Agenda packet — San Mateo City Council, May 23, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
May 23, 2022
5:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Joe Goethals
Amourence Lee
Eric Rodriguez
AGENDA
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS WHICH SUSPEND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROWN ACT.

THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY.

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here: May 23, 2022 Zoom Meeting To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 841 2633 5614 Passcode: 398709

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call

PUBLIC HEARING
City Council action on the following public hearing(s) represents a final decision concluding all administrative proceedings. Judicial review may be had only if a petition is filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date the decision is made. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a time period for litigation as short as 30 days following the date the decision is made.

1. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing
Receive information from staff and public comments, and provide direction to staff on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element.

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS: Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at www.cityofsanmateo.org . Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV: City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER: There are three ways to stream. 1) Public Meeting Portal www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings 2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube: http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo 3) Watch TV live stream: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream [continue on next page]
1 of 955

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By computer: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone: Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

By Zoom: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

In Person: At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.

ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 2 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING File ID: 22-6058 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2022
SUBJECT:

Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive information from staff and public comments, and provide direction to staff on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element.

BACKGROUND:

Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing elements, which are updated every 5-8 years. Housing Elements are one of several "chapters,” or elements, of a city’s General Plan, and are required by the State. Housing Elements are the only element of a General Plan subject to State requirements for content and they must be certified by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). State funding programs for transportation, infrastructure, and housing often require or consider in decision making a local jurisdiction’s compliance with housing element law. In addition, non-compliance with housing element requirements and targets could potentially affect a local jurisdiction’s ability to impose local zoning and land use controls over housing development.1 For the upcoming eight-year housing element cycle (2023-2031), HCD has identified the nine-county Bay Area region’s housing need to be 441,176 units, with this number broken down into four income categories, from very low-income households (which includes extremely low) to above moderate (market rate) housing. This Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF), as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The City of San Mateo’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for this housing cycle is 7,015 new housing units distributed across the four income groups as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: San Mateo RHNA Targets Summary
Income Category Very Low
50% AMI
Low
80% AMI
Moderate
120% AMI
Above
Moderate Total
2023-31 Allocation 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040 7,015
Table Source: Housing Element Cycle 6 RHNA Allocation
The City’s Draft Housing Element (Attachment 1) identifies how the City can accommodate its RHNA of 7,015 new homes 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Elements and Accountability and Enforcement, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml and https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/accountability-enforcement.shtml.
3 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
over the next eight years, and establishes goals, policies and programs to help address the City’s current and future housing needs. Preparation of the City’s Housing Element initially started in January 2021, with City Council adoption projected for the beginning of 2023 and HCD certification anticipated within the statutorily-defined timeline 60 days after submission. As part of the Housing Element update process, a formal 30-day public review and comment period is required. While the City has been actively conducting public outreach and community engagement since the beginning of summer 2021, the formal public review period began on April 6, 2022 with the publication of the Draft Housing Element document. This 30-day public review period concluded on May 6, 2022. A summary of the public comments received during this review period is included later in this report, and all comments are included in Attachment 9. However, the public can continue to provide input beyond this review period until final adoption by City Council.

The Draft Housing Element (Attachment 1) includes the following sections:

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction and Background - Includes the history of San Mateo, the legislative framework for housing, consistency and relationship with other General Plan Elements, and a discussion on water/sewer capacity.

3. Housing Needs and Sites Inventory - Describes the City’s housing needs summary, RHNA allocation, sites inventory methodology and an overview of the adequate sites list. A capacity of up to 10,922 housing units could be accommodated on the identified adequate sites under the City’s existing zoning designations.

4. Other Required Housing Element Components - Provides an overview of the City’s governmental and non- governmental constraints to meet its housing goals, summarizes existing and potential housing resources, and describes the climate change context and energy conservation requirements.

5. Public Participation - Summarizes the City’s efforts to engage with the community, including under-represented groups, key accomplishments of the outreach efforts as well as critical take-aways based on community input, and how the feedback was incorporated into the Housing Element goals, policies and programs.

6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Assessment - Provides an overview of AFFH requirements, a history of segregation in the region, and an assessment of the San Mateo’s AFFH issues with primary findings, contributing factors, and the AFFH action plan.

7. Housing Plan - Describes the policies, programs, actions, and timelines associated with the City’s five goals for production and preservation of housing, protection of its residents, promotion of education and outreach, and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

8. Quantified Objectives - Includes an estimate of actual preservation and production of housing units given available resources and projected pipeline projects anticipated for completion over the eight-year cycle.

9.Review of Prior Housing Elements - Highlights key accomplishments of, as well as challenges and opportunities learned from, the previous Housing Element.

The Housing Element also includes six technical appendices (Attachments 2 to 7) with detailed analysis and information that supports the findings and conclusions in the main document.

Goals, Policies and Programs (GPPs)
Based on the City’s RHNA allocation, constraints analysis, AFFH issues, and input from the community, consultant team, and decisionmakers, the Draft Housing Element articulates five goals to shape policies and programs over the next eight years as follows:
Goal 1 – Production. Facilitate and support the production of new housing at all income levels, but especially affordable housing. Eighteen policies have been identified to support this goal. Goal 2 – Preservation. Preserve existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents. Six policies have been identified to support this goal.
Goal 3 – Protection. Protect current residents to prevent displacement. Seven policies have been identified to support this goal.
Goal 4 – Promotion. Promote social resilience through public education and community outreach to make information more available and accessible. Four policies have been identified to support this goal. Goal 5 – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Address the issues of fair housing, equity and access while 4 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
reinforcing the objective that AFFH is both a stand-alone priority and inseparable from achieving the Housing Element’s other goals. Thirteen policies have been identified to support this goal.

At the joint study session before the City Council and Planning Commission on February 7, 2022, the “Three Ps” concept for Goals 1 to 3 was first introduced. Subsequently, Goals 4 and 5 were added based on community input and to emphasize prioritization of AFFH. To support attainment of the five goals, each policy and program therein identifies the lead department, funding source if known, target work plan, and timeline, to provide an adequate level of specificity.

However, individual action items associated with each of these policies and programs will be considered independently for adoption and include appropriate community engagement and environmental review when the effort is undertaken.

It should also be noted that goals and polices in the General Plan are often aspirational. However, based on the legal and legislative requirements for a Housing Element, the goals and polices in this document are much more binding and function like a contract with the State and HCD. Thus, it is critical to balance aspiration with realistic and achievable targets when developing policies and programs for the upcoming eight-year housing cycle.

Sites Inventory and RHNA Strategy
The purpose of the adequate sites list (Sites Inventory) is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with appropriate zoning capacity to meet the City’s RHNA goal. The Sites Inventory analysis does not include the economic feasibility of specific sites, does not take into consideration the owner’s intended immediate use of the land, and does not dictate where residential development will actually occur because these are not statutorily required for this analysis. Based on previous Housing Elements and development proposals in the City, it is anticipated that some of the sites on the list will be developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will be built on sites not listed in the inventory. Overall, the Sites Inventory is not a prescription to build each identified site at the specified income category or density, as the decision to develop a site is always at the discretion of the owner.

Staff used a conservative methodology to estimate the development potential of each property included on the Sites Inventory based on the criteria established by State law, development/redevelopment feasibility, site constraints, zoned capacity versus real capacity, prior project history, and developer interest. The Sites Inventory identifies sites around the City that have capacity for potential development of up to 10,922 housing units, or 156% of the City’s RHNA in the Draft Housing Element. However, this number will be changing based on input from the public and Planning Commission and may further change once City Council direction is received. In addition, new development proposals and/or property owner interest could result in further adjustments. Thus, the Sites Inventory should be viewed as an iterative list that will continue to be refined until the final adoption of the Housing Element.

The following table provides an initial summary breakdown of the Sites Inventory by income category, associated with the Draft Housing Element that was published on April 6, 2022.

Table 2 - San Mateo Sites Inventory Breakdown
Housing Opportunity Areas Total Units Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.

Bridgepointe 1,845 405 274 281 885
Hillsdale Station South 2,465 629 364 409 1,063
101/92 Interchange 2,076 360 165 191 1,381
Downtown 1,087 199 273 72 543
92/El Camino Real 867 205 112 127 423
Other Sites 2,969 416 363 417 1,752
ADUs 480 24 144 240 72
Totals 10,922 2,033 1,583 1,610 5,696
RHNA 7,015  1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040
Buffer 3,907
(56%)
256
(14%)
560
(55%)
435
(37%)
2,656
(87%)
5 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
Most of the properties listed in the Sites Inventory are located within one of the ten General Plan Land Use Study Areas that are being evaluated for change and increased density as part of the City’s General Plan Update process. Adoption of the updated General Plan, which is anticipated to increase density on a significant number of the housing sites, will further increase development capacity and the City’s RHNA buffer. Additional information about the anticipated land use designation in the General Plan Update will be added to key sites in the Inventory that are within a Study Area.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. California law, as established by Assembly Bill 686, requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation.” The law also requires that housing elements include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

For the City of San Mateo, a Fair Housing Assessment prepared by 21 Elements, a countywide jurisdictional collaborative, describes fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity and disparate housing needs as contributing factors that needed to be addressed in the City’s fair housing action plan. Some primary findings and the contributing factors in the Fair Housing Assessment included:
• 16% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County between 2017 to 2021 (9 out of 57 total) were in the City of San Mateo, which is approximately aligned with the City’s share of the County’s population (14%). • Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo.

Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan.
• The northeast area of San Mateo is disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low educational opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and moderate resource scores. These areas are generally on either side of Highway 101 and stretch to the San Francisco Bay waterfront, encompassing the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. • The City of San Mateo has a slight concentration of residents with a disability with 9% of the population compared to 8% in the county. Residents living with a disability in the city are more likely to be unemployed and are largely concentrated in areas around Highway 101.
• Racial and ethnic minority students in the City of San Mateo—served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District—experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students.
• Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs.

Contributing factors to these primary findings include:
• Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership. • The northern portion of the City offers the most affordable homes, and as such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty.
• Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low-wage jobs that do not support the City’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. • Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the city where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC) opportunity maps.
• Concentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities in the northeast areas 6 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
of the City further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental outcomes.
• There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher-resourced areas of the City. • Highway 101 creates a major barrier between the Shoreview neighborhood and the rest of the City of San Mateo. • The unemployment rate for the City’s residents with a disability is four times that of persons without a disability. • The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.
• There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the North Central neighborhood.
• Residents with disabilities and Hispanic households face increased housing discrimination.

In response to this analysis, as well as community input, an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Plan, which details how the City proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis, was developed. The Action Plan is included in Appendix D of the Draft Housing Element (Attachment 5) and the policies and programs to implement the Action Plan are included in the Housing Plan under Goal 5.

Public Outreach Summary
To support the preparation of the Draft Housing Element, a robust and inclusive community outreach and ongoing engagement process was initiated in March 2021. Over the past fourteen months, the City conducted 19 public and community meetings and workshops, five intercept/pop-up events, four surveys, and community engagement through partnership with 21 Elements. The outreach effort included an emphasis on connecting with community members for whom English was not spoken at home, renters, those under 45 years of age, low-income and very low-income households, people with disabilities, seniors, single female heads of household, people experiencing homelessness, and those from under-represented neighborhoods. All public comments and input received as part of the Housing Element outreach and engagement activities are included in Appendix F: Public Participation (Attachment 7).

Key accomplishments of the community outreach efforts included:
• Launch of a Housing Element Update website.
• Two mailers inviting participation – one citywide in October 2021 and a second in January 2022 targeted to renters.
• Three public Housing Element workshops, five presentations/discussions at City Council and Planning Commission public meetings, a focus group discussion with builders, developers and architects, and presentations to many local community-based organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants Association and San Mateo-Foster City School District Parent Teacher Association (SMFCSD PTA). • Two related Housing Element Surveys between October 11, 2021 and January 16, 2022 receiving a total of 750 responses (594 Online responses and 156 intercept survey responses during pop-up events in the North Central and Shoreview Neighborhoods, as well as Macedonia food distribution events).

Feedback and insights from tenants, non-English speakers, lower-income residents, property owners and developers helped to highlight new policy opportunities and ways to strengthen and improve existing policies, with the overarching challenge of housing affordability and availability being a reoccurring topic. Themes that were incorporated into the Housing Plan included production of more missing middle housing, more outreach and education to tenants and landlords, streamlining and simplifying development review and permitting processes, establishing programs to address fair housing and equity, and ensuring that new housing is sustainable and addresses climate change.

Public Comments
During the formal 30-day public review period of the Draft Housing Element, which ran from April 6, 2022 to May 6, 2022, a total of 18 comment letters were received, and are included in Attachment 9. The comments received by the City offered a wide variety of opinions and input on the Draft Housing Element. Those that expressed opposition to the planned growth noted concerns about whether or not the City’s resources, namely water supply, would be able to support the population increase. They also expressed a general concern that R-1 single-family neighborhoods would be negatively impacted or even eliminated if new development were allowed. Other comments pushed for the Housing Element to go further 7 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
beyond the goals currently outlined in the plan, expressing concern that the City is too optimistic in redevelopment potential of the sites contained in the Sites Inventory. They encouraged the City to include re-zoning of the single-family neighborhoods as a program while going further to remove existing constraints to development (namely Measure Y) to increase housing production potential. Both those for and against the draft plan agreed that if housing density were to increase, commensurate upgrades to transit options must be made to mitigate traffic impacts. Finally, some commenters emphasized the importance of working towards housing affordability as vital for protecting individuals with disabilities, for sheltering low-income families in danger of experiencing homelessness, and to affirmatively further fair housing through racial equity.

In response to the public comments, staff will be making a number of revisions, clarifying edits and corrections to the Draft prior to submittal to HCD. Those actions and updates include follow-up with both of the City’s water providers (CalWater and Estero Municipal Improvement District) to provide additional information on existing water infrastructure and future supply to support the projected growth in the Housing Element. While staff acknowledges the concerns about impacts to single-family neighborhoods, an overarching objective of the Housing Element and General Plan Update (GPU), which is moving concurrently with this process, is to focus new housing growth in proximity to transit and other amenities. While new accessory dwelling units (ADU), Senate Bill 92 units, and other types of new or redevelopment is expected in all neighborhoods around the City, rezoning single-family neighborhoods is not necessary to meet the City’s RHNA obligations. The Sites Inventory will also be reviewed and updated as necessary to add information related to site selection, anticipated GPU land use designation, and bolstered explanations for density projections. Policies and programs related to transportation and circulation upgrades will be addressed as part of the updated Circulation Element in the GPU.

For other public comments that may require more substantiative changes, staff will await direction from the City Council before initiating revisions to the Draft Housing Element.

Public comments received after the comment period for the Draft Housing Element ended on May 6, 2022 are included as Attachment 9b. Public comments submitted after the publication of this agenda report will be posted to this item on the City’s Public Meeting Portal as “Post Packet Public Comments.” Planning Commission Review
At public meetings on April 26 and May 3, 2022, the Planning Commission provided input on the Draft Housing Element.

Following each of the two Planning Commission meetings, Commissioner Nugent submitted additional written input to City and HCD staff. That input has been included as Attachment 9a. Since the document is still in draft form, pending HCD review, each commissioner provided input and feedback, but an overall recommendation from the Commission was not made. A formal recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council will be provided later this year when the Housing Element is ready for adoption. When providing input, the Commission broke up their comments into four categories: Sites Inventory; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; Other Housing Element Sections; and the Goals, Policy and Programs. The following summaries of the Commission’s input on each category are intended to highlight critical points and themes but are not intended to be comprehensive. Full videos of both public meetings are available for viewing on the City’s Public Meeting Portal.

Sites Inventory
The Commission expressed concern with the Sites Inventory methodology, the estimated housing capacity and the development feasibility of many of the sites listed in the Inventory. Concerns included that the estimates for lower income units were not realistic, there were no sites identified in the Highest Resource or single-family areas of the City, many of the owners of sites on the list did not have plans to develop, density projections were too optimistic, the methodology was not quantitative enough, and ADU production estimates are not defensible. However, one commissioner did note that context and timing is important and that there are many factors, such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, that limited housing production during the prior cycle that would not be present in this upcoming cycle, so past trends do not necessarily dictate future production.
2 SB 9 allows for the ministerial (staff-level) approval of certain housing development projects containing up to two (2) residential units (i.e. duplexes) or lot splits on single-family zoned parcels. 8 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
In response to the Commission’s critique, staff will be reviewing, and where appropriate, clarifying, the Sites Inventory methodology to confirm that outliers are not driving estimated development densities. A new column will also be added to provide site specific notes on the analytical reasoning for development potential, with references to property owner letters and development project proposals where applicable. Some sites may be added or removed as a result of this review, specifically where recent permits have been issued for non-residential uses or if there is developer interest in building housing. However, anecdotal information and informal conversations about the development potential of a specific site are considered speculative and would not be the basis to remove a site from the Inventory or affect the methodology. In addition, the methodology utilizes qualitative assumptions that were developed based on guidance from HCD staff, housing specialists working with 21 Elements, and the City’s housing consultants. It also bears repeating that the purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate if the City has sufficient sites with appropriate zoning capacity to meet the City’s RHNA goal, but it does not need to determine economic feasibility of specific sites, take into consideration the owner’s immediate intended use of the land, or dictate where residential development will actually occur.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
The Commission expressed concerns about many aspects of the AFFH background data points, findings, conclusions and how the City should respond. Concerns included insufficient information regarding the City’s history and issues such as overcrowding, gentrification, and displacement, and racially segregated concentrated areas of affluence; placing affordable housing sites within 500 feet of major thoroughfares (101 and 92); not placing enough new housing in the City’s highest resource neighborhoods; and dissatisfaction with the City’s outreach efforts.

In response to the Commission’s comments on AFFH, it should be noted that guidance from HCD on how to address AFFH has shifted over the past year and there are still competing perspectives on how the many racial, equity and access issues should be addressed. This is a challenging and complex subject that often requires solutions that are beyond the City’s control. While the City is striving to dedicate more resources and take many new steps to address this issue, the scope of the Housing Element is limited in terms of its breadth, timeline (eight years), and applicability and cannot, by itself, eliminate or undo the many decades of racial segregation history in the City, the region, and the country.

In response to several specific issues raised, it should be noted that housing sites can be placed within 500 feet of highways when appropriate mitigations are provided. With regard to placing additional housing, particularly affordable housing, in the highest resource areas of the City, many of these areas are auto centric with limited access to transit, grocery stores, and other urban services, and often located in high fire hazard and geological hazard areas, thus not ideal for higher-density housing and inconsistent with the City’s goal of reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). However, it is anticipated that new ADU and SB 9 housing units will be developed in all of the City’s single-family areas. With regard to the City’s outreach efforts, significant time and effort has been expended since the beginning of 2021 to engage with all segments and demographics of the community as part of the Housing Element effort and the larger General Plan Update effort. While there is always more work to do, and staff continues to implement new tactics and strategies to reach and encourage participation from all segments of the community, this effort has resulted in a significant amount of input from historically under-represented populations and the data collected have been used to craft many aspects of the Draft Housing Element.

Other Housing Element Sections
The Planning Commission’s comments in this area focused on the Housing Element’s Quantified Objectives and Constraints Analysis. Regarding the Quantified Objectives, concerns were raised about inconsistent information on pipeline projects and reported numbers, and that it confirmed that Housing Element was inadequate in meeting the City’s RHNA goal.

Regarding the Constraints Analysis, the Commission felt that Measure Y should be more clearly described as a constraint and how it limits the City’s ability to develop new housing and increase its inclusionary requirement. Concerns were also raised about high permitting fees associated with small-scale multi-family development.

Staff did identify an error in the fees analysis calculation within the Draft Housing Element; this analysis is being revised.

The pipeline projects list will also be reviewed to ensure it is current and additional discussion about Measure Y will be added to the Constraints Analysis. With regard to the quantified objectives, they are intended to set realistic goals for the City to achieve, based on needs, resources, and constraints. Per HCD guidance, “When a locality has determined total 9 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
housing needs exceed the locality’s ability to meet those needs with existing resources, the quantified objectives may be less than the total identified need as specified in the locality’s RHNA.” Goals, Policies and Programs
Overall, the Commission raised concerns that many of the goals, policies and programs were too vague, redundant, not quantifiable and actionable, and that they needed to be more visionary and aspirational to meet the City’s housing and equity challenges. Specific commissioner comments included removal of exploratory language and to be more committal on adopting policies and programs, removal of programs already required by State law such as for density bonus, SB 9 and 10, commit to going above and beyond the minimum State requirements, removal of policies and programs that are duplicative, creation of policies and programs to eliminate disparity and overcrowding within one to two decades, increase density in the single-family zone districts and put forward a ballot measure to remove Measure Y, and explore public banks and other public funding sources for developing affordable housing units.

Given that the City will have legal obligations to complete and implement the policies and programs in the Housing Element within the eight-year housing cycle, staff focused on developing aspirational yet realistic targets that establish a workplan for the upcoming cycle based on likely available monetary and staff resources. While it is feasible and appropriate to update the policies and programs to address some of the Commission’s input, to fully implement the Commission’s comments would require allocation of significant additional resources and increase the risk of noncompliance if the City is unable to meet these ambitious objectives. The City always has the ability to go further than the targets set in the Housing Element, but we will have a legal obligation to deliver on the targets established within the Housing Element. It is important to also note that with the many new requirements associated with this Housing Element cycle, it will be a learning experience that we can build upon for the next two+ cycles that will be part of the updated General Plan.

To provide some additional context, as the City prepares to submit to HCD, three other California regions had a deadline of October 15, 2021 to have their Housing Elements certified. As of May 10, 2022, seven months past that deadline, only 13 of 197 jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments region (7%), 7 of 19 jurisdictions in the San Diego region (37%) and 9 of 28 jurisdictions in the Sacramento region (32%) are certified to be in compliance. The substantial revisions to Housing Element requirements for this cycle has necessitated multiple revisions to every jurisdiction’s draft Housing Element before it has been deemed sufficient to move forward with adoption. As a result, HCD has indicated that cities should plan for two 90-day review cycles prior to certification instead one 60-day cycle, which is not typical of past Housing Elements. In addition, obtaining clear technical guidance from HCD on the new requirements has been an evolutionary process and, as a result, there is a high volume of speculative and anecdotal interpretation of the new requirements. For this reason, City staff has maintained consistent communications with HCD staff throughout development of the Draft Housing Element. Staff is working to ensure that the Draft is as complete and comprehensive as possible and will make any additional revisions as directed by the City Council. However, given the shifting requirements and complexity of HCD guidance, the Council may wish to consider whether it may be prudent to have HCD weigh in on the necessary revisions before further significant revisions are made to the Draft Housing Element.

Next Steps
Once the City Council provides direction on the Draft Housing Element, the next steps and anticipated timeline for approval and certification of the Housing Element are as follows:
May/June 2022 Update Draft Housing Element based on Council direction and public input June 2022 Submit Draft Housing Element to HCD for first 90-day review Summer/Fall 2022 Update Draft Housing Element in response to HCD comments and resubmit for second review Fall 2022 Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval of Housing Element January 2023 Submit approved Housing Element to HCD for certification The first review by HCD will take up to 90 days, and, based on other jurisdiction’s experiences with the HCD review process, it is anticipated that at least one or two round of revisions will be required before HCD is prepared to accept the City’s Housing Element. Once the Draft Housing Element has been updated to address all HCD comments, public hearings 10 of 955

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 2
7 1
before the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled for final review and adoption of the plan. This will also be a time for additional community input. Following City Council adoption, it will be submitted to HCD for final certification. The deadline to submit an adopted and compliant housing element to HCD is January 31, 2023. However, the schedule to bring the final draft of the Housing Element back to Planning Commission and City Council for adoption may be revised depending on the number of HCD reviews required.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There are no direct budgetary impacts to taking this action. The preparation of the Housing Element has been accounted for in the City’s budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This input provided by the City Council on the Draft Housing Element is not a project subject to CEQA, because the City is not taking action at this time and it can be seen with certainty that the City Council’s input will not cause a physical change in the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21065). Since the Housing Element does not require the City to process any land use or zoning designation amendments, it is currently anticipated that the Housing Element can be processed with an exemption under CEQA (California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3)). Preparation of documentation to support this CEQA determination will be provided prior to consideration of the Housing Element by the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption later this year.

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Draft Housing Element
Att 2 - Appendix A Needs Analysis
Att 3 - Appendix B Constraints Analysis
Att 4 - Appendix C Housing Resources and Sites Inventory Att 5 - Appendix D Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Narrative Att 6 - Appendix E Review of Prior Housing Element
Att 7 - Appendix F Public Participation
Att 8 - Adequate Sites Inventory/TCAC Map
Att 9 - Public Comments
Att 9a - Commissioner Nugent Comments to HCD
Att 9b - Post Public Review Period Comments

STAFF CONTACT
City of San Mateo Housing Consultant
Manira Sandhir, AICP, Planning Manager Diana Elrod, Diana Elrod Consulting [email protected]
650-522-7203
Zachary Dahl, AICP, Deputy Director
[email protected]
650-522-7207
11 of 955

12 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T

0.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

0.1 Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1

0.2 List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 2

0.3 List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 2

0.4 List of Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ .............. 11

2.1 The History of San Mateo ................................ ................................ ....... 11

2.2 Legislative Context ................................ ................................ ................. 13

2.3 Consistency with the General Plan ................................ .......................... 16

2.4 Water/Sewer Capacity ................................ ................................ ............ 17

3. HOUSING NEEDS AND S ITES INVENTORY ................................ ................................ ...... 19

3.1 Housing Needs Summary ................................ ................................ ........ 19

3.2 Demographics ................................ ................................ ........................ 20

3.3 Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate ................................ .............. 22

3.3.1 Preservation and Replacement Options .............................................................. 22

3.3.2 Rental Assistance ................................................................................................. 22

3.3.3 Transfer of Ownership ......................................................................................... 23

3.3.4 Construction of Replacement Units ..................................................................... 23

3.3.5 Entities Interested in Participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program ............................................................................................................... 23

3.3.6 Funding Sources ................................................................................................... 24

3. 4 RHNA Allocation Summary and Methodology ................................ ........... 24

3.4.1 Legislative Context for the Housing Element’s Inventory of Sites ....................... 24

3.4.2 Site Inventory Methodology ................................................................................ 26

3.4.3 Site Inventory Approach ...................................................................................... 26

3.4.4 Pipeline Projects .................................................................................................. 33

3.4.5 Accessory Dwelling Units ..................................................................................... 33

3.5 Sites Inventory ................................ ................................ ...................... 34

4. OTHER REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS ................................ ................ 37

4.1 Constraints Analysis Summary ................................ ................................ . 37

4.1.1 Governmental Constraints ................................................................................... 37

4.1.2 Non-Governmental Constraints ........................................................................... 37

4.2 Housing Resourc es Summary ................................ ................................ ... 37

4.2.1 Funding Opportunities ......................................................................................... 38

4.2.2 Existing Housing Programs .................................................................................. 38

4.3 Climate Change and Energy Conservation ................................ ................ 39

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 40

5.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ............................... 40

5.2 Accomplishments and Key Takeaways ................................ ...................... 41

5.2.1 Website, Social Media, and Printed Mailing ........................................................ 41

5.2.2 Community Meetings .......................................................................................... 42

5.2.3 Key Takeaways ..................................................................................................... 43

5.2.4 Outreach Activities............................................................................................... 44

5.3 How We Incorporated What We Heard into the Plan ................................ 47

5.4 Attachments included in Appendix F ................................ ....................... 48 13 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-2

6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) SUMMARY................................ ....................... 49

6.1 What is A ffirmatively Furthering Fair Housing? ................................ ........ 49

6.2 History of segregation in the region. ................................ ....................... 49

6.3 San Mat eo’s Fair Housing Assessment ................................ ..................... 50

6.3.1 Primary Findings .................................................................................................. 51

6.3.2 Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan. ............................................. 53

7. HOUSING PLAN ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 55

7.1 Goals, Policies, and Programs Sum mary ................................ ................... 55

7.2 Implementation Plan ................................ ................................ .............. 58

7.2.1 GOAL H1: Production of new housing at all income levels, with a focus on affordable housing ......................................................................................... 58

7.2.2 GOAL H2: Preservation of existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents ............................................................................. 62

7.2.3 GOAL H3: Protection of current residents to prevent displacement ................ 64

7.2.4 GOAL H4: Promotion of community engagement and public outreach ........... 66

7.2.5 Goal H5: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ................................................. 67

8. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ 75

9. PRIOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ......... 77

0.2 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sites Inventory Map ..................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 2: AFFH Definition ............................................................................................................................ 49

0.3 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Income Limits for San Mateo County, 2021 .................................................................................. 19 Table 2: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocations .................................................................................... 20 Table 3: San Mateo RHNA Targets Summary .............................................................................................. 25 Table 4: 2017 – 2021 Residential Project Densities .................................................................................... 28 Table 5: 2017 – 2021 Planning Development Approvals ............................................................................ 29 Table 6: Example RHNA Income Distribution ............................................................................................. 33 Table 7: Sites Inventory Affordability Breakdown ...................................................................................... 34 Table 8: Goal H1: Production - Implementation Plan ................................................................................. 58 Table 9: Goal H2: Preservation - Implementation Plan .............................................................................. 62 Table 10: Goal H3: Protection - Implementation Plan ................................................................................ 64 Table 11: Goal H4: Promotion - Implementation Plan ................................................................................ 66 Table 12: Goal H5: AFFH - Implementation Plan ........................................................................................ 67 Table 13: Quantified Objectives for Cycle 6 (2023 – 2031) ........................................................................ 75 Table 14: Quantified Objectives Alignment with San Mateo’s RHNA......................................................... 76 Table 15: Quantified Objectives, 2015 - 2023............................................................................................. 77 Table 16: Accomplishments, 2015 - 2023 ................................................................................................... 78

14 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T

0.4 LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Needs Analysis
▪ Countywide Housing Needs
▪ Inventory of Assisted Units

B. Constraints

C. Housing Resources
▪ Sites Inventory List

D. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Narrative
▪ Fair Housing Action Plan
▪ AFFH Maps and Data
▪ Access to Educational Opportunities
▪ UC Merced Segregation Report
▪ Quotes and Narrative from Outreach
▪ State Fair Housing Laws

E. Review of Prior Housing Element
▪ Prior Housing Element Evaluation

F. Public Participation
▪ True North Survey Results
▪ Community Engagement, Pop Ups, and Intercepts
▪ Housing Element Online Survey Results
▪ City of San Mateo Builders Focus Group
▪ City of San Mateo Fair Housing Workshop – January 13, 2022 ▪ City of San Mateo Housing Policy Workshop – November 2, 2021 ▪ Community Needs and Housing Needs Workshop (Community Relations Commission, September, 29, 2021)
▪ Fair Housing Listening Session – September 27, 2021
▪ Housing Advocates Listening Session – October 18, 2021 ▪ Builders Listening Session – November 1, 2021
▪ Service Providers Listening Session – November 15, 2021 ▪ Root Policy Fair Housing Survey Summary
▪ Community Correspondence

15 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-4

1. EXECU TIVE SUMMARY
San Mateo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element is a plan to help address the region’s housing crisis, a blueprint for supporting all forms of housing, and a demonstration of the City’s commitment to achieving greater housing equity and access fo r all residents. The Housing Element identifies existing housing conditions and community nee ds, describes where new housing can be developed, establishes goals and creates a plan for supporting the production of housing to meet the needs of the City’s current and future residents. It includes the following sections.

1. Executive Summary

This Executive Summary provides a high-level summary of each section, and its findings and conclusions.

The Sites Inventory is in Section 3, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment is in Section 6 and the Housing Plan, with a complete breakdown of th e goals, policies and programs, is included in Section 6. Detailed technical information and documentation to support the Housing Element’s findings and conclusions are included in the appendices.

2. Introduction and Background

The City of San Mateo is located in San Mateo County, California, on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula and has a population of 105,661 per the 2020 Census. It is approximately 20 miles south of San Francisco and borders Burlingame to the north, Hillsborough to the west, the San Francisco Bay and Foster City to the east and Belmont to the south.

The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of San Mateo, and is the only element that requires review and approval by the state. California has also established a significant number of new housing related laws to address the state’s housing crisis and this section provides an overview of the applicable legisla tion that the Housing Element is required to address and comply with. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is tasked with reviewing housin g elements for compliance and adequacy and is responsible for certifying the City’s Housing Element.

All new housing units need to have access to adequate infrastructure and municipa l services, and in particular, sewage disposal and water capacit y must b e demonstrated. The City's electrical and natural gas provider is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and the water service provider is predominantly the California Water Company, except for the portion of San Mateo east of the slough, which is served by the Estero Municipal Improvement District . Recology provides recycling, composting and waste di sposal services and sewage disposal services are provided by the city. An assessment of Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan combined with increased water efficiency and conservation requirements found that there is sufficient water capacity to serve at least 7,015 new housing units by 2031. For sewage disposal, the City is currently building an updated sewage treatment facility which will ha ve the capacity to serv e the City into the future, including the new units for this housing cycle.

3. Housing Needs and Sites Inventory
“Home is where one
starts from.”
– T.S. Eliot
16 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-5 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

For this upcoming eight-year housing cycle, HCD has identified the nine-county Bay Area region’s housing need to be 441,176 units; with this number broken down into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from extremely low-income households to market rate housing. This Regional Housing Needs De termination (RHND) is based on population project ions produced by the Ca lifornia Department of Finance (DOF) as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need.

The City of San Mateo’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for th is cycle is 7,015 new housing units.

A summary of facts about San Mateo ’s demographic data is provided to establish a basis for the City’s housing needs and issues. A full version of the City’s demographic report can be found in Appendix A. A key fact ide ntified in this data is that the number of homes in San Mateo increased 3.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. And, during this time period, home prices increased by 115.6% and rental prices increased by 74.2%. Overall, this demographic data supports the finding that the City does not have sufficient housing units to meet the needs of its residents and that housing affordability is a significant barrier for many middle- and lower-income residents.

An analysis o f existing affordable housing units that are at risk of conversion/reversion to market rate , rendering them no longer affordable to the people living in them, identified 65 units in two developments (Bridgepoint Condominiums and Belmont Building) that have expiring affordability covenants. The potential loss of existing affordable housing units is an important issue to the City due to displacement of lower-income tenants and the li mited alternative housing for such persons. Preservation of these units can be achieved in a variety of ways and policies and programs have been included in the Housing Plan to explore options to retain the units as affordable, replace the units elsewhere, or relocate tenants into alternative housing that is affordable to them.

To demonstrate how San Mateo can accommodate its RHNA of 7,015 new housing units, the Housing Element must identify adequate sites for housing (Sites Inventory), including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobile homes, and make adequate provision f or the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The Sites In ventory is required to include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and analyze the development capacity that can realistically be achieved for each site.

The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with appropriate zoning capacity to meet the City’s RHNA goal. The Sites Inventory analy sis does not include the economic feasibility of specific sites, does not take into consideration the owner’s intended use of the land now or in the future, and does not dictate where residential development will actually occur. Based on previous Housing Elements, it is anticipated that some of the sites on the list will be developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will be built on sites not listed in the inventory.

The methodology used to estimate the development potential of each proper ty included on the Sites Inventory was developed based on the criteria established by state law, development/redevelopment feasibility, site constraints, zoned capacity versus real ca pacity and prior project history. To ensure a higher likelihood of new de velopments exceeding the estimates in the Sites Inventory, conservative assumptions were em ployed. Overall, the Sites Inventory identified sites spread around the City with capacity to develop up to 10,922 units, or 156% of the City’s RHNA. This development capacity exists 17 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-6
within the City's current zoned densities and does not require any rezoni ngs to achieve. The following table provides a summary breakdown of the Sites Inventory by income category.

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

This information is included as Table 7 in Section 3.5 of the Housing Element.

4. Other Required Housing Element Components

This section provides a summary and evaluation of housing production constraints, an overview of the funding opportunities and housing resources provided by the City, and the applicable energy conservation and climate change policies and requirements for new housing developments.

The constraints section analyzes potential and actual governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or deve lopment of housing that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its housing goals. Governmental constraints to housing include zoning regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impact fees, and the development review and permit ting processes. Nongovernmental constraints i nclude availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, and the length of time to design and construct new housing.

The city is in the process of implementing measures to reduce developm ent costs, streamline the development review process and amend/simplify the Zoning Code to reduce these constraints.

Nongovernmental constraints are largely determined by market conditions or other factors, over which the City has little control. However, there are still opportunities to influence market conditions and their associated costs indirectly, which can help reduce these constraints.

The Housing Resources of the City are grouped into three categories. The first is the various funding sources that the city is able to leverage for affordable housing production, preservation, and protection; the second are the existing programs that the city manages and supports to increase the housing supply or otherwise serve past, current, and prospective resident s of affordable housing; and the third is the inventory of sites that are adequate for development to meet projected housing needs.

Home energy efficiency has become an increasingly significant factor in housing construction, particularly in the past few years with the increasing demand to build ene rgy efficient and sustainable buildings in California. The California Energy Code and the California Green Buildin g Code in State Title 24 establish uniform energy efficiency and green building standards that all construction must adhere. The City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan (CAP) sets standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for housing and 18 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-7 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
construction by exceeding minimum state requirements, providing education and outreach on benefits and financial i ncentives associated with energy upgrades, an d continuing support for energy efficiency and electrification retrofits.

5. Public Participation

Over the past twelve months, the city has conducted a significant community outreach effort to engage with the com munity, with over nineteen public and communi ty meetings and workshops, five intercept/pop-up events, four surveys and partnership with 21 Elements. The outreach effort included an emphasis on connecting with community members for whom English was not spok en at home, renters, those under 45 years of age, low -income and very low -income households, people with disabilities, seniors, single female heads of household, people experiencing homelessness, and those from under - represented neighborhoods.

Key accomplishments of the community outreach efforts included:

• Launch of a Housing Element Update website that included links to past event video recordings, meeting materials, outreach and survey summaries, and information about upcoming meetings and ways to get involved.
• Two mailers – one citywide in October 2021 and a second in January 2022 targeted to renters – inviting community members to participate in community workshops, public meetings, and online surveys.
• Three public H ousing Element workshops, five presentations/discussions at City Council and Planning Commission public meetings, a focus group discussion with builders, developers and architects, and presentations to many local community -based organizations , including th e Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants Association and San Mateo -Foster City School District Parent Teacher Association (SMFCSD PTA).
• Two related Housing Element Surveys conducted by the City between October 11, 2021 and January 16, 2022 received a total of 750 responses. Online responses from community members accounted for 594 responses, with 156 additional responses to a subset of questions collected by staff and the consultant team as intercept surveys during pop-up events in the North Central and Shoreview Neighborhoods, as well as Macedonia food distribution events.

Themes that were incorporated into the Housing Plan included production of more m issing middle housing, more outreach and educ ation to tenants and landlords, streamlining and simplifying development review and permitting processes, doing more to address fair housing and equity, and ensuring that new housing is sustainable and addresses climate change.

6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Assessment

This section provides an overview of AFFH requirements; a history of segregation in the region ; and an assessment of the San Mateo’s AFFH issues.

“Affirmatively furthering fair ho using” means taking meaningful actions, in ad dition to combating 19 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-8
discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. California law, as established by AB 686, requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation.” The law also required that housing elements include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

The United States’ oldest cities have a hi story of mand ating segregated living patterns —and Northern California cities are no exception. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to historically discriminato ry practices—highlighting redlining and discr iminatory mortgage approvals —as well as “structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

A Fair Housing Assessment for all San Mateo County jurisdictio ns was conduc ted by 21 Elements, a countywide jurisdictional collaborative. For the City of San Mateo, the Assessment describes fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity and disparate housing needs as contributing factors that should be addressed in the city’s fair housing action plan. Some primary findings in the Fair Housing Assessment included:

• 16% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County between 2017 to 2021 (57 total) were in the Cit y of San Mateo (9 total), which is approximat ely aligned with the city share of the county’s population (14%).
• Racial and ethnic minority populations a re disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compare d to the non -Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan. • The northeast area of San Mateo is disproportionately im pacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and moderate resource scores. These areas are generally on either side of Highway 101 and stretch to the S an Francisco Bay waterfront, encompassing the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. • The City of San Ma teo has a slight concentration of residents with a disability with 9% of the population compared to 8% i n the county. Residents living with a disabil ity in the city are more likely to be unemployed and are largely concentrated in areas around Highway 101. • Racial and ethnic minority students in the City of San Mateo —served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo -Foster Elementary School District —experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students.
• Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened —spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened— spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs.

Contributing factors to these Primary Findings include:

• Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from de cades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and 20 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-9 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
homeownership.
• The northern portion of the city offers the most affordable homes, and as such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. • Hispanic residents a re more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the City’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. • Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the city where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.
• Concentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing opportunitie s in the northeast areas of the city further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental outcomes.
• There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the city. • Highway 101 creates a major barrier between the Shoreview neighborhood and the rest of the City of San Mateo.
• The unemployment rate for the City of San Mateo’s residents with a disab ility is four times that of persons without a disability.
• The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.
• There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the North Central neighborhood.
• Residents with disabilities and Hispanic households face increased housing discrimination.

In response to this analysis, as well as community input, an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Plan, which details how the city proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis, was devel oped. The Action Plan is included in Appendix D and the policies and programs to implement the Action Plan are included in the Housing Plan under Goal 5.

7. Housing Plan

The City of San Mateo's primary objective is to maintain and provide a diversity of housing opportunities for current and future residents. There should be a variety of housing types and sizes, a mixture of rental and ownership housing, and housing that suppor ts special needs populations, including farmw orkers, single female heads of household, people with disabilities, and those who are unhoused. This variety of housing opportunities should accommodate a diverse population, leading to a variety of household sizes and types at all income levels.

In addition, the city needs to increase housing supply to meet the housing demand caused by current and future job growth. The types of new housing created should accommodate all income levels consistent with the city’s RHNA. The goals, polices, and actions con tained in this Housing Plan support t hese overarching objectives while also ensuring that the city will meet its statutory obligations to affirmatively further fair housing and facilitate housing production at all income levels.

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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-10
support social resilience, and the fifth goal is to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

• Production – Facilitate and support the production of new housing at all income levels, but especially affordable housing. Eighteen policies have been identified to support this goal. • Preservation – Preserve existing housing that is affo rdable to lower - and middle -income residents. Six policies have been identified to support this goal. • Protection – Protect current residents to prevent displacement. Seven policies have been identified to support this goal.
• Promotion – Promote social resil ience through public educati on and community outreach to make information more available and accessible. Four policies have been identified to support this goal.
• Affirmatively Further Fair Housing – Address the issues of fair housing, equity and access whi le reinforcing the objective that affirmatively furthering fair housing is both a stand -alone priority and decisively inseparable from achieving the Housing Element’s other goals. Thirteen policies have been identified to support this goal.

8. Quantified Objectives

In addition to the sites inventory and the Housing Plan, the city needs to provide an estimate of actual housing units that can be preserved and produced given available resources, permits issued and projected pipeline projects expected to be completed within the next housing cycle. State law recognizes that the city’s total housing needs exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy thi s need within the content of the general plan. Thus, the quantified objectives do not need to completely account for San Mateo’s RHNA but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved in the City over an eight-year timeframe.

For the upcoming housing cycle, the city’s quantified objectives for conservation are 470 units, with 74 being affordable units , and the quantified objectives for construction are 5,358 units, with 1,441 being affordable units. The total of quantified objectives for the city are 5,828 units, including 1,515 affordable units. For a full breakdown of units by affordability level and by project or category , see Table 13 – Quantified Objectives for Cycle 6 (2023 – 2031), in this Section.

9. Review of Prior Housing Element

The final section provides a summary of the key accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities learned from the city’s previous Housing Element. The city’s RHNA for the fifth housing cycle was 3,100 units. The city was able to achieve many its goals through successful implementation of most of its polici es and programs but fell short of its affordable housing goals. Key accomplishments include increased accessory dwelling unit ( ADU) production, new funding sources, protecting existing affordable housing units, and using new technology to speed up developm ent. Significant progress was also made on th e design and entitlement of two affordable housing projects on city-owned properties in Downtown. Overall, through the first seven years of this cycle, the city has been able to achieve a total of 2,133 new housing units and exceed its market rate housing target; however, this only represents 69 percent of the city's RHNA. A variety of factors have contributed to this production shortfall, including high land and construction costs, outdated policies, and community division over growth and building heights. The lessons learned over this past cycle have been used to help inform the Housing Plan in this Housing Element. 22 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-11 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has not kept pace, contributing to the housing shortage that communities around the Bay Area are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commu tes, and fewer people, particularly those in the middle- and lower-income tiers, being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The Housing Element is part of the City’s General Plan and sets forth the policies and programs to address the housing needs for San Mateo. It is the City’s eight-year housing strategy from the period of 2023-2031 for how it will meet the community’s housing needs . State law (Government Code Sections 65580 - 65589.8) requires that every city and county in California adopt a Ho using Element, subject to State approval, as part of its General Plan. Per SB 375 (Statutes of 2008), the planning period for the Housing Element is eight years.

Since 1969, State law requires that jurisdictions throughout California complete a Housing Elemen t. The City itself is not responsible for b uilding or producing this housing, but it must demonstrate that it has policies and programs in place to support housing construction for all inco me levels, as well as available land appropriately zoned to accommodate new housing. The Housing Element must include a variety of statistics on housing needs, constraints to development, and policies and programs to implement a variety of housing -related land use actions, and a detailed inventory of “opportunity sites” o n which future housing may be built.

The Housing Element is the only element of a locality’s General Plan that must be approved (“certified”) by the State, through its Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure it meets all statutory requirements. Having a certified Housing Element is a prerequisite for many State grants and funding programs. This is the sixth cycle of the Housing Element and covers the eight -year period from 2023 to 2031.

2.1 The History of San Mateo

One of only two charter cities in San Mateo County, the City of San Mateo was incorporated in 1894 and is governed by a five-member City Council. The city encompasses 15.9 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area in the center of the Peninsula and is currently home to an estimated 105,661 residents. 1 Its strategic location at the crossroad of the east-west coastal stagecoach and the north-south railroad drew a number of residents after its incorporation. The land around this settlement was controlled by some of the weal thiest families in the state , who created large suburban estates. San Mateo emerged in the postwar periods as a rapidly expanding and progressive city when the population of the city nearly quadrupled between 1940 and 1990.2 Some of the current land use co nstraints, such as voter approved

1 US Census estimate, April 2020. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanmateocitycalifornia 2 Mitchell P. Postel, San Mateo – A Centennial History,”Foreword”, 1994, Page ix. 23 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-12
Measure H, P, and Y in 19 91, 2004, and 2020, respectively, which limit heights to 55 feet and density to no more than 50 units per acre in the city were a direct result of this rapid expansion.

Despite the Measure Y grow th limitations, San Mateo has seen a signif icant amount of growth over the past two decades. Recent development a ctivity includes a mix of single -family homes, multi -family dwellings, senior housing, office space, retail areas, hotels, and mixed -use (commercial and residential) projects.

San Mateo has very few remaining vacant sites with development potential ( approximately 40 parcels).

The areas that are undeveloped are generally protected as open space, parks, and waterways. However, there are many sites that have aging buildings or are under-developed that provide opportunity for new mixed-use and higher -density housing development. Development interest in San Mateo remains high with a variety of projects in the pipeline, including those in the early planning stages.

San Mateo’s economy has grown quickly in recent years, in large part due to the strength of Silicon Valley technology companies and the city’s strategic geographic location. Current low vacancy rates for retail, office, and industrial space confirm that businesses find San Mateo a d esirable location, and new development projects will produce more non-residential space to help meet that demand. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of jobs in San Mateo increased by 33 percent, and there are approximately 52,800 people3 employed in the city. The “professional and technical services” sector, which includes technology jobs, makes up about 20 percent of local jobs, about the same proportion as in San Francisco and more than in Silicon Valley. Retail, health care, food services, public agencies , are other primary employment sectors in the community.

San Mateo’s vibrant Downtown, desirable neighborhoods, diversity of employment options, high quality public services, and recent developments such as Hill sdale/Bay Meadows and Station Park Green, m ake it an ever-popular place to live and work. Major new development in San Mateo is concentrated primarily near the three Caltrain stations (in the Downtown, Hayward Park and Hillsdale areas), and along El Camino Real. The city’s three Caltrain stations, extensive bicycle and pedestrian network, SamTrans bus system, and well -maintained local roadways lead efficiently to destinations in the city, on the Peninsula, and beyond.

The city has many distinct and diverse individual neighborhoods , including two de signated historic districts, the Downtown and the Glazenwood Historic Districts. The Downtown area , which maintains a 1930s character, is of particular importance and interest with respect to historic structures. The residential neighborhood of Glazenwood is a unique early 1920's development of Spanish Colonial Revival homes.

Other areas of the city contain buildings of exceptional architectural interest and reflect local historical periods.

San Mateo has about 41 ,250 housing units, roughly half are rental units and half are occupied by homeowners, which are also split almost evenly between single-family and multi-family residences. Older

3 City of San Mateo, General Plan Update - Alternatives Evaluation, 2019. 24 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-13 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
homes are common in San Mateo, with almost 50 percent being 60 years or older. Local housing costs are very high, driven by high demand and a lack of production, which is due to a variety of factors including lack of available land and regulatory limits. The average cost for a single -family home in San Mateo is about $1.7 million, up more than 80 percent in just five years.4 A typical rental unit costs $2,900 a month, 31 percent higher than five years ago. With the current median annual income of $118,000, a four-person household in San Mateo could comfortably afford to purchase a h ome priced at up to $700,000 – less than half of the realistic cost.5 Even with the high housing costs, the city population continues to increase and is anticipated to grow by 30,000 to 54,000 people by 2040, depending on which land use scenario is selected as part of the City’s 2040 General Plan Update.

2.2 Legislative C ontext

Since the city’s last Housing Element was adopted and certified in 2014, many pieces of housing legislation have been signed into law, resulting in substantive changes to State h ousing law and Housing Element requirements.

Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process. Senate Bill 35 (2017), Assembly Bill 168 (2020) and Assembly Bill 831 (2020 ). SB 35 created a streamlined, ministerial review process for qualifying multifamily, urban infill projects in jurisdictions that have failed to approve housing projects sufficient to meet their State‐mandated RHNA. Among other requirements, to qualify for streamlining under SB 35, a project must incorporate one of two threshold levels of affordable housing: (1) 10 percent of the project’s units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for above moderate‐ income housing or have failed to submit an annual progress report as required under state law; or (2) 50 percent of the project’s unit s in jurisdict ions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for below moderate‐income housing. AB 168 added a requirement to provide a formal notice to each California Native American tribe that is affiliated with the area of t he proposed project. The Housing Element must describe the City’s processing procedures related to SB 35.

This is discussed further in Appendix B.

Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements. Assembly Bill 879 (2017) and Assembly Bill 1397 (201 7). These bills require additional analysis and justification of the sites included in the sites inventory of the city’s Housing Element. The Housing Element may only count non‐vacant sites included in one previous housing element inventory and vacant sites included in two previous housing elements if the sites are subject to a program that allows affordable housing by right. Additionally, the bills require additional analysis of non‐vacant sites and additional ana lysis of infrastructure capacity, and place size restrictions on all sites.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Assembly Bill 686 (2017). AB 686 law ensures that public entities, including local governments, administer their programs relating to housin g and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of the federal Fair Housing Act and do not take any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. It also requires that

4 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, 2018
5 CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., 2018.
25 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-14
housing elements of each city and county promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and ot her characteristics protected by the Califo rnia Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. AB 686 requires jurisdictions to conduct an assessment of fair housing in the housing element, prepare the housing element site inventory through the lens of affirmatively furthering fair housing, and include program(s) to affirmatively further fair housing.

No‐Net‐Loss Zoning. Senate Bill 166 (2017 ). SB 166 amended the No‐Net‐Loss rule to require that the land inventory and site identi fication programs in the Housing Element include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. When a site identified in the Housing Element as available to accommodate the lower‐income portion of the RHNA is actually developed for a higher income group, the city must either (1) identify, and rezone if necessary, an adequate substitute site or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute site.

AB 1397, Low (Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017) . The law made several revisions to the site inventory analysis requirements of Housing Element Law. In particular, it requires stronger justification when nonvacant sites are used to meet housing needs, particularly for lower income housing, requires by right housing when sites are included in more than one housing element, and adds conditions around size of sites, among others.

Safety Element to Address Adapt ation and Resiliency. Senate Bill 1035 (2018 ). SB 1035 requires the General Plan Safety Element to be reviewed and revised to include any new information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies with each revision of the housing element.

By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing. Assembly Bill 2162 (2018) and Assembly Bi ll 101 (2019). AB 2162 requires the city to change its zoning to provide a “by right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The bill prohibits the city from applying a conditional use permit or other discretionary review to the approval of 1 00 percent affordable developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12 units, whichever is gr eater. The change in the law applies to sites in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including in nonresidential zones permitting multifamily use. Additionally, AB 101 requires that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Assembly Bill 2299 (2016), Senate Bill 1069 (2016), Assembly Bill 494 (2017), Senate Bill 229 (2017), Assembly Bill 68 (2019), Assembly Bill 881 (2019), Assembly 587 (2019), Senate Bill 13 (2019), Assembly Bill 670 (2019), Assem bly Bill 671 (2019), Assembly Bill 3182 (2020). In recent years, multiple bills have added requirements for local governments related to ADU ordinances.

The 2016 and 2017 updates to State law included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, permitting ADUs b y right in at least some areas of a jurisdiction, and limits on parking requirements related to ADUs. More recent bills reduce the time to review and approve ADU applications to 60 days, remove lot size requirements and replacement parking space requirements and require local jurisdictions 26 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-15 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
to permit junior ADUs. AB 68 allows an ADU and a junior ADU to be built on a single -family lot, if certain conditions are met. The State has also removed owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, created a tiered fee structure that charges ADUs based on their size and location, prohibits fees on units of less than 750 square feet, and permits ADUs at existing multi -family developments. AB 671 requires the Housing Element to include plans to incentivize and encourage affordable ADU rentals. AB 3182 prohibits homeowner’s associations from imposing rental restrictions on ADUs.

Density Bonus and Development Incentives. Assembly Bill 1763 (2019) and Assembly Bill 2345 (2020).

AB 1763 amended California’s density bonus law to autho rize significant development incentives to encourage 100 percent affordable housing projects, allowing developments with 100 percent affordable housing units to receive an 80 percent density bonus from the otherwise maximum allowable density on the site. If the project is within half a mile of a major transit stop, the city may not apply any density limit to the project, and it can also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories (or 33 feet). In addition to the density bon us, qualifying pro jects will receive up to four regulatory concessions.

Additionally, the city may not impose minimum parking requirements on pr ojects with 100 percent affordable housing units that are dedicated to special needs or supportive housing. AB 2 345 created additional density bonus incentives for affordable housing units provided in a housing development project. It also requires that the annual report include information regarding density bonuses that were granted.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Senate Bill 330 (2019). SB 330 enacts changes to local development policies, permitting, and processes that will be in effect through January 1, 2 025. SB 330 places new criteria on the application requirements and processing times for housing developments; p revents localities from decreasing the housing capacity of any site, such as through downzoning or increasing open space requirements, if such a decrease would preclude the jurisdiction from meeting its RHNA housing targets; prohibits localities from impos ing a moratorium o r similar restriction or limitation on housing development; prevents localities from establishing non -objective standards; and requires that any proposed demolition of housing units be accompanied by a project that would replace or exceed the total number of units demolished. Additionally, any demolished units that were occupied by lower - income households must be replaced with new units affordable to households with those same income levels. The City’s processing procedures related to SB 330 are described further in Appendix B.

Surplus Land Act Amendments. Assembly Bill 1486 and AB 1255 (2019). AB 1486 refines the Surplus Land Act to provide clarity and further enforcement to increase the supply of affordable housing. The bill requires the city to include s pecific information relating to surplus lands in the Housing Element and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, and to provide a list of sites owned by the city or county that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of in the prior year. AB 1255 re quires the city to create a central inventory of surplus and excess public land each year. The city is required to transmit the inventory to HCD and to provide it to the public upon request. As of April 2022, the City of San Mateo has identified three surplus sites, two of which are under negotiations for affordable housing development (4th Avenue and Railroad Avenue know n as the Talbot’s Site), and one is a city parking lot available for affordable housing development (located at 308 5th Avenue).

27 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-16
AB 1486, Ting (Chapter 644, Statutes of 2019). The law expanded the definition of surplus land and added additional requirements on the disposal of surplus land. In addition, local agencies must send notices of availability to interested entities on a list mainta ined by HCD. This list and notices of availability are maintained on HCD's website. Local agencies must also send a description of the notice and subsequent negotiations for the sale of the land, which HCD must review, and within 30 days submit written fin ding of violations of law. Violations of the Surplus Land Act can be referred to the Attorney General. Finally, it adds a requirement in Housing Element Law for the jurisdiction to identify which of the sites included in the inventory are surplus property.

Housing Impact Fee Data. Assembly Bill 1483 (2019 ). AB 1483 requires the city to publi cly share information about zoning ord inances, development standards, fees, exactions, and affordability requirements. The city is also required to update such information within 30 days of changes. This Housing Element describes governmental constraints o n the production of housing, including a look at zoning requirements, development standards, fees, exactions, and affordability requirements. Changes in requirements made during the Housing Element planning period will also be reported as part of the city’s annual Housing Element Progress Report.

SB 6, Beall (Chapter 667, Statutes of 2019 ). Jurisdictions are required to prepare the housing site inventory on forms developed by HCD and send an electronic version with their adopted housing element to HCD. HCD will then send those inventories to t he Department of General Services by December 31 of each year.

Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. Senate Bill 9 (2022). Effective January 1, 2022, SB 9 requires the City to allow up to two residential dwelling units and residential lot sp lits in single-family zones. SB 9 allows for reduced standards, such as setbacks, minimum parcel dimensions, and parking. The city must apply objective zoning standards that do not preclude construction of up to two 800 square-feet units. To prevent displacement, the State does not allow SB 9 projects to demolish any affordable or rent controlled housing, or housing that has been occ upied by a tenant within the last three years. Projects that meet the qualifying criteria and requirements must be ministerially approved and are not subject to CEQA review. The City is in the process of developing code amendments for SB 9 as described in Policy H

1.11. Senate Bill 10 (2022 ). SB 10 authorizes cities to adopt an ordinance to zone for up to ten units of residential density on any parcel located within transit rich or urban infill areas. If adopted, the ordinance allows ministerial approval o f up to ten units (not counting ADUs or JADUs) at a height specified by the City. The intent of this bill is to streamline production of housing in urban infill neighborhoods with access to transit. SB 10 includes a sunset date of January 1, 2029; the City has identified Policy H 1.13 to evaluate sites and “Missing Middle” housing policies consistent with SB 10 by 2024.

2.3 Cons istency with the General Plan

As this Housing Element is being developed, the city is also undertaking a larger effort to comprehensively update the General Plan. The Housing Element is the only chapter in a general plan with statutorily - 28 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-17 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
prescribed timelines for completion, so it is be ing prepared on a shorter schedule than the rest of the General Plan Update, which is anticipated for adoption by the end of 2023. To ensure internal consistency among all General Plan elements, work on both the General Plan Update and the Housing Element Update is being coordinated. Other elements of the General Plan that specifically require updates statutorily triggered by the Housing Element include:

• Flood Hazard and Management (Gov. Code § 65302 subds. (d)(3) and (g)(2)(B)) • Fire Hazard (Gov. Code § 65302 and 65302.5) (Safety Element updates) • Environmental Justice (Gov. Code § 65302 subd. (h))
• Climate Adaptation (sustainability throughout the General Plan Update)

2.4 Water/Sewer Capacity

As part of the Housing Element, ju risdictions must provide information regarding water and sewer capacity to accommodate future development. In addition, jurisdicti ons must include narratives about how they will comply with two specific pieces of legislation, SB 1087 and SB 244.

• SB 1087 – Housing Elements – Requires a city to immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water providers so they can grant pr iority for service allocations to proposed housing developments that include units affordable to lower-income households.

• SB 244 – Land Use and General Plans – Requires cities and counties, prior to adoption of a housing element, to address the infrastruc ture needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities outside the city’s limits but within the city’s planning area. Because the city’s planning area does not contain any unincorporated areas, no such conditions exist.

The cities, water districts and private utilities represented by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) rely upon the Hetch Hetchy system for water to protect the health, safety and economic well-being of 1.8 million citizens, businesses a nd community organizations. Tog ether, the BAWSCA agencies account for two -thirds of water consumption from the system and pay for two -thirds of its upkeep.

The regional water system provides water to 2.7 million people in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties. Eighty-five percent of the water comes from Sierra Nevada snowmelt stored in the Hetch Hetchy reservoir situated on the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. Hetch Hetchy water travels 160 miles via gravity from Y osemite to the San Francisco Bay Area. Th e remaining 15 percent of water comes from runoff in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds and is captured in reservoirs located in San Mateo and Alameda counties. Overall, this regional system, which consists of ove r 280 miles of pipelines, over 60 miles o f tunnels, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations and two water treatment plants , delivers approximately 260 million gallons of water per day.

The City’s water providers are California Water Company (Cal Water) and Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) . Cal Water’s Mid -Peninsula District, which includes the City of San Carlos, serves the 29 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-18
majority of San Mateo, and EMID serves the bayside portions of San Mateo east of Seal Slough and the City of Foster City.

The City’s wastewater treatment plant, which is currently undergoing upgrades that are expected to be completed in 2024, is jointly owned by the City of San Mateo and the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District . The treatment facility serves more than 130,000 people and businesses i n its service area at an average flow of 12 million gallons each day. By effectively treating wastewater at an advanced biological treatment facility, the plant helps keep San Francisco Bay environmentally clean and safe.

An assessment of Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan combined with increased water efficiency and conservation requirements for new development found that there is sufficient water capacity to serve at least 7,015 new housing units by 2031. The upgrades to the sewage treatment facil ity will result in increased capacity to serve San Mateo and Foster City well into the future. Based on this information, i t is anticipated that the City has sufficient water service capacity and sewage processing capacity to meet new housing development needs for this housing cycle. The current facilities and/or infrastructure are reported to be in good operating condition. Therefore, it is determined that the City has sufficient capacity to serve the 7,015 housing units stipulated the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

30 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-19 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

3. HOUSING NEEDS AND SITES INVENTORY

3.1 Housing Needs Summary

The Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint4 forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year timeframe covered by this Housing Element, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from extremely low-income households to market rate housing.

Every year, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in conjunction with the State of California, establish income categories based on th e median income in each county. Based on new requirements for the completion of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must now report on the following categories of income:

• Extremely Low Income: 0-30% of Area Median Income, or AMI • Very Low Income: 30-50% AMI
• Low Income: 50-80% AMI
• Moderate Income: 80-120% AMI
• Above Moderate Income: 120%+ AMI

The following table illustrates the income categories for San Mateo County in 2021. The median income for a family of four is $149,600.

Table 1: Income Limits for San Mateo County, 2021
Number of Persons
in Household:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
San
Mateo
County
Area
Median
Income:
$149,600
Acutely
Low
$15,700 $17,950 $20,200 $22,450 $24,250 $26,050 $27,850 $29,650 Extremely
Low
$38,400 $43,850 $49,350 $54,800 $59,200 $63,600 $68,000 $72,350 Very Low
Income
$63,950 $73,100 $82,250 $91,350 $98,700 $106,000 $113,300 $120,600 Low
Income
$102,450 $117,100 $131,750 $146,350 $158,100 $169,800 $181,500 $193,200 Median
Income
$104,700 $119,700 $134,650 149,600 $161,550 $173,550 $185,500 $197,450 Moderate
Income
$125,650 $143,600 $161,550 $179,500 $193,850 $208,200 $222,600 $236,950 Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 31, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml

The Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is based on population projections produce d by the California Department of Finance (DOF) as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing 31 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-20
housing need. Th e adjustments result from recent legisla tion requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from the DOF, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the regio n’s vacancy rate, lev el of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.5 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Are a received a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.

The allocation that San Mateo received from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:

Table 2: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocations
Income Group
San
Mateo
Units
San Mateo
County Units
Bay Area
Units
San Mateo
Percent
San Mateo
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI)
1,777 12,196 114,442 25.3% 25.6% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-
80% of AMI)
1,023 7,023 65,892 14.6% 14.7% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI)
1,175 7,937 72,712 16.7% 16.6% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
3,040 20,531 188,130 43.3% 43.1% 42.6%
Total 7,015 47,687 441,176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Final Regional Housing Needs Allocations Plan, adopted on December 16, 2021 and approved by California Housing and Community Development on January 12, 2022.

3.2 Demographics

The following are key facts regarding the City’s demographic data and housing needs and issues from the demographic report, which can be found in Appendix A.

• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow be cause of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of San Mateo increased by 11.5% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area.

• Age – In 2019, San Mateo’s youth population under t he age of 18 was 21,827 and senior population 65 and older was 16,093. These age groups represent 20.9% and 15.4%, respectively, of San Mateo’s population.

• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 40.9% of San Mateo’s popu lation was White while 1.9% was African American, 26.2% was Asian, and 25.1% was Latinx. People of color in San Mateo comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole. 32 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-21 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

• Employment – San Mateo residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in San Mateo decreased by

• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in San Mateo increased 3.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.

• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all San Mateo residents to live and thrive in the community.
o Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1M-$1.5M in 2019.

Home prices increased by 115.6% from 2010 to 2020.
o Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in San Mateo was $2,380 in 2019.

Rental prices increased by 74.2% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $95,240 per year.

• Housing Type – It is important to h ave a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 44.3% of homes in San Mateo were single family detached, 9.9% were single family attached, 6.3% were small mul tifamily (2-4 units), and 39.4% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of multi-family units increased more than single-family units. Generally, in San Mateo, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is below that of other jurisdictions in the region.

• Cost Burden – HUD considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost -burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost -burdened.” In San M ateo,

20.8% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 16.8% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.

• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley,

0.0% of ho useholds in San Mateo live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 63.4% of households in San Mateo live in neighborhoods where low -income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.

• Neighborhood – 56.4% of residents in San Mateo live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 0.0% of residents live in areas identified by t his research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas.

These neighborhood designations are based on a range o f indicators covering areas such as 33 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-22
education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.

• Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In San Ma teo, 9.1% of residents have a disability of some kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 9.0% of San Mateo hous eholds are larger hou seholds with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 9.1% of h ouseholds are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

3.3 Units at Risk of Conversion t o Market Rate

State law requires that each city provide analysis and programs for preserving existing affordable multi - family rental housing units that were developed with public subsidies. Units at risk of conversion are those units in which the restrictions, agreements or contracts to maintain the affordability of the units expire or are otherwise terminated. At expiration, units may revert to market rate, rendering them no longer affordable to the people living in them. Loss of affordability can occur at the termination of bond funding, the expiration of density bonuses, and other similar local programs.

The potential loss of existing affordable housing units is an important issue to the City due to displacement of lower-income tenants and the limited alternative housing for such persons. It is typically less expensive to preserve the affordability of these units than to subsidize construction of new affordable units due to the inflation of land and construction costs which has occurred since the origi nal development of the affordable housing projects.

3.3.1 Preservation and Replacement Options
Based on City records and information from the California Housing Partnership Corporation, a total of 65 units have expiring affordability covenants in San Mateo during the next ten years (2023-2033):

Bridgepointe Condominiums. This development from 1999 contains the City’s first Below Ma rket Rate (BMR) units, 59 in all, of which 24 are very low income (50% AMI) and the remainder (35) are at 120% of AMI, at the top of the moderate-income level. The expiration date for the 59 units is 2027, and the city has included a program (H 2.2) to ass ist in the preservation of these units. However, the 24 very low- income units are most at risk since rents at 120% of median are closer to market rate.

Belmont Building. Originally financed in 1993, this project involved the conversion of six units to family rentals, serving very low -income households (50% AMI) . The affordability of the project was created through loans in two programs. An RDA loan was made for the acquisition of the property while a CDBG loan was made for the rehabilitation of the buildi ng. These loans are set to expire on 2032. As the developer of this project was a private entity, the risk of loss of this development is high.

Preservation of at‐risk projects can be achieved in a variety of ways, with adequate funding availability.

Alternatively, units that are converted to market rate may be replaced with new assisted multi‐family units with specified affordability timeframes.

3.3.2 Rental Assis tance
34 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-23 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
State, local, or other funding sources can be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the affordability of at‐risk projects. These subsidies can be structured to mirror the Housing Choice Voucher/Section 8 program, whereby the subsidy covers the cost of the unit above what is determined to be affordable for the tenant’s household income (including a utility allowance) up to the fair market value of the apartment.

Unit sizes for the at‐risk properties range from studios to two‐bedroom units and are generally reserved for very low‐income households. The total annual subsidy to maintain t he 30 at‐risk units (the 24 from Bridgepointe and the six from Belmont Building) is estimated at about $600,000.

3.3.3 Transf er of Ownership
If th e current organizations managing the units at risk are no longer able to maintain the project, transferring o wnership of the affordable units to a nonprofit housing organization is a viable way to preserve affordable housing for the lo ng term. The estimate d market v alue for the 30 affordable units that are potentially at high risk of converting to market rate is nearly $350,000 per unit, or $10.5 million total.

3.3.4 Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low‐income housing can be a mean s to replace at‐risk units, though extremely costly. The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors including density, size of units, construction quality and type, location, land and development costs. Using the Terner Center’s research on the cost to develop affordable housing around the Bay Area, the cost to replace the units could be as much as $700,00 per unit, or $21 million.

3.3.5 Entities Interested in Participating in Cali fornia's First Right of Refusal Program An owner of a multi‐family rental housing development with rental restrictions (i.e., is under agreement with federal, State, and local entities to receive subsidies for low‐income tenants), may plan to sell their “at risk” property. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have listed qualified entities that may be interested in participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program. If an owner decides to terminate a subsidy contract or prepay the mortgage or sell or otherwise dispose of the assisted housing development, or if the owner has an assisted housing development in which there will be the expiration of rental restrictions, the owner must first give notice of the opportunity to offer to purchase to a list of qualified entities provided to the owner.

HCD has identified six entities that may be interested in participating in California's First Right of Refusal Program in San Mateo County:

• ROEM Development Corporation
• Northern California Land Trust, Inc.
• Housing Corporation of America
• Mid‐Peninsula Housing Coalition
• Affordable Housing Foundation
• Alta Housing (previously Palo Alto Housing Corp)

35 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-24
Of these entities, some have worked specifically in San Mateo, and others have co mpleted projects in surrounding areas. If a development becom es at risk of conversion to market‐rate housing, the city will maintain contact with local organizations and housing providers who may have an interest in acquiring at‐ risk units and will assist other organizations in applying for funding to acquire at‐risk units.

3.3.6 Funding Sources
A critical component to im plement any of these preservation options is the availability of adequate funding, which can be difficult to secure. In general, Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit funding is not readily available for reha bilitation and preservation, as the grant application pr ocess is highly competitive and prioritizes new construction. The City’s previous ongoing funding source, Low/Mod Housing Funds available through the Redevelopment Agency, no longer exists due to the dissolution of Redevelopment more than a decade ago. How ever, affordable housing impact fees are a new, local funding source, and the city may consider developing inclusionary zoning in lieu fee s as well. Additional available funding sources that can suppo rt affordable housing preservation include sources from the federal and state governments, as well as local and regional funding.

Federal Funding
• HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
• Project‐Based Vouchers (Section 8)
• Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
• Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers

State Funding
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program • Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
• Project Homekey
• Housing for a Healthy California (HHC)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• National Housing Trust Fund
• Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP)

Regional, Local, and Nonprofit Funding
• San Mateo Affordable Housing Fund
• San Mateo Housing Innovation Fund

As noted in the Goals, Policies and Programs, the City will work with the owners of both the Bridgepointe and Belmont Building projects prior to the expiration of their affordability restrictions to develop a plan to retain the units as affordable, replace the units elsewhere, or relocate tenants into alternative housing that is affordable to them.

3.4 RHNA Allocati on Summar y and Methodology

3.4.1 Legislative Context for the Housing Element’s Inventory of Sites Per State law, the State of California, in conjunction with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 36 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-25 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
has projected future population figures for the nine Bay Areas counties which translates into the need for additional housing units. Each jurisdiction is then assigned a portion of the regional need based on factors such as growth of population and adjusted by factors including proximity to jobs, and high resource areas that have excellent access to amenities such as good school and employment centers. This assignment is known as the Regional Housing Needs Alloc ation (RHNA). Each jurisdiction must ensure that there is enough land at appropriate zoning d ensities to accommodate its RHNA in its Housing Element in four income categories (very low-, low-, moderate- and above moderate-income). The RHNA for City of San Mateo for the Housing Element 2023-2031 is 7,015 units, which are broken down by income category in Table 3.

Table 3: San Mateo RHNA Targets Summary
Income Category Very Low
50% AMI
Low
80% AMI
Moderate
120% AMI
Above
Market Rate
Total
2023-31 Allocation 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040 7,015
Table Source: Housing Element Cycle 6 RHNA Allocation

A key component of the Housing Element is a projection of a jurisdiction’s housing supply. State law requires t hat the element identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobile homes, and make adequate provisi on for the existing and projec ted needs of all economic segments of the community. This sites list is required to include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, including analysis of the development capacity that can realistically be achieved for each site.

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

The analysis does not include the economic feasibility of specific sites, nor does it take into consideration the owner’s intended use of the land now or in the future. It does not dictate where resident ial development will actually occur, and the decision whether or not to develop any particular site always remains with the owner of the property, not the City. Based on previous Housing Elements, the City anticipates that some of the sites on the list will be developed with new housing, some will not, and some housing will be built on sites not listed in the inventory.

Although the Sites Inventory was prepared after extensive analysis, it is still in draft form and may be revised throughout 2022 in response to public input or HCD reviews before including into the final 2023- 2031 Housing Element. The Sites Invento ry is further outlined below, with a breakdown of the units in Table 7. The complete Sites Inventory is included as Appendix C.

A number of new housing laws have significantly changed how a sites inventory is developed, introducing changes to the following components of the site inventory:

▪ Design and development of the site inventory (SB 6, 2019) ▪ Requirements in the site inventory table (AB 1397, 2017 AB 1486, 2019) ▪ Capacity calculation (AB 1397, 2017)
▪ Infrastructure requirements (AB 1397, 2017)
▪ Suitability of nonvacant sites (AB 1397, 2017)
▪ Size of site requirements (AB 1397, 2017)
37 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-26
▪ Locational requirements of identified sites (AB 686, 2018) ▪ Sites identified in previous housing elements (AB 1397, 2017) ▪ Non-vacant site replacement unit requirements (AB 1397, 2017) ▪ Rezone program requirements (AB 1397, 2017)

These laws are further described in Section 2.2 (Legislative Context) of the Housing Element.

3.4.2 Site Inventory Met hodology
City staff inventoried vacant and underutilized parcels in San Mateo to determine what land is available for development at various levels of density. Types of sites included:

• Vacant sites zoned for residential use.
• Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development. • Residentially zoned sites, including non-residentially zoned sites with a residential overlay, that are capable of being developed at a higher density (non-vacant sites, including underutilized sites).
• Sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

The number of units that might be able to be developed at various affordability levels was then estimated, e.g., available land zoned at highe r densities can be counted toward the very low - and low-income level needs, and land zoned at lower densities are counted toward the moderate and above moderate-income housing need. The analysis was then completed using the actual average residential densi ties for developments built on land with various zoning designations over the past five years.

The City of San Mateo's Sites Inventory for future housing includes property zoned for multi -family use that is currently vacant as well as land that is sever ely underutilized. Sites that are zoned commercial or office but allow residential uses
were included. As seen in Table 7 below, the ade quate sites analysis demonstrates that there is enough land to meet the City’s RHNA. The analysis for affordable housin g units for extremely low, very low, and low-income households is based on the assumption that land zoned at densities higher than 30 uni ts to the acre can facilitate affordable housing development, given the City’s inclusionary requirements of 15%.

More t han 50% of the City’s below market rate housing would be developed on lands that are underutilized. However, the city is experiencing a high volume of residential and mixed-use development projects looking to revitalize these sites and seeking density bonus and other incentives to achieve higher density residential development.

3.4.3 Site Inventory Approach
Staff conducted a site-by-site review of all potential development sites, citywide. As will be demonstrated below, staff currently believes that the RHNA, plus a reasonable buffer, can be accommodated within the existing zoning densities and the growth limits of the voter-approved initiative known as Measure Y.6

Development Potential Ranking. Each site – or potential aggregation of sites – was analyzed to discern the likelihood and feasibility of developme nt during the period 2023 -2031. Factors such as underperforming or vacant uses, owner or developer interest, age and size of current improvements, site

6 Measure Y imposes height and density limits that wi ll limit the amount of development that can be built on any site in San Mateo through 2030.
38 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-27 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
size, and site constraints were reviewed. Depending on these considerations, sites were ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 being a site unlikely to develop/redevelop within the planning period, and 5 being highly likely to develop/redevelop during the period. Samples of these rankings include, but are not limited to:

• National chain gas stations, national chain fast food restaurants, and community-serving grocery stores. The State has indicated these types of sites are the most difficult to justify including in an inventory. Generally, no sites in this category are included in the inventory; however, the city has identified two sites with redevelopment interest that are ranked 4 (i.e. Bridgepoin te Shopping Center and Olympic Shopping Plaza).
• Sites that are extremely small with little opportunity for aggre gation, sites that may require substantial environmental clean-up, and other heavily constrained sites. No sites in this category are included in the inventory.
• Sites with existing uses that could be redeveloped along with adjacent parcels but which may have multiple owners, small underperforming strip malls, and cert ain office developments. Many of the City’s sites are within this category.
• Sites that have uses on them but in which a developer has expressed interest in the site, shopping malls with significant potential for redevelopment, adjacent sites with only one or two owners, and low -density commercial developments in high -density areas. Many of the City’s sites are within this category.
• Large sites with potential for substantial development, vacant sites, or sites with proposed or soon to be proposed projects and approved projects that have not yet been built. Majority of the City’s sites are in this category and have either proposed or approved projects that have not yet been built.

Zoned versus Realistic Capacity. When establishing realistic unit capacity c alculations, the jurisdiction must consider current development trends of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, as well as the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, and floor area ratios. The capacity methodology must be adjusted to account for any limitation as a result of availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. For non-residential zoned sites (i.e., mixed -use areas or commercial sites that allow residential development), the capacity methodology must account for the likelihood of resident ial development on these sites. While a site may be zoned to accommodate, say, 100 units, site constraints or other development standards may preclude development to the full 100 units.

Residential Zones. Since the certification of the last Housing Element, a series of new laws have been implemented that make it easier for developers to use the State density bonus provisions by providing a certain percentage of units in proposed developments as affordable.7 As a result, many developers are taking advantage of the additional density offered, which has resulted in significant changes to the realistic capacity for development. The following table illustrates that for last five years, from 2017- 2021, residential development projects have been proposed and/or approved at densities even above 100% of zoned density. Although the State has specifically stated that cities cannot rely on density bonuses alone to calculate capacity (primarily because use of the density bonus is optional), cities can

7 For more than forty years, California’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Sec tion 65915 et seq.) has been a mechanism to encourage developers to incorporate affordable units within a residential project in exchange for density bonuses and relief from other base development standards through concessions and waivers. The amount of ad ditional density allowed depends on the level of affordability provided
39 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-28
use up to 100% of zoned density as the realistic capacity as long as the city can demonstrate that as-built densities are consistently above zoned density.

Table 4: 2017 – 2021 Residential Project Densities
Address Development Type Acre No of Units Percent of Base Density Resulting Units
Per Acre
1, 2 and 3 Waters Park Dr. 11.1 190 34% 17
1650 Delaware St. 1.1 73 136% 68
Promenade, 220 N. Bayshore Blvd. 2.1 42 39% 20
BM Montara, 2775 S. Delaware St. 1.0 68 136% 68
Central Park South, 31 9th Avenue 1.1 60 113% 56
Station Park Green, 1790 S. Delaware St 12.0 599 100% 50 210 S. Fremont St. 0.4 15 85% 43
BM Morgan, 2901 E. Kyne St. 1.6 82 103% 51
BM Res 6, 3069 E. Kyne St. 1.1 54 99% 50
Essex, 99-157 E. 5th Ave 1.2 80 133% 67
Passage, 666 Concar Dr. 14.5 961 133% 66
Kiku Crossing, 480 E. 4th Ave. 1.2 224 386% 193
Peninsula Heights, 2988 Campus Drive 15.5 290 38% 19
1919 O Farrell St. 0.7 49 138% 69
Average Units per Acre 60

Although the maximum base densities of Multi-family Zones R3, R4 and R5 ranges from 35 to 50 dwelling units per acre, the average residential project has resulted in 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) due to the attractiveness of density bonus provisions t o developers. Based on this history, the City’s inventory generally calculates the realistic capacity as follows:

• 100% of base zoned density for sites zoned as multi-family residential (R3, R4, R5) • Calculated at either 50 du/ac or 35 du/ac in accordance with base zoning • For sites smaller than 0.5 acre, 50% of base density

Mixed-Use/Commercial Zones. San Mateo has several office and commercial zones that also allow residential development. As a result, a significant number of projects in the last five years located in commercial or mixed-use zones have included a residential component. The only commercial zone that prohibits residential uses is the C-4 Service Commercial district, which includes uses such as auto repair and light industrial uses and encompasses less than 1% of the total commercial-zoned land within the city. The following table shows the number of approved projects on sites in commercial and mixed-use zones from 2017-2021.

Although the percentage of residential uses in these projects varied widely, the average density was 48 units to the acre. Since historically 75% of the commercially zoned sites included housing, the State guidance is to extrapolate the trend by multiplying the 75% probability times the 48 du/ac average, which results in 36 du/ac. For those sites that assume mixed use with residential components in the sites inventory, potential density is assumed more conservatively at 30 du/ac. For small sites less than 0.5 acres, it was generally assumed that the realistic capacity would be approximately 50% of zoned capacity, given 40 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-29 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
the physical constraints associated with maximizing use of those sites.

Table 5: 2017 – 2021 Planning Development Approvals
Address
Development Type Description
No. of
Dwelling
Units
% of
Project
Residential
(approx.) Base Zoning
Lot
Size/
Acres
Dwelling Units
per Acre
2946 S. Norfolk St.

Hotels
Demo 166-room
hotel. Construct new
5-story building with
182 hotel rooms.
0 0% C2-1:

Commercial
that allows
hotel

2.28 N/A
1 Franklin Pkwy
Office
New 4-story office
building located
within Bay Meadows
Phase I
0 0% BMSP:

Office per
the Bay
Meadows
Specific Plan

9.86 N/A
520 S. El Camino
Real
Office
Addition and
renovation of 9-story
office building.
0 0% E2-2: Office 2.32 N/A
2750 S. Delaware
St.

Mixed Use
New 4-story office
buildings
0 0% BMSP:

Office per
the Bay
Meadows
Specific Plan

5.37 N/A
180 E. 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo commercial
building. New 3-story
mixed-use building
with retail and office
uses.
0 0% CBD:

Commercia,
office, DT
residential

0.16 N/A
21 Lodato Ave.

Triplex
Demo single-family
dwelling. Construct
new, detached
townhomes.
3 100% C2-1:

Commercial

0.21 14
2089 Pacific Blvd.

Mode Apartments

Conversion of eight
two-bedroom units
into 16 studio units
for a net increase of 8
units.
8 100% TOD: Mixed-
Use

2.37 3
405 E. 4th Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo 2 historic
structures. New 4-
story office and
residential building.
15 16% CBD-S:

Commercial
and DT
Residential

0.51 30
406 E 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing
commercial buildings.

New 4-story office
and residential
building.
25 14% CBD-S:

Commercial
and DT
Residential

0.88 28
41 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-30
1919 O’Farrell St.

Multi-Family
Demo existing office
building. New 5-story
residential apartment
building.
49 100% E1-1/R4:

Office with
residential
overlay

0.71 69
303 Baldwin Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing grocery
store. New 5-story
mixed-use building
with ground floor
commercial and office
and residential uses
above.
64 40% C1-2/R5:

Commercial,
office with
residential
overlay

0.93 68
2700 S. El Camino
Real
Mixed-Use

Demo two
commercial buildings.

New 5-story
commercial and
residential building.
68 80% C3-1/R4:

Commercial
with
residential
overlay

1.00 68
Site Address to be
assigned
Mixed-Use
New 4-story mixed-
use building on MU2
Block with ground
floor retail uses and
office above; and new
4-story mixed-use
building on MU3 Block
with ground floor
retail uses and
residential above.
67 15% BMSP:

Mixed-Use
per Bay
Meadows
Specific Plan

1.51 44
2775 S. Delaware
St.

Multi-Family
New residential
apartment building
(100% affordable)
68 100% BMSP:

Mixed-Use
per Bay
Meadows
Specific Plan

1.00 68
1650 S. Delaware
St. Multi-Family
Demo the existing
office building. New 5-
story 73-unit
residential apartment
building
73 100% TOD: Mixed-
Use

1.07 68
99-157 E. 5th Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing surface
parking lot. New 5-
story mixed-use
building with retail
and residential uses.
80 90% CBD/R:

Commercial
with
residential
overlay

1.20 67
1, 2 and 3 Waters
Park Dr.

Multi-Family

Demo office campus.

New multi-family
buildings with single-
family, townhouses
and condominium
units.
190 100% Rezoned
from E1:

Office to R3
multi-family

11.13 17
42 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-31 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
480 E 4th Ave.

Multi-Family
Demo surface parking
lot. Construct new 7-
story multi-family
building with 225
affordable units. New
separate 5-level
public/private parking
garage at 400 E. 5th
Ave.
225 53% CBD-S:

Commercial
and DT
residential

2.41 93
2988 Campus Dr
Multi-Family
Demo 4 office
buildings on 2 sites.

New multi-family
residential buildings
on two parcels.,
290 100% E1-1: Office 15.45 19
666 Concar Dr.

Mixed-Use

Demo existing
shopping center. New
mixed-use
development with
commercial, office
and residential uses.
961 97% TOD: Mixed
use

14.51 66
Total Projects 20
Total with
Residential
15 (75%)

Average Dwelling Unit per acre for projects
with Residential
48 Identification of Sites for Affordable Housing . Sites on the Inventory must also be classified as suitable for various income levels including very low, low, moderate and above moderate. Severa l housing laws impact how sites are selected for inclusion by income category. In general, sites less than 0.5 acres cannot be considered as available for lower income development unless the jurisdiction demonstrates that it has a track record of affordable developments at this size of lot. For this inventory, no individual site less than

0.5 acres is allocated toward lower income units; however, as per State guidance, such small sites can be considered either for moderate income, above moderate income, or both.

Sites larger than 10 acres are generally considered unavailable for affordable housing, unless the Housing Element can demonstrate a track record for developing such sites of this size, or the city can demonstrate it is otherwise feasible to develop affordable housing. The City has a demonstrated track record of large site development, typically completed i n phases, that includes affordable residential development.

Station Park Green (12 acres), Concar Passage (14.5 acres), and Bay Meadows (175 acres) are examples of approved large development projects that include substantial numbers of affordable units.

In this inventory, there are only two sites larger than 10 acre s. The Hillsdale Shopping Mall is approximately 47 acres in total, of which about 40 acres are included in th e inventory. The property owner, the Bohannon Organization, has expressed interest in redeveloping the entire site to address what it calls “a changing retail landscape.” In a recent article in the Daily Journal, David Bohannon (President) stated that his organization is interested in bringing more vibrancy to the place, with additional office and housing on site. In 2019, more than 4,000 people provided input on what should happen with the Hillsdale 43 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-32
Mall on the https://reimaginehillsdale.com/ website, and 54.2% stated that providing new housing, including affordable workforce housing, was very important to respondents. Based on the express interest in providing housing for the 47-acre site, the inventory shows a distribution of affordable units based on the RHNA calculations at 50 units per acre.

The inventory also includes portions of Bridgepointe, an underutilized commercial area, with the largest parcel at about 12 acres. There have been a variety of discussions with owners of many parcels who have expressed interest in housing as well as some commercial. By assuming mixed-use development on these parcels, the City is calculating the realistic capacity at 40 units per acre.

The new requirements for Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH; AB 686) dictate that the city avoid, to the extent possible, the location of potential affordable housing in the inventory in a manner that would exacerbate existing concentrations of pover ty, as well as contribute to increasing the number of lower - income households in lower -income neighborhoods. The city must also consider locating housing away from environmental constraints such as sea level rise, and near areas of higher or highest opport unities, including quality s chools, parks, and educational opportunities. The State indicates that jurisdictions consider the following factors when determining the best locations for affordable housing.

• Proximity to transit.
• Access to high performing schools and jobs.
• Access to amenities, such as parks and services.
• Access to health care facilities and grocery stores.
• Locational scoring criteria for Low-income Housing Tax Credit (TCAC) Program funding. • Proximity to available infrastructure and utilities.
• Sites that do not require environmental mitigation.
• Presence of development streamlining processes, environmental exemptions, and other development incentives.

One measurement tool to evaluate neighborhood amenities and resources is the Tax Credit Alloc ation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Map. Each site in the inventory list is rated as either Low, Moderate, High or Highest Resource area utilizing the mapping tool (there are no “Low” resource areas in San Mateo).

The Sites Inventory, which includes properties citywide, many of which are in high resource areas, appears to comply with these requirements as currently understood . Overall, the sites identified as suitable for lower income housing in San Mateo are located in moderate or high resource areas. The inventory currently does not project affordable housing to be developed in the Shoreview, North Central, and similar areas, which include higher concentration of lower -income households than other areas of the city.

Information about how the AFFH requirements for the Sites Inventory is included in Appendix D.

Distribution of Units by Affordability. Consistent with State guidance, individual sites less than 0.5 acres were assumed to be developed with moderate- and above-moderate income, split 50% to each. For sites larger than 0.5 acres, the distribution of units by income category fell into two types:

1. For sites in the pipeline, the actual proposed distribution of units b y affordability was included. 44 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-33 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
For example, Concar Passage (Planning Application PA-2018-052) includes a total of 961 units, of which 73 will be very low-income. These are the figures used in the spreadsheet.

2. For all other sites, the distribution of units by affordability is in the same proportion as the RHNA allocation.

The State recommends using the proportion of units in the RHNA allocation as a guide for allocating units among sites. This mathematical process is intended to demonstrate that there are enough sites zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate all of the RHNA allocation, rather than an assumption about where affordable units will actually be built. In part, this is because the city does not determine specific sites for affordable housing, but rather reviews and evaluates projects as they are proposed by outside developers.

Table 6: Example RHNA Income Distribution
RHNA Allocation Income Distribution
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total 26% 15% 17% 43% 100%

Thus, for a 1-acre site at 50 du/ac, the distribution would be as follows:

RHNA Allocation Income Distribution
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total 13 7 8 21 50

In addition, because of new rules in the Housing Accountability Act’s “No Net Loss” provisions (SB 166 of 2017), the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element must always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA, in terms of the number of housing units, as well as the level of affordability. When a site identified in the Element as available for the development of housing to accommodate the lower‐income portion of the RHNA is developed at a higher income level, the locality must either (1) identify and rezone, if necessary, an adequate substitute site, or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute site. By distributing units to sites according to the distribution of the RHNA allo cation – including above moderate income – it will be easier to ensure ongoing compliance with the No Net Loss provisions.

3.4.4 Pipeline Projects
In addition to the sites potentially available for development or redevelopment, projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. For these projects, affordability is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms estab lishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project. These sites are included in the Sites Inventory (Appendix C), as each is presumed to receive its Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) after June 30, 2022. If any of these sites receive their C of O before this date, or the project does not continue, the spreadsheet will be modified accordingly.

3.4.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
The State now allows jurisdictions to count projected development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on prior years’ production averages. Substantial changes in State law pertaining to ADUs in the last several years have made it much easier for homeowners to create ADUs throughout San Mateo. According 45 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-34
to City recor ds, 6 8 ADUs or JADUs were permitted in 20 21, demonstrating an increase in their development over the prior year, 2020, where 52 permits were issued. This inventory i ncludes a projection of 60 ADUs annually over the eight-year Housing Element period, resulting in 480 new ADUs.

A study conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) from September 2021 found that ADUs are rented at a variety of rates and often meet lower income affordability requirements based on the incomes of the occupants and /or their rental rates. Based on these fi ndings, local jurisdictions are justified in using certain percentages to meet their affordable housing allocations. Although the State has not yet officially approved the conclusions of the study, it has agreed that jurisdictions can allocate ADUs towards a range of income levels.

The study’s recommended affordability breakdown that a Bay Area jurisdiction can use for ADUs, which is as noted as being conservative, is 30% very low, 30% low, 30% moderate and 10% above moderate. The report also notes that if a jurisdiction has fair housing concerns, they may want to use more conservative assumptions and go with 5% very low, 30% low, 50% moderate and 15% above moderate. This affordability mix is consistent with the da ta in its study of market rate Peninsula ADUs, which specified 6% very low, 31% low, 48% moderate, and 15% above moderate. Thus, the Sites Inventory will be using this affordability mix (5/30/50/15) to estimate ADU affordability in San Mateo.

3.5 Sites Inv entory

Based on the methodology and a pproach outlined above , the Sites Inventory includes a range of sites located citywide that could be developed with up to 10,922 new housing units. Table 7 provides a high- level summary of the sites listed on the Sites Inventory broken down by income. Figure 1 shows a map of where each site is located within the city and the housing opportunity areas.

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

Table Source: Housing Resources Sites Inventory

The Sites Inventory was developed to meet all applicable statutory requirements and provide a realistic and achievable roadmap for the city to meet and potentially exceed its RHNA. The Sites Inventory is summarized as follows:

46 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-35 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
• The housing sites are spread throughout the city, with a significant number located in high resource areas, to meet AFFH requirements.
• The housing projections utilize existing land use and zon ing densities, and no rezoning is necessary.
• It includes conservative production and density assumptions for the identified housing sites. • The city has a significant number of pipeline projects that are anticipated to be completed by the end of this housing cycle.
o 1,100+ housing units are currently under construction; and o 1,500+ housing units are approved or entitled.
• The housing projections do not have any reliance on new units developed under SB9 and a low reliance on new ADU production.

In addition, the City’s General Plan Update process is currently underway , with a target for adoption at the end of 2023 . Most of t he properties listed in the Sites Inventory are located within one of the ten General Plan Land Use Study Areas that are being evaluated for change and increased density. Adoption of the updated General Plan, which is anticipated to increase density on some, if not many, of the housing sites will further increase development capacity and the City’s RHNA buffer.

The analytical process that went into creating the Sites Inventory and the justification for commercial site redevelopment are fully detailed in the Si tes Inventory Approach and Methodology sections above . The full list of sites adequate for housing development identified by the city is included in Appendix C.

47 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-36

Figure 1: Sites Inventory Map
Universe: Sites Inventory
Notes: The individual sites identified as suitable for housing redevelopment are marked in pink while blue circles indicate groupings of sites. Site affordability breakdown by grouping is seen in Table 7.

Downtown
101/92
Interchange
Hillsdale
Station South
Bridgepointe
92/El Camino Real
48 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-37 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

4. OTHER REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS

4.1 Constraints Analysis Summary

The purpose of the constraints analysis section, per Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6), is to identify and analyze potential and actual nongovernmental and governmental cons traints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its share of the regional housing needs. A summary of governmental and non-governmental constraints is provided below, and a more detailed analysis is contained in Appendix B.

4.1 .1 Governmental Co nstraints
State law (California Government Code, Section (a)[5]) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of governmental policies and regulations that can result in both positive and negative effects on the availability and affordability of hou sing. Potential constraints to housing include zoning regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impact fees, and the development approval processes. While government policies a nd regulations are intended to serve public o bjectives and further the public good, the City of San Mateo recognizes that its actions can potentially constrain the availability and affordability of housing to meet the community’s future needs. The City has implemented several measures to reduce devel opment costs and streamline the approval process and has identified additional opportunities for streamlining the City’s review process. The City has identified outdated zoning code regulations in several areas that may pose as a barrier to housing develop ment and have included Housing Element implementation programs to review zoning code requirements and amend as necessary to remove these barriers. Further detail is provided in Appendix B.

4.1. 2 Non -Governmenta l Constraints
State law (California Governmen t Code, Section 65583[a)[6]) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, and the length of time between receiving entitlement approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that development. Potential nongovernmental c onstraints are largely determined by market conditions or other factors, over which local jurisdictions have little control.

However, local governments can influence market conditions and their associated costs indirectly.

Governmental interventions that a ffect nongover nmental constraints are explored i n more detail in Appendix B.

4. 2 Housing Resources Summary

The Housing Resources of the City of San Mateo can be summarized into three sections . The first is the various funding sources the City is able to pool together for affordable housing production, preservation, and protection. The second is a list of the existing programs the City manages and supports to increase the housing supply or otherwise serve past, current, and prospective residents of affordable housing. The third is an inventory of site s that are adequate for projected housing needs . A full description of each funding source and housing program are included in Appendix C - Housing Resources, including detailed inventory.

49 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-38

4.2.1 Funding Opportun ities
Activities that housing funding may b e u sed for includes but is not limited to the following:
predevelopment, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, conversion and preservation. Also included is funding that is used for housing related activities , which provide service to the residents of low-income housing. A list of the most relevant funding sources is as follows:

Federal Programs
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
• Section 8 Rental Assistance Program

State Programs
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
• Other State Sources (CALHome, CalHFA, etc.)

Other Public Funds
• Housing Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency • Below Market Rate Program (BMR)
• Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF)

Private For-Profit and Nonprofit Sources
• Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
• Private Developers
• Non-Profit Agencies
• Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART)

4.2.2 Existing Housing Programs
The city manages and supports several programs that aim to either increase the housing supply, improve existing housing, or serve residents of San Mateo within the scope of housing or hom elessness. While many of these programs are a direct effort of the City, some are part of a regional colla boration across San Mateo County, of which the City is an active participant. A list of these programs are as follows:

• Minor Home Repair
• Home Rehabilitation
• Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
• First Time Home Buyers Program
• Acquisition of Land
• Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
• Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO)
• New Construction
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• Special Needs Housing Operation Subsidies
• Homeless Programs
• Regional Collaborations
• Chronic Homelessness
• Homeless Prevention
• Discharge Policy
50 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-39 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

4. 3 Climate Change and Ene rgy Conservation

Home energy efficiency has become an increasingly significant factor in housing construction, particularly in the past few years with the increasing demand to build energy efficient and sustainab le buildings in California. Energy costs related to housing include not only the energy required for home heating, cooling and the operation of appliances, but the energy required for transportation to and from home.

State Title 24 Part 6 is the Califo rnia Energy Code, first enacted in the 1980 s, permits builders of new residential units to achieve compliance either by calculating energy performance in a prescribed manner or by performance based on computer modeling. The energy code is updated every thr ee years by the Energy Commission to advance the energy efficiency standards for buildi ng construction. In addition to the energy code, the state Green Building code establishes sustainable building construction standards.

The Green Building code addresse s the use of sustainable materials, methods of construction, recycling of construction waste, and electric vehicle infrastructure. These measures contribute to overall building energy efficiency and sustainability and have an added ongoing benefit througho ut the useful life of a building.

In order to save natural resources and to make utilities more affordable, the City's Home Repair programs, implemented under Policy H 2.3, provide both funding and information referral for participants to include weatherization improvements and utilize energy and water efficient appliances and fixtures. Pr ogram participants are encouraged to use the energy conservation programs provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

All new development, including housing projects , are also subject to compliance with appli cable greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction strategies contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP, which was last updated in 2020, demonstrates the City’s leadership to reduce GHG emissions and provides a comprehensive list of community -wide actions that will help reduce the community’s GHG emissions. Specifically, for housing and new construction, the CAP includes Measures EE 1, EE 2, EE 3, ME 1 and ME 2 for exceeding minimum state energy effici ency requirements, providing education and outreach on benefits and financial incentives associated with energy upgrades, and continuing support for energy efficiency upgrades through utility programs and programs with local and regional agencies.

The CAP also identifies building electrification strategies (Measures BE 1, BE 2 and ME 3) to encourage the transition from gas to electric equipment, in line with the City’s goal to phase out natural gas in exist ing buildings by 2030. Strategies include outreach and education to residents, businesses and contractors on the benefits of building electrification and rebates for electric technologies (e.g., induction cooktops, heat pump water heaters, electric clothes dryers) and adopting policies to encourage or req uire eliminating the use of natural gas in new or existing buildings.

Policies and programs that explicitly address the City’s CAP, as well as energy efficiency and sustainability, will be contained in other elements of the City’s updated General Plan, but are not contained the Housing Element. However, as outlined above, addressing climate change, continuing to improve energy efficiency and building homes sustainably are key City priorities and will be applied to housing projects and housing program implementation for the upcoming housing cycle.
51 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-40

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

5.1 Overview

The City of San Mateo recognizes an engaged community is essential to drafting and implementing a strong Housing Element. A key strength of this draft Housing Element is the incorporation of key findings collected at over nineteen public and community meetings and workshops, five intercept/pop-up events, and four surveys. A summary of public participation and community outreach activities and key takeaways are included here. T he collected public input received is incl uded as an appendix to this draft Elemen t (Appendix F). To reach as many community members who live in or are a part of the San Mateo as possible, the city developed and implemented a proactive outreach plan at the outset of the draft Housing Element development process. Its goals were to:
• Raise awareness among San Mateo residents of the importance of the Housing Element update on shaping the future of the community
• Have robust and diverse community participation throughout the process that is representat ive of the full range of demographics, perspectives, and experiences in the San Mateo community • Build a level of public trust in the update process and support for the Housing Element that will lead to its successful implementation after adoption.

The city proactively engaged community members for whom English was not spoken at home, renters, those under 45 years of age, low -income and very low -income households, people with disabilities, seniors, single female h eads of household, people experiencing hom elessness, and those from under - represented neighborhoods.

In recent years, the community has participated in many conversations about affordable housing, tenant rights, displacement, and fair housing. In addition to conversations focused on the Housing Element, the City’s efforts to establish district elections , the ongoing General Plan Update effort, and the 2019 Community Conversations: Housing in San Mateo event series have provided opportunities for many additional collaborative outreach activities. For other outreach work, we partnered with other San Mateo County jurisdictions for a first -of-its-kind countywide outreach effort, through an award -winning collaboration called 21 Elements. Specific activities included:

Website, Social Media, and Printed Mailing. The City of San Mateo launched a Housing Element Update website, and conducted extensive email and social media outreach beginning in March 2021. Physical mailers were sent city-wide in October 2021, and a second targeted mailer was sent out in January 2022.

City staff and consultants also participated in and helped shape the Let’s Talk Housing initiative. Through this award-winning collaborative, the jurisdictions of San Mateo County worked together to increase awareness of and participation in the Housing Element Update process and make sure everyone is involved in shaping our shared future.

Community Meetings. The city organized three public Housing Element workshops and presented at five public commission/council meetings. These included:
• Community and Housing Needs Workshop /Comm unity Relations Commission 9/29/21
• Housing Element Update/Planning Commission 10/12/21
• Housing Policy Workshop 11/2/21
52 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-41 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
• Housing Element Update/Senior Commission 11/8/21
• Housing Element Update/City Council 11/15/21
• Fair Housing Workshop 1/13/22
• Joint PC/CC Study Session - Housing Programs /Policies Study Session 2/7/22

Focus groups and presentations at the meetings of local community-based organizations included:
• Housing Element and General Plan Update/ Bay Are a Community Health Advisory Council (BACHAC) 9/9/21
• Builders Focus Group 11/15/21
• Housing Element Update/Chamber of Commerce 12/14/21
• Housing Element Update/Downtown Merchants Association 12/14/21 • Housing Element Update/ SMFCSD PTA Association 1/10/22

The city also participated in several meetings and webinars in partnership with 21 Elements, including:
• Let’s Talk Housing - Introduction to the Housing Element o 3/25/21 (Joint with Millbrae Burlingame, Hillsborough, East Palo Alto) o 7/26/21 (Virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element update in Spanish) • All About RHNA - 4/23/21 (countywide)
• Listening Sessions (countywide)
o Fair Housing 9/27/21
o Housing Advocates 10/18/21
o Builders 11/01/21
o Service Providers 11/15/21

Outreach Activities. City staff and consultants conducted an online survey, in-person intercept surveys at pop-up events and other community events, and a statistically reliable community survey that included some Housing Element-related questions.

These efforts included:
• Harvest Festival at King Park in North Central 10/16/21 • Central Park Storytime in the Park 10/27/21
• Mi Rancho Market in North Central 10/29/21
• Chavez Market in Shoreview 11/18/21
• Macedonia Food Distribution, Various Tuesdays October to December • Online Survey 10/11/21 to 1/16/22
• Intercept Surveys 10/16/21 to 12/21/21
• True North Community Survey 1/21/22 to 2/2/22

The City also supported an Equity Advisory Group with 21 Elements to ensure outreach was set up to meet people where they were at as much as possible.

5.2 Accomplishments and Key Takeawa ys

5.2.1 Website, Social Media, and Printe d M ailing
As a starting point for accomplishing extensive research, San Mateo launched a Housing Element Update website that included links to past event video recordings, meetin g m aterials, outreach and survey summaries, and information about upcoming meetings and ways to get involved. It also contained draft 53 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-42
Housing Element documents and collected community feedback. Email Blasts and social media efforts from March 2021 through January 2022 included invitations to participate in community workshops, public meetings, and online survey to several city -maintained email lists. The City was also successful in similar messages being circula ted in the newsletters of at least five commu nity groups including: San Mateo High School District Employees Newsletter, San Mateo -Foster City School District Parent Teacher Association (SMFCSD PTA) Newsletter, Chamber of Commerce Newsletter, Downtown San Mateo Association Newsletter, and to the affo rdable housing residents of Human Investment Project (HIP) Housing and MidPen Housing properties within San Mateo.

A Citywide mailer was sent to every household on October 18, 2021 and a second mailer targeted to renters was sent on January 2, 2022 also inviting community members to participate in community workshops, public meetings, and online surveys.

From September to November 2021, four joint Housing Element and General Plan Update -focused Facebook live events were conducted in Spanish by Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC), a trusted community partner in Spanish-speaking communities to introduce the Housing Element and General Plan Update and keep community members informed about events and upda tes. Participants expressed an interest in a variety of housing and community safety topics and supported the City’s emphasis on getting input from the Latinx community.

The City also participated in, and helped shape, the Let’s Talk Housing initiative with 21 Elements, which included a countywide website available in five languages, detailing our timeline, engagement act ivities, and resources, videos about the process in several languages, and a social media presence. As of February 2022, the website had been visited more than 17,000 times, with more than 20% from mobile devices.

5.2.2 Community Meetings
The city held three public Housing Element workshops , presented at five public commission/council meetings, hosted a focus group discussion wi th housing architects and developers , and provided presentations to local community-based organizations including the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants Association, San Mateo-Foster City School District Parent Teacher Association (SMFCSD PTA) and neighborhood associations.

In partnership with 21 Elements/Let’s Talk Housing: an Introduction to the Housing Elemen t event, provided a housing element overview with breakout discussion rooms that was part of a series of introductory meetings attended by mor e t han 32 people in San Mateo and over 1,000 community members countywide. Additionally, Let’s Talk Housing held an All About RHNA webinar and a countywide four‐part webinar series to help educate and inform San Ma teo County residents and stakeholders on regional and local housing issues. The four‐part series took place on Zoom in fall of 2021, focusing on the following topics and ho w they intersect with the Bay Area’s housing challenges and opportunities: Why Affordability Matters, Housing and Racial Equity, Housing in a Climate of Change, Putting it All Together for a Better Future. The series included speaker prese ntations, audienc e Q&A, breakout sessions for connection and debrief discussions.

The sessions were advertised and offered in Spanish, Mandarin and Cantonese, though participation in non‐English channels was limited. The All About RHNA webinar provided an in -depth dive into sites methodology. On July 26th, San Mateo joined a virtual cou ntywide meeting about the Housing Element update in Spanish, hosted by El Comité, a trusted community organization. English interpretation was 54 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-43 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
provided so non-Spanish speaking staff could participate in the conversation , and a total of 57 people participated.

5.2.3 Key Takeaways
• Housing is personal: People often have differing views on housing because it is a very personal issue tied to feelings of safety, belonging and identify. Often the comments reflected people’s current housing situation. Many people s hared meaningful stories of being priced out of their communities or of their children not being able to live in the community where they grew up. • The price of housing is a major concern: Many voiced concerns about the high cost to rent or buy a home today, either for themselves, friends, or family. It is an issue that touches a lot of lives.

There was significant concern raised that service workers, teac hers, first responders, and small business owners were being priced out of San Mateo.
• More housing is needed: Generally, people believe we need more housing, particularly affordable housing. However, there are diverging views on how to accomplish this, wh ere housing should go, and what it should look like. There was strong interest in locating higher density developments close to transit, in walkable, mixed-use areas.
• Single-family neighborhoods are polarizing: While some people voiced their interest in up zoning single-family neighborhoods or eliminating them altogether, other homeowners want to protect them and are concerned with the future of investments they have made. • Affordable housing is a top concern : Many felt that more needed to be done to prom ote affordable housing. They also felt that developers should be eligible for incentives and opportunities that make them more competitive, and that affordable housing should be spread throughout the entire city.
• Specific concern for individuals with all types of disabilities: There was interest in prioritizing the creation of new units and prioritizing accessible units for people with disabilities. • Other common themes : equity, regional considerations, the difficulty of the development process, the interconnected nature of land-use and transportation decisions, and diversity.

Also, in partnership with 21 Elements/Let’s Talk Housing, a series of four stakeholder listening sessions allowed jurisdictions to listen to and interact with stakeholder grou ps arranged by topic: Fair Housing, Housing Advocates, Builders, Service Providers. More than 30 groups participated. Key takeaways include:

• Fair Housing: Concern for the end of the eviction moratorium, the importance of transit-oriented affordable housi ng and anti -displacement policies, and the need for education around accessibility regulations and tenant pro tections. Eight ( 8) stakeholder groups provided this feedback.
• Housing Advocates: Concern for rent increases and the need for ongoing outreach to underserved and diverse communities, workforce housing, deeply affordable and dense infill, and tenant protections for the most vulnerable. 6 stakeholder groups provided this feedback. • Builders and Developers: Local funding, tax credit availability, and concern that appropriate sites limit their ability to develop affordable housing while limited sites, construction costs, and city development review requirements and processes limit the development of market-rate housing. 12 stakeholder groups provided this feedback.
• Service Providers: More affordable housing and vouchers or subsidies for market-rate housing are needed, along with on-site services and housing near transit, and jurisdictions should work with 55 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-44
providers and people experiencing issues before creating programs. Ten (10) stakeholder groups provided this feedback.

The following key themes were collected a s part of a builder’s focus group discussion with housing developers, builders, and architects on policies and programs for San Mateo’s Housing Ele ment on November 15, 2021. The Constraints Analysis Section also includes key themes from the builders focus group and related feedback. Seven external participants, including non -profit housing developers, for - profit housing developers, and architects familiar with multi-family construction provided feedback. Key themes include:

• Relaxing height restrictions, particularly as they can conflict with minimum height requirements for ground floor uses.
• Streamlining the development review and entitlement process and establishing clearer objective development standards.
• Expanding incentive programs for affordable housing, including local density bonus incentives. • Relaxing parking requirements, particularly in walkable areas close to transit. • A walkable downtown is an amenity and could be a rationale for exceptions to other required amenities, including required open space.

5.2.4 Outreach Activities
San Mateo conducted a Housing Element online survey from October 11, 2021 to January 16, 2022. The online survey received 594 responses. In the fall, to ensure survey results were as representative as possible, City staff and their consultant team also organized pop -up events and conducted an intercept survey and received 156 responses in the North Cen tral and Shoreview Neighborhoods, as well as Macedonia food distribution events. True North Research, Inc. was retained to cond uct statistically reliable community survey in January and February of 2022 across a variety of topics, including some housing-related questions.

Community-wide survey. In order to provide decision makers with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, opinions, and concerns as they relate to city services, facilities, and policies, True North Research, Inc. was retained to conduct a community -wide survey. The survey was specifically designed to avoid the self -selection bias common in informal feedback mechanisms, public comment fora, and other mechanisms for public engagement. A statisti cally reliable community survey was conducted in January and February of 2022 across a variety of topics, including some housing-related questions and was completed by 775 community members. Key Housing Element-related themes include:

• 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 the future, pr oviding more affordable housing was the most common (19%)
• Respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable housing (33%), and address homelessness (42%)
• Approximately two-thirds of residents indicated that th ere is currently too little housing that is affordable
• Factors that were viewed as most important in planning for future housing were ensuring adequate water supplies, minimizing greenhouse gases, creating homes that are affordable for 56 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-45 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
low- and middle-income residents, preserving open space and parklands, and creating pedestrian friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive. • 63% were willing to support higher density buildings up to 12 stories near downtown/transit

Housing Element Online Survey. 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 are presented below. A total of 594 surveys were completed online by community members. The in formation in this report should be considered with a similar weight as other qualitative forms of feedback and should not be treated as statistically reliable. When compared to City averages overall, survey respondents tended to be older, more white, more likely to own their own home, more likely to live in a sin gle-family home, and less likely to be low income. Some areas resulted in conflicting input from the community with many commenters emphasizing their belief that increasing housing supply was a top priority for the city, while many others emphasizing the view that “new housing is not needed or desired”. Key themes are summarized below:

• Most important housing related c hallenges: “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.”
• Best location to place additional housing : “New housing should be wa lkable/bikeable to shops and services,” and “New housing should be concentrated ne ar public transit.” Key themes from open ended responses: “new housing should be located in high opportunity areas ,” and “new housing is not needed or not desired.”
• Best strategies to manage production of new housing: “Encourage mixed-use projects that have both commercial and residential uses,” “Create housing by redeveloping existing properties that have additional potential,” and “Increase allowable density in areas that are close to transit.” Key themes from open ended responses: “increase density throughout the city,” “new housing is not needed or not desired’” and “prioritize single family housing.” • What types of housing should be prioritized: “Smaller units that are less expensive to live in.” Key themes from open ended responses: “support for buildin g housing in general ,” “prioritize affordable housing, require affordable housing, or establish mandatory inclusionary zoning,” and “prioritize senior housing.”
• Best ways to address housing affordability : “Incentives for private developers to build more affordable housing,” “Locate affordable housing near transit and jobs,” and “Financial assistance for people who cannot afford housing, such as subsidized rent and down paym ent loans.” Key themes from open ended responses: “strengthen rent regulations or establish rent control” and “streamline regulations: reduce height, density, parking, or other regulations.” • 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: “Ensure affordable housing opportunities are created throughout the entire city” and “Improve infrastructure, transit and services in underserved neighborhoods.” Key theme from open ended responses: “more housing equals more opportunity, focus on expanding supply.”
• Common themes: Additional comments (296 open-ended responses) were analyzed for common themes, these included:
o Housing is a priority issue: use w hatever means are available to substantially increase supply
57 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-46
o Improve public transportation and make walking and biking safer, this is also better for the environment
o Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built, with particular emphasis on traffic congestion, roads, parking, and water o Locate new housing in Transit O riented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas
o New housing is not needed or not desired

Intercept surveys. In the Fall, to ensure survey results were as representative as possible, City staff and their consultant team also organized pop-up events and conducted an intercept survey and received 156 responses in the North Central and Shoreview Neighborhoods, as we ll as Macedonia food distribution events. The locations, dates, and times of these events were selected with the advice of Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC), who also helped to staff these events. Events at Mi Rancho Market in North Central (10/29/21), Chavez Market in Shoreview (11/18/21), and Macedonia food distribution events were staffed by English-Spanish bilingual community outreach staff. The information in this report should be considered with a similar weight as other qualitative forms of feedback and should not be treated as statistically reliable. When compared to City averages overall, intercept survey res pondents were more likely to be Hispanic or Latinx, 35 -50 years old, and reside in the 94401 zip code , which includes . Key themes are summarized below:

• To manage the production of housing overall, there was notable interest 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%).
• To address housing affordability, there was subs tantial interest in financial assistance programs for people who cannot afford housing, such as subsidized rent and down pa yment loans (47%), and public funding to construct new housing (26%).
• The current housing situation in San Mateo is affecting them or people they know due to the high cost of housing in general; the cost of housing’s impact on types of individuals (childcare 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.
• Some direct quotes : “Include up -scale neighborhoods in zoning changes,” “Always include preferences for people w/ developmental disabilities + others,” “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.”

Equity Advisory Group . In partnership with 21 Elements / Let’s Talk Housing, and in alignment with community outreach best practices, it was important to include the guidance of and foster partnerships with community organizations to help ensure everyone’s voices were heard during the Housing Element update. In response, an Equity Advisory Group (EAG) was formed consisting of 15 organizations or leaders across the cou nty that are advancing equity and affordable housing. To date, EAG members have facilitated and hosted community meetings in partnership with 21 Elements, collected community housing stories to put a face to housing needs, advised on messaging, and amplified events and activities to their communities. All participating organizations are featured on the Let’s Talk Housing website.

58 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-47 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
San Mateo C ounty Fair Housing Survey . In partnership with 21 Elements / Let’s Talk Housing, and conducted by Root Policy, the San Mateo County Fair Housing Survey has gathered 108 responses from residents in the City of San Mateo as of January 20, 2022. Key challenges include:
• Income is too low to find housing
• Housing unit is too small
• Displacement
• Denied housing when looking due to “income too low”
• Difficulty for voucher holders to find an affordable unit • Homes not meeting needs of a household member with a disability • When asked what type of help they need ed to impr ove their housing security, top answers included: Help me with a down payment/purchase (39%); Help me get a loan to buy a house (27%); and Help me with the housing search (23%). Other resources to improve quality of life were also identified in the survey results.

5.3 How We Incorporated What We Heard into the Plan

The extensive outreach and community engagement conducted over the past year played a significant role in the development of the goals, policie s, and programs within the 2023 -2031 Housing Element.

Feedback and insights from tenants, non-English speakers, lower-income residents, property owners and developers helped to highlight new policy opportunities and ways to strengthen and improve existing policies. And the overarching challenge of housing affordability and availability was heard during most every meeting and conversation. In addition, themes such as investing in disadvantaged communities, improving walkability in neighborhoods and access t o transit, and addressing climate change helped inform policies in the Housing Element as well as the General Pla n Update which is being prepared concurrently. The following is a summary list of topics and the associated policy(s) that were added or improved as a result of that community and stakeholder feedback.

• Support the production of more missing middle housing. (Policies H1.4, H1.11 and H1.13) • Improve awareness and availability of resources for landlords and tenants. (Policies H4.1, H4.2, H4.3 and H4.4)
• Streamline the permitting process and simplify the rules and regulations for new housing development. (Policies H1.6, H1.7 and H1.8)
• Fair housing – setup a rental registry, adopt first right of refusal for existing tenants rules. (Policies H3.4 and H3.6)
• New housing should be sustainable and support the City’s climate action plan. (Policies H2.3 and H2.5)
• Provide more materials and information in languages other than English. (Policies H4.1 and H4.4) • Improve walkability and access to transit in disadvantaged communities. (Policy H2.4) • Provide training/education about fair housing laws to landlord. (Policy H3.2) • Support the construction of more accessory dwelling units (ADUs). (Policy H1.4) • Establish a BMR unit set-aside for tenants with physical or developmental needs. (Policy H3.5) • Support the development of larger units with more bedrooms for families. (Policy H1.5)

59 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-48

5.4 Attachments included in Appendix F

Appendix F includes all of the community feedback, communications and documentation that support the findings and conclusions in this Section.

• True North Survey Results – 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 Com mission – September 29, 2021: Speaker Notes
• Elements Listening Sessions – Summaries of public eng agement events held at the San Mateo Countywide level for Housing Element Issues.
▪ Fair Housing – September 27, 2021
▪ Housing Advocates – October 18, 2021
▪ Builders – November 1, 2021
▪ Service Providers – November 15, 2021
• Root Policy Fair Housing Survey Summa ry – Feedback received from the public through a countywide survey on Fair Housing issues
• Community Correspondence received by the city as of March 30, 2022

60 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-49 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

6. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) SUMMARY

6.1 What is Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing?

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

AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housin g a nd community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”[1]

AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster in clusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in hous ing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, t ransforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining com pliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)”
Figure 2: AFFH Definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.

6.2 History of segregation in the region.

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

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America chronicles how the pu blic sector contributed to the segregation that exists today.

Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.
61 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-50
Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, t aking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low-income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

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

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

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

The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page. As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory practices and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “dispar ate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apar tment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods.

At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

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

6.3 San Mateo’s Fair Housing Assessment

The Fair Housing Assessment (Appendix D) follows the April 2021 State of California S tate Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions. It includes the following sections:

62 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-51 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

6.3.1 Primary Findings
Primary findings f rom the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Mateo describes fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.

• 16% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 (57 total) were in the City of San Mateo (9 total), which is approximately aligned with the city share of the county’s population (14%). The most common issues cited in the city were refusal to rent and discrimination in terms, conditions, priv ileges relating to rental. Most complaints were on the basis of disability status (6 complaints) and race (3 complaints) in the city.

Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non -Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan.

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

Geospatially, the northeast area of the city is disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and moderate resource scores. These areas are generally on either side of Highway 101 and stretch to the San Francisco Bay waterfront, encompassing the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. These areas have:

• Higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% (Figure II-28). • Education opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city (Figure III-1).
• Low economic opportunity scores between zero and 0.5 (Figure III-7). • Low environmental scores—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Figure III -9). The northeast area of the City of San Mateo has particularly poor environmental outcomes for traffic, impaired water, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, and asthma.
63 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-52
• The composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows Census Tracts in the northeast area of the city fall within mo derate resource areas while the re st of the city is within high or highest resource areas (Figure III-14).
• The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The northeast area of the city is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III - 15).
• Concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened households (Figure IV-13). • Overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households (Figure IV-19).
• These areas are also within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV -31) and are vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).

The City of San Mateo has a slight concentration of residents with a disability with 9% of the population compared to 8% in the county (Figure III-17). Residents living with a disability in the city are more likely to be unemp loyed and are largely conc entrated in areas around Highway 101. Finally, the aging population is putting a strain on paratransit access countywide.

• Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 12% compared to 3% for residents without a disabi lity in the City of San Mateo —particularly when compared to the county (Figure III-20).

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

Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low dropout rates —4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, dropout rates amon g Hi spanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher (Figures will be included in the access to education supplement).

• Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened— spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV -9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Mateo by race and ethnicity and family size (Figure IV-11 and Figure IV-12).

• 15% of respondents to the resident survey conducted for this AFFH said that schools in their neighborhood were of poor quality.

Resident needs collected through local survey. A survey administered to capture residents’ need s and support the AFFH found the following housing challenges. Nearly 150 residents completed the survey:

• About 26% of residents said their house or apartment is too small for their family; o 36% for racial and/or ethnic minority households;
64 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-53 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
o 42% for single parent households
• 14% of renters said they worry that if they request a repair they will experience rent increase or get evicted;
o 16% for racial and/or ethnic minority households
o 21% for single parent households
• 27% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing in San Mateo County;
o 31% for racial and/or ethnic minority respondents;
o 43% for residents with a disability;
• 10% (14% for single parent househol ds) of renters are often late on rent and 14% (20% for residents with a disability) can’t keep up with utilities.

6.3.2 Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan .

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

Fair housing issue: Hispanic households have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are evident in mortgage denial gaps, geographic distribution of affordable housing, cost burden, and overcrowding.

Contributing factors:
• Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership.
• Although voucher holders and affordable housing (as captured in the HCD Location Affordability Index) are not as highly concentrated in the City of San Mateo as in many surrounding jurisdictions, the northern portion of the city offers the most affordable homes. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. Preference may be at play as well: A recent article in C ityscape found that Hispanic homebuyers —when controlled for demographics, loan characteristics, and fin ances—are more likely to purchase homes in neighborhoods with fewer non-Hispanic White homeowners and lower economic opportunity.[1] • Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the City’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of c ost burden and overcrowding.

Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher rates of perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to affordable and right-sized housing.
• Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the city where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.

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

65 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-54
Contributing factors:
• Concentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities in the northeast areas of the city further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental outcomes.
• There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the city. • Highway 101 creates a major barrier between the Shoreview neighborhood —where the geographic concentrations of these groups exist—and the rest of the City of San Mateo.

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

Contributing factors:
• The unemployment rate for the City of San Mateo’s residents with a disability is fou r times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to employment, and market discrimination. • The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.
• There were six complaints—out of the nine total complaints in the city—filed with HUD in the City of San Mateo from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited included a failure to m ake reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request. • There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in t he North Central neighborhood. This area of the city has a concentration of low- and moderate- income households (more than 50% per census tract) and scores low on TCAC ’s environmental and economic opportunity scores.

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

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

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Action Plan, developed in response to this a nalysis as well as community input, is included in Appendix D and as Goal 5 in the Housing Element. The AFFH Action Plan details how the city proposes to respond to the fa ctors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.

66 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-55 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

7. HOUSING PLAN
The City of San Mateo has many positive attributes, especially being a desirable residential community to live in, work, and play in. The City's primary objective i s to maintain a diversity of housing opportunities. There should be a variety of housing types and sizes, a mixture of rental and ownership housing, and housing that supports special needs populations, including farmworkers, single female heads of household, people with disabilities, and those who are unhoused. This variety of housing opportunities will accommodate a diverse population, leading to a variety of household sizes, all age groups and a wide range of income levels.

In addition, San Mateo will need to increase its housing supply to meet the housing demand caused by current and future job growth. The types of new housing created should accommodate all income levels consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The goals, polices, and actions contained in this Housing Plan support these overarching objectives while also ensuring that the City will meet its statutory obligations, affirmatively further fair housing and facilitate housing production at all income levels.

7.1 Goals , Policies , and Programs Summary

The City has identified five goals to guide the Housing Element’s policies and programs. The first three are based upon the “3Ps” framework that seeks to address the region’s housing needs through a combination of Production, Preservation and Protection and is endorsed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The fourth goal, or “fourth P,” is Promotion of community engagement and public outreach to support social resilience , and th e fifth goal is to Affirmatively F urther F air Housing (AFFH ). This goal provides a framework for how the City will comprehensively address fair housing issues and meet State law requirements. Many of the policies and programs that support AFFH also support the Housing Element’s other goals , which just further highlights how the issue of fair housing is interwoven with achieving the City's larger housing production, preservation, protection and promotion goals.

The first goal, Goal H1, is to facilitate and support the production of new housing at all income levels, but especially affordable housing. Eighteen policies have been identified to achieve this goal. • Policy H 1.1 - Monitor Regional Housing Need Allocation • Policy H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding for Low/Moderate Income Housing • Policy H 1.3 - Increase Below Market Rate Unit Production through Density Bonus/Community Benefits Programs
• Policy H 1.4 - Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units Development • Policy H 1.5 - Encourage Family Housing
• Policy H 1.6 - Streamline Housing Application Review
• Policy H 1.7 - Update Floor Area Ratio Calculation
• Policy H 1.8 - Adopt Objective Design Standards
• Policy H 1.9 - Create Minimum Densities for Mixed-Use Residential Projects • Policy H 1.10 - Establish By-Right Housing Designation for Prior Housing Sites • Policy H 1.11 - Adopt an SB 9 Ordinance
• Policy H 1.12 - Encourage Residential Uses within Housing Overlay • Policy H 1.13 - Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing • Policy H 1.14 - Evaluate and Update Special Needs Group Housing Requirements • Policy H 1.15 - Evaluate and Update Supportive Housing Requirements 67 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-56
• Policy H 1.16 - Update Requirements for Mobile Home Parks • Policy H 1.17 - Update Requirements for Farmworker Housing • Policy H 1.18 – Fee Schedule Review

The second goal, Goal H2, is to preserve existing housing that is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents. Six policies have been identified to support this goal:
• Policy H 2.1 - Fund Housing Rehabilitation Efforts
• Policy H 2.2 - Support Retention of Existing Lower Income Units • Policy H 2.3 - Encourage Energy and Water Efficiency in Existing Units • Policy H 2.4 - Explore Capital Improvements in lower-resourced Neighborhoods • Policy H 2.5 - Promote Housing Resilience
• Policy H 2.6 - Require Replacement Units

The third goal, Goal H3, is to protect current residents and prevent displacement . Seven policies have been identified to support this goal:
• Policy H 3.1 - Prevent Homelessness
• Policy H 3.2 - Investigate Fair Housing Cases
• Policy H 3.4 - Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources
• Policy H 3.5 - Expand Tenant Protections
• Policy H 3.6 - Explore Below Market Rate Set Asides
• Policy H 3.7 - Examine a Rental Registry Option
• Policy H 3.8 - Explore Code Amendments and Collaboration opportunities for Expanding Homeless Shelters

The fourth goal, Goal H4, is the promotion of social resilience through public education and outreach, which is a priority identified by staff based on community input and feedback. This can be achieved by making information more available and accessible, and conducting targeted outreach to ensure more universal awareness of housing programs and policies. Four policies have been identified to support this goal:
• Policy H 4.1 - Update the Housing Webpage
• Policy H 4.2 - Support a Countywide Below Market Rate Unit Waitlist • Policy H 4.3 - Expand Community Outreach
• Policy H 4.4 - Enable Affirmative Marketing

The fifth goal, Goal H5, is simultaneously the Fair Housing Action Plan, meant to implement the overarching goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) , with many policies overlap ping with those in the previous goals. This approach is intentional and meant to reinforce that the objective of that Fair Housing is both enough a stand-alone priority that warrants its own section but decisively inseparable from achieving the main goals of the H ousing Element. To address the many fair housing issues that disparately impact Hispanic, single-female, and disabled households, as identified in the AFFH summary, thirteen policies have been identified:
• Policy H 5.1.1 - Adjust the City's Below Ma rket Rat e (inclusionary) program to pro vide larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of residents with disproportionate housing needs
• Policy H 5.1.2 - Participate in a regional down payme nt assistance program with affirmative marketing to households with disproportionate housing needs including persons with disabilities, single parents, and Hispanic households
• Policy H 5.1.3 - Support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for ho meowners to construct an ADU that is held affordable for extremely low-income households for 15 years 68 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-57 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
• Policy H 5.2.1 - Add more City supported housing with affordability restrictions in moderate and high resource areas. Affirmatively market the housing to households with disproportionate hous ing needs including persons with disabilities, farmworkers, single parents, and Hispanic households • Policy H 5.2.2 - Incentivize developers through direct subsidies, fee waivers, and/or density bonuses, to increase accessibility requirements beyond the federal requirement of 5% for subsidized developments • Policy H 5.2.3 - Prioritize City funding proposals for city funded affordable housing that are committed to serving hard to serve residents
• Policy H 5.3.1 - As part of the General Plan, conduct an area plan for the North Shoreview and North Central neighborhoods and prioritize land use and design around Highway 101 to improve access and reduce the division of the urban form produced by the highway
• Policy H 5.3.2 - Continue to fu nd minor home repairs and imp lement a preference for projects in low opportunity census tracts identified in the analysis
• Policy H 5.3.3 - Monitor affordable housing projects that are at risk of conversion to market rate. Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of a ffordable housing and lower income households.

Assist with the retention of special needs housing that is at risk of expiring affordability requirements • Policy H 5.4.1 - Establish tenant protections in local ordinance t o extend measures of AB1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases • Policy H 5.4.2 - Partner with Project Sentinel to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants.

Focus enforcement efforts on race-based discrimination and reasonable accommodations • Policy H 5.4.3 - Create a webpage specific to fair housing including resources for residents who feel they have experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act • Policy H 5.4.4 - Ensure that all multifamily residential developments contain signage to explain the right to request reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Make this informa tion ava ilable and clearly transparent on the city's website and fund landlord training and outreach on reasonable accommodations

To implement each of these policies, t he city has identified specific programs and actions, which are outlined in the Implementation Plan (Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12).

69 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-58

7.2 Implementation Plan

7.2.1 GOAL H1 : Production of new housing at all income levels, with a focus on affordable housing The need for additional affordable housing was the most prominent and pervasive sentim ent no ted throughout the Housing Element outreach process. Households of various sizes and socioeconomic backgrounds have reported feeling the pressure of the high costs of housing. To meet the targets set by RHNA, the city must facilitate the production of abundant and affordable new housing in a wide diversity of forms. To support this goal, the city will be employing two approaches, with the first being directly involved in housing production. This can be done by utilizing public funds to build more units, partnering with nonprofits and other groups to establish pre-approved ADU plans that are available to property owners , and using local ordinances to require that developers create more affordable units that can serve a diverse variety of populations and providing incentives for additional affordable unit development. In addition, the policies outlined below would also encourage and streamline housing development through the adoption of objective design standards, updates to the Zoning Code, creating minimum densities for housing projects, developing policies for missing middle housing, and streamlining the application review and processing timelines for affordable development projects.

Table 8: Goal H1: Production - Implementation Plan
Number Policy Lead
Agency/Department/Division
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

1.1 Monitor Regional Housing
Need Allocation
Neighborhood Improvement
and Housing Division
N/A Monitor housing production against
ABAG Fair Share Allocation in
compliance with no net loss
requirements during planning period.

Track every year in March, prior to the preparation
of the Annual Progress Report (which is sent to HCD
on April 1).
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy H

1.2 Utilize Public Funding for
Low/Moderate Income
Housing
City of San Mateo City Add more City supported housing with affordability restrictions to the market.

Use City funds to produce additional
affordable housing projects and to
leverage other funding sources to
support the construction of affordable
housing.

Set aside 20% of general fund property tax revenues
from former RDA areas (aka "Boomerang Funds”) to
use for affordable housing development. Prioritize
available local housing funds to assist the
production of 535 below market rate units. This
item is connected to Policy H 5.1.2.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)
Policy H

1.3 Increase Below Market
Rate Unit Production
through Density
Bonus/Community
Benefits Programs
Community Development
Department
City Update the City’s Inclusionary Policy on
ownership and rental residential
developments to allow for alternative
compliance options other than on-site
construction and establish updated
Density Bonus/Community Benefits
program.

Explore alternative compliance options to onsite
inclusionary unit development within one year of
Housing Element adoption. Establish an updated
density bonus/community benefits program. This
item is connected to Policy H 5.1.1 and 5.2.2.
2023 - 2024
70 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-59 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Number Policy Lead
Agency/Department/Division
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

1.4 Incentivize Accessory
Dwelling Units
Development
Planning Division N/A Implement and maintain programs to encourage and support ADU and JADU
production to increase lower income
housing opportunities.

Provide technical ADU design tools and resources to
homeowners to encourage ADU development;
collaborate with other countywide jurisdictions to
establish uniform standards and requirements;
adopt HEART pre-approved ADU plans; periodically
review permitting fees and adjust as needed to
avoid cost barriers. This item is connected to Policy
H 5.1.3.
2023 – 2031
(Ongoing)
Policy H

1.5 Encourage Family Housing Planning Division N/A Prioritize acquisition and new construction of housing that
accommodates families (larger units)
when possible and require subsidized
projects to include family sized units.

Investigate the feasibility of requiring three-
bedroom units in City subsidized projects and in
market projects that are subject to the City’s
Inclusionary Policy. This item is connected to Policy
H 5.1.1 and 5.2.3.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)
Policy H

1.6 Streamline Housing
Application Review
Community Development
Department
N/A Reduce the development review
timeline for housing projects by
streamlining the development review
process, simplifying submittal
requirements.

Update the City Council resolutions that establish
the pre-application and development review
processes, review and update submittal
requirement, and evaluate zoning code
amendments to align City requirements with SB 330.
2023 - 2024
Policy H

1.7 Update Floor Area Ratio
Calculation
Planning Division N/A Revise the Floor Area Ratio provisions to incentivize production of additional
affordable units.

Amend the Zoning Code’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
provisions to exclude ground level parking from FAR
calculation when a project is providing BMR units.
2024 - 2025
Policy H

1.8 Adopt Objective Design
Standards
Planning Division N/A Adopt Objective Design Standards to expedite production of housing.

Adopt Objective Design Standards for multi-family
residential projects and mixed-use projects with a
residential component.
2023 - 2024
Policy H

1.9 Create Minimum Densities
for Mixed-Use Residential
Projects
Planning Division N/A Create minimum residential density requirements to ensure mixed-use
development will contain an
appropriate amount of housing in
commercial/office developments.

Establish a minimum residential density for mixed-
use projects that include a residential component.
2023 - 2024
71 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-60
Number Policy Lead
Agency/Department/Division
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

1.10 Establish By-Right Housing
Designation for Prior
Housing Sites
Planning Division N/A Designate housing sites that have carried over from the prior Housing
Element to allow housing development
by-right.

Amend the Zoning Code to establish a By-Right
designation for housing sites from prior Housing
Element when housing projects that meet certain
criteria are proposed.
2023 - 2024 (must be
completed within
three years of
certification)
Policy H

1.11 Adopt an SB 9 Ordinance Planning Division N/A Update the Zoning Code to allow duplexes and lot splits on appropriate
single-family sites consistent with SB 9.

Adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of
SB 9 in single-family zones.
2023 - 2024
Policy H

1.12 Encourage Residential
Uses within Housing
Overlay
Planning Division N/A Amend Housing Overlay to encourage residential projects in commercial zones
(not just mixed-use).

Amend Housing Overlay to allow multi-family
housing as a permitted use in applicable commercial
zones.
2025 - 2026
Policy H

1.13 Encourage Development
of Missing Middle Housing
Planning Division N/A Encourage small infill residential construction (Missing Middle) through
site analysis and policy updates.

Evaluate sites that have potential for Missing Middle
development. Research and evaluate policies and
code amendments to allow for Missing Middle
housing under SB 10 and schedule for City Council
consideration.
2023 - 2024
Policy H

1.14 Evaluate and Update
Special Needs Group
Housing Requirements
Planning Division N/A Research current code requirement regarding special needs group homes
for consistency with Fair Housing
Requirements.

Research current code requirement of requiring a
Special Use Permit for group homes for more than 6
residents and make amendments as appropriate to
allow as a permitted use. This item is connected to
Policy H 5.1.1 and 5.2.3
2027 - 2028
Policy H

1.15 Evaluate and Update
Supportive Housing
Requirements
Planning Division N/A Review and amend zoning code
regarding multi-family housing
development.

Update zoning to be consistent with AB 2162 to
allow by right 100% affordable housing that has 25%
or 12 units of support housing where multifamily or
mixed-use housing is permitted. This item is
connected to Policy 5.1.1 and 5.2.3.
2027 - 2028
Policy H

1.16 Update Requirements for
Mobile Home Parks
Planning Division N/A Review and amend zoning code
regarding mobile home parks.

Update zoning to allow mobile home parks as a
special use in all residential zones to be consistent
with GCS 65852.7
2027 - 2028
72 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-61 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Number Policy Lead
Agency/Department/Division
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

1.17 Update Requirements for
Farmworker Housing
Planning Division N/A Review and amend zoning code
regarding farmworker housing.

Update zoning to allow farmworker housing within
the Agriculture district consistent with state
requirements. Add farmworker as a category of
special needs groups.
2027 - 2028
Policy H

1.18 Fee Schedule Review Community Development N/A Periodically review development application, building permit and impact
fees.

Review and update fee schedule every 5-8 years,
evaluate fees for potential barriers to housing
production.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)

73 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-62

7.2.2 GOAL H2 : Preservati on of existing housing that is affordable to lower - and middle -income residents As the City continues to grow, it remains important to maintain and preserve existing affordable housing as well as non-deed restricted housing that is naturally affordable for middle and lower- income households. The most direct method of achieving this goal would be to prevent the conversion of existing affordable units from becoming market rate by renegotiating agreements, using public funds to acquire the units, or requiring developers to replace any lost units. Alternatively, the city can indirectly preserve affordable housing by improving the quality of life for individuals and families who currently reside in them. Residents that are able to thrive in low-income housing are less likely to be displaced. Therefore, the city proposes to incentivize upgrades to low-income homes through rehabilitation, accessibility modifications, or energy efficiency changes. In addition, enhancements to low -income neighborhoods can also be achi eved through capital improvements and resiliency projects that protect against threats posed by climate change.

Table 9: Goal H2: Preservation - Implementation Plan
Number Policy Lead
Agency/Department/Division
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

2.1 Fund Housing
Rehabilitation
Efforts
Neighborhood Improvement and
Housing Division
CDBG/CALHome Fund minor home repairs and accessibility
improvements. Provide opportunity for
home rehabilitation loans for low- income
residents. Allow accessibility
improvements on rental properties with
owner permission.

Complete annual goals of 10 minor home repairs
and 14 accessibility modifications through grants
for low-income residents. Provide home
rehabilitation loans for low- income residents. This
item is connected to Policy H 5.3.2.
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy H

2.2 Support Retention
of Existing Lower
Income Units
Neighborhood Improvement and
Housing Division
TBD 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.

Bridgepointe Condominiums affordability
requirements for 59 affordable units expire in
2027. Belmont Building affordability requirements
for 6 units expire in 2032. The rental property is
owned by a for-profit entity, potential for loss of
units is high. Humboldt House affordability
requirements for 9 units expire in 2041.

Proactively coordinate with owners to advertise
conversion units to non-profits, provide tenant
education, add a displacement preference for new
affordable housing for people displaced. Outreach
and negotiate with owners for affordability
extensions. This item is connected to Policy H

5.3.3. 2025 - 2026
74 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-63 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Number Policy Lead
Agency/Department/Division
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

2.3 Encourage Energy
and Water
Efficiency in Existing
Units
Community Development
Department, City Manager’s
Office
CDBG Encourage energy and water efficiency in
all existing residential units. Fund
weatherization upgrades for low- and
moderate-income homeowners.

Complete annual goal of 7 weatherization
upgrades through grants for low-income residents.

Implement energy-efficiency and electrification
strategies identified in the City's Climate Action
Plan. This item is connected to Policy H 5.3.2.
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy H

2.4 Explore Capital
Improvements in
lower-resourced
Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Improvement and
Housing Division
CDBG Invest more resources in lower resource
neighborhoods (utilize federal CDBG to
provide capital improvements).

Use available CDBG funds to make CIP
improvements in target neighborhoods.

Implement Bike Master Plan and Pedestrian
Master Plan through capital improvements in low-
income neighborhoods.
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy H

2.5 Promote Housing
Resilience
Public Works Department CDBG Use resources to protect housing at risk of damage due to changing environmental
conditions.

Provide Flood Improvements for the North
Shoreview neighborhood through the levee project
with Public Works.

Started in Fall 2020,
with completion
anticipated in Spring
2023
Policy H

2.6 Require
Replacement Units
Planning Division N/A Require replacement units for low-income households and below market rate units
lost during any construction or demolition
projects.

Evaluate SB 330 and existing city requirements for
updating the tenant protection ordinance code to
require replacement of units when occupied by
lower income households within the last five years.
2025 - 2026

75 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-64

7.2.3 GOAL H3 : Protection of current residents to prevent displacement San Mateo’s demographics will fluctuate as the city continues to grow and evolve. But while change is inevitable, the loss of the existing community is not. Therefore, it remains a priority for the city to prevent gentrification and displacement through protection of lower-income residents. Policy tools included within this goal such as commercial linkage fees, relocation fees, documentation requirements for landlords, and right to return policies help balance the scales against the market forces that lead to displacement while extending vital tenant protections. Programs are included to address homelessness and increase shelter capacity that can protect housing insecure individuals and families from having to leave the City entirely. These programs allow service providers an opportunity to intervene and lead clients to housing stability. The City also proactively affirms its commitment to combat inequities in housing that exist across people of protected classes through affirmative marketing, prioritizing special needs tenants in below market rate units, establishing a rental registry to monitor trends in evictions, and undertaking several actions to affirmatively further fair housing.

Table 10: Goal H3: Protection - Implementation Plan
Number Policy Agency/Dept/Division
Lead
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

3.1 Prevent Homelessness Neighborhood
Improvement and
Housing Division
CDBG/PLHA/City Support where feasible programs and
facilities to prevent homelessness
through city actions, while
coordinating with County and
Continuum of Care.

Use PLHA, CDBG, and other local funds to support the
following programs: LifeMoves Rapid Rehousing Program,
Safe Harbor Shelter, Vendome Hotel supportive units,
LifeMoves First Step for Housing program, HIP Housing home sharing, Montara formerly homeless assisted units.

Support County efforts for the Homekey Hotel Stone Villa Conversion.
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy H

3.2 Investigate Fair
Housing Cases
Neighborhood
Improvement and
Housing Division
CDBG Continue funding and support for
outreach services for homeowners and
renters at risk of being displaced
and/or facing fair housing challenges.

Use CDBG funding to achieve the Annual Fair Housing Activity Goals: Investigate 23 cases, Provide consultation to 45 individuals, Public Education/ Outreach to 100 individuals.

Annual legal assistance to renters: 125 individuals. See Goal H5/AFFH Action Plan for full list of items.
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy H

3.3 Evaluate Housing
Revenue Sources
Community Development
Department
N/A Evaluate a potential increase of the
Commercial Linkage Fee to ensure
commensurate housing funding with
commercial development. Explore
other funding opportunities to support
affordable housing development.

Research feasibility of increasing fee to raise housing funds gathered from commercial development. Examine other
possible revenue sources. Bring the proposals before City Council for consideration.
2025 - 2026
76 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-65 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Number Policy Agency/Dept/Division
Lead
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

3.4 Expand Tenant
Protections
Community Development
Department
N/A Expand tenant protections in local
ordinance to extend measures of
AB1482 related to relocation,
documentation, and right to return
policy in eviction cases.

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. This item is connected to Policy H 5.4.1.
2023 - 2024
Policy H

3.5 Explore Below Market
Rate Set Asides
Community Development
Department
N/A Examine the feasibility of establishing
priorities in City-assisted projects by
unit size.

Conduct a best practices research on prioritization of
households with special needs and extremely low-income
tenants using set asides in small units of affordable housing projects, and large families for large units of affordable housing projects.
2025 - 2026
Policy H

3.6 Examine a Rental
Registry Option
Community Development
Department
N/A Explore a rental registry to track rents
and evictions citywide.

Research options and best practices for a rental registry list.

Make recommendations to City Council.
2023 - 2024
Policy H

3.7 Explore Code
Amendments and
Collaboration
opportunities for
Expanding Homeless
Shelters
Community Development
Department
N/A Examine zoning code and extend
connections to other entities to expand
shelter capacity for individuals
experiencing homelessness. Study
feasibility of new shelter programs.

Study opportunities to partner with faith- based
organizations and nonprofits to convert existing buildings into shelters. Study feasibility of adopting a scatter shelter site policy and study for consistency with buffer zone policy.

Regularly evaluate zoning to ensure enough sites to
accommodate the capacity for emergency shelters based on the countywide Point in Time Homeless Count. Amend
zoning code to allow low barrier navigation centers on the same sites as emergency shelters. Explore a safe parking ordinance.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)

77 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-66

7.2.4 GOAL H4 : Promoti on of community engagement and public outreach To increase effectiveness and successfully achieve the Housing Element’s goals and policies, the City should increase access and awareness of housing programs through use of new technology as part of a robust and proactive public outreach strategy. By expanding availability of digital resources, the barriers of proximity, transportation, and time opportunity cost can be reduced for many.

In addition, by providing education and information on regulatory requirements and specific programs and protections offered locally, regionally, and by the state, the city can improve access to housing for all income groups and special needs communities. Public outreach in a diversity of methods, forms and languages can be used to reach the widest breadth of residents and program beneficiaries to ensure those in need can find supportive programs and service providers. Targeted digital, print, and in-person outreach and engagement methods can also be effective at reaching the communities most affected by housing policies and programs.

Table 11: Goal H4: Promotion - Implementation Plan
Number Policy Agency/Dept/Division
Lead
Funding
Source(s)
Program Measure(s) Targets Implementation
Timeline
Policy H

4.1 Update the
Housing Webpage
Neighborhood
Improvement and Housing
Division
N/A Increase community outreach and availability of
resources through the Housing Webpage.

Maintain and improve webpage with comprehensive
housing related information and materials, coordinate
with providers to market programs electronically, and
expand information presented in multiple languages. This item is connected to Policy H 5.4.3.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)
Policy H

4.2 Support a
Countywide Below
Market Rate Unit
Waitlist
County of San Mateo N/A Support development of countywide affordable rental waitlist to streamline and centralize
occupancy of BMR units.

Support the county in developing online portal for a BMR waitlist.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)
Policy H

4.3 Expand
Community
Outreach
Community Development
Department
N/A Support and engage in efforts to educate
community stakeholders and residents, including
those with special needs (such as farmworkers),
about housing gaps and the effects of programs
and policies on addressing those gaps.

Conduct community outreach for housing policy updates
and new programs including: ADUs, SB 9, SB 10, General
Plan, and others. Participate in Countywide Home For All "Learning Network" to share best practices.
2023 - 2031
(Ongoing)
Policy H

4.4 Enable Affirmative
Marketing
Neighborhood
Improvement and Housing
Division
N/A Develop Marketing Plan with developers of
affordable housing projects during final phase of
construction. Focus outreach to special needs
individuals and those least likely to apply based
on racial make-up of neighborhood.

Research other cities to create an affirmative marketing strategy. Include farm workers as new target group where appropriate. Include Spanish marketing materials and
ensure bilingual interpretation services are available. This item is connected to Policy H 5.1.2 and 5.2.1.
2025 - 2026
78 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-67 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

7.2.5 Goal H5 : Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
To reinforce the objective that AFFH is a top priority for the city, an AFFH Fair Housing Action Plan with programs and ac tions has been included as the fifth goal of the Housing Element . This Action Plan cross references items that are interwoven with the Housing Plan’s other four goals, policies, and programs. The actions to achieve the Fair Housing goal are meant to address the fair housing issues found in the AFFH analysis, specifically for groups that have disparate housing impacts when compared to the whole of San Mateo. This includes, for example, Hispanic and single -female heads of households who have disproportionate housing needs while being concentrated in census tracts that have high rates of poverty. Persons with disabilities are also more likely to experience housing discrimination due to low economic opportunity and failure of landlords to provide reasonable accommodations. Each of the actions identified in Table 12 have specific quantified objectives to reach the target households.

Table 12: Goal H5: AFFH - Implementation Plan
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Action Area 1. Enhancing housing mobility strategies: consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enha ncing access.

Policy 5.1.1: Adjust the city's
Below Market Rate
(inclusionary) program to
provide larger density
bonuses, and/or increased
City support in exchange for
affordable units that address
the needs of residents with
disproportionate housing
needs (e.g., accessible/visit
able units for persons with
disabilities, child-friendly
developments with day care
on site for single parents,
and 3-4 bedroom units for
larger families).

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

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

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

Perform a feasibility
analysis to redesign the
program to allow a menu of
options. This item is
connected to Policy H 1.3,
Policy H 1.5., Policy H 1.14,
and Policy H 1.15.

Complete
feasibility
analysis by Fall
2023;
Implement
redesigned
program by
Spring 2024.
79 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-68
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.1.2: Participate in a
regional down payment
assistance program with
affirmative marketing to
households with
disproportionate housing
needs including persons
with disabilities, single
parents, and Hispanic
households (e.g., Spanish
and English, targeted to
northeast neighborhoods).

Hispanic
households have
disproportionate
housing needs.

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

Affirmatively market down
payment assistance to 20
Hispanic households;
Provide down payment
assistance to 30 total
households; Provide
homebuyer education to
200 households. This item
is connected to Policy H 4.4.

Meet
quantified
objectives by
the end of the
Housing
Element period
in 2031;
Conduct
homebuyer
education
quarterly in
partnership
with HEART
Policy 5.1.3: Support the
design of a regional
forgivable loan program for
homeowners to construct an
ADU that is held affordable
for extremely low-income
households for 15 years.

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

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

Design a regional loan
forgiveness program. This
item is connected to Policy
H 1.4.

Begin design in
Summer 2025
and complete
by winter 2026.

Action Area 2. Encouraging new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas: promoting housing supply, choices , and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty. 80 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-69 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.2.1: Add more city
supported housing with
affordability restrictions in
moderate and high resource
areas. Affirmatively market
the housing to households
with disproportionate
housing needs including
persons with disabilities,
farmworkers, single parents,
and Hispanic households
(e.g., Spanish and English,
targeted to northeast
neighborhoods).

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

Lack of affordable
housing in high
opportunity areas;
Lack of accessible
affordable units;
Concentration of
Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing
(NOAH) in low
opportunity census
tracts.

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

Require developers to
affirmatively market 1,000
units to those with
disproportionate housing
needs over the eight-year
period (approximately 125
annually). This item is
connected to Policy H 1.2.
and Policy H 4.4.
2023 - 2031
(Annually)
Policy 5.2.2: Incentivize
developers through direct
subsidies, fee waivers,
and/or density bonuses, to
increase accessibility
requirements beyond the
federal requirement of 5%
for subsidized
developments.

Persons with
disabilities have
disproportionate
housing needs.

AND

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

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

Disproportionate
housing need for
low-income
households and
protected classes
Promote equal
housing
opportunity
Financial
resources
City of San Mateo Increase development
of accessible units
beyond minimum
requirements
Modify developer
agreements when
appropriate; update
inclusionary policy. This
item is connected to Policy
H 1.3
2026
81 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-70
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.2.3: Prioritize city
funding proposals for city
funded affordable housing
that are committed to
serving hard to serve
residents (e.g., extremely
low income, special needs,
on site services)
Persons with
disabilities have
disproportionate
housing needs.

AND

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

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

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

Conduct a best-practices
review and develop a
program to prioritize City
funding for housing
projects. This item is
connected to Policy H 1.5,
Policy H 1.14, and Policy H

1.15. 2026
Action Area 3. Improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing: involves approaches that are focused on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty.

Policy 5.3.1: As part of the
General Plan, conduct an
area plan for the North
Shoreview and North
Central neighborhoods and
prioritize land use and
design around Highway 101
to improve access and
reduce the division of the
urban form produced by the
highway.

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

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

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

Prepare an area plan for
North Shoreview and North
Central neighborhoods.
2027-28
82 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-71 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.3.2: Continue to
fund minor home repairs
and implement a preference
for projects in low
opportunity census tracts
identified in the analysis.

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

Lack of affordable
housing in high
opportunity areas;
Lack of accessible
affordable units
Disparities in
access to
opportunity
Conserve and
improve the
existing
affordable
housing stock
Financial
resources
City of San Mateo Fund minor home
repairs and accessibility
improvements. Provide
opportunity for home
rehabilitation loans for
low-income residents.

Allow accessibility
improvements on
rental properties with
owner permission.

Complete annual goals of
10 minor home repairs and
14 accessibility
modifications through
grants for low-income
residents. Provide home
rehabilitation loans for low-
income residents.

Affirmatively market to
Hispanic and single female
heads of household. This
item is connected to Policy
H 2.1 and Policy H 2.3.
2023-2031
(Annually;
consistent with
Policy H2.1)
83 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-72
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.3.3: 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.

Bridgepointe
Condominiums affordability
requirements for 59
affordable units expire in
2027. Belmont Building
affordability requirements
for 6 units expire in 2032.

The rental property is
owned by a for-profit
entity, potential for loss of
units is high. Humboldt
House affordability
requirements for 9 units
expire in 2041. Proactively
coordinate with owners to
advertise conversion units
to non-profits, provide
tenant education, add a
displacement preference
for new affordable housing
for people displaced.

Outreach and negotiate
with owners for
affordability extensions.

This item is connected to
Policy H 2.2
2025-26;
Consistent with
general GPP #
H2.2
Action Area 4. Protecting existing residents from displacement: strategies that protects residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunit y and concentrated poverty and preserves housing choices and affordability. 84 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-73 Draft for Public Review | April 2022
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.4.1: 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
displacement of those
with disproportionate
housing needs.

Establish Right to Return
policy for tenants displaced
from homes due to
demolition or substantial
remodels. This item is
connected to Policy H 3.4.
2023-24;
consistent with
general GPP #H

3.4 Policy 5.4.2: 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
City of San
Mateo/Project
Sentinel
Increase awareness of
fair housing 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
85 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-74
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Policy 5.4.3: Create a
webpage specific to fair
housing including resources
for residents who feel they
have experienced
discrimination, information
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 housing laws and
tenants' rights to
reduce unlawful
discrimination and
displacement.

Provide information on the
City's website about
housing discrimination,
laws, and protections. This
item is connected to Policy
H 4.1.
2024;
consistent with
general GPP #H

3.4 Policy 5.4.4: Ensure that all
multi-family 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

86 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-75 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

8. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
The quantified objectives section estimates the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved/preserved by income level during the 2023-2031 planning period. The quantified objectives do not represent a ceiling on development, but rather set a target goal for the jurisdiction to achieve, based on needs, resources, and constraints.

According to HCD, the sum of the quantified objectives for the programs should ideally be equal to or surpass the community's identified housing needs. However, State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not match the identified existing housing needs but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over an eight-year time frame. The quantified objectives do not necessarily meet the goals of RHNA because they are n ot a full projection of anticipated housing development within the Housing Element Cycle. It is an estimate of actual production, given available resources and projected pipelines projects.

With respect to affordable units, the City has estimated the pote ntial subsidies available during the planning period and has calculated the potential number of units that could be assisted with these funds.

In addition, staff has compiled a list of known or expected development projects in the next few years, including preservation projects, anticipated to be completed within the next eight years.

Based on residential building permits issued in the last year and residential projects that have been initially reviewed or approved by the Planning department that have not been built, the quantified objective for non-subsidized units developed in market projects is 1,070 units. The total quantified objectives for housing production over the next eight years and how they align with the City’s overall RHNA are outlined in the two tables below.

Table 13: Quantified Objectives for Cycle 6 (2023 – 2031) Conservation/Preservation Affordable Total ELI VLI LI MOD Market Bridgepointe Condominiums 59 24 35 396
Belmont Building 6 6
Humboldt House 9 9
Sub Total 74 0 39 0 35 396
Total Conservation 470

New Construction Affordable Total ELI VLI LI MOD Market Kiku Crossing 223 43 45 135 2
Talbots Parking Lot 52 20 20 12
Future Affordable (City Funded)
TBD
260 70 120 70
Concar Passage 73 73 888
303 Baldwin 6 6 58
Bay Meadows Res 6 5 5 49
Bay Meadows MU 3 7 7 60
87 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-76
New Construction Affordable Total ELI VLI LI MOD Market Waters Park 19 19 180
Windy Hill 406 E Third 3 3 22
Windy Hill Block 21 10 10 58
Hillsdale Terrace 6 6 62
200/210 S. Fremont St. 2 2 13
Peninsula Heights 29 29 261
222 S Fremont 4 4 36
Hillsdale Inn 23 23 129
Draeger’s 10 10
Hayward Park 28 16 12 161
Nazareth Vista 5 5 43
477 9th Ave 12 12 108
1919 O’Farrell 4 4 45
ADUs (5% VLo, 30% Lo, 50% Mod,
15% over)
408 24 144 240 72
Future Private Development TBD 252 152 60 40 1,670 Sub Total 1,441 133 515 499 294 3,917
Total Construction 5,358

Total Quantified Objectives Affordable Total ELI VLI LI MOD Market Total (Preserved Units plus New
Construction)
1,515 133 554 499 329 4,313
Grand Total 5,828

Table 14: Quantified Objectives Alignment with San Mateo’s RHNA Income Quantified Objective Eight-Year RHNA Figure % of RHNA to be Produced ELI/VLI 687 1,777 39%
LI 554 1,023 54%
MOD 329 1,175 28%
Market 4,313 3,040 142%
TOTAL 5,828 7,015 83%
88 of 955
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 3 1 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-77 Draft for Public Review | April 2022

9. PRIOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS SUMMARY
The update of the Housing Element provides an opportu nity to reflect on past achievements and challenges. The following summary highlights ke y accomplishments and challenges from the previous Housing Element’s planning period (2015 to 2023) , as well as identifies opportunities for where the city took lessons learned and applied them as future tasks for current Housing Element. A detailed evaluation of the prior housing element can be found in Appendix E - Review of Prior Housing Element.

The following achievements were made:
• Progress towards meeting affordable housing goals
• New policies to generate affordable housing funds
• Market rate housing goals were met
• The rate of ADU production have increased greatly
• Accessing new funding sources from non-local sources
• Increasing efficiency in the housing development process • Interventions to preserve affordable housing

The following challenges were experienced:
• A divided and polarized vision for the future of the city • High land and construction costs
• Outdated housing programs and policies
• Falling short of the quantified objectives

The following opportunities were identified:
• Rewrite the zoning code
• The General Plan update
• New opportunities for Transit Oriented Development
• Creative solutions to site limitations
• More uses for technology to increase efficiency of housing programs • New affordable housing opportunities identified

The 2015-2023 quantified objectives goal for total housing units, including market rate housing, was 3,164 units. Through the seventh year of this housing cycle , a total of 2,573 units have been completed. The following two tables summarize the quantified objectives from the last Housin g Element Update and detail the City’s progress in achieving those objectives.

Table 15: 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
89 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
Draft for Public Review | April 2022 Page H-78
New Construction Total ELI VLI LI MOD
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 2,475
GRAND TOTAL 3,164

Table 16: 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 1,776
GRAND TOTAL 2,573

90 of 955

APPENDIX A

NEEDS ANALYSIS

91 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-A-2
APPENDIX A | NEEDS ANALYSIS

0.1 Table of Content

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

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

0.3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 4

0.4 List of Attachments ......................................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 5 2 Summary of Key Facts ................................ ................................ ................................ .................6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs ................................ ................................ ............9

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination ......................................................................................... 9

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................................. 10 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ................................ ............................ 11

4.1 Population .................................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Age ................................................................................................................................................ 12

4.3 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Employment Trends ...................................................................................................................... 15

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ................................................................................................ 15

4.4.2 Sector Composition ............................................................................................................... 19

4.4.3 Unemployment ..................................................................................................................... 20

4.5 2018-2028 Occupation Projections .............................................................................................. 21

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households .............................................................................................. 22

4.6 Tenure ........................................................................................................................................... 27

4.7 Displacement ................................................................................................................................ 30 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 32

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits ......................................................................... 32

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion ................................................................ 35

5.3 Substandard Housing.................................................................................................................... 36

5.4 Home and Rent Values ................................................................................................................. 37

5.5 Housing Affordability .................................................................................................................... 41

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ................................................................................................. 43 6 Special Housing Needs ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 51

6.1 Large Households ......................................................................................................................... 51

6.2 Female-Headed Households ......................................................................................................... 52

6.3 Seniors .......................................................................................................................................... 53

6.4 People with Disabilities ................................................................................................................. 54

6.5 Homelessness ............................................................................................................................... 57

6.6 Farmworkers ................................................................................................................................. 64

6.7 Non-English Speakers ................................................................................................................... 66

92 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-A-3

0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race .......................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ......................... 16 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio .................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 10: Resident Employment by Occupation ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 11: Unemployment Rate .................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12: Households by Household Income Level ................................................................................... 23 Figure 13: Household Income Level by Tenure ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 14: Poverty Status by Race ............................................................................................................... 26 Figure 15: Housing Tenure .......................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ................................................................................... 28 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Age .............................................................................................................. 29 Figure 18: Housing Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence .............................................................. 29 Figure 19: Housing Tenure by Housing Type .............................................................................................. 30 Figure 20: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure .......................................................................... 31 Figure 21: Housing Type Trends .................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 22: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................................ 33 Figure 23: Vacant Units by Type ................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 24: Substandard Housing Issues ...................................................................................................... 36 Figure 25: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units .................................................................................... 38 Figure 26: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ................................................................................................ 39 Figure 27: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ................................................................................ 40 Figure 28: Median Contract Rent ................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Tenure .............................................................................................................. 43 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Income Level ..................................................................................................... 44 Figure 31: Cost Burden by Race .................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 32: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................................. 46 Figure 33: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ................................................................. 47 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ...................................................................................... 48 Figure 35: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ............................................................................. 49 Figure 36: Overcrowding by Race ............................................................................................................... 50 Figure 37: Household Size by Tenure .......................................................................................................... 51 Figure 38: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms .................................................................................... 52 Figure 39: Household Type ......................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 40: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ......................................................................... 53 93 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-A-4
Figure 41: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ................................................................................ 54 Figure 42: Disability by Type ....................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 43: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County .............................. 58 Figure 44: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County ....................... 59 Figure 45: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County .................................. 60 Figure 46: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County ................ 61 Figure 47: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County ............................................. 65 Figure 48: Population with Limited English Proficiency .............................................................................. 66

0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: State Income Limits for San Mateo County, 2021 .......................................................................... 9 Table 2: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocations .................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Population Growth Trends ............................................................................................................ 11 Table 4: Occupations with the Most Job Openings, 2018-2028 ................................................................. 21 Table 5: Household Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Income ................................................................ 24 Table 6: Housing Permitting ........................................................................................................................ 34 Table 7: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................................. 35 Table 8: Age of Housing Stock and Estimated Rehabilitation Needs .......................................................... 37 Table 9: Housing Opportunity Index, First Quarter 2021 ........................................................................... 41 Table 10: Housing Affordability by Zip Code ............................................................................................... 42 Table 11: Affordable Rents for Two- and Three-Person Households ......................................................... 43 Table 12: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................................... 56 Table 13: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ......................................................... 57 Table 14: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness .................................................... 62 Table 15: Migrant Worker Student Population .......................................................................................... 64

0. 4 List of Attachment s
▪ Countywide Housing Needs
▪ Inventory of Assisted Units

94 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-A-5
1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While t he number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of San Mateo. 95 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-A-6
2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of San Mateo increased by 11.5% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area. • Age – In 2019, San Mateo’s youth population under the age of 18 was 21,827 and senior population 65 and older was 16,093. These age groups represent 20.9% and 15.4%, respectively, of San Mateo’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 40.9% of San Mateo’s population was White while 1.9% was African American, 26.2% was Asian, and 25.1% was Latinx. People of color in San Mateo comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.0F0F 1 • Employment – San Mateo residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in San Mateo decreased by

3.6 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 16,810 (42.7%). Additionally, the jobs -household ratio in San Mateo has increased from 1.17 in 2002 to 1.45 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in San Mateo increased, 3.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all San Mateo residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1M -$1.5M in 2019. Home prices increased by 115.6% from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in San Mateo was $2,380 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 74.2% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $95,240 per year.1F1F 2 1 The Census Bureau’s American Community S urvey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. 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, but oc casionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non - Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source.
2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices. 96 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-A-7
• Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 44.3% of homes in San Mateo were single family detached, 9.9% were single family attached, 6.3% were small multifamily (2 -4 units), and 39.4% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of multi-family units increased more than single-family units. Generally, in San Mateo, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is below that of other jurisdictions in the region. • Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of the ir income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In San Mateo, 20.8% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 16.8% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, no households in San Mateo live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and non e currently live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrific ation. 63.4% of households in San Mateo live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood – 56.4% of residents in San Mateo live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 0.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segrega tion and Poverty” areas.

These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.2F2F
3 • Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In San Mateo, 9.1% of residents have a disability o f any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 9.0% of San Mateo households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 9.1% of households are female -headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD. 97 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-A-8
Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.

Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.” Staff should reword these senten ces before using them in the context of the Housing Element or other documents.

Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for San Mateo.
98 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-A-9
3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

3.1 Regional Housin g Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 2050 3F3F
4 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight -year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Ho using and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low -income households to market rate housing.

Every year, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, in conjunction with the State of California, establish income categories based on the median income in each county. Based on new requirements for the completion of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must now report on the following categories of income:

• Extremely Low Income: 0-30% of Area Median Income, or AMI • Very Low Income: 30-50% AMI
• Low Income: 50-80% AMI
• Moderate Income: 80-120% AMI
• Above Moderate Income: 120%+ AMI

Table 1 below illustrates the income categories for San Mateo County in 2021. The median income for a family of four is $149,600.

Table 1: State Income Limits for San Mateo County, 2021 Income Group Number of Persons in Household:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
San
Mateo
County
Area
Median
Income:
$149,600
Acutely
Low $15,700 $17,950 $20,200 $22,450 $24,250 $26,050 $27,850 $29,650 Extremely
Low $38,400 $43,850 $49,350 $54,800 $59,200 $63,600 $68,000 $72,350 Very Low $63,950 $73,100 $82,250 $91,350 $98,700 $106,000 $113,300 $120,600 Low $102,450 $117,100 $131,750 $146,350 $158,100 $169,800 $181,500 $193,200 Median $104,700 $119,700 $134,650 149,600 $161,550 $173,550 $185,500 $197,450 Moderate $125,650 $143,600 $161,550 $179,500 $193,850 $208,200 $222,600 $236,950 Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 31, 2021 (Revised):
www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml

4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long -range plan charting the course for the future of the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing, and transportation. 99 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-A-10
The Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments fo cus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.4F4F
5 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housin g Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: www.abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation On January 1 2, 2022, HCD approved the Sixth Cycle RHNA plans. For San Mateo, the final RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 7,015 units, a sl ated increase from the last cycle. The allocation that San Mateo would receive from the Final RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:

Table 2: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocations
Income Group San Mateo
City Units
San Mateo
County Units
Bay Area
Units
San Mateo
City Percent
San Mateo
County Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low
Income 1,777 12,196 114,442 25.3% 25.6% 25.9%
Low Income 1,023 7,023 65,892 14.6% 14.7% 14.9%
Moderate
Income 1,175 7,937 72,712 16.7% 16.6% 16.5%
Above
Moderate
Income
3,040 20,531 188,130 43.3% 43.1% 42.6%
Total 7,015 47,687 441,176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Final Regional Housing Needs Allocations Plan, adopted on December 16, 2021 and approved by California Housing and Community Development on January 12, 2022.

5 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020:
www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf 100 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-A-11
4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth -largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, San Mateo’s population has increased by 11.5%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In San Mateo, roughly 14.4% of its population moved during the past year, a number 1.0 percentage points greater than the regional rate of 13.4%.

In 2020, the population of San Mateo was estimated to be 103,087 (see Table 3). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 8.0%, while it increased by 5.1% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 6.0%. The population of San Mateo makes up 13.3% of San Mateo County.5F5F
6 Table 3: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
San Mateo City 85,619 90,733 92,482 93,883 97,207 101,830 103,087 San Mateo County 649,623 685,354 707,163 719,844 718,451 761,748 773,244 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

6 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990. 101 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-A-12

Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growt h in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.

DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

4.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In San Mateo, the median age in 2000 was 37.4; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 38 years. More specifically, the population of those under 1 4 has increased since 2010, while the 65 -and- over population has increased (see Figure 2).

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color6F6F
7 make up 33.5% of seniors and 53.6% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3).

7 Here, we count all non-white racial groups
102 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-A-13

Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000 -2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Figure 3: Senior and Youth Populati on by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02. 103 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-A-14

4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today7F7F

8. Since 2000, the percentage
of residents in San Mateo identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 17.6 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 42,623 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Asian / API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000 -2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015 -2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.

8 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America.

New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
104 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-A-15

4.4 Employment Trends

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordabili ty crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub -regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in San Mateo increased by 27.1% (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance -covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

The largest -growing sector s during this period included Professional and Managerial Se rvices (93%), Construction (62%) and Health and Educational Services ( 49%). In contrast, Agriculture and Natural Resources (-96%), Information (-36%) and Retail (15%) all saw substantial losses in the same time period. 105 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-A-16
There are 56,657 employed residents, and 57,196 jobs8F8F 9 in San Mateo - the ratio of jobs to resident workers
is 1.01; San Mateo is a net importer of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low - income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent -up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub -regional imbalances may appear. San Mateo has more low -wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high - wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) 9F9F 10 (see
Figure 6).

Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

9 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey. 10 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum. 106 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-A-17
Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Jobs -Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance -covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Emplo yer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particular ly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in San Mateo has increased from 1.17 in 2002, to 1.45 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8). 107 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-A-18

Figure 8: Jobs -Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The differe nce between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, Workplace Area C haracteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13. 108 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-A-19

4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral compos ition, the largest industry in which San Mateo residents work is Financial & Professional Services, and the largest sector in which San Mateo residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; In formation: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

109 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-A-20
Looked at a different way, Management, Business, Science and Arts occupations comprise about 53% of all residents’ employment, which is roughly similar to San Mateo County and the Bay Area as a whole (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Resident Employment by Occupation
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the occupations of jurisdiction residents, regardless of the loca tion where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not).
-Categories are derived from the following source tables: management, business, science, and arts occupations: C24010_003E, C24010_039E; service occupations: C24010_019E, C24 010_055E; sales and office occupations: C24010_027E, C24010_063E; natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: C24010_030E, C24010_066E; production, transportation, and material moving occupations: C24010_034E, C24010_070E
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24010

4.4.3 Unemployment
In San Mateo, there was a 3.6 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experien ced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. As of May, 2021, the State Employment Development Department estimates the City of San Mateo’s unemployment rate at 3.9%. In contrast, the rate for San Mateo County as a whole is estimated at 4.6%.

53% 50% 50%
6% 6% 7%
7% 8% 9%
18% 20% 19%
15% 17% 16%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
San Mateo San Mateo County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Service Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
Production, Transportation, And
Material Moving Occupations
Natural Resources, Construction, And
Maintenance Occupations
Management, Business, Science, And
Arts Occupations
110 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-A-21

Figure 11: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub -county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonally- adjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.

4.5 2018 -2028 Occupation Projections
The State Employment Development Department has published job projections for the period between 2018 and 2028. Although the data include both San Mateo and San Francisco counties, some assumptions can be made about the impact of the number of jobs and the corresponding wages in the region. Many of the occupations with the most job openings will earn the employee less than $35,000 annually. Based on 2021 State income limits, such individuals are considered extremely low-income.

Table 4: Occupations with the Most Job Openings, 2018 -2028 Occupational Title
Total Job
Openings
Median
Hourly Wage
Median
Annual Wage
Personal Care Aides 62,650 $12.16 $25,283
Combined Food Prep and Servers, incl. Fast Food 52,090 $13.71 $28,524 Wait Staff 48,580 $14.73 $30,632
Software Developers, Applications 38,710 $67.39 $140,175 Cashiers 37,140 $13.54 $28,161
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 28,060 $14.81 $30,807 Cooks, Restaurant 26,840 $16.35 $34,016
Retail Salespersons 25,280 $14.28 $29,700
111 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-A-22
Occupational Title
Total Job
Openings
Median
Hourly Wage
Median
Annual Wage
Market Research Analysis/Marketing Specialists 24,060 $42.60 $88,609 Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs 21,540 $18.57 $38,644
Notes: Total job openings are the sum of numeric change, exits, and transfers projected between 2018 and 2028. Wages are from the 2020 first quarter and do not include self-employed or unpaid family workers. If an estimate could not be provided for wages, they are excluded from this table.

Excludes "All Other" categories. These are residual codes that do not represent a detailed occupation. Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Employment Statistics (CES) March 2019 benchmark and Quarterly Censu s of Employment and Wages (QCEW) industry employment. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/employment-projections.html

4.5 Extremely Low -Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state10F10F

11. In San Mateo, 49.3% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)11F11F 12, compared
to 12.7% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 12).

Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In San Mateo County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $44,000 for a family of four.

Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full -time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

State law requires jurisdictions to estimate the number if extremely low -income households – those earning less than 30% of median income. According to the data shown below ( Figure 12), 9,468 of San Mateo’s households are 0-50% AMI while 4,895 are extremely low -income. Therefore, extremely low -income households represent 51.7% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 4,895 divided by 9,468 is 51.7%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percenta ge of very low -income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low -income households, as the information in Figure 12 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data.

11 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 12 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro A rea (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 AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low -income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low - income. This is then adjusted for household size.
112 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-A-23

Figure 12: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (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 AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low -income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low -income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains m ore specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

113 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-A-24
Understanding households by income and race/ethnicity can shed light on the challenges faced by people of color in terms of access to housing that is affordable. Table 5 below illustrates the disparities between households that are White versus households in oth er racial/ethnic categories. Although 13% of households are extremely low -income Citywide, 22% of Hispanic/Latinx households are in this income category.12F12F
13 Further, Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African-American households are significantly underrepresented in the greater than 100% AMI category.

Table 5: Household Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Income Racial / Ethnic Group 0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100%
of AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
American Indian or Alaska
Native, Non-Hispanic 0% 23% 12% 0% 65%
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic 10% 10% 13% 11% 56%
Black or African American, Non-
Hispanic 18% 29% 16% 13% 23%
White, Non-Hispanic 11% 9% 14% 11% 55%
Other Race or Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic 8% 12% 20% 10% 50%
Hispanic or Latinx 22% 21% 23% 9% 24%
Totals 13% 12% 16% 11% 49%
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (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 AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
-For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent th ose who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-02.

13These figures are somewhat skewed because White households make up the vast major ity of households in the City but are illustrative of differences.
114 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-A-25
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In San Mateo, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 13). 3 Figure 13: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (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 AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

115 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-A-26
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from t he same opportunities extended to white residents. 13F13F
14 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In San Mateo, Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Sinc e residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non -Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub -groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic an d Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

14 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
116 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-A-27

4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and re gion.

Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In San Mateo there are a total of 38,549 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 45.6% versus 54.4% (see Figure 15).

By comparison, 39.8% of households in San Mateo County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.

Figure 15: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income an d wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.14F14F 15 In San Mateo,

26.1% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 58.9% for Asian households, 31.0% for Latinx households, and 58.7% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.

15 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America.

New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
117 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-A-28

Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experie nces within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub -groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsi ze may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In San Mateo, 64.6% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 25.8% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 17).
118 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-A-29

Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

Tenure information based on the year in which a household moved to further illustrates the differences between long-term residents, who tend to trend older, with newer residents. The following chart sh ows that 9 4% of households that moved in in 1989 or earlier are owner occupied, whereas only 22% of households that moved in in 2017 or later are owner occupied.

Figure 18: Housing Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25038 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-19. 94% 87%
62%
42%
28% 22%
6% 13%
38%
58%
72% 78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Moved In
1989 Or
Earlier
Moved In
1990 To 1999
Moved In
2000 To 2009
Moved In
2010 To 2014
Moved In
2015 To 2016
Moved In
2017 Or Later
Percent of Households
Renter Occupied
Owner Occupied
119 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-A-30
In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In San Mateo, 83.1% of households in detached single - family homes are homeowners, while 25.0% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.

4.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in San Mateo, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or underg oing gentrification.
120 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-A-31
Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 63.4% of households in San Mateo live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.15F15F 16 Figure 20: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdict ion level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; E arly/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.

16 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png.

Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement 121 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-A-32
5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of San Mateo in 2020 was made up of 44.3% single family detached homes, 9.9% single family attached homes, 6.3% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 39.4% multifamily homes wit h 5 or more units, and 0.1% mobile homes (see Figure 21). In San Mateo, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Multifamily Housing: Five-plus Units.

Figure 21: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In San Mateo, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1940 to 1959, with 14,721 units constructed during this period (see Figure 22). Since 2010, 4.6% of the current housing stock was built, which is 1,887 units.
122 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-A-33

Figure 22: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Vacant units make up 6.2% of the overall housing stock in San Mateo. The rental vacancy stands at 6.4%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 1.7%. Of the vacant units, the most comm on type of vacancy is For Rent (see Figure 23).16F16F
17 Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short -term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short -term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal pro ceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.17F17F
18 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence

17 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (6.2%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownershi p stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
18 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
123 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-A-34
the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions. 18F18F 19 In San Mateo, the State Department of
Finance currently estimates the vacancy rate is approximately 6.4%. Countywide, it is estimated at 5.5%.

Figure 23: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Between 2015 and 2021, 2,133 housing units were issued permits in San Mateo. 83.6% of permits issued in San Mateo were for above moderate -income housing, 6.2% were for moderate -income housing, and

10.1% were for low- or very low-income housing as shown below (Table 6).

Table 6: Housing Permitting
Income Category Number of Permits
Very Low Income Permits 126
Low Income Permits 90
Moderate Income Permits 133
Above Moderate Income 1,784
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2021
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the c ounty in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in

19 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley. 124 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-A-35
which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: Calif ornia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2021)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At -Risk of Conversion While there is a n immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data below in Table 7 comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Dat abase, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market -rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at -risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 702 assisted units in San Mateo in the Preservation Database.

Of these units, 10.3% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.19F19F 20 Table 7: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Risk San Mateo San Mateo County Bay Area
Low 630 4,656 110,177
Moderate 0 191 3,375
High 72 359 1,854
Very High 0 58 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 702 5,264 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Notes: California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non -profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk:
affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a lar ge/stable non -profit, mission -driven developer. Moderate Risk:
affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in the next 5 -10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/s table non -profit, mission -driven developer. Low Risk:

20 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in the next 1 -5 years that do no t have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in the next 5 -10 years that do not ha ve a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non -profit, mission -driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at -risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stabl e non-profit, mission-driven developer.
125 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-A-36
affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission- driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.

5.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in San Mateo. For example, 1.3% of renters in San Mateo reported lacking a kitchen and 0.4% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.4% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.3% of owners who lack plumbing.

Note on Substandard Housing
HCD requires Housing Elements to estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. As a data source for housing units in need of rehabilitation and replacement is not available for all jurisdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide thi s required data point in this document. To produce an estimate of housing needs in need of rehabilitation and replacement, staff can supplement the data below on substandard housing issues with additional local information from code enforcement, recent win dshield surveys of properties, building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Housing Stock Characteristics.

Figure 24: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, loca l building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06. 126 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-A-37
One measure of housing condition is the age of housing. In general, the older the unit, the greater it can be assumed to be in need of some level of rehabilitation. A general rule in the housing industry is that structures older than 20 years begin to show signs of deterioration and require renovation to maintain their quality. Unless properly maintained, homes older than 50 years can pose health, safety and welfare problems for occupants. Property maintenance is often deferred, especially for lower -income residents who may be unable to afford the rising costs to maintain their homes.

Consistent with State guidance, the table below estimates the number of units in need o f rehabilitation and the number of units needing replacement. Although the exact number of San Mateo units in need of rehab is not currently known, the State accepts estimates based on a formula that assumes the older the unit, the more likely the rehab ne ed. By applying an increasing percentage to the housing stock in each age category, it is estimated that there are approximately 839 units in need of some level of rehabilitation in San Mateo , representing 9.1% of the housing stock. The range of rehabilita tion needs can include anything from minor repairs to major structural replacements. It is estimated that nearly all of the units in need of rehabilitation can be repaired without replacement.

Table 8: Age of Housing Stock and Estimated Rehabilitation Needs Year Built
Net
Number
of Units
Percent
of Total
Units
Needing
Rehab,
Percent
Units
Needing
Rehab,
Total
2014 or later 1,380 3%
2010 to 2013 420 1%
2000 to 2009 1,515 4% 0.5% 8
1990 to 1999 3,439 8% 1.0% 34
1980 to 1989 3,988 10% 3.0% 120
1970 to 1979 5,147 12% 5.0% 257
1960 to 1969 5,839 14% 10.0% 584
1950 to 1959 10,582 25% 20.0% 2,116
1940 to 1949 5,275 13% 30.0% 1,583
1939 or earlier 4,388 10% 30.0% 1,316
41,973 100% 6,018 Total Units Needing Rehab
14% Percentage of Total Units

99.5% 5,988 Units that Can Be Repaired

0.5% 30 Units that Must Be Replaced
Source: 2010 Census, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2019), City of San Mateo 2021

5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in San Mateo was estimated at $1,444,840 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $1M-$1.5M (see Figure 25). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,418,330 in 127 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-A-38
San Mateo County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m -$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region).

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 149.2% in San Mateo from $579,810 to $1,444,840. This change is above the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 26).

Figure 25: Home Values of Owner -Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07. 128 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-A-39

Figure 26: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. T he ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E -5 series For uni ncorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In San Mateo, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $3000 or more category, totaling

26.7%, followed by 21.1% of units renting in the Rent $1500-$2000 category (see Figure 27). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $3000 or more category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.
129 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-A-40

Figure 27: Contract Rents for Renter -Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 74.2% in San Mateo, from $1,630 to $2,380 per month (see Figure 28). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.20F20F 21 21 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on ren t prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are m ore current than Census Bureau data.
130 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-A-41

Figure 28: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data releases, starting with 2005 -2009 through 2015 -2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). C ounty and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

5.5 Housing Affordability
The Nati onal Association of Homebuilders reports that California cities have some of the lowest homeowner affordability rates in the country, defined as the percentage of homes affordable to the median income family. Despite the high median incomes, especially in the Bay Area, many cannot afford the cost to purchase a home. The San Francisco-Redwood City Division, of which San Mateo is a part, ranked 230th out of 233 metropolitan areas studied in the first quarter of 2021.

Table 9: Housing Opportunity Index, First Quarter 2021

Homes
Affordable to
Median
Income
Households
Median
Family
Income
(1,000s)
Median
Sales
Price
(1,000s)
National
Affordability
Rank
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA ^^^ 11.6% 78.7 729 233 Salinas, CA 15.1% 80.9 725 232
San Francisco -Redwood City -South San
Francisco, CA ^^^

17.4% 143.4 1,305 230
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, CA ^^^ 18.2% 104.8 825 229
Napa, CA 22.1% 101.5 691 228
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 22.4% 95.1 665 227
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA 26.0% 97.8 675 226 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 27.4% 98.8 650 225
131 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-A-42

Homes
Affordable to
Median
Income
Households
Median
Family
Income
(1,000s)
Median
Sales
Price
(1,000s)
National
Affordability
Rank
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 28.5% 111.9 850 224
Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA 28.8% 90.1 678 223
Stockton-Lodi, CA 29.6% 74.0 462 222
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 29.9% 151.3 1,120 220 Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, CA ^^^ 31.2% 121.3 795 219

Notes: ^^^ Indicate Metropolitan Divisions. All others are Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 2021,
https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/housing-economics/indices/housing-opportunity-index Trulia -- an online residential real estate site for homebuyers, sellers, renters and real estate professionals -- provides statistics based on actual sales of housing by location. According to a study conducted by zip code in 2019, only a small percentage of homes of homes in San Mateo were affordable to the metropolitan median income of $101,000. The following table contains data for the three primary zip codes.

Table 10: Housing Affordability by Zip Code
Zip Code % of Homes Affordable to Metro Median Income Median Home Value 94401 9.4% $903,631
94402 0.0% $1,758,419
94403 1.9% $1,344,813
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 2021, see website for more information:
https://www.trulia.com/research/affordable-neighborhoods/ The high cost of housing means that people wanting to own a home in San Mateo must have significant incomes, even for the relatively less expensive condos.

The decreasing supply of affordable rental units is a countywide phenomenon; it can include Ellis Act evictions (where an owner of a rental property decides to leave the rental business) to owner move -in evictions. Until additional construction of rental units occurs, the combination of strong demand and low vacancies will contribute to an increasingly severe shortage of rental units and a decrease in their affordability.

The following table illustrates the affordable rents as sociated with each income category. In the case of an extremely low-income household of two people (for example, a single parent with a child), the annual income of $43,850 translates to a full-time job paying $21.08 per hour. In this scenario, the maximum rent they could afford would be about $1,096 per month – far below average rents in the area, even for studios.

According to statistics on RentCafe.com, an online data aggregator, the average rent for an apartment is $2,908 as of June, 2021, a decrease of 10% from the previous year but still much higher than what a lower income household can afford. A household has to earn at least $ 116,320 in order to afford the average rent.
132 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-A-43
Table 11: Affordable Rents for Two - and Three -Person Households Income
Category
Percent of
Median
Income Limit (Two-
Person Household)
Two-Person
Affordable
Rent
Income Limit
(Three--Person
Household)
Three--Person
Affordable Rent
Extremely
Low-Income 30% $43,850 $1,096 $49,350 $1,234
Very Low-
Income 50% $73,100 $1,828 $82,250 $2,056
Low-Income 80% $117,100 $2,928 $131,750 $3,294
Median-
Income 100% $119,700 $2,993 $134,650 $3,366
Moderate-
Income 120% $143,600 $3,590 $161,550 $4,039
Notes: Affordable rents are calculated based on 30% of annual income divided by 12 months.

Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development and San Mateo Housing, 2021 Through its Section 8 and other housing programs, HUD provides rental hous ing assistance to lower - income households. According to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, more than 500 households in San Mateo currently receive Section 8 rental assistance, in the form of Housing Choice Vouchers.

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing p uts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

Figure 29: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
133 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-A-44
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For rent ers, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

Renters are often more cost -burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in San Mateo, 22.8% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 18.6% of those that own (see Figure 29). Additionally, 24.6% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while

11.8% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In San Mateo, 16.8% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 20.8% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 30). For example,

73.0% of San Mateo households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For San Mateo residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.9% are severely cost-burdened, and 88.7% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

Figure 30: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housin g costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. H UD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations f or Area Median Income (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 134 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-A-45
Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Black or African American, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 37.9% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 28.6% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).

Figure 31: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Large family households often have special housing need s due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families 135 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-A-46
experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In San Mateo, 23.7% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30% -50%, while 22.5% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 20.6% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 16.4% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 32).

Figure 32: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost -burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of mon thly income.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how sen iors might be cost -burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low -income seniors. 64.7% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 92.7% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 33).
136 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-A-47

Figure 33: Cost -Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and re al estate taxes. HUD defines cost -burdened households as tho se whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (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 Francisc o, 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 AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In San Mateo, 5.5% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.5% of households that own (see Figure 34). In San Mateo, 7.5% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1.5% for those who own.
137 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-A-48

Figure 34: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban D evelopment (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low -income households. 4.4% of very low -income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 1.0% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 35).
138 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-A-49

Figure 35: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (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 Me tro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo -Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Communities of color are more likely to experienc e overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In San Mateo, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 36) 139 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-A-50

Figure 36: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, th e Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may ha ve very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non -Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive.

Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction.

However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non -Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03. 140 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-A-51
6 SPECI AL HOUSING NEEDS

6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In San Mateo, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (51.6%) are owner occupied (see Figure 37). In 2017, 33.1% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 37: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

In addition to overcrowding, large households also often have a cost burden. In San Mateo, half of all large households that pay too much for housing are lower-income households earning between 0% and 80% of median income.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 17,173 units in San Mateo. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 18.7% are owner -occupied and 81.3% are renter occupied (see Figure 38).
141 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-A-52

Figure 38: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

6.2 Female -Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female - headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In San Mateo, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 50.8% of total, while Female- Headed Households make up 9.1% of all households.

Figure 39: Household Type
Universe: Households
142 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-A-53
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenge s, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In San Mateo, 16.6% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while

4.6% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 40).

Figure 40: Female -Headed Households b y Poverty Status Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

6.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 41).
143 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-A-54

Figure 41: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are th ose with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (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 AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they l ose aging caregivers. Figure 42 shows the rates at which 144 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-A-55
different disabilities are present among residents of San Mateo. Overall, 9.1% of people in San Mateo have a disability of any kind.21F21F
22 Figure 42: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even wi th glasses.

Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self -care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.22F22F 23 22 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an indiv idual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
23 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the No rth Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the

145 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-A-56
In San Mateo, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up

35.6%, while adults account for 64.4%.

Table 12: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Number
Age 18+ 500
Age Under 18 277
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before a dulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to approximately 329,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community -based facilities. The Golden Gate Regional Center provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities in San Mateo County. The center is a private, non -profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals wi th developmental disabilities and their families. According to its website, as of December 2020, 9,323 consumers were served, of which 63% are male and 37% are female. The average per capita expenditures for all ages is $32,319. See website:
www.dds.ca.gov/rc/dashboard/overview
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in San Mateo is the home of parent, family, and/or guardian.

Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.
146 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-A-57
Table 13: Popula tion with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Number
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 453
Community Care Facility 193
Intermediate Care Facility 73
Independent /Supported Living 45
Other 10
Foster /Family Home 10
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities includ ing cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising hous ing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the spec ific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (see Figure 43).
147 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-A-58

Figure 43: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter S tatus, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non -Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 66.6% of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% of the overall population (see Figure 44). 148 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-A-59

Figu re 44: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experien cing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% of the general population (see Figure 45). 149 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-A-60

Figure 45: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Ar ea county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition (see Figure 46). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.
150 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-A-61

Figure 46: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point -in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county -level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county -level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HU D), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-04.

In San Mateo, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 313 during the 2019 -2020 school year and decreased by 24.6% since the 2016-2017 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016 -17 school year, and the Bay Area popul ation of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%.

During the 2019 -2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in San Mateo experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 26.2% of the San Mateo County total and 2.3% of the Bay Area total.

151 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-A-62
Table 14: Students in Local Public Schools Experienci ng Homelessness Academic Year San Mateo City San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-2017 415 1,910 14,990
2017-2018 422 1,337 15,142
2018-2019 362 1,934 15,427
2019-2020 313 1,194 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in h otels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HSA), in close collaboration with community partners, conducts the bi -annual One Day Homeless Count and Survey (count). The purpose of the One Day Homeless Count and Survey is to gather and analyze information to help the community understand homelessness in San Mateo County. This is one data set, among others, that provides information for effective planning of services to ass ist people experiencing homelessness and people at risk of homelessness. HSA’s Center on Homelessness and the San Mateo County Continuum of Care (CoC) Steering Committee were responsible for overseeing this data collection effort, with assistance from a broad group of community partners, including non -profit social service providers, city and town governments, and people who had former or current homelessness experience.

The One Day Homeless Count and Survey was designed to meet two related sets of data nee ds. The first is the requirement of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that communities applying for McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance funds (also known as Continuum of Care or “CoC” funds) must conduct a point -in-time count of homeless people a minimum of every two years. These counts are required to take place in the last ten days of January. The One Day Homeless Count and Survey was conducted in January 2019 to meet this HUD requirement. The previous HUD - mandated count was conducted in January 2017.

The second set of data needs is for local homeless system planning, as the One Day Homeless Count and Survey provides information about people experiencing homelessness and about trends over time.

The 2019 count determined that there were 1,512 people experiencing homelessness in San Mateo County on the night of January 30, 2019, comprised of:
• 901 unsheltered homeless people (living on streets, in cars, in recreational vehicles (RVs), in tents/encampments), and
• 611 sheltered homeless people (in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs).

This finding of 1,512 people was higher than the 2017 and 2015 counts, but lower than the 2011 and 2013 counts. The number of people living in shelters in 2019 remained similar to the number counted in 2017. 152 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-A-63
The overall increase in homelessness from 2017 to 2019 was driven primarily by a significant increase in the number of people living in RVs (127% increase). There was also an increase in the number of p eople sleeping on the street (24% increase). However, compared to 2017, the 2019 count found a decrease in people estimated to be sleeping in cars (7% decrease) and in tents/encampments (31% decrease).

While no unsheltered families were directly observed during the 2019 count, the number of families with children experiencing unsheltered homelessness was estimated to have been 16 (in cars, tents/encampments, and/or RVs). This number represents a 16% decrease in families from the 19 families estimated to be unsheltered in the 2017 count.

The count found 74 unsheltered individuals in the City of San Mateo, representing 8% of the Countywide unsheltered population. This was an increase from 2017, when 48 homeless individuals were located, but lower than in 2013 , when 103 people were counted. Although demographic data are not available for each individual jurisdiction, a number of key findings were made.

The 2019 One Day Homeless Count and Survey counted 1,018 households comprised of 1,110 single adults and 119 family households comprised of 401 adults and children.

A person in an adult only household was most likely to be unsheltered (75.5%), over 25 years old (95.1%), male (75.6%), non -Hispanic (64.9%), Caucasian (70.5%), and not experiencing chronic homelessnes s (71.4%). In contrast, family households were most likely to be in transitional housing (67.6%), have more children than adults (59.1% vs. 40.9% respectively), and be headed by a female (57.1%). People heading family households were also predominantly non-Hispanic (53.6%) and Caucasian (55.9%), however, race and ethnicity showed more variation in family households than adult only households.

Further, the percentage of people experiencing chronic homelessness over time increased from 19% in 2017 to 21% in 2 019, but this figure was substantially lower than in 2013, when 45% were chronically homeless. Veterans in 2019 represented 5% of adults, a reduction from 11% in 2019. Severe mental illness, alcohol and/or drug use, and history of domestic violence were so me of the self -reported conditions of those who were counted. For more information, see website: hsa.smcgov.org/2019-one- day-homeless-count

153 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-A-64

6.6 Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal or permanent agricultural work. Farmworkers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers. In many parts of Northern California, agriculture production is an important contribution to local economies, especially in Napa and Sonoma Counties. According to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farmworkers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 343 in 2017 (see Figure 47).

In San Mateo, there are no known farmworkers, and it does not have any farm housing or land remaining in agricultural use. Further, no land within San Mateo is designated for agricultural use, except for the San Mateo County Event Center site and a parcel located within the College of San Mateo. According to ACS 2019 five-year data, there could be an estimated 30 farmworkers in San Mateo; however, the margin of error for this figure is +/ - 42, meaning that this information is unreliable. Even at 30 farmworkers, this represents only 0.03% of the total population in the City. Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in San Mateo. Due to the low number of agricultural workers in the City, the housing needs of migrant and/or farmworker housing need can be met through general affordable housing programs.

In San Mateo, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019 -2020 school year, which is consistent with the finding that there are l ikely no farmworkers in the community (see Table 15). The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016 -2017 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-2017 school year.

Table 15: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year San Mateo City San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 657 4,630
2017-18 0 418 4,607
2018-19 0 307 4,075
2019-20 0 282 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, Califo rnia Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

154 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-A-65

Figure 47: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

155 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-A-66

6.7 Non -English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the B ay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency.

This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In San Mateo, 8.5% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

Figure 48: Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

156 of 955

Page 1 of 7 ends

San Mateo City CouncilMay 23, 2022

San Mateo City Council
May 23, 2022