Bill 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibit s cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures.

Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a “preliminary application” for a residential development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to pro vide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application. Submittal of the preliminary application secures the applicable development standards and fees adopted at that time. The project is considered vested and all fees and standards are frozen, unless the project changes substantially.

The City of San Mateo has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 3 30. In addition, the bill limits the application review process to 30 days, for projects less than 150 units, and 60 days, for projects greater than 150 units, and no more than five total public hearings, including planning commission, design review, and city council.

SB 330 also prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of: (A) changing the land use designation or zoning to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective desig n standards; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued.

2.7.6 Site Plan and Architectural Review
Discretionary Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) is required for projects that are not eligible for ministerial review. Discretionary design review is more flexible in nature with regards to design rules. Site Plan and Architectural Review has three levels of project review:
• Zoning Administrator (ZA)
Zoning Administrator-level reviews are staff level and consist of residential and mixed -use projects with six units or less and permitted non -residential uses less than 10,000 square -feet. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approved projects that meet all applicable development code 189 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-22
requirements and standards; and is consistent with applicable policies in the General Plan and Specific Plans and applicable design guidelines. ZA-level reviews involve public noticing, but no public hearing is required.
• Planning Commission (PC)
Planning Commission-level reviews involve public hearing and noticing. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve residential and mixed-use projects that require: Special Use Permits, deviations from development code requirements, standards or design guidelines; and appeals of Zoning Administrator decisions. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviews and makes a recommendation to the City Council for projects that require the provision of commun ity benefit to exceed building height limits in areas designated in the General Plan (pursuant to Measure Y 7); rezoning; General Plan Amendment, and public funds or city land. • City Council (CC)
City Council- level reviews involve public noticing and public hearing. City Council makes final determination for appeals as well as residential and mixed -use projects where building(s) exceed 55 feet in height or where required by express General Plan provisions (Measure Y); and projects that require rezoning, General Plan Amendments, and use of public funds or city land.

Site Plan and Architectural Review ensures that proposed developments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plans. In addition, this review ensures that utilities and infrastructure are sufficient to support the proposed development and are compatible with City standards and that the design of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development. Use compatibility is not considered in Site Plan and Architectural Review for permitted uses. Compatibility is determined using design guidelines and General Plan consistency. Conditional use permits, described below, consider the appropriateness of a use for a specific area.

Additionally, deviations from zoning code requirements and development standards would be considered through Site Plan and Architectural Review. In these cases, the entitlement would be heard at the Planning Commission-level. For example, a building could reduce the number of requir ed on-site parking spaces with approval at a Planning Commission-level hearing.

In order to approve a project, the decision -maker (i.e., Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council) must find that a project is consistent with each of the findings outlined in Section 27.08.030 (a) of the San Mateo Municipal Code. For development projects not located in a historic district and not

7 Measure Y is a 2020 voter approved ballot measure that limits building heights, density, and intensity (or floor area) in the City.

As required in the measure, the measure amends and is incorporated throughout the General Plan. The measure will sunset at the end of 2030. Source: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/86090/Resolution-with-Measure-Y-ballot- language
190 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-23
involving a landmark, the decision -maker may approve an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review based on all of the following findings:

1. The structures, site plan, and landscaping are in scale and harmonious with the character of the neighborhood;

2. The development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City;

3. The development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity, and otherwise is in the best interests of the public health, safety, or welfare;

4. The development meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms with the General Plan, and will correct any violations of the zoning ordinance, building code, or other municipal codes that exist on the site;

5. The development will not adversely affect matters regarding police protection, crime prevention, and security.

Staff have not found that these consistency findings are a constraint on housing production or that they slow the City’s ability to recommend approval of projects. During the 5 th Cycle, the City approved all residential and mixed-use development projects that were submitted to the City with one exception. The 10-unit residential development at 4 W. Santa Inez was the only project that was denied, and the decision was subsequently challenged in court. Following the court’s decision, the City h as approved the original development project, completed the update of parking stall standards to include mechanical parking, and the City is in the process of developing Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Multifamily and Mixed -Use developments. Upon comp letion, development projects that comply with ODS cannot be denied or reduced in density, subject to a narrow health and safety exception. As part of implementation, all planners shall receive training and have a procedures manual to ensure consistent appl ication of ODS in the review of multifamily and mixed-use projects.

2.7.7 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Cultural Resources Discretionary Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for cultural resources is required for projects that are not eligible for ministerial review or for projects that cannot meet established design guidelines and development standards and are located within a historic district or involve a listed landmark or locally significant structure in the San Mateo’s historic resource inventory.

This discretionary review process is identical to the city-wide discretionary SPAR review described above, except projects which are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) are taken through the conventional design review entitlement process, while projects that are not consistent with the Standards would typically involve a more extensive hearing process and preparation of a detailed environmental analysis for CEQA purposes prior to approval.

2.7.8 Special Use Permit Process
191 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-24
Housing is generally permitted by-right in most zones, except for commercial and office zones without a residential overlay. Housing projects requesting deviation from the underlying zoning standards, such as a Planned Development or within the Senior Citizen Overlay zone, also require discretionary review. In these areas, a Special Use Permit (SUP) may be approved and is subject to the required findings described in Chapter 27.74 of the City’s Zoning Code, as follows:

6. When granting non-designated special uses, the approval body concludes that the proposed use(s) are so similar to any specifically allowed use in the district as to be virtually identical thereto in terms of impact and land use requirements.

7. Granting of the Special Permit will not adversely affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community nor will it cause injury or disturbance to adjacent property by traffic or by excessive noise, smoke, odor, noxious gas, dust, glare, heat, fumes or industrial waste.

The SUP primarily reviews the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use.

This discretionary process ensures that the proposed residential use is compatible with adjacent properties. Conditions may be applied to ensure that the project has no adverse effect, such as traffic or noise, on the surrounding neighborhood. Depending on the number of residential units proposed, an SUP may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council, as described in the prior section.

2.8 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, and Process

2.8.1 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees
The City collects development impact fees to finance the design, construction, installation, and acquisition of public infrastructure. Fees can also be used to recover the costs of adding capacity in existing public infrastructure. Development impact fees in the City of San Mateo are determined in proportion to the square footage of the proposed project rather than by the unit type.

The City has been pro -active in re -evaluating and updating fees, and in meeting State requirements to increase transparency and predictability of fees. All applicable fees are available online and the City has an online tool to search and estimate various fees. In addition, the City allows developers to request a building permit fee estimate online by submitting an electronic worksheet. Table 6 provides typical fee breakdowns for the City of San Mateo based on project square footage. In addition to evaluating fees and their role in housing deve lopment, the city also recognizes that wages are a contributing factor in a household’s ability to enter the housing market. In 2017, the City Council adopted a provision allowing a reduction of 25% of the Affordable Housing Linkage Fee for developments that are subject to the fee and 192 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-25
voluntarily agrees to pay area standard wages to construction workers on the development and enters into an agreement8 with the City to do so.

In addition to City fees, there are additional fees required from other agencies to account for the impact of development. The combined San Mateo Union High School District and San Mateo/Foster City Elementary School District Impact Fee 9 is $4.08 per square foot for residential. No fees are charged for new construction or additions that are under 500 square feet.

The City of San Mateo’s impact fees provide an opportunity for new developments to contribute its fair share toward infrastructure improvements. For example, when compared with other jurisdictions in the county, San Mateo’s transportation impact fee may appear higher; however, each city’s impact fee are directly linked to the number and type of infrastructure projects within that jurisdiction. Therefore, it is reasonable that infrastructure improvement projects differ among cities. San Mateo has unique infrastructure needs that are not shared by other cities in the county. For example, the City has three Caltrain stations, nine at grade crossings, and there is a list of pedestrian, bicycle and transit supportive infrastructure improvement projects that have been identified to foster increased bike/ped use, provide connections to transit and services, etc. San Mateo has been pro -active in transportation planning to ensure that the list of infrastructure projects are up to date and relevant. Examples of transportation planning in the City include the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan and Complete Streets Plan which is currently in development.

The City also completed a development impact fee study in 2021 to ensure that the fees are consistent with best practices and accurately reflect new developments’ proportionate share of infrastructure costs, the recommendations have since been incorporated into the Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

To illustrate applicable building permit and impact fees for new developments, three sample projects are shown in the table below. The cost per dwelling unit in large multi- family development ($44,807/DU) is lower than the cost per dwelling unit to develop a new single-family dwelling ($89,108/DU). Additionally, while the cost per square foot to develop a large multi-family development ($56.01/SQ FT) is higher than the cost to develop a new single-unit dwelling ($34.27/SQ FT); the cost for large, multifamily development is comparable to other cities in the county ( $40.89/SQ FT average and $40.59/SQ FT median), based on preliminary survey data collected by 21 Elements10. Therefore, the City’s building permit fees and impact fees are not considered a constraint on housing production.

8 City of San Mateo Resolution No. 85 (2017).
9 School District Impact Fee, Accessed April 1, 2022: https://www.smuhsd.org/Page/5186 10 21 Elements D raft Entitlement and I mpact Fee Study Results, Accessed April 21, 2022:
http://www.21elements.com/constraints
193 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-26
Table 6: Building Permit and Impact Fee Estimate (New Construction), 2021 Type of Fee
Type of Project
Single-Family Small Multifamily
(10-Unit)
Large Multifamily (100-
units)
Entitlement Fees
Planning Application $4,979 $50,000 $205,000
Building Permit Fees
Building Plan Review $7,393 $12,108 $54,068
Fire Plan Check $407 $793 $1,577
Planning Support Fee $3,638 $9,601 $96,013
Building Permit/Inspection Fee $10,562 $18,628 $83,181 General Plan Maintenance Fee $6,313 $16,661 $166,611 SMI Tax $139 $791 $7,907
Building Standards Commission Fee $43 $113 $1,130
Technology Fee $1,605 $4,236 $42,359
Park and Rec Facilities Tax $3,210 $8,472 $84,718
Park Plan Check & Inspection $535 $1,412 $14,120
Public Works Building Support Services
Deposit - $30,000 $50,000
Building Permit Fees Sub-Total: $33,844 $102,815 $601,684 Development Impact Fees
Childcare Impact Fee $4,413 $30,660 $306,600
Park Impact Fee $29,598 $204,760 $2,047,600
Transportation Improvement Fee $6,255 $31,590 $315,900 Wastewater Capacity Charge $10,019 $91,840 $667,900
Art in Public Places Fee (In-lieu) - $33,605 $336,046
Development Impact Fees Sub-Total $50,123 $392,455 $3,674,046

Total Fees $89,108 545,270 $4,480,730
Square Foot - Residential 2,600 sf 8,000 sf 80,000 sf
# Dwelling Units 1 10 100
Cost/Dwelling Unit $89,108 $54,527 $44,807
Cost/Square Foot $34.27 $68.16 $56.01
Source: City of San Mateo, fees calculated based on City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2021-2022.

Notes:
1 Valuations based on habitable square footage areas (exempts uninhabitable spaces such as: garage, storage, balconies). 2 Additional fees may apply such as sewer and water tap fees, Construction & Demolition Recycling Deposit (Refundable), etc.
3 City requires new developments to provide art on-site; but applicants have the option of paying the Art In Public Places Fee in-lieu of providing it on-site.
4 Unexpended portion of the Public Works Building Support Services Deposit is refunded back to the applicant. 194 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-27

2.8.2 Building Permit Process
The length of time between a project’s planning entitlement approval and building permit issuance in many cases is determined by the applicant, as further described under Non -Government Constraints in section III (below). The City has developed online application portal and streamlined the building permit review process with dedicated Development Review Technicians who actively manage concurrent reviews by all the development review departments including Planning, Building, Fire, Police, Arborist, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. Once a project begins the building permit application review process, the following general timelines can be achieved with responsive applicants:

1. Single-family dwelling unit projects generally take 1-3 months*

2. Multi-family and mixed-use projects generally take 6-10 months* The City also established Building application plan check review goals of an initial 20-day review period, then 10 -days, then 5 -days for subsequent resu bmittals. These goals help to align plan check review timelines across all departments. (*Note: It should be noted that actual timelines vary depending upon how fast an applicant can resubmit plans with corrections, the quality of submittals, variations in project complexity, required reviews by external agencies (i.e. as Department Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], etc.)

195 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-28

2.9 Housing Special Needs Groups
The City of San Mateo encourages and facilitates the development of a variety of housing types that caters to special needs groups, including accessible housing, emergency shelters (i.e., temporary residential shelters), transitional housing, supportive housing, and housing for farmworkers. Government Code Section 65583 and 65583.2 also require the Housing Element to provide various housing types for all economic segments of the population. The following analysis explains how the City facilitates these housing types consistent with State law requirements.

2.9.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with special needs or disabilities have several housing needs related to housing accessibility; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on -site o r nearby supportive living services. The following is a description of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

2.9.2 Residential and Family Care Facilities
State law requires that State- licensed group homes of six or fewer residents be regulated in the same manner as single-unit residences for zoning purposes. The San Mateo Municipal Code allows group homes with six or fewer residents by right in all zoned districts that permit single-family dwellings consistent with State law (SMMC 27.27 Residential Care Facilities).

Group homes with more than six residents (defined by the City’s municipal code as “residential care facilities”) are permitted by right in C2 and C3 zoned districts and with a SUP in R3 and R4 zoned districts, as shown in Table 2. While not explicitly required by State law, the SUP requirements for group homes of more than six persons could be considered a fair housing issue. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.14) to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for larger group homes and amend the Zoning Code to ensure State law requirements related to fair housing and group homes are met.

2.9.3 Definition of Family
Historically zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term dwelling unit and family that have been used to deny housing opportunities for unrelated individuals. San Mateo Municipal Code 27.04.195 defines “family” as “a person or persons living together and maintaining a common household”. Upon analysis, the use of the term family may be utilized in a manner to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.15) to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for family and other related regulations; and amend the code to ensure State law requirements related to persons with disabilities are met. This effort may also include consideration of new definitions such as single -unit and multi -unit dwellings to acco mmodate various housing situations.
196 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-29

2.9.4 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
The City of San Mateo has a process to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for persons with disabilities. The Reasonable Accommodations for Residential Uses ordinance (SMMC 27.78) was established to provide people with disabilities a way to ensure that their needs are met by the City’s zoning, building, and permitting process. Since the ordinance adoption in 2014, one application has been submitted and approved to provide flexibility in accommodating the homeowners’ access needs. It should be noted that the City’s Zoning Code permits by right access to the main entry of residential unit as allowable intrusions into setbacks through a ministerial building permit application. Under this provision, applicants can apply for a building permit to construct ramps, lifts, railings and other elements necessary to ensure access to the dwelling unit without a need to seek reasonable accommodation.

2.9.5 Emergency Homeless Shelters
The California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801[e]) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
California Government Code (Section 65583) requires each jurisdiction to identify one or more zoning districts where emergency homeless shelters are allowed without a discretionary permit. A building permit application is required to verify that the proposed project meets the City’s development standards as part of a plan check review. The building permit review is a ministerial process and no public hearing is required. The zoning code development standards for emergency shelters include:
• In C2 zoned district, no emergency shelter shall be located within 300 feet of a single -family dwelling.
• Required parking shall be provided on-site with two garage stalls for the owner/manager, and one parking stall for every 6 occupants.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the Housing Element to demonstrate that the zones where emergency shelters are allowed by right include sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in the most recent point- in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period.

The City participates in the countywide one -day homeless count which typically occurs every two years.

The most recent Point-In-Time Count, from 2019, showed 900 people in the streets with another 600 in various shelters in the county. Of that total, the report showed 78 people in the City of San Mateo. As of 2021, there are two emergency and transitional shelters in the City of San Mateo: Vendome (16 units) and Humboldt House (9 units). The City continues to collaborate with the county to close the gap when potential sites are identified within the city limits, and the City facilitates the processing of any necessary 197 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-30
permits. One recent example is the county’s purchase of the Stone Villa Inn in December 2021 and the subsequent conversion to a 44-unit temporary emergency shelter.

2.9.6 Zoning Capacity for Emergency Shelters
The City’s Municipal Code currently allows emergency shelters by right in the C2 and C3 Regional/Community Commercial zoning district(s) with an approved building permit. There are approximately 76 acres (260 parcels ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.6 acres with an overall average parcel size of 0.3 acres) of land available in the City. These sites are located in areas with a mix of uses including offices, commercial, service commercial and light manufacturing uses (there is no heavy hazardous manufacturing); and are within ½ mile of transit and services. The availability of land within these sites can easily accommodate shelters for the 78 unsheltered persons identified in the 2019 Point -In-Time Homeless count11. While the City’s collaboration with the County of San Mateo appears to be helping to close the gap, the Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 3.8) to review Zoning Code requirements and standards for temporary residential shelters, including parking for shelters, to address changes in homeless counts in future years and continue to meet State law.

2.9.7 Strategies for Providing Emergency Shelters
While the zoning capacity analysis above meets the requirements of State law; the City may also participate on unique partnerships with private companies, non-profit entities and other public agencies to expand shelter capacity within the City rather than building new physical structures on privately owned land. The examples below show how shelters have been developed outside of the previously mentioned zoning allowances, as well as, opportunities to expand shelter capacity through future partnerships:
• Re-use of residential buildings: When opportunities arise, the City has demonstrated its willingness to collaborate with other entities to the convert former group home or other residential buildings in furtherance of expanding shelter capacity. One example is the Humboldt House, located near downtown, the shelter serves nine individuals who are homeless or about to become homeless, and those with mental illness. Mateo Lodge, Inc. runs the shelter which includes residential programs that provide supportive and rehabilitative services to residents. The City provided a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) loan to acquire the property, and subsequently also provided a HOME loan in 2000 for rehabilitation of the building. The Housing Element includes Policy H 3.8, articulating the City’s intent to support existing shelters and consider future partnership opportunities for the reuse of former group home or residential buildings to expand shelter capacity. • Partnerships with faith-based organizations: The City may consider partnerships with faith -based organizations to expand shelter capacity during winters. Examples may include providing some funding for programs that are rotated through different congregations, relying o n both professional

11 One Day Homeless Count Reports, 2019: https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/one-day-homeless-count-reports 198 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-31
and volunteer staff to operate and provide services to guests in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places faith-based facilities. The Housing Element includes a policy H 3.8 to study opportunities for partnerships to ex pand sheltering capacity on properties owned by faith -based organizations.
• Small, scattered site shelters: The scattered site model consists of adding emergency shelter beds through the master leasing of scattered site single family homes with no more than six guests at a time (including a house monitor), requiring no permits or approval from the City. The model allows the siting of shelters in communities without appropriately zoned land, to better distribute shelter resources throughout the community, and to offer smaller sites for vulnerable populations. Individual sites may also be held for specific categories of needs such as for transgender guests, who often are not comfortable in a congregate shelter. The Housing Element includes a polic y H 3.8 to study best practices for small, scattered site shelters and other models, and provide recommendations. • Re-use of dilapidated or underutilized motels: Use of motels as shelters was brought to the forefront during the COVID-19 pandemic as temporary quarantining facilities; but has been utilized previously in the city (e.g. Vendome) and in other communities as a way to offer temporary shelter to the homeless population. The City collaborated with the County of San Mateo to explore the feasibility of acquiring the Stone Villa Inn, a 44-room hotel, as a temporary emergency shelter. In December 2021, the County of San Mateo was awarded a grant from California’s Homekey program to help purchase, renovate and operate the building as a 44 -room temporary shelter space. The $13.5 million project will serve as a launching pad for residents to find permanent housing with skill- building services and immediate shelter. The Housing Element includes a policy H 3.1 to support the re-use of dilapidated or underutilized motels as temporary shelter.

2.9.8 Collaboration with County to Address Homelessness The City collaborates with the County of San Mateo on countywide homeless counts, which occurs every two years; and follows the County’s “Continuum of Care” (CofC) pro gram to address homeless. In 2016, the CofC released its current Strategic Plan titled “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County”. The overarching goal is to create a centralized countywide system that is both data driven, and client focused to respond effe ctively and rapidly to the crisis of homelessness. The system utilizes the Housing First practice, where access to safe and secure housing is made the first step in the process of achieving long term housing stability. The Coordinated Entry System (CES) pu lls together all of the service providers across the county to ensure that resources are available all across the county regardless of which jurisdiction an individual enters the system from. This also allows for tracking of individuals if they are to re-enter the system after exiting, which allows the CofC to gauge the effectiveness of the programs being used.

The plan also outlines several programs to address homelessness, including: outreach, emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, sup portive housing, and homeless prevention programs.

The City jointly funds these programs with other jurisdictions throughout the County and evaluates their 199 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-32
performance together as part of the Steering Committee. The purpose of the plan was originally to outline a comprehensive strategic plan to end homelessness throughout San Mateo County by the year 2020.

Many of the target achievements of the plan were drastically altered by the spread of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting housing instability that occurred from loss of income across many households.

The City of San Mateo continues to be a partner in the CofC as both a funder of shelters and programs as well as a voting member in the CofC Steering Committee, which is reflected in the Housing Element Policy H 3.1.

2.9.9 Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019 and codified in Government Code Section 65622, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed - use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multi- unit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities w hile case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 3.8) to evaluate and amend the Zoning Code to comply with this new requirement and to allow these in the same districts as emergency shelters.

2.9.10 Transitional/Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is designed to assist homeless individuals and families in moving beyond emergency shelter and into permanent h ousing by helping people develop independent living skills through the provision of supportive services. Permanent supportive housing is housing that is linked to services that assist residents in maintaining housing, improving health, and maximizing ability to live and work in the community. Consistent with State law, supportive housing and transitional housing are defined in the City’s Zoning Code as a dwelling and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Per recent changes in State law (AB 2162), the City must also allow 100 percent affordable projects that include 25 percent, or 12 units of supportive housing, by right where multi -unit and mixed -use development is permitted. While the City has not updated its Zoning Code, the City is pro -active in ensuring that new projects meeting AB 2162 criteria are compliant. For example, the Montara affordable housing development includes 12 units for formerly homeless individuals. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.15) to review and amend the City’s Zoning Code to comply with this new provision of State law.

2.9.11 Housing for Farmworkers
There are no active or potential agricultural lands remaining within the City, the refore the City does not have any labor force associated with the agricultural sector. Although no agricultural activity remains within the City of San Mateo limits, the region and the County of San Mateo as a whole includes 200 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-33
agricultural activity that attracts farmworkers and their families. The 2019 census data for employment identifies 272 out of 57,365 employed residents of the City identify as working within the “agriculture/forestry, fishing and hunting” category. It is likely that these residents and their families are permanent employees who reside in the City due to access to urban amenities and services and are commuting to agricultural lands within the County. Seasonal agricultural workers who come to San Mateo County during those times of year when crop harvesting, and processing occur often need access to group housing or temporary (non-emergency) shelters, but do not appear to be seeking housing options within the City.

The provisions of Section 17021.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code state that employee housing for six or fewer employees must be treated like any other single-unit dwelling. The City does not regulate the occupancy of single unit dwellings and there are no provisions in the City’s code to restrict employee housing for six or fewer employees, therefore, the City complies with this requirement.

California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, requires that farmworker housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units shall be deemed an agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of this housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. Only two areas are identified within the Agricultural Zoning Distri ct (A), which allows for Agricultural use. These two sites include the San Mateo County (County) Event Center, and a parcel within the College of San Mateo. The existing zoning requirements for permitted uses does not explicitly allow for such housing, but agricultural use is listed as a permitted use. The City will evaluate and update its zoning code either as a part of miscellaneous code amendments or should the County or the College of San Mateo wish to proceed with providing farmworker housing at these sites, as identified in Policy H 1.17.

2.9.12 Accessory Dwelling Units
Since 2016, California lawmakers have passed several bills to promote development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs are defined as attached or detached residential dwelling units that provide complete with independent living facilities for one or more persons located on the same parcel as the primary residence. The City also adopted the definition of a “junior accessory dwelling unit” (JADU), which is a similar independent living unit that is constructed entirely within the walls of a proposed or legally existing single-family residence.

In 2017 and 2022, the City amended the Zoning Code (Chapter 27.19) to comply with the minimum requirements of State law. ADUs are permitted by-right in any zone that allows residential use. For single- family residences, the City of San Mateo allows up to one ADU as well as a JADU, provided there is an existing or proposed primary residence on the parcel. The City defers to the provis ions of Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) for ADUs proposed on a lot with an existing multi -family dwelling (attached duplex or more).
201 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-34
The City’s ADU ordinance update includes custom development standards that exceed some areas of state law. These standards were developed following extensive community outreach and public meetings. For example, the updated ADU ordinance allows larger size JADUs (maximum 650 square -feet). There is an option to propose ADUs larger than 800 square-feet, provided that the floor area ratio balance of the lot has not been exceeded. Attached ADUs building heights may go up to 24 feet to the plate line and 32 feet to the roof peak. ADUs may also opt for a discretionary review process to exceed the minimum height requirements allo wed under ministerial review. These updated standards provide more flexibility in design and are aligned with local community needs.

Under state law, ADUs are eligible for ministerial review and applications must be approved within 60 days of a complete application submittal. ADU applications may be submitted in person or online permit and are charged a flat fee that varies by proposal. Beginning April 1, 2022, building permit fees are as follows:
• ADU – New Construction: $2,830.50
• ADU – Converted or Remodeled Space: $2,103.00
• JADU: $1,578.50
Additional fees are charged on an as -needed basis, such as a Heritage Tree permit, Sewer Lateral Compliance and Encroachment Permit. School District Fees are collected separately by the San Mateo Union High School Distri ct. The City also partners with Symbium to offer a free, interactive web -based mapping tool to help with preliminary site planning of ADUs. Overall, the City has been active to maintain compliance with State law by streamlining the process and developing r esources that provide flexibility for homeowners that wish to develop ADUs/JADUs. The City also intends to conduct active outreach to educate and inform residents about these ADU/JADU provisions.

2.9.13 Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks
State law requires that cities and counties allow the placement of manufactured homes (also referred to as factory- built homes and modular homes) meeting Federal construction standards and manufactured home subdivisions in single-family neighborhoods. California Government Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.512, require that manufactured homes be permitted in single -family districts subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. Additionally, Government Code Section 65852.7 requires that cities and counties allow mobile home parks (including condominium and cooperative parks) in all residential zones.

In keeping with State law, the City’s Zoning Code allows manufactured homes on permanent foundations in the same residential zones as single -family dwellings. The code defines manufactured homes as a dwelling, and they are subject to the same development standards. The City’s Zoning Code does not

12 The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (also referred to as the Manufactured Home Act of 1974).
202 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-35
permit mobile home parks in residential districts; however, there is a provision allowing the Zoning Administrator to consider “other similar uses” in residential districts. The current code language is not explicit; therefore, the Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.16) to review and amend the Zoning Code as necessary to meet state law regarding allowing mobile home parks as special use in all residential zones.

203 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-36
3 NON -GOVERNMENTAL CON STRAINTS
State law (California Government Code, Section 65583[a)[6]) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.

Potential nongovernmental constraints are largely determined by market conditions over which local jurisdictions have little control. However, local governments can influence market conditions and their associated costs, even if only indirectly. Governmental interventions that affect non -governmental constraints will be explored in more detail in Section 3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application.

3.1 Development Costs

3.1.1 Availability of Financing
The availability of financing is a critical factor that can influence the cost and supply of housing. There are generally two types of financing used in the housing market: (1) capital used for initial site preparation and construction; and (2) capital used to finance the purchase of units by homeowners and investors.

Interest rates substantially impact home construc tion, purchase, and improvement costs. A small fluctuation in rates can make a dramatic difference in the annual income needed to qualify for a loan.

However, interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions, and there is little that local governments can do to affect interest rates.

In general, financing for new residential development for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in San Mateo County, subject to normal underwriting standards. However, econo mic fluctuations in recent years due to the pandemic have caused caution among lenders and may have lasting effects on the availability of financing through this Housing Element planning period. While interest rates remain low in 2022, during the planning period, interest rates are anticipated to increase, with multiple rate increases expected in the near term as inflation rises. The availability of financing for developers under these economic conditions may pose a constraint on development outside the City’s control.

3.1.2 Cost of Land
The cost of land has also increased substantially over the past decade. Many jurisdictions are now essentially built out, with no available vacant land for development. Many locations in the Bay Area experience substantially higher land values than in other areas of the State because of the attractiveness of living along the coast, with its mild climate, access to high-tech jobs, and plentiful amenities.

Land costs include acquisition and the cost of holding land throughout the development process. These costs can account for as much as half of the final sales prices of new homes in small developments or in areas where land is scarce. Land costs in single-family residential neighborhoods of San Mateo are difficult to assess, because of the lack of undeveloped residential properties. While there are no data for the City 204 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-37
of San Mateo, data from 2022 on vacant land for sale and sold in neighboring communities of Belmont and Redwood City show costs of ranging between $3 to $6 million per acre, based on vacant lo ts sold in the past year. There are multiple factors that may affect the cost of land such as lot size, location and amenities, proximity to public services, and the financing arrangement between buyer and seller. In contrast, during the last Housing Elem ent a similar analysis found that average per- acre prices were approximately $820,000. This means that since the last Housing Element, land prices have increased. [Note: Insert information from 21 Elements’ countywide study on land costs.] All of these factors work together to make it so developers must charge substantial rents and sales prices to cover these costs. The Terner 13 report notes that, for example, a multifamily unit that costs $800,000 to build will need to charge approximately $4,000 in monthly rent—a price well over the typical monthly earnings in the State —to cover those costs and meet return on investment requirements for investors.

3.1.3 Constructions Costs
Construction costs, which can comprise a significant portion of the sales price of a home, are one of the major cost factors with residential development. Construction cost is determined primarily by the cost of labor and materials. The relative importance of each is a function of the complexity of the construction job and the desired quality of the finished product. The price paid for material and labor at any one time will reflect short -term considerations of supply and demand. Future costs are difficult to predict given the cyclical fluctuations in demand and supply that in large pa rt are created by fluctuations in the state and national economies. Such policies unilaterally impact construction in a region and therefore do not deter housing construction in any specific community.

An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuat ion Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data is national with the regional difference running generally 20 percent higher based on the most recent (2020) analysis cited from the Terner Center for Housing index for construction costs in California. The 2020 national averages for costs per square foot, excluding the cost of the land acquisition, are as follows:
• Type I or II, Multi-Family: $129.23 to $167.27 per sq. ft. • Type V (Wood Frame), Multi-Family: $112.76 to $147.50 per sq. ft. • Type V (Wood Frame), One- and Two-Family Dwelling: $122.46 to $141.72 per sq. ft.

13 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone and Carolina Reid, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Co sts for Apartment Buildings in California, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California Berkeley, March 2020, p. 3, http:/ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf

205 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-38
According to data from the California Construction Cost Index, hard construction costs in California grew by 44 percent between 2014 and 2018, or an additional $80 per square foot. 14 Between 2020 and 2021 alone, construction costs increased 13.4 percent. Construction costs are estimated to account for upwards of 60 percent of the production cost of a new home, especially for multi- unit residential buildings which often require the use of more expensive materials, like steel, and need additional amenities such as parking structures.15 Variations in the quality of materials, type of amenities, labor costs and the quality of building materials could result in higher or lower construction costs for a new home. Pre -fabricated factory built housing, with variation on the quality of materials and amenities may also affect the final construction cost per square foot of a housing project.

Several additional factors have caused the increased cost of materials, including global trade patterns and federal policy decisions, such as tariffs, as well as state and local regulations, such as building codes. The COVID-19 pandemic has also influenced the cost and availability of construction materials. Supply chain disruptions have resulted in project delays and increased costs due to a shortage of construction materials and equipment.

According to a report released in March 2020 on multifamily construction costs in California from the Terner Center, many different factors layer together to affect the bottom -line costs of building new housing and whether or not a project will ultimately “pencil”: the costs of acquisition (e.g., land and closing costs), hard construction costs (e.g., materials and labor), soft costs (e.g., legal and professional fees, insurance, and development fees), and the costs of conversion once a project is completed (e.g., title fees and the operating deficit reserve). 16 According to its research, the largest share of a project’s total cost comes from materials and labor, or hard costs.

Hard construction costs make up more than 60 perc ent of total development costs. The Terner Center study found that on average, construction costs were about $222 per square foot in 2018 compared to $177 in 2008-2009, representing a 25 percent increase. While these increases have been felt across the state, costs are highest in the Bay Area, which saw costs rising by 119 percent during the same time period, to over $380 per square foot. The reasons for this gap are complex, but the Terner Center suggests that higher labor costs to attract workers plays a part due to the higher cost of living; local regulations that require certain materials or building components to be used; lengthy review processes; and other local constraints. 17
The impact of high construction costs on affordable housing cannot be under estimated. According to a study by the Bay Area Council, in 2019 there were 23 new construction projects of below market- rate housing financed through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), with a total of 1,912

14 Lbid., Raetz et al, p.8.
15 Ibid., Raetz et al, p.4.
16 See the Terner Center’s series on housing costs at https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-building- housing-series/
17 Raetz et al, p. 15.
206 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-39
units, across six counties of the nine-county Bay Area. Each project in California requested federal and/or state tax credits to finance the new construction of housing units with rents affordable to households earning 30-60 percent of area median income (AMI; this translates to very low-income households). The project costs consist of land and acquisition, construction costs, construction contingency, architectural/engineering, construction interest, permanent financing, legal fees, reserves, other costs, developer fees, and commerci al costs. Project costs were analyzed to determine the reasonableness of all fees within TCAC’s underwriting guidelines and TCAC limitations.

The report found that the average construction cost of new below market rate housing in the Bay Area was $664,455 per unit, far more than lower income households can afford without subsidies. In comparison, other projects across California (excluding the Bay Area) on average cost $385,185 per unit of below market rate housing.18

Figure 1: Average Per Unit Cost Construction of New BMR Housing by County (2019) Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; Analysis by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

3.1.4 Labor Costs

18 How much does it cost to construct one unit of below market housing in the Bay Area? Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

Accessed April 1, 2022, from http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-produce-one-unit-of-below-market- housing-in-the-bay-area/
207 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-40
The California Labor Code applies prevailing wage rates to public works projects exceeding $1,000 in value.

Public works projects include construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work performed under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. State law exempts affordable housing projects from the prevailing wage requirement if they are financially assisted exclusively with Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set-aside funds. However, if other public funds are involved, which is often the case, prevailing wage rates may still apply. Furthermore, if federal funds are involved, Davis- Bacon Act wages often apply. Under the Davis -Bacon Act, workers must be paid no less than the locally prevailing wages, as well as overtime payments of time and a half. While the cost differential in prevailing and standard wages varies based on the skill level of the occupation, prevailing wages tend to add to the overall cost of development. In the case of affordable housing projects, prevailing wage requirements could effectively reduce the number of affordable units that can be achieved with public subsidies.

Statewide, labor costs have also increased in recent years, as the labor pool has not kept pace with the increase in demand. Since the recession, California has seen a severe tightening in the construction labor market, especially for workers trained in specific construction trades. The lack of an available labor force drives up the cost of labor and leads to project delays as workers are either unavailable or lost to more profitable projects.

3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application After a Planning Entitlement for a development project has been approved by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council; it becomes the applicant’s responsibility to initiate the steps to secure building permit approvals and begin constru ction in accordance with the approved plans. The length of time between a project’s planning entitlement approval and building permit application is determined by the applicant.

Intervening steps include obtaining additional City clearances and paying fee s as outlined in a project’s conditions of approval. Other necessary actions for the applicant include:

1. Completing construction drawings after project approval (city does not control this timeline)

2. Recording with the County Clerk subdivision (final) maps (applies to ownership projects)

3. Retaining contractors

4. Obtaining utility approvals (not owned by the city), required easements, and rights of entry

5. Providing tenant relocation assistance
As discussed in Sections 2.7 and 2.8 above, the City has taken several steps to facilitate the review process.

Once a project begins the building permit application review process, the applicant also has a shared responsibility in resubmitting materials and addressing comments in a timely manner. With responsive applicants, the following general timelines can be achieved during the building permit stage:
208 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-41

1. Single-family projects generally take 1-3 months*

2. Multi-family and mixed-use projects generally take 6-10 months* (*Note: actual timeline depends on how fast an applicant can resubmit plans with corrections, complexity of project, etc.)

3.2 Requests for Housing Developments at Reduced Densities State law requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. As demonstrated in the City’s Annual Progress Reports in past years, there is a strong trend for development projects to utility density bonus law to add additional units beyond the base density. While the City anticipates the trend to continue due to the high demand for housing in the bay area region, the Housing Element includes an implementation policy H 1.9 to amend the Zoning Code to add minimum density requirements to ensure that future development projects meet the anticipated density in the sites inventory, or exceed it.

3.3 Physical Site Constraints
The City of San Mateo recognizes the challenges associated with building housing, especially that which is affordable, on infill sites. Many parcels in the downtown area and along E l Camino Real are considered small, and the City acknowledges that parcels may need to be consolidated under one owner in order to facilitate mixed use and affordable housing development. To incentivize parcel aggregation, the City’s Zoning Code includes p rovisions such as a tiered allowable floor area based with higher allowable floor areas for larger on parcel sizes in districts zoned for multi-family development.

3.4 Environmental Constraints
The environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of residential development. Environmental issues range from the suitability of land for development, the provision of adequate infrastructure and services, as well as the cost of energy. San Mateo currently encompasses about 7,744 acres of land. The majority of the parcels in the City’s boundary are developed. Most of the undeveloped parcels are in the areas to the west near Sugarloaf Mountain. These areas contain environmental constraints on development, such as steep slopes, landslide hazards, fire hazards, or flood hazards, and therefore, much of the undeveloped land has been set aside as open space. The following are environmental constraints and hazards that affect, in varying degrees, existing and future residential developments.

3.4.1 Seismic Hazards
The San Andreas Fault zone is located approximately two miles west from the City of San Mateo boundary and the Hayward fault lies approximately 14 miles northeast of the City; however, there are no known active faults within the City. Major problems could re sult from ground shaking, which is likely to be amplified in the areas underlain by relatively unconsolidated deposits, especially in the eastern part of the 209 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-42
City. Liquefaction is also a possibility in these areas. There is potential for landslides on all slopes; however, site-specific investigations can differentiate the degree of risk.

3.4.2 Topography/Slope
The City of San Mateo encompasses a variety of upland, hillside, valley and land forms that is defined by the Crystal Springs reservoir to the west, and the San Francisco Bay on the east. Elevations range from 0 to 631 feet above sea level. Western portions of the city are steep and susceptible to landslides, erosion, and other topographic hazards. To address these concerns, the City’s Site Development Code oversees development of lands with slopes exceeding 15 percent. The Site Development Code requires technical studies that address surface grading, draining, erosion and subsurface conditions in order to minimize risks to the community and environment.

3.4.3 Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise
The City’s floodplain management ordinance requires flood proofing or elevation of structures above flood heights along portions of San Mateo Creek and east of Bayshore. The City will continue to regulate development and improvements to properties located in the designated flood hazard areas in accordance with the ordinance. Since 2001, the City has identified a series of flood control projects to remove residential properties from the Flood Hazard Zone, which include the South Bayfront Levee Improvement projects (completed in 2010) and the North Shoreview Flood Improvement Project (may be completed by 2023). The City has two remaining tidal flood protection projects at the North Levee near Coyote Pointe and at Laurel Creek near the San Mateo Glendale Village neighborhood. Approximately 8,000 properties have been removed or have been prevented from being placed on the flood map to date.

Global climate change also poses potential impacts related to sea level rise. In 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency and California Ocean Protection Council updated the Sea- Level Rise Guidance Document19, which estimates sea levels in the San Francisco Bay Area to rise 22 inches by the year 2050 and 82 inches by the year 2100. San Mateo is in a low -lying coastal area and thus is highly vulnerable to this threat. A sea level rise of 22 inches could inundate areas near Seal Point. If the level of San Francisco Bay rises 82 inches, water is projected to inundate all parts of San Mateo east of Highway 101, the area north of downtown, and large sections of the Hayward Park, Bay Meadows, and Laurie Meadows neighborhoods. To protect against sea level rise, the City participates in the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District’s OneShoreline program to coordinate shoreline protection projects throughout the County. For more information, see the program website: www.oneshoreline.org.

19 State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update, https://www.opc.ca.gov/updating-californias-sea-level-rise-guidance , Accessed on April 1, 2022
210 of 955
CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page H-B-43

3.4.4 Fire Hazards
Much of the open space, hillside area of San Mateo is located west of El Camino Real. There is higher potential for fire in these areas including grass or wildland fires as shown in the following figure from CAL FIRE (Figure 2). The risk in these areas is compounded by limited emergency access to open space areas and, in some cases, by insufficient fire hydrants/water flow to meet fire-fighting requirements. The Safety Element of the General Plan, currently under development, will set forth updated approaches to reduce this risk in developed areas and in the design and location of new development in the hillsides.

Figure 2: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas Source: CAL FIRE, November 24, 2008.

211 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2040 G ENERAL P LAN

HOUSING ELEMEN T
Page H-B-44

3.5 Voter Approved Requirements
In 1991, San Mateo voters enacted Measure H, a citizen’s initiative that amended the City’s General Plan for future development. Measure H amended the General Plan to lower limits on building heights, residential densities as measured by the number of housing units per acre, and nonresidential building intensity as measured by the ratio of building floor area to the size of the parcel. Meas ure H also established an inclusionary housing program requiring residential developments to provide at least 10 percent of the project’s units at rents or prices affordable to low- or moderate-income households.

As a voter -adopted initiative, the policies established by Measure H could not be amended by the City Council without subsequent voter approval while the measure was in effect. Measure H contained an expiration provision. By its terms, Measure H would no longer be in effect after December 31, 2005.

In 2004, the City Council proposed a measure, Measure P, to authorize limited modifications to the policies established by Measure H, and to extend the expiration provision until December 31, 2020. The voters approved Measure P.

In 2020, voters approved Measure Y 20, which extends the expiration date of the General Plan policies concerning building heights, densities, and intensities established in Measure P to December 31, 2030. In addition, Measure Y amends the provisions of Measure P concerning the inclusionary housing program to comply with AB1505 which is codified in Government Code 65850. This law requires inclusionary housing ordinances to allow developers of rental housing projects the option to provide off -site construction of units or other alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. This measure would not permit the payment of in lieu fees as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. The inclusionary housing program, as modified by this measure, and the policies concerning building heights, densities, and intensities established in Measure P, cannot be amended by action of the City Council without voter approval until 2031.

20 Measure Y ballot language: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1537/General-Plan 212 of 955

APPENDIX C

HOUSING RESOURCES

213 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-2
APPENDIX C | HOUSING RESOURCES

0.1 Table of Content

0.1 Table of Content ................................ ................................ ........................... 2

0.2 List of Figures ................................ ................................ ............................... 3

0.3 List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ 3

0.4 List of Attachments ................................ ................................ ....................... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4 2 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ .......5

2.1 Federal Programs ................................ ................................ .......................... 5

2.1.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ..................................................................... 5

2.1.2 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) ............................................................... 5

2.1.3 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) .............................................................................. 5

2.1.4 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program .................................................................................... 5

2.2 State Programs ................................ ................................ ............................. 6

2.2.1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) ........................................................................ 6

2.2.2 Other State Programs ........................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Other Public Funds ................................ ................................ ........................ 6

2.3.1 Housing Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency ................................................. 6

2.3.2 Below Market Rate Program (BMR) ...................................................................................... 6

2.3.3 Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF) .............................................................................................. 7

2.4 Private For -Profit and Nonprofit Sources ................................ ........................ 7

2.4.1 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .................................................................................... 7

2.4.2 Private Developers ................................................................................................................ 7

2.4.3 Non-Profit Agencies .............................................................................................................. 7

2.4.4 Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART) ............................................................... 7 3 HOUSING-RELATED PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..9

3.1 Minor Home Repair ................................ ................................ ....................... 9

3.2 Home Rehabilitation ................................ ................................ ...................... 9

3.3 Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction ................................ ............................... 9

3.4 First Time Home Buyers Program ................................ ................................ ... 9

3.5 Acquisition of Land ................................ ................................ ....................... 9

3.6 Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing ................................ .......... 9

3.7 Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) .............................. 10

3.8 New Construction ................................ ................................ ....................... 10

3.9 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................ ................................ .. 10

3.10 Special Needs Housing Operation Subsidies ................................ .................. 10

3.11 Homeless Programs ................................ ................................ ..................... 10

3.11.1 LifeMoves Shelter Network................................................................................................. 10

3.11.2 Safe Harbor Emergency Shelter .......................................................................................... 11 214 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-3

3.11.3 Stone Villa Inn ..................................................................................................................... 11

3.12 Regional Collaborations ................................ ................................ ............... 11

3.12.1 Inter-Agency Council (IAC) .................................................................................................. 11

3.12.2 Continuum of Care .............................................................................................................. 11

3.12.3 HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program ................................................................................. 11

3.13 Chronic Homelessness ................................ ................................ ................. 11

3.14 Homeless Prevention ................................ ................................ ................... 12

3.14.1 Legal Aid Society, HomeSavers Program ............................................................................ 12

3.14.2 LifeMoves, Rapid Rehousing Program ................................................................................ 12

3.15 Discharge Policy ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 4 SITES INVENTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13

0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area Map ........................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2: Sites Inventory Map ..................................................................................................................... 15

0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Site Affordability Breakdown ........................................................................................................ 16

0. 4 List of Attachments
▪ Table A – Housing Sites Inventory

215 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-4
1 INTRODUCTION
The housing resources of the City of San Mateo are comprised of all the funds, programs, and sites that are available to be used to create additional housing affordability. There is a myriad of ways the City can address housing concerns in the community, both from a land use and from a programmatic standpoint.

The City receives and dedicates funding sources to be used in the development of affordable housing and housing related programs . These housing related programs can also be jointly managed by non -profit providers and city staff working collaboratively. The City is also responsible for ensuring that it maintains an inventory of sites that can feasibly support enough housing development to meet the goals o f the Housing Element. These three areas together make up the housing resources of the City. 216 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-5
2 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS
This section will discuss the funding the City utilizes in the development of housing, especially housing that is affordable, through financial and other kinds of assistance, as well as for other housing programs.

Affordable housing projects in particular, due to the high costs of land and construction, typically require a combination of resources and partnerships to achieve development and affordability . There are a number of resources available to the City to implement its housing and community development objectives. Each funding source typically comes with a set of regulations that restricts the way s in which it may be used to ensure that they meet the parameters of the purpose of the program. Many of the programs identified herein are designed primarily to address affordability issues, as the cost of housing is a significant impediment to homeowners and renters alike.

2.1 Federal Programs

2.1.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The City of San Mateo has been an active participant in the CDBG program for over 40 years. The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards this flexible grant program to jurisdictions through a statutory formula that uses measurements of need. CDBG funds can be used to assist low- and moderate-income persons in the form of social services activities, housing rehabilitation, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, improvement of public facilities, and prevention and elimination of slums and blight. The City’s entitlement grant has increased an average of about 5% over the last five years. It is anticipated that the CDBG grant will either remain the same or decrease; therefore, the City is budgeting a conservative 2% decrease annually over the next five years.

2.1.2 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
The HOME program is a federal grant to participating jurisdictions determined by formula allocations.

HOME funds are directed toward the housing programs that assist persons at or below 60% of the median income, including acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, tenant -based assistance, homebuyer assistance, planning and supportive services. The City of San Mateo participates in the program as part of a consortium with the County of San Mateo and the City of South San Francisco.

2.1.3 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
The LIHTC is an incentive for investors to provide equity to develop rental units for households at 30 - 60% of median income. The program is not a direct federal subsidy, but rather a tax incentive administered by the Internal Revenue Service. $1,200,000 in tax credits were used to help finance the Montara project in 2020, which contained 68 affordable housing units and 12 units set-aside for formerly homeless veterans.

2.1.4 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
This program is administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority with multiple eligibility criteria; including a family or a single person who is 62 years or older, disabled or pregnant, with a household annual gross income equal to or below the HUD published income limits. Households who qualify for Federal Preference are considered first and are defined as persons who are involuntarily displaced, or persons who are paying more than 50% of household income towards rent. Nearly 700 San Mateo residents are assisted annually through individual vouchers and have selected housing that distributes the assistance throughout neighborhoods in the City.

217 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-6

2.2 State Programs

2.2.1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
The City of San Mateo began receiving funding through the PLHA program in 2020. HCD awards the grant to cities and counties based on a formula of the amount of funding each jurisdiction receives through the CDBG program. PLHA funds can be used for predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation of low-income housing, to match funds into housing trusts or low-income housing asset funds, accessibility modifications, homeownership opportunities, rehabilita tion, and other supportive housing and homelessness services. The City ’s estimated 5 -year award from HCD is $2,051,364 and therefore anticipates an award of around $400,000 annually.

2.2.2 Other State Programs
The City of San Mateo obtains funding from several State programs such as the CalHome Program, which is currently used for a home rehabilitation loan program and has a fund balance of around $560,000 in 2022. Staff keeps a close eye on funding cycles and new funding opportunities from the State as they are released. Housing developers and housing organizations are eligible to apply for State funds, such as programs sponsored by California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), on a project-by-project basis. There are also State Low-Income Tax Credits available, which can be used to assist housing projects. Participants in First Time Homebuyer Programs often utilize the CalHFA mortgage and down payment assistance programs as they are available.

2.3 Other Public Funds

2.3.1 Housing Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency As mandated by the state legislature, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of San Mateo was dissolved as of February 1, 2012. As the Housing Successor Agency, the City of San Mateo is responsible for the management of properties and funds formerly belonging to the Redevelopment Agency. The City elected to retain the housing assets and housing functions previously performed by the Agency upon dissolution. A portfolio of loans previously financed by RDA funds prov ides some program income to support future affordable housing. At the time of dissolution, the City’s RDA fund balance of approximately $1.9M was returned to the local taxing agencies. The City elected to retain its portion of the returned funds in the amo unt of $706,000 to be reserved for affordable housing. It has also set a policy to contribute 20% of the annual increase in property tax revenues to be retained for affordable housing on an ongoing basis. The fund has dedicated $2,850,000 to the Kiku Crossing affordable housing project and the balance is expected to be at $250,000 afterwards.

2.3.2 Below Market Rate Program (BMR)
In 1992 an inclusionary zoning ordinance was passed that requires a portion of affordable units be provided in all complexes with 11 or more units in both rental and ownership developments. The program was amended on January 1, 2020. For rental projects, d evelopers must provide 15% of units to be affordable to households up to 80% AMI. In ownership developments, developers must provide 15% of the units affordable to households up to 120% AMI. Additional affordable units can be provided for bonuses and conce ssions. When the amount of required BMR units includes a fraction above 0.5, the requirement is rounded up, but when it is between 0.1 and 0.4, an in -lieu fee is charged. This fee has become a source of funds that may be used for housing policies and programs.

218 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-7

2.3.3 Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF)
In 2016 the City adopted a new ordinance to establish a commercial linkage fee. The fee, which is collected when a building permit for a nonresidential use is issued, is to be used for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. It is calculated by using the gross floor area of net new commercial space, excluding structured parking. There are three tiers of pricing for the fee, with retail/service at $5.40 per square foot, hotel at $10.79 per square foot, and office/research at $26.99 per square foot.

2.4 Private For -Profit and Nonprofit Sources

2.4.1 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
Several opportunities exist for partnership with local lenders via the Community Reinvestment Act. This law requires local lenders to analyze the lending needs of the community in which they do business, particularly the needs of low and moderate -income persons, and develop programs to address those needs. To date several lenders have offered favorable terms on first mor tgages for the First Time Home Buyer program which has provided tremendous support to the program. Other lenders have assisted new construction projects in the form of construction loans and permanent financing. The City considers this a beneficial resource for future partnerships as well.

2.4.2 Private Developers
In any housing project the City undertakes with private developers, the City attempts to leverage its resources as much as possible. The City attempts to provide the "gap" financing that is needed to make an affordable housing project feasible. Private developers are very interested in developing housing because of the current high demand and the City continues to work with them to find ways to include affordability within their projects. With the current demand for housing, the City sees good opportunities to work with the private sector in the area of new housing construction over the next eight years.

2.4.3 Non-Profit Agencies
There are several partnership opportunities with non -profit org anizations. Foundations and lender consortiums provide means of financial assistance. Community service organizations provide housing services and manage housing programs. Non -profit developers produce new affordable units. To date , the majority of new affordable units have been sponsored by non-profit developers. This trend will most likely continue since the federal programs strongly encourage the use of non -profit agencies for housing programs.

2.4.4 Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART)
The Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo County is a regional trust fund for affordable housing in San Mateo County. It has a revolving loan fund to provide financing for affordable housing developments usually in the form of short -term g ap or predevelopment financing. HEART provided financing for Kiku Crossing in 2022.

HEART’s “Opening Doors” Program provides below market rate second loans as down payment assistance for home buyers who make up to $150,000 per year. The program is also structured to eliminate private mortgage insurance which results in lowering the total monthly housing payment for homebuyers.

The City is partnering with HEART to create pre -approved designs for ADUs to allow for streamlined application processing and ap proval and incorporating environmentally friendly design. The goal of the initiative is to increase ease of ADU production, and therefore increase affordable housing production.

Four designs have been created at different unit sizes to accommodate the size constraints of different 219 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-8
sites – studio, 1 bedroom (square), 1 bedroom (rectangular), and 2 bedrooms.

As new federal, state and local sources of funds appear, the City will integrate them into its programs and look for new solution s to meeting the affordable housing needs. It also continues to aggressively seek other potential financing sources and partnership opportunities. 220 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-9
3 HOUSING -RELATED PROGRAMS

3.1 Minor Home Repair
The Minor Home Repair program provides these services free of charge to low -income homeowners.

Owners are entitled to free minor exterior or interior repairs. Repairs also include accessibility modifications and simple energy efficiency improvements. The overwhelming majority of participants in this program is senior citizens. An average of 35 minor home repair projects were completed annually during the previous housing element cycle.

3.2 Home Rehabilitation
The City operates a similar, but separate program for home repairs that constitute major upgrades. The program offers assistance to low -income homeowners in the form of deferred payment loans up to a maximum of $60,000 for home rehabilitation. The program is limited to properties that have 1 -4 units.

Loans are for a 20-year term with a 3% interest rate. While the program has received interest from the community, there have been no rehabilitations completed through this program as of 2022.

3.3 Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction
The City developed and implements lead -based paint regulations in accordance with HUD Guidelines 24 CFR Part 35 and 40 CFR Part 745 last revised 2012.

3.4 First Time Home Buyers Program
This program provides first time buyers the opportunity to purchase condominiums as they become available for resale at two City sponsored complexes, which are Meadow Court and Gateway Commons, and have 70 and 93 affordable housing units respectively. This project-based approach is also augmented by new ownership units that either the City builds , or private developers build in compliance with the City’s Below Market Rate Program.

3.5 Acquisition of Land
The City is always looking for opportunities to purchase land to assist the development of housing. This includes land banking for the developme nt of owner and rental housing, senior and family housing, transit-oriented housing and mixed -use developments. Currently, the City owns two sites located in downtown San Mateo at the intersection of 4th Ave and Railroad Ave. The sites are currently occupied by a closed toy store and a surface parking lot, referred to as the Talbot’s site. The City plans to use the sites for the development of affordable housing in a public/private partnership at $1 per year lease. The City has also acquired a site currently occupied by a restaurant called the Ravioli House, which is adjacent to the Talbot’s site.

3.6 Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
The City also partners with nonprofit organizations to purchase and rehabilitate existing housing and make it more affordable. As funds are available, the City will consider purchasing multi-family complexes and/or single-family homes to make available for rental housing. This helps preserve the existing housing stock by ensuring adequate property management standards and adds to the City’s affordable housing stock.

The City typically funds these types of projects with HOME and RDA Housing Successor funds.

In addition, the City will consider purchase of individual condominium units in private dev elopments, as funds are available. These units would be included in the existing First Time Homebuyer Program and sold to moderate-income households with the same loan terms and resale price restrictions. 221 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-10

3.7 Community Housing Development Organizations (CH DO) The City no longer administers its own HOME programs after entering into a consortium. However, San Mateo County will coordinate with HIP Housing Development Corp. (HHDC) or any other qualified CHDO to apply the annual increment of HOME funds that are channeled directly to CHDOs. The HOME funds will be used to assist persons who make less than 60% of the area median income.

3.8 New Construction
Although the coronavirus pandemic has had significant impact on the cost of construction, the City sees the potential for more partnership opportunities to develop new housing with both for -profit and nonprofit developers, mostly due to the wide array of financing tools currently available. Developers have become far more knowledgeable about how to apply for and combine the various government program funds and available private funding to build affordable housing.

3.9 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The City's ADU ordinance , most recently updated in 2022, allows the con struction of modest units sometimes referred to as "granny units" in residentially zoned neighborhoods. These units are relatively inexpensive to rent due to their size and are often occupied by family members as a way to live together yet maintain an element of privacy.

3.10 Special Needs Housing Operation Subsidies
Through the PLHA program, the City provides funding for staff salaries at the Montara affordable housing project, which contains a set aside of 12 units for formerly homeless veterans. These staff will manage the client services and case management needed for the tenants. The goals for this program are to aid in building long term stability in their living situations. These subsidies are in addition to assistance being granted to the project from the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

3.11 Homeless Programs
Although the City does not directly manage any homeless prevention or assistance programs, it collaborates and financially supports a variety of programs countywide. The sources of funds for homeless programs in the City of San Mateo are CDBG, PLHA, Affordable Housing Funds, and City Housing funds.

County level funding that helps to benefit San Mateo residents in need include McKinney -Vento, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program ( HPRP), and Section 8 programs. All homeless outreach, assistance and prevention programs are conducted by local nonprofit organizations in coordination with various local government agencies. The City works with several groups to provi de emergency shelters, transitional housing and support services for the homeless as described in the 2018- 23 Consolidated Plan. The City collaborates with the County of San Mateo on countywide homeless counts, which occurs every two years; and follows the County’s “Continuum of Care” (CofC) program to address homeless which is described in the “Regional Collaborations” section below. In coordination with other jurisdictions in the county, the following shelter operations and expansion efforts the City supports are as follows:

3.11.1 LifeMoves Shelter Network
The City provides annual funding through the CDBG program to LifeMoves for shelter operations within City limits. There are two shelters located in the City that are managed by LifeMoves: the Vendome, and First Step for Families shelter. However, through countywide collaboration, the city a lso supports the efforts of other shelters run by LifeMoves throughout San Mateo County, including the Coast House, Family Crossroads, Haven Family House, Maple Street Shelter, and Redwood Family House. 222 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-11

3.11.2 Safe Harbor Emergency Shelter
The City provides $15,000 annual from City Housing for the operation of Safe Harbor, the regional emergency shelter for adult individuals located in South San Francisco and operated by Samaritan House.

After the basic human needs have been met and shelter clients have been stabilized, Safe Harbor provides case management for financial counseling including job search and employment services as well as budgeting to help achieve financial self-sufficiency. The program also provides housing search assistance, including assistance to find subs idized housing when possible. One example is access to the San Mateo County Housing Readiness Voucher program which includes 3 years of continuous case management and rental housing vouchers. Safe Harbor’s overall goal is to ensure stabilized housing for three years.

3.11.3 Stone Villa Inn
Through the Homekey program, San Mateo County plans to perform a conversion of the hotel Stone Villa Inn into an emergency shelter , which will be located within the City . The hotel currently contains 44 guestrooms, which could be conver ted into use for individual shelter rooms. Additionally , the City will support these efforts as a part of the CofC and extend its network of homeless services to the future clients of the shelter.

3.12 Regional Collaboratio ns
City staff members are active members of the following regional collaboratives to address a wide variety of issues associated with homelessness and homeless prevention.

3.12.1 Inter-Agency Council (IAC)
The IAC is a countywide consortium of housing stakeholders to develop and support the San Mateo County HOPE: 10-year Plan to End Homelessness. This plan focusses on the provision of new affordable housing opportunities rather than development of new shelters.

3.12.2 Continuum of Care
The Continuum of Care committee for San Mateo County implements its plan to serve homeless persons and families. Through this collaboration of service providers and local government agencies, efforts are coordinated for outreach, needs assessment, provision of services for the homeless. The consortium also determines the priorities and allocation of Countywide Emergency Shelter Grant funds. In 2016, the CofC released its current Strategic Plan titled “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County”. From this plan, the Coordinated Entry System (CES) was created. It is a centralized system pulls together the service providers across the county to ensure that resources are available to all clients regardless of which jurisdiction an individual enters the system from.

3.12.3 HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program
Although the City does not anticipate providing financial assistance to this program in 2022-23, staff does serve on the selections committee for entry into this program that provides support services and rent assistance for a one-to-two-year term for candidates with educational and/or vocational training plans to find employment at a level to reduce the need for government assistance payments. The program provides deep supportive services to the clients to move toward self-sufficiency within a 2-year time period.

3.13 Chronic Homelessness
The Housing Outreach Team (HOT) is a multi -disciplinary team, including City staff, formed through the HOPE initiative that addresses chronic homelessness by outreach and engagement. This program helps to provide housing and bring medical, mental health and substance abuse support services to those who might not otherwise seek such services. The outreach and case management of this team supports the 223 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-12
residents of The Vendome, a permanent supportive housing SRO in Downtown San Mateo. The Vendome was acquired and renovated by the City with various housing financial resources in 2009. The Vendome will continue to serve HOT identified clients and other very low-income residents this program year. City staff also supports the efforts of LifeMoves to bring additional financial resources for services and rent assistance to the operation.

3.14 Homeless Prevention
As detailed under the sections below, the City will provide assistance grants t o help prevent further homelessness. In addition to the two programs identified, Samaritan House, as well as other local agencies, provides services for the extremely low - income residents that include homeless prevention through a variety of programs fund ed by other jurisdictions such as Rapid Rehousing, and emergency housing vouchers.

3.14.1 Legal Aid Society, HomeSavers Program
Legal Aid assists tenant litigants with unlawful detainers and related matters to help people stay in their homes across the Bay Area region. They conduct weekly clinics at community centers and at the County Court House advising and representing applicants as necessary in court proceedings. Their goal is to keep people in their homes and prevent homelessness through their advocacy. The City funds them annually through the CDBG program. They negotiate with landlords on tenant’s behalf regarding other issues that threaten their ability to live in safe, decent, affordable housing. Their goal is to counsel 480 individuals in 160 households.

3.14.2 LifeMoves, Rapid Rehousing Program
LifeMoves operates the City’s Rapid Rehousing program for individuals and families at great risk of experiencing homelessness. Clients are given direct financial assistance to resolve debt related to housing expenses as well as case management to connect them to resources to stabilize their finances and overall wellbeing. The program is funded through PLHA as has the goal of serving 5 individuals and 5 families during its first year of operations. This goal is expected to increase in later years with increased funding.

3.15 Discharge Policy
The City does not directly fund any institutions requiring discharge. These policies are requirements of health institutions to discharge patients experiencin g homelessness to a safe and appropriate location , offer meals and weather -appropriate clothing, distribution of needed medicines, and providing the necessary transportation . These institutions are within the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo.

Discharge policies are a component of the County’s HOPE 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. 224 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-13
4 SITES INVENTORY
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). To create this list, City staff undertook an extensive process to review the feasibility of housing development for every site located within the key study areas that had engaged the community while weighing in the expertise of staff, consultants, and developers. The draft sites list was posted to the city website in December 2021 for public comment where staff received many comments and updated the inventory as appropriate.

In 2019, City staff began a series of citizen outreach workshops where the community was asked to select target areas where they believed future housing development would be most suitable. From this process, the City was able to identify 10 study areas for the 6 th Housing Element Cycle’s sites inventory. Then, trends were analyzed from the previous 5 years to see what the expected densities of potential redevelopment would be when weighed against the existing site constraints such as zoning, size, and neighborhood trends. Staff was able to use this process to calculate the realistic redevelopment capacity of these sites. Within these study areas, there are currently enough sites zoned to accommodate 10,922 new housing units in the City of San Mateo. The affordability breakdown of these sites is 2,033 Very Low- Income units, 1,583 Low-Income units, 1,610 Moderate-Income units, and 5,696 Above Moderate-Income units. The sites for affordable developments were spread throughout the City to avoid adding to any Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RECAP).

The majority of sites are nonvacant, with nonvacant sites accommodating more than 50% of the lower income units. However, this will not be an impediment to development as the type of sites used for the inventory are consistent with those that have been redeveloped into housing projects in recent years. The City has received several applications for projects that involved redeveloping underutilized low-density commercial property into either full housing or mixed -use housing projects. Seven key projects that fit this description are: Concar Passage, Azara, Park 20, Hillsdale Inn, Nazareth Plaza, Trag’s Market (303 Baldwin), and 1919 O’Farrell. Combined, they will produce a total of 1,544 new housing units, with 137 affordable units. This trend can be expected to continue, with owner interest in redevelopment being expressed for many of the sites identified in the sites inventory table, such as the Hillsdale Mall, Peninsula Heights, Marriot Residence Inn, The Fish Market, Bayshore Commons, and the Olympic (Mollie Stone’s) Shopping Center. Furthermore, these sites do not require rezoning, as residential development is an allowed use on the commercial sites included in the inventory. 225 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-14

Figure 1: Study Area Map
Universe: Sites Inventory
Notes: The ten study areas were created from a series of community engagement workshops were attendees were asked to select the neighborhood zones where they believed redevelopment would be most suitable for the next housing element.

226 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-15

Figure 2: Sites Inventory Map
Universe: Sites Inventory Notes: The individual sites identified as suitable for housing redevelopment are marked in pink while blue circles indicate groupings of sites. Site affordability breakdown by grouping is seen in Table 1 below Downtown
101/92
Interchange
Hillsdale
Station South
Bridgepointe
92/El Camino Real
227 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-16
Table 1: Site Affordability Breakdown
Table Source: Housing Resources Sites Inventory, 2022

To see the full list of sites adequate for housing development identified by the City, see the chart in Attachment Table A.

Housing Opportunity
Areas
Total Units Very
Low
Low Moderate Above
Moderate Pipeline
Bridgepointe 1,845 405 274 281 885 -
Hillsdale Station South 2,465 629 364 409 1,063 67
101/92 Interchange 2,076 360 165 191 1,381 961
Other Sites 4,056 615 636 489 2,295 1,320
ADUs 480 24 144 240 72
Totals 10,922 2,033 1,583 1,610 5,696
RHNA 7,015 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040
Buffer 3,907
(56%)
256
(14%)
560
(55%)
435
(37%)
2,656
(87%)

228 of 955
Note: Table Starts in Cell A2
Jurisdiction Name Site
Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed (units/acre) Parcel Size (Acres) Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity
SAN MATEO 121 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐292‐070 A Executive Office E2 0 50 0.18 Medical office buil dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 3 3 SAN MATEO 117 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐292‐080 A Executive Office E2 0 50 0.41 Medical office buil dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 5 2 5 12 SAN MATEO 5 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐312‐250 B Executive Office/High  DensE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 0.98 Med Center surfac eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 14 6 15 35 SAN MATEO 123 Baldwin Ave 94401 032‐312‐270 B Executive Office/High  DensE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfaceYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 117 Baldwin Ave 94401 032‐312‐150 B Executive Office/High  DensE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfaceYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 26 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐312‐100 B Executive Office/High Den sE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfaceYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 27 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐312‐070 B Executive Office/High Den sE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfaceYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 402 Tilton Ave 94401 032‐331‐010 C Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing   E l e m e n t   ‐   N o n ‐ V a c a n t 2125 SAN MATEO 406 Tilton Ave 94401 032‐331‐020 C Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing   E l e m e n t   ‐   N o n ‐ V a c a n t 2125 SAN MATEO 20 N Railroad 94401 032‐331‐150 C Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 0.5 Industrial/warehousYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 7 3 8 18 SAN MATEO 480 N Bayshore Blvd 94401 033‐081‐280 High Density Multi‐ Family R4 0 50 0.93 Best Western YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 19 8 20 47 SAN MATEO 145 Kingston 94401 033‐171‐040 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.09 2 unit ‐ Duplex YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pendin g Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 3 32 35 SAN MATEO 139 Kingston 94401 033‐171‐050 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.13 5 unit ‐ 2 story resi dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 131 Kingston 94401 033‐171‐060 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1218 Monte Diablo 94401 033‐171‐180 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.89 Neighborhood retai YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1620 S Delaware St 94402 035‐200‐070 Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.3 Outdoor car wash stYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 3 3 SAN MATEO 1731 Leslie St 94402 035‐215‐060 E Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 0.3 Service commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 33 13 35 81 SAN MATEO 1741 Leslie St 94402 035‐221‐010 E Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.16 Service commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1753 Leslie St 94402 035‐221‐020 E Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.14 Service commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 678 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐090 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.24 Seven 11 YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proj ect Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 73 888 961 SAN MATEO 666 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐140 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 5.41 Shopping center/paYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1855 Delaware St 94402 035‐242‐160 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.39 restaurant YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pr oject Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1880 Grant St 94402 035‐242‐170 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 5.06 Shopping center/paYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 690 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐190 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.41 Shane Jeweler YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending  Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1820 Grant St 94402 035‐242‐200 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.41 Trader Joes YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending P roject Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 640 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐210 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 1.86 Shopping center/paYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO Concar Dr/S Delaware St 94402 035‐242‐220 F Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.75 parking YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proje ct Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 77 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐311‐140 G Executive Office/ High DenE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 0.63 Medical office and  pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 10 4 11 25 SAN MATEO 77 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐311‐150 G Executive Office/ Hi gh DenE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Medical office and pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 229 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐052‐350 Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 5.4 Elk club.   YES ‐ Current NO  ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Us ed in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 77 31 81 189 SAN MATEO 205 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐010 Executive Office/High DensE1/R4 0 50 0.25 Single story office  b YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 44 SAN MATEO 2010 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐020 Executive Office/High D ensE1/R4 0 50 0.22 Single story office  b YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 33 SAN MATEO 2050 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐060 H Executive Office/High  DensC3‐1/R4 0 50 0.96 Single story office  b YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 11 5 12 28 SAN MATEO 2070 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐070 H Executive Office/High  DensC3‐1/R4 0 50 Single story profess YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2055 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐090 H Executive Office/High DensC3‐1/R4 0 50 Single story medica YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned A vailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2075 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐080 H Executive Office/High DensC3‐1/R5 0 50 Single story office b YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 151 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐140 I Executive Office/High D ensE1‐1/R4 0 50 0.36 Single story office  b YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 55 SAN MATEO 117 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐150 I High Density Multi‐Fami ly R4 0 50 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 31 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐250 High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.14 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 2745 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐070 Transit Oriented De velopmTOD 0 50 0.82 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availa ble Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 17 7 18 42 SAN MATEO 2825 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐110 Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 Existing retail/parki YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 2833 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐120 J Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 1.08 small retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availabl e Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 22 9 23 54 SAN MATEO 2837 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐130 J Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 small retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Use d in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 2841 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐999 J Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 small retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Use d in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 3025 S El Camino Real 94403 039‐360‐160 K Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 1.42 Vacant restaurant aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 28 12 30 70 SAN MATEO 3111 El Camino Real 94403 039‐360‐070 K Transit Oriented D evelopmTOD 0 50 Vacant restaurant aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing  Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 200 S Fremont  94401 033‐163‐160 High Density Multi‐Famil y R4D 0 50 0.42 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Con secutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant 2 13 15 SAN MATEO 717 E 3rd Ave 94401 033‐163‐050 L High Density Multi‐Famil y R4D 0 50 0.58 Vacant YES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proje ct Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 36 40 SAN MATEO 222 S Fremont St 94401 033‐163‐170  L High Density Multi‐F amily R4D 0 50 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 480 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐183‐060 Central Business Support C BD‐S 0 50 1.16 Parking Lot YES ‐ Potential YES ‐ City‐Owned Pending Pr oject Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca n 223 2 225 SAN MATEO 3069 Kyne St (BMSP ‐ Reside n 94403 040‐031‐040 TOD BMSP 0 50 1.9 Demolished Bay M eYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Con secutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacan 54 9 54 SAN MATEO 36th Ave/Colegrove St 94403 042‐121‐060 Regional/Community Com C3/R4 0 50 1.43 Parking Lot YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca n 29 12 31 72 SAN MATEO 487 S El Camino Real 94402 034‐144‐220 M Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.42 Retail/office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 3 9 20 SAN MATEO 62 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐144‐230 M Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 1.52 Retail‐4th Ave Reta YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 13 33 77 SAN MATEO E 5th Ave/San Mateo Dr 94401 034‐144‐240 M Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 1.2 Parking Lot YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca n 24 10 26 60 SAN MATEO 885 S El Camino Real 94402 034‐200‐220 Executive Office/High DensE2‐1 0 50 0.77 1 story office(Centr YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 16 6 17 39 SAN MATEO 480 S Ellsworth Ave 94401 034‐173‐040 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.11 Retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available No t Used in Prior Housing Element 22 SAN MATEO 159 E 5th Ave 94402 034‐173‐050 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.09 retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used  in Prior Housing Element 11 SAN MATEO 150 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐090 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.12 Restaurant YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not  Used in Prior Housing Element 22 SAN MATEO 100 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐100 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.76 Retail‐Wells fargo YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 9 4 10 23 SAN MATEO 109 E 5th Ave 94401 034‐173‐110 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 Wells Fargo parkingYES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior H ousing Element SAN MATEO 155 E 5th Ave 94401 034‐173‐130 Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.18 Retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used  in Prior Housing Element 33 SAN MATEO 168 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐140 O Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.14 Restaurant/parking YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 22 SAN MATEO 168 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐150 O Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.24 restaurant/parking YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 44 SAN MATEO 222 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐176‐050 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.24 Draeger's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 10 SAN MATEO 400 S B st 94401 034‐176‐070 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.11 Draeger's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project N ot Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 94401 034‐176‐080 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.13 Draeg er's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in  Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 94401 034‐176‐090 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.66 Draeg er's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in  Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 4th/Railroad 94403 034‐179‐050 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.25 Parking lot‐City Sur pYES ‐ Potential YES ‐ City‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior  Housing Element 52 52 SAN MATEO 4th/Railroad 94403 034‐179‐060 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.12 Parking lot‐City Sur pYES ‐ Potential YES ‐ City‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior  Housing Element SAN MATEO 435 E 3rd Ave 94401 034‐181‐160 Downtown Retail Core Su pCBD/S 0 50 0.25 Auto repair YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending  Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 44 SAN MATEO 312 Delaware St 94401 034‐185‐030 R Downtown Retail Core SupCBD/S 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element 10 58 68 SAN MATEO 318 Delaware St 94401 034‐185‐040 R Downtown Retail Core S upCBD/S 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 320 Delaware St 94401 034‐185‐050 R Downtown Retail Core S upCBD/S 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil yYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 307 Claremont St 94401 034‐185‐110 R Downtown Retail Core  SupCBD/S 0 50 0.13 Interior deisgn hom YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 512 3rd Ave 94401 034‐185‐120 R Downtown Retail Core Su pCBD/S 0 50 0.13 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pend ing Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 373 Claremont St 94401 034‐185‐140 R Downtown Retail Core SupCBD/S 0 50 0.06 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pend ing Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 507 4th Ave 94401 034‐185‐150 R Downtown Retail Core SupCBD/S 0 50 0.19 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pend ing Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 300 Delaware St 94010 034‐185‐160 R Downtown Retail Core SupCBD/S 0 50 0.25 Gas station YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending  Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 525 4th Ave 94401 034‐185‐170 R Downtown Retail Core SupCBD/S 0 50 0.13 Auto repair YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending  Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 311 Claremont St 94402 034‐185‐190 R Downtown Retail Core SupCBD/S 0 50 0.12 3 unit ‐ 2 story residYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 315 Claremont St 94402 034‐185‐200 R Downtown Retail Core  SupCBD/S 0 50 0.12 Storage yard YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pendin g Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 5 Hayward Ave 94401 034‐275‐130 Executive Office/ High DenE2‐1/R4 0 50 0.31 6 unit ‐ 3 duplexes YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 16 18

APPENDIX C | Table A – Housing Sites Inventory
229 of 955

Jurisdiction Name Site
Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed (units/acre) Parcel Size (Acres) Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity
SAN MATEO 1600 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐080 S Executive Office E2 ‐2 0 50 0.11 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending  Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 39 44 SAN MATEO 1604 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐090 S Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.08 3 unit ‐ 2 story mix eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 1610 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐100 S Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.1 1 unit ‐ 2 story mix eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 1620 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐110 S Executive Office E2 ‐2 0 50 0.1 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending  Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1541 Jasmine St 94403 034‐413‐130 S Executive Office E2‐2 0 5 0 0.12 2 unit ‐ Duplex YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pr oject Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1535 Jasmine St 94403 034‐413‐140 S Executive Office E2‐2 0 5 0 0.12 2 unit ‐ Duplex YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pr oject Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1602 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐150 S Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.24 2 unit ‐ 2 story mix eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 1670 Amphlett Blvd 91201 035‐241‐240 Executive Office E2‐1 0 50 5.78 Low Rise Office/Pa r YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 71 29 74 174 SAN MATEO 1700 Amphlett Blvd 91201 035‐241‐250 Executive Office E2‐1 0 50 4.07 Low Rise Office/Pa r YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 49 20 52 121 SAN MATEO 1720 Amphlett Blvd 91201 035‐241‐260 Executive Office E2‐1 0 50 4.61 Low Rise Office/Pa r YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 56 23 59 138 SAN MATEO 303 Baldwin Ave 94403 032‐322‐230 T Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2/R5 0 50 0.68 Trags YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pro ject Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 58 64 SAN MATEO 304 Baldwin Ave 94403 032‐322‐230 T Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2/R5 0 50 0.08 Trags YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pro ject Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1863 S Norfolk St 90025 035‐383‐200 Neighborhood Commerci a C1‐1 0 35 3.5 Fishmarket YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending P roject Not Used in Prior Housing Element 43 17 45 105 SAN MATEO 2200 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94401 035‐466‐010 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 1.66 Bridgepointe Ice Ri nYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 33 14 36 83 SAN MATEO 2204 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐020 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 0.35 Restaurant‐Red Ro bYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 55 SAN MATEO 2206 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐030 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 0.35 Restaurant‐Brew H oYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 55 SAN MATEO 2208 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐040 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 0.37 Vacant Restaurant‐ YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Priv ately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 55 SAN MATEO 2210 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐050 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 0.33 Retail‐Hallmark YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Private ly‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 55 SAN MATEO 1900 Fashion Island Blvd 55440 035‐466‐060 U Regional/Comm unity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 9.21 Bridgepointe Targe tYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 186 76 198 460 SAN MATEO 2260 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐070 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 3.22 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 39 16 41 96 SAN MATEO 2270 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94106 035‐466‐080 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 1.39 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 17 7 18 42 SAN MATEO 3012 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐090 U Regional/Commun ity Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 2.75 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 33 14 35 82 SAN MATEO 94105 035‐466‐100 U Regional/Community Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 12. 07 Bridgepointe ShoppYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 147 60 156 363 SAN MATEO 94105 035‐466‐110 U Regional/Community Com C2‐0.62/R 0 50 2.96 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 36 15 38 89 SAN MATEO 1500 Fashion Island Blvd 10023 035‐550‐040 Executive Offi ce E1‐0.62/R 0 50 6.08 3 story Office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 92 50 131 273 SAN MATEO 1919 O'Farrell St 94401 039‐030‐340 Executive Office/ Hig h DenE1‐1/R4 0 50 0.67 1 story medical offi cYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element 4 45 49 SAN MATEO 2118 El Camino Real 94402 039‐060‐440 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.73 Catrina Hotel YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 9 24 56 SAN MATEO 2621 Palm Pl 94403 039‐085‐280 Regional/Community Com C3‐2 0 50 1.72 Warehouse‐greenh YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availab le Not Used in Prior Housing Element 21 9 22 52 SAN MATEO 2645 El Camino Real 94403 039‐085‐290 Regional/Community  Com C3‐2 0 50 0.51 Retail‐Ah Sam Flori sYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 88 SAN MATEO 2700 El Camino Real 94103 039‐352‐060 V Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.37 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 62 68 SAN MATEO 2750 El Camino Real 94103 039‐352‐070 V Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.3 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2790 El Camino Real 94103 039‐352‐090 V Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.32 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2955 El Camino Real 94010 039‐360‐120 Transit‐Oriented De velopmTOD 0 50 2.29 1 story/parking  YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 46 19 49 114 SAN MATEO 94403 039‐360‐140 Transit‐Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 1.33 1 story/parking  YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 27 11 29 67 SAN MATEO 41 Hillsdale Blvd 94403 039‐490‐170 W Regional/Community Com C2‐2/Q5 0 50 39.91 Hillsdale  Mall YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 808 331 857 1996 SAN MATEO 61 Hillsdale Blvd 94403 039‐490‐050 W Regional/Community Com C2‐2/Q5 0 50 0.09 Hillsdale/ Bank YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 44 SAN MATEO 94111 040‐031‐230 Transit‐Oriented DevelopmBMSP 0 50 1.17 vacant former race  YES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 7 60 67 SAN MATEO 341 Hillsdale Blvd 95112 040‐102‐580 X Regional/Community Com C2‐0.5 0 50 0.32 Car wash YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pendin g Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 129 152 SAN MATEO 477 Hillsdale Blvd 95112 040‐102‐620 X Regional/Community Com C2‐0.5 0 50 2.1 Hillsdale Inn hotel YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐O wned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 95112 040‐102‐630 X Regional/Community Com C2‐0.5 0 50 0.61 Hi llsdale Inn hotel YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proje ct Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2988 Campus Dr 75201 041‐521‐010 Y Executive Office E1‐1 0 50 2.83 3 story Office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proj ect Not Used in Prior Housing Element 29 261 290 SAN MATEO 2800 Campus Dr 75201 041‐521‐020 Y Executive Office E1‐1 0 50 4.28 2 story Office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proj ect Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2655 Campus Dr 75201 041‐522‐010 Y Executive Office E1‐1 0 50 3.38 2 story Office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proj ect Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2755 Campus Dr 75201 041‐522‐020 Y Executive Office E1‐1 0 50 5.03 3 story Office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proj ect Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO Concar and Railroad  94402 035‐200‐998 Transit‐Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 3.1 Hayward Park Trai n YES ‐ Potential YES ‐ County‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element 16 12 161 189 SAN MATEO 1017 3rd Ave 94404 033‐134‐100 Z Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 50 0.14 Vacant YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not  Used in Prior Housing Element 13 5 14 32 SAN MATEO 1015 3rd Ave 94404 033‐134‐110 Z Medium Density Multi‐FamR3 0 50 0.2 Vacant site YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 245 Humboldt St 94404 033‐134‐240 Z Medium Density Multi‐FamR3 0 50 0.3 4 unit ‐ 2 story resi dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 19 Kingston St 94404 033‐191‐040 AA High Density Multi‐Fam ily R4 0 50 0.44 parking YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 24 10 25 59 SAN MATEO 25 Kingston St 94404 033‐191‐060 AA High Density Multi‐Fam ily R4 0 50 0.13 1 story restaurant YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 3 Kingston St 94404 033‐191‐070 AA High Density Multi‐Fami ly R4 0 50 0.45 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avail able Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 210 S. San Mateo Dr 94010 034‐142‐200 AB Downtown Retail C ore CBD 0 30 0.43 Retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available No t Used in Prior Housing Element 14 6 15 35 SAN MATEO 94010 034‐142‐220 AB Downtown Retail Core CBD 0 30 0.26 Parki ng lot YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in P rior Housing Element SAN MATEO 94401 034‐302‐140 Executive Office/ High DenE2‐1/R4 0 50 0.68 1 story retail/office YES ‐ Current YES ‐ Other Pu blicly‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 14 6 15 35 SAN MATEO 90212 035‐381‐020 AC Neighborhood Commercia C1‐0.5/R4 0 30 0.58 Parkside Plaza sho pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 134 55 143 332 SAN MATEO 90212 035‐381‐030 AC Neighborhood Commercia C1‐0.5/R4 0 30 6.07 Parkside Plaza sho pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 94403 039‐030‐400 Executive Office/ High DenE1‐1/R4 0 50 1.54 Single story office‐ AYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 31 13 33 77 SAN MATEO
1495 El Camino Real
1850 NORFOLK ST
1826 NORFOLK ST
220 W 20th Ave
150 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐030‐200 Executive Office/ High DenE1‐1/R4 0 50 1.98 Single story office‐ SYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 32 13 34 79 SAN MATEO 2950 El Camino Real 94403 039‐353‐010 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.31 2 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 66 SAN MATEO 2900 El Camino Real 28255 039‐353‐050 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 1.08 One story commer cYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 22 9 23 54 SAN MATEO 2850 El Camino Real 94010 039‐353‐060 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.64 1 story commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐ Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 3 15 18 SAN MATEO 2838 El Camino Real 10514 039‐353‐070 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 1.18 2 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 24 10 25 59 SAN MATEO 3520 El Camino Real 94124 042‐121‐040 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 1.81 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 36 15 39 90 SAN MATEO 3590 El Camino Real 94403 042‐121‐080 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.65 1‐2 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 13 5 14 32 SAN MATEO 4060 El Camino Real 95126 042‐241‐180 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 1.02 One story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 21 8 22 51 SAN MATEO 4107 Piccadilly Ln 94403 042‐242‐060 AD Neighborhood Comme rcia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 0.25 1 story reta il YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐O wned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 120 49 127 296 SAN MATEO 11 41st Ave 94403 042‐242‐070 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.24 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 40 42nd Ave 94403 042‐242‐160 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.2 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 49 42nd Ave 94403 042‐243‐020 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 2.09 Olympic Parking Lo tYES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior H ousing Element SAN MATEO 42nd/El Camino Real 94403 042‐244‐040 AD Neighborhood Comm ercia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 0.13 parking section adj aYES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior H ousing Element SAN MATEO 4242 El Camino Real 2895 042‐244‐050 AD Neighborhood Comme rcia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 1.19 CVS YES ‐ Cu rrent NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availab le Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐040 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐1.5 /R4 0 50 0.12 parking section adj aYES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior H ousing Element SAN MATEO 61 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐050 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.12 One story retail wit YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 55 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐060 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.12 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 53 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐070 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.12 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 45 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐080 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.12 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 37 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐090 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.12 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 25 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐100 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.24 2 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 17 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐110 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.24 2 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 4300 S El Camino Real 94403 042‐245‐120 AD Neighborhood Co mmercia C1/R4 0 50 0.3 Existing 2‐story co mYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 85 43rd Ave 94403 042‐245‐130 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.36 Mollie Stone/CVS S hYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 89 43rd Ave 94403 042‐263‐010 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.73 Olympic Village YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 4330 Olympic Ave 94403 042‐264‐010 AD Neighborhood Commerc ia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 1.05 Bel Mateo Bowl YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 19 8 22 49 SAN MATEO 4150 Piccadilly Ln 94403 042‐242‐050 AD Neighborhood Comme rcia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 1.08 1 story reta il YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐O wned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 19 8 22 49

230 of 955

Jurisdiction Name Site
Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed (units/acre) Parcel Size (Acres) Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity
SAN MATEO 20 42nd Ave 94403 042‐242‐180 AD Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 1.5/R4 0 50 0.21 Retail Commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned A v a i l a b l e N o t   U s e d   i n   P r i o r   H o u s i n g   E l e m e n t 3148 SAN MATEO 4142 El Camino Real 94403 042‐242‐170 AD Neighborhood Comm ercia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 0.3 vacant YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 2 5 12 SAN MATEO 4100 El Camino Real 94403 042‐242‐080 Neighborhood Commer cia C1‐1.5/R4 0 50 0.42 Retail Commerc ial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately ‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 17 SAN MATEO 2028 El Camino Real 94403 039‐060‐430 Regional/Community  Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.38 The Great Entertai nYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 11 11 SAN MATEO 16 Hobart Ave 94402 034‐381‐230 AE Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 1.48 10 unit ‐ 1 story ap t YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 18 7 19 44 SAN MATEO 1102 El Camino Real 94402 034‐381‐240 AE Regional/Communit y Com C2‐1/R4 0 50 2 story retail/office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1110 El Camino Real 94402 034‐381‐250 AE Regional/Communit y Com C2‐1/R4 0 50 2 story retail offiice YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1114 El Camino Real 94402 034‐381‐260 AE Regional/Communit y Com C2‐1/R4 0 50 2 story retail offiice YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1116 El Camino Real 94402 034‐381‐320 AE Regional/Communit y Com C2‐1/R4 0 50 2 story retail offiice YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1200 El Camino Real 94402 034‐382‐150 AE Regional/Communit y Com C2‐1/R4 0 50 Retail Commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1212 El Camino Real 94402 034‐382‐160 AE Regional/Communit y Com C2‐1/R4 0 50 Retail Commercial YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 19 11th Ave 94401 034‐283‐210 Executive Office/High Den sR1C 0 50 0.52 1‐2 story office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 3 7 16 SAN MATEO 901 El Camino Real 94402 034‐275‐220 Executive Office E2‐1 0 50 0.57 Medical office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 7 3 7 17 SAN MATEO 801 Woodside Way 94401 032‐122‐240 Medium Density Multi‐F amR3 0 35 0.31 warehouse YES ‐ Current NO  ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not  Used in Prior Housing Element 5 2 5 12 SAN MATEO 719 Woodside Way 94401 032‐122‐250 Medium Density Multi‐F amR3 0 35 0.2 warehouse YES ‐  Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not  U s e d   i n   P r i o r   H o u s i n g   E l e m e n t 3137 SAN MATEO 717 Woodside Way 94401 032‐122‐210 Medium Density Multi‐F amR3 0 35 0.14 auto repair YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available N ot Used in Prior Housing Element 77 SAN MATEO 3600 S El Camino Real 94403 042‐123‐420 Regional/Communit y Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.5 FedEx YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availab le Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 2 6 14 SAN MATEO 1311 S El Camino Real 94402 034‐301‐200 Executive Office/  High DenE2‐1/R4 0 50 0.54 Bright Horizon Pres cYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 6 3 7 16 SAN MATEO 350 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐182‐120 AF Regional/Community  Com C2‐1 0 35 0.63 vacant gas station YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 3 8 19 SAN MATEO 220 E Poplar Ave 94401 032‐182‐130 AF Regional/Community C om C2‐2 0 35 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availab le Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO One Baywood  94402 032‐441‐270 Executive Office/ High De nE2‐2/R5 0 50 0.49 2 story medical YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned A vailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 6 12 SAN MATEO 609 4th Ave 94401 034‐188‐160 Downtown Retail Core  CBD/S 0 50 0.59 local service statio nYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 8 3 8 19 SAN MATEO 420 1st Ave 94401 034‐157‐140 Downtown Retail Core  CBD/S 0 50 0.38 1 story office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available N ot Used in Prior Housing Element 66 SAN MATEO 600 S B St 94401 034‐194‐140 AG Neighborhood Commercia C1‐3 /R5 0 50 0.64 2‐story retail/office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 616 S B St 94401 034‐194‐030 AG Neighborhood Commercia C1‐3 /R5 0 50 1 story retail  YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending P roject Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 43 48 SAN MATEO 71‐77 Bovet Rd 94402 039‐011‐460 AH Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2 0 50 6.55 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avail able Not Used in Prior Housing Element 79 33 84 196 SAN MATEO 71‐77 Bovet Rd 94402 039‐011‐470 AH Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2 0 50 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 71‐77 Bovet Rd 94402 039‐011‐480 AH Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2 0 50 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 71‐77 Bovet Rd 94402 039‐011‐490 AH Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2 0 50 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1750 El Camino Real 94402 039‐011‐500 AH Neighborhood Comm ercia C1‐2 0 50 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 71‐77 Bovet Rd 94402 039‐011‐510 AH Neighborhood Commercia C1‐2 0 50 parking YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not U sed in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1650 Borel Pl 94402 039‐011‐400 Executive Office E1‐2 0 50 2. 51 2 story office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not U sed in Prior Housing Element 30 12 32 74 SAN MATEO 3880 S El Camino Real 94403 042‐165‐130 Regional/Communit y Com C3‐1/R4 0 50 1.43 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 9 25 57 SAN MATEO 83 37th Ave 94403 042‐161‐020 AI Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 0.5 0 50 0.49 1 story restaurant YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 77 SAN MATEO 49 37th Ave 94403 042‐161‐030 AI Neighborhood Commercia C1‐ 0.5 0 50 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available N ot Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1820 Gateway Dr 94404 035‐443‐030 AJ Executive Park E1‐0.62 0 50 8.86 2 story office  YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availabl e Not Used in Prior Housing Element 72 29 76 177 SAN MATEO 1800 Gateway Dr 94404 035‐430‐060 AJ Executive Park E1‐0.62 0 50 2 story office  YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not  Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2000 Winward Way 94404 035‐610‐030 Regional/Community Com C2‐0.62 0 50 4.27 Residence Inn 160  hYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 24 136 160 SAN MATEO 1900 S Norfolk St 94403 035‐391‐090 Executive Office E1‐0. 5 0 50 8.18 2 story office class  BYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 99 41 105 245 SAN MATEO 1801 Grant St 94402 035‐243‐050 Regional/Community Com C3‐ 1/R 0 50 1.17 1 story retail Video  YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 14 6 15 35 SAN MATEO 2030 S Delaware St 94403 035‐320‐270 TOD TOD 0 50 1.03 plumbin g supply waYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 21 9 22 52 SAN MATEO 477 9th Ave 94402 033‐281‐130 Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 1.6 1  story office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project No t Used in Prior Housing Element 12 108 120 SAN MATEO ADUS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Priva tely‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 168 240 72 480

231 of 955

APPENDIX D

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR

HOUSING NARRATIVE

232 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-2
APPENDIX D | AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR

HOUSING NARRATIVE

0.1 Table of Content

0.1 Table of Content ............................................................................................................................ 2

0.2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 3

0.3 List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. 3

0.4 List of Attachments ....................................................................................................................... 3 1 WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING? ................................ ............................... 4 2 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION ................................ ................................ ..................5 3 PRIMARY FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................9

3.1 Resident Needs Collected Through Local Survey ......................................................................... 11

3.2 Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan ..................................................................... 11

4. SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ................................ ..................... 14

4.1 Fair Housing Legal Cases and Inquiries ....................................................................................... 14

4.2 Outreach and Capacity ................................................................................................................ 16

4.3 Compliance with State Law ......................................................................................................... 17

4.4 Housing Specific Policies Enacted Locally .................................................................................... 17

5. SECTION II. Integration and Segregation ................................ ................................ .................... 19

5.1 Race and Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................... 19

5.2 Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices ............................................................................................... 19

5.3 Segregation Between City of San Mateo and Other Jurisdictions in the Bay .............................. 21

5.3.1 Area Region ............................................................................................................................. 21

5.3.2 Disability Status ....................................................................................................................... 21

5.3.3 Familial Status ......................................................................................................................... 21

5.3.4 Household Income .................................................................................................................. 22

5.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence .......................................... 23

6. SECTION III. Access to Opportunity ................................ ................................ ............................ 25

6.1 Education .................................................................................................................................... 26

6.2 Employment ................................................................................................................................ 27

6.3 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 27

6.4 Environment ................................................................................................................................ 28

6.5 Disparities in access to opportunity ............................................................................................ 29

6.6 Disparities specific to the population living with a disability ...................................................... 29

7. SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................ ................................ ............ 32

7.1 Housing Needs ............................................................................................................................ 32

7.2 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden .......................................................................................... 33

7.3 Overcrowding .............................................................................................................................. 33

7.4 Substandard Housing .................................................................................................................. 33

7.5 Homelessness .............................................................................................................................. 34

7.6 Displacement ............................................................................................................................... 34

8. Site Inventory Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 37

8.1 Segregation and Integration ....................................................................................................... 37 233 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-3

8.2 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ........................................................................................... 40

8.3 Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 40

9. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan ................................ ................................ ..... 43

0. 2 List of Figures
Figure 1: AFFH definition .............................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing ......................................... 7 Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Local policies affecting housing issues ......................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Integration and Segregation ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Segregation and Integration ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 7: R/ECAP definition ......................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Access to Opportunity Definition ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 9: Disability ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 10: Access to Opportunity................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 11: Disproportionate Housing Needs definition .............................................................................. 32 Figure 12: Displacement Sensitive Communities ........................................................................................ 35 Figure 13: Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................................... 36

0. 3 List of Tables
Table 1: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share Households Earning less than 80% AMI ................... 38 Table 2: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People of Color ..................................................... 38 Table 3: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People with a Disability ........................................ 39 Table 4: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Households with Children .................................... 39 Table 5: Share of RHNA Units by TCAC Resource Area ............................................................................... 40 Table 6: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Cost Burdened Households .................................. 41 Table 7: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Overcrowded Households .................................... 41 Table 8: Share of RHNA Units by Displacement Risk .................................................................................. 42

0.4 List of Attachments
▪ Fair Housing Action Plan
▪ AFFH Maps and Data
▪ Access to Educational Opportunities
▪ UC Merced Segregation Report
▪ Quotes and Narrative from Outreach
▪ State Fair Housing Laws
234 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-4
1 WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING?
The State of Californi a’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also r equired to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

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

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inc lusive 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 housi ng needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining comp liance 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).)”
Figure 1: AFFH definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.

1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9. 235 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-5
2 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 rece nt Fair Housing Equity
Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices —highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as “structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated
America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.

Pre-civil rights S an 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 practic es were
exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low -income neighborhoods, where the
majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

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

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

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

2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm-residential-segregation.html 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 hi storically
unequal playing field in part
determines why residents have
different housing needs today.
236 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-6
The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities is well -documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then -president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to ag ents and speculators. These agents then sold these homes at over -inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto —initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods — became 82% African American. The FHA prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto.

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

In addition to historical discrimi natory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today. The original inhabitants of present -day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”3 However, “[d]ue to the de vastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.” 4 The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native populations today.5
The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appeared to be on the same page as these discriminatory practices for most of the 20 th century. As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory practices and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

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

3 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 5 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ 237 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T

Figure 2: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing 238 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T

Maps and data referenced in this section. Throughout this section, there are references to maps created by HCD to support the AFFH and data tables created by H CD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the consultant team. Those maps and tables appear in an Attachment 2 and follow the organization of this section and the state guidance. The maps, in particular, are useful in demonstrating how the Ci ty of San Mateo compares with surrounding jurisdictions and the county overall in offering housing choices and access to opportunity.

Report content and organization. This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions.

Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Action Plan (Appendix 1) identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.

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

Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Section IV. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Attachments:
• Access to Educational Opportunities (Attachment 3)—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class. • State Fair Housing Laws (Attachment 6)—summary of key State laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.

239 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-9
3 PRIMARY FINDINGS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Mateo including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs , and contributing factors and the City’s fair housing action plan.
• 16% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 (57 total) were in the City of San Mateo (9 total), which is approximately aligned with the city share of the cou nty’s population (14%). The most common issues cited in the City were refusal to rent and discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to rental. Most complaints were on the basis of disability status (6 complaints) and race (3 complaints) in the City.

Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non -Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan.
▪ Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty (Figure II-5) and lower household incomes (Figure II -4) compared to the non -Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo.
▪ Racial and e thnic minorities are more likely than non -Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding (Figure IV-17). Low- and moderate-income households are also more likely to be overcrowded (Figure IV-18).
▪ People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black, White, and Hispanic are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22).
▪ Hispanic, Asian, and Black residents are more likely to live in moderate resource areas compared to high resourc e areas (Figure III -12). It is important to note there are no designated low resource areas in the City of San Mateo. ▪ Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native households have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Figure IV-33).

Geospatially, the northeast area of the City is disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and moderate resource scores. These areas are generally on either side of Highway 101 and stretch to the San Francisco Bay waterfront , encompassing the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. These areas have:
▪ Higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% (Figure II-28). ▪ Education opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the City (Figure III-1). ▪ Low economic opportunity scores between zero and 0.5 (Figure III-7). 240 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-10
▪ Low environmental score s—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water , pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Figure III-9). The northeast area of the City of San Mateo has particularly poor environmental outcomes for traffic, impaired water, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, and asthma.
▪ The composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows Census Tracts in the northeast area of the City fall within moderate resource areas while the rest of the City is within high or highest resource areas (Figure III-14).
▪ The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation . T he northeast area of the City is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
▪ Concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened households (Figure IV-13). ▪ Overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households (Figure IV-19).
▪ These areas are also within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV-31) and are vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).

The City of San Mateo has a slight concentration of residents with a disability with 9% of the population compared to 8% in the county (Figure III -17). Residents living with a disability in the City are more likely to be unemployed and are largely concentrated in areas around Highway 101. Finally, the aging population is putting a strain on paratransit access countywide.
▪ Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 12% compared to 3% for residents without a disabili ty in the City of San Mateo — particularly when compared to the county (Figure III-20).

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

Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low dropout rates —4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, dropout rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher (Figures have been included in the access to education Attachment 3). • Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened —spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Mateo by race and ethnicity and family size (Figure IV-11 and Figure IV-12). • 15% of respondents to the resident survey conducted for this AFFH said that schools in their neighborhood were of poor quality.

241 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-11

3.1 Resident Needs Collected Through Local Survey
A survey administered to capture residents’ needs and support the AFFH foun d the following housing challenges. Nearly 150 residents completed the survey:
• About 26% of residents said their house or apartment is too small for their family; ▪ 36% for racial and/or ethnic minority households;
▪ 42% for single parent households
• 14% of renters said they worry that if they request a repair they will experience rent increase or get evicted;
▪ 16% for racial and/or ethnic minority households;
▪ 21% for single parent households;
• 27% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing in San Mateo County;
▪ 31% for racial and/or ethnic minority respondents;
▪ 43% for residents with a disability;
• 10% (14% for single parent households) of renters are often late on rent and 14% (20% for residents with a disability) can’t keep up with utilities.

3. 2 Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan

The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Specifically,
Fair housing issue: Hispanic households have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are evident in mortgage denial gaps, geographic distribution of affordable housing, cost burden, and overcrowding.

Contributing factors:
▪ Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership.
▪ Although voucher holders and affordable housing (as capture d in the HCD Location Affordability Index) are not as highly concentrated in the City of San Mateo as in many surrounding jurisdictions, the northern portion of the City offers the most affordable homes. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. Preference may be at play as well: A recent article in Cityscape found that Hispanic homebuyers —when controlled for demographics, loan characteristics, and 242 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-12
finances—are more likely to purchase homes in neighborhoods with fewer non-Hispanic White homeowners and lower economic opportunity.6
▪ Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the City’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher rates of perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to affordable and right- sized housing.
▪ Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the City where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.

Fair housing issue: Hispanic residents and single female parent households are concentrated in census tracts with higher poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high cost burden, overcrowding, and flood hazards compared to the rest of the City of San Mateo.

Contributing factors:
▪ Concentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities in the northeast areas of the City further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental outcomes. ▪ There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the City.
▪ Highway 101 creates a major barrier between the Shoreview neighborhood —where the geographic concentrations of these groups exist—and the rest of the City of San Mateo.

Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities have higher housing needs due to challenges accessing employment and housing discrimination and are concentrated in areas with lower environmental and economic opportunity scores.

Contributing factors:
▪ The unemployment rate for the City of San Mateo’s residents with a disability is four times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to employment, and market discrimination.
▪ The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.
▪ There were six complaints—out of the nine total complaints in the City—filed with HUD in the City of San Mateo from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited included a failure to

6 Sanchez-Moyano, R. (2021). Achieving spatial equity through suburban homeownership? Neighborhood attributes of Hispanic homebuyers. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. Volume 23(3). 243 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-13
make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request. ▪ There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the North Central neighborhood. This area of the City has a concentration of low and moderate income households (more than 50% per census tract) and scores low on TCAC’s environmental and economic opportunity scores.

Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities and persons of color are most likely to file complaints of housing discrimination due to discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities and failure to make reasonable accommodations.

Contributing factors:
▪ Housing discrimination residents with disabilities and Hispanic households. ▪ Lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by landlords and property owners.

The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) at the end of this report details how the City of San Mateo proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis. 244 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-14

4. SECTION I. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUT REACH CAPACITY This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

4.1 Fair Housing Legal Cases and Inquiries

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

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”.7
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. 8 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

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

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

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure I-2)—16% of complaints were in the City of San Mateo (9 complaints) (Figure I -3). Most complaints submitted to HUD cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). In the City of San Mateo, the most common issues cited were refusal to rent and discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to rental.

Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted to HCD from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park (Figure I-3, Figure I-4, and Figure I-5).

Of the 146 City of San Mateo respon dents to the resident survey, 95 residents have looked for housing seriously, of those, 23 (24%) indicated that a “ Landlord did not return calls and/or emails asking about a

7 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
8 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
245 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-15
unit”, and 41 (46%) indicated they have been denied housing to rent or buy in the past 5 years. The main reason for denial (40%) was “income too low.”
Similarly, of the 28 voucher holders responding to the survey, the majority (69%) indicated that finding an affordable unit is somewhat or very difficult. Seven of them indicated this is due to “ Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders.” Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
• First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.
• Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment —1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
• Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies —reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.9

9 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ 246 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-16

Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries

4.2 Outreach and Capacity
The City of San Mateo could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination . The City’s website provides a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing—approved by HUD in November 2017—and AFFH goals specific to the City of San Mateo.10 Housing resources are also available on the City’s website but there is not specific information or resources for residents experiencin g discrimination in housing or the Fair Housing Act. 11

10 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3764/Fair-Housing-Assessment 11 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2506/Other-Resources
Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
Total Inquiries by Jurisdiction, 2020
27 24
17 11
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
247 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-17
The Draft Housing Element 2023 -2031 incorporates additional measures for providing access and education efforts as a specific program H 4.3.

4.3 Compliance with State Law

The City of San Mateo is – or will be -- compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The City has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
• State Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1. Chapter 4. 3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, amended and effective January 1, 2021)(revisions are included in program H 1.3)
• Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
• No N et Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations, including among income levels; • Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov Code Section 65913.1);
• Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov Code Section 65913.2); • Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov Code Section 65589.5).

4.4 Housing Specific Policies Enacted Locally
The City of San Mateo identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the City.

Local policies in place to encourage housing
development.
• Mixed Use Zoning
• Density Bonus Ordinances
• Condominium Conversion Ordinance
• Homeowner Rehabilitation program
• General Fund Allocation Incl. former
RDA “Boomerang” Funds
• Commercial Development Impact Fee
• Locally Funded Homebuyer
Assistance Programs
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
• Height limits on multifamily
developments
• Voter initiatives that restrict
multifamily developments, rezoning
for higher density, height limits or
similar measures
• Low floor area ratios (FAR) allowed
for multifamily housing
• Excessive parking requirements
• Extensive time period/requirements
to develop multi-family properties

248 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-18
Local policies that are NOT in place but would
provide the best outcomes in addressing
housing shortages.
• Development and/or permit
streamlining
• Objective design standards

Local policies that are NOT in place, but have
potential Council interest for further
exploration.
• Community land trusts
• Acquisition of affordable units with
expiring subsidies
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low-income households.
• Condominium conversion
regulations
• Affordable housing impact/linkage
fee on new commercial development
• Inclusionary zoning
• Living wage employment ordinances
• Promoting streamlined processing of
ADUs
• Fair housing legal services
• Acquisition of unsubsidized
properties with affordable rents
• Dedicating surplus land for
affordable housing
• Ordinance on replacement units that
exceed State standards
Figure 4: Local policies affecting housing issues
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), the City of San Mateo does not have any public housing buildings. However, the City does have three census tracts with a moderate share of house holds using housing vouchers (5% to 15%) and most other areas of the City have some (5% or less) housing voucher utilization.

Compared to nearby Millbrae, Burlingame, and Hillsborough, the City of San Mateo appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the City has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities. The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of exclusionary behavior from landlords in the City.

249 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-19

5. SECTION II. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

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

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.” Figure 5: Integration and Segregation
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

5.1 Race and Ethnicity
Generally, the demographic characteristics of the City of San Mateo are consistent with the overall characteristics of San Mateo County. The population distribution by race and ethnicity is similar to the county with the largest proportion of the population being non-Hispanic White (41%) followed by Asian (26%), Hispanic (25%), other or multiple races (6%), and Black (2%).12 Older residents are less diverse with 67% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 46% of the population for children less than 18 years old.

Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty and lower household incomes compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo.

Geospatially, the City of San Mateo has three White majority census tracts13 and several census tracts that have a slim Hispanic majority.14

5.2 Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices

The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI in an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100 —where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation.

Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54

12 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%. 13 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 14 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County. 250 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-20
generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same mi nority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation. The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H -Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the City at once.

ABAG and UC Merced completed an analysis of segregation in San Mateo. Several indices were used to assess segregation in the City and determine how the City differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall. The following is the summary from the UC Merced report (Attachment 4):
• As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in San Mateo, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. • Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, the highest level of racial segregation is between Latinx and white residents within San Mateo.15
• According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in San Mateo declined between 2010 and 2020.
• Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015. • Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in San Mateo. Above Moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Very Low -income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has not substantively changed between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in San Mateo between lower -income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

15 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table Error! Reference source not found. in A ppendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction. 251 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-21

5.3 Segregation Between City of San Mateo and Other Jurisdictions in the Bay

5.3.1 Area Region
• San Mateo has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a lo wer share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
• Regarding income groups, San Mateo has a higher share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a higher share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.

These findings illustrate the need to provide housing, especially affordable housing, throughout the community, rather than in any single area. The inventory of opportunity sites demonstrates that the City has assumed affordable housing in areas where there are not existing concentrations of lower -income households, but rather in locations rich in service, transit, and other resources to ensure availabili ty to these households. As such, the City does not anticipate the new housing to increase segregation within the City.

Further, the City anticipates that planning for approximately 3, 616 units of housing affordable to low and very low-income households, as shown in the site inventory (Appendix C), will provide housing for resident groups who are more racially and ethnically diverse than the C i t y overall due to their disproportionate needs. The City is prepared to pair the construction of new affordable housing with affirmative marketing and other programs to ensure that residents with disproportionate needs in the region benefit from the housing.

5.3.2 Disability Status
The share of the population living with at least one disability is 9% in the City of San Mateo compared to 8% in San Mateo County (Figure II-13). There are a handful of census tracts in the City that have a 10% to 20% share of the population living with a disability (Figure II -14). Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.

5.3.3 Familial Status
The City of San Mateo is home to more single-person households than the county, with 28% of households compared to only 22% in the County (Figure II-16). Additionally, there are fewer married-couple families and families with children in the City (Figure II-17 and Figure II-18).

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

The majority of married couple households and slim majority of residents living alone live in owner occupied housing (Figure II-19). The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is consistent with the familial status of the households that live in the City of San Mateo (Figure II-16 and Figure II-20). Compared to the county, the City of San Mateo has a smaller proportion of family households 252 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-22
and greater proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedr ooms and tenure of the housing stock in the City (Figure II-19 and Figure II -20). The distribution of households by family type are mapped at the census tract level in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24.

5.3.4 Household Income
The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in the City of San Mateo is similar to the county (Figure II -25). There are several census block groups in the City that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of $87,100 for a family of four, but the majority of block groups have median incomes well above that (Figure II-26 and Figure II-27). Poverty rates are highest in the City of San Mateo —between 1 0% and 20% –in census tracts along the San Francisco Bay and Highway 101 (Figure II-28).

Figure 6: Segregation and Integration

Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 26% 30%
Black or African American, NH 2% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 41% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 6% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 25% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 9% 8%
Without a disability 91% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 9% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 4% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 51% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 8% 8%
Single-person Households 28% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 13% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 12% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 16% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 11% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 49% 49%
0%
26%
2%
41%
6%
25%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
9%
91%
8%
92%
9%
4%
51%
8%
28%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
13%
12%
16%
11%
49%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
253 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-23

5.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rate s to affluent , predominantly White , neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.16
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non -discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

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

Figure 7: R/ECAP definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as an R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide —or 19.1%. In 2010 there were three census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county. None of the R/ECAPs were located in the City of San Mateo in 2010 (Figure II-29).

In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county. None were located in the City of San Mateo (Figure II-30).

In 2019 there were two Census Tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). Three of the 2019 edge R/ECAPs are located in the City of San Mateo —which means they are majority minority and have a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average. Two of the tracts are along Highway 101 near the waterfront— the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. The other edge R/ECAP is l ocated along the border of the City of Belmont near the San Mateo Medical Center.

16 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.

Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 254 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-24
A census tract that has a percentage of total white population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the COG AMI.
255 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-25

6. SECTION III. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place -based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Figure 8: Access to Opportunity Definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

Local knowledge: resident survey questions about access to opportunity. Residents were asked about several resources that would improve their living situation in the survey conducted to support this AFFH.

When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing security, top answers where:
• Help me with a down payment/purchase (35%);
• Help me with the housing search (26%); and
• Help me get a loan to buy a house (24%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their neighborhood, top answers where:
• Better lighting (34%);
• Improve street crossings (29%); and
• Reduce crime (27%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their health, top answers where:
• Make it easier to exercise (40%);
• More healthy food (37%); and
• Better/access to mental health care (23%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their job situation, top answers where:
• Increase wages (46%);
• Find a job near my apartment/house (26%); and
• Help paying for college (20%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, top answers where:
• Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (26%);
256 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-26
• Make school more challenging (25%); and
• Have more activities afterschool (24%).

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

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

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

6.1 Education
TCAC’s education score is based on math pr oficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, most Census Tracts in the City of San Mateo score between 0.5 and 0.75—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. However, there are a handful of Census Tracts along Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay that score between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the r est of the City. This area also has higher poverty rates, lower economic opportunity scores, and a greater share of minority households compared to the rest of the City.

The attached “Access to Education” (Attachment 4) includes findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class. Preliminary findings from this analysis are shared below.

According to the Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix, the City of San Mateo is served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo -Foster City Elementary School District.

San Mateo Union increased enrollment by 16% from 2010 to 2020 and the elementary district enrollment increased by 1% over the same time. However, both districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.

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

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

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County , Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 29%, 46%, and 46% respectively. 257 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-27
Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low dropout rates —4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, dropout rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher.

6.2 Employment
The top three industries by number of jobs in the City of San Mateo include professional and managerial services, health and educational services, and arts and recreation services (Figure III-2 and Figure III-3).

The City of San Mateo has a lower job-to-household ratio when compared to the county at 1.45 and 1.59 respectively—which means there are fewer employment opportunities per household in the City of San Mateo (Figure III -4 and Figure III -5). The City also has a slightly l ower unemployment rate of 5.2% compared to the county at 5.9% (Figure III-6).

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The western portions of the City of Sa n Mateo, adjacent to the City of Hillsborough and Belmont, score more than 0.75 for economic opportunity, whereas tracts in the central City score between 0.5 and 0.75 (Figure III-7). Finally, the lowest economic opportunity scores in the City are within tracts along the waterfront in the northeast area of the City of San Mateo.

HUD’s job proximity index shows the City of San Mateo is in relatively close proximity to jobs (Figure III- 8). On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest pro ximity to jobs the majority of the City scores above 60.

6.3 Transportation
[TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this draft report] This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the City of San Mateo and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the City. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the admini strative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. Tha t plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served —was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to the City of San Mateo and San Mateo County.
“San Mateo’s [Paratransit Coordinating Council] PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout 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. 258 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-28
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.”17 Transit improvements recommended for the City of San Mateo include:
• “More access to the College of San Mateo is needed. There is no direct service to Canada College [from the College of San Mateo] and other local colleges from the Coastside. • Many sidewalks in the county are uneven and inaccessible to individuals using mobility devices. • Some people with disabilities need personalized assistance (escort service) that is not available. • Transfers into San Mateo County [from transit services outside of the county] continue to be very difficult. SFMTA and SamTrans need a cost sharing agreement.” A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system – the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco bay, served by MTC.”18
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.19 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18 month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.20

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

Generally, all census tracts in the City of San Mateo score moderate to poorly on environmental outcomes. Census tracts surrounding Highway 101 and 92 have the lowest environmental scores in the

17 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 18 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
19 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilities. html
20 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 259 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-29
City—primarily due to traffic on the highways, groundwater threats, and impaired water bodies (Figure III-9 and Figure III -10). However, the City scores relatively high compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III-11).

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories includin g economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare. 21 The northeast area of the City of San Mateo score the lowest on the HPI (Figure III-11).

6.5 Disparities in access to opportunity
Data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents (Figure III-12). Nearly half (47%) of the population living in high resource areas are non-Hispanic White, compared to one in three (33%) in moderate resource areas.

Conversely, Hispanic, Asian, and Black residents are more likely to live in moderate resource areas. It is important to note that the City of San Mateo does not include any census tracts that are designated as low resource areas. The share of the population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is 8% compared to 7% in the county (Figure III-13).

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows census tracts in the northeast area of the City fall within moderate resource areas while the rest of the City is within high or highest resource areas (Figure III -14). 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. Again, the northeast area of the City—encompassing the neighborhoods North Central, Shoreview, and North Shoreview—is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).

The City of San Mateo does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”22 (Figure III-16)

6.6 Disparities specific to the population living with a disability Nine percent of the population in the City of San Mateo are living with at least one disability, compared to 8% in the county (Figure III -17). The most common disabilities in the City are ambulatory (4.2%), independent living (3.6%), and cognitive (3.5%) (Figure III-18).

Of residents with a disability responding to the residents’ survey, 30% said that their home does not meet the needs of their household member.

21 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
22 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
260 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-30
Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Figure 9: Disability
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases (Figure III-19). As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore, this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability with an unemployment rate of 12%, compared with 3% for residents without a disability in the City of San Mateo—particularly when compared to the county where the disparity is not as high. Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%, compared to 3% for residents without a disability (Figure III-20). High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

Residents living with a disability are primarily concentrated geographically along the Highway 101 corridor (Figure III-21).
261 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-31

Figure 10: Access to Opportunity

Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 1.45 1.59
Unemployment Rate 5% 6%
LEP Population 8% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of San Mateo Employment by Disability Status
0%
0%
27%
25%
3%
1%
33%
47%
5%
6%
32%
20%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
97%
88%
3%
12%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of San Mateo
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County
262 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-32

7. SECTION IV. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other rel evant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.” Figure 11: Disproportionate Housing Needs definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

7.1 Housing Needs
Population growth in the City of San Mateo has generally kept up with the pace of growth countywide, except the City did not lose population during the great recession whereas the county did (Figure IV -1).

Population growth slowed again from 2019 to 2020, likely due to the emergence of the COVID -19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020.

Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households, with 1,545 units permitted for above moderate-income households compared to 94 permits for moderate income households; 59 permits for low-income households; and 126 permitted for very low-income households (Figure IV-2). The Housing Needs Data Report for the City of San Mateo indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 23
The variety of housing types available in the City in 2020 are predominately single family (44%) and medium to large scale multifamily (39%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory increased more than single family, and the City has a greater share of multifamily housing compared to other communities in the region. 24
The majority of the housing inventory in the City of San Mateo was constructed from 1940 to 1980 (Figure IV-3). As such, the City’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.

Compared to San Mateo County, the City’s owner occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—29% of units in the City fall within this price range compared to 23%

23 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 24 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 263 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-33
in the county (Figure IV-4). Conversely, units priced above $2 million make up a smaller proportion of the City’s housing stock compared to the county with 14% and 19% respectively. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the City and county (Figure IV-5).

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for sale market—however, median rents increased more rapidly from 2017 to 2019 (Figure IV -7). Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID- 19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the City of San Mateo has more luxury rental units—27% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the City compared to 22% in the county (Figure IV-6).

7.2 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened —spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs —and one in four are extremely cost burdened —spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare.

Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

A greater portion of households in the City of San Mateo (3 9%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%) (Figure IV -8). Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Nearly three out of every four households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low- income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to only 1% of households earning more than 100% of AMI (Figure IV-10).

There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Mateo by race and ethnicity and family size. Black or African American (59%) and Hispanic households (55%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the City. Non-Hispanic households of other races (28% cost burdened), Asian households (33%), and non-Hispanic White households (34%) experience the lowest cost burden (Figure IV-11).

Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience cost burden at a rate of 46% compared to all other households at 37% (Figure IV -12). Cost burdened households are primarily concentrated along the waterfront and Highway 101 (Figure IV-13 and Figure IV-14).

7.3 Overcrowding
The vast majority of households (93%) in the City of San Mateo are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room (Figure IV -15). However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 13% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 2% of owner households (Figure IV-16).

The resident survey shows higher needs: 26% of respondents said that their house or apartment isn’t big enough for their family members.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non -Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Other races (27% of households), Hispanic households (26%), and American Indian or Alaskan Native households (12%) experience the highest rates of overcrowding (Figure IV-17). Low and moderate income households are also more likely to be overcrowded (Figure IV-18).

Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households, along the waterfront and Highway 101 (Figure IV-19).

7.4 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 - 264 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-34
reported in Census surveys. In the City of San Mateo, 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, 1.3% are lacking kitchen facilities while less than one percent are lacking plumbing. For owners, less than one percent are lacking either kitchen or plumbing facilities (Figure IV-20).

7.5 Homelessness
In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county (74 people in the City of San Mateo) during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children (Figure IV-21).

People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% of the homeless population compared to less than 1% of the total population), Black (13 %, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV -22 and Figure IV -23). People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental i llness (305), and domestic violence (127) represented a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019 (Figure IV-24).

7.6 Displacement
Owner households generally experience a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently). Households in the City were more likely to have moved in the past year compared to the households in the county (14% compared to 12% in the county) (Figure IV- 25 and Figure IV-26).

In the City of San Mateo 10% of income assisted rental units are at high or very high risk for displacement, a total of 72 out of 702 total units in the City. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk— 8% of the total assisted housing units in the county (Figure IV-27).

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
• They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
▪ Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017 ▪ AND
▪ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low -income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.

Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012 -2017 OR
265 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-35
• Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Figure 12: Displacement Sensitive Communities
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.

The resident survey conducted for this study found that 31% of residents in the City of San Mateo have been displaced in the past 5 years. The top reason for displacement was “Rent increased more than I could pay” (42%).

Sixteen census tracts in the City are vulnerable to displacement—these same Tracts have high shares of renter households (Figure IV -28). Additionally, areas of the City with the highest cost burden and overcrowding—along the waterfront —are included in the Special Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1% chance of flooding annually (Figure IV-29, IV-30, and IV-31).

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates (Figure IV-32). Hispanic (32% denial rate) and American Indian or Alaska Native households (27%) had the highest denia l rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic Asian (17%), Black (18%), and White households (19%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time (Figure IV-33).
266 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-36
Figure 13: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of San Mateo, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of San Mateo, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of San Mateo, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, City of San Mateo, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of San Mateo San Mateo County Number of Units 72 417
% of Assisted Units 10% 8%
14%
23%
44%
65%
89%
13%
39%
39%
32%
10%
73%
37%
18%
3%
1%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.4%

0.3%

1.3%

0.4%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

7.5%

5.5%

1.5%

0.5%

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
267 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-37

8. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

This supplement provides a summary of the data available through A BAG’s HESS mapping tool for evaluating the fair housing impacts of the RHNA sites chosen.

8.1 Segregation and Integration
This section summarizes the distribution of RHNA units in the City of San Mateo by income target in relation to four factors of segr egation including household income, people of color, households with a disability, and households with children. The following figures show the share of units by income within areas that have a concentration of household types compared to the Citywide rate.

1) Table 1 shows how many units are allocated to areas of the City (census tracts) with a share of Low-Moderate Income (LMI) households (earning less than 80% AMI) greater than or less than the Citywide rate of 41% of households. Generally, proposed units are split between areas with a greater than average share of LMI households with 45% of units compared to areas with a lower than average share with 47% of proposed units.

2) Table 2 shows how many units are estimated in areas of the City with a percent of the population that identified as a Person of Color (non -White population) greater than and less than the Citywide share of 59% of the population. Again, units are roughly split b etween 48% of units in areas with a concentration of People of Color and 44% of proposed units in areas with a lower share of People of Color.

3) Table 3 shows the share of the proposed units that are located in areas with a concentration of population with a disability compared to the Citywide rate of 9% of the population living with a disability. Most units (71%) are located in areas of the City with a concentration of residents living with a disability.

4) Table 4 shows how many units are allocated to areas of the City with a greater share of households with children compared to the Citywide rate of 30% of households. Most units (61%) are not within areas with a concentration of households that have children. Only 31% of proposed units are located in areas with a concentration of families with children. 268 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-38
Table 1: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share Households Earning less than 80% AMI25 Note:
41% of households in the
City of San Mateo earn less
than 80% AMI.

Source:

ABAG HESS tool and Root
Policy Research.

Table 2: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People of Color Note:
59% of the population in
the City of San Mateo is a
Person of Color.

Source:

ABAG HESS tool and Root
Policy Research.

25Units with “no data” are not within what ABAG/HESS defined as the City of San Mateo. There is no data in the ABAG/HESS tool for these sites.

Total 4,718 4,963 790
Very Low Income Units 1,096 894 122
Low Income Units 791 547 100
Moderate Income Units 641 556 82
Above Moderate Income Units 2,190 2,966 486
Total 45% 47% 8%
Very Low Income Units 52% 42% 6%
Low Income Units 55% 38% 7%
Moderate Income Units 50% 43% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 39% 53% 9%
% LMI Households
Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide rate No data
Total 5,034 4,647 790
Very Low Income Units 1,089 901 122
Low Income Units 828 510 100
Moderate Income Units 649 548 82
Above Moderate Income Units 2,468 2,688 486
Total 48% 44% 8%
Very Low Income Units 52% 43% 6%
Low Income Units 58% 35% 7%
Moderate Income Units 51% 43% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 44% 48% 9%
% People of Color
Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide rate No data
269 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-39
Table 3: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of People with a Disability Note:
9% of the population in the
City of San Mateo has a
disability.

Source:

ABAG HESS tool and Root
Policy Research.

Table 4: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Households with Children Note:
30% of households in the
City of San Mateo have
child(ren).

Source:

ABAG HESS tool and Root
Policy Research.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence. None of the proposed units are within an R/ECAP or RCAA.

Total 7,486 2,195 790
Very Low Income Units 1,516 474 122
Low Income Units 1,054 284 100
Moderate Income Units 895 302 82
Above Moderate Income Units 4,021 1,135 486
Total 71% 21% 8%
Very Low Income Units 72% 22% 6%
Low Income Units 73% 20% 7%
Moderate Income Units 70% 24% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 71% 20% 9%
% People with a Disability
Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide rate No data
Total 3,298 6,383 790
Very Low Income Units 523 1,467 122
Low Income Units 296 1,042 100
Moderate Income Units 295 902 82
Above Moderate Income Units 2,184 2,972 486
Total 31% 61% 8%
Very Low Income Units 25% 69% 6%
Low Income Units 21% 72% 7%
Moderate Income Units 23% 71% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 39% 53% 9%
% Households with Children
Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide rate No data
270 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-40

8.2 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
This section summarizes the distribution of RHNA units in the City of San Mateo by income target by TCAC defined resource areas.

5) Table 5 shows the proposed units by TCAC resource areas including moderate, high, and hig hest resource areas in the City of San Mateo. The vast majority of units (87%) are in moderate resources areas compared to high (5%) or highest (<1%) resource areas. There are no low resource areas in the City of San Mateo.

Table 5: Share of RHNA Units by TCAC Resource Area

Source: ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.

8.3 Disproportionate Housing Needs
This section summarizes the distribution of RHNA units in the City of San Mateo by income target based on three indicators of disproportionate housing needs including housing cost burden, overcrowding, and displacement risk.

6) Figure 6 shows the estimated share of units in areas of the City with a higher rate of cost burden among households compared to the Citywide rate of 39%. Almost all of the units (90%) are proposed in areas of the City with a lower than average rate of housing cost burden.

7) Figure 7 shows the proposed share of units in areas of the City with a higher or lower rate of overcrowding compared to the Citywide rate of 7%. Again, almost all of the proposed units (92%) are in areas that have lower than average rates of overcrowding.

8) Figure 8 shows the estimated share of units by displacement risk. Most units (60%) are within areas that are at risk of becoming exclusive or already exclusive. The remaining units (32%) are in Total 9,106 531 44 790
Very Low Income Units 1,890 89 11 122
Low Income Units 1,254 77 7 100
Moderate Income Units 1,127 63 7 82
Above Moderate Income Units 4,835 302 19 486
Total 87% 5% 0% 8%
Very Low Income Units 89% 4% 1% 6%
Low Income Units 87% 5% 0% 7%
Moderate Income Units 88% 5% 1% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 86% 5% 0% 9%
TCAC Resource Areas
Moderate
Resource
Highest
Resource No data
High
Resource
271 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-41
moderate or mixed stable neighborhoods and less than 1% are in stable or advanced exclusive neighborhoods.

Table 6: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Cost Burdened Households Note:
39% of households in the
City of San Mateo are cost
burdened.

Source:

ABAG HESS tool and Root
Policy Research.

Table 7: Share of RHNA Units by Income and Share of Overcrowded Households Note:
7% of households in the
City of San Mateo are
overcrowded.

Source:

ABAG HESS tool and Root
Policy Research.

Total 260 9,421 790
Very Low Income Units 46 1,944 122
Low Income Units 33 1,305 100
Moderate Income Units 34 1,163 82
Above Moderate Income Units 147 5,009 486
Total 2% 90% 8%
Very Low Income Units 2% 92% 6%
Low Income Units 2% 91% 7%
Moderate Income Units 3% 91% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 3% 89% 9%
% Households Cost Burdened
Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide rate No data
Total 26 9,655 790
Very Low Income Units 7 1,983 122
Low Income Units 4 1,334 100
Moderate Income Units 4 1,193 82
Above Moderate Income Units 11 5,145 486
Total 0% 92% 8%
Very Low Income Units 0% 94% 6%
Low Income Units 0% 93% 7%
Moderate Income Units 0% 93% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 0% 91% 9%
% Households Overcrowded
Greater than
Citywide rate
Less than
Citywide rate No data
272 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-42
Table 8: Share of RHNA Units by Displacement Risk

Source: ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.

Total 4,383 1,881 3,373 44 790
Very Low Income Units 990 229 760 11 122
Low Income Units 756 106 469 7 100
Moderate Income Units 578 108 504 7 82
Above Moderate Income Units 2,059 1,438 1,640 19 486
Total 42% 18% 32% 0% 8%
Very Low Income Units 47% 11% 36% 1% 6%
Low Income Units 53% 7% 33% 0% 7%
Moderate Income Units 45% 8% 39% 1% 6%
Above Moderate Income Units 36% 25% 29% 0% 9%
Displacement Risk
At Risk of
Becoming
Exclusive
Becoming
Exclusive
Stable/
Advanced
Exclusive No data
Stable
Moderate/
Mixed
Income
273 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-43

9. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Based on the research and analysis above, Attachment 1 – Fair Housing Action Plan contains the specific actions the City will take to address AFFH concerns throughout the community.

274 of 955
APPENDIX D | Attachment 1 – Fair Housing Action Plan
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Fair Housing Category Action Type of Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Action 1.1: Adjust the city's Below Market Rate
(inclusionary) program to provide larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of residents with
disproportionate housing needs (e.g., accessible/visitable units for persons with disabilities, child‐friendly
developments with day care on site for single parents, and 3‐4 bedroom units for larger families).

Hispanic and single female parent
households are concentrated in low
opportunity census tracts.

Lack of affordable housing in high
opportunity areas; Lack of accessible
affordable units
Disparities in access to
opportunities
Assist in development of
housing for low income
households and households
with special needs
Land use resources City of San Mateo Expand the variety of housin g units produced under the inclusionary housing program.

Currently developments of 11 or more units
require 15% affordable to moderate income
families for ownership and 15% for low
income families for renters.

Perform a feasibility analysis to
redesign the program to allow a menu
of options.

Complete feasibility analysis
by Fall 2023; Implement
redesigned program by Spring
2024.

Action 1.2: Participate in a regional downpayment
assistance program with affirmative marketing to
households with disproportionate housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households (e.g., Spanish and English, targeted to
northeast neighborhoods).

Hispanic households have disproportionate
housing needs.

Historic discrimination and continued
mortgage denials; Concentration in
low opportunity census tracts; High
housing costs and low wages
Disparities in access to
opportunities
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Financial resources Regional Partnership with
HEART (San Mateo County has
program with them)
Improve accessibility to home mortgage
loans for Hispanic households who have the
highest loan denial rates. Provide wealth
building through homeownership for
moderate income households.

Affirmatively market downpayment
assistance to 20 Hispanic households;
Provide downpayment assistance to
30 total households; Provide
homebuyer education to 200
households
Meet quantified objected by
the end of the Housing
Element period in 2031;
Conduct homebuyer
education quarterly in
partnership with HEART
Action 1.3: Support the design a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low income households for 15
years.

Hispanic and single female parent
households are concentrated in low
opportunity census tracts.

Lack of affordable housing in high
opportunity areas; Lack of accessible
affordable units
Disparities in access to
opportunities
Incentivize accessory dwelling
units (ADUs)
Land use resources 21 Elements/HEART Increase opportunities for lower‐income households to find housing that is affordable.

Design a regional loan forgiveness
program.

Begin design in Summer 2025
and complete by winter 2026.

Action 2.1: Add more city supported housing with
affordability restrictions in moderate and high resource areas. Affirmatively market the housing to households
with disproportionate housing needs including persons
with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households (e.g., Spanish and English, targeted to northeast
neighborhoods).

Hispanic and single female parent
households are concentrated in low
opportunity census tracts.

Lack of affordable housing in high
opportunity areas; Lack of accessible
affordable units; Concentration of
NOAH in low opportunity census
tracts.

Disproportionate housing
need for low income
households and protected
classes
Assist in development of
housing for low income
households and households
with special needs
Financial resources City of San Mateo Affirmatively market the housing to households with disproportionate housing
needs including persons with disabilities,
single parents, and Hispanic households (e.g.,
Spanish and English, targeted identified
neighborhoods).

Require developers to affirmatively
market 1,000 units to those with
disproporate housing needs over the
eight year period (appropximately 125
annually).
2031 (Annually)
Action 2.2: Incentivize developers through direct
subsidies, fee waivers, and/or density bonuses, to increase accessibility requirements beyond the federal requirement of 5% for subsidized developments.

Persons with disabilities have
disproportionate housing needs.

AND
Persons with disabilities and persons of color
are most likely to file fair housing complaints
with HUD.

Lack of accessible affordable units;
Lack of access to economic
opportunity; Concentration in low
income and low opportunity census
tracts.

Disproportionate housing
need for low income
households and protected
classes
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Financial resources City of San Mateo Increase development of accessible units beyond minimum requirements
Modify developer agreements when
appropriate; update inclusionary
policy.
2026
Action 2.3: Prioritize city funding proposals for city funded affordable housing that are committed to serving hard to serve residents (e.g., extremely low income, special needs, on site services)
Persons with disabilities have
disproportionate housing needs.

AND
Persons with disabilities and persons of color
are most likely to file fair housing complaints
with HUD.

Lack of accessible affordable units;
Lack of access to economic
opportunity; Concentration in low
income and low opportunity census
tracts.

Disparities in access to
opportunity
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Financial resources City of San Mateo Create more housing for hard to serve households.

Conduct a best practices review and
develop a program to prioritize City
funding for housing projects.
2026
Action 3.1: As part of the General Plan, conduct an area plan for the North Shoreview and North Central
neighborhoods and prioritize land use and design around Highway 101 to improve access and reduce the division of the urban form produced by the highway.

Hispanic and single female parent
households are concentrated in low
opportunity census tracts.

Lack of affordable housing in high
opportunity areas; Lack of accessible
affordable units; Concentration of
NOAH in low opportunity census
tracts.

Segregation/ integration
patterns; disparities in access
to opportunities
Conserve and improve the
existing affordable housing
stock
Land use resources City of San Mateo Reduce overcrowding, improve health and safety, and improve mobility and access to
services in impacted neighborhoods.

Prepare an area plan for North
Shoreview and North Central
neighborhoods.
2027‐28
Action 3.2: Continue to fund minor home repairs and
implement a preference for projects in low opportunity
census tracts identified in the analysis.

Hispanic and single female parent
households are concentrated in low
opportunity census tracts.

Lack of affordable housing in high
opportunity areas; Lack of accessible
affordable units
Disparities in access to
opportunity
Conserve and improve the
existing affordable housing
stock
Financial resources City of San Mateo Fund minor home repairs and accessibility improvements. Provide opportunity for
home rehabilitation lo ans for low income
residents. Allow accessibility improvements
on rental properties with owner permission.

Complete annual goals of 10 minor
home repairs and 14 accessbility
modifications through grants for low
income residents. Provide home
rehabiltation loans for low income
residents. Affirmatively market to
Hispanic and single female heads of
household.
2023 (Annually; consistent
with general GPP # H2.1)
Action Area 1. Enhancing housing mobility strategies: consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access.

Action Area 3. Improving place‐based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing: involves approaches that are focused on conserving and improvin g assets in areas of lower opportunity and Action Area 2. Encouraging new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas: promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty.