aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
S
everal federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
F
or your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
H
CD appreciates the dedication that the housing element team provided throughout the course of the housing element review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Hillary Prasad, of our staff, at [email protected].
S
incerely,
P
aul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
161 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1 March 27, 2023
APPENDIX
CITY OF SAN MATEO
T
he following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
H
ousing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-c
ommunity-development/housing-elements/building-
blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. A
ffirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Integration and Segregation: The element still must include a regional analysis of integration and segregation for persons with disabilities and familial status, comparing the City to the region.
Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: The element should analyze information on housing condition patterns within the City. This could include an analysis on concentrations of substandard housing geographically within the City.
Sites Inventory: The element must include a locational analysis (neighborhood by neighborhood) of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) by income group and evaluate the impact of identified sites in each area. The element states that there are no units in the sites inventory located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA), but it should analyze whether conditions are exacerbated and promote strong housing mobility within the City’s programs to affirmatively further fair housing. In addition, the element stated no sites are identified in areas with high overcrowding and cost burden.
The element should include an analysis of whether this affects the existing patterns and whether sites exacerbate conditions and identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti- displacement and place-based community revitalization strategies).
2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
162 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2 March 27, 2023
Extremely Low-I ncome Households (ELI): While the element was revised to include the number of existing ELI households, it must include the number of projected ELI households. In addition, the element must analyze ELI housing needs including characteristics magnitude, housing types, resources, strategies, and gaps to address the identified need. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element was revised to address affordability of the number of new units built since June 30, 2022, it must also address the availability of projects in the planning period, including the status of Projects 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The element should describe the status, any barriers to development, and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period. Barriers may include remediation of the gas station, projects including multiple owners, site cleanup, as well as Site 6 allowing building permit issuance within 15 years.
Realistic Capacity: The majority of sites still assume 100 percent maximum density as realistic capacity. The analysis must demonstrate that all projects in those zones developed at maximum density to support assumptions. In addition, the calculation of residential capacity must also account for the likelihood of residential development in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.
Small and Large Sites: While owner interest is helpful in determining the feasibility of development, the element must add additional information regarding likelihood of development during the planning period for the Hillsdale and Bridgepointe sites including feasibility during the planning period, whether the mall and other uses will remain, and timing of development, including affordable, on these large sites. The element could provide examples of other large site development with similar uses to support assumptions. In addition, to support assumptions for development of units affordable to lower-income households on small sites, the element should provide additional information on previous lot consolidations including zoning designations, number and size of parcels, and affordability of projects that developed on sites smaller than half an acre.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to add some additional information for the nonvacant sites, it should connect the existing uses and feasibility of development to the project examples described. In addition, the element should describe the likelihood that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period, whether there are current leases, or other factors of whether the uses will impede
163 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3 March 27, 2023
residential development. The element should also analyze the feasibility of developing gas stations and car wash sites during the planning period. The element states that each parcel was ranked for likelihood of development, but it should describe the criteria used for ranking and how they were applied to feasibility of development.
I
n addition, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.
For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.
City-Owned Sites: While the element includes Program 1.2 to develop City owned sites, it must describe whether there are any plans to sell or dispose of the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element did not address the finding regarding the City’s ADU projections, please see HCD’s prior review. In addition, Program 1.4 must commit to also monitoring affordability of the ADU units that are permitted as well as provide additional incentives or identify additional sites if production and affordability assumptions are not met.
Infrastructure: While the element was revised to state all sites have access to water, sewer and dry utilities, it must state whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA in the planning period. In addition, the element generally mentions infrastructure constraints for infill development. The element must describe and analyze the constraints as well as their impacts on the identified sites to meet the RHNA and add or modify programs as appropriate.
I
n addition, regardless of sufficient sewer capacity, Program 1.20 must commit to establishing a written procedure to grant priority sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households.
4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls.
While the element includes Program 1.7 to reduce parking within half a mile of transit, the program is dependent on an analysis, but the element is missing the analysis. In
164 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4 March 27, 2023
addition, Program 1.7 must include specific implementation actions to reduce parking requirements for studio and one-bedroom units city-wide as well as for units that are at least 1,400 square feet. Please see HCD’s prior finding. In addition, the element did not address the finding regarding analyzing lot coverage and limits on allowable densities.
The element must also demonstrate feasibility of three-story developments in zones that limit height to 35 feet. Lastly, the element should analyze the open space requirements in the R-3 zone and include specific actions to reduce the constraint in the zone.
Fees and Exaction: While the element was revised to add an environmental review fee, it must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development including conditional use permits (CUP), general plan amendments, zoning changes, site plan review, planned unit developments, specific plan, and development agreement fees. In addition, Table 4 should also clarify whether the fees are the same for single family and multifamily developments.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information, specifically for site plans and architectural review. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. Many of the findings are ambiguous and should be addressed as a constraint including but not limited to findings one, two and three and add or modify programs as appropriate. Lastly, the preapplication process adds at least four months in addition to the typical approval times listed and the element should add or modify programs as appropriate to address the constraint.
Local Ordinances: While the element was revised to state that community benefits are in addition to state law, it should clarify the ability to exceed Measure Y. In addition, the element should describe how the inclusionary program, the community benefit program, and state density bonus law interact with incentives provided.
5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Developed Densities and Permit Times: This element generally was not revised to address this finding, please see HCD’s prior review.
6. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
165 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5 March 27, 2023
Special Needs Populations: This element generally was not revised to address this finding. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
B. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To
have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment and discrete timing (e.g., at least annually, by 2025), as follows:
•
Policy 1.4 (Incentivize ADU Development): The program should be revised to include specific commitment to reducing fees if found to be a constraint. • Policy 1.15 (Supportive Housing Requirements): The timing must be revised to implement the program by a specific date within the first two years of the planning period.
• Policy 1.17 (Farmworker Housing): The program must be revised to comply with Health & Safety Code section 17021.5.
• Policy 5.2.2 (Incentivize Developers): This program should be revised to include proactive outreach to developers throughout the planning period. • Policy 5.4.5 (Future Improvements in Disadvantaged Communities): The program must include an alternative action if the study is not implemented.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
A
s noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.
166 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 6 March 27, 2023
In addition, Policy 3.7 (Expanding Homeless Shelters) must clarify implementation actions after the study in Action A.
3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
W
hile the element includes Policy 5.1.4 (Regional Forgivable Loan Program) to support the regional program to assist ELI households, it is a regional policy. The element should specify what actions the City is taking to address the ELI need.
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
A
s noted in Findings A4 and A5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
• Policy 1.7 (Update Zoning Code Development Standards): This program must make a firm commitment and specify which parking requirements will be removed that are a constraint to multifamily development. • Policy 1.14 ( Evaluate and Update Special Needs Group Housing Requirements):
The program should commit to revising procedural requirements to permit group homes for seven or more persons in all zones allowing residential uses based on objective criteria to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form.
• Design Review:
While program 1.6 (Streamline Housing Application Review) was added to revise the design review process for multifamily and mixed-use developments, it should commit to ensuring the findings and process is objective if the process is not eliminated.
• State Density Bonus Law: While the element includes Program 1.3 ( Increase Below Market Rate Unit Production) to update the density bonus ordinance, the program should include specific timing early in the planning period for implementation.
• Measure Y: While the element includes Program 1.21 (A dopt San Mateo General
Plan 2040), it must include specific commitments to increase densities and adjustments to development standards. In addition, the element should include a specific program to address the constraint of Measure Y.
167 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 7 March 27, 2023
6. P romote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
A
s noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
I
n addition, the element should reference the table in Appendix D in the programs section and the programs identified in Appendix D (Attachment 1) should include geographic targets for each identified action to affirmatively further fair housing. All programs that affirmatively further fair housing should include metrics, milestones and geographic targets. The analysis demonstrates a need for housing mobility in the RCAA and higher opportunity areas, but the sites analysis states no units were identified in these areas. Programs should be revised to include significant and meaningful action to overcome the identified patterns and trends.
168 of 203
HCD 60-day Comment Matrix
Comment
Number Section HCD Letter # and Page HCD Comment Current status Next Steps/Recommended
Modifications
1 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (AFFH)
A.1 Integration and Segregation: The element still must include a regional analysis of integration and segregation for persons with disabilities and familial status, comparing the City to the region.
New request; although Root Policy provided info countywide, HCD seems to expand to a broader area. Need to determine how we could have that data by "region" and how it is defined.
Work with AFFH consultant
Root Policy on providing the
required information.
2 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (AFFH)
A.1 Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: The element should analyze information on housing condition patterns within the City. This could include an analysis on concentrations of substandard housing geographically within the City.
New request; we provided information in general terms (e.g., that we know North Central and Shoreview have issues that we will address) but this is more specific and requires additional research.
Staff to examine existing data
to develop narrative (sources
may include code enforcement
or CDBG). Also discuss with
Root Policy on any additional
information that they can
provide.3 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (AFFH)
A.1 Sites Inventory: The element must include a locational analysis (neighborhood by neighborhood) of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) by income group and evaluate the impact of identified sites in each area. The element states that there are no units in the sites inventory located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA), but it should analyze whether conditions are exacerbated and promote strong housing mobility within the City’s programs to affirmatively further fair housing. In addition, the element stated no sites are identified in areas with high overcrowding and cost burden.
The element should include an analysis of whether this affects the existing patterns and whether sites exacerbate conditions and identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti- displacement and place-based community revitalization strategies).
New request; we provided this information by census tract but HCD is requesting a "neighborhood-level" analysis, which will be difficult to generate because neighborhoods may be in portions of multiiple tracts.
Discuss with Root Policy to see
if they are able to provide any
additional ; analyze data we
already have or that which is
easily generated.
4 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Needs)
A.2 Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): While the element was revised to include the number of existing ELI households, it must include the number of projected ELI households. In addition, the element must analyze ELI housing needs including characteristics magnitude, housing types, resources, strategies, and gaps to address the identified need. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information .
We explained that we already provided this, but HCD is seeking additional information.
Discuss with HCD on what
specifically they are looking for,
and direct staff to a certified
Housing Element so that we
can see what information that
HCD is requesting.
5 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element was revised to address affordability of the number of new units built since June 30, 2022, it must also address the availability of projects in the planning period, including the status of Projects 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The element should describe the status, any barriers to development, and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period. Barriers may include remediation of the gas station, projects including multiple owners, site cleanup, as well as Site 6 allowing building permit issuance within 15 years.
This seems like something we already provided, but perhaps we just need to beef up the narrative everywhere the sites are discussed?
Staff to review the sites and
narratives surrounding them
for adding more words
6 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 Realistic Capacity: The majority of sites still assume 100 percent maximum density as realistic capacity. The analysis must demonstrate that all projects in those zones developed at maximum density to support assumptions. In addition, the calculation of residential capacity must also account for the likelihood of residential development in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.
The City provided additional verbiage on this, staff will need additional guidance from HCD to respond.
Staff to discusswith HCD on
what we is missing from the
narrative.
169 of 203
Comment
Number Section HCD Letter # and Page HCD Comment Current status Next Steps/Recommended
Modifications
7 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 Small and Large Sites: While owner interest is helpful in determining the feasibility of development, the element must add additional information regarding likelihood of development during the planning period for the Hillsdale and Bridgepointe sites including feasibility during the planning period, whether the mall and other uses will remain, and timing of development, including affordable, on these large sites. The element could provide examples of other large site development with similar uses to support assumptions. In addition, to support assumptions for development of units affordable to lower-income households on small sites, the element should provide additional information on previous lot consolidations including zoning designations, number and size of parcels, and affordability of projects that developed on sites smaller than half an acre.
Staff was advised that owner interest is the "gold standard" for determining the likelihood of development, this is different than staff's understanding. In addition, we provided detailed information on sites like Concar to demonstrate development on large sites. Staff will request clarification from HCD on what exactly they are looking for.
Staff to discuss internally if
there is more info to provide,
or discuss with HCD on what is
missing from the narrative.
8 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to add some additional information for the nonvacant sites, it should connect the existing uses and feasibility of development to the project examples described. In addition, the element should describe the likelihood that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period, whether there are current leases, or other factors of whether the uses will impede residential development. The element should also analyze the feasibility of developing gas stations and car wash sites during the planning period. The element states that each parcel was ranked for likelihood of development, but it should describe the criteria used for ranking and how they were applied to feasibility of development.
Staff provided a lot of additional information and will need some additional guidance from HCD on how best to address their comments.
Staff to discuss internally if
there is more info to provide,
or discuss with HCD what
additional information is
needed for the narrative.
9 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 In addition, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.
For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation Findings were adopted with the adopted Housing Element. Staff to discuss internally if there is more info to provide,
or discuss with HCD what
additional information is
needed for the narrative.
10 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 City-Owned Sites: While the element includes Program 1.2 to develop City owned sites, it must describe whether there are any plans to sell or dispose of the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act.
More narrative needed. Staff to provide more info in
the narrative and the program
to explain this.
11 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element did not address the finding regarding the City’s ADU projections, please see HCD’s prior review. In addition, Program 1.4 must commit to also monitoring affordability of the ADU units that are permitted as well as provide additional incentives or identify additional sites if production and affordability assumptions are not met.
This comment was previously addressed by reducing the overall number. Also, committing to monitoring affordability is a new comment and not something that specifically has been raised.
Staff to discuss internally if
there is more info to provide,
or discuss with HCD what
additional information is
needed for the narrative.
12 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 Infrastructure: While the element was revised to state all sites have access to water, sewer and dry utilities, it must state whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA in the planning period. In addition, the element generally mentions infrastructure constraints for infill development. The element must describe and analyze the constraints as well as their impacts on the identified sites to meet the RHNA and add or modify programs as appropriate.
This comment was addressed this to the extent possible; need to determine if additional information is needed in the narrative.
Staff to discuss internally if
there is more info to provide,
or discuss with HCD what
additional information is
needed for the narrative.
13 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Inventory)
A.3 In addition, regardless of sufficient sewer capacity, Program 1.20 must commit to establishing a written procedure to grant priority sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households
Determine what additional narrative is needed to respond. Revise narrative to revise written procedures.
170 of 203
Comment
Number Section HCD Letter # and Page HCD Comment Current status Next Steps/Recommended
Modifications
14 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints
(Constraints)
A.4 Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls.
While the element includes Program 1.7 to reduce parking within half a mile of transit, the program is dependent on an analysis, but the element is missing the analysis. In addition, Program 1.7 must include specific implementation actions to reduce parking requirements for studio and one-bedroom units city-wide as well as for units that are at least 1,400 square feet. Please see HCD’s prior finding. In addition, the element did not address the finding regarding analyzing lot coverage and limits on allowable densities.
The element must also demonstrate feasibility of three-story developments in zones that limit height to 35 feet. Lastly, the element should analyze the open space requirements in the R-3 zone and include specific actions to reduce the constraint in the zone.
HCD previously acknowledged the level of detail on cumulative impacts would require a massive study and that was not the intention. This is different from prior HCD guidance. Program 1.7 is simply to comply with State law so it is unclear why an analysis is needed. There are some new comments, including a request to reduce parking requirements and the analysis about the 35' height limit.
Staff to discuss internally if
there is more info to
provide, or discuss with HCD
what additional information
is needed for the narrative.
15 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints
(Constraints)
A.4 Fees and Exaction: While the element was revised to add an environmental review fee, it must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development including conditional use permits (CUP), general plan amendments, zoning changes, site plan review, planned unit developments, specific plan, and development agreement fees.
In addition, Table 4 should also clarify whether the fees are the same for single family and multifamily developments.
Staff to rveiw as this was previously addressed. Staff to review and get as explicit as possible that it
includes everything.
16 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints
(Constraints)
A.4 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information, specifically for site plans and architectural review. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. Many of the findings are ambiguous and should be addressed as a constraint including but not limited to findings one, two and three and add or modify programs as appropriate. Lastly, the preapplication process adds at least four months in addition to the typical approval times listed and the element should add or modify programs as appropriate to address the constraint Staff to rveiw as this was previously addressed. Staff to review and get as explicit as possible that it
includes everything.
17 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints
(Constraints)
A.4 Local Ordinances: While the element was revised to state that community benefits are in addition to state law, it should clarify the ability to exceed Measure Y. In addition, the element should describe how the inclusionary program, the community benefit program, and state density bonus law interact with incentives provided.
The first part requires clarification in the narrative, but the second comment is new.
Staff to discuss internally how
best to address the second part
on how these work together.
18 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints
(Nongovernmental
Constraints)
A.5 Developed Densities and Permit Times: This element generally was not revised to address this finding, please see HCD’s prior review
Staff to review as this was previously addressed. Staff to review and get as explicit as possible that it
includes everything.
19 A. Housing Needs,
Resources and
Constraints (Needs)
A.6 Special Needs Populations: This element generally was not revised to address this finding.
Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information This information was previously provided where and where to look for it. HCD clarification is needed on what additional information we need to provide.
Request examples from HCD.
20 B. Housing Programs B.1 To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment and discrete timing (e.g., at least annually, by 2025), as follows:
21 B. Housing Programs B.1 Policy 1.4 (Incentivize ADU Development) : The program should be revised to include specific commitment to reducing fees if found to be a constraint.
Edit the program.
22 B. Housing Programs B.1 Policy 1.15 (Supportive Housing Requirements) : The timing must be revised to implement the program by a specific date within the first two years of the planning period.
Edit the program.
23 B. Housing Programs B.1 Policy 1.17 (Farmworker Housing) : The program must be revised to comply with Health & Safety Code section 17021.5.
Edit the program.
171 of 203
Comment
Number Section HCD Letter # and Page HCD Comment Current status Next Steps/Recommended
Modifications
24 B. Housing Programs B.1 Policy 5.2.2 (Incentivize Developers) : This program should be revised to include proactive outreach to developers throughout the planning period.
Edit the program.
25 B. Housing Programs B.1 Policy 5.4.5 (Future Improvements in Disadvantaged Communities) : The program must include an alternative action if the study is not implemented.
The program does not currently include an alternative action if the study is not implemented.
Discuss possible back-up
actions and propose an
alternative.
26 B. Housing Programs B.2 As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.
Staff is examining options to
address this comment.
27 B. Housing Programs B.2 In addition, Policy 3.7 (Expanding Homeless Shelters) must clarify implementation actions after the study in Action A.
Discuss possible back-up
actions and propose an
alternative.
28 B. Housing Programs B.3 While the element includes Policy 5.1.4 (Regional Forgivable Loan Program) to support the regional program to assist ELI households, it is a regional policy. The element should specify what actions the City is taking to address the ELI need While we pointed them to various actions, HCD is requesting more specific information.
Staff to look at examples of
programs that the City
implements that addresses
needs and will look at other
cities' certified housing
elements.
29 B. Housing Programs B.4 As noted in Findings A4 and A5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
30 B. Housing Programs B.4 Policy 1.7 (Update Zoning Code Development Standards): This program must make a firm commitment and specify which parking requirements will be removed that are a constraint to multifamily development.
We currently do not know which parking requirements are a constraint, therefore we need to perform an analysis.
Discuss internally to determine
whether we have enough
information to explain how
they are constraints and the
specific commitment to
address.
31 B. Housing Programs B.4 Policy 1.14 (Evaluate and Update Special Needs Group Housing Requirements): The program should commit to revising procedural requirements to permit group homes for seven or more persons in all zones allowing residential uses based on objective criteria to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form.
There may already be a program in the Housing Element that addresses this comment.
Staff to examine if there is
another program within the
Housing Element that
addesses this requirement.
32 B. Housing Programs B.4 Design Review: While program 1.6 (Streamline Housing Application Review) was added to revise the design review process for multifamily and mixed-use developments, it should commit to ensuring the findings and process is objective if the process is not eliminated.
Add additional information to the narrative. Revise the narrative 33 B. Housing Programs B.4 State Density Bonus Law: While the element includes Program 1.3 (Increase Below Market Rate Unit Production) to update the density bonus ordinance, the program should include specific timing early in the planning period for implementation.
Staff to develop a more specific
timeline.
34 B. Housing Programs B.4 Measure Y: While the element includes Program 1.21 (Adopt San Mateo General Plan 2040), it must include specific commitments to increase densities and adjustments to development standards. In addition, the element should include a specific program to address the constraint of Measure Y
Staff is examining options to
address this comment.
172 of 203
Comment
Number Section HCD Letter # and Page HCD Comment Current status Next Steps/Recommended
Modifications
35 B. Housing Programs B.6 (there is no B.5) As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
Staff is examining options to
address this comment.
36 B. Housing Programs B.6 (there is no B.5) In addition, the element should reference the table in Appendix D in the programs section and the programs identified in Appendix D (Attachment 1) should include geographic targets for each identified action to affirmatively further fair housing. All programs that affirmatively further fair housing should include metrics, milestones and geographic targets. The analysis demonstrates a need for housing mobility in the RCAA and higher opportunity areas, but the sites analysis states no units were identified in these areas. Programs should be revised to include significant and meaningful action to overcome the identified patterns and trends.
This is new comment in terms of the level of specificity HCD is seeking.
Ask for support from Root
Policy; discuss internally how to
address the concern about
more housing in RCAAs and
highest resource areas.
173 of 203
1 From: Chris Conway
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Prasad, Hillary@HCD
Subject: Letter date 09.28.22
Attachments: Draft Housing Element.pdf
To: Mr. Paul McDougall ‐ Senior Program Manager
Re: Letter from HCD dated September 28, 2022
Mr. McDougal ‐ I am a resident of the city of San Mateo and my question to you is comments you considered from non‐ profits when writing your letter that I have attached.
Why did you only consider comments from non‐profits who advocate for more housing by all means necessary and no comments of residents in the city who hold much different views than these tax‐exempt organizations that lobby city hall full time?
This process of the Housing Element seems very political and biased. Please answer my question so that I am prepared for the next city council meeting. You do work for the public and many of us would like a more transparent, open process as zoning changes are being punitively administered by the state to the cities of California.
Below is sentence that I am referring to for your reference
In addition, HCD considered comments from Housing Leadership Council, YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, One San Mateo, Adam Nugent, and Adam Buchbinder pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
Christopher P. Conway
San Mateo
174 of 203
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
September 28, 2022
Christina Horrisberger, Director
Director of Community Department
City of San Mateo
330 West 20
th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Christina Horrisberger:
RE: City of San Mateo’s 6
th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of San Mateo’s (City) draft housing element received for review on July 1, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on August 31, 2022 with yourself, Zachary Dahl, Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Manira Sandhir, Nicholas Vu, and consultant Diana Elrod. In addition, HCD considered comments from Housing Leadership Council, YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, One San Mateo,
Adam Nugent, and Adam Buchbinder pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional
175 of 203
Christina Horrisberger, Director
housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Hillary Prasad, of our staff, at
S
incerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
176 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 September 28, 2022
APPENDIX
CITY OF SAN MATEO
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos
. Among other resources, the housing element section
contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The review requirement is one of the most important features of the element update. The review of past programs should analyze the City's accomplishments over the previous planning period. This information provides the basis for developing an effective housing program.
A thorough program-by-program review is necessary to evaluate City's performance in addressing housing goals. While the element describes actual results of the prior element’s programs, it must provide a description of how the objectives and programs of the updated element incorporate changes resulting from the evaluation.
As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must analyze the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). Programs should be revised as appropriate to reflect the results of this evaluation.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Fair Housing Issues: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends.
177 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 September 28, 2022
Enforcement: While the element lists fair housing laws in Appendix D, it must state whether the City complies with federal and state fair housing laws. If the City does not currently comply, a program should be added as appropriate.
Integration and Segregation: The element provided some data regarding segregation and integration of race, disability, familial status, and income. The element must describe the census tracts that have geographic concentrations of race (i.e., concentrations identified as white majority). In addition, the element must discuss and analyze data on persons with disabilities for trends over time and patterns across census tracts as well as evaluate patterns at a regional basis, comparing the City to the region. The element must also include a local and regional analysis of integration and segregation for familial status.
Lastly, the element must describe and analyze concentrations of income geographically throughout the City.
Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty and Affluence (R/ECAP): The element includes information relative to R/ECAP within the City but should also analyze where they are in the region. The element must also address concentrated areas of affluence both locally and regionally. The combination of the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local (e.g., neighborhood to neighborhood) and regional level (e.g., city to region).
Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: While the element includes some data on disproportionate needs, additional information is needed. The element must describe any geographic concentration of cost burden and overcrowding by tenure, as well as any concentrations of substandard housing both locally and regionally. In addition, the element must describe and analyze the census tracts with displacement risk. While the map depicts a lot of areas vulnerable to displacement, this must be supported with an analysis.
Sites Inventory: While the element includes a summary of some factors, the analysis must identify whether sites improve or exacerbate conditions and whether sites are isolated by income group. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti-displacement and place-based community revitalization strategies).
Contributing Factors: The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). In addition, the element must describe how the actions in Appendix D Fair Housing Plan are tied to the housing element programs and include implementation.
Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must
178 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 September 28, 2022
specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): The element must quantify the number of existing and projected ELI households, and also analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs should consider tenure and rates of overpayment.
3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)
Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).
Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge).
4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their affordability based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). The element should also discuss the status, any barriers to development and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period.
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. The element currently assumes realistic capacity at 100 percent of base zoned density for multifamily units in R-3, R-4, and R-5 zones. The analysis must provide substantial support and demonstrate a history of developing at maximum density within the City. Examples to support realistic capacity assumptions should also include affordability levels, and percent of maximum densities.
179 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 September 28, 2022
The calculation of residential capacity must also account for the likelihood of residential development in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.
Small and Large Sites: Sites smaller than an half acre and larger than 10 acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).). For example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains units affordable to lower-income households would be an appropriate site to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).) In addition, the element must describe feasibility of the Hillsdale and Bridgepointe sites including likelihood of development during the planning period, whether a specific plan is needed, and if the existing uses will remain. Lastly the element must describe a history of lot consolidation as a method of developing housing as well as whether the City has any incentives to consolidate lots with different owners.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site, for example, “commercial” or “parking lot”. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element must analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as parking lots, church, gas station, an auto repair, and a warehouse; but must also demonstrate whether these existing uses would impede development of these sites within the planning period. The element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure, expressed developer interest, existing versus allowable floor area, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors.
In addition, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.
For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning
180 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 September 28, 2022
period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).). Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.
City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the City- owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must identify whether the current residential uses are affordable to lower-income households or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement for, lower-income households within the last five years there must be a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.
Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: If nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods, the sites are inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless:
• The site’s current zoning is appropriate for the development of housing affordable to lower-income households by either including analysis or meeting the appropriate density and
• The site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element projects 480 ADUs over the planning period or approximately 60 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. The element also notes permitting 44 ADUs in 2019, 47 in 2020, and 66 in 2021. The trend does not consider the number of permits in 2018 (eight ADUs) and does not support an assumption
181 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 September 28, 2022
of 60 ADUs per year. To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if needed.
AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4)).
Infrastructure: While the element includes a general discussion on water and sewer capacity, it must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water and sewer capacity to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).). In addition, the element generally mentions infrastructure constraints for infill development. The element must describe and analyze the constraints as well as their impacts on the identified sites to meet the RHNA.
For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City ’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. The element should demonstrate compliance with these requirements and add or modify programs, if necessary. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/priority-for-water-and-sewer
.
Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City (p. H-B-44), it must relate those conditions to identified sites and describe any other known environmental or other constraints that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning period.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The housing element must demonstrate the permit processing, development, and management standards for emergency shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. In particular, the element describes development standards for emergency shelters; however these standards are beyond the development standards allowed under housing element law. The element must demonstrate that emergency shelters are subject to the same development and management standards applicable to residential or commercial development within the same zone except for those standards prescribed by Government Code section 65583 (a)(4)(A). The element must also clarify that emergency shelters are allowed
182 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 September 28, 2022
without discretionary action in the C2 zone and describe sufficient and suitable capacity in the identified zone. In addition, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers: While the element includes a program to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers, it is limited to emergency shelter zones. Low Barrier Navigation Centers shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65660. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate. • Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element must describe where SROs are allowed or add a program as appropriate.
• Manufactured Housing: The element must clarify whether manufactured homes are subject to additional regulations beyond state law if on a permanent foundation and add a program as needed.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): The element indicates the City modifies its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.
5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to parking, heights, lot coverage and limits on allowable densities. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints. The element must analyze the maximum heights of 35 feet in multifamily zones and whether three-story buildings are allowed as well as whether allowed densities can be met in the TOD Hillsdale Station with a 24-foot height restriction. The element should also analyze the open space requirements for the R-3 zone. In addition, the element should analyze requiring more than one parking space for studio and one-bedroom units and the minimum requirement of 2.2 spaces for 1,400 square foot units regardless of bedroom size and add programs to specifically address the constraints. In addition, the element should clarify
183 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 September 28, 2022
how multifamily developments are allowed in the E and C zones and whether they require a use permit. Both in the element and in public comments, height restrictions, floor area definitions, maximum densities of 50 dwelling units an acre, and design review guidelines were identified as constraints to development and should be addressed in programs as appropriate.
Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. While Table 4 lists fee deposits, the element should also include typical fees for each and clarify whether the fees are the same for single family and multifamily developments. The element should also identify fees related to annexation, variances, conditional use permits (CUP), general plan amendments, zone changes, site plan review, planned unit developments, specific plans, development agreements, and environmental fees. Table 6 should also describe the typical fees as a percent of the total development cost for both single family and multifamily developments and add a program as appropriate.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information, specifically for special use permits, site plans and architectural review (as well as whether finding five is related to a crime free ordinance). The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. The element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. The element should also clarify whether the listed typical approval times are for both single family and multifamily developments. Lastly, it should clarify whether the preapplication process adds six to nine months in addition to the typical approval times listed and add or modify programs as appropriate.
Local Ordinances: While the element identifies the City’s community benefit program, it must describe whether the incentives are in addition to state density bonus law. The element must clarify how the 75 dwelling units an acre allowed using the community benefit program interacts with the restricted densities under measure Y. In addition, the element must describe how the inclusionary program, community benefit program, and state density bonus law interact with incentives provided.
Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, and inclusionary requirements for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).
Measure Y: The element must describe the impacts of measure Y on height and density restrictions as a constraint on housing development and affordability. The element must add a program to include outreach and mitigation measures for the impact of Measure Y
184 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 September 28, 2022
on housing development throughout the planning period. The element should analyze the measure as a constraint on development based on site suitability for development.
State Density Bonus Law: The City’s current density bonus ordinance should be reviewed for compliance with current state density bonus law and programs should be added as necessary. (Gov. Code, § 65915.)
Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.
On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element briefly describes its reasonable accommodation procedures. However, the element should also describe the process and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and analyze any potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, the element states that Policy H.1.14 commits to revise the definition of family, but there are no actions within the program to revise the definition of family to remove constraints. The element must add or revise a program to remove the constraints as noted. Lastly, group homes for seven or more persons appears to be excluded from several zones allowing residential uses and subject to a CUP. The element should evaluate these requirements as constraints and include specific commitment to amend zoning and permit procedures to allow these uses in all residential zones with objectivity to facilitate approval certainty.
6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.
7. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of
185 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 September 28, 2022
households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Special Needs Populations: While the element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (availability senior housing units, # of large units, # of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps. In addition, the element must quantify and analyze the number of elderly persons in the City.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (..3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:
• P olicy 1.2 (Utilize Public Funding): This program should include proactive outreach to developers throughout the planning period as well as a geographic target for the metric.
• P olicy 1.4 (Incentivize ADU Development): This program should revise action C to include discrete timing of how often it will be completed and monitored. In addition, action D should include back-up actions if estimates are not met (e.g., identify additional sites or provide additional incentives) as well as monitor affordability. • P olicy 1.5 (Encourage Family Housing): The program should include back-up actions, with specific timing, if the identified incentives are not implemented. • P olicy 1.6 (Streamline Housing Application Review): Action B must include specific timing of when permit application requirements will be updated. In addition, the timing of action C must be completed earlier in the planning period. • Policies 1.15 (Supportive Housing Requirements) and 1.16 (Mobile Home Parks):
These programs must revise timing to be implemented earlier in the planning period for a beneficial impact.
• Policy 1.17 (Farmworker Housing): This program must move up timing to be implemented earlier in the planning period. In addition, the program should cite the government code for farmworker housing.
• Policy 1.18 (Permitting and Development Fee Review): This program must clarify timing in Action A, specifically whether the study will be complete within the
186 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 September 28, 2022
identified timeframe or if the fees will be reduced by that date. In addition, Action B must specify when the first review will occur and when adjustments will take place. • P olicy 1.19 (Senior Housing): This program must clarify what potential actions will be implemented for seniors as well as whether other special needs groups are included in the program.
• P olicy 2.1 (Housing Rehabilitation Efforts), 2.3 (Energy and Water Efficiency), 3.4 (Expand Tenant Protections), and 4.3 (Community Education and Outreach): This program must describe how often outreach will occur throughout the planning period.
• Policy 3.3 (Evaluate Housing Revenue Sources): This program must describe the implementation component for action A.
• Policy 3.5 (Creation of Below Market Rate Set Asides): This program must add implementation and timing for what will result from the study. • Policy 4.2 (Countywide Below Market Rate Unit Waitlist): This program must clarify how support will be provided as well as how often throughout the planning period. • Policy 4.4 (Enable Affirmative Marketing): Timing must be clarified to state whether the marketing will occur once in the planning, or on a project-by-project basis. • Policy 5.1.2 (Regional Down Payment Assistance): This program should include outreach for education.
• Policy 5.2.2 (Incentivize Developers): This program must clarify whether incentives are in place, timing to implement the incentives, as well as conducting proactive outreach.
• Policy 5.3.2 (Fund Minor Home Repairs): The program should clarify how often outreach will occur as well as specify whether the metrics are annually or throughout the planning period.
• Policy 5.4.2 (Project Sentinel): This program should be revised to include outreach and describe how awareness will be increased.
• Policy 5.4.3 (Fair Housing Webpage): This program should describe how often the website will be updated and whether outreach will be included. • Policy 5.4.5 (Future Improvements in Disadvantaged Communities): This program must include an action to implement the feasibility study as well as a back-up if the study is not implemented.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a
187 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 12 September 28, 2022
shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Policy 1.1 (Monitor RHNA): While this program ensures sufficient sites are identified, it should commit to identifying additional sites throughout the planning period if needed to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
Policy 1.10 (Establish By-Right Housing for Prior Housing Sites) and 2.6: Previously identified nonvacant sites are inadequate to accommodate the need for lower-income households unless the site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by-right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The program must be revised to comply as well as clarify that the densities for the identified sites are appropriate for lower-income households. In addition, timing of Policy 2.6 should occur no later than 3 years from the start of the planning period.
Policy 1.12 (Encourage Residential Uses within Housing Overlay): The program must clarify which commercial zones will be included in the program actions.
Policy 2.4 (Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Neighborhoods): The program should describe what capital improvements will be included.
Policy 3.7 (Expanding Homeless Shelters): This program must clarify implementation actions after the study in action A. In addition, a government citation must be added for Action C and implementation timing must be earlier in the planning period to ensure beneficial impact.
3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
While the element includes Policy 5.1.3 (Regional Forgivable Loan Program) to support the regional program to assist ELI households, it is a regional policy. The element should specify what actions the City is taking to address the ELI need. The program should also specify whether proactive outreach will occur to implement the program.
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
188 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 13 September 28, 2022
• P olicy 1.3 (Increase Below Market Rate Unit Production): This program should be revised to include an action to comply with State Density Bonus law as well as specific timing for implementation. The program should clarify whether the action currently listed is in addition to state law requirements. • P olicy 1.7 (Update Zoning Code Development Standards): This program must make a firm commitment to remove parking requirements that are a constraint to multifamily development.
• Policy 1.13 (Encourage Development of Missing Middle Housing): This program should include specific implementation and specify whether the identified policies and codes will be revised to remove constraints.
• Policy 1.14 (Evaluate and Update Special Needs Group Housing Requirements):
This policy should commit to reviewing and revising procedural requirements to permit group homes for seven or more persons in all zones allowing residential uses based on objective criteria to facilitate approval certainty. In addition, the program must be implemented earlier in the planning period to ensure a beneficial impact.
5. P romote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place- based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
While programs in Table 13 include specific timelines, all programs in the element that AFFH must include specific metrics and milestones with geographic targets that address the fair housing analysis. In addition, Policy 5.2.1 (City Supported Housing) should specify what actions will be taken to add more affordable housing to moderate and high resource areas as well as whether incentives are provided.
6. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
189 of 203
City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 14 September 28, 2022
Policy 2.2 (Retention of Existing Lower-Income Units) and 5.3.3 (Monitor Affordable Housing Projects) should reference State Preservation Notice Law (Gov. Code, § 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13) and state noticing requirements to tenants and affected public entities. The program should also be expanded to include other potential at-risk properties not included in the analysis. HCD will send additional information under separate cover.
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives for construction, it must also include estimates for rehabilitation and not limit conserved units to at-risk properties.
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)
While the element includes a summary of public participation including outreach to the community, it must also describe whether translation services were available outside of the Lets Talk Housing sessions.
F. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period.
190 of 203
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: David Kellogg
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 5:22 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD
Subject: Public Comment on Housing Element
Nov 18, 2022
On behalf of David Kellogg (a Contra Costa County resident), 350 Contra Costa, Greenbelt Alliance, CaRLA, Scott O’Neil (a resident of Palo Alto), Watson Ladd (a resident of Berkeley), Marven Normal (a resident of San Bernadino), Dara Dadachanji (a resident of San Francisco), and George Grohwin (a resident of San Francisco), we provide the following comment on the Housing Element from SAN MATEO.
Issue
The Housing Element from SAN MATEO fails to adequately analyze compliance with one of the state’s fundamental streamlining laws.
Under PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2, a lead agency must determine if a housing development is exempt from CEQA within 30 days of completeness, or if an EIR or other CEQA document will be required. For CEQA‐exempt housing, this CEQA determination then triggers a 60‐day approval clock (with deemed approved remedies) under the Permit Streamlining Act. Thus, if state housing laws were followed, CEQA‐exempt housing projects should generally receive approvals in about 120 days.
1. 30 days to determine completeness
2. 30 days for CEQA review
3. 60 days for approval.
SAN MATEO does not appear to issue determinations of CEQA‐exemption within 30 days of completeness. As a result, builders and the public are denied the right to the timely approval of housing. Additionally, the builders are forced into an unreasonable bargaining position, as they lack the “deemed approved” options they should have. This improperly empowers jurisdictions to treat builders arbitrarily in the entitlement process.
Moreover, SAN MATEO has no apparent good‐faith basis for delaying CEQA‐exemption determinations beyond the allowance of Public Resources Code 21080.1 & 21080.2. In the vast majority of instances, these exemptions are uncontested and straightforward.
Recommendation
The Housing Element from SAN MATEO should include an analysis of compliance in its approval process with PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2.
The Housing Element from SAN MATEO should add a program to specify (i) who is responsible for making the CEQA determination of PRC 21080.1, specify (ii) that their decision will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and specify that (iii), when they determine a project is exempt
191 of 203
2 from CEQA, their determination triggers the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 60‐day deadline (Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)). If existing local practices or regulations are incompatible with these state laws, the program should commit to enacting reforms necessary to achieve compliance within a reasonable and definite timeline.
HCD Technical Assistance Letter
The CEQA issues mentioned herein are discussed in the June 3, 2022 Technical Assistance letter sent to Berkeley by Shannan West, Housing Accountability Unit Chief (copy included below). In the letter, HCD notes that Berkeley had been issuing “recommendations” of CEQA‐exemption and that the actual “determinations” were made more than 30 days beyond the completeness date. HCD notes that such practice was in violation of PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2 and “may act as a governmental constraint on housing.”
192 of 203
3 193 of 203
4 194 of 203
1 From: Andrew Wofford
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 10:24 AM
To: Prasad, Hillary@HCD; Housing Elements@HCD
Subject: San Mateo Housing Element Comment Letter
Attachments: San Mateo Housing Element_Comment Letter_UC Berkeley_12.22.22.pdf Hello Hillary,
My name is Andrew Wofford‐‐I am a graduate student in City Planning at UC Berkeley. I am writing to submit a comment letter to your office regarding San Mateo's draft housing element. The letter was written by myself and three additional graduate students in City Planning and Public Policy‐‐Amba Gupta, Marisa Espinoza and Samuel Greenberg.
Please let me know if there are any additional persons at HCD to whom we should send the letter for consideration.
Many thanks for all of the great work you are doing,
Andrew
‐‐
Andrew Wofford (he/him)
Master of City Planning ‐ 2024
College of Environmental Design ‐ UC Berkeley
195 of 203
City of San Mateo330 W 20th Ave.San Mateo, CA 94403
To the honorable San Mateo City Council,
We greatly appreciate this opportunity to offer feedback to the City of San Mateo on its drafthousing element. We are graduate students in Public Policy and City Planning at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, where we are studying housing policy.
We applaud the City of San Mateo for planning for 154% of its Regional Housing NeedsAssessment (RHNA), and the diligent work conducted to craft its housing element and provideprotections for at-risk renters. However, in order to comply with state housing law, San Mateomust address the significant barrier that Measure Y poses to meeting its RHNA goals and fulfillingits obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).
The housing element must identify specific ways to mitigate Measure Y density restrictions inorder to achieve the level of housing production required by the RHNA. Likewise, the city mustplan to take substantive action to achieve the goals required by the AFFH mandate. Specifically,we believe that San Mateo’s housing element must further define how it will incorporate affordablehousing into areas of significantly concentrated affluence, assess its site inventory for whether itimproves or exacerbates AFFH goals, reduce the high percentage of planned low income housingunits located on non-vacant sites, and generally ensure that its plan to fulfill AFFH requirements isrealistic and complies with state law. By strengthening AFFH planning and moving beyond theconstraints of Measure Y, the City of San Mateo can meet its RHNA goals and help ensure thatSan Mateo will be a vibrant, welcoming, and affordable city for current and future residents.
Why San Mateo Can and Must Ignore Measure Y
Since 1991, Measure Y has imposed a height restriction of 50 feet (four to five stories) and adensity restriction of 50 dwelling units per acre on all new buildings within the City of San Mateo.The restriction applies to every parcel of land in the city. On November 4th, 2020, San Mateansvoted to reapprove Measure Y by a margin of 43 votes out of a total of 46,033 votes cast.
Policy advocates at the Greenbelt Alliance have argued that Measure Y is an act of“exclusionary zoning.” By severely limiting the heightand density of multifamily buildings, the 1 ordinance renders most multifamily housing in the city financially infeasible. More importantly,these restrictions likely increase home prices in the few multifamily buildings that are viable; asa result, fewer low-income families can afford to live in San Mateo. 2 2
Muhammad Alameldin, David Garcia, “The Cost to Build New Housing Keeps Rising,” Terner Center for HousingInnovation, August 4, 2022,https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/cost-to-build-housing-legislation-2022/ 1 Teri Shore, “Loss: San Mateo Measure Y,” Greenbelt Alliance, November 4, 2020,https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-no-on-measure-y-to-provide-essential-homes-in-san-mateo/#:~:text=Measure%20Y%20is%20an%20example,to%20the%20three%20 Caltrain%20 stations
196 of 203
Commendably, the Council acknowledges the long history of San Mateo’s exclusionary zoningpractices in its draft housing element. Although not intended to discriminate, Measure Y is anextension of the legalized housing segregation which the Council is working to undo and repair.Multifamily apartment buildings remain one of the few affordable housing options for low-incomepeople of color and immigrants in San Mateo and the wider Bay Area. By making it all but 3 impossible to create new, multifamily housing units at an affordable price, Measure Y threatensSan Mateo’s ability to create an equitable and inclusive city going forward.
More immediately, based on its existing site inventory, the City of San Mateo cannot fulfill itsRHNA goals if it adheres to Measure Y. If the Council does not demonstrate that the city canrealistically meet these goals, San Mateo will be out of compliance with state law.
A number of precedents confirm that the City of San Mateo must ignore an existing localordinance if that ordinance prohibits a jurisdiction’s ability to comply with state law (seeUrbanHabitat v. Pleasanton). Last November, HCD providedclear guidance to the City of Alameda that 4 its voter-enactedMeasure A, which similarly limiteddensity across all parcels, was “in conflict withstatelaw and should be voided.” The City of Alamedahas since submitted a draft housing 5 element–deemed compliant by HCD–thatignores MeasureA constraints and plans forhigher-density housing than the ordinancewould haveallowed. 6 We are particularly concerned that the City of San Mateo cannot comply with state AFFH laws ifthe city adheres to Measure Y. In its review of Alameda’s Measure A, HCD found that themeasure violated Government Code sections 8899.50 and 65583 because the densityrestrictions “deny fair housing choices and are fundamentally contrary to affirmatively furtheringfair housing.” This decisive finding indicates that HCD will correctly identify Measure Y’s densityrestrictions as impediments to fair housing choice that violate state housing law.Therefore, westrongly recommend that the Council move to ignore Measure Y and plan for higher-density,multi-family housing in the final housing element.
We recognize that it is difficult for Councilmembers to ignore ameasure approved byconstituents. However, we remind the Council thataccording to the Community Input Survey itcommissioned earlier this year, 63% of SanMateanssupport new, higher-density housing in thecity’s downtown of up to 12 stories; while68% supportnew housing of up to 8 stories. 7 7
True North Research, “Community Opinion Survey,” City of San Mateo, February 21, 2022, p. 12,https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/87282/San-Mateo-Community-Opinion-Survey-2022-Report 6 Ken Der, City’s Housing Element Deemed Compliant,” Alameda Post, September 7, 2022,https://alamedapost.com/news/citys-housing-element-deemed-compliant/ 5 Paul McDougall, “RE: City of Alameda Measure A Provisions and Housing Element Compliance,” Department ofHousing and Community Development, November 29, 2021, p. 4,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/alaalamedacity-ta-112921.pdf 4 “Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton,” Public Advocates, November 30, 2022,https://www.publicadvocates.org/our-work/housing-justice/urban-habitat-v-city-pleasanton/ 3 Chair Cecilia Rouse, Jared Bernstein, Helen Knudsen, Jeffery Zhang, “Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on RacialDiscrimination on the Housing Market,” The White House, June 17, 2021https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/
197 of 203
San Mateo residents understand that the city needs higher-density housing in order to growsustainably. To do so, San Mateo must move beyond Measure Y.
Site Analysis: Hillsdale Shopping Center
If the city upholds the exclusionary restrictions of Measure Y, some of its current housing sites inthe draft element will simply not be feasible for development within the next eight years. TheHillsdale Shopping Center is an important example.
As the largest site in San Mateo’s inventory, Hillsdale is estimated to accommodate 1,996 units,comprising approximately 28% of the city’s total RHNA target. The housing element justifies thisestimate by simply stating that the owner is interested in mixed-use redevelopment thatmaximizes residential units. It does not demonstrate an in-depth unit calculation as per severalcapacity factors suggested by HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook. As a result, the city has putforward an unrealistic estimate of the site’s capacity.
The draft housing element assumes that 100% of the available land at the Hillsdale site willbecome new homes at 100% of the zoned capacity. Recently,however, the site’s owner David 8 Bohannon invested $257 million to renovate 12.5 acres of the shopping center. This renovation,along with other factors detailed in the table below, significantly impacts realistic capacitycalculations:
8 Jerimy Levine, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo, “San Mateo Housing Element Letter”, pg. 2https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dclzoVUm5i_mjGauJof60bKplZxBc6dU/view
198 of 203
Most notably, the city must allow greater density than Measure Y currently permits in order forDavid Bohannon to even consider redeveloping the site for residential use. Thus far, he has statedthat there is no timeline for redeveloping the site because the city has not indicated that it intendsto lift Measure Y. 9 Fortunately, if the Council does plan for density beyond the constraints of Measure Y, the HillsdaleShopping Center site has significant potential for affordable housing development as part of atransit-oriented district. Without such restrictions, the developer can distribute densities across thesite as intended and realistically develop the units estimated in the element site inventory.
There are other similar sites in the inventory that are highly unlikely to be developed, such as theBridgepointe Shopping Center, which recently renewed long term leases with several commercialtenants. These sites have been misidentified as opportunitysites for the inventory. A more 10 realistic capacity calculation which accounts for Measure Y’s constraints will considerably reducetheir estimated potential units. Thus, the city must identify additional opportunity sites not currentlylisted in its inventory or suspend Measure Y to allow for higher-density housing on these existingsites.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
San Mateo’s housing element additionally misses critical opportunities to better comply withHCD’s AFFH requirements. The AFFH assessment, which according to HCD, must “include anassessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction” has significant shortcomings. While the housing 11 element does map racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, it does not mapaffluentracially segregated areas. This is a notable omission as the most residentially segregatedpopulation in San Mateo is non-hispanic white residents. In order to meet state requirements and 12 decrease residential segregation, the AFFH assessment must first effectively document patternsof residential segregation.
Beyond the assessment, the AFFH section fails to appropriately “identify and prioritizesignificant contributing factors” which “create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one ormore fair housing issues,”as required by HCD. Currently,many of the noted contributing 13 factors simply state the characteristics of poverty and identity-driven disparities rather thancity-controlled factors that cause or contribute to fair housing issues. For example, the element 13 Olmstead, Zachary
12 Adam Nuget,Commissioner Input Draft 2023-2031 HousingElement. April 6, 2022,https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UCFi_6p3JvL5cw2GkcHgbkhcWNwk1Yl/view 11 Zachary Olmstead,AB 686 Summary of Requirementsin Housing Element Law Government Code Section 8899.50,65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a). CaliforniaDepartment of Housing and Community Development, 23 Apr. 2020,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/ab686_summaryhousingelementfinal_04222020.pdf 10 Jerimy Levine, Housing Leadership Council of SanMateo, “San Mateo Housing Element Letter”, pg. 2https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dclzoVUm5i_mjGauJof60bKplZxBc6dU/view 9 Curtis Driscoll, “Hillsdale Mall seeks New Zoning”, The Daily Journal, April 11, 2022https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/hillsdale-mall-seeks-new-zoning/article_6ebb7f56-b971-11ec-b53a-0f92f5a9aca1.html
199 of 203
states that “there are concentrations of the population living witha disability west of Highway 101 in the North Centralneighborhood,” a neighborhood that scores poorly onenvironmental and economic opportunity indexes. This is simplya statement of the characteristics of disparities betweenresidents with and without disabilities, and belongs in the fairhousing assessment. To effectively address these disparities andnot merely describe them, the housing element must first identifywhat planning and policy decisions led to these conditions.
San Mateo’s plan to respond to this assessment and addressthese contributing factors is limited in two fundamental ways.First, no areas designated for affordable housing are locatedwithin San Mateo’s highest-opportunity neighborhoods. Bycontrast, significant affordable housing is planned for the city’slowest-income neighborhoods. This imbalance will likely increaseresidential segregation. Additionally, according to HCD’sassessment,San Mateo’s draft housing element “reliesuponnon-vacantsites to accommodate more than 50 percentof theRHNA for lower-income households.” This means thatSan 14 Mateo is relying on sites unlikely to be developed in the nearterm for much of itsplanned affordable housing development.
A Call to Action
San Mateo should take meaningful action by 2024 to overcome existing policy barriers to housingaccess. The city has an opportunity to work in coalition with neighboring jurisdictions to bolstersignificant regional goals to affirmatively further fair housing and rapidly increase housingproduction across the south Bay Area.
This should take the form of a two-pronged approach. First, San Mateo must deepen its AFFHefforts through strong policies that incorporate affordable housing into high-opportunityneighborhoods. It will be necessary for the city to do the following: 1) allow for more density insingle-family zoned, high-opportunity neighborhoods; 2) increase the share of affordable housingplanned for vacant sites and high-opportunity neighborhoods; 3) establish an overlay to prioritizeaffordable housing in high-opportunity areas; and 4) reduce overall fees on affordable housingdevelopment.
Second, the city must proactively address impediments caused by Measure Y through anambitious legal and legislative strategy. By the close of 2023, the city should produce a detailed 14 McDougall, Paul.RE: City of San Mateo’s 6th Cycle(2023-2031) Draft Housing Element. California DepartmentofHousing and Community Development, September 28, 2022,https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/89423/September-28-2022-HCD-Response-Letter.
200 of 203
study on the impacts of Measure Y and whether repeal of this ordinance is necessary for the cityto actually permit the planned units in its housing element within the next eight years. If deemednecessary, the city should pursue a veto referendum to repeal Measure Y. Most importantly, thisstudy should also ensure that a potential reversal meets AFFH and inclusionary housingobjectives that benefit historically excluded communities and populations targeted by housingsegregation and discrimination.
Such a strategy would require more immediate action as well: in the near-term, the city shouldsuspend implementation of Measure Y and clarify city powers for the purposes of submitting acompliant housing element. The city should pursue expert legal advice and craft a robust policyagenda that can withstand potential legal challenges.
An Opportunity for San Mateo
The statewide housing element process provides the City Council of San Mateo with atremendous opportunity to lead the south Bay Area in creating a more accessible andsustainable region. In aiming to exceed its RHNA goals, the Council has shown that it can bothset an example for the wider region and impact residents beyond its boundaries. As the city’selement is currently drafted, however, these lofty goals will not materialize.
The Council must take clear action to ensure that San Mateo can achieve these urgently neededhousing goals and fulfill its legal obligations to the state. We look forward to seeing how theCouncilmembers respond to this opportunity.
Thank you for your consideration,
Andrew Wofford, Masters Candidate in City Planning, UC BerkeleyAmba Gupta, Masters Candidate in City Planning, UC BerkeleyMarisa Espinoza, Masters Candidate in Public Affairs, UC BerkeleySamuel Greenberg, Masters Candidate in Public Affairs, UC Berkeley
201 of 203
1 Nicholas "Nicky" Vu
From: Jeremy Levine <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Prasad, Hillary@HCD
Cc: McDougall, Paul@HCD; Jordan Grimes
Subject: Comment on San Mateo General Plan Update + HCD Review Letters Good afternoon Hillary (and Paul),
Merry Friday, and thank you for your recent letters to San Carlos, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. I haven't gotten a chance to read them all closely yet, but at a glance they are all excellent work!
I'm writing with a last‐minute update on San Mateo's housing element, which uses the city's scheduled 2024 General Plan update ballot measure as a backstop. In general, the city claims that its General Plan update will resolve any lingering issues with the city's opportunity sites by making large zoning changes.
However, the city council recently voted to significantly decrease the amount of rezoning proposed in San Mateo's General Plan. Before the May 6, 2023 city council meeting, San Mateo's General Plan update proposed rezonings throughout its commercial areas, going up to 12 stories in some places. At the May 6 meeting, staff brought forward a new proposal that significantly decreased rezonings in several areas, with a new maximum height of 10 stories and associated decrease in density. Then, also at the May 6 meeting, the city council voted by a 3‐2 margin to further decrease the maximum height in the General Plan to 8 stories, with associated decreases elsewhere.
The council vote neutering the General Plan update proposal demonstrates that San Mateo's abstract commitments to pursue future rezonings to remove constraints to housing on its opportunity sites cannot be taken at face value. In the first place, the city has never seriously considered the fair housing impacts of its earlier proposed General Plan update, much less the impact of the much less significant proposal now under consideration. In fact, the city completed its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis long after it had already decided what the rezonings in its General Plan update would look like. The city's own planning commission recommended against submitting the housing element to HCD until further changes could be made to justify the city's sites and promote fair housing.
The Housing Leadership Council hopes that HCD will urge the City of San Mateo to make firmer commitments to move forward with policy changes in its housing element. We support the city in its pursuit of a ballot measure to update its General Plan, as long as the city commits in its housing element to clear rezoning commitments that reflect some preliminary evaluation of AFFH impacts.
Have a great weekend,
Jeremy
P.S. Will I see either of you at Housing California in San Diego??
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
www.hlcsmc.org [hlcsmc.org]
202 of 203
2 Facebook [facebook.com] • Twitter [twitter.com] • LinkedIn [linkedin.com] • Instagram [instagram.com] • Become A Member! [hlcsmc.org]
203 of 203