• 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 2022. The median income for a family of four is $166,000.
Table 1: State Income Limits for San Mateo County, 202 2 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 $17,450 $19,900 $220,400 $24,900 $26,900 $28,900 $30,900 $32,850 Extremely
Low $39,150 $44,750 $50,350 $54,900 $60,400 $64,850 $69,350 $73,800 Very Low $65,250 $74,600 $83,900 $93,200 $100,700 $108,150 $115,60 $123,050 Low $104,400 $119,300 $134,200 $149,100 $161,0500 $173,000 $184,900 $196,850 Median $116,200 $132,800 $149,400 166,000 $179,300 $192,550 $205,850 $219,100 Moderate $139,450 $159,350 $179,300 $199,200 $215,150 $231,050 $247,000 $262,950 Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, May 13, 2022 : 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.
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 populati on 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 focus 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 Housing 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 12, 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 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.
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 growth 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 14 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 afford able 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
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 Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not d isaggregate 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.
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 g raph, 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.
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 t hat 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 affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and wo rker 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 Services (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.
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.
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 Employer -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, particularly where job growth ha s 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).
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 Characteristics (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.
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 composition, 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 f ollowing 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; Information: 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.
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 o f the location 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, C24010_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 regio n experienced 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
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
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. 6 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.
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 contai ns more 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 Hou sing 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.
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 other 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.
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.
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 POPEMP-21.
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 th em from the 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.
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. 7 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 region.
Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly i f 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 and 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 loca l 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.
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 d ifferent 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 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 homeown ers seeking to downsize 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).
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 shows 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
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. 8 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 unde rgoing gentrification.
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
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.
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 common 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 un it 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 proceedings, repai rs/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.
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 county 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 1 20% 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.
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: California Dep artment 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 an 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 ri sk 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 Datab ase, 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 st ate, 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 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 have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable 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.
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 ho useholds, 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 juri sdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide this 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 windshield 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, local 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.
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 i t 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 of 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 need. 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 Mate o, representing 9.1% of the housing stock. The range of rehabilitation 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
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 r egion’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, th e 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.
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 unincorporated areas, the value is a p opulation 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%, fol lowed 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.
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.
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. Censu s Bureau, American Community Survey 5 -Year Data releases, starting with 2005 -2009 through 2015 -2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County 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.
According to Zumper, an online rent statistics aggregator, the average rent for a studio in San Mateo was $2,729 in June of 2022, whereas the average rent for a one-bedroom was $3,200. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment was $3,439.22
5.5 Housing Affordability
The National 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.
22 https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/san-mateo-ca
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
Table 9: Hou sing 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
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 A ct 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.
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
The following table illustrates the affordable rents associated 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.
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 housing 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 bur den. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low -income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.
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
Figure 29: Cost Burden by Tenure
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.
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 res ulted 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.
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
Figure 30: Cost Burden by Income Level
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. 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 F rancisco 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.
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 OVER-05.
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).
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
Table 12: Quantified Cost Burden of Low -Income Households by Tenure
C 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.
Cost burdened renters in the City of San Mateo far outnumber the cost burdened homeowners in most low-income categories. For households at the 30% AMI level, 3,360 renter families are paying over 30% of their househ old income towards housing while 2, 825 renter families are paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs. Meanwhile, at the same 30% AMI level, there are only 1,515 homeowners paying over 30% of their income towards housing and only 1,130 homeowners paying over 50% of their income towards housing. It can be deduced that renters at the extremely low -income category are disproportionately cost burdened by housing costs in the City of San Mateo at a ratio of 3:2 in total population compared to homeowners. At the 50% AMI level, renters are continuing to be slightly more cost burdened in comparison to homeowners with totals of 2,190 and 1,875 respectively. At the 80% AMI level, cost burdened homeowners begin to slightly outnumber cost burdened renter households. At higher income levels, the number of cost burdened homeowner families begin to greatly outnumber the total number cost burdened renters. It is likely that as household income increases compared to AMI, families are more likely to seek ownership housing . Therefore, when quantifying cost burdened households in the City of San Mateo, there is an imbalance of disproportionately high amount of renters at extremely low and very low-income levels while there is a corresponding imbalance of cost burdened homeowners at moderate and above average income levels.
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 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 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 OVER-08.
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families 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).
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 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 monthly income.
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 OVER-09.
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 senior s 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).
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 33: Cost -Burdened Senior House holds 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 gro ss 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 those whose monthly ho using 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 Francisco, and San Mateo Co unties), 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.
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 SEN-03.
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 p er 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 reg ion 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.
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 34: Overcrowding by Tenure a nd 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 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 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).
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
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 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.
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 OVER-04.
Communities of color are more likely to experience 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)
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 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 c onsidered severely overcrowded. 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 resident s 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 total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction.
However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non -Hispanic” are mutually ex clusive, 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.
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
6 SPECIAL 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).
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 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
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
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 challenges, 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 by 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).
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
Figure 41: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those 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.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De velopment (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 SEN-01.
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 caregi vers. Figure 42 shows the rates at which
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
different disabilities are present among residents of San Mateo. Overall, 9.1% of people in San Mateo have a disability of any kind.21F21F
23 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 type s:
Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing e ven with glasses.
Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has seri ous 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 define d 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 24 23 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.
24 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 North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the
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
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 1312: 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 adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is th e 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 developm ental 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 with 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 Cont ra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.
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
Table 1413: Population 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).
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 43: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, 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 supple ment 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).
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 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 experiencing 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).
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
Figure 45: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populatio ns, 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 co unty-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 il lness, 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.
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
Figure 46: Characteristics for the Populatio n 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 (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-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 population 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 repr esents 26.2% of the San Mateo County total and 2.3% of the Bay Area total.
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
Table 1514: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing 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 E ducation considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/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 H uman 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 un derstand homelessness in San Mateo County. This is one data set, among others, that provides information for effective planning of services to assist 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 needs. 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 te n 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.
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
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 people sleeping on the street (24% increase). However, compared to 2017, the 2019 count found a decreas e 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 e stimated 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 homelessness (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 2019, but this figure was substantially lower than in 2013, when 45% were chronically homeless. Veteran s 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 some of the self -reported conditions of those who were counted. For more information, see website: hsa.smcgov.org/2019-one- day-homeless-count
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
6.6 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 i n 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 likely 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 1615: 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, 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 FARM-01.
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-67
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.
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-68
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 Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrate d 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.
APPENDIX A | Attachment 1 – Countywide Housing Needs
INTRODUCTION
San Mateo County is a great place to work, live and play. But like the rest of the region, we are experiencing housing challenges. While a lack of housing to meet the demands of our dynamic economy and growing workforce remains a key issue, our housing needs are also diverse and changing. Just as our individual housing needs change over the course of our lifetime, the housing needed by our communities change too.
Understanding those changes is critical to shaping housing policies and programs that ensure our communities are places where all of us can thrive, regardless of our age, income, and specific circumstances.
Here are some highlights of trends related to the people, jobs, and households of San Mateo County, and what they mean for our housing needs today and into the future.
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
People
Housing
Jobs
By 2026, one out of five residents will be 65 or over San Mateo County’s population is becoming more diverse
The number of households will continue to grow
Housing rent and prices continue to increase
The number of jobs will continue to grow
Although the median income is high, many jobs pay low wages
PEOPLE
By 2026, one out of
five residents will
be 65 or over
Under 25 25-44 45-64 65+
San Mateo County makes up 10 percent of the total Bay
Area population, which is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the country. The number of people living here has steadily grown the past few decades. In 2020, the population was estimated to be 773,244, an increase of 19 percent since 1990 1. That trend is expected to continue despite the impact of the recent pandemic because more jobs continue to be added.
People are also living longer, with those 65 and over
expected to make up nearly 20 percent of the population by 2026. Equally important is the fact that Millennials recently surpassed the Baby Boomers as our largest generation. As Millennials enter their 40s, they will continue to shape countywide housing needs. By 2026, people 25 -44 and 45 - 64 will make up more than 50 percent of the population2.
What does this mean for housing needs?
Both generations have been showing a preference
for more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, that are close to work, schools, parks, and amenities. The majority of seniors prefer to stay in their homes and communities, or age-in-place.
Yet many live on fixed incomes and may have mobility issues as they age, which require supportive services.
Simultaneously, Millennials are less likely to own homes and have less savings than previous generations; are more likely to live alone and delay marriage; and as they start families, may be in greater need of support when purchasing their first home.
Coupled with increasing housing prices, it is harder for younger generations to rent or purchase a home than it was for current residents.
With more people 65 and over than there were 10 or 20 years ago we have to address how to support our seniors as they get older so they can stay in their homes and communities, and make sure young people, new families and our workers can find housing they can afford that meets their needs.
1 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
2 Claritias Population Facts 2021
15%
28%
Age
2020
27% 29%
19%
28%
Age
2026
27% 26%
Our population is
becoming more
diverse
Asian Latinx Other *
.5%
21.8%
4.6%
29.6%
Black White
*
San Mateo County is a very diverse place to live, even when compared to the State of California. Countywide, more than one-third of the population are foreign born and almost half speak a language other than English at home. By contrast, a quarter of all Californians are foreign born and less than a quarter speak a language other than English at home. Over 120 identified languages are spok en in San Mateo County, with top languages including Spanish (17 percent), Chinese (8 percent) and Tagalog (6 percent).
Our population has become increasingly more diverse over time. In 2000, more than half of people identified as White, which fell to 39 percent in 2019, and is expected to
decrease further to 35 percent by 2026 . However, while the Asian and Latinx populations increased during that time, the Black population decreased by almost half, from 3.5 to
2.2 percent3.
What does this mean for housing needs?
When planning for housing, we need to consider a variety of housing needs —like larger homes for multi- generational families or those with more children—and how to create
opportunities for everyone to access quality, affordable housing near schools, transit, jobs, and services.
Past exclusionary practices have prevented people of color from purchasing homes, living in certain neighborhoods, and building wealth over time. As a result, they are more likely to experience poverty, housing insecurity, displacement, and homelessness. And while many of our communities are very diverse, we are still contending with segregation and a lack of equitable opportunities. To help prevent displacement due to gentrification and create a future whe re it is possible for everyone to find the housing they need, it will be important to plan for a variety of housing types and affordability options in all neighborhoods.
3 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
39.2% 24.4%
2.2%
Race +
Ethnicity
2019
51.5% 22.6%
Race +
Ethnicity
2000
3.5%
*Due to small percentage, Other is grouped as American Indian, Alaska Native, “Other” or Multiple Races
61%
65%
DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
49%
2000
2019
2026
2000 to 2019:
BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%
Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%
Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%
12.3%
7.8%
2.2%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other than
English
different languages are spoken
DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
49%
2000
2019
2026
Since 2000:
BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%
Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%
Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%
12.3%
7.8%
2.3%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other than English
different languages are spoken
for
every
HOUSEHOLDS + HOUSING
The number
of households
will continue to
grow
That’s a
48%
increase
Over the past 30 years, new home construction has not kept up with the number of jobs our economy keeps adding. This has led to a housing shortage.
In 2020, there were 265,000 households in San Mateo
County. By 2050 we expect that to increase by almost half to 394,000 4. This growing demand will continue to put
pressure on home prices and rents. And given that nearly 75 percent of our housing was built before 1980 there will also be the need to upgrade older homes. While this will be essential to make sure housing is of high quality and safe to residents, redevelopment or repair can sometimes result in a loss of affordable housing, especially in older multi- unit buildings.
For every six low-wage jobs ($20 an hour) there is one home in the county that is affordable to such a worker (monthly rent of $1,500)5.
What does this mean for housing needs?
We not only need to plan for more housing, but also consider how to best support the development of low and moderate income housing options while preserving existing affordable homes. This includes transitional and supportive housing options for the unhoused, and universal design to meet accessibility and mobility needs.
Although the majority of housing produced in the past few decades has been single -family homes or larger multifamily buildings, some households have become increasingly
interested in “missing middle” housing — smaller homes that include duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, garden apartments and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
These smaller homes may provide more options to a diversity of communit y members across income, age, and household size.
28%
5+ unit
multifamily
Housing
stock
55%
single family
homes
68%
of households
are families
76%
of existing housing
was built before 1980
2-4 unit multifamily and
mobile homes
6 1
17%
5,264
4 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern, U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5 Association of Bay Area Governments Jobs Housing Fit
61%
17%
Built 1975
$
265K
Households in 2020
394K
Households in 2050
low wage jobs
(153,000 in total)
affordable home
(25,000 in total)
2-4 unit multifamily and
mobile homes
of households spend
half or more of their income on
housing
existing affordable units are at
risk of being converted to
market rate
Housing rent
and prices
continue to
increase
2009 to 2020
per m
The Bay Area is a great place to live. But throughout the region and county there just isn’t enough housing for all income levels, which has made costs go up. Home prices and rents have been steadily increasing the past two decades, but in recent years the jump has been dramatic. Since 2009, the median rent increased 41 percent to $2,200, and
median home values have more than doubled to
$1,445,000 6.
Overall, many residents are paying too much on housing, while many others have been priced out entirely. If a
household spends more than 30 percent of its monthly
income on housing, it is considered cost-burdened. If it spends more than 50 percent, it is considered severely cost- burdened. Renters are usually more cost-burdened than
homeowners. While home prices have increased
dramatically, homeowners often benefit from mortgages at fixed rates, whereas renters are subject to ups and downs of the market.
In San Mateo County, 17 percent of households spend half or more of their income on housing, while 19 percent spend between a third to a half. However, these rates vary greatly across income and race. Of those who are extremely low income—making 30 percent or less of the area med ian
income (AMI) —88 percent spend more than half their
income on housing. And Latino renters and Black
homeowners are disproportionately cost burdened and
severely cost-burdened. Given that people in this situation have a small amount of income to start with, spending more than half what they make on housing leaves them with very little to meet other costs, such as food, transportation, education, and healthcare. Often very low -income
households paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent are at a greater risk of homelessness 7.
As a result, more people are living in overcrowded or unsafe living conditions. They are also making the tough choice to move further away and commute long distances to work or school, which has created more traffic. Since low income residents and communities of color are the most cost
burdened, they are at the highest risk for eviction,
6 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, Zillow
7 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
displacement, and homelessness.
What does this mean for housing needs?
Although there are complex supply, demand and economic factors impacting costs, not having enough housing across all incomes has meant rents and prices are just higher. Programs and policies that can support more homes across all income levels, particularly very low, low, and moderate income, are essential, as are more safe, affordable housing options to address homelessness.
$2.2K
per month
RENTER SNAPSHOT
54% are under 44 years old
76% are people of color and at a
higher risk of being displaced
1 in 4 renters...
spend 50% of income on rent
live in overcrowded households –
89% of these renters are BIPOC
Latinx are the most cost burdened
31% spend more than half and
18% spend a third to half of their
income on rent
$1.4M
$1.56K
Median rent increased 41% Home values more than doubled $675K $675K
JOBS
The number of jobs
will continue to grow
The Bay Area and San Mateo County have had very strong economies for decades. While some communities have more jobs, and some have less, we have all been impacted by the imbalance of job growth and housing.
Since 2010 we have added over 100,000 jobs but only
10,000 homes8. At the same time, our population is growing naturally, meaning more people are living longer while our children are growing up and moving out into homes of their own. All of this impacts housing demand and contributes to the rising cost of homes. We need more housing to create a better balance.
In 2020, there were 416,700 jobs and by 2050 we expect that to increase 2 2 percent to 507,000 9. While some jobs pay very well, wages for many others haven’t kept up with how costly it is to live here.
That’s a
22%
increase
What does this mean for housing needs?
As we plan for housing, we need to consider the needs of our workforce—folks who are a part of our communities, but often end their day by commuting long distances to a place they can afford. Many have been displaced in recent decades or years, as housing and rent prices soared along with our job- generating economy. The lack of workforce housing affects us all, with teachers, fire fighters, health care professionals, food service providers and many essential workers being excluded from the communities they contribute to every day. The long -term sustainability of our communities depends on our ability to create more affordable and equitable housing options.
NEW JOBS TO NEW HOUSING
2010 - 2020
New jobs continue to
outpace new homes added
to the County
Jobs Homes
More people
living longer
8 U.S. Census American Community Survey, State of CA Employment Development Dept (EDD) 9 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern
children growing
up and moving
out
natural growth
and more
housing needed
100K
416.7K
Jobs in 2020
507K
Jobs in 2050
10K
Our median
income is high, but
the wage gap
continues to grow
2021 Household Income:
H
To be considered low or moderate income in the Bay Area means a very different thing than in most parts of the country. The income or wage gap —the difference between the highest and lowest wages —is large in our region.
Affordable housing here can mean that your favorite
hairstylist, your child’s principal, or the friendly medical assistant at your doctor’s office can qualify for—and often needs—below market rate or subsidized affordable housing so they can live close to their work.
The starting point for this calculation is the Area Median Income (AMI) —the middle spot between the lowest and
highest incomes earned in San Mateo County. Simply put, half of households make more, and half of households make less. Moderate income is 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, low income is 50 to 80 percent AMI and very low income is 30 to 50 percent AMI. Below 30 percent AMI is considered
extremely low income. The rule of thumb is households
should expect to pay about a third of their income on
housing.
In San Mateo County, the AMI is $1 04,700 for a single
person, $119,700 for a household of two and $149,600 for a family of four. When we talk about affordable housing, we mean housing that is moderately priced for low or moderate income residents so that new families and the workforce can live in our communities. Affordable housing programs are generally for those who earn 80 percent or below the AMI, which is $102 ,450 for a single person, $117,100 for a household of two and $146,350 a year for a household of four 10.
What does this mean for housing needs?
Given the price of land in San Mateo County and what it costs to build new housing, creating affordable housing is
extremely challenging—and often impossible without some form of subsidy. Sometimes this is in the form of donated land from a local government or school district. Sometimes this is in the form of incentives to
10 State of CA Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
developers or zoning rules requiring affordable units to be included. And most commonly, this is through special financing, grants, and tax credits. Often all of these factors and more are needed to make affordable housing work. The housing element process is an opportunity for each community to look at what’s possible and put in place supportive policies and programs to help make affordability a reality.
$117K $102K
$120K
$105K
80% AMI
100% AMI
INCOME LEVELS + WAGES
Extremely
Low
30% AMI Grocery Store Clerk or
Barista
$29K/Yr or $15/Hr
83% of income spent on housing*
Very Low
50% AMI Hair Stylist
or Administrative Assistant
$38K/Yr or $20/Hr
63% of income spent on housing*
Low
80%
AMI
Medical Assistant
or Preschool Teacher
$52K/Yr or $27/Hr
46% of income spent on housing*
School Administrator or
Social Worker
$86K/Yr or $45/Hr
28% of income spent on housing*
*income spent on housing based on 2k per month/studio or 1 bedroom
$146K
Household of 1 Household of 2 Household of 4 Income
Income
Income
$150K
APPENDIX A | Attachment 2 – Inventory of Assisted Units Table 1 - City of San Mateo Assisted Rental Housing
Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development
Total
Units
Total Aff.
Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance
Lesley Plaza
1961
Senior Rental
New Const. 56 56 56 2055 NP HUD Section 202 Elderly Program
Lesley Towers
1965
Senior Rental
New Const. 200 200 200 2015 NP HUD Section 202 Elderly Program
Flores Gardens
1984
Senior Rental
New Const. 72 72 72 2035 Private HUD Sec 221 (d)(4) Rotary Haciendas
1988-89
Senior Rental
New Const. 82 82 81 1 2044 NP Bought land w/RDA ;
LIHTC
Belmont Bldg.
1993-94
Family Rental
Conversion 6 6 6 2032 Private CDBG Loan; RDA Loan
12 N. Idaho
1994
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 6 6 1 4 1 2034 NP RDA; HOME ; SM Co.
HOME
Darcy Bldg.
1995
Family Rental
Conversion 8 8 8 2034 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan;
SM Co Hsg Authority
106 N. Eldorado
1996
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 6 6 1 4 1 2036 NP HOME Loan
Hotel St. Matthew
1996
SRO
Acq./Rehab 56 56 56 2051 NP HOME Loan; RDA Loan;
LIHTC
Edgewater Isle
1998
Senior Rental
Acq./Rehab 92 92 25 66 1 2072 NP HOME Loan; RDA Loan; CalHFA Loan
Bridgepointe
Condominiums
1999
Family Rental
New Construct 396 59 24 35 2027 Private BMR units
200 S. Delaware
1999
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 16 16 2 2 5 7 2049 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan
Humboldt House
2000
Supportive Hsg.
Rehab 9 9 9 2041 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan
Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development Total Units Total Aff.
Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance
Jefferson at the Bay
2001-02
Family Rental
New Construct 575 58 58 Life of property Private BMR units Santa Inez Apt.
2001
Family Rental
New Construct 44 44 0 42 2 2055 Private RDA Loan , LIHTC 11 S. Delaware
2002
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 11 11 5 6 2034 NP HOME Loan, SM Co
HOME Loan
Chamberlain
2003
Family Rental
New Construct 21 2 2 Life of property Private BMR units The Metropolitan
2003
Family Rental
New Construct 218 22 18 4 Life of property Private BMR units CSM Teacher
Housing
2005
Family Rental
New Construct 44 4 4 Life of property NP BMR units
Nazareth Plaza
2005
Family Rental
New Construct 54 5 5 Life of property Private BMR units Rotary Floritas
2005
Senior Rental
New Const. 50 50 49 1 2060 NP RDA Loan, SM Co. HOME
Loan ; LIHTC
Fountain Glen
2007
Senior Rental
New Const. 135 14 14 Life of property Private BMR units The Vendome
2009
Supportive Hsg.
Acq./Rehab 16 16 16 2063 NP RDA, HOME, SM Co
CDBG Loans
Peninsula Station
2010
Family Rental
New Const. 68 67 21 32 14 2065 NP RDA, HOME and SM Co.
CDBG Loans, LIHTC
888 Apartments
2012
Family Rental New
Const.
155 15 15 Life of property Private BMR units
Park 20 2012 Family Rental New
Const.
197 20 20 Life of property Private BMR units
Delaware Pacific
2013
Family Rental
New Const. 60 59 10 49 2068 NP
RDA, HOME, SM Co.
CDBG/HOME, Section 8,
CalHFA, LIHTC
Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development Total Units Total Aff.
Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance
MODE by Alta 2013 Family Rental New
Const.
111 11 11 Life of property Private BMR units
Fieldhouse
2013
Family Rental New
Const.
108 11 11 Life of property Private BMR units
Alma Point
2013
Family Rental New
Const.
66 3 3 2069 NP HOME
Russel
2015
Family Rental New
Const.
158 16 16 Life of property Private BMR units
2000 S. Delaware
2015
Family Rental New
Const.
60 60 60 2067 Private Land subsidy, Perm loan
Quimby 2015 Family Rental New
Construct
70 7 7 Life of property Private BMR units
Station Park Green 1
2015
Family Rental New
Construct
121 12 12 Life of property Private BMR units
1110 Cyprus
2016
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab
16 16 16 2071 NP HOME, RDA Successor,
County, Perm loan
Station Park Green 2
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
199 20 20 Life of property Private BMR units
Station Park Green 3
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
172 17 17 Life of property Private BMR units
Windy Hill (405 E 4th
Ave)
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
15 2 2 Life of property Private BMR units
The Addison
2018
Family Rental New
Construct
60 5 5 Life of property Private BMR units
The Morgan
2018
Family Rental New
Construct
82 8 8 Life of property Private BMR units
Windy Hill (406 E 3rd
Ave)
2019
Family Rental New
Construct
25 3 3 Life of property Private BMR units
Montara
2020
Affordable New
Construction
68 67 14 36 17 2072 NP Land lease subsidy, RDA
Successor, LIHTC, County
AHF, County HOME, AHP
Azara
2021
Family Rental New
Construct
73 6 6 Life of property Private BMR units
Totals 4,041 1,303 52 545 111 491 104
Table 2 - City of San Mateo Assisted Ownership Housing
Project & Year
Completed
Total
Units
Total Aff.
Units
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
65%
AMI
80%
AMI
120%
AMI
Affordability
Expiration Financial Assistance
Meadow Court
1987-88 78 70 70
30-40 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
Bought land w/
CDBG; CalHFA
mortgages for
buyers
Gateway Commons
1989 96 93 16 77
30-40 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
Bought land w/
CDBG & RDA;
CalHFA mortgages
for buyers
Summerhill I
1996 54 6 6
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Summerhill II
1997 70 6 6
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Rushmore Townhomes
1998 13 1 1
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Humboldt Square 1998 26 8 8
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
RDA write down of
land
St. Matthews Place
2000 34 5 2 3
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Ryland Homes
2001 153 15 15
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
The Madrid
2000 13 1 1
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Norfolk
2002 57 7 5 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Bay Meadows Mix Use
2003 19 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Classic Communities
2003 25 3 3
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Grant St Condos
2003 17 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Baywood Place
2005 17 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Palm Residences
2007 19 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Stonegate
2007 45 9 9
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Park Bayshore
2008 21 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
The Versailles
2008 61 6 1 5
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Claremont Townhomes
2010 18 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Project & Year
Completed
Total
Units
Total
Aff.
Units
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
65%
AMI
80%
AMI
120%
AMI
Affordability
Expiration Financial Assistance
Arbor Rose
2012-2013 74 7 7
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Verona Ridge
2014 34 3 3
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Amelia
2013-2014 63 6 6
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Lansdowne
2013-2014 93 9 9
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Canterbury
2014-2015 76 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Brightside
2015 80 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Tidelands Mariners
Island
2016
76 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Meadow Walk
2017-2018 74 7 7
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Classics
2017-2018 27 3 3
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Promenade
2017-2018 42 4 4
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Meadow Walk 2
2018 55 6 6
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Totals 1,530 311 0 7 0 23 281
BMR units = Below Market Rate Program
RDA units = Redevelopment Agency-funded
APPENDIX B
CONSTRAINTS
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-B-2
APPENDIX B | CONSTRAINTS
0.1 Table of Content
0.1 Table of Content .................................................................................................................................................... 2
0.2 List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
0.3 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Land Use Controls .................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Planning and Zoning Code ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Specific Plans and Transit Oriented Development ...................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Planned Developments ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Parking Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Program ........................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Building Codes and Code Compliance .................................................................................................................. 15
2.4.1 Local Amendments to State Building Code ................................................................................................. 15
2.4.2 Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Ordinances ............................................................................. 15
2.4.3 Code Compliance......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Infrastructure Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 17
2.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements ........................................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Local Entitlement Fee and Procedure .................................................................................................................. 20
2.7.1 Planning Application Entitlement Fee ......................................................................................................... 20
2.7.2 Planning Application Entitlement Processing Time and Procedure ............................................................ 24
2.7.3 Senate Bill 35 Streamlined Processing ........................................................................................................ 27
2.7.4 Senate Bill 330 Processing Procedure ......................................................................................................... 28
2.7.5 Site Plan and Architectural Review ............................................................................................................. 29
2.7.6 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 31
2.7.7 Special Use Permit Process ......................................................................................................................... 31
2.8 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, and Process .............................................................................. 31
2.8.1 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees .......................................................................................... 31
2.8.2 Building Permit Process ............................................................................................................................... 36
2.9 Housing Special Needs Groups............................................................................................................................. 37
2.9.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities .......................................................................................................... 37
2.9.2 Residential and Family Care Facilities ......................................................................................................... 37
2.9.3 Definition of Family ..................................................................................................................................... 38
2.9.4 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance ..................................................................................................... 38
2.9.5 Emergency Homeless Shelters .................................................................................................................... 39
2.9.6 Zoning Capacity for Emergency Shelters ..................................................................................................... 40
2.9.7 Strategies for Providing Emergency Shelters .............................................................................................. 41
2.9.8 Collaboration with County to Address Homelessness ................................................................................. 41
2.9.9 Low Barrier Navigation Centers .................................................................................................................. 42
2.9.10 Transitional/Supportive Housing ................................................................................................................. 42
2.9.11 Housing for Farmworkers ............................................................................................................................ 43
2.9.12 Accessory Dwelling Units ............................................................................................................................ 43
2.9.13 Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks .......................................................................................... 44 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-B-3
3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................................. 46
3.1 Development Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 46
3.1.1 Availability of Financing............................................................................................................................... 46
3.1.2 Cost of Land ................................................................................................................................................. 46
3.1.3 Constructions Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 47
3.1.4 Labor Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 50
3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application .................................................................. 51
3.2 Requests for Housing Developments at Reduced Densities ................................................................................. 51
3.3 Physical Site Constraints ...................................................................................................................................... 51
3.4 Environmental Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 52
3.4.1 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................................... 52
3.4.2 Topography/Slope ....................................................................................................................................... 52
3.4.3 Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................ 52
3.4.4 Fire Hazards ................................................................................................................................................. 53
3.5 Voter Approved Growth Limits ............................................................................................................................ 55
0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Average Per Unit Cost Construction of New BMR Housing by County (2019) ............................ 50 Figure 2: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas............................................ 54
0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Residential Use Type by Zones ........................................................................................................ 7 Table 2: Residential Development Standards ............................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use ......................................................................... 12 Table 4: Planning Application Fees ............................................................................................................. 21 Table 5: Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit ........................... 22 Table 6: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs .............................................................. 23 Table 7: Planning Application Timelines ..................................................................................................... 26 Table 8: Planning Processing Time (in months) .......................................................................................... 27 Table 9: Building Permit and Impact Fee Estimate (New Construction), 2021........................................... 32
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-B-4
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the constraints analysis section, per Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6), is to identify and analyze governmental and non -governmental factors (constraints) that inhibit the development, improvement or maintenance of housing that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its share of the regional housing needs.
The analysis in this appendix assesses the specific governmental standards and processes; and identifies local efforts to remove these constraints. Examples of such constraints include la nd use controls, development standards, entitlement and permit fees, review processes, and compliance with Federal and State laws intended to facilitate housing for lower-income and special needs households.
Additionally, non-governmental constraints that inhibit the development, improvement or maintenance of housing are evaluated in this document, including the availability of financing, price of land, cost of construction, access to credit, requests to develop housing at reduced densities, and length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development.
The analysis within this appendix has informed the City of San Mateo’s policy approach in the current Housing Element cycle to reduce constraints and make it easier and more affordable to develop housing including housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.
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-B-5
2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Governmental policies and regulations can result in both positive and negative effects on the availability and affordability of housing. This section, as required by Government Code Section (a)(5), describes City policies and regulations that could potentially constrain the City ’s ability to achieve its housing goals.
Potential constraints to housing include zoning regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impact fees, and the development approval processes. While government policies and regulations are intended to serve public objectives and further the public good, the City of San Mateo recognizes that its actions can potentially constrain the availability and affordability of housing to meet the community’s future needs. The City has implement ed several measures to reduce development costs and streamline the approval process, as described in this section.
2.1 Land Use Controls
2.1.1 Planning and Zoning Code
The Zoning Code has the most immediate effect on the built environment. Zoning regulates the use of land and structures, the density of development 0F
1 and population, the height and bulk of structures,
parking provisions, open space requirements, landscaping standards and other design requirements. The City of San Mateo’s Zoning Code has been written to accommodate residential uses throughout the city, as shown in Table 1. This includes single-family housing, multi-family housing, emergency shelters, and senior housing, among other uses. A summary of the City’s residential development standards for all zoning districts is provided as Table 2.
Single-family neighborhoods include the zones R1 -A, R1-B, and R1-C. The R1-A zone consists of the San Mateo Park neighborhood and College of San Mateo campus. These parcels are generally larger in size and have a floor area ratio (FAR) allowance of 0.4 and minimum parc el area of 10,000 square -feet. The R1-B and R1-C zones represent most single-family neighborhoods throughout the city. Both zones have a maximum FAR of 0.5 and the minimum parcel size is 6,000 square-feet for R1-B and 5,000 square-feet for R1-C. Most of th e city’s single -family neighborhoods are developed but the City has seen a significant increase in permit applications for accessory dwelling units since 2020.
A substantial amount of land is zoned for multi -family residential uses, mixed -use residential a nd commercial development. Multi -family uses are concentrated around the Downtown core, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zone, El Camino Real and highway corridors. Commercial (C) and office (E) districts also permit housing development through residenti al overlay zones (/R, /R4, and /R5). Sites located outside the residential overlay zones also allow housing development through a Special Use Permit, as discussed further in Section 2.7.7. There are also special standards to allow increased density
1 The City also has deve lopment restrictions associated with voter-approved Measure Y as described in Section 3.5 of this Appendix.
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-B-6
for senior citizen housing units and for affordable housing projects pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.
The setbacks for multi -family residences are modest and vary by location. Maximum heights range between 35 feet to 55 feet in the R3, R4, R5 and R6 zones , with the downtown zones primarily allowing up to 55 feet. The City does not limit the number of stories in buildings, thus a three-story building is typically allowed under the 35-foot height limit. Open space requirements apply to Multi-family (R3, R4- D, R5-D, R6-D) zones and Residential Overlay (/R, /R4 and /R5) zoning districts. However, this requirement can be provided as private open space, su ch as patios and deck area, or by incorporating public open space, such as common plaza and garden areas, or a combination of both. Additionally, landscaped areas located within the required building setback areas also count towards meeting the open space requirement. The City allows maximum flexibility in meeting these requirements. Concerns were raised regarding open space requirements for multi-family residences located in the R3 zones. However, in review of recently approved projects, staff found that t hese standards do not preclude residential developments. Examples of recently approved projects in the R3 zone include a small three-unit townhome development located on a 7,500 square-feet lot. The project was able to achieve a new three- story, three-bedroom detached townhome proposal under the current standards for parking, open space, density (17 DUA) and building height (35 feet) limitations. The City will continue to evaluate development standards in these districts to encourage Missing Middle housing under Policy H 1.13. In addition, density and floor area ratio increase for larger land areas located within multi-family zoning districts. Multi-family residential density is based on land area and ranges from 17 to 50 dwelling units per net acr e. Projects may also request up to 75 dwelling units per net acre with the City’s Community Benefits Program, as discussed further in the following sections.
Through community outreach conducted for this Housing Element, staff convened a focus-group of local housing developers and architects (Builders Focus Group) to discuss constraints associated with past projects. A key theme that emerged was related to constraints of the City’s existing height limits , floor area definitions, maximum density of 50 dwelli ng units per acre under Measure Y, and design review guidelines that feel subjective . Most projects apply the State Density Bonus in order to exceed existing density and height limitations. The City recognizes these constraints and is in the process of developing Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family housing projects (Housing Policy H 1.18) and evaluating the potential for a joint Density Bonus and Community Benefits Program that provides greater flexibility to developers and enhanced options when projects exceed minimum state requirements for affordability (Policy H 1.3) . Additionally, the City will evaluate and update the zoning code with a focus toward facilitating affordable and Missing Middle housing, reducing constraints on housing and mixed -use developments by updating definitions for floor area, reviewing and modernizing parking and open space requirements, potentially including a minimum housing density requirement, and exploring housing overlay and other development standards applicable to housing and mixed -use developments (Housing Policies H 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 and H 1.13). The City has also included a program to complete the General Plan Update, which is facilitating a community discussion to build consensus around how to best address 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-B-7
the housing constraints that result from the building height and density limits under Measure Y (Housing Policy H 1.21).
Table 1: Residential Use Type by Zones
Residential Use Type Zones
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R4-D R5-D R6-D E1 E2 C1 C2 C3 C4 CBD CBD/S M1 A One-Family Dwelling P P P P P P P P P
Two-Family Dwelling P P P P P P P
Multiple Family
Dwelling P P P P P P P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S P P
One Family Row
Dwelling P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 S1 S1 P1 P1 P1
Accessory Dwelling
Units(1) P P P P P P P P P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Manufactured
Home(2) P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Emergency Shelter P P1
Senior Citizen
Housing(3) S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 Apartment Hotels(4) S S S S P P
Boarding and
Lodging Houses(5) S1 S S S S S S P P P P1 P P
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022
Notes: Blank indicates not permitted; P = Permitted and subject to compliance with development standards; P1 = Permitted and subject to additional regulations; S = Special Use Permit; and S1 = Special Use Permit and subject to additional regulations.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are allowed in all residential zoning districts, including commercial and office districts that contain a residential overlay.
Manufactured Home is defined as a structure designed to be used as a dwelling with or without permanent foundation.
Senior Citizen Housing is subject to a Special Use Permit and standards listed in SMMC 27.61.
Apartment Hotels are intended for permanent guests to reside in individual guest rooms or dwelling units. Kitchen facilities are not required.
Boarding and Lodging Houses are not considered residential care facilities and are defined as “a building where lodging and meals are provided for compensation for residents and do not function as common household.” The R3 district limits boarding and lodging houses to a maximum of 5 person.
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-B-8
Table 2: Residential Development Standards
Zone
District
Max
Number
of Units
Floor Area
Ratio
Max
Height
(1)
Min. Yard Setback Min
Lot Width
Min
Lot Size(2)
Min
Open
Space Front Rear Interior Side Street Side
(Corner Lot)
Residential Districts (Single-Family, Two-Family and Multi-Family) R1-A
1 unit
per lot
0.4(3) 24’ to
plate
line;
32’ to
roof
peak
25’
15’;
25’ above
1st floor
7’ to 10’(4)
15% lot width
(10’ min;
25’ max);
20’ to garage
75’ 10,000 sf
N/A R1-B
0.5(3)
15’;
(20' to
garage)
5’
15% lot width
(7.5’ min;
15’ max);
20’ to garage
60’ 6,000 sf
R1-C 50’ 5,000 sf
R2 2 units
per lot 0.5 to 0.6(5) Same as R1-B 30’ 5,000 sf N/A
R3
17 to 35
units per
net acre
0.85 35’ to
55’
15’;
> 3 stories =
½ bldg ht.;
15’ or equal
to bldg. ht.(6)
15’;
> 3 stories = ½ bldg.
ht. or max 25’(6)
1-2 units = 5’;
>2 units = 6’;
> 2 stories =
½ bldg ht.;
max of 25’(6)
1-2 units = 5’;
> 2 units =
7.5’;
> 2 stories = ½
building ht.
max of 25’(6)
50’ 5,000 sf
200 sf
per
bedroom
for 1st
DU;
100 sf
per
bedroom
for
addition
al DU
R4 17 to 50
units per
net acre
1.5 N/A R5 2.0
Downtown Residential Districts
R4-D 17 to 50
units per
net acre
3.0;
45% max.
lot cover 35’ to
55’ 15’ to 20’(7)
25’ or 25% of lot
width, whichever is
greater; 40’ max
15’ 15'
50’
5,000
sf(8)
Private =
80 sf/du;
or
Common
= 150%
of
Private
R5-D 3.0
25’ R6-D
50 units
per net
acre
3.0;
55% max.
lot cover
N/A
Commercial, Office Districts with Residential Overlay(9) C1 17 to 50
units per
net acre 0.5 to 3.0(10)
25’ to
55’
R3 zone standards apply for /R, /R4 and /R5 overlays;
Buffers required for parcels adjacent to residential parcels or with frontage on El Camino Real(11)
50’ 5,000 sf
Private =
80 sf/du
Common
= 150%
of
Private
C2
C3
CBD 50 units
per net
acre CBD-S
E1 17 to 50
units per
net acre
0.4 to 3.0(10);
65% max.
lot cover
15’ along any street frontage and any required buffers(12) E2
0.5 to 3.0(10);
80% max.
lot cover
7.5’ along any street frontage and any required buffers(12) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Zone
TOD
(Rail
Corridor
Plan)
25 to 50
units per
net acre
2.0 to 3.0
35’ to
55’ N/A
N/A N/A N/A
TOD
(Hillsdale
Station)
1.0 to 2.0
40’ to
55’
See Hillsdale Station Area Plan for El Camino Real
setback and streetscape standards(13)
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-B-9
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.
1. Building height shall not exceed the standards set forth on the Building Height Plan of the General Plan. Parcels located within the Downtown Specific Plan area shall not exceed the standards set forth in Chapter 27.40.
2. For all zones except the Downtown Residential, a reduced minimum parcel area of 4,000 square -feet and 40’ lot width is permitted for a parcel located northeast of El Camino Real and recorded prior to March 3, 1947.
3. In the R1 zones, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is determined by the following: R1 -A allows 0.4 FAR for the first 10,000 square-feet of parcel area plus 0.2 for any additional parcel area over 10,000 square -feet; and R1-B and R1-C allow 0.5 FAR for the first 6,000 square-feet of parcel area plus 0.2 FAR for any additional parcel area over 6,000 square -feet. However, in no case shall the maximum FAR exceed 6,000 square-feet total.
4. R1A zone parcels in the San Mateo Park Planning Area require an interior side yard setback of 7’ for lot widths less than 75’ or 10’ for lot widths equal to or greater than 75’.
5. R2 zone parcels located in the Central Neighborhood and North Central Neighborhood shall not exceed 0.5 FAR for parcels up to 7,500 square feet and 0.6 FAR for parcels greater than 7,500 square feet.
6. For R3, R4, and R5 zone properties along El Camino real from 9th Ave. south to the City limits, buildings over 2 stories in height shall provide a minimum 10’ setback from El Camino Real. Properties abutting an R1 or R2 zone require additional setbacks of 15’ or ½ the building height, whichever is greater. Special downtown yard requirements are provided within
27.22.095, 27.22.097, 27.28.023, 27.28.053.
7. Downtown Residential zoned properties (R4 -D, R5-D, R6-D) within the Gateway area, as defined in the Downtown Specific Plan, shall conform with the building height and special yard requirements within Sections 27.28.023 and 27.28.053.
8. In the Downtown Residential Zones (R4-D, R5-D, R6-D), a reduced minimum parcel area of 4,400 square-feet and 40’ lot width is permitted for a parcel located northeast of El Camino Real and recorded prior to March 3, 1947.
9. Residential units permitted on parcels designated with a residential overlay district (/R, /R4, /R5 or /Q) for all C and E districts.
10. Residential development may exceed the floor area ratio of the underlying district provided that the maximum floor area ratio, including the residential overlay, shall not exceed the following: 2.0 FAR in /R4 districts; 3.0 FAR in /R5 dis tricts; and the underlying zoning district FAR in /R districts.
11. Commercial zones (C1, C2, and C3) require additional buffers, setback and built -to-line standards as described in Sections
27.30.060, 27.30.070, 27.32.060, 27.32.070, 27.34.060, 27.34.070, 27.38.100, 27.38.120, 27.39.090 and 27.39.110.
12. E1 and E2 zones require buffers when the parcel is contiguous to any residential district as described in Sections 27.44.090 and 27.48.100.
13. Hillsdale Station Area Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/59484/Hillsdale-Station-Area-Plan
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-B-10
2.1.2 Specific Plans and Transit Oriented Development
The City of San Mateo uses Specific Plans to facilitate a diversity of housing opportunities not allowed under standard zoning districts. 1F
2 This allows greater flexibility in design and facilitates larger housing developments. Examples of specific plans include Bay Meadows and the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD), as described further below.
The Bay Meadows Specific Plan (BMSP), first adopted in 1997, envisioned redevelopment of the former horse racetrack into a vibrant, transit oriented, mixed -use community. The plan permitted a variety of housing types that includes live -work units, small lot single -family dwellings, townhouse units, multi - family residential units and accessory dwelling units. Today, Bay Meadows is largely built -out with housing, office, and commercial uses, as well as improved vehicular, pe destrian and bicycle circulation throughout the plan area.
The San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan was adopted in 2005 to incentivize transit supportive land uses and housing policies near the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain Stations.
The Plan provides for mixed use development at the highest residential densities and building heights near the train stations to encourage a vibrant, transit oriented, and pedestrian friendly environment.
Building upon these efforts, the city al so adopted the Hillsdale Station Area Plan in 2011 to establish a TOD zone west of the Hillsdale Caltrain station. The Plan allows high -density multi-family housing that range between 25 to 50 units per net acre, as well as mixed -use buildings with ground floor retail combined with residential or office uses. This Plan compliments the Bay Meadows development by concentrating density on both sides of the Hillsdale station. Major development projects that have been approved in the plan areas include Station Park Green and Concar Passage, located near the Hayward Park Caltrain station.
2.1.3 Planned Developments
The purpose of Planned Development (PD) is to allow greater flexibility of site design while also preserving the natural, scenic environment. Under Chapter 27.62 of the Zoning Code, PD projects are processed under a Special Use Permit and may be approved if projects demonstrate that deviating from the underlying zone’s development standards will result in better site design. PD regulations emphasize preserving open space and recreation areas at a minimum of 6 acres per 1,000 population. Most of the City’s PD projects occurred in the 1980s, when larger vacant lands were available. The most recently approved PD is the Waters Technology Office Park in 2019, which redeveloped an existing 11.1 acre office park with 190 new dwelling units, including 19 Below Market Rate (BMR) units that are affordable at the low, lower or moderate income levels.
2 The City’s Specific Plan documents are available online: www.cityofsanmateo.org/1135/Planning-Resource-Documents 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-B-11
2.1.4 Parking Standards
Parking requirements for residential development are summarized in Table 3 and vary by residential use type. The City also allows reduced parking requirements for new residential uses located within a parking assessment and special district. The Central Parking Improvement District (CPID) includes the downtown and allows developments to pay in -lieu fees for required parking not provided on site. Additionally, the CPID allows projects to conduct a parking demand study to determine a lower, project -specific parking standard.
The San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit -Oriented Development Plan requires Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for all new development projects located within TOD zones. Parking requirements are generally reduced in conjunction with transit -oriented development projects. This allows projects to implement trip reduction goals with minimal automobile traffic impacts. Within the TOD zone, the Hillsdale Station Area Plan specifies the reduced parking ratios as provided in Table 3.
Consistent with State law, the city allows reduced parking standards of 0.5 to 1 stall per unit for affordable or senior housing projects located near transit. No additional parking is required for accessory dwelling units located within a quarter mile of transit.
While state laws provide parking relief for projects seeking density bonus, ADUs, and SB 9, the City’s parking requirements present some constraint to the development of housing that do not fall within this category. For example, m ulti-family residential projects located outside t he TOD and Central Parking Improvement Districts are subject to standard off-street parking requirements of 1.5 stall to 2.2 stalls per unit. As shown in Table 3, t his requirement varies by unit type and size and is inclusive of residents and visitors. Additionally, at least one of the required stalls per unit shall be covered within a garage or carport structure. Staff have identified this as a constraint that may limit a project’s proposed dwelling unit mix and ability to achieve the maximum base density. The City will be evaluating all its parking requirements for residential projects to allow increased flexibility and evaluate if the minimum requirements need to be modified, as described in Policy H 1.7.
At the Builders Focus Group2F
3, participants commented that existing parking requirements often constrain project feasibility due to development costs and floor area limitations for above -grade parking facilities.
Recognizing these constraints, the City is currently evaluating code amendments to allow automated and mechanical parking facilities for multi -family or mixed -use residential projects. This allows larger residential projects to utilize land more efficiently and avoid high costs associated with underground parking facilities. More recently, the State passed AB 2097, which goes into effect January 1, 2023 and removes minimum parking requirements for any residential, commercial, or other development projects located within one-half of major transit.
3 Builders Focus Group: On November 15, 2021, Staff convened a focus group of local developers to discuss and solicit feedb ack on policies and programs to increase ease of constructing new housing. Meeting notes and summary are available in Appendix F.
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-B-12
Table 3: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use
Minimum Parking Spaces per Unit
Residential Use All TOD - Hillsdale Station Area Central Parking Improvement District (CPID)
Single-Family, Detached 2 enclosed garage spaces, plus 1 space per 750 sq. ft. over 3,000 sq. ft.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Maximum 1, where required; uncovered parking allowed Multi-Family Uses (minimum of 1 covered stall per unit) Studio 1.5 1.0 1.2
1 Bedroom 1.8 1.2 1.5
2 Bedroom 2.0 1.5 1.7
3 Bedroom or more 2.2 1.8 2.0
1,400 sq. ft. or more,
regardless of # bedroom 2.2 N/A N/A
Senior Citizen Housing 0.25 space per rental unit; 1.0 space per for-sale unit Source: City of San Mateo Zoning Code, 2022.
2.2 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Program
The City originally adopted the Below Market Rate (BMR) Inclusionary Program in 1992 (with subsequent revisions in 2010 and 2020), requiring developments to provide a certain percentage of housing units at prices affordable to low- and very low-income households. Under the current program, effective February 3, 2020 for developments consisting of 11 or more units, 15 percent of ownership units are required to be affordable to moderate income families, and 15 percent of rental units are required to be affordable to low-income families.
Inclusionary zoning programs – of which the City’s local BMR program is one variant – are sometimes perceived as adding to the cost of housing by requiring the market -rate units to subsidize the affordable units. This is an area of much dispute, both in the Bay Area and nationally. A study conducted by the National Housing Conference’s (NHC) Center for Housing Policy (2000 ) highlighted several important contributions to inclusionary zoning to communities, not the least of which is the c reation of income - integrated communities without sprawl. Several studies specifically address the issue of who pays for inclusionary zoning.
Some of these studies assert that the costs associated with inclusionary programs are passed on to the market priced homes, while other studies state that the cost is not borne by the end users at all. A study from 2004 asserts that market -rate buyers (and to some extent, renters) will be forced to pay higher amounts than they otherwise would for their units because of inclusionary zoning’s implicit tax on other units3F
4. However, an article published in the Hastings School of Law Review in 20024F 5 noted that ultimately,
the price for a unit is dependent on what the market will bear based on the land price which over t ime
4 Reason Foundation (Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham) , Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? (April 2004), https://reason.org/policy-study/housing-supply-and-affordabili/, Accessed on April 1, 2022 5 Barbara Ehrlich Kautz, In Defense of Inclusionary Housing: Succ essfully Creating Affordable Housing , 2002. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=usflawreview Accessed on April 1, 2022.
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-B-13
absorbs the increased costs of development within the community; it is not directly affected by the affordability requirement. Developers can charge market rate rents and sales prices on the unrestricted units regardless of the development costs. Although the BMR program does impact the developer’s profit, it is difficult to determine at what point those impacts are great enough to discourage the project from moving forward or decreasing the number of units on a site. Jurisdictions implement a number of incentives and cost benefits to mitigate these impacts so that whatever constraint has been identified, there is an offset offered to mitigate it.
Specifically in San Mateo, developers are given the option of utilizing the City’s Interim Community Benefits Program or the state Density Bonus program that provides up to a 35 percent increase in units in exchange for additional affordable units in the BMR program plus 1 to 4 development concessions depending on the level of affordability of the housing units provided. The City has also revised its BMR requirements over the years to include more flexibility in the size and amenities of the affordable units to help offset some of the costs to the developer and has identified several development standards that could be modified using incentives without causing public health and safety impacts. The City, under the current Housing Element cycle, will also be updating its BMR requirements to provide developers with an alternative means of compliance to provide additional flexibility (see Policy H 1.3).
Therefore, the City has considered the pros and cons of providing affordable housing through the City’s BMR program and has determined that the benefits far outweigh the costs, especially since developers are afforded incentives to mitigate the costs.
2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance
State law (California Government Code, section s 65915-65918) requires cities and counties to approve density bonuses for housing developments that contain specified percentages of affordable housing units or units restricted to occupancy by seniors. A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Projects that qualify for density bonus are also eligible for reduced parking standards, additional concessions or incentives that provide “identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs”, or waivers from developme nt standards that would physically preclude the project at proposed densities. The legislature has made frequent changes to State density bonus law over the years. Assembly Bill (AB) 1763, passed in 2019, significantly increased density bonus provisions for 100 percent affordable projects to 80 percent, including allowing for additional 33 feet or 3 stories of height, and up to four concessions. AB 2345, in 2021, also allows for 50% density bonus to be granted to housing projects consisting of a mix of affo rdable and market-rate homes, up from the previous maximum 35 percent density bonus for mixed income developments; lowers some thresholds for obtaining incentives and concessions from local jurisdictions, and adopts density bonus reporting requirements. Both these bills also further reduced parking requirements for many projects qualifying for a density bonus.
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-B-14
The City’s density bonus law is outlined in Chapter 27.15 of the Zoning Code. The code was last updated in 2018 and does not reflect the recent chan ges in State law. As describe d in Housing Element Policy H
1.3, the City will update its density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law requirements, and further streamline and incentivize projects that exceed minimum state requirements by combining it with the Community Benefits Program. The Community Benefits Program would layer additional benefits above and beyond the minimums allowed under state density bonus law. For example, under a community benefits program, an applicant can avail themselves of higher densities up to 75 dwelling units per acre in certain areas of the City. By layering state density bonus law provision on top of the community benefits program, an applicant could potentially further exceed the density caps under Measure Y. As part of the program, t he City will explore incentives or concessions that may be available to applicants who provide community benefits to address the most critical needs in terms of types of housing units; or projects that further AFFH objectives.
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-B-15
2.4 Building Codes and Code Compliance
Building codes apply to all dwellings and include plumbing, mechanical, electrical installations and accessibility and energy compliance. Building codes ensure that development is constructed in compliance with applicable code standards to protect general welfare and public health. The City of San Mateo requires all new development to comply with the California 2019 Building Standards Code that went into effect Januar y 1, 2020. Building code amendments and City code compliance practices are described below.
2.4.1 Local Amendments to State Building Code
On September 3, 2019, the City of San Mateo adopted mandatory local green building and energy code amendments, also known as reach codes. These reach codes went into effect on January 1, 2020, concurrent with the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and apply to new construction and rehabilitation of housing projects. Local building code amendments are found in Chapter 23 of the San Mateo Municipal Code. These local code amendments are not considered onerous to the cost or construction of housing, as analyzed in the Cost -Effectiveness Studies released by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Program.5F
6 2.4.2 Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Ordinances The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies building electrification and electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure as key strategies in reducing gree nhouse gas emissions (GHGs). On October 5, 2020, the City adopted an ordinance to require all new residential buildings and office buildings to be all -electric.
Applicable residential building types include new single-family and two-family dwellings, as well as multi- family buildings and accessory dwelling units. Building electrification costs for installation and utility are generally lower than natural gas devices and infrastructure, leading to overall cost saving benefits in the long term.
The City amended its Green Building Ordinance in 2020 to mandate electric vehicle (EV) charging capacity for new developments. New single -family and two -family dwellings, as well as town houses require a complete EV outlet. New multi -family buildings are required to pro vide 15 percent EV capable spaces.
Requiring EV ready spaces at the onset of new construction provides significant cost reduction, when compared to retrofits to add EV capacity later. Collectively, these measures are not considered constraints and have abi lity to significantly reduce GHGs from the built environment, lower construction costs and improve air quality and public health.
6 Cost-Effectiveness Studies, 2021: https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/jurisdiction/san-mateo-city/
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-B-16
2.4.3 Code Compliance
Building, Zoning, and other related code standards are enforced through the Code Enforcement Division.
The City's code enforcement program is an important tool to maintain existing housing stock and protect residents from unsafe or substandard building conditions. Local enforcement includes state and federal codes that set minimum health and safety standards for buildings. Like many jurisdictions, the City of San Mateo responds to code violations largely on a complaint basis. The City aims to address all alleged violations in a timely manner, with priority given to violations that pose the most imminent th reat to health and safety or the environment.
To minimize displacement associated with substandard dwellings, the City’s tenant relocation ordinance requires property owners to provide relocation assistance and payments when tenants are displaced from unsafe or substandard units. The City also requires discretionary review for projects requesting to demolish 50 percent or more of an existing residential structure. To encourage rehabilitation of existing dwellings, the City offers a Housing Rehabilitation Loan program to assist low-income homeowners with needed repairs. This program includes services to correct code violations and general property improvements related to deferred maintenance. This approach allows the city to identify housing problems early on , before requiring more extensive repairs or demolition in some case. Therefore, the City’s code enforcement practices and regulations are not considered additional constraints to the provision of housing.
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-B-17
2.5 Infrastructure Requirements
Various City departments implement on- and off-site improvement requirements, including standards for street construction, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, on -street parking and bicycle lanes. Residential development may also necessitate constructing water, sewer, and drain age improvements. All improvements are generally required as conditions of approval and are developer financed. Complying with certain infrastructure improvements may be perceived as a constraint on the provision of housing for all income levels.
For infill projects, the City’s Municipal Code requires the construction of standard improvements that may include repair of defective sidewalks, construction of standard driveways, and maneuvering areas to ensure that the public’s access to/from and around the site is safe and meets Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. In cases where a project is proposing to remove and replace full -street or alley frontages to accommodate the project’s desired site layout, and where access is necessary for emergency egress and ingress, the City’s Municipal Code also requires dedication of an access easement to ensure access is not blocked and is maintained. The City’s Planning Commission and City Council may review and approve exceptions from City’s Municipal Code requirem ents or standards based on hardship considerations on a case-by-case basis. For example, San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.78 Variance allows deviations from standard number of parking spaces and stall dimensions, number of loading spaces and shared load ing zones, and other requirements for infill and other projects. A developer could also request concessions or waivers from such requirements if proposing projects that utilize density bonus provisions.
Although infrastructure requirements represent a cos t to developing housing, these improvement standards are intended to ensure the public’s safe access and meet ADA requirements, and are not unreasonable nor do they represent a significant constraint. However, the City recognizes there are issues with infrastructure adequacy in certain areas of the City, including infill areas with aging infrastructure.
These infrastructure deficiencies are a recognized constraint for infill development in the City.
Additionally, there are Housing Element programs that are designed to help fund infrastructure capital improvement projects in low-income neighborhoods to address infrastructure inequalities. One Example is the North Central Bike Lanes Project which received funding from the federal Community Development Block G rant (CDBG) to implement pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the North Central neighborhood which is an identified disadvantaged community.
In addition to the above, the City continues to collaborate with regional agencies on infrastructure projects or adaptation strategies intended to address impacts due to climate change. Portions of the City, primarily east of Highway 101 and a portion of the North Central neighborhood, are located in the flood zone and projected to be impacted by sea level rise in fu ture years. The City has initiated infrastructure projects such as the North Shoreview Flood Improvement Project which will provide improvements to the Coyote Point and Poplar Avenue Pump Stations to increase pump capacity and raise a 1,300 -foot levee segment located between the San Mateo and Burlingame border off Airport Boulevard. Construction began in September 2020 and is anticipated to continue through 2022. While regional collaborations on
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-B-18
infrastructure projects and other adaptation strategies are ne cessary to address impacts due to climate change, the actual funding for infrastructure improvement projects come from a variety of sources including federal or state grants, local bonds, taxes, as well as, contribution from new developments in the form of impact fees. The impact fees paid by new developments may be perceived as a constraint; however, the City’s impacts fees are determined based on the project’s proportionate share of infrastructure projects, or the nexus, and vetted through a public proces s. The City hires professional consultants to evaluate permit and impact fees; and holds public meetings to obtain input prior to updating fees. The most recent Development Impact Fee Study was completed in 2021, and following multiple public meetings, the updated fees were incorporated into the Comprehensive Fee Schedule in November 2021. As the City periodically evaluates and updates its fees through a public process that includes ensuring appropriate nexus, the City’s fees are not generally viewed as a c onstraint. The City’s Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.18) to ensure the City continues to periodically review and update planning entitlement, building permit and impact fees consistent with AB 6026F
7. 2.6 On - and Off -Site Improvements
As the City is entirely built -out, new developments are not required to comp lete vast infrastructure improvements as may be needed in more rural communities. Most new housing development occurs on existing lots that are already served by an existing network of streets and utility infrastructure.
The City has adopted on-site and off-site improvement requirements as codified in the City’s Municipal Code, and in citywide infrastructure plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan. Additionally, the City’s Department of Public Works has developed detailed engineering standards that work in combination with the Municipal Code and adopted plans to help ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained, and adequate levels of street improvements are provided. Per t hese adopted plans and standards, right of way widths in the majority of the city are already established and vary depending upon the street typology (i.e. freeways, arterials, collectors and local street as defined in the City’s General Plan).
The most c ommon improvements for a typical new residential development include: upgrading sewer mains as needed if they are aged or insufficient to meet needed capacity due to the new development ; upgrading water mains as needed if they are aged or insufficient to meet fire safety requirements ; restoration of streets surrounding the development site; and reconstruction of frontages when necessary to accommodate the new development project. New subdivisions are required to construct sidewalks if none exist and where there are e xisting sidewalks, the sidewalks are evaluated and required to meet current sidewalk standards including meeting requirements for disabled access (ADA requirements). New subdivisions that include new travel lanes within the project site are required to provide a minimum lane width of no less than 11 feet to ensure safe through traffic movement for vehicles, and sidewalks are
7AB 602, September 29, 2021: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB602 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-B-19
required to be no less than five feet to ensure safe pedestrian access as well as meeting ADA requirements.
For infill developments, exceptions may be reviewed and considered by the city’s Director of Public Works on a case -by-case basis as part of the city’s development review pro cess provided that the alternative design meets the city’s findings for safety and meets ADA requirements. The street design guidelines and standards have a potential to affect housing costs; however, they are necessary to provide a minimum level of design and construction quality in the City’s neighborhoods, ensure the community’s ability to access housing developments and maneuver around it on safe surfaces, and meet ADA requirements.
From an equity standpoint, the minimum standards help to ensure that improvements are of a consistent quality regardless of the average income in the neighborhood. The on- and off -site improvement standards imposed by the City are typical for most communities and do not pose unusual constraints for housing development. While these improvements may increase the cost of development, it is important to note that adequate sewer, water , street and accessible sidewalk infrastructure are a necessary component of a healthy, equitable and productive city. Additionally, conditions of approval to complete on and off-site improvements are provided to applicants in a timely manner and do not have a significant impact on project timing.
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-B-20
2.7 Local Entitlement Fee and Procedure
The development application and environmental review process necessary to obtain appropriate entitlements and a building permit may significantly affect the cost of a project, both in processing fees and time. San Mateo’s planning application fees and proc ess was updated in 2020 -2021 to reduce inefficiencies, minimize project delays and provide transparency for the applicant and public. Consistent with Government Code 65940.1(a)(1), the City posts on its website a current schedule of fees, exactions, all zoning and development standards, inclusionary requirements and other requirements imposed by the City that are applicable to proposed housing developments.8 Additionally, the development review process in San Mateo has been structured to minimize processing delay, while providing opportunities for public input. H owever, the Builders Focus Group 7F 9 identified the
pre-application processing time for large projects , specifically the non -SB330 Pre-Application for large projects, as a constraint. The discussion in the process section below provides additional background and status of changes being made to address this constraint.
2.7.1 Planning Application Entitlement Fee
At the planning stage, projects are subject to planning fees shown in the following table ( Table 4), in addition to building and impact fees discussed in Section 2.8 . The City Council Resolution directs that planning application charges reflect the actual costs of staff time spent on each project and all direct costs associated with the processing of the application including, but not limited to: initial review, project routing, site visits, letters to applicants, review of revisions, coordination with other departments and agencies, public outreach, preparation of staff reports, legal noticing, public meetings/hearings and costs for technical consultants. The City posts a current Comprehensive Fee Schedule on its website that includes all planning application, building permit and impact fees (refer to links in section 2.7 above).
Planning Application fee deposits for residential developments are listed in Table 4 and vary by approval body. Planning applications reviewed by the Zoning Administrator include parcel maps, housing development projects proposing up to six -units, and Variances and Special Use Permits for minor site improvements and single-family or duplex dwellings, as identified in Section 27.06.020 of the City of San Mateo Municipal Code (Municipal Code). No public hearing is required for Zoning Administrator decisions unless an appeal is filed for the project . The majority of housing development projects heard at the Planning Commission level are proposing over six -units and/or requesting entitlements for subdivision (tentative maps), Variances and Special Use Permits identified in Section 27.06.040 of the Municipal Code.
8 Comprehensive Fee Schedule, City of San Mateo, accessed December 16, 2022: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/FeeSchedule; Zoning Code, City of San Mateo, accessed December 16, 2022: https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code; Inclusionary (Below Market Rate ) Requirements, d evelopment standards and other development related resources, accessed December 16, 2022: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1135/Planning-Resource-Documents. 9 Builders Focus Group: On November 15, 2021, Staff convened a focus group of local developers to discuss and solicit feedback on policies and programs to increase ease of constructing new housing. Meeting notes and summary are available in Appendix F.
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-B-21
Projects heard at City Council level are those requesting entitlements for Planned Development amendments, zone changes, General Plan amendments and/or height concessions that exceed the limits set by Measure Y.
Costs associated with processing planning applications will vary between development projects due to variations in project complexity. While much of the cost of development is born by the applicant, the City has in the last 20 years systematically re -evaluated and explored alternative fee structures, and development processes with the goal of streamlining processes and achieving cost efficiencies. Most recently, in 2021, the City conducted an evaluation of total costs for planning applications processed at different approval levels (i.e. Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council). The evaluation considered initial deposits, number of invoices, staff time, project delays and total costs associated with the processing of sample projects. It found that project delays and unnecessary staff time was spent seeking additional funds from applicants, some resulting in processing delays of several months due to lack of payment. Following the evaluation, the city consolidated the planning entitlement fees to require a larger initial deposit which was based on an average of similar projects in previous years. In the eight months since the new fee adoption, staff has seen a reduction in t ime spent processing invoices and payments, and there are no project delays due to lack of funds.
Table 4: Planning Application Fees
PLANNING APPLICATION DEPOSIT/FEE TYPE REQUIRED DEPOSIT or
FLAT FEE AMOUNT
Planning Application for single-family and up to 6 units (Zoning Administrator) $4,000
Planning Application for SB 330 and other than single-family (Zoning Administrator) $6,000
Planning Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments with 20 units or less (Planning Commission) $10,000
Planning Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments over 20 units (Planning Commission) $50,000
Planning Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments over 20 units (Planning Commission and City Council) $100,000
Large Project Non-SB330 Pre-Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments over 20 dwelling units (Planning Commission study session) $25,000 Planning Application for Day Care Facilities which require a Special Use Permit (Planning Commission)
$2,000
(flat fee)
Environmental Review (CEQA) Categorical or Statutory Exemption $500 Initial Study / Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration Actual Cost Initial Study / Environmental Impact Review (EIR) Actual Cost Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.
Notes:
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-B-22
Fee deposit at application includes concurrent processing of multiple planning approvals, environmental exemption, reviews by development review departments (including: planning, building, fire, public works, police, arborist and parks departments).
Consistent with City Council resolution, if the total deposit is not expended when the final decision is made, the balance is refunded to the applicant. Additionally, exceptions for the initial deposit can be made to the Director of Community Development and considered on a case-by-case basis.
Day Care Facilities means “any facility which provides non-medical care to persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a 24-hour basis” (SMMC 27.04.030).
Table 5: Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit Single Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit
Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $36,590 $17,030
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $104,241 No Data $28,699
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data
Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data
Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data
Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data
Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $17,913
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Carlos $72,046 $29,137 $18,182
San Mateo $89,003 $60,728 $41,547
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $15,088 $3,344
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
Source: 21 Elements Survey and Century Urban Report on Big Picture Summary, Updated July 10, 2022:
http://21elements.com/constraints
The jurisdiction-imposed fees represent a small percentage of the overall cost to develop new housing.
However, if a jurisdiction’s fees are significantly higher than neighboring or p eer jurisdictions, the fees could have the impact of discouraging projects within the jurisdiction. With the high cost of construction in recent years, it is difficult for moderate - or low-income housing to be profitable. High fees can be a constraint to housing development. This is particularly challenging for deed restricted affordable housing developers.
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-B-23
Most, if not all, developers consider any fee a constraint to the development of affordable housing. For 100% affordable housing projects, financing g enerally includes some form of state, federal or local assistance, with rents set through the funding program. As such, fees cannot and do not increase the rents. Although various fees account for a portion of the development cost, the fees collected are necessary to pay for much needed infrastructure and to help mitigate new growth throughout the City.
Out of the jurisdictions that provided data, the City’s fees are the third highest for single -family development (out of 19 jurisdictions), the fourth high est for small multifamily development (out of 15 jurisdictions) and the second highest (out of 12 jurisdictions). If fees (per dwelling unit) are higher for multi-family construction than for single-family construction within a jurisdiction, this could be seen as a constraint on naturally affordable multi-family housing and a fair housing issue. This is not the case in San Mateo. Fees for both small and large multi -family developments are lower than for single -family development as shown below.
Table 6: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs Single family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family
Atherton 0% No Data No Data
Brisbane 1% 1% No Data
Burlingame 3% 4% 3%
Colma 0% 4% 2%
Daly City 1% 4% 2%
East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4%
Foster City 3% 6% 2%
Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data
Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data
Millbrae 2% 8% 7%
Pacifica 1% 5% No Data
Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data
Redwood City 1% 2% 2%
San Bruno 2% 8% 5%
San Carlos 3% 4% 3%
San Mateo 3% 7% 5%
South San Francisco 3% 9% 4%
Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 2% 0%
Woodside 2% 9% No Data
Source: 21 Elements Survey and Century Urban Report on Big Picture Summary, Updated July 10, 2022:
http://21elements.com/constraints
Note: Calculations use average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county.
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-B-24
2.7.2 Planning Application Entitlement Processing Time and Procedure Development review procedures exist to ensure that proposals for new residential development comply with local regulat ions and are compatible with adjacent land uses. The development review process in San Mateo has been structured to minimize processing delay, while providing opportunities for public input. This is accomplished in multiple ways: processing time and processing goals.
Processing Time
During the discretionary review process, the final approval body determines the action on development proposals by making the appropriate findings. These findings are based primarily on conformance to the City’s General Plan an d Municipal Code, and environmental review is based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Typical City of San Mateo findings by permit type for residential uses are discussed further in the following sections 2.7.5 through 2.7.7. If a development proposal meets the required findings for approval, the City’s Municipal Code directs that the project shall be approved.
Review times differ on a project-by-project basis depending on the type and complexity of the project as shown in Table 5, no distinction is made for projects with or without affordable housing units. As codified in the City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 27.06), the Zoning Administrator has authority to approve single-family projects, which typically takes 2 – 5 months, and multi-family development projects with up to six-units, including any associated Variances and Parcel Maps; with typical reviews between 2-7 months, depending on project complexity.
Planning Commission has authority to approve multi-family development projects with more than six - units, including associated Variances, Tentative Maps, some Special Use Permits. The typical review period for a Planning Commission-level project is between 9-12 months.
Development projects that rise to City Council -level are those that require rezoning, General Plan Amendment, Planned Developments, Special Use Permit or height concessions that exceed Measure Y limits for high-rise buildings, and for projects that are ful ly or partially funded by the City. The typical review period for a City Council-level project is between 9-13 months.
In addition to the formal planning application process, since 1990s, the City has required a non-SB 330 pre-application planning process (Pre-Application) for large projects, including multi-family projects with over 20 units. This requires applicants to hold meetings with neighborhood residents and a design focused study session with the Planning Commission to allow for early input on the design of a project before submitting a formal planning application. While this process adds additional time at the early stages of a development, the applicant obtains public comments and direction from the Planning Commission, which helps to expedite the review during the formal planning application process.
The Builders Focus G roup discussion included feedback on the City’s Pre-Application process. While developers generally appreciated the opportunity to obtain early feedback and direction on project scope and design before they expend resources in developing plans for the formal planning application submittal, some commented that the requests to revise concep tual plans during the Pre -Application 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-B-25
process added time to the process. In response, t he City held a Planning Commission study session meeting in February 2022 to discuss ways to streamline and improve the Pre-Application process to reduce processing time s from 6-9+ months to 3 -4 months , and to focus the plan requirements and materials necessary to complete the process . Staff implemented the improvements immediately, resulting in a shorter average review time of 4 months for all Pre -Applications submitted in 2022. When the average 4-month pre-application is added to the 9 -13 month process time for multi -family development projects , the overall process time is between 13 -17 months. Since the Pre -Application process was established via City Council resolution, revisions/changes to the process will require City Council approval, which is targeted for Council consideration in 2023/2024.
Processing Goals
From an implementation standpoint, the City has internal goals for processing time associated with formal planning application development projects that are tracked and reported on a quarterly basis . When a developer has submitted all application materials, including any studies required for CEQA, the following timelines are targeted: 24 calendar days for Zoning Administrator decisions; 40 calendar days for Planning Commission decisions for projects that are exempt from CEQA; 60 calendar days for projects r equiring Negative Declarations; and 90 calendar days for projects requiring approval by the City Council. The internal processing target for Pre-Applications is four months.
The City uses an efficient and comprehensive approach toward development review and permitting that allows for quick response to developer applications. The City uses many practices to expedite formal planning application processing, reduce costs, and clarify the process to developers and homeowners.
Increased development costs resulting from delays in the City’s formal planning application review, public hearing, and permitting process are not considered a constraint on housing development, although there may be room for further streamlining and improvements . The City’s development rev iew process as a whole is not generally viewed as a constraint to the development of housing because the City has consistently demonstrated its willingness to receive feedback, be pro-active in re-evaluating and making adjustments to streamline its processes. Further descriptions of permits and their processing procedures are provided in the following subsections.
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-B-26
Table 7: Planning Application Timelines
Application Type Approval Body Estimated Time from Application Date to Approval Date (months)
Single-Family Dwelling Unit Zoning Administrator 2-5
Residential Development with or without Tentative
Parcel Maps (6 units or less) Zoning Administrator 4-7 Residential Development with or without with
Tentative Maps (more than 6 units) Planning Commission 9-12 Residential Development needing Special Use
Permit Planning Commission 9-12
Residential Development as a Planned
Development (reduced setbacks, reduced parking,
increased floor area,
Planning Commission and
City Council 9-13
General Plan Amendment Planning Commission and
City Council 9-13
Residential Development with Environmental
Impact Report
Planning Commission or
City Council 9-13
Residential Development with Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planning Commission or
City Council 9-13
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.
To facilitate the application and processing of planning applications, and provide transparency of the planning application entitlement process, the City posts all zoning and development standards and other development related resources on its website (refer to links in section 2.7 above). This includes, but is not limited to , the entire municipal code including the zoning code, various development standards, application guides, FAQs, and informational handouts. The City maintains and updates these documents and website regularly.
Long permitting processing times, or permit processes that have a high degree of uncertainty (i .e. discretionary reviews or processes with multiple public meetings) increase the cost of housing development for developers, either by increasing their carrying costs as they wait for permits, or by increasing the chance that a project will be rejected after a long wait. A developer working in a jurisdiction with such a permitting process will demand higher profits to account for the increased risk, thereby increasing the overall development cost.
The City participated in a countywide study with jurisdictions reporting their process times for housing projects - 18 jurisdictions in the County provided data. The City’s processing time for single -family is between 2 -5 months and does not require a public hearing which is the third lowest (out of 10 jurisdictions). The City ’s processing time of 9 -12 months for multi -family development projects that require Planning Commission review is the fifth highest (out of 16 jurisdictions); however, it is similar to four other jurisdictions in the County.
Large multi-family development projects that are over 20 units require a non-SB 330 pre-application which takes an average of 4 months . When combined with the 9-13 month process time, the overall process time is 13 -17 months. This is on -par with other jurisdictions in the County that process similar scale 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-B-27
development projects such as Redwood City and San Bruno. A permitting process that is more onerous or uncertain for multi -family units than for single -family may present a fair housin g concern and could be considered a constraint on multi-family housing. In San Mateo, permitting times for multi-family projects are not significantly longer than for single-family projects when accounting for the size and scope of the project.
Table 8: Planning Processing Time (in months)
Discretionary (Hearing
Officer if Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Atherton N/A 2 to 4 2 to 6
Brisbane N/A 4 to 12 6 to 14
Burlingame N/A 3-4 (standard project)
12 (major project)
13 Colma 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 8
Daly City N/A 4 to 8 8 to 12
East Palo Alto 20 to 40 20 to 40 20 to 40
Foster City
3 to 6 6 to 12
Half Moon Bay 3 to 6 4 to 12 6 to 15
Hillsborough - - -
Millbrae 3 to 8 3 to 8 4 to 9
Pacifica 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 to 8
Redwood City 8 to 10 12 to 18 18 to 24
San Bruno 3 to 6 9 to 24 9 to 24
San Carlos 6 to 12 6 to 12 8 to 12
San Mateo N/A 9 to 12 9 to 13
South San Francisco 2 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9
Unincorporated San Mateo 6 to 12 6 to 18 9 to 24
Woodside N/A 2 to 6 3 to 8
Source: 21 Elements Survey and Century Urban Report on Big Picture Summary, Updated July 10, 2022:
http://21elements.com/constraints
2.7.3 Senate Bill 35 Streamlined Processing
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing projects to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. Per SB 35, the review and approval of proposed projects with at least 50 percent affordability in the city must be based on objective standards and cannot be based on
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-B-28
subjective design guidelines.8F
10 However, to be eligible, projects must also meet a long list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements for projects. In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4(10)(b)(1)(a)(et seq.) they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. The City of San Mateo has developed a Notice of Intent form consistent with the law. Additionally, the City is in the process of developing Multifamily and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (ODS), which once complete will help facilitate the review and approval of residential developments. The ODS project is projected to be completed in 2022, prior to City Council action on this Housing Element. The City is also in the process of streamlining its pre -application and design review process to further introduce efficiencies during planning application reviews. There have been no SB 35 applications in the City.
2.7.4 Senate Bill 330 Processing Procedure
Senate Bill (SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures.
Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a “preliminary application” for a residential development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application. Submittal of the preliminary application secures the applicable development standards and fees adopted at that time. The project is considered vested and all fees and standards are frozen, unless the project changes substantially.
The City of San Mateo has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 330. In addition, the bill limits the application review process to 30 days, for projects less than 150 units, and 60 days, for projects greater than 150 units, and no more than five total public hearings, including planning commission, design review, and city council.
SB 330 also prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of: (A) changing the land use designation or zoning to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, th at are not objective design standards; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued. There have been multiple SB
10 HCD, SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary, Accessed April 1, 2022: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/docs/sb35_statewidedeterminationsummary.pdf
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-B-29
330 applications submitted to the City, and the State mandated timelines and requirements have been adhered to.
2.7.5 Site Plan and Architectural Review
Discretionary Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) is required for projects that are not eligible for ministerial review. Discretionary design review is more flexible in nature with regards to design rules. Site Plan and Architectural Review has three levels of project review:
• Zoning Administrator (ZA)
Zoning Administrator-level reviews are staff level and consist of residential and mixed -use projects with six units or less and permitted non -residential uses less than 10,000 square -feet. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approved projects that meet all applicable development code requirements and standards; and is consistent with applicable policies in the General Plan and Specific Plans and applicable design guidelines. ZA-level reviews involve public noticing, but no public hearing is required.
• Planning Commission (PC)
Planning Commission-level reviews involve public hearing and noticing. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve residential and mixed-use projects that require: Special Use Permits, deviations from development code requirements, standards or design guidelines; and appeals of Zoning Administrator decisions. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviews and makes a recommendation to the City Council for projects that require the provision of community benefit to exceed building height limits in areas designated in the General Plan (pursuant to Measure Y 9F 11);
rezoning; General Plan Amendment, and public funds or city land. • City Council (CC)
City Council -level reviews involve public noticing and public hearing. City Council makes final determination for appeals as well as residential and mixed -use projects where building(s) exceed 55 feet in height or where required by express General Plan pro visions (Measure Y); and projects that require rezoning, General Plan Amendments, and use of public funds or city land.
Site Plan and Architectural Review ensures that proposed developments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plans. In addition, this review ensures that utilities and infrastructure are sufficient to support the proposed development and are compatible with City standards and that the design of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development. Use compatibility is not considered in Site Plan and Architectural Review for permitted uses. Compatibility is
11 Measure Y is a 2020 voter approved ballot measure that limits building heights, density, and intensity (or floor area) in the City.
As required in the measure, the measure amends and is incorporated throughout the General Plan. The measure will sunset at the end of 2030. Source: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/86090/Resolution-with-Measure-Y-ballot- language
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-B-30
determined using design guidelines and General Plan consistency. Conditional use permits, described below, consider the appropriateness of a use for a specific area.
Additionally, deviations from zoning code requirements and development standards would be considered through Site Plan and Architectural Review. In these cases, the entitlement would be heard at the Planning Commission-level. For example, a building could reduce the number of required on -site parking spaces with approval at a Planning Commission-level hearing.
In order to approve a project, the decision -maker (i.e., Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council) must find that a project is consistent with each of the findings outlined in Section 27.08.030 (a) of the San Mateo Municipal Code. For development projects not located in a historic district and not involving a landmark, the decision -maker may approve a n application for Site Plan and Architectural Review based on all of the following findings:
1. The structures, site plan, and landscaping are in scale and harmonious with the character of the neighborhood;
2. The development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City;
3. The development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity, and otherwise is in the best interests of the public health, safety, or welfare;
4. The development meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms with the General Plan, and will correct any violations of the zoning ordinance, building code, or other municipal codes that exist on the site;
5. The development will not adversely affect matters regarding police protection, crime prevention, and security.
Staff have not found that these consistency findings are a constraint on housing production or that they slow the City’s ability to recommend approval of projects. Furthermore, finding 5 is not associated with a crime free ordinance. During the 5th Cycle, the City approved all residential and mixed-use development projects that were submitted to the City with one exception. The 10-unit residential development at 4 W.
Santa Inez was the only project that was initially denied due to inconsistency with the City’s multi-family design guidelines, and the decision was subsequently challenged in court. Following the court’s decision, the City has approved the original development project and adopted interim mechanical parking standards.
While the above findings do not present a constraint, the City does have an extensive design review process for projects over six units that requires a third-party peer-review of the design. To address this constraint, the City is evaluating streamlining the design review process or eliminating it altogether for smaller projects (Policy H 1.6). The City is also in the process of developing Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Multi -family and Mixed -Use developments under Housing Policy H 1.8. Upon comp letion, development projects that comply with ODS cannot be denied or reduced in density, subject to a narrow 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-B-31
health and safety exception. As part of implementation, all planners shall receive training and have a procedures manual to ensure consistent appl ication of ODS in the review of multi -family and mixed-use projects.
2.7.6 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Cultural Resources Discretionary Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for cultural resources is required for projects that are not eligible for ministerial review or for projects that cannot meet established design guidelines and development standards and are located within a histor ic district or involve a listed landmark or locally significant structure in the San Mateo’s historic resource inventory.
This discretionary review process is identical to the city-wide discretionary SPAR review described above, except projects which are consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) are taken through the conventional design review entitlement process, while projects that are not consistent with the Standards would typically involve a more extensive hearing process and preparation of a detailed environmental analysis for CEQA purposes prior to approval.
2.7.7 Special Use Permit Process
Housing is generally permitted by-right in most zones, except for commercial and office z ones without a residential overlay. In these areas, a Special Use Permit (SUP) may be approved and is subject to the required findings described in Chapter 27.74 of the City’s Zoning Code, as follows:
1. When granting non -designated special uses, the approval body concludes that the proposed use(s) are so similar to any specifically allowed use in the district as to be virtually identical thereto in terms of impact and land use requirements.
2. Granting of the Special Permit will not adversely affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community nor will it cause injury or disturbance to adjacent property by traffic or by excessive noise, smoke, odor, noxious gas, dust, glare, heat, fumes or industrial waste.
The SUP primarily reviews the location, si ze, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use.
This discretionary process ensures that the proposed residential use is compatible with adjacent properties. Conditions may be applied to ensure that the project has no adverse effect, such as traffic or noise, on the surrounding neighborhood. Depending on the number of residential units proposed, an SUP may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council, as described in the prior section.
2.8 Building Permit and Develop ment Impact Fees, and Process
2.8.1 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees
The City collects building permit fees to review construction plans for compliance with applicable codes and inspect construction at multiple phases. The City also collects development impact fees to finance the
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-B-32
design, construction, installation, and acquisition of public infrastructure. Fees can also be used to recover the costs of adding capacity in existing public infrastructure. Development impact fees in the City of San Mateo are determined in proportion to the square footage of the proposed project rather than by the unit type.
From a housing constraints standpoint, the fees that the city collects may be viewed in different ways: 1) total cost per unit based on type of unit, 2) cost in comparison to other cities, and 3) transparent costs.
Total Cost by Unit Type
As the table below illustr ates, the cost for a new single -family dwelling is the highest at approximately $89,108 per unit, followed by the cost in a small multi-family development at approximately $60,728 per unit, and cost in a large multi-family at approximately $41,547 per unit. Table 6 below provides a detailed breakdown of the City’s permitting and impact fees associated with these three categories of housing projects. There are several factors accounting for the reduced cost per unit when number of units in a development increase. Chief among them is the ability to spread the cost of shared components of a development across more units such as construction costs for foundation, garage, roofing, common areas and amenities, and utility infrastructure.
It should also be noted that the majority of sites in the city’s Adequate Sites Inventory List are located in areas designated for residential or mixed-use development with higher density. Both the City’s fees and zoning designations are aligned to support higher-density housing production in these areas, which would also result in greater number of affordable units pursuant to the City’s inclusionary requirements.
Overall, City fees make up 7 percent or less of total cost of development and thus, are not considered barriers to residential development. Total development cost is calculated using City of San Mateo specific land costs and fees, along with average soft and hard costs provided by the Century Urban Report.12 Table 9: Building Permit and Impact Fee Estimate (New Construction), 2021 Type of Fee
Type of Project
Single-Family
Detached
Small Multi-family
(10-Unit)
Large Multi-family
(100-units)
Entitlement Fees
Planning Application $4,979 $50,000 $205,000
Building Permit Fees
Building Plan Review $7,393 $25,240 $54,068
Fire Plan Check $407 $986 $1,577
Planning Support Fee $3,638 $25,203 $96,013
Building Permit/Inspection Fee $10,562 $38,830 $83,181 General Plan Maintenance Fee $6,313 $43,735 $166,611
12 Cost to Build in San Mateo County, Century Urban Report, Accessed November 29, 2022, http://21elements.com/constraints 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-B-33
SMI Tax $139 $2,076 $7,907
Building Standards Commission Fee $43 $297 $1,130
Technology Fee $1,605 $911,119 $42,359
Park and Rec Facilities Tax $3,210 $22,238 $84,718 Park Plan Check & Inspection $535 $3,706 $14,120
Public Works Plan Check & Inspection - $25,000 $50,000 Building Permit Fees Sub-Total: $33,844 $198,431 $601,684 Development Impact Fees
Childcare Impact Fee $4,413 $30,660 $306,600
Park Impact Fee $29,598 $204,760 $2,047,600
Transportation Improvement Fee $6,255 $31,590 $315,900 Wastewater Capacity Charge $10,019 $91,840 $667,900
Development Impact Fees Sub-Total $50,123 $358,850 $3,338,000 Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits and impact fees) Total Fees $89,108 $607,281 $4,154,684
Number of Dwelling Units 1 10 100
Cost per Dwelling Unit $89,108 $60,728 $41,547
Total Cost of Development per Unit
Overall Total Development Costs $2,969,063 $876,764 $809,124 Proportion of Fees to Total Development Costs 3% 7% 5%
Source: City of San Mateo, fees calculated based on City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2021-2022.
Notes:
Valuations based on habitable square footage areas (exempts uninhabitable spaces such as: garage, storage, balconies).
Additional fees may apply such as sewer and water tap fees, Construction & Demolition Recycling Deposit (Refundable), etc.
Unexpended portion of the Public Works Building Support Services Deposit is refunded back to the applicant.
Comparison with Other Cities
Through 21 Elements, a San Mateo County Planning Collaborative, the City participated in a study conducted by Century Urban on the Cost to Build in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties 10F
13. The study
included planning entitlement fees, building permit fees and development impact fees. With regards to development fees in San Mateo County , Century Urban’s report showed an average of $350,000 for a small multi-family project (10 units) and an average of $2,800,000 for a large multi-family project (100 units).
13 21 Elements Century Urban Report on the Cost to Build in San Mateo County, Accessed June 7, 2022:
http://www.21elements.com/constraints
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-B-34
With regards to building permit fees, a more detailed look at the raw data from cities 11F 14 showed building
permit fees for small multi -family projects ranging from a low of $34,561 (Brisbane) to a high of over $400,000 (Foster City, San Bruno). In comparison, San Mateo’s building permit fees of $198,431 for a small multi-family development is below the average for cities in the County.
For large multi-family developments, the raw data from cities showed building permit fees ranging from $223,028 (South San Francisco) to over $1,000,000 (East Palo Alto, Foster City, and San Bruno ). In comparison, San Mateo’s building permit fees of $611,684 for large multi-family is at the median for the County.
Impact fees are also a factor in the cost of development. For small multi-family developments, total impact fees in the County ranged from $19,653 (Redwood City) to over $500,000 (Millbrae, South San Francisco); and San Mateo’s impact fee for this category are $358,850. For large multi -family development, total impact fees ranged from $243,750 (Daly City) to over $5,000,000 (Millbrae); and San Mateo’s impact fees are $3,338,000.
It should be noted that the impact fee comparison is a high-level comparison which does not take into consideration the actual on-the-ground needs that can vary from city to city based on the conditi on of existing infrastructure and improvements needed to accommodate future growth.
The City of San Mateo’s impact fees provide an opportunity for new developments to contribute its fair share toward infrastructure improvements. For example, when compared with other jurisdictions in the county, San Mateo’s transportation impact fee may appear higher; however, each city’s impact fee is directly linked to the number and type of infrastructure projects within that jurisdiction. Therefore, it is reasonable tha t infrastructure improvement projects differ among cities. San Mateo has unique infrastructure needs that are not shared by other cities in the county. For example, the City has three Caltrain stations, nine at grade crossings, and there is a list of pedes trian, bicycle and transit supportive infrastructure improvement projects that have been identified to foster increased bicycle and pedestrian use, provide connections to transit and services, etc. San Mateo has been pro -active in transportation planning t o ensure that the list of infrastructure projects are up to date and relevant. Examples of transportation planning in the City include the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan, and Complete Streets Plan which is currently in development.
Additionally, it is reasonable for cities that are anticipated to accommodate more growth to evaluate its existing infrastructure in relation to projected growth and require new developments to share in the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to serve the growth f rom new developments. Cities that do so must meet legal requirements to establish a nexus to development and fees must be reviewed through a public process.
14 21 Elements Survey Results spreadsheet with raw data provided by cities. Accessed June 7, 2022:
http://www.21elements.com/constraints
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-B-35
While San Mateo’s infrastructure impact fees are the median for cities in San Mateo County, it should be noted that San Mateo City has the highest Regional Housing Needs Allocation for both Housing Element Cycle 5 and Cycle 6, with 3,100 and 7,015 dwelling units, respectively. To accommodate new growth, the city’s impact fees are evaluated to ensure nexus requirements are met and updated through a transparent public hearing process that is open to the public.
Transparent Costs
The City has been pro-active in re-evaluating and updating development related fees, and in meeting State requirements to increase transparency and predictability of fees. All applicable fees are available online (refer to links in Section 2.7) . Additionally, the City allows developers to request a building permit fee estimate online by submitting an electronic worksheet.
The City also completed a development impact fee study in 2021 to ensure that fees are consistent with best practices, align with the stated services, and accurately reflect new developments’ proportionate share of infrastructure costs. The consultant’s recommendations have been incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule which was used to calculate the costs of development in Table 6.
While the City’s current fees meet nexus requirements and have been recently updated, the City plans to review development application, building permit and impact fees to identify opportunities to reduce per unit costs for housing developments, with a focus on reducing per unit costs for small multi-family projects (Housing Element Policy H1.18).
In addition to City fees, there are additional fees required from other agencies to account for the impact of development. The combined San Mateo Union High School District and San Mateo/Foster City Elementary School District Impact Fee is $4.08 per square fo ot for residential 12F
15. No fees are charged for
new construction or additions that are under 500 square feet. While this is not a city fee, City staff helps applicants find information about the fee and connects them with the school district.
Other Considerations that Support Housing
In addition to evaluating fees and their role in housing development, the city also recognizes that wages are a contributing factor in a household’s ability to enter the housing market. In 2017, the City Council adopted a provision allowing a reduction of 25% of the Affordable Housing Linkage Fee for developments that are subject to the fee and voluntarily agrees to pay area standard wages to construction workers on the development and enters into an agreement with the City to do so.
15 Combined San Mateo Union High School and San Mateo/Foster City Elementary School District School Fees; https://www.smuhsd.org/Page/5186
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-B-36
2.8.2 Building Permit Process
The length of time between a project’s planning entitlement approval and building permit issuance in many cases is determined by the applicant, as further described under Non -Government Constraints in section III (below). The City has developed online application portal and streamlined the building permit review process with dedicated Development Review Technicians who actively manage concurrent reviews by all the development review departments including Planning, Building, Fire, Police, Arborist, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. Once a project begins the building permit application review process, the following general timelines can be achieved with responsive applicants:
1. Single-family dwelling unit projects generally take 1-3 months*
2. Multi-family and mixed-use projects generally take 6-10 months* The City also established Building application plan check review goals of an initial 20-day review period, then 10 -days, then 5 -days for subsequent resu bmittals. These goals help to align plan check review timelines across all departments. (*Note: It should be noted that actual timelines vary depending upon how fast an applicant can resubmit plans with corrections, the quality of submittals, variations in project complexity, required reviews by external agencies (i.e. as Department Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], etc.)
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-B-37
2.9 Housing Special Needs Groups
The City of San Mateo encourages and facilitates the development of a variety of housing types that caters to special needs groups, including accessible housing, emergency shelters (i.e., temporary residential shelters), transitional housing, single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, supportive housing, and housing for farmworkers. Government Code Section 65583 and 65583.2 also require the Housing Element to provide various housing types for all economic segments of the population. The following analysis ex plains how the City facilitates these housing types consistent with State law requirements.
2.9.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Nine percent of San Mateo residents have disabilities, compared with eight percent in the county . In addition to the need for housing that is accessible or ADA‐ compliant, housing affordability is a key limitation as many residents living with disability live on disability incomes or fixed income as some disabilities limit the ability to work, restrict mobility, or make it difficult to care for oneself. Persons with special needs or disabilities have several housing needs related to housing accessibility; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive living services.
The City has permitted and/or contributed funding for supportive housing for persons with disabilities.
One example is t he Humboldt House, located near downtown . The apartment building was o riginally purchased by a private owner to serve the mentally ill , before Mateo Lodge , Inc. ’s acquisition and subsequent rehabilitation of the building. The City provided a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) loan to acquire the property, and subsequently also provi ded a HOME loan in 2000 for rehabilitation of the building. Currently, Mateo Lodge runs the facility which houses up to 29 residents and includes residential programs that provide supportive and rehabilitative services to residents. The following is a desc ription of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities. To further facilitate the production of new housing or conversion of existing housing for persons with disability, the Housing Element includes an implementation action in Policy H1.14 to study a universal design ordinance that may better address housing needs for persons with disabilities.
2.9.2 Residential and Family Care Facilities
State law requires that State -licensed group homes of six or fewer residents be regulated in the same manner as single-unit residences for zoning purposes. The San Mateo Municipal Code allows group homes with six or fewer residents by right in all zoned districts that permit single-family dwellings consistent with State law (SMMC 27.27 Residential Care Facilities).
Group homes with more than six residents (defined by the City’s municipal code as “residential care facilities”) are permitted by right in C2 and C3 zoned districts and with a SUP in R3 and R4 zoned districts, as shown in Table 2. While not explicitly required by State law, the SUP requirements for group homes of more than six persons could be considered a fair housing issue. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H1.14) to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for larger group
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-B-38
homes and amend the Zoning Code to ensur e State law requirements related to fair housing and group homes are met.
To facilitate permitting of group homes and residential care facilities for seniors and non-seniors (including persons with disabilities) , the Housing Element includes an implementation action in Policy H1.14 to amend the Zoning Code to allow group homes and residential care facilities for seven or more persons in all residential zones, only subject to those objections standards that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone in conformance with state law.
2.9.3 Definition of Family
Historically zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term dwelling unit and family that have been used to deny housing opportunities for unrelated individuals. San Mateo Municipal Code 27.04.195 defines “family” as “a person or persons living together and maintaining a common household”. Upon analysis, the use of the term family may be utilized in a manner to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H1.14) to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for family and other related regulations; and amend the code to ensure State law requirements related to persons with disabilities are met. This effort may also include consideration of new definitions such as single -unit and multi -unit dwellings to accommodate various housing situations.
2.9.4 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
The City of San Mateo has a process to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for persons with disabilities. The Reasonable Accommodations for Residential Uses ordinance (SMMC 27.78) was established to provide people with disabilities a way to ensu re that their needs are met by the City’s zoning, building, and permitting process. Any person may request a reasonable accommodation from applicable zoning requirements, based on the disability of residents. The request is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and applicants submit documentation that meet the following findings:
1. The housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by a person with disabilities.
2. Due to the physical attributes of the subject property or the structures on site, the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
3. The requested reasonable accommodation would not create an undue financial or administrative burden for the City.
4. The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in City's land use and zoning ordinances, programs or policies. In making this finding, the decision-making body may consider, but its consideration is not limited to, the following factors:
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-B-39
a. Whether the proposed changes to the subject property and structures, would adversely impact the health, safety or use of adjacent properties or the City right-of-way. b. Whether any reasonable alternatives have been identified that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a reasonable accommodation or exception to the City's applicable rules, standards and practices.
No fees are required for the application and assistance to apply is available upon request. The process is based on the requirements of federal and state housing laws, including the Fair Housing Act, and is intended to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. Since the ordinance adoption in 2014, one application has been submitted and approved to provide flexibility in accommodating the homeowners’ accessibility needs. It should be noted that the City’s Zoning Code per mits by right access to the main entry of residential unit as allowable intrusions into setbacks through a ministerial building permit application. Under this provision, applicants can apply for a building permit to construct ramps, lifts, railings and other elements necessary to ensure access to the dwelling unit without a need to seek reasonable accommodation.
2.9.5 Emergency Homeless Shelters
The California Health and Safety Code (Section 50801[e]) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
California Government Code (Section 65583) requires each jurisdiction to identify one or more zoning districts where emergency homeless shelters are allowed without a discretionary permit. A building permit application is required to verify that the proposed project meets the City’s development standards as part of a plan check review. The building permit review is a ministerial process and no public hearing is required. The zoning code development standards for emergency shelters include:
• In C2 zoned district, no emergency shelter shall be locate d within 300 feet of a single -family dwelling.
• Required parking shall be provided on-site with two garage stalls for the owner/manager, and one parking stall for every 6 occupants.
The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H3.7) to evaluate and update the Zoning Code to remove the 300 feet buffer from a single-family dwelling and adopt objective development standards, including parking for shelters, in compliance with State requirements.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the Housing Element to demonstrate that the zones where emergency shelters are allowed by right include sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified i n the most recent point -in-time count
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-B-40
conducted before the start of the planning period. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H3.7) to review and amend the zoning code to allow emergency shelters in C2, C3, and other zones as needed to comply with Government Code 65583 and ensure there is sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for emergency shelter as identified in the most recent point-in- time count conducted before the start of the planning period.
The City participates in the countywide one -day homeless count which typically occurs every two years.
No homeless count was conducted in 2021 due to the COVID -19 pandemic. Instead, the County of San Mateo conducted a count on February 23, 2022 . The result shows a 21% increase countywide in the number of unsheltered, from 901 to 1,902 persons; however, the homeless population in the City of San Mateo decreased from 74 to 60 persons16.
As of December 2022, there are three emergency shelters located within the City of San Mateo that collectively can serve up to 181 individuals per night. The shelters are:
1. First Step for Families – The shelter serves up to 117 individuals per night with 39 family units. It is operated by Life Moves to provide interim shelter and supportive services including weekly financial literacy, housing and employment workshops.
2. Lisa’s House – The shelter serves up to 20 persons per night. It is operated by CORA and includes a variety of support services such as children’s programs, crisis intervention, legal and mental services.
3. El Camino House – The shelter serv es up to 44 persons per night. It is operated by Sam aritan House which provides a wide range of services including but not limited to children’s programs, clothing, financial coaching and assistance, food services, job search assistance , and transportation assistance.
Collectively, this demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity within the City to accommodate the 60 unhoused individuals identified in the latest count.
2.9.6 Zoning Capacity for Emergency Shelters
The City’s Municipal Code currently allows emergency shelters by right in the C2 and C3 Regional/Community Commercial zoning district(s) with an approved building permit. There are approximately 76 acres (260 parcels ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.6 acres w ith an overall average parcel size of 0.3 acres) of land available in these zoning districts. These sites are located in areas with a mix of uses including offices, commercial, service commercial and light manufacturing uses (there is no heav y hazardous manufacturing); and are within half-mile of transit and services.
16 One Day Homeless Count Report dated August 2022: https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2022-one-day-homeless-count 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-B-41
As discussed above, the City’s collaboration with the County appears to be helping to close the gap in that the three existing shelters can accommodate the 60 unhoused individuals in the City . However, to facilitate additional emergency shelter s, the Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H3.7) to review and amend Zoning Code requirements and standards as needed for temporary residential shelters to ensure sufficient cap acity for changes in homeless counts in future years and continue to meet State law. Housing Policy H3.7 includes the following two key actions:
• Review and amend the zoning code to allow emergency shelters in C2, C3, and other zones as needed to ensure there is sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for emergency shelter as identified in the most recent point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, in compliance with Government Code 65583. • Review and amend the zoning code as needed to comply with Government Code 65583 including remove the 300 feet buffer from a single-family dwelling, clarify that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart , in compliance Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(v), and adopt objective development standards, such as parking for shelters in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii).
2.9.7 Strategies for Providing Emergency Shelters
While the zoning capacity analysis above meets the requirements of State law, the City will continue to study best practices and explore collaboration opportunities to expand shelter capacity. These strategies may include unique partnerships with private companies, n on-profit entities, and faith -based organizations to convert existing, underutilized buildings as emergency shelters. The City will also continue to collaborate with the County to close the gap when potential sites are identified within the city limits. The Housing Element Policy H3.7 articulates the City’s intent to regularly evaluate City policies, best practices and collaboration opportunities to end homelessness within the City.
2.9.8 Collaboration with County to Address Homelessness The City collaborates with the County of San Mateo on countywide homeless counts, which occurs every two years; and follows the County’s “Continuum of Care” (CofC) program to address homeless. In 2016, the CofC released its current Strategic Plan titled “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County”. The overarching goal is to create a centralized countywide system that is both data driven, and client focused to respond effectively and rapidly to the crisis of homelessness. The system utilizes the Housing First practice, where access to safe and secure housing is made the first step in the process of achieving long term housing stability. The Coordinated Entry System (CES) pulls together all of the service providers across the county to ensure that resources are available all acro ss the county regardless of which jurisdiction an individual enters the system from. This also allows for tracking of individuals if they are to re-enter the system after exiting, which allows the CofC to gauge the effectiveness of the programs being used.
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-B-42
The plan also outlines several programs to address homelessness, including outreach, emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, supportive housing, and homeless prevention programs. The City jointly funds these programs with other jurisdic tions throughout the County and evaluates their performance together as part of the Steering Committee. The purpose of the plan was originally to outline a comprehensive strategic plan to end homelessness throughout San Mateo County by the year 2020.
Many of the target achievements of the plan were drastically altered by the spread of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting housing instability that occurred from loss of income across many households.
The City of San Mateo continues to be a partner in the CofC as both a funder of shelters and programs as well as a voting member in the CofC Steering Committee, which is reflected in the Housing Element Policy H3.1.
2.9.9 Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019 and codified in Govern ment Code Section 65622, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed -use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services , shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H3.7) to evaluate and amend the Zoning Code to comply with this new requirement and to allow these in the same areas zoned for mixed-use and non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses, consistent with Government Code Section 65660 - 65668.
2.9.10 Transitional/Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is designed to assist homeless individuals and families in moving beyond emergency shelter and into permanent housing by helping people develop independent living skills through the provision of supportive services. Permanent supportiv e housing is housing that is linked to services that assist residents in maintaining housing, improving health, and maximizing ability to live and work in the community. Examples include the Vendome, which is located near downtown and provides permanent supportive housing to 16 chronically homeless adult men and women; and the County’s recent purchase and conversion of the Stone Villa Inn as a 44-unit transitional housing site.
The City is consistent with State law in that supportive housing and transitional housing are defined in the City’s Zoning Code as a dwelling and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Per recent changes in State law (AB 2162), the City must also allow 100 percent affordable projects that include 25 percent, or 12 units of supportive housing, by right where multi -unit and mixed -use development is permitted. While the City has not updated its Zoning Code, the City is pro -active in ensuring that new projects meeting AB 2162 criteria are compliant. For example, the Montara affordable housing development includes 12 units for formerly homeless individuals. The Housing Element includes 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-B-43
an implementation program (Policy H1.15) to review and amend the City’s Zoning Code to comply with this new provision of State law.
2.9.11 Housing for Farmworkers
There are no active or potential agricultural lands remaining within the City, therefore the City does not have any labor force associated with the agricultural sector. Although n o agricultural activity remains within the City of San Mateo limits, the region and the County of San Mateo as a whole includes agricultural activity that attracts farmworkers and their families. The 2019 census data for employment identifies 272 out of 57 ,365 employed residents of the City identify as working within the “agriculture/forestry, fishing and hunting” category. It is likely that these residents and their families are permanent employees who reside in the City due to access to urban amenities an d services and are commuting to agricultural lands within the County. Seasonal agricultural workers who come to San Mateo County during those times of year when crop harvesting, and processing occur often need access to group housing or temporary (non-emergency) shelters, but do not appear to be seeking housing options within the City.
The provisions of Section 17021.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code state that employee housing for six or fewer employees must be treated like any other single-unit dwelling. The City does not regulate the occupancy of single unit dwellings and there are no provisions in the City’s code to restrict employee housing for six or fewer employees, therefore, the City complies with this requirement.
California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, requires that farmworker housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units shall be deemed an agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of this housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. Only two areas are identified within the Agricultural Zoning District (A), which allows for Agricultural use. These two sites include the San Mateo County (County) Event Center, and a parcel within the College of San Mateo. The existing zoning requirements for permitted uses does not explicitly allow for such housing, but agricultural use is listed as a permitted use. The City will evaluate and update its zoning code either as a part of miscellaneous code amendment or should the County or the College of San Mateo wish to proceed with providing farmworker housing at these sites, as identified in Policy H1.17.
2.9.12 Accessory Dwelling Units
Since 2016, California lawmakers have passed several bills to promote development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs are defined as attached or detached residential dwelling units that provide complete with independent living facilities for one or more persons l ocated on the same parcel as the primary residence. The City also adopted the definition of a “junior accessory dwelling unit” (JADU), which is a similar independent living unit that is constructed entirely within the walls of a proposed or legally existing single-family residence.
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-B-44
In 2017 and 2022, the City amended the Zoning Code (Chapter 27.19) to meet, and in many cases, exceed the minimum requirements of State law. ADUs are permitted by-right in any zone that allows residential use. For parcels with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, the City allows up to one ADU and one JADU. The City defers to the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) for ADUs proposed on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling (attached duplex or more).
The City’s ADU Ordinance update includes many development standards that are more permissive than those allowed under state law. These standards were developed following extensive community outreach and multiple public meetings. For example, the updated ordinance allows larger sized JADUs (maximum 650 square-feet); new ADUs do not have a size limit and can utilize all available floor area permitted by the site’s floor area ratio; ADUs can be two-stories, attached ADUs can have a height of up to 24 feet to the plate line and 32 feet to the roof peak ; and detached ADUs can have a height of up to 16 feet to the plate line and 24 feet to the roof peak . ADUs may also opt for a discretionary review process to exceed the development standards, includin g height requirements , allowed under ministerial review , which allows for a quicker and cheaper review process than a standard variance; and, for at least the first year, the discretionary review process does require an application fee. These updated standards provide more flexibility in design and are aligned with local community needs.
Under state law, ADUs are eligible for ministerial review and applications must be approved within 60 days of a complete application submittal. ADU applications may be submitted in-person or online permit and are charged a flat fee that varies by proposal. Building permit fees are currently as follows:
• ADU (New Construction): $2,830.50
• ADU (Converted or Remodeled Space): $2,103.00
• JADU: $1,578.50
Additional fees are charged on an as -needed basis, such as a Heritage Tree permit, Sewer Lateral Compliance and Encroachment Permit. School District Fees are collected separately by the San Mateo Union High School District. The City also partners with Symb ium to offer a free, interactive web -based mapping tool to help with preliminary site planning of ADUs. Overall, the City has been active in supporting property owners who seek to develop ADUs or JADUs by streamlining the permitting process, setting low flat fees for permits and providing expanded information and resources; and as outlined in Policy H1.4, the City will continue to actively support the production of this housing type.
2.9.13 Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks
State law requires that cities and counties allow the placement of manufactured homes (also referred to as factory- built homes and modular homes) meeting Federal construction standards and manufactured home subdivisions in single-family neighborhoods. California Government Code Sections 65852.3 through 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-B-45
65852.514F
17, require that manufactured homes be permitted in single -family districts subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. Additionally, Government Code Section 65852.7 requires that cities and counties al low mobile home parks (including condominium and cooperative parks) in all residential zones.
In keeping with State law, the City’s Zoning Code allows manufactured homes on permanent foundations in the same residential zones as single -family dwellings. The code defines manufactured homes as a dwelling, and they are subject to the same development standards. The City’s Zoning Code does not permit mobile home parks in residential districts; however, there is a provision allowing the Zoning Administrator to co nsider “other similar uses” in residential districts. The current code language is not explicit; therefore, the Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.16) to review and amend the Zoning Code as necessary to meet state law regarding allowing mobile home parks as special use in all residential zones.
2.9.14 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing
Government Code 65583(c)(1) requires local jurisdictions to speci fy the areas where Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing are permitted. SROs are single -room (zero bedroom) units that are typically intended for occupancy by residents, with low or minimal incomes, who share a kitchen and bathrooms with other residents in a multi-tenant building. The zoning code does not specify the zoning districts where SROs would be permitted and thus is a constraint on production of this housing type. The Housing Element includes a new program in Policy H1.7 to amend the Zoning Code to reduce or eliminate constraints to housing construction including the identification of zoning areas where SROs are permitted consistent with state law.
17 The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (also referred to as the Manufactured Home Act of 1974).
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-B-46
3 NON -GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
State law (California Government Code, Section 65583[a)[6]) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
Potential nongovernmental constraints are largely determined by market conditions over which local jurisdictions have little control. However, local governments can influence market conditions and their associated costs, even if only indirectly. G overnmental interventions that affect non -governmental constraints will be explored in more detail in Section 3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application.
3.1 Development Costs
3.1.1 Availability of Financing
The availability of financing is a critical factor that can influence the cost and supply of housing. There are generally two types of financing used in the housing market: (1) capital used for initial site preparation and construction; and (2) capital used to finance the purchase of units by homeowners and investors.
Interest rates substantially impact home construction, purchase, and improvement costs. A small fluctuation in rates can make a dramatic difference in the annual income needed to qualify for a loan.
However, interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions, and there is little that local governments can do to affect interest rates.
In general, financing for new residential development for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in San Mateo County, subject to normal underwriting standards. However, economic fluctuations in recent years due to the pandemic have caused caution among lenders and may have lasting effects on the availability of financing through this Housing Element planning period. While interest rates remain low in 2022, during the planning period, interest rates are anticipated to increase, with multiple rate increases expected in the near term as inflation rises. The availability of financing for deve lopers under these economic conditions may pose a constraint on development outside the City’s control.
3.1.2 Cost of Land
The cost of land has also increased substantially over the past decade , and m any jurisdictions are now essentially built out, with n o available vacant land for development. With this limited land availability, most locations in the Bay Area are experiencing substantially higher land values than in other areas of the State because of the attractiveness of living along the coast, with its mild climate, access to high-tech jobs, and plentiful amenities.
There are multiple factors that may affect the cost of land , such as lot size, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, location and amenities, neighboring uses, access, proximity to public services, noise and the financing arrangement between buyer and seller. Land costs in single -family residential 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-B-47
neighborhoods of San Mateo are difficult to assess because of the lack of undeveloped residential properties in the city. Additionally, the available information is not comprehensive and any summaries or averages at the city level may not be valuable for reaching conclusions. The same limitation applies to the land price for properties that are suitable for multi-family development, as such, a study at the County level would likely be more informative.
On behalf of 21 Elements, Century Urban15F
18 conducted an independent countywide study of single-family land sales and multi-family land sales in the last three years , inclusive of both rental apartment and for- sale (condos/townhomes) units. For single-family land sales countywide, of parcels up to one acre in size, the land cost ranged between $582,000 to $8 million, with an average of $1,030,000 per unit.
For multi-family land sales in San Mateo County, Century Urban’s report shows the average land cost is $1,000,000 for small multi -family and $10,000,000 for large multi -family properties, respectively. In contrast, during the last Housing Element , a similar analysis found that average per -acre prices were approximately $820,000. This means that since the last Housing Element, land prices have significantly increased.
All of these factors work together to make it so developers must charge substantial rents and sales prices to cover these costs. The Terner Center Report 16F
19 notes that, for example, a multi -family unit that costs $800,000 to build will need to charge approximately $4,000 in monthly rent – a price well over the typical monthly earnings in the State – to cover those costs and meet return on investment requirements for investors.
3.1.3 Constructions Costs
Construction costs, which can comprise a significant portion of the sales price of a home, are one of the major cost factors with residential development. Construction cost is determined primarily by the cost of labor and materials. The relative importance of each is a function of the complexity of the construction job and the desired quality of the finished product. The price paid for material and labor at any one time will reflect short -term considerations of supply and demand. Future costs are difficult to predict given the cyclical fluctuations in demand and supply that in large part are created by fluctuations in the state and national economies. Such policies unilaterally impact construction in a region and therefore do not deter housing construction in any specific community.
An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in
18 Century Urban’s San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Costs & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research, April 2022, http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1380-b-d-dvpt-cost-and-unit-mix-2022- 4-7-draft-updated/file
19 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone and Carolina Reid, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California Berkeley, March 2020, p. 3, http:/ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf
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-B-48
addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data is national with the regional difference running generally 20 percent higher based on the most recent (2020) analysis cited from the Terner Center for Housing index for construction costs in California. The 2020 national averages for costs per square foot, excluding the cost of the land acquisition, are as follows:
• Type I or II, Multi-Family: $129.23 to $167.27 per sq. ft. • Type V (Wood Frame), Multi-Family: $112.76 to $147.50 per sq. ft. • Type V (Wood Frame), One- and Two-Family Dwelling: $122.46 to $141.72 per sq. ft.
According to data from the California Construction Cost Index, hard construction costs in California grew by 44 percent between 2014 and 2018, or an additional $80 per square foot. 17F 20 Between 2020 and 2021
alone, construction costs increased 13.4 percent. Construction costs are estimated to account for upwards of 60 percent of the production cost of a new home, especially for multi -unit residential buildings which often require the use of more expensive materials, like s teel, and need additional amenities such as parking structures.18F
21 Variations in the quality of materials, type of amenities, labor costs and the quality of building materials could result in higher or lower construction costs for a new home. Prefabricated factory-built housing, with variation on the quality of materials and amenities may also affect the final construction cost per square foot of a housing project.
Several additional factors have caused the increased cost of materials, including global trade patterns and federal policy decisions, such as tariffs, as well as state and local regulations, such as building codes. The COVID-19 pandemic has also influenced the cost and availability of construction materials. Supply chain disruptions have resulted in project delays and increased costs due to a shortage of construction materials and equipment.
According to a report released in March 2020 on multi -family construction costs in California from the Terner Center, many different factors layer together t o affect the bottom -line costs of building new housing and whether or not a project will ultimately “pencil”: the costs of acquisition (e.g., land and closing costs), hard construction costs (e.g., materials and labor), soft costs (e.g., legal and professi onal fees, insurance, and development fees), and the costs of conversion once a project is completed (e.g., title fees and the operating deficit reserve). 19F
22 According to its research, the largest share of a project’s total cost comes from materials and labor, or hard costs.
Hard construction costs make up more than 60 percent of total development costs. The Terner Center study found that on average, construction costs were about $222 per square foot in 2018 compared to $177 in 2008-2009, representing a 25 percent increase. While these increases have been felt across the state, costs are highest in the Bay Area, which saw costs rising by 119 percent during the same time period,
20 Lbid., Raetz et al, p.8.
21 Ibid., Raetz et al, p.4.
22 See the Terner Center’s series on housing costs at https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-building- housing-series/
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-B-49
to over $380 per square foot. The reasons for this gap are complex, but the Ter ner Center suggests that higher labor costs to attract workers plays a part due to the higher cost of living; local regulations that require certain materials or building components to be used; lengthy review processes; and other local constraints. 20F
23 The impact of high construction costs on affordable housing cannot be underestimated. According to a study by the Bay Area Council, in 2019 there were 23 new construction projects of below market -rate housing financed through the California Tax Credit Alloc ation Committee (TCAC), with a total of 1,912 units, across six counties of the nine-county Bay Area. Each project in California requested federal and/or state tax credits to finance the new construction of housing units with rents affordable to households earning 30-60 percent of area median income (AMI; this translates to very low-income households). The project costs consist of land and acquisition, construction costs, construction contingency, architectural/engineering, construction interest, permanent financing, legal fees, reserves, other costs, developer fees, and commercial costs. Project costs were analyzed to determine the reasonableness of all fees within TCAC’s underwriting guidelines and TCAC limitations.
The report found that the average constr uction cost of new below market rate housing in the Bay Area was $664,455 per unit, far more than lower income households can afford without subsidies. In comparison, other projects across California (excluding the Bay Area) on average cost $385,185 per un it of below market rate housing.21F
24 23 Raetz et al, p. 15.
24 How much does it cost to construct one unit of below market housing in the Bay Area? Bay Area Council Economic Institute.
Accessed April 1, 2022, from http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-produce-one-unit-of-below-market- housing-in-the-bay-area/
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-B-50
Figure 1: Average Per Unit Cost Construction of New BMR Housing by County (2019) Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; Analysis by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.
3.1.4 Labor Costs
The California Labor Code applies prevailing wage rates to public works projects exceeding $1,000 in value.
Public works projects include construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work performed under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. State law exempts affordable housing projects from the prevailing wage requirement if they are financially assisted exclusively with Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing set-aside funds. However, if other public funds are involved, which is often the case, prevailing wage rates may still apply. Furthermore, if federal funds are involved, Davis - Bacon Act wages often apply. Under the Davis -Bacon Act, workers must be paid no less than the locally prevailing wages, as well as overtime payments of time and a half. While the cost differential in prevailing and standard wages varies based on the skill level of the occupation, prevailing wages tend to add to the overall cost of development. In the case of affordable housing p rojects, prevailing wage requirements could effectively reduce the number of affordable units that can be achieved with public subsidies.
Statewide, labor costs have also increased in recent years, as the labor pool has not kept pace with the increase in demand. Since the recession, California has seen a severe tightening in the construction labor market, especially for workers trained in specific construction trades. The lack of an available labor force drives up the cost of labor and leads to project dela ys as workers are either unavailable or lost to more profitable projects.
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-B-51
3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application After a Planning Entitlement for a development project has been approved by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Co mmission or City Council; it becomes the applicant’s responsibility to initiate the steps to secure building permit approvals and begin construction in accordance with the approved plans. The length of time between a project’s planning entitlement approval and building permit application is determined by the applicant.
Intervening steps include obtaining additional City clearances and paying fees as outlined in a project’s conditions of approval. Other necessary actions for the applicant include:
1. Completing construction drawings after project approval (city does not control this timeline)
2. Recording with the County Clerk subdivision (final) maps (applies to ownership projects)
3. Retaining contractors
4. Obtaining utility approvals (not owned by the city), required easements, and rights of entry
5. Providing tenant relocation assistance
As discussed in Sections 2.7 and 2.8 above, the City has taken several steps to facilitate the review process.
Once a project begins the building permit application review proce ss, the applicant also has a shared responsibility in resubmitting materials and addressing comments in a timely manner. With responsive applicants, the following general timelines can be achieved during the building permit stage:
1. Single-family projects generally take 1-3 months*
2. Multi-family and mixed-use projects generally take 6-10 months* (*Note: actual timeline depends on how fast an applicant can resubmit plans with corrections, complexity of project, etc.)
3.2 Requests for Housing Developments at Red uced Densities State law requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. As demonstrated in the City’s Annual Progress Reports in past years, there is a strong trend for development projects to utility density bonus law to add additional units beyond the base density. While the City anticipates the trend to continue due to the high demand for housing in the bay area region, the Housing Element includes an implem entation program in Policy H1.9 to amend the Zoning Code to add minimum density requirements to ensure that future development projects meet the anticipated density in the sites inventory, or exceed it.
3.3 Physical Site Constraints
The City of San Mateo recognizes the challenges associated with building housing, especially that which is affordable, on infill sites. Many parcels in the downtown area and along El Camino Real are considered small, and the City acknowledges that parcels may need to be consolidated under one owner in order to facilitate mixed use and affordable housing development. To incentivize parcel aggregation, the City’s
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-B-52
Zoning Code includes provisions such as a tiered allowable floor area based with higher allowable floor areas for larger on parcel sizes in districts zoned for multi-family development.
3.4 Environmental Constraints
The environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of residential development. Environmental issues range from the suitability of land for development, the provision of adequate infrastructure and services, as well as the cost of energy. San Mateo currently encompasses about 7,744 acres of land. The majority of the parcels in the City’s boundary are developed. Most of the undeveloped parcels are in the areas to the west near Sugarloaf Mountain. These areas contain environmental constraints on development, such as steep slopes, landslide hazards, fire hazards, or flood hazards, and therefore, much of the undeveloped land has been set aside as o pen space. The following are environmental constraints and hazards that affect, in varying degrees, existing and future residential developments.
3.4.1 Seismic Hazards
The San Andreas Fault zone is located approximately two miles west from the City of San Mateo boundary and the Hayward fault lies approximately 14 miles northeast of the City; however, there are no known active faults within the City. Major problems could result from ground shaking, which is likely to be amplified in the areas underlain by relatively unconsolidated deposits, especially in the eastern part of the City. Liquefaction is also a possibility in these areas. There is potential for landslides on all slopes; however, site-specific investigations can differentiate the degree of risk.
3.4.2 Topography/Slope
The City of San Mateo encompasses a variety of upland, hillside, valley and land forms that is defined by the Crystal Springs reservoir to the west, and the San Francisco Bay on the east. Elevations range from 0 to 631 feet above sea level. Western portions of the city are steep and susceptible to landslides, erosion, and other topographic hazards. To address these concerns, the City’s Site Development Code oversees development of lands with slopes exceeding 15 percent. The Site Develop ment Code requires technical studies that address surface grading, draining, erosion and subsurface conditions in order to minimize risks to the community and environment.
3.4.3 Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise
The City’s floodplain management ordinance r equires flood proofing or elevation of structures above flood heights along portions of San Mateo Creek and east of Bayshore. The City will continue to regulate development and improvements to properties located in the designated flood hazard areas in accordance with the ordinance. Since 2001, the City has identified a series of flood control projects to remove residential properties from the Flood Hazard Zone, which include the South Bayfront Levee Improvement projects (completed in 2010) and the North Shoreview Flood Improvement Project (may be completed by 2023). The City has two remaining tidal flood protection projects at the North Levee near Coyote Pointe 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-B-53
and at Laurel Creek near the San Mateo Glendale Village neighborhood. Approximately 8,000 properti es have been removed or have been prevented from being placed on the flood map to date.
Global climate change also poses potential impacts related to sea level rise. In 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency and California Ocean Protection Council u pdated the Sea -Level Rise Guidance Document22F
25, which estimates sea levels in the San Francisco Bay Area to rise 22 inches by the year 2050 and 82 inches by the year 2100. San Mateo is in a low -lying coastal area and thus is highly vulnerable to this threat. A sea level rise of 22 inches could inundate areas near Seal Point. If the level of San Francisco Bay rises 82 inches, water is projected to inundate all parts of San Mateo east of Highway 101, the area north of downtown, and large sections of the Hayw ard Park, Bay Meadows, and Laurie Meadows neighborhoods. To protect against sea level rise, the City participates in the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District’s OneShoreline program to coordinate shoreline protection projects throughout the County. For more information, see the program website: www.oneshoreline.org.
3.4.4 Fire Hazards
Much of the open space, hillside area of San Mateo is located west of El Camino Real. There is higher potential for fire in these areas including grass or wildland fires as shown in the following figure from CAL FIRE (Figure 2). The risk in these areas is compounded by limited emergency access to open space areas and, in some cases, by insufficient fire hydrants/water flow to meet fire-fighting requirements. The Safety Element of the General Plan, currently under development, will set forth updated approaches to reduce this risk in developed areas and in the design and location of new development in the hillsides.
25 State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update, https://www.opc.ca.gov/updating-californias-sea-level-rise-guidance , Accessed on April 1, 2022
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-B-54
Figure 2: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas Source: CAL FIRE, November 24, 2008.
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-B-55
3.5 Voter Approved Requirements Growth Limit s
One of the most significant constraints to high -density housing development in the City i s the voter approved ballot initiative that limits height and density of new development (capped at a maximum of 50 units per acre and 55 -75 feet height). In 1991, San Mateo voters enacted Measure H that amended the City’s General Plan to restrict heights and densities of new development in the City. Specifically, Measure H amended the General Plan to limit building h eights to a maximum of 55 feet (75 feet with public benefits), residential densities to a maximum of 50 units per acre, and nonresidential building intensity as measured by the ratio of building floor area to the size of the parcel to a maximum of 3.0 based on location. Measure H also established an inclusionary housing program requiring residential developments to provide at least 10 percent of a project’s units at rents or prices affordable to low- or moderate-income households.
As a voter -adopted initiative, the policies established by Measure H could not be amended by the City Council without subsequent voter approval while the measure was in effect. Measure H contained an expiration provision of December 31, 2005.
In 2004, the City Council proposed a ballot initiative, Measure P, to authorize limited modifications to the policies established by Measure H, and to extend the expiration provision until December 31, 2020 ; and Measure P was subsequently approved by the voters in November 2004.
In 2020, voters approved Measure Y 23F
26, which extended the expiration date of the General Plan policies concerning building heights, densities, and intensities established in Measure P to December 31, 2030. In addition, Measure Y amended the provisions of Measure P concerning the inclusionary housing program to comply with AB 1505, which is codified in Government Code 65850. This law requires inclusionary housing ordinances to allow developers of rental housing projects the option to provide off -site construction of units or other alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement.
This measure does not permit the payment of in-lieu fees as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. Th e inclusionary housing program, as modified by this measure, and the policies concerning building heights, densities, and intensities established in Measure P, cannot be amended by action of the City Council without voter approval until 2030.
Measure Y does not preclude the City’s ability to approve new higher density housing developments, but it does constrain the number of housing units that can be developed in any single project and increases the costs to develop new housing as it limits efficiency of scale that comes with high de nsity developments. For a City with a population of over 100,000 people with three Cal Train stations and a high quality transit corridor (El Camino Real) , new housing projects with densities at 100 -200 units per acre are not only feasible but also necessary in order to meet the City’s housing needs and support it s economy. The City has approved a significant number of new housing units over the last five years, but
26 Measure Y ballot language: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1537/General-Plan
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-B-56
the density cap has limited its ability to reduce the cost of housing and achieve the number of housing units needed to help alleviate local impacts from the region’s housing crisis.
In addition to the cap on housing density, Measure Y also constrains the City’s ability to impose a higher affordable housing inclusionary requirement on new housing development projects since it could negatively affect the per unit costs and potentially suppress overall housing production. The City currently has a 15% inclusionary requirement for both ownership and rental housing projects that was adopted by the City Council in 2020 after completion of a nexus study. These inclusionary requirements could be further assessed after the adoption of the City’s General Plan to see if any changes in the market conditions and constraints imposed by Measure Y have been reduced, which could allow the City to increase the inclusionary requirement for new development, thus resulting increasing affordable housing production.
While Measure Y has created a barrier to the development of housing projects with higher densities and heights, within the last five years, many housing projects have utilized State law to receive density bonuses, concessions and waivers to exceed the height, density, and intensity limitations imposed by Measure Y. In addition, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan, with an adoption target at the end of 2023, that would allow for increased heights and densities within ten study areas identified as priority locations for additional growth and new development. The draft land use map in the General Plan Update would increase land use densities to allow for up to 21,900 additional new housing units to be developed over the next 20 years. However, since the densities in the draft land use map exceed the 50 units per acre limit set by Measure Y, an updated ballot initiative would need to be approved by the voters before these provisions could take effect. With adoption of the General Plan targeted for the end of 2023, the ballot initiative could potentially go before the voters in 2024.
Overall, Measure Y is a significant Non-Governmental Constraint to housing production, and affordable housing in particular, in the City of San Mateo. Building community consensus around a path forward with Measure Y as part of the General Plan Update process is essential to meeting the City’s current and future housing needs and to reducing this significant constraint on housing production. (Policy H1.21)
APPENDIX C
HOUSING RESOURCES
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-2
APPENDIX C | HOUSING RESOURCES
0.1 Table of Content
0.1 Table of Content ................................ ................................ ........................... 2
0.2 List of Figures ................................ ................................ ............................... 3
0.3 List o f Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ 3
0.4 List of Attachments ................................ ................................ ....................... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4 2 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ .......5
2.1 Federal Programs ................................ ................................ .......................... 5
2.1.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ..................................................................... 5
2.1.2 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) ............................................................... 5
2.1.3 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) .............................................................................. 5
2.1.4 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program .................................................................................... 5
2.1.5 Other Federal Programs ........................................................................................................ 6
2.2 State Programs ................................ ................................ ............................. 6
2.2.1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) ........................................................................ 6
2.2.2 Other State Programs ........................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Other Public Funds ................................ ................................ ........................ 7
2.3.1 Housing Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency ................................................. 7
2.3.2 City Housing Fund ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.3 Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF) .............................................................................................. 7
2.3.4 San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund ....................................................................... 7
2.4 Private For -Profit and Nonprofit Sources ................................ ........................ 7
2.4.1 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .................................................................................... 8
2.4.2 Private Developers ................................................................................................................ 8
2.4.3 Non-Profit Agencies .............................................................................................................. 8
2.4.4 Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART) ............................................................... 8 3 HOUSING-RELATED PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..9
3.1 Minor Home Repair ................................ ................................ ....................... 9
3.2 Home Rehabilitation ................................ ................................ ...................... 9
3.3 Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction ................................ ............................... 9
3.4 First Time Home Buyers Program ................................ ................................ .... 9
3.5 Acquisition of Land ................................ ................................ ........................ 9
3.6 Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing ................................ .......... 9
3.7 Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) ............................... 10
3.8 New Construction ................................ ................................ ........................ 10
3.9 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................ ................................ .. 10
3.10 Special Needs Housing ................................ ................................ ................. 10
3.11 Homeless Programs ................................ ................................ ..................... 10 C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-3
3.11.1 LifeMoves Shelter Network................................................................................................. 11
3.11.2 Safe Harbor Emergency Shelter .......................................................................................... 11
3.11.3 Stone Villa Inn ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.12 Regional Collaborations ................................ ................................ ............... 11
3.12.1 Inter-Agency Council (IAC) .................................................................................................. 11
3.12.2 Continuum of Care .............................................................................................................. 11
3.12.3 HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program ................................................................................. 12
3.13 Chronic Homelessness ................................ ................................ ................. 12
3.14 Homeless Prevention ................................ ................................ ................... 12
3.14.1 Legal Aid Society, HomeSavers Program ............................................................................ 12
3.14.2 LifeMoves, Rapid Rehousing Program ................................................................................ 12
3.15 Discharge Policy ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 4 SITES INVENTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13
4.1 On -Site Constraints Analysis ................................ ................................ ........ 13
4.2 Non -Vacant Site Redevelopment Analysis ................................ ..................... 14
4.3 Approved Projects ................................ ................................ ....................... 16
4.4 Pi peline Projects ................................ ................................ ......................... 22
4.5 Redevelopment Opportunity Sites ................................ ................................ 35
0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Key Inventory Sites ..................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2: Study Area Map ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3: Sites Inventory Map .................................................................................................................... 51
0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Site Affordability Breakdown ........................................................................................................ 52
0. 4 List of Attachments
▪ Table A – Housing Sites Inventory
▪ Table B – Housing Sites Inventory Edits
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-4
1 INTRODUCTION
The housing resources of the City of San Mateo are comprised of all the funds, programs, and sites that are available to be used to create additional housing affordability. There is a myriad of ways the City can address housing concerns in the community, both from a land use and from a programmatic standpoint.
The City receives and dedicates funding sources to be used in the development of affordable housing and housing related programs . These housing related programs can also be jointly managed by non -profit providers and city staff working collaboratively. The City is also responsible for ensuring that it maintains an inventory of sites that can feasibly support enough housing development to meet the goals o f the Housing Element. These three areas together make up the housing resources of the City.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-5
2 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS
This section will discuss the funding the City utilizes in the development of housing, especially housing that is affordable, through financial and other kinds of assistance, as well as for other housing programs.
Affordable housing projects in particular, due to the high costs of land and construction, typically require a combination of resources and partnerships to achieve development and affordability . There are a number of resources available to the City to implement its housing and community development objectives. Each funding source typically comes with a set of regulations that restricts the ways in which it may be used to ensure that they meet the parameters of the purpose of the program. Many of the programs identified herein are designed primarily to address affordability issues, as the cost of housing is a significant impediment to homeowners and renters alike.
2.1 Federal Programs
2.1.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The City of San Mateo has been an active participant in the CDBG program for over 40 years. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards this flexible grant program to jurisdictions through a statutory formula that uses measurements of need. CDBG funds can be used to assist low- and moderate-income persons in the form of social services activities, housing rehabilitation, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, improvement of public facilities, and prevention and elimination of slums and blight. The City’s entitlement grant has increased an averag e of about 5% over the last five years. It is anticipated that the CDBG grant will either remain the same or decrease; therefore, the City is budgeting a conservative 2% decrease annually over the next five years.
2.1.2 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
The HOME program is a federal grant to participating jurisdictions determined by formula allocations.
HOME funds are directed toward the housing programs that assist persons at or below 60% of the median income, including acquisition, rehabilitati on, new construction, tenant -based assistance, homebuyer assistance, planning and supportive services. The City of San Mateo participates in the program as part of a consortium with the County of San Mateo and the City of South San Francisco.
2.1.3 Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
The LIHTC is an incentive for investors to provide equity to develop rental units for households at 30 - 60% of median income. The program is not a direct federal subsidy, but rather a tax incentive administered by the Internal Revenue Service. $1,200,000 in tax credits were used to help finance the Montara project in 2020, which contained 68 affordable housing units and 12 units set-aside for formerly homeless veterans.
2.1.4 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
This program is administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority with multiple eligibility criteria; including a family or a single person who is 62 years or older, disabled or pregnant, with a household annual gross income equal to or below the HUD published income limits. Households who qualify for Federal Preference are considered first and are defined as persons who are involuntarily displaced, or persons who are paying more than 50% of household income towards rent. Nearly 700 San Mateo residents are assisted annually through individual vouchers and have selected housing that distributes the assistance throughout neighborhoods in the City.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-6
2.1.5 Other Federal Programs
There are other Federal programs that may be made available to affordable housing projects located in the City, including the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program in which HUD provides funding to develop and subsidize rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very low- and extremely low-income adults with disabilities. The Section 811 assistance comes in the form of project rental assistance alone. No funds are available for construction or rehabilitation. In addition, HUD-VASH is a collaborative program which pairs HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance with VA case management and supportive services for homeless Veterans. These services are designed to help homeless Veterans and their families find and sustain permanent housing and access the health care, mental health treatment, substance use counseling, and other supports necessary to help them in their recovery process and with their ability to maintain housing in the community.
2.2 State Programs
2.2.1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
The City of San Mateo began receiving funding through the PLHA program in 2020. HCD awards the grant to cities and counties based on a formula of the amount of funding each jurisdiction receives through the CDBG program. PLHA funds can be used for predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation of low-income housing, to match funds into housing trusts or low-income housing asset funds, accessibility modifications, homeownership opportunities, rehabilitation, and other supportive housing and homelessness services. The City ’s estimated 5 -year award from HCD is $2,051,364 and therefore anticipates an award of around $400,000 annually.
2.2.2 Other State Programs
The City of San Mateo obtains funding from several State programs such as the CalHome Program, which is currently used for a home rehabilitation loan program and has a fund balance of around $560,000 in 2022. Staff keeps a close eye on funding cycles and new funding opportunities from the State as they are released. Housing developers and housing organizations are eligible to apply for State funds, such as programs sponsored by California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), on a project-by- project basis. There are also State Low-Income Tax Credits available, which can be used to assist housing projects. Participants in First Time Homebuyer Programs often utilize the CalHFA mortgage and down payment assistance programs as they are available.
Projects within the City have also utilized other state funding programs, including the Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), which is available as gap funding for infrastructure improvements necessary for specific residential or mixed-use infill development projects or areas and the Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) which provides matching funds to local and regional housing trust funds. Other state programs include Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, which funds projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF) which provides a flexible source of capital for the development and preservation of affordable housing properties, Project Homekey, which can be used to develop hotels, motels, hostels, single- family homes and multifamily apartments and other existing buildings to Permanent or Interim Housing, Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) which creates supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health care provided through the Medi-Cal program, the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) which provides loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households, and the Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP) which provides short-term loans to finance affordable housing predevelopment costs.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-7
2.3 Other Public Funds
2.3.1 Housing Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency As mandated by the state legislature, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of San Mateo was dissolved as of February 1, 2012. As the Housing Successor Agency, the City of San Mateo is responsible for the management of properties and funds formerly belonging to the Redevelopment Agency. The City elected to retain the housing assets and housing functions previously performed by the Agency upon dissolution. A portfol io of loans previously financed by RDA funds provides some program income to support future affordable housing. At the time of dissolution, the City’s RDA fund balance of approximately $1.9M was returned to the local taxing agencies. The City elected to re tain its portion of the returned funds in the amount of $706,000 to be reserved for affordable housing. It has also set a policy to contribute 20% of the annual increase in property tax revenues to be retained for affordable housing on an ongoing basis. The fund has dedicated $2,850,000 to the Kiku Crossing affordable housing project and the balance is expected to be at $250,000 afterwards.
2.3.2 City Housing Fund
In 1992 an inclusionary zoning ordinance was passed that requires a portion of affordable units be provided in all complexes with 11 or more units in both rental and ownership developments. The program was amended on January 1, 2020. For rental projects, d evelopers must provide 15% of units to be affordable to households up to 80% AMI. In ownership developments, developers must provide 15% of the units affordable to households up to 120% AMI. Additional affordable units can be provided for bonuses and conce ssions. When the amount of required BMR units includes a fraction above 0.5, the requirement is rounded up, but when it is between 0.1 and 0.4, an in -lieu fee is charged. This fee has become a source of funds that may be used for housing policies and progr ams. This fund also contains miscellaneous housing revenues collected from subordination processing and loan payoffs from the old First Time Homebuyer program.
2.3.3 Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF)
In 2016 the City adopted a new ordinance to establish a commercial linkage fee. The fee, which is collected when a building permit for a nonresidential use is issued, is to be used for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. It is calculated by using the gross floor area of net new commercial space, excluding structured parking. The fee rates are adjusted annually using the construction cost index, but the City maintains three tiers of pricing for the fee, with retail/service at the least expensive , hotel at middle pricing, and office/research at the highest rates.
2.3.4 San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund
The County of San Mateo administers the Affordable Housing Fund. On April 8, 2013, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved the allocation of approximately $13,400,000 of unrestricted general funds for affordable housing purposes. These funds, which initiated the County’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), were derived from a one-time distribution of Housing Trust Funds held by former redevelopment agencies in San Mateo County. There have been eight subsequent AHF competitive funding rounds, using a combination of County general funds, Measure K funds, San Mateo County Housing Authority Moving to Work Housing Assistance Program Reserves, HOME funds, CDBG funds, and funds allocated to the County from HCD. The Kiku Crossing affordable housing project received an allocation of $5.185M from the AHF.
2.4 Private For -Profit and Nonprofit Sources
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-8
2.4.1 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
Several opportunities exist for partnership with local lenders via the Community Reinvestment Act. This law requires local lenders to analyze the lending needs of the community in which they do business, particularly the needs of low and moderate -income persons, and develop programs to addr ess those needs. To date several lenders have offered favorable terms on first mortgages for the First Time Home Buyer program which has provided tremendous support to the program. Other lenders have assisted new construction projects in the form of construction loans and permanent financing. The City considers this a beneficial resource for future partnerships as well.
2.4.2 Private Developers
In any housing project the City undertakes with private developers, the City attempts to leverage its resources as much as possible. The City attempts to provide the "gap" financing that is needed to make an affordable housing project feasible. Private developers are very interested in developing housing because of the current high demand and the City continues to w ork with them to find ways to include affordability within their projects. With the current demand for housing, the City sees good opportunities to work with the private sector in the area of new housing construction over the next eight years.
2.4.3 Non-Profit Agencies
There are several partnership opportunities with non -profit organizations. Foundations and lender consortiums provide means of financial assistance. Community service organizations provide housing services and manage housing programs. Non-profit developers produce new affordable units. To date , the majority of new affordable units have been sponsored by non-profit developers. This trend will most likely continue since the federal programs strongly encourage the use of non -profit agencies for housing programs.
2.4.4 Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART)
The Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo County is a regional trust fund for affordable housing in San Mateo County. It has a revolving loan fund to provid e financing for affordable housing developments usually in the form of short -term gap or predevelopment financing. HEART provided financing for Kiku Crossing in 2022.
HEART’s “First Time Homebuyer ” Program provides below market rate second loans as down payment assistance for persons who make up to $180,000 per year and households that make up to $220,000 per year. The program is also structured to eliminate private mortgage insurance which results in lowering the total monthly housing payment for homebuyers.
The City is partnering with HEART to create pre -approved designs for ADUs to allow for streamlined application processing and approval and incorporating environmentally friendly design. The goal of the initiative is to increase ease of ADU production, and therefore increase affordable housing production.
Four designs have been created at different unit sizes to accommodate the size constraints of different sites – studio, 1 bedroom (square), 1 bedroom (rectangular), and 2 bedrooms.
As new federal, state and local sources of funds appear, the City will integrate them into its programs and look for new solutions to meeting the affordable housing needs. It also continues to aggressively seek other potential financing sources and partnership opportunities.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-9
3 HOUSING -RELATED PROGRAMS
3.1 Minor Home Repair
The Minor Home Repair program provides these services free of charge to low -income homeowners.
Owners are entitled to free minor exterior or interior repairs. Repairs also include accessibilit y modifications and simple energy efficiency improvements. The overwhelming majority of participants in this program is senior citizens. An average of 35 minor home repair projects were completed annually during the previous housing element cycle.
3.2 Home Rehabilitation
The City operates a similar, but separate program for home repairs that constitute major upgrades. The program offers assistance to low -income homeowners in the form of deferred payment loans up to a maximum of $60,000 for home rehabilitati on. The program is limited to properties that have 1 -4 units.
Loans are for a 20-year term with a 3% interest rate. While the program has received interest from the community, there have been no rehabilitations completed through this program as of 2022.
3.3 Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction
The City developed and implements lead -based paint regulations in accordance with HUD Guidelines 24 CFR Part 35 and 40 CFR Part 745 last revised 2012.
3.4 First Time Home Buyers Program
This program provides first time buyers the opportunity to purchase condominiums as they become available for resale at two City sponsored complexes, which are Meadow Court and Gateway Commons, and have 70 and 93 affordable housing units respectively. This project-based approach is also augmented by new ownership units that either the City builds , or private developers build in compliance with the City’s Below Market Rate Program.
3.5 Acquisition of Land
The City is always looking for opportunities to purchase land to assist the dev elopment of housing. This includes land banking for the development of owner and rental housing, senior and family housing, transit-oriented housing, and mixed-use developments. Currently, the City owns two properties within downtown San Mateo, one of which is at the intersection of 4th Ave and Railroad Ave. The sites comprise a surface parking lot for a closed toy store, referred to as the Talbot’s site. The City plans to use these site for the development of affordable housing in a public/private partnership at $1 per year lease. This site is included in the Sites Inventory as there is a proposal to develop 60 units affordable at the very-low to low- income level including family housing . Details about the site characteristics and proposal are shown on the Figure 1 map and included below in Section 4.4 as the Bespoke project.
3.6 Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
The City also partners with nonprofit organizations to purchase and rehabilitate existing housing and make it more affordable. As funds are available, the City will consider purchasing multi-family complexes and/or single-family homes to make available for rental housing. This helps preserve t he existing housing stock by ensuring adequate property management standards and adds to the City’s affordable housing stock.
The City typically funds these types of projects with HOME and RDA Housing Successor funds. In addition, the City will consider pu rchase of individual condominium units in private developments, as funds are available. These units would be included in the existing First Time Homebuyer Program and sold to moderate-income households with the same loan terms and resale price restrictions.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-10
3.7 Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO)
The City no longer administers its own HOME programs after entering into a consortium. However, San Mateo County will coordinate with HIP Housing Development Corp. (HHDC) or any other qualified CHDO to apply the annual increment of HOME funds that are channeled directly to CHDOs. The HOME funds will be used to assist persons who make less than 60% of the area median income.
3.8 New Construction
Although the coronavirus pandemic has had significant impact on the cost of construction, the City sees the potential for more partnership opportunities to develop new housing with both for -profit and nonprofit developers, mostly due to the wide array of financing tools currently available. Developers have become far more knowledgeable about how to apply for and combine the various government program funds and available private funding to build affordable housing.
3.9 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The City's ADU ordinance , most recently updated in 2022, allows the construction of modest units sometimes referred to as "granny units" in residentially zoned neighborhoods. These units are relatively inexpensive to rent due to their size and are often occupied by family members as a way to live together yet maintain an element of privacy.
3.10 Special Needs Housing
The City provided extensive funds for acquisition/rehabilitation of an apartment building formerly owned by private individual s with County contracts. This project, known a s the Humbolt House, operates as permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental illness. The City also provided land and subsidies to construct permanent affordable housing with 10 units set aside for households with mental health issues at risk of homelessness as referred by the County for the Delaware Pacific project. Through the PLHA program, the City provides funding for staff salaries at the Montara affordable housing project, which contains a set aside of 12 units for formerly homeless veterans. These staff will manage the client services and case management needed for the tenants. The goals for this program are to aid in buildi ng long term stability in their living situations. These subsidies are in addition to assistance being granted to the project from the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The City provided land and subsid ies to construct permanent affordable housing with 8 units set aside for individuals with development disabilities, and 16 units set aside for formerly homeless individuals at the Kiku Crossing project, which is currently under construction.
3.11 Homeless Programs
Although the City does not directly manage any homeless prevention or assistance programs, it collaborates and financially supports a variety of programs countywide. The sources of funds for homeless programs in the City of San Mateo are CDBG, PLHA, Affordable Housing Funds, and City Housing funds.
County level funding that helps to benefit San Mateo residents in need include McKinney -Vento, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re -Housing Program ( HPRP), and Section 8 programs. All homeless outreach, assistance and prevention programs are conducted by local nonprofit organizations in coordination with various local government agencies. The City works with several groups to provide emergency shelters, transitional housing and support services for the homeless as described in the 2018- 23 Consolidated Plan. The City collaborates with the County of San Mateo on countywide homeless counts, which occurs every two years; and follows the County’s “Continuum of C are” (CofC) program to address homeless which is described in the “Regional Collaborations” section below. In coordination with other jurisdictions in the county, the following shelter operations and expansion efforts the City supports are as follows:
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-11
3.11.1 LifeMoves Shelter Network
The City has provided operational funds in the past and may continue based on available funds through the CDBG program to support LifeMoves for shelter operations within City limits . They operate in two sites located in the City: supportive housing at the Vendome (which is not a shelter), and the First Step for Families shelter. For the Vendome, the City provided 100% of acquisition/rehab ilitation costs and supports their efforts to obtain HUD funds (PUSH) for operations through the Continuum of Care process.
For First Step for Families, the City provided extensive capital funding to develop the property and starting in 2020 , the Community Resource Commission awarded CDBG grants for operations of the shelter.
Through countywide collaboration, the City also supports the efforts of other shelters run by LifeMoves throughout San Mateo County, including the Coast House, Family Crossroads, Haven Family House, Maple Street Shelter, and Redwood Family House.
3.11.2 Safe Harbor Emergency Shelter
The City provides $15,000 annual ly from City Housing for the operation of Safe Harbor, the regional emergency shelter for adult individuals located in South San Francisco and operated by Samaritan House.
After the basic human needs have been met and shelter clients have been stabilized, Safe Harbor provides case management for financial counseling including job search and employment services as well as budgeting to help achieve financial self-sufficiency. The program also provides housing search assistance, including assistance to find subsidized housing when possible. One example is access to the San Mateo County Housing Readiness Voucher program which includes 3 years of continuous case management and rental housing vouchers. Safe Harbor’s overall goal is to ensure stabilized housing for three years.
3.11.3 Stone Villa Inn
Through the Homekey program, San Mateo County plans to perform a conversion of the hotel Stone Villa Inn into an emergency shelter , which will be located within the City . The hotel currently contains 44 guestrooms, which could be conver ted into use for individual shelter rooms. Additionally , the City will support these efforts as a part of the CofC and extend its network of homeless services to the future clients of the shelter.
3.12 Regional Collaborations
City staff members are active members of the following regional collaboratives to address a wide variety of issues associated with homelessness and homeless prevention.
3.12.1 Inter-Agency Council (IAC)
The IAC is a countywide consortium of housing stakeholders to develop and support the San Mateo County HOPE: 10-year Plan to End Homelessness. This plan focusses on the provision of new affordable housing opportunities rather than development of new shelters.
3.12.2 Continuum of Care
The Continuum of Care committee for San Mateo County implements its plan to serve homeless persons and families. Through this collaboration of service providers and local government agencies, efforts are coordinated for outreach, needs assessment, provision of services for the homeless. The consortium also determines the priorities and allocation of Countywide Emergency Shelter Grant funds. In 2016, the CofC released its current Strategic Plan titled “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County”. From this plan, the Coordinated Entry System (CES) was created. It is a centralized system pulls together the service providers across the county to ensure that resources are available to all clients regardless of whic h jurisdiction an individual enters the system from.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-12
3.12.3 HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program
Staff serves on the selections committee for entry into this program that provides support services and rent assistance for a one-to-two-year term for candidates with educational and/or vocational training plans to find employment at a level to reduce the need for government assistance payments. The program provides deep supportive services to the clients to move toward self-sufficiency within a 2-year time period.
3.13 Chronic Homelessness
The Housing Outreach Team (HOT) is a multi -disciplinary team, including City s taff, formed through the HOPE initiative that addresses chronic homelessness by outreach and engagement. This program helps to provide housing and bring medical, mental health and substance abuse support services to those who might not otherwise seek such services. The outreach and case management of this team supports the residents of The Vendome, a permanent supportive housing SRO in Downtown San Mateo. The Vendome was acquired and renovated by the City with various housing financial resources in 2009. T he Vendome will continue to serve HOT identified clients and other very low-income residents this program year.
3.14 Homeless Prevention
As detailed under the sections below, the City will provide assistance grants to help prevent further homelessness. In addition to the programs identified below, Samaritan House, as well as other local agencies, provides services for the extremely low - income residents that include homeless prevention such as Rapid Rehousing, and emergency housing vouchers . However, these other programs are funded by other jurisdictions in the County.
3.14.1 Legal Aid Society, HomeSavers Program
Legal Aid assists tenant litigants with unlawful detainers and related matters to help people stay in their homes across the Bay Area region. They conduct weekly clinics at community centers and at the County Court House advising and representing applicants as necessary in court proceedings. Their goal is to keep people in their homes and prevent homelessness through their advocacy. The City traditionally funds them annually through the CDBG program. They negotiate with landlords on tenant’s behalf regarding other issues that threaten their ability to live in safe, decent, affordable housing. Their goal is to counsel 480 individuals in 160 households.
3.14.2 LifeMoves, Rapid Rehousing Program
LifeMoves operates the City’s Rapid Rehousing program for individuals and families at great risk of experiencing homelessness. Clients are given direct financial assistance to resolve debt related to housing expenses as well as case management to connect them to resources to stabilize their finances and overall wellbeing. The program is funded through PLHA as has the goal of serving 5 individuals and 5 families during its first year of operations. This goal is expected to increase in later years with increased funding.
3.15 Discharge Policy
The City does not directly fund any institutions requiring discharge. These policies are requirements of health institutions to discharge patients experiencing homelessness to a safe and appropriate location , offer meals and weather -appropriate clothing, distribution of needed medicines, and providing the necessary transportation . These institutions are within the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo.
Discharge policies are a component of the County’s HOPE 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-13
4 SITES INVENTORY
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). To create this list, City staff undertook an extensive process to review the feasibility of housing development for every site located within the key study areas that had been identified by the community while weighing in the expertise of staff, consultants, and developers . The draft sites list was posted to the city website in December 2021 for public comment where staff received many comments and updated the inventory as appropriate.
In 2019, City staff began a series of citizen outreach workshops where the community was asked to select target areas where they believed future housing development would be most suitable. From this process, the City was able to identify ten study areas for the 6th Housing Element Cycle’s sites inventory. Then, trends were analyzed from the previous 5 years to see what the expected densities of potential redevelopment would be when weighed against the existing site constraints such as zoning, size, and neighborhood trends. Staff was able to use this process to calculate the realistic redevelopment capacity of these sites. Within these study areas, there are currently enough sites zoned to accommodate 9,934 new housing units in the City of San Mateo. The affordability breakdown of these sites is 1,894 Very Low- Income units, 1,373 Low-Income units, 1,317 Moderate-Income units, and 5,350 Above Moderate-Income units. The sites for affordable developments were spread throughout the City to avoid adding to any Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RECAP).
4.1 On -Site Constraints Analysis
The City of San Mateo is a fully urbanized municipality serviced by PG&E, CAL Water, Estero Water District, and its own wastewater treatment plant for sewage . All sites on the inventory have access to electric, natural gas, water, sewage, road access, and other infrastructure needs for housing redevelopment. To start service at any site would not prove infeasible for installation and standard connections to the existing systems and does not present a constraint.
Air quality and noise has been acknowledged as potential environmental constraints on fifty-five identified sites due to proximity to highways and railways. However, air quality may be addressed through incorporation of mechanical filtration systems that can adequately filter air particulates for housing projects. Noise impacts can also be mitigated through enhanced construction materials such as double or triple paned windows and sound attenuating insulation. During project review, individual projects near highways and railways are evaluated with project specific technical analysis to analyze these constraints and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Twenty-one sites in the inventory have been identified to lie within the flood zone or adjacent to creeks.
The City requires that n ew housing development within the 100-year flood plain raise the lowest living level above base flood elevation to avoid the risks of flash flooding. Sites that contain creeks require construction to be restricted behind creek setbacks , which prohibit development within 30 feet of the center line of any creek or 20 feet of the top of a bank . The sites identified that are adjacent to creeks have existing structures outside these setbacks that can be repurposed or redeveloped within similar building footprints. Neither constraint would limit the ability of the sites to produce new housing.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-14
In the previous Housing Element Cycle, the City approved several housing projects that included lot consolidation including: The Lark, Grand Blvd Townhomes, Hacienda Mateo, 737 2 nd Ave, Block 20, Nazareth Vista, Concar Passage, Hillsdale Terraces, Santa In ez Condos, and Kiku Crossing. The City has displayed a track record of approving projects that include lot consolidation. Additionally, the City’s zoning code encourages lot consolidation through higher allowable densities for larger lots. Lot consolidation can be expected to continue for new housing projects throughout the next Housing Element Cycle.
4.2 Non -Vacant Site Redevelopment Analysis
The City is relying on several non -vacant sites with very high redevelopment potential for purpo ses of meeting its RHNA allocation. Th e use of these non -vacant sites is justified as can be demonstrated by a significant number of recent projects at similar sites as the development stock in the City matures; as well as several in -progress development applications as demonstrated in sections 4.3 and 4.4 below. In the previous Housing Element Cycle, the City received four projects for missing middle housing that were previously on single family home sites. These sites have been identified as: Grand Boulevard Townhomes, Hacienda Mateo, 737 2nd Ave, and the Gum Street Duplexes in Section 4.3 below . The City was a ble to approve these projects without rezoning and produced a total of 19 additional units. This trend is expected to continue, with an application submitted for a similar project at 4 Santa Inez, which will result in a net increase of 8 units. This demonstrates that the City’s existing zoning allows for a range of housing types and sizes.
The City currently has t wo in-progress developments for multifamily housing that contain parcels that were previously single-family homes. The projects have been identified as Fremont Terrace and Block 20 in Section 4.4 below . Together, they will create 98 new housing units, with 11 affordable units. These projects demonstrate that with the right location, low-density housing can be redeveloped under the City’s existing zoning to generate additional units that include affordable units under the City’s Below Market Rate Ordinance. As the Ci ty undergoes the General Plan update, similar sites will be identified , which will continue the trend of creating new areas of appropriate housing density.
The majority of sites are nonvacant, with nonvacant sites accommodating more than 50% of the lower income units. However, this will not be an impediment to development as the type of sites used for the inventory are consistent with those that have been redeveloped into housing projects in the last Housing Element Cycle . The City has received several applications for projects that involved redeveloping underutilized low-density commercial property into either full housing or mixed -use housing projects.
Nine key projects that fit this description are: Concar Passage, Azara, The Lark ( Park 20), Hillsdale Inn, Nazareth Plaza, Trag’s Market (303 Baldwin) , Hillsdale Terraces, Peninsula Heights, and 1919 O’Farrell .
Combined, they will produce a total of 1,902 new housing units, with 172 affordable units. This trend can be expected to continue, with owner interest in redevelopment being expressed for many of the sites identified in the sites inventory table, such as the Hillsdale Mall, Peninsula Heights, Marriot Residence Inn, The Fish Market, Bayshore Commons, Borel Square Shopping Center, Ah Sam Floral Co, The Atrium, and the Olympic (Mollie Stone’s) Shopping Center . Rather than the existing uses discontinuing from lack of interest, market trends reveal that developers have bought out long term businesses t o allow redevelopment into housing . Furthermore, these sites do not require rezoning, as residential development is an allowed use on the commercial sites included in the inventory.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-15
Figure 1: Key Inventory Sites
Universe: Sites Inventory December 2022
Notes: The individual sites identified correspond to an in-progress or potential upcoming housing development site identified in the inventory.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-16
4.3 Approved Projects
A Azara
Address: 1650 S. Delaware St.
Zoning: Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Transit Oriented
Development (TOD)
APN: Lot Size:
035-200-120 1.07 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 54 units) Approved Density: 68 units/acre
State Density Bonus: 35% bonus requested for 19 additional units.
Status: Built and Occupied in 2021
Net Increase in Units: 73
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The existing building on this site was one-story office, most recently occupied by AAA Insurance. It was surrounded by a surface parking lot. The Station Park Green development abuts the south and west property lines while the post office property shares the north property line. To the east of the subject site, separated by existing South Delaware Street roadway, are single-family residential homes zoned R1-C.
Development:
Azara is a five-story, 73-unit, multi-family project. Planning entitlements for the development were approved in 2018, building permit for construction was issued in 2019, and the project was completed and occupied in 2021. The 73 units break down to 28 one-bedroom and 45 two-bedroom units, six of which are deed restricted affordable housing units at the very low-income level or 50% of Area Median Income (AMI).
Site Constraints:
None.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.4 miles of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.9 miles away from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-17
B The Lark (Park 20)
Address: 1950 Elkhorn Ct
Zoning: Executive Office with Multi-family Residential Overlay (E1-1/R4)
General Plan Designation: Executive Office/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-030-310 2.43 acres 3.95 acres
039-030-400 1.52 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 197 units) Approved Density: 50 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Project did not utilize density bonus.
Status: Built and Occupied in 2015
Net Increase in Units: 197
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site was previously a one-story office building, originally constructed in the 1960s, with a surface parking lot. For many years, it was a USPS Data Center.
Development:
The project is a four-story, 197-unit apartment building. Planning entitlements for the development were approved in 2011, a building permit for construction was issued in 2012, and the project was constructed and occupied in 2015. The 197-unit development includes 80 studios, 83 one-bedrooms, and 34 two- bedroom units, 20 of which are deed restricted affordable housing units at the very low-income level or 50% of AMI.
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. The developer installed an air filtration system to mechanically ventilate the building and provide a 65% reduction in concentrations of particulates.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 0.6 miles from Hayward Park Caltrain and 0.2 miles of S El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-18
C Grand Blvd Townhomes
Address: 318-322 Grand Boulevard
Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (R3)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family
APN: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
032-162-020 0.13 acres 0.32 acres
032-162-030 0.19 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 11 units) Approved Density: 25 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus
Status: Built and Occupied in 2018
Net Increase in Units: 3
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
These parcels were previously occupied by residential buildings constructed in the 1910s and 1930s.
All three of these buildings were single family homes until the 1950s, when the largest of the three was converted into a duplex. It was further subdivided in 1960 to become a triplex. In total, there were 5 units on this consolidated site when the redevelopment was pr oposed.
Development:
The existing structures were demolished to construct 8 detached townhouse units, for a net increase of three units, totaling approximately 12,568 square feet of floor area. Planning entitlements for the project were approved in September 2007. Due to the economic conditions and real estate conditions at the time, the project was soon put on hold. A building permit for construction was issued in 2017.
The project was completed in 2018.
This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.
Site Constraints
None.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to maximize density or utilize the state density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the state density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.8 miles of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.8 miles to S El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-19
D Hacienda Mateo
Address: 701 2nd Ave
Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (R3)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
104-930-040 0.41 acres
104-930-030
104-930-020
104-930-010
104-930-050
104-930-060
104-930-070
104-930-080
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 14 units) Approved Density: 20 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus
Status: Built and Occupied in 2015
Net Increase in Units: 5
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Before redevelopment, the site consisted of three single-family homes.
Development:
The existing structures on the site were demolished to build 8 units, all townhomes. In 2007, the Planning Commission approved the project with a two-year entitlement. The State of California later granted entitlement extension that would last till March 2014. The City of San Mateo issued a building permit for the new duplexes in 2014. Construction was completed in 2015.
This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.
Site Constraints:
None.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the state density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the state density b onus to add units above the City’s base density.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.2 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.8 miles of S El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-20
E 737 2nd Ave
Address: 721-737 2nd Ave, 136-138 Fremont Ave
Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (R-3)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
117-650-030 0.37 acres
117-650-040
117-650-050
117-650-060
117-650-070
034-163-310
117-650-010
117-650-020
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 12 units) Approved Density: 19 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus
Status: Built and Occupied in 2018
Net Increase in Units: 6
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The buildings situated at 737 and 739 2nd Avenue were a small market and an associated residence that were built before 1920. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report was prepared to assess these structures.
According to the report, the market qualified as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as it may be the earliest example of a wood-frame, false front commercial structure in San Mateo. Prior to the application for redevelopment, the remaining lot area had been vacant.
Development:
The project consists of seven townhome units, each of which are three-bedrooms units. The historic market building is preserved and incorporated into the project, while the residential building next to it was demolished. Planning entitlements for the development and a building permit were issued in 2016.
Construction was completed, and the building was occupied in 2018.
This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.
Site Constraints:
None.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the state density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the state density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.3 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.9 miles of S El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-21
F Gum Street Duplexes
Address: 1753-1815 Gum St
Zoning: Low Density Multi-Family (R-2)
General Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
117-220-010 0.55 acres
117-220-020
117-220-030
117-220-040
117-220-050
117-220-060
117-220-070
117-220-080
Max Allowable Base Density: 15 units/acre (or 8 units)
Approved Density: 15 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus
Status: Built and occupied in 2017
Net Increase in Units: 5
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Prior to redevelopment, the site consisted of a single-family home constructed in 1915 and a residential duplex erected in the early 1950s. A historical study was conducted to assess the historical status of the single-family home and found that the building did not possess historical significance.
Development:
The project resulted in the construction of 8 total units—four duplexes with two units each. Each unit has three bedrooms, but they range in size from 3,572 to 3,879 square feet. Planning entitle ments for the development were approved and a building permit was issued in 2015. Construction concluded in 2017.
This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.2 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station and half a mile of S El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-22
4.4 Pipeline Projects
1 Fremont Terrace
Address: 200 S Fremont Street
Zoning: High Density Multi-Family, Downtown Specific Plan Gateway Area (R4-D)
General Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
033-163-160 0.42 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 21 units) Approved Density: 36 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus.
Status:
Entitlement Approval – November 2016
Off-Site Construction Staging – February 2022
Net Increase in Units: 14
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Previously the site was a single-family house with three bedrooms and one bathroom.
Proposed Development:
In 2016, City Council approved an entitlement for the development of a four -story 15-unit residential condominium. Two of the units are deed restricted affordable housing units at the moderate -income level or 120% of Area Median Income (AMI).
Site Constraints:
None.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to maximize the available base density or utilize the state density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the state density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within a half mile of San Mateo Caltrain Station (0.3 mi), within 0.6 miles of El C amino Real.
Project Website: Fremont Terrace
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-23
2 Trag’s Market
Address: 303 Baldwin Avenue
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial with Multi-Family Overlay (C1-2/R5)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Total Lot Size:
032-322-230 0.93 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Density: 50 units/acre (or 46 units)
Approved Density: 68 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Applied (22 additional units)(or 48% density bonus)
Status:
Entitlement Approval – January 2019
Building Permit Approval – February 2021
Construction – In Progress
Net Increase in Units: 64
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site was previously a grocery store (Trag’s Market) constructed in 1956 with a surface parking lot.
Proposed Development:
In 2019, the City of San Mateo approved a five-story mixed-use housing development for this site. The building will consist of 64 studio and one-bedroom residential units, with 6 units intended for affordable housing at the lower income level or 80% AMI. The applicant also proposed commercial/retail space on the ground floor and office space on above floors. Construction on this project has already begun.
Site Constraints:
None.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within half mile (280 feet) of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.3 miles away from El Camino Real.
Project Website: 303 Baldwin Avenue (Trag’s Market)
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-24
3 Block 20
Address: 500 E 4th Avenue
Zoning: Central Business District Support (CBD/S)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Downtown Retail Core
APN: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-186-080 0.25 acres 1.16 acres
034-186-070 0.07 acres
034-186-060 0.14 acres
034-186-090 0.25 acres
034-186-110 0.45 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 58 units) Proposed Density: 74 units/acre (or 48% density bonus)
State Density Bonus: Requested (28 additional units)
Status: Pre-Application Under Review
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 84
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The parcels along E 4th Ave are currently occupied by a variety of commercial and residential uses. There is a Taco Bell on this site that was built in the 1970s and has an associated surface parking lot. A daycare occupies a nearby building on the corner of E 5th Ave and S Delaware St. There are two single family homes along S Delaware, one of which currently houses the San Mateo Japanese American Community Center. The gas station on this site was originally constructed in the early 1950s; i t has already been demolished in preparation for redevelopment.
Proposed Development:
The applicant is requesting to demolish all existing on-site structures to build a new six-story mixed use building consisting of 142,046 square feet of office uses and 86 residential units. Nine units are designated to be affordable at the very low-income level or 50% AMI.
Site Constraints:
Most of the parcels are owned by different parties which may pose a problem. In addition, as there is a gas station on the site, clean-up will be needed to remove any toxic waste that the station may have produced.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.3 miles of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.5 miles of S El Camino Real.
Project Website: Block 20
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-25
4 Nazareth Vista
Address: 616 S B Street
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial with Multifamily
Residential Overlay (C1-3/R5)
General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial/High
Density Multi-Family
APNs: Total Lot Size:
034-194-140 0.64 acres
034-194-030
Max Allowable Density: 50 units/acre (or 32 units)
Proposed Density: 75 units/acre (50% density bonus)
State Density Bonus: Requested (16 additional units)
Status: Planning Application Under Review
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 48
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site is currently dominated by a surface parking lot while the remaining area is devoted to commercial uses, including Kelly Moore Paints and TAP Plastics. The main building o n the site was originally constructed in 1956 to house a Goodyear Service Store. Kelly Moore Paints took over the retail space in 1992 and completed minor renovations. Overall, the buildings on the site are dated and due for redevelopment. Further, current land use zoning policies allow for a FAR of up to 3.0. Because the existing FAR is only 0.41, this site is greatly underutilized.
Proposed Development:
The City of San Mateo is currently reviewing a planning application for a proposed five -story mixed-use building. The applicant will demolish all existing structures on site to construct 48 new units of housing, including 5 deed restricted units devoted to the very-low-income category or 50% AMI. The applicant also proposes new commercial space, 19 commercial/visitor parking spaces and 2 ADA spaces on the ground floor, with an additional 49 residential parking spaces on a subterraneous level.
Following a complete review of the application, the applicant will hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission seeking approval of the proposed project.
Site Constraints:
None.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 0.4 miles to the San Mateo Caltrain station and 0.3 miles from South El Camino Real.
Project Website: Nazareth Vista Mixed Use Development
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-26
5 The Fish Market
Address: 1885 S. Norfolk Street
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C1-1)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood
Commercial
APN: Total Lot Size:
035-383-200 3.50 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 123 units) Proposed Density: 74 units/acre (through Planning Unit
Development (PUD)
State Density Bonus: Requested (83 additional units)(or 48% density bonus through PUD)
Status: Planning Application Under Review
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 260
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Currently, the parcel located along Seal Slough is occupied by a restaurant called the Fish Market that was constructed in the early 1980s and a consignment office furniture store that was bu ilt in 1963. Much of that parcel is dominated by a surface parking lot such that the site is underutilized. The current FAR is approximately 0.15 though current zoning allows for a FAR up to 1.0.
Proposed Development:
On the Adequate Sites List, staff provided a conservative estimate for the number and affordability of housing units for a proposed development on this site: 105 units of housing in total, with 43 units affordable to lower income populations (80% AMI) and 17 units affordable to moderate inco me populations (120%). The owner submitted a planning application that would exceed the base density of 35 units/acre, the project consists of 260 units of housing through a Planning Unit Development and state density bonus. This proposal highlights the property owner’s desire to redevelop the site with the maximum number of housing units possible.
Site Constraints:
Staff has identified this site’s proximity to the waterfront (Seal Slough) and to Highway 92 as potential constraints to development. Proximity to Highway 92 means potential air quality impacts on residential uses. However, that can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 1.2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.6 miles from South El Camino Real.
Project Website: 1885 S Norfolk St (The Fish Market)
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-27
6 Concar Passage
Address: 640-690 Concar Drive
Zoning: Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Transit Oriented
Development (TOD)
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-242-090 0.24 acres 14.53 acres
035-242-140 5.41 acres
035-242-160 0.39 acres
035-242-170 5.06 acres
035-242-190 0.41 acres
035-242-200 0.41 acres
035-242-210 1.86 acres
035-242-220 0.75 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 727 units) Approved Density: 66 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Applied (236 additional units)(or 33% density bonus)
Status:
Entitlement Approval - August 2020 (15-year Development Agreement)
Building Permit Approval – pending application submission Construction - TBD
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 961
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site is currently occupied by Concar Shopping Center, with tenants that range from big -box retailers to small businesses. A large percentage of the site is taken up by a surface parking lot. One of the larger buildings on the site was originally constructed in the late 1960s to house a drug store.
Proposed Development:
The project proposes to demolish existing commercial buildings to construct a five -story mixed use building with 961 multi-family residential units and approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail space.
The project includes 73 affordable housing units priced for lower income families (80% AMI) and approximately 4 acres of publicly accessible community open space. Planning entitlements were approved in August 2020 along with a Development Agreement that allows building permit issuance within a peri od of 15 years.
Site Constraints:
The parcels must be consolidated to comply with Building code and Subdivision Code requirements. The site is also proximate to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within half mile of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.8 miles of South El Camino Real.
Project Website: Concar Passage
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-28
7 1919 O’Farrell
Address: 1919 O’Farrell St
Zoning: Executive Park with Multifamily Residential Overlay (E1-1/R4)
General Plan Designation: Executive Office/High Density
APNs: Total Lot Area:
039-030-340 0.67 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 34 units) Approved Density: 73 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Applied (13 additional units)(or 38% density bonus)
Status:
Entitlement Approval – October 2021
Building Permit Approval – Awaiting application submission Construction – TBA
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 49
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Medical offices with surface parking currently occupy the site.
Proposed Development:
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure to construct a four -story, 49-unit multifamily apartment community with underground parking. Four of those units will be dedicated to very low - income households or 50% AMI. In 2021, the Planning Commission approved the required entitlements which include the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for construction of a multi -family building and a Site Development Planning Application for tree removal.
The project’s allowable density allows for 36 base units, and with the state density bonus, an additional 13 units (35% of the base density) is added to the project. The project is also granted a reduced parking ratio of 0.5 spaces/unit due to being within ½ miles of public transit. However, the appl icant is voluntarily providing 30 additional spaces for a total of 64 parking spaces
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 0.9 miles from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.4 miles away from South El Camino Real.
Project Website: 1919 O’Farrell
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-29
8 Hillsdale Inn
Address: 477 E Hillsdale Boulevard
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-0.5)
General Plan Designation: Regional/Community Corridor
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
040-102-580 0.33 acres 3.05 acres
040-102-620 2.10 acres
040-102-630 0.62 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 153 units) Proposed Density: 75 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Requested (77 additional units)(or 50% density bonus)
Project Status: Pre-Application Submitted
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 230
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site is currently occupied by a hotel (Hillsdale Inn), Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and a self-service car wash with surface parking. The structures were built in the early 1960s. The two smaller sites have low FARs and could more intensely developed to meet the zoning district maximum FAR of 0.5.
Proposed Development:
Applicants submitted a conceptual design for a 230-unit, four-story apartment complex with 23 affordable units that target the very low-income category or 50% AMI in March 2022. The development is anticipated to provide a variety of residential amenities including a resident lobby, community rooms, fitness rooms, open space and a roof deck with a barbeque and seating areas. The applicant also proposes to provide approximately 283 parking spaces in an underground garage.
A neighborhood meeting was held in May 2022, and the Planning Commission had a study session in June 2022. The applicant continues to work on redesigning the project as they prepare to submit a planning application for entitlements.
Site Constraints:
Staff identified several development considerations and constraints, including the need for parcel consolidation (due to multiple ownerships) and site clean-up due to the car wash uses on one of the sites.
There are also noise and air quality impacts from Highway 101.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 0.9 miles from Hillsdale station and 0.8 miles of South El Camino Real.
Project Website: 477 E. Hillsdale Boulevard
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-30
9 Hillsdale Terraces
Address: 2700 S El Camino Real
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial with High Density Multiple Family Residential Overlay C3-1/R4
General Plan Designation: Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-352-060 0.37 acres 0.99 acres
039-352-070 0.30 acres
039-352-090 0.32 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 50 units) Approved Density: 68 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Applied (18 additional units)(or 35% density bonus)
Status:
Entitlement Approval – February 2017
Extension Approval – February 2021
Extension Request – Currently Under Review
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 68
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site consists of an auto sale business occupying two stand-alone commercial buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s. Major portions of these parcels are dedicated to surface parking such that the existing FAR is less than 0.2, though zoning policies in this district allow for a FAR of 1.00 for commercial development and up to 2.00 for residential development. The remaining lot area is vacant.
Proposed Development:
In 2017, the City Council approved the proposed five-story, mixed-use development. The project provides 68 units of housing in the form of condominiums, 6 of which are designated as very low -income units. The applicant requested a state density bonus (maximum 35% at the time of application) to achieve this unit count. The developer is further providing 15,881 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor intended to serve the surrounding residential community. The condominiums will be located on the four upper floors and consist of 17 one-bedroom, 37 two-bedroom, and 14 three-bedroom units.
In September 2022, the developer filed an application for a two-year extension. They have also expressed interest in increasing the overall residential unit count through an increase in state density bonus from 35% up to the current maximum 50% within the same building envelop.
Site Constraints:
One constraint to residential development was identified through the entitlement process. A former gas station on this site requires additional clean up.
Proximity to Transit:
Located on El Camino Real, within a half mile of the Hillsdale Caltrain Station.
Project Website: Hillsdale Terraces
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-31
10 Peninsula Heights
Address: 2655, 2755, 2800, and 2988 Campus Drive
Zoning: E1-1 (Executive Office)
General Plan Designation: Executive Office
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
041-521-010 2.83 acres 15.45 acres
041-521-020 4.28 acres
041-522-010 3.38 acres
041-522-020 5.03 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 541 units) Approved Density: 19 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Applied (used for concessions/waivers)
Status:
Entitlement Approval – December 2020
Building Permit Approval – July 2022
Construction – In-Progress
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 290
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Previously the project parcels consisted of several office structures that were surrounded by large surface parking lots. These buildings were part of Peninsula Office Park, constructed in the 1970s.
Proposed Development:
In 2020, the Planning Commission approved the proposed 290-unit residential development project. The site encompasses a total area of 15.45 acres and will devote 10% of its units to the low -income category pursuant to the inclusionary ordinance. Unit types include townhomes and single-detached and stacked flats.
The project received the requisite planning entitlements in 2020. Building permits for site preparation on the southern portion of the site were issued in 2022, and construction has begun.
Site Constraints:
The parcels of this site require consolidation. Additionally, developmental design had to consider the site’s natural slope.
Proximity to Transit:
Within a half-mile of SamTrans bus stop.
Project Website: Peninsula Heights
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-32
11 4 West Santa Inez Condos
Address: 4 W Santa Inez Avenue
Zoning: High Density Multi-Family (R4)
General Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
032-075-010 0.13 acres 0.25 acres
032-075-100 0.12 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 40 units/acre (or 10 units) Approved Density: 40 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus
Status:
Entitlement Approval – February 2022
Building Permit Submitted – August 2022
Construction – TBA
Net Increase in Units: 8
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site parcels used to be occupied by 2 single family homes constructed around 1919. The house on the corner of W Santa Inez Ave and N El Camino Real was converted in the 1980s for use as a Residential Care Home with capacity for the 12 residents aged 18 or older. That use was discontinu ed many years before the current project was proposed.
Proposed Development:
The applicant proposed a four-story, 10-unit condominium on the two parcels, which will be merged into one. Planning entitlements for the project were approved in 2022 by the Sa n Mateo City Council after initial denial in 2018. Building permits were submitted in August of 2022 and are currently awaiting approval.
This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.
Site Constraints:
None.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the state density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the state density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.7 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and within a half mile of El Camino Real.
Project Website: 4 W Santa Inez Condos
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-33
12 445 South B Street, Bespoke
Address: 401-445 South B Street (4th and Railroad)
Zoning: Central Business District with Residential Overlay (CBD/R)
General Plan Designation: Downtown Retail Core
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-179-010 0.13 acres 1.16 acres
034-179-020 0.13 acres
034-179-030 0.13 acres
034-179-040 0.4 acres
034-179-050 0.25 acres
034-179-060 0.12 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 58 units) Proposed Density: 52 dwelling units/acre
State Bonus Density: Requested (AB 1763 exemption from
city maximum controls for 2 additional units)
Status: Pre-Application Submitted
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 60
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
The site used to be a city parking lot and Talbot’s Toy Store. The Talbots store has been there since the 1950s.
Proposed Development:
The applicant has proposed to redevelop the entire block between 4 th and 5th Avenues, from B Street to Railroad Avenue into a seven-story 60-unit affordable housing building and a five-story 156,000 square foot office/retail building. Housing unit types include 13 studios, 13 one-bedrooms, 17 two-bedrooms, and 17 three-bedrooms.
The project is a public-private partnership that includes the City as a property owner (for a portion of the project site) and a team of three partner developers (Alta Housing, a non -profit housing developer, Harvest Properties, and Prometheus).
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to the Caltrain railway, which may have noise impacts on residential development.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the state density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the state density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.3 miles of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.3 miles of El Camino Real.
Project Website: 445 South B Street, Bespoke
Page Break
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-34
13 Kiku Crossing
Address: 480 E 4th Ave and 400 E 5th Ave
Zoning: CBD-S
General Plan Designation: Central Business District –
Support
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-183-060 1.16 acres 2.41 acres
033-281-140 1.25 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 120 units) Approved Density: 93units/acre
State Bonus Density: Applied (AB 1763 exemption from
city maximum controls for 105 additional units)
Status:
Entitlement Approval – May 2021
Building Permit Approval – March 2022
Construction – In-Progress (Completion around 2024)
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 225
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:
Kiku Crossing used to be two large public parking lots.
Proposed Development:
The City-Owned Downtown Affordable Housing and Parking Garage (aka Kiku Crossing and 5 th Avenue Garage) development project will provide 225 affordable residential units in a seven -story building located on 480 E. 4th Avenue, and a five-level, above ground parking garage located at 400 E. 5th Avenue. Housing unit types include 65 studios, 48 one-bedrooms, 53 two-bedrooms, and 59 three-bedrooms.
MidPen Housing Corporation was selected by the City Council to develop these sites.
Site Constraints:
None.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.2 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and within 0.4 miles of El Camino Real.
Project Website: Kiku Crossing
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-35
4.5 Redevelopment Opportunity Sites
14 Hillsdale Mall
Address: 2950-3590 El Camino Real
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-2, C-3-1),
Multifamily Residential Overlays (R4, Q5)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
042-121-080 0.65 acres 32.6 acres
039-490-170 28.91 acres
039-353-020 0.73 acres
039-353-030 0.44 acres
039-353-040 0.14 acres
039-353-010 0.31 acres
042-121-060 1.43 acres
Site Ownership: Needs Consolidation
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (1,630 units) State Density Bonus: 815 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 1,820 - 4,505 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
The site is currently occupied by the Hillsdale Shopping Center and other commercial uses, such as strip malls with associated surface parking lots. Built in the 1950s, the shopping center itself is a mix of retailers, restaurants, and entertainment venues. A premier shopping destination, Hillsdale offers a diverse selection of 120 stores for fashion, beauty and home and draws visitors from around the San Francisco Bay Area. The current FAR is approximately 0.52 though current zoning allows up to 2.0.
Development Opportunity:
In 2019, around the time that the City of San Mateo began its 2040 Gen eral Plan Update process, the property owners indicated that they would embark on a robust community engagement effort to explore future options for the site. The report they produced at the end of this process indicated that San Mateans were deeply concerned about housing shortages throughout the Bay Area and widely supported the inclusion of new housing units in Hilldale Mall’s existing footprint.
The owner has expressed interest, via written communication, in a mixed -use development with residential uses. They estimate that this new development could have at least 1,000 units of housing under the current zone. Additional housing units would be considered if the City Council adopts the proposed General Plan Update land use designations.
Project Website: Reimagine Hillsdale
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-36
Site Constraints:
Staff has found one constraint to future redevelopment. Laurel Creek passes through some of the parcels south of W. Hillsdale Boulevard. The required creek setbacks impact total buildable area and therefore the number of units that can be constructed. Smaller sites to the southern edge of the area along El Camino require ownership consolidation.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within half-mile of Hillsdale Caltrain Station and El Camino Real
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-37
15 Borel Square Shopping Center
Address: 71-77 Bovet Road
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C1-2)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Neighborhood
Commercial
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-011-450 0.68 acres 9.87 acres
039-011-460 0.20 acres
039-011-470 0.50 acres
039-011-480 0.60 acres
039-011-500 0.15 acres
039-011-510 7.74 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 346 units) State Density Bonus: 173 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 987-1,974 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
The Borel Square Shopping Center was built in 1967. The site is currently occupied by a CVS d rug store, 24-Hour Fitness, the UPS store, Patel Co Credit Union, Borel Eye Doctors, Windy City Chicago Pizza, and Jack’s (a restaurant). Approximately half the site is dedicated parking for the shopping center.
Development Opportunity:
The owner of Borel Square Shopping Center has expressed interest through a written letter in a mixed - use project with a focus on housing. For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was taken which estimates a future development of 243 units of housing. However, the base zoning can allow up to 346 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 519 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Staff has found a potential constraint in that it is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential noise and air quality impacts. However, these can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.7 miles of Hayward Park Caltrain and 0.4 miles of El Camino Real
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-38
16 Ah Sam
Address: 2645 S El Camino Real & 2621 Palm Pl
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C3-2)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Regional/Community
Commercial
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-085-290 1.72 acres 2.29 acres
039-085-280 0.57 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 114 units) State Density Bonus: 40 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 229-458 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
The site has primarily commercial uses, including a flower shop called Ah Sam Floral Co and a warehou se.
Built at the height of the Depression in the 1930s, Ah Sam has a long history and has been passed down from one generation to the next. This site is underutilized, with sizeable swaths of the parcels left vacant or dedicated to parking. Zoning in this district permits FAR up to 2.0.
Development Opportunity:
The Adequate Sites List identifies only the two above parcels though there is also potential for redevelopment in abutting areas (not highlighted). These two sites have consolidated ownership, an d the city has received written communication from the property owner expressing interest in a redevelopment with below-market rate housing. The owner has spoken with adjacent property owners along the shared alley, and they have verbally expressed interest in redevelopment of their parcels should a project be proposed.
For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, staff has taken a conservative approach which estimates a future development of 105 units of housing. However, the base zoning c an allow up to 114 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 154 residential units.
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to the Caltrain railway, which may have noise impacts on residential development.
Proximity to Transit:
Located on El Camino Real and within half mile (0.3 miles) of Hillsdale Caltrain Station.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-39
17 The Atrium
Address: 1900 S Norfolk Street
Zoning: Executive Office District (E1-0.5)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Executive Office
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-391-090 9.99 acres 11.77 acres
035-391-100 0.89 acres
035-391-110 0.89 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 411 units) State Density Bonus: 144 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 471- 1,165 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
Built in 1983, the Atrium is a three-story office building centered around an open-air courtyard. It is occupied by a variety of tenants, including Movoto Real Estate, Tile Inc, Home Helpers Home Care of San Mateo, Payne Financial Consulting, and several law offices. Surface parking lots surround the building.
Development Opportunity:
The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the parcel via written communicat ion. For the purpose of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative approach was adopted which estimates a future development of 245 units of housing. However, the base zoning can allow up to 411 units.
Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 555 residential units.
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. Borel Creek runs along the southeastern edge of the site, where any potential development must account for required creek setbacks.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 1.4 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.6 miles of South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-40
18 Bayshore Commons
Address: 1670-1700 Amphlett Boulevard
Zoning: Executive Office District (E2-1)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Executive Office
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-241-250 5.78 acres 14.46 acres
035-241-250 4.07 acres
035-241-260 4.61 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Density: 50 units/acres (or 723 units)
State Density Bonus: 253 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acres (or 1,446-2,892 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
The site is currently developed as an office park, consisting of 8 low-rise buildings with approximately 340,000 square feet of commercial office space. The site is surrounded by U.S. 101 to the east, San Mateo Marriott to the south, and residential development to the north and west. Many of these buildings were built between the 1970s and 1980s. The current FAR is 0.23, but the site allows a FAR of up to 1.0.
Development Opportunity:
Owners of the property have expressed interest in redevelopment via written communication. Each parcel is larger than 0.5 acres which allows developers the opportunity to build large multifamily developments.
For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, an estimate for future development with 722 units of housing was used, which is close to the 723 units allowed by the site’s base zoning. Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 976 residential units.
Site Constraints:
The site is adjacent to Highway 101, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. Leslie Creek runs along the northwestern boundary of the site, and any potential development must include required creek setbacks.
Proximity to Transit:
Within one mile of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.3 miles from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-41
19 Downtown Cluster
Address: 62 E Fourth Avenue
Zoning: Central Business District with Residential Overlay (CBD/R)
General Plan Designations: Downtown Retail Core
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-144-220 0.42 acres 3.14 acres
034-144-230 1.52 acres
034-144-240 1.20 acres
Site Ownership: Mostly Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 157 units) State Density Bonus: 78 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 314- 628 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
Located downtown, structures built in the 1950s form a continuous commercial block along E 4 th Ave. The roof of this block is used for parking. Its tenants consist of several businesses —a grocery store (Dean’s Produce), Starbucks, Chase Bank, First Bank, Equinox San Mateo, and a restaurant. There is also a Mattress Firm on the site in a two-story, stand-alone retail building along El Camino Real. A surface parking lot is located at the back of the site along E 5 th Ave. Zoning in this district allows for a FAR of 3.0. Since the buildings on this site are between one and two stories, there is major potential for mixed use or residential redevelopment that achieves a greater building intensity and that adds residential density.
Development Opportunity:
The owner of the block has expressed interest in a redevelopment with a density of 50 du/acre with the added 50% state density bonus.
For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, staff has taken a conservative approach which proposes a future development that only maxes out residential density, producing 157 units of housing.
Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 235 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Any developer of this site must consolidate the parcels.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within half a mile (0.4 miles) of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 500 feet of South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-42
20 Bridgepointe Office Park
Address: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard
Zoning: Executive Office with Residential Overlay (E1-0.62/R) General Plan Designations: Executive Office
APN: Total Lot Size:
035-550-040 6.08 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 304 units) State Density Bonus: 106 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 608-1,216 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
Currently the site consists of two 3-story office buildings occupied by an employment agency, a consulting group, Reflekton Inc, Checkbook, and Wuhoover & Co. The buildings were built in 1982 . Surface parking lots take up available space on the site such that the current FAR is 0.49, though zoning in this district allows up to 0.62 FAR.
Development Opportunity:
A developer has expressed interest in potentially redeveloping the site. For Hous ing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was taken which estimates a future development with 273 units of housing. However, the base zoning can allow up to 304 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 410 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Staff has identified one potential constraint in that it is located adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates. These impacts can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 1.5 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.9 miles from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-43
21 Marriott Residence Inn
Address: 2000 Winward Way
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-0.62)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Regional/Community
Corridor
APNs: Total Lot Size:
035-610-030 4.27 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 213 units) State Density Bonus: 75 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 427-854 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Development
Existing Conditions:
This parcel is the location of the Marriott Residence Inn, constructed in 1984. The current FAR is 0.58, but the project site allows for an FAR up to 0.62 suggesting that greater building inten sity and residential density could be achieved in a potential redevelopment project.
Development Opportunity:
Current owners of the site have expressed interest in potentially redeveloping their property for residential use. For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative approach was adopted which estimates a future development of 160 residential units. However, the base zoning can allow up to 213 units. Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize a state density bo nus, the development could produce up to 288 units of housing.
Site Constraints:
Staff has identified one potential constraint in that it is located adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates. These impacts can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 1.8 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station 2.2 miles from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-44
22 Olympic Shopping Center
Address: 49 42nd Avenue
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Districts (C1, C1-1.5), Multifamily Residential Overlays (R4)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Neighborhood
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: APNs: Lot Size:
042-242-060 0.25 acres 042-245-080 0.12 acres 042-242-070 0.24 acres 042-245-090 0.12 acres 042-242-160 0.2 acres 042-245-100 0.24 acres 042-243-020 2.09 acres 042-245-110 0.24 acres 042-244-040 0.13 acres 042-245-120 0.3 acres 042-244-050 1.19 acres 042-245-130 0.36 acres 042-245-040 0.12 acres 042-263-010 0.73 acres 042-245-050 0.12 acres 042-264-010 1.05 acres 042-245-060 0.12 acres 042-242-050 1.08 acres 042-245-070 0.12 acres 042-242-180 0.21 acres
Total Lot Size: 9.15 acres
Site Ownership: Mostly Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 457 units) State Density Bonus: 160 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 366- 906 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed Use Development Existing Conditions:
The site consists of a collection of commercial buildings surrounding the current location of Mollie Stone’s Market on 42nd Ave. Some of these buildings are further divided into multiple storefronts and are occupied by a variety of small businesses such as, Four Seasons Sunrooms, Botanica (candle shop), Strands salon, and others. Bel Mateo Bowl and CVS occupy larger buildings within the site along Olympic Ave and S El Camino Real respectively. These buildings were constructed in the 1950s. Other buildings widely range in age—some date back to the 1960s and 1970s while others have been more recently remodeled.
Development Opportunity:
The owners have expressed interest in specific plan redevelopment. For the Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was taken which estimates a future development of 296 units of housing, 120 at the lower income level and 49 at the moderate-income level. However, the base zoning of this site can allow up to 457 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 617 residential units.
Site Constraints:
One constraint was found in that the parcels are non-continuous. Several smaller sites along El Camino Real and 43rd Avenue need consolidation.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within half mile of El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-45
23 Bridgepointe Shopping Center
Address: 2200-3012 Bridgepointe Parkway
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial with Residential
Overlay (C2-0.62/R)
General Plan Designations: Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-466-070 3.22 acres 22.39 acres
035-466-080 1.39 acres
035-466-090 2.75 acres
035-466-100 12.07 acres
035-466-110 2.96 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 1,119 units) State Density Bonus: 391 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 2,405 - 4,810 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
Currently the site is occupied by a shopping center that includes several businesses, including several restaurants, an ice rink, and a collection of big box stores and national chains. A large surface parking lot takes up the remaining space on the site. The structures were built around the 1990s. T he site is underutilized, and many of the commercial spaces are vacant. In addition, with a lot size of 2 2 acres of flat land (over half of which is the parking lot), the site has great potential for redevelopment.
Development Opportunity:
For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was adopted which estimates potential mixed-use development of 672 housing units (30 units/acre). However, the base zoning can allow up to 1,119 units (50 units/acre). Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could result in a maximum of 1,510 residential units. This estimate does not include the ice rink and Target sites.
Site Constraints:
One smaller parcel in the northern corner needs consolidation. Another possible constraint would the site’s location along Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates.
These impacts can be mitigated through development design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain station and 2.2 miles from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-46
24 Parkside Plaza
Address: 1826-1850 S Norfolk St
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial with Multi-Family Residential Overlay (C1-0.5/R4)
General Plan Designations: Neighborhood Commercial with Multi-Family Residential Overlay
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-381-030 6.07 acres 6.65 acres
035-381-020 0.58 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 332 units) State Density Bonus: 166 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 9-39 units/acre (or 60-259 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
The lot is occupied by Parkside Plaza, a shopping center with several big box retail stores and some smal ler commercial storefronts leased to an assortment of businesses including restaurants and other retail uses.
There are several vacancies. Construction of the original shopping center began in 1959, and major updates were made to the exterior and floor plans of the buildings in several different stages throughout the late 1980s and the 1990s. The site has great potential for redevelopment because it is underutilized.
Large portions of the two parcels are taken up by a surface parking lot such that the exist ing FAR is about
0.31. The residential overlay allows residential developments to have a FAR of up to 2.0, exceeding the maximum floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district.
Development Opportunity:
For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative approach was taken which estimates development of 332 units of housing, the maximum allowed given the base zoning. However, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 448 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Staff has identified this site’s proximity to Highway 92 as a potential constraint, due to potential air quality impacts. These impacts can be mitigated through design.
Proximity to Transit:
Located 1.2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.6 miles from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-47
25 Borel Place
Address: 1650 Borel Place
Zoning: Executive Office (E1-2)
General Plan Designations: Executive Office
APNs: Total Lot Size:
039-011-400 2.51 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 88 units) State Density Bonus: 30 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 251- 502 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
This site is underutilized; it consists of one office building constructed in the late 1960s and a surface parking lot. A redevelopment could achieve a building intensity of 2.00 FAR.
Development Opportunity:
For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was adopted which estimates development of 74 housing units. However, the base zoning could allow up to 88 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 118 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Staff has found a potential constraint in that it is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts. However, these can be mitigated through development design
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.7 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.4 miles of Sou th El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-48
26 Gas Station
Address: 350 N San Mateo Dr and 220 E Poplar Ave
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-1)
General Plan Designations: Regional/Community Commercial
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
032-182-120 0.18 acres 0.62 acres
032-182-130 0.44 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 21 units) State Density Bonus: 7 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 17-42 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
The parcel on the corner of N San Mateo Drive and E Poplar used to be a gas station. It dates to the 1980s and now sits vacant and fenced off. The second parcel contains commercial buildings occupied by a liquor store and a salon, which is temporarily closed. Both parcels have significant areas that are set aside for automobile use and are therefore underdeveloped. This site’s underlying zoning district allows for a FAR of
1.00. Development Opportunity:
For purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative approach was taken which estimates development of 19 housing units. However, base zoning could allow up to 21 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 28 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Clean up may be required due to the site’s former uses.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. Redevelopment projects of similar size have been successfully approved. For example, the Fremont Terrace project is a 15-unit residential condominium on a site of the same size that is currently under construction at 200 S Fremont St, which is shown as Site 1 in Figure 3.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within 0.6 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.6 miles of El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-49
27 Car Wash
Address: 1620 S Delaware Street
Zoning: Transit Oriented Development TOD
General Plan Designations: Transit Oriented Development
APN: Total Lot Size:
035-200-070 0.30 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 15 units) State Density Bonus: 7 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-200 units/acre (or 30- 60 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:
Built in the 1950s, the site is currently occupied by a car wash. Even though the site is of a smaller size, staff believe there is potential for a housing development. Zoning regulations in this district allow for a FAR of up to 3.00.
Development Opportunity:
For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was taken which estimates development of 8 units of housing. However, base zoning could allow up to 15 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the state density bonus, the development could produce up to 22 residential units.
Site Constraints:
Clean up needed due to site’s former use.
It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. Redevelopment projects of a similar size have been successfully approved in the San Mateo. Grand Blvd Townhomes, Site C in Figure 3, was proposed for a site that is 0.32 acres in size. Built and occupied in 2018, the project produced 8 housing units in the form of detached townhomes.
In other nearby jurisdictions, such as Mountain View and San Francisco, sites with similar characteristics have also been redeveloped into housing.
Proximity to Transit:
Located within half a mile (0.4 miles) of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.9 miles from South El Camino Real.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-50
Figure 2: Study Area Map
Universe: Sites Inventory
Notes: The ten study areas were created from a series of community engagement workshops were attendees were asked to select the neighborhood zones where they believed redevelopment would be most suitable for the next housing element.
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-51
Figure 3: Sites Inventory Map
Universe: Sites Inventory, December 2022.
Notes: The individual sites identified as suitable for housing redevelopment are marked in pink while blue circles indicate groupings of sites. Site affordability breakdown by grouping is seen in Table 1 below.
Downtown
101/92
Interchange
Hillsdale
Station South
Bridgepointe
92/El Camino Real
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O
20 4 0 G E N E R A L P L A N
H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-52
Table 1: Site Affordability Breakdown
Table Source: Housing Resources Sites Inventory, 2022
*Bridgepointe opportunity area contains other sites in addition to the Bridgepointe Shopping Center
To see the full list of sites adequate for housing development identified by the City, see the chart in Attachment Table A.
Housing Opportunity
Areas Total Units Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Pipeline
Bridgepointe* 1,105 220 168 162 555 -
Hillsdale Station South 2,593 627 379 407 1,180 18
101/92 Interchange 2,452 455 221 248 1,528 961
Other Sites 3,784 570 473 500 2,021 1,556
ADUs 440 22 132 220 66
Totals 9,934 1,894 1,373 1,317 5,350
RHNA 7,015 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040
Buffer 2,919
(42%)
177
(7%)
350
(34%)
142
(12%)
2,310
(76%)
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 Jurisdiction Name Site
Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed (units/acre) Parcel Size (Acres) Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Optional
Information1
Optional
Information2
Optional
Information3
SAN MATEO 121 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐292‐070 A Executive Office E2 0 50 0.18 Medical office buil dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 3 3 One story, old building, larger than .5 acreNo constraints found SAN MATEO 117 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐292‐080 A Executive Office E2 0 50 0.41 Medical office buil dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 5 2 5 12 One story, old building, larger than .5 acreNo constraints found SAN MATEO 5 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐312‐250 B Executive Office/High Den E2‐0.5/R5 0 50 0.98 Med Center surfac eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 14 6 15 35 General interest in redevelopment, large No constraints found SAN MATEO 123 Baldwin Ave 94401 032‐312‐270 B Executive Office/High Den E2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfac eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 117 Baldwin Ave 94401 032‐312‐150 B Executive Office/High Den E2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfac eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 26 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐312‐100 B Executive Office/Hig h Den E2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfac eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 27 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐312‐070 B Executive Office/Hig h Den E2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Med Center surfac eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 402 Tilton Ave 94401 032‐331‐010 C Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned A v a i l a b l e U s e d i n P r i o r H o u s i n g E l e m e n t ‐ N o n ‐ V a c a n t 2125 Z o n e d t o encourage aggregation, larger thNeeds consolidation, SAN MATEO 406 Tilton Ave 94401 032‐331‐020 C Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned A v a i l a b l e U s e d i n P r i o r H o u s i n g E l e m e n t ‐ N o n ‐ V a c a n t 2125 Z o n e d t o encourage aggregation, larger thNeeds consolidation SAN MATEO 20 N Railroad 94401 032‐331‐150 C Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 0.5 Industrial/warehou YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 7 3 8 18 Zoned to en courage aggregation, larger thNeeds consolidation, SAN MATEO 145 Kingston 94401 033‐171‐040 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.09 2 unit ‐ Duplex YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pendin g Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 3 32 35 Former PA 2019‐008 Pre‐Application SubmNeeds consolidation, SAN MATEO 139 Kingston 94401 033‐171‐050 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.13 5 unit ‐ 2 story resi dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior H ousing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 131 Kingston 94401 033‐171‐060 D High Density Multi‐Family R4 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1218 Monte Diablo 94401 033‐171‐180 D High Density Multi‐F amily R4 0 50 0.89 Neighborhood reta YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1731 Leslie St 94402 035‐215‐060 E Transit Oriented Develo pmTOD 0 50 0.3 Service commercia lYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 12 5 13 30 Zoned TOD, larger .5 acre, old buil dings Needs consolidation , SAN MATEO 1741 Leslie St 94402 035‐221‐010 E Transit Oriented Develo pmTOD 0 50 0.16 Service commercia lYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant Needs consolidation, SAN MATEO 1753 Leslie St 94402 035‐221‐020 E Transit Oriented Develo pmTOD 0 50 0.14 Service commercia lYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant Needs consolidation, SAN MATEO 678 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐090 F Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 0.24 Seven 11 YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proj ect Used in Prior Housing Eleme nt ‐ Non‐Vacant 7 3 888 961 PA‐2018‐05 2, ConcarApplication SubmitteNeeds consolidation, SAN MATEO 666 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐140 F Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 5.41 Shopping center/p aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior H ousing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1855 Delaware St 94402 035‐242‐160 F Transit Oriented Deve lopmTOD 0 50 0.39 restaurant YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pr oject Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1880 Grant St 94402 035‐242‐170 F Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 5.06 Shopping center/p aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior H ousing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 690 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐190 F Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 0.41 Shane Jeweler YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 1820 Grant St 94402 035‐242‐200 F Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 0.41 Trader Joes YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending P roject Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 640 Concar Dr 94402 035‐242‐210 F Transit Oriented Develop mTOD 0 50 1.86 Shopping center/p aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Prior H ousing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO Concar Dr/S Delaware St 94402 035‐242‐220 F Transit Orient ed DevelopmTOD 0 50 0.75 parking YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proje ct Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 77 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐311‐140 G Executive Office/ Hi gh DenE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 0.63 Medical office and pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 10 4 11 25 Site for sale. No constraints foun d SAN MATEO 77 N San Mateo Dr 94401 032‐311‐150 G Executive Office/ Hi gh DenE2‐0.5/R5 0 50 Medical office and pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 229 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐052‐350 H Medium Density Multi‐Fa mR3 0 35 5.4 Elk club. YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Us ed in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 77 31 81 189 Preliminary co nversations with the owne Needs consolidation SAN MATEO 205 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐010 H Executive Office/High D en E1/R4 0 50 0.25 Single story office bYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 4 4 One story, old building, larger than .5 acr eNeeds consolidation SAN MATEO 2010 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐020 H Executive Office/High Den E1/R4 0 50 0.22 Single story office bYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 3 3 One story, old building, larger than .5 acr eNeeds consolidation SAN MATEO 2040 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐050 I Executive Office/High Den E1/R4 0 50 0.22 Two story office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d A v a i l a b l e N o t U s e d i n P r i o r H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 3137 T w o s t o r y , o l d b uilding, larger than .5 acreNeeds consolidation SAN MATEO 2041 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐100 I Executive Office/High Den E1/R4 0 50 0.22 Two story office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owne d A v a i l a b l e N o t U s e d i n P r i o r H o u s i n g E l e m e n t 3137 T w o s t o r y , o l d b uilding, larger than .5 acreNeeds consolidation SAN MATEO 2050 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐060 I Executive Office/High Den C3‐1/R4 0 50 0.96 Single story office bYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 11 5 12 28 One story, old buildngs, larger than .5 acr N eeds consolidation SAN MATEO 2070 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐070 I Executive Office/High Den C3‐1/R4 0 50 Single story profes sYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 2055 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐090 I Executive Office/High Den C3‐1/R4 0 50 Single story medic a YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 2075 Pioneer Ct 94403 039‐060‐080 I Executive Office/High Den C3‐1/R5 0 50 Single story office bYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element SAN MATEO 151 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐140 J Executive Office/High D en E1‐1/R4 0 50 0.36 Single story office bYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 5 5 R‐4 zoning, underut ilized, common owne Needs consolidation SAN MATEO 117 W 20th Ave 94403 039‐060‐150 J High Density Multi‐Fami ly R4 0 50 0.12 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2745 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐070 Transit Oriented De velopmTOD 0 50 0.82 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availa ble Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 17 7 18 42 Owner inter ested in housing redevelopm Adjacent to the railro SAN MATEO 2825 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐110 Transit Oriented De velopmTOD 0 50 0.75 Existing retail/park iYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 16 6 16 38 TOD Zone, larger than .5 acre, old buildingAdjacent to the railw SAN MATEO 2833 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐120 K Transit Oriented D evelopmTOD 0 50 1.08 small retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Availabl e Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 22 9 23 54 TOD Zone, lar ger than .5 acre, old buildingNeeds consolidation, SAN MATEO 2837 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐130 K Transit Oriented D evelopmTOD 0 50 small retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Use d in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 2841 El Camino Real 94403 039‐351‐999 K Transit Oriented D evelopmTOD 0 50 small retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Use d in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 3025 S El Camino Real 94403 039‐360‐160 L Transit Oriented DevelopmTOD 0 50 1.42 Vacant restaurant aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant 28 12 30 70 Ownership interest in redevelopmen t, TOAdjacent to the railw SAN MATEO 3111 El Camino Real 94403 039‐360‐070 L Transit Oriented D evelopmTOD 0 50 Vacant restaurant aYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element ‐ Non‐Vacant SAN MATEO 200 S Fremont 94401 033‐163‐160 High Density Multi‐Famil y R4D 0 50 0.42 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant 2 13 15 PA‐2015‐048; 200 S FUnder Construction; No constraints found SAN MATEO 717 E 3rd Ave 94401 033‐163‐050 M High Density Multi‐Famil y R4D 0 50 0.58 Vacant YES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proje ct Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 222 S Fremont St 94401 033‐163‐170 M High Density Multi‐F amily R4D 0 50 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 36 40 PA19‐036 pre‐applic Pre‐Application SubmNo constraints found SAN MATEO 480 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐183‐ 060 Central Business Support C BD‐S 0 50 1.16 Parking Lot YES ‐ Potential YES ‐ City‐Owned Pending Pr oject Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vac a 223 2 225 PA‐2019‐033; City o wPre‐Application SubmNo constraints found SAN MATEO 3069 Kyne St (BMSP ‐ Reside n 94403 040‐031‐040 TOD BMSP 0 50 1.9 Demolished Bay M eYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Used in Two Con secutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca 5 49 54 PA20‐033; SPAR app Under Construction; No constraints foun d SAN MATEO 487 S El Camino Real 94402 034‐144‐220 N Downtown Retail C ore CBD/R 0 50 0.42 Retail/office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Av ailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 3 9 20 Investor owns enti re block‐ can build 75"/Needs consolidation SAN MATEO 62 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐144‐230 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 1.52 Retail‐4th Ave Reta YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 13 33 77 Investor owns ent ire block‐ can build 75"/Needs consolidation SAN MATEO E 5th Ave/San Mateo Dr 94401 034‐144‐240 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 1.2 Parking Lot YES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned A vailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vac a 24 10 26 60 80 DU mixed retail/res approved in 2017. Needs consolida tion SAN MATEO 885 S El Camino Real 94402 034‐200‐220 Executive Office/H igh Den E2‐1 0 50 0.77 1 story office(Cent r YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 16 6 17 39 Developer‐owned approved MU project nNo constraints found SAN MATEO 100 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐100 O Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.76 Retail‐Wells fargo YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 9 4 10 23 Downtown, combined lot size larger than No constraints found SAN MATEO 109 E 5th Ave 94401 034‐173‐110 O Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 Wells Fargo parkin gYES ‐ Potential NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior H ousing Element SAN MATEO 168 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐140 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.14 Restaurant/parkin g YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 2 2 Developer negotiating sale. No constraints foun d SAN MATEO 168 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐173‐150 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.24 restaurant/parking YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 4 Developer negotiating sale. No constraints foun d SAN MATEO 222 E 4th Ave 94401 034‐176‐050 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/ R 0 50 0.24 Draeger's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Proje ct Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 10 PA‐2021‐071; Draeg eApplication SubmitteNo constraints found SAN MATEO 400 S B st 94401 034‐176‐070 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 5 0 0.11 Draeger's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project N ot Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 94401 034‐176‐080 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.13 Draeg er's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 94401 034‐176‐090 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.66 Draeg er's YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 4th/Railroad 94403 034‐179‐050 R Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.25 Parking lot‐City Sur YES ‐ Potential YES ‐ City‐Owned Pendi ng Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 60 60 Talbot's Site ‐ City‐owPre‐Application SubmSmaller than .5 acre SAN MATEO 4th/Railroad 94403 034‐179‐060 R Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 0 50 0.12 Parking lot‐City Sur YES ‐ Potential YES ‐ City‐Owned Pendi ng Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 435 E 3rd Ave 94401 034‐181‐160 Downtown Retail Core Su pCBD‐S 0 50 0.25 Auto repair YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 4 PA‐2021‐081 (5 unit sApplication SubmitteSmaller than .5 acre, SAN MATEO 312 Delaware St 94401 034‐185‐030 S Downtown Retail Core S upCBD‐S 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 12 99 111 PA‐20 21‐063; Windy Pre‐Application SubmClean up needed (au SAN MATEO 318 Delaware St 94401 034‐185‐040 S Downtown Retail Core S upCBD‐S 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 320 Delaware St 94401 034‐185‐050 S Downtown Retail Core S upCBD‐S 0 50 0.13 1 unit ‐ Single famil YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 307 Claremont St 94401 034‐185‐110 S Downtown Retail Core SupCBD‐S 0 50 0.13 Interior deisgn ho mYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 512 3rd Ave 94401 034‐185‐120 S Downtown Retail Core Su pCBD‐S 0 50 0.13 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pend ing Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 373 Claremont St 94401 034‐185‐140 S Downtown Retail Core SupCBD‐S 0 50 0.06 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pend ing Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 507 4th Ave 94401 034‐185‐150 S Downtown Retail Core Su pCBD‐S 0 50 0.19 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pend ing Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 300 Delaware St 94010 034‐185‐160 S Downtown Retail Core S upCBD‐S 0 50 0.25 Gas station YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 525 4th Ave 94401 034‐185‐170 S Downtown Retail Core Su pCBD‐S 0 50 0.13 Auto repair YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 311 Claremont St 94402 034‐185‐190 S Downtown Retail Core SupCBD‐S 0 50 0.12 3 unit ‐ 2 story resi dYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 315 Claremont St 94402 034‐185‐200 S Downtown Retail Core SupCBD‐S 0 50 0.12 Storage yard YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pendin g Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 5 Hayward Ave 94401 034‐275‐130 Executive Office/ High De nE2‐1/R4 0 50 0.31 6 unit ‐ 3 duplexes YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Ow ned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 16 18 PA‐2019 ‐045 1 HaywEntitlement ApproveSmaller than .5 acre SAN MATEO 1600 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐080 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.11 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Priv ately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 39 4 4 Former PA 2018‐038 Application SubmitteNo constraints found SAN MATEO 1604 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐090 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.08 3 unit ‐ 2 story mix eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 1610 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐100 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.1 1 unit ‐ 2 story mix eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 1620 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐110 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.1 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Priva tely‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1541 Jasmine St 94403 034‐413‐130 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.12 2 unit ‐ Duplex YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Pri vately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1535 Jasmine St 94403 034‐413‐140 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.12 2 unit ‐ Duplex YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Pri vately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1602 El Camino Real 94403 034‐413‐150 T Executive Office E2‐2 0 50 0.24 2 unit ‐ 2 story mix eYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Project Not Used in Pri or Housing Element SAN MATEO 303 Baldwin Ave 94403 032‐322‐230 U Neighborhood Commerci aC1‐2/R5 0 50 0.68 Trags ‐ retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pe nding Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 58 64 PA‐2017‐085; Trags Under Construction; No constraints foun d SAN MATEO 304 Baldwin Ave 94403 032‐322‐230 U Neighborhood Commerci aC1‐2/R5 0 50 0.08 Trags ‐ retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pe nding Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 1863 S Norfolk St 90025 035‐383‐200 Neighborhood Commerci aC1‐1 0 35 3.5 Fishmarket YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pending Pr oject Not Used in Prior Housing Element 43 17 45 105 Former PA‐2021‐0 15Pre‐Application SubmAdjacent to waterwa SAN MATEO 2260 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐070 V Regional/Commun ity ComC2‐0.62/R 0 50 3.22 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 39 16 41 96 Mixed‐use potential, larger than .5 acre, oAdjacent to highway SAN MATEO 2270 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94106 035‐466‐080 V Regional/Commun ity ComC2‐0.62/R 0 50 1.39 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 17 7 18 42 Half vacant, larger than .5 acre, one story A djacent to highway SAN MATEO 3012 Bridgepointe Pkwy 94105 035‐466‐090 V Regional/Commun ity ComC2‐0.62/R 0 50 2.75 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 33 14 35 82 Half vacant, larger than .5 acre, one story Adjacent to highway SAN MATEO 94105 035‐466‐100 V Regional/Community Co mC2‐0.62/R 0 50 12.07 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 147 60 156 363 Large parking lot, larger than .5 acre, poteAdjacent to highway SAN MATEO 94105 035‐466‐110 V Regional/Community Co mC2‐0.62/R 0 50 2.96 Bridgepointe Shop pYES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Hou sing Element 36 15 38 89 Parking lot, larger than .5 acre, consolida tAdjacent to highway SAN MATEO 1500 Fashion Island Blvd 94404 035‐550‐040 Executive Offi ce E1‐0.62/R 0 50 6.08 3 story Office YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Own ed Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 92 50 131 273 Developer interest in redevelopment, largAdjacent to highway SAN MATEO 1919 O'Farrell St 94403 039‐030‐340 Executive Office/ Hig h DenE1‐1/R4 0 50 0.67 1 story medical offi YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐O wned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 45 49 PA‐202 0‐037; 1919 OEntitlement ApproveAdjacent to highway SAN MATEO 2118 El Camino Real 94403 039‐060‐440 Regional/Community ComC3‐1/R4 0 50 0.73 Catrina Hotel YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Ava ilable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 9 24 56 Motel conversion, larger than .5 acre, old No constraints found SAN MATEO 2700 El Camino Real 94103 039‐352‐060 W Regional/Community ComC3‐1/R4 0 50 0.37 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pe nding Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 62 68 PA‐2015‐031; HillsdaEntitlement ApproveClean up needed (au SAN MATEO 2750 El Camino Real 94103 039‐352‐070 W Regional/Community ComC3‐1/R4 0 50 0.3 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pen ding Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2790 El Camino Real 94403 039‐352‐090 W Regional/Community ComC3‐1/R4 0 50 0.32 1 story retail YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Pe nding Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element SAN MATEO 2955 El Camino Real 94010 039‐360‐120 Transit‐Oriented De velopmTOD 0 50 2.29 1 story/parking YES ‐ Current NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Avai lable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 46 19 49 114 Owner interst in redevelopment, TOD ZonAdjacent to the railw