Agenda packet — San Mateo City Council, May 23, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

275 of 955

Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Fair Housing Category Action Type of Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Action 3.3: Monitor affordable housing projects that are at risk of conversion to market rate. Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable
housing and lower income households. Assist with the
retention of special needs housing that is at risk of expiring affordability requirements.

Hispanic households have disproportionate
housing needs.

Historic discrimination and continued
mortgage denials; Concentration in
low opportunity census tracts; High
housing costs and low wages
Outreach capacity and
enforcement
Conserve and improve the
existing affordable housing
stock
Human resources City of San Mateo Monitor affordable units whose subsidies are set to expire within the planning period
develop a plan for preservation of the units
to keep them affordable long term.

Advertise Bridgepointe units going to
sale to non profits. Affordability
expires in 2027. Tenant education, add
a displacement preference for new
affordable housing for people
displaced. Outreach and negotiate
with Mateo Lodge for affordability
extensions for Humboldt House (9
units).
2025‐26; Consistent with
general GPP # H2.2
Action 4.1: Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB1482 related to relocation,
documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.

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.

AND
Hispanic households have disproportionate
housing needs.

Lack of accessible affordable units;
Lack of access to economic
opportunity; Concentration in low
income and low opportunity census
tracts; Historic discrimination and
continued mortgage denials; High
housing costs and low wages
Disparities in access to
opportunity
Address governmental and
non‐governmental constraints
Human resources City of San Mateo Increase tenant protections to prevent dislpacement of those with disproportionate
housing needs.

Extend AB1482 provisions to require
tenant relocation payments for No
Fault evictions for those with tenure
less than one year and documentation
from landlords who use remodel
exemption to evict tenants. Establish
Right to Return policy for tenants
displaced from homes due to
demolition or substantial remodels.
2023‐24; consistent with
general GPP #H 3.5
Action 4.2: Partner with Project Sentinel to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants. Focus
enforcement efforts on race based discrimination and
reasonable accommodations.

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; Lack of understanding of
reasonable accommodation
requirements by landlords and
property owners.

Outreach capacity and
enforcement
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Human resources Project Sentinel Increase awareness of fair housi ng laws and tenants' rights to reduce unlawful
discrimination and displacement.

Provide annual funding to Project
Sentinel to provide training every two
years in the Spring, targeting 200
landlords each training.

Ongoing
Action 4.4: Create a webpage specific to fair housing
including resources for residents who feel they have
experienced discrimination, in formation about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and information
about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act.

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.

Outreach capacity and
enforcement
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Human resources City of San Mateo Increase awareness of fair hous ing laws and tenants' rights to reduce unlawful
discrimination and displacement.

Provide information on the City's
website about housing discrimination,
laws, and protections.
2024
Action 4.5: Ensure that all multifamily residential
developments contain signage to explain the right to
request reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities. Make this information available and clearly transparent on the city's website and fund landlord
training and outreach on reasonable accommodations.

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.

Initially, create ongoing condition of
approval to ensure both BMR and all‐
affordable developments contain this
information. Explore options for
recording against the property and/or
including in the affordable housing
agreement.
2024
Action Area 4. Protecting existing residents from displacement: s trategies that protects residents in areas of lower or moderat e opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing ch oices and affordability.

Page 2 of 2 ends

276 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1
APPENDIX D | Attachment 2 – AFFH Maps and Data
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity

Figure I-1: Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization Websites

Figure I-2: Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Source: HUD

Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440 https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
WebsiteService Area Address Phone
Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total
277 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2

Figure I-3: HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) Source: Organization Websites

278 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3

Figure I-4: FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, San Mateo County, 2013-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 279 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4

Figure I-5: HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 9 16
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 9
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 15 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 16 26
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
TotalDisability Race
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
None
Cited
280 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 5

Figure I-6: Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 281 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 6

Figure I-7: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

282 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 7
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation

Race and ethnicity.

Figure II-1: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure II-2: Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

283 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 8

Figure II-3: Senior and Youth Population by Race, City of San Mateo, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure II-4: Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

284 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 9

Figure II-5: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

285 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 10

Figure II-6: % Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 286 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 11

Figure II-7:White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 287 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 12

Figure II-8: Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 288 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 13

Figure II-9: Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 289 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 14

Figure II-10: Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 290 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 15

Figure II-11: Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 291 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 16

Figure II-12: Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

292 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 17
Disability status.

Figure II-13: Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

293 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 18

Figure II-14: % of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

294 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 19
Familial status.

Figure II-15: Age Distribution, City of San Mateo, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure II-16: Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

295 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 20

Figure II-17: Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure II-18: Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

296 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 21

Figure II-19: Housing Type by Tenure, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure II-20: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

297 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 22

Figure II-21: % of Children in Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

298 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 23

Figure II-22: % Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 [legend missing in HCD provided map]
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

299 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 24

Figure II-23.: % of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 [legend missing in HCD provided map]
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

300 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 25

Figure II-24: % of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019 [legend missing in HCD provided map] Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

301 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 26
Household income.

Figure II-25: Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

302 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 27

Figure II-26: Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

303 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 28

Figure II-27: Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

304 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 29

Figure II-28: Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 305 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 30

Figure II-29: R/ECAPs, 2010
Source: 2010 and 2019 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010).

306 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 31

Figure II-30: R/ECAPs, 2019
Source: 2010 and 2019 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.1% in 2010). 307 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 32
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
Education

Figure III-1: TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 308 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 33
Employment

Figure III-2: Jobs by Industry, City of San Mateo, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure III-3: Job Holders by Industry, City of San Mateo, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
309 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 34

Figure III-4: Jobs to Household Ratio, City of San Mateo, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure III-5: Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, City of San Mateo, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure III-6: Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

310 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 35

Figure III-7: TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

311 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 36

Figure III-8: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

312 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 37
Transportation
[TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the time of this report]

313 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 38
Environment

Figure III-9: TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 314 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 39

Figure III-10: CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

315 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 40

Figure III-11: Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

316 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 41
Patterns in disparities in access to opportunity.

Figure III-12: Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure III-13: Population with Limited English Proficiency, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

317 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 42

Figure III-14: TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

318 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 43

Figure III-15: Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

319 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 44

Figure III-16: SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

320 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 45
Disparities in access to opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Figure III-17: Population by Disability Status, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure III-18: Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, City of San Mateo, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

321 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 46

Figure III-19: Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure III-20: Employment by Disability Status, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

322 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 47

Figure III-21: Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

323 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 48

Figure III-2: San Mateo County Housing Policies and Programs Analysis [PLACEHOLDER] Source: ABAG

324 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 49
SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing needs.

Figure IV-1: Population Indexed to 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-2: Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, City of San Mateo, 2015-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
325 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 50

Figure IV-3: Housing Units by Year Built, City of San Mateo Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-4: Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

326 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 51

Figure IV-5: Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-6: Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

327 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 52

Figure IV-7: Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

328 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 53
Cost burden and severe cost burden.

Figure IV-8: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-9: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

329 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 54

Figure IV-10: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-11: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

330 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 55

Figure IV-12: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

331 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 56

Figure IV-13: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

332 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 57

Figure IV-14: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

333 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 58
Overcrowding.

Figure IV-15: Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-16: Occupants per Room by Tenure, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

334 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 59

Figure IV-17: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Figure IV-18: Occupants per Room by AMI, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

335 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 60

Figure IV-19: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

336 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 61
Substandard housing.

Figure IV-20: Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, City of San Mateo, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

337 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 62
Homelessness.

Figure IV-21: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-22: Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, San Mateo County, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
338 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 63

Figure IV-23: Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-24: Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 46 0 70 31 10
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 46 3 46 4 14
Unsheltered 20 0 189 34 103
Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
339 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 64
Displacement.

Figure IV-25: Location of Population One Year Ago, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-26: Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
340 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 65

Figure IV-27: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, City of San Mateo, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

San Mateo 630 0 72 0 702
San Mateo County 4,656 191 359 58 5,264
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
341 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 66

Figure IV-28: Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

342 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 67

Figure IV-29: Location Affordability Index by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

343 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 68

Figure IV-30: Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

344 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 69

Figure IV-31: Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2000
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

345 of 955

ROOT POLICY RESEARCH MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 70
Other considerations.

Figure IV-32: Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure IV-33: Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, City of San Mateo, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
346 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 1
APPENDIX D | Attachment 3 – Access to Educational Opportunities This section examines the extent to which members of protected classes and those in poverty experience disparities in access to opportunity as measured by access to education. This section dr aws from data provided by the San Mateo Office of Education, the California Department of Education, and U.S. Census American Community Surveys (ACS). This section discusses the following topics:
 Changes in school enrollment during COVID-19 by race and ethnicity, and by groups with extenuating circumstances;1
 Achievement gaps by race and ethnicity and for groups with extenuating circumstances as measured by test scores, California State University or University of California admissions standards, and college-going rates;
 Barriers to success measured by chronic absenteeism, dropout rates, and suspension rates.

After describing this section’s primary findings, we describe the county’s school districts before launching into data measuring achievement gaps and barriers to success.

Primary Findings
Student racial and ethnic diversity is modestly increasing. Student bodies in San Mateo County have become increasingly racially and ethnically diverse.
 Hispanic students make up the largest ethnic group in the coun ty’s schools, representing 38% of students in the 2020 -2021 academic school year. This a slight incr ease from the 2010 -2011 school year, where Hispanic students made up 37% of the population.  There has been a large increase in Asian students, with 17% iden tifying as such in 2020 -2021, an increase of 5 percentage points from 2010-2011.
 Students identifying as White (26%) have decreased by 3 percentage points since 2010-2011.

Free and reduced lunch-qualifying students and English language learners are concentrated in a handful of schools. Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced or free lunch.  The rate of reduced lunch qualification was highest in Ravenswood City Elementary School District, where 83% of students qualify f or reduced lunch. Also in Ravenswood City Elementary, 30% of students are experiencing homelessness. This is a large outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness.
 Countywide, 20% of public school students are English learners. Again, this rate is highest at Ravenswood City Elementary, where 53% of students are English learners. La Honda -Pescadero

1 The term “extenuating circumstances” is used in this section to capture students whose socioeconomic situations and/or disability may make standard educational environments challenging. 347 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 2
Unified School District, Jefferson Union High School, and Redwood City Elementary also have high rates of English learners, representing more than a third of students.

Enrollment is dropping. Public school enrollment re duced substantially in some areas during the pandemic. Total enrollment decreased by 3% between 2019 -2020 and 2020-2021 in San Mateo County , which was the largest decrease of the decade.
 Portola Valley and La Honda-Pescadero school districts had the largest enrollment decreases during COVID-19, with a 11% and 10% decline in enrollments, respectively.  Decreased enrollment was especially common among Pacific Islander students. Between 2019-2021, enrollment among Pacific Island er students decreased by 6% (from 1,581 students in 2019 -20 to 1,484 students in 2020-21), substantially higher than the 3% countywide average.  Enrollment among migrant students decreased drastically by 16% over the same period (from 332 students to 279 students).

Learning proficiency is improving yet disparities exist . Across all racial and ethnic groups, the rate at which students met or exceeded English and mathematics testing standards has increased since the 2014- 2015 school year. Students with extenuating circumstances (i.e., disability, facing homelessness, learning English) tend to score lower on English and mathematics tests than the overall student body.  Proficiency gaps are especially pronou nced among English learning students in Portola Valley Elementary, Woodside Elementary, Menlo Park City Elementary, and Brisbane Elementary , where students with extenuating circumstances met or exceeded mathematics test standards at a rate at least 50 percentage points below the overall test rate in each district.  Students with disabilities in San Carlos Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary school districts scored far below the overall student body: In these districts, students with disabilities met or exc eeded mathematics test standards at 54 percentage points below the overall test rate.

Many students meet admissions standards for CSU or UC schools.  Among the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards, at 69%. On the other end of the spectrum, Cabrillo Unified and South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rates at 41%.  Jefferson Union High School District had the most drastic increase in the share of graduates meeting CSU or UC standards: just 21% of students met these standards in 2016 -2017 compared to 48% of students in 2019 -2020. La Honda -Pescadero Unified School D istrict experienced a 10 percentage point increase in this success rate over the same period.

Most school districts in the county have a college-going rate at 70% or higher—yet there are wide gaps by race and ethnicity.
348 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 3
 In every district, White students have a higher college -going rate than Hispanic students, but the largest gaps are in South San Francisco United, where 91% of White students go to college compared to just 68% of Hispanic students—a 23 percentage point gap.

Students with extenuating circumstances are highly concentrated in a few schools and move schools often due to housing instability.
 Students with extenuating circumstances may need additional resources —e.g., onsite health care, free meals, tutoring—to be successful in school. When these students are concentrated into a few schools, th e schools bear an unequal responsibility for providing needed resources. K -12 school funding in California has long been inadequate, and, although policymakers have recently allocated additional resources to schools with high proportions of low income children under a “concentration grant” system, funding gaps remain.
 The highest concentration of high needs students is found in Ravenswood City Elementary, where 30% of all students are experiencing homelessness and 83% qualify for free and reduced lunch.  Currently, students whose families have been evicted do not have protections allowing them to remain in their current school district. This can result in frequent changes in schools for low income children, raising their vulnerability to falling behind in school.

Absenteeism, dropout rates, and discipline rates are highest for students of color, students with disabilities, and students with other extenuating circumstances. While 10% of students were chronically absent during the 2018-2019 school year, chronic absenteeism rates were higher in districts with a large number of students experiencing economic and housing precarity.  For instance, Ravenswood Elementary, which has a 30% rate of homelessness among students, had one of the higher rates of chronic absenteeism at 16%.
 Pacific Islander students (26%), Black/African American students (18%), and Hispanic students (15%) had notably higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall student population (10%).  In most districts, chronic absenteeism is higher among students with disabilities. In fact, only Bayshore Elementary’s students with disabilities had a lower rate of chronic absenteeism than the overall student body.

Dropout rates vary across the county:
 Dropout rates were highest in Sequoia Union High School District (10%) and South San Francisco Unified (9%).
 In all school districts in the county, dropout rates are higher for boys than for girls.  Pacific Islander, Black/African American , and Hispanic students in the county often had higher dropout rates than those in other racial and ethnic groups  Students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, foster youth, and students learning English had higher dropout rates than the overall population.

Discipline rates also vary by area and race and ethnicity. 349 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 4
 In many school districts across San Mateo Cou nty, Hispanic students are disciplined at disproportionately higher rates compared to their peers.  In most districts, Black/African American and Pacific Islander students are also overrepresented in terms of suspension rates, but these rates are slight compared to those of Hispanic students.  Asian and Filipino students were underrepresented in terms of suspension rates. White students were also underrepresented in discipline rates in most districts except for La Honda-Pescadero.

The demographics of faculty and staff are fairly similar to that of students.  There is a slightly larger share of White and Black/African American staff than students, meaning that Black/African American and White student groups are more likely to interact with same -race staff and faculty than other racial groups.
 Asian students are less likely to interact with a same-race staff of faculty member: 17% of the student body is Asian compared to just 8% of staff and faculty.

Background
This section describes the school districts in San Mateo County, including their geographic boundaries and a brief history of the school districts’ formation. This section also includes details on how districts’ enrollments and student demographic have changed over time.

San Mateo County School District s. There are three unified school districts in San Mateo County which include both elementary and high schools. These are Cabrillo Unified School District, La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, and South San Francisco Unified School District.

In addition to the unified school districts, there are three high schoo l districts, which include: Jefferson Union High School District , San Mateo Union High School District , and Sequoia Union High School District. The elementary schools covering these high schoo ls’ district boundaries areas are described below:
▪ In the Jefferson Union High School District geographic boundary, elementary school districts are the Bayshore Elementary School District, Brisbane School District, Jefferson Elementary School District, and Pacifica School District.
▪ Within the San Mateo Union High School District geographic boundary , elementary school districts include San Mateo -Foster City School District, Hillsborough City School District, Burlingame School District, San Bruno Park School District, and Millbrae School District. ▪ Within the Sequoia Union High School District geographic boundary , the elementary schools include Belmont-Redwood Shores School District, San Carlos School District, Redwood City School District, Ravenswood City School District, Menlo Park City School District, Woodside Elementary School District, Las Lomitas Elementary School District, and Portola Valley School District. 350 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 5
Geographic boundaries of school districts. Figure V-1 illustrates the geographic boundaries of the unified school districts as well as the three high school districts. Municipal boundaries are overlayed on the map.

Figure V-1.

Unified School Districts and High School Districts in San Mateo County

Source: San Mateo County Office of Education.
351 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 6

As illustrated in the map, Cabrillo Unified School District covers Half Moon Bay and some unincorporated areas of San Mateo County . South San Francisco Unified cover s South San Francisco and a small portion of Daly City. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District covers unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

The other high school districts, Jefferson Union, San Mateo Union, and Sequoia Union, cover the remaining jurisdictions. Jefferson Union cover s Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, and Pacifica. San Mateo Union covers Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno, San Mateo City, and Foster City. Sequoia Union covers Atherton, Belmont, Redwood City, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Portola Valley, and Woodside.

The county’s elementary school districts cover the same areas as the three high school districts.

Their geographic boundaries are illustrated in the map below. 352 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 7
Figure V-2.

Elementary School Districts in San Mateo County

Source: San Mateo County Office of Education.

353 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 8
Because the elementary sc hool districts are much smaller, many jurisdictions have several elementary schools. The table blow shows each jurisdiction and their associated elementary school.

Figure V-3.

School Districts in San Mateo County’s Jurisdictions

Source: San Mateo County Office of Education.

A brief history of district formation. San Mateo County’s numerous school districts were formed over a century ago, when the county was more rural and scattered: communities needed elementary schools close to home, and only a few students were attending high school.

As young people began going to high school, individual districts often found they had too few students and resources to support their own high schools, so se parate high school districts, Jurisdiction
Atherton Sequoia Union Menlo Park City ; Las Lomitas Elementary; Redwood City
Belmont Sequoia Union Belmont-Redwood Shores
Brisbane Jefferson Union Brisbane; Bayshore Elementary
Burlingame San Mateo Union Burlingame
Colma Jefferson Union Jefferson Elementary
Daly City Jefferson Union; South San Francisco Unified Jefferson Elementary East Palo Alto Sequoia Union Ravenswood City
Foster City San Mateo Union San Mateo-Foster City
Half Moon Bay Cabrillo Unified (none, included in Cabrillo Unified) Hillsborough San Mateo Union Hillsborough City
Menlo Park Sequoia Union Menlo Park City; Las Lomitas Elementary; Ravenswood City
Millbrae San Mateo Union Millbrae
Pacifica Jefferson Union Pacifica
Portola Valley Sequoia Union Portola Valley
Redwood City Sequoia Union Redwood City
San Bruno San Mateo Union San Bruno Park
San Carlos Sequoia Union San Carlos; Redwood City
San Mateo San Mateo Union San Mateo-Foster City
South San Francisco South San Francisco Unified (none, included in South San Francisco Unified) Woodside Sequoia Union Woodside Elementary; Portola Valley; Las Lomitas; Redwood City
Unified or High School District Elementary School District(s) 354 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 9
covering the territories of two or more elementary districts, were established to meet the communities’ needs.2
Once California’s population grew and San Mateo County became more urbanized, “a jigsaw puzzle of overlapping districts evolved haphazardly.” Since 1920, the state has been pushin g elementary districts to unify with the high school districts that serve their communities, citing improved educational quality and equity of opportunity. However, there has been limited success and local voters in San Mateo County have consistently resisted unification.3 Early efforts at unification were more successful in the rural communities along the coast —for example, voters approved the new Cabrillo Unified district for the area around Half Moon Bay and the La Honda-Pescadero Unified district in a 1964 election. Unification was not supported by many suburban communities edging the Bay. The county ’s school district committee proposed to split each of the three high school districts and feeder schools into two or three smaller unified districts, but the State Board of Education rejected variations of those plans three times . The Board argued that the county committee’s proposals would create districts with widely varying property tax bases and could contribute to racial segregation. The State Board instead devised a plan that would create a single unified district within each of the existing high school district boundaries. Voters turned down the state plans in all three districts in June 1966, and rejected a similar proposal again in 1972. In 1973, the Mid-Peninsula Task Force for Integrated Education petitioned the county committees to unify the elementary districts of Menlo Park, Las Lomitas, Portola Valley, Ravenswood and a portion of Sequoia Union High School District across county lines with Palo Alto Unified. Their goal was racial integration , but the county committee did not support the effort.4
Efforts against unification have persisted, leaving the county with several elementary school districts which feed into a high school, rather than a unified district. As a result, some elementary school districts have faced waning budgets and administrative hurtles. For instance, Brisbane and Bayshore elementary school districts, at the northern end of the county, serve a little more than 1,000 students a nd long have struggled with tight budgets. To rectify their budgetary concerns, the districts now share both a superintendent and a chief business officer. They also participate in a special education collaborative with the Jefferson elementary and high sc hool districts.

According to the county’s superintendent of schools Anne Campbell, o ther districts may find themselves pooling their resources in the future: local identification may be strong, she says, but

2 Watson, Aleta. “How Did We End Up With 54 School Districts in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties?” Silicon Valley Community Foundation, 2012. https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/sites/default/files/report-edu.pdf 3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
355 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 10
financial reality is hard to ignore: “As we move forward in time, I think it’s going to be interesting to see what school districts are going to do, especially as budgets get more bleak.”5 Enrollment changes. Total public school enrollment in the county has decreased slightly, by just 1%, from the 2010 -2011 academic year to 2020 -2021. Figure V-4 illustrates enrollment changes by district.

Bayshore Elementary, Ravenswood City, and Portola Valley school districts ex perienced the largest enrollment decreases (by at least 30% ) between 2010-11 and 2020 -21. School districts with the largest increases in enrollments were Burlingame (22%) and Belmont-Redwood Shores (30%).

5 Ibid.
356 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 11
Figure V-4.

Enrollment changes by district, 2010-11 to 2020-2021

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

However, it is important to note that many of these enrollment decreases were driven by the pandemic. In fact, total enrollment in these public schools decreased by 3% between 2019-2020 School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 3,352 2,934 -12%
La Honda-Pescadero 341 275 -19%
South San Francisco 9,312 8,182 -12%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 4,960 4,705 -5%
Bayshore Elementary 543 361 -34%
Brisbane Elementary 545 474 -13%
Jefferson Elementary 6,998 6,653 -5%
Pacifica 3,164 3,006 -5%
San Mateo Union High School 8,406 9,760 16%
Burlingame Elementary 2,771 3,387 22%
Hillsborough City Elementary 1,512 1,268 -16%
Millbrae Elementary 2,222 2,238 1%
San Bruno Park Elementary 2,599 2,275 -12%
San Mateo-Foster City 10,904 10,969 1%
Sequoia Union High School 8,765 10,327 18%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 3,206 4,152 30%
Las Lomitas Elementary 1,336 1,116 -16%
Menlo Park City Elementary 2,629 2,781 6%
Portola Valley Elementary 711 491 -31%
Ravenswood City Elementary 4,285 2,993 -30%
Redwood City Elementary 9,119 8,086 -11%
San Carlos Elementary 3,212 3,265 2%
Woodside Elementary 453 369 -19%
Total Enrollment 91,345 90,067 -1%
2010-2011
Enrollment
2020-2021
Enrollment Percent Change
357 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 12
and 2020-2021 in San Mateo County: the largest decrease of the decade. As shown in Figure V-5, enrollments actually increased steadily from 2010 -2011 to 2017 -2018, then began decreasing afterwards.

Figure V-5.

Public School Enrollment Changes, 2010-2011 to 2020-2021

Note: These data exclude enrollments in SBE Everest Public High School District, which in 2015 combined with the Sequoia Union High School District.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

Portola Valley and La Honda -Pescadero school districts had the largest enrollment decreases during COVID-19, with a 11% and 10% decline in enrollments, respectively. The only school district with increasing enrollments between the 2019 -2020 to 2020 -2021 school years was Sequoia Union High School District, with a modest 1% increase in enrollments. 358 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 13
Figure V-6.

Enrollment changes by district during COVID-19, 2019-20 to 2020-21

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research.

Declining enrollments in public schools have been common across the state and country during the COVID-19 pandemic, and enrollment declines in San Mateo County are on par with those School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 3,136 2,934 -6%
La Honda-Pescadero 306 275 -10%
South San Francisco 8,438 8,182 -3%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 4,811 4,705 -2%
Bayshore Elementary 381 361 -5%
Brisbane Elementary 476 474 0%
Jefferson Elementary 6,687 6,653 -1%
Pacifica 3,110 3,006 -3%
San Mateo Union High School 9,885 9,760 -1%
Burlingame Elementary 3,534 3,387 -4%
Hillsborough City Elementary 1,290 1,268 -2%
Millbrae Elementary 2,349 2,238 -5%
San Bruno Park Elementary 2,454 2,275 -7%
San Mateo-Foster City 11,576 10,969 -5%
Sequoia Union High School 10,238 10,327 1%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 4,314 4,152 -4%
Las Lomitas Elementary 1,208 1,116 -8%
Menlo Park City Elementary 2,922 2,781 -5%
Portola Valley Elementary 551 491 -11%
Ravenswood City Elementary 3,269 2,993 -8%
Redwood City Elementary 8,530 8,086 -5%
San Carlos Elementary 3,405 3,265 -4%
Woodside Elementary 376 369 -2%
Total Enrollment 93,246 90,067 -3%
2019-2020
Enrollment
2020-2021
Enrollment Percent Change
359 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 14
across the state. According to a study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, public K–12 enrollment declined by 3% in California from the 2019-2020 school year to the 2020-2021 school year. 6
As funding is tied directly to the number of enrolled pupils, schools in San Mateo County could suffer fiscal consequences with continued declines. By law, districts are “held harmless” for declines for one year —that is, scho ol budgets for 2020 –2021 were unaffected, but con tinued enrollment declines could mean cuts in future years. 7 Reductions in enrollments, and consequently funding, could also worsen economic inequality in the long-term by reducing students’ resources and access to opportunities.

Demographics: race & ethnicity. Over the last decade, S an Mateo County’s school districts have diversified in terms of students’ race and ethnicity. Hispanic students make up the largest ethnic group in the county’s schools: 38% of s tudents identified as Hispanic in the 2020- 2021 academic school year. This is just a one percentage point increase from 2010-2011. Many other students are White (26%) , though this has decreased by 3 percentage points since 2010 - 2011, The largest increase was in Asian students, with 17% identifying as such in 2020-2021, an increase of 5 percentage points from 2010 -2011. Other students identify as Filipino (8%), or bi- or multi -racial (8%). A small and decreasing percentage of students identify as Black/African American (1%) and Pacific Islander (2%).

6 Lafortune, Julien & Prunty, Emmanuel. “Digging into Enrollment Drops at California Public Schools.” Public Policy Institute of California. May 14, 2021. https://www.ppic.org/blog/digging-into-enrollment-drops-at-california-public-schools/ 7 Ibid.
360 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 15
Figure V-7.

Changes in Race and
Ethnicity, 2010-2011 to 2020 -
2021
Note: These data exclude enrollments in SBE
Everest Public High School District, which
in 2015 combined with the Sequoia Union
High School District.

Source: California Department of Educat ion and
Root Policy Research
:

Figure V-8 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of students enrolled in public schools by jurisdiction in 2020-2021.
▪ Portola Valley Elementary School District (66%) and Woodside Elementary School District (64%) had the highest share of White students, making them among the least racially and ethnically diverse districts in the county.
▪ Ravenswood City Elementary School District and Redwood City Elementary School District had the highest share of Hispanic students, at 84% and 70%, respectively. ▪ Ravenswood City also ha d the highest proportion of Pacific Islander students (7%) and Black/African American students (5%) compared to other districts. ▪ Millbrae Elementary (46%), Hill sborough Elementary (32%), and Belmont -Redwood Shores Elementary (32%) had the highest share of Asian students. ▪ Jefferson Elementary School District and Jefferson Union High School District ha d the highest portion of Filipino students, at 25% and 29% respectively. 361 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 16
Figure V-8.

Student body by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-2021

Note: In almost all school districts, less than 1% of students were Native American , so they are not included in this table.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy R esearch Enrollment changes due to COVID-19 varied by race and ethnicity. For instance, between 2019- 2021, enrollment among Pacific Islander students decreased by 6% (from 1,581 students in 2019- 20 to 1,484 students in 2020-21). This is substantially higher than the 3% countywide average.

Enrollments among Filipino and Hispanic students decreased by 4 % while enrollment among Black/African American students decreased by 2%. On the other end of the spectrum, there was School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 1% 0% 1% 52% 0% 40% 5%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 0% 1% 63% 0% 35% 1%
South San Francisco 14% 1% 23% 48% 2% 6% 6%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 1% 29% 31% 1% 14% 7%
Bayshore Elementary 19% 3% 21% 41% 4% 3% 8%
Brisbane Elementary 20% 1% 12% 28% 0% 24% 11%
Jefferson Elementary 19% 2% 25% 36% 1% 11% 5%
Pacifica 8% 1% 9% 26% 0% 39% 16%
San Mateo Union High School 23% 1% 5% 32% 2% 28% 10%
Burlingame Elementary 27% 0% 3% 16% 0% 41% 9%
Hillsborough Elementary 32% 0% 2% 5% 0% 48% 12%
Millbrae Elementary 46% 1% 6% 20% 2% 16% 8%
San Bruno Park Elementary 16% 1% 10% 41% 5% 15% 1%
San Mateo-Foster City 26% 1% 3% 37% 2% 21% 9%
Sequoia Union High School 9% 2% 1% 45% 2% 35% 5%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 32% 1% 3% 12% 1% 34% 14%
Las Lomitas Elementary 18% 1% 1% 13% 0% 53% 14%
Menlo Park City Elementary 13% 1% 1% 17% 1% 55% 11%
Portola Valley Elementary 6% 0% 0% 14% 0% 66% 13%
Ravenswood City Elementary 0% 5% 0% 84% 7% 1% 2%
Redwood City Elementary 4% 1% 1% 70% 1% 19% 4%
San Carlos Elementary 18% 1% 1% 14% 0% 49% 13%
Woodside Elementary 4% 2% 0% 16% 1% 64% 11%
Total 17% 1% 8% 38% 2% 26% 8%
White Asian
Two or
more racesHispanicFilipinoBlack
Pacific
Islander
362 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 17
a 3% increase in enrollment among White st udents (from 22,308 students to 23 ,055 students) between 2019-20 and 2020 -21. Similarly, there was a 1% increase in enrollment among Asian students and a 4% increase among students of two or more races.

Figure V-9.

Enrollment Changes by Race and Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019-20 to 2020- 21 Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research While many of their families may have simply moved out of San Mateo County during the pandemic, i t is pos sible that Black/African American , Filipi no, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students are otherwise slipping through the cracks of the education system during this period.

Demographics: students with extenuating circumstances. Several students in the county’s public schools are facing additional hurtles to educational ease. Many are English learners, qualify for reduced lunch, are foster children, are experiencing homelessness, have a disability, or are migrants. Students in these groups often have hindrances to excelling in school because of detr imental circumstances beyond their con trol. These include financial and social hardships as well as problems within students' families.

Qualification for free and reduced lunch is often used as a proxy for extenuating circumstances.

Qualifications are determined based on household size and in come. For instance, in the 2020 - 2021 academic year, students from a household of three making less than $40,182 annually qualified for reduced price meals, and t hose making less than $28,236 in a household of three qualified for free meals.8

8 “Income Eligibility Scales for School Year 2020-2021.” California Department of Education. 363 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 18
Free and reduced lunch disparities. Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced or free lunch. This rate was substantially lower in districts like Hillsborough Elementary, San Carlos Elementary , Portola Valley Elementary, Las Lomi tas Elementary, Belmont-Redwood Shores, and Menlo Park City Elementary, where each had less than 10% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch.

The rate of reduced lunch qualification was far higher in Ravenswood City Elementary School District, where 83% of students qualify for reduced lunch.

Disparities in homelessness. In Ravenswood City Elementary , 30% of students are experiencing homelessness. This is an outlier in the county, where overall just 2 % are experiencing homelessness. The school district has received media attention due to its astronomically high rate of students experiencing homelessness. Some have noted that rates of homelessness have increased due to escalating costs of living in an a rea surrounded by affluence.9 Others have highlighted that ”Having a roof over your head, having a safe place to sleep and study, is fundamental to absolutely everything," and have noted that students who experience homelessness have higher dropout rates and are more lik ely to experience homelessness as adults.10
School moves related to evictions. Currently, students whose families have been evicted do not have protections allowing them to remain in their current school district. This means that precarious housing also means precarious schooling for many of the county’s students. Frequent moves by students are closely related to lower educational proficiency.

In the City of San Francisco, a 2010 ordinance protects some students from being evicted during the school year; however, it only relates to owner/relative move-in evictions.11 Children in families who are evicted for other reasons may need to move schools or districts when their housing is lost.

English language learners. Countywide, 20% of public school students are English learners.

Again, this rate is highest at Ravenswood City Elementary, where 53% of students are English learners. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, Jefferson Union High School, and Redwood City Elementary also have high rates of English le arners, representing more than a third of students.

9 Bartley, Kaitlyn. “Homelessness: The shadow that hangs over students in this Bay Area school district.” The Mercury News.

December 2018.
10 Jones, Carolyn. “California schools see big jump in homeless students.” Palo Alto Online. October 2020. 11 https://sfrb.org/new-amendment-prohibiting-owner-move-evictions-minor-children-during-school-year 364 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 19
Less than one percent of students in San Mateo County public school districts are foster youth or migrants. Cabrillo Unified School District had the highest rate of migrant students at 3%. La Honda-Pescadero had the highest rate of foster children at 2%.

School districts without large low income populations also tend to serve very few English language learners. For instance, in Hillsborough Elementary where 0% of students qualify for reduced lunch, only 1% of students are English language learners. 365 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 20
Figure V-10.

Students with Extenuating Circumstances, 2020-2021

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research The overall share of students in these groups has not changed drastically over time. As shown in Figure V-11, there have been slight decreases in the share of students who are English learners and the share of students who qualify for reduced lunch from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021. Around School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 20% 37% 0% 2% 3%
La Honda-Pescadero 38% 38% 2% 1% 1%
South San Francisco 21% 34% 0% 1% 1%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 36% 44% 0% 0% 0%
Bayshore Elementary 30% 57% 0% 0% 0%
Brisbane Elementary 16% 19% 0% 0% 0%
Jefferson Elementary 14% 27% 0% 1% 0%
Pacifica 9% 18% 0% 1% 0%
San Mateo Union High School 10% 21% 0% 0% 0%
Burlingame Elementary 13% 11% 0% 0% 0%
Hillsborough Elementary 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Millbrae Elementary 19% 25% 0% 0% 0%
San Bruno Park Elementary 29% 18% 0% 0% 0%
San Mateo-Foster City 26% 28% 0% 2% 0%
Sequoia Union High School 15% 30% 0% 0% 0%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 10% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Las Lomitas Elementary 7% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Menlo Park City Elementary 6% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Portola Valley Elementary 4% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Ravenswood City Elementary 53% 83% 0% 30% 0%
Redwood City Elementary 38% 56% 0% 2% 1%
San Carlos Elementary 5% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Woodside Elementary 8% 10% 0% 0% 0%
Total 20% 29% <1% 2% <1%
Migrant
Reduced
Lunch
English
Learners
Foster
Children Homeless
366 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 21
2% of students in the county are homeless and this has not changed between 2016-2017 and 2020-2021. Foster youth and migrant students are not shown in the figure, as both have hovered at less than 1% from year to year.

Figure V-11.

Changes in rates of English
Leaners, Reduced Lunch,
and Homelessness, 2016-
2017 to 2020-2021
Note: These data exclude enrollments in SBE
Everest Public High School District, which
in 2015 combined with the Sequoia Union
High School District.

Source: California Department of Education and
Root Policy Research
:

During COVID-19, enrollments decreased by 3% between 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years, as families withdrew or did not reenroll their children from public schools . Enrollment among migrant students decreased much more drastically, by 16% (from 332 students to 279 students).

Similarly, enrollment among students who qualify for reduced lunch declined at a higher rate (10%) than the overall student population. Foster children and English learners also experienced enrollment decreases at a rate higher than the total population, with 7% and 10% decreases in enrollment, respectively.
367 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 22
Figure V-12.

Enrollment Changes by Extenuating Circumstance, San Mateo County, 2019 - 2020 to 2020-2021

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Resear ch

Achievement Gaps
This section details achievement gaps within school districts. Gaps are measured by test scores, meeting California State University or University of California admissions standards, and college- going rates.

Test scores. Figure V-13 indicates the percent of students who met or exceeded English and mathematics testing standards set by the California State Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. Overall, 62% of students in the county met or exceeded English testing standards and 52% met or exceeded mathematics testing standards.

Of all the districts with high schools, San Mateo Union High School District had the highest student pass rates: 70% of their students met or exceeded standards in English testing and 50% met or exceeded standards in mathematics testing.

Among elementary school districts, Portola Valley Elementary School District and Woodside Elementary School District had the highest rate s of success in English, with 87% and 88% of students meeting or exceeding English testing standards, respectively. Woodside Elementary School District and Hillsborough Elementary School District had the highest rates of success in mathematics, with 84% and 85% meeting math testing standards, respectively.

In every school district, girl s scored higher on English tests than boys. Overall, girls met or exceeded English testing at a rate of 67% while boys met or exceeded English testing at a rate of 57%. The largest gender gap was in Brisbane Elementary School District, where 72% of girls met or exceeded English testing standards and just 56% of boys did: a gap of 16 percentage points. 368 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 23
Gender gaps in mathematics were less pronounced, but largest gender gaps were in Cabrillo Unified School District and in La Honda Pescadero Unified School District. In Cabrillo Unified, girls passed mathematics at a rate 7% higher than boys, while in La Honda-Pescadero, boys passed at a rate 6% higher than girls.

Figure V-14.

Students who Met or Exceeded Testing Standards, by Gender and District, 2018- 2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research The gender gap in test scores has started to close in recent years, as indicated in Figure V-15. In 2014-2015 there was a 11 percentage point gap in girls’ and boys’ English testing pass rates, and by 2018-2019 this was just a 10 percentage point gap. The figure also indicates that there have been steady gains in the share of students meeting or exceeding testing standards in the county.

District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 41% 55% 34% 31% 38%
La Honda-Pescadero 43% 36% 49% 31% 34% 28%
South San Francisco 52% 45% 60% 44% 42% 45%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 52% 63% 37% 38% 35%
Bayshore Elementary 27% 24% 31% 27% 27% 28%
Brisbane Elementary 64% 56% 72% 54% 56% 53%
Jefferson Elementary 48% 43% 54% 37% 39% 35%
Pacifica 60% 55% 65% 57% 57% 57%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 66% 76% 50% 50% 50%
Burlingame Elementary 80% 75% 84% 78% 78% 78%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% 81% 89% 85% 86% 84%
Millbrae Elementary 63% 57% 70% 58% 58% 58%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 47% 53% 41% 43% 38%
San Mateo-Foster City 62% 58% 67% 56% 56% 56%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 64% 72% 50% 50% 50%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 78% 86% 79% 78% 80%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 84% 88% 82% 84% 80%
Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 81% 87% 83% 82% 83%
Portola Valley Elementary 87% 83% 91% 83% 84% 82%
Ravenswood City Elementary 22% 20% 23% 15% 16% 13%
Redwood City Elementary 54% 49% 59% 46% 46% 46%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 77% 83% 75% 76% 74%
Woodside Elementary 88% 85% 91% 84% 85% 83%
Total 62% 57% 67% 52% 52% 52%
English Language Arts/Literacy Mathematics
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
369 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 24
Figure V-15.

Students who Met or Exceeded Testing Standards, by Gender, 2014-2015 to 2018- 2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Very large gaps in test scores by race and ethnicity exist among students in some areas. Figure V-16 illustrates the rate at which students of various racial and ethnic groups met or exceeded English testing standards.

For the past five years in San Mateo County, Asi an, White, and Filipino stu dents have met or exceeded English testing standards at rates higher than the overall student population. Hispanic, Black/African American, and Pacific Islander students, on the other hand, have been underserved in this realm and have consistently scored lower than the overall student body.

However, across all groups, the rate at which students met or exceed English testing standards has increased since the 2014 -2015 school year. Hispanic students have made the largest percentage point gain: 34% met standards in 2014-2015 and 40% met standards in 2019-19, an increase of six percentage points.
370 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 25
Figure V-16.

Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research A similar narrative holds in Math testing standards, where scores have improved among each racial and ethnic group from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019. Again, White and Asian students meet or exceed math testing standards at rates higher than the overall population while Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and Black/African American students scored lower.

White and Hispanic students have seen the biggest increases in rates of mathematics succe ss:
both have experienced a five percentage point increase in the percent of students who met or exceeded math testing standards.
371 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 26
Figure V-17.

Students who Met or Exceeded mathematics testing standards, by Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Figure V-18 illustrates the rates at which students of various racial and ethnic groups met or exceeded mathematics testing standards by district.

There were several districts in which the gaps between the overall test pass rates and a specific racial groups’ pa ss rate s were especially wide. For instance, in San Carlos Elementary Scho ol District, 75% of the total student body met or exceeded math testing standards, but only 11% of Black/African American students met or exceeded math testing standards — a gap of 64 percentage points.

Other school districts with wide gaps between Black/African American and overall math testing success were Las Lomitas Elementary (46 percentage point gap), Menlo Park City Elementary (43 percentage point gap), and Belmont-Redwood Shores (42 percentage point gap).

Some school districts also had similar gaps in Pacific Islander students’ math passing rates and overall passing rates. For instance, in Menlo Park City Elementary School District, 83% of the student body met or exceeded mathematics testing standards but just 35% of Pacific Islander students passed or exceeded mathematics testing standards —a gap o f 48 percentage points.

Millbrae Elementary School District also had a 47 percentage point gap between Pacific Islander students’ and total students’ math test rates.
372 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 27
Figure V-18.

Students who Met or Exceeded Mathematics Testing Standards, by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Although racial gaps in English testing were less pronounced, San Carlos Elementary School District also had a wide gap between the total student body and Black/African American students.

Namely, 80% of the student body met or exceeded English testing stan dards, but only 19% of Black/African American students met or exceeded testing standards—a 61 percentage point gap.

School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 34% 65% (no data) 38% 16% (no data) 54% La Honda-Pescadero 31% (no data) (no data) (no data) 20% (no data) 46% South San Francisco 44% 75% 19% 60% 29% 33% 46%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 37% 75% (no data) 36% 17% (no data) 42% Bayshore Elementary 27% 44% (no data) 38% 17% 14% (no data) Brisbane Elementary 54% 67% (no data) 65% 38% (no data) 60% Jefferson Elementary 37% 61% 15% 42% 23% 20% 30%
Pacifica 57% 74% 38% 48% 38% (no data) 66%
San Mateo Union High School 50% 84% (no data) 46% 22% 20% 63% Burlingame Elementary 78% 92% 53% 66% 50% (no data) 81% Hillsborough Elementary 85% 92% (no data) (no data) 76% (no data) 82% Millbrae Elementary 58% 75% 31% 63% 27% 11% 51%
San Bruno Park Elementary 41% 69% 23% 64% 25% 27% 50%
San Mateo-Foster City 56% 87% 30% 61% 23% 27% 69%
Sequoia Union High School 50% 81% 18% 53% 22% 11% 76%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 79% 92% 37% 77% 52% 43% 79%
Las Lomitas Elementary 82% 93% 36% (no data) 44% (no data) 87% Menlo Park City Elementary 83% 94% 40% (no data) 55% 35% 88% Portola Valley Elementary 83% 89% (no data) (no data) 56% (no data) 89% Ravenswood City Elementary 15% (no data) 9% (no data) 15% 11% (no data) Redwood City Elementary 46% 92% 22% 76% 34% 44% 75%
San Carlos Elementary 75% 91% 11% 85% 51% (no data) 78% Woodside Elementary 84% 92% (no data) (no data) 52% (no data) 89% Total 52% 82% 18% 50% 27% 21% 71%
Overall WhiteAsian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
373 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 28
Las Lomitas Elementary had a 41 percentage point gap between overall English testing success and Black/African American English testing success.

Other districts had large gaps between the total student body’s English test scores and Pacific Islander students’ test scores. Namely, in Menlo Park City Elementary School District 84% of students met or exceeded English testing standards, but only 40% of Pacific Islander students— a 44 percentage point gap.
374 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 29
Figure V-19.

Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Race/Ethnicity and District, 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research Students with extenuating circumstances across all districts met or exceeded testing standards at lower rates. However, some districts had especially wide disparities between overall test scores and test scores of students with extenuating circumstances.

School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 78% (no data) 54% 28% (no data) 71% La Honda-Pescadero 43% (no data) (no data) (no data) 27% (no data) 61% South San Francisco 52% 76% 36% 66% 38% 44% 56%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 81% (no data) 60% 43% (no data) 59% Bayshore Elementary 27% 49% (no data) 33% 20% 14% (no data) Brisbane Elementary 64% 63% (no data) 75% 51% (no data) 79% Jefferson Elementary 48% 62% 28% 59% 34% 33% 43%
Pacifica 60% 65% 32% 52% 45% (no data) 68%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 88% 55% 79% 50% 34% 81% Burlingame Elementary 80% 88% 61% 73% 55% (no data) 83% Hillsborough Elementary 85% 89% (no data) (no data) 77% (no data) 83% Millbrae Elementary 63% 74% 46% 68% 42% 23% 61%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 72% 39% 76% 36% 31% 56%
San Mateo-Foster City 62% 85% 41% 68% 34% 37% 77%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 87% 44% 92% 47% 31% 88%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 91% 44% 81% 64% 61% 83%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 91% 45% (no data) 65% (no data) 89% Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 92% 60% (no data) 62% 40% 88% Portola Valley Elementary 87% 92% (no data) (no data) 58% (no data) 93% Ravenswood City Elementary 22% (no data) 24% (no data) 21% 18% (no data) Redwood City Elementary 54% 91% 35% 73% 43% 47% 83%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 90% 19% 76% 60% (no data) 83% Woodside Elementary 88% 92% (no data) (no data) 58% (no data) 92% Total 62% 82% 34% 64% 40% 31% 79%
Overall WhiteAsian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
375 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 30
For example, English learning students in Portola Va lley Elementary, Woodside Elementary, Menlo Park City Elementary, and Brisbane Elementary each met or exceeded mathematics test standards at a rat e at least 50 percentage points below the overall test rate in each district.

English learning students in Las Lomitas Elementary ( 54%) had the highest mathematics pass rates, followed by those in Belmont-Redwood Shores (42%) and Burlingame Elementary (40%).

Students with disabilities scored especially high on mathematics tests in Hillsborough Elementary, where 48% met or exceeded standards. Others in Belmont-Redwood Shores (43%) and Woodside Elementary (41%) had high pass rates as well. S tudents with disabilities in San Carlos Elementary and Las Lomitas Elementary school districts scored far below the overall student body: in these districts, students with disabilities met or exceeded mathematics test standards at 54 percentage points below the overall test rate.

In Jefferson Elementary and Ravenswood Elementary students experiencing homelessness passed math tests at a rate similar to their housed peers. In other districts, however, students experiencing homelessness often scored substantially lower. School districts with the widest math testing gaps between the overall student body and students experiencing homel essness were San Mateo-Foster City and Millbrae Elementary, with a 41 percentage point gap and 42 percentage point gap, respectively.
376 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 31
Figure V-20.

Students who Met or Exceeded Math Testing Standards, by Special Case and District, 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research

School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 34% 4% 5% 4% 9%
La Honda-Pescadero 31% 4% (no data) (no data) 2%
South San Francisco 44% 20% 25% 4% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 37% 5% (no data) (no data) 6% Bayshore Elementary 27% 11% (no data) (no data) 9%
Brisbane Elementary 54% 4% (no data) (no data) 12%
Jefferson Elementary 37% 15% 36% (no data) 11%
Pacifica 57% 22% (no data) (no data) 17%
San Mateo Union High School 50% 10% (no data) (no data) 13% Burlingame Elementary 78% 40% (no data) (no data) 29%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% (no data) (no data) (no data) 48% Millbrae Elementary 58% 26% 16% (no data) 25%
San Bruno Park Elementary 41% 12% (no data) (no data) 9% San Mateo-Foster City 56% 11% 15% (no data) 14%
Sequoia Union High School 50% 3% 33% (no data) 9%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 79% 42% (no data) (no data) 43%
Las Lomitas Elementary 82% 54% (no data) (no data) 28%
Menlo Park City Elementary 83% 31% (no data) (no data) 38% Portola Valley Elementary 83% 14% (no data) (no data) 39% Ravenswood City Elementary 15% 5% 11% (no data) 2%
Redwood City Elementary 46% 14% (no data) 29% 14%
San Carlos Elementary 75% 24% (no data) (no data) 21%
Woodside Elementary 84% 27% (no data) (no data) 41%
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
DisabilitiesOverall
377 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 32
Students with extenuating circumstances also consistently scored lower in English testing than the overall student body.

For instance, E nglish learning students in San Mateo Union High School District, Hillsborough Elementary School District, Sequoia Union High School District, Menlo Park City Elementary School District, and Portola Valley Elementary School District met or exceeded English test standards at a rate at least 60 percentage points below the overall test rate in each district.

Hillsborough Elementary had the largest gap at 85 percentage points. Las Lomitas Elementary had the highest success rate among English learners, where 50% met or exceeded English testing standards.

However, students with disabilities in Las Lomitas Elementary and San Carlos Elementary school districts met or exceeded English test standards at rate 55 and 51 percentage points below the overall test rate, respectively. These were the largest gaps in the county. Students with disabilities at Woodside Elementary did the best on English testing, where 56% passed or exceeded standards.

Among students experiencing homelessness, those at Sequoia Union High School wer e most likely to meet English testing standards, with 42% meeting or exceeding standards. The school district with the widest gap between overall English test scores and scores among students experiencing homelessness was Cabrillo Unified with a 34 percentage point gap.

Just three districts reported English testing scores among migrant students. Redwood City Elementary had the highest pass rate at 34% and Cabrillo Unified had the lowest at 16%. 378 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 33
Figure V-21.

Students who Met or Exceeded English Testing Standards, by Special Case and District, 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, and Root Policy Research

School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 48% 9% 14% 16% 12%
La Honda-Pescadero 43% 9% (no data) (no data) 9%
South San Francisco 52% 21% 35% 20% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 57% 3% (no data) (no data) 19% Bayshore Elementary 27% 3% (no data) (no data) 4%
Brisbane Elementary 64% 21% (no data) (no data) 16%
Jefferson Elementary 48% 16% 30% (no data) 15%
Pacifica 60% 12% (no data) (no data) 15%
San Mateo Union High School 70% 11% (no data) (no data) 27% Burlingame Elementary 80% 33% (no data) (no data) 33%
Hillsborough Elementary 85% (no data) (no data) (no data) 47% Millbrae Elementary 63% 19% 34% (no data) 23%
San Bruno Park Elementary 50% 14% (no data) (no data) 12% San Mateo-Foster City 62% 9% 33% (no data) 15%
Sequoia Union High School 68% 8% 42% (no data) 27%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 82% 31% (no data) (no data) 45%
Las Lomitas Elementary 86% 51% (no data) (no data) 31%
Menlo Park City Elementary 84% 21% (no data) (no data) 42% Portola Valley Elementary 87% 17% (no data) (no data) 37% Ravenswood City Elementary 22% 6% 16% (no data) 5%
Redwood City Elementary 54% 13% (no data) 34% 16%
San Carlos Elementary 80% 29% (no data) (no data) 28%
Woodside Elementary 88% 18% (no data) (no data) 56%
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
DisabilitiesOverall
379 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 34
Students who met university requirements. Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Figure V-22 illustrates the percentage of cohort graduates who met admission requirements for a CSU or UC school according to California Department of Education data.

Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards, at 69%. On the other end of the spectrum, Cabrillo Unified and South San Francisco Unified had the lowest rates at 41%.

Figure V-22.

Students Meeting
California University
Admission
Standards, 2019 -
2020

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Cabrillo Unified and South San Francisco Unified have experienced a decrease in the s hare of graduates meeting CSU or UC admission standards in recent years. For instance, in 2016 -2017, 57% of South San Francisco Unified graduates met these standards, but this decreased by 16 percentage points by 2019 -2020. Cabrillo Unified experienced a l ess drastic decrease over the same period, but the rate still shrunk by two percentage points.

Jefferson Union High School District had the most drastic increase in the s hare of graduates meeting CSU or UC standards: just 21% of students met these standards in 2016-2017 compared to 48% of students in 2019 -2020. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District experienced a 10 percentage point increase in this success rate over the same period.

Sequoia Union and San Mateo Union experienced more modest increases, but remain the districts with the highest rates of students meeting CSU and UC standards. 380 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 35
Figure V-23.

Students Meeting
University
Admission
Standards, 2016-2017
and 2019-2020

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Rates at which students met CSU or UC admissions standards varied substantially by race and ethnicity in 2019-2020. In all high school districts in San Mateo County, White and Asian students meet CSU and UC admissions standards at higher rates than the overall student population.

The largest gap is in South San Francisco Unified, where just 41% of students meet CSU or UC admissions standards, but 73% of Asian students meet those standards—a 32 percentage point gap.

On the other end of the spectrum, Black/African American students typically met CSU or UC admissions standards at lower-than-average rates. The largest gap was in San Mateo Union, where just 29% of Black/African American students met CSU or UC standards compared to 68% of students in the district overall.

Filipino students typically met admissions standards at rates similar to the overall student body.

For instance, i n Jefferson Union, San Mateo Union, and South San Francisco Unified, Filipino students are slightly more likely to have meet CSU and UC standards than the overall stud ent population. In Sequoia Union, they are slightly less likely to have met admission standards than the overall student population.
381 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 36
In La Honda -Pescadero, Hispanic student s are slightly more likely to have met CSU or UC standards than the overall student body. However, in all other school districts, Hispanic students are less likely to have met CSU and UC standards than the overall student body. The largest disparity is in San Mateo Union, where just 46% of Hispanic students meet the university admissions standards compared to 68% of students overall.

Finally, Pacific Islander students in Jefferson Union were slightly more likely to have met California university admissions standards compared to the overall student body, but in Sequoia Union and San Mateo Union they were substantially less likely.
382 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 37
Figure V-24.

Students Meeting University Admission Standards, by Race and Ethnicity, 2019- 2020

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research As exp ected, students with extenuating circumstances were less likely to meet CSU or UC admissions standards than students in the county overall. In all school districts where data are available, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, English learners, foster youth, and migrant students met CSU or UC admission standards at lower rates than the overall student population.
383 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 38
English learners in Sequoia Union and San Mateo Regional met CSU or UC admission standards at higher rates than their peers in other school districts . However, compared to the overall student body within their own school districts, they had a larger gap than other districts. Namely, in Sequoia Union, 69% of students met admissions standards compared to just 32% of students learning English— a 37 percentage point gap.

Similarly, students with disabilities in Sequoia Union had the highest rate of meeting admissions standards (31%) compared to peers with disabilities in other districts, but also had the largest gap (38 percentage points) compared to the district’s overall student body.

Migrant students met admission standards at the lowest rate in South San Francisco Unified (27%) and at the highest rate in Sequoia Union (45%). However, in Cabrillo Unified, their rates were only eight percentage points lower than that of the overall student body, the smallest gap in the county.

Approximately 36% of students experiencing homelessness in Sequoia Union met CSU or UC admission standards, which was higher than rates in San Mateo Union (21%) and Jefferson Union (21%).

Just San Mateo Union and Sequoia Union had enough foster youth to report their rate of meeting CSU or UC admission standards. In Sequoia Union, 29% met admissions standa rds and 22% in San Mateo Union met admissions standards.
384 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 39
Figure V-25.

Students Meeting
University
Admission
Standards, 2019-
2020

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Notes; La -Honda Pescadero Unified
is excluded from these data as they
do not report admission standards
data for these special groups, likely
due to small sample size.

College-going rates. The college-going rate is defined as the percentage of public high school students who completed high school in a given year and subsequently enrolled in any public or private postsecondary institution (in-state or out-of-state) in the United States within 12 or 16 months of completing high school.

Most school districts in the county have a college-going rate at 70% or higher. San Mateo Union had the hi ghest college-going rate at 77%. La Honda -Pescadero School District is the notable exception, with just 32% of graduates attending college within 12 or 16 months. 385 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 40
Figure V-26.

College-Going
Rates, 2017-2018

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

As shown in Figure V-27, La Honda-Pescadero School District previously had the highest college- going rate of all the county’s high school districts, with an 80% colleg e-going rate in 2014 -2015 and a 93% college -going rate in 2015 -2016. The district ex perienced a rapid decline in college- going rates, starting in 2016-2017. However, La Honda-Pescadero has especially small sample sizes. For instance, the district had just 26 twelfth-graders in the 2017-2018 school year, meaning that just a couple students going to college (or not) drastically alters the college-going rate in La Honda-Pescadero. All other high school districts in the county have maintained relatively consistent college-going rates.
386 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 41
Figure V-27.

College-Going
Rates, 2014 -2015 to
2017-2018

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Within each of the high school districts, college-going rates vary by race and ethnicity. ▪ In every district, White students have a higher college-going rate than Hispanic students, but the largest gaps are in South San Francisco United, where 91% of White students go to college compared to just 68% of Hispanic students, a 23 percentage point gap. Jefferson Union has the smallest gap between the two groups: 77% of White students go to college compared to 71% of Hispanic students.
▪ Among Black/African American students, those at San Mateo Union have the hig hest college-going rate at 82%. Those at Jefferson Union have the lowest at just 53%, which is 24 percentage points lower than that of White students and 34 percentage points lower than that of Asian students.
▪ Overall, Asian students have among the highes t college-going-rates in the county. The rate is especially high in South San Francisco Unified, where 92% go to college. The rate is lowest in Sequoia Union High School District, where 84% go to college. 387 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 42
▪ Filipino students also have generally high rates of college-going. The highest college-going rate among Filipino students is in Sequoia Union (86%) and the lowest is in South San Francisco Unified (73%).
▪ College-going rates for Pacific Islander students vary substantially by district. For instance, in Sequoia Union 54% go to college, but in South San Francisco Unified 92% go to college.

Figure V-28.

College-going Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2017-18

Note: Cabrillo Unified and La Honda- Pescadero Unified are not included here because they do not report the data, likely due to small sample sizes.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research 388 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 43
College-going rates are lower for students with disabilities and those learning English compared to the overall student population across the county.
▪ For instance, the largest gap between overall college -going rates and English learners’ college-going rates is in South San Fr ancisco Unified, where just 52% of English learning students go t o college as opposed to 74% of the overall student population — a 22 percentage point gap. Among English learners, San Mateo Union High School District had the highest college-going rate, where 63% of English learners go to college. ▪ Among students with disabilities, South San Francisco Unified also had the largest gap, where 59% of students with disabilities went to college compared to 74% of the overall student population — a 15 percentage point gap. Jefferson Union, on the other hand, had a relatively hig h college-going rate among students with disabilities that was not very different from the district’s overall college -going rate: 71% went to college which is just five percentage points lower than the district’s overall student population.

Figure V-29.

College-going Rates
for English Learners
and Students with
Disabilities, 2017-
2018

Note:

Cabrillo Unified and La Honda -
Pescadero Unified are not included
here because they do not report the
data, likely due to small sample sizes.

Source:

California Department of Education
and Root Policy Research.

Gaps in college enrollment by race, ethnicity, disability status, or English learning have stark financial consequences for students in the long-term. Figure V-30 illustrates median annual earnings by educational attainment. College degrees are especially important in San Mateo County: those with a bachelor’s degree in the county earn 115% more than those with a high school diploma. This gap i s wider in San Mateo County than in other parts of California and nationwide. The differences between high -school gr aduate earnings and bachelor 's degree earnings are around 100% in California and 76% in the US overall.

Figure V-30.
389 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 44
Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2019

Source: 5-year 2019 American Community Surveys Data.

Unfortunately, the gap between high school graduate s’ and college graduates ’ earnings have been increasing in San Mateo County. As illustrated in Figure V-31, median ea rnings for high school graduates increased by just 15% over the last decade (from $31,816 to $36,747) while earnings for college graduates increased by 29% over the same period (from $61,485 to $79,080). 390 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 45
Figure V-31.

Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment in San Mateo County, 2010 to 2019

Source: 5-year American Community Surveys Data.

Because income disparities between college graduates and high school graduates have been increasing, it is increasingly important that school districts in San Ma teo County address differences in college-going rates stratified by race, ethnicity, and extenuating circumstances.

Barriers to Success
Many students are unable to achieve academic success because of barriers in home and school.

This section explores the a vailable indicators of barriers to success, including chronic absenteeism and dropout rates. It also describes inequities in discipline rates by race and 391 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 46
ethnicity, which has been linked both to discrimination by education professionals as well as a major barrier to students’ future success.

Chronic absenteeism. Academic studies have found that if a student is chronically absent, it reduces their math and reading achievement outcomes, educational engagement, and social engagement.12 Chronic absenteeism also has spillover effects and negatively impacts students who themselves are not chronically absent. For instance, one study found that students suffer academically from having chronically absent classmates—as exhibited across both reading and math testing outcomes.13
Students are considered chronically absent if th ey were absent for 10% or more of the days during a school year. Note, however, students are exempt from chronic absenteeism calculations if they receive instruction through a home or hospital instru ctional setting , are attending community college full-time, or were not expected to attend more than 31 days.

In the county overall, 10% of students were chronically absent during the 2018 -2019 school year.14 This is a slight increase from the 2016-2017 school year, where just 9% of students overall were chronically absent.

Chronic absenteeism rates were higher in districts with a large number of students experiencing economic and housing precarity. For instance, Ravenswood Elementary, which has a 30% rate of homelessness among students, had one of the higher rates of chronic absenteeism at 16%. La Honda-Pescadero and Sequoia Unio n high school districts also had high rate s of chronically absent students at 16% and 17%, respectively.

When disaggregating by race and ethnicity, just 3% of Asian students were chronically absent, and 7% of White and Filipino students were chronically absent. On the other end of the spectrum, Pacific Islander students (26%), Black/African American students (18%), and Hispanic stu dents (15%) had notably higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall student population (10%).

Chronic absenteeism among Pacific Islander students has increased in recent years, as illustrated in Figure V-32.

12 Gottfried, Michael A. "Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) 19.2 (2014): 53-75. 13 Gottfried, Michael A. "Chronic absenteeism in the classroom context: Effects on achievement." Urban Education 54.1 (2019): 3-34.
14 Because of the physical school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Department of Education determined that 2019–2020 absenteeism data are not valid, therefore, we present data from the 2018-2019 school year. 392 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 47
Figure V-32.

Chronic
Absenteeism by
Race/Ethnicity,
2016-2017 to 2018 -
2019
Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research

Chronic absenteeism among Pacific Islander students was especially pronounced in San Mateo- Foster City school district where there was a 26 percent age point gap between chronic absenteeism rates for Pacific Islander students (32%) and the overall student b ody (6%). Other districts had similarly large gaps, including San Bruno Park Elementary (20 percentage points) and South San Francisco Unified (18 percentage points).

Some districts had larger gaps in absenteeism rates between Black/African American students and the overall population. For instance, in San Carlos Elementary, 4% of the overall student body is chronically absent compared to 27% of Black/African American students— a 23 percentage point gap. Jefferson Elementary school district had a 17 percentage point gap between their overall chronic absenteeism rate (12%) and their chronic absenteeism rate among Black/African American students (28%).

Among White students, Bayshore Elementary School District was a major outlier, where 46% of White students were chronically absent compared to just 12% of the total student population.

However, it is important to note that this represents a very small sample of White students: just 3% of students at Bayshore Elementary are White, one of lowest in the county. 393 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 48
Figure V-33.

Chronic Absenteeism by District and Race/Ethnicity, 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research In most districts, chronic absenteeism is higher among students with disabilitie s. In fact, only Bayshore Elementary’s students with disabilities had a lower rate of chronic absenteeism than the overall student body. In all other districts, students with disabilities were more likely to be chronically absent than the overall student population . This was particularly true in Sequoia Union High School District, Jefferson Union High School District, and San Mateo Union High School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 10% 5% (no data) 5% 11% (no data) 10%
La Honda-Pescadero 16% (no data) (no data) (no data) 14% (no data) 18% South San Francisco 13% 4% 16% 7% 17% 31% 12%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 8% 22% 11% 22% 18% 15%
Bayshore Elementary 12% 5% 12% 0% 18% 19% 46%
Brisbane Elementary 12% 3% (no data) 12% 17% (no data) 17% Jefferson Elementary 12% 5% 28% 6% 13% 25% 23%
Pacifica 7% 4% 12% 6% 9% 21% 7%
San Mateo Union High School 10% 3% 18% 4% 17% 21% 9%
Burlingame Elementary 5% 2% 15% 5% 10% 20% 5%
Hillsborough Elementary 4% 1% (no data) 4% 4% (no data) 6% Millbrae Elementary 10% 3% 6% 17% 16% 26% 14%
San Bruno Park Elementary 12% 5% 10% 4% 14% 32% 9%
San Mateo-Foster City 6% 2% 9% 2% 10% 32% 4%
Sequoia Union High School 17% 6% 23% 8% 23% 33% 10%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 5% 3% 8% 5% 12% 17% 5%
Las Lomitas Elementary 4% 2% 0% (no data) 7% (no data) 3% Menlo Park City Elementary 3% 1% 8% 7% 5% 14% 3%
Portola Valley Elementary 4% 0% (no data) (no data) 6% (no data) 3% Ravenswood City Elementary 16% 0% 20% (no data) 15% 24% 21% Redwood City Elementary 10% 2% 19% 3% 12% 18% 4%
San Carlos Elementary 4% 2% 27% 8% 7% (no data) 3%
Woodside Elementary 8% 0% 0% (no data) 12% (no data) 7% Total 10% 3% 18% 7% 15% 26% 7%
Total Asian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander White
394 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 49
School District, which had gaps between the overall absenteeism rate and the absenteeism rate among students with disabilities of 13, 12, and 11 percentage points, respectively.

Rates of chronic absenteeism were also higher among English learners than the general population in most district s (with the exception of Ravenswood City Elementary and Jefferson Elementary). Woodside Elementary and Sequoia Union High School districts both had 14 percentage point gaps between absenteeism rates of English learners and the overall student body.

In every school district where the data are available, foster youth had higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall population. This was especially true in Sequoia Union High School District, where 63% of foster youth were chronically absent compared to just 17% of the overall student body.

Similarly, in almost all districts with available data, students experiencing homelessness had higher rates of chronic absenteeism than the overall student body. The chronic absenteeism rate among students experiencing homelessness was highest in Burlingame Elementary at 64%.

Migrant students were chronically absent at rates similar to or lower than the total student body in all districts with reported data.
395 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 50
Figure V-34.

Chronic Absenteeism by District and Extenuating Circumstance, 2018-2019

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

Dropout rates. As previously indicated, workers without a high school degree have the lowest annual earnings compared to others at higher levels of educational a ttainment. In addition to the economic and housing precarity associated with low earnings, low earnings also often lead to increased incentives to participate in criminal activity. In fact, one study suggest that School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 10% 12% 23% 9% (no data) 18%
La Honda-Pescadero 16% 16% (no data) (no data) (no data) 22% South San Francisco 13% 14% 47% 13% 49% 18%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 15% 27% 33% (no data) 36% 28% Bayshore Elementary 12% 19% (no data) (no data) (no data) 11% Brisbane Elementary 12% 18% (no data) (no data) (no data) 18% Jefferson Elementary 12% 10% 21% (no data) 24% 16%
Pacifica 7% 11% (no data) (no data) (no data) 14%
San Mateo Union High School 10% 21% 50% (no data) 53% 21% Burlingame Elementary 5% 8% 64% (no data) (no data) 12% Hillsborough Elementary 4% 6% (no data) (no data) (no data) 8% Millbrae Elementary 10% 12% 5% (no data) (no data) 12%
San Bruno Park Elementary 12% 12% (no data) (no data) 18% 20% San Mateo-Foster City 6% 8% 15% (no data) 17% 13%
Sequoia Union High School 17% 31% 52% 16% 63% 29%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 5% 11% (no data) (no data) (no data) 10% Las Lomitas Elementary 4% 6% (no data) (no data) (no data) 5% Menlo Park City Elementary 3% 5% (no data) (no data) (no data) 9% Portola Valley Elementary 4% 3% (no data) (no data) (no data) 9% Ravenswood City Elementary 16% 16% 19% 17% 23% 21%
Redwood City Elementary 10% 12% 30% 6% 32% 16%
San Carlos Elementary 4% 8% 23% (no data) (no data) 11% Woodside Elementary 8% 22% (no data) (no data) (no data) 10% Total
English
Learners
Experiencing
homelessness Migrant
With
Disabilities
Foster
Youth
396 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 51
high school dropouts are 3.5 times more lik ely than high school graduates to be imprisoned at some point during their lifetime.15 Another study found that raising the high school completion rate by one percent for all men ages 20 through 60 would save the US $1.4 billion annually in crime related co sts.16 Dropping out of high school also has adverse health costs: for instance, research has shown that high school dropouts are more likely to smoke and have a marijuana disorder in adulthood. 17 For these reasons, reducing high school dropout rates in San M ateo County is pivotal to the health and economic prosperity of the community.

In this report, dropout rates shown for high school districts with available data and are defined as the percentage of cohort students who did not graduate with a regular high school diploma, did not complete high school, and are not still enrolled as a "fifth year senior".

In the 20 19-2020 academic year, dropout rates were highest in Sequoia Union High School District, where 10% of students dropped out. This is similar to South San Francisco Unified, where 9% of students dropped out. In both these districts, and in Cabrillo Unified, dropout rates have increased since 2016-2017.

Dropout rates have decreased by one percentage point over the same period in San Mateo Union High School District, from 5% to 4%. Jefferson Union had the lowest dropout rate in the county at just 3%, which after slightly higher rates in 2017-18 and 2018-19, is the same as its 2016-2017 rate.

15 Monrad, Maggie. "High School Dropout: A Quick Stats Fact Sheet." National High School Center (2007). 16 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Correctional populations in the United States, 1998 (NCJ- 192929). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17 Gonzalez, Jennifer M. Reingle, et al. "The long-term effects of school dropout and GED attainment on substance use disorders." Drug and alcohol dependence 158 (2016): 60-66. 397 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 52
Figure V-35.

Dropout Rates by
District, 2016-2017 to
2019-2020
Note: La Honda -Pescadero Unified
School District is excluded
from these data.

Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research

In all school districts in the county, dropout rates are higher for boys than for girls. Jefferson Union had the smallest gender gap, where 3% of girls dropped out and 4% of boys dropped out.

Sequoia Union had the widest gender gap, where 13% of boys dropped out compared to just 7% of girls.

Figure V-36.

Dropout Rates by
Gender, 2019-2020
Note: La Honda -Pescadero Unified
School District is excluded
from these data.

Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research

Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Hispanic students in the county often had hig her dropout rates than those in other racial and ethnic groups. 398 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 53
▪ In Sequoia Union High School District, dropout rates were highest among Pacific Islander students, where 20% dropped out in the 2019 -2020 academic year. Dropout rates were also especially high among Hispanic and Black/African American students in Sequoia Union, at 16% and 12% respectively.
▪ In districts with lower dropout rates , for instance, Jefferson Union, the highest dropout rates still found among Black/African American (7%) and Hispanic students (6%). ▪ Notably, however, in South San Francisco Unified, White students were more likely to drop out than any other racial or ethnic group. In fact, 12% of White students dropped out compared to 11% of Hispanic students, 5% of Filipino students, and 3% of Asian students.

Data for Black/African American and Pacific Islander students were not available for South San Francisco Unified due to small sample sizes.

Figure V-37.

Dropout Rates by Race, 2019-2020

399 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 54
Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research In all school di stricts in the county, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, foster youth, and students learning English had higher dropout rates than the overall population.
▪ Among students with disabilities, the highest dropout rate wa s in Sequoia Union, where 24% dropped ou t. The gap between overall dropout rates and dropout rates among students with disabilities was wide in Sequoia Union at 14 percentage points. ▪ Cabrillo Unified, on the other hand, had less than a one percentage point gap between the dropout rate of overall students (6%) and students with disabilities (6%). ▪ Among students learning English, Sequoia Union had the highest dropout rate at 27%, while Jefferson Union had the lowest dropout rate at 8%. ▪ Sequoia Union also h ad the hi ghest rate of dropout among students experiencing homelessness at 29% while Jefferson Union, again, had the lowest at 15%. ▪ Foster Youth in Sequoia Union had an exceptionally high dropout rate a t 40%. San Mateo Union is the only other district in the county which reported these data in 2019-2020, and found only 18% of foster youth dropped out.
▪ Migrant students at South San Francisco Unified actually dropped out at a rate slightly lower than the general student body: just 8% of migrant students dropped out compared to 9% of the overall student body. However, those in Cabrillo Unified were 11 percentage points more likely than the total student body to dropout. 400 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 55
Figure V-38.

Dropout Rates by Extenuating Circumstance, 2019-2020

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

Disproportionate discipline rates. Strict discipline policies may stigmatize suspended students and expose them to the criminal justice system at a young age, setting them up for limited economic and social success down the line. Research has found that suspensions not only negatively affect the suspended students, b ut also their peers. Students in schools with higher 401 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 56
suspension rates are more likely to drop out or school and less likely to attend a four -year college.18
Other academic studies have found that students from African American and Latino families are more likely than their White peers to receive expulsion or out of school suspension as consequences for the same or similar problem behavior. 19 This m eans that Black/African American and Hispanic students suffer more of the economic and social consequences than their White peers for the same behaviors.

Luckily, in every high school district in San Mateo County, suspension rates have decreased since 2011-2012. La Honda -Pescadero School District experienced the largest decrease : it was the district with the highest suspension rate in 2011-2012 at 10%, but now has the lowest suspension rate at just 1% in 2019-2020. San Mateo Union also experienced a rapid decrease in suspension rates over the same period, with a rate of 9% in 2011-2012 to a rate of 3% in 2019-2020.

18 Bacher-Hicks, Andrew, Stephen B. Billings, and David J. Deming. The school to prison pipeline: Long-run impacts of school suspensions on adult crime. No. w26257. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019. 19 Skiba, Russell J., et al. "Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline." School Psychology Review 40.1 (2011): 85-107. 402 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 57
Figure V-39.

Suspension Rates, 2011-2012 to 2019-2020

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research In many school dist ricts across San Mateo County, H ispanic students are disciplined at disproportionately higher rates compared to their peers. Figure V-40 compares each racial/ethnic group’s share of suspensions to their share of the overall student population. ▪ In all districts except for La Honda-Pescadero, Hispanic students make up a larger share of suspensions than their overall share of the student body. For instance, in San Mateo Union, 34% of students are Hispanic, but 66% of suspended students are Hispanic, making a 32 percentage point overrepresentation gap.
▪ In most districts, Black and Pacific Islander students are also overrepresented in terms of suspension rates, but these rates are slight compared to those of Hispanic students. For instance, in Sequoia Union, just 2% of the student body identified as Pacific Islander but 8% of suspended students were Pacific Islander.
▪ Asian and Filipino students were underrepresented in terms of suspension rates. For example, in Jefferson Union High School District, 31% of students identified as Filipino but just 10% of suspended students were Filipino, a 21 percentage point gap. In San Mateo 403 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 58
Union High School, 22% of students identified as Asian but just 5% of suspended students were Asian, a 17 percentage point gap.
▪ White students were also underrepresented in discipline rates in most districts except for La Honda-Pescadero, where they were overrepresented by 30 percentage points. They were substantially underrepresented in Cabrillo Unified (with a gap of 21 percent age points) and Sequoia Union (18 percentage points).
404 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 59
Figure V-40.

Suspension Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2019-2020

Notes: the percentage of suspensions and shares of racial groups do not sum to 100% because we exclude students with no repor ted race, with more than one reported race, where districts did not report racial/ethnic data due to small sample sizes. Gaps of 15 percentage points or more are highlighted.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

School District
Asian Students
Share of Student Body 1% 14% 22% 9% 13%
Share of Suspensions 1% 7% 5% 1% 3%
Gap 0% -7% -17% -8% -10%
Black Students
Share of Student Body 1% 1% 3% 1%
Share of Suspensions 5% 1% 6% 2%
Gap 4% 0% 3% 1%
Filipino Students
Share of Student Body 1% 31% 6% 2% 23%
Share of Suspensions 0% 10% 2% 0% 9%
Gap -1% -21% -4% -2% -14%
Hispanic Students
Share of Student Body 52% 32% 61% 34% 41% 48%
Share of Suspensions 79% 46% 33% 66% 62% 69%
Gap 27% 14% -28% 32% 21% 21%
Pacific Islander Students
Share of Student Body 1% 2% 2% 2%
Share of Suspensions 4% 4% 8% 3%
Gap 3% 2% 6% 1%
White Students
Share of Student Body 40% 14% 37% 26% 38% 7%
Share of Suspensions 19% 16% 67% 14% 20% 7%
Gap -21% 2% 30% -12% -18% 0%
Cabrillo
Unified
Jefferson
Union
High
La Honda-
Pescadero
San
Mateo
Union
High
Sequoia
Union
High
South San
Francisco
Unified
405 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 60
Staff demographics. Diversity of sc hool staff has been shown to improve outcomes for students of color. For instance, one recent study found that students are less likely to be removed from school as punishment when they and their teachers are the same race. This effect is driven almost ent irely by black students, especially black boys, who are markedly less likely to be subjected to exclusionary discipline when taught by black teachers. There is little evidence of any benefit for white students of being matched with white teachers. 20 Other research in California has found that, when students have a teacher of their race, they are more likely to attend class, therefore reducing chronic absenteeism.21 Even more studies have found that having a teacher of a student’s own race substantially improves their math and reading achievement.22

In San Mateo County, the demographics of faculty and staff are fairly similar to that of its students. Figure V-41 illustrates the share of the county’s faculty and staff who are Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic, Filipino, Pacific Islander, and White, and compares those shares to the racial/ethnic breakdown of the county’s student body.

There is a slightly larger share of White and Black/African American staff than students, meaning that Black/African American and White student groups are more likely to interact with same-race staff and faculty than other racial groups. Asian students are less likely to interact with a same - race staff of faculty member: 17% of the student body is Asian compared to just 8% of staff and faculty.

20 Lindsay, Constance A., and Cassandra MD Hart. "Teacher race and school discipline: Are students suspended less often when they have a teacher of the same race?." Education Next 17.1 (2017): 72-79. 21 Gottfried, Michael, J. Jacob Kirksey, and Tina L. Fletcher. "Do High School Students With a Same-Race Teacher Attend Class More Often?." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (2021): 01623737211032241. 22 Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of economics and statistics, 86(1), 195-210.
406 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 61
Figure V-41.

Staff and Student
Demographics,
2020-2021
Notes: Percentages do not always
sum to 100% because we do
not show shares of staff
with no reported race, with
more than one reported
race, or Native American
staff.

Source: California Department of
Education and Root Policy
Research

Since 2011 -2012, the county’s school districts have diversified in that there has been a 13 percentage point decrease in the share of White faculty and staff and a 10 percentage point increase in H ispanic faculty and staff. However, there has been a slight decrease (by two percentage points) in the share of faculty and staff who identify as Black/African American. There has been a two percentage point increase in the share of Asian and Filipino faculty and staff, and a one percent increase in the share of Pacific Islander faculty and staff. 407 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 62
Figure V-42.

Faculty and Staff Demographics, 2011-2012 to 2020-2021

Notes: Percentages do not always sum to 100% because we do not show shares of staff with n o reported race, with more than one reported race, or Native American staff.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research Figure V-43 illustrates faculty and staff racial and ethnic diversity for the 2020 -2021 school year by district.
▪ Portola Valley has the least diverse faculty and staff in the county, with 59% identifying as White.
▪ Ravenswood Elementary has the most diverse faculty and staff : the district has the highest share of Pacific Islander (5%) , Black/African American (12%) and Hispanic ( 72%) faculty and staff.
▪ South San Francisco Unified School District has the highest share of Asian faculty and staff at 14%.
▪ Brisbane Elementary and Jefferson Elementary have the highest shares of Filipino faculty and staff at 28%.
408 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 63
Figure V-43.

Faculty and Staff Race/Ethnicity, by District, 2020-2021

Notes: Percentages do not always sum to 100% because we do not show shares of staff with no reported race, with more than one rep orted race, or Native American staff.

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified 0% 1% 1% 46% 0% 51%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 5% 5% 39% 0% 51%
South San Francisco 14% 3% 16% 34% 2% 28%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School 3% 3% 13% 26% 1% 43%
Bayshore Elementary 13% 4% 17% 61% 0% 4%
Brisbane Elementary 7% 0% 28% 20% 4% 42%
Jefferson Elementary 13% 3% 28% 25% 0% 29%
Pacifica 7% 2% 8% 23% 2% 54%
San Mateo Union High School 11% 5% 6% 34% 3% 40%
Burlingame Elementary 8% 5% 11% 27% 3% 45%
Hillsborough Elementary 2% 1% 7% 20% 1% 55%
Millbrae Elementary 13% 3% 9% 25% 0% 48%
San Bruno Park Elementary 4% 2% 13% 26% 4% 48%
San Mateo-Foster City 13% 2% 7% 33% 3% 37%
Sequoia Union High School 2% 12% 2% 54% 4% 26%
Belmont-Redwood Shores 13% 2% 3% 39% 0% 42%
Las Lomitas Elementary 7% 7% 0% 42% 0% 42%
Menlo Park City Elementary 3% 1% 3% 28% 1% 40%
Portola Valley Elementary 4% 4% 0% 33% 0% 59%
Ravenswood City Elementary 2% 12% 1% 72% 5% 3%
Redwood City Elementary 4% 5% 2% 65% 1% 21%
San Carlos Elementary 8% 6% 3% 37% 1% 42%
Woodside Elementary 12% 8% 0% 30% 0% 49%
Total 8% 5% 8% 40% 2% 35%
WhiteAsian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
409 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 64
Figure V-44 illustrates the ga p between faculty/staff representation and the student body. For instance, at San Bruno Park Elementary, 15% of the students are White while 48% of the faculty/staff are White, leaving a 33 percentage point gap.

If schools are striving for a distribution of faculty/staff that reflects the racial and ethnic distribution of their student body, the closer to a 0 percentage point gap, the better. Schools like San Bruno Park Elementar y fall short of meeting this goal, in that there is a large overrepresentation of White faculty/staff compared to the student body. Many other districts have a large overrepresentation of White faculty/staff, including Millbrae Elementary ( 32 percentage point gap), Jefferson Union High School District (29 percentage point gap), and South San Francisco Unified School District (22 percentage points). There are just a few school districts where the share of White students is higher than the share of White facu lty, particularly Woodside Elementary and Menlo Park City Elementary, both with a 15 percentage point gap.

Across most school districts, the share of Asian students is larger than the share of Asian faculty/staff. This suggests that Asian students are les s likely than their peers to interact with a same-race teacher or staff member. The largest disparity is in Millbrae Elementary, where just 13% of the faculty identify as Asian compared to 46% of the student body, a 33 percentage point gap.

In many school districts, there is a dearth of Hispanic faculty and staff. For instance, in La Honda- Pescadero, 63% of students are Hispanic compared to 39% of faculty, a 24 percentage point gap.

In other districts, however, there is a larger share of Hispanic faculty/s taff than students. In Las Lomitas Elementary, for instance, 13% of students are Hispanic and 42% of faculty/staff are Hispanic. Recall that Las Lomitas Elementary commonly has high -performing English language learnings students. This may be partly due to the district’s large portion of Hispanic faculty/staff.

Though district wide there are approximately the same portions of Filipino students as there are faculty/staff, Jefferson Union High School stands out as a district where Filipino students are less likely to interact with a same-race teacher or staff member. In Jefferson Union, 29% of students are Filipino compared to just 13% of faculty/staff.

In all districts, there only very small gaps in the share of students that identify as Pacific Islander and the share of faculty/staff that identify as Pacific Islander. All in all, they are represented in approximately equal proportions.
410 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH SECTION V, PAGE 65
Figure V-44.

Difference Between Staff and Student Populations, by District, 2020-2021

Notes: The figure shows percentage point gaps in student representation versus faculty/staff representation (calculated as the share of faculty/staff minus the share of students).

Source: California Department of Education and Root Policy Research

School District
Unified School Districts
Cabrillo Unified -1% 1% 0% -6% 0% 11%
La Honda-Pescadero 0% 5% 4% -24% 0% 16%
South San Francisco 0% 2% -7% -14% 0% 22%
High & Elementary School Districts
Jefferson Union High School -12% 2% -16% -5% 0% 29%
Bayshore Elementary -6% 1% -4% 20% -4% 1%
Brisbane Elementary -13% -1% 16% -8% 4% 18%
Jefferson Elementary -6% 1% 3% -11% -1% 18%
Pacifica -1% 1% -1% -3% 2% 15%
San Mateo Union High School -12% 4% 1% 2% 1% 12%
Burlingame Elementary -19% 5% 8% 11% 3% 4%
Hillsborough Elementary -30% 1% 5% 15% 1% 7%
Millbrae Elementary -33% 2% 3% 5% -2% 32%
San Bruno Park Elementary -12% 1% 3% -15% -1% 33%
San Mateo-Foster City -13% 1% 4% -4% 1% 16%
Sequoia Union High School -7% 10% 1% 9% 2% -9%
Belmont-Redwood Shores -19% 1% 0% 27% -1% 8%
Las Lomitas Elementary -11% 6% -1% 29% 0% -11%
Menlo Park City Elementary -10% 0% 2% 11% 0% -15%
Portola Valley Elementary -2% 4% 0% 19% 0% -7%
Ravenswood City Elementary 2% 7% 1% -12% -2% 2%
Redwood City Elementary 0% 4% 1% -5% 0% 2%
San Carlos Elementary -10% 5% 2% 23% 1% -7%
Woodside Elementary 8% 6% 0% 14% -1% -15%
Total -9% 4% 0% 2% 0% 9%
Asian Black Filipino Hispanic
Pacific
Islander White
411 of 955

1 APPENDIX D | Attachment 4 – UC Merced Segregation Report UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 15:56:53

412 of 955

2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Defining Segregation ............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5

1.4 Segregation and Land Use ......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of San Mateo ............................................................................ 8

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of San Mateo) ....................................... 8

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between San Mateo and other jurisdictions) ............................. 16 3 Income Segregation in City of San Mateo ......................................................................... 21

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within San Mateo) .............................................. 21

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between San Mateo and other jurisdictions) ............................ 27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31

4.1 Segregation in City of San Mateo ............................................................................... 31

4.2 Segregation Between City of San Mateo and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region ............. 31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References .............................................................................................................. 37

413 of 955

3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of San Mateo (2020) ............................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...... 11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) . 14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of San Mateo and Surrounding Areas (2020) ................................................ 16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of San Mateo Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) .................... 18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in San Mateo and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ........... 19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of San Mateo (2015) .......................................................................... 22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ........................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of San Mateo and Surrounding Areas (2015) ............................................. 28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) .............. 29

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo ............................................ 10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo ....................................... 13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within San Mateo ........................................... 15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, San Mateo and the Region ..................................................... 17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .......................................................................... 20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo .................................. 23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo .............................. 25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within San Mateo .......................................... 26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, San Mateo and the Region .................................................... 28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures ....................................................................... 30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in San Mateo ..................................................... 33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in San Mateo .................................................... 34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ......................................................................... 35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures ....................................................................... 35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, San Mateo and the Region .................................................... 36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, San Mateo and the Region .................................................. 36

414 of 955

4 1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability. 0F
1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. 1F 2 2F
3 AB
686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:

A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk

1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.

This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures

1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021. 415 of 955

5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.

The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.

1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (T rounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 416 of 955

6 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.” 3F
4 However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

1.4 Segregation and L and Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004). 4F 5 ABAG/MTC plans to
issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I. 417 of 955

7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.5F
6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.

6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.

However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people. 418 of 955

8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF SAN MATEO
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.6F
7 This report
combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:

White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race7F
8 Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)8F 9 2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segreg ation ( within City of San Mateo) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of San Mateo in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher.

7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 9 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
419 of 955

9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of San Mateo (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

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

There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within City of San Mateo the most isolated racial group is white residents. San Mateo’s isolation index of 0.428 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is

42.8% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in San Mateo for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. 420 of 955

10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020. 9F
10 The data in this column can be used as a comparison
to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.

Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.180 0.220 0.293 0.245
Black/African American 0.050 0.031 0.021 0.053
Latinx 0.313 0.354 0.333 0.251
White 0.627 0.527 0.428 0.491
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in San Mateo compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of San Mateo, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

10 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).
421 of 955

11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods). 422 of 955

12 Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations 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.

HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).

If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.

In City of San Mateo, the Black/African American group is 1.6 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving this group.

Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in San Mateo between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).

In San Mateo the highest segregation is between Latinx and white residents (see Table 2). San Mateo’s Latinx /white dissimilarity index of 0.345 means that 34.5% of Latinx (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Latinx residents and white residents.

The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for th ese racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.

423 of 955

13 For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.

Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Valu es for Segregation within San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.218 0.202 0.168 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.417* 0.350* 0.307* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.389 0.363 0.345 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.288 0.267 0.228 0.168
Universe: Population.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of San Mateo compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in San Mateo, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations.
424 of 955

14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Note: 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 4), 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.

The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
• This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. • The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in San Mateo for t he years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in San Mateo declined, suggesting that there is now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregat ion in San 425 of 955

15 Mateo was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in San Mateo is more than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segr egation within San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.089 0.071 0.053 0.042
Universe: Population.

Figure 4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in San Mateo compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in San Mateo, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

16 2.2 Regional Racial Segregation ( between San Mateo and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 5 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in San Mateo as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of San Mateo and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

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

To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in San Mateo for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, San Mateo has a higher share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents. 427 of 955

17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, San Mateo and the Region San Mateo Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 14.9% 20.7% 27.8% 28.2%
Black/African American 2.5% 2.2% 1.6% 5.6%
Latinx 20.5% 26.6% 25.7% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 5.6% 4.1% 6.5% 5.9%
White 56.5% 46.5% 38.3% 35.8%
Universe: Population.

Figure 6 below compares the racial demographics in San Mateo to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions. 10F
11 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of City of San Mateo represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.

11 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions. 428 of 955

18 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of San Mateo Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

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

The map in Figure 7 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between San Mateo and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in San Mateo and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
• Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. • Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points). • Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five pe rcentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color. 429 of 955

19 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in San Mateo and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.

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

Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.

Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 5 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation, t hese indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 5, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 5 shows the white isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table 5 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table 5 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level. 11F
12 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how

12 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo. 430 of 955

20 diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. 431 of 955

21 3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN CITY OF SAN MATEO
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:

Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI)
Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.

The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo- Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation ( within San Mateo) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 1 and 5, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of San Mateo in Figure 8 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.
432 of 955

22 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of San Mateo (2015)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

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

The isolation index values for all income groups in San Mateo for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below. 12F
13 Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in San Mateo.

San Mateo’s isolation index of 0.420 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate - income resident in San Mateo lives in a neighborhood that is 42.0% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 6 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269,

13 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. 433 of 955

23 meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.

Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.263 0.361 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.203 0.179 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.228 0.212 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.465 0.420 0.507
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 9 below shows how income group isolation index values in San Mateo compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation index value for that group in San Mateo, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.
434 of 955

24 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in San Mateo between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lower- income (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households. 13F 14 Segregation in San Mateo
between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has not substantively changed between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.

Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 7 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8% of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction.

14 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo. 435 of 955

25 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 (See Table 7). This means that the lower- income residents are more segregated from other residents within San Mateo compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.

Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Mateo
San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.241 0.247 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.325 0.378 0.253
Universe: Population.

Figure 10 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in San Mateo compar e to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in San Mateo, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregati on levels between lower-income residents and wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.
436 of 955

26 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in San Mateo for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average Theil’s H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in San Mateo was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in San Mateo was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is more neighborhood level income segregation in San Mateo than in the average Bay Area city.

Tabl e 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.059 0.066 0.043
Universe: Population.

27 Figure 11 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in San Mateo compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in San Mateo, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value acro ss Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

3.2 Regional Income Segregation ( between San Mateo and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods.

Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 12 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in San Mateo as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions. 438 of 955

28 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of San Mateo and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how San Mateo differs from the region. The income demographics in San Mateo for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, San Mateo had a higher share of very low-income residents than 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.

Table 9: Population by Income Group, San Mateo and the Region San Mateo Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 21.73% 30.26% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 18.48% 16.78% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 19.77% 19.51% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 40.01% 33.45% 39.4%
439 of 955

29 Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Figure 13 below compares the income demographics in San Mateo to other Bay Area jurisdictions. 14F 15 Like
the chart in Figure 3, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of San Mateo population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.

Figure 13: Income Demographics of San Mateo Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

15 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions. 440 of 955

30 Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial segregation measures shown in Table 5, Table 10 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income segregation, segregatio n indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 10, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table 10 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is

0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower -income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group inte gration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2 010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

31 4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Segregation in City of San Mateo
• 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 . • 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, within San Mateo the highest level of racial segreg ation is between Latinx and white residents. 15F
16 • 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.

4.2 Segregation Between City of San Mateo and Other jurisdictions in the Bay 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 lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

16 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 15 in Appendix 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. 442 of 955

32 • 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. 443 of 955

33 5 APPENDIX 2: SEGREGATION DATA
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants to easily reference this data and re-use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant documents/analyses.

Table 11 in this appendix combines data from Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in the body of the report.

Table 12 in this appendix combines data from Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 in the body of the report.

Table 13 represents a duplication of Table 5 in the body of the report; Table 14 represents a duplication of Table 10 in the body of the report; Table 15 in this appendix represents a duplication of Table 4 in the body of the report, while Table 16 represents a duplication of Table 9 in the body of the report.

Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.180 0.220 0.293 0.245
Black/African American 0.050 0.031 0.021 0.053
Latinx 0.313 0.354 0.333 0.251
White 0.627 0.527 0.428 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.218 0.202 0.168 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.417* 0.350* 0.307* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.389 0.363 0.345 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.288 0.267 0.228 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.089 0.071 0.053 0.042
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

444 of 955

34 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in San Mateo San Mateo Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.263 0.361 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.203 0.179 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.228 0.212 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.465 0.420 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.241 0.247 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.325 0.378 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.059 0.066 0.043
Universe: Population.

Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

445 of 955

35 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

446 of 955

36 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, San Mateo and the Region San Mateo Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 14.93% 20.67% 27.84% 35.8%
Black/African American 2.46% 2.16% 1.61% 5.6%
Latinx 20.52% 26.56% 25.74% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 5.58% 4.08% 6.46% 24.4%
White 56.51% 46.54% 38.35% 5.9%
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Table 16: Population by Income Group, San M ateo and the Region San Mateo Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 21.73% 30.26% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 18.48% 16.78% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 19.77% 19.51% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 40.01% 33.45% 39.4%
Universe: Population.

37 6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-

66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.

Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.

Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.

Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.

Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
448 of 955

Page 1 of 3 ends

APPENDIX D | Attachment 5 – Quotes and Narrative from Outreach

Value of Diversity:
• “We love that we have many kinds of neighbors, socio-economically. We hope that can continue”
• “We should all have housing”

Race:
• “San Mateo… has a regrettable history wrt equity and racial discrimination… it needs to acknowledge that history and make amends.”

Children/families:
• “The cost of housing is a primary reason I haven't chosen to start a family here. Even buying a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for dual-income couple with no kids.”

Intergenerational connections (there are lots of comments about people’s children or retired parents not being able to afford to stay in area):
• “My children want to be able to stay in San Mateo. They are college age but don't make lots of money. Housing in this area is too expensive for them to stay.” • “I am retired and I am going to have to move to Rosedale because I cannot afford to pay rent after 60 years of living in San Mateo.”

Accessibility:
• “City needs more single level 2-3 BR condos targeted to active senior downsize market” • “2 stories [second floor walkup apartments] are bad because my legs are hurt.”

Geographic Segregation:
• “We need to distribute additional housing throughout the city to avoid ghettoization.”

Anti-Renter Policy Environment:
• “I'm a renter and have come to peace knowing I can never afford to buy a house here in San Mateo. But I love the area so much. I cannot afford another rent hike. The next one will probably force me to move away. I want to stay but the high cost of living will eventually push me out. Please in your planning process, keep renters in mind.” • “Current home owners act as a rent seeking cartel, discouraging any change despite the negative externalities this imposes on everyone else. This is ethically dubious and should be discouraged or penalized.”

Disparate Impact (extreme cost of market rate, and relatively high cost of affordable housing itself has discriminatory results):
• “It is too expensive to live here”
• “All of the new building projects thus far are ridiculously expensive and [does] nothing to help anyone except tech employees. Who else can afford$3000+ for a studio or one bedroom? Because the new places are so expensive, even the "affordable housing" is simply out of reach for the average person.”
449 of 955

Page 2 of 3 ends

• “I have to move b/c its getting too expensive I will move away from county to an in law unit with relatives in Marin.”

Othering of housing/urban/density
• “Single family home type zoning laws are a huge issue, especially for large lot sizes. Everyone who already owns a home thinks that a new neighbors home is a "development" (negative connotation), but not his/her existing home. We need to educate existing home owners about how the homelessness crisis is related to decrease in affordable housing which is caused by scarcity of housing in the area.”
• “The jobs housing imbalance is due to bay area cities allowing lots of new office space to be built but rejecting new housing. High cost housing is fundamentally a supply problem. Nimby-ism has to stop. The Peninsula is now an urban area”
• “Some kind of legislation should be passed to limit landowners greed. These are people who inherited property - they are lucky”

Not exactly Fair Housing, but a handful of responses for allowing pets in housing:
• “[There is a] great need for 1–2-person small residences with allowed pets”

Other quotes not AFH:
• “I know there has been a log of pushback about duplexes/ADUs/multiple-unit housing in single- family zoned neighborhoods. I happen to think that this would be a helpful solution and would welcome it in my neighborhood.”

Additional Communications:

• From: chad
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 4:52 PM
o Linda; thank you for your reply. i appreciate the clarification. since the project meets ordinances, i think this is probably irrelevant, but just want to note that i'm not sure that this is enough off-site parking for projects in this neighborhood. i'm aware of several rental units on this block that have 4-6 adults in a 2 bedroom unit - each with their own vehicles. i dont blame them, i cant afford rent anymore than them. but every time there is another project in our neighborhood that converts a single house to a multi- dwelling unit, it only exacerbates the difficult parking situation here. thats not so much a concern related to this particular project vs. questioning whether the ordinances/zoning for north central overall need to be updated/rethought; but at least wanted to make sure it got communicated.
• 10/9/21, Dia de los Muertos – LL, can reach out for quotes o Met a San Mateo resident born and raised near the King Community Center. She is now a proud homeowner in North Central but shared that it was a challenging process. She would like to see improvements in her community (North Central) for pedestrian safety, traffic and more housing resources.
• 10/27/21, Storytime in Central Park – LL & NV
450 of 955

Page 3 of 3 ends

o A participant shared that her mother received a 60-day notice in south city. She is looking for more affordable housing options such as senior housing to move her mother into. She plans to attend the 11/2 workshop.
• 11/8/2021, Phone Call
o A landlord in San Mateo called into comment his frustration regarding the Housing Element process. He stated that he dislikes density and wants the City to push back on RHNA numbers as well as SB 9. He loves living single family neighborhood and wants there to be less ADUs. He believes that housing affordability is an impossible goal to ever fully attain and wants the city to consider lowering it as priority in order to preserve space for other uses such as the golf course.
• Todd
o Hello Housing Division, I am a seven-year resident of San Mateo, and my wife was born and raised here. We have three kids in the public schools. We live in a single family home at XXX Drive. Your recent housing flyer says that the city "must ... prepare for future growth," but Bay Area growth has been happening for several years already and San Mateo is behind on the production of housing. We need new housing to support prior growth, not just future growth. I strongly support any and all forms of new housing, including apartment buildings. To preserve what little open spaces remain, it seems to me that building up and building densely is the way to go. The Bay Meadows development is a good start, and I appreciate its "smart growth" walkable layout and proximity to public transport (though I wish some of the new office buildings over there had been housing instead). San Mateo's approach to housing is a lot better than that of the smaller cities and towns on the Peninsula. Nevertheless, many people who work here cannot afford to live here, such as the vast majority of our children's teachers. Keep building! • Laureen
o Dear Committee, I am a property owner and have lived in the San Mateo area for over 45 years and have run a business for over 35 years. I have fond memories of my life here and I love this area. It has timely beauty, thus I too, am concerned about affordable housing. I am all for helping people find a place to live affordably and I am concerned with the well-being of all San Mateo residents. My question is this: along with other neighbors in close proximity to us from So. San Francisco to Redwood City who face the same dilemma, what do you do about the traffic, the noise, the parking and the pollution that severely impact an overcrowded small town? I am a native of San Francisco and have watched such a beautiful city become overbuilt and esthetically destroyed. No one wants to go there on a vacation or for example, downtown Market Street, because of the crime. You simply can’t blame it all on COVID! Now the peninsula is being destroyed as well. Who is really benefiting from this but big league Contractors who bid on these projects. San Francisco esthetically looks atrocious. What a shame! Now they want to ruin San Mateo to line their pockets. How does that better serve the needs of our community and improve housing by destroying our lifestyle? It’s a proven fact that overcrowded towns and cities experience more crime, unemployment, poor sanitation and the spread of disease. May I ask how these issues and concerns are being addressed?
451 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CA FAIR HOUSING LAWS, PAGE 1

APPENDIX D | Attachment 6 – State Fair Housing Laws
This appendix summarizes key State laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) is the State fair housing law that prohibits those engaged in the housing business — landlords, real estate agents, home sellers, builders, mortgage lenders, and others —from discriminating against tenants or homeowners.

California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination by housing providers based on:
 Race, color
 Ancestry, national origin
 Citizenship, immigration status
 Primary language
 Age
 Religion
 Disability, mental or physical
 Sex, gender
 Gender identity, gender expression
 Marital status
 Familial status
 Source of income
 Military or veteran status
Government Code section 65008 . Covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the State because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy.  For example, a violation under Government Code section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an affordable development as compared to market -rate developments, or multifamily housing as compared to single family homes.  Government Code section 65008, subdivision (e), authorizes preferential treatment of affordable housing
Government Code section 8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

Government Code section 11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and ac tivities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the State, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class. 452 of 955
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CA FAIR HOUSING LAWS, PAGE 2

Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, section 65915) requires California jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that specify how density bonuses will be offered to incentivize affordable housing. The State law contains the minimum specifications for density bonuses.

Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, section 65589.5) prohibits local agencies from disapproving housing developments, including farmworker housing and emergency shelters, or requiring conditions that make such housing infeasible except under certain conditions specified in the law.

No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, section 65863) is meant to ensure that development opportunities remain available throughout a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) period, especially for low - and moderate-income households. It prohibits jurisdictions from lowering residential densities without substantial evidence.

Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, section 65913.1) requires jurisdictions to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with sufficient standards in relation to growth projections.

Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, section 65913.2) prohibits jurisdictions from imposing design criteria that make residential development infeasible.

Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, section 65302.8 ) describes how flood plains are used in comprehensive planning and zoning.

Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, section 65583, esp. subds. (c) (5), (c) (10) governs State -required Housing Elements.
453 of 955

APPENDIX E

REVIEW OF PRIOR ELEMENT
454 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-E-2
APPENDIX E | REVIEW OF PRIOR ELEMENT

0.1 Table of Content

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

0.2 List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. 2

0.3 List of Attachments ....................................................................................................................... 2 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 2 ACHIEVEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4

2.1 Progress Towards Meeting Affordable Housing Goals ................................................................. 4

2.2 New Policies to Generate Affordable Housing Funds .................................................................... 4

2.3 Market Rate Housing Goals Were Met ......................................................................................... 4

2.4 Increased Production of Accessory Dwelling Units ....................................................................... 5

2.5 Accessing New Funding Sources from Non-local Sources ............................................................. 5

2.6 Increasing efficiency in the Housing Development Process .......................................................... 5

2.7 Interventions to Preserve Affordable Housing .............................................................................. 5 3 CHALLENGES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 6

3.1 A Divided and Polarized Vision for the Future of the City ............................................................. 6

3.2 High Land and Construction Costs ................................................................................................ 6

3.3 Outdated Housing Programs and Policies ..................................................................................... 6

3.4 Falling Short of Quantified Objectives........................................................................................... 6 4 OPPORTUNITIES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9

4.1 Rewrite the Zoning Code ............................................................................................................... 9

4.2 The General Plan Update .............................................................................................................. 9

4.3 New Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development ................................................................. 9

4.4 Creative Solutions to Site Limitations ............................................................................................ 9

4.5 More Uses for Technology to Increase Efficiency of Housing Programs ....................................... 9

4.6 New Affordable Housing Opportunities Identified ...................................................................... 10

0.2 List of Tables
Table 1: Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023 .................................................................................................. 7 Table 2: Accomplishments, 2015-2023 ......................................................................................................... 8

0. 3 List of Attachments
▪ Table A – Prior Housing Element Evaluation
455 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-E-3
1 INTRODUCTION
The update of the H ousing Element provides an opportunity to reflect on past achievements and challenges, identifying what is working, and what are the impediments in meeting the City of San Mateo’s housing needs.

The following summary highlights key accomplishments and challenges from the previous Housing Element’s planning period (2015 to 2023). This information will help ensure that the updated element for 2023 to 2031 builds on success, responds to lessons learned, and positions the City to better achieve the community’s housing priorities.

A more detailed program-by-program review of progress and performance is in Table A.

456 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-E-4
2 ACHIEVEMENTS
Implementation of San Mateo’s Housing Element over the past eight years has resulted in a number of achievements:

2.1 Progress Towards Meeting Affordable Housing Goals

Through a combination of policy changes, planning, investment and use of city land, the City is making progress towards meeting its affordable housing goals —both for creating new units and rehabilitating existing units. This is a big accomplishment, and the result of a lot of hard work and support from the City Council. The City’s specific plans have played a key role in laying the gro undwork along with city-owned land assets and affordable housing funds. Key projects included:
• Kiku Crossing, which includes 225 affordable units on city -owned land adjacent to the Caltrain tracks in addition to a parking structure that serves both residents of these units and the downtown. The project broke ground in 2022, but the certificate of occupancy will be granted during the 6th cycle of the Housing Element.
• Montara, in which the C ity has negotiated an acre of land for affordable housing as part of the overall master plan for this significant new area of redevelopment in close proximity to the Caltrain station and other amenities. The development has 68 affordable units with a set aside of 12 units for formerly homeless veterans.
• Station Park Green, a multi -phased transit -oriented housing development which will place hundreds of new housing units near the Hayward Park Caltrain station. As of 2022, three phases have been completed, creating 492 new units with 49 of them being available at 50% AMI due to the City’s Below Market Rate inclusionary ordinance.
• Rehab Housing: As of the end of 2021, 246 rehabilitation projects were completed on homes owned by low-income households through City of San Mateo programs. As a result, low -income families were able to stay in their homes which were naturally affordable.

2.2 New Policies to Generate Affordable Housing Funds

In 2016 the City adopted a new ordinance to establish a commercial linkage fee, which has generated over $7 million. 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. In addition to this, the City increased its Inclusionary Housing requirement, which is now at 15% for rental housing at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) and 15% for ownership housing at 120% AMI . Additional affordable units can be provided for bonuses and concessions.

2.3 Market Rate Housing Goals Were Met

Developers built 1,784 new units of “above moderate income” housing between 2015 and 2022, exceeding our housing need target (RHNA) for this i ncome category by 44% percent. Th e reasons for success in this income bracket are because the demand for housing is high while rents and sales prices for these units make the projects comparatively more economically viable.

457 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-E-5

2.4 Increased Production of Accessory Dwelling Units

Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs (often referred to as second units or in -law units) have become increasingly popular after the City adopted a new ADU ordinance in response to changes in State law.

Since these changes were enacted, interested homeowners are able to add ADUs to their property with ease, which helps to create new rental housing in existing neighborhoods. The City is now receiving between 40 and 60 applications a year as a result , and continues to work to provide better information and other resources to help homeowners interested in creating ADUs, including updating its zoning code requirements to provide additional flexibility on size and height requirements beyond state minimums.

2.5 Accessing New Funding Sources from Non -local Sources

In 2020, the City began receiving the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant from HCD. One portion of the grant is being utilized for subsidizing tenant services in special needs affordable housing while the remainder of the funds were used to develop and fund a new rapid rehousing program. The City anticipates continuing to receive this funding as an annual formula grant and plans to use it to increase housing affordability within the City.

2.6 Increasing efficiency in the Housing Development Process

One of the local responses to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic included streamlining the development process, which has now switched to an all-electronic plan submittal and review process. The City will continue this progress to provide clear, measurable guidance for multifamily developments using modern technology.

2.7 Interventions to Preserve Affordable Housing

In the previous Housing Element cycle, two affordable housing projects that had expiring agreements on their BMR units were identified. Through many meetings and prolonged collaborative efforts between staff and housing managers, new agreements on both Lesley Park Towers and Humboldt House were able to extend their affordability through a new rehabilitation HOME loan and contract extensions respectively.

458 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-E-6
3 CHALLENGES
The City was unable to meet all of the goals set forth by the previous Housing Element. The following challenges were experienced:

3.1 A Divided and Polarized Vision for the Future of the City

While there has been strong support for the new programs and policies implemented to increase housing affordability, some members of the community fear the impact that height and density could have on their neighborhoods. They are also concerned about increased traffic, despite the City’s focus on Transit Oriented Development (TOD). This has resulted in voter initiatives to limit new development. The City has had to strike a balance that is fair for all members of the community while responding to housing responsibilities.

3.2 High Land and Construction Costs

With the exception of building housing for the upper end of the market, it is difficult to build more affordable housing without some form of incentive and subsidy. The barrier of land cost causes the City to struggle to find new sites for all types of development.

3.3 Outdated Housing Programs and Policies

In the previous Housing Element, some items under the Goals, Policies, and Programs , such as those focused on protections for design of single family neighborhoods, were either misplaced and would have been better located in the Urban Design element or were potentially undermining other housing goals through not incentivizing or furthering affordable housing development. This list has been updated in the current cycle to ensure the City has the tools available in the form of goals, policies and programs that can best respond to the current and emerging housing challenges.

In addition, prior programs generally did not specifically address the needs to special needs groups, including people with disabilities, farmworkers, seniors and others. The new Housing Element includes more targeted programs to reach various special needs group, including but not limited to the Fair Housing Action Plan.

3.4 Falling Short of Quantified Objectives

In the previous Housing Element Cycle, the City estimated that a grand total of 3,164 housing units would be made through both construction and preservation. The combination of all the above challenges led the City to struggle to meet this goal, with a total of 2,573 units by 2022. See the tables below:

459 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-E-7
Table 1: Quantified Objectives, 2015-2023
Conservation/Preservation Total ELI VLI LI MOD
Lesley Park Towers 200 200
Humboldt House 9 9
Sub Total 209 0 209 0 0

New Construction Total ELI VLI LI MOD
2000 S. Delaware 60 60
Bay Meadows Affordable Site 60 20 40
Bay Meadows BMR 65 25 40
Station Park Green BMR 60 60
Other BMR 150 45 25 80
Other Affordable TBD 85 30 45 10
Sub Total 480 50 190 60 180
AFFORDABLE TOTAL 689 50 399 60 180
Private Sector/Market Rate 2475
GRAND TOTAL 3164

460 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-E-8
Table 2: Accomplishments, 2015-2023
Conservation/Preservation Total ELI VLI LI MOD
Lesley Park Towers 200 200
Humboldt House 9 9
1110 Cypress 7 7
Sub Total 216 0 209 7 0

New Construction Total ELI VLI LI MOD
2000 S. Delaware 60 60
Bay Meadows Affordable Site 67 14 36 17
Bay Meadows BMR 54 31 23
Station Park Green BMR 60 60
Other BMR 117 82 23 12
Other Affordable Kiku Crossing 223 43 45 135
Sub Total 581 57 223 206 95
AFFORDABLE TOTAL 797 57 432 213 95
Private Sector/Market Rate 1776
GRAND TOTAL 2573

461 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-E-9
4 OPPORTUNITIES
Through the existing work efforts and trends , the City has taken lessons learned to incorporate in the updated Housing Element:

4.1 Rewrite the Zoning Code

Several items have been identified in the current zoning code that will require revisions to facilitate affordable housing development to meet a diverse set of housing challenges . The City plans to adopt objective design standards, minimum density, by-right designation, single family revisions, and to amend the housing overlay. City staff plan to research what practices can best encourage missing middle housing, special needs housing, supportive housing, farmworker housing, and many others.

4.2 The General Plan Update

While COVID-19 has delayed the update process, the City has met with a team to coordinate land use and zoning changes with housing needs. The General Plan update will help address many of the community’s development-related concerns, for example by complementing extra height and density with community benefits. The City aims to add an additional consultant to help craft a package of measurable community benefits, that can be used in conjunction with density bonus requirements above state minimums, to provide developer with options.

4.3 New Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development

In 2021, the City welcomed the opening of the new Hillsdale Caltrain station and throughout 2020 – 2022, parts of the Master Bike Plan began to be implemented around the North Central Neighborhood. These changes reflect developments being made in non-auto dependent modes of transportation, may lead to more non-auto centric housing choices. Opportunities for increased diversity in housing forms may soon follow.

4.4 Creative Solutions to Site Limitations

This may include finding new types of feasible sites for development, such as repurposing retail, strip shopping centers, older low-rise office buildings and more. As demonstrated by recent projects and developer interest, this solution is viable to max out development potential in underutilized areas in order to meet requirements set by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

4.5 More Uses for Technology to Increase Efficiency of Housing Programs

The City has begun the process of improving the webpage to make housing programs more accessible to the typical applicant. With new collaboration, the changes can also make service providers more connected to their prospective clients. In addition, the City has joined other jurisdictions in putting support behind a County-wide effort to establish a centralized electronic BMR unit portal to match people to units more efficiently than ever before.

462 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-E-10

4.6 New Affordable Housing Opportunities Identified

The “Talbots Toy’s” site is currently a City-owned site within the downtown area within 0.5 miles of transit and many other amenities such as parks and grocery. The City has received a pre -application from a private developer for future development of affordable housing and has leased the site to them for $1 per year. Additionally, the City has acquired another site adjacent called the Ravioli site , which the City anticipates highlighting for future redevelopment.

463 of 955

Page 1 of 12 ends

APPENDIX E | TABLE A – Prior Housing Element Evaluation Program No./Name Description and Objective Timeframe and Achievements Recommendation Goal 1: Protecting and Conserving Existing Housing
H 1.1 Residential
Protection
Consider policy during the Special Use Permit
process with respect to the intrusion of
incompatible uses and overconcentration of
non-residential uses; during the Site Plan and
Architectural Review process with respect to
adequate buffers; and during design review
of developments, on the design character of
neighborhoods.

The City has adopted zoning code
amendments which limit the over-
concentration of non-residential uses in
residential zoning districts while at the same
time allowing for provision of Special Use
Permit request to provide for case-by-case
review of facilities which meet identified
community needs. Case-by-case evaluation
of the impact of non-residential land uses
has occurred with all Special Use Permits.

Adequate buffers between residential and
non-residential uses are reviewed during the
initial plan check. Zoning code provisions
require quantitative setbacks and buffers to
ensure that both the residential and non-
residential uses are protected.

Timeline: Ongoing
Move to Land Use
Element, amend as
appropriate
H 1.2 Single Family
Preservation
Consider potential impacts on intact single-
family neighborhoods during the review of
land use changes and special use permits for
proposed development other than single
family dwellings; also consider buffering
provisions during the design review process.

Review of Special Use Permits for
development near single-family
neighborhoods are reviewed for land use
compatibility including findings that the
granting of such permit would not adversely
affect the general health, safety, or welfare
of the community. Multi-family Dwelling
Design Guidelines and Zoning Code
Remove
464 of 955

Page 2 of 12 ends

requirements include provisions to ensure
new multi-family developments are designed
to transition to nearby single-family
residences through tiered building heights
and massing. In multi-family zoned
properties that abut single-family zones,
there are increased setbacks and buffers to
ensure that the impact to single family
neighborhoods is reduced. Additional
buffering above and beyond the quantitative
requirements outlined in the Zoning Code is
considered during the design review process.

Timeline: Ongoing
H 1.3 Housing
Rehabilitation
Continue funding for a free minor home
repair program with a goal of 125 minor
home repairs for Low-Income Households.

Encourage energy and water retrofits in
existing housing stock through this program.
2015: Rehabs = 38
2016: Rehabs = 53
2017: Rehabs = 38
2018: Rehabs = 30
2019: Rehabs = 36
2020: Rehabs = 23
2021: Rehabs = 28
Running Total: Rehabs = 246
Timeline: Ongoing, current goal 16/year.

Retain, amend as
appropriate
H 1.4 Code
Enforcement
Continue code enforcement efforts and
provide staff as needed to improve
residential areas. Continue use of
administrative citations and fees, civil
penalties, and civil and criminal litigation to
bring about compliance.

The City continues its enforcement efforts
and provides staff to improve residential
areas through abatement, administrative
citations and fees, civil penalties, and civil
litigation to bring about compliance. The City
also uses court ordered inspection and
abatement warrants to enter, inspect, and
clean up hoarders and residential junkyards
that present immediate health and safety
Move to Land Use
Element, amend as
appropriate
465 of 955

Page 3 of 12 ends

violations.

Timeline: Ongoing
H 1.5 Building Bulk Through plan check review of single-family dwellings and duplex buildings, ensure
compliance with both the single family and
duplex regulations and design guidelines that
control the bulk of and height of buildings.

Plan checking of single-family dwellings is
ongoing. Second-story additions to single-
family dwellings, new single-family dwellings,
and duplexes require design review.

Adopted Single Family Design guidelines to
help control the bulk and height of second-
story additions and new single-family
dwellings. These guidelines help protect
against over-sized additions and new
construction in R-2 zoning districts.

Timeline: Ongoing
Move to Urban Design
Element, as
appropriate H 1.6 Variances and Lot
Divisions
Consider existing neighborhood character
during variance and subdivision review.

Existing neighborhood character continues to
be considered in the review of all variance
and lot split applications. Property and
building characteristics of properties in the
vicinity of any variance or lot split application
become the basis of findings and
recommendations for these types of
applications.

Timeline: Ongoing
Remove
H 1.7 Retention of
Existing Lower
Income Units
1) Monitor Lesly Park Towers to ensure
refinance, guaranteeing affordability upon
the expiration of existing covenants.
2) Coordinate extension of existing City Loan
terms and affordability requirements for
Humboldt House.
3) Support regional and local efforts to
address renter displacement. Examine issues
Accomplishments:
1) Lesley Towers was able to secure a loan
from HUD to complete full upgrades of the
building and to preserve the building as
senior affordable housing for an additional
40 years.
2) Affordability extension for Humboldt
House for 2021-2041 approved.

Completed - update
and retain
466 of 955

Page 4 of 12 ends

for City Council review and establish
strategies as warranted.

3) The City continues communications with
the County Housing Authority and
Department of Housing for ongoing
opportunities. During Spring 2016 the City's
Housing Task Force finalized its report to
Council. The task force was not able to agree
on recommending any specific renter
displacement policies to Council. During
November 2016, City voters rejected
Measure Q, a rent stabilization and just-
cause for eviction measure on the ballot. In
November 2017, the City adopted its
Assessment of Fair Housing. In 2019 the City
adopted Relocation Assistance Ordinance for
tenants displaced due to unsafe conditions,
as determined by Code Enforcement. The
City also budgeted funds to front relocation
assistance in urgent situations.

Timeline: 1) 2015; 2) 2020; 3) 2016
H 1.8 Condominium
Conversion
Continue the existing policy of protecting
existing residents by offering purchase
opportunities, long-term leases, and
relocation assistance.

There were zero (0) condo conversions in
2018. There were two (2) condo conversions
in 2019. There were zero (0) condo
conversions in 2020 and 2021.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain, amend as
appropriate
H 1.9 Demolitions Prohibit the demolition of existing residences until a building permit for new construction
has been issued unless health and safety
problems are present. Prevent housing stock
from becoming health and safety hazards
through code enforcement.

Demolition ordinance will continue to be
implemented. Code enforcement will
continue to be implemented.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain and revise
467 of 955

Page 5 of 12 ends

Goal 2: Encouraging New Housing Construction
H 2.1 Fair Share
Housing
Monitor housing production against ABAG
Fair Share Allocation. (Regional Housing Need
Allocation: RHNA)
See Table B and LEAP of the San Mateo
Annual Progress Report for detail.

Timeline: Ongoing (Annual)
Retain
H 2.2 Jobs/Housing
Balance
Monitor housing production against new job
creation.

The City continues to work toward
addressing the jobs-housing balance. The
jobs-housing ratio is based upon number of
jobs per employed resident and is considered
balanced the closer the ratio is to 1.00.

Timeline: Ongoing (Annual)
Move to land use
element, amend as
appropriate
H 2.3 Public Funding of
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Set aside 20% of general fund property tax
revenues from former RDA areas, aka
"boomerang funds"

Assist:
1) 50 Extremely Low units
2) Assist 85 Very Low units
3) 10 Low Income units
4) 60 Moderate income units

City set aside "boomerang funds" for housing
from 2015-19, but not in 2020 due to fiscal
constraints of the General fund.
1) The lease-up of 60 units designated as
moderate income was completed at the
2000 S. Delaware project in 2015.
2) City executed Development Agreement
with BRIDGE Housing to construct 68 family
rental units targeted to households 30-60%
AMI. Planning approvals were obtained
January 2018, project completed in August
2020, and move-ins began September 2020.
3) City has also entered into development
agreement with MidPen for 225 units of AH
in downtown San Mateo. Entitlements were
granted in 2020 with construction estimated
to start in December 2021, and construction
will commence throughout 2022.

Timeline Targets:
1) 60 units, July 2015; 2) 60 units, July 2017;
Completed - retain
468 of 955

Page 6 of 12 ends

3) 60 Units, July 2019; 4) 25 Units, July 2022
H 2.4 Private
Development of
Affordable
Housing
1) Maintain Inclusionary Housing
Requirements on ownership and rental
residential developments.
2) Implement Commercial Linkage Fee.
1) City increased the minimum inclusionary
requirement from 10% to 15% for its BMR
program in February 2020.
2) The City participated in a County-wide
Nexus study that was completed September
2015, and City Council adopted Commercial
Linkage Fee ordinance in 2016. All non-
housing projects with net-new construction
of 5,000SF or greater are required to pay the
fee. So far, the linkage fee has generated $6-
7m.

Timeline: Ongoing
Completed - revise
H 2.5 Distribution of
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Consider distribution of income level during
the review of applications for the funding of
affordable housing projects.

The City’s current Below Market Rate
program ensures that affordable housing is
developed throughout the City rather than in
specific areas, since it is applied on all new
housing projects that contain 11 or more
units. Additionally, staff tries to avoid
concentration of new affordable housing in
any given neighborhood.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain and revise
H 2.6 Rental Housing Consider during review of applications for multi-family housing.

The decision to develop rental vs. for-sale
units in multi-family projects varies with the
market. Some developers do not decide
whether to sell or rent units until the units
are under construction and the market is
evaluated at that time.

Timeline: Ongoing
Complete - remove
469 of 955

Page 7 of 12 ends

H 2.7 Secondary Units Ensure compliance with regulations, architectural standards, and design guidelines
that promote design compatibility with both
the principal residence and the
neighborhood, provide required parking on-
site, and minimize privacy impacts on
adjoining properties.

Consistent with 2016 state housing
legislation, the City Council adopted a new
Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance in March
2017, which allows for one Accessory
Dwelling Unit as of right within residential
zoning districts. Prior to the 2017 ordinance,
an average of 2-3 permits were issued each
year. Between April and December 2017, a
total of 16 applications for ADU permits were
submitted, of which seven projects were
issued building permits. By 2019 numbers
had increased substantially, with 45 permits
issued. In 2020, 52 were issued permits and
35 were completed. The city is working on
another revision of the ADU Ordinance to
further streamline production in 2020. A
One-stop webpage was designed to provide
a user-friendly resource regarding
development standards. The City developed
a flat fee for ADU planning applications to
limit costs. In 2021, 68 were issued building
permits and 51 were completed.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain and update
H 2.8 Single Room
Occupancy
Adopt a Single Room Occupancy ordinance to
allow the development of new SRO projects.

The City does not have a Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) ordinance. There were no
applications for SRO developments during
this reporting period. An SRO ordinance will
be developed in conjunction with any
request for development of an SRO project.

Timeline: 2018.

Remove
470 of 955

Page 8 of 12 ends

H 2.9 Multi-Family
Location
Maintain multi-family zoning on specified
sites consistent with the Land Use Map or
Land Use Element policies.

The locations designated in this policy have
been designated as multi-family residential
on the Land Use Map and have been
reclassified to a multi-family zoning
designation. The City has maintained existing
land zoned for multi-family use. Multi-family
projects have been developed at Bay
Meadows and throughout the Rail Corridor
Plan area.

Timeline: Ongoing
Complete - remove
H 2.10 Housing Densities Consider density policy during the development review process.

Regulations to provide for greater density
upon provision of public benefits and
comprehensive multi-family guidelines have
not yet been developed. Measure H (1991),
Measure P (2004) and Measure Y (2020)
voter initiatives established density ranges in
the City. Project-specific amenities are
analyzed on a case-by-case basis during the
public review process.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain and revise
H 2.11 Senior Project
Location
Consider during review of reclassification
applications to the Senior Citizen Overlay
district and Residential Care Facility Special
Use Permits.

The City allows Senior Projects within multi-
family and commercially zoned properties.

The City continues to promote the
development of senior housing through its
use of the Senior Citizen Overlay District.

The Kimochi Senior Care Facility, approved in
2013, was completed during 2016. The City
will continue to identify sites which meet
appropriate criteria for Senior housing,
especially with a focus on proximity to transit
Complete - remove
471 of 955

Page 9 of 12 ends

routes and commercial services.

Timeline: Ongoing
H 2.12 Mixed Use Permit the construction of housing or mixed- use projects in commercial areas. Encourage
mixed use in specific area plans, the El
Camino Real Master Plan, and the San Mateo
Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development
Plan. Consider designation in the future plans
for 42 Avenue.

Construction of mixed-use buildings are
permitted in all commercial zoning districts.

Applicants developing in specific areas such
as the El Camino Real Master Plan and San
Mateo Corridor Plan areas are encouraged to
develop mixed-use buildings.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain and revise
H 2.13 Transportation
Oriented
Development
(TOD)
Encourage TOD in locations near transit
nodes. Ensure that proposals conform to the
TOD and the San Mateo Rail Corridor TOD
Plan.

The San Mateo Rail Corridor TOD Plan, and a
subsequent TOD ordinance, was adopted by
the City Council in 2005. This document and
the subsequent specific plan and design
guidelines have regulated development in
rezoned properties. As of 2021, Bay
Meadows has completed 927 units with 67
units approved for MU 2 & MU3, Station
Park Green has built 492 units with 107 units
under construction (Certificate of Occupancy
anticipated in 2022).

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain and revise
H 2.14 The Homeless 1) Continue support where feasible for programs and facilities to prevent
homelessness.
2) Allow shelters a permitted use designation
in Regional/Community Commercial zones.

Review Buffer zones and amend code if
necessary.
3) Support home-sharing as alternative to
homelessness.
1) The City provides continuous
representation and participation on the
County Continuum of Care focusing on
programs for prevention of homelessness
and services to homeless families &
individuals. The City actively participated in
development of HOPE San Mateo County,
the 10-year plan to end homelessness. The
HOT Program (Housing Outreach Team)
Retain, amend as
appropriate
472 of 955

Page 10 of 12 ends

started as a first-year pilot project in 2006
focused on developing a Housing First model
for chronically homeless persons in
Downtown San Mateo, now replicated
throughout the county. The Vendome,
located downtown, provides 16 units of
permanent supportive housing for formerly
chronically homeless individuals. First Step
for Families provide 39 units for emergency
and transitional shelter for families with
children. Starting in 2021, The City began
providing assistance for client services for
formerly homeless individuals living at the
Montara Affordable Housing Development as
well as starting a rapid-rehousing program
for individuals and families at risk of
homelessness.
2) Zoning Code was amended in 2009 to
allow emergency shelters in C2 and C3
Districts as a permitted use. Emergency
shelters were also made a permitted use for
religious institutions located in residentially
zoned areas. The City's Zoning Code
designates a 300ft buffer from parks and
schools which will be removed during this
Housing Element, in coordination with the
next update to the City's Zoning Code.
3) The City supports home sharing, through
funding Human Investment Project (HIP)
Housing, a local non-profit whose main
service is matching home-seekers with those
offering space for home-sharing.

Timeline: Ongoing
473 of 955

Page 11 of 12 ends

H 2.15 Open Choice Continue implementation of the Fair Housing Resolution, affirmative marketing of city-
subsidized housing projects, and provision of
available funding for private non-profit
organizations that monitor and aid those
experiencing discrimination in housing
choice.

The City contracts with Project Sentinel to
provide Fair Housing services, monitoring,
and investigation. All housing related
projects or services funded by the City
include affirmative marketing guidelines and
are monitored on a regular basis. The City
began the Assessment of Fair Housing
process alongside San Mateo County and
other entitlement Cities within the county in
2016. The report was completed and
approved in 2017.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain/Update
H 2.16 Special Need
Groups
1) Continue to support programs particularly
designed to accommodate special needs
groups. 2) Consider requests for Reasonable
Accommodations to City zoning code in
accordance with appropriate ordinance.
1) 2015: The City provided financial
assistance to three non-profit organizations
that provided housing, rental assistance
and/or housing-related services to variety of
special needs populations.
2) Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
was adopted on 6/16/14.

Timeline: Ongoing
Retain/Update
Goal 3: Incorporate Sustainability into Housing Development H 3.1 Sustainable
Housing
Development
Ensure future housing developed in
sustainable manner.

The City has had a Green Building Ordinance
since 2009 and adopted the latest state Cal-
Green code effective January 2020, as well as
new reach codes effective January 2021 that
go beyond state building codes. In 2020, the
City updated its 10-year Climate Action Plan
to implement programs to increase energy
and water efficiency, and to decrease auto
Retain/Update
474 of 955

Page 12 of 12 ends

use, lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Timeline: Ongoing
Goal 4: Increase Energy and Water Efficiency in Existing Residential Units H 4.1 Energy and Water
Efficiency
Coordinate countywide marketing efforts to
promote Property Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) financing programs to residents.

The City joined 5 PACE programs including
California First, HERO, Figtree, Ygrene, and
Open PACE to provide financing options to
homeowners. Information about the PACE
programs is being promoted through local
contractors.

Timeline: July 2015
Retain/Update

475 of 955

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
476 of 955

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

477 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 40 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

Appendix H-F
APPENDIX F | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Participation
▪ True North Survey Results (Excerpts) – February 21, 2022 ▪ Community Engagement, Pop Ups and Intercepts – Feedback received from the public during popup outreach events and surveys distributed in person. ▪ Online Survey Results – Feedback received from the Housing Element Survey hosted on the City Website.
▪ City of San Mateo Builders Focus Group – Feedback received from local developers during a focus group on policies and programs to increase ease of constructing new housing. ▪ City of San Mateo Fair Housing Workshop – January 13, 2022 Discussion and Poll Summary ▪ City of San Mateo Housing Policy Workshop – November 2, 2021: Discussion and Poll Summary ▪ Community Needs and Housing Needs Workshop - Community Relations Commission – September 29, 2021: Speaker Notes
▪ 21 Elements Listening Sessions – Summaries of public engagement events held at the San Mateo Countywide level for Housing Element Issues.
o Fair Housing – September 27, 2021
o Housing Advocates – October 18, 2021
o Builders – November 1, 2021
o Service Providers – November 15, 2021
▪ Root Policy Fair Housing Survey Summary – Feedback received from the public through a countywide survey on Fair Housing issues
▪ Community Correspondence received by the City as of March 30, 2022 478 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 Appendix H-F
TRUE NORTH SURVEY RESULTS (EXCERPTS) – FEBRUARY 21, 2022 479 of 955
480 of 955
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 1
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Incorporated in 1894, the City of San Mateo encompasses 15.9 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area and is currently home to an estimated 105,661 residents. 1 One of only two charter cit- ies in San Mateo County, the City is governed by a five-member City Council, while the City’s daily operations are managed by a dedicated team of employees that provide a full suite of ser- vices to residents and the local business community.

To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its perform ance and policies. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessa rily provide an accurate picture of the commu- nity as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias. The City receives feedback only from those resi- dents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback proce ss. Because these residents tend to be those who are either very pleased or very displeased with a particular service or policy, their collective opinions are not necessarily repres entative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current st udy was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, opinions, and concerns as they relate to city services, facilit ies, and policies. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report will provide Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tr acking internal performance, budgeting, and community out- reach.

In addition to gathering performance-related feedback, the survey was also designed to help inform the City’s General Plan update. Like most California cities, the City of San Mateo relies on its General Plan to guide decisions with respect to land use, development, mobility, sustainabil- ity, and related policy matters. Although the City Council, staff, and co nsultants have played an important role in gathering data and organizing the update process, it was the desire of the City that the citizens of San Mateo be the true inspiration for the Plan. Accordingly, a portion of the survey was dedicated to understanding San Mateo residents’ needs and opinions as they relate to issues that will be addressed in the General Plan, with a focus on mobility and how best to plan for future housing as required by State law.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the survey. Broadly defined, the survey was designed to:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in San Mateo;

1. US Census esti mate, April 2020.
481 of 955
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 2City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with th e City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on General Plan topics with a focus on mobility and housing; • Determine satisfaction with (and perceived ef fectiveness of) the City’s communication with residents; and
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding res- idents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 4 7 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 775 adults who reside in the City of San Mateo. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (mailed letters, email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Admin- istered in English and Spanish between January 21 and February 2, 2022, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of San Mateo. A similar study was conducted by True North for the City in 2020, and many of the questions included in th e 2022 survey were purpos ely tracked from the prior survey. Because there is a natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in the 2020 survey. In su ch cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical sign ificance to identify ch anges that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2020) and the current (2022), as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at ran- dom. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences with in response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2022.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bul- let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the resu lts from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col- lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious re ader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 50), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of San Mateo for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here. 482 of 955
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 3City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of San Mateo. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts. 483 of 955
Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 4
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J UST THE F ACTS
The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s conve- nience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles us ed in the body of this report. Thus, to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report sec- tion.

QUALITY OF LIFE
• San Mateo residents provided the most positive ratings for the overall quality of life in the City (85% excellent or good), San Mateo as a place to shop and dine (77%), and as a place to raise a family (68%).
• Although still rated favorably by over half of respondents, residents provided somewhat softer ratings for San Mateo as a place to work (62%) and as a place to recreate (59%). • Just over one-third of residents provided a favorable rating for San Mateo as a place to retire (37%), although approximately 13% held no opinion or did not provide a rating. • When asked what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo that city government should make sure to preserve in the future, residents were most apt to cite parks and recre- ation facilities and opportunities (24%), followed by shopping and dining opportunities (16%), proximity to surrounding cities/areas (12%), and the open/green spaces and moun- tains (12%). Other specific attributes that we re mentioned by at least 5% of respondents included San Mateo’s diversity of business, cult ures, and activities (9%), small town atmo- sphere (8%), low crime rate/pub lic safety (7%), downtown ar ea (7%), and friendly people/ neighbors (6%).
• When residents were asked to indicate the one thing city government could change to make San Mateo a better place to live, now and in th e future, providing more affordable housing was the most common (19%), followed by limitin g growth and preserving open space (13%), improving public safety/more police presence (8%), and improving and maintaining infra- structure, streets and roads (7%).

CITY SERVICES
• Close to three-quarters (74%) of San Mateo resi dents indicated they were either very (25%) or somewhat (49%) satisfied with the City’s ef forts to provide municipal services. Approxi- mately 16% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
• Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with 18 specific services provided by the City of San Mateo. Although the majority of residents surveyed were satisfied with 13 of the 16 services tested, they were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to pr ovide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services (9 4% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (91%), provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (87%), provide paths and trails for walk- ing, jogging, and running (82%), and provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (81%).
• At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable hous ing (33%), address homelessness (42%), manage traffic congestion (48%), and maintain local streets and roads (54%). 484 of 955
Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 5City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOUSING & LAND USE
• Approximately two-thirds of residents indicated that there is currently too little housing that is affordable for middle-income (67%) and low-income families (64%) in the City of San Mateo.
• When asked to prioritize among a list of factors the City could consider as it plans for addi- tional housing units as required by state law, ensuring adequate water supplies (98% at least somewhat important) was viewed as the most important factor, followed by preserving open space and creating new park lands (97%), minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion (95%), creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive (94%), and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (93%). • When compared to the other items tested, re spondents indicated that keeping building heights low (68%) and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighbor- hoods (68%) were the least important when planning for future housing in the City. • When presented with the opportun ity to reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities and minimize change to existing neighborhoods, 63% of San Mateo residents indicated they would support concentrating new hous ing in higher-density build- ings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories. A higher percentage (68%) indicated they would support buildings up to eight stories.

MOBILITY
• The vast majority of residents (87%) indicat ed they use a personal vehicle on a weekly basis when traveling within the City of San Mateo, while 45% reported that they walk from their home to a local store or restaurant at least once per week. Less than one-in-five respondents indicated that they ride a bicycle or scooter (19%), use public transit su ch as a bus or train (8%), or use Uber, Lyft, or a taxi (4%) at least once per week when traveling within the City of San Mateo.
• Among strategies the City could consider to reduce vehicle trips and mitigate growth- induced congestion in the future, improving safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school (84% high or medium priority) and improving sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety, signs and infrastructure to encourage more walking (84%) were widely viewed as the top priorities, followed by im proving bus and shuttl e services with more routes and more frequent service within San Mateo and to neighboring areas (71%), provid- ing financial incentives to encourage greate r use of transit use (64%), and expanding the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling (63%). • Sixty-four percent (64%) of respondents indica ted they generally support adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo, even if it requires removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations.

COMMUNICATIONS
• Overall, 62% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communi- cate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social medi a, and other means in 2022. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (25%) or unsure of their opinion (13%).
• Thirty percent (30%) of respondents indicated the were interested in receiving more informa- tion from the City.
485 of 955
Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 6City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• The most commonly mentioned topics of interest were information about the City’s future commercial and residential development plans ( 31%), affordable housing (13%), street/road and infrastructure maintenance (13%), environmental issues (8%), public transportation (7%), public safety/crime statistics (7%), and recreation programs (7%). • When asked to identify the information sources they currently use most often for news, information, and programming in San Mateo, the most frequently cited sources were the San Mateo Daily Journal and email notifications from the City, both mentioned by 30% of respon- dents. These sources were followed by letters, postcards, flyers, or brochures mailed to the home from the City (24%), Nextdoor (23%), the Internet not including the City’s site (18%), the City’s website (15%), and friends/family/associates/word of mouth (15%). • Respondents indicated that email was the most effective method for the City to communi- cate with them (84% very or somewhat effective), followed by postcards, letters, and news- letters mailed to the home (i.e., direct mail, 78%), social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor (78%), and the City’s website (72%).
• Townhall meetings (52%), television programs (41%), and advertisements in local papers (40%) were generally viewed by residents as less effective ways for the City to communicate with them.
486 of 955
Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 7
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C ONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Mateo with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, opinions, and priorities as they relate to city services, facilities and policies, as well as topics pertinent to the General Plan update. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research.

How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of San Mateo resi-
dents?
The two years leading up to the 2022 Community Opinion Survey were punctuated by difficult and dramatic events in San Mateo. The coronavi- rus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened liveli- hoods, and forced dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. Non-essential businesses were shuttered for weeks or months at a time to curb the spread of COVID-19, and the City’s oper- ations were also adjusted to protect public health an d adhere to State and County guidelines. Services that could be effectively moved to an online format were able to continue in that form, whereas other pro- grams and services were modified, curtailed, or canceled to protect the safety of the public and City employ ees. Many city facilities were also closed periodically to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including City Hall.

Against this turbulent backdrop, residents’ opinions of their community and city government remained positive. Approximately three-quarters of residents (74%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services, whereas just 16% were dissatisfied and the remaining 10% were unsure or did not provide a response. The percentage of respondents who indica ted they were very satisfied with the City’s overall performance also increased significantly between 2020 and 2022, and satisfaction was wi despread across resident subgroups (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15).

The high level of satisfaction expr essed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services, maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages, provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities, provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running, and provide a variety of re creation programs for all ages (see Specific Services on page 17).

The City’s performance in providing municipal services has contributed to a high quality of life for residents. Indeed, the vast majority of resi- dents surveyed in 2022 (85%) rated the quality of life in the City of San Mateo as excellent or good, a statistically significant increase of 4% when 487 of 955
Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 8City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
compared to 2020. This sentiment was also widespread, with the per- centage who rated the quality of life as excellent or good exceeding 75% across every identified resident subgroup (see Overall Quality of Life on page 10). When asked in an open-e nded manner to describe the things they value most about living in San Mateo that they would like to pre- serve in the future, parks and recrea tion facilities and opportunities topped the list, followed by shopping and dining opportunities, proxim- ity to surrounding cities/areas, an d the open/green spaces and moun- tains (see What do You Like Most About Living in San Mateo? on page 11).

Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a key goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust ser- vices, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although resi- dent satisfaction in San Mateo is generally high (see above), there is always room for improvement. Belo w we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they feel city government could do to make San Mateo a better place to live (see What Should Be Changed? on page 13) and the levels of satisfaction found in specific service areas (see Specific Services on page 17), the top priorities are: facilitating the creation of more affordable housing, limiting growth/preserving open space, ad dressing homelessness, managing traffic congestion, maintaining local streets and roads, improving public safety, and improving city-resident communication.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it come s to improving satisfaction in ser- vice areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better com- munication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s ongoing infra- structure improvement effo rts, or the limits of what a city can do to address homelessness. Choosing the ap propriate balance of actual ser- vice improvements and efforts to ra ise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfac- tion in the short- and long-term.

What criteria do resi-
dents want the City to
prioritize when plan-
ning for future housing?
Affordable housing (or lack thereof) has become a hot topic in many communities, increasing in saliency during the past few years along with rising rents and home prices. When asked directly, most respondents felt there was too little affordable housing (of any type) in San Mateo, and increasing the availability of affordable housing was the most frequently mentioned change that residents indicated would make San Mateo a bet- ter place to live, now and in the future.
488 of 955
Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

When asked to rate various criteria the City could consider as it explores different ways that it could accommodate future housing, factors related to environmental sustainability tended to rise to the top of the list among survey respondents. Of the 18 factors tested, ensuring adequate water supplies was viewed as the most important factor, followed by pre- serving open space and creating ne w park lands, minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion, creati ng pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive, and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to the other factors tested, respondents indicated that keeping building heights low and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighbor- hoods were the least important when planning for future housing in the City (see Factors to Prioritize when Planning Housing on page 21).

The desire to preserve land for parks and community spaces was also evident in residents’ willingness to accept taller, high-density housing up to 12 stories (64%) or eight stories (68%) downtown and near transit if it would reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and community amenities while also minimizing the impacts of new housing in existing neighborhoods (see Building Height & Density Trade-offs on page 26).

What actions do resi-
dents prioritize for mini-
mizing vehicle trips and
congestion in the future?
One of the key challenges when pl anning for population growth and future housing is the issue of mobility. Put simply, adding housing and people to a community will naturally lead to more congestion and decreased mobility unless improvements are made to the transportation system to accommodate the additi onal demand and/or vehicle demand is mitigated through use of altern ative modes. Accordingly, the survey explored the types of actions and st rategies residents would prioritize for minimizing growth-induced congestion in the future.

Improving safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school (84% high or medium priority) and improving sidewalks, cross- walks, pedestrian safety, signs and infrastructure to encourage more walking (84%) were widely viewed as the top priorities among the actions tested, followed by improving bus and shuttle services with more routes and more frequent service within Sa n Mateo and to neighboring areas (71%), providing financial incentives to encourage greater use of transit use (64%), and expanding the network of dedicated bike lanes and shared lanes to encourage more bicycling (63%). It is worth noting, more- over, that 64% of respondents indi cated they generally support adding bike lanes and widening sidewalks in San Mateo, even if it requires removing a vehicle lane or parking spaces in certain locations (see Mobil- ity on page 29).
489 of 955
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 10
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind per- ceptions about the quality of life in San Mateo, what they would most like to preserve about the City, as well as ways to improve the quality of life in San Mateo.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the intervi ew, respondents were asked to rate the City of San Mateo on a number of key dimensions—including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work—u sing a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, the majority of residents shared favorable opin- ions of San Mateo on five of the six aspects te sted, with the most positive ratings provided for the overall quality of life in the City (85% excellent or good), San Mateo as a place to shop and dine (77%), and as a place to raise a family (68%). Although still rated favorably by over half of respondents, residents provided somewhat softer ratings for San Mateo as a place to work (62%) and as a place to recreate (59%). Just over one- third of residents provided a favorable rating for San Mateo as a place to retire (37%), although approximately 13% held no opinion or did not pro- vide a rating. It is worth noting that the percentage of residents who were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion ranged from a low of 0% for the overall quality of life to a high of 18% for San Mateo as a place to work.

Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO
As shown in Table 1 on the next page, when co mpared to 2020, the percentage of respondents in 2022 who offered ratings of excellent or good increased significantly for San Mateo as a place to retire (+7%), as a place to shop and dine (+6%), as a place to work (+5%), and the overall quality of life in the City (+4%). Tables 2 through 5, meanwhile, show how the ratings for each dimen- sion tested in Question 2 varied by length of re sidence, gender, age, presence of a child in the home, presence of a senior in the home, ethnicity, and home ownership. For ease of comparison, the top three ratings within each subgroup are highlighted green.

24.5 26.2

26.1 17.8

18.2 9.9

60.5 51.1

42.0 44.4

41.1 27.2

11.4 18.3

16.8 15.5

28.0 22.6
3 3
3 3
5 1
1 0
18 18
3 1
3 10
9 13
6 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Overall quality of life in San Mateo
San Mateo as a place to shop and dine
San Mateo as a place to raise a family
San Mateo as a place to work
San Mateo as a place to recreate
San Mateo as a place to retire
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure/Prefer not to answer

490 of 955
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 11City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 1 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.

TABLE 2 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & GENDER (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD) TABLE 3 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY AGE (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD) TABLE 4 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY CHILD IN HSLD & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD)
TABLE 5 RATING CITY OF SAN MATEO BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD) WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN SAN MATEO? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo that city government should make sure to pres erve in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to 2022 2020
San Mateo as a place to retire 37.0 30.3 +6.7†
San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 77.4 71.6 +5.8†
San Mateo as a place to work 62.2 57.6 +4.6†
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 85.0 80.9 +4.1†
San Mateo as a place to raise a family 68.1 65.1 +3.0
San Mateo as a place to recreate 59.2 56.3 +3.0
Study Year
Change in
Excellent +
Good
2020 to 2022
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Male Female
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 88.8 87.0 88.5 82.0 86.4 85.9 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 83.6 77.2 85.6 73.0 79.0 77.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 63.8 64.7 72.9 69.8 69.4 68.9 San Mateo as a place to work 57.0 63.7 56.6 65.2 62.9 64.6 San Mateo as a place to recreate 59.1 56.5 63.3 59.2 57.2 62.3 San Mateo as a place to retire 28.7 36.8 39.6 40.1 35.2 40.6 Gender (QD2)Years in San Mateo (Q1)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Overall quality of life in San Mateo 88.2 83.6 83.4 86.0 86.0 86.0 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 86.1 81.8 75.5 77.1 77.8 70.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 69.4 62.2 71.8 73.5 69.8 67.5 San Mateo as a place to work 75.9 60.9 54.8 65.9 67.9 59.3 San Mateo as a place to recreate 67.0 54.5 60.7 62.1 62.8 55.2 San Mateo as a place to retire 54.5 30.6 28.1 30.7 32.1 51.7 Age (QD1)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 82.0 76.0 88.6 84.5 87.0 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 77.2 72.8 78.6 74.3 79.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 76.6 75.6 66.3 69.2 69.3 San Mateo as a place to work 68.2 65.6 61.2 58.1 65.5
San Mateo as a place to recreate 58.5 56.5 60.4 56.1 61.2 San Mateo as a place to retire 30.5 24.3 40.7 48.4 32.1 Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5)
Caucasian
/ White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Overall quality of life in San Mateo 87.5 89.6 80.3 80.7 85.7 86.1 San Mateo as a place to shop and dine 74.8 80.8 80.1 75.5 75.2 80.8 San Mateo as a place to raise a family 67.4 73.3 67.4 66.1 73.4 64.6 San Mateo as a place to work 59.6 65.4 66.3 53.1 61.0 65.1 San Mateo as a place to recreate 59.4 64.9 56.9 51.2 59.4 59.9 San Mateo as a place to retire 33.1 40.2 42.9 29.6 40.0 33.5 Home Ownership Status
(QD6)Ethnicity (QD12)
491 of 955
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 12City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2.

San Mateo residents were most apt to cite parks and recreation facilities and opportunities (24%) as what they like most about living in the City of San Mateo and would like to preserve, followed by shopping and dining opportunities (16%), proximity to surrounding cities/areas (12%), and the open/green spaces and mountains (12%). Other specific attributes that were mentioned by at least 5% of respondents included San Mateo’s diversity of business, cultures, and activities (9%), small town atmosphere (8%), low crime rate/public safety (7%), downtown area (7%), and friendly people/neighbors (6%). For the interested reader , Table 6 on the next page lists the top five responses to Question 3 in 2020 and 2022.

Question 3 What do you like most about the City of San Mateo that should be preserved in the future?
FIGURE 2 LIKE MOST ABOUT SAN MATEO

23.6 16.0

12.8 12.4

11.7 8.9

8.3 6.6

6.6 4.8

4.4 3.0

2.8 2.7

2.5 2.5

2.4 2.4

2.0 1.8

3.2 6.3
0 5 10 15 20 25
Parks, recreation facilities, opportunities
Shopping, dining opportunities
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Proximity to surrounding cities, areas
Open, green space, mountains
Diversity of businesses, cultures, activities
Small town atmosphere
Low crime, public safety
Downtown area
Friendly people, neighbors
Weather, clean air
Good schools
Clean, well-maintained
Sense of community
Access to bay, ocean
Access to public transportation
Affordable houses
Historical places
Outdoor activities
Less crowded, traffic than other cities
Family friendly
Availability of parking
% Respondents
492 of 955
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 13City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 6 LIKE MOST ABOUT SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described for Question 3, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make San Mateo a better place to live. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 4 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3. Among the specific changes desired, providing more affordable housing was the most common (19%), followed by limiting growth and preserving open space (13%), improv ing public safety/more police presence (8%), and improving and maintaining infrastructure, streets and roads (7%). Approximately 14% could not think of a desired change (10%) or reported that no changes are needed (4%). Table 7 shows the top 5 responses to Question 4 in 2020 and 2022.

Question 4 If the city government could change one thing to make San Mateo a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY
2022 2020
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Parks, recreation
facilities,
opportunities
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Shopping, dining
opportunities
Proximity to
surrounding cities,
areas
Small town
atmosphere
Open, green space,
mountains
Proximity to
surrounding cities,
areas
Study Year

18.8 12.9

10.0 7.5

7.1 6.3

6.0 5.2

5.1 3.7

3.5 3.2

3.2 3.0

3.0 2.6

2.5 2.5

2.3 2.3

2.3 2.2

3.7 3.3
0 5 10 15 20
Provide more affordable housing
Limit growth, preserve open space
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Improve public safety, more police presence
Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets, roads
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Reduce traffic congestion
Reduce cost of living
Address parking issues
Reduce taxes, fees
Beautify, clean up City
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Add, improve bike lanes
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Reduce building permit restrictions
Enforce traffic laws
Improve public transit
Improve economy, jobs
Provide more activities, events for all ages
Improve schools, education
Address homeless issues
Improve City Council, gov process
Improve downtown area
Improve environmental efforts
% Respondents
493 of 955
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 14City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 7 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY STUDY YEAR
2022 2020
Provide more
affordable housing
Provide more
affordable housing
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Reduce traffic
congestion
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Limit growth,
preserve open
space
Improve public
safety, more police
presence
Improve, maintain
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve, maintain
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve parking
Study Year
494 of 955
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 15
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in San Mateo, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this seri es asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied wi th the job the City of Sa n Mateo is doing to pro- vide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 4, close to three-quarters (74%) of San Ma teo residents indicated they were either very (25%) or somewhat (49%) satisfied wi th the City’s efforts to provide municipal ser- vices. Approximately 16% were very or somewh at dissatisfied, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. When compared to 2020, its worth noting that the percentage of respondents indicating they were very satisfied with the City’s performance increased signifi- cantly.

Question 5 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or di ssatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.

The next three figures display how residents’ op inions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services varied by years in San Mateo, children in the household, survey lan- guage, age of the respondent, gender, ethnicit y, home ownership status, and presence of an adult 65 years and older in the household. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the solid levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were gener- ally echoed across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging from a low of 62% to a high of 90%.

53.9 12.4

8.4 24.5† 19.2

49.4†

10.6 5.35.2

9.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2020
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
495 of 955
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 16City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, CHILD IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE & GENDER
FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD

22.4 18.5

26.7 24.3 27.8

50.5 52.6

49.7 49.5 48.2

23.728.223.1
Ver y
satisfied

25.9 48.4

48.8 49.5
Smwt
satisfied

49.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None English Spanish Years in San Mateo (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Survey Language % Respondents

18.5 24.6 27.8 23.1

52.7 52.4 50.3

48.9 Ver y
satisfied

52.6 24.8 23.4 18.3
Smwt
satisfied

37.3 56.446.249.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age (QD1) Gender (QD2)
% Respondents

20.2 29.9 24.1 25.5

56.3 43.2 48.6 51.1

18.9 32.5

20.1 Ver y
satisfied

23.3 53.7

45.4 43.3
Smwt
satisfied

52.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Caucasian /
White
Asian American Latino / Hispanic Mixed or other Own Rent Yes No Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status (QD6) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents
496 of 955
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 17City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, Ques- tion 6 asked residents to rate their level of satisfaction with each of the 18 specific service areas shown in Figure 8. The order in which the service areas were presented was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias, although they have been sorted from high to low in Figure 8 according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s performance in providing the service. For comparison purposes between the services, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. 2 At the top of the list, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire pro- tection, prevention, and emergency medical services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (91%), provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (87%), provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running (82%), and provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (81%). At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable housing (33%), addr ess homelessness (42%), manage traffic conges- tion (48%), and maintain local streets and roads (54%).

Question 6 For each of the services I read next, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES

2. The percentage who held an opinion for each service is shown to the right of the service label in brackets.

45.3 39.1

39.3 30.2

34.0 29.2

22.0 20.6

21.2 22.7

22.9 16.6

20.4 21.7

14.0 10.3

10.2 9.1

48.6 52.2

47.6 51.5

46.7 48.1

53.3 54.7

54.0 51.6

46.6 49.5

45.3 40.1

40.1 37.5

31.6 23.8

32.2 32.3

28.1 19.9

39.0 24.0

18.8 19.8

16.7 14.2

15.1 13.4

9.4 6.8

4.3 16.5

19.0 20.8

23.7 26.7

4.2 5.0
4 2
2 8.3

6.7 9.7

10.2 25.8

19.3 8.5

8.1 5.0

15.4 14.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services [85%] Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages [91%] Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities [96%] Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running [95%] Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages [80%] Provide police and crime prevention services [88%]
Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks [88%]
Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters [68%] Protect the environment [80%]
Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations [84%] Provide bicycle lanes and paths [89%]
Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs [72%] Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction [75%]
Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas [97%] Maintain local streets and roads [96%]
Manage traffic congestion [93%]
Address homelessness [78%]
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing [80%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 497 of 955
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 18City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 8 displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service by study year, and the difference between 2020 and 2022. When compared with the 2020 survey, satis- faction with the City’s efforts to manage traffic congestion increasing significantly (+18%), while satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (-4%), police and crime prevention servi ces (-5%), special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations (-8%), and address homelessness (-9%) decreased significantly.

TABLE 8 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 9 on the next page shows how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 6 varied accord- ing to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15).

The table divides residents who we re satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Qu estion 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared to their counterparts, those who were satisfied with the City’s overall perfor- mance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 6. That said, the greatest specific dif- ferentiators of opinion between satisfied and di ssatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to maintain local streets and roads, promote economic development to attract new businesses and good-paying jobs to the community, maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks, provide police and crime prevention serv ices, and enforce code violations to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted co nstruction, and yards not being properly main- tained.

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services, and provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running. 2022 2020
Manage traffic congestion 47.9 30.3 +17.6†
Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction 65.8 62.0 +3.7 Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters 75.3 73.8 +1.4 Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs to community 66.1 65.5 +0.6 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 75.3 75.1 +0.2 Maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages 91.3 91.5 -0.1 Maintain local streets and roads 54.0 54.3 -0.3
Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 86.9 88.6 -1.7 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 93.9 95.9 -1.9 Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 80.7 84.6 -3.9† Provide police and crime prevention services 77.3 82.7 -5.3† Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations 74.2 82.5 -8.3† Address homelessness 41.8 51.0 -9.1†
Protect the environment 75.2 N/A N/A
Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running 81.6 N/A N/A Provide bicycle lanes and paths 69.5 N/A N/A
Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 61.8 N/A N/A Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 32.9 N/A N/A Study Year Change in
Satisfaction
2020 to 2022
498 of 955
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 19City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 9 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Maintain local streets and roads 61.0 20.7 40.3
Promote economic development to attract new businesses, good-paying jobs 74.7 35.3 39.4 Maintain storm drains, sewers and creeks 81.9 47.9 34.0 Provide police and crime prevention services 83.8 50.6 33.1 Enforce codes to address issues like abandoned vehicles, non-permitted construction 71.9 39.3 32.6 Cleaning up litter, trash that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas 67.9 36.3 31.7 Manage traffic congestion 53.9 22.5 31.4
Provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages 87.3 56.1 31.2 Provide special events like community festivals and holiday celebrations 81.9 50.8 31.0 Protect the environment 81.3 50.5 30.8
Prepare the city for emergencies and natural disasters 81.8 51.0 30.8 Address homelessness 47.8 20.7 27.1
Maintain public buildings, facilities like City Hall, libraries, parking garages 95.0 71.6 23.4 Provide parks, sports fields and recreation facilities 90.1 71.5 18.6 Provide bicycle lanes and paths 74.3 56.3 18.0
Facilitate the creation of affordable housing 37.0 21.0 16.0 Provide paths and trails for walking, jogging, and running 84.8 69.6 15.1 Provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services 96.7 82.2 14.5 City's Overall Performance (Q5) Di fference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each
Service
499 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 20
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOUSING & L AND U SE
The General Plan will help shape the nature of San Mateo’s future development and redevelop- ment—including the size, type, ch aracter, and location of new housing projects—as well as the pace at which these changes occur. To help info rm the City’s General Plan update, the survey included a series of questions re lated to housing and density, as well as the factors that resi- dents feel the City should prioritize when planning new housing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING The first question in this series simply asked respondents to indicate whether there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little affordable housing in the City of San Mateo for middle-income and low-income families, respectively. Resi- dents expressed similar opinions for both types of affordable housing, with approximately two- thirds of residents indicating that there is currently too little housing that is affordable for mid- dle-income (67%) and low-income families (64%). Approximately three-in-ten residents felt the amount of affordable housing was about right or were unsure (middle income: 29%, low income:
28%), while just 5% felt there was too much housing that is affordable for middle-income families and 8% shared the same sentiment for housing that is affordable for low-income families.

Question 7 As I read the following housing types, please tell me whether you feel there is cur- rently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this type of housing in the City of San Mateo.

FIGURE 9 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2020 and 2022 studies.

Tables 10-12 on the next page display the percentage of residents who felt there is currently too little of each affordable housing type in the City by key demographic traits. When compared to their respective counterparts, younger residents (under 35), renters, and those who had lived in the City between 10 and 14 years were the most likely to perceive there is not enough affordable housing for low-income families in San Mateo, while those who completed the survey in Spanish, renters, those between 35 and 44 years of age, and those who had lived in the City between 10

24.3 28.0 24.8

68.5 7.94.04.5 6.6

28.7†

71.7 64.1†66.8†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2020 2022 2020
Housing affordable for middle-income
families
Housing affordable for low-income
families
% Respondents
T oo little
About right
T oo m uch
500 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 21City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and 14 years were the most likely to indicate there is not enough affordable housing for middle- income families.

TABLE 10 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE)
TABLE 11 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY AGE (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE) TABLE 12 AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN MATEO BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE)
FACTORS TO PRIORITIZE WHEN PLANNING HOUSING California State law requires that all cities plan for additional housing. With a general shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for thousands of new housing units. After pro- viding this background information, Question 8 presented respondents with each of the factors shown in Figure 10 on the next page and asked them how important they feel the item should be as the City plans for future housing over the ne xt 20 years. To ensure that respondents priori- tized among the items, they we re instructed to keep in mind th at not all of the items can be extremely important.

Although all of the factors tested in Question 8 were viewed as importan t by at least two-thirds of respondents, factors that relate to environmental sustainability tended to rise to the top of the list when it comes to planning future housing. Overall, ensuring adequate water supplies (98% at least somewhat important) was viewed as the most important factor, followed by preserving open space and creating new park lands (97%), minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion (95%), creating pedestrian-friendly areas that en courage people to walk rather than drive (94%), and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (93%).

When compared to the other items tested, resp ondents indicated that keeping building heights low (68%) and minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods (68%) were the least important when planning for future housing in the City.

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes No English Spanish Housing affordable for middle-income
families 68.3 65.1 72.9 64.7 63.5 68.7 65.8 75.8
Housing affordable for low-income
families 67.3 61.5 72.0 60.7 62.1 65.1 63.5 64.8
Years in San Mateo (Q1) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Housing affordable for middle-income
families 60.6 71.5 75.3 63.9 63.5 62.4
Housing affordable for low-income
families 87.5 72.8 58.3 58.9 53.4 60.3
Age (QD1)
Male Female
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Own Rent
Housing affordable for middle-income
families 66.6 67.7 67.7 65.5 66.3 59.3 75.1
Housing affordable for low-income
families 63.0 65.9 57.6 50.3 67.2 51.0 78.1
Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Home Ownership Status (QD6)
501 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 22City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 8 California State law requires that all cities plan for additional housing. With a gen- eral shortage of housing in California, the state is requiring that the City of San Mateo plan for thousands of new housing units. There are a variety of factors the City can consider when decid- ing where new housing may be located and the types of housing that may be built. As I read the following list of items, I'd like to know how important you feel the item should be as the City plans for future housing over the next 20 years. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be extremely important.

FIGURE 10 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT
Tables 13-16 show the percentage of respondents in each respondent subgroup that identified a factor as extremely important when the City plans for fu ture housing. For the reader’s conve- nience, the top five factors in each subgroup are highlighted in green. When considering just those who indicated a factor was extremely important, three factors were consistently among the top five across subgroups: ensuring adequate water supplies, creating homes that are affordable for low- and middle-income residents, and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

62.0 42.9

33.9 40.1

44.0 29.2

28.1 30.8

39.2 45.0

26.2 25.1

22.2 17.3

27.8 12.7

24.2 20.7

30.8 35.3

41.3 35.4

34.5 43.3

37.0 38.5

35.2 28.6

31.9 39.6

30.8 31.2

30.8 33.3

21.4 22.3

4.7 18.5

19.4 18.0

14.3 20.4

26.5 22.1

16.7 17.0

27.5 20.6

32.1 36.5

24.3 35.3

22.8 25.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Ensuring adequate water supplies
Preserving open space and creating new park lands
Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion
Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
Producing revenue to pay for police, fire, city services to new housing units Ensuring sufficient parking spaces
Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise
Creating homes that are affordable for low- and middle-income residents Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources
Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years Creating bike lanes and paths
Locating additional shops and restaurants near new housing units Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods Keeping building heights low
% Respondents
Extremely important V ery important Somewhat important
502 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 23City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 13 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Satisfied Dissatisfied Ensuring adequate water supplies 55.1 62.0 69.2 63.6 62.8 64.1 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 54.5 46.7 44.8 40.4 45.0 42.1 M i n i m i z i n g p o l l u t i o n a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s 4 9 . 94 7 . 54 3 . 54 0 . 64 3 . 64 0 . 9 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 41.4 42.9 47.7 42.6 42.0 40.6 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 46.1 43.1 39.9 36.7 42.3 28.5 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 42.8 33.7 32.3 40.6 39.0 39.0 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 31.0 28.4 26.3 38.3 34.3 35.5 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 37.6 26.8 29.6 29.2 32.4 25.7 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 20.6 28.7 35.7 31.7 29.2 33.4 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 17.8 25.9 30.4 32.7 26.4 39.5 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 30.4 25.7 23.6 28.1 27.0 31.6
Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 17.4 18.3 21.8 33.3 27.0 26.5 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 26.4 27.0 25.0 24.1 25.6 20.7 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 10.8 16.9 19.2 33.2 23.0 37.5
C r e a t i n g b i k e l a n e s a n d p a t h s 2 8 . 52 3 . 31 5 . 82 0 . 52 2 . 31 8 . 1 Keeping building heights low 14.6 12.9 19.6 25.9 18.3 35.3 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 13.9 20.0 17.0 18.0 17.1 16.3
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 11.5 12.3 15.6 12.8 13.3 13.7
Years in San Mateo (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
503 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 24City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 14 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY AGE (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Ensuring adequate water supplies 46.0 58.1 63.3 67.2 64.5 68.6 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 50.2 58.3 42.8 40.4 36.9 42.4 M i n i m i z i n g p o l l u t i o n a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s 4 9 . 04 6 . 34 0 . 34 2 . 83 9 . 85 0 . 9 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 27.8 39.4 47.8 48.1 48.2 40.0 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 36.1 49.3 34.9 44.1 42.5 30.7 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 41.5 40.9 31.6 35.7 35.5 46.1 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 26.9 28.0 36.1 35.7 40.9 35.1 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 26.4 37.5 30.8 30.5 29.6 23.6 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 21.0 19.9 30.2 35.2 33.0 36.8 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 13.9 17.3 27.8 29.2 34.4 40.6 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 41.7 32.3 28.4 25.7 20.9 22.6
Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 21.7 19.6 19.1 27.5 37.9 32.8 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 27.1 22.4 22.7 30.7 20.7 30.3 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 16.0 12.3 22.7 28.2 34.0 31.5
C r e a t i n g b i k e l a n e s a n d p a t h s 1 3 . 92 1 . 82 1 . 43 2 . 02 4 . 21 7 . 2 Keeping building heights low 7.1 11.3 17.5 24.1 28.3 28.9 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 7.8 16.0 18.1 20.8 15.2 22.2
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 4.7 11.8 17.0 16.1 8.3 15.1
Age (QD1)
504 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 25City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 15 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY CHILD IN HSLD, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No English Spanish
Ensuring adequate water supplies 69.4 67.5 58.8 64.9 60.8 61.5 69.1 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 43.2 39.6 46.9 39.6 48.8 42.9 74.8 M i n i m i z i n g p o l l u t i o n a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s 4 4 . 43 9 . 14 4 . 64 3 . 84 5 . 04 3 . 05 7 . 2 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 46.9 44.4 41.5 39.4 43.9 42.9 42.5 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 39.1 39.0 40.6 31.9 43.4 39.4 49.6 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 38.2 34.8 40.3 46.1 37.1 38.5 48.7 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 32.2 27.1 33.5 35.5 32.4 33.2 43.6 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 26.5 26.0 32.5 26.4 33.1 29.6 46.8 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 34.2 33.1 26.3 34.1 26.3 29.2 28.4 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 29.4 25.1 27.0 39.2 22.8 28.2 27.0 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 28.8 28.7 27.6 25.9 28.5 27.5 31.2 P r e s e r v i n g t h e C i t y ’ s h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s a n d r e s o u r c e s 2 5 . 32 1 . 02 6 . 43 0 . 82 3 . 52 5 . 93 1 . 2 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 23.4 19.6 26.1 25.4 25.1 24.3 36.4 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 28.9 25.7 21.0 29.6 21.0 24.4 21.1
C r e a t i n g b i k e l a n e s a n d p a t h s 2 4 . 11 9 . 62 1 . 21 8 . 42 3 . 72 2 . 02 5 . 3 K e e p i n g b u i l d i n g h e i g h t s l o w 2 4 . 22 2 . 31 8 . 42 7 . 81 6 . 22 0 . 42 4 . 6 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 20.9 18.9 16.4 17.0 18.2 16.4 29.8
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 15.2 13.5 11.5 14.3 12.1 11.9 24.8
Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language
505 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 26City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 16 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
BUILDING HEIGHT & DENSITY TRADE-OFFS Concentrating new housing in taller, higher-density buildings downtown and near transit would allow more land in the City to be reserved for parks, recreation areas, and co mmunity amenities, and will minimize change to existing residential neighborhoods. Once appris ed of this trade-off, respondents were simply asked whether they would support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 12 stories. Those who did not support buildings up to 12 stories were subse- quently asked if they would support buildings up to eight stories. The answers to both questions are combined in Figure 11 on the next page.

When presented with the opportunity to reserve more land for parks, recreation areas, and com- munity amenities and minimize change to existing neighborhoods, 63% of San Mateo residents indicated they would support concentrating new housing in higher-density buildings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories. A higher percentage (68%) indicated they would support build- ings up to eight stories. In general, newer residents (less than 10 years), younger residents (under 35), those who anticipated living in the City 5 to 10 more years, those without a senior in the home, Caucasians, Asians, and those who co mpleted the survey in English were the most Caucasian
/ White
Asian
American
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Ensuring adequate water supplies 61.2 63.1 58.3 69.6 65.3 59.0 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 45.3 35.4 53.7 46.8 27.7 64.4 Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 44.6 40.0 44.9 49.3 43.6 44.9 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 43.2 44.2 40.2 37.5 49.9 36.4 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 41.1 40.5 38.3 41.0 40.1 41.0 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 38.7 38.5 40.7 42.2 38.8 40.6 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 37.9 29.1 28.4 47.8 35.7 31.7 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 33.5 25.2 28.3 42.1 29.9 32.3 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 27.8 30.4 26.7 30.4 33.4 25.1 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 28.3 29.9 23.2 34.8 32.8 23.4 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 29.8 18.9 28.8 45.2 22.3 33.1
Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 25.9 24.5 28.2 27.1 26.6 25.7 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 24.6 26.7 24.7 22.6 24.2 25.2 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 26.2 22.8 19.0 26.7 32.9 14.8
Creating bike lanes and paths 21.5 18.4 22.1 33.6 21.1 24.1 Keeping building heights low 20.5 20.7 19.0 18.9 28.0 12.8 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 18.9 16.3 17.5 13.3 18.5 16.8
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 8.4 14.1 13.5 27.6 15.4 10.5
Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status
(QD6)
506 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 27City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
supportive of concentratin g new housing in higher-density buildings up to eight stories down- town and near transit (see figures 12-14).

Question 9 Concentrating new housing in taller, higher-density buildings downtown and near transit would allow more land to be reserved for parks, recreation areas, and community ameni- ties, and will minimize change to existing residential neighborhoods. Knowing this, would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 12 stories.

Question 10 Would you support or oppose concentrating future housing in higher-density buildings up to 8 stories.

FIGURE 11 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS FIGURE 12 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS UP TO 8 STORIES BY YEARS IN

SAN MATEO & AGE

10.8 23.9

17.7 33.333.3

30.0 14.0

13.3 21.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Up to 12 stories Up to 8 stories
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly
oppose
Som ewhat
oppose
Som ewhat
support
Strongly
support
Strongly
support at 12
stories

33.3 34.0 33.6

23.1 27.6

10.6 7.5 9.7 7.4

8.9 27.3 24.6

17.9 29.4 22.2 23.0

32.2 7.7 6.6

19.8 16.4

19.6 9.8

11.2 14.9 11.8 15.3

12.3 8.7 13.3 23.5

6.1 14.9 17.1 16.7 22.2 19.7

24.5 52.1 46.2

31.4 22.0

46.9 7.1

13.3 6.2

10.9 25.2

22.2 19.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in S an Mateo (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Som ewhat support
Strongly support
Strongly support at
12 stories
507 of 955
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 28City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 13 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS UP TO 8 STORIES BY CHILD IN HSLD, ANTICIPATED YEARS IN SAN MATEO & ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD FIGURE 14 SUPPORT CONCENTRATING FUTURE HOUSING IN HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS UP TO 8 STORIES BY

ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE

23.4 22.3

39.2 9.1

7.5 12.0 12.0

10.6 25.4 19.7 26.5 25.9 27.6

23.1 14.0 9.6 12.5

16.9 9.3

12.5 15.4 16.1

11.6 20.3 19.7 14.5 16.9 10.5

20.4 22.9 21.0 14.3

31.232.135.733.530.3

48.7 11.7 10.6 13.711.5

23.0 21.1

24.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Yes, under 18 Yes, under 6 None Less than 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more Yes No Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Anticipated Years in San Mateo (QD8) Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5) % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
Strongly support at
12 stories

33.4 32.1

9.7 11.4

10.6 13.2

18.0 15.0

21.3 24.8

10.2 10.8 14.7

17.2 10.2

13.2 12.3 12.8

20.8 13.9 13.3 19.5 26.8 19.9 14.9 17.6

19.2 30.238.1 32.7 28.9 35.7 38.8

8.5 12.4

15.37.8 30.4 26.2

27.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Caucasian /
White
Asian American Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or other Own Rent English Spanish
Ethnicity (QD12) Home Ownership Status (QD6) Survey Language % Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Strongly oppose
Som ewhat oppose
Som ewhat support
Strongly support
Strongly support at
12 stories
508 of 955
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 46
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 25 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
Table 25 presents the key demographic information
collected during the survey. In additional to providing insights into how the results of the survey vary across demographic subgroups, the information is also used
to ensure that the survey sample matches the profile
of San Mateo’s adult population on key characteristics
based on the latest Census figures.
2022 2020
Total Respondents 775 1,276
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Less than 1 5.7 5.8
1 to 4 16.7 18.5
5 to 9 14.8 12.8
10 to 14 10.8 10.1
15 or more 51.9 52.4
Prefer not to answer 0.1 0.4
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 8.6 9.0
25 to 34 23.4 20.5
35 to 44 17.8 21.0
45 to 54 15.2 16.8
55 to 64 13.7 12.8
65 or older 16.8 15.7
Prefer not to answer 4.3 4.2
Child in Hsld (QD3,4)
Yes, under 18 28.6 34.3
Yes, under 6 11.8 16.5
None 67.1 60.5
Prefer not to answer 4.4 5.2
Adult Over 65 in Hsld (QD5)
Yes 29.2 32.1
No 66.2 63.0
Prefer not to answer 4.6 4.9
Home Ownership Status (QD6)
Own 49.5 56.7
Rent 45.8 40.1
Prefer not to answer 4.7 3.2
Home Type (QD7)
Single family 51.8 60.1
Townhome 7.5 8.4
Condo 10.9 9.6
Apartment 26.0 18.5
Prefer not to answer 3.9 3.3
Anticipated Years in San Mateo (QD8)
Less than 5 20.5 20.0
5 to 10 29.6 25.2
11 to 15 9.2 10.5
16 or more 32.1 33.7
Prefer not to answer 8.6 10.5
Employment Status (QD9)
Full-time 61.4 63.4
Part-time 5.8 5.3
Student 5.3 5.4
Homemaker 1.1 2.5
Retired 18.0 15.6
Between jobs 3.8 2.2
Prefer not to answer 4.6 5.5
Ethnicity (QD12)
Caucasian / White 39.2 39.8
Asian American 21.6 18.3
Latino / Hispanic 27.4 23.5
Mixed or other 7.3 10.4
Prefer not to answer 4.5 8.0
Gender
Male 47.8 45.2
Female 46.1 50.5
Not listed 0.2 0.6
Prefer not to answer 5.9 3.7
Study Year
509 of 955
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 47
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of San Mateo to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement erro r, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents who indicated they were interested in additional information from the City (Question 15) were subsequently asked to briefly describe their topics of interest (Question 16).

The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 50) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appro- priate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting the teleph one interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they ha ppen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled households. The inte grity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish to allow for data collection in English and Spanish according to the preference of the respondent.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of house- holds in the City of San Mateo was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in San Mateo had the opportunity to be selected for th e survey. After random selection, households were recruited to participate in the survey using a combination of mailed letters, email invita- tions, text invitations, and telephone calls to both land lines and mobile lines, as appropriate.

The mail, email, and text invitations contained a unique passcode so that only those invited could access the secure survey site, and they could complete the survey one-time only. Following a period of online data collection, True North re cruited by telephone to households that had yet to participate in the online survey in response to the mail, email, and/or text invitations, or for which only telephone contact information was available.

Telephone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve- nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 775 completed surveys were gathered online and by tele- phone between January 21 and February 2, 2022.
510 of 955
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 48City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 775 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 83,578 adult residents3 had been interviewed.

Figure 39 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the al ternative response. For this survey, the maxi- mum margin of error is ± 3.5% for questions answered by all 775 respondents.

FIGURE 39 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of th e respondent. Figure 39 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and ethnicity according to Census estimates.

3. US Census Bureau estimate, April 2020.
775 Respondents
± 3.5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
511 of 955
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 49City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when co mparing tables and charts for a given question.

Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that add to more than or less than 100%.
512 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 40 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

Appendix H-F
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, POP UPS AND INTERCEPTS – FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC DURING POPUP OUTREACH EVENTS AND SURVEYS DISTRIBUTE D IN PERSON.

513 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

1 The results of an “Housing Element Update Intercept Survey” conducted by City of San Mateo staff and they City’s consultants and community partners during the Fall of 2021 are presented here. 156 surveys were completed in person by community members. Intercept locations were selected in consultation with community outreach partners at Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, following City Council direction to proactively reach out to communities not traditionally well represented in online surveys. These included:
• Harvest Festival at King Park, Saturday, October 16: 93 Responses • Central Park Storytime in the park, Wednesday, October 27: 4 Responses • Mi Rancho Market in North Central, Friday, October 29: 26 Responses • Chavez Market in Shoreview, Thursday, November 18: 25 Responses • Macedonia Food Distribution, Various Tuesdays October to December: 8 Responses Please note that multiple choice subject-related questions (questions 5 and 7) are present first, followed by open ended questions (questions 6 and 8), and demographic responses (questions 1-4) are included at the end of this document. 39 email addresses were collected in response to Question 8 and were added to the City’s project mailing list. The individual email addresses have been removed from these published survey results.

Question 5: Given that there is limited land available, what do you think are best strategies to manage production of new housing? (Please select up to three)

Summary: To manage the production of housing overall, there was notable interest in in redeveloping existing properties that have potential for more housing (45%), creating accessory units on existing single-family properties (22%), and encouraging mixed-use projects that have both commercial and residential uses (21%).

The twelve individual responses are included below. They ranged from “redevelop around 280” to “create jobs outside of Bay Area.”

514 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

2 Redeveloping existing properties that have potential for more housing. 70 45% Create accessory units on existing single-family properties. 35 22% Convert existing single-family houses into duplexes. 25 16% Increase the allowable density in areas that are close to transit 27 17% Encourage mixed-use projects that have both commercial and residential uses 33 21%
Allow taller developments if they include open space 25 16% Other 13 8%

Individual Responses for other:
• ADU Building Plan
• More Golf Courses
• create housing for people who don’t have a place to live (cuear vivienda para personas que no tienen donde vivier)
• access to parking lower rents
• redevelop around 280
• create jobs outside of Bay Area)
• fair price (precio justo)
• stop building
• infrastructure development
• rent control
• more construction, more people, San Mateo could be a new SF (mas construccion mas gente San Mateo podra ser un nuevo SF)
• more housing means more traffic, more garbage, less parking (mas vivienda es mas traffico mas basura menos estacionamiento)

515 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

3 Question 7: What do you think are the best ways to address housing affordability? (Please select up to three)
Summary: To address housing affordability, there was substantial interest in financial assistance programs for people who cannot afford housing, such as subsidized rent and down payment loans (47%), and public funding to construct new housing (26%). The eleven individual responses are included below. Some comments included: “Include up-scale neighborhoods in zoning changes” and “Always include preferences for people w/ developmental disabilities + others.”

Financial assistance programs for people who cannot afford housing, such as subsidized rent and down payment loans 73 47%
Public funding to construct new housing 41 26%
Incentives for developers to build more affordable housing 28 18% Encourage conversion of single-family units to duplexes in single-family neighborhoods 17 11%
Financial assistance to homeowners to add accessory dwelling units 28 18% Streamline residential approval process 14 9%
Locate affordable housing near transit and jobs 29 19%
Develop programs that help people experiencing homelessness find permanent housing 33 21%
Other 15 10%

Individual Responses for other:
• More Golf Courses
• Remove Height Limit
• Always include preferences for people w/ developmental disabilities + others • Include up-scale neighborhoods in zoning changes
• no more big companies
• reduce interest rates for housing
• address prop owner gouging. Its shear greed. Its inherently wrong • find another solution for companies to grow in central valley 516 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

4 • they really need them (que en realidad las necesiten) • federal level should help
• increase wages and control rents (aumentar los sueldos y controlar la renta) Question 6: how does the current housing situation in San Mateo affect you or people you know? Summary: 104 community members shared how the current housing situation in San Mateo is affecting them or people they know. A number of recurring themes could be extracted from these responses, including: high cost of housing in general, the cost of housing’s impact on types of individuals (child care workers, adult children, older adults), inability to purchase a home due to cost, self or others moving away due to price, traffic, and difficulty commuting. Select responses include: “I have to move b/c its getting too expensive, I will move away from County to an in-law unit with relatives in Marin” and “I'm homeless, I sleep on street behind the gas station. I can't afford rent, I can hardly get food.”
• Middle class families are being priced out. Our working class commutes too far • People are losing homes because of rates going up
• Traffic is out of control on Hillsdale. Infrastructure needs to keep up with any housing increases • Less parking, getting crowded
• Price is too high
• Impact to commute/loss of productivity
• I have family in need
• price
• the price so high
• Rent is expensive for ppl who aren't low income, but not high income • Hard to buy their first home
• Housing is too expensive
• we are homeowners worried about traffic
• expensive
• I have friends who find it difficult to commute to school from where they live • we live in the densest neighborhood. We don't mind the density but there are too many cars • traffic + parking in dense areas are painful
• too expensive
• too expensive to live
• my sisters left
• feels like I will never be able to afford to own a house • discourages people from moving here
517 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

5 • not enough housing available leads to high prices
• rent increase, tough to buy a home
• childcare providers had to move away - sad for our family • I live in a BMR
• it affects my ability to buy a home
• more affordable rent
• high rent - constant increases for friends who rent
• more el Camino traffic
• limited housing options and affordability
• rent
• young adults can't afford to live here. Limited housing for people w/ developmental and other disabilities. Housing need for extremely low income + homeless • our friends keep moving away because of the cost of living here • lack of local housing increases commute traffic. Homelessness is a real problem • things are too expensive
• hard to buy or upgrade homes as it is too expensive
• multiple adults in households near me have more cars than fit in their own space • traffic so much traffic
• crowded street parking
• we just bought a home. Many neighbors would not be able to afford living where they do if they had to buy now. I fear a progressive gentrification of the area over the years • A friend of mine living in North Central slept on the couch for years due to lack of housing/high rents prompting overcrowding. I personal can't afford living here. • many of our neighbors will not be able to keep their houses at their age. People who do not work for apple, google, etc cannot buy or pay taxes on property (our family works for big tech) • people have to move away
• no space makes it hard for parking at times
• it inflates my home value artificially
• there is no affordable housing (no hay vivienda accesible) • housing has become very expensive in San Mateo pushing families to more out of the area even out of state - working in making more affordable
• we can not afford to rent or think about buying. Way too expensive • Getting evicted after 16 years of living here in South City • Cost is too high (costo mul alto)
518 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

6 • Housing price is too high, I had to move to Alameda (el precio de vivienda es demasido alto tuve que movendo a Alameda)
• housing is too expensive (vivienda muy cara)
• high cost of housing (alto de vivienda)
• high cost of housing (alto costo de vivienda)
• we had to leave San Mateo because of the high cost of housing (tuvimos que irnos de San Mateo por el alto costo de vivienda)
• paying rent (pagando renta)
• high cost of housing (alto costo de vivienda)
• having two jobs to make ends meet, sometimes you struggle to pay rent (tener dos trabajos para poder sobrevivier a veces se batalla para pagar renta)
• it’s hard when one's rent is too expensive (es dificil si uno renta es muy caro) • high cost alone (alto costo solomente)
• financially (economicamente)
• high cost of housing (alto costo de vivienda)
• paying rent (pagando renta)
• housing is too expensive (vivienda muy cara)
• had to leave San Mateo because it is too expensive (tuvo que irse de San Mateo pq muy caro) • it’s hard to get a place to live (es dificil para conseguir un luger donde vivir) • it’s very expensive and difficult to afford an apartment (es muy caro y dificil para poder tene un apart) • the apartment is affordable (es accisble el apartamento) • very expensive housing, if there were affordable housing (muy cra la vivienda hubiera viviendos economicas)
• I know my children don't want to come back to live because they can't afford it • parking - no Humbolt - no parking on the street please don't remove it (estacianamient - no hay Humbolt - quiten esta cianamento en la calle por favor no lo quiten) • expensive rent - had to move to another place, used to live here but not now (cara la renta - se tuvo que mundar a otro lugar antes vivia aqui pero anora no) • prices are going way too high wants to buy a house someday • parking
• I'm homeless but I'm a Veteran & I have a Homeless Vet Voucher getting it on Nov 10th. $2,350/mo & my portion < 200/mo
• its getting overcrowded
• personally I need housing, especially for seniors (personalmente necesito vivienda, especialmente para mayores de edad)
519 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

7 • its expensive
• no one can afford it here our child can't live here w/o 2 jobs. Its too expensive takes too long to make a down payment
• leave to move (mover a mudo)
• expensive - high rent (caro - alta la renta)
• too many people, no new roads. Stop packing more people into san mateo • yards dirty, not kept clean, smoking, people smoking and leaving trash everywhere, no clean up services (yards dirty, no mantienen limpios, fumar, people smoking and leaving trash everywhere, no services for cleaning up)
• difficulty in affordability
• very expensive houses, everything very expensive, and it’s getting more and more expensive (muy caras las casas todo muy caro y cada vez mas caro)
• too crowded
• high property prices/living expenses
• everything expensive, 1 room $1,200 - $1,500 per month. They do not accept more than 1-2 people in the apartment. I have had to move several times. Immigrants have responsibilities in other countries – it’s very hard to make ends meet. (todo caro, 1 cuarto 1200-1500 por mes. No aceptetan tener mas de 1-2 personas en el departamento. Me he tenido que mudar varias vecez. Personas immigrantes tienen responsabilidades en orthos paises - es muy dificil "making ends meet".) • I'm homeless, I sleep on street behind the gas station. I can't afford rent, I can hardly get food. • too expensive - no matter what
• house value has gone up. Homeowner. has not had any negative affects related to housing • make houses cheaper, paying is difficult, if I don't work one day, then I can't pay the rent. (hacer mas baratas las casas pagar es dificil si no trabajo un dia, entonces no puedo pagar la renta) • the rent is too much (la renta es mucho)
• I am retired and I am going to have to move to Rosedale because I cannot afford to pay rent after 60 years of living in San Mateo. I would prefer to stay here if I could. Building more and more condos does not actually solve the ousing problem for people that live here. building more condos only helps the City collect more property taxes and makes San Mateo crowded • I have to move b/c its getting too expensive, I will move away from County to an in-law unit with relatives in Marin. My rent went from 2600 to 2956 despite covid. The cost of housing is taking all of my savings.
• it doesn't affect me because I earn good money and my rent is comfortable (no afeta porque gono bien y elquile bien)
• very high rents (rentas muy altas)
520 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

8 • friends and family have moved out of San Mateo because they can't afford to pay rent (amigos y familiares se han movido fuera de San Mateo por ne poder pugar la renta) • hard to pay rent because it is so high (dificil pagar renta por es alta) • families are leaving to live further away and coming back to work here, very big economic impact (families se estan saliendo a vivir mas lejos y regresan a trabajar aqui impacto economico muy grande)
• can't afford it, not enough "low income" housing if so no pets allowed • the high cost has affected my whole family, in addition to the job loss due to COVID, it is terrible not being able to live in this city. (el alto costa ha afectado a toda mi familia, ademas de la perdida de trabajo por COVID, es terrible no poder vivir en esta ciudad) • I moved out of my neighborhood due to high cost of housing, it impacted my family's emotional and financial well being. (me movi de vencindario por alto costo de vivienda, impacto el benestar emocional y economico de mi familia)
Question 7: Are there any other thoughts about housing you would like to share? Summary: 44 community members shared additional comments. Several recurring themes could be extracted from these responses, including: the high cost of housing in general, an interest in additional development to house more people, rental housing assistance, and traffic concerns. Select responses include: “We love that we have many kinds of neighbors, socio-economically. We hope that can continue,” “we should all have housing (que todos teugamos vivienda),” and “allow higher buildings (permitendo edificios mas altos).” • improve traffic flow through dense areas
• more golf courses
• taller buildings mean more housing without compromising single fmaily neighborhoods • build more
• more affordable BMRS
• build awareness about housing how to navigate services. Its confusing. Integrate behavioral developmental services w/ housing services
• more affordable housing
• housing needs to be more affordable for first time buyers + middle class families • do not assume residents will use transit only to justify reducing requirements for parking spaces on site • so expensive so many people in dwellings. Makes parking difficult • affordable housing should be a priority for anything new • we need to up-zone all neighborhoods and create a citywide affordable housing overlay • we love that we have many kinds of neighbors, socio-economically. We hope that can continue 521 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

9 • bigger = better
• more affordable housing opportunities (renters)
• thank you for helping the people who need this
• building more means more parking problems (edificando mas es mal problema de estaonamiente) • we should all have housing (que todos teugamos vivienda) • low income families don't have housing and others don't, and there are families that don't need it, they have affordable housing (familias de bajos recursos no tenea vivienda y otros no y hay familias que no lo necesitan tiuenen vivienda asequible)
• the population is growing, there should be more housing for everyone. (la poblacion esta creciendo, debe de haber vivienda mas para todos)
• more affordable rent (renta mas accesible)
• rental housing assistance is needed (se necesita ayuda para alquilar vivienda) • too many requirements to access housing programs, not a good experience. (demasiodos requisitos para access programas de vivienda no bueno experiencia) • it needs to early childcare so kids don't grow up poor. I don't want property values to go down • parking - biggest issue. No parking in neighborhoods
• Nothing (nada)
• some kind of legislation should be passed to limit landowners greed. These are people who inherited property - they are lucky
• no use of protective lands
• lots of construction but very expensive. Living only on retirement money and I have no affordable housing. (much construccion pero muy cura. Vivir solo con el dinero del retiro y no tengo vivienda accesible)
• my 20 year old w/a degree can't buy a house here. Traffic is crazy its too expensive • lower the rental prices (bajer los precios de elquiler) • offer a chance to [find?] a house and buy it. (que den una oportunidad para ogoura una casa y comprale)
• stop the building. Theres no more room.
• increase salaries, don’t increase the costs (aumentar el salario, no aumenter los costos) • more affordable housing I have two daughters who can't buy houses • wish we can make it more affordable. Lower rent please • make it easier for people like me to get housing
• stop building in our neighborhood where we cannot afford to pay rent - need rent control • allow higher buildings (permitendo edificios mas altos) 522 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

10 • 2 stories are bad b/c leggs are hurt. I only need a place that is safe, close, and affordable. More density lowers price & increases safety
• increase wages and not allow landlords to charge more than the minimum wage. (aumentando los sueldos y que los propietarios no puedan cobrar mas que el salario munimo) • maybe a way where younger generaltion can afford houses/apartments • please help us stay in this city. (por favor, ayudamos a permaneer en esta ciudad) Demographic data:

22% 23% 22%
18% 15%
3%
18%
53%
20%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0-20 20-35 35-50 50-65 65+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark
% of Intercept Survey Responses
0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
0%
25%
3%
46%
7%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Intercept Survey Responses 62%
7%
14%
7% 6% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
94401 94402 94403 94404 94010 Other
Zip Code
% of Event
57%
22%
0% 3%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Connection to City - % Surveyed*
523 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 Appendix H-F
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS – FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT SURVEY HOSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE.

524 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

1 This is a summary report of the results of the “Housing Needs in San Mateo – Housing Element 2023-31” online survey conducted by the City between October 11, 2021 and January 16, 2022. A total of 594 surveys were completed online by community members.

Survey outreach and promotion methods included:
• Direct emails by city to Housing Element interest list • City-wide eblasts
• Facebook promotion
• Announcements at public meetings
• Print mailer sent citywide
One of the major impacts of the COVID pandemic has been the barriers for community members to meet in- person and share viewpoints. This survey is one of many tools that was used to solicit opinions from the community since summer of 2021. Other forms of community engagement were conducted and information about these efforts will be made available on the Housing Element website. This survey was not designed to meet the standards to be considered scientifically significant, but rather to be a convenient way to gather comments since it is short and easily accessible to people with access to the internet. It has limitations in that there is little background information to provide context to complex issues, and short responses may not fully provide the perspectives intended by the participants, and it is not as accessible for those who do not have access to a computer or who are not comfortable using this technology.

The information in this report should be considered with a similar weight as other qualitative forms of feedback that have always been part of the city’s decision-making process, such as comments made at City Council meeting or emails sent to the city expressing an opinion. Generally speaking, the respondents were more represented by older, white, and homeowners as compared to the City’s population at large.

This report includes three sections:
• Section I R esults for survey responses (Questions 1-7) • Section II D emographic breakdown of those who completed the survey • Section III All open-ended responses provided by those who completed the survey (296 responses for Question 7, and 450 responses for those completing the “Other” option for Questions 2-6)

525 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

2 SECTION I
OVERALL RESULTS FOR SURVEY RESPONSES (QUESTIONS 1-7)
Question 1: How important do you think these housing-related challenges are in San Mateo? When asked to rank how important various housing-related challenges were, two options received the most support: “Service workers’ salaries cannot support existing rents in San Mateo” and “Service workers, teachers, first responders, and small business owners are moving out of San Mateo.” Seven responses were ranked in the middle tier of importance relative to the other options. Challenges in the middle tier included concerns about lack of variety of housing types, overcrowding, difficulty retaining employees, not enough transit options, options for seniors, concerns about traffic, and young people who cannot afford to live here.

Responses that were ranked with the least amount of importance relative to other options included: “The move-in costs are too high to rent a unit in San Mateo,” “Growing families can’t afford larger homes,” and “Concerns about environmental impacts of new housing.”
526 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

3 527 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

4 Question 2: As the economy and population grow and change, more housing must be produced to accommodate this growth. Where are the best locations to place more housing? (Pick your top three)

Key priorities from multiple choice options

Regarding the best location to place additional housing, community members identified two ideas more than others. About 53-54% of community members identified “New housing should be walkable/bikeable to shops and services,” and “New housing should be concentrated near public transit” as one of their top three choices.

Three ideas received the next-highest level of support. About 33-38% identified “New housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic,” “New housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the city,” and “New housing should be located where it will have the least impact on the environment overall” as one of their top three choices.

Open-ended responses for “Other”

Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 73 responses are included in Section III.

528 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

5 The most common response themes included:
• New housing should be located in high opportunity areas • New housing is not needed or not desired

Common responses:
• Locate new housing to create mixed-use
• Locate new housing in Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas • Increase density throughout the city
• Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
• Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built • Prioritize single family housing

Some responses:
• Create new public housing authority-developed units
• Regional solutions: new office developments should be built outside of San Mateo to change the jobs- housing balance
• Regional solutions: new housing should be built outside of San Mateo or that people should leave San Mateo

Others noted:
• Vacant lots should be incentivized for (re)development

Select responses:
• “New housing should be located in all parts of the city. It does not need to be evenly spread. But we should plan for all parts to contribute.”
• “There shouldn't be more housing until the infrastructure can support it” • “Locate along the Caltrain corridor, like redeveloping the Caltrain parking lots for the downtown train station”
529 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

6 Question 3: Given that there is limited land available, what do you think are the best strategies to manage production of new housing? (Pick your top three)

Key priorities from multiple choice options

Regarding the best strategies to manage production of new housing, three ideas received the highest level of support. About 46-51% of community members identified “Encourage mixed-use projects that have both commercial and residential uses” (51%), “Create housing by redeveloping existing properties that have additional potential” (49%), and “Increase allowable density in areas that are close to transit” (46%) as one of their top three choices. One idea received the next-highest level of support. About 33% identified “Allow taller developments if they include open space” as one of their top three choices.

Open-ended responses for “Other”

Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 102 responses are included in Section III.

The most common response themes included:
• Increase density throughout the city
530 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

7 • New housing is not needed or not desired
• Prioritize single family housing

Common responses:
• Locate new housing in Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas Create mixed use areas
• Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built • Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments

Some responses:
• Regional solutions: new office developments should be built outside of San Mateo to change the jobs- housing balance
• Rezone older commercial and retail to housing or mixed-use • Regional solutions: new housing should be built outside of San Mateo or that people should leave San Mateo

Others noted:
• Create new public housing authority-developed units
• Vacant lots should be incentivized for (re)development

Select responses:
• “The best place to locate more housing depends on the housing. Inclusionary housing should be located near transit, shops, parks etc. [Market] rate [housing] can be located anywhere" • “Increase density in all areas. but also increase transportation options. Increase parks and open space.” • “Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. Wage" 531 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

8 Question 4: What types of housing do you think should be prioritized? (Pick your top three)

Key priorities from multiple choice options

Regarding what types of housing should be prioritized, one response received the more support than the others. About 52% of community members identified “Smaller units that are less expensive to live in” as one of their top three choices. A group of three ideas received the next-highest level of support. About 36-37% identified “Larger units for families with children and/or multiple generations,” “Rental units,” and “Ownership units” as one of their top three choices.

Open-ended responses for “Other”

Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 73 responses are included in Section III.

The most common response themes included:
• Support for building housing in general
• Prioritize affordable housing, require affordable housing, or establish mandatory inclusionary zoning 532 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

9 • Prioritize senior housing

Common responses:
• Strengthen rent regulations
• Establish rent control
• Desire for environmentally sustainable buildings
• Increase density throughout the city
• Prioritize single family housing
• New housing is not needed or not desired
• Prioritize "missing middle" housing

Some responses:
• Create mixed-use areas

Others noted:
• Establish linkage fees: new office developments should pay for new housing or new office developments should build housing onsite/nearby

Select responses:
• “Residential units above commercial property near El Camino” • “Preserve single family neighborhoods”
• “Truly affordable housing. Much of affordable housing is not affordable”

533 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

10 Question 5: What do you think are the best ways to address housing affordability? (Pick your top three)

Key priorities from multiple choice options

Regarding the best ways to address housing affordability, three responses received the most support. About 40-44% of community members identified “Incentives for private developers to build more affordable housing” (44%), “Locate affordable housing near transit and jobs” (42%), and “Financial assistance for people who cannot afford housing, such as subsidized rent and down payment loans” (40%) as one of their top three choices. Two ideas received the next-highest level of support. About 30-31% identified “Public funding to construct new housing” and “Streamline residential construction” as one of their top three choices.

Open-ended responses for “Other”

Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 113 responses are included in Section III.

534 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

11 The most common response themes included:
• Strengthen rent regulations or establish rent control • Streamline regulations: reduce height, density, parking, or other regulations

Common responses:
• Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
• Increase density generally and increase density most in transit-rich areas (TOD) • The city should not take steps to address affordability • Let the market decide or less regulation would be better • New housing is not needed or not desired

Some responses:
• Regional solutions: new housing should be built outside of San Mateo or that people should leave San Mateo
• Build for diverse incomes
• Create new public housing authority-developed units
• Linkage: New office developments should pay for new housing or new office developments should build housing onsite/nearby

Others noted:
• Financial literacy training for low-income households

Select responses:
• "Repeal Prop 13"
• “Continue building single family homes so the existing SFH don't keep raising in price. Not everyone wants to live in a box without a yard/privacy.”
• "Remove the barriers to building housing of any kind. Height limits, too much emphasis on wants of existing property owners."

535 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

12 Question 6: What do you think are the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of San Mateo, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past? (Pick up to three)

Key priorities from multiple choice options

Regarding the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of San Mateo, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past, two responses received the most support. About 51% of community members identified “Ensure affordable housing opportunities are created throughout the entire city” and “Improve infrastructure, transit and services in underserved neighborhoods” as one of their top three choices. One idea received the next-highest level of support. About 37% identified “Target outreach for new affordable housing to underserved groups” as one of their top three choices.

Open-ended responses for “Other”

536 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

13 Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 81 responses are included in Section III.

The most common response themes included:
• More housing equals more opportunity, focus on expanding supply

Common responses:
• Let the market decide, less regulation would be better • Strengthen rent regulations or establish rent control

Some responses:
• Special programs for educators, first responders, or service workers • Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
• Prioritize housing for people with disabilities
• Increasing wages should be a priority way to expand fair access • Investing in transit expands fair access

Others noted:
• Concern about overcrowding
• Pay people to move away
• Rent to own opportunities
• Loan and remodel support
• Existing residents or workers should be prioritized
• Strengthen enforcement of Fair Housing policies
• End single family zoning
• Prioritize more starter homes

Select responses:
• "We need a reality check, it should NOT require dual income to rent an apartment. I work in tech but if I didn't have reasonable rent even I can't afford to live in San Mateo" • "Allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods" 537 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

14 Question 7: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about housing needs in San Mateo?

Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 296 responses are included in Section III.

The most common response themes included:
• Housing is a priority issue: use whatever means are available to substantially increase supply • Improve public transportation and make walking and biking safer, this is also better for the environment
• Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built, with particular emphasis on traffic congestion, roads, parking, and water
• Locate new housing in Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas • New housing is not needed or not desired

Common responses:
• Concern for the needs of seniors and senior housing
• Housing is a crisis-level issue and requires the highest level of response • Increase density throughout many parts of the city
• Increase density in single family housing areas
• Prioritize single family housing
• Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
• First time buyer supports
• Let the market decide, less regulation would be better • Linkage: New office developments should pay for new housing or new office developments should build housing onsite/nearby
• Prioritize affordability
• Prioritize deeply affordable housing
• Prioritize renters
• Special programs for educators, first responders, or service workers, or long-term residents • Streamline regulations: reduce height, density, parking, or other regulations • Strengthen rent regulations in general and establish rent control and a rental registry

538 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

15 Some responses:
• Integrate neighborhoods, address existing segregation • Concern for school funding
• Coordinate regionally
• Create an affordable loan for single family homeowners to build additional units on their property • Ensure sufficient open space for more dense housing
• Find ways to limit developer profits
• Prioritize sustainability
• Vacant lots should be incentivized for (re)development

Others noted:
• Fight Sacramento housing mandates
• Prop 13 is the problem
• Retain beauty and historical character
• Support for ADUs and “Missing Middle”
• Dislike of ADUs

Select responses:
• "San Mateo is a beautiful, beautiful place, I would like to buy a small house and grow old here to see the sunsets”
• “Forcing residents to live in more crowded conditions by increasing density throughout the city and converting homes to multiple housing units or converting single-family zoning to multi-unit zoning might get more people into the city, but it won't be a place I want to live.” • “Rent is now 150% more expensive than when I first moved to San Mateo, and the cost of housing is a primary reason I haven't chosen to start a family here. Even buying a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for dual-income couple with no kids.”
• “Current home owners act as a rent seeking cartel, discouraging any change despite the negative externalities this imposes on everyone else. This is ethically dubious and should be discouraged or penalized.”
• “Single family home type zoning laws are a huge issue, especially for large lot sizes. Everyone who already owns a home thinks that a new neighbors home is a ‘development’ (negative connotation), but not his/her existing home. We need to educate existing home owners about how the homelessness crisis is related to decrease in affordable housing which is caused by scarcity of housing in the area.” 539 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

16 • “Please do not create another Bay Meadows-type situation, where their community is built to further house and serve privilege... Stop prioritizing non-affordable ‘luxury’ rental housing for high-wage tech workers.”
• “As someone who has lived in San Mateo since 1963 and in my single-family home since 1966, I want my neighborhood to stay the same until I die.”
• "Apply the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, by evaluating the respective underlying targets and their applicability to San Mateo's development."

540 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

17 SECTION II
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (QUESTIONS 8-15)

0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
0%
16%
2% 7%
15%
60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
27%
17%
15%
13%
12%
15%
1%
11%
25%
23%
19%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0-25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
54%
0%
46%
64%
8%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Owner Occupied Other Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
60%
3%
33%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Live Here Work Here Live and Work
Here
Other
Connection to City - % of Survey
Responses*
541 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

18 2.6 2.8
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 People in Household
Household Size
% of Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
542 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

19 SECTION III
ALL OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES FROM QUESTION 7, AND THOSE COMPLETING THE “OTHER” OPTION FOR QUESTIONS 2-6
Question 2: As the economy and population grow and change, more housing must be produced to accommodate this growth. Where are the best locations to place more housing? Other (81 Responses):
• TOD high rise
• affordable housing should be concentrated near public transit. market housing doesn't have to be and we need both
• New housing should FIRST be supported by infrastructure! And laws about tearing down single-family dwellings to crowd multi-family units on property are GARBAGE. • only downtown, not in established neighborhoods
• More housing is not a must, new housing is not needed. • There is plenty of housing already and not enough infrastructure to maintain what we currently have.

As a native of the area, it is hard to see how additional housing can benefit the area. Parking and traffic are horrendous already. Stop building!
• Too much dense housing and not enough schools, parks and grocery stores! • New housing SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE, above all.
• new housing should be built after there is enough water and electricity to support them • NOT in single family neighborhoods
• use of public lands to lower cost of site development • As a 20yr resident who was force out by dramatic rent increase, please don't restrict affordable housing to only specific areas. All people regardless of low income need to decide where they would prefer to live
• NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it • New housing should be built in on vacant land
• Infrastructure should support any growth (roads, water, power grid, etc) • The best place to locate more housing depends on the housing. Inclusionary housing should be located near transit, shops, parks etc. Mkt rate hsng can be located anywhere • SAN MATEO DOES NOT NEED OR WAN T MORE HOUSING!!wE ARE TOO CROWDED AS IT IS!! THE PEOPLE OF SAN MATEO DO NOT WANT MORE APARTMENT CONDOS. GO TO OAKLAND AND BUILD IT THEREIF YOU MUST. NO MORE BUILDING HOUSING IN SAN MATEO!!THE PEOPLE SPEAK!! • The forgotten poor - under $40,000 income - need housing more than any other group 543 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

20 • We have NO Water!
• NO MORE MARKET RATE APPROVALS. NONE OF WHICH HAS LOWERED HOUSING PRICES IN THE BAY AREA. THE FACT IS THERE IS PLENTY OF FOR SALE/RENT MARKET RATE HOUSING AVAILABLE IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND THE PENINSULA. APPROVALS ONLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. • Minimize population growth to minimize new housing.
• locate along the Caltrain corridor, like redeveloping the Caltrain parking lots for the downtown train station
• Don't impact existing neighborhoods!
• Infrastructure needs to be addressed before housing. Your building bigger at any cost is stripping San Mateo of those characteristics which made it such an appealing place to live. • Preferably - No New Housing!!! - Getting too crowded. • The affordable housing push simply perpetuates the problem of unaffordable housing. We have a demand problem. Housing costs prevent people from moving here which flattens demand which starts leveling out the market. Not what people want to hear
• New housing must not diminish access to resources of existing citizens (ie, water, transportation, worsening traffic, public safety, etc.)
• some new housing everywhere but more dense & focused around transit & walkable areas • Corner blocks should be converted to 6-8 unit 2 story apt bldg • New housing should be everywhere...transit and shops and services can follow. Just get housing built. • No matter where new housing is located it will impact traffic and resources we are running out of. • Spread out. It's been a terrible assumption that more housing on the train line is good. Less and less people are taking Caltrain. Spread out!!
• New housing cannot happen without a serious investment in public transit options. • Minimize new housing, especially low income housing
• Downtown
• New housing located under a stable Infrastructure (water/trash/power/gas/emergency services/air quality/ green zones/pedestrian paths/bike lanes/traffic/disaster plans) before development begins. • It is a proven fact that too many rats in the cage causes death, disease and damage. California is a large state, with plenty of area for growth. San Mateo is already too crowded. These numbers are dangerous already.
• New housing should be developed based on the best profit from it to get the country back to the capitalism, where everything was great.
• No more housing
• Not in San Mateo
544 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

21 • Rezoned retail parcels should have the bulk of the new housing units. Retail will shrink permanently and there will be surplus.
• There really shouldn't be any "new" housing. Convert existing housing to low cost housing. • Zoning should allow retail and grocery and other walkable services in current residential only neighborhoods
• Since the development of the race track area that us located near Whole Foods and the train, there are still too many cars. Infrastructures first as well as transportation. 101 is a nightmare and people don't move in without cars. Train only goes N/S.
• With limited land, companies should move out of cities and build housing for their employees • [Nice] housing should be available to individuals who add to the local economy • I don't agree with the premise. This is not a fact but a viewpoint. Most economist wouldn't agree • It should NOT be in misc. small vacant lots that add more traffic and block the coming/goings of existing neighborhoods. What about schools? Will there be new schools to accommodate more population???
• Occupy old business centers
• These choices are too either/or. Assumes there is adequate public transit. Explain who determines level of growth & who benefits from it.
• New housing should serve the people that will live in the housing. • Stop allowing commercial development without the proponent thereof adding housing for the new jobs created.
• New housing should be limited. San Mateo is suburban community and appears to be mostly built out.
• new housing should be located in all parts of the city. It does not need to be evenly spread. But we should plan for all parts to contribute.
• If you can not afford San Mateo there are plenty of other places to live. NO NEW OR LOW INCOME HOUSONG!
• New housing should consider infrastructure issues like water, sewage, utility usage to not strain our current levels.
• Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage • New housing might be built by non-Profit entities to make them affordable • Build public transit necessary so all housing locations are accessible to public transit • New housing has not solved the affordability issues so far in spite of thousands of units added over the past decade. How will this be different?
• Away from existing homes, unwanted land, no new housing, no new growth 545 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

22 • New housing should be repurpose duplex to 5 units into more dense housing (Affordable housing % = City Affordable% + retaining existing affordable units) • it depends :)
• More market rate housing is unnecessary. Stop the madness. You can't have it both ways with tech AND affordable housing. Let's get real and stop ruining our region in a game we can't win. • housing should NOT upset current seniors
• The mad dash in the past 10 years, Bay Area-wide, to create jobs, has contributed *greatly* to lack of housing and high costs. The equally mad dash to build a million more housing units as a result is equally crazy. Put the brakes on both -- please!!!
• New housing should replace older, low-use commercial buildings. • This is a flawed question--we DO NOT have to accommodate growth, just tell people we are full, go live some place else
• not in San Mateo
• New housing should not impact present residents of San Mateo negatively. It is known that overpopulation is detrimental to the health and safety of all its residents • we don’t need more here / move to areas of less density • AFFORDABLE HOUSING not just market rate
• I don't want new housing, I want to make the housing that is available more accessible. • New housing should be located in areas that already have low density residential development. • There shouldn't be more housing until the infrastructure can support it • With all these apartment complexes sprouting up, there should be 15 percent of them designated for “working family” incomes, and 10% small studios that can house very low wage workers. It is better to mix income levels in communities.
• Only in business and commercial areas
• New housing should be spread evenly across the city North-South in transit corridors • New housing should be concentrated in low density neighborhoods • New housing doesn't need to be evenly spread, but all parts of the city need new housing • New housing should include duplexes and quadplexes in residential neighborhoods and support distributed access to school sites across the city

Question 3: Given that there is limited land available, what do you think are the best strategies to manage production of new housing? Other (102 Responses):
• Allow very high density for sale housing (tall buildings) downtown, near transit 546 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

23 • People live where they live for a reason. Turning single family homes into multi-family dwellings ruins the character of a neighborhood. And I mean that NO MATTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. • If there is no available land, then maybe we are at capacity and should look to stop landlords from charging so much for rent.
• It's not given, no new housing needed
• I don't agree there needs to be new/additional housing. • How about updating original parts of San Mateo with parks, fix buckled roads and clean the disgusting sidewalks. Too much focus on building new, when the existing needs maintenance. • Preserve single family neighborhoods
• Allow for a higher percentage of units at one complex to be below market rate. • No More high Density projects
• Increasing better 24 hour public transit to SFO The airport runs 24 hours but SM transit doesn't, also with more housing there needs to be equal amounts of public park space cause most apartments do not provide any outdoor space
• NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it • Most of these option may are horrible for current home owners. #1 talk about issues are traffic, parking, and congestion.
• Build in any remote parts of the county/peninsula
• The options presented are false choices. State law already allows most of them • NO MORE HOUSING BUILT IN SAN MATEO!! WE ARE DENSE ENOUGH!! THE PEOPLE OF SAN MATEO DO NOT WANT MORE 5 STORY HOUSING AND WE DO NOT WANT OUR TAX DOLLARS GOING TO SUPPORT IT!! WE HATE THE 5 STORY APARTMENTS THE CITY IS THROWING UP!! • residential over retail, or residential along train corridor. DO NOT impact existing family neighborhoods!!
• No more building here. There are too many people. My brother moved to Marin county because we are too populated here. He has more land and it is more affordable. • We already have plenty of market rate housing in San Mateo... Some 70% of San Mateo County is in restricted or permanent open space...FACT. Convert hotels on the eastside of 101 into affordable housing.
• Again, limit population growth to reduce need for more housing. • Buy existing apartments and convert them to affordable housing • Streamline remodeling for all houses, not just ADU's
• single family housing properties with large lots/acreage should sell off lots for additional housing • Don't ruin neighborhoods
547 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

24 • If I had wanted to live in a city I would have chosen to live somewhere else; the smaller town aspect of San Mateo is what drew me back here.
• Build "on top" of existing commercial offices (i.e. the office buildings near the Hillsdale Caltrain Station) - "Below Ground" level (instead of building tall - build below) • Allow taller developments and forget the open space or the other extreme by allowing nothing which will drive up prices and cause people to look for more affordable cities. The idea that San Mateo can be everything to everyone is absurd.
• Choose not to develop if infrastructure can not be developed at the same rate of speed. • reduce rents to match local income
• The school district has many empty parcels they should participate with city to create affordable housing for their teachers using their vacant land.
• I feel that before you expand the housing availability you should figure where the water and power will come from.
• Tell Sacramento NO, NO, NO
• Allow apartments to offer income based pricing
• Only downtown
• City/County to pay for additional story and/or additional unit (turn a 4-plex into a 6-plex) and in return, get to rent one of the two new additional units, giving the landlord the other unit as a thank you for participating and donating their property.
• enable faster transit systems, initiate business incentives to hiring local employees. • Encourage large properties in the wealthy areas to subdivide or build ADUs there to take on their share of the density
• Stop the madness
• New housing should be developed based on the best profit from it to get the country back to the capitalism, where everything was great.
• Already too crowded, no more construction
• Increase allowable density everywhere how is that not a choice??!!! • To not do it. All of these would make the city worse. • Stop building offices which create population increases! Encourage regional shifts of commercial activities. It seems that only city officials think it's “cool” to have and brag about this influx of business. • Do Not Build Higher Than 5 Stories High! - I Never Want San Mateo Co To Be/Look Like S.F., Los Angeles of New York City!!!
548 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

25 • Rezone disused retail - with higher density zoning. I would greatly prefer having a 10 story building replace a strip mall than having 4 story apartments next to single family homes in neighborhoods where this is currently not allowed.
• build affordable housing. Our kids who grew up in SM can't afford to live here. • Again, there should not be any additional housing. Any new development has to consider biodiversity and land conservation.
• Set a percentage and numerical target for truly affordable housing to close the existing gap over a five year period
• Change zoning and tax policy to allow mutually beneficial ways for people to split ownership of existing real parcels.
• Let's see if remote work reduces housing impact.
• Companies should move out of cities and build housing for the employees • Allow taller developments where taller developments already exist • Convert shopping malls to housing over retail units
• The other option is to allow the market to prevail
• DO NOT lose single-family homes and neighborhoods. This is a town, not a Metro City!!! • ADUs only on large lots that also allow for parking
• strongly against ADUs on single family properties
• Rezone vacant office buildings and other underutilized areas to residential and stop construction of more office buildings
• Again, these choices are incredibly biased.
• Prioritize public and quasi publicly owned sites for deeply affordable homes • increase public transit at affordable rates from areas where housing costs are lower. Like the buses that google/apple/facebook etc run
• No further expansion necessary.
• Increase density in all areas. but also increase transportation options. Increase parks and open space. • Strongly oppose SFR conversion to duplexes. It should be prohibited to convert a garage into an ADU. • NO NEW HOUSING! Plenty of housing in the east bay
• We don't have enough water to support the existing population. Stop building new housing. • Keep San Mateo Beautiful! No more added housing! Redevelop what we already have. • I see none of these as viable options, but the third one is heinous. • Provide transit option so new houses can be built all over the city 549 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

26 • San Mateo should not build anything unless they can provide adequate parking space. We are too crowded already. People who are low income, cannot afford to rent or but a home so who are you building more housing for?
• Publicly financed housing, directed by a community oversight board, tasked with approving sites and designs
• there are too many people here already. don't build any more multi unit complexes • Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage • none, none
• Allow more BMR Below Market Rate Rental availability on new apartment developments • Convert empty shopping centers into housing
• Buy/Build Beautiful, Mixed Income, Social Housing! As long as housing is treated as a commodity instead of a right, working class people won't be able to afford to live here. See Vienna, Austria:
https://youtu.be/LVuCZMLeWko
• Build it in San Mateo Park! Or , better yet, Hillsborough. We are already overcrowded. Infrastructure not keeping up. Can't even get the kids across town to a Cub Scout meeting without sitting in traffic.

This overdevelopment ruins quality of life.
• No new housing, tell the elected to abide by what residents voted on or they get voted out • Increase the affordable housing Percentage/ density bonus and give developer say in who rent the additional units.
• Stop building offices & then allowing new workers in these offices to move into housing that should be going to existing residents & workforce that have gone unprioritized. Existing workforces & residents first!
• No ADUs west of The Alameda; any conversion to duplexes also east of El Camino • Convert commercial areas for housing
• Build buildings with 3 and more floors and underground parking not just 1 floor • Utilize current open lots that exist throughout the city for new housing • Declare some open land available for construction
• Best strategy is NO NEW HOUSING, but the city council never listens to this • Create public transit that will enable greater mobility and lessen demand for existing housing. • All these options add to more cars and more congestion • Only where parking is available, to be sure not to add to existing congested areas. • Build affordable housing not market rate
550 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

27 • without infrastructure improvement, I don't believe any of these options work. San Mateo is becoming unbearable to live and work in due to the traffic congestion and lack of resources (Police & fire and water). These things need to be addressed first.
• We should do all of these
• Single family neighborhoods should remain single family no ADU or duplexes if the parcel can not support the additional vehicles
• There shouldn't, that is the problem.
• Create more lower/moderate income housing options that are dependent on a certain income brackets. Stop the ridiculous outbidding process.
• No new housing, we are built out
• Affordable Tiny houses on parcels.
• Create greened rooftops, living walls, and streets that can better manage storm water runoff and improve climate. Smart metering should be included in any new housing. Choose sites of already built but inadequately used areas.
• My 3rd is a combo of applying SB9 laws recently enacted w/inclusionary zoning & offering other incentives to property owners/developers
• No contracts to greedy developers who have council members in their pockets. • Cities should joint venture to build in the entire housing market area • Encourage conversion of less-used office space into apartments

Question 4: What types of housing do you think should be prioritized? Other (73 Responses):
• Please stop trying to overbuild in areas that are already maxed out. Go into outskirts of county to build new.
• Preserve and maintain affordability in existing multi family housing • Do not approve new office buildings
• prevent investors from buying new housing units
• Preserve single family neighborhoods
• all of it
• inter institutional development...with schools/hospitals/govt. entities • My experience has shown that greedy landlord's extreme rent increases have forced a huge exodus from SM People's mortgage do not increase at the rates my rent was increasing Please help assist in building units for affordable ownership to prevent gouging • NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it 551 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

28 • NONE!! WE DO NOT WANT MORE HOUSING!!DO NOT SPEND ONE MORE TAX DOLLAR SUPPORTING THESE CROOKED DEVELOPERS!! WE DO NOT WANT ANY MORE HOUSING BUILT, ESPECIALLY USING PUBLIC FUNDS!!IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY, LOWER OUR TAXES!!!! • Build in less expensive areas like Chico, Ca or Vallejo. Someplace where starter homes are more affordable.
• Residential units above commercial property near El Camino • AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• No flag lots, no ADUs.
• Subsidize new and existing housing
• Just build housing of any kind. New development has been too limited for decades • We should support a wide variety of options
• "Interim/transitional" homeless individuals/families who lost their current home (thru unforeseen circumstances to no fault of their own) to transition to a new home that they will afford on their own. • MORE
• All housing, there's no need to prioritize
• Mixed used tower with more units
• If you make housing so dense, it will impact the city. Our close neighborhoods will be lost. this is crazy • Loans for families to buy homes
• Old people housing
• Build only spacious, beautiful homes. Stop making hideous concrete and steel apartments that will someday become ghettos.
• What ever type of housing with maximize the number of families that can keep living in San Mateo. • Single family houses
• Capsule inns by businesses and transit areas
• Maintain the current population and limit growth.
• Larger units for families with children for rent and for ownership. Limited stock of 3BR units for rent and ownership.
• Whatever our service workers, first responders, and teachers need so they don't have to spend their whole non-working lives commuting
• When converting public land the project should be low income or affordable for a teacher • Truly affordable housing. Much of affordable housing is not affordable. • Make sustainability conscious, case by case decisions about what to do with available properties. • Affordable housing prioritized over greed of owners and developers 552 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

29 • Ex. When we create affordable communities to live in, we seem to eventually want to remove them (i.e. Dock Town).
• Building type should be considered in overall development of the city. Piece meals will be • Adding housing above existing commercial properties in downtown areas (3,4th ave, 25th ave, 37th) • Senior housing
• Housing in the Downtown area
• Single Family Homes with yards/privacy.
• Again, biased, leading questions.
• housing that is affordable for lower income people.
• Live where you can afford. If you can't afford it here, live where you can • Affordable senior housing
• Mixed use properties in transit areas.
• Do not change the character of SM by making every neighborhood multi unit. Build more AFFORDABLE housing and less market rate
• Publicly owned and subsidized housing, including direct municipal ownership as well as other options like publicly subsidized coop ownership.
• Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage • Allow Easy application process for BMR Below Market Rate Rental • Affordable housing, whether created through new construction or through preservation of existing units with their affordability deeded going forward
• Social Housing. South San Francisco has started: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/south- san-francisco-eyes-public-housing/article_00a19af8-3eb2-11ec-a4cf-4fdd622236d7.html • Stop overbuilding. Stop kowtowing to developers.
• Housing for seniors
• Affordable housing but PLEASE don't make them small, it's a torture living in tiny apartments. Build taller buildings please
• single unit houses
• Multiplex units (e.g. duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes) • seniors living
• Build affordable housing on city land.
• LEED certified and otherwise sustainable housing
• high density, multi stories, multi tenets
• no adding units to lots under 6,000 sf
553 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

30 • Stop building unsustainable housing
• Include access to real storage units nearby at reasonable rental prices so families with kids can consider living in a smaller unit. They can access seasonal stuff w/o filling all the living space. Green spaces make living in smaller units enjoyable.
• Housing options based on income brackets.
• Affordable housing
• Reduce rent in existing rental units
• No increase in density in residential areas
• Rent control, rent needs to be based on what owner owes, not capitalize off renters. Raising property owners’ taxes tolls back to the proletarians.
• Green, LEED-certified existing buildings and new green units for underused, renovated structures. • Housing for senior citizens who have been long time residents of the county • Multi-residential rentals, condos, & ADUs (yes, correct, multi-residential ADUs is 'thing') • Options that go beyond the current "studio" arrangement for seniors and people with special needs who may need a live-in aide and for whom a studio will not be viable. Also prioritize workers who support them in adult day services, whose wages are low

Question 5: What do you think are the best ways to address housing affordability? Other (113 Responses):
• Cut developer profits
• Change policies (like tax relief) that make it cheaper for older folks to stay in large homes instead of moving to free up housing stock for new families
• Add supply of new, high density housing, rental and for sale • I've seen plans to tear down homes along W Hillsdale (in residential areas) and turn them into apartments. What garbage. Benefits developers and turns neighborhoods into traffic nightmares. But maybe that's your dream. Seems like it.
• Rent control.
• Increased wealth of individuals and families
• Again, build in the outer parts of county - please leave over-impacted areas alone. It's already too crowded and there are not enough schools, grocery stores to support current residents. • Allow increase supply.
• Penalize frivolous use of CEQA
• who are your other institutional partners goals
554 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

31 • Put public funds into building more affordable housing units, houses, duplexes, fourplexes, and help those making low income with down payments for buying their own homes if you are vested with where you live you will take better care & gain equity for self • Build for diverse income
• NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it • Cap on “˜expensive' housing
• DO NOT SPEND MY TAX DOLLARS FOR SOME ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT CROSS OUR BORDER ILLEGALY!! I HAD TO WORK AND SWEAT AND SAVE FOR YEARS AND MY HOUSE IS STILL NOT PAID OFF!! HELP OUT YOUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST BEFORE YOU GIVE MY MONEY AWAY TO HOUSE ILLEGALS!! • Choose a more affordable community. I love Atherton and Hillsborough, but I don't think I can ever afford those towns, so I chose San Mateo. Now I wish I chose a town with less people, congestion and growth!
• Build more of all types of housing by increasing density • Encourage multiple dwelling units near transit corridors and train station • OPEN UP SOME OF THE 70% RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE IN SAN MATEO COUNTY FOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIFICALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
• Lower population growth requires less new housing.
• Remove the barriers to building housing of any kind. Height limits, too much emphasis on wants of existing property owners.
• Change single family home zoning laws
• Eliminate height and density restrictions, especially in downtown. • Increase density and height downtown through mixed use development • 1) Publicly owned housing (2) repeal prop 13
• Eliminate height/density restrictions
• Improve the frequency and reach of public transit so dense housing is feasible without the added cost of allocating space for so many cars.
• Don't ruin existing neighborhoods
• Incentives for private funding. If someone want's housing, that person/group etc. should pay a majority share for their housing. - Don't use tax dollars. • Reduce restrictive zoning and allow tons of market-rate housing. • reduce over paying rent back to 10 yrs ago
• The State of California should have a fund for very important assistance and encourage developers with Incentives to create more affordable housing
• MORE
555 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

32 • Figure out where all of the automobiles are going to park. • Demand (not encourage) developers build greater % affordable • Moratorium on new office construction. Trying to make housing more affordable by increasing stock is futile if you keep expanding the population and driving prices up -- nothing will ever change. • Build majority affordable housing. Google and Facebook engineers don't need help finding another million dollar home, teachers and service sector people need $200k homes. • Convince the federal government to restore the 20th-Century tax rates for high-income earners, so they have less money with which to buy up property and drive up prices. • Tell landlords they must lower rents. None of the above is really going to work well. • Make commute easier and faster, say from east bay to San Mateo • Subsidies for families
• Build only beautiful homes - no more ugly glass and steel apartment buildings - and let the market decide housing costs and wages that support cost of living. • Require all new development to be at least 50% affordable • lower property taxes
• Create more jobs and increase pay enough to afford housing on their own like everyone else. • Remove developers from being key decision makers. Create Business incentives for hiring local residents
• These are all terrible ideas.
• This is a systemic issue beyond the score of the city of San Mateo. • Encourage people to work harder to make more money to afford what they need. • Move someplace else
• Get large employers contributing to housing subsidies and construction as a benefit • It doesn't need to be addressed.
• Increase the allotment of affordable housing for all new development • Do Not Turn San Mateo Co into New York City, NY!! Long term residents of San Mateo Co Have/Are Moving Away Due To 'Over Population' Of San Mateo & The Bay Area! • don't incentivize developers, make it mandatory to build affordable housing for approval of their projects
• I know someone who runs homes for homeless. Every summer they leave but if their checks come in, they hold their spot for winter. Homelessness are we talking about working poor? Good thing but needs to be separated from mental illness.
• Incentive for companies to move out to remote areas
556 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

33 • Senior housing
• large numbers of housing prices will not come down till there's a glut. You can barely move the needle without building in remote, low cost areas. not San Mateo. • None of these. Let the market prevail
• Continue building single family homes so the existing SFH don't keep raising in price. Not everyone wants to live in a box without a yard/privacy.
• Limit corporate take over of housing. Stop allowing real estate investors to out bid local families for houses.
• Incentives for developers to build housing instead of offices • Give essential workers purchasing priority over investors not living in the housing • Reduce taxes
• Increase zoning in R2, R3s. R1s are now essentially supporting duplexes given State law. • affordable housing by developers should actually be affordable. not just a small percentage off their 'luxury' units
• Not the city's purview to subsidize expanded housing and paying residents' rent. • Move where you can afford.
• We can't pay taxes to cover incentives for residents and developers. We shouldn't rezone existing neighborhoods and cover all of every property with dwelling units • Look at the need for less office buildings more townhomes for families and less higher buildings • Reduce bureaucracy and cost for all sorts of building fees • Consider dormitory living for homeless and must do work at site to “repay” for having a place to stay.

Will help to create dignity while staying is such a transitional site. • The Peninsula is too overcrowded now. Stop adding to the problem. • Again, I am highly opposed to being forced to turn my single dwelling home into a duplex. • cap rent increases
• Don't build luxury units. Focus on affordable housing for everyone, and build lots of them • Public financing and management of housing as a basic human right • Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage • Easier application process for BMR Rentals for Senior Housing programs • Ferry stops into San Mateo county from SF and east bay • The City must retain ownership of the housing when using public funds to construct new housing/buy existing housing stock. Start the path to de-commodify housing. Rent control + vacancy control until we get there.
557 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

34 • Stop ruining the character of our small city! The City should demonstrate how effective past strategies have been in addressing this problem. Building more units will not resolve it. NO INCENTIVES FOR BUILDERS. THEY ARE ALREADY PROFITTING NICELY..
• Don't use MY money for any of these options
• Revise building codes to make housing competitive to commercial • Massively increase allowed density around transit stops • A light version of rent control, something not fixed for life but a couple of years • Relax parking minimums near public transit, so it takes less land to build apartments • What about young people who are not homeless but can't start families? Not everyone is a coder but we all should have good housing. There should be rent and unit quality control. Ventilation is important
• not in San Mateo
• Limit development that adds to existing over-crowded areas. • have them move to affordable areas
• Encourage homeless to move to affordable states (Texas, etc) • Build affordable housing not just market rate
• Please, see the reality people are unable to pay your "affordable housing of half million or more with the squalid salaries that we have in the Bay area or in the entire USA. It is a shame in how allow crowded rent units families living in a bedroom
• Zoning changes - allow taller buildings to be built, which naturally incentivizes developers to buy old, short buildings and convert them into high rises
• Eliminate or reduce property taxes on affordable housing and ADU's. • public funding for established affordable housing developers • Allow the free market to work. Manipulation made things worse. • Whatever happened to double depreciation incentives that were used to encourage apartment construction in the 1980s?
• Research based approaches/proven strategies
• Allow dense/tall residential/mixed around transit/job/commercial centers • Have people live where they can afford to
• Independent housing for middle class seniors who rent! • Improve public transit so people can efficiently get to this area from further away. Have businesses have varied start times to reduce traffic.
558 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

35 • Having a rent cap. Not allowing home owners to be charging first, last and security. Maybe only 1st and security deposit.
• Support Affordable housing organizations such as MidPen and Bridge housing that develops workforce, senior and family housing
• Work more closely with local Non-Profits, Faith Leaders/Institutions to donate resources, & Housing Authority to expand programs such as Section 8 housing, subsidizing rents/security deposits (or move- in fees), & educating/incentivizing property owners.
• Does zoning new office jobs increase people wanting to live here? (see below) • Create a city run non-profit public housing department. Compete with developers. Rents would not increase simply because housing prices increased. Also, encourage cooperative housing. Residents would own the building collectively.
• No contracts to greedy developers who have council members in their pockets. • Require new commercial development to contribute to housing funds for public non-profit housing. • Enlist additional support from large companies to help offset housing demand by donating land, $, or converting office space to living space for employees/others

Question 6: What do you think are the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of San Mateo, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past? Other (81 Responses):
• impact fees on new construction for affordable units
• Rent control
• Priority to existing San Mateo residents, not new populations looking to move into San Mateo • Assist those that need quality housing to outlying areas that are available to them. • Build more supply, put downward pricing pressure
• rent control
• Decrease the poor of the home owning majority
• The max rent increase currently is approximately 9% a year. This is not sustainable. Home owners do not see their mortgages increase at this rate. Provide affordable units are made available that don't allow Landlord ability to price gouge
• NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it • City can allow access to public work kind of jobs for homeless people who struggle to find employment.

Replace liberal arts academic units with math, STEM, and financial education. Disincentivize street camping.
559 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

36 • None of the above. These options result in govt regulation of housing where there was none previously and a restriction of property rights.
• I HAVE NOT HAD FAIR ACCESS TO HOUSING IN THE PAST BUT I WENT TO SCHOOL WHILE ON GENERAL

ASSISTANCE WHILE LIVING IN THE TENDERLOIN IN SAN FRANCISCO AND WOEKED THE SAME JOB FOR 21 YEARS! EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME ACCESS!
• I tell everyone to leave San Mateo. There are too many people, it is too expensive, I encourage people to leave or move. I wish I could. I work at Aragon High School. We are BUSTING at the seams. There is no more room, parking, water, etc.
• Rent Control
• Affordable units near El Camino, 101 and transit corridors. aow • MAKE DEVELOPERS OF MARKET RATE STACK AND PACK HOUSING PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SUPPORT BRIDGE HOUSING. THERE HAS BEEN MORE YEAR ON YEAR BUILDING PROFITS FOR MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS IN THE CITY. • Your definition of "fair access" may not be shared by many other residents. What is it anyway? • Just. Build. More.
• Change single family home zoning laws
• fair access to housing? discrimination or no money? Discrimination is illegal. No money is another matter and short term shelters need to be available. We all have access if we have money. • Fund robust auditing of bias behavior (whether intended or unconscious) of landlords and real estate agents.
• None of the above
• Assistance for educators and first responders
• disallow landlords to continue to raise rents, simple rules, no rent increase till after the second year. • Again, stop trying to increase population by building new office buildings - we don't need more. • Enact empty property taxes on homes that stay empty the majority half the year plus one day, and tax owners with more than one property.
• Prioritize housing for service workers (who work full time but cannot afford housing in San Mateo) • Infrastructure needs significant attention before moving forward with any changes to our population. • What about water issues, parking, traffic, quality of SM life, etc.? Do I get to move into Hillsborough if I can't afford it? There should be no incentives to build new housing, especially dreary apartment buildings & low-cost (i.e., crappy) housing.
• More loan opportunities; More remodel opportunities; Partnership with landlords to improve/increase their number of units if they use part of the increase to house the underserved. 560 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

37 • I do not agree with this! We are not guaranteed housing in the locations people want. Public transit and infrastructure needs to improve.
• good employees create good communities; create business incentive plan to hire locals and generate housing solutions (residential/work sites or company assist housing solutions) • We are currently paying people not to work and giving them free rent. The first step is to put all welfare under 1 roof. Everyone is entitled to housing. It's our system that causes the problem. Working class people have become the chumps of society.
• Require large employers to engage subsidize worker housing close to work or otherwise support proximate housing supply
• Stop The Condos After Condos After Condos Construction! San Mateo Never Need The Smog & Filthiness & Mass Population of Los Angeles!! No!!
• I don't understand the effects of most of these on housing availability. I.e., how significant of a factor each might be.
• Add more housing units at market rates
• Increase affordable housing limits to include middle class wage earners. • Stop restricting businesses with covid mandates so that they can make more money and hire more people.
• Seems like you've already made up your mind. Are you trying to be housing experts or social workers? Are you trying to build a community or a welfare city.
• First time homebuyer programs, require financial institutions to increase lending options, increase salaries for low wage workers, discourage housing ownership by Wall Street REITs and other investment properties and international ownership .
• Require minimum training for property managers and property management, access to lawyers for renters
• Any policies that place limits on housing providers will be counter-productive as the owners of such will convert their properties to owner occupied housing
• work with 'underserved' groups on how to obtain and hold onto housing • allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods • Who is a member of San Mateo? Strict Federal & State laws are already in place regarding fair housing. • What do you mean by “have not had fair access”. If you have the money you get the house. It's that simple
• I don't see anything here to check
• Rents are too high. We need to dramatically increase supply to offset the out of control housing costs • Provide education & job training to help people get better jobs. 561 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

38 • Enforcement of more BMR in each rental developments. • Build more housing, faster
• Rent control + vacancy control, build/buy social housing. • It's just possible that not everyone will be able to afford living here-and this includes my own children- but possibly that's the reality of living in a place with limited land. • Programs to educate people on how to be responsible, contributing members of society. • Financial literacy and budgeting
• Stop allowing new office workers to move into housing until there is enough housing for the residents & workforce who are already living & working here & are in need of housing. • Everyone has the ability to live in San Mateo if they make enough money. The cost of living in San Mateo is dependent on location, location, location. Remove illegal immigrants and that will solve some of the housing problems.
• Make it easier for landlords to kick out deadbeats. If they can't afford to live here they should move! • not in San Mateo
• Establish give and take for both existing and new residents. Do not over crowd any area of San Mateo. • Support residents who can't afford living in SM to move away • Prevent landlords from continually raising the rents even year. People's salaries do not go up hundreds of dollars each year.
• First build affordable. The City has approved thousands of stack and pack market rate housing that has done nothing to help with the affordability of housing
• Provide rent to own and similar opportunities to provide more equitable opportunity and a path to property ownership
• Examine the people salaries and then see what kind of housing you are going to rent/sale. Stop developers that are a cancer hurting our communities and the environment and favoriting • Just build more housing! Increase the supply
• Don't. It sounds harsh but delaying the market is bad • If land is limited BUILD TALLER. More DENSITY close to mass transit. Build PROTECTED bike lanes to get people out of CARS.
• Significantly increase housing supply. If we want people of all means to live here, we need to build enough for those who can currently afford AND those with less. Otherwise, we have to outspend the increasingly smaller and richer pool of who can afford. • Raise minimum wage. Significantly.
• We need a reality check, it should NOT require dual income to rent an apartment I work in tech but if I didn't have reasonable rent even I can't afford to live in San Mateo 562 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

39 • None of the above. The people are responsible for their own housing needs • Give priority to public transit, bikes, and pedestrians over individual cars. Create dedicated bike and bus routes that are straight shots and intersect across the city. Create parking structures with solar panel shading at the ends of these lanes.
• Rent Control & increase the percentage of affordable housing in new housing development. Ask business to support affordable housing for workforce and senior citizens • See answer in "Other" in response to most recent prior question above. • Use rent control to provide rent stabilization. Do not allow landlords to abruptly raise the rent simply because housing prices shot up.
• No contracts to greedy developers who have council members in their pockets. • Aggressively enforce fair housing laws
• Streamline permitting. Resist NIMBY and embellished negative impact of proposed projects. Maximize available space. Minimize # of single family homes on large lots. Incentive building of affordable rental and starter home units for would-be buyers.
• Work collaboratively with the Golden Gate Regional Center and its clients to meet critical housing needs, so that clients can remain in their community--not be sent to far-flung parts of CA away from familiar supports on account of local housing costs

Question 7: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about housing needs in San Mateo? (296 Responses)

• Build taller buildings, TOD with bike/pedestrian infrastructure so citizens don't have to drive everywhere.
• Housing affordability is complex and most of the suggested solutions thus far have been simplistic.

Housing affordability is not by and large the City's fault as many developers and some legislators tend to make it out to be.
• Need to have quality dense developments. So many proposals could, at low cost, have much better design and public spaces. We are just doing up or down votes instead of insisting on good design.

Design defines the character of a community. It makes dense housing more acceptable to existing residents. And it says that we, as a city, care about all residents. I feel like city leaders don't care about the quality of life for people less fortunate, same as decades ago when we built ugly boxes for homes instead of nice developments. Good example = below market rate housing on El Camino near Michaels. Bad example = Station Park Green (had paint instead of good design and a fence between it and the train station!)
563 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

40 • If we can't convince developers to do affordable housing, then San Mateo needs to do it themselves • housing needs parking. condo and apartment units created should have a minimum of 1 parking space onsite per 1 bedroom unit. housing near public transit will help those who can not afford to have a car still travel to work. park space/open space must be preserved as humans need to be able to be outside safely. bike lanes, safe walking corridors are essential • San Mateo has some highly segregated neighborhoods that have experienced profound disparities in their historical level of investment and maintenance, housing needs (like severe overcrowding), and access to local neighborhood-serving schools with a balanced and integrated student body. We need to make significant strides in rectifying this segregated living pattern, investing in neighborhoods that need it, and working to prevent displacement through tenant protections and the production of new, integrated housing that serves both rich and poor.
• The jobs housing imbalance is due to bay area cities allowing lots of new office space to be built but rejecting new housing. High cost housing is fundamentally a supply problem. Nimby-ism has to stop.

The Peninsula is now an urban area.
• All of the new building projects thus far are ridiculously expensive and go nothing to help anyone except tech employees. Who else can afford $3000+ for a studio or one bedroom? Because the new places are so expensive, even the "affordable housing" is simply out of reach for the average person.

The same rent controls in place in SF, need to be added to San Mateo (both city and county) to stop the greed. I recently tried to assist a friend find an affordable apartment ($2200 budget) which were mostly crappy places without even a kitchen. It's appalling what has happened to housing in San Mateo.
• Your priorities seem to be developers and environmentalists, as well as activists from SF and the East Bay (plus SM officials who don't even live here). I've grown weary of attending your meetings because you all seem wholly disinterested in actual residents who pay property taxes. • "The term affordable unit in a construction project is misleading as the unit is usually unaffordable to the middle and lower income people. Developers should be encouraged to use less expensive/ fancy items in the units to keep the price affordable.
• Also there should be more rules regarding first and last deposits when renting a unit. The deposits are too high and difficult to get back at end of a lease."
• We continue to hear that there is no affordable housing here, but every place you turn there are new housing units going up, so how can we be so low on housing? Maybe the answer is not new housing, but better management of the housing we currently have. Big real estate companies come in here and build new housing, then charge an arm and leg for it then everyone cries that we don't have affordable housing. Control rent prices for these companies and we might be in a better position. How much of 564 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

41 the new housing is filled? Would love to see actuate information and not those from big real estate companies.
• We need to distribute additional housing throughout the city to avoid ghettoization. Mixed-use mid- rise (~5 floors - think the buildings of Haussmann's Paris rebuild, although perhaps with more variation) redevelopment along El Camino and the Caltrain line seems promising. This would require walk and bikeability improvements. Protected connections for pedestrians and bicycles ought to be added across 101 and 92. Open and green space should be added, microparks and street trees help too.

Vertical growth to two floors for single family properties should be made easier to preserve green space and permeable surface. This will add housing for ADUs or multigenerational households, reduce the load on storm sewers and runoff, and preserve green space in yards. Native re-plantings for yards should be encouraged/subsidized.
• This survey questions are heavily biased in the way they are asked. • Building more housing is not always the answer. It may provide more tax income to the city but it doesn't do a lot to preserve the value of the area. Filling in every empty piece of open space makes for more crowding, adds to current traffic issues that are bad enough already and limits the joy current and future homeowners experience already in this lovely city. Why not work on the current infrastructure first to make sure those who currently live here have access to all that they need before adding more people and cars. More is not always better. • As mentioned in bulk of my survey - the City I have lived in for over 22 years (and pay taxes) is run down and over crowded. Please start investing in infrastructure - green space, clean sidewalks on 25th Ave, fix dilapidated streets. Traffic is unbearable and stop building housing - on top of housing - on top of housing! There are too many people living on top of one another. Sometimes we don't get what we want. If you can't afford to live here, there are other cities to enjoy life in. I would love to live in Hillsborough, but just can't afford it. So that is life. Funny how Hillsborough is exempt from having to deal with city officials who want to build compacted dense housing and homeless shelters 500 feet from their home.
• Rent is now 150% more expensive than when I first moved to San Mateo, and the cost of housing is a primary reason I haven't chosen to start a family here. Even buying a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for dual-income couple with no kids.
• I love San Mateo but it has to become more dense. I support many of the proposed state laws to overrule cities that are artificially restricting residential construction. • It is important to have affordable housing for people to live and work Area. 565 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

42 • Great need for 1-2 person small residences with allowed pets and pet area at affordable rates/rents.

My children want to be able to stay in San Mateo. They are college age but don't make lots of money.

Housing in this area is too expensive for them to stay. More places also need to allow pets. • Developers must pay their fair share of the additional resources needed for the resulting increased residency in any location throughout San Mateo.
• I wish our elected leaders would realize that in the Bay area with our geographical issues that limit building, that an area can only support some number of people/jobs and trying to cram more into that area just leads to a poorer quality of life for everyone. People come for jobs, if large developments that have many jobs were limited then the need for more housing would also be reduced. Don't approve more Apple "flying saucers" or Salesforce towers. Just look at the "stack and pack" massive drab apartment complexes of the former Soviet Union countries or today's China and you see what our country is heading for. Unchecked population growth is the greatest evil the world faces today. Since there is very little the US can legally do to assist with population control via foreign aid, looking to control our own population is the best we can do.
• "Preserve single family neighborhoods.
• We don't need high rise apartment buildings -- we have vacant office spaces, and most new apartments aren't affordable anyway.
• Traffic and parking are a problem already in downtown San Mateo and highways 92 and 101 and have been for years. We don't have the infrastructure to support mass new housing builds." • Over all the years I have lived in San Mateo, I have noticed more new market rate units being allowed than affordable housing units. The percentage rate to build here should increase for affordable units.

Maybe even at a rate of 50/50, to be totally fair.
• Current home owners act as a rent seeking cartel, discouraging any change despite the negative externalities this imposes on everyone else. This is ethically dubious and should be discouraged or penalized.
• We should compare with other Peninsula cities' approaches’¦ there may be good ideas and opportunities to align
• Where is the leadership? Stop kicking the can down the road to housing needs...The county is buying hotels and shovel ready opportunities...The city of San Mateo and Educational organizations (surplus study of owned real estate) has controlling interest in owned real estate (former Delaware street SM Police station/ fire station sites)...what are the plans for those properties? • I'm a renter and have come to peace knowing I can never afford to buy a house here in San Mateo. But I love the area so much. I cannot afford another rent hike. The next one will probably force me to move 566 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

43 away. I want to stay but the high cost of living will eventually push me out. Please in your planning process, keep renters in mind.
• Need to increase density and services throughout the city, not just along Caltrain/El Camino. Ease the process for small, more dense develop and not just focus on a few large new projects. • San Mateo broke my heart! I lived in San Mateo for over 20 years and was forced to leave due to dramatic rent increases (134% in 10yrs) I still work in San Mateo but can not afford to live there. I want to help be part of the solution and that is why I'm taking so much time to fill out this questionnaire. I sent a heartfelt detailed email to the Mayor of San Mateo after his state of the Union address. His response was a one line curt form response with typos that only said thanks for feedback very upsetting! His state of the Union address only spent a few mins addressing the housing crisis. The housing crisis is a CRISIS! and the city of San Mateo is not treating it like one. • Incentivize home selling by reducing capital gains tax. There is not enough inventory for any income level.
• "NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it. • Thank God I'm moving away from here."
• Stop building. Go outside and see that business are leaving, vacancies everywhere. Most people would agree to chip in to help homeless, but not by spending millions to build in the middle of already overdeveloped city with failing infrastructure.
• San Mateo's infrastructure is in need of upgrades and there is a drought, most likely for the long term.

Any growth creates more problems and there seems to be no solution for them. • Restricting private property rights as a tool to make housing more affordable results in housing even less affordable than previously. Don't believe me, check San Francisco & NYC with their rental housing restrictions.
• I strongly believe the voting public was misled or at least purposely misinformed when the 2 ballot propositions were voted on and passed limiting height in buildings already 6 stories...those measures should be repealed or replaced allowing developers downtown and along the rail corridor and other transportation roads to build up...doing so would ultimately preserve the best of San Mateo's historic character while allowing thousands of housing solutions • More dense housing needs to be partnered with more community services, parks, community centers, retail options, and realistic parking space. Also, if you increase density, you must increase security with more cops on the beat, more and better traffic patterns. • "THIS IS A BIASED PREJUDICED DISCRIMINITORY SURVEY. YOU ASK THE WRON G QUESTIONS AND

THERE IS NOT AN OPTION TO SAY,
567 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

44 • 'HELL NO! I DON'T WANT ANY MORE HOUSING!"" LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS!! THEY DO NOT WANT ANY MORE HOUSING!!"
• I know there has been a log of pushback about duplexes/ADUs/multiple-unit housing in single-family zoned neighborhoods. I happen to think that this would be a helpful solution and would welcome it in my neighborhood.
• "Improve building code enforcement to discourage absentee landlord neglect of shoddy house conversions to multi-family dwellings. I fear the house next door will burn down from electrical and cable service overloads.
• Find homes for the forgotten poor
• ADU permission needs to be easier I have spent 3 years and over $50,000. On consultations with all manner of city requirements. I still have no permit issued and am going to give up. When it takes years and costs thousands no wonder no one is able to build affordable housing or ADUs in San Mateo. • "Please be aware that many policies will push out the 'Mom and Pop"" landlords. We are the ones servicing long term tenants and providing fair value housing. We should be encouraged not penalized. • "1. There is NO SUCH THING AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING here. • 2. There is not enough water to sustain all these people. • 3. What good are good schools when we are so overworked and overwhelmed with so many students. • 4. We should be encouraging people to live within their means. • We severely need more density and more high rise projects in and around downtown! This helps the supply of housing and local businesses with foot traffic while keeping cars off the road with walkability! • Que los precios de alquiler estÃ¡n muy altos
• Plenty of apartments and townhouse style units are already in the pipeline. City needs more single level 2-3 BR condos targeted to active senior downsize market around Central Park, Hillsdale and San Mateo Drive. That should provide opportunities in established neighborhoods for families. • There needs to be more options. The lack of supply is the problem. Too few available units for rent or ownership drives up prices.
• Developers should not be able to get out of building sufficient parking. Maybe offer incentives for individuals who do not have cars. Some of us can't live without cars unfortunately since schools are located so far away from homes. The density/building height limit in San Mateo is a joke. There is no reason measure y should have passed. The NIMBYs won (by like 10 votes! seriously get out and vote people) and it's sad.
• Stop adding so many units. We are taking a huge burden created by other neighboring cities. Let them take care of their housing issues. We've done our fair share. 568 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

45 • I object to the ADU units created on the hills behind houses. There is not enough parking. Access to the dwelling I have seen is incredibly difficult such as a narrow wooden staircase, and lacking access for emergencies. This is objectionable and unsafe building on these steep hills behind houses. Not enough foresight, and over sight.
• Lots of good ideas in here. But ultimately we just need to build more housing. Less red tape, more density, more roofs over heads.
• "NO MORE MARKET RATE APPROVALS... NONE OF WHICH HAS OR WILL EVER LOWER HOUSING PRICES IN THE BAY AREA. THE NUMBERS ARE JUST NOT THERE.
• BESIDES, THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF FOR SALE/RENT MARKET RATE HOUSING AVAILABLE IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND UP AND DOWN THE PENINSULA. TAKE MINUTE TO CHECK ZILLOW OR REALTOR.COM.
• SO....APPROVALS ONLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS....... PERIOD. • FINALLY, WHY IS THIS SURVEY AND IT'S QUESTIONS BIASED, WITHOUT REAL CLARIFICATION OR

DIFFERIENTATION BETWEEN THE NEED FOR HOUSING AND THE FACT THAT THERE A VERY REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET RATE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. • THE COUNCIL, STARTING WITH BAY MEADOWS, HAS APPROVED THOUSANDS OF STACK AND PACK,

MARKET RATE HOUSING THAT HAS DONE NOTHING TO LOWER THE PRICE OF HOUSING OR ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY ISSUES IN SAN MATEO."
• Apparently, your division wishes growth to continue and plans accommodations or what many residents consider excessive population growth.
• We are living with the impact of too restrictive building policies, over decades. Height limits, too much concern for supposed impacts (not based on facts) on traffic, the environment, water, etc. We need to approve more housing anywhere it can be built. Much of the single family housing stock is old and in disrepair. Modern, multifamily housing is preferable to old, small houses packed with people. • Develop new options but keep single family neighborhoods in tact. We need to support many types of families/people and their choices.
• Not sure how we can ever go back to affordable housing for all. But I appreciate any efforts to try. • I'm a third generation San Mateoan and I'm saddened by what this town has become. There's too much traffic on the road, people are angry all the time, car accidents have increased. The solution is not to cram more people into small spaces. Honestly, this is an unsolvable problem and I will likely move in the next few years so I don't have to deal with it anymore. Good luck! • Create some kind of incentive for current property owners since we will be paying for all these programs, in part with property taxes. Possibly charging “property taxes” to the renters or have them 569 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

46 pay some kind of tax for this new housing initiative instead of current property owners paying for these things and the renters don't have to because they “rent”, not own. • Single family home type zoning laws are a huge issue, especially for large lot sizes. Everyone who already owns a home thinks that a new neighbors home is a "development" (negative connotation), but not his/her existing home. We need to educate existing home owners about how the homelessness crisis is related to decrease in affordable housing which is caused by scarcity of housing in the area.
• The real estate market like all markets must remain free with government interference minimized. If you cannot afford San Mateo, then consider Hayward. We do need to create effective and efficient mass transit to help those who work on the peninsula.
• I believe adding more housing units is not going to satisfy the ever growing need and the infrastructure of San Mateo cannot take anymore housing without major improvements. What you really need to be asking the citizens of San Mateo is how are your roads, congestion, water resources, response time for medical, police and fire? Has your quality of life improved over the last 5, 10, 15 years or declined in San Mateo? I can say as a long time resident, none of these issues are being addressed. Traffic and congestion is horrible and no matter how many times it comes up at a city council or planning commission meeting from neighbors and citizens who already live there, the new development continues and the congestion increases. How are you go address these issues? I know that there has not been an increase in police and fire personnel to accommodate the past and future growth of this city, and our roads are horrible. I cannot drive down El Camino without hitting huge potholes. I'm really tired of new development and the cost to infrastructure bared on the backs of long time residents.

Enough is enough. Building more housing does not solve any of these issues and creates more congestion, collapsing infrastructure and stressed emergency services not to mention the water shortage we are currently in.
• Allow density in TOD'S. Streamline approvals. Let the private sector work. • "We need to streamline the housing approval process, and eliminate the restrictions that prevent housing from getting built, such as onerous zoning laws, and height and density limits. • We also need to focus on building sustainable, walkable neighborhoods, where a variety of goods and services are a short distance away. This cuts down on traffic, and emissions. " • We have a highly developed downtown with a train station and access to buses along El Camino. This is a great opportunity to develop green, car-free, condos in mixed- use buildings. Removing or increasing height limits between 2nd-5th and Delaware to El Camino for these sorts of buildings would encourage development. Increased density in this area would also support the local businesses. 570 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

47 • 1) San Mateo has traditionally done a great job of creating a mix of housing types/opportunities. (2) however, like many towns, it has a regrettable history wrt equity and racial discrimination. (3) it needs to acknowledge that history and make amends.
• The only true solution for the housing crisis is more housing. Given that the largest threat facing us as a community and a civilization is climate change, more housing that provides walkable living is the best solution.
• There's far too little of it. We need to streamline development, eliminate height and density restrictions around transit, do away with parking minimums, and just generally make it as easy to build new housing as possible.
• It is difficult to believe that the city takes our current housing crisis seriously when it spends 4 years and over $450,000 dollars trying to block 10 units along El Camino. The scale of the city's proposed solutions is deeply inadequate compared to the size of the problem and even them we've historically failed to deliver on planned housing under RHNA requirements. • I don't hear anyone talking about the “water shortage” or general quality of life for existing residents.

Who is paying for this housing and why?
• There should also be more housing developed along the El Camino Real corridor • "We don't need more new luxury apartments. My understanding is that developers have all the incentive to keep making luxury apartments/condos, so the city should be more involved either in funding the building itself or fixing the incentive structure. • As a resident with high enough income to live here comfortably, but not enough income to have more than a 1BR, I would be happy to pay more in taxes if the money is going toward more equity in housing and services."
• There is a reason for why San Mateo is unique. It's the lack of mass housing units that create more traffic which creates a bigger load on the environment. Station Park Green and the proposed Rite Aid redevelop ruin the quality of life that has been the hallmark of why San Mateo is special. Don't do more!
• Plan before building. And I don't mean plan the building. Get the infrastructure in place before any thoughts of adding new building begins.
• "Improve infrastructure before adding any more housing and stop pretending that people are going to give up their cars. In my neighborhood every household has 2 to 3 cars and there is not enough parking.
• Traffic is horrible and adding more housing makes it more of a nightmare. Replacing grocery stores and other shops with housing means we have further to drive For everything. " 571 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

48 • "If at all possible, don't use ""tax dollars"" for such projects. Privatize it as much as possible. If tax dollars are being used, there should be ""transparency"" to disclose groups/individuals etc who utilize public ""tax dollars"".
• We DO NOT want to have living conditions like ""San Francisco"". After worked/lived (and even heard the residents complaints) in that city for the past 20+ years, that city got way out of hand with ""affordable housing"". Best to travel up to SF to see first hand in the areas where ""affordable housing"" is located - imagine that in San Mateo. Please avoid their ways of managing ""affordable housing""
• Make good use of existing empty lots. We need housing more than we need Christmas Tree and Pumpkin lots.
• I have lived here over 40 years. The traffic is a serious issue for me. I work in Woodside and it is about 9 miles away. Pre-pandemic it took me one hour on a good day to get home. How will the traffic change with more housing? At what point does the commute force me to leave my job and the city I love? Also there is a severe water shortage. How is there enough water for all the new housing? • "In my opinion, added affordable housing will work best if it is near transit & services so people with limited resources can walk to work, services, etc . More cars on 101 and on El Camino Real should be avoided. The housing problem is somewhat caused by the offices that have been built in the past 10 years in & around San Mateo. Office space should NOT be added. Fewer people are working in offices - accelerated by COVID. Same with storefront retail - which has been decreasing for the past 5 years. • My first sentence states that housing should be near transit, services, and where people work - so there is less reliance on cars and fewer cars on 101 & ECR. However, there is currently a plan to demolish Draegers & replace it with more offices (not needed), more retail (not needed), a parklet (it is next to Central Park), and housing (needed). Draegers is the only full service grocery store in downtown San Mateo. So if someone with limited resources moves into an affordable place downtown where they can walk to work, services, etc - they can't buy groceries in downtown San Mateo and they'll have to DRIVE elsewhere. This defeats the purpose of a live/work environment. " • We do not need more housing in San Mateo. Just drive around the streets and you will see hundreds of for rent and for lease signs for both residential and commercial property. Many of the huge housing projects that have been built recently are vacant. The rents are so high people cannot afford them. It is a joke that these properties are providing "affordable" housing. • Give priority affordable housing to teachers and other service workers. They deserve to afford to live where they work. The fallout of that lack is detrimental. • Building large apartment houses and condos do not serve the poor, but serve to make developers rich on the backs of these people.
572 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

49 • Given that we're paying rents/mortgages comparable to Manhattan, it's absolutely crazy that there isn't a lot more vertical development. Put it near transit and without much parking to make it greener and avoid ticking off neighbors. The Belmont Condominiums are an example of how attractive such developments can be. As long as there's only a trickle of new building, developers are going to make sure that every unit is as luxurious as possible. We need a FLOOD of new housing so that it's not just the richest who get it. Also put new apartment buildings in the fancy rich neighborhoods with good schools and parks, so that middle-class and working-class folks can benefit from these schools and parks. And don't let the loudest complainers derail projects that will benefit many more people.

Thanks!
• Housing growth should be paired with infrastructure development. If infrastructure can not be developed or added to (including resources such as water supply and sanitation) then housing expansion should be slowed.
• It's not fair to build so many new units all in one location. It completely changes the neighborhood to the detriment of those already here. Why make less lanes on the road and build more housing in that area?
• We need a variety of housing types, sizes and locations. Mixed use buildings work well. • Few newly built apartment complexes - rents too high, non-affordable, allow less than 50% of private and public ownership to not rent over a certain dollar amount. • The housing needs are critical. I am concerned we do not have the critical infrastructure to support the huge amount of housing given to us via RHNA numbers. Water, Sewer, Roads should be taken into consideration and communicated via our legislators to Sacramento. They should be providing $$ to support this growth. Otherwise it's just higher taxes which low to moderate income families can't afford either.
• We need to immediately move forward with proven initiatives for increasing supply around public transit.
• If the choice is to become a tenants society, then make tenants rights a priority. Social housing where the city enters into long term leases with the builders and allow for ownership with capped appreciation (Singapore model) is important next step.
• When I purchased my home the cost was a lot less but my salary was much less also. I had to have help from my parents for my down payment, but I paid it back. • It is almost impossible to drive or park in this city most of the day. I don't understand how you plan to add housing and increase the congestion. The quality of life here keeps going down and the cost of living keeps going up. Time to rebalance, not make one problem worse for the sake of the other. 573 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

50 • "A good case for greater density is being made. if done right it can be nice. https://www.strongtowns.org/about
• https://www.bluezones.com/services/blue-zones-project/#section-1" • collect data on renter rates, rent increases and study evictions and outcomes • We need to stop building new housing because we don't have enough water. People should not feel a right to live here. Move somewhere cheaper that actually has water. • Teachers need priority for housing in SM
• Let's stop building more housing unless it is "affordable." Our area is already behind past commitments for affordable housing. We should demand developers build higher % of affordable units. If developers refuse, find other developers. Why do we allow developers to get away with so few affordable units? Our local politicians are all bought off? Given our changing climate, uncertain water futures, our politicians need to show some courage and quit placating developers. • I think we need to find ways to provide needed housing in open spaces, on the transit corridor, etc., while maintaining the quality of life of current SM residents; more specifically, I believe adding large numbers of ADUs and multi-family dwellings in established single-family home neighborhoods is likely to increase traffic, reduce parking, and generally negatively impact life in the city of San Mateo. • There are not enough options for seniors that want to downsize, yet can't afford the luxury high rise apartments that require a buy-in. Nor not all seniors want to be in an apartment. Some just want a smaller 1-level house/condo with a yard. Seems as though newer construction involves stairs. Not suitable for seniors. We can't/won't downsize if there are no options. Or if the options are more expensive than just staying put.
• Forcing residents to live in more crowded conditions by increasing density throughout the city and converting homes to multiple housing units or converting single-family zoning to multi-unit zoning might get more people into the city, but it won't be a place I want to live. • The identity of San Mateo is changing as the population grows. The city council needs to live in reality, not with its head in the clouds about what it used to be or some other ideal scenario. There needs to be a mix of population demographics in order for the city to thrive and prosper. No one is safe if more and more people are forced to live in the street.
• Build more of everything. And each project that is targeted to be built should go for maximum capacity of housing units. Every pre-existing lot with an apartment building should be allowed to rebuild as tall as possible. Streamline the ADU process. Allow duplexes. • Please have more density around public transit like the train! Make mixed use developments so more shops and stores are walkable!
574 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

51 • As a business owner, we have to pay insane taxes, our employees are demanding outrageous hourly rates while our customers aren't willing to pay more for the services we offer. Employees need more income to live here”¦ so the service rates must go up to our clients • Allowing duplexes in single family neighborhoods is not the way to solve the problem. It only creates new problems and changes the character of neighborhoods. Those houses will still be high priced at least in the near term. If enough of them are built, you've now just replaced the character of a neighborhood and likely driven out and down homeowners for a mix of owners and renters in a more crowded neighborhood that our schools won't be able to accommodate. • We need a lot more housing. The 'prioritize / top three' structure of this survey feels wrong to me, like it implies we can focus on a few types/places and that'll be sufficient. • "Streamline housing approval process so that homes can get built. • Build near transit and job centers.
• Allow duplex on single family zoning.
• We need to hit our housing goals.
• Educate and influence people that are on the fence or overly defensive. • Listen to the young and under represented."
• Yes , we need housing that out senior can afford. With most senior receiving about 1,200 a month they can't afford nothing out here in San Mateo they end up in the streets . • The affordable housing crisis is just that - a crisis. We absolutely need to do everything we can to welcome in new neighbors and build more homes. Given San Mateo's location as a job center and also its temperate climate, any new homes we build here will also be very good for addressing climate change.
• "The huge problem is that the city's population is already beyond its infrastructure capacity. For the existing population, there isn't enough water (due to drought), electricity for really hot days, or highway capacity. So, no housing plan should be developed without sections that address those issues. • Also, please be realistic about the percentage of new residents who will commute by rapid transit. Yes, the K-Mart development is right next to the Hayward Park CalTrain station, but it is also right next to the onramps to Hwy. 92, making driving an attractive option for commuting." • Build more housing. Build more housing. Any kind of housing. Rich housing, affordable housing, duplexes, apartment complexes, tall buildings, short buildings, all the housing. Build more and denser housing. The housing crisis is 98% a supply crisis made far, far worse by opposition to all new construction. BUILD MORE HOUSING.
• "Prioritize people that have a history of Residing and working in the county or Bay area, and would like to live in San Mateo due to family ties (many diverse communities are in this category) 575 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

52 • Then, prioritize full time service workers (teachers, doctors, nurses, small business owners including independent workers like plumbers, gardeners, cooks, etc). • People and households that have a history of working full time and paying taxes should have priority in affordable housing, and fear rate housing and rent. Once SM workers are secured in their housing, then we can then help other populations that have not been able to hold steady jobs or income. " • We need to build more housing, allow duplexes in single family neighborhoods, and fund more multimodal transit throughout the city (especially buses). • I appreciate the time and thought going into creating a plan for housing growth in San Mateo. • I understand you think building, building, building is great. I think all of the scheduled building right now does little if anything to assist those who cannot afford to live here now. I do not see how or when that could happen things being what they are currently. Tell Sacramento NO! • There is an important opportunity for the city to launch a PR campaign helping illuminate the reality that our growing population of folks over 65 (heck, over 70 and 80) NEEDS affordable housing nearby for our important service providers: 1) in-home care folks!!!; 2) out-patient and in-patient healthcare providers, especially all the CNAs who are trying to provide sufficient care to folks in our nursing homes and other care facilities; 3) delivery folks for pharmacies, groceries, packages. Even the younger well- paid residents of San Mateo are impacted by the lack of affordable housing - there is a reason why our restaurants, cleaners, grocery stores and SCHOOLS are struggling to provide pre-pandemic levels of service. Finally, the lack of affordable rents for our non-profits and their employees (Edgewood Center for Families and Children, CA Clubhouse, StarVista, Caminar, etc.) means the county is losing great provider staff regularly because they can't justify the cost and personal impact of commuting an hour or more in each direction to provide support for mental health, domestic violence, substance abuse, etc. It does me no good to have enough retirement savings to afford great in-home care if there is nobody to provide it in San Mateo!
• Schools and community parks also need to be prioritized. Housing needs to be spread out in the city so the schools also get a fair spread of new students. Currently with everything getting built along El Camino/Caltrain only a handful of school get the burden of the increase in population. Developers need to find ways to provide money back to SMFCSD to improve conditions. • Stop giving in to the developers who say they can't make low income/middle income house development work.
• Turning the El Camino corridor into a mixed use commercial/residential area with affordable housing and transitional housing included would be an ideal solution! • Improve pedestrian and bicycle access, make it easier for people to walk or bike to places up to a mile away. Match higher density housing relatively close to parks and shopping with easy and safe access 576 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

53 without requiring a car. Balance open space to housing; include parks, green space, and plazas so that people can get outdoors without crowding. Allow for higher density housing (i.e. taller buildings) near downtown or along ECR. We need both smaller spaces for individuals or roommates and larger spaces for families.
• Please make sure that development of additional housing includes money to the school districts to account for increased enrollment.
• San Mateo is a beautiful, beautiful place, I would like to buy a small house and grow old here to see the sunsets
• For families with children., having a place (park) to play outside would be nice like community park. • There is no 'need' for housing in SM; the need is for employers to expand elsewhere, off the Peninsula! Growth is no longer a good thing in California, especially on the Peninsula. Stop promoting it under the false pretense of humanitarianism, when really it is all about tax revenues, as quality of life deteriorates. Let's not allow SM to become a 'low income' dumping ground, but instead a haven for the most productive and creative. If housing is too expensive, let wages catch up, and not by minimum wage mandates, but by natural forces, as we are now actually witnessing with the labor shortage that is indeed tied to high cost of living.
• No more building of Offices, we are a built out city and should convert empty office building to residential as in the empty hi- rise on El Camino also all new development with no parking should require tenants not to own cars
• San Mateo is overdue for creating neighborhoods that are more diverse in terms of housing so that young people, families, and seniors can all live together as a community. Increasing duplexes and triplexes in traditionally single family neighborhoods would improve everyone's quality of life and bring vitality to our neighborhoods by making them more dynamic, fresh and interesting. • Housing issues are very nuanced and there is not one answer for all. Any government run program should not create more layers of bureaucracy, which only stifles innovation and costs more in the long run. Think outside the box. Try pilot programs or look to other countries and communities to see how they have addressed housing and homelessness. Don't create unnecessary obstacles that create barriers for the people who need assistance today, not tomorrow. • Do something at the same time or before that addresses parking. Do something at the same time or before that addresses the increased traffic that is now present. Thank you. • STOP! Before anyone anywhere builds more housing, see how things shake out after the pandemic. If businesses continue to close and people continue to move away to work from homes outside of San Mateo, there need to be an adjustment in all sorts of housing and businesses that cannot be answered at this time. The fact that the state mandates every city build a certain amount of housing is ludicrous. 577 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

54 Besides that, the concept of "affordable" housing is a misnomer, for lack of a better more descriptive word. Affordable to whom? What is considered affordable now, won't be by the time it is built and made available. Also, make sure there is adequate infrastructure to support any additional housing.

That includes water availability, what with drought and climate change. We should all be under water restrictions now regardless if more housing is built or not. Anyone have the courage in San Mateo or state government to approach that topic?
• Do not over crowd San Mateo with housing. Boom and bust will hit hard. Spend the money on infrastructure first so we can get the people that already live here the appropriate living conditions that they have paid taxes for over the years. That infrastructure will last longer than the housing and help out people that visit San Mateo and live here as well. Build for long term sustainability not right now!
• New housing requires stable Infrastructure (water/trash/power/gas/emergency services/air quality/ green zones/pedestrian paths/bike lanes/traffic/disaster plans) before development begins.

Developers must be removed from the decision process. Support business that hire locals and provide housing assistance (good employees create good communities) • Increased public transit is key to being able to expand housing without negatively impacting traffic and other things. If we run more routes more frequently the city will be easier to access. New developments should have walkable or safely bikeable access to regular stores like groceries. • We have ruined our city by overpopulating without a traffic plan. Our downtown is an embarrassment of a traffic and parking mess!
• Stop building luxury apartments on the train tracks and start building family homes in residential areas. • San Mateo should have enough housing projects that allow low to median income to buy/rent at an affordable price.
• Get a job first!
• Retain the beauty and historical character of San Mateo's homes and commercial areas as the Council takes action to address our housing needs.
• I recently moved at the beginning of the month. While looking for new housing I noticed there are a lot of vacant apartments but the asking rent is way too overpriced. Landlords rather have a vacant property than reduce rent. San Mateo does not need to build more, they need the developers/owners to come down in price. A family of four simply cannot afford a $5,000/month 2 bed apartment. • We need parking solutions. If parking was easier, we could have denser housing. Build a parking garage. Only allow people with resident permits to park there. Then we could have more ADUs, more duplexes. Until the bus system is more robust, working people cannot use public transit; it's not 578 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

55 reliable enough and it's not frequent enough. If you miss your bus, it could be an hour until the next one.
• We hopefully can become more creative than ugly multiunit unit structures (i.e. Delaware Street) with retail shops underneath. If a senior wants to downsize it is not affordable or desirable to live in San Mateo any longer. San Mateo is losing its charm.
• With housing should come a plan to make sure our roads can support new housing. • Too many people
• We need housing assistance for those of us whose incomes look high but who are spending enormous amounts for things like childcare. We have very little opportunity to save for a home given the cost of living here (and truly insane home prices even for "starter" homes). Incentives like very low interest rates for mortgages or low to no down payment programs could go a long way. • I have been a long-time renter in San Mateo and my young growing family would like to purchase a home here, but it's proving to be impossible because of the limited stock of 3BR homes and homes that are affordable. This is not a new narrative at all. Does the City have an idea as to how many single-family homes (3BR+) are owned and occupied by a single individual or couple? With single family home prices what they are right now, I understand that it would be financially prohibitive for seniors to downsize and also challenging to move from the neighborhood that they've called home for so long, but could there be a way for those, who do want to downsize, to more easily do so such that these homes could be available for young growing families? • Don't know how you are going to evaluate the data from the first question. I had to force myself not to put 5 for each response so you'd have some variation in importance. • Build more! Get employers involved. They should have a responsibility to take care of their employees and ensure their quality of life isn't terrible.
• High-density cities are worse to live in. Adding more housing makes San Mateo worse. Yes, housing prices have risen, but why is that a problem? Would a business with a rising stock price start programs to drive it down? While it could be a problem if some underpaid professions can't afford to live in the area, for example teachers, the solution is not to drive housing prices down so we can continue to underpay our teachers, it is to pay teachers more. I've lived in San Mateo all my life, and every time new housing is built, the neighborhood gets worse.
• I think the state mandates are unreasonable and should be challenged as many city in the area are doing. We should fight for local control. Additional housing does not lower prices, we have added 1000 of units, and COVID lowered rent more than all the housing built. We need to reevaluate post COVID as where people are working has changed. I doubt a new office building will be built in the next 10 years.
579 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

56 • Stop building offices which create population increases! Encourage regional shifts of commercial activities. It seems that only city officials think it's “cool” to have and brag about this influx of business. • Partner with other cities and counties
• San Mateo is losing its character. I feel like Bay Meadows, while I do like it, feels like I could be in any city, not to mention it is crazy expensive. Hillsdale Avenue is the main artery to Foster City and pre- pandemic levels of traffic were at gridlock from 4 - 6 pm. Incredibly frustrating to go from the top of 92 to the east side of San Mateo. The city of San Mateo should be working with Foster City as well...they keep adding more units with what seems little regard for traffic implications. The units that are being built on Norfolk at Bridgepoint is, I feel, not well thought out with traffic implications. Norfolk can't handle that traffic. And forget about having your kids ride their bikes along there to get to Bayside/Parkside etc. That intersection will be terrible. I do understand the complicated nature of housing/population/traffic, but San Mateo is just becoming a cookie cutter city with box stores, plenty of traffic and rent/housing prices that are forcing out so many generations that grew up here. • "Due to proposition 13 we will always have a problem. I'd you build workforce housing you should be prepared that those who love there must leave when the retire of leave that job. • The area has always been expensive so please realize even if you do all of this we will never have enough housing and many who struggle financially will need to move. It is unfair to out this on the backs of landlords."
• It's a challenging issue that requires study. I personally don't know enough to feel qualified to give a lot of input on how to achieve more housing in a city that already feels crowded. We have to be very careful as we add more housing/cars that we don't destroy our quality of life. It's tragic that most young adults who grew up here and still have family/parents here have to move to the east bay! • I have applied for housing for over 25 years, and so far the City of San Mateo has not done anything for me. I've lived and worked here for 40 years, pay my taxes in a timely manner. Staff has me on a list for 25 years for first time home buyer program . so far nothing has happened. Staff tells me I'm not on her waiting list. I am very disappointed with the city of San Mateo. I'm hoping someone will contact me. I am a good citizen. Hoping to hear from someone back. Thank you!. • I have lived and worked with a car-free, bike-heavy lifestyle in San Mateo for the last five years, renting various single family units alongside other adult roommates. While I think San Mateo has a high quality of life, it is very clear from transport, zoning, and city services that San Mateo is not intended for people with my lifestyle. I want to voice my full support for increasing density, walk ability, and safety for those outside of vehicles. I think this will be essential for the affordability and minimization of the city's environmental impact.
580 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

57 • I think many of the above questions were poorly designed - they seem to me like they were fishing for opinions, but they don't provide actual choices, and don't inform people of trade-offs. Overall, the needs are huge, so large that no individual city or county can really produce enough housing to make up for laggards in the greater region. And logically, if a city has a large underutilized piece of land, like, say, an outmoded office park on the Eastern side of San Mateo, or a shopping mall, you could add a significant number of units if you built tall. But you'd probably run into opposition to anything over 4 stories, which is ridiculous. So some think you can distribute production more widely. But recent decisions to allow 2-story ADUs in single-family neighborhoods like mine, without setbacks and directly on property lines bother me greatly - and I support ADU's in general. However, they are a nice lifestyle addition for homeowners; they will never be produced in large enough numbers to make a difference.

Duplexes will never generate much production in San Mateo either; land and construction costs are way too high. It's a somewhat-better solution for lower cost cities. The only way to add real volume of housing units is through height. Utilize retail parcels. Utilize parts of the event center. Utilize the area near the juvenile detention center. Utilize parcels on El Camino - many are huge, e.g. Ah Sam. Utilize Hillsdale Mall - I live nearby. I would be happy with a mini-city of 10 story buildings - if designed well.

Utilize the area near Molly Stone, on the SM side. There is plenty of land to add tall housing. If it's not going to be tall, then it winds up having minimal impact. • New housing units need to be developed at every income level. • While I agree with the premise of more affordable housing and appreciate all the creative options listed here, it seems we're putting the cart before the horse. Building all this housing requires infrastructure to support the increase in population. Where will these kids go to school? What park will they play in? Is there enough parking? Love the idea of people living near public transportation and/or their jobs, but that does not mean they won't drive on the streets, or need parking. We can't even get El Camino re-paved! It seems like we need to present the vision for the city first and then figure out how to get there.
• Frustrating when young adults who grew up in San Mateo cannot afford to live here and are forced to move away. Much of housing in SM which is considered "affordable", is still not to many and there is not enough of it.
• Yes, there is a need for more affordable housing, but there is no need and no space for more housing overall. The population is dense enough, the infrastructure can hardly support the people that are already living here. In my mind we need to discourage further growth. Any growth that needs to happen needs to be sustainable and consider its effect on biodiversity. Apply the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, by evaluating the respective underlying targets and their applicability to San Mateo's development.
581 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

58 • Making affordable housing a top priority; connecting it to social justice and equity work • "San Mateo needs to add more housing units to make it more affordable. We should spend less time adding rules and restrictions (such as zoning that limits to single family, requirements to include affordable units, etc) and instead be open to all alternatives that will add more housing units. • All of the following is welcome:- converting single family unit to duplexes and triplexes • - converting single family unit to duplexes and triplexes • - affordable units
• - taller building with units at market rates
• - units near mass transit and far from mass transit " • please don't neglect parking and traffic impacts. I heard about a new proposed development in San Bruno with over 100 apartments and something like 20 parking spots. THAT IS NOT REALISTIC. Even if people use transit for jobs and other basic elements of living, most people need a car sometimes and therefore need a spot to park it.
• Please do not create another Bay Meadows-type situation, where there community is built to further house and serve privilege. Prioritize community, not developer's financial outlook. Put a “build by” stipulation into agreements, removing the power of developer ls to delay infrastructure development to times when it best serves their individual interests. Stop prioritizing non-affordable “luxury” rental housing for high-wage tech workers.
• Address transportation. I am a SF native and have not see any new bridges ir roads that have dealt with the increase in bay area population. I have a clipper card. I am concerned about traffic, air quality, lack of infrastructure improvements (roads etc.) And yet we want to keep adding more homes. • Money should be used wisely. Many of the above solutions are short sighted. Housing should have blended in overall city development plans. Piece meals will be disaster for any city. It is the big tech created these housing problems. They should be hold responsible for solving it. They have the money to build new communities and cities in mountains. Policies should be made to encourage them to move out.
• None of my children who are now young adults can afford decent housing here. The airspace above our three downtown areas is wasted space. We should allow and encourage those property owners to build apartments over the existing businesses.
• Single family neighborhoods should remain as they are. Use unused/undeveloped space to create affordable housing.
• Do not allow taller buildings in R1 neighborhoods and keep taller developments located in areas with existing taller developments.
582 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

59 • Improving transit in the community, and co-locating housing with such transit, would be a huge benefit!
• Housing near public transportation is a must. Low income residents often do not have access to cars. • I think the covid restrictions have really hurt businesses in San Mateo, especially restaurants. These restrictions mean less profit which means higher prices for goods sold. This impacts everyone and trickles down to those trying to save for a house in San Mateo. • What is the vacancy rate in San Mateo with all the new housing that have been built in the past few years.
• Spend some money along with the other interested peninsula cities to fight the Sacramento Mandates that no one seems to want. You never asked the question would you like to preserve the community as it is? This survey gives the flavor of confirming the biases of the survey writers. • Inflated RHNA numbers exaggerate the need. Basic resource limitations, such as water and electricity, are not available to support the growth targets. Basic policies to over develop the peninsula while avoiding other parts of California should be re-evaluated. Housing to commercial ratios should be determined and enforced.
• Let's have owners rent places at a reasonable price and owners being responsible for paying water and trash. As well for properties who are in charge of apartments or houses need to be more considerate when asking for rent because you still have to pay water and trash and if they would like that every apartment should have its own meter for the water.
• I love what the city has done in the Bay Meadows development. I'd love to see more developments like this in strategic areas.
• We should have Rent Control Policy to limit the rent increase % to make sure the market rental is affordable to low income population
• Schools and roads need to be considered and improved with add'l housing. Traffic is already a mess, how are we to enjoy living here with 1000s more added?? More family-centered places need to me considered too. There is no roller skating, arcades, mini-golf, etc anymore. Is the plan for San Mateo to become a metro downtown that's not intended to raise children? The quality of life here is not being considered in the forced addition of housing. Big tech companies should included housing on their large properties rather than squeezing more units in already small single family lots. • Over building will ruin this city.
• I have been a renter in San Mateo county for about 25 years and city of San Mateo for almost 15 years.

I work at SFO as an essential worker where I have been since first moving here. I dream of being able to afford to buy a house near my job, but on my salary I cannot compete against wealthy investors, 583 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

60 who only want an investment, not a place to live. It is unfortunate, and will likely never change until essential services are more severely impacted from lack of workers. • The housing (both selling and rent) is ridiculous. Due to the high prices, people like me who are young and grew up in the Bay Area are forced to live in sketchy areas since they are cheaper, or move out.

The problem is if you have a job here and have to live in San Mateo, but it is so right because the rent is taking up so much of our income.
• Yes. Please explain why high levels of job/population growth in the already most populated state are being encouraged without environmental impacts being resolved. Please identify the so-called benefits of "growth" to the existing residents and the environment. How will water be provided for all the projected population growth and how can we keep increasing housing/population without knowing this. Who benefits; who pays for the externalities of growth? Link the big money development interests to their environmental damage. Will the construction unions, whose salaries have boomed, decrease their labor costs for affordable housing projects? Ten years ago, pre-tech boom, SM was much more balanced, diverse and sustainable. We need a development "time-out" to improve the social and environmental equity of the current population and environment. And also, to start restoring trust in government.
• The last question is more about preserving existing housing than it is access to housing. Both are important but they are not the same. We need to increase access to opportunity by creating new housing and keep existing residents housed by providing rental assistance, creating a rental registry, and enforcing just cause eviction.
• Rent control and eviction moratoriums will do more harm than good in the long run. The voters spoke to these policies in 2015. Let's move on and not go down that rat hole again. • I think in order to get buy-in for denser housing, you need address people's traffic concerns. I'd like to see more multistory flats, like what you find in the Richmond and Eureka Valley districts in SF. • We need more housing of all types, especially housing for middle and low income people. I live in a single family home and would be delighted to add a small rental unit but I would need two things - an affordable loan and assistance overseeing the project. I would like to see a city program helping people to add second or third units to their properties. There are environmental impacts to new housing - but there are far greater environmental costs to Not building new housing in places like San Mateo that have jobs, transit, and quite a bit of land area that has low exposure to natural hazards. Without housing in places like San Mateo, people end up on the streets where, through no fault of their own, they leave trash and human waste on streets and in streams. Other people live far from their jobs and do super-commutes. We need more housing that is designed in such a way that it preserves public green spaces, reduces or is traffic-neutral, and increases the diversity of neighborhoods. 584 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

61 • While I do think that adding ADUs and in-law units will be helpful, that process depends on homeowners having the desire and funds and energy to push things forward one parcel/unit at a time.

We need faster progress than that, so I also support larger projects, particularly city- or county- sponsored housing that looks similar to Lesley Towers (close to downtown and amenities, large building with lots of units).
• "Establish rental registry.
• Look for ways to prevent homelessness through preventing evictions." • "when private developers set aside 'affordable' housing, it should really be affordable. 10% off the normal price in this area isn't affordable either. make it a deeper discount and make the developer pay for it.
• "
• San Mateo does not need expanded housing policies. The city is becoming urbanized and losing its suburban qualities.
• We need specific plans with measurable results to address the past housing discrimination and it's resulting impacts on those discriminated against. We need to try and address the housing inequality that is the result of past unfair actions.
• I think this survey is "slanted". The City's priority should be to existing property owners. • L
• Stop assuming we have to provide housing for everyone. There are PLENTY of places to live. If you want to live in San Mateo, there is a cost.
• "This survey is very biased with circular reasoning and biased towards high density housing questions coming up as options in every question.
• Work with existing land and property owners to improve their land and building to accommodate more housing units by offering cost reductions and cost sharing for construction and modifications. " • Affordable housing for independent seniors
• "Please do not ruin our great neighborhoods like San Mateo Park by allowing unrestricted building of multiplex units.
• "
• We can't add housing until we fix the traffic problems that continue to escalate in this area. You mention building smaller housing units which only will increase density in this city. This only adds to the problems we have on the road. Traffic is a concern on the major highways but also is a concern on the smaller city streets. San Mateo was built as a residential suburb, with mostly single-family home neighborhoods. Don't take that away from us who pay the property taxes. 585 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

62 • The price and availability of housing in San Mateo is greatly affected by the amount of disposable income from the high tech, bio tech, and finance professionals in this area. The values are continually driven up by sales that are hundreds of thousands over asking. You can't make up for this by ruining the character of San Mateo neighborhoods and taxing the residents to pay for developer and underserved community services. The middle class is being wiped out here and it's starting to look like San Jose.
• The push to develop downtown San Mateo with multiple high rise buildings is not giving the community what is needed. Housing with space for families, and is affordable housing really affordable? Increasing density comes with increased traffic and this affects existing residents and does not offer a better quality of life. I am looking to leave San Mateo county because of the lack of planning and vision for the Peninsula. People don't want to be forced into small “chicken coops” which are still very expensive. My children have no desire to return to where they grew up, focus on ADU's to add space for both young and old in life transitions.
• It may not be necessary to build any new housing. San Mateo may have maxed out in that regard. We don't need to feel compelled to build on every square foot of undeveloped land. We certainly do not want tall or high rise or high density apartments or housing. That would be ugly and an eyesore. Some things are just better left alone. There are many other small cities, towns and suburbs with abundant undeveloped land where housing can be built.
• We must ensure that our infrastructure can support additional housing wherever built. Water, utilities and services need to be met and can support new developments before permitting projects can be done.
• See above under other.
• I highly oppose the idea of turning single family homes into duplexes, as well as adding ADUs. While I understand the need for more housing, overcrowding could become an issue. It feels like the City is Justin's trying to “warehouse” bodies.
• Right now, lots of people live in RV parks. There are no protections for those who rent space in such parks. They can raise the rent $500 in one year if they want. Renters of RV space need protection.

Cap rent increases across the board at .5% or 1% per year. • "- Convert 1960s style subdivisions into walkable, mixed use, and denser zoned communities. • - Stop the building of luxury studio apartments. Incentivize for accommodating blue collar families. We need 1000s more units quickly.
• - Implement road diets & replace with bike paths & mass transit" • Build new houses outside of the main transit area to avoid traffic congestion. Also developers should stop building small rental units with high rent that only benefiting young high-income groups. 586 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

63 • There is continued building of high density rental units while there is still a high vacancy rate because the rents are too high for these new units. Even the so called 10% affordable units are not affordable.

The new building of multiple unit buildings is removing neighborhood businesses ie: independent grocery stores, pharmacies and neighborhood restaurants. The roads cannot support the traffic the building is causing along with the lack of infrastructure. • No new housing should be created until the city has the infer structural to support it. The city so far in my opinion is careless and not disciplined in its housing policy. The city is willing to build housing at the expense of small businesses. The city appears to allow housing without regard to business and open space . The city is willing to sacrifice quality housing just for the building fees. • Pre-fabricated housing can lower the cost of housing and has been an available technology for 50 years. Union opposition is a big hurdle but pre-fab can be built with union workers. It is more efficient and therefore there will be fewer jobs but there has to be a trade off to get costs down. The only "model" we have is "trailer park" type units. But any type of housing can be build off site. • Housing is a human right, and the fact that we cannot house our own community's teachers, nurses, plumbers, carpenters, janitors, grocers, and service workers ””the people who keep our society functioning”” is nothing less than shameful. People simply should not be stuck choosing between commuting 2.5 hours from Tracy or living in old broken down housing to work the jobs required to make this city livable. We need a robust social housing program, and I believe the Vienna model has a lot to offer. This video from The Gravel Institute is a nice introduction: https://youtu.be/LVuCZMLeWko • Freeways are already congested. Even though some apartment buildings are built near train stations, people still drive. Building more apartment complex with hundreds of families will only make it worse.

All we need is a good public transportation system, so people can commute easily to peninsula from less densely populated area. For ex, train from Hayward to San Mateo, Palo Alto, etc. • More housing is more pollution, more cars with no place to park or to drive. • Please build inside each Independent (but not disabled) Senior Housing apartments to include a washer and dryer inside each unit.
• Maintain open space, consider traffic and noise.
• There's no silver bullet in solving our housing crisis. We need to work together to encourage the development of new units in the form of multi-family and mixed use buildings as well as in ADUs and lot splitting of SFH => duplexes. All of these tools must utilized to ease costs. The state and possibly federal government also have a role to play in regional planning and the creation of funding streams or tax credits to make it all happen.
• I feel the peninsula is busting at the seams. I feel ferry service stops with connecting buses, either corp shuttles or SamTrans would help tremendously
587 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

64 • San Mateo needs to create a rental database to collect valuable and otherwise unavailable information about the rental market. This could also help to ensure that landlords are complying with laws that have been created to protect tenants from abuse.
• I think a rent stabilization mechanism is needed here and state wide to prevent rent gouging and profiteering..
• We also need a rental data registry to provide valuable and otherwise unavailable data about the rental market, and to track whether landlords are adhering to laws intended to protect tenants from abuse.
• More density, higher construction especially in and around downtown • Allow Caltrain to own residential property around the stations and rent it out (Transit-oriented development) like in Arlington, VA and Hong Kong. Upzone all of San Mateo. • Important to ensure affordable housing opportunities throughout entire city. Provide rental data registry.
• San Mateo should be a leader in housing production in terms of diversity and affordability. • The Permit needs to be more efficient.
• More opportunities to purchase homes through programs like via Housekeys • Market-based solutions will never solve the housing affordability crisis because the market treats housing as a commodity instead of a human need / human right. We must start to de-commodify housing through public/social ownership. Until we reach that point, use all available means to keep current residents protected and prices down: rent control + vacancy control, and impose a vacancy tax to incentivize landlords to rent all units / discourage speculators from buying units and keeping them empty because it's simply an investment / place to park their money. • "A decade of TOD, what's basically a whole new city within San Mateo, thousands of housing units added over that time and we still have a problem? Not a big surprise. Building more units will not only NOT solve the problem but will continue making the city unlivable and ruining it's character and degrading the quality of life. The only winners are the developers who are making millions. Already, there are certain times of day when it's impossible to get from one side of town to the other by auto.

All this development is ruining our city.

• San Mateo is and always has been expensive. Trying to out build the law of supply and demand is not working."
• No new housing, no more growth. This survey is all about your personal ultra liberal views. Stop catering to the lazy people that want to work the system. Recognize that “underprivileged” are mostly people who want it all for free. People can move to where they can afford to live. I want to live in 588 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

65 Beverly Hills, but I don't expect to get to live there, because I can't afford to. I work hard for what I have, I've seen the “underprivileged” they are “under motivated.” The elected officials best be careful and remember who they work for.
• Since renters account for half of San Mateo's population, it's critical to do more to ensure affordable rental units in the city and that policies are in place to protect renters from unjust evictions. Yet, we lack even the most basic data about rental units in San Mateo. I think the city should establish a rental registry to help gather key data about rental rates, evictions, and track landlord compliance with state and local laws. These data will be critical for the city to develop effective policies to address the city's housing needs moving forward.
• "- 100+ Units project should be broken up into smaller parts so there is a phased approach versus needing to wait 2+ years for planning then 2+ years for construction. (Creating supply constraint). • - Since 2008 most new housing has been for rent, need more private ownership. (Creating supply constraint).
• - Need sticks for project that are approved the go undeveloped Essex Central Park and 28th & El Camino (Creating supply constraint).
• - Densities should mirror ADU policy, use and density should be proportional to lot size versus a one size fits all policy (makes land costs too expensive and encourages hold outs)." • Less offices & housing built exclusively for the employees of the offices. Priority should be given to working class residents who serve the community.
• "cap private owners from raising rents, not allowed to increase over 5%; fine owners who raise rents over 5% each year.
• Landlord incentives to keep rents down."
• Stop the current Bohannan survey asking same questions. • As someone who has lived in San Mateo since 1963 and in my single-family home since 1966, I want my neighborhood to stay the same until I die.
• San Mateo drastically needs better mass transit to service a growing population. Increasing housing without improving mass transit should be avoided at all costs. Make it possible for more people to CONVENIENTLY leave their cars at home.
• "(1) To make housing more affordable, there must be more housing which equates to higher density.

Higher density puts a strain on public infrastructure: parks, traffic, schools. In lieu payments do not create more roads, more classrooms or more parkland. Incremental additional housing does not address these problems.
• (2) Housing is a regional issue. Additional development in San Mateo will not change regional trends.

Housing costs are increasing region wide. San Mateo alone cannot adequately address the problem. 589 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

66 What San Mateo does must be compared and coordinated with Hillsborough, Foster City, Belmont, etc.

Changing San Mateo alone will not ""fix it all"".
• (3) Traffic is a major issue. Transit-orientated or near-amenities-housing will still create additional traffic.
• (4) Those that currently own homes in San Mateo, are thrilled with the rise in property values and are not impacted by a housing shortage. Those that currently rent in San Mateo, will not see any relief from rental prices from incremental additions of housing units. Asking current residents to formulate long term housing plans may be unproductive, because the current residents 9including myself) may be naive and under informed. The different communities on the peninsula are geographically similar but substantially different flavors (compare Atherton to Redwood City). Perhaps a better question is what does San Mateo want to be? More like Foster City or more like Palo Alto or more like San Carlos? • (5) Not addressed in this survey is what housing options are the most sustainable and address climate change? Envision where San Mateo needs to be 100 years from now. Okay, now with that vision - adopt policies and plans to move in that direction. " • There really needs to be a rent control limit for the county, these landlords are going way too high in rent and their units are so small
• "Again (see 3rd answer to first question), we're paying the price for San Francisco especially, along with other high-job-growth cities in Silicon Valley, adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs (mostly very high-paying) in the last decade, with almost zero regard for the impact on housing and surrounding local communities. Now most rank-and-file workers and families are priced out of the market. • But while we *do* need to provide more affordable housing, we have to resist the urge to build so urgently and imprudently that we destroy existing neighborhoods and communities -- and the things that make those communities attractive and livable -- in the process. • Finally, the mindset that even recent high school and college grads MUST be provided with affordable, $1K-a-month rental units with ocean or bay views, before they've even toiled at a job for awhile (seemingly a prevalent viewpoint among the oh-so-enlightened in SF or Sacramento), and that thousands of such units must be built immediately, regardless of cost or impact on communities, seems a bit idiotic.
• On the flip side, those that have toiled and saved and worked in and served our local communities and/or have children in our communities and schools DO indeed have a just expectation that they should have at least a fighting chance to afford some place, any place, to live in our communities. • -- Good luck to you, city officials, in this quest !!!" 590 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

67 • Rent is high. Houses to purchase are unaffordable. I would like to see programs for first-time home buyers. More single housing developments with 3 plus bedrooms to accommodate families, which San Mateo is comprised of. Thank you.
• Desperately need more units.
• I think the City has done a good job thus far with adding more units, and hopefully they will continue on this path. Public transportation is a big issue and could be improved upon. Adding the additional railroad crossings has also been very helpful.
• An increase in housing capacity, and particularly of high-density housing, is necessary and unavoidable.

Subjective standards about "look and feel" should not be used as a veil for what is opposition against higher density housing.
• The city council keeps approving more and more buildings which increases the traffic jams. But the council doesn't care about this. Then we're told to conserve water. So how does the council conserve water? They allow more buildings that have more showers and toilets that need more water! The redevelopment at the site near the main post office is a good example. How many toilets were flushing back then? 10-20? Now how many toilets are flushing with all those apartments? 100's! How is that conserving water? We need to stand up to the state politicians and say NO MORE BUILDING! • "Please have a rent control in San Mateo. Apartment is so expensive. I have no money left for saving. • Please open more housing for low income and first time buyer program in San Mateo l, so that we have an opportunity to own a house."
• More affordable housing is great however the impact is limited to a small group of beneficiaries.

Improving access to San Mateo via public transit benefits both a larger portion of the population by reducing demand for existing units.
• Improve program similar to that found with "Housekeys" programs for area such as Menlo Park, Hayward, Campbell.
• Do not bring BART into city of San Mateo to keep crime down. Give more of a voice for opposing view points that are concerned about the negative impact that over building the town of San Mateo can bring and never be undone. The survey is biased.
• quit trying to solve everyone problem education is the key to income and affordability • "This survey is a bit disingenuous. It drives the person answering the survey to a predetermined set of conclusions. It would have been nice to choose 3 options I did not want like lot splits or inappropriate multi family developments in single family neighborhoods. • "
591 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

68 • "My family has lived in San Mateo for generations and we're getting pushed out because of the cost.

Houses are ridiculously over priced, land lords are gouging people for rent money and the bay area is just plain over populated.
• If houses and apartments were affordable that would alleviate a lot of the problem. Also cramming people in high density apartments is not the solution.
• I've seen families who have lived here for generations pack and leave. So sad. All I know is I wish with all my heart I could afford a house. A home should be for everyone not just the wealthy." • "The elephant in the room...approve affordable housing...not just market rate. • Use affordable housing developers, like Mid-Peninsula to build 1000's of affordable units, not just a couple of hundred of them.
• Look around there is plenty of market rate housing available, both rental and for sale, right now up and down the Peninsula. Thousand of units...why approve more, when clearly that is not the solution to affordability. We can't build the millions of market rate units that it would take to lower the cost of California real estate.
• This whole process seems to be some kind of game, in which the only stated alternatives have a clear pro-market rate development bias. Why is the section about designating affordable housing? • The same kind of game pushed by the Bohannon Companies in their recent, losing campaign. • Running out first responders and essential workers as the target market has been used for over 40 years now as a front for market rate developers...it's getting old.

• This is a critical issue for our city and appreciate you seeking freed back and working to solve a very complex and challenging issue.
• As an educator in San Mateo, and a middle-age woman living on a single income, I have a great deal of trouble finding appropriate housing in San Mateo. I currently rent a duplex, and must live with my two adult children (it only has two bedrooms), and need to work a side job to afford my rent. I don't have a bedroom, I live in the living room. I would really like to finish my career and enter retirement in a more comfortable housing situation, but fear none exists for me on my income on the Peninsula. If I move out of the area, I will pay more commuting. It is a catch 22. • the question at the beginning of this survey suggests that San Mateo can continue to add more housing and still be a great place to live. I feel that San Mateo is already over-built and the infrastructure needed for more development is not there and San Mateo has slowly deteriorated from a place that was great to live to a place that I no longer identify with and the quality of life has diminished. Over the past 15 years I have seen an rise in the population of San Mateo yet we have less emergency services and overall infrastructure. What is being done about that? There is basically no protection for residents 592 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

69 when things are stolen because we have no police force. You can read it all over NextDoor, property is stolen everyday and as citizens, there is no protection anymore. • Jobs need to pay more!! If wages kept up with inflation and the housing market, we wouldn't be in this mess. The minimum wage should be increased even more! This is one of the most expensive places to live in the country and minimum wage is woefully behind. • Of course, Please review your policies and your commitments about serving communities. Want to solve the housing problem? So, build houses or rent houses with prices that are not abusive and that help people to have decent housing. No for free but paying decent prices according how our county pay our salaries.
• smaller homes on small lots but restrict vehicles to 2 per parcel • Duplexes please
• We need to improve and increase public transportation so people could get around without cars thereby freeing up space for more apartments and reducing the need for more parking and reducing congestion on the streets. I hear so often that we shouldn't build any more housing because it will bring more cars to the neighborhood and tie up traffic. If we had efficient, safe, and clean public transportation maybe that wouldn't necessarily be the case. • Build infrastructure (roads, power, transit) and stop trying to manipulate the housing market and it will improve.
• Glad to see San Mateo taking steps to increase supply of housing/reduce cost of housing. I feel that new housing/denser housing needs to go hand-in-hand with improved transit options. A denser San Mateo can also be a greener San Mateo if we improve the range of non-car-based options for getting people to work, school, etc.
• "Build more, lots more!
• Especially west of El Camino Real."
• We need more housing urgently. Any measures that can lead to more housing have my support! • It is a near suicide wish to try to bicycle anywhere without the kind of BICYCLE only infrastructure that makes the safety threshold enough that the masses, including old people, and people with small children, feel safe. Paint on streets doesn't prevent cars from going into bike lanes! You MUST have separation with planters (which also add beautifying foliage). Allocating space to park cars, in a system where each person owns their own car is NOT sustainable. Cars need to be LESS needed in our system.

We should have them on a shared basis similar to the public library system where each of us doesn't have to own a copy of Charles Dickens but it is the occasional access that needs to be met...most of the time most peoples cars sit parked! And here we are talking about parking being a problem? Decrease dependence on cars by creating housing density (building UP), near meaning walkable or bikeable to 593 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

70 shops, parks and places to eat and stop allocating space for giant metal boxes on wheels that take up so much space, add to pollution and we then have the trouble to having to allocate parking space for. • "We were homeowners for 30+ years in Burlingame, but in 2009 with the depression 2.0, we lost a teaching job and graphic arts job. So we had to sell our home and lost all our equity since this whole depression was caused by housing speculation. The home values were back up to their “real Burlingame” values 2 years later, but we couldn't wait that long since the panic caused the closure of the business I had worked for went bankrupt and the state of California cut back many night school teaching jobs, including my husband's. We are now making it work by having a large storage rental space for legacy and current business items. The rent takes up 25% of our income and we are continuing our day-jobs so we can currently afford it. I don't see many opportunities to downsize from here. I do see an effect in our rent from the new rental units built along the Rail Road tracks. More units would help everyone in that respect, because there are many lower paying jobs WAITING for employees that can't afford to live here any more.
• Full-on public housing for low income workers is not the answer (Bedford-Stivason in NYC proves that) but making new apartment units have to include 20% of smaller units for regular low wage workers with some kind of double depreciation for those units could help them be built. Living in mixed income housing brings it back to the “village” idea where low income folks can watch and learn how better income folks live, as well as having better income folks seeing that low income folks are working just as hard as they are, but at jobs they wouldn't want to do anyway." • Hope there's special Loan program for those medium-income families to purchase house in San Mateo County.
• Improve educational system, lower commercial rates so business can stay open to promote jobs and increase seasonal entertainment and leisure programs
• Reduce the amount of investment properties. Such as an HOA with CC&R's restricting a certain percentage of rental properties within that area. Safely and affordably build up. • "I don't think homeowners should be able to own more than 1 property in the city, or the state. •
• Is there anyway to create temporary units with shipping containers? •
• Or perhaps to continue to buy empty hotel rooms for the homeless? •
• Public transportation should be more frequent so it encourages more ridership. More commuter shuttles to popular industrial parks would be useful."
594 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

71 • Make project parking requirements pragmatic and on-site. DO NOT rely on neighborhood street parking to "absorb" the overflow! (BTW, that is the opposite of good bike lane land use policy also.) Stop the expectation that if a project has insufficient parking, residents will forego car ownership and use public transport instead - that is SO unrealistic! Studios must get 1.0 parking spaces, 1 & 2 bedroom units get 2.0 parking places, etc. Most low income residents work 2 jobs to make sufficient income to pay rent of "affordable" units. Mass transit will never work for getting to /from 2 jobs/day. • It has reached criminal levels. It should NOT cost $5000 to rent a one bedroom, nor should it take duel income. Read the fine print, they are expecting 4 to 6 time monthly rent at $5000 to even apply. I work in tech and can't afford the $5000 a month rent so have been stuck in my apartment for over 25 years because there is NOTHING I can afford to move to either in rental or to purchase. If I do move it will be out of the area due to the lack of options.
• We are a built out city, no more room density is bad, it spreads Covid and increases crime and is not healthy. People are leaving California, because of plans like this to destroy our cities and neighborhood.
• Affordable housing for middle class folks who make ok salary & not high salaries of those in tech industry.
• "1. Cost of property tax.
• 2. Cost of homeowners insurance.
• 3. Cost of flood insurance.
• 4. Cost of upkeep (maintenance and repair).
• 5. Limited parking and transportation costs (eg. toll lanes are a parasitic cost). • 6. Maintain/establish neighborhood quality of life (careless housing growth). • 7. Deteriorating quality of life that drives people out of the city. • 8. Livable/stagnant salaries (housing cost is at the mercy of inflation). • 9. Understand/education of the total and escalating cost of housing. • 10. Assure rental property is worthwhile to own or just a losing proposition." • There is not enough affordable senior housing in San Mateo. If you earn $40,000/year and are retired, where can you live?
• Frankly, matter how much additional housing is built, it will have little benefit to current residents as long as new people/new businesses from outside the area continue to move into San Mateo. Perhaps preference can be given to long term residents and their children. Exactly how that could be accomplished would be the question.
• I don't understand why buildings aren't taller here. We're pretty far from SFO flight paths. For example, I live in a 4 story apartment building. I often wonder why it wasn't 6 stories. That could have been 50 595 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

72 percent more units on the same footprint. I think downtown San Mateo can support and should have taller developments. There's one 15 story apartment building, but there could be more. • "Educate retiree's in low income and subsidized relocation. I was a Kaiser Secretary, fell down, several surgeries later forced to retire. Could not move on disability. I looked for years to relocate and did not know that subsidized rent was available. Went through entire inheritance after partner died, covid sheltered me in place and basically I'm homeless, all I own is in storage, I care for a elder after my battling cancer. What is needed is a consultant who knows properties and relocates me into affordable housing.
• Looking online for months, years at I thought was unaffordable rentals I tired from chemo, older age and exhaustion. I asked San Mateo Housing if there was a class or training, I would love helping place those having a hardship. Us seniors do not wish to move out of state, away from our doctors, friends, family. We are not a throw away generation of retirees. " • Higher buildings downtown, transforming some of the old unattractive single story commercial buildings along el Camino into taller, more attractive buildings but with assistance for small businesses who may be impacted, turn Hillsdale mall into mixed use commercial and residential. Include small studio units, perhaps like those in Asia, and larger units that are multigenerational or can accommodate families, build housing for teachers and their families on school grounds and perhaps for other civil servants as well, turn the old OSH property into housing- so convenient to restaurants and shopping. If feasible, convert vacant commercial buildings into apartments- even just some floors if allowed could be a win win, esp given more remote work for certain sectors. How about the set of low buildings near the Marriott and 19th Ave neighborhood- they are on a big piece of land. Could those be knocked down and turned into mixed commercial/retail and housing. People don't get on Caltrain to go to target, build close to shopping so it is in walking distance. Please do not mix apartment buildings in with single family homes. If I wanted to live in high density housing I would not have chosen a single family neighborhood. Ensure adequate water, Etc are available for people, build green buildings. While I sympathize with homeless folks, providing more resources may draw more homeless people to the area- need to work with neighboring cities to ensure they are offering the same. For example, what does Hillsborough plan to do to address homelessness in the county? Any open land in unincorporated San Mateo that is available? I worry about creating hotels for homeless folks along el Camino. While I could be wrong, it is my understanding that the rates of meth use is quite high, esp among people living in encampments. People screaming, agitated, etc are not going to do well living in high density housing, those around them will expect neighborly behaviors. If some of the hotels purchased by the city are for homeless populations, there also needs to be access to appropriate mental health and 596 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

73 substance abuse treatment, job assistance, etc along with it. LifeMoves for homeless families is a good example.
• Please consider that the infrastructure for this city will not support too many more people. The infrastructure for electricity, water, plumbing, trash/recycling should all have enough capacity to support more housing before the housing is put in. Also, there should be enough parks and open spaces in every neighborhood of the city before additional construction is considered. We won't be doing current residence any service if adding more residence reduces the quality of life for all. • Not allowing tech companies to take over multiple units for employees. Each occupant should be able to find their own without tech companies stepping in.
• Government and community leadership needs to collect data related to the number of jobs and income of the population. How many jobs in the city or county are full-time? How many are part-time.

How many single income jobs can afford a studio or one bedroom dwelling? • The highest-resource neighborhoods should allow more types of housing: plexes, townhomes, small- to-midsize apartment and condo buildings, cottage courts, and more. • Is zoning additional *office* jobs relevant to housing price? Based on Economics 101, the price of anything is a balance of supply and demand. I presume we do need more office jobs, but would that also generate more demand for people (understandably) wanting to live in San Mateo? How does San Mateo find the optimal balance?
• It is time to do something, rather than just talk about what to do. • Don't allow tall buildings to be constructed in areas that have single family homes. • San Mateo has a history of developers who live away from San Mateo and develop in their own self interest. They have supported racism, segregation, and "old boys" ways of doing business. San Mateo needs to find some new developers with ethics and a sense of community. Business as usual will not support affordability or fair housing. Some Council members need to think about who they should be serving.
• I wasn't able to write in above, but I would love to see office spaces (especially of large tech sector offices) be purchased and repurposed for housing now that nearly two years have passed where most large companies have allowed employees to work from home. I understand there is significant re- zoning that would need to be done to convert these spaces to housing but I really think it would be a valuable opportunity to make use of the desirable land we have in San Mateo County which is currently being vastly underutilized.
• Unlimited growth is not sustainable. Public education regarding environmental limits to growth should be on-going and at the fore front. Affordable housing is only achievable by public no-profit housing. 597 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

74 The private sector has not and will not build sufficient affordable housing as there is no profit in it.

Water is a very limited resource and existing supplies are not sufficient to sustain long-term growth. • Outdated ordnances, unfavorable permitting requirements and obstructionist NIMBYism has exacerbated housing affordability in San Mateo for decades. It is now a crisis for the middle and lower classes. New homes for rent and purchase must be built, despite opposition from existing residents who benefited from and exacerbated supply limits. Action to ameliorate this dire issue is crucial or the economy and body politic of the area will lead to greater heights of crisis. • We need more housing everywhere, especially in existing single family neighborhoods. To avoid increased traffic, we need to prioritize better options for waking, biking and transit. • "San Mateo, many other cities the County and the State have tended to approach affordable housing by focusing on building new buildings and then worrying about everything else later. Affordable housing that is sustainable and attractive must be a holistic effort. Preserving existing affordable housing is key. If new buildings are created, however, there must be a holistic plan at the same time that shows how there will be sufficient public transit (both east/west as well as north/south), open space, parking, traffic safety, retail/grocery/etc shops and services around the housing. This will make the new/preserved housing more attractive to the purchasers/renters, as well as to their neighbors.

Everyone wants quality of life. Just building a building doesn't do it. • We also need to encourage more affordable rentals and purchases. Helping with downpayment loans/subsidies for both rentals and subsidies removes a huge obstacle. More innovative public/private partnerships can speed up creation/preservation of affordable housing rather than putting impact fees in bank accounts where they sit for a very long time doing no good for the community.
• We need more focus on specifically preserving/creating affordable housing, not just building lots more market rate housing in the hopes that that will put pressure on less new housing units to lower their rents/prices. While this is a strategy, we have leaned on it far too much for our city's needs. • Finally, while there are greater financial incentives for our City to keep approving more commercial buildings, this only continues to throw our housing/jobs imbalance further out of wack and makes residents cynical about our City's commitment to affordable housing. If the State is serious about addressing affordable housing, State/local and private developer collaborations should focus on encouraging more mixed use housing (and not just luxury housing units). This is not just about $$$. It is about regulations and short and long term incentives. • Thanks for putting this survey out. Everyone in San Mateo wants more affordable housing. There may be several reasons for this, but there is a common goal. I look forward to how our General Plan 2040 presents a holistic and actionable approach to affordable housing that we all can get behind." 598 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022

75 • Housing needs easy transit - public or bike connections for new housing is necessary • In my opinion we need higher density housing near transit and we need to invest in a high quality transit network and a high quality bike network.
• We are not meeting the critical needs of extremely low income people who grew up in this community and who are either elderly or challenged by a disability. A studio apt is not adequate for those who need live-in personal assistance in order to remain in their home community. The federal incentive/reimbursement formula for developers based on number of units should not be allowed to preclude/disincentivize options for those whose needs require more square footage than a studio.

Exploration of duplex/quadplex arrangements, in addition to 1-2 bedroom apts, would be very helpful in meeting some of these needs. We also need to address housing needs of direct support persons who make it possible for individuals with disabilities to access and participate in the life of this city. 599 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 40 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

Appendix H-F
CITY OF SAN MATEO BUILDERS FOCUS GROUP – FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM LOCAL

DEVELOPERS DURING A FOCUS GROUP ON POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO INCRE ASE EASE OF CONSTRUCTING NEW HOUSING.

600 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

1 The following comments were collected as part of a workshop with housing developers, builders, and architects on policies and programs for the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element on November 15th, 2021 via Zoom Webinar. Seven external participants and ten City of San Mateo Housing Element team members joined the event and results from the discussion are presented below.

Discussion Topic 1: Zoning and Building Regulations
Summary: There was general interest in relaxing height restrictions, particularly as they can conflict with minimum height requirements for ground floor uses. There was support for relaxing parking requirements in general and for excluding above grade parking from FAR calculations. There was also interest in establishing a local density bonus program to complement the State Density Bonus law. • “The height calculation is too rigid; the City should regulate height by story rather than by feet.” • “For modular construction, the minimum heights go up within same number of floors, an extra 14-15" per floor. As modular becomes more popular, the City could consider allowing additional height to accommodate modular construction.”
• “To have FAR and density (e.g. FAR of 2) at the same time is at conflict. State Density Bonus language on FAR appears to be mutually exclusive of unit per acre density. I would like greater flexibility here.” (comment supported by multiple participants).
• “For sites with limited frontage, requiring a fire control room on ground floor and frontage can create a conflict with density and height criteria.”
• “We need more ground floor height if we want to allow mechanical parking options or active commercial.”
• “For an all-residential wood frame construction, five stories within 55’ is ok, but not for taller ground floor, parking or modular construction, it's difficult or not possible to get five stories within 55’.” • “Above ground parking shouldn't be counted as FAR area, and below grade parking is very expensive and drives up unit cost.”
• “I support increasing height and density limits”
• “I support creating a local density bonus program. HOME SF is a program that allows for increases in height for increases of affordability. In one recent project I saw an increase in density of 225% (much more than State Density Bonus) with an increase from 21% to 30% affordable units (ended up with same number at low end, but got more middle-income units). An increase in density led to only a slight cost increase moving from type 5A to type 1 with 3A above.” • “I support the idea that density of 50 du/acre is too low with a 55' height limit.” • “Open space and lot coverage requirements are also constraints, so the 50 units/acre isn’t always the controlling requirement. In South SF at 100 du/acre, the project was aided greatly by reduced parking and open space requirements.”
601 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

2 • “Height limits should have more flexibility. In a recent project a stair bulkhead was counted as an additional floor causing a series of conflicts (including with setbacks). I request additional and broader carve outs or exceptions.”
• “FAR of 1.0 limits density to ~25-30 du/acre, should be addressed. “ • “I request above grade parking not to count as FAR to bring City’s regulations in line with other cities, or include a carve out for housing and mixed-use projects in how FAR is calculated.” • “Any relaxation for mixed-use projects helps with the cost of housing development.” • “Density and height limits are inhibiting smaller unit creation and should be relaxed: I had a project with ~700 sf units and bumping against 3.0 FAR and height limits.” • “State Density Bonus law is sometimes invoked to get the state financing available for affordable housing development. Because state has prioritized cost efficiency, in a high-cost area like San Mateo the only way to demonstrate efficiency is to go for scale with as tall and dense and large as possible.

Lowering parking requirements also helps with this. So does lowering other development standards (e.g. small three bedroom units, and 1.5 baths in a 2 or three bedroom unit).” • “Consider eliminating single-family zoning and/or establishing minimum units per development.” • “I support all of the tenant supports being considered.” • “I support the highest heights and densities possible to get more units. “ • “Eliminating parking requirements could get projects to 75+ du/acre within height limit.” Discussion Topic 2: Development Review and Entitlement Process Summary: Participants suggested that departmental and review agency expectations for level of detail required during the Planning Application (PA) phase should be further clarified and streamlined. There was also a common sentiment that some development standards (e.g. height limits and guest parking requirements) were increasingly out of step with contemporary trends on the Peninsula. • “We need to calibrate the expectations of departments, e.g. Public Works expects Design Development-level design during early entitlements phase.” • “Many development standards are based on more of a suburban community, it takes a lot of effort and work to satisfy those standards that other cities don't have (e.g. guest parking), height limits are too rigid, all of which adds costs to housing development.” • “The application requirements are concise but followed by more robust list of comments that are hard to accommodate, this bogs down resources on both sides. It would be better to have clarity up front on submittal requirements at both pre-app and application phases to limit total number of reviews e.g. streetlight design doesn't need to be done during PA phase.” • “Eliminate the early study session with PC.”
602 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

3 • “Develop a clearer submission checklist to clarify the right element of the appropriate code to be satisfied.”
• “Additional fee clarification would be helpful.”
• “We need to confirm the definition of substantial conformance.” • “Height limits are onerous and inhibit housing development.” Discussion Topic #3: Affordable Housing Alternatives
Summary: There was general interest in seeing an expansion of available incentive programs to bring additional affordable units online in general, and particular interest in creating a strong local density bonus program to extend incentives beyond those in the State Density Bonus. • “Deed restricting is a significant way to address this, greater clarity on what the requirements and thresholds are would be helpful.”
• “Acquisition and upgrading of existing housing units is a worthy concept.” • “All of these programs (inclusionary requirements, including units onsite and offsite, in lieu fees, deed restrictions, land dedication) are good. They should be mutually available.” • “The more options: a bigger toolkit will give developers more opportunities to bring projects online.” • “Be very cautious when setting the relative cost of participation in one program vs another (e.g. if you make offsite 3x more expensive present a clear rationale for the policy that is furthering).” • “Make community benefits a clear formula anyone could calculate.” • “With a base density of 50du/acre, it’s hard to get much of value.” • “Create a local density program: its ok if State doesn't cross match local 1:1, as long as local is extending the tool.”
Discussion Topic #4: Housing in Mixed-Use Developments
Summary: The City should set a minimum density if it wants a higher percentage of housing in mixed-use projects, height limit, FAR and parking a constraint on developing mixed-use, be sensitive to economic thresholds and constraints; consider adopting codes that are more form based. • “The 55’ height limit makes it difficult to have an active ground floor. State Density Bonus is almost always needed to achieve optimal heights. Consider an overlay zone to make this easier to achieve without using State Density Bonus.”
• “For mixed-use with a 15' ground floor ceiling, and 12’-13’ on 2nd/3rd floors, then five stories cannot be achieved within 55’ height limit and constraints created for installing mechanical and HVAC. Allow for greater ground floor flexibility.”
603 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

4 • “Consider more flexible ways to achieve an active ground floor without a traditionally leased commercial space. E.g. amenities for housing, a coffee cart vendor in the lobby, etc.” • “Consider defining number of floors instead of linear feet for height limit.” • “Use Redwood City’s Form Based Code downtown as a model, the city can dictate the form for the sites you want to develop, that can be the roadmap and the applicant can come in and take pieces out of it.”
• “Building systems are more expensive in mixed-use, so a critical mass (minimum size) is necessary to make investment worthwhile; otherwise, mixed-use can be cost prohibitive.” • “I suggest eliminating above ground parking from FAR.” • “We should consider ways to count the inverted parking demand inherent in much mixed-use to lower the total required parking; have shared parking allowed under the code and offer clarity around how shared parking is counted.”
Discussion Topic #5: Parking
Summary: There was significant interest in relaxing parking requirements, particularly in walkable areas close to transit, but there was also an understanding that the market demand supports providing a certain amount of secure on-site parking for residents. There was general agreement that guest parking was unnecessary, but that electric vehicle charging requires more area than traditional parking, and on-site bike parking requirements are high.

• “I would prefer to build to a parking ratio of 1.15 spaces/unit in general but less in more challenging sites and in very-walkable sites. Or we can consider lower ratios.” • “Access to secure parking is a big deal. We put garages into a multi-family because didn't have enough parking.”
• “There are mixed views on mechanical lifts, some developers avoid them while others have had success using them. We have concerns over user error, reliability and unknown maintenance costs. “ • “Mechanical parking allows you to better future proof the floor for other uses going forward if paradigm changes. They can also be cost-efficient (parking can be 1/3 or more of overall budget).” • “Guest parking is less market driven than resident parking.” • “Electric vehicle charging equipment can be challenging to squeeze into a typical 30’ column grid.” • “For affordable housing projects, I would prefer a parking ratio around 0.7, or even lower in TOD areas.

Demand can be lowered effectively through transit passes, car share packages, and that guest parking isn’t well utilized or needed.”
• “I suggest eliminating the covered parking requirement for lower density residential projects.” • “Given Reach code and EV demands, larger transformers are needed. Also, PG&E doesn't want transformers underground, and transformers occupy a lot of ground floor space.” 604 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

5 • “City’s on-site bike parking requirement is very high.” • “Projects should be given more latitude on parking requirements, and that parking studies should be a method to support alternative solutions to parking/mobility requirements on a site-specific basis.” • “We need to make clear and have more grades of flexibility in parking requirements: one set of requirements for greater than ½ mile to transit, one for ¼ to ½, yet more flexibility for less than ¼ mile to transit.”
• “Policy driver should be walkability and proximity to transit, not bike use or size of bike room.” • “Locating housing near schools and strengthening safe routes to schools will eliminate the need for many cars from the origin point.”
Discussion Topic #6: Amenities
Summary: There was agreement that open space and roof decks are attractive amenities supported by market demand, however, physical location and climate can reduce usability, being located in a walkable downtown is an amenity in itself and can lessen the need for onsite open space. • “Because densities are so low compared to rest of Peninsula, open space requirements are relatively easy to meet.”
• “When located near high-sound areas (freeway and train) and near very walkable areas (e.g. downtown) open space isn’t as well utilized and shouldn’t be required as strongly as it might be elsewhere.”
• “Roof decks are an attractive amenity, and the market supports their existence, however privacy conflicts should be managed sensitively and can be done by guardrails being strategically set back from edge to manage sightline privacy, etc.”
• “Climate conditions of a site can impact usability of a roof deck (e.g. windy location).” • “Many projects require every inch of roof for solar, for common area electricity load, so there can be tension there if roof decks are effectively required by open space minimums.” • “We need to allow for flexibility in code re: elevator override, what can be counted as a shade structure in roof (what counts as temporary vs permeant, ability to bolt down objects, etc.” • “Downtown is an amenity in and of itself, so other amenity requirements can be flexible in the downtown.”
605 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 Appendix H-F
CITY OF SAN MATEO FAIR HOUSING WORKSHOP – JANUARY 13, 2022 DISCUSSION AND

POLL SUMMARY

606 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

1 The following comments were collected as part of a community workshop on the topic of Fair Housing as it relates to the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element on January 13, 2022 via Zoom Webinar. Twenty-nine community members participated in the workshop and results from each three breakout room discussions is presented below. Reponses to an optional demographic poll conducted during the event can be found at the end this document.

Each breakout room conducted two discussion sessions. Following a presentation of background information, each discussion group considered these questions: “Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?” After a second presentation on existing demographic patterns across city neighborhoods, each discussion group responded to the following questions: “Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?”

Breakout discussion group #1
Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? • “I’ve been a resident for 40 years. We need solutions for supportive homes. Approx. 1000 people need extremely low income housing in the City.”
• “I moved here with family and became renter because I had difficult time finding somewhere affordable to live. Having an affordable place for a single person to live has been a challenge” • “I work in housing for people with special needs, it’s difficult for people with disabilities to navigate the application process”
• “I’ve been on the BMR home buying list for 20+ years and am having a difficult time purchasing a house. There’s no communication where people are on the list and any properties that were coming up for BMR. I want to know the queue for the list and status for BMR housing” • “I’m a part of the One San Mateo group. There is no place in San Mateo for people who make extremely low income”
• “It’s a daily occurrence to see people who are overcrowding multiple households in a single household.

This hurts children doing schooling outside of class because there’s not enough room. • “I’m a practicing architect that used to have a firm in DT that was priced out”

607 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

2 What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?
• “We need to look at the income of people and make it affordable at all income levels” • “We have to prevent evictions, particularly for communities of color who are more threatened for eviction more than others. We have to avoid the abuse of evicting tenants without just cause and provide better benefits if eviction is necessary”
• “The City should require developers to have more affordable units” • “Can we revamp low to mod income to include the extremely low income and protected class? The real low income is not shown and missing because the “real” low income are people with $1000 or less income per month.”
• “There are no programs that support or help people that are potentially going to be homeless. No vouchers or anything.
• “It’s hard to find landlords who are willing to rent to people who have been homeless” • “We need education for people on how to apply and how to get into low income housing. More skills and programs to educate like the Life moves homeless program. We should provide vouchers/funding for people who face homelessness.
• “Let’s add more links and resources on the City webpage – make prominent the organizations that support these programs.”
• “We need a minimum wage in City of SM, particularly an increase of minimum wage/accelerate min. wage”
• “Provide resources that could assist people who are facing homelessness” • “We need to find more people who are willing to rent to people who were homeless. Perhaps create a program which promotes this with tax credit incentives?” • “Promote ADUs as a way to increase housing available” • “Create a rent registry for rent units in the City of SM that tracks compliance with rent and ordinances since many of these items are violated by landlords. If landlords are forced to record, it would lead to more accountability.”
• “It’s possible for homeowners to rent out a bedroom through home sharing.” • “We should continue to provide further guidance and rental assistance”

608 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

3 Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?

• “Fixing existing patterns of segregations can result in extremely different outcomes for children. More segregated areas have less opportunities and more challenges.” • “There is an issue with single family zoning and isolating lower income housing away from those areas.

We must rezone some of these R1 districts along with adding ADUs which may help with opening more opportunities to move into these R1 districts”
• “There is a huge disparity between east and west side in the equity and resources” • “We should increase access to opportunity through transportation” • “The City of San Mateo has exclusionary zoning. The majority of the City is covered in R1 zoning and we need to explore how to make these areas more accessible to others.” • “We should create a bike path in North Central. Biking is a means of transportation and livelihood in this neighborhood.”
• “It’s time to invest in getting affordable housing built City-wide by creating an affordable housing overlay.”
• “Central neighborhood needs improvements in infrastructure. Sidewalks are in disrepair, lighting could be improved for safety, we need more traffic calming measures, and better bike lanes. • “We should increase preservation of these neighborhoods. Provide nonprofits or programs that support low income housing a priority when it comes to purchasing low-income properties.” • “Investment is a double-edged sword where investing will lead to more unaffordability/gentrification.

Finding a good way to balance both of those is difficult.”

Breakout discussion group #2
Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? • “My child has autism, has trouble finding affordable housing, and is looking for resources. Rent has been increasing (from $2,700 to now $3,100) and I’m not sure how to deal with rent increases.” • “I live in San Mateo. I know many people who are getting rent increases and also evicted, despite the moratorium against doing so. Theoretically with state law they should still have protections because they have rent relief, but they are being evicted, so that is a big concern. There are no low-income or affordable units for them to move into. “
• “I work for organization called Housing Choices where I help people and families with members who have developmental or intellectual disabilities. I was formerly was a housing coordinator who worked 609 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

4 with clients to help them find housing where I saw many issues with Section 8 – landlords who don’t know or don’t care about rules, especially with raising rents illegally or refusing to accept Section 8 vouchers although they are required to. There are source of income discrimination laws now, yet I still see these issues quite often. Many clients depend on social security incomes which is less than $1,000 per month (might have increased recently to $1,400 – still very low for this area). A lot of clients are at risk of homelessness because they are burdened with high housing cost. Example: worked with single black mother with a disability who lived in San Mateo County who rented an ADU for $1,200/month.

Had a total income of $1,600/month, so majority of income went towards rent. Landlord did not take care of maintenance issues, so she called Code Enforcement out, who red tagged the unit as unpermitted and so she was forced to leave the unit, which was unfortunate. It’s difficult for her to relocate; she has family and other circumstances in this region, so was homeless for several months after. So there are many people who are at extremely low income category that are at risk of homeless or homeless already. This is a huge priority that should be addressed.” • “I have a question: what kind of relationship does City of San Mateo have with housing authority? I do a lot of investments out of state, especially Section 8 housing in Chicago – Section 8 is very engaged there. I don’t see that here. I’ve been lifelong San Mateo resident since 1975, and often engaged in General Plan, am an ADU provider, am real estate broker. We need to change ADU laws - right now too many discretionary items that need to be clarified. Non-discretionary, ministerial items are fine, but discretionary items need to be clarified because that prevents homeowners from providing ADUs.

What can we do to make it easier for property owners to build ADUs?” • “I have a question about interest numbers, and how that would impact me. Interest has been too high – Every time I try to put a down payment for house, interest goes up, but my salary does not go up. I would like the opportunity to be able to purchase a house. I live in Millbrae, and wanted a unit in new residential project, but was limited to buying.”

What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?
• “It appears the rate increase described previously was probably illegal – seems higher than what state law 1482 allows. The rent went up $400 which is 15% when it is supposed to cap out at 8 or 10%.

Unfortunately, City does not have ability to track activities of certain landlords and how contracts are or are not being upheld. There is discussion about getting some program in place so that incidents similar to what was described can be addressed through the courts; we don’t have those mechanisms in place now, yet we know there are issues out there, and that is one of the solutions I think that a wide variety of people with numerous different conditions could be addressed by the courts. We need 610 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

5 to figure out the extent of the abuses that may or may not be occurring. Can the City consider a renter registry?”
• “It’s good to remind or educate people these resources are available. We have a diverse group; we need to pay more attention to outreach to Latin groups.” • “We need education on what rights people currently have pertaining to renter’s rights.” • “Education is key, the City can partner with Housing Authority to have workshops regarding source of income discrimination. We should make sure tenants understand what their rights are so that they’re in these situations where they’re taken advantage of by landlords. We need to create more Extremely Low-Income Housing. The State Density Bonus law focuses on very-low income and low-income housing, and the City can go further by providing concessions/waivers for Extremely Low Income or Acutely Low Income as well as creating a menu of options of affordable housing. Another suggestion:
an inclusionary housing ordinance that allows for more units to be below market rate if the higher income levels are less units to be below market rate if they’re lower income levels.” • “I have seen the housing crisis across own personal family experiences, teachers at kids’ schools, doctor moving away, etc. This is an important issue for community. I am here to move the needle as much and as quickly as we can.”

Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?

• “How can we desegregate in order to create housing equity? How do we answer this tough question? We need to make housing more affordable to make it more equitable.” • “This has been a problem for a long time; there are deep historic reasons why we have segregation and unequal opportunities across the city. I would like to have a deeper conversation about this as we try to address this issue. Zoning is a big problem – my neighborhood is lower resourced, it’s multi-family zoning. Other parts of city doesn’t have multi family zoning which keeps costs very high. We should create opportunities for more multi-family and affordable housing, in high-resource areas as well.” • “I’m a 12 year resident of San Mateo, still a renter, probably always will be. The low resource areas are in the flats closer to the shore, which is bad land, and led to certain patterns in development.” • “Zoning is an issue. Compare high resource areas to SFD zonings. Creating more SFDs is an inefficient use of space, when we need to get more people into a smaller area. Down payments are one of the greatest barrier to home ownership – loan/funding programs available for down payment assistance would be helpful. For prioritizing improvement in lower resource areas, this is tricky because you want to help improve people’s quality of life but you also don’t want to displace people or gentrify the area. 611 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

6 Are we doing what’s best for the people who live here, or are we creating an environment that is going to be as unaffordable in the future as other areas in the city?” • “Our R1 neighborhoods have negative impacts. R1 neighborhoods are currently excluded from housing element upgrades… we can’t build anything in R1 neighborhood. We can now start to change R1 neighborhoods with duplexes, etc. We need to change zoning, density, and height requirements. We need to look at our site inventory and understand what realistically can be built where, and make sure it’s not concentrated at lower resourced areas.”
• “SB9 was only became effective recently, but how are we incentivizing property owners of lower resource areas (R1) to provide more ADUs, duplexes, or lot splits?” • “I have a question about SB 10. Is the City exploring this, which is optional compared to SB 9?” • “I agree with what many have said. Legacy of segregation is still very present in our communities, and is still contributing to housing inequities. One opportunity I would like to focus on: housing preservation, specifically support to renters. We need to be pro-housing, both production and development, affordable and market rate, but without coupled with preservation strategy, I worry we will continue contributing to the displacement of our existing communities.”

Breakout discussion group #3
Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? • “I’m a renter in 19th Ave Park. I know someone who recently moved due to unlivable conditions.

Renters must go rent-to-rent after initial one-year lease.” • “I know several people served with eviction cost or moved away due to housing costs.” • “I’m an owner in Hayward Park for 25 years. I’ve lived in neighborhoods with high crime rate before moving to San Mateo.”
• “I live with my parents, I hope to afford the ability to move out someday.” • “I work in special education. There is a lack of federal funding for people with learning disabilities. The disabled have less access to education and income and thus housing.” • “We need to build affordable housing”
• “I’m an owner in North Central neighborhood. There are lots of young families with children, seeing diversity change.”

612 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

7 What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?
• “We need more tenant protections. Rents in older buildings may be affordable, but rent increases may drive the renter out. Nearly 48% of City are renters. To increase protections we should increase renter/eviction protections, consider rent stabilization to avoid rent fluctuation, establish a renter registry to promote access to data, and increase access to open space when designing projects. • “Home prices in San Mateo are make ownership inaccessible we need to make affordable housing construction more feasible. We should eliminate Zoning restrictions placed on certain zones that prevent affordable housing production by allowing 100% affordable housing production in all zones.

We could establish an overlay zone to open opportunities for affordable housing developers and establish an expedited review process to allow certain projects to move through the process faster. • “There is a lack of federal funding/assistance to those with learning disabilities” • “To preserve Neighborhood Diversity we must allow more types of housing to promote diversity to allow those who cannot afford a single family home to be within neighborhoods they otherwise could not afford.”

Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?

• “Absolutely yes, as evidenced by racial and economic disparities among neighborhoods” • “Higher resourced neighborhoods tend to be single family” • “We need to invest, through development impact fees for example, in the infrastructure of lower resourced neighborhoods, which are often found in higher resourced neighborhoods. Investment in bike and pedestrian level improvements, which increases access to sustainable transportation, should focus on proper implementation of bike improvements in consideration of the existing neighborhood infrastructure and housing stock and should avoid parking impacts. We need to provide residential parking solutions via residential parking permit programs • “We also need to invest in parks and open space”
• “It’s important to engage residents of lower resourced neighborhoods in a robust manner to find what they need and want rather than have others decide.”
• “We need to increase investment to reduce parking issues and increasing access to sustainable transportation”
• “Affordable housing should be available throughout the City, but we have to emphasize housing production in our transit corridor around our three Caltrain stations”

613 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

8 Demographic data:

0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
6% 6%
0%
6%
24%
59%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
21%
15%
32%
21%
11%
0%
18%
35%
41%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Under 18 18-29 30-49 50-69 70+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
54%
46%
71%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
24%
12%
24%
18%
6%
12%
6%
0%
14%
10%
24% 25%
14%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Don't
Live
Here
Moved
In 1989
Or
Earlier
(or 21+
years)
Moved
In 1990
To 1999
Moved
In 2000
To 2009
(or 11-
20 years)
Moved
In 2010
To 2014
(or 6-10
years)
Moved
In 2015
To 2016
Moved
In 2017
Or Later
(or 0-5
years)
How long Lived in City**
% of Event % of Census Benchmark
614 of 955
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

9 71%
6% 6%
0%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Live Here Work Here Live/work
in another
city in San
Mateo
County
Own a
Business
Here
Interested
in San
Mateo
County
Housing
Issues
Connection to City - % of Total
Outreach*
615 of 955

C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 40 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

Appendix H-F
CITY OF SAN MATEO HOUSING POLICY WORKSHOP – NOVEMBER 2, 2021: DISCUSSION

AND POLL SUMMARY

616 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

1 The following comments were collected as part of a community workshop on policies and programs for the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element on November 2, 2021 via Zoom Webinar. 35 participants joined the event and results from each five breakout room discussions is presented below. Each breakout room conducted their discussions following a presentation of background information and an overview of existing programs and policies and potential new strategies. 23 of the participants completed a poll during the event, results can be found at the end this document.

Across all five groups, community members expressed a preference for strengthening housing production and affordable housing programs and policies. Specifically, San Mateo community members in all five discussion groups expressed interest in expanding the City’s commercial linkage fee. Expanding the production of missing middle housing was proposed in four of the discussion groups. Supporting the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), establishing an affordable housing overlay, and increasing support for housing for people with physical and intellectual disabilities were supported in three of the discussion groups.

Each discussion group considered the following questions: “What do you think about the existing programs? Are there revisions to them that you think would be helpful to explore? As the City moves forward with planning efforts, which options would best match San Mateo’s needs and community character? What questions, concerns, and ideas do you have?”

Group One Discussion:

Summary: San Mateo community members in group one expressed interest in strengthening Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and “missing middle housing” production as effective strategies to improve the supply and affordability of housing, while addressing historical discrimination by locating new lower-cost units in communities they have historically been excluded from. Specifically, community members would like the City: increase commercial linkage fees to pay for housing and TOD programs, relaxing height limits, especially for missing middle developments; and establish an ADU program for the City to incentivize nonprofits and smaller employers to develop ADUs. Community members also expressed interest in building more units to reduce the problem of overcrowding and traffic congestion and including small commercial pockets in residential neighborhoods.
• “I like the housing programs and I like what they’re doing, but I want to know the potential negatives and concerns that come with increases in population relative to existing people within San Mateo area. How crowded does it make San Mateo? How many more people do they allow to live in the City? I have concerns about parking requirements for ADUs. There is existing crowding within neighborhoods but extra concern for parking requirements.”
617 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

2 • “We need programs that increase people in proximity to where they work. The current commercial linkage fee is too low. When you create jobs, you create demand for housing. Many jobs, specifically office jobs, can be well paying, but that creates demand for lower income jobs as well (clerks, daycare, retail, etc). Funding should come from higher commercial linkage fees and office developments in order to offset impact from office projects and create a good jobs-housing balance.” • “Other cities in area have similar struggles to San Mateo. As industries expand, office space demand increases. I think there will be a large move back towards office space as opposed to staying with remote work. If we don’t build more housing then traffic problems will only get worse. Even in offices with high paid workers, there are low paying jobs that are essential to servicing them. Commercial linkage fees are critical with the amount of people coming and going for work. More people living in the City will make it more livable. The population might rise, but people will contribute more in San Mateo rather than if they were on the road all the time. One existing program that we should put more thought into is ADUs. As people have problems about putting too many housing units in single family areas, this is a way to increase units in a way that is a compromise for people who don’t want higher density buildings in lower density areas. A local church has built an ADU with minimal impact to the surrounding area, we can use it as a case study for how it can be effective programs. Smaller employers and nonprofits could provide partnership possibilities for homeowners to relieve staffing or other issues related to housing. It may be a useful strategy to help need at the individual level rather than through larger projects. People’s 1-on-1 needs could be enhanced by use and City sponsorship of ADU program.”
• “Missing middle housing is especially important (duplexes, triplexes, etc). San Mateo, like most cities, has a long history of housing discrimination. The solution to that is not to let things sit as they are but to look at how to fill diversity across the City. Missing middle is good place to start, where you can infill to put lower income people in areas where they have otherwise been excluded while being best for the long term health of the City. Transportation is also key; the City needs to think about how to expand transportation options when there are areas outside of immediate routes like train stations.

One example being an office development that had shuttle programs. These types of programs with high frequency, convenience, and reliability could help prevent people from using single occupancy vehicles and reduce cars. We should dovetail housing plans with transportation plans outside of El Camino Real and the train stations. More data is necessary – we need to take into account: diversity, renters vs owners, and where do we have housing that is underutilized. We need to encourage people to use properties that are not currently used. For neighborhoods to be walkable, there needs to be commercial or other areas than residential within walking distance. Opening up areas that are currently residential, but could have small commercial spaces in them, could make for increased walkability. When rethinking the Housing Element we could make the City have smaller pockets where 618 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

3 people could walk to rather than using vehicles. This will increase sustainability for the existing uses while reducing the need for cars.”
• “We should enact vacant property taxes like Oakland does. I support missing middle – there are small sites around the City that are not utilized in a variety of areas, especially along El Camino Real, that may be too small for larger projects but are perfect for smaller units in the missing middle scale – duplexes, etc. Utilizing those sites could add a good number of units in an easier way to facilitate affordable housing. There was a habitat for humanity project in a former firehouse where height bonuses where applicable. We should pursue allowing density bonuses plus height bonuses. Taking height limitations off would help make projects more economically feasible for developer incentives.

Larger projects could continue under current programs – but missing middle and underutilized parcels could help fill gaps. Redevelopment agencies previously facilitated these types of projects perhaps would should start up something similar.”

Group Two Discussion:

Group two also identified increasing commercial linkage fees and strengthening missing middle production as strategies to address housing affordability. Community members in this group also called for: an affordable housing overlay with clear regulations for community benefits; a City density bonus in addition to the State’s; a policy for nonprofit developers to have first dibs on the purchase of older apartment buildings to avoid displacement; and utilization of SB10 to create missing middle housing. There was also support for Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) and marketing of apartments for people with physical disabilities. • “I think its important that we maintain a wide variety of programs” • “We see that there is a lack of “deeply” affordable housing for very impoverished people that needs to be addressed”
• “I think housing affordability is always going to be behind the 8 ball if developers/ landlords are always chasing profits”
• “It feels as though we’re never going to catch up to meet all the housing needs” • “Its hard for young people to find housing once they graduate from college, so they end up having to move far away.”
• “There is lots of difficulty for disabled people to find the right housing. They need to live here to be close to their doctors”
• “Its very hard to find housing in San Mateo on limited income” • “It feels like profit is the main driver that makes development in San Mateo” • “The Commercial linkage fee should be higher”
619 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

4 • “All programs for new housing development should allow increased height and density. There is a project called 1458 San Bruno Ave providing 200 units/ acre with 50% affordable units. We need developments like that.”
• “We need to also look at increasing medical facilities, entertainment, and other things that keep up the quality of life in San Mateo”
• “We need an affordable housing overlay with clear regulations for community benefits as well as a City density bonus in addition to the State Density Bonus.”
• “We should pursue adding more Transit Oriented Development wherever possible” • “I think transit needs to be expanded since it is only available for those who live next to it” • “I think existing residents are excluded from transit. The new development/higher density surrounding transit makes it more difficult for people farther away to access. This leads to more congestion/traffic and less parking”
• “We should explore having shuttles that take residents of large developments to the train station. Then we could increase the area where increased density can be added while still connecting the development with transit.”
• “We need to establish competitive financing for City land acquisition when it is for affordable housing” • “I believe basic services need to be met before we expand housing” • “I think union workers should lower their fees when building affordable housing” • “We need more affirmative marketing of apartments for the physically disabled” • “We should explore more housing in missing middle options.” • “We need more options for people to travel around the City in different forms of micromobility” • “A new policy could be enacted where nonprofit developers can have first dibs to purchase when an older apartment building goes up for sale so that all the residents aren’t displaced” • “I like the form of garden court apartments to allow higher density” • “Missing middle would allow us to build smaller”
• “It seems that studio apartments are no different than dorms. Why don’t big companies provide these for their employees on their campuses so there is more room for families to settle in the City?” • “I think company towns haven’t gone too well in the past. I wouldn’t want to have my employer as my landlord.”
• “We should use SB10 to create missing middle housing.”

Group Three Discussion:

Group three identified increasing commercial linkage and other fees to pay for affordable housing, as well as expanding missing middle housing, and establishing an affordable housing overlay. Transit Oriented 620 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

5 Development and locating housing and jobs near transit to reduce commutes and congestion was also emphasized. Some community members noted concerns over service and infrastructure to accommodate growth and concerns that the programs being discussed did not enhance the City. • “We should explore increasing commercial linkage fees and similar developer in-lieu/impact fees that would directly support affordable housing. The current fees are too low.” • “The City needs to develop in a sustainable manner by locating housing and jobs near transit.” • “Housing development also needs to accommodate for families (with unit sizes of 2+ bedrooms)” • “How will we accommodate all this future growth (e.g. services, infrastructure)?” • “We must ensure that the inclusionary BMR percentage of housing does not make affordable housing projects infeasible”
• “We need to increase housing to reduce the job/housing imbalance and reduce commutes; especially for low-income community members”
• “The Bay Meadows planned unit development is a successful example of good Transit Oriented Development.”
• “We need to explore expanding middle housing (especially in townhomes)” • “The City should approach a strategy of land acquisition for affordable housing development” • “Zoning/Planning should include an affordable housing overlay” • “We need more adaptive reuse policies for existing buildings (e.g. office to residential)” • “We can ensure preservation or creative adaptative reuse of existing housing stock with affordability deed restrictions”
• The HIP housing home-sharing program would be a good method to get more use out of existing housing”
• “We need to spread fair housing throughout the City and encourage diversity” • “In my view, none of these programs enhance the City” • “The main issue of affordability is the imbalance of housing vs jobs (there is one unit for every 11 jobs created)”
• “I’m concerned that the existing housing stock benefits long-time residents, but we need to consider the needs of the future/younger generation”

Group Four Discussion:

Community members in group four would like the City to: set clearer standards to streamline the production of ADUs and missing middle housing options in the City; strengthen renter protections; increase below- market-rate housing requirements from 15% to at least 20%; and increase the supply of 3-bedroom below- 621 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

6 market-rate rental units. Group members also were concerned about the City overly relying on ADU production to meet housing projections and would like to retain developers building affordable units onsite rather than a move toward offsite fees. While some voiced support for expanding commercial linkage fees, others noted setting these fees too high may drive employers away. • “I’m excited the City is intentional about building affordable housing, because the market by itself will keep driving the cost up. It’s important to have a diverse community that we live in. For environmental reasons, it is important to live near work. Not just tech workers in Silicon Valley; service sector, government employees, and teachers also need to be able to live nearby.” • “One of my biggest concerns is that commercial linkage fees are not high enough, and the timing of commercial projects which can take a decade to plan and build. It doesn’t actually get occupied by employees and affects RHNA numbers. The impact of job building won’t be felt until well into RHNA cycle; which means we are not seeing real numbers. I’m worried about ADU production: how much is reasonable to expect from ADU production? There might be a surge in the beginning, but I’m unsure how sustainable that is over time.”
• “The ADU program is kind of in disarray. I’m an ADU provider and do a lot of advertising in SMDJ, but I don’t see demand for ADUs. If there are applications for ADUs, they tend to be for conversions of garages into ADUs. It seems there are a lot of discretionary items that still need clarification by City Council such as height requirements and other factors. Council needs to provide tools to the Planning Dept to educate public about ADUs and raise awareness. In San Mateo, they have point of sale matters or ordinance where if you do an addition or improvements of $90k or more, you have to do a sewer lateral inspection… what that means is that they have all these requirements (impact fees, etc.) that make it harder for property owners to want to do ADUs. Also, below-market-rate housing requirements for new development (15%?) should be a lot higher for developers. It should be 20% or more – because 15% is not enough, and I believe City Council would agree. I think there’s an oligarchy that’s been established in the City for so long, which is a reflection of all the initiatives (with Measure H that turned into Measure Y, and so forth.) The Housing Element needs to address this.” • “The existing programs are excellent as far as they go, but will continue to be insufficient for two reasons. (1) The graph shown in the original presentation which shows out of control job growth from 2010 to 2015. Until we can get a handle on job growth and tamp it down a little, we will continue to have this problem. (2) The market continues to push prices up, and affordability down. Until we get a handle on the job growth and turn things around, the great programs we have will be insufficient. In a sense, the private sector pushes the cost of housing onto the public.” • “A more sustainable form of construction is to reuse an existing building. I like efforts where organizations and their partners purchase existing buildings, renovate, and provide to people who 622 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

7 need lower cost housing. I’m concerned about the revision to policy where developers can contribute to a fund instead of actually building housing.”
• “I’m concerned with the idea of tamping down job growth…. The only reason that people have equity and extreme value in their homes is the phenomenal job situation. Once those jobs and the companies leave, they are gone forever.”
• “Having continued job growth will continue to make housing unaffordable. We take the good with the bad, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
• “SB9, dubbed the duplex initiative, is starting at 2022. I would like to see workshops that addresses SB9, which would open up housing.”
• “Are there any renter protection measures that the City has in place, besides the County and the State, now that eviction protections (from COVID-19) have sunsetted? Is the City doing anything now to help renters who may no longer be able to pay their rent?”
• “We need to examine what size units developers are proposing; because we need variety. There is a need for 3-bedroom below-market-rate units in San Mateo, which is rare to see here. Developer incentives are not clearly defined. I’m constantly asking: what would be an appropriate public benefit? We need variety of units and at least some should be accessible to those with mobility challenges or mental disabilities. I live in North Central and see the effect of too many people living in one housing unit – parking and trash impacts.”
• “We need to address Missing Middle, which might be a good solution for people trying to purchase a home. Not everyone needs a single-family residence, which was the gold standard a while ago, but folks now are open to more dense options that provide housing. The appetite in the City of San Mateo might be more amendable to the missing middle densities. We need all types of housing: which means densifying Transit Oriented Districts and certain parts of the City that make sense. There will be some neighbors who are against higher density, so maybe the missing middle and SB 9 is the appropriate baby step. My perspective is that of a former real estate developer. Developers are incentivized by fee reductions. We should consider perhaps if more affordable units are provided, then the more some impact fees can be reduced. The City can push on market rate developers, who are making so much money right now in this time. Do not be afraid; no reason to not push envelope on affordable units.

We need renter protection: there is so much displacement at all levels of the income spectrum in San Mateo. How do we help people stay, especially people who have been born and raised here, but can no longer can? Oftentimes it is children of families who grew up here. How do we help with displacement?”
• “Getting foot into home buying is difficult; we need education on how for our community. There is RHNA pressure. If you build 3-bedroom unit, do you get credit for 3 units? Current housing production 623 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

8 does not support trades people who need space. We need to provide housing that supports these types of jobs. More and more people are going to work out of home.” • “I’m interested in Missing Middle. We need more focus on quality, not just quantity. Need high quality design in order to put Missing Middle housing in single-family neighborhoods or any neighborhoods.

We need high quality design that is contextual and matches the neighborhood.” • “The Missing Middle is is the element that is needed to blend everything that has been discussed:
including keeping trades workers close to where people work, Transit Oriented Development, and first- time home buyers. Its important to include faith leaders in community, which can be accomplished by adding residential to churches. The same concept can work with schools. Many doors can be opened up with the Missing Middle concept, which can allow people to live near where they work.”

Group Five Discussion:

Community members in group five would like the City to: expand the first-time homebuyer program; invest more in upgrading existing buildings, increase density and mixed uses around transit hubs, increase the commercial linkage fee, strengthen tenant protections. There was also interest in expanding the 15% below- market-rate program and to target it toward deeper affordability levels. There was also a suggestion to develop a program to require rental site managers to take an online housing regulations class/test. • “I’m proud of redevelopment commitment that exists in San Mateo. The inclusionary program is pretty good and the commercial linkage fee is a great start. The City is also very good about identifying publicly owned sites and prioritizing them for affordable housing development/redevelopment.” • “I’m happy that the Kiku crossing affordable housing development has come to fruition. We are seeing multi generations living in small quarters originally designed for a small number of people. We would like for older first-time homeowner properties to be upgraded for today’s environments and add to more affordable housing on properties. Additionally, we need an expansion of the first-time homebuyer program. The Gateway housing development has a park behind us, and it is not built or utilized to its full potential and not usable by the neighborhood, unlike King’s park. This is an area the City can invest more money to rebuild and upgrade existing buildings and enhance existing facilities. I would prefer for more first-time homeowner properties rather than rentals. More common spaces in multi-unit developments is desired.”
• “I like mixed use zoning and building around transit hubs. Affordable housing is important: personally I am a household of 4 on the cusp of lower income. When we had to move out of the home we were renting, we took a look at affordable housing and we were still priced out. Affordable housing doesn’t feel affordable. This is why there are multiple generations in small units contributes to parking issues/impacts. We are always going to be renters and will eventually have to move out because 624 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

9 ownership will never be an option for us. Affordable housing is a major challenge for the City to address.”
• “It feels like 15% BMR rate is an arbitrary number that does not actually meet the needs of the people to retain our young families and seniors. We need to study what the actual percentage of affordable units we need and explore revisiting this percentage.”
• “I’d like to see more events on B Street. There was a past event where City Council came before COVID.

Seeing the street activated and people participate was great. I would like more events like that… maybe a farmers’ market? We need different types of events that brings the community together. I would also like to see more European flat style houses instead of (or rather than just) townhomes.” • “I’d want to increase the commercial linkage fee. We need better regulations for rental properties to include better restrictions on why and when people have to move out. With more renter protection/safety nets, we can reduce homelessness.”
• “I like the idea about looking out and building for special needs populations. We need to be very specific and deliberative about sites. How much does the City use overlay zones for family/special needs affordable housing/something with services? Is it appropriate to use housing overlay sites for El Camino Real? It would be great if properties along El Camino Real being redeveloped are required to have affordable housing and not market rate units (or a larger percentage of BMR units over the 15%) through an overlay. One thing that Sonoma County does is that they require a site manager for rentals take and pass an online test for verification and so that they are aware of housing rules/regulations.

This has cut down their legal claims by 80%. Let’s all know the basic rules so we can be fairer to each other. Looking at these programs in addition to zoning/landuse will be helpful/effective for tenants.” • “I’ve observed regarding the option for missing middle…From a practical standpoint that’s already what is occurring in North Central. There are quite a bit of duplexes and three unit townhomes being added to the area. One thing that I would note especially for our neighborhood is that I agree with ideal of getting more cars off of the road. However, I work at a part of the county where transit is not an option. Most of my neighbors are service workers with their livelihoods tied to their vehicles. We are in an in-between state where we still have to provide for parking while we are trying to transition away for that. It’s a hard place to be.”
• “Fair housing is really important for San Mateo to address. We tried to address tenant protection through the voting process which did not pass. Tenant protections and accessibility are essential issues. I would like for the City to reduce auto use through programs and incentives. During the pandemic I could cross El Camino Real against the light because there was so little traffic. That is all gone now. We need incentives to reduce auto use and get back closer to nature. I would also really want to know if the 15% BMR is going to get us where we need to be for people who are living in the City and would like to stay.”
625 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

10 Results of a poll conducted during the workshop:

70%
13%
4% 0%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Live Here Work Here Live/work in
another city in
San Mateo
County
Own a
Business Here
Interested in
San Mateo
County
Housing Issues
Connection to City - % of Event
0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
0%
13%
0% 0% 4%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
26%
30%
22%
4%
9%
4% 4%
0%
14%
10%
24% 25%
14% 12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Don't
Live
There
Moved
In 1989
Or
Earlier
(or 21+
years)
Moved
In 1990
To 1999
Moved
In 2000
To 2009
(or 11-
20 years)
Moved
In 2010
To 2014
(or 6-10
years)
Moved
In 2015
To 2016
Moved
In 2017
Or Later
(or 0-5
years)
How long Lived in City
% of Event % of Census Benchmark
626 of 955
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

San Mateo City CouncilMay 23, 2022

San Mateo City Council
May 23, 2022