San Mateo City Council
May 20, 2024

APPENDIX A | Attachment 1 – Countywide Housing Needs

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

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

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

KEYTAKEAWAYS:

People
Housing
Jobs
 By 2026, one out of five residents will be 65 or over  San Mateo County’s population is becoming more diverse  The number of households will continue to grow
 Housing rent and prices continue to increase
 The number of jobs will continue to grow
 Although the median income is high, many jobs paylow wages 418 of 2271

PEOPLE
By 2026, one outof
five residents will
be 65 or over
Under 25 25-44 45-64 65+
San Mateo County makes up 10 percent of the total Bay
Area population, which is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the country. The number of people living here has steadily grown the past few decades. In 2020, the population was estimated to be 773,244, an increase of 19 percent since 19901
. That trend is expected to continue despite the
impact of the recent pandemic because more jobs continue to be added.

People are also living longer, with those 65 and over
expected to make up nearly 20 percent of the population by 2026. Equally important is the fact that Millennials recently surpassed the Baby Boomers as our largest generation. As Millennials enter their 40s, they will continue to shape countywide housing needs.By 2026, people 25-44 and 45-
64 will make up more than 50 percent of the population 2.

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

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

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

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

With more people 65 and over than there were 10 or 20 years ago we have to address how to support our seniors as they get older so they can stay in their homes and communities, and make sure young people,new families and our workers can find housing they can afford that meets their needs.
1 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2 Claritias Population Facts 2021 15%
28%
Age
2020
27% 29%
19%
28%
Age
2026
27% 26%
419 of 2271

Our population is
becoming more
diverse
Asian Latinx Other *
.5%

21.8%

4.6%

29.6%
Black White
*
San Mateo County is a very diverse place to live, even when compared to the State of California. Countywide,more than one-third of the population are foreign bornand almost half speak a language other than English at home. By contrast, a quarter of all Californians are foreign born and less than a quarter speak a languageother than English at home. Over 120 identified languages are spoken in San Mateo County, with top languages including Spanish (17 percent), Chinese (8 percent) and Tagalog (6 percent).

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

2.2 percent 3.

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

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

39.2% 24.4%

2.2%
Race +
Ethnicity
2019

51.5% 22.6%
Race +
Ethnicity
2000

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

DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
49%
2000 2019 2026
2000 to 2019:

BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%
Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%
Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%

12.3%

7.8%

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

DIVERSITY
Past and projected percentage of Black,
Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
49%
2000 2019 2026
Since 2000:

BIPOC population growth
from 48.5% to 60.8%
Asian Population growth
from 21.8% to 29.6%
Black Population decline
from 3.5% to 2.2%

12.3%

7.8%

2.3%
35%
46%
120
of the population is foreign born
speak a language other thanEnglish
different languages are spoken
420 of 2271

for
every
HOUSEHOLDS + HOUSING
The number
of households
will continue to
grow
That’s a
48%
increase
Over the past 30 years, new home construction has notkept up with the number of jobs our economy keeps adding. This has led to a housing shortage.

In 2020, there were 265,000 households in San Mateo
County. By 2050 we expect that to increase by almost half to 394,0004. This growing demand will continue to put
pressure on home prices and rents. And given that nearly 75 percent of our housing was built before 1980 there will also be the need to upgrade older homes. While this will be
essential to make sure housing is of high quality and safe to residents, redevelopment or repair can sometimes result in a loss of affordable housing, especially in older multi-unit buildings.

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

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

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

These smaller homesmay provide more options to a diversity of communitymembers across income, age, and household
size.
28%
5+ unit
multifamily
Housing
stock
55%
single family
homes
68%
of households
are families
76%
of existing housing
was built before 1980
2-4 unit multifamilyand
mobile homes
6 1
17% 5,264
4 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern, U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5 Association of Bay Area Governments Jobs Housing Fit 61%
17%
Built 1975
$

265K
Households in 2020
394K
Households in 2050
low wage jobs
(153,000 in total)
affordable home
(25,000in total)
2-4 unit multifamilyand
mobile homes
of households spend
half or more of their income on
housing
existing affordable units are at
risk of being converted to
market rate
421 of 2271

Housing rent
and prices
continue to
increase
2009 to 2020
per m

The Bay Area is a great place to live. But throughout the region and county there just isn’t enough housing for all income levels, which has made costs go up. Home prices and rents have been steadily increasing the pasttwo decades, but in recent years the jump has been dramatic. Since 2009, the median rent increased 41 percent to $2,200, and
median home values have more than doubled to
$1,445,0006.

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

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

As a result, more people are living in overcrowded or unsafe living conditions. They are also making the tough choice to move further away and commute long distances to work or school, which has created moretraffic. Since low income residents and communities of color are the most cost
burdened, they are at the highest risk for eviction,
6 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, Zillow
7 U.S. Census, American Community Survey
displacement, and homelessness.

What does this mean for housing needs?
Although there are complex supply, demand and economic
factors impacting costs, not having enough housing across all incomes has meant rents and pricesare just higher. Programs and policies that can supportmore homes across all income levels, particularly very low, low, and moderate income, are essential, as are more safe, affordable housing options to addresshomelessness.
$2.2K
per month

RENTER SNAPSHOT
54% are under 44 years old
76% are people of color and ata
higher risk of being displaced
1 in 4 renters...
spend 50% of income on rent
live in overcrowded households –
89% of these renters are BIPOC
Latinx are the most cost burdened
31% spend more than half and
18% spend a third to half of their
income on rent
$1.4M
$1.56K
Median rent increased 41% Home values more than doubled $$675 675KK
422 of 2271

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

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

In 2020, there were 416,700 jobs and by 2050 we expect
that to increase 22 percent to 507,0009. While some jobs pay verywell,wages for manyothershaven’t kept up with how costly it is to live here.

That’s a
22%
increase
What does this mean for housing needs?
As we plan for housing, we need to consider the needs of our workforce—folks who are a part of our communities, but often end their day by commuting long distances to a place they can afford. Many have been displaced in recent decades or years, as housingand rent prices soared along with our job-generating economy. The lack of workforce housing affects us all, with teachers, fire fighters, health care professionals, food service providers and many essential workers being excluded from the communities they contribute to every day. The long-term sustainability of our communities depends on our ability to create more affordable and equitable housing options.

NEW JOBS TO NEW HOUSING
2010 - 2020
New jobs continue to
outpace new homes added
to the County
Jobs Homes
More people
living longer
8 U.S. Census American Community Survey, State of CA Employment Development Dept (EDD) 9 Plan Bay Area 2050 Projected Growth Pattern children growing
up andmoving
out
natural growth
and more
housing needed
100K
416.7K
Jobs in 2020
507K
Jobs in 2050
10K
423 of 2271

Our median
income is high, but
the wage gap
continues to grow
2021 Household Income:

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

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

The starting point for this calculation is the Area Median Income (AMI)—the middle spot between the lowest and
highest incomes earned in San Mateo County. Simply put, half of households make more, and half of households make less. Moderate income is80 to 120 percent of the AMI, low income is 50 to 80 percent AMI and very low income is 30 to 50 percent AMI. Below 30 percent AMI is considered
extremely low income. The rule of thumb is households
should expect to pay about a third of their income on
housing.

In San Mateo County, the AMI is $104,700 for a single
person, $119,700 for a household of two and $149,600 for a family of four. When we talk about affordable housing, we mean housing that is moderately priced for low or moderate income residents so that new families and the workforce can live in our communities. Affordable housing programs are generally for those who earn 80 percent or below the AMI, which is $102,450 for a single person, $117,100 for a
household of two and $146,350 a yearfor a household of
four 10.

What does this mean for housing needs?
Given the price of land in San Mateo County and what it costs to build new housing, creating affordable housing is
extremely challenging—and often impossible withoutsome
form of subsidy. Sometimes this is in the form of donated land from a local government or school district. Sometimes this is in the form ofincentives to
10 State of CA Dept of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developers or zoning rules requiring affordable units to be included. And most commonly, this is through special financing, grants, and tax credits. Often all of these factors and more are needed to make affordablehousing work. The housing element process is an opportunity for each community to look at what’s possible and put in place supportive policies and programs to help make affordability a reality.
$117K $102K
$120K $105K
80% AMI
100% AMI
INCOME LEVELS + WAGES Extremely Low 30% AMI
Grocery Store Clerkor
Barista
$29K/Yr or $15/Hr
83% of income spent on housing*
Very Low
50% AMI
Hair Stylist
or Administrative Assistant
$38K/Yr or $20/Hr
63% of income spent on housing*
Low80%
AMI
Medical Assistant
or Preschool Teacher
$52K/Yr or $27/Hr
46% of income spent on housing*
School Administrator or
Social Worker
$86K/Yr or $45/Hr
28% of income spent on housing*
*income spent on housing based on 2k per month/studio or 1 bedroom $146K
Household of 1 Household of 2 Household of 4
Income
Income
Income
$150K
424 of 2271

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

Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance Lesley Plaza
1961
Senior Rental
New Const. 56 56 56 2055 NP HUD Section 202 Elderly Program Lesley Towers
1965
Senior Rental
New Const. 200 200 200 2015 NP HUD Section 202 Elderly Program Flores Gardens
1984
Senior Rental
New Const. 72 72 72 2035 Private HUD Sec 221 (d)(4)
Rotary Haciendas
1988-89
Senior Rental
New Const. 82 82 81 1 2044 NP Bought land w/RDA ; LIHTC Belmont Bldg.
1993-94
Family Rental
Conversion 6 6 6 2032 Private CDBG Loan; RDA Loan
12 N. Idaho
1994
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 6 6 1 4 1 2034 NP RDA; HOME ; SM Co. HOME
Darcy Bldg.
1995
Family Rental
Conversion 8 8 8 2034 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan; SM Co Hsg Authority 106 N. Eldorado
1996
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 6 6 1 4 1 2036 NP HOME Loan
Hotel St. Matthew
1996
SRO
Acq./Rehab 56 56 56 2051 NP HOME Loan; RDA Loan; LIHTC
Edgewater Isle
1998
Senior Rental
Acq./Rehab 92 92 25 66 1 2072 NP HOME Loan; RDA Loan; CalHFA Loan Bridgepointe
Condominiums
1999
Family Rental
New Construct 396 59 24 35 2027 Private BMR units
200 S. Delaware
1999
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab 16 16 2 2 5 7 2049 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan
Humboldt House
2000
Supportive Hsg.

Rehab 9 9 9 2041 NP RDA Loan; HOME Loan
425 of 2271

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

Acq./Rehab 16 16 16 2063 NP RDA, HOME, SM Co CDBG Loans Peninsula Station
2010
Family Rental
New Const. 68 67 21 32 14 2065 NP RDA, HOME and SM Co. CDBG Loans, LIHTC 888 Apartments
2012
Family Rental New
Const.
155 15 15 Life of property Private BMR units
Park 20 2012 Family Rental New
Const.
197 20 20 Life of property Private BMR units
Delaware Pacific
2013
Family Rental
New Const. 60 59 10 49 2068 NP
RDA, HOME, SM Co.

CDBG/HOME, Section 8,
CalHFA, LIHTC
426 of 2271

Project & Year
Completed
Type of
Development Total Units Total Aff. Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 65% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Affordability Expiration Owner Financial Assistance MODE by Alta 2013 Family Rental New
Const.
111 11 11 Life of property Private BMR units
Fieldhouse
2013
Family Rental New
Const.
108 11 11 Life of property Private BMR units
Alma Point
2013
Family Rental New
Const.
66 3 3 2069 NP HOME
Russel
2015
Family Rental New
Const.
158 16 16 Life of property Private BMR units
2000 S. Delaware
2015
Family Rental New
Const.
60 60 60 2067 Private Land subsidy, Perm loan
Quimby 2015 Family Rental New
Construct
70 7 7 Life of property Private BMR units
Station Park Green 1
2015
Family Rental New
Construct
121 12 12 Life of property Private BMR units
1110 Cyprus
2016
Family Rental
Acq./Rehab
16 16 16 2071 NP HOME, RDA Successor,
County, Perm loan
Station Park Green 2
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
199 20 20 Life of property Private BMR units
Station Park Green 3
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
172 17 17 Life of property Private BMR units
Windy Hill (405 E 4th
Ave)
2017
Family Rental New
Construct
15 2 2 Life of property Private BMR units
The Addison
2018
Family Rental New
Construct
60 5 5 Life of property Private BMR units
The Morgan
2018
Family Rental New
Construct
82 8 8 Life of property Private BMR units
Windy Hill (406 E 3rd
Ave)
2019
Family Rental New
Construct
25 3 3 Life of property Private BMR units
Montara
2020
Affordable New
Construction
68 67 14 36 17 2072 NP Land lease subsidy, RDA
Successor, LIHTC, County
AHF, County HOME, AHP
Azara
2021
Family Rental New
Construct
73 6 6 Life of property Private BMR units
Totals 4,041 1,303 52 545 111 491 104
427 of 2271

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

Units
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
65%
AMI
80%
AMI
120%
AMI
Affordability
Expiration Financial Assistance
Meadow Court
1987-88 78 70 70
30-40 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
Bought land w/
CDBG; CalHFA
mortgages for
buyers
Gateway Commons
1989 96 93 16 77
30-40 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
Bought land w/
CDBG & RDA;
CalHFA mortgages
for buyers
Summerhill I
1996 54 6 6
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Summerhill II
1997 70 6 6
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Rushmore Townhomes
1998 13 1 1
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Humboldt Square 1998 26 8 8
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
RDA write down of
land
St. Matthews Place
2000 34 5 2 3
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Ryland Homes
2001 153 15 15
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
The Madrid
2000 13 1 1
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Norfolk
2002 57 7 5 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Bay Meadows Mix Use
2003 19 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Classic Communities
2003 25 3 3
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Grant St Condos
2003 17 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Baywood Place
2005 17 2 2
30 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Palm Residences
2007 19 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Stonegate
2007 45 9 9
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Park Bayshore
2008 21 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
The Versailles
2008 61 6 1 5
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Claremont Townhomes
2010 18 2 2
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
428 of 2271

Project & Year
Completed
Total
Units
Total
Aff.

Units
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
65%
AMI
80%
AMI
120%
AMI
Affordability
Expiration Financial Assistance
Arbor Rose
2012-2013 74 7 7
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Verona Ridge
2014 34 3 3
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Amelia
2013-2014 63 6 6
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Lansdowne
2013-2014 93 9 9
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Canterbury
2014-2015 76 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Brightside
2015 80 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Tidelands Mariners
Island
2016
76 8 8
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Meadow Walk
2017-2018 74 7 7
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Classics
2017-2018 27 3 3
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Promenade
2017-2018 42 4 4
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Meadow Walk 2
2018 55 6 6
45 years/ rolls
over with each
new buyer
BMR units
Totals 1,530 311 0 7 0 23 281
BMR units = Below Market Rate Program
RDA units = Redevelopment Agency-funded
429 of 2271

APPENDIX B

CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
430 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-2
APPENDIX B | CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

0.1 Table of Content

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.2 Specific Plans and Transit Oriented Development...................................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Planned Developments............................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4 Parking Standards........................................................................................................................................ 12

2.2 Below Market Rate Inclusionary Program........................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance and Community Benefits Program.............................................................................. 14

2.4 Building Codes and Code Compliance.................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.1 Local Amendments to State Building Code ................................................................................................. 16

2.4.2 Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Ordinances............................................................................. 16

2.4.3 Code Compliance......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Infrastructure Requirements................................................................................................................................ 17

2.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements........................................................................................................................... 18

2.7 Local Entitlement Fee and Procedure .................................................................................................................. 19

2.7.1 Planning Application Review Authorities and Entitlement Fee................................................................... 20

2.7.2 Planning Application Entitlement Process, Processing Time and Procedure .............................................. 24

2.7.3 Senate Bill 35 Streamlined Processing ........................................................................................................ 30

2.7.4 Senate Bill 330 Processing Procedure ......................................................................................................... 30

2.7.5 Single Family Dwelling Design Review and Site Plan and Architectural Review.......................................... 31

2.7.6 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Cultural Resources......................................................................... 34

2.7.7 Special Use Permit Process ......................................................................................................................... 34

2.8 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, and Process.............................................................................. 35

2.8.1 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees.......................................................................................... 35

2.8.2 Building Permit Process............................................................................................................................... 39

2.9 Housing Special Needs Groups............................................................................................................................. 39

2.9.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities.......................................................................................................... 39

2.9.2 Residential and Family Care Facilities ......................................................................................................... 40

2.9.3 Definition of Family ..................................................................................................................................... 40

2.9.4 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance..................................................................................................... 41

2.9.5 Emergency Homeless Shelters.................................................................................................................... 42

2.9.6 Zoning Capacity for Emergency Shelters..................................................................................................... 43

2.9.7 Strategies for Providing Emergency Shelters .............................................................................................. 44

2.9.8 Collaboration with County to Address Homelessness................................................................................. 44

2.9.9 Low Barrier Navigation Centers .................................................................................................................. 45

2.9.10 Transitional/Supportive Housing................................................................................................................. 45

2.9.11 Housing for Farmworkers............................................................................................................................ 45

2.9.12 Accessory Dwelling Units ............................................................................................................................ 46

2.9.13 Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks.......................................................................................... 47 431 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-3

2.9.14 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing............................................................................................................ 48 3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................................49

3.1 Development Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 49

3.1.1 Availability of Financing............................................................................................................................... 49

3.1.2 Cost of Land................................................................................................................................................. 49

3.1.3 Constructions Costs..................................................................................................................................... 50

3.1.4 Labor Costs.................................................................................................................................................. 53

3.1.5 Planning Entitlement Approval to Building Permit Application .................................................................. 54

3.2 Requests for Housing Developments at Reduced Densities................................................................................. 54

3.3 Physical Site Constraints...................................................................................................................................... 55

3.4 Environmental Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 55

3.4.1 Seismic Hazards........................................................................................................................................... 56

3.4.2 Topography/Slope....................................................................................................................................... 56

3.4.3 Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise................................................................................................................ 56

3.4.4 Fire Hazards................................................................................................................................................. 57

3.4.5 Water/Sewer Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 58

3.5 Voter Approved Growth Limits ............................................................................................................................ 60

0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Average Per Unit Cost Construction of New BMR Housing by County (2019) ............................53 Figure 2: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas............................................57

0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Residential Use Type by Zones........................................................................................................8 Table 2: Residential Development Standards...............................................................................................9 Table 3: Minimum Parking Standards for Residential Use .........................................................................13 Table 4: Planning Application Fees.............................................................................................................22 Table 5: Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit...........................23 Table 6: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs..............................................................24 Table 7: Planning Application Timelines.....................................................................................................28 Table 8: Planning Processing Time (in months)..........................................................................................29 Table 9: Building Permit and Impact Fee Estimate (New Construction), 2021...........................................36 Table 10: 2019 – Present Approved Residential Project Densities.............................................................55 432 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-4
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the constraints analysis section, per Government Code Section 65583(a)(5-6), is to identify and analyze governmental and non-governmental factors (constraints) that inhibit the development, improvement or maintenance of housing; and that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its share of the regional housing needs.

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

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

The analysis within this appendix has informed the City’s policy approach in the current Housing Element cycle to reduce constraints and make it easier and more affordable to develop housing including housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. 433 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-5
2 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Governmental policies and regulations can result in both positive and negative effects on the availability and affordability of housing. This section, as required by Government Code Section 65583(a)(5), describes City policies and regulations that could potentially constrain the City’s ability to achieve its housing goals.

Potential constraints to housing include zoning regulations, development standards, infrastructure requirements, development impact fees, and the development approval processes. While government policies and regulations are intended to serve public objectives and further the public good, the City of San Mateo recognizes that its actions can potentially constrain the availability and affordability of housing to meet the community’s future needs. The City has implemented several measures to reduce development costs and streamline the approval process, as described in this section.

2.1 Land Use Controls

2.1.1 Planning and Zoning Code
The Zoning Code has the most immediate effect on the built environment. Zoning regulates the use of land and structures, the density of development0F
1 and population, the height and bulk of structures,
parking provisions, open space requirements, landscaping standards and other design requirements. The City of San Mateo’s Zoning Code has been written to accommodate residential uses throughout the City, as shown in Table 1. This includes single-family housing, multi-family housing, emergency shelters, and senior housing, among other uses. A summary of the City’s residential development standards for all zoning districts is provided as Table 2.

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

A substantial amount of land is zoned for multi-family residential uses, mixed-use residential and commercial development. Multi-family uses are concentrated around the Downtown core, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zone, El Camino Real and highway corridors. Commercial (C) and office (E) districts also permit housing development through residential overlay zones (/R, /R4, and /R5). Sites located outside the residential overlay zones also allow housing development through a Special Use Permit, as discussed further in Section 2.7.7. There are also special standards to allow increased density 1 The City also has development restrictions associated with voter-approved Measure Y as described in Section 3.5 of this Appendix.
434 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-6
for senior citizen housing units and for affordable housing projects pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.

The setbacks for multi-family residences are modest and vary by location. Maximum heights range between 35 feet to 55 feet in the R3, R4, R5 and R6 zones, with the downtown zones primarily allowing up to 55 feet. The building height limit of 35 feet in the R3 district is measured to the top of plate; but it allows the top of roof (such as the roof peak of a gable roof) to extend beyond 35 feet. The City does not limit the number of stories in buildings; thus a three-story building is typically allowed under the 35-foot height limit. Open space requirements apply to Multi-family (R3, R4-D, R5-D, R6-D) zones and Residential Overlay (/R, /R4 and /R5) zoning districts. However, this requirement can be provided as private open space, such as patios and deck area, or by incorporating public open space, such as common plaza and garden areas, or a combination of both. Additionally, landscaped areas located within the required building setback areas also count towards meeting the open space requirement. The City allows maximum flexibility in meeting these requirements. Concerns were raised regarding open space requirements for multi-family residences located in the R3 zones. In reviewing recently approved projects, staff found that these standards do not preclude residential developments. Examples of recently approved projects in the R3 zone include a small three-unit townhome development located on a 7,500 square-foot lot2. The project was able to achieve a new three-story, three-bedroom detached townhome proposal under the current standards for parking, open space, density (17 dwelling units per acre) and building height (35 feet) limitations. The City will continue to evaluate development standards including open space in R3 zones, parking requirements in general and for 1,400 square feet units, as well as density, floor area, and height controls related to Measure Y in these districtsthat may pose a barrier, individually or cumulatively, to housing development and to encourage Missing Middle housing. To remove these constraints, the Housing Element includes several implementation programs to update zoning code standards necessary to remove these barriers (H 1.6, H 1.7, H 1.12, H 1.13, and H 1.20).

Multi-family residential density, which is set by Measure Y, is based on land area and ranges from 17 to 50 dwelling units per net acre (DUA). Consistent with Measure Y, the zoning code incentivizes parcel aggregation by allowing higher density for larger project sites. For example, a 7,500 square foot property in a R3 zoning district would be allowed a maximum of 3-units; whereas a 15,000 square foot property in a R3 zoning district would be allowed a maximum of 12-units. By doubling the project site, a developer would be allowed a maximum of up to four times the number of dwelling units. Furthermore, certain sites designated by Measure Y may be allowed up to 75 DUA with the City’s Community Benefits Program, as discussed further in the following sections.

Through community outreach conducted for this Housing Element, staff convened a focus-group of local housing developers and architects (Builders Focus Group) to discuss constraints associated with past projects. A key theme that emerged was related to constraints of the City’s existing height limits, floor 2 Example: 21 Lodato Ave Triplex.
435 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-7
area definitions, maximum density of 50 DUA under Measure Y, and design review guidelines that feel subjective. Most projects apply the State Density Bonus in order to exceed existing density and height limitations. The City recognizes these constraints and has adopted Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family housing projects (Policy H 1.8) and evaluating the potential for a joint Density Bonus and Community Benefits Program that provides greater flexibility to developers and enhanced options when projects exceed minimum state requirements for affordability (Policy H 1.3). Additionally, the City will evaluate and update the zoning code with a focus toward facilitating affordable and Missing Middle housing, reducing constraints on housing and mixed-use developments by reducing residential parking requirements to be the same standard as allowed under density bonus laws (thus eliminating tying it to the 1,400 square foot size), modernizing open space requirements, potentially including a minimum housing density requirement, and exploring housing overlay and other development standards applicable to housing and mixed-use developments (Housing Policies H 1.6, H 1,7, H 1.9, H 1.10, H 1.11, H 1.12, and H 1.13). The City has also included a program to complete the General Plan Update, which is facilitating a community discussion to build consensus around how to best address the housing constraints that result from the building height, floor area, and density limits under Measure Y (Policy H 1.20). 436 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-8
Table 1: Residential Use Type by Zones
Residential Use Type
Zones
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R4-D R5-D R6-D E1 E2 C1 C2 C3 C4 CBD CBD/S M1 A One-Family Dwelling P P P P P P P P P
Two-Family Dwelling P P P P P P P
Multiple Family
Dwelling

P P P P P P
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P P
One Family Row
Dwelling
P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 S1 S1 P1 P1 P1
Accessory Dwelling
Units(1) P P P P P P P P P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Manufactured
Home(2)
P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Emergency Shelter P P1
Senior Citizen
Housing(3)
S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1
Apartment Hotels(4)S S S S P P
Boarding and
Lodging Houses(5)
S1 S S S S S S P P P P1 P P
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022
Notes: Blank indicates not permitted; P = Permitted and subject to compliance with development standards; P1 = Permitted and subject to additional regulations; S = Special Use Permit; and S1 = Special Use Permit and subject to additional regulations.

1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are allowed in all residential zoning districts, including commercial and office districts that contain a residential overlay.

2. Manufactured Home is defined as a structure designed to be used as a dwelling with or without permanent foundation.

3. Senior Citizen Housing is subject to a Special Use Permit and standards listed in SMMC Section 27.61.

4. Apartment Hotels are intended for permanent guests to reside in individual guest rooms or dwelling units. Kitchen facilities are not required.

5. Boarding and Lodging Houses are not considered residential care facilities and are defined as “a building where lodging and meals are provided for compensation for residents and do not function as common household.” The R3 district limits boarding and lodging houses to a maximum of 5 person.
437 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-9
Table 2: Residential Development Standards
Zone
District
Max
Number
of Units
Floor Area
Ratio
Max
Height
(1)
Min. Yard Setback Min
Lot Width
Min
Lot Size(2)
Min
Open
Space Front Rear Interior Side Street Side
(Corner Lot)
Residential Districts (Single-Family, Two-Family and Multi-Family) R1-A
1 unit
per lot

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0;
55% max.
lot cover
N/A
Commercial, Office Districts with Residential Overlay(9) C1 17 to 50
units per
net acre

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

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

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

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

2.0 to 3.0 35’ to
55’ N/A

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

1.0 to 2.0 40’ to
55’
See Hillsdale Station Area Plan for El Camino Real
setback and streetscape standards(13)
438 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-10
Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

6. For R3, R4, and R5 zone properties along El Camino real from 9th Ave. south to the City limits, buildings over 2 stories in height shall provide a minimum 10’ setback from El Camino Real. Properties abutting an R1 or R2 zone require additional setbacks of 15’ or ½ the building height, whichever is greater. Special downtown yard requirements are provided within SMMC Sections 27.22.095, 27.22.097, 27.28.023, 27.28.053.

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

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

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

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

11. Commercial zones (C1, C2, and C3) require additional buffers, setback and built-to-line standards as described in SMMC Sections 27.30.060, 27.30.070, 27.32.060, 27.32.070, 27.34.060, 27.34.070, 27.38.100, 27.38.120, 27.39.090 and 27.39.110.

12. E1 and E2 zones require buffers when the parcel is contiguous to any residential district as described in SMMC Sections

27.44.090 and 27.48.100.

13. Hillsdale Station Area Plan, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/59484/Hillsdale-Station-Area-Plan 439 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-11

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.3 Planned Developments
The purpose of Planned Development (PD) is to allow greater flexibility of site design while also preserving the natural, scenic environment. Under Chapter 27.62 of the Zoning Code, PD projects are processed under a Special Use Permit and may be approved if projects demonstrate that deviating from the underlying zone’s development standards will result in better site design. PD regulations emphasize preserving open space and recreation areas at a minimum of 6 acres per 1,000 population. Most of the City’s PD projects occurred in the 1980s, when larger vacant lands were available. The most recently approved PD is the Waters Technology Office Park in 2019, which redeveloped an existing 11.1 acre office park with 190 new dwelling units, including 19 Below Market Rate (BMR) units that are affordable at the low, lower or moderate income levels.
3 The City’s Specific Plan documents are available online: www.cityofsanmateo.org/1135/Planning-Resource-Documents 440 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-12

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

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

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

While state laws provide parking relief for projects seeking density bonus, ADUs, and SB 9, the City’s parking requirements present some constraint to the development of housing that do not fall within this category. For example, multi-family residential projects located outside the TOD and CPID are subject to standard off-street parking requirements of 1.5 stall to 2.2 stalls per unit. As shown in Table 3, this requirement varies by unit type and size and is inclusive of residents and visitors. Additionally, at least one of the required stalls per unit shall be covered within a garage or carport structure. Staff have identified this as a constraint that may limit a project’s proposed dwelling unit mix and ability to achieve the maximum base density. The City will be evaluating all its parking requirements for residential projects to allow increased flexibility and to reduce residential parking requirements significantly Citywide to be the same standard as allowed under density bonus laws (thus eliminating tying it to the 1,400 square foot size), as described in Policy H 1.7.

At the Builders Focus Group2F
4 , participants commented that existing parking requirements often constrain project feasibility due to development costs and floor area limitations for above-grade parking facilities.

Recognizing these constraints, the City is currently evaluating code amendments to allow automated and mechanical parking facilities for multi-family or mixed-use residential projects. This allows larger residential projects to utilize land more efficiently and avoid high costs associated with underground parking facilities. More recently, the State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which went into effect January 4 Builders Focus Group: On November 15, 2021, Staff convened a focus group of local developers to discuss and solicit feedback on policies and programs to increase ease of constructing new housing. Meeting notes and summary are available in Appendix F. 441 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-13
1, 2023, and removed minimum parking requirements for any residential, commercial, or other development projects located within one-half of major transit.

Policy H 1.7 commits the City to reducing off-street parking requirements for residential units as follows:

Studio and 1 bedroom units to 1 space; 2 bedrooms and above to 1.5 spaces; and for projects within a half-mile of transit, no off-street parking shall be required, consistent with AB 2097.

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

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

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

Inclusionary zoning programs – of which the City’s local BMR program is one variant – are sometimes perceived as adding to the cost of housing by requiring the market-rate units to subsidize the affordable units. This is an area of much dispute, both in the Bay Area and nationally. A study conducted by the National Housing Conference’s (NHC) Center for Housing Policy (2000) highlighted several important contributions to inclusionary zoning to communities, not the least of which is the creation of incomeintegrated communities without sprawl. Several studies specifically address the issue of “who” pays for inclusionary zoning.

Some of these studies assert that the costs associated with inclusionary programs are passed on to the market priced homes, while other studies state that the cost is not borne by the end users at all. A study from 2004 asserts that market-rate buyers (and to some extent, renters) will be forced to pay higher amounts than they otherwise would for their units because of inclusionary zoning’s implicit tax on other 442 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-14
units3F
5 . However, an article published in the University of San Francisco Law Review in 20024F 6 noted that
ultimately, the price for a unit is dependent on what the market will bear based on the land price which over time absorbs the increased costs of development within the community; it is not directly affected by the affordability requirement. Developers can charge market rate rents and sales prices on the unrestricted units regardless of the development costs. Although the BMR program does impact the developer’s profit, it is difficult to determine at what point those impacts are great enough to discourage the project from moving forward or decreasing the number of units on a site. Jurisdictions implement a number of incentives and cost benefits to mitigate these impacts so that whatever constraint has been identified, there is an offset offered to mitigate it.

Specifically in San Mateo, developers are given the option of utilizing the City’s Interim Community Benefits Program or the state Density Bonus program that provides up to a 35 percent increase in units in exchange for additional affordable units in the BMR program plus one to four development concessions depending on the level of affordability of the housing units provided. The City has also revised its BMR requirements over the years to include more flexibility in the size and amenities of the affordable units to help offset some of the costs to the developer and has identified several development standards that could be modified using incentives without causing public health and safety impacts. The City, under the current Housing Element cycle, will also be updating its BMR requirements to provide developers with an alternative means of compliance to provide additional flexibility (see Policy H 1.3).

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

2.3 Density Bonus Ordinance and Community Benefits Program State law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) requires cities to approve density bonuses for housing development projects that contain specified percentages of affordable housing units or units restricted to occupancy by seniors. A density bonus is the allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Projects that qualify for density bonus are also eligible for reduced parking standards, additional concessions or incentives that provide identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, or waivers from development standards that would physically preclude the project at proposed densities. The legislature has made frequent changes to State density bonus law over the years. AB 1763, passed in 2019, significantly increased density bonus provisions for projects that are 100 percent affordable, including allowing for additional 33 feet (or three stories) of building height, and up to four concessions. AB 2345, in 2021, also allows for 50 percent density bonus to be granted to housing 5 Reason Foundation (Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham), Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work? (April 2004), https://reason.org/policy-study/housing-supply-and-affordabili/, Accessed on April 1, 2022. 6 Barbara Ehrlich Kautz, In Defense of Inclusionary Housing: Successfully Creating Affordable Housing, 2002. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=usflawreview Accessed on April 1, 2022. 443 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-15
projects consisting of a mix of affordable and market-rate homes, up from the previous maximum 35 percent density bonus for mixed income developments; lowers some thresholds for obtaining incentives and concessions from local jurisdictions; and adopts density bonus reporting requirements. Both bills also further reduce parking requirements for many projects qualifying for a density bonus.

The City’s density bonus law is outlined in Chapter 27.15 of the Zoning Code. The code was last updated in 2018 and does not reflect the recent changes in State law. Nevertheless, in case of conflict, the State density bonus law would generally preempt the local density bonus ordinance. As described in Housing Element Policy H 1.3, the City will update its density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law requirements, and further streamline and incentivize projects that exceed minimum state requirements by combining it with the Community Benefits Program.

The City currently has an Interim Community Benefits Program that allows for additional building height and density for projects proposing community benefits in certain parts of the City, such as by providing additional affordable housing7. These projects are subject to a higher base density, as prescribed under Measure Y. For example, under a community benefits program, an applicant can avail themselves of higher densities up to 75 dwelling units per acre (DUA) in certain areas of the City, as allowed under Measure Y, beyond the typical 50 DUA. However, it has not been used by developers due to concessions and waivers allowed under State density bonus laws. By using State density bonuslaw, an applicant could further exceed the 75 units per acre density cap under Measure Y for projects providing community benefits. As part of the updates to the Community Benefits program, the City will explore incentives or concessions that may be available to applicants who provide community benefits to address the most critical needs in terms of types of housing units; or projects that support Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.

Policy H 1.3 commits the City to creating a Community Benefits/Density Bonus program that incentivizes affordable housing production. The City also commits to a program to address Measure Y constraints in Policy H 1.20, through a ballot measure that would allow significant increases in heights and densities, the results of which would then be incorporated into the comprehensive Community Benefits/Density Bonus program.

2.4 Building Codes and Code Compliance
Building codes apply to all dwellings and include plumbing, mechanical, electrical installations and accessibility and energy compliance. Building codes ensure that development is constructed in compliance with applicable code standards to protect general welfare and public health. The City of San Mateo requires all new development to comply with the California 2022 Building Standards Code that went into 7 City of San Mateo, Interim Community Benefit Framework For Development Projects, accessed October 11, 2023, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/86439/Interim-Community-Benefit-Handout 444 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-16
effect January 1, 2023. Building code amendments and City code compliance practices are described below.

2.4.1 Local Amendments to State Building Code
On November 7, 2022, the City of San Mateo adopted mandatory local green building and energy code amendments, also known as reach codes. These reach codes went into effect on January 1, 2023, concurrent with the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and apply to new construction and rehabilitation of housing projects. Local building code amendments are found in Chapter 23 of the San Mateo Municipal Code. These local code amendments are not considered onerous to the cost or construction of housing, as analyzed in the Cost-Effectiveness Studies released by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Program.5F
8 2.4.2 Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Ordinances The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies building electrification and electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure as key strategies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). On October 5, 2020, the City adopted an ordinance to require all new residential buildings and office buildings to be all-electric.

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

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

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

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

The City's code enforcement program is an important tool to maintain existing housing stock and protect residents from unsafe or substandard building conditions. Local enforcement includes state and federal codes that set minimum health and safety standards for buildings. Like many jurisdictions, the City of San Mateo responds to code violations largely on a complaint basis. The City aims to address all alleged 8 Cost-Effectiveness Studies, 2021: https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/jurisdiction/san-mateo-city/ 445 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-17
violations in a timely manner, with priority given to violations that pose the most imminent threat to health and safety or the environment.

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

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

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

Although infrastructure requirements represent a cost to developing housing, these Nexus improvement standards are intended to ensure the public’s safe and equitable access; and that developments meet Federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; and are not unreasonable and do not represent a constraint to development. However, the City recognizes there are issues with infrastructure adequacy in certain areas of the City, including infill areas with aging street, sidewalk and sewer 446 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-18
infrastructure. These infrastructure deficiencies in certain areas are addressed through a two-prong approach: 1) The City’s Public Works Department oversees the upkeep of local streets and sidewalks through the following existing programs: Pavement Management, Sewer Lateral Ordinance, Streetlight Conversion, and Sidewalk Repair Program; and 2) As part of the City’s development review process, the City works with developers to align project related Nexus improvements with the City’s existing programs.

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

In addition, the City continues to collaborate with regional agencies on infrastructure projects or adaptation strategies intended to address impacts due to climate change. Portions of the City, primarily east of Highway 101 and a portion of the North Central neighborhood, are located in the flood zone and projected to be impacted by sea level rise in future years. The City has initiated infrastructure projects such as the North Shoreview Flood Improvement Project, which will provide improvements to the Coyote Point and Poplar Avenue Pump Stations to increase pump capacity and raise a 1,300-foot levee segment located between the San Mateo and Burlingame border off Airport Boulevard. Construction began in September 2020 and was completed in April 2023. While regional collaborations on infrastructure projects and other adaptation strategies are necessary to address impacts due to climate change, the actual funding for infrastructure improvement projects come from a variety of sources including federal or state grants, local bonds, taxes, as well as contribution from new developments in the form of impact fees. The impact fees paid by new developments may be perceived as a constraint; however, the City’s impacts fees are determined based on the project’s proportionate share of infrastructure projects, or the nexus, and vetted through a public process. The City hires professional consultants to evaluate permit and impact fees; and holds public meetings to obtain input prior to updating fees. The most recent Development Impact Fee Study was completed in 2021, and following multiple public meetings, the updated fees were incorporated into the Comprehensive Fee Schedule in November 2021. As the City periodically evaluates and updates its fees through a public process that includes ensuring appropriate nexus, the City’s fees are not generally viewed as a constraint. The City’s Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.17) to ensure the City continues to periodically review and update planning entitlement, building permit and impact fees consistent with AB 6026F 9 .

2.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements
As the City is primarily built-out, new developments are not required to complete vast infrastructure improvements as may be needed in more rural communities. Most new housing development occurs on existing lots that are already served by an existing network of streets and utility infrastructure. 9AB 602, September 29, 2021: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB602 447 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-19
The City has adopted on-site and off-site improvement requirements as codified in the City’s Municipal Code, and in citywide infrastructure plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan. Additionally, the City’s Department of Public Works has developed detailed engineering standards that work in combination with the Municipal Code and adopted plans to help ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained, and adequate levels of street improvements are provided. Per these adopted plans and standards, most of the city’s right-of-way widths are already established and vary depending upon the street typology (i.e. freeways, arterials, collectors and local street as defined in the City’s General Plan).

The most common improvements for a new residential development include upgrading sewer mains as needed if they are aged or insufficient to meet needed capacity due to the new development; upgrading water mains as needed if they are aged or insufficient to meet fire safety requirements; restoration of streets surrounding the development site; and reconstruction of frontages when necessary to accommodate the new development project. New subdivisions are required to construct sidewalks if none exist and where there are existing sidewalks, the sidewalks are evaluated and required to meet current sidewalk standards including meeting requirements for disability access (ADA requirements). New subdivisions proposing new travel lanes within the project site are required to provide a minimum lane width of 11 feet to ensure safe through-traffic movement for vehicles, and sidewalks are required to be at least five feet to ensure safe pedestrian access and compliance with ADA requirements.

For infill developments, exceptions may be reviewed and considered by the city’s Director of Public Works on a case-by-case basis as part of the city’s development review process provided that the alternative design meets the city’s findings for safety and meets ADA requirements. The street design guidelines and standards have a potential to affect housing costs; however, they are necessary to provide a minimum level of design and construction quality in the City’s neighborhoods, ensure the community’s ability to access housing developments and maneuver around it on safe surfaces, and meet ADA requirements.

From an equity standpoint, the minimum standards help to ensure that improvements are of a consistent quality regardless of the average income in the neighborhood. The on- and off-site improvement standards imposed by the City are typical for most communities and do not pose unusual constraints for housing development. While these improvements may increase the cost of development, it is important to note that adequate sewer, water, street and accessible sidewalk infrastructure are a necessary component of a healthy, equitable and productive city. Additionally, conditions of approval to complete on and off-site improvements are provided to applicants in a timely manner and do not have a significant impact on project timing.

2.7 Local Entitlement Fee and Procedure
The development application and environmental review process necessary to obtain appropriate entitlements and a building permit may significantly affect the cost of a project, both in processing fees and time. San Mateo’s planning application fees and process was updated in 2020-2021 to reduce inefficiencies, minimize project delays and provide transparency for the applicant and public. Consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1), the City’s website provides a current schedule of fees, 448 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-20
exactions, all zoning and development standards, inclusionary requirements and other requirements imposed by the City that are applicable to proposed housing developments.10 Additionally, the development review process in San Mateo has been structured to minimize processing delay, while providing opportunities for public input. However, the Builders Focus Group7F 11 identified the
pre-application processing time for large projects, specifically the non-SB330 Pre-Application for large projects, as a constraint. The discussion in the process section below provides additional background and status of changes being made to address this constraint.

2.7.1 Planning Application Review Authorities and Entitlement Fee Review Authorities
Several planning application types are reviewed and approved at staff level by the Zoning Administrator including parcel maps, housing development projects proposing up to 25 units, and Variances and Special Use Permits for minor site improvements and single-family or duplex dwellings, as identified in Section

27.06.020 of the City of San Mateo Municipal Code (Municipal Code). No public hearing is required for Zoning Administrator decisions which includes single-family dwelling projects and other housing projects with up to 25 units, unless an appeal is filed for the project. The majority of housing development projects heard at the Planning Commission level are proposing over 25 units and/or requesting entitlements for subdivision (tentative maps), Variances and Special Use Permits as identified in Section 27.06.040 of the Municipal Code. Projects heard at City Council level are those requesting entitlements for Planned Development amendments, zone changes, General Plan amendments and/or height concessions that exceed existing voter-approved height limits. The City has identified additional opportunities for streamlining the City’s review process, including eliminating the pre-application process for housing projects and allowing residential projects with up to 25 units that meet objective standards to be approved administratively without a public hearing (Policy H 1.6). The previous review threshold for six units were modified with the adoption of objective design standards on November 20, 2023, and effective January 3, 2024, which now allows projects with up to 25 residential units to be processed at the Zoning Administrator level without a public hearing.

Fees
At the planning stage, projects are subject to planning fees shown in the following table (Table 4), in addition to building and impact fees discussed in Section 2.8. The City Council Resolution directs that planning application charges reflect the actual costs of staff time spent on each project and all direct costs 10 Comprehensive Fee Schedule, City of San Mateo, accessed December 16, 2022: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/FeeSchedule; Zoning Code, City of San Mateo, accessed December 16, 2022: https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code; Inclusionary (Below Market Rate) Requirements, development standards and other development related resources, accessed December 16, 2022: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1135/Planning-Resource-Documents. 11 Builders Focus Group: On November 15, 2021, Staff convened a focus group of local developers to discuss and solicit feedback on policies and programs to increase ease of constructing new housing. Meeting notes and summary are available in Appendix F. 449 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-21
associated with the processing of the application, including but not limited to: initial review, project routing, site visits, letters to applicants, review of revisions, coordination with other departments and agencies, public outreach, preparation of staff reports, legal noticing, public meetings or hearings and costs for technical consultants. The City’s Planning Application fees are for cost recovery purposes. Table 4 lists all the required fees for single-family and multi-family housing development projects and are structured to serve as umbrella fees for projects meaning that the fees apply regardless of whether the project has one planning permit or multiple planning permits. Table 4 does not include separate fees for planning permits, because the City does not collect separate planning application fees for different types of planning permits. While other jurisdictions may collect separate planning permit fees for Single-Family Dwelling Design Review, Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Special Use Permit (SUP), Variance, Tentative Parcel Map, general plan amendments, zoning changes, planned unit developments, master or specific plans, development agreements, etc.; the City ties its fee to the approval body and level of effort anticipated in processing of that application. The City posts a current Comprehensive Fee Schedule on its website that includes all planning application, building permit and impact fees (refer to links in section 2.7 above).

Planning Application fee deposits for residential developments are listed in Table 4 and vary by approval body. The City commissioned a Development Fee Study that utilized an average of fees paid to process single-family planning applications to establish the current fee shown in Table 4. The City does not have separate fees for different permit types, which means that there are no separate planning permit fees for Single-Family Dwelling Design Review, Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Special Use Permit (SUP), Variance, Tentative Parcel Map, general plan amendments, zoning changes, planned unit developments, master or specific plans, development agreements, etc.

Furthermore, Table 4 shows that the fees for single family and multi-family developments are different.

Larger multi-family developments provide a deposit and the total costs may vary depending upon complexity of the project, technical studies and level of environmental review necessary in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the total cost per unit for a multifamily family project is lower than a single-family project as shown in 450 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-22
Table 5.

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

Table 4: Planning Application Fees

PLANNING APPLICATION DEPOSIT/FEE TYPE REQUIRED DEPOSIT AMOUNT Planning Application for single-family dwellings and up to 6 units (Zoning Administrator) $4,000
Planning Application for SB 330 and other housing projects (Zoning Administrator)
$6,000
Planning Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments with 20 units or less (Planning Commission) $10,000
Planning Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments over 20 units (Planning Commission) $50,000
Planning Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments over 20 units (Planning Commission and City Council) $100,000
Large Project Non-SB330 Pre-Application for multi-family and mixed-use developments over 20 dwelling units (Planning Commission study session) $25,000 Planning Application for Day Care Facilities which require a Special Use Permit (Planning Commission)
$2,000
(flat fee)
Environmental Review (CEQA) Categorical or Statutory Exemption $500 Initial Study / Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration Actual Cost Initial Study / Environmental Impact Review (EIR) Actual Cost Source: City of San Mateo, 2022.

Notes:

1. Fee deposit at application includes concurrent processing of multiple planning approvals, environmental exemption, reviews by development review departments (including: planning, building, fire, public works, police, arborist and parks departments).
451 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-23

2. Consistent with City Council resolution, if the total deposit is not expended when the final decision is made, the balance is refunded to the applicant. Additionally, exceptions for the initial deposit can be made to the Director of Community Development and considered on a case-by-case basis.

3. Day Care Facilities means “any facility which provides non-medical care to persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a 24-hour basis” (SMMC 27.04.030).

4. The Cit’s fee is based on the approval body and does not have separate fees for different permit types, which means that there are no separate planning permit fees for Single-Family Dwelling Design Review, Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Special Use Permit (SUP), Variance, Tentative Parcel Map, general plan amendments, zoning changes, planned unit developments, master or specific plans, development agreements, etc.

5. Table 4 shows that the fees for single family and multi-family developments are different. 452 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-24
Table 5: Total Fees (Includes Entitlement, Building Permits, and Impact Fees) per Unit Jurisdiction Single Family Small Multi-Unit Large Multi-Unit Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $36,590 $17,030
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $104,241 No Data $28,699
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data
Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data
Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data
Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data
Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $17,913
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Carlos $72,046 $29,137 $18,182
San Mateo $89,003 $60,728 $41,547
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San Mateo $36,429 $15,088 $3,344
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
Source: 21 Elements Survey and Century Urban Report on Big Picture Summary, Updated July 10, 2022:
http://21elements.com/constraints
The jurisdiction-imposed fees represent a small percentage of the overall cost to develop new housing.

However, if a jurisdiction’s fees are significantly higher than neighboring or peer jurisdictions, the fees could have the impact of discouraging projects within the jurisdiction. With the high cost of construction in recent years, it is difficult for moderate- or low-income housing to be profitable. High fees can be a constraint to housing development. This is particularly challenging for deed restricted affordable housing developers.

Most, if not all, developers consider any fee a constraint to the development of affordable housing. For 100 percent affordable housing projects, financing generally includes some form of state, federal or local assistance, with rents set through the funding program. As such, fees cannot and do not increase the rents. Although various fees account for a portion of the development cost, the fees collected are necessary to pay for much needed infrastructure and to help mitigate new growth throughout the City.

Out of the jurisdictions that provided data, the City of San Mateo’s fees are the third highest for singlefamily development (out of 19 jurisdictions), the fourth highest for small multi-family development (out of 15 jurisdictions) and the second highest (out of 12 jurisdictions). If fees per dwelling unit are higher for multi-family construction than for single-family construction within a jurisdiction, this could be seen as a constraint on naturally affordable multi-family housing and a fair housing issue. This is not the case in San 453 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-25
Mateo. Fees for both small and large multi-family developments are lower than for single-family development as shown below.

Table 6: Total Fees as a Percentage of Total Development Costs Jurisdiction Single family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Atherton 0% No Data No Data
Brisbane 1% 1% No Data
Burlingame 3% 4% 3%
Colma 0% 4% 2%
Daly City 1% 4% 2%
East Palo Alto 4% No Data 4%
Foster City 3% 6% 2%
Half Moon Bay 2% 2% No Data
Hillsborough 3% No Data No Data
Millbrae 2% 8% 7%
Pacifica 1% 5% No Data
Portola Valley 1% No Data No Data
Redwood City 1% 2% 2%
San Bruno 2% 8% 5%
San Carlos 3% 4% 3%
San Mateo 3% 7% 5%
South San Francisco 3% 9% 4%
Unincorporated San Mateo 1% 2% 0%
Woodside 2% 9% No Data
Source: 21 Elements Survey and Century Urban Report on Big Picture Summary, Updated July 10, 2022:
http://21elements.com/constraints
Note: Calculations use average soft costs (including an average of jurisdiction charged fees) and average land costs for the county.

To address permitting and development impact fees, an implementation program has been included to evaluate the City’s cumulative permit fee costs for new housing developments, with the goal of reducing overall costs and a particular focus on reducing per unit costs for small multi-family or “Missing Middle” projects (Policy H 1.17). The same policy also commits the City to conduct ongoing reviews of development application, building permit and impact fees every five to six years. This will assist in identifying opportunities to reduce per unit costs for housing developments, including reducing per unit costs for small multi-family projects (Missing Middle).

2.7.2 Planning Application Entitlement Process, Processing Time and Procedure Development review procedures exist to ensure that proposals for new residential development comply with local regulations and are compatible with adjacent land uses. The development review process in 454 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-26
San Mateo has been structured to minimize processing delay, while providing opportunities for public input. This is accomplished in multiple ways: processing time and processing goals.

Process
The City is fully built out and therefore new housing projects typically involve the substantial removal or demolition of existing dwelling(s). The planning entitlement process, or procedure, for single-family development differs from multi-family development in that the former is subject to the findings for the Single Family Dwelling Design Review and is reviewed administratively by the Zoning Administrator. The City provides public notice for single-family dwelling design review projects and there is no public hearing; however, Zoning Administrator decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission.

Multi-family developments that are up to 25 units are subject to the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) findings and is also reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. The City provides public notice for these projects and there is no public hearing. Decisions of the Zoning Administrator are final, unless an appeal is filed for the project.

Multi-family developments involving 26 or more dwelling units are subject to the Site Plan and Architectural Review findings, as discussed below, and is reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The City provides public notice for projects that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission are final; unless an appeal is filed.

Development projects that involve public funds or propose increased heights that are within the building height ranges set by Measure Y12 are subject to review by the City Council at a public hearing. The City provides public notice for projects that are reviewed by the City Council, whose decision is final unless there is a legal challenge.

Processing Time
During the discretionary review process, the development application submittal is reviewed concurrently by all reviewing departments within the statutory 30-day review time; an incomplete letter is issued if there are any outstanding policy or code issues that need to be addressed; and the applicant then revises the plans or provides supplemental information and resubmits to the City. Upon resubmittal, the planning application is again reviewed concurrently by the same departments to verify whether incomplete comments have been addressed. This process continues until all incomplete comments are addressed.

CEQA review is coordinated by City staff with the help of technical environmental consultants and subconsultants and is typically done in parallel with completeness review. Once a project is complete, staff prepares the project for decision by making findings of approval and conditions of approval, and 12 Measure Y is a 2020 voter initiative that was passed which sets a cap on building height, density, and floor area throughout the City. The measure is set to sunset in 2030.
455 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-27
preparing the associated decision letter or staff report based upon whether the project is subject to review by the Zoning Administrator; or by the Planning Commission and/or City Council at a public hearing.

The final approval body determines the action on development proposals by making the appropriate findings. These findings are based primarily on conformance to the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and environmental review is based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Typical findings by permit types for residential uses are discussed further in the following sections 2.7.5 through

2.7.7. If a development proposal meets the required findings for approval, the City’s Municipal Code directs that the project shall be approved.

Review times differ on a project-by-project basis depending on the type and complexity of the project; as shown in Table 7, no distinction is made for projects with or without affordable housing units. As codified in the City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 27.06), the Zoning Administrator has authority to approve single-family projects, which typically takes 2 to 5 months for the overall processing time, and multi-family development projects with up to 25 units, including any associated Variances and Parcel Maps; with overall processing time for reviews is typically between 2 to 7 months, depending on project complexity.

Zoning Administrator level decisions do not require public hearings unless an appeal is filed for the project.

The Planning Commission has authority to approve multi-family development projects with more than 25 units, including associated Variances, Tentative Maps, and some Special Use Permits. The overall processing time for reviews for a Planning Commission-level project is typically between 9-12 months, depending upon project complexity. The majority of multi-family development project are reviewed and approved in one public hearing at the Planning Commission. Only one project was denied by the Planning Commission and upon appeal was also denied by the City Council. The City Council subsequently approved the project13.

Development projects that rise to City Council-level are those that require rezoning, General Plan Amendment, Planned Developments, Special Use Permit or height concessions that exceed Measure Y limits for high-rise buildings, and for projects that are fully or partially funded by the City. The overall processing time for reviews for a City Council-level project is typically between 9-13 months.

In addition to the formal planning application process, since 1990s, the City has required a non-SB 330 pre-application planning process (Pre-Application) for large projects, including multi-family projects with over 20 units. This requires applicants to hold meetings with neighborhood residents and a design focused study session with the Planning Commission to allow for early input on the design of a project before submitting a formal planning application. While this process adds additional time at the early stages of a 13 4 West Santa Inez – 10 unit multi-family development. The denial was based upon one design guideline that could be interpretated in more than one way. To address this issue, the City has adopted Objective Design Standards to provide clear, objective zoning and design review standards, which is available online on the City’s website (www.cityofsanmateo.org/ODS). 456 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-28
development, the applicant obtains public comments and direction from the Planning Commission, which in the past has helped to expedite the review during the formal planning application process.

However, the Builders Focus Group discussion included feedback on the City’s Pre-Application process.

While developers generally appreciated the opportunity to obtain early feedback and direction on project scope and design before they expend resources in developing plans for the formal planning application submittal, some commented that the requests to revise conceptual plans during the Pre-Application process added additional time to the process. In response, the City held a Planning Commission study session meeting in February 2022 to discuss ways to streamline and improve the Pre-Application processing time by reducing it from 6 to 9 months, down to 3 to 4 months, and to focus the plan requirements on materials necessary to complete the process. Staff implemented the improvements immediately, resulting in a shorter average review time of 4 months for all Pre-Applications submitted in 2022. When the average 4 month pre-application is added to the 9 to 13 month process time for multifamily development projects, the overall process time is between 13 to 17 months.

Additional changes to the City’s review processes are proposed in Policy H 1.6, which is targeted for City Council consideration in 2024. Since the Pre-Application process was established via City Council resolution, revisions and changes to the process will require City Council approval. Policy H 1.6 commits the City to additional streamlining including the following: 1) eliminate the Non-SB 330 Pre-Application; 2) eliminate Third Party Design Review; and 3) allow residential projects with up to 25 units to be reviewed administratively by the Zoning Administrator. These actions are anticipated to reduce overall time for review/processing; thereby reducing costs for housing developments and facilitating the development of housing toward increasing supply.

Furthermore, the City adopted Objective Design Standards (ODS) to provide clear, objective zoning and design review standards. It is anticipated that future housing developments meeting the ODS and other applicable policies and code requirements would have a clear path toward approval; thereby increasing the project’s certainty for approval when compared to the current Multi-family Design Guidelines which allows for subjective interpretation of the guidelines. The previous review threshold for six units were modified with the adoption of ODS, which now allows projects up to 25 residential units to be processed at the Zoning Administrator level, effective January 3, 2024.

Processing Goals
From an implementation standpoint, the City has internal goals for processing time associated with formal planning application development projects that are tracked and reported on a quarterly basis. When a developer has submitted all application materials, including any studies required for CEQA, the following timelines are targeted: 24 calendar days for Zoning Administrator decisions; 40 calendar days for Planning Commission decisions for projects that are exempt from CEQA; 60 calendar days for projects requiring Negative Declarations; and 90 calendar days for projects requiring approval by the City Council. The internal processing target for Pre-Applications is four months. 457 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-29
The City uses an efficient and comprehensive approach toward development review and permitting that allows for quick response to developer applications. The City uses many practices to expedite formal planning application processing, reduce costs, and clarify the process to developers and homeowners.

Increased development costs resulting from delays in the City’s formal planning application review, public hearing, and permitting process are not considered a constraint on housing development, although there may be room for further streamlining and improvements. The City’s overall development review process is not generally viewed as a constraint to the development of housing because the City has consistently demonstrated its willingness to receive feedback and to be proactive in reevaluating and streamlining its processes. Further descriptions of permits and their processing procedures are provided in the following subsections.

Table 7: Planning Application Timelines
Application Type Approval Body Estimated Time from Application Date to Approval Date (months)
Single-Family Dwelling Unit Zoning Administrator 2 to 5 Residential Development with or without Tentative
Parcel Maps (25 units or less) Zoning Administrator 4 to 7 Residential Development with or without with
Tentative Maps (more than 25 units) Planning Commission 9 to 12 Residential Development needing Special Use
Permit Planning Commission 9 to 12
Residential Development as a Planned
Development (reduced setbacks, reduced parking,
increased floor area,
Planning Commission and
City Council 9 to 13
General Plan Amendment Planning Commission and
City Council 9 to 13
Residential Development with Environmental
Impact Report
Planning Commission or
City Council 9 to 13
Residential Development with Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planning Commission or
City Council 9 to 13
Source: City of San Mateo, 2024.

To facilitate the application and processing of planning applications, and provide transparency of the planning application entitlement process, the City posts all zoning and development standards and other development related resources on its website (refer to links in section 2.7 above). This includes, but is not limited to, the entire municipal code including the zoning code, various development standards, application guides, FAQs, and informational handouts. The City regularly maintains and updates these documents and websites.

Long permitting processing times or permit processes that have a high degree of uncertainty (i.e. discretionary reviews or processes with multiple public meetings) increase the cost of housing development for developers, either by increasing their carrying costs as they wait for permits, or by increasing the chance that a project will be rejected after a long wait. A developer working in a jurisdiction with such a permitting process will demand higher profits to account for the increased risk, thereby increasing the overall development cost.
458 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-30
The City participated in a countywide study with 18 other jurisdictions to report their process times for housing projects. The City’s processing time for single-family is between 2 to 5 months and does not require a public hearing which is the third lowest (out of 10 jurisdictions). The City’s processing time of 9 to 12 months for multi-family development projects that require Planning Commission review is the fifth highest (out of 16 jurisdictions); however, it is similar to four other jurisdictions in the County.

Large multi-family development projects that are over 20 units require a non-SB 330 Pre-application which takes an average of 4 months. When combined with the 9 to 13 month process time, the overall process time is 13 to 17 months. This is on-par with other jurisdictions in the County that process similar scale development projects such as Redwood City and San Bruno. A permitting process that is more onerous or uncertain for multi-family units than for single-family may present a fair housing concern and could be considered a constraint on multi-family housing. In San Mateo, permitting times for multi-family projects are not significantly longer than for single-family projects, when accounting for the size and scope of the project.

Table 8: Planning Processing Time (in months)
Jurisdiction
Discretionary (Hearing
Officer if Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Atherton N/A 2 to 4 2 to 6
Brisbane N/A 4 to 12 6 to 14
Burlingame N/A 3 to 4 (standard project)
12 (major project)
13 Colma 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 8
Daly City N/A 4 to 8 8 to 12
East Palo Alto 20 to 40 20 to 40 20 to 40
Foster City 3 to 6 6 to 12
Half Moon Bay 3 to 6 4 to 12 6 to 15
Hillsborough - - -
Millbrae 3 to 8 3 to 8 4 to 9
Pacifica 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 to 8
Redwood City 8 to 10 12 to 18 18 to 24
San Bruno 3 to 6 9 to 24 9 to 24
San Carlos 6 to 12 6 to 12 8 to 12
San Mateo N/A 9 to 12 9 to 13
South San Francisco 2 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9
Unincorporated San Mateo 6 to 12 6 to 18 9 to 24
Woodside N/A 2 to 6 3 to 8
Source: 21 Elements Survey and Century Urban Report on Big Picture Summary, Updated July 10, 2022:
www.21elements.com/constraints
459 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-31

2.7.3 Senate Bill 35 Streamlined Processing
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing projects to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. Per SB 35, the review and approval of proposed projects with at least 50 percent affordability in the city must be based on objective standards and cannot be based on subjective design guidelines.8F
14 However, to be eligible, projects must also meet a long list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements for projects. For applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4, they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. The City of San Mateo has developed a Notice of Intent form consistent with the law. Additionally, the City adopted Multi-family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (ODS) on November 20, 2023, to help facilitate the review and approval of residential developments. The City is also in the process of streamlining its Pre-application and design review process to further introduce efficiencies during planning application reviews. Policy H 1.6 commits to removing the pre-application requirement for residential development projects, as well as third-party design review, to facilitate a more streamlined process.

There have been no SB 35 applications in the City.

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

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

The City of San Mateo has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 330. In addition, the bill limits the application review process to 30 days, for projects less than 150 units, and 60 days, for projects greater than 150 units, and no more than five total public hearings, including Planning Commission, design review, and City Council.
14HCD, SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary, Accessed April 1, 2022: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policyresearch/docs/sb35_statewidedeterminationsummary.pdf 460 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-32
SB 330 also prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of: (A) changing the land use designation or zoning to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued. There have been multiple SB 330 applications submitted to the City, and the State mandated timelines and requirements have been adhered to.

2.7.5 Single Family Dwelling Design Review and Site Plan and Architectural Review Single Family Dwelling Design Review
Discretionary Single Family Dwelling Design Review (SFDDR) is required for second story additions to existing single-family dwellings that exceed 200 square-feet or 20 percent of the existing building, and new single-family dwelling units. The discretionary design review process provides property owners flexibility with regards to the design of their home. The Zoning Administrator may approve a project if they find that the project is consistent with the following findings (SMMC Section 27.08.032):

1. The structures, site plan, and landscaping are consistent with the adopted Single Family Dwelling Design Guidelines;

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

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

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

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

The SFDDR findings are based on conformance with policies, codes and applicable guidelines and are not considered a constraint on housing production. They do not impact the City’s ability to make positive findings in support of housing projects and finding (5) is not associated with a crime free ordinance. The City receives between 50 to 90 SFDDR applications annually and staff has successfully guided home owners in making project changes to ensure consistency with applicable code and policy requirements.

There have been no denials of a SFDDR project during the Fifth Housing Element Cycle. The processing time and cost for SFDDR projects are discussed above in section 2.7.2.

Site Plan and Architectural Review
461 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-33
Discretionary Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) is required for projects that are not eligible for ministerial review. Discretionary design review is more flexible in nature with regards to design rules. Site Plan and Architectural Review has three levels of project review:
• Zoning Administrator (ZA)
Zoning Administrator-level reviews are staff level and consist of residential and mixed-use projects with up to 25 units and permitted non-residential uses less than 10,000 square-feet. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approved projects that meet all applicable development code requirements and standards; and is consistent with applicable policies in the General Plan and Specific Plans and applicable design guidelines. ZA-level reviews involve public noticing, but no public hearing is required.
• Planning Commission (PC)
Planning Commission-level reviews involve public hearing and noticing. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve residential and mixed-use projects that require: Special Use Permits, deviations from development code requirements, standards or design guidelines; and appeals of Zoning Administrator decisions. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviews and makes a recommendation to the City Council for projects that require the provision of community benefit to exceed building height limits in areas designated in the General Plan (pursuant to Measure Y9F 15);
rezoning; General Plan Amendment, and public funds or city land. • City Council (CC)
City Council-level reviews involve public noticing and public hearing. City Council makes final determination for appeals as well as residential and mixed-use projects where buildings exceed 55 feet in height or where required by express General Plan provisions (Measure Y); and projects that require rezoning, General Plan Amendments, and use of public funds or city land.

Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) ensures that proposed developments are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plans. In addition, this review ensures that utilities and infrastructure are sufficient to support the proposed development and are compatible with City standards and that the design of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development.

Use compatibility is not considered in a SPAR for permitted uses. Compatibility is determined using design guidelines and General Plan consistency. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) or Special Use Permits (SUP), described below, consider the appropriateness of a use for a specific area.

Additionally, deviations from zoning code requirements and development standards would be considered through a SPAR. In these cases, the entitlement would be heard at the Planning Commission-level. For 15 Measure Y is a 2020 voter approved ballot measure that limits building heights, density, and intensity (or floor area) in the City.

As required in the measure, the measure amends and is incorporated throughout the General Plan. The measure will sunset at the end of 2030. Source: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/86090/Resolution-with-Measure-Y-ballotlanguage 462 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-34
example, a building could reduce the number of required on-site parking spaces with approval at a Planning Commission-level hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SPAR findings are based on conformance with policies, codes, and applicable guidelines or Objective Design Standards and are not considered a constraint on housing production. They do not impact the City’s ability to make positive findings in support of housing projects and finding (5) is not associated with a crime free ordinance. This is supported by the fact that a majority of housing projects (96 percent or 24 out of 25 projects with 10 or more units) have been approved during the Fifth Cycle Housing Element period, except for 4 W. Santa Inez Ave. The 10-unit residential project at 4 W. Santa Inez was initially recommended for approval but was denied because one of the eight guidelines, in the City’s Multi-family Design Guidelines16, could be interpreted in more than one way. The City’s denial was subsequently challenged in court. Following the court’s decision, the City approved the original development project and adopted interim mechanical parking standards. The City also adopted Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family residential projects and mixed-use projects with residential component which would provide objective zoning and design review standards (Policy H-1.8). Projects that meet objective standards would be able to make positive SPAR findings (1), (2) and (3) above; however, developers will continue to have the option to utilize the subjective design guidelines to seek design customization for their projects. More information is available on the City’s website at www.cityofsanmateo.org/ODS. 16 Multifamily Design Guideline, A. Building Scale – Height, page 5. 463 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-35
While the above findings do not present a constraint, the City does have an extensive design review process for projects over six units that requires a third-party peer-review of the design. To address this constraint, the City is evaluating streamlining the design review process or eliminating it altogether for smaller projects(Policy H 1.6); and allowing for small multi-family projects of up to 25 units to be approved administratively at the Zoning Administrator level. Furthermore, the City’s Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Multi-family and Mixed-Use developments is intended to provide a streamlined approval process for housing projects with two or more residential units (Policy H 1.8). Development projects that comply with ODS cannot be denied or reduced in density, subject to a narrow health and safety exception.

As part of implementation, all planners shall receive training and have a procedures manual to ensure consistent application of ODS in the review of multi-family and mixed-use projects.

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

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

2.7.7 Special Use Permit Process
Housing is generally permitted by-right in most zones, except for commercial and office zones without a residential overlay. In these areas, a Special Use Permit (SUP) may be approved and is subject to the required findings described in Chapter 27.74 of the City’s Zoning Code, as follows:

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

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

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

This discretionary process ensures that the proposed residential use is compatible with adjacent properties. Conditions may be applied to ensure that the project has no adverse effect, such as traffic or noise, on the surrounding neighborhood. Depending on the number of residential units proposed, an SUP 464 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-36
may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council, as described in the prior section.

Policy H 1.7 commits to removing the SUP for certain commercial zones to allow residential development as a permitted use.

2.8 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, and Process

2.8.1 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees
The City collects building permit fees to review construction plans for compliance with applicable codes and inspect construction at multiple phases. The City also collects development impact fees to finance the design, construction, installation, and acquisition of public infrastructure. Fees can also be used to recover the costs of adding capacity in existing public infrastructure. Development impact fees in the City of San Mateo are determined in proportion to the square footage of the proposed project rather than by the unit type.

From a housing constraints standpoint, the fees that the City collects may be viewed in different ways: 1) total cost per unit based on type of unit; 2) cost in comparison to other cities; and 3) transparent costs.

Total Cost by Unit Type
As Table 9 below illustrates, the cost for a new single-family dwelling is the highest at approximately $89,108 per unit, followed by the cost in a small multi-family development at approximately $60,728 per unit, and cost in a large multi-family at approximately $41,547 per unit. This table provides a detailed breakdown of the City’s permitting and impact fees associated with these three categories of housing projects. There are several factors accounting for the reduced cost per unit when number of units in a development increase; such as the ability to spread the cost of shared components of a development across more units, including but not limited to construction costs for foundation, garage, roofing, common areas and amenities, and utility infrastructure.

It should also be noted that a majority of sites in the City’s Sites Inventory are located in areas designated for residential or mixed-use development with higher density. Both the City’sfees and zoning designations are aligned to support higher-density housing production in these areas, which would also result in greater number of affordable units pursuant to the City’s inclusionary requirements.

Overall, City fees make up 7 percent or less of total cost of development and thus, are not considered barriers to residential development. Total development cost is calculated using City of San Mateo specific land costs and fees, along with average soft and hard costs provided by the Century Urban Report. 17 17 Cost to Build in San Mateo County, Century Urban Report, Accessed November 29, 2022, http://21elements.com/constraints 465 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-37
Table 9: Building Permit and Impact Fee Estimate (New Construction), 2021 Type of Fee
Type of Project
Single-Family
Detached
Small Multi-family
(10-Unit)
Large Multi-family
(100-units)
Entitlement Fees
Planning Application $4,979 $50,000 $205,000
Building Permit Fees
Building Plan Review $7,393 $25,240 $54,068
Fire Plan Check $407 $986 $1,577
Planning Support Fee $3,638 $25,203 $96,013
Building Permit/Inspection Fee $10,562 $38,830 $83,181
General Plan Maintenance Fee $6,313 $43,735 $166,611
SMI Tax $139 $2,076 $7,907
Building Standards Commission Fee $43 $297 $1,130
Technology Fee $1,605 $911,119 $42,359
Park and Rec Facilities Tax $3,210 $22,238 $84,718
Park Plan Check & Inspection $535 $3,706 $14,120
Public Works Plan Check & Inspection - $25,000 $50,000
Building Permit Fees Sub-Total: $33,844 $198,431 $601,684 Development Impact Fees
Childcare Impact Fee $4,413 $30,660 $306,600
Park Impact Fee $29,598 $204,760 $2,047,600
Transportation Improvement Fee $6,255 $31,590 $315,900
Wastewater Capacity Charge $10,019 $91,840 $667,900
Development Impact Fees Sub-Total $50,123 $358,850 $3,338,000 Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits and impact fees) Total Fees $89,108 $607,281 $4,154,684
Number of Dwelling Units 1 10 100
Cost per Dwelling Unit $89,108 $60,728 $41,547
Total Cost of Development per Unit
Overall Total Development Costs $2,969,063 $876,764 $809,124 Proportion of Fees to Total Development Costs 3% 7% 5%
Source: City of San Mateo, fees calculated based on City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2021-2022.

Notes: Valuations based on habitable square footage areas (exempts uninhabitable spaces such as: garage, storage, balconies). Additional fees may apply such as sewer and water tap fees, Construction & Demolition Recycling Deposit (Refundable), etc. Unexpended portion of the Public Works Building Support Services Deposit is refunded back to the applicant. 466 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-38
Comparison with Other Cities
Through 21 Elements, a San Mateo County Planning Collaborative, the City participated in a study conducted by Century Urban on the Cost to Build in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties10F 18 . The study
included planning entitlement fees, building permit fees and development impact fees. With regards to development fees in San Mateo County, Century Urban’s report showed an average of $350,000 for a small multi-family project (10 units) and an average of $2,800,000 for a large multi-family project (100 units).

With regards to building permit fees, a more detailed look at the raw data from cities1F 19 showed building
permit fees for small multi-family projects ranging from a low of $34,561 (Brisbane) to a high of over $400,000 (Foster City and San Bruno). In comparison, San Mateo’s building permit fees of $198,431 for a small multi-family development is below the average for cities in the County.

For large multi-family developments, the raw data from cities showed building permit fees ranging from $223,028 (South San Francisco) to over $1,000,000 (East Palo Alto, Foster City, and San Bruno). In comparison, San Mateo’s building permit fees of $611,684 for large multi-family is at the median for the County.

Impact fees are also a factor in the cost of development. For small multi-family developments, total impact fees in the County ranged from $19,653 (Redwood City) to over $500,000 (Millbrae and South San Francisco); and San Mateo’s impact fee for this category are $358,850. For large multi-family development, total impact fees ranged from $243,750 (Daly City) to over $5,000,000 (Millbrae); and San Mateo’s impact fees are $3,338,000.

It should be noted that the impact fee comparison is a high-level comparison which does not take into consideration the actual on-the-ground needs that can vary from city to city based on the condition of existing infrastructure and improvements needed to accommodate future growth.

The City of San Mateo’s impact fees provide an opportunity for new developments to contribute its fair share toward infrastructure improvements. For example, when compared with other jurisdictions in the county, San Mateo’s transportation impact fee may appear higher; however, each city’s impact fee is directly linked to the number and type of infrastructure projects within that jurisdiction. Therefore, it is reasonable that infrastructure improvement projects differ among cities. San Mateo has unique infrastructure needs that are not shared by other cities in the county. For example, the City has three Caltrain stations, nine at grade crossings, and a list of pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure improvement projects that have been identified to foster increased bicycle and pedestrian use, provide 18 21 Elements Century Urban Report on the Cost to Build in San Mateo County, Accessed June 7, 2022:
http://www.21elements.com/constraints
19 21 Elements Survey Results spreadsheet with raw data provided by cities. Accessed June 7, 2022:
http://www.21elements.com/constraints
467 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-39
connections to transit and services, etc. San Mateo has been proactive in transportation planning to ensure that the list of infrastructure projects are up to date and relevant. Examples of transportation planning in the City include the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan, and Complete Streets Plan, which is currently in development.

Additionally, it is reasonable for cities that are anticipated to accommodate more growth to evaluate its existing infrastructure in relation to projected growth and require new developments to share in the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to serve the growth from new developments. Cities that do so must meet legal requirements to establish a nexus to development and fees must be reviewed through a public process.

While San Mateo’s infrastructure impact fees are the median for cities in San Mateo County, it should be noted that San Mateo City has the highest Regional Housing Needs Allocation for both Fifth and Sixth Housing Element Cycles, with 3,100 and 7,015 dwelling units, respectively. To accommodate new growth, the city’s impact fees are evaluated to ensure nexus requirements are met and updated through a transparent public hearing process that is open to the community.

Transparent Costs
The City has been proactive in reevaluating and updating development related fees, and in meeting State requirements to increase transparency and predictability of fees. All applicable fees are available online (refer to links in Section 2.7). Additionally, the City allows developers to request a building permit fee estimate online by submitting an electronic worksheet.

The City also completed a development impact fee study in 2021 to ensure that fees are consistent with best practices, align with the stated services, and accurately reflect new developments’ proportionate share of infrastructure costs. The consultant’s recommendations have been incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, which was used to calculate the costs of development in Table 5.

While the City’s current fees meet nexus requirements and have been recently updated, the City plans to review development application, building permit and impact fees to identify opportunities to reduce per unit costs for housing developments, with a focus on reducing per unit costs for small multi-family projects (Policy H 1.17).

In addition to City fees, there are additional fees required from other agencies to account for the impact of development. The combined San Mateo Union High School District and San Mateo/Foster City Elementary School District Impact Fee is $4.08 per square foot for residential12F

20. No fees are charged for
new construction or additions that are under 500 square feet. While this is not a city fee, City staff helps applicants find information about the fee and connects them with the school district. 20 Combined San Mateo Union High School and San Mateo/Foster City Elementary School District School Fees; https://www.smuhsd.org/Page/5186
468 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-40
Other Considerations that Support Housing
In addition to evaluating fees and their role in housing development, the city also recognizes that wages are a contributing factor in a household’s ability to enter the housing market. In 2017, the City Council adopted a provision allowing a reduction of 25 percent of the Affordable Housing Linkage Fee for developments that are subject to the fee and voluntarily agrees to pay area standard wages to construction workers on the development and enters into an agreement with the City to do so.

2.8.2 Building Permit Process
The length of time between a project’s planning entitlement approval and building permit issuance in many cases is determined by the applicant, as further described under Non-Government Constraints in section 3 below. The City has developed online application portal and streamlined the building permit review process with dedicated Development Review Technicians who actively manage concurrent reviews by all the development review departments including Planning, Building, Fire, Police, Arborist, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. Once a project begins the building permit application review process, the following general timelines can be achieved with responsive applicants:

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

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

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

2.9.1 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Nine percent of San Mateo residents have disabilities, compared with eight percent in the county. In addition to the need for housing that is accessible or ADA‐ compliant, housing affordability is a key limitation as many residents living with disability live on disability incomes or fixed income as some disabilities limit the ability to work, restrict mobility, or make it difficult to care for oneself. Persons with 469 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-41
special needs or disabilities have several housing needs related to housing accessibility; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive living services.

The City has permitted and/or contributed funding for supportive housing for persons with disabilities.

One example is the Humboldt House, located near downtown. The apartment building was originally purchased by a private owner to serve the mentally ill, before Mateo Lodge, Inc.’s acquisition and subsequent rehabilitation of the building. The City provided a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) loan to acquire the property, and subsequently also provided a HOME loan in 2000 for rehabilitation of the building. Currently, Mateo Lodge runs the facility which houses up to 29 residents and includes residential programs that provide supportive and rehabilitative services to residents. The following is a description of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities. To further facilitate the production of new housing or conversion of existing housing for persons with disability, the Housing Element includes an implementation action in Policy H 1.13 to study a universal design ordinance that may better address housing needs for persons with disabilities.

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

Group homes with more than six residents (defined by the City’s municipal code as “residential care facilities”) are permitted by right in C2 and C3 zoned districts and with a Special Use Permit (SUP) in R3 and R4 zoned districts, as shown in Table 2. While not explicitly required by State law, the SUP requirements for group homes of more than six persons could be considered a fair housing issue. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.13) to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for larger group homes and amend the Zoning Code to ensure State law requirements related to fair housing and group homes are met.

To facilitate permitting of group homes and residential care facilities for seniors and non-seniors (including persons with disabilities), the Housing Element includes an implementation action in Policy H 1.14 to amend the Zoning Code to allow group homes and residential care facilities for seven or more persons in all residential zones, only subject to those objective standards that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone in conformance with state law.

2.9.3 Definition of Family
Historically zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term dwelling unit and family that have been used to deny housing opportunities for unrelated individuals. San Mateo Municipal Code Section

27.04.195 defines “family” as “a person or persons living together and maintaining a common household”.

Upon analysis, the use of the term family may be utilized in a manner to discriminate against unrelated 470 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-42
persons with disabilities living together. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.14)to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for family and other related regulations; and amend the code to ensure State law requirements related to persons with disabilities are met. This effort may also include consideration of new definitions such as single-unit and multi-unit dwellings to accommodate various housing situations.

2.9.4 Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
The City of San Mateo has a process to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for persons with disabilities. The Reasonable Accommodations for Residential Uses ordinance (SMMC Chapter 27.78) was established to provide people with disabilities a way to ensure that their needs are met by the City’s zoning, building, and permitting process. Any person may request a reasonable accommodation from applicable zoning requirements, based on the disability of residents. The request is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and applicants submit documentation that meet the following findings:

1. The housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by a person with disabilities.

2. Due to the physical attributes of the subject property or the structures on site, the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

3. The requested reasonable accommodation would not create an undue financial or administrative burden for the City.

4. The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in City's land use and zoning ordinances, programs or policies. In making this finding, the decision-making body may consider, but its consideration is not limited to, the following factors:
a. Whether the proposed changes to the subject property and structures, would adversely impact the health, safety or use of adjacent properties or the City right-of-way. b. Whether any reasonable alternatives have been identified that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a reasonable accommodation or exception to the City's applicable rules, standards and practices.

No fees are required for the application and assistance to apply is available upon request. The process is based on the requirements of federal and state housing laws, including the Fair Housing Act, and is intended to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. Since the ordinance adoption in 2014, one application has been submitted and approved to provide flexibility in accommodating the homeowners’ accessibility needs. It should be noted that the City’s Zoning Code permits by right access to the main entry of residential unit as allowable intrusions into setbacks through a ministerial building permit application. Under this provision, applicants can apply for a building permit to construct ramps, 471 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-43
lifts, railings, and other elements necessary to ensure access to the dwelling unit without a need to seek reasonable accommodation.

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

The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 3.7) to evaluate and update the Zoning Code to remove the 300 feet buffer from a single-family dwelling and adopt objective development standards, including parking for shelters, in compliance with State requirements.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the Housing Element to demonstrate that the zones where emergency shelters are allowed by right include sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in the most recent point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 3.7) to review and amend the zoning code to allow emergency shelters in C2, C3, and other zones as needed to comply with Government Code 65583 and ensure there is sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for emergency shelter as identified in the most recent point-intime count conducted before the start of the planning period.

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

No homeless count was conducted in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the County of San Mateo conducted a count on February 23, 2022. The result shows a 21 percent increase countywide in 472 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-44
the number of unsheltered, from 901 to 1,902 persons; however, the homeless population in the City of San Mateo decreased from 74 to 60 persons21.

As of December 2022, there are three emergency shelters located within the City of San Mateo that collectively can serve up to 181 individuals per night. The shelters include:

1. First Step for Families – The shelter serves up to 117 individuals per night with 39 family units. It is operated by Life Moves to provide interim shelter and supportive services including weekly financial literacy, housing and employment workshops.

2. Lisa’s House – The shelter serves up to 20 persons per night. It is operated by CORA and includes a variety of support services such as children’s programs, crisis intervention, legal and mental services.

3. El Camino House – The shelter serves up to 44 persons per night. It is operated by Samaritan House which provides a wide range of services including but not limited to children’s programs, clothing, financial coaching and assistance, food services, job search assistance, and transportation assistance.

Collectively, this demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity within the City to accommodate the 60 unhoused individuals identified in the latest count.

2.9.6 Zoning Capacity for Emergency Shelters
The City’s Municipal Code currently allows emergency shelters by right in the C2 and C3 Regional/Community Commercial zoning districts with an approved building permit. There are approximately 76 acres of land available in these zoning districts, which include 260 parcels ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.6 acres with an overall average parcel size of 0.3 acres. These sites are located in areas with a mix of uses including offices, commercial, service commercial and light manufacturing uses (there is no heavy hazardous manufacturing); and are within a half-mile of transit and services.

As discussed above, the City’s collaboration with the County appears to help close the gap in that the three existing shelters can accommodate the 60 unhoused individuals in the City. However, to facilitate additional emergency shelters, the Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 3.7) to review and amend Zoning Code requirements and standards as needed for temporary residential shelters to ensure sufficient capacity for changes in homeless counts in future years and continue to meet State law. Policy H 3.7 includes the following two key actions:
• Review and amend the zoning code to allow emergency shelters in C2, C3, and other zones as needed to ensure there is sufficient capacity on available sites to accommodate the need for 21 One Day Homeless Count Report dated August 2022: https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2022-one-day-homeless-count 473 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-45
emergency shelter as identified in the most recent point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, and to amend the definition of emergency shelters in compliance with Government Code 65583.
• Review and amend the zoning code as needed to comply with Government Code 65583 including to remove the 300 feet buffer from a single-family dwelling, clarify that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart, in compliance Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(v), and adopt objective development standards, such as parking for shelters in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(ii).

2.9.7 Strategies for Providing Emergency Shelters
While the zoning capacity analysis above meets the requirements of State law, the City will continue to study best practices and explore collaboration opportunities to expand shelter capacity. These strategies may include unique partnerships with private companies, non-profit entities, and faith-based organizations to convert existing, underutilized buildings as emergency shelters. The City will also continue to collaborate with the County to close the gap when potential sites are identified within the city limits. The Housing Element Policy H 3.7 articulates the City’s intent to regularly evaluate City policies, best practices and collaboration opportunities to end homelessness within the City.

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

The plan also outlines several programs to address homelessness, including outreach, emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, supportive housing, and homeless prevention programs. The City jointly funds these programs with other jurisdictions throughout the County and evaluates their performance together as part of the CofC Steering Committee. The purpose of the plan was originally to outline a comprehensive strategic plan to end homelessness throughout San Mateo County by the year 2020. Many of the target achievements of the plan were drastically altered by the spread of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting housing instability that occurred from loss of income across many households. The City of San Mateo continues to be a partner in the CofC as both a funder of shelters and 474 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-46
programs as well as a voting member in the CofC Steering Committee, which is reflected in the Housing Element Policy H 3.1.

2.9.9 Low Barrier Navigation Centers
AB 101, passed in 2019 and codified in Government Code Section 65622, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 3.7) to evaluate and amend the Zoning Code to comply with this new requirement and to allow these in the same areas zoned for mixed-use and non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses, consistent with Government Code Sections 65660 - 65668.

2.9.10 Transitional/Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is designed to assist homeless individuals and families in moving beyond emergency shelter and into permanent housing by helping people develop independent living skills through the provision of supportive services. Permanent supportive housing is housing that is linked to services that assist residents in maintaining housing, improving health, and maximizing ability to live and work in the community. Examples include the Vendome, which is located near downtown and provides permanent supportive housing to 16 chronically homeless adult men and women; and the County’s recent purchase and conversion of the Stone Villa Inn as a 44-unit transitional housing site.

The City is consistent with State law in that supportive housing and transitional housing are defined in the City’s Zoning Code as a dwelling and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Per recent changes in State law (AB 2162), the City must also allow 100 percent affordable projects that include 25 percent, or 12 units of supportive housing, by right where multi-unit and mixed-use development is permitted. While the City has not updated its Zoning Code, the City is pro-active in ensuring that new projects meeting AB 2162 criteria are compliant. For example, the Montara affordable housing development includes 12 units for formerly homeless individuals. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.14) to review and amend the City’s Zoning Code to comply with this new provision of State law.

2.9.11 Housing for Farmworkers
There are no active or potential agricultural lands remaining within the City; therefore, the City does not have any labor force associated with the agricultural sector. Although no agricultural activity remains within the City of San Mateo limits, the region and the County of San Mateo as a whole includes agricultural activity that attracts farmworkers and their families. The 2019 census data for employment 475 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-47
identifies 272 out of 57,365 employed residents of the City identify as working within the “agriculture/forestry, fishing and hunting” category. It is likely that these residents and their families are permanent employees who reside in the City due to access to urban amenities and services and are commuting to agricultural lands within the County. Seasonal agricultural workers who come to San Mateo County during those times of year when crop harvesting, and processing occur often need access to group housing or temporary (non-emergency) shelters, but do not appear to be seeking housing options within the City.

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

California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, requires that farmworker housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarter or 12 units shall be deemed an agricultural use. No conditional/special use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of this housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. Only two areas are identified within the Agricultural (A) Zoning District, which allows for Agricultural use. These two sites include the San Mateo County Event Center, and a parcel within the College of San Mateo. The existing zoning requirements for permitted uses does not explicitly allow for such housing, but agricultural use is listed as a permitted use.

The City will evaluate and update its zoning code either as a part of miscellaneous code amendment or should the County or the College of San Mateo wish to proceed with providing farmworker housing at these sites, as identified in Policy H 1.16.

2.9.12 Accessory Dwelling Units
Since 2016, California lawmakers have passed several bills to promote development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs are defined as attached or detached residential dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons located on the same parcel as the primary residence.

The City also adopted the definition of a “junior accessory dwelling unit” (JADU), which is a similar independent living unit that is constructed entirely within the walls of a proposed or legally existing singlefamily residence.

In 2017 and 2022, the City amended the Zoning Code Chapter 27.19 to meet, and in many cases, exceed the minimum requirements of State law. ADUs are permitted by-right in any zone that allows residential use. For parcels with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, the City allows up to one ADU and one JADU. The City defers to the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) for ADUs proposed on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling (attached duplex or more).

The City’s ADU Ordinance update includes many development standards that are more permissive than those allowed under state law. These standards were developed following extensive community outreach and multiple public meetings. For example, the updated ordinance allows larger sized JADUs (maximum 476 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-48
650 square-feet); new ADUs do not have a size limit and can utilize all available floor area permitted by the site’s floor area ratio; ADUs can be two-stories; attached ADUs can have a height of up to 24 feet to the plate line and 32 feet to the roof peak; and detached ADUs can have a height of up to 16 feet to the plate line and 24 feet to the roof peak. ADUs may also opt for a discretionary review process to exceed the development standards, including height requirements, allowed under ministerial review, which allows for a quicker and cheaper review process than a standard variance; and for at least the first year, the discretionary review process does require an application fee. These updated standards provide more flexibility in design and are aligned with local community needs.

Under State law, ADUs are eligible for ministerial review and applications must be approved within 60 days of a complete application submittal. ADU applications may be submitted in-person or online permit and are charged a flat fee that varies by proposal. Building permit fees are currently as follows:
• ADU (New Construction): $2,830.50
• ADU (Converted or Remodeled Space): $2,103.00
• JADU: $1,578.50
Additional fees are charged on an as-needed basis, such as a Heritage Tree permit, Sewer Lateral Compliance and Encroachment Permit. School District Fees are collected separately by the San Mateo Union High School District. The City also partners with Symbium to offer a free, interactive web-based mapping tool to help with preliminary site planning of ADUs. Overall, the City has been active in supporting property owners who seek to develop ADUs or JADUs by streamlining the permitting process, setting low flat fees for permits and providing expanded information and resources; and as outlined in Policy H 1.4, the City will continue to actively support the production of this housing type.

2.9.13 Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks
State law requires that cities and counties allow the placement of manufactured homes (also referred to as factory-built homes and modular homes) meeting Federal construction standards and manufactured home subdivisions in single-family neighborhoods. California Government Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.514F
22 require that manufactured homes be permitted in single-family districts subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. Additionally, Government Code Section 65852.7 requires that cities and counties allow mobile home parks (including condominium and cooperative parks) in all residential zones.

In keeping with State law, the City’s Zoning Code allows manufactured homes on permanent foundations in the same residential zones as single-family dwellings. The code defines manufactured homes as a dwelling, and they are subject to the same development standards. The City’s Zoning Code does not permit mobile home parks in residential districts; however, there is a provision allowing the Zoning 22 The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (also referred to as the Manufactured Home Act of 1974).
477 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-49
Administrator to consider “other similar uses” in residential districts. The current code language is not explicit; therefore, the Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.15) to review and amend the Zoning Code as necessary to meet state law regarding allowing mobile home parks as special use in all residential zones consistent with Government Code Section 65852.7.

2.9.14 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing
Government Code 65583(c)(1) requires local jurisdictions to specify the areas where Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing are permitted. SROs are single-room (zero bedroom) units that are typically intended for occupancy by residents with low or minimal incomes, who share a kitchen and bathrooms with other residents in a multi-tenant building. The Zoning Code does not specify the zoning districts where SROs would be permitted and thus is a constraint on production of this housing type. The Housing Element includes a new program in Policy H 1.7 to amend the Zoning Code to reduce or eliminate constraints to housing construction including the identification of zoning areas where SROs are permitted consistent with state law.
478 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-50
3 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
California Government Code Section 65583(a)(6) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.

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

3.1 Development Costs

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

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

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

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

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

There are multiple factors that may affect the cost of land, such as lot size, topography, site conditions, shape of the parcel, location and amenities, neighboring uses, access, proximity to public services, noise and the financing arrangement between buyer and seller. Land costs in single-family residential 479 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-51
neighborhoods of San Mateo are difficult to assess because of the lack of undeveloped residential properties in the city. Additionally, the information available is not comprehensive and any summaries or averages at the City level may not be valuable for reaching conclusions. The same limitation applies to the land price for properties that are suitable for multi-family development, as such, a study at the County level would likely be more informative.

On behalf of 21 Elements, Century Urban15F
23 conducted an independent countywide study of single-family land sales and multi-family land sales in the last three years, inclusive of both rental apartment and forsale (condos/townhomes) units. For single-family land sales countywide, of parcels up to one acre in size, the land cost ranged between $582,000 to $8 million, with an average of $1,030,000 per unit.

For multi-family land sales in San Mateo County, Century Urban’s report shows the average land cost is $1,000,000 for small multi-family and $10,000,000 for large multi-family properties, respectively. In contrast, during the last Fifth Cycle Housing Element, a similar analysis found that average per-acre prices were approximately $820,000. This means that since the last Housing Element, land prices have significantly increased.

All of these factors work together to make it so developers must charge substantial rents and sales prices to cover these costs. The Terner Center Report16F
24 notes that, for example, a multi-family unit that costs $800,000 to build will need to charge approximately $4,000 in monthly rent – a price well over the typical monthly earnings in the State – to cover those costs and meet return on investment requirements for investors.

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

An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in 23 Century Urban’s San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Costs & San Mateo County Unit Mix Research, April 2022, http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1380-b-d-dvpt-cost-and-unit-mix-2022- 4-7-draft-updated/file
24 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone and Carolina Reid, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California Berkeley, March 2020, p. 3, http:/ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf 480 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-52
addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data is national with the regional difference running generally 20 percent higher based on the most recent (2020) analysis cited from the Terner Center for Housing index for construction costs in California. The 2020 national averages for costs per square foot, excluding the cost of the land acquisition, are as follows:
• Type I or II, Multi-Family: $129.23 to $167.27 per square foot. • Type V (Wood Frame), Multi-Family: $112.76 to $147.50 per square foot. • Type V (Wood Frame), One- and Two-Family Dwelling: $122.46 to $141.72 per square foot.

According to data from the California Construction Cost Index, hard construction costs in California grew by 44 percent between 2014 and 2018, or an additional $80 per square foot.17F 25 Between 2020 and 2021
alone, construction costs increased 13.4 percent. Construction costs are estimated to account for upwards of 60 percent of the production cost of a new home, especially for multi-unit residential buildings which often require the use of more expensive materials, like steel, and need additional amenities such as parking structures.18F
26 Variations in the quality of materials, type of amenities, labor costs and the quality of building materials could result in higher or lower construction costs for a new home. Prefabricated factory built housing, with variation on the quality of materials and amenities may also affect the final construction cost per square foot of a housing project.

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

According to a Terner Center report released in March 2020 on multi-family construction costs in California, many different factors layer together to affect the bottom-line costs of building new housing and whether or not a project will ultimately “pencil”: the costs of acquisition (e.g., land and closing costs), hard construction costs (e.g., materials and labor), soft costs (e.g., legal and professional fees, insurance, and development fees), and the costs of conversion once a project is completed (e.g., title fees and the operating deficit reserve).19F
27 According to its research, the largest share of a project’s total cost comes from materials and labor, or hard costs.

Hard construction costs make up more than 60 percent of total development costs. The Terner Center study found that on average, construction costs were about $222 per square foot in 2018 compared to $177 in 2008-2009, representing a 25 percent increase. While these increases have been felt across the state, costs are highest in the Bay Area, which saw costs rising by 119 percent during the same time period, 25 Ibid., Raetz et al, p.8.
26 Ibid., Raetz et al, p.4.
27 See the Terner Center’s series on housing costs at https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-buildinghousing-series 481 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-53
to over $380 per square foot. The reasons for this gap are complex, but the Terner Center suggests that higher labor costs to attract workers plays a part due to the higher cost of living; local regulations that require certain materials or building components to be used; lengthy review processes; and other local constraints.20F
28 The impact of high construction costs on affordable housing cannot be underestimated. According to a study by the Bay Area Council, in 2019 there were 23 new construction projects of below market-rate housing financed through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), with a total of 1,912 units, across six of the nine-county Bay Area. Each project in California requested federal and/or state tax credits to finance the new construction of housing units with rents affordable to households earning 30- 60 percent of area median income (AMI; this translates to very low-income households). The project costs consist of land and acquisition, construction costs, construction contingency, architectural/engineering, construction interest, permanent financing, legal fees, reserves, other costs, developer fees, and commercial costs. Project costs were analyzed to determine the reasonableness of all fees within TCAC’s underwriting guidelines and TCAC limitations.

The report found that the average construction cost of new below market rate housing in the Bay Area was $664,455 per unit, far more than lower income households can afford without subsidies. In comparison, other projects across California (excluding the Bay Area) on average cost $385,185 per unit of below market rate housing.21F
29 28 Ibid., Raetz et al, p. 15.
29 How much does it cost to construct one unit of below market housing in the Bay Area? Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

Accessed April 1, 2022, from http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-produce-one-unit-of-below-markethousing-in-the-bay-area/ 482 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-54
Figure 1: Average Per Unit Cost Construction of New BMR Housing by County (2019) Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; Analysis by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

3.1.4 Labor Costs
The California Labor Code applies prevailing wage rates to public works projects exceeding $1,000 in value.

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

Statewide, labor costs have also increased in recent years, as the labor pool has not kept pace with the increase in demand. Since the recession, California has seen a severe tightening in the construction labor market, especially for workers trained in specific construction trades. The lack of an available labor force drives up the cost of labor and leads to project delays as workers are either unavailable or lost to more profitable projects.
483 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-55

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

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

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

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

3. Retaining contractors

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

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

Once a project begins the building permit application review process, the applicant also has a shared responsibility in resubmitting materials and addressing comments in a timely manner. With responsive applicants, the following general timelines can be achieved during the building permit stage:

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

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

3.2 Requests for Housing Developments at Reduced Densities State law requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the Sites Inventory. As demonstrated in the City’s Annual Progress Reports in past years, there is a strong trend for development projects to utilize density bonus law to add additional units beyond the base density.

Furthermore, the following table of recently approved residential projects demonstrate that most developments are asking for more density than the underlying zoning allows, by using the State Density Bonus. Although the maximum base densities, of Multi-family zones (R3, R4 and R5) and non-residential zones that allow mixed-use development with residential, ranges from 35 to 50 dwelling units per acre, the average residential density for recently approved projects is 100 percent of base density due to projects almost always utilizing State Density Bonus provisions. The City anticipates the trend, of developments utilizing State Density Bonus provisions to add more density, to continue due to the high demand for housing in the bay area region; however, there is a need to provide a minimum density to guide future development. Housing Element Policy H 1.9 would amend the Zoning Code to add minimum 484 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-56
density requirements ensuring that future development projects meet or exceed the anticipated density in the Sites Inventory.

Table 10: 2019 – Present Approved Residential Project Densities Infill Development Address Acres Approved
Units
Max Base
Density
(DUA)
Percent of
Base Density
Approved
Density
(DUA)
Pre-App
Density (DUA)
406 E 3rd Ave. 0.88 25 50 57% 28 26
1919 O’Farrell St. 0.71 49 50 138% 69 66
303 Baldwin Ave. 0.93 64 50 136% 68 67
S Delaware St. at Landing Ave, Bay
Meadows 1.51 67 50 88% 44 38
1650 S. Delaware St. (Azara) 1.1 73 50 133% 66 58
480 E 4th Ave. (Kiku Crossing) 2.4 225 50 187% 93
2988 Campus Dr. (Peninsula Heights) 15.5 290 35 53% 19 19 666 Concar Dr. (Concar Passage) 14.5 961 50 133% 66 65
1 Hayward Ave 0.29 18 44 141% 62 No Pre-App
222 E 4th Ave. (Draegers) 1.13 10 50 18% 9 9
500 E. 3rd Ave (Block 21) 1.51 111 50 148% 74 45
401 Concar Dr. (Hayward Park) 2.81 191 50 136% 68 67
4 W Santa Inez Ave. 0.25 10 40 100% 40 No Pre-App
1, 2 and 3 Waters Park Dr. 11.1 190 35 49% 17 17
435 E. 3rd Ave. 0.25 5 50 40% 20 20
Total 43.8 2,099 100%
Source: City of San Mateo, 2023

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

3.4 Environmental Constraints
The environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of residential development. Environmental issues range from the suitability of land for development, the provision of adequate infrastructure and services, as well as the cost of energy. San Mateo currently encompasses about 7,744 acres of land. The majority of the parcels in the City’s boundary are developed. Most of the undeveloped parcels are in the areas to the west near Sugarloaf Mountain. These areas contain environmental constraints on 485 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-57
development, such as steep slopes, landslide hazards, fire hazards, or flood hazards, and therefore, much of the undeveloped land has been set aside as open space. The following are environmental constraints and hazards that affect, in varying degrees, existing and future residential developments.

3.4.1 Seismic Hazards
The San Andreas Fault zone is located approximately two miles west from the City of San Mateo boundary and the Hayward fault lies approximately 14 miles northeast of the City; however, there are no known active faults within the City. Major problems could result from ground shaking, which is likely to be amplified in the areas underlain by relatively unconsolidated deposits, especially in the eastern part of the City. Liquefaction is also a possibility in these areas. There is potential for landslides on all slopes; however, site-specific investigations can differentiate the degree of risk.

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

3.4.3 Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise
The City’s floodplain management ordinance requires flood proofing or elevation of structures above flood heights along portions of San Mateo Creek and east of Bayshore. The City will continue to regulate development and improvements to properties located in the designated flood hazard areas in accordance with the ordinance. Since 2001, the City has identified a series of flood control projects to remove residential properties from the Flood Hazard Zone, which include the South Bayfront Levee Improvement projects (completed in 2010) and the North Shoreview Flood Improvement Project (completed in 2023).

The City has two remaining tidal flood protection projects at the North Levee near Coyote Pointe and at Laurel Creek near the San Mateo Glendale Village neighborhood. Approximately 8,000 properties have been removed or have been prevented from being placed on the flood map to date.

Global climate change also poses potential impacts related to sea level rise. In 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency and California Ocean Protection Council updated the Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document2F
30, which estimates sea levels in the San Francisco Bay Area to rise 22 inches by the year 2050 and 82 inches by the year 2100. San Mateo is in a low-lying coastal area and thus is highly vulnerable to 30 State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update, https://www.opc.ca.gov/updating-californias-sea-level-rise-guidance , Accessed on April 1, 2022
486 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-58
this threat. A sea level rise of 22 inches could inundate areas near Seal Point. If the level of San Francisco Bay rises 82 inches, water is projected to inundate all parts of San Mateo east of Highway 101, the area north of downtown, and large sections of the Hayward Park, Bay Meadows, and Laurie Meadows neighborhoods. To protect against sea level rise, the City participates in the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District’s OneShoreline program to coordinate shoreline protection projects throughout the County. For more information, see the program website at www.oneshoreline.org.

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

Figure 2: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas Source: CAL FIRE, November 24, 2008.
487 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-59

3.4.5 Water/Sewer Capacity
As part of the Housing Element, jurisdictions must provide information regarding water and sewer capacity to accommodate future development. In addition, jurisdictions must include narratives about how they will comply with two specific pieces of legislation, SB 1087 and SB 244. • SB 1087 – Housing Elements – Requires a city to immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed housing developments that include units affordable to lower-income households. • SB 244 – Land Use and General Plans – Requires cities and counties, prior to adoption of a housing element, to address the infrastructure needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities outside the city’s limits but within the city’s planning area. Because the city’s planning area does not contain any unincorporated areas, no such conditions exist.

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

The regional water system provides water to 2.7 million people in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties. 85 percent of the water comes from Sierra Nevada snowmelt stored in the Hetch Hetchy reservoir situated on the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. Hetch Hetchy water travels 160 miles via gravity from Yosemite to the San Francisco Bay Area. The remaining 15 percent of water comes from runoff in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds and is captured in reservoirs located in San Mateo and Alameda counties. Overall, this regional system, which consists of over 280 miles of pipelines, over 60 miles of tunnels, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations and two water treatment plants, delivers approximately 260 million gallons of water per day.

The City’s water providers are California Water Company (Cal Water) and Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID). Cal Water’s Mid-Peninsula District, which includes the City of San Carlos, serves the majority of San Mateo, and EMID serves the bayside portions of San Mateo east of Seal Slough and the City of Foster City.

Both Cal Water and EMID have adopted Urban Water Management Plans that were developed based on the City’s existing zoning densities. Since the City will not need to increase density or rezone any sites to meet its RHNA, combined with increased water efficiency and conservation requirements for new development, there appears to be sufficient water capacity to serve at least 7,015 new housing units by 2031. However, it needs to be noted that the region is experiencing a prolonged drought and there are significant concerns about the ability to maintain water supply into the future if current drought conditions persist. The City will continue to collaborate with the two water providers as part of its General Plan Update to ensure there is an adequate and sustainable water supply for current and future development.

Adequate Water Supply for the Development of New Housing: The City does not need to increase density 488 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-60
or rezone any sites to meet its RHNA, so the adopted Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) from Cal Water and Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), which are based on the City’s current zoning and densities, demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity to provide water for the new housing development in the City’s Housing Element. However, the entire State has experienced significant fluctuation in water supply availability over the past decade, including many unprecedented drought years, which impacts the City’s ability to use current water supply to ensure future water availability.

Thus, the City is fully committed to working with its two water supply agencies, neighboring jurisdictions and regional partners to take the necessary actions to ensure that our water supply meets demand to build the necessary new housing through 2031.

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

To support the City’s water and sewer providers to ensure adequate capacity for new housing development, Housing Element Policy H 1.19 includes the following key actions:

1. Upon adoption of the Housing Element, provide a copy of the Element to California Water Company, Estero Municipal Improvement District, and San Mateo Public Works Dept, for greater awareness of affordable housing priorities and collaboration, in compliance with AB 1087.

2. Support efforts by Cal Water and EMID to expand their water supplies with new water sources and develop water efficiency and conservation methods to offset demand from new development projects.

3. Pursuant to AB 1087, work with Cal Water and EMID to establish a procedure to prioritize water allocation for developments that include units set aside as affordable housing for lower income households, including affordable housing within larger, mixed-use developments and larger residential subdivisions

4. Establish a written procedure for the City to grant priority sewer service to developments with units that are affordable to lower-income households.

The Public Services and Facilities Element in the General Plan 2040 Update includes a section that focuses on water supply and includes a goal to “Support access to a safe, sustainable, and resilient supply of water for San Mateo.” This goal is supported by over 20 policies and actions that support both water agencies when updating their UWMPs, increases water efficiency and conservation in new development, and supports the development of new water sources, including recycled water, with a target of no net increase in water usage. This target is further analyzed in the General Plan 2040’s EIR.

Thus, with the topic of water supply to support increased housing production very thoroughly addressed in the Public Services and Facilities Element, and with the current UWMPs for both water suppliers supporting San Mateo’s existing zoned density, we are not putting any additional water supply related programs in the Housing Element.

The upgrades to the sewage treatment facility will result in increased capacity to serve San Mateo and 489 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-61
Foster City well into the future. Based on this information, it is anticipated that the City has sufficient water service capacity and sewage processing capacity to meet new housing development needs for this housing cycle. The current facilities and/or infrastructure are reported to be in good operating condition.

Therefore, it is determined that the City has sufficient capacity to serve the 7,015 housing units stipulated the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

3.5 Voter Approved Growth Limits
One of the most significant constraints to high-density housing development in the City is the voter approved ballot initiative that limits height and density of new development (capped at a maximum of 50 units per acre and 55-75 feet height). In 1991, San Mateo voters enacted Measure H that amended the City’s General Plan to restrict heights and densities of new development in the City. Specifically, Measure H amended the General Plan to limit building heights to a maximum of 55 feet (75 feet with public benefits), residential densities to a maximum of 50 units per acre, and nonresidential building intensity as measured by the ratio of building floor area to the size of the parcel to a maximum of 3.0 based on location. Measure H also established an inclusionary housing program requiring residential developments to provide at least 10 percent of a project’s units at rents or prices affordable to low- or moderate-income households.

As a voter-adopted initiative, the policies established by Measure H could not be amended by the City Council without subsequent voter approval while the measure was in effect. Measure H contained an expiration provision of December 31, 2005.

In 2004, the City Council proposed a ballot initiative, Measure P, to authorize limited modifications to the policies established by Measure H, and to extend the expiration provision until December 31, 2020; and Measure P was subsequently approved by the voters in November 2004.

In 2020, voters approved Measure Y23F
31 , which extended the expiration date of the General Plan policies concerning building heights, densities, and intensities established in Measure P to December 31, 2030. In addition, Measure Y amended the provisions of Measure P concerning the inclusionary housing program to comply with AB 1505, which is codified in Government Code 65850. This law requires inclusionary housing ordinances to allow developers of rental housing projects the option to provide off-site construction of units or other alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement.

This measure does not permit the payment of in-lieu fees as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement. The inclusionary housing program, as modified by this measure, and the policies concerning building heights, densities, and intensities established in Measure P, cannot be amended by action of the City Council without voter approval until 2030. 31 Measure Y ballot language: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1537/General-Plan 490 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-B-62
Measure Y does not preclude the City’s ability to approve new higher density housing developments, but it does constrain the number of housing units that can be developed in any single project and increases the costs to develop new housing as it limits efficiency of scale that comes with high density developments. For a City with a population of over 100,000 people with three Caltrain stations and a high quality transit corridor (El Camino Real), new housing projects with densities at 100-200 units per acre are not only feasible but also necessary in order to meet the City’s housing needs and support its economy.

The City has approved a significant number of new housing units over the last five years, but the density cap has limited its ability to reduce the cost of housing and achieve the number of housing units needed to help alleviate local impacts from the region’s housing crisis.

In addition to the cap on housing density, Measure Y also constrains the City’s ability to impose a higher affordable housing inclusionary requirement on new housing development projects since it could negatively affect the per-unit costs and potentially suppress overall housing production. The City currently has a 15 percent inclusionary requirement for both ownership and rental housing projects that was adopted by the City Council in 2020 after completion of a nexus study. These inclusionary requirements could be further assessed after the adoption of the City’s General Plan to see if any changes in the market conditions and constraints imposed by Measure Y have been reduced, which could allow the City to increase the inclusionary requirement for new development, thus resulting increasing affordable housing production.

While Measure Y has created a barrier to the development of housing projects with higher densities and heights, within the last five years many housing projects have used State law to receive density bonuses, concessions, and waivers to exceed the height, density, and intensity limitations imposed by Measure Y.

In addition, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan, with an adoption target in 2024, that would allow for increased heights and densities within ten study areas identified as priority locations for additional growth and new development. The draft land use map in the General Plan Update would increase land use densities to allow for up to 21,900 additional new housing units to be developed over the next 20 years. However, since the densities in the draft land use map exceed the 50 units per acre limit set by Measure Y, an updated ballot initiative would need to be approved by the voters before these provisions could take effect. With adoption of the General Plan targeted in 2024, the ballot initiative could potentially go before the voters in November 2024.

Overall, Measure Y is a significant Non-Governmental Constraint to housing production, and affordable housing in particular, in the City of San Mateo. Building community consensus around a path forward with Measure Y as part of the General Plan Update process is essential to meeting the City’s current and future housing needs and to reducing this significant constraint on housing production. Currently, there are enough sites with sufficient acreage that can meet the 2031 RHNA, plus a buffer within the existing zoning densities and the growth limits of the voter-approved heights and density limits under Measure Y.

However, Measure Y may pose a constraint on future RHNA cycles. Therefore, the City in its General Plan 2040 Update (GPU), proposes significant increases in the upper range of densities from 50 dwelling units per acre (DUA) under Measure Y, to 100-130 DUA through a ballot measure in November 2024. Once effective, half as many sites currently listed would be needed to achieve the RHNA for this housing cycle. 491 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-B-63
The GPU will create capacity for at least 10,000 new housing units and add to the buffer for the existing RHNA. Should this ballot measure not succeed, the City commits to exploring additional options to increase capacity for a 25 percent buffer, including through rezonings (Policy H 1.20). 492 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-1

APPENDIX C

HOUSING RESOURCES AND SITES

INVENTORY LIST
493 of 2271

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

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

INVENTORY LIST

0.1 Table of Content

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

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

0.3 List of Tables ................................................................................................ 3 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................4 2 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS .......................................................................5

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

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

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

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

2.1.4 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) ...........................................................................................5

2.1.5 Other Federal Programs........................................................................................................6

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

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

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

2.3 Other Public Funds ........................................................................................ 7

2.3.1 Housing Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency.................................................7

2.3.2 City Housing Fund .................................................................................................................7

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

2.3.4 San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund .......................................................................7

2.4 Private For-Profit and Nonprofit Sources ........................................................ 8

2.4.1 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ....................................................................................8

2.4.2 Private Developers................................................................................................................8

2.4.3 Non-Profit Agencies..............................................................................................................8

2.4.4 Housing Endowment And Regional Trust (HEART) ...............................................................8 3 HOUSING-RELATED PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.10 Special Needs Housing ................................................................................. 10 494 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-3

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

3.11.1 LifeMoves Shelter Network.................................................................................................11

3.11.2 Safe Harbor Emergency Shelter..........................................................................................11

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

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

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

3.12.2 Continuum of Care..............................................................................................................12

3.12.3 HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program.................................................................................12

3.13 Chronic Homelessness ................................................................................. 12

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

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

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

3.15 Discharge Policy .......................................................................................... 13 4 SITES INVENTORY .....................................................................................................................14

4.1 RHNA Status ............................................................................................... 14

4.2 On-Site Constraints Analysis ........................................................................ 15

4.3 Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Analysis ..................................................... 15

4.4 Lot Consolidation ........................................................................................ 18

4.5 Recent Development Projects ....................................................................... 32

4.6 Pipeline Projects ......................................................................................... 38

4.7 Redevelopment Opportunity Sites ................................................................ 51

4.8 Sites Inventory Housing Feasibility and Realistic Capacity ............................. 68

0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Key Inventory Sites.......................................................................................................................31 Figure 2: Study Area Map ...........................................................................................................................66 Figure 3: Sites Inventory Map.....................................................................................................................67

0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: January 2019 – November 2023 Planning Development Approvals (Ranked by Density) ...........20 Table 2: Sites Inventory...............................................................................................................................23 Table 3: Site Affordability Breakdown ........................................................................................................68 Table 4: Realistic Housing Capacity by Zoning District ...............................................................................68 495 of 2271

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

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

The City receives and dedicates funding sources to be used in the development of affordable housing and housing related programs. These housing related programs can also be jointly managed by non-profit providers and City staff working collaboratively. The City is also responsible for ensuring that it maintains an inventory of sites that can feasibly support enough housing development to meet the goals of the Housing Element. These three areas together make up the housing resources of the City. 496 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-5
2 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS
This section will discuss the funding the City utilizes in the development of housing, especially housing that is affordable, through financial and other kinds of assistance, as well as for other housing programs.

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

2.1 Federal Programs

2.1.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The City of San Mateo has been an active participant in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for over 40 years. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards this flexible grant program to jurisdictions through a statutory formula that uses measurements of need. CDBG funds can be used to assist low- and moderate-income persons in the form of social services activities, housing rehabilitation, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, improvement of public facilities, and prevention and elimination of slums and blight. The City’s entitlement grant has increased an average of about 5% over the last five years. It is anticipated that the CDBG grant will either remain the same or decrease; therefore, the City is budgeting a conservative 2% decrease annually over the next five years.

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

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

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

2.1.4 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
This program is administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority with multiple eligibility criteria; including a family or a single person who is 62 years or older, disabled or pregnant, with a household annual gross income equal to or below the HUD published income limits. Households who qualify for Federal Preference are considered first and are defined as persons who are involuntarily displaced, or persons who are paying more than 50% of household income towards rent. Nearly 700 San Mateo residents are assisted annually through individual vouchers and have selected housing that distributes the assistance throughout neighborhoods in the City.
497 of 2271

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

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

2.1.5 Other Federal Programs
There are other Federal programs that may be made available to affordable housing projects located in the City, including the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program in which HUD provides funding to develop and subsidize rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very low- and extremely low-income adults with disabilities. The Section 811 assistance comes in the form of project rental assistance alone. No funds are available for construction or rehabilitation. In addition, HUD-VASH is a collaborative program which pairs HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance with VA case management and supportive services for homeless Veterans. These services are designed to help homeless Veterans and their families find and sustain permanent housing and access the health care, mental health treatment, substance use counseling, and other supports necessary to help them in their recovery process and with their ability to maintain housing in the community.

2.2 State Programs

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

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

Projects within the City have also utilized other State funding programs, including the Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), which is available as gap funding for infrastructure improvements necessary for specific residential or mixed-use infill development projects or areas and the Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) which provides matching funds to local and regional housing trust funds. Other State programs include Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, which funds projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF) which provides a flexible source of capital for the development and preservation of affordable housing properties, Project Homekey, which can be used to develop hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes and multifamily apartments and other existing buildings to Permanent or Interim Housing, Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) which creates supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health care provided through the Medi-Cal program, the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) which provides loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households, and the Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP) which provides short-term loans to finance affordable housing predevelopment costs. 498 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-7

2.3 Other Public Funds

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

2.3.2 City Housing Fund
In 1992, the City adopted the Below Market Rate (BMR) Inclusionary Program that requires a portion of affordable units be provided in new developments with 11 or more units in both rental and/or ownership projects. The program was amended on January 1, 2020. For rental projects, developers must provide 15% of units to be affordable to households up to 80% of the area median income (AMI). In ownership developments, developers must provide 15% of the units affordable to households up to 120% AMI.

Additional affordable units can be provided for bonuses and concessions. When the amount of required BMR units includes a fraction above 0.5, the requirement is rounded up, but when it is between 0.1 and

0.4, an in-lieu fee is charged. This fee has become a source of funds that may be used for housing policies and programs. This fund also contains miscellaneous housing revenues collected from subordination processing and loan payoffs from the old First Time Homebuyer program.

2.3.3 Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF)
In 2016, the City adopted a new ordinance to establish a commercial linkage fee. The fee, which is collected when a building permit for a nonresidential use is issued, is to be used for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. It is calculated by using the gross floor area of net new commercial space, excluding structured parking. The fee rates are adjusted annually using the construction cost index, but the City maintains three tiers of pricing for the fee, with retail/service at the least expensive, hotel at middle pricing, and office/research at the highest rates.

2.3.4 San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund
The County of San Mateo administers the Affordable Housing Fund. On April 8, 2013, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved the allocation of approximately $13,400,000 of unrestricted general funds for affordable housing purposes. These funds, which initiated the County’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), were derived from a one-time distribution of Housing Trust Funds held by former redevelopment agencies in San Mateo County. There have been eight subsequent AHF competitive funding rounds, using a combination of County general funds, Measure K funds, San Mateo County Housing Authority Moving to Work Housing Assistance Program Reserves, HOME funds, CDBG funds, and funds allocated to the County from HCD. The Kiku Crossing affordable housing project received an allocation of $5.185M from the AHF.
499 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-8

2.4 Private For-Profit and Nonprofit Sources

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

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

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

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

HEART’s “First Time Homebuyer” Program provides below market rate second loans as down payment assistance for persons who make up to $180,000 per year and households that make up to $220,000 per year. The program is also structured to eliminate private mortgage insurance which results in lowering the total monthly housing payment for homebuyers.

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

Four designs have been created at different unit sizes to accommodate the size constraints of different sites – studio, 1 bedroom (square), 1 bedroom (rectangular), and 2 bedrooms.

As new federal, state and local sources of funds appear, the City will integrate them into its programs and look for new solutions to meeting the affordable housing needs. It also continues to aggressively seek other potential financing sources and partnership opportunities. 500 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-9
3 HOUSING-RELATED PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 Acquisition of Land
The City is always looking for opportunities to purchase land to assist the development of housing. This includes land banking for the development of owner and rental housing, senior and family housing, transit-oriented housing, and mixed-use developments. Currently, the City owns two properties within downtown San Mateo, one of which is at the intersection of 4th Avenue and Railroad Avenue. The sites comprise a surface parking lot for Talbot’s, a closed toy store. The City plans to use this site for the development of affordable housing in a public/private partnership with a $1 per year lease. This site is included in the SitesInventory as there is a proposal to develop 71 units affordable at the very-low to lowincome levels, including family housing and one manager’s unit, on this site as part of a larger mixed-use development on this block. Details about the site characteristics and development proposal are shown on the Figure 1 map and included below in Section 4.4 as the “Bespoke Project.” The Sites Inventory also identifies a third City owned parcel, located at 4142 S. El Camino Real, that is currently vacant. Programs to support the development of affordable housing on both of these sites are included in Policy H 1.2 of the base document.

3.6 Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
The City also partners with nonprofit organizations to purchase and rehabilitate existing housing and make it more affordable. As funds are available, the City will consider purchasing multi-family complexes and/or single-family homes to make available for rental housing. This helps preserve the existing housing stock 501 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-10
by ensuring adequate property management standards and adds to the City’s affordable housing stock.

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

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

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

3.8 New Construction
Although the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impact on the cost of construction, the City sees the potential for more partnership opportunities to develop new housing with both for-profit and nonprofit developers, mostly due to the wide array of financing tools currently available. Developers have become far more knowledgeable about how to apply for and combine the various government program funds and available private funding to build affordable housing.

3.9 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The City's Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) ordinance, most recently updated in 2022, allows the construction of modest units sometimes referred to as "granny units" in residentially zoned neighborhoods. These units are relatively inexpensive to rent due to their size and are often occupied by family members as a way to live together yet maintain an element of privacy. Based on their size and characteristics, ADUs are a housing type that contributes to both the affordable and Missing Middle housing categories.

3.10 Special Needs Housing
The City provided extensive funds for acquisition/rehabilitation of an apartment building formerly owned by private individuals with County contracts. This project, known as the Humbolt House, operates as permanent supportive housing for individuals with mental illness. The City also provided land and subsidies to construct permanent affordable housing with 10 units set aside for households with mental health issues at risk of homelessness as referred by the County for the Delaware Pacific project. Through the PLHA program, the City provides funding for staff salaries at the Montara affordable housing project, which contains a set aside of 12 units for formerly homeless veterans. These staff will manage the client services and case management needed for the tenants. The goals for this program are to aid in building long term stability in their living situations. These subsidies are in addition to assistance being granted to the project from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The City provided land and subsidies to construct permanent affordable housing with 8 units set aside for individuals with development disabilities, and 16 units set aside for formerly homeless individuals at the Kiku Crossing project, which is currently under construction.

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

County level funding that helps to benefit San Mateo residents in need include McKinney-Vento, 502 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-11
Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), and Section 8 programs. All homeless outreach, assistance and prevention programs are conducted by local nonprofit organizations in coordination with various local government agencies. The City works with several groups to provide emergency shelters, transitional housing, and support services for the homeless as described in the 2018- 2023 Consolidated Plan. The City collaborates with the County of San Mateo on countywide homeless counts, which occurs every two years; and follows the County’s “Continuum of Care” (CofC) program to address homeless which is described in the “Regional Collaborations” section below. In coordination with other jurisdictions in the county, the following shelter operations and expansion efforts the City supports are as follows:

3.11.1 LifeMoves Shelter Network
The City has provided operational funds in the past and may continue based on available funds through the CDBG program to support LifeMoves for shelter operations within City limits. They operate in two sites located in the City: supportive housing at the Vendome (which is not a shelter), and the First Step for Families shelter. For the Vendome, the City provided 100% of acquisition/rehabilitation costs and supports their efforts to obtain HUD funds (PUSH) for operations through the Continuum of Care process.

For First Step for Families, the City provided extensive capital funding to develop the property and starting in 2020, the Community Resource Commission awarded CDBG grants for operations of the shelter.

Through countywide collaboration, the City also supports the efforts of other shelters run by LifeMoves throughout San Mateo County, including the Coast House, Family Crossroads, Haven Family House, Maple Street Shelter, and Redwood Family House.

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

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

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

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

3.12.1 Inter-Agency Council (IAC)
The Inter-Agency Council (IAC) is a countywide consortium of housing stakeholders to develop and support the San Mateo County HOPE: 10-year Plan to End Homelessness. This plan focusses on the provision of new affordable housing opportunities rather than development of new shelters. 503 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-12

3.12.2 Continuum of Care
The Continuum of Care (CofC) committee for San Mateo County implements its plan to serve homeless persons and families. Through this collaboration of service providers and local government agencies, efforts are coordinated for outreach, needs assessment, provision of services for the homeless. The consortium also determines the priorities and allocation of Countywide Emergency Shelter Grant funds.

In 2016, the CofC released its current Strategic Plan titled “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County.” From this plan, the Coordinated Entry System (CES) was created. CES is a centralized system that pulls together the service providers across the county to ensure that resources are available to all clients regardless of which jurisdiction an individual enters the system from.

3.12.3 HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program
Staff serves on the selections committee for entry into the HIP Housing Self Sufficiency Program, which provides support services and rental assistance for candidates through educational and/or vocational training plans. The program helps clients find employment at a level to reduce the need for government assistance payments. The program provides deep supportive services to help clients move toward selfsufficiency within a two-year time period.

3.13 Chronic Homelessness
The Housing Outreach Team (HOT) is a multi-disciplinary team, including City staff, formed through the HOPE initiative that addresses chronic homelessness by outreach and engagement. This program helps to provide housing and bring medical, mental health and substance abuse support services to those who might not otherwise seek such services. The outreach and case management of this team supports the residents of The Vendome, a permanent supportive housing SRO in Downtown San Mateo. The Vendome was acquired and renovated by the City with various housing financial resources in 2009. The Vendome will continue to serve HOT identified clients and other very low-income residents this program year.

3.14 Homeless Prevention
As detailed under the sections below, the City will provide assistance grants to help prevent further homelessness. In addition to the programs identified below, Samaritan House, as well as other local agencies, provides services for the extremely low- income residents that include homeless prevention such as Rapid Rehousing, and emergency housing vouchers. However, these other programs are funded by other jurisdictions in the County.

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

3.14.2 LifeMoves, Rapid Rehousing Program
LifeMoves operates the City’s Rapid Rehousing program for individuals and families at great risk of experiencing homelessness. Clients are given direct financial assistance to resolve debt related to housing expenses as well as case management to connect them to resources to stabilize their finances and overall wellbeing. The program is funded through PLHA as has the goal of serving five individuals and five families during its first year of operations. This goal is expected to increase in later years with increased funding. 504 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-13

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

Discharge policies are a component of the County’s HOPE 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. 505 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-14
4 SITES INVENTORY
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). To create this list, City staff undertook an extensive process to review the feasibility of housing development for every site located within the key study areas that had been identified by the community while weighing in the expertise of staff, consultants, and developers. The original draft sites inventory was posted to the City website in December 2021 for public comment. The inventory has been updated since based on additional analysis or in response to public comments.

In 2019, City staff began a series of public outreach workshops through the General Plan 2040 Update, and asked community members to select target areas where they believed future housing development would be most suitable. From this process, the City identified ten study areas for the 6 th Housing Element
Cycle’s sites inventory. Then, staff analyzed development trends from the previous five years (2019-2023) to determine expected densities for potential redevelopment when weighed against the existing site constraints such as zoning, size, and neighborhood trends. Through this process, staff was able to calculate the realistic redevelopment capacity of these sites. Within these study areas, there are currently enough sites zoned to accommodate 10,286 new housing units in the City of San Mateo. The affordability breakdown of these sites is 3,129 lower Income units, 1,278 Moderate-Income units, and 5,880 Above Moderate-Income units. The sites for affordable developments were spread throughout the City to avoid adding to any Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RECAP).

4.1 RHNA Status
For the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the City of San Mateo has been assigned a RHNA of 7,015 units:
• Very Low Income – 1,777 units
• Low Income – 1,023 units
• Moderate Income – 1,175 units
• Above Moderate Income – 3,040 units
Overall, pipeline projects (are those with planning approvals, entitlement, under construction, or under review) total 3,110 units, including 562 lower income units, 14 moderate income units, and 2,534 above moderate income units. The affordability of these units is based on the project approval, with affordable units being provided as part of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

In addition, the City anticipates an annual average of 55 ADUs for a total of 440 ADUs over the next eight years. Based on ABAG’s HCD-approved ADU Survey, the City can expect ADU construction to produce approximately 132 very low income units, 132 low income units, 132 moderate income units, and 44 above moderate income units.

Accounting for pipeline projects and projected ADUs, the City has a remaining RHNA of 3,465 units (1,974 lower income units, 1,029 moderate income units, and 462 above moderate income units). The City must demonstrate that it has adequate sites to fully accommodate its remaining RHNA for all income groups. 506 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-15

4.2 On-Site Constraints Analysis
The City of San Mateo is a fully urbanized municipality serviced by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Cal Water, Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID), and its own wastewater treatment plant for sewage. All sites on the inventory have access to electric, natural gas, water, sewage, public streets, and other infrastructure needs for housing redevelopment. To start service at any site would not prove infeasible for installation and standard connections to the existing systems and does not present a constraint.

Air quality and noise are identified as potential environmental constraints on 55 sites due to proximity to highways and railways. However, air quality may be addressed through incorporation of mechanical filtration systems that can adequately filter air particulates for housing projects. Noise impacts can also be mitigated through enhanced construction materials such as double or triple paned windows and sound attenuating insulation. During project review, individual projects near highways and railways are evaluated with project-specific technical studies that analyze these constraints and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
21 sites in the inventory have been identified to lie within the flood zone or adjacent to creeks. The City requires that new housing development within the 100-year flood plain raise the lowest living level above base flood elevation to avoid the risks of flooding. Sites located near or on creeks are subject to additional creek setbacks, which prohibit development within 30 feet of the center line of any creek or 20 feet of the top of a bank. The identified sites have existing structures located outside these creek setbacks that can be repurposed or redeveloped for housing. Neither constraint would limit the ability of the sites to produce new housing.

In the previous Housing Element 5
th Cycle, the City approved several housing projects that included lot consolidation: The Lark, Grand Blvd Townhomes, Hacienda Mateo, 737 2nd Ave, Block 21, Concar Passage, Hillsdale Terraces, 4 W. Santa Inez Condos, and Kiku Crossing. The City has a consistent track record of approving projects that include lot consolidation. Additionally, the City’s zoning code encourages lot consolidation through higher allowable densities for larger lots. Lot consolidation is expected to continue for new housing projects throughout the next Housing Element Cycle, and this is further supported by current pipeline projects that are under review (e.g. Block 20 and Bespoke) and recently approved projects (e.g., Nazareth Vista).

4.3 Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Analysis
The City is relying on many non-vacant sites with high redevelopment potential for purposes of meeting its RHNA allocation. The use of these non-vacant sites is justified as it can be demonstrated by a significant number of recent projects at similar sites as the development stock in the City matures; as well as several in-progress development applications as demonstrated in sections 4.4 and 4.5 below. In the previous Housing Element Cycle, the City received four projects for missing middle housing that were previously on single-family home sites. These sites with pipeline projects have been identified as: Grand Boulevard Townhomes, Hacienda Mateo, 737 2nd Avenue, and the Gum Street Duplexes in Section 4.4 below. The City was able to approve these projects without rezoning and produced a total of 19 additional units. This trend is expected to continue, with the recent approval of a 10-unit project at 4 W. Santa Inez(net increase of 8 units). This demonstrates that the City’s existing zoning allows for a range of housing types and sizes.

The City currently has two developments in-progress for multi-family housing that contain parcels that 507 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-16
were previously single-family homes. The projects have been identified as Fremont Terrace (200 S.

Fremont Street) and Block 20, as discussed further in Section 4.5. Together, they will create 98 new housing units, with 11 affordable units. These projects demonstrate that with the right location, lowdensity housing can be redeveloped under the City’s existing zoning to generate additional units that include affordable units under the City’s BMR Ordinance. As the City undergoes the General Plan Update, similar sites will be identified, which will continue the trend of creating new areas of appropriate housing density.

The majority of sites are non-vacant, with non-vacant sites accommodating more than 50% of the lower income units. However, this will not be an impediment to development as the type of sites used for the inventory are consistent with those that have been redeveloped into housing projects in the last Housing Element Cycle. The City has received several applications for projects that involved redeveloping underutilized, low-density commercial property into full housing or mixed-use housing projects. Nine key projects that fit this description are: Concar Passage, Azara, The Lark (Park 20), Hillsdale Inn, Nazareth Plaza, Trag’s Market (303 Baldwin), Hillsdale Terraces, Peninsula Heights, and 1919 O’Farrell. Combined, they will produce a total of 1,902 new housing units, with 172 affordable units. This trend can be expected to continue, with owner/developer interest in redevelopment being expressed for many of the sites listed in the inventory, such as the Hillsdale Mall, Peninsula Heights, Marriot Residence Inn, The Fish Market, Bayshore Commons, Borel Square Shopping Center, Ah Sam Floral Co., The Atrium, and the Olympic Plaza (Mollie Stone’s) Shopping Center. Rather than the existing uses discontinuing from lack of interest, market trends reveal that developers have bought out long-term businesses to allow redevelopment into housing or utilized phased development or partial site redevelopment to allow existing uses to remain while new housing was developed. Furthermore, these sites do not require rezoning, as residential development is an allowed use on the commercial and office sites included in the inventory.

Table 1 below shows the projects that have been approved since 2019 and illustrates the characteristics of existing uses. Table 2 lists the parcels considered and included in the sites inventory. Existing characteristics of each parcel, including parcels that have planning approvals, developer/owner interests, or are developed owned, are used to correlate parcels with potential development potential.

In selecting the sites to be included in the sites inventory, the City utilizes objective criteria to evaluate each parcel for near-term redevelopment. Sites meeting either one of the five factors below are included in the sites inventory. These factors are most direct in explaining why existing uses would not impede redevelopment.

1. Site with property owner or developer interest in redevelopment, which indicates that the existing uses do not have long-term viability or do not represent the highest and best uses given the current and projected market conditions.

2. Site that is developer owned, which indicates the property is held for redevelopment purposes.

3. Site with previous proposal for redevelopment, indicating interest and intent for redevelopment.

4. Vacant site.

5. Sites containing limited improvements based on the nature of the uses (such as parking lots, outdoor storage, primarily vacant). Specifically, all sites identified as meeting this criterion are parking lots, which have no or limited structures to impede redevelopment.

Otherwise, sites that meet at least three of the following factors (#6 to #10) are included in the sites 508 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-17
inventory. Please note that due to the quality of the data obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor Office, no parcels contain data for all the factors used.

6. Existing uses are similar to uses that have been recycled based on recent trends as demonstrated by projects presented in Section 4.3 and regionally. Such uses include:
a. Retail/shopping center
b. Banks
c. Office building
d. Gas station and auto-related uses
e. Grocery stores
f. Lower density residential uses
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many trends that had already been set in motion:
• Increased online shopping, reducing demand on retail space • Increased eBanking, resulting in banks consolidating local branches – a recent article in BankingDive.com indicates the increasing trend of branch closures. Bank of America’s strategic plan focuses on pursuing new markets such as Milwaukee and New Orleans and to grow its market share with a small number of centers. As one new location opens, the bank will close two existing locations.
1 Well Fargo Bank is also among some
of the major banks that are closing many local branches. In the month of May 2023 alone, Wells Fargo closed 17 branch offices nationwide. Single use bank buildings surrounded by large parking areas are particularly conducive to closures. • Increased remote working, reducing demand on office space • Increased fuel efficiency and reliability of vehicles, and popularity of hybrid and electrical vehicles, reducing demand for auto-related services • Increased use of virtual meetings and increased popularity of Airbnbs, reducing business travel and demand on hotel accommodation (especially old motels)

7. Age of structure – in general, buildings more than 30 years old begin to show signs of fatigue and often requires significant investments to modernize. A retail shopping center, however, is considered outdated if it has not been renovated within the last 15 years. Recent news articles comparing the Westfield Mall in Downtown San Francisco and that in Santa Clara points to the critical differentiator – Santa Clara Westfield Mall has undergone a $1.1 billion renovation in 2019, whereas the Downtown San Francisco Westfield Mall has not been renovated for more than 16 years. This is because retail trends are fluid and reflect what are “fashionable” at the time. Furthermore, Table 1 shows that commercial/retail structures built in the 1990s (as late as 1997) had been demolished for new development. Therefore, this analysis uses 30+ years as the age threshold for most uses, but 20+ years as the age threshold for retail/commercial uses.

However, the quality of data from the County Assessor Office limits the use of this factor. Many parcels are missing data for the year the building was built. While most non-vacant parcels (if 1 Bankingdive.com, June 14, 2023.
509 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-18
not all) included in the inventory have older buildings and often show signs of delayed maintenance and are outdated in style, the lack of complete data prevents the use of this factor for many parcels.

8. Single-story building – as demonstrated in Table 1 and Table 2, recent projects and pipeline projects involve demolition of mostly single-story buildings, although one project demolished a three-story office building for new mixed use development.

9. Improvement to Land Value (ILV) Ratio – ILV can reflect the potential profitability of redeveloping an existing property but should be considered in conjunction with other factors. In general, a low ILV ratio of 1.0 shows high potential for redevelopment, as the land is worth more than the improvements on site. A low ILV ratio is also often a result of lack of significant improvements in recent years that would trigger a reinvestment. HCD Sites Inventory Guidance also uses an ILV ratio of 1.0 as an indicator of potential redevelopment.

However, office buildings, commercial/retail centers, and hotel/motels often have high ILV ratios that are beyond 2.0. A typical shopping center has an ILV ratio of 2.50 to 3.50. As shown in Table 1 of recent projects, the demolished shopping center had an ILV of 2.60. Also in the sites inventory, parcels with owner/developer interests for redevelopment, existing ILV for many uses have high ILV ratios well above 1.0, including a hotel/motel at 1.9 and a commercial center at over 3.0.

A high ILV combined with other factors such as high/persistent vacancies, lower than market rents, and high maintenance costs due to older age of structures, aging infrastructure, and utilities, would become a financial liability to the property owner. This is because a high ILV ratio means high property taxes regardless of whether the property is generating adequate incomes for a reasonable return.

Therefore, this analysis uses a 2.5 ILV for commercial centers/office buildings; and a threshold of

1.0 ILV for other uses.

10. Lot Coverage – lot coverage is calculated using building footprint information downloaded from the County of San Mateo GIS data sources. The City in most cases does not regulate development through lot coverage. The building envelope is regulated by setbacks and height.

As shown in Table 2, among the pipeline projects and parcels with developer/owner interest for redevelopment, the average lot coverage (building footprint over lot area) is about 38 percent, but ranges from 0 percent (such as parking lots) and as high as 98 percent (such as multi-story commercial/office buildings). Therefore, this sites inventory includes parcels with lot coverage up to 50 percent, indicating highly underutilized parcels with outdated site designs that leave large areas as surface parking or landscaping.

In recent years, the City has received very few development proposals or interest in commercial-only development. Most projects involve a residential component or are residential-only projects.

Specifically, within the last four years (since 2019), of the 24 major development applications under review or approved, only two applications (9 percent) did not involve a residential component. This represents a significant trend of converting excess commercial properties into mixed use or residential uses and is consistent with the experiences of other communities in the region and is also expected to continue or accelerate in the future. More importantly, the sites inventory includes a substantial buffer beyond RHNA under the existing land use policy, with the anticipated General Plan Update, and the buffer will increase with the proposed land use policy (Policy H 1.20).

4.4 Lot Consolidation
510 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-19
The City does not intend to utilize small independent parcels to meet lower income RHNA requirements.

Most small parcels included in the inventory are either already consolidated or mostly consolidated for redevelopment. The City is working diligently with other property owners for lot consolidation.

The City has a strong history of consolidating small parcels to facilitate larger-scale residential and mixed use development. As shown in Section 4.5 on Recent Development Projects, multiple projects were developed by consolidating small parcels into larger sites:
• Grand Blvd Townhomes (3 small parcels to 0.64 acre) - 11 units • Hacienda Mateo (8 small parcels to 0.41 acre) - 14 units • 737 2nd Avenue (8 small parcels to 0.37 acre) - 12 units • Gum Street Duplexes (8 small parcels to 0.55 acre) - 8 units Similarly, among the Opportunity Sites/Pipeline Projects in Section 4.6, many projects also involve lot consolidation. Specifically, the majority of these sites have already been consolidated (i.e., under common ownership). Others are completing the process and are considered mostly consolidated:
• Block 20 (5 small parcels to 1.16 acres, consolidated) - 58 units • Nazareth Vista (2 small parcels to 0.64 acre, consolidated) - 32 units • Concar Passage (4 large and 4 small parcels to 14.53 acres, partially consolidated) 727 - units • Hillsdale Inn (2 large and 1 small parcels to 3.1 acres, consolidated) - 153 units • Hillsdale Terraces (3 small parcels to 0.99 acre, consolidated) - 50 units • 4 West Santa Inez Condos (2 small parcels to 0.25 acre, consolidated) - 10 units • 445 South B Street (6 small parcels to 1.16 acres, consolidated) - 58 units • Hillsdale Mall (4 large and 3 small parcels to 32.6 acres, mostly consolidated - 1,630 units • Borel Square Shopping Center (3 large and 3 small parcels to 9.9 acres, consolidated) - 346 units • Downtown Cluster (2 large and 1 small parcels to 3.14 acres, mostly consolidated) - 157 units • Olympic Shopping Center (2 large and 9 small parcels to 9.75 acres, mostly consolidated) - 487 units
• Parkside Plaza (1 large and 1 small parcels to 6.65 acres, consolidated) - 332 units • E Poplar Ave/San Mateo Drive (2 small parcels to 0.62 acre, consolidated) - 21 units For other sites in the inventory identified for lot consolidation, the City is diligently working with the property owners to facilitate lot consolidation. These sites typically have some degree of common ownership and/or are considered feasible for lot consolidation due to shared access or parking. 511 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-20
Table 1: January 2019 – November 2023 Planning Development Approvals (Ranked by Density) Address
Development
Type
Description
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Existing Use Age of Existing
Building
Existing Building
# of Story
FAR
Improvement
to Land Ratio
480 E 4th Ave.
(Kiku Crossing)
Multi-Family
Demo surface parking lot (City-owned
parcel). Construct new seven-story,
100% affordable multi-family building
with a separate five-level parking
structure.
164 225 53%
CBD-S:

Commercial and
DT residential
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
IS/MND 2.41 93 186% Two Public
Parking Lots N/A - No Building 0 0.0 0.0
Block 21
Mixed-Use
Demo existing retail and residential
structures (8 units). New mixed-use
building with office and residential uses.
68 111 33%
CBD-S:

Commercial and
DT Residential
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
IS/MND 1.51 74 148%
Retail and
residential
structures (8
units)
1900 - 2002 2 0.5 0.4
477 9th Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New five-story office and residential
building.
120 120 80% E2-2: Office
PC approved. Project was appealed (based
on heritage tree removal). Then CC upheld
PC approval. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus. SUP issued for residential
uses.

Cat Ex
(Infill) 1.6 75 150% Office 1980s 1 0.3 0.7
1919 O’Farrell
St.

Multi-Family
Demo existing office building. New fivestory residential apartment building. 48 49 100% E1-1/R4: Office
with residential
overlay
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Cat Ex
(Infill) 0.71 69 138% Office N/A 1 0.1 0.0
401 Concar Dr.

Hayward Park
Mixed-Use
Demo surface parking lot at Hayward
Park Caltrain Station. New five-story
residential apartment building.
189 191 100% TOD: Mixed use
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Tiered off
of the Rail
Corridor
Plan EIR

2.82 68 136% CalTrain Parking
Lot No Building 0 0.0 0.0
303 Baldwin
Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing grocery store. New fivestory mixed-use building with commercial, office and residential uses.
63 64 40%
C1-2/R5:

Commercial
with residential
overlay
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
IS/MND 0.93 68 136% Grocery Store 1956 1 0.4 0.3
1650 S.

Delaware St.

Multi-Family
Demo the existing office building. New
five-story, 73-unit residential apartment
building.
73 73 100% TOD: Mixed-Use
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Cat Ex
(Infill) 1.07 68 136% Office Before the 1980s 2 0.4 0.3 666 Concar Dr.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing shopping center. New
mixed-use buildings with commercial,
office and residential uses.
935 961 97% TOD: Mixed use
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
EIR 14.51 66 132% Regional Retail 1969 - 1991 1 0.3 2.6 512 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-21
Address
Development
Type
Description
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Existing Use Age of Existing
Building
Existing Building
# of Story
FAR
Improvement
to Land Ratio
1 Hayward
Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing commercial and
residential uses (5 units). New mixeduse building with office and residential uses.
18 18 77%
E2-1/R4: Office
with residential
overlay
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
Cat Ex
(Infill) 0.29 61 122% Residential and office 1938 1 0.4 0.1 S Delaware St.
at Landing Ave
(PA20-053)
Bay Meadows
Mixed-Use
New four-story mixed-use building on
MU2 Block with ground floor retail uses
and office above; and new four-story
mixed-use building on MU3 Block with
ground floor retail uses and residential
above.
57 67 15%
BMSP: MixedUse per Bay
Meadows
Specific Plan
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies.

Tiered off
of the
Specific
Plan EIR

1.51 44 88% Vacant No Building 0 0.0 0.0
4 W Santa Inez
Ave.

Multi-Family
Demo two single-family dwellings.

Construct new four-story condominium
building.
10 10 100% R4: MultiFamily Dwelling
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies.

Cat Ex
(Infill) 0.25 40 80% 2 single-family dwellings 1950s 1 0.3 0.1 406 E 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New four-story office and residential
building.
23 25 14%
CBD-S:

Commercial and
DT Residential
PC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus
IS/MND 0.88 28 56%
Fast food
restaurant,
industrial/auto
uses
1990s 1 0.9 0.8
435 E. 3rd Ave.

Mixed-Use
Demo existing commercial buildings.

New five-story office and residential
building.
5 5 16%
CBD-S:

Commercial and
DT Residential
PC approved. SUP for off-site
construction. Applicant utilized State
Density Bonus.

IS/MND 0.25 20 40% Gas station 1980s 1 0.1 0.1
2988 Campus
Dr.

Multi-Family
Demo four office buildings on two sites.

New multi-family residential buildings
(townhouses) on two hillside parcels.
291 290 100% E1-1: Office
PC approved. SUP for residential uses.

Applicant utilized State Density Bonus
and SB 330.

IS/MND 15.45 19 38% Offices 1970s 3 0.3 0.3
1, 2 and 3
Waters Park
Dr.

Multi-Family
Demo office campus. New multi-family
buildings with single-family, townhouses
and condominium units.
190 190 100%
Rezoned from
E1: Office to R3
multi-family
CC approved. PC approved PA
modification, which was then appealed.

CC upheld PC approval. Permitted under
applicable code and policies. Applicant
utilized State Density Bonus.

IS/MND 11.13 17 49%
Executive
business
park
1979 2 0.3 0.4
222 E 4th Ave.
(Draeger’s)
Mixed-Use
Demo existing grocery store. New
mixed-use building with retail (grocery),
office and 100% affordable residential
uses.
10 10 7%
CBD/R:

Commercial
with residential
overlay
CC approved. Permitted under applicable
code and policies. Applicant utilized AB
1763 (100% affordable), State Density
Bonus.

Tiered off
of the 2010
Gen Plan
EIR

1.13 9 18% Grocery Store 1997 2 1.3 0.8
513 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-22
Address
Development
Type
Description
Originally
Proposed
Dwelling
Units
Approved
Dwelling
Units
% of Project
Residential
(approx.)
Base Zoning Approval Discretion CEQA
Lot
Size
(Acre)
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
% of
Base
Density
Existing Use Age of Existing
Building
Existing Building
# of Story
FAR
Improvement
to Land Ratio
2089 Pacific
Blvd.

Multi-Family
Conversion of 8 two-bedroom units into
16 studio units for a net increase of 8
units within an existing apartment
complex
16 16 100% TOD: Mixed-Use ZA approved. Permitted under applicable code and policies.

Cat Ex
(Existing
Facilities) 2.37 7 14% Apartment 2015 3 2.0 3.9
514 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-23
Table 2: Sites Inventory
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
Same owner
121 N San
Mateo Dr 032-292-070 A Executive Office E2 50 0.18 0.58 Commercial 3 1 4 8 Yes Y 1950 Y

0.12 31%
117 N San
Mateo Dr 032-292-080 A Executive Office E2 50 0.40 Commercial 7 3 8 18 Yes Y Y

0.21 36%
Same owner 5 N San
Mateo Dr 032-312-250 B
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 0.30 0.98 Parking 18 7 19 44 Y Yes Y

- 0%
123 Baldwin
Ave 032-312-270 B
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 0.25 Parking Y Yes Y

0.06 0%
117 Baldwin
Ave 032-312-150 B
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 0.12 Parking Y Yes Y

- 0%
26 N San
Mateo Dr 032-312-100 B
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 0.22 Parking Y Yes Y

- 0%
27 N San
Mateo Dr 032-312-070 B
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-0.5/R5 50 0.09 Parking Y Yes Y

- 0%
Two owners
402 Tilton Ave 032-331-010 C
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 0.13 0.77 Residential 5 4 10 19 Yes Y 1907 Y

1.43 23%
406 Tilton Ave 032-331-020 C
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 0.13 Residential Yes Y 1907 Y

0.96 30%
20 N Railroad 032-331-150 C
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 0.51 Industrial Yes Y 1955

1.03 67%
Same owner
131 N
Kingston 033-171-060 D High Density Multi-Family R4 50 0.13 1.01 Residential 12 62 74 Yes Yes Y 1943

0.24 41%
1218 Monte
Diablo 033-171-180 D High Density Multi-Family R4 50 0.88 Commercial Yes Yes Y

1.00 36%
Three owners 1731 Leslie St 035-215-060 E
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.30 0.60 Commercial 11 4 12 27 Yes Y 1927

0.19 34%
1741 Leslie St 035-221-010 E
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.16 Commercial Yes Y 1925 Y

0.32 41%
1753 Leslie St 035-221-020 E
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.14 Commercial Yes Y 1950

0.14 80%
6 - Concar Passage 678 Concar Dr 035-242-090 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.24 14.50 Commercial 73 888 961 Yes Yes Y

0.80 28%
666 Concar Dr 035-242-140 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 5.40 Commercial Yes Yes Y

1.23 26%
1855 S
Delaware St 035-242-160 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.39 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1969

1.71 26%
1880 S Grant
St 035-242-170 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 5.06 Commercial Yes Y

3.46 26%
690 Concar Dr 035-242-190 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.41 Commercial Yes Yes Y

1.14 24%
1820 S Grant
St 035-242-200 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.41 Commercial Yes Y

2.52 64%
640 Concar Dr 035-242-210 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 2.07 Commercial Yes Y 0

2.52 18%
Concar Dr/S
Delaware St 035-242-220 F
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.52 Parking Yes Y Yes Y

- 0%
Three owners 229 W 20th
Ave 039-052-350 H
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 5.37 5.84 Hotel/motel 57 23 60 140 Y Yes Y

1.91 26%
205 W 20th
Ave 039-060-010 H
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.25 Commercial 5 2 4 11 Y Yes Y 1956 Y

0.14 38%
2010 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-020 H
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.22 Commercial 4 2 4 10 Y Yes Y 1957 Y

0.52 46%
Multiple owners 2040 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-050 I
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.22 1.42 Commercial 4 2 4 10 Yes Y 1960 Y

0.91 58%
2041 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-100 I
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.22 Commercial 4 2 4 10 Yes Y 1961 Y

0.84 58%
2050 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-060 I
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.19 Commercial 17 7 19 43 Yes Y 1961 Y

1.00 64%
515 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-24
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
2070 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-070 I
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.30 Commercial Yes Y Y

0.86 49%
2055 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-090 I
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.19 Commercial Yes Y 1957 Y

0.90 38%
2075 Pioneer
Ct 039-060-080 I
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.30 Commercial Yes Y Y

0.07 48%
Same owner 151 W 20th
Ave 039-060-140 J
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.25 0.36 Commercial 8 7 15 Yes Y 1999 Y

0.55 47%
117 W 20th
Ave 039-060-150 J High Density Multi-Family R4 50 0.11 Residential Yes Y 1924

1.00 32%
Two owners 2833 S El
Camino Real 039-351-120 K
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.39 1.07 Commercial 20 8 21 49 Yes Y Y

0.43 21%
2837 S El
Camino Real 039-351-130 K
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.35 Commercial Yes Y Y

0.26 13%
2841 S El
Camino Real 039-351-999 K
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.33 Commercial Yes Y Y

- 0%
2745 S El
Camino Real 039-351-070
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.82 0.82 Commercial 14 6 16 36 Y Yes Y 1994 Y

0.06 40%
2825 S El
Camino Real 039-351-110
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.76 0.76 Commercial 14 6 14 34 Yes Y 1985 Y

0.33 42%
Same owner 3101 S El
Camino Real 039-360-160 L
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 1.13 1.41 Vacant 26 11 27 64 Y Y Yes Y 1984 Y

5.84 21%
3111 S El
Camino Real 039-360-070 L
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.28 Vacant Y Yes Y

0.05 0%
1 – Fremont Terrace 200 S
Fremont St 033-163-160 High Density Multi-Family R4D 50 0.35 0.35 Residential 2 12 14 Yes Yes Y 1906

1.09 9%
Same owner 717 E 3rd Ave 033-163-050 M High Density Multi-Family R4D 50 0.12 0.58 Residential 4 36 40 Yes Yes Y 1922

1.01 32%
222 S
Fremont St 033-163-170 M High Density Multi-Family R4D 50 0.46 Vacant Yes Yes Y

- 2%
13 – Kiku Crossing 480 E 4th Ave 034-183-060 Central Business Support CBD-S 50 1.16 1.16 Parking 223 2 225 Yes Y Y

1.51 0%
3069 W Kyne
St (BMSP -
RES 6) 040-031-040 TOD BMSP 50 1.09 1.09 Vacant 5 49 54 Yes Yes Y

-
0%
19 – Downtown
Cluster
487 S El
Camino Real 034-144-220 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.40 3.12 Commercial 8 3 8 19 Y Y 0

0.90 93%
62 E 4th Ave 034-144-230 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 1.52 Commercial 28 11 29 68 Y Yes Y 1955

2.44 89%
E 5th Ave/San
Mateo Dr 034-144-240 N Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 1.20 Parking 22 9 23 54 Y Yes Y

0.00 0%
885 S El
Camino Real 034-200-220
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-1 50 0.77 0.77 Commercial 14 6 15 35 Y Y

1.28 24%
100 E 4th Ave 034-173-100 O Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.38 0.76 Commercial/bank 14 6 14 34 Yes Y 1956

1.20 57%
San Mateo
Dr/E 5th Ave 034-173-110 O Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.38 Parking Y Yes Y

0.02 5%
Same owner 168 E 4th Ave 034-173-140 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.13 0.36 Commercial 3 3 6Y Yes Y

0.58 18%
168 E 4th Ave 034-173-150 P Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.23 Commercial 6 5 11 Y Yes Y

0.42 47%
Same owner 222 E 4th Ave 034-176-050 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.24 1.14 Commercial 10 10 Yes Y

0.47 54%
400 S B St 034-176-070 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.11 Commercial Yes Y

0.78 98%
No site
address 034-176-080 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.13 Commercial Yes Y

1.20 95%
S B St/E 5th
Ave 034-176-090 Q Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.66 Commercial Yes Y

0.78 69%
12 - Bespoke E 4th/N
Railroad Ave 034-179-050 R Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.25 0.38 Parking 70 1 71 Yes Y Yes Y

- 0%
516 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-25
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
E 4th/N
Railroad Ave 034-179-060 R Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.13 Parking Yes Y Yes Y

- 0%
435 E 3rd Ave 034-181-160
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.25 0.25 Commercial 1 4 5
Yes Yes Y 1960 Y

0.00 25%
Same owner 312 S
Delaware St 034-185-030 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 1.51 Residential 12 92 104 Yes Yes Y

- 26%
318 S
Delaware St 034-185-040 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 Residential Yes Yes Y

- 15%
320 S
Delaware St 034-185-050 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 Residential Yes Yes Y Y

- 25%
307 S
Claremont St 034-185-110 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1970

0.00 63%
512 E 3rd Ave 034-185-120 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 Commercial Yes Y

0.00 95%
373 S
Claremont St 034-185-140 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.07 Commercial Yes Yes Y Y

0.01 98%
507 E 4th Ave 034-185-150 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.19 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1950

0.00 97%
300 S
Delaware St 034-185-160 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.25 Commercial Yes Yes Y 0

0.01 23%
525 E 4th Ave 034-185-170 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 Commercial Yes Yes Y

0.00 46%
311 S
Claremont St 034-185-190 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.12 Residential Yes Yes Y 1930

0.00 63%
315 S
Claremont St 034-185-200 S
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD-S 50 0.13 Parking Yes Y Yes Y

- 4%
5 Hayward
Ave 034-275-130
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 41 0.29 0.29 Residential 2 11 13 Yes Yes Y 1938

0.12 28%
Same owner 1600 S El
Camino Real 034-413-080 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.11 0.85 Commercial 16 6 7 29 Y Yes Y

0.05 36%
1604 S El
Camino Real 034-413-090 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.09 Mixed Use Y Yes Y 1902

0.13 54%
1610 S El
Camino Real 034-413-100 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.10 Mixed Use Y Yes Y 1922

0.11 62%
1620 S El
Camino Real 034-413-110 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.10 Commercial Y Yes Y 1948 Y

0.11 70%
1541 Jasmine
St 034-413-130 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.11 Residential Y Yes Y 1943

0.20 46%
1535 Jasmine
St 034-413-140 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.11 Residential Y Yes Y 1943

0.26 46%
1602 S El
Camino Real 034-413-150 T Executive Office E2-2 50 0.23 Mixed Use Y Yes Y 1900

0.02 15%
2 – Trag’s Market 303 Baldwin
Ave 032-322-230
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-2/R5 50 0.93 0.93 Commercial 6 58 64
Yes Yes Y

-
38%
5 – Fish Market 1863 S
Norfolk St 035-383-200 Neighborhood Commercial C1-1 50 3.46 3.46 Commercial 26 234 260 Yes Yes Y

1.18 14%
23 – Bridgepointe
Shopping No site
address 035-466-100
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-0.62/R 50 8.50 8.50 Commercial 154 64 165 383 Y Yes Y

0.05 0%
20 – Bridgepointe
Office
1500 Fashion
Island Blvd 035-550-040 Executive Office E1-0.62/R 50 6.14 6.14 Commercial 110 46 118 274 Y Yes Y 1982

2.37 16%
7 – 1919 O’Farrell 1919 O'Farrell
St 039-030-340
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 0.69 0.69 Commercial 4 45 49 Yes Yes Y 1967 Y

0.00 19%
2118 S El
Camino Real 039-060-440
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.71 0.71 Hotel/motel 23 9 24 56 Y Yes Y 1961

1.67 46%
9 – Hillsdale Terraces 2700 S El
Camino Real 039-352-060 V
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.38 1.00
Commercial/Used car
sales 6 62 68
Yes Yes Y Y

0.01 18%
517 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-26
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
2750 S El
Camino Real 039-352-070 V
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.30 Commercial/Used car sales
Yes Y Y

0.01 37%
2790 S El
Camino Real 039-352-090 V
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.32 Commercial/Parking
Y Yes Y Y

-
0%
2955 S El
Camino Real 039-360-120
Transit-Oriented
Development TOD 50 2.24 2.24 Commercial 41 18 44 103 Y Y Yes Y

0.19 30%
3011 S El
Camino Real 039-360-140
Transit-Oriented
Development TOD 50 1.38 1.38 Commercial 24 10 26 60 Y Y Yes Y 1966

1.71 39%
3520 S El
Camino Real 042-121-040
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 1.76 1.76 Commercial 32 14 35 81 Yes Y 1955 Y

0.37 31%
14 – Hillsdale Mall 41 W Hillsdale
Blvd 039-490-170 W
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-2/Q5 50 28.91 32.68 Commercial 180 180 840 1200 Y Yes Y 0

0.72 40%
2950 S El
Camino Real 039-353-010 W
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.34 Commercial
Y Yes Y

3.17 29%
No site
address 039-353-020 W
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.74 Parking
Y Yes Y

-
0%
No site
address 039-353-030 W
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.44 Parking
Y Yes Y

0.50 0%
No site
address 039-353-040 W
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.14 Parking
Y Yes Y

0.49 0%
3590 S El
Camino Real 042-121-080 W
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.71 Commercial
Y Yes Y

0.59 44%
36th
Ave/Colegrov
e St 042-121-060 W
Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 1.40 Parking
Y Yes Y

-
0%
S Delaware St
at Landing
Ave 040-031-230
Transit-Oriented
Development BMSP 50 1.17 1.17 Vacant 7 60 67
Yes Yes Y

-
0%
8 – Hillsdale Inn 341 E Hillsdale
Blvd 040-102-580 X
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.5 50 0.33 3.05 Commercial 23 207 230 Yes Yes Y 1962

0.06 20%
477 E Hillsdale
Blvd 040-102-620 X
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.5 50 2.37 Hotel/motel Yes Yes Y

- 41%
No site
address 040-102-630 X
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.5 50 0.35 Hotel/motel Yes Yes Y

- 0%
10 – Peninsula
Heights
2988 Campus
Dr 041-521-010 Y Executive Office E1-1 35 2.79 15.45 Commercial 29 261 290 Yes Yes Y 1973

0.22 11%
2800 Campus
Dr 041-521-020 Y Executive Office E1-1 35 4.25 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1974

0.49 13%
2655 Campus
Dr 041-522-010 Y Executive Office E1-1 35 3.38 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1975

- 18%
2755 Campus
Dr 041-522-020 Y Executive Office E1-1 35 5.03 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1976

- 13%
401 Concar Dr 035-200-998
Transit-Oriented
Development TOD 50 2.81 2.81 Parking 16 12 163 191 Yes Yes Y

- 0%
Same owner 19 N Kingston
St 033-191-040 Z High Density Multi-Family R4 50 0.45 1.03 Parking 16 6 17 39 Y Yes Y Y

0.01 8%
25 N Kingston
St 033-191-060 Z High Density Multi-Family R4 50 0.13 Commercial Yes Y Y

0.95 64%
3 N Kingston
St 033-191-070 Z High Density Multi-Family R4 50 0.45 Commercial Yes Y Y

0.79 60%
Same owner 210 S San
Mateo Dr 034-142-200 AA Downtown Retail Core CBD 50 0.43 0.69 Commercial 13 5 13 31 Yes Y 1979 Y

0.29 49%
518 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-27
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
No site
address 034-142-220 AA Downtown Retail Core CBD 50 0.26 Parking Y Yes Y

0.02 0%
1495 S El
Camino Real 034-302-140
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 50 0.68 0.68 Commercial 12 5 13 30 Y

3.15 19%
24 – Parkside Plaza 1850 S
Norfolk St 035-381-020 AB
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-0.5/R4 50 0.58 6.65 Commercial 120 50 129 299 Yes Y 1957 Y

0.57 90%
1826 S
Norfolk St 035-381-030 AB
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-0.5/R4 50 6.07 Commercial
Yes Y 1957 Y

0.32 33%
220 W 20th
Ave 039-030-400
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 1.54 1.54 Commercial 28 11 30 69 Y Yes Y

1.01 37%
150 W 20th
Ave
or 1925
Elkhorn Ct 039-030-220
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E1-1/R4 50 1.98 1.98 Commercial 36 15 38 89 Y Yes Y 1961

0.42 41%
2900 S El
Camino Real 039-353-050
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 1.08 1.08 Commercial 19 8 22 49 Y Yes Y Y

0.53 28%
2850 S El
Camino Real 039-353-060
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.63 0.63 Commercial 3 15 18
Y Yes Y 1957

0.03 24%
2838 S El
Camino Real 039-353-070
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 1.19 1.19 Commercial 21 9 23 53 Yes Y 1959 Y

0.04 47%
4060 S El
Camino Real 042-241-180
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 1.01 1.01 Commercial 18 8 20 46 Yes Y 1990 Y

0.69 34%
22 – Olympic 4107
Piccadilly Ln 042-242-060 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.25 8.83 Commercial 4 2 5 11 Y Y

1.43 71%
11 41st Ave 042-242-070 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.25 Commercial 4 2 5 11
Y Y

1.23 60%
40 42nd Ave 042-242-160 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.20 Commercial 4 1 4 9
Y Y

1.31 85%
49 42nd Ave 042-243-020 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 2.09 Parking 38 16 40 94
Y Y Yes Y 0

3.01 48%
42nd/El
Camino Real 042-244-040 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.14 Parking 2 1 3 6
Y Y Yes Y Y

-
1%
4242 S El
Camino Real 042-244-050 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 1.19 Commercial 22 9 23 54
Y Y

5.71 52%
43rd Ave 042-245-040 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.12 Parking 2 1 2 5
Y Y Yes Y

0.05 5%
61 43rd Ave 042-245-050 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.12 Commercial 2 1 2 5
Y Y

1.00 65%
55 43rd Ave 042-245-060 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.12 Commercial 2 1 2 5
Y Y

0.46 65%
53 43rd Ave 042-245-070 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.12 Commercial 2 1 2 5
Y Y

1.26 65%
45 43rd Ave 042-245-080 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.12 Commercial 2 1 2 5
Y Y

1.42 65%
519 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-28
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
37 43rd Ave 042-245-090 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.12 Commercial 2 1 2 5
Y Y

1.71 66%
25 43rd Ave 042-245-100 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.24 Commercial 4 2 5 11
Y Y

1.35 76%
17 43rd Ave 042-245-110 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.24 Commercial 4 2 5 11
Y Yes Y 1950

0.84 75%
4300 S El
Camino Real 042-245-120 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/Medium-High
Density Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.30 Commercial 6 2 6 14 Y Yes Y

0.24 24%
85 43rd Ave 042-245-130 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.36 Commercial 6 3 7 16
Y Y

3.42 45%
89 43rd Ave 042-263-010 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.73 Commercial 13 5 15 33
Y Yes Y

1.12 32%
4330 Olympic
Ave 042-264-010 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 1.05 Commercial 19 8 20 47
Y Y

1.10 56%
4150
Piccadilly Ln 042-242-050 AC
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 1.07 Commercial 20 8 21 49
Y Yes Y

0.59 47%
2028 S El
Camino Real 039-060-430
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.40 0.40 Commercial 5 5 10
Y Yes Y

0.54 59%
Same owner 1106 S El
Camino Real 034-381-240 AD
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 0.10 0.65 Commercial 11 5 13 29 Yes Y Y

2.02 57%
1110 S El
Camino Real 034-381-250 AD
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 0.14 Commercial
Yes Y

2.39 49%
1114 S El
Camino Real 034-381-260 AD
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 0.06 Commercial
Yes Y 1949

1.98 92%
1116 S El
Camino Real 034-381-320 AD
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 0.35 Commercial
Yes Y

0.89 30%
Same owner 1200 S El
Camino Real 034-382-150 AE
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 0.13 0.52 Commercial 9 4 10 23
Yes Y Y

1.27 48%
1212 S El
Camino Real 034-382-160 AE
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C2-1/R4 50 0.39 Commercial
Yes Y Y

1.09 54%
901 S El
Camino Real 034-275-220 Executive Office E2-1 50 0.55 0.55 Commercial 10 4 12 26 Y Yes Y Y

1.00 31%
801 Woodside
Way 032-122-240
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 29 0.32 0.32 Commercial 2 2 4 Yes Y 1978 Y

5.41 59%
719 Woodside
Way 032-122-250
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 22 0.20 0.20 Commercial 1 1 2 Yes Y 1927 Y

0.76 56%
717 Woodside
Way 032-122-210
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 22 0.14 0.14 Commercial 1 1 2 Yes Y 1951

0.05 27%
3600 S El
Camino Real 042-123-420
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.51 0.51 Commercial 9 4 10 23
Y Yes Y Y

0.74 37%
1311 S El
Camino Real 034-301-200
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 50 0.54 0.54
Educational/institutional/
religious 10 4 10 24 Yes Y Y

0.74 48%
26 – Poplar San
Mateo
350 N San
Mateo Dr 032-182-120 AF
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-1 35 0.18 0.62 Vacant 8 3 9 20 Y Yes Y Y

0.21 26%
520 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-29
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
220 E Poplar
Ave 032-182-130 AF
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-1 35 0.44 Commercial Yes Y 1946

1.07 56%
1 Baywood
Ave 032-441-270
Executive Office/ High
Density Multi-Family E2-2/R5 50 0.49 0.49 Commercial 11 11 22 Y Yes Y

1.79 28%
406 1st Ave 034-157-140 Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 0.38 0.38 Commercial 9 8 17 Yes Y Y

0.51 94%
4 – Nazareth Vista
600 S B St 034-194-140 AG
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-3/R5 50 0.26 0.64 Commercial 5 43 48
Yes Yes Y 1960

0.02 38%
616 S B St 034-194-030 AG
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-3/R5 50 0.38 Commercial
Yes Yes Y

0.00 41%
15 – Borel Square 93 Bovet Rd 039-011-450 AH Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 35 1.90 7.93 Parking 85 36 92 213 Y Y Yes Y 0

- 8%
71-77 Bovet
Rd 039-011-460 AH Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 35 0.24 Commercial Y Y 1999

0.56 100%
71-77 Bovet
Rd 039-011-470 AH Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 35 0.49 Commercial Y Y 0

1.18 96%
71-77 Bovet
Rd 039-011-480 AH Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 35 0.62 Commercial Y Y 1968

3.18 102%
1750 S El
Camino Real 039-011-500 AH Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 35 0.15 Commercial Y Y

4.24 95%
71-77 Bovet
Rd 039-011-510 AH Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 35 4.53 Parking Y Y Yes Y

- 9%
25 – Borel Place 1650 Borel Pl 039-011-400 Executive Office E1-2 50 2.51 Commercial 45 19 49 113 Y Yes Y 0

2.33 17%
411 Borel Pl 039-011-410 Executive Office E1-2 50 5.96 Commercial 109 45 115 268 Y Yes Y 1611 Borel Pl 039-011-420 Executive Office E1-2 50 2.89 Commercial 52 22 56 130 Y Yes Y 3880 S El
Camino Real 042-165-130
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R4 50 0.43 0.43 Commercial 10 9 19
Yes Y 1993 Y

0.20 41%
21 – Marriott
Residence Inn
2000
Winward Way 035-610-030
Regional/Community
Commercial C2-0.62 50 4.27 4.27 Hotel/motel 24 136 160 Y Yes Y 1985

0.57 27%
17 – The Atrium 1900 S
Norfolk St 035-391-090 Executive Office E1-0.5 50 8.12 8.12 Commercial 149 61 158 368 Y Yes Y 1983

0.35 17%
1801 S Grant
St 035-243-050
Regional/Community
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C3-1/R 50 1.17 1.17 Commercial 21 9 23 53
Yes Y Y

1.42 44%
2030 S
Delaware St 035-320-270 TOD TOD 50 1.08 1.08 Industrial 18 8 20 46 Yes Y Y

0.39 34%
477 9th Ave 033-281-130 Executive Office E2-2 50 1.61 1.61 Commercial 12 108 120 Yes Yes Y Y

0.66 31%
Same owner 733 N San
Mateo Dr 032-151-300 AI
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 0.34 1.14 Vacant 6 3 6 15 Y Yes Y

0.02 0%
727 N San
Mateo Dr 032-151-130 AI
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 0.17 Vacant 3 1 4 8
Y Yes Y

0.01 7%
723 N San
Mateo Dr 032-151-320 AI Executive Office E2-1.5 50 0.63 Vacant 11 5 12 28 Y Yes Y

0.42 19%
Same owner 1017 E 3rd
Ave 033-134-100 AJ
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 0.14 0.62 Vacant 7 3 3 13 Y Y Yes Y - 0%
1015 E 3rd
Ave 033-134-110 AJ
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 0.20 Vacant Y Yes Y
- 0%
245 S
Humboldt St 033-134-240 AJ
Medium Density MultiFamily R3 35 0.28 Residential Yes Y 1975

1.10 42%
Multiple owners 480 S
Ellsworth Ave 034-173-040 AK Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.11 0.51 Commercial 2 1 2 5 Yes Y Y

1.19 96%
159 E 5th Ave 034-173-050 AK Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.09 Commercial 2 1 2 5 Yes Y 1958 Y

0.48 93%
150 E 4th Ave 034-173-090 AK Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.12 Commercial 2 1 2 5 Yes Y Y

1.06 93%
521 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-30
Housing Element ID/
Ownership Site Address APN Site GP Zoning Max Density Acres TotalAcres Existing Use LI M AM Total Pipeline
Project
Owner/
Developer
Interest
(1)
Developer
Owned (2)
With
Previous
Proposal
(3)
Vacant
Site (4)
Limited
Structures
(5)
Met
3 of
6-10
Existing
Use
Trend
(6)
Age
(7)
Single
Story
(8)
Prior
ILV
(9)
Lot
Coverage
(10)
155 E 5th Ave 034-173-130 AK Downtown Retail Core CBD/R 50 0.19 Commercial 3 1 4 8 Yes Y Y

3.30 48%
16 – Ah Sam 2635 Palm Pl 039-085-280 AL
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 1.76 2.32 Commercial 31 13 33 77 Y Yes Y

0.07 43%
2645 S El
Camino Real 039-085-290 AL
Regional/Community
Commercial C3-2 50 0.56 Commercial 11 4 11 26 Y Yes Y

0.44 56%
18 – Bayshore
Commons
1670 S.

Amphlett Blvd 035-241-240 AM Executive Office E2-1 50 5.78 14.47 Commercial 105 43 112 260 Y Yes Y 0

0.98 22%
1700 S.

Amphlett Blvd 035-241-250 AM Executive Office E2-1 50 4.06 Commercial 74 30 79 183 Y Yes Y 1974

0.94 22%
1720 S.

Amphlett Blvd 035-241-260 AM Executive Office E2-1 50 4.63 Commercial 84 34 89 207 Y Yes Y 0

0.82 23%
Three owners 4142 S El
Camino Real 042-242-170 AN
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.31 0.95 Vacant 6 2 6 14
Y Y Yes Y

-
0%
4100 S El
Camino Real 042-242-080 AN
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.43 Commercial 8 3 8 19
Y Y Yes Y Y

0.16 19%
20 42nd Ave 042-242-180 AN
Neighborhood
Commercial/ High Density
Multi-Family C1-1.5/R4 50 0.21 Commercial 3 2 4 9
Y Yes Y Y

1.06 83%
27 - Carwash 1620 S
Delaware St 035-200-070
Transit Oriented
Development TOD 50 0.30 0.30 Commercial/Car wash 7 7 14 Y Yes Y 0

2.81 16%
194 W 25th
Ave 039-174-220 Neighborhood Commercial C1-2 18 0.12 0.12 Educational/institutional/religious 1 1 Y Y

3.07 84%
3 – Block 20 500 E 4th Ave 034-186-080 AO Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 0.25 1.17 Commercial 9 76 85 Yes Yes Y

0.81 49%
411 S
Claremont St 034-186-070 AO Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 0.08 Residential Yes Yes Y 1902

0.12 25%
415 S
Claremont St 034-186-060 AO Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 0.14 Educational/institutional/religious Yes Yes Y 1938

0.82 16%
521 E 5th Ave 034-186-090 AO Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 0.25 Commercial Yes Yes Y

0.53 38%
402 S
Delaware St 034-186-110 AO Downtown Retail Core CBD/S 50 0.45 Commercial Yes Yes Y 0

- 21%
11 – 4 W Santa Inez
Condos
4 W Santa
Inez Ave 032-075-010 AP High Density Multi-Family R4 44 0.13 0.25 Residential 8 8 Yes Yes Y 1917

0.07 31%
1 Engle Rd 032-075-100 AP High Density Multi-Family R4 44 0.12 Residential Yes Yes Y 1917

0.11 44%
Two owners 316 S El
Dorado St 034-188-150 AQ
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD/S 50 0.33 0.98 Commercial 7 52 59 Yes Yes Y 1989

0.62 49%
600 E 3rd Ave 034-188-140 AQ
Downtown Retail Core
Support CBD/S 50 0.65 Commercial Yes Yes Y 1978

0.09 50%
1690 El
Camino Real 039-012-010 Executive Office E1-2 50 3.10 3.10 Commercial 57 23 60 140 Y 2 El
Cerrito/101 El
Camino 032-411-210
Executive Office/High
Density Multi-Family E2-1/R4 50 0.48 0.48 Commercial 11 11 22 Y
2555 Flores St 039-371-420 Executive Office E2-1 50 0.54 0.54 Commercial 9 4 10 23 Y 901 S B St 034-271-180 Neighborhood Commercial C1-0.5 50 0.25 0.25 Commercial 6 5 11 Y ADUs N/A N/A Residential - - - - 264 132 44 440
Total N/A N/A - - - - - 3,129 1,278 5,880 10,286
Based on the history described in Table 1 and methodology further described in Section 4.8, the Sites Inventory calculates the realistic capacity of housing opportunity sites listed as follows:
· 75% of base zoned density for infill sites zoned as multi-family residential (R3, R4, R5); or · 90% of base zoned density for infill sites zoned as commercial, executive office, downtown or transit-oriented development (C, E, CBD, TOD); and · Calculated at either 50 dwelling units per acre (DUA) or 35 DUA in accordance with base zoning 522 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-31
Figure 1: Key Inventory Sites
Universe: Sites Inventory December 2022
Notes: The individual sites identified correspond to an in-progress or potential upcoming housing development site identified in the inventory. 523 of 2271

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

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

4.5 Recent Development Projects
A Azara Address: 1650 S. Delaware Street
Zoning: Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Transit Oriented
Development (TOD)
APN: Lot Size:
035-200-120 1.07 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 54 units) Approved Density: 68 units/acre
State Density Bonus: 35% bonus requested for 19 additional units.

Status: Built and Occupied in 2021
Net Increase in Units: 73
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The previous building on this site was a one-story office, most recently occupied by AAA Insurance. It was surrounded by a surface parking lot. The Station Park Green development abuts the south and west property lines while the post office property shares the north property line. To the east of the site and across South Delaware Street are single-family residential homes zoned R1-C.

Development:

Azara is a five-story, 73-unit, multi-family project. Planning entitlements for the development were approved in 2018, a building permit for construction was issued in 2019, and the project was completed and occupied in 2021. The 73 units break down to 28 one-bedroom and 45 two-bedroom units, six of which are deed restricted affordable housing units at the very low-income level or 50% of Area Median Income (AMI).

Site Constraints:

None.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.4 miles of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.9 miles away from South El Camino Real. 524 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-33
B The Lark (Park 20) Address: 1950 Elkhorn Court
Zoning: Executive Office with Multi-family Residential Overlay (E1-1/R4)
General Plan Designation: Executive Office/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-030-310 2.43 acres 3.95 acres
039-030-400 1.52 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 197 units) Approved Density: 50 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Project did not utilize density bonus.

Status: Built and Occupied in 2015
Net Increase in Units: 197
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site was previously a one-story office building, originally constructed in the 1960s, with a surface parking lot. For many years, it was a USPS Data Center.

Development:

The project is a four-story, 197-unit apartment building. Planning entitlements for the development were approved in 2011, a building permit for construction was issued in 2012, and the project was constructed and occupied in 2015. The 197-unit development includes 80 studios, 83 one-bedrooms, and 34 twobedroom units, 20 of which are deed restricted affordable housing units at the very low-income level or 50% of AMI.

Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. The developer installed an air filtration system to mechanically ventilate the building and provide a 65% reduction in concentrations of particulates.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 0.6 miles from Hayward Park Caltrain and 0.2 miles of S El Camino Real. 525 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-34
C Grand Blvd Townhomes Address: 318-322 Grand Boulevard Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (R3)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family
APN: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
032-162-020 0.13 acres 0.32 acres
032-162-030 0.19 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 11 units) Approved Density: 25 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus Status: Built and Occupied in 2018
Net Increase in Units: 3
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

These parcels were previously occupied by residential buildings constructed in the 1910s and 1930s.

All three of these buildings were single family homes until the 1950s, when the largest of the three was converted into a duplex. It was further subdivided in 1960 to become a triplex. In total, there were 5 units on this consolidated site when the redevelopment was proposed.

Development:

The existing structures were demolished to construct 8 detached townhouse units, for a net increase of three units, totaling approximately 12,568 square feet of floor area. Planning entitlements for the project were approved in September 2007. Due to the economic conditions and real estate conditions at the time, the project was soon put on hold. A building permit for construction was issued in 2017 and the project was completed in 2018.

This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.

Site Constraints
None.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to maximize density or utilize the State density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the State density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.8 miles of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.8 miles to S El Camino Real. 526 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-35
D Hacienda Mateo Address: 701 2nd Avenue
Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (R3)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
104-930-040 0.41 acres
104-930-030
104-930-020
104-930-010
104-930-050
104-930-060
104-930-070
104-930-080
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 14 units) Approved Density: 20 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus Status: Built and Occupied in 2015
Net Increase in Units: 5
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Before redevelopment, the site consisted of three single-family homes.

Development:

The existing structures were demolished to build eight townhome units. In 2007, the Planning Commission approved the project with a two-year entitlement. The State of California later granted entitlement extension through March 2014. The City of San Mateo issued a building permit for the new duplexes in 2014. Construction was completed in 2015.

This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.

Site Constraints:

None.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the State density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the State density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.2 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.8 miles of S El Camino Real. 527 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-36
E 737 2nd Avenue Address: 721-737 2nd Avenue, 136-138 Fremont Avenue Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (R-3)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
117-650-030 0.37 acres
117-650-040
117-650-050
117-650-060
117-650-070
034-163-310
117-650-010
117-650-020
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 12 units) Approved Density: 19 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus Status: Built and Occupied in 2018
Net Increase in Units: 6
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The buildings situated at 737 and 739 2nd Avenue were previously a small market and an associated residence that were built before 1920. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report was prepared to assess these structures. According to the report, the market qualified as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as it may be the earliest example of a wood-frame, false front commercial structure in San Mateo. Prior to the application for redevelopment, the remaining lot area had been vacant.

Development:

The project consists of seven townhome units, each of which are three-bedrooms units. The historic market building has been preserved and incorporated into the project, while the associated residential building was demolished. Planning entitlements for the development and a building permit were issued in 2016. Construction was completed, and the building was occupied in 2018.

This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.

Site Constraints:

None.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the State density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the State density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.3 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.9 miles of S El Camino Real. 528 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-37
F Gum Street Duplexes Address: 1753-1815 Gum Street
Zoning: Low Density Multi-Family (R-2)
General Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
117-220-010 0.55 acres
117-220-020
117-220-030
117-220-040
117-220-050
117-220-060
117-220-070
117-220-080
Max Allowable Base Density: 15 units/acre (or 8 units)
Approved Density: 15 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus Status: Built and occupied in 2017
Net Increase in Units: 5
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Prior to redevelopment, the site consisted of a single-family home constructed in 1915 and a residential duplex built in the early 1950s. A historical study was conducted to assess the historical status of the single-family home and found that the building did not possess historical significance.

Development:

The project resulted in the construction of eight total units—four duplexes with two units each. Each unit has three bedrooms that range in size from 3,572 to 3,879 square feet. Planning entitlements for the development were approved and a building permit was issued in 2015. Construction concluded in 2017.

This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.

Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.2 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station and half a mile of S El Camino Real. 529 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-38

4.6 Pipeline Projects
1 Fremont Terrace Address: 200 S Fremont Street
Zoning: High Density Multi-Family, Downtown Specific Plan Gateway Area (R4-D)
General Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
APN: Total Lot Size:
033-163-160 0.42 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 21 units) Approved Density: 36 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus.

Status:

Entitlement Approval – November 2016
Building Permit Approval – June 2021
Off-Site Construction Staging – February 2022
Construction – In progress
Net Increase in Units: 14
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Previously the site was a single-family house with three bedrooms and one bathroom.

Proposed Development:

In 2016, City Council approved an entitlement for the development of a four-story 15-unit residential condominium. Two of the units are deed restricted affordable housing units at the moderate-income level or 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). The project is currently under construction. However, concerns on the timeline has been raised due to lack of progress. City staff is working closely with the developer to ensure completion of the project, which is anticipated to be available within the planning period.

Site Constraints:

None.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to maximize the available base density or utilize the State density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the State density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within a half mile of San Mateo Caltrain Station (0.3 mi), within 0.6 miles of El Camino Real.

Project Website: 200 S. Fremont Street - Fremont Terrace 530 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-39
2 Trag’s Market Address: 303 Baldwin Avenue
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial with Multi-Family Overlay (C1-2/R5)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Total Lot Size:
032-322-230 0.93 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Density: 50 units/acre (or 46 units)
Approved Density: 68 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Applied (22 additional units)(or 48% density bonus)
Status:

Entitlement Approval – January 2019
Building Permit Approval – February 2021
Construction – Completed 2023
Net Increase in Units: 64
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site was previously a grocery store (Trag’s Market) constructed in 1956 with a surface parking lot.

Proposed Development:

In 2019, the City of San Mateo approved a five-story mixed-use housing development for this site. The building will consist of 64 studio and one-bedroom residential units, with 6 units intended for affordable housing at the lower income level or 80% AMI. The applicant also proposed commercial/retail space on the ground floor and office space on above floors. Construction completed in 2023.

Site Constraints:

None.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within half mile (280 feet) of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.3 miles away from El Camino Real.

Project Website: 303 Baldwin Avenue (Trag’s Market)
531 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-40
3 Block 20 Address: 500 E 4th Avenue
Zoning: Central Business District Support (CBD/S)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Downtown Retail Core APN: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-186-080 0.25 acres 1.16 acres
034-186-070 0.07 acres
034-186-060 0.14 acres
034-186-090 0.25 acres
034-186-110 0.45 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 58 units) Proposed Density: 75 units/acre (or 50% density bonus)
State Density Bonus: Requested (28 additional units)
Status: Planning Application Under Review
Entitlement – Anticipated late 2024
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 86
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The parcels along E 4th Ave are currently occupied by a variety of commercial and residential uses. There is a Taco Bell on this site that was built in the 1970s and has an associated surface parking lot. A daycare occupies a nearby building on the corner of E 5th Ave and S Delaware St. There are two single family homes along S Delaware, one of which currently houses the San Mateo Japanese American Community Center. The gas station on this site was originally constructed in the early 1950s; it has already been demolished in preparation for redevelopment.

Proposed Development:

The applicant is requesting to demolish all existing on-site structures to build a new six-story mixed use building consisting of 142,046 square feet of office uses and 86 residential units. Nine units are designated to be affordable at the very low-income level or 50% AMI. The project is currently under review and entitlement is anticipated by late 2024. The project is expected to be available within the planning period.

Site Constraints:

Most of the parcels are owned by different parties which may pose a problem. There is a previously existing gas station that was removed and a case closure letter was issued for the site by the County of San Mateo, Environmental Health Services in November 2019. Additional cleanup, such as removing any residual contaminated soil can be addressed during construction of the project and is not anticipated to delay completion of the project. The project also proposes demolition of two historic buildings on one parcel, which is currently undergoing an Environmental Impact Review (EIR). However, the City Council has authority to override the EIR results and approve the demolition for housing.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.3 miles of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.5 miles of S El Camino Real.

Project Website: Block 20 (500 E. 4th Ave.)
532 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-41
4 Nazareth Vista Address: 616 S B Street
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial with Multifamily
Residential Overlay (C1-3/R5)
General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial/High
Density Multi-Family
APNs: Total Lot Size:
034-194-140 0.64 acres
034-194-030
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Density: 50 units/acre (or 32 units)
Proposed Density: 75 units/acre (50% density bonus)
State Density Bonus: Requested (16 additional units)
Status:

Entitlement – Approved December 2023
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 48
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site is currently dominated by a surface parking lot while the remaining area is devoted to commercial uses, including Kelly Moore Paints and TAP Plastics. The main building on the site was originally constructed in 1956 to house a Goodyear Service Store. Kelly Moore Paints took over the retail space in 1992 and completed minor renovations. Overall, the buildings on the site are dated and due for redevelopment. Further, current land use zoning policies allow for a FAR of up to 3.0. Because the existing FAR is only 0.41, this site is greatly underutilized.

Proposed Development:

In 2023, the City of San Mateo approved a five-story mixed-use housing development for this site. The building will consist of commercial/retail space on the ground floor with residential units on floors two through five and parking located at-grade and in one level subterranean garage. The residential unit mix will include 35 one bedroom-units, 12 two-bedroom units, and one three-bedroom unit, with five units intended for affordable housing at the Very Low-income level or 50% AMI. Construction on this project is anticipated to begin in 2024/2025.

Site Constraints:

None.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 0.4 miles to the San Mateo Caltrain station and 0.3 miles from South El Camino Real.

Project Website: 616 S. B Street, Nazareth Vista Mixed Use Development 533 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-42
5 The Fish Market Address: 1855 S. Norfolk Street
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C1-1)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood
Commercial
APN: Total Lot Size:
035-383-200 3.46 acres
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 173 units) through Planned Development (PD)
Proposed Density: 75 units/acre (50% density bonus)
State Density Bonus: Requested (87 additional units)
Status: Planning Application Under Review
Entitlement – Anticipated by late 2024
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 260
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Currently, the parcels located along Seal Slough are occupied by a restaurant called the Fish Market that was constructed in the early 1980s and a consignment office furniture store that was built in 1963. Much of those parcels is dominated by a surface parking lot such that the site is underutilized. The current FAR is approximately 0.1 though current zoning allows for a FAR up to 1.0.

Proposed Development:

On the Adequate Sites List, staff initially provided a conservative estimate for the number and affordability of housing units for a proposed development on this site (105 units total) and has since updated it according to the formal planning application filed by the developer this year. The proposal consists of 260 units of housing in total, including 26 units affordable to the very low income populations (50% AMI). The planning application includes a Planned Development request that would increase the base density from 35 units/acre to 50 units/acre, combined with a 50% density bonus, allowing 260 units of housing as proposed. This proposal highlights the property owner’s desire to redevelop the site with the maximum number of housing units possible. The project is expected to be available within the planning period and entitlement is anticipated by late 2024. In addition to this project, the project developer has successfully developed other similar projects in the City since 2018, including two mixed-use housing projects at 405 E. 4 th Ave. and 406 E. 3rd Ave.

Site Constraints:

Staff has identified this site’s proximity to the waterfront (Marina Lagoon) and to Highway 92 as potential constraints to development. Proximity to Highway 92 means potential air quality impacts on residential uses. However, any constraints to development can be mitigated through development design and environmental review.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 1.2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.6 miles from South El Camino Real.

Project Website: 1855 S Norfolk St., Multi-Family Development 534 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-43
6 Concar Passage Address: 640-690 Concar Drive
Zoning: Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-242-090 0.24 acres 14.53 acres
035-242-140 5.41 acres
035-242-160 0.39 acres
035-242-170 5.06 acres
035-242-190 0.41 acres
035-242-200 0.41 acres
035-242-210 1.86 acres
035-242-220 0.75 acres
Site Ownership: Partially Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 727 units) Approved Density: 66 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Applied (236 additional units or 33% density bonus) Status:

Entitlement Approval – August 2020 (15-year Development Agreement) Building Permit Approval – pending application submission Construction – TBD
Extension and Modification Request – Approved August 2023 (12-year Development Agreement term instead of 15)
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 961
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site is currently occupied by Concar Shopping Center, with tenants that range from big-box retailers to small businesses. A large percentage of the site is taken up by a surface parking lot. One of the larger buildings on the site was originally constructed in the late 1960s to house a drug store.

Proposed Development:

The project proposes to demolish existing commercial buildings to construct a five-story mixed use building with 961 multi-family residential units and approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. The project includes 73 affordable housing units priced for lower income families (80% AMI) and approximately 4 acres of publicly accessible community open space. Planning entitlements were approved in August 2020 along with a Development Agreement that allows building permit issuance within a period of 15 years.

Site Constraints:

The parcels must be consolidated to comply with Building code and Subdivision Code requirements. The site is also proximate to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. The City approved a two-year extension to execute the Development Agreement. This would not extend the overall Development Agreement timeline but provide the applicant additional time needed to secure all property rights by 2025. The Development Agreement also allows for phased construction with the housing component proposed in four phases of completion between 2026 to 2030, as stated by the developer. Therefore, all housing units are anticipated to be occupied within the planning period by 2031.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within half mile of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.8 miles of South El Camino Real.

Project Website: Concar Passage
535 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-44
7 1919 O’Farrell Address: 1919 O’Farrell Street
Zoning: Executive Park with Multi-family Residential Overlay (E1-1/R4)
General Plan Designation: Executive Office/High Density APNs: Total Lot Area:
039-030-340 0.71 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 36 units) Approved Density: 69 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Applied (13 additional units)(or 35% density bonus)
Status:

Entitlement Approval – October 2021
Extension Request – Approved September 2023 (two-years) Building Permit Approval – Awaiting application submission Construction – TBD
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 49
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Medical offices with surface parking currently occupy the site.

Proposed Development:

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure to construct a four-story, 49-unit multifamily apartment community with underground parking. Four of those units will be dedicated to very lowincome households or 50% AMI. In 2021, the Planning Commission approved the required entitlements which include the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for construction of a multi-family building and a Site Development Planning Application for tree removal.

The project’s allowable density allows for 36 base units, and with the State density bonus, an additional 13 units (35% of the base density) is added to the project. The project is also granted a reduced parking ratio of 0.5 spaces/unit due to being within ½ miles of public transit. However, the applicant is voluntarily providing 30 additional spaces for a total of 64 parking spaces Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. Concerns regarding sale of the property has been raised, however the City has not received information of a change in property ownership to date.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 0.9 miles from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.4 miles away from South El Camino Real.

Project Website: 1919 O’Farrell Street
536 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-45
8 Hillsdale Inn Address: 477 E Hillsdale Boulevard
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-0.5)
General Plan Designation: Regional/Community Corridor
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
040-102-580 0.33 acres 3.05 acres
040-102-620 2.10 acres
040-102-630 0.62 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 153 units) Proposed Density: 75 units/acre
State Density Bonus: Requested (77 additional units)(or 50% density bonus)
Project Status: Pre-Application Completed, Planning
Application submittal anticipated in 2024
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 230
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site is currently occupied by a hotel (Hillsdale Inn), Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and a self-service car wash with surface parking. The structures were built in the early 1960s. The two smaller sites have low FARs and could more intensely developed to meet the zoning district maximum FAR of 0.5.

Proposed Development:

Applicants submitted a conceptual design for a 230-unit, four-story apartment complex with 23 affordable units that target the very low-income category or 50% AMI in March 2022. The development is anticipated to provide a variety of residential amenities including a resident lobby, community rooms, fitness rooms, open space and a roof deck with a barbeque and seating areas. The applicant also proposes to provide approximately 283 parking spaces in an underground garage.

A neighborhood meeting was held in May 2022, and the Planning Commission had a study session in June 2022. The applicant continues to work on redesigning the project as they prepare to submit a planning application for entitlements. The project is expected to be available within the planning period.

Site Constraints:

Staff identified several development considerations and constraints, including the need for parcel consolidation (due to multiple ownerships) and an existing car wash uses on one of the sites. Car wash facilities generally do not release hazardous materials and site cleanup would primarily involve removing an oil/water separator. This is not anticipated to cause delay to the project. There are also noise and air quality impacts from Highway 101, all of which will be addressed during the environmental review of the formal planning application.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 0.9 miles from Hillsdale station and 0.8 miles of South El Camino Real.

Project Website: 477 E. Hillsdale Boulevard
537 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-46
9 Hillsdale Terraces Address: 2700 S El Camino Real
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial with High Density Multiple Family Residential Overlay C3-1/R4
General Plan Designation: Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-352-060 0.37 acres 0.99 acres
039-352-070 0.30 acres
039-352-090 0.32 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 50 units) Approved Density: 68 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Applied (18 additional units)(or 35% density bonus)
Status:

Entitlement Approval – February 2017
Extension Approval – February 2021
Extension Request – Currently Under Review
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 68
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site consists of an auto sale business occupying two stand-alone commercial buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s. Major portions of these parcels are dedicated to surface parking such that the existing FAR is less than 0.2, though zoning policies in this district allow for a FAR of 1.00 for commercial development and up to 2.00 for residential development. The remaining lot area is vacant.

Proposed Development:

In 2017, the City Council approved the proposed five-story, mixed-use development. The project provides 68 units of housing in the form of condominiums, 6 of which are designated as very low-income units. The applicant requested a State density bonus (maximum 35% at the time of application) to achieve this unit count. The developer is further providing 15,881 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor intended to serve the surrounding residential community. The condominiums will be located on the four upper floors and consist of 17 one-bedroom, 37 two-bedroom, and 14 three-bedroom units.

In September 2022, the developer filed an application for a two-year extension. They have also expressed interest in increasing the overall residential unit count through an increase in State density bonus from 35% up to the current maximum 50% within the same building envelop.

Site Constraints:

One constraint to residential development was identified through the entitlement process. A former gas station on this site requires additional clean up.

Proximity to Transit:

Located on El Camino Real, within a half mile of the Hillsdale Caltrain Station.

Project Website: Hillsdale Terraces
538 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-47
10 Peninsula Heights Address: 2655, 2755, 2800, and 2988 Campus Drive Zoning: E1-1 (Executive Office)
General Plan Designation: Executive Office
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
041-521-010 2.83 acres 15.45 acres
041-521-020 4.28 acres
041-522-010 3.38 acres
041-522-020 5.03 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 35 units/acre (or 541 units) Approved Density: 19 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Applied (used for concessions/waivers) Status:

Entitlement Approval – December 2020
Building Permit Approval – July 2022
Construction – In-Progress
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 290
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Previously the project parcels consisted of several office structures that were surrounded by large surface parking lots. These buildings were part of Peninsula Office Park, constructed in the 1970s.

Proposed Development:

In 2020, the Planning Commission approved the proposed 290-unit residential development project. The site encompasses a total area of 15.45 acres and will devote 10% of its units to the low-income category pursuant to the inclusionary ordinance. Unit types include townhomes and single-detached and stacked flats.

The project received planning entitlement approval in 2020. Building permits for site preparation on the southern portion of the site were issued in 2022, and construction has begun.

Site Constraints:

The parcels of this site require consolidation. Additionally, developmental design had to consider the site’s natural slope.

Proximity to Transit:

Within a half-mile of SamTrans bus stop.

Project Website: Peninsula Heights
539 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-48
11 4 West Santa Inez Condos Address: 4 W Santa Inez Avenue Zoning: High Density Multi-Family (R4)
General Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
032-075-010 0.13 acres 0.25 acres
032-075-100 0.12 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 40 units/acre (or 10 units) Approved Density: 40 units/acre
State Bonus Density: Project did not utilize density bonus Status:

Entitlement Approval – February 2022
Building Permit Submitted – August 2022
Construction – TBD
Net Increase in Units: 8
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

The site parcels used to be occupied by 2 single family homes constructed around 1919. The house on the corner of W Santa Inez Ave and N El Camino Real was converted in the 1980s for use as a Residential Care Home with capacity for the 12 residents aged 18 or older. That use was discontinued many years before the current project was proposed.

Proposed Development:

The applicant proposed a four-story, 10-unit condominium on the two parcels, which will be merged into one. Planning entitlements for the project were approved in 2022 by the San Mateo City Council after initial denial in 2018. Building permits were submitted in August of 2022 and are currently awaiting approval.

This development is a local example of a missing middle-housing project.

Site Constraints:

None. Concerns regarding sale of the property has been raised, however the City has not received information of a change in property ownership to date.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. While this developer did not choose to utilize the State density bonus, other developers of similarly sized properties may choose to utilize the State density bonus to add units above the City’s base density.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.7 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and within a half mile of El Camino Real.

Project Website: 4 West Santa Inez Condos
540 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-49
12 445 South B Street, Bespoke Address: 401-445 South B Street (4th and Railroad) Zoning: Central Business District with Residential Overlay (CBD/R)
General Plan Designation: Downtown Retail Core
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-179-010 0.13 acres 1.16 acres
034-179-020 0.13 acres
034-179-030 0.13 acres
034-179-040 0.4 acres
034-179-050 0.25 acres
034-179-060 0.12 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 58 units) Proposed Density: 52 dwelling units/acre
State Bonus Density: Requested (AB 1763 exemption from
City maximum controls for 2 additional units)
Status: Planning Application Under Review
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 71
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

This is a consolidated site with six separate parcels. Uses include a City parking lot, vacant building that was the former Talbot’s Toy Store, a building with a restaurant (Tomatina) and a building with multiple restaurant and commercial uses.

Proposed Development:

The applicant has proposed to redevelop the entire block between 4th and 5th Avenues, from B Street to Railroad Avenue into a seven-story 71-unit affordable housing building and a five-story 156,000 square foot office/retail building. Housing unit types include 3 studios, 24 one-bedrooms, 22 two-bedrooms, and 22 three-bedrooms.

The project is a public-private partnership that includes the City as a property owner (for a portion of the project site) and a team of three partner developers (Alta Housing, a non-profit housing developer, Harvest Properties, and Prometheus).

Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to the Caltrain railway, which may have noise impacts on residential development.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.3 miles of San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.3 miles of El Camino Real.

Project Website: Bespoke (445 South B Street)
541 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-50
13 Kiku Crossing Address: 480 E 4th Avenue and 400 E 5th Avenue Zoning: CBD-S
General Plan Designation: Central Business District –
Support
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-183-060 1.16 acres 2.41 acres
033-281-140 1.25 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 120 units) Approved Density: 93units/acre
State Bonus Density: Applied (AB 1763 exemption from
City maximum controls for 105 additional units)
Status:

Entitlement Approval – May 2021
Building Permit Approval – March 2022
Construction – In-Progress (Completion in 2024)
Proposed Net Increase in Units: 225
Site Conditions Prior to Redevelopment:

Kiku Crossing used to be two large public parking lots.

Proposed Development:

The City-Owned Downtown Affordable Housing and Parking Garage (aka Kiku Crossing and 5th Avenue Garage) development project will provide 225 affordable residential units in a seven-story building located on 480 E. 4th Avenue, and a five-level, above ground parking garage located at 400 E. 5th Avenue. Housing unit types include 65 studios, 48 one-bedrooms, 53 two-bedrooms, and 59 three-bedrooms.

MidPen Housing Corporation was selected by the City Council to develop these sites.

Site Constraints:

None.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.2 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and within 0.4 miles of El Camino Real.

Project Website: Kiku Crossing and 5th Avenue
542 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-51

4.7 Redevelopment Opportunity Sites
14 Hillsdale Mall Address: 2950-3590 El Camino Real
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-2, C-3-1),
Multifamily Residential Overlays (R4, Q5)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
042-121-080 0.65 acres 32.6 acres
039-490-170 28.91 acres
039-353-020 0.73 acres
039-353-030 0.44 acres
039-353-040 0.14 acres
039-353-010 0.31 acres
042-121-060 1.43 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (1,630 units) State Density Bonus: 815 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 1,630 - 3,227 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

The site is currently occupied by the Hillsdale Shopping Center and other commercial uses, such as strip malls with associated surface parking lots. Built in the 1950s, the shopping center itself is a mix of retailers, restaurants, and entertainment venues. A premier shopping destination, Hillsdale offers a diverse selection of 120 stores for fashion, beauty and home and draws visitors from around the San Francisco Bay Area. The current FAR is approximately 0.52 though current zoning allows up to 2.0.

Development Opportunity:

In 2019, around the time that the City of San Mateo began its 2040 General Plan Update process, the property owners indicated that they would embark on a robust community engagement effort to explore future options for the site. The report they produced at the end of this process indicated that San Mateans were deeply concerned about housing shortages throughout the Bay Area and widely supported the inclusion of new housing units in Hilldale Mall’s existing footprint.

The owner has expressed interest, via written communication, in a mixed-use development with residential uses. They estimate that this new development could have at least 1,000 units of housing for the Hillsdale Shopping Center parcel (not including the 11-acre North Block). The sites inventory was updated to estimate a realistic capacity of 1,200 units (41 units/acre) for the Hillsdale Shopping Center parcel and 184 units (50 units/acre) for all adjacent parcels owned by the Bohannan Development Company. The current inventory estimates 1,383 total housing units for this site, which is a significant reduction from the initial estimates of 2,000 units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of this site to between 1,630-3,227 units, and the owner has indicated that this increased density would increase the amount of housing units that are feasible on these sites.

Project Website: Reimagine Hillsdale
543 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-52
Site Constraints:

Staff has found one constraint to future redevelopment. Laurel Creek passes through some of the parcels south of W. Hillsdale Boulevard. The required creek setbacks impact total buildable area and therefore the number of units that can be constructed. Smaller sites to the southern edge of the area along El Camino require ownership consolidation.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within half-mile of Hillsdale Caltrain Station and El Camino Real 544 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-53
15 Borel Square Shopping Center Address: 71-77 Bovet Road Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C1-2)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Neighborhood
Commercial
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-011-450 0.68 acres 9.87 acres
039-011-460 0.20 acres
039-011-470 0.50 acres
039-011-480 0.60 acres
039-011-500 0.15 acres
039-011-510 7.74 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 346 units) State Density Bonus: 173 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 987-1,283 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

The Borel Square Shopping Center was built in 1967. The site is currently occupied by a CVS drug store, 24-Hour Fitness, the UPS store, Patel Co Credit Union, Borel Eye Doctors, Windy City Chicago Pizza, and Jack’s (a restaurant). Approximately half the site is dedicated parking for the shopping center.

Development Opportunity:

The owner of Borel Square Shopping Center has expressed interest through a written letter in a mixeduse project with a focus on housing. For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative realistic capacity of 243 units of housing (70% of base density) is estimated. However, the zoning allows up to 346 units, and should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 519 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of this site to between 987-1,283 units.

Site Constraints:

Staff has found a potential constraint in that it is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential noise and air quality impacts. However, these can be mitigated through development design. A portion of the site has an environmental restriction for residential land use due to localized contamination from an existing dry cleaner at 67 Bovet Road. The sites inventory and map does not include this restricted area.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.7 miles of Hayward Park Caltrain and 0.4 miles of El Camino Real 545 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-54
16 Ah Sam Address: 2645 S El Camino Real & 2621 Palm Place Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C3-2)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Regional/Community
Commercial
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-085-290 1.72 acres 2.29 acres
039-085-280 0.57 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 114 units) State Density Bonus: 57 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 229-298 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

The site has primarily commercial uses, including a flower shop called Ah Sam Floral Co and a warehouse.

Built at the height of the Depression in the 1930s, Ah Sam has a long history and has been passed down from one generation to the next. This site is underutilized, with sizeable swaths of the parcels left vacant or dedicated to parking. Zoning in this district permits FAR up to 2.0.

Development Opportunity:

The Adequate Sites List identifies only the two above parcels though there is also potential for redevelopment in abutting areas (not highlighted). These two sites have consolidated ownership, and the City has received written communication from the property owner expressing interest in a redevelopment with below-market rate housing. The owner has spoken with adjacent property owners along the shared alley, and they have verbally expressed interest in redevelopment of their parcels should a project be proposed.

For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative realistic capacity of 105 units of housing is estimated. However, the zoning allows up to 114 units, and should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 171 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of this site to between 229-298 units.

Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to the Caltrain railway, which may have noise impacts on residential development.

Proximity to Transit:

Located on El Camino Real and within half mile (0.3 miles) of Hillsdale Caltrain Station. 546 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-55
17 The Atrium Address: 1900 S Norfolk Street
Zoning: Executive Office District (E1-0.5)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Executive Office
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
039-391-090 9.99 acres 11.77 acres
035-391-100 0.89 acres
035-391-110 0.89 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 411 units) State Density Bonus: 206 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 471- 1,165 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

Built in 1983, the Atrium is a three-story office building centered around an open-air courtyard. It is occupied by a variety of tenants, including Movoto Real Estate, Tile Inc, Home Helpers Home Care of San Mateo, Payne Financial Consulting, and several law offices. Surface parking lots surround the building.

Development Opportunity:

The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the parcel via written communication. For the purpose of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative realistic capacity of 245 housing units (30 units/acre) was estimated. However, the base zoning can allow up to 411 units. Additionally, should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 617 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of this site to between 471-1,165 units.

Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. Borel Creek runs along the southeastern edge of the site, where any potential development must account for required creek setbacks.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 1.4 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.6 miles of South El Camino Real. 547 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-56
18 Bayshore Commons Address: 1670-1700 Amphlett Boulevard Zoning: Executive Office District (E2-1)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Executive Office
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-241-240 5.78 acres 14.46 acres
035-241-250 4.07 acres
035-241-260 4.61 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Density: 50 units/acres (or 723 units)
State Density Bonus: 362 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 50 units/acres (or 723 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

The site is currently developed as an office park, consisting of 8 low-rise buildings with approximately 340,000 square feet of commercial office space. The site is surrounded by U.S. 101 to the east, San Mateo Marriott to the south, and residential development to the north and west. Many of these buildings were built between the 1970s and 1980s. The current FAR is 0.23, but the site allows a FAR of up to 1.0.

Development Opportunity:

Owners of the property have expressed strong interest in redevelopment via written communication. Each parcel is larger than 0.5 acres which allows developers the opportunity to build larger multi-family developments. For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, an estimated realistic capacity of 723 units of housing was used. Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 1,085 residential units, which is very feasible in either a mixed-use or 100% housing development given the size of the sites.

Site Constraints:

The site is adjacent to Highway 101, which has potential air quality impacts on residential uses that can be mitigated through development design. Leslie Creek runs along the northwestern boundary of the site, and any potential development must include required creek setbacks.

Proximity to Transit:

Within one mile of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.3 miles from South El Camino Real. 548 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-57
19 Downtown Cluster Address: 62 E Fourth Avenue
Zoning: Central Business District with Residential Overlay (CBD/R)
General Plan Designations: Downtown Retail Core
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
034-144-220 0.42 acres 3.14 acres
034-144-230 1.52 acres
034-144-240 1.20 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 157 units) State Density Bonus: 78 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 314- 408 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

Located downtown, structures built in the 1950s form a continuous commercial block along E 4th Ave. The roof of this block is used for parking. Its tenants consist of several businesses—a grocery store (Dean’s Produce), Starbucks, Chase Bank, First Bank, Equinox San Mateo, and a restaurant. There is also a Mattress Firm on the site in a two-story, stand-alone retail building along El Camino Real. A surface parking lot is located at the back of the site along E 5th Ave. Zoning in this district allows for a FAR of 3.0. Since the buildings on this site are between one and two stories, there is major potential for mixed use or residential redevelopment that achieves a greater building intensity and that adds residential density.

Development Opportunity:

The owner of the block has expressed interest in a redevelopment with a density of 50 du/acre with the added 50% State density bonus.

For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, these sites are estimated to have a realistic capacity of 157 units of housing. Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, which is highly likely given recent project approvals in the Downtown area, the development could produce up to 235 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of these sites to between 314-408 units.

Site Constraints:

None.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 1/2 mile (0.4 miles) of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 500 feet of South El Camino Real. 549 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-58
20 Bridgepointe Office Park Address: 1500 Fashion Island Boulevard Zoning: Executive Office with Residential Overlay (E1-0.62/R) General Plan Designations: Executive Office
APN: Total Lot Size:
035-550-040 6.08 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 304 units) State Density Bonus: 152 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 608-790 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

Currently the site consists of two 3-story office buildings occupied by an employment agency, a consulting group, Reflekton Inc, Checkbook, and Wuhoover & Co. The buildings were built in 1982. Surface parking lots take up available space on the site such that the current FAR is 0.49, though zoning in this district allows up to 0.62 FAR.

Development Opportunity:

A developer has expressed interest in potentially redeveloping the site. The Housing Element Adequate Sites List estimates a realistic capacity of 273 units of housing for the site. However, the base zoning can allow up to 304 units. Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 456 residential units, which is very feasible in either a mixed-use or 100% housing development given the size of the sites. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of the site to between 608-790 units.

Site Constraints:

Staff has identified one potential constraint in that it is located adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates. These impacts can be mitigated through development design.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 1.5 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.9 miles from South El Camino Real. 550 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-59
21 Marriott Residence Inn Address: 2000 Winward Way
Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-0.62)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Regional/Community
Corridor
APNs: Total Lot Size:
035-610-030 4.27 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Density: 50 units/acre (or 213 units) State Density Bonus: 107 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 427-555 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Development
Existing Conditions:

This parcel is the location of the Marriott Residence Inn, constructed in 1984. The current FAR is 0.58, but the project site allows for an FAR up to 0.62 suggesting that greater building intensity and residential density could be achieved in a potential redevelopment project.

Development Opportunity:

Current owners of the site have expressed interest in potentially converting the existing extended stay hotel for residential use. For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative realistic capacity of 160 residential units was estimated. However, the base zoning can allow up to 213 units, and should the developer/property owner choose to utilize a State density bonus, the site could produce up to 320 units of housing. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of these sites to between 427-555 units.

Site Constraints:

Staff has identified one potential constraint in that it is located adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates. These impacts can be mitigated through development design.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 1.8 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station 2.2 miles from South El Camino Real. 551 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-60
22 Olympic Shopping Center Address: 49 42nd Avenue
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Districts (C1-1.5),
Multifamily Residential Overlays (R4)
General Plan Land Use Designations: Neighborhood
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APNs: Lot Size: APNs: Lot Size:
042-242-060 0.25 acres 042-245-080 0.12 acres
042-242-070 0.24 acres 042-245-090 0.12 acres
042-242-160 0.20 acres 042-245-100 0.24 acres
042-243-020 2.09 acres 042-245-110 0.24 acres
042-244-040 0.13 acres 042-245-120 0.30 acres
042-244-050 1.19 acres 042-245-130 0.36 acres
042-245-040 0.12 acres 042-263-010 0.73 acres
042-245-050 0.12 acres 042-264-010 1.05 acres
042-245-060 0.12 acres 042-242-050 1.08 acres
042-245-070 0.12 acres 042-242-180 0.21 acres
042-245-170 0.30 acres 042-242-080 0.42 acres
Total Lot Size: 8.82 acres (Consolidated Sites AD);
and 0.93 acres (Consolidated Sites AN)
Site Ownership: Sites AD - Mostly Consolidated (80% under single ownership); Sites AN - Needs Consolidation
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 487 units) State Density Bonus: 244 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 366- 906 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Development Existing Conditions:

The site consists of a collection of commercial buildings surrounding the current location of Mollie Stone’s Market on 42nd Ave. Some of these buildings are further divided into multiple storefronts and are occupied by a variety of small businesses such as, Four Seasons Sunrooms, Botanica candle shop, Strands salon, and others. Bel Mateo Bowl and CVS occupy larger buildings within the site along Olympic Ave and S El Camino Real respectively. These buildings were constructed in the 1950s. Other buildings widely range in age— some date back to the 1960s and 1970s while others have been more recently remodeled. There is also a vacant City-owned parcel located at 4142 S. El Camino Real (APN 042-245-170) identified within the consolidated sites AN group.

Development Opportunity:

The owners have expressed interest in specific plan redevelopment. For the Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach was taken to estimate a realistic capacity of 430 units of housing total for the two consolidated site groups, including 172 at the lower income level and 71 at the moderate-income level.

However, the base zoning of this site can allow up to 487 units. Should the developer/property owners choose to utilize the State density bonus, development of these sites could produce up to 731 residential units total. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of these sites to between 366-906 units.

Site Constraints:

One constraint was found in that the parcels are non-contiguous. Several smaller sites along El Camino Real and 43rd Avenue need consolidation.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within half mile of El Camino Real.
552 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-61
23 Bridgepointe Shopping Center Address: Bridgepointe Parkway Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial with Residential
Overlay (C2-0.62/R)
General Plan Designations: Regional/Community
Commercial/High Density Multi-Family
APN: 035-466-100 (portion)
Lot Size: 8.5 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 383 units) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre
Project Status: Potential Site for Mixed-Use Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

Currently the site is occupied by a shopping center that includes several businesses, including several restaurants, an ice rink, and a collection of big box stores and national chains. A large surface parking lot takes up the remaining space on the site. The structures were built around the 1990s. The site is underutilized, and many of the commercial spaces are vacant. In addition, with a lot size of 22 acres of flat land (over half of which is the parking lot), the site has great potential for redevelopment.

Development Opportunity:

For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative approach to setting realistic capacity was adopted for this site, which only includes 8.5 acres of the site, which is comprised of surface parking and does not include any of the existing commercial buildings. Given the size of the site and the significant amount of existing surface parking, it is realistic and feasible to assume that many of the existing uses could be maintained while new housing was developed, so discontinuance of existing uses is not needed in order for new housing on the site to be feasible. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of this site to between 100-130 units per acre.

Site Constraints:

One possible constraint would the site’s location along Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts due to airborne particulates. These impacts can be mitigated through development design.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain station and 2.2 miles from South El Camino Real. 553 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-62
24 Parkside Plaza Address: 1826-1850 S Norfolk Street
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial with Multi-Family Residential Overlay (C1-0.5/R4)
General Plan Designations: Neighborhood Commercial with Multi-Family Residential Overlay
APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
035-381-030 6.07 acres 6.65 acres
035-381-020 0.58 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 332 units) State Density Bonus: 166 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 332- 658 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

The lot is occupied by Parkside Plaza, a shopping center with several big box retail stores and some smaller commercial storefronts leased to an assortment of businesses including restaurants and other retail uses.

There are several vacancies. Construction of the original shopping center began in 1959, and major updates were made to the exterior and floor plans of the buildings in several different stages throughout the late 1980s and the 1990s. The site has great potential for redevelopment because it is underutilized.

Large portions of the two parcels are taken up by a surface parking lot such that the existing FAR is about

0.31. The residential overlay allows residential developments to have a FAR of up to 2.0, exceeding the maximum floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district.

Development Opportunity:

For the purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, staff estimates a realistic capacity of 332 units of housing, the maximum allowed given the base zoning and proximity to other multi-family developments, such as 1885 S. Norfolk Street (Fish Market). Should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 498 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of these sites to between 332-658 units.

Site Constraints:

Staff has identified this site’s proximity to Highway 92 as a potential constraint, due to potential air quality impacts. These impacts can be mitigated through design.

Proximity to Transit:

Located 1.2 miles away from Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 1.6 miles from South El Camino Real. 554 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-63
25 Borel Place Address: 1650 Borel Place
Zoning: Executive Office (E1-2)
General Plan Designations: Executive Office
APNs: Total Lot Size:
039-011-400 2.51 acres
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 88 units) State Density Bonus: 44 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 251- 326 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

This site is underutilized; it consists of one office building constructed in the late 1960s and a surface parking lot. A redevelopment could achieve a building intensity of 2.00 FAR.

Development Opportunity:

For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative realistic capacity of 74 housing units (80% of base density) was estimated. However, the zoning allows up to 88 units, and should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 132 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of the site to between 251-326 units.

Site Constraints:

Staff has found a potential constraint in that it is adjacent to Highway 92, which has potential air quality impacts. However, these can be mitigated through development design.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.7 miles of the Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.4 miles of South El Camino Real. 555 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-64
26 E Poplar Avenue/San Mateo Drrive Address: 350 N San Mateo Drive and 220 E Poplar Avenue Zoning: Regional/Community Commercial (C2-1)
General Plan Designations: Regional/Community Commercial APNs: Lot Size: Total Lot Size:
032-182-120 0.18 acres 0.62 acres
032-182-130 0.44 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 35 units/acre (or 21 units) State Density Bonus: 7 additional units (35% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 40-99 units/acre (or 21-42 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

The parcel on the corner of North San Mateo Drive and East Poplar is a former gas station. It dates to the 1980s and now sits vacant and fenced off. The second parcel contains commercial buildings occupied by a liquor store and a salon, which is temporarily closed. Both parcels have significant areas that are set aside for automobile use and are therefore underdeveloped. This site’s underlying zoning district allows for a FAR of 1.00.

Development Opportunity:

For purposes of the Housing Element Adequate Sites List, a conservative realistic capacity of 19 housing units (80% of base density) was estimated. However, the zoning allows up to 21 units, and should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 28 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of the site to between 21-42 units.

Site Constraints:

Clean up may be required due to the site’s former uses.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, this site is underutilized with capacity for additional density. Redevelopment projects of similar size have been successfully approved. For example, the Fremont Terrace project is a 15-unit residential condominium on a site of the same size that is currently under construction at 200 S. Fremont Street, which is shown as Site 1 in Figure 1.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within 0.6 miles of the San Mateo Caltrain Station and 0.6 miles of El Camino Real. 556 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-65
27 Car Wash Address: 1620 S Delaware Street
Zoning: Transit Oriented Development TOD
General Plan Designations: Transit Oriented Development APN: Total Lot Size:
035-200-070 0.30 acres
Site Ownership: Consolidated
Max Allowable Base Densities: 50 units/acre (or 15 units) State Density Bonus: 7 additional units (50% density bonus) Proposed General Plan Base Density: 100-130 units/acre (or 30- 39 units)
Project Status: Potential Site for Housing Redevelopment Existing Conditions:

Built in the 1950s, the site is currently occupied by a car wash. Even though the site is of a smaller size, staff believe there is potential for a housing development. Zoning regulations in this district allow for a FAR of up to 3.00.

Development Opportunity:

For Housing Element Adequate Sites List purposes, a conservative realistic capacity of 8 housing units (50% of base density) was estimated. However, the zoning allows up to 15 units, and should the developer/property owner choose to utilize the State density bonus, the development could produce up to 22 residential units. Adoption of the General Plan Update’s land use map will increase the base density of the site to between 30-39 units.

Site Constraints:

Clean up needed due to site’s existing use.

It should be noted that while the lot size is less than 0.5 acres, redevelopment projects of a similar size have been successfully approved in the San Mateo. Grand Blvd Townhomes, Site C in Figure 1, was proposed for a site that is 0.32 acres in size. Built and occupied in 2018, the project produced 8 housing units in the form of detached townhomes.

In other nearby jurisdictions, such as Mountain View and San Francisco, sites with similar characteristics have also been redeveloped into housing.

Proximity to Transit:

Located within half a mile (0.4 miles) of Hayward Park Caltrain Station and 0.9 miles from South El Camino Real.
557 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-66
Figure 2: Study Area Map
Universe: Sites Inventory
Notes: The ten study areas were created from a series of community engagement workshops where attendees were asked to select the neighborhood zones where they believed redevelopment would be most suitable for the next housing element.
558 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-67
Figure 3: Sites Inventory Map
Universe: Sites Inventory, February 2024.

Notes: The individual sites identified as suitable for housing redevelopment are marked in pink while blue circles indicate groupings of sites. Site affordability breakdown by grouping is seen in Table 3 below.
559 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-C-68
Table 3: Site Affordability Breakdown
Housing Opportunity
Areas
Total Units Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
RHNA 7,015  1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040
ADUs 440 132 132 132 44
Pipeline Projects 3,110 562 14 2,534
Remaining RHNA 3,465 1,974 1,029 462
Fashion Island Area 817 167 121 109 418
Hillsdale Mall 1,200 0 180 180 840
Downtown 1,213 177 305 85 646
Other Sites 3,528 1,290 721 1,520
Total Sites 6,758 2,240 1,095 3,424
Grand Total 10,286 3,129 1,278 5,880
Buffer Over Remaining
RHNA
3,271
(94%)
329
(17%)
103
(10%)
2,840
(484%)
General Plan 2040
Buffer
10,000 2,533 1,458 1,675 4,334
Source: Housing Resources Sites Inventory

4.8 Sites Inventory Housing Feasibility and Realistic Capacity Each housing opportunity site listed on the Sites Inventory was identified through a methodical review of individual parcels, primarily within the ten General Plan Update study areas, and through initial vetting using site typologies approved by HCD. Staff aggregated data of all approved multifamily housing developments within the City from 2019 until present day to determine the average capacity at which new housing could develop based on the general zoning district.

Table 4: Realistic Housing Capacity by Zoning District
General Zoning District Realistic Capacity
(percent of base density) Notes
Commercial 136% includes C1 zone only
Downtown 90% includes Downtown CBD zones only
"E" Executive Office 110% includes E1 and E2
Multi-Family 74% includes R3 and R4
TOD 126%
Specific Plan Area 88% includes BMSP only
Source: City of San Mateo Multi-Family Housing Applications from 2019 - present From Table 4 above, it was determined that sites on the inventory (Table 2) that had either a commercial, downtown, executive office, or transit-oriented development zone could be developed to 90% of capacity.

Meanwhile, sites that were zoned for multi-family or other residential zoning could be developed to 75% 560 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-C-69
of capacity. These factors were multiplied by site acreage and maximum units per acre allowed by zoning to create the realistic capacity assumptions in the Sites Inventory table. Table 2, along with the full body of the Housing Element, demonstrates that the City of San Mateo has developed a Sites Inventory with a sufficient number of housing opportunity sites with appropriate densities, defensible realistic capacity estimates and near-term development feasibility to accommodate the City’s RHNA of 7,015 units. 561 of 2271
Page H-D-1

APPENDIX D

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR

HOUSING NARRATIVE
562 of 2271

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

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

HOUSING NARRATIVE

0.1 Table of Content

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

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

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

0.4 List of Attachments.......................................................................................................................4 1 WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING?...............................................................5 2 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION..................................................................................6 3 PRIMARY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................11

3.1 Resident Needs Collected Through Local Survey.........................................................................13

3.2 Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan.....................................................................13

4. SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity .....................................................23

4.1 Fair Housing Legal Cases and Inquiries.......................................................................................23

4.2 Outreach and Capacity................................................................................................................28

4.3 Compliance with State and Federal Laws ...................................................................................29

4.4 Housing Specific Policies Enacted Locally....................................................................................29

5. SECTION II. Integration and Segregation ....................................................................................31

5.1 Race and Ethnicity.......................................................................................................................31

5.2 Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices...............................................................................................38

5.3 Segregation Between City of San Mateo and Other Jurisdictions in the Bay..............................39

5.3.1 Area Region.............................................................................................................................39

5.3.2 Disability Status.......................................................................................................................39

5.3.3 Familial Status.........................................................................................................................42

5.3.4 Household Income ..................................................................................................................43

5.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence..........................................47

6. SECTION III. Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................56

6.1 Education ....................................................................................................................................57

6.2 Employment................................................................................................................................58

6.3 Transportation ............................................................................................................................58

6.4 Environment................................................................................................................................59

6.5 Disparities in access to opportunity ............................................................................................60

6.6 Disparities specific to the population living with a disability ......................................................60

7. SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs............................................................................63

7.1 Housing Needs ............................................................................................................................63

7.2 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden..........................................................................................64

7.3 Overcrowding..............................................................................................................................69

7.4 Substandard Housing..................................................................................................................71 563 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-3

7.5 Homelessness..............................................................................................................................73

7.6 Displacement...............................................................................................................................73

8. Site Inventory Analysis..............................................................................................................78

8.1 City of San Mateo Sites Inventory AFFH Analysis........................................................................78

8.2 Segregation and Integration.......................................................................................................83

8.3 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence .......................................83

8.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ...........................................................................................84

8.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................................................84

9. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan .....................................................................92

9.1 Related Environmental Justice Activities.....................................................................................94

0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: AFFH definition ..............................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing .........................................9 Figure 3: Population by Race ......................................................................................................................26 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 ...................................................................................................27 Figure 5: Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries ........................................................................................28 Figure 6: Local policies affecting housing issues.........................................................................................30 Figure 7: Integration and Segregation ........................................................................................................31 Figure 8: Racial Demographics by Block Group ..........................................................................................37 Figure 9: Population with a Disability .........................................................................................................41 Figure 10: Median Household Income........................................................................................................45 Figure 11: Segregation and Integration ......................................................................................................46 Figure 12: R/ECAP Definition ......................................................................................................................47 Figure 13: R/ECAPs, 2010............................................................................................................................49 Figure 14: R/ECAPs, 2019............................................................................................................................50 Figure 15: White Majority Tracts................................................................................................................52 Figure 16: RCAAs.........................................................................................................................................55 Figure 17: Access to Opportunity Definition...............................................................................................56 Figure 18: Disability Definition....................................................................................................................61 Figure 19: Access to Opportunity................................................................................................................62 Figure 20: Disproportionate Housing Needs Definition..............................................................................63 Figure 21: Cost Burden by Income Level.....................................................................................................64 Figure 22: Cost Burden by Race ..................................................................................................................65 Figure 23: Cost Burden by Tenure ..............................................................................................................66 Figure 24: Cost Burdened Homeowners.....................................................................................................67 Figure 25: Cost Burdened Renters..............................................................................................................68 Figure 26: Overcrowding.............................................................................................................................70 Figure 27: Substandard Housing .................................................................................................................72 Figure 28: Displacement Sensitive Communities........................................................................................73 Figure 29: Sensitive Communities...............................................................................................................75 Figure 30: Disproportionate Housing Needs...............................................................................................77 564 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-4
Figure 31: City of San Mateo Census Tracts................................................................................................79 Figure 32: Geographic Distribution of Proposed RHNA Sites by Census Tract...........................................80 Figure 33: Proposed RHNA Sites by Percent of Non-White Population and Census Tract, 2021...............86 Figure 34: Proposed RHNA Sites by Median Household Income and Census Tract, 2021 .........................87 Figure 35: Proposed RHNA Sites by TCAC Opportunity Resource Area Designation and Census Tract, 2022 ....................................................................................................................................................................88 Figure 36: Proposed RHNA Sites by Percent of Renter Overpayment (Cost Burden) and Census Tract, 2021 ............................................................................................................................................................89 Figure 37: Proposed RHNA Sites by Percent of Overcrowded Households and Census Tract, 2021 .........90 Figure 38: Proposed RHNA Sites by Vulnerability to Displacement and Census Tract, 2022 .....................91

0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Hispanic Population, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, and 2019...................................................32 Table 2: Asian Population, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, and 2019........................................................33 Table 3: Black Population, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, 2019 ...............................................................34 Table 4: Female Headed Households, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, 2019.............................................42 Table 5: Race, Population, and Median Income .........................................................................................53 Table 6: RCAA Census Tracts Near City of San Mateo, 2019 ......................................................................53 Table 7: Non-RCAAs....................................................................................................................................54 Table 8: City of San Mateo Proposed RHNA Units by Income and Census Tract........................................81 Table 9: Proposed RHNA Sites by Census Tract, Income Level, and AFFH Indicators.................................82

0.4 List of Attachments
Attachment 1 - Fair Housing Action Plan
Attachment 2 - AFFH Maps and Data
Attachment 3 - Access to Educational Opportunities
Attachment 4 - UC Merced Segregation Report
Attachment 5 - Quotes and Narrative from Outreach
Attachment 6 - State Fair Housing Laws
565 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-5
1 WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING?
Assembly Bill 686 (2018) required that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

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

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)”
Figure 1: AFFH definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14. 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9. 566 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-6
2 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity
Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as “structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

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

Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of
“blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were
exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low-income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

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

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

The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. In the City of San Mateo, David Bohannon, developer of the Hillsdale neighborhood following World War II, when housing was in short supply— recorded deeds that specified that only “members of the Caucasian or White race shall be permitted” to occupy sold homes—the exception being “domestics in the employ[ment] on the premises.”2 This practice was the norm at the time, since the federal government refused to insure large-scale single-family developments throughout the country, unless they specifically prohibited non-Whites from purchasing the new single-family homes. Henry Doelger in Daly City, as well as Bohannon in San Mateo, both developed large tracts of single-family homes with racially-based restrictive covenants. City staff has uncovered restrictive covenants still extant on properties being provided rehabilitation assistance, even though such covenants have long been unenforceable. From Hillsdale Boulevard to about 20th Avenue, between Alameda de las Pulgas and El Camino Real, single-family homes in the area almost exclusively had restrictive covenants. Bohannon went on to develop many race-restricted neighborhoods in the Bay Area, became president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), became national president This history of segregation in the
region is important not only to
understand how residential
settlement patterns came
about—but, more importantly, to
explain differences in housing
opportunity among residents
today. In sum, not all residents
had the ability to build housing
wealth or achieve economic
opportunity. This historically
unequal playing field in part
determines why residents have
different housing needs today.
567 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-7
of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and was inducted into California’s Homebuilding Foundation Hall of Fame.

The segregator effect of blockbusting activities is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These agents then sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments.

Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto. Furthermore, blockbusting in East Palo Alto combined with discrimination in the provision of transit services to stifle economic opportunity for Black students in San Mateo. In 1965, only 87 of San Mateo College’s 8,000 day-students were Black, with the vast majority expected to drop out within the first semester—largely because San Mateo failed to provide bus transportation out of East Palo Alto to the campus.2
Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and City leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and/or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure. San Mateo County suburbs often instituted highly restrictive Euclidian zoning measures, including one-acre minimum lot sizes, growth boundaries, and new unit caps, very quickly after defensively annexing—policies aimed at excluding people from the peninsula.3
In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today. The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”4 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.”5 The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native populations today.6
The timeline of major federal acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appeared to be on the same page as these discriminatory practices for most of the 20th century. As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down 2 https://historysmc.org/exhibits/san-mateo-countys-african-american-history/ 3 Eli Moore et al., Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley, Roots, Race, & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area (2019), https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 5 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 6 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ 568 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-8
only the most discriminatory practices and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low-income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available. 569 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-9
Figure 2: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing 570 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-10
Maps and data referenced in this document. Throughout the document, there are references to figures including maps created by HCD to support the AFFH and data tables created by HCD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the consultant team. While key figures have been included in the document, the figure references are as they appear in Attachment 2 and follow the organization of that section and the state guidance. The maps, in particular, are useful in demonstrating how the City of San Mateo compares with surrounding jurisdictions and the county overall in offering housing choices and access to opportunity.

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

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

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

Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

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

Attachments:
• Access to Educational Opportunities (Attachment 3)—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class. • State Fair Housing Laws (Attachment 6)—summary of key State laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice. 571 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-11
3 PRIMARY FINDINGS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Mateo including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the City’s fair housing action plan.
• 16% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 (57 total) were in the City of San Mateo (9 total), which is approximately aligned with the city share of the county’s population (14%). The most common issues cited in the City were refusal to rent and discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to rental. Most complaints were on the basis of disability status (6 complaints) and race (3 complaints) in the City.

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

Geospatially, the northeast area of the City is disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low educational opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and moderate resource scores. These areas are generally on either side of Highway 101 and stretch to the San Francisco Bay waterfront, encompassing the North Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. These areas have:
▪ Higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% (Figure II-28). ▪ Education opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower education scores compared to the rest of the City (Figure III-1). ▪ Low economic opportunity scores between zero and 0.5 (Figure III-7). 572 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-12
▪ Low environmental scores—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Figure III-9). The northeast area of the City of San Mateo has particularly poor environmental outcomes for traffic, impaired water, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, and asthma. ▪ The composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows Census Tracts in the northeast area of the City fall within moderate resource areas while the rest of the City is within high or highest resource areas (Figure III-14). ▪ The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The northeast area of the City is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
▪ Concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened households (Figure IV13). ▪ Overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households (Figure IV-19).
▪ These areas are also within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV-31) and are vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).

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

Racial and ethnic minority students in the City of San Mateo—served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo-Foster Elementary School District—experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students. Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. However, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards. Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low dropout rates—4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, dropout rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher (Figures have been included in the access to education Attachment 3).
• Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened— spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Mateo by race and ethnicity and family size (Figure IV-11 and Figure IV-12).
• 15% of respondents to the resident survey conducted for this AFFH said that schools in their neighborhood were of poor quality.
573 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-13

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

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

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

Contributing factors:
▪ Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership.
▪ Although voucher holders and affordable housing (as captured in the HCD Location Affordability Index) are not as highly concentrated in the City of San Mateo as in many surrounding jurisdictions, the northern portion of the City offers the most affordable homes. As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty. Preference may be at play as well: A recent article in Cityscape found that Hispanic homebuyers—when controlled for demographics, loan characteristics, and finances—are more likely to purchase homes in 574 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-14
neighborhoods with fewer non-Hispanic White homeowners and lower economic opportunity.7
▪ Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the City’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher rates of perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to affordable and right-sized housing.
▪ Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the City where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.

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

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

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

Contributing factors:
▪ The unemployment rate for the City of San Mateo’s residents with a disability is four times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to employment, and market discrimination.
▪ The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability. ▪ There were six complaints—out of the nine total complaints in the City—filed with HUD in the City of San Mateo from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are 7 Sanchez-Moyano, R. (2021). Achieving spatial equity through suburban homeownership? Neighborhood attributes of Hispanic homebuyers. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. Volume 23(3). 575 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-15
required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request.
▪ There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the North Central neighborhood. This area of the City has a concentration of low and moderate income households (more than 50% per census tract) and scores low on TCAC’s environmental and economic opportunity scores.

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

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

The prioritization of contributing factors is based on the ability of the City to make significant impacts on the concerns. They are as follows:

The prioritization of contributing factors is based on the ability of the City to make significant impacts on the concerns. They are as follows:

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

Contributing factors:
• LOW: Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership.

Actions to address:

Policy H 3.2 – Investigate Fair Housing Cases: continue to fund fair housing service providers to address potential households facing displacement and/or fair housing challenges, who often have disparate needs in lower-income, poorly resourced areas.

Policy H 4.3 – Expand Community Education and Outreach: The City plans a robust and adaptive community engagement program with targeting to underrepresented groups, including those with special needs, disparate housing needs, and others.
576 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-16
Contributing factors:
• LOW: Although voucher holders and affordable housing (as captured in the HCD Location Affordability Index) are not as highly concentrated in the City of San Mateo as in many surrounding jurisdictions, the northern portion of the City offers the most affordable homes.

As such, residents living in these areas have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty.

Actions to address:

Policy H 2.4 – Implement Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Neighborhoods: The City will continue to invest CDBG and other funding into lower resource neighborhoods, which include households shown to have disparate housing needs. This will include proactive outreach to the affected communities to ensure the most critical needs are addressed. See also excerpts from the Environmental Justice efforts, located after the AFFH programs, below.

Policy H 5.1.3 – Explore the potential to implement a loan program for ADU construction If a Cityfunded ADU loan program is determined to be infeasible. The City will support the design of a regional forgivable loan program for homeowners to construct an ADU that is maintained as affordable for extremely low-income households for 15 years.

Contributing factors:
• MEDIUM: Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not support the City’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher rates of perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to affordable and adequately sized housing.

Actions to address:

Policy H 1.5 – Encourage Family Housing: prioritizes creation of housing that addresses the needs of large families, providing greater housing choice.

Policy H 4.4 – Enable Affirmative Marketing: This would require developers of affordable housing to create a Marketing Plan during the final phase of construction on a project-by-project basis, focusing on outreach to special needs individuals and those least likely to apply based on racial make-up of neighborhood, including those with disparate housing needs.

Contributing factors:
• HIGH: Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the City where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.
577 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-17
Actions to address:

Policy H 1.2 – Utilize Public Funding and Properties for New Affordable Housing: provides funding for a variety of housing types, addressing the needs of lower-income households, including on sites owned by the City.

Policy H 1.3 – Increase Affordable Housing Production: adopting an updated Density Bonus/Community Benefits program that provides additional incentives and/or streamlining options for housing projects that provide additional affordable units or the most needed unit types (including those with special needs) beyond minimum state requirements.

Policy H 2.4 – Implement Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Neighborhoods: The City will continue to invest CDBG and other funding into lower resource neighborhoods, which include households shown to have disparate housing needs. This will include proactive outreach to the affected communities to ensure the most critical needs are addressed. See also excerpts from the Environmental Justice efforts, located after the AFFH programs, below.

Policy H 2.5 – Promote Housing Resilience: this specifically addresses climate change-related environmental issues in disadvantaged neighborhoods impacted by flooding in the North Shoreview neighborhood.

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

Contributing factors:
• HIGH: Concentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities in the northeast areas of the City further concentrates poverty, cost burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental outcomes.

Actions to address:

Policy H 3.4 – Expand Tenant Protections: this action would extend the measures found in AB1482 by requiring relocation payments to tenancy of less than one year, requiring the right to return policies for tenants displaced by substantial renovations, and strengthening the enforcement penalty structure to further protect tenants.

Policy H 5.2.1 – Add more city supported housing with affordability restrictions in moderate and high resource areas and areas of affluence. Affirmatively market the housing to households with disproportionate housing needs including persons with disabilities, farmworkers, single parents, and Hispanic households (e.g., Spanish and English, targeted to northeast neighborhoods). 578 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-18
Policy H 5.4.1 – Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.

Policy H 5.4.5 – Ensure that future improvements in disadvantaged communities will not produce a net loss of affordable housing or the displacement of residents and seek to increase the amount of affordable housing in disadvantaged communities.

Contributing factors:
• HIGH: There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced areas of the City.

Policy H 1.4 – Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: expands the resources available for homeowners to add ADUs, which provide an important source of affordable housing. Recent analysis of permitted ADUs indicates these are being developed in highest or high resource areas, or areas of affluence, providing additional mobility options within in the City.

Policy H 1.7 – Update Zoning Code Development Standards: includes an action to create an affordable housing overlay to support the development of affordable housing on religious or educational institutions’ sites, thereby increasing mobility into lower-density areas.

Policy H 3.5 – Study the creation of Below Market Rate Set Asides: conduct a best practices review to determine the feasibility of prioritizing groups with special needs, including large families, single female heads of households, and others with disparate housing needs and implement as directed by City Council.

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

Policy H 5.2.1 – Add more city supported housing with affordability restrictions in moderate and high resource areas and areas of affluence. Affirmatively market the housing to households with disproportionate housing needs including persons with disabilities, farmworkers, single parents, and Hispanic households (e.g., Spanish and English, targeted to northeast neighborhoods).

Policy H 5.2.4 – In conjunction with San Mateo County, develop a housing mobility program that provides support to tenants seeking to move to high opportunity areas in the region. 579 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-19
Contributing factors:
• LOW: Highway 101 creates a major barrier between the Shoreview neighborhood—where the geographic concentrations of these groups exist—and the rest of the City.

Policy H 2.4 – Implement Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Neighborhoods: The City will continue to invest CDBG and other funding into lower resource neighborhoods, which include households shown to have disparate housing needs. This will include proactive outreach to the affected communities to ensure the most critical needs are addressed. See also excerpts from the Environmental Justice efforts, located after the AFFH programs, below.

Policy H 2.5 – Promote Housing Resilience: this specifically addresses climate change-related environmental issues in disadvantaged neighborhoods impacted by flooding in the North Shoreview neighborhood.

Policy H 5.4.5 – Ensure that future improvements in disadvantaged communities will not produce a net loss of affordable housing or the displacement of residents and seek to increase the amount of affordable housing in disadvantaged communities.

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

Contributing factors:
• LOW: The unemployment rate for the City of San Mateo’s residents with a disability is four times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to employment, and market discrimination.
• HIGH: The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.

Actions to address:

Policy H 1.2 – Utilize Public Funding and Properties for New Affordable Housing: provides funding for a variety of housing types, addressing the needs of lower-income households, including on sites owned by the City.

Policy H 1.3 – Increase Affordable Housing Production: adopting an updated Density Bonus/Community Benefits program that provides additional incentives and/or streamlining options 580 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-20
for housing projects that provide additional affordable units or the most needed unit types (including those with special needs) beyond minimum state requirements.

Policy H 1.4 – Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: expands the resources available for homeowners to add ADUs, which provide an important source of affordable housing. Recent analysis of ADUs permitted indicates these are being developed in highest or high resource areas, or areas of affluence, providing additional mobility options within in San Mateo:

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

Contributing factors:
• MEDIUM: There were six complaints—out of the nine total complaints in the City—filed with HUD in the City of San Mateo from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living with a disability upon request.

Actions to address:

Policy H 3.2 – Investigate Fair Housing Cases: continue to fund fair housing service providers to address potential households facing displacement and/or fair housing challenges, who often have disparate needs in lower-income, poorly resourced areas.

Policy H 5.4.1 – Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.

Policy H 5.4.2 – Partner with Project Sentinel to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants. Focus enforcement efforts on race-based discrimination, reasonable accommodations and source of income discrimination.

Contributing factors:
• HIGH: There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of Highway 101 in the North Central neighborhood. This area of the City has a concentration of low- and moderate-income households (more than 50% per census tract) and scores low on TCAC’s environmental and economic opportunity scores.
581 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-21
Actions to address:

Policy H 5.2.2 – Incentivize developers through direct subsidies, fee waivers, and/or density bonuses, to increase accessibility requirements beyond the federal requirement of 5% for subsidized developments.

Policy H 5.2.3 – Prioritize city funding proposals for city funded affordable housing that are committed to serving hard to serve residents (e.g., extremely low income, special needs, on site services)
Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities and persons of color are most likely to file complaints of housing discrimination due to discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities and failure to make reasonable accommodations.

Contributing factors:
• HIGH: Housing discrimination against residents with disabilities and Hispanic households.

Actions to address:

Policy H 3.2 – Investigate Fair Housing Cases: continue to fund fair housing service providers to address potential households facing displacement and/or fair housing challenges, who often have disparate needs in lower-income, poorly resourced areas.

Policy H 5.4.1 – Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.

Policy H 5.4.2 – Partner with Project Sentinel to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants. Focus enforcement efforts on race-based discrimination, reasonable accommodations and source of income discrimination.

Contributing factors:
• HIGH: Lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by landlords and property owners.

Actions to address:

Policy H 5.4.2 – Partner with Project Sentinel to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants. Focus enforcement efforts on race-based discrimination, reasonable accommodations and source of income discrimination.
582 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-22
Policy H 5.4.3 – Create a webpage specific to fair housing including resources for residents who feel they have experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. The webpage will have accessibility features and a Spanish language version.

Policy H 5.4.4 – Ensure that all multi-family residential developments contain signage in both English and Spanish to explain the right to request reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.

Make this information available and clearly transparent on the city's website and fund landlord training and outreach on reasonable accommodations.

The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) at the end of this report details how the City of San Mateo proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.
583 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-23

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

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

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.
8 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD. DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.9Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

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

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

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S.

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

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

Of the 146 City of San Mateo respondents to the resident survey, 95 respondents have considerably looked for housing, of those, 23 (24%) indicated that a “Landlord did not return calls and/or emails 8 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
9 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
584 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-24
asking about a unit”, and 41 (46%) indicated they have been denied housing to rent or buy in the past 5 years. The main reason for denial (40%) was “income too low.” Similarly, of the 28 voucher holders responding to the survey, the majority (69%) indicated that finding an affordable unit is somewhat or very difficult. Seven of them indicated this is due to “Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders.” Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

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

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
• First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership. • Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment— 1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
• Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies— reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.10
Factors that contribute to fair housing issues are grounded in the history of the City of San Mateo and the broader region. A summary of historical land use, investment practices, and resulting demographic trends are below:

Historical land use. Black residents who migrated to the City of San Mateo to escape violence in the South and as part of their military duty in the 1930s quickly found that economic capital did not guarantee homeownership in the City of San Mateo. Real estate agents guided transactions and excluded many Black and Asian residents from homeownership, regardless of their financial means and community standing. In one instance, a Black family did succeed in buying a house in the city.

When news spread of the purchase, the Ku Klux Klan in San Mateo placed ads in the San Mateo Times in response to encourage membership. Family and friends of the Black family guarded their house day and night watching for Ku Klux Klan members.11
The Black community was also restricted from buying developments for veterans. The San Mateo Historical Society told the story of Mr. Cullen, the City’s second Black employee in its history. He ran the San Mateo city dump and was excited to see that a development for veterans was being constructed across from it, as his son had served in the military. He went over to explore and was 10 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ 11 La Peninsula, The Journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association, vol. xliv, no. 1. https://historysmc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/La-Peninsula-Migration-Spring-2016.pdf 585 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-25
confronted by a sign that read “RESTRICTED.” His son could not access these homes because he was Black.
12 Similar restrictive covenants expanded across neighborhoods. Coupled with out of reach, equally exclusionary government loans for single family homes, people of color were effectively excluded from land zoned for such homes across the Bay Area.

Investment practices. Low rent and public housing developments were hampered in the 20th century by a California law passed in 1950 that required a referendum be held in a city to approve these developments. In James v. Valtierra, citizens of San Mateo County and San Jose who were eligible for public housing challenged the law as they felt they had been denied housing opportunities and thus the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs and said that because the referendum applied only to public housing, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Supreme Court disagreed. They said that the referendum process “ensures that all the people in the community will have a voice in the decision, which may lead to large expenditures of local governmental funds for increased public services and to lower tax revenues.”13 Therefore, lowincome people could not have a say in the future in housing if they were the minority of voters.

Although there are now more workarounds to develop subsidized housing, such as federal and state tax credits, it is still time consuming and expensive for developers to avoid a city-wide vote. This has stemmed investment in public and low rent housing development in the state. California voters will decide to repeal the article or not in 2024.14
The accumulation of exclusionary and discriminatory practices has led to disinvestment in neighborhoods of color. According to a study by UC Berkeley, although Black and Latino neighborhoods participate in the labor force at similar rates as segregated white areas, they earn 39% less income than white neighborhoods. Houses are valued $131,000 less, impacting wealth acquisition, generational assets, school resources, and commercial investment.

The lack of investment has caused out-migration of Black residents, particularly in the East Palo Alto and San Francisco area. East Palo Alto has lost 66% of its Black population and San Francisco has lost 43% since 1990.15 Overt racism, violence, displacement from eviction and foreclosure have forced many Black families out of the city and even the state. As San Mateo County loses diversity, there are still many who cannot afford to move nor do they want to leave their communities. Ensuring housing stability is one investment that aims to restore stability and counteract the many burdens white communities have placed onto Californians of color.

Demographic trends. The City of San Mateo has demographics largely in line with San Mateo County and the Bay Area. The City has a slightly higher white population compared to the County and the Bay Area (41% versus 39%). The Hispanic/ Latinx community makes up a quarter of the City, County and Bay Area population. The parity in population with the Bay Area suggests that the City of San Mateo hosts a diverse community and provides housing that attracts and retains residence from different economic and racial backgrounds. Notably, however, the Bay Area has a small percentage of Black Californians at 6%. San Mateo County and San Mateo City have less than 6%. This is 12 La Peninsula, The Journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association, vol. xliv, no. 1. https://historysmc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/La-Peninsula-Migration-Spring-2016.pdf 13 Roots, Race, and Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area. Haas Institute. 14 California voters to decide on repeal of anti-public housing measure in 2024 (msn.com) 15 California's Black exodus comes with a hidden toll for transplants (calmatters.org) 586 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-26
emblematic of California’s past housing policies that discriminated against Black communities that have an enduring segregating effect seen today.

Source:ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.

The following figure shows demographic trends by race from 2000 to 2019. Since 2000, the white population in San Mateo City has gone down as the Hispanic, Asian, and multiple race populations have increased. Native American and Black populations have remained low over time. As mentioned in the investment section, Black populations elsewhere in San Mateo County have drastically decreased. Given that the City of San Mateo has not seen an increase in the Black population, this further confirms that many Black families have been displaced entirely from San Mateo County and that the City of San Mateo does not offer affordable choices. 26% 30% 27%
6%
41%
39% 39%
6% 4% 5%
25% 24% 24%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
San Mateo San Mateo County Bay Area Percent of Population American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx Figure 3: Population by Race
587 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-27
Source:ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.
17%
21%
26%
58%
47%
41%
6%
21%
27% 25%
0 10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2000 2010 2019 Share of Population
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
588 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-28
Figure 5: Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries

4.2 Outreach and Capacity
The City of San Mateo could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The City’s website provides a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing—approved by HUD in November 2017—and AFFH goals specific to the City of San Mateo.16 Housing resources are also available on the City’s website but there is not specific information or resources for residents experiencing discrimination in housing or the Fair Housing Act.17 The Draft Housing Element 2023-2031 incorporates additional measures for providing access and education efforts as a specific policy program (Policy H 4.3). 16 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3764/Fair-Housing-Assessment 17 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2506/Other-Resources
Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
Total Inquiries by Jurisdiction, 2020
27 24
17 11
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
589 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-29

4.3 Compliance with State and Federal Laws
The City of San Mateo is – or will be -- compliant with the following state and federal laws that promote fair and affordable housing. There is no active litigation related to fair housing against the City currently. The City has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
• State Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1. Chapter 4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, amended and effective January 1, 2021) (revisions are included in policy program Policy H 1.3)
• Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
• No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations, including among income levels; • Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov Code Section 65913.1);
• Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov Code Section 65913.2); • Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov Code Section 65589.5). • The federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §3601, et. seq.).

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

Local policies in place to encourage housing
development.
• Mixed Use Zoning
• Density Bonus Ordinances
• Condominium Conversion Ordinance
• Homeowner Rehabilitation program
• General Fund Allocation Incl. former
RDA “Boomerang” Funds
• Commercial Development Impact Fee
• Locally Funded Homebuyer
Assistance Programs
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
• Height limits on multifamily
developments
• Voter initiatives that restrict
multifamily developments, rezoning
for higher density, height limits or
similar measures
• Low floor area ratios (FAR) allowed
for multifamily housing
• Excessive parking requirements
• Extensive time period/requirements
to develop multi-family properties
590 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-30
Local policies that are NOT in place but would
provide the best outcomes in addressing
housing shortages.
• Development and/or permit
streamlining
• Objective design standards
Local policies that are NOT in place, but have
potential Council interest for further
exploration.
• Community land trusts
• Acquisition of affordable units with
expiring subsidies
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low-income households.
• Condominium conversion
regulations
• Affordable housing impact/linkage
fee on new commercial development
• Inclusionary zoning
• Living wage employment ordinances
• Promoting streamlined processing of
ADUs
• Fair housing legal services
• Acquisition of unsubsidized
properties with affordable rents
• Dedicating surplus land for
affordable housing
• Ordinance on replacement units that
exceed State standards
Figure 6: Local policies affecting housing issues
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), the City of San Mateo does not have any public housing buildings. However, the City does have three census tracts with a moderate share of households using housing vouchers (5% to 15%) and most other areas of the City have some (5% or less) housing voucher utilization.

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

Additionally, the City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code Section 27.04.190(3) defines "family" as a person or a group of persons living together and maintaining a common household, in keeping with fair housing best practices. However, the use of the term family may be utilized in a manner to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together. The Housing Element includes an implementation program (Policy H 1.14) to review the City’s Zoning Code requirements for family and other related regulations; and amend the code to ensure State law requirements related to persons with disabilities are met.
591 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-31

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

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

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.” Figure 7: Integration and Segregation
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

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

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

Geospatially, the City of San Mateo has three White majority census tracts19 and one census tract (6062) that has a slim Hispanic majority.20 The 6062 Census tract covers the North Central neighborhood, which is located just north of Downtown, east of El Camino Real and west of Highway 101, and is identified as an equity priority neighborhood.

As shown in the table below, the most ethnically diverse Census tract in San Mateo City is 6062, where there is a slight majority of residents of Hispanic descent. This Census tract became less diverse between 2010 and 2019, however, with a decline of more than 900 residents of Hispanic descent.

This was a change from trends between 2000 and 2010, when the Hispanic population increased by 400 residents.

This Census tract is also the tract with the highest proportion of low to moderate income households in the city and where the majority of renters are cost burdened (59%)—both indicators of displacement vulnerability. This Census tract abuts Highway 101 which separates the tract from 18 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%. 19 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 20 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.
592 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-32
higher income neighborhoods on the Bay. It is likely a refuge for residents seeking relatively affordable housing.

Other Census tracts show stable or increasing ethnic diversity, including those with the lowest Low to Moderate income proportions.

Since 2000, except for Tract 6062, all census tracts in San Mateo have seen modest increases in Hispanic population, including those with the lowest proportions of low and moderate income households (6073, 6078). This is a positive trend, indicative of integration and furthering access to opportunity.

Table 1: Hispanic Population, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, and 2019 Census
Tract
Characteristics
of Tract
Lowmod %2000
Hispanic
population
and %
2010
Hispanic
population
and %
#
change
2000-
2010
2019
Hispanic
population
and %
#
change
2000-
2019
#
change
2010-
2019
6062 Hispanic
majority
(slight and
declining); on
the edge of
R/ECAP status
63% 4743/
60%
5146/
68%
403 4235/
54%
-508 -911
6063 White
majority
(slight)
46% 852/ 23% 676/ 20% -176 993 / 24% 141 317
6066 White
majority
35% 448/ 14% 717/ 22% 269 812 / 22% 364 95
6073 White
majority
19% 240/ 7% 278/ 8% 38 461 / 13% 221 183
6074 White
majority
47% 569/ 13% 641/ 15% 72 1062/
22%
493 421
6075 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
38% 485/ 22% 509/ 15% 24 1466/
24%
981 957
6076 White
majority
(slight)
40% 585/ 16% 863/ 24% 278 862 / 24% 277 -1
6077.01 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
41% 1103/
31%
1465/
36%
362 1646/
37%
543 181
6077.02 More
balanced
45% 796/ 28% 966/ 33% 170 1114/
34%
318 148
593 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-33
race/ethnic
distribution;
on the edge
of R/ECAP
status
6078 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution

30.5% 580/ 18% 566/ 22% -14 672 / 20% 92 106
The following table shows the same information for the Asian population—the second largest racial and ethnic group in the city. Between 2010 and 2019, Asian residents increased across Census tracts, with the largest increase in tract 6075—a gain of more than 1,000 Asian residents. This is a similar level of growth to Hispanic residents.

Table 2: Asian Population, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, and 2019 Census
Tract
Characteristics
of Tract
Lowmod %2000
Asian
population
and %
2010 Asian
population
and %
#
change
2000-
2010
2019 Asian
population
and %
#
change
2000-
2019
#
change
2010-
2019
6062 Hispanic
majority
(slight and
declining); on
the edge of
R/ECAP
status
63% 933/ 12% 1056/
35%
123 1381/
39%
448 325
6063 White
majority
(slight)
46% 444/ 12% 735/ 25% 291 1051/
34%
607 315
6066 White
majority
35% 478/ 15% 624/ 21% 146 643/ 22% 165 19
6073 White
majority
19% 509/ 15% 616/ 19% 107 823/ 26% 314 207
6074 White
majority
47% 638/ 15% 917/ 26% 279 1228/
32%
590 311
6075 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
38% 259/ 12% 931/ 33% 672 2124/
45%
1865 1193
594 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-34
6076 White
majority
(slight)
40% 672/ 18% 554/ 22%
-118
936/ 34% 264 382
6077.01 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
41% 658/ 18% 803/ 32% 145 881/ 32% 223 78
6077.02 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution;
on the edge
of R/ECAP
status
45% 483/ 17% 494/ 27% 11 630/ 29% 147 148
6078 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution

30.5% 639/ 20% 664/ 28% 25 901/ 33% 262 106
The Black population, on the other hand, has seen a decline in population in half of the census tracts in the City of San Mateo. Although data from 2000 is only available from census tract 6062, it shows a substantial decline in just two decades from 876 Black households to 473 in 2019. Other tracts have extremely small numbers. Some have seen modest increases while others continue to see the Black population decline.

Table 3: Black Population, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, 2019 Census
Tract
Characteristics
of Tract
Lowmod%2000 Black
population
and %
2010 Black
population
and %
#
change
2000-
2010
2019 Black
population
and %
#
change
2000-
2019
#
change
2010-
2019
6062 Hispanic
majority
(slight and
declining); on
the edge of
R/ECAP
status
63% 876/ 11% 552/ 7% -324 473/ 6% -403 -79
6063 White
majority
(slight)
46% . 46/ 1% . 4/ 0.001% . -42
6066 White
majority
35% . 93/ 3% . 107/ 3% . 14
595 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-35
6073 White
majority
19% . 29/ 0.1% . 0/ 0% . -29
6074 White
majority
47% . 86/ 2% . 50/ 1% . -36
6075 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
38% . 87/ 3% . 213/ 3% . 126
6076 White
majority
(slight)
40% . 34/ 1% . 68/ 2% . 34
6077.01 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
41% . 79/ 2% . 27/ 1% . -52
6077.02 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution;
on the edge
of R/ECAP
status
45% . 54/ 2% . 102/ 3% . 48
6078 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution

30.5% . 34/ 1% . 63/ 2% . 29
The map below shows concentration by race. Noticeably, the block groups with the largest concentration of non-white residents are east of El Camino Real. The neighborhoods east of El Camino Real include the North Central, Central, Sunnybrae, North Shoreview, Shoreview/Parkside, and San Mateo Glendale Village neighborhood areas. North Central and Central neighborhoods are two of the oldest neighborhoods in the city and are characterized by smaller lots with a range of housing types including single-family homes, duplexes, tri-plexes, quad-plexes as well as larger multifamily buildings located next to each other. It should be noted that discriminatory real estate practices excluded non-whites from many neighborhoods in the city and provided little options for minority populations to live or purchase housing except for these two neighborhoods. One result is that there is a higher concentration of religious institutions, ethnic markets, and multi-generational minority families in these two neighborhoods.

Many of the homes in the Sunnybrae, North Shoreview, Shoreview/Parkside, and San Mateo Glendale Village neighborhood areas were developed following World War II. The postwar housing boom saw a rapid increase in housing production to house the millions of returning war veterans. In communities across the nation, housing developers addressed the need through the advent of master plan developments which mass produced modest-size, one-story track homes on smaller lots 596 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-36
(i.e. typically 5,000 square feet) that differed from the custom-built housing on larger lots which was the norm before WWII. Multi-family apartment buildings have been built along major streets, which serve as a transition between neighborhood serving commercial uses and the single-family homes, in these neighborhoods. While the homes were more affordable, discriminatory real estate practices that excluded non-whites continued until the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Since the 1970’s, homes in these neighborhoods continue to remain more affordable than custom the built homes on larger lots that are located in other parts of the city.
597 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-37
Figure 8: Racial Demographics by Block Group
598 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-38

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

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

Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

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

ABAG and UC Merced completed an analysis of segregation in San Mateo. Several indices were used to assess segregation in the City and determine how the City differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall. The following is the summary from the UC Merced report (Attachment 4):
• As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in San Mateo, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. • Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, the highest level of racial segregation is between Latinx and white residents within San Mateo.
21 • According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in San Mateo declined between 2010 and 2020.
• Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015. • Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in San Mateo. Above Moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups. 21 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table Error! Reference s ource not found. in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction. 599 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-39
• Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has not substantively changed between 2010 and 2015.

In 2015, the income segregation in San Mateo between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

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

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

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

Further, the City anticipates that planning for approximately 2,970 units of housing affordable to low and very low-income households, as shown in the site inventory (Appendix C), will provide housing for resident groups who are more racially and ethnically diverse than the C i t y overall due to their disproportionate needs. The City is prepared to pair the construction of new affordable housing with affirmative marketing and other programs to ensure that residents with disproportionate needs in the region benefit from the housing.

5.3.2 Disability Status
The share of the population living with at least one disability is 9% in the City of San Mateo compared to 8% in San Mateo County (Figure II-13).

Concentrated disability status. The map below shows the concentration of those with disabilities using 2019 ACS 5-year data. San Mateo City has a low concentration with less than 10 percent, however, areas nearby have concentrations of 10 to 20 percent. These areas of concentration push up against El Camino Real and Bayshore Freeway. These areas have similar TCAC opportunity scores as the rest of the city, which shows that residents with disabilities have similar access to opportunity as non-disabled residents.

In San Mateo County, there are concentrations of the population living with a disability in the census tract just south of Half Moon Bay. This area of the county has poor TCAC opportunity scores for employment, environment, and other resources.
600 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-40
Therefore, residents with disabilities in San Mateo City are more likely to live in areas with the same opportunities as non-disabled residents but those residing in San Mateo County are more likely to live in areas with fewer opportunities than non-disabled residents.

Over time, the number of those with disabilities has stayed relatively stagnant. In 2012, 8.4% of San Mateo City identified a disability and in 2020, 9% did. The low percentage over time of those with disabilities suggests that San Mateo City lacks affordable, accessible units to accommodate more than 9% of their population. Trends in disability are largely in line with the Bay Area and County, where, respectively, 10% and 8% of the population has a disability.

As the population ages and is more likely to have a disability, there are increased concerns of displacement over time. Those who have a disability have a higher unemployment rate of 12% compared to those without a disability at 3%. Those who use fixed income due to a disability or retirement are more susceptible to displacement when housing costs rise. Populations over 65 are more likely to report having a disability in the City of San Mateo. This cohort has also gone up 13% from 92,482 in 2000 to 104,333 in 2019. The growth is a reminder that affordable and accessible housing are a growing need in the region.

There are a handful of census tracts in the City that have a 10% to 20% share of the population living with a disability (Figure II-14). Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population. The concentration of disability largely is in line with concentration of non-white racial groups and low-to-moderate income census tracts around Bayshore freeway. 601 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-41
Figure 9: Population with a Disability
602 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-42

5.3.3 Familial Status
The City of San Mateo is home to more single-person households than the county, with 28% of households compared to only 22% in the County (Figure II-16). Additionally, there are fewer marriedcouple families and families with children in the City (Figure II-17 and Figure II-18). By contrast, San Mateo County households are comprised of 22% single-family households and 55% of married couples.

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

In the City of San Mateo, the majority of married couple households and slim majority of residents living alone live-in owner-occupied housing (Figure II-19). By contrast, a large majority of Sant Mateo County households, 80% of married couple households and 70% of residents living alone, live in owner-occupied housing.

The number of housing units available by number of bedrooms and tenure is consistent with the familial status of the households that live in the City of San Mateo (Figure II-16 and Figure II-20).

Compared to the county, the City of San Mateo has a smaller proportion of family households and greater proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in the City (Figure II-19 and Figure II-20). The distribution of households by family type are mapped at the census tract level in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Female-headed households with children are more likely to be below the poverty level. In the City of San Mateo, 76 female-headed households with no children are below the poverty level compared to 309 female-headed households with children. Single-mother households are also less likely to be homeowners in the City. Concentrations of female-headed households with children and no partner are shown in the map below. Most of San Mateo has census tracts less than 20% female-headed households with the exception of four census tracts next to Bayshore Freeway.

Table 4: Female Headed Households, City of San Mateo, 2000, 2010, 2019 Census
Tract
Characteristic
s of Tract
Lowmod
%
2000
Femaleheaded
household
s
2010
Femaleheaded
household
s
#
chang
e 2000
to
2010
2019
Femaleheaded
household
s
#
chang
e
2000-
2019
#
chang
e
2010-
2019
6062 Hispanic
majority
(slight and
declining);
on the edge
63% 246 304 58 557 311 253
603 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-43
of R/ECAP
status
6063 White
majority
(slight)
46% 145 72
-73
52 -93
-20
6066 White
majority
35% 126 40 -86 55 -71 -15
6073 White
majority
19% 43 60 17 0 -43
-60
6074 White
majority
47% 77 60 -17 99 22 33
6075 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
38% 99 117 18 85 -14 -32
6076 White
majority
(slight)
40% 114 66 -48 69 -45 3
6077.0
1 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution
41% 105 111 6 49 -56 -62
6077.0
2 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution;
on the edge
of R/ECAP
status
45% 50 0 -50 193 193 143
6078 More
balanced
race/ethnic
distribution

30.5 %
36 58 22 70 34 12
The table above details the changes in female-headed households from 2000 to 2019. Most of these households are in tract 6062, an area that, as previously shown, has the highest proportion of those with low to moderate income. 311 female-headed households have been added to the census tract from 2000 to 2019. Other tracts have seen decreases in female-headed households. This suggests that more married couples are moving to the area, who generally have higher incomes, and that unaffordability has pushed female-headed households elsewhere in the City or County.

5.3.4 Household Income
604 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-44
The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in the City of San Mateo is similar to the county (Figure II-25). There are several census block groups in the City that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of $87,100 for a family of four, but the majority of block groups have median incomes well above that (Figure II-26 and Figure II-27). Poverty rates are highest in the City of San Mateo—between 10% and 20%–in census tracts along the San Francisco Bay and Highway 101 (Figure II-28). The map below shows median household income by census tract. Blue represents income less than the state median income ($87,100), bright green represents income less than $125,000 and dark green represents more than $125,000. A majority of census tracts in the San Mateo City area have an income more than $125,000. Incomes less than $125,000 are along El Camino Real, Railroad Avenue, and Bayshore Freeway. Lower incomes are in similar areas as previous maps showing disability and female headed households. 605 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-45
Figure 10: Median Household Income
606 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-46
Figure 11: Segregation and Integration
Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 26% 30%
Black or African American, NH 2% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 41% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 6% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 25% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 9% 8%
Without a disability 91% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 9% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 4% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 51% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 8% 8%
Single-person Households 28% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 13% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 12% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 16% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 11% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 49% 49%
0%
26%
2%
41%
6%
25%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
9%
91%
8%
92%
9%
4%
51%
8%
28%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
13%
12%
16%
11%
49%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
607 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-47

5.4 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent, predominantly White, neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.22 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

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

Figure 12: R/ECAP Definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

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

In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county— with one in the North County and one in the South County. Those R/ECAPs are located in Daly City and Redwood City. None were located in the City of San Mateo (Figure II-30).

No R/ECAPs were located in San Mateo City in 2010. In 2010, there were three R/ECAPs, all located in the South County in Redwood City, and East Palo Alto.

The small number of R/ECAPs reveals that poverty is either more equally distributed across neighborhoods in the City of San Mateo or that there are not enough racial or ethnic communities that can access the City. The displacement and subsequent decline of Black residents in San Mateo County is indicative of this trend, however, the rising Hispanic and Asian populations in the City of 22 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 608 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-48
San Mateo suggests that poverty is not ethnically concentrated. The lack of R/ECAPs in the City over time is driven by economic factors and lack of deeply affordable housing. Persons living in poverty encounter barriers to accessing the majority of cities within San Mateo County because of the lack of deeply subsidized housing. The county has no public housing, and Housing Choice Voucher utilization is low due to the extremely limited rental stock available to both voucher and non-voucher holders.
609 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-49
Figure 13: R/ECAPs, 2010
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010).

Source: 2010 and 2019 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research 610 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-50
Figure 14: R/ECAPs, 2019
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.1% in 2010).

Source: 2010 and 2019 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research 611 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-51
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. The map below shows the locations of RCAAs. RCAAs are census tracts where the white population more than 80% and median income exceeds $125,000.23 Analysis of RCAAs force cities to confront how concentrations of wealthy, white communities were established. As discussed previously, racial covenants, discriminatory lending, and reactionary intimidation of non-white homeowners effectively excluded other races from accessing neighborhoods which today are largely still majority white and affluent. The story of concentrated poverty in neighborhoods of color cannot be told without the knowledge of active exclusion from those with more political, social and economic power.

The map below shows the white-majority tracts in the City of San Mateo. Almost all tracts have a majority white population. In some areas, there is a gap of more than 50% between the white population and the second most populous race.
23 Goets, Edward, Damiano and Williams (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.

University of Minnesota.
612 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-52
Figure 15: White Majority Tracts
613 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-53
The western portion of the City of San Mateo is identified as an RCAA and marks the beginning of a stretch of RCAAs all the way to the Pacific Ocean. There is noticeable overlap between the whitemajority tracts and RCAAs given that its measurement includes white populations over 80%. RCAAs further distinguish these areas as both white and affluent. The table below shows median income by race and the population distribution in the City of San Mateo and San Mateo County. White households have slightly higher incomes than households overall. Black and Hispanic households have significantly less income than households overall. In the City of San Mateo, there is a $43,115 gap between Hispanic households and households overall. This is concerning from a housing affordability standpoint. There must be a broad spectrum of housing prices to sustain diversity in both the City and County of San Mateo.

Table 5: Race, Population, and Median Income
Source: ACS 2019 5-year data in 2019 inflation adjusted dollars.

On the census tract level, RCAAs have less households in poverty than non-RCAAs. The tables below compare the white population, income, and number of households below poverty. The maximum number of those under poverty level is 207 in census tracts near the City. The maximum number in non-RCAAs is 1,426 in census tract 6062 in the City of San Mateo. It is likely that those below poverty level cannot access housing in RCAA tracts and therefore congregate in the tracts with the most affordable housing.

Table 6: RCAA Census Tracts Near City of San Mateo, 2019 Census Tract White population and
%
Median Income # Households Below
Poverty Level
6058 1861/ 72% $184625 38
6064 2896/ 56% $167165 128
6065 2318/ 66% >$250000 73
6067 1524/ 62% $144479 74
6068 2013/ 57% $183173 114
6070 1850/ 52% $153125 134
6071 1889/ 61% $216037 52
6073 2111/ 58% $177927 207
Median Income Population Median Income Population
White $125,086 41% $127,921 39%
Hispanic $81,427 25% $79,761 24%
Asian $142,083 26% $141,341 27%
Black $86,818 2% $70,519 6%
Two or more races $139,937 6% $119,801 5%
All Households $124,842 100% $122,641 100%
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Race/ Ethnicity
614 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-54
Table 7: Non-RCAAs
6062 1071/ 14% $81231 1426
6063 1796/ 43% $92007 294
6066 1904/ 51% $151369 223
6073 2111/ 58% $177927 207
6074 2159/ 44% $109355 466
6075 1918/ 31% $133438 386
6076 1634/ 45% $122614 201
6077.01 1089/ 24% $107625 344
6077.02 781/ 23% $128068 509
615 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-55
Figure 16: RCAAs
616 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-56

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

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).” Figure 17: Access to Opportunity Definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

Local knowledge: resident survey questions about access to opportunity. Residents were asked about several resources that would improve their living situation in the survey conducted to support this AFFH. When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing security, top answers where:
• Help me with a down payment/purchase (35%);
• Help me with the housing search (26%); and
• Help me get a loan to buy a house (24%).

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

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

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

When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, top answers where:
• Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (26%);
617 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-57
• Make school more challenging (25%); and
• Have more activities afterschool (24%).

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

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

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

The attached “Access to Education” (Attachment 3) includes findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class. Preliminary findings from this analysis are shared below.

According to the Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix, the City of San Mateo is served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District. San Mateo Union increased enrollment by 16% from 2010 to 2020 and the elementary district enrollment increased by 1% over the same time. However, both districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.

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

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

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union 618 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-58
district were less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 29%, 46%, and 46% respectively.

Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low dropout rates—4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, dropout rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher.

6.2 Employment
The top three industries by number of jobs in the City of San Mateo include professional and managerial services, health and educational services, and arts and recreation services (Figure III-2 and Figure III-3). The City of San Mateo has a lower job-to-household ratio when compared to the county at 1.45 and 1.59 respectively—which means there are fewer employment opportunities per household in the City of San Mateo (Figure III-4 and Figure III-5). The City also has a slightly lower unemployment rate of 5.2% compared to the county at 5.9% (Figure III-6).

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

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

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

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to the City of San Mateo and San Mateo County. “San Mateo’s [Paratransit Coordinating Council] PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk rightof-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs.

Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.
619 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-59
While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”24 Transit improvements recommended for the City of San Mateo include:
• “More access to the College of San Mateo is needed. There is no direct service to Canada College [from the College of San Mateo] and other local colleges from the Coastside. • Many sidewalks in the county are uneven and inaccessible to individuals using mobility devices. • Some people with disabilities need personalized assistance (escort service) that is not available. • Transfers into San Mateo County [from transit services outside of the county] continue to be very difficult. SFMTA and SamTrans need a cost sharing agreement.” A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco Bay, served by MTC.”25 As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.26
MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18-month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.27

6.4 Environment
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.
24 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 25 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
26 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabi lities.html
27 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 620 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-60
Generally, all census tracts in the City of San Mateo score moderate to poorly on environmental outcomes. Census tracts surrounding Highway 101 and 92 have the lowest environmental scores in the City—primarily due to traffic on the highways, groundwater threats, and impaired water bodies (Figure III-9 and Figure III-10). However, the City scores relatively high compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III-11).

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.28 The northeast area of the City of San Mateo score the lowest on the HPI (Figure III-11).

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

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

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows census tracts in the northeast area of the City fall within moderate resource areas while the rest of the City is within high or highest resource areas (Figure III-14). The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Again, the northeast area of the City—encompassing the neighborhoods North Central, Shoreview, and North Shoreview—is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).

The City of San Mateo does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”29 (Figure III-16)

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

Of residents with a disability responding to the residents’ survey, 30% said that their home does not meet the needs of their household member.
28 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
29 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
621 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-61
Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Figure 18: Disability Definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

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

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

Residents living with a disability are primarily concentrated geographically along the Highway 101 corridor (Figure III-21).
622 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-62
Figure 19: Access to Opportunity
Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 1.45 1.59
Unemployment Rate 5% 6%
LEP Population 8% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of San Mateo Employment by Disability Status
0%
0%
27%
25%
3%
1%
33%
47%
5%
6%
32%
20%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
97%
88%
3%
12%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of San Mateo
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County 623 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-63

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

Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.” Figure 20: Disproportionate Housing Needs Definition
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

7.1 Housing Needs
Population growth in the City of San Mateo has generally kept up with the pace of growth countywide, except the City did not lose population during the great recession whereas the county did (Figure IV-1). Population growth slowed again from 2019 to 2020, likely due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020.

Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households, with 1,545 units permitted for above moderate-income households compared to 94 permits for moderate income households; 59 permits for low-income households; and 126 permitted for very low-income households (Figure IV-2). The Housing Needs Data Report for the City of San Mateo indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 30
The variety of housing types available in the City in 2020 are predominately single family (44%) and medium to large scale multifamily (39%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory increased more than single family, and the City has a greater share of multifamily housing compared to other communities in the region. 31
The majority of the housing inventory in the City of San Mateo was constructed from 1940 to 1980 (Figure IV-3). As such, the City’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.

Compared to San Mateo County, the City’s owner-occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—29% of units in the City fall within this price range compared to 23% in the County (Figure IV-4). Conversely, units priced above $2 million make up a 30 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 31 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 624 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-64
smaller proportion of the City’s housing stock compared to the county with 14% and 19% respectively. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the City and County (Figure IV-5).

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for-sale market—however, median rents increased more rapidly from 2017 to 2019 (Figure IV-7). Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the City of San Mateo has more luxury rental units—27% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the City compared to 22% in the County (Figure IV6).

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

A greater portion of households in the City of San Mateo (39%) struggle with cost burden compared to the County (37%) (Figure IV-8). Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Nearly three out of every four households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low-income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to only 1% of households earning more than 100% of AMI Even in the second highest income category, almost one-third of households are cost burdened.

Figure 21: Cost Burden by Income Level
Source:ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.
625 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-65
There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Mateo by race and ethnicity and family size. Black or African American (59%) and Hispanic households (55%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the City. Non-Hispanic households of other races (28% cost burdened), Asian households (33%), and non-Hispanic White households (34%) experience the lowest cost burden (Figure IV-11).

Figure 22: Cost Burden by Race
Source: ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.

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

Renter occupied households are more likely to be cost burdened compared with owner occupiers. 48% of renters are cost burdened compared with 31% of owner occupiers. Owners tend to have more income, and as previously established, those in high AMI categories pay less housing costs as a proportion of income. As revealed in discussion regarding RCAAs, Hispanic and Black households have substantially less income than white households and therefore are more likely to be costburdened. 100%
67%
41%
66%
72%
45%
20%
38%
19%
14%
26%
12%
21% 15% 13%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American Indian or
Alaska Native, NonHispanic
Asian / API, NonHispanicBlack or African
American, NonHispanic
White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or
Multiple Races, NonHispanic
Hispanic or Latinx Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed 626 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-66
Figure 23: Cost Burden by Tenure
Source:ABAG HESS Tool and Root Policy Research.

Cost burden is concentrated geographically in the City of San Mateo. Census tracts with higher rates of cost burden also align with previous maps that show concentration of disability and femalehousehold head status. Cost burden for renters is more severe, with more census tracts showing 60- 80% renters in the Northeast tracts facing housing cost burden. There are no tracts showing 60-80% of homeowners are rent burdened.
69%
50%
19%
23%
12%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
627 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-67
Figure 24: Cost Burdened Homeowners
628 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-68
Figure 25: Cost Burdened Renters
629 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-69

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

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

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

Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households, along the waterfront and Highway 101 (Figure IV-19). This could indicate that people are attempting to save on housing by splitting costs with more roommates or family members. 630 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-70
Figure 26: Overcrowding
631 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-71

7.4 Substandard Housing
Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. In the City of San Mateo, renter households are also more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to owner households.

Generally, a low share of households are lacking kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 1.3% are lacking kitchen facilities while less than one percent are lacking plumbing. For owners, less than one percent are lacking either kitchen or plumbing facilities (Figure IV-20).

In the City, 20 to 40% of all households that suffer from severe overcrowding, severe cost burden, or an incomplete kitchen or plumbing. Any of the four severe housing problems place households at risk of displacement and adverse physical and mental health. Regionally, the City of San Mateo is surrounded by municipalities with less than 20% of households with substandard housing issues. It is plausible that the high Hispanic population relative to other surrounding census tracts is behind the concentration. This population is more likely to rent and live in multigenerational homes. Both can be factors that indicate substandard and overcrowding conditions. While some tracts in the City of San Mateo likely offers refuge for low-income renters who cannot afford other areas of the County, it is important to note that substandard housing conditions place residents at risk of displacement from the City, as discussed in the following section.

Analyzing and mapping code enforcement data over the past five years shows that there are more violations in census tracts with higher rates of poverty and higher populations of non-white residents.

Census Tract 94401, where 7.6% families live in poverty and the White population is 38%, had onehalf of all violations in the City (1,012). By contrast, Census Tract 94402, where 0.7% of families live in poverty and the White population is 61%, majority race/ethnicity is White, had the lowest number of code violations.
632 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-72
Figure 27: Substandard Housing
633 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-73

7.5 Homelessness
In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county (74 people in the City of San Mateo) during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children (Figure IV-21). The recently released 2022 One-Day Count showed that 60 people in the City of San Mateo were homeless.

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

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

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

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
• They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
▪ Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017 ▪ AND
▪ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012- 2017
OR
• Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Figure 28: Displacement Sensitive Communities
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.
634 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-74
The resident survey conducted for this study found that 31% of residents in the City of San Mateo have been displaced in the past 5 years. The top reason for displacement was “Rent increased more than I could pay” (42%). Sixteen census tracts in the City are currently vulnerable to displacement— these same Tracts have high shares of renter households (Figure IV-28). The map below shows the concentration of sensitive communities. To the west of the City of San Mateo, there are few communities at risk of displacement. This does not indicate that there are adequate resources for those of all income groups, but rather that these communities are not obtainable to those with less resources.

Analysis of the factors contributing to displacement. As the resident survey indicated, wages have not kept pace with housing costs in the City. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how quickly employment and income status can change; those who are not able to save because of housing cost burden are far more likely to be involuntarily displaced from their homes. Those who live in substandard housing are also likely live in properties with low appraised value. This puts them at risk of displacement as developers look for cheap land to build profitable, expensive housing.

Areas of the City with the highest cost burden and overcrowding—along the waterfront—are included in the Special Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having a 1% chance of flooding annually (Figure IV-29, IV-30, and IV-31). 32 As such, displacement caused by flooding is a very unlikely event. Increased rent is a much more significant factor.

Instead, future displacement is more likely a factor of rents rising faster than incomes and a very limited supply of affordable units. Developing additional affordable and income-targeted units in displacement sensitive areas is the surest method of mitigating continued displacement pressure. 32The analysis in this section is based on displacement data provided by ABAG, which includes only current and future displacement risk, rather than a historical analysis of changes in these populations by Census tract. Therefore, it is presumed that there has been displacement of lower income and minority populations over time in the past. For example, according to Census data, one particular tract in North Central was 18% African American in 1990, but by 2017 that tract’s African American population was reduced to just 4%. 635 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-75
Figure 29: Sensitive Communities
636 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-76
Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates (Figure IV-32). Hispanic (32% denial rate) and American Indian or Alaska Native households (27%) had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic Asian (17%), Black (18%), and White households (19%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time (Figure IV-33). 637 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-77
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of San Mateo, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of San Mateo, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of San Mateo, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, City of San Mateo, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of San Mateo San Mateo County Number of Units 72 417
% of Assisted Units 10% 8%
14%
23%
44%
65%
89%
13%
39%
39%
32%
10%
73%
37%
18%
3%
1%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.4%

0.3%

1.3%

0.4%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

7.5%

5.5%

1.5%

0.5%

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

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
Figure 30: Disproportionate Housing Needs
638 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-78

8. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS

8.1 City of San Mateo Sites Inventory AFFH Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing. The City’s proposed RHNA sites can accommodate approximately 9,855 new units — 2,970 units for lower income households, 1,181 units for moderate income households, and 5,704 units for above moderate-income households.

Figure A-1 shows the location of census tracts in San Mateo, while Figure A-2 shows the geographic distribution of the proposed RHNA sites. Overall, the location of the proposed sites are well distributed throughout the city, with the majority of sites located along both sides of El Camino Real, which has the most options for new and re-development and where there is the best opportunity to maximize density. The proximity of sites along El Camino Real provides robust access to transportation options and services.

Figures A-3 and A-4 present the distribution of the City’s proposed RHNA units by census tract, income level, and AFFH indicators. Figures A-5 through A-10 map the location of proposed RHNA units compared to several AFFH indicators. For income level, a site is considered “mixed” if none of the four income categories represent more than 50% of the total units on the site.

The analysis of the RHNA unit location against these indicators demonstrates that:
• There are six census tracts where RHNA units will be located that are minority concentrated and represented by Asian and Hispanic residents. These census tracts are all moderate to high resource areas. The distribution of RHNA units within these Census tracts will not have the effect of increasing minority concentration in low resource areas; instead, adding income diverse housing to these tracts will broaden housing choices in moderate and high opportunity neighborhoods where persons of color are likely to find sought-after cultural amenities and services.
• No RHNA units are located in R/ECAPs. The units that are proposed to be located in the City’s lowest income areas are all high opportunity neighborhoods and these areas have higher median income than the state overall. They are lower income only relative to the city’s relatively high income overall.
• No RHNA units are being placed in low opportunity areas. • RHNA units are well distributed among income groups within high opportunity areas. 639 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-79
Source: U.S. Census and Root Policy Research.

Figure 31: City of San Mateo Census Tracts
640 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-80
Source: U.S. Census and Root Policy Research.

Figure 32: Geographic Distribution of Proposed RHNA Sites by Census Tract 641 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-81
Source: City of San Mateo and Root Policy Research.

Census Tract
Census Tract 6058 0 0 0 10 10
Census Tract 6509.01 9 5 6 14 34
Census Tract 6509.02 12 7 8 22 49
Census Tract 6060 0 0 4 4 8
Census Tract 6061 14 14 6 80 114
Census Tract 6062.02 9 16 8 118 151
Census Tract 6063 185 272 65 526 1,048
Census Tract 6064 17 9 23 54 103
Census Tract 6065 7 4 5 13 29
Census Tract 6066 161 92 104 268 625
Census Tract 6067 0 29 0 261 290
Census Tract 6072 193 295 305 1,179 1,972
Census Tract 6074 123 65 87 311 586
Census Tract 6075 127 86 83 323 619
Census Tract 6076 270 104 137 1,360 1,871
Census Tract 6078 103 44 50 362 559
Census Tract 6079 169 126 114 431 840
Census Tract 6084 95 54 61 158 368
Census Tract 6085.01 23 0 0 207 230
Accessory Dwelling Units 144 144 144 48 480
1,661 1,366 1,210 5,749 9,986
Above
Moderate
Income
Very Low
Income Low Income
Moderate
Income Total
Table 8: City of San Mateo Proposed RHNA Units by Income and Census Tract 642 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-82
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021 5-year ACS data, City of San Mateo, and Root Policy Research.

Census Tract
Census Tract 6058 0 0 0 10 15% $ 178,698 Highest Resource 49% 0% Lower Census Tract 6509.01 9 5 6 14 52% $ 136,065 High Resource 47% 3% Lower Census Tract 6509.02 12 7 8 22 65% $ 87,049 High Resource 61% 13% Lower Census Tract 6060 0 0 4 4 51% $ 93,950 High Resource 43% 13% Lower Census Tract 6061 14 14 6 80 61% $ 126,316 Moderate Resource 57% 18% Lower Census Tract 6062.02 9 16 8 118 71% $ 110,722 Moderate Resource 52% 11% At risk Census Tract 6063 185 272 65 526 53% $ 96,250 Moderate Resource 47% 7% Lower Census Tract 6064 17 9 23 54 47% $ 133,578 High Resource 36% 2% Lower Census Tract 6065 7 4 5 13 24% $ 228,478 Highest Resource 48% 0% Lower Census Tract 6066 161 92 104 268 39% $ 162,857 Moderate Resource 52% 9% Lower Census Tract 6067 0 29 0 261 41% $ 158,091 Highest Resource 35% 0% Lower Census Tract 6072 193 295 305 1,179 61% $ 108,886 High Resource 52% 8% Lower Census Tract 6074 123 65 87 311 42% $ 118,021 Moderate Resource 51% 14% Lower Census Tract 6075 127 86 83 323 63% $ 167,279 Moderate Resource 38% 8% Lower Census Tract 6076 270 104 137 1,360 48% $ 117,566 Moderate Resource 46% 5% Lower Census Tract 6078 103 44 50 362 50% $ 160,297 Moderate Resource 66% 3% Lower Census Tract 6079 169 126 114 431 51% $ 129,853 Moderate Resource 44% 6% Lower Census Tract 6084 95 54 61 158 65% $ 129,662 High Resource 49% 1% Lower Census Tract 6085.01 23 0 0 207 52% $ 155,417 High Resource 48% 7% Lower Accessory Dwelling Units 144 144 144 48 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Units 1,661 1,366 1,210 5,749
Above
Moderate
Income
Percent
Ovecrowded
Households
Percent
Overpayment
by Renters
TCAC Opportunity
Area Category
Median
Household
Income
Percent
Non-White
Population
Very Low
Income Low Income
Moderate
Income
Displacment
Risk
Table 9: Proposed RHNA Sites by Census Tract, Income Level, and AFFH Indicators 643 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-83

8.2 Segregation and Integration
According to 2021 5-year ACS data, the majority of residents in the city of San Mateo identify as non-white (52%). Asian (26%) and Hispanic (24%) residents represent the greatest non-white populations in the city.

Of Census Tracts within the city with proposed RHNA sites, there are six census tracts with populations of non-White residents greater than 60% — primarily located in the Downtown and Hillsdale Station South areas. The census tracts with the greatest concentrations of non-White populations are Census Tract 6062.02 (71%), Census Tract 6509.02 (65%), Census Tract 6084 (65%), and Census Tract 6075 (63%).

According to the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, with the exception of Census Tract 6061, all other five census tracts are designated as “Asian-Latinx-White”. Census Tract 6061 is designated as “AsianLatinx-White-Other”.

Within these six census tracts, the City’s Sites Inventory proposes 450 units for very low income households, 472 units for low income households, 471 units for moderate income households, and 1,880 units for above moderate income households. This represents 27% of the City’s proposed units for very low income households, 35% of units for low income households, 39% of units for moderate income households, and 33% of units for above moderate income households.

Additionally, according to the TCAC opportunity area maps, three of the census tracts are designated as “high resource”, while the other three are designated as “moderate resource”. Of the total units proposed in these six Census Tracts (3,273 units), 67% of the units for very low income households, 75% of the units for low income households, 79% of the units for moderate income households, and 72% for above moderate income households are located in high resource areas. In the context of segregation and integration, the City’s Sites Inventory balances the distribution of units across all income levels and prioritizes sites in high resource areas.

8.3 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence Per HUD’s definition, there are no Census Tracts designated as racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) in the city of San Mateo. Additionally, the City does not have any Census Tracts designated as “High Segregation and Poverty”, as defined by California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).

According to 2021 5-year ACS data, the median household income in California is $84,097. Located in one of the most affluent counties in the country, every census tract in San Mateo exceeds the state’s median household income. However, there are three census tracts in the city that have a non-white population of greater than 60% and have a lower median income relative to the City’s median income ($133,612)— Census Tract 6509.02 (65% non-white population, $87,049 median household income), Census Tract 6072 (61% non-white population, $108,886 median household income), and Census Tract 6062.02 (71% nonwhite population, $110,722 median household income). Although these tracts have lower median household incomes relative to the city, Census Tracts 6509.02 and 6072 are designated as “high resource” areas and Census Tract 6062.02 is designated as a “moderate resource” area. Census Tract 6062.02 is the only Census Tract in San Mateo that is designated as vulnerable to displacement.

Collectively, the Sites Inventory proposes 214 very low income units, 318 low income units, 321 moderate income units, and 1,319 above moderate income units in these census tracts. The majority of the proposed units within these three tracts are located in high resource areas — 94% of very low income units, 95% of low income units, 98% of moderate income units, and 91% of above moderate income households. In the context of census tracts with high non-white populations and relatively lower household incomes compared to the city at-large, the balance of units across income categories not only 644 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-84
allows for lower income households to access affordable housing options but also creates more opportunity for households of all incomes to access high resource areas.

Conversely, there are four census tracts in San Mateo that meet the definition of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence—Census Tract 6058, Census Tract 6064, Census Tract 6065, and Census Tract 6067. All four of these census tracts are located on the western side of the city. Collectively, the Sites Inventory proposes 432 units for these four census tracts—24 units for very low income households, 42 units for low income households, 28 units for moderate income households, and 338 units for above moderate income households. These units represent 1% of very low income units, 3% of low income units, 2% of moderate income units, and 6% of above moderate income units in the proposed Sites Inventory. While the units in these census tracts make up a relatively small proportion of the City’s overall Sites Inventory (4% of the total), these units will provide greater access to the highest resource areas in the city.

8.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Of the 19 census tracts in San Mateo with proposed RHNA sites, nine census tracts are designated as “moderate resource”, seven census tracts are designated as “high resource”, and three census tracts are designated as “highest resource” areas. The high and highest resource census tracts are primarily located in the western and southern areas of the city. The Sites Inventory proposes 356 units for very low income households, 403 units for low income households, 412 units for moderate income households, and 1,922 units for above moderate income households in the City’s high and highest resource areas. Overall, these units account or 21% of very low income units, 30% of low income units, 34% of moderate income units, and 33% of above moderate income units in the City’s proposed Sites Inventory. When the units for very low income and low income households are combined, 25% of these units are located in high or highest resource areas in San Mateo.

Through the lens of access to opportunity, the City’s Sites Inventory makes a concerted effort to ensure that households across income categories have the opportunity to live in high and highest resource areas of the city. While the majority of lower income units are located in moderate resource areas in the city, no proposed sites in the City’s Sites Inventory are located in low resource areas.

8.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost burden, or households paying more than 30% of the household income on housing costs, is a significant challenge currently facing San Mateo residents, particularly for renters. Of the 19 census tracts in San Mateo with proposed RHNA sites, seven Census Tracts have more than 50% of renter households experiencing cost burden. Additionally, at least 35% of renter households in every Census Tract experience cost burden.

The seven Census Tracts with more than half of their renter households experiencing cost burden include Census Tract 6078 (66% of renters are cost burdened), Census Tract 6509.02 (61%), Census Tract 6061 (57%), Census Tracts 6062.02, 6066, and 6072 (52%), and Census Tract 6074 (51%).

Within these seven census tracts, the Sites Inventory proposes 615 very low income units, 533 low income units, 568 moderate income units, and 2,340 above moderate income units. This accounts for 37% of very low income units, 39% of low income units, 44% of moderate income units, and 41% of above moderate income units. Collectively, these units make up 41% of the City’s total Sites Inventory. Moreover, nearly 40% of all proposed lower income units (very low + low income) are located in these census tracts.

Two of the seven census tracts—Census Tract 6509.02 and Census Tract 6072—are designated as high resource areas. Of the proposed sites located within these seven Census Tracts, 33% of the very low 645 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-85
income units, 57% of the low income units, 55% of the moderate income units, and 51% of the above moderate income units are located in high resource areas. The addition of these units should help provide more opportunities for low and moderate-income households to find affordable housing options and lessen the number of households experiencing cost burden.

In addition to cost burden, overcrowded households can signify a mismatch between the types of housing needed by residents and the types of housing available and affordable to those families. In 2021, 7% of the city’s households were considered overcrowded, defined as more than one person per bedroom in a household. There are five census tracts in San Mateo where there are at least 50% more households experiencing overcrowding compared to the city overall. These Census Tracts include Census Tract 6061 (18% of households are overcrowded), Census Tract 6074 (14%), Census Tracts 6509.02 and 6060 (13%), and Census Tract 6062.02 (11%). The City’s Sites Inventory proposes 158 very low income units, 102 low income units, 113 moderate income households, and 535 above moderate income households.

Collectively, these units make up 9% of the City’s proposed Sites Inventory. The addition of these units across income categories will create greater access to housing opportunities for overcrowded households.

As noted earlier, just one Census Tract in San Mateo is designated as “at risk of displacement”. Census Tract 6062.02 has the greatest percentage of non-White resident (71%) of census tracts with proposed RHNA sites. Additionally, the Census Tract also has a lower median household income ($110,722) compared to the city, as well as high rates of renter cost burden (52%) and overcrowding (11%). The Sites Inventory proposes 9 very low income units, 16 low income units, 8 moderate income units, and 118 above moderate incomes, making up just 1.5% of the City’s overall Sites Inventory. While most of the units for this Census Tract are targeted for above moderate income households, the relatively low proportion of units should not further exacerbate residents’ risk of displacement. 646 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-86
Source: 2021 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research
Figure 33: Proposed RHNA Sites by Percent of Non-White Population and Census Tract, 2021 647 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-87
Source: 2021 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research.

Figure 34: Proposed RHNA Sites by Median Household Income and Census Tract, 2021 648 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-88
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee) and Root Policy Research.

Figure 35: Proposed RHNA Sites by TCAC Opportunity Resource Area Designation and Census Tract, 2022 649 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-89
Figure 36: Proposed RHNA Sites by Percent of Renter Overpayment (Cost Burden) and Census Tract, 2021 650 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-90
Source:
2021 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research.

Source: 2021 5-year ACS and Root Policy Research.

Figure 37: Proposed RHNA Sites by Percent of Overcrowded Households and Census Tract, 2021 651 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-91
Figure 38: Proposed RHNA Sites by Vulnerability to Displacement and Census Tract, 2022 Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (Sensitive Communities UCB, Urban Displacement Project) and Root Policy Research 652 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-92

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

It should be noted that, in addition to the programs and policies specifically in response to the AFFH analysis, many of the general goals and policies of the Housing Element will also have positive impacts in addressing disparate housing needs, mobility concerns, housing choice, place-based strategies, and safeguards against displacement. The following includes, but is not limited to, those general policies with a beneficial impact on AFFH concerns:

Policy H 1.2 - Utilize Public Funding and Properties for New Affordable Housing: provides funding for a variety of housing types, addressing the needs of lower-income households, including on sites owned by the City.

Policy H 1.3 – Increase Affordable Housing Production: adopting an updated Density Bonus/Community Benefits program that provides additional incentives and/or streamlining options for housing projects that provide additional affordable units or the most needed unit types (including those with special needs) beyond minimum state requirements.

Policy H 1.4 – Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: expands the resources available for homeowners to add ADUs, which provide an important source of affordable housing. Recent analysis of ADUs permitted indicates these are being developed in highest or high resource areas, providing additional mobility options within in San Mateo:
# of ADU/JADUs with Permits Issued 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2021 TCAC Area (2021) # of Units Percent
Highest Resource 30 15.7%
High Resource 83 43.5%
Moderate Resource* 78 40.8%
TOTAL 191 100.0%
*Includes Rapidly Changing
Policy H 1.5 – Encourage Family Housing: prioritizes creation of housing that addresses the needs of large families, providing greater housing choice.

Policy H 1.7 – Update Zoning Code Development Standards: includes an action to create an affordable housing overlay to support the development of affordable housing on religious or educational institutions’ 653 of 2271
C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O 2 0 31 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T Page H-D-93
sites, thereby increasing mobility into lower-density areas.

Policy H 1.20 – Adopt San Mateo General Plan 2040: upon adoption, the plan would increase the capacity of additional housing of at least 10,000 units, creating substantial new opportunities for housing, including that which is affordable, throughout the City in locations that are near transit, goods, and services.

Policy H 2.1 – Fund Housing Rehabilitation Efforts: providing funding to lower income households for rehabilitation and accessibility improvements helps prevent displacement because of poor housing conditions.

Policy H 2.4 – Implement Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Neighborhoods: The City will continue to invest CDBG and other funding into lower resource neighborhoods, which include households shown to have disparate housing needs. This will include proactive outreach to the affected communities to ensure the most critical needs are addressed. See also excerpts from the Environmental Justice efforts, located below.

Policy H 2.5 – Promote Housing Resilience: this specifically addresses climate change-related environmental issues in disadvantaged neighborhoods impacted by flooding in the North Shoreview neighborhood.

Policy H 2.6 – Require Replacement Units: this would extend replacement requirements beyond the Housing Crisis Act sunset date of 2034, thereby helping to prevent potential displacement in the future.

Policy H 3.2 – Investigate Fair Housing Cases: continue to fund fair housing service providers to address potential households facing displacement and/or fair housing challenges, who often have disparate needs in lower-income, poorly resourced areas.

Policy H 3.4 – Expand Tenant Protections: this action would extend the measures found in AB1482 by requiring relocation payments to tenancy of less than one year, requiring right to return policies for tenants displaced by substantial renovations, and strengthening the enforcement penalty structure to further protect tenants.

Policy H 3.5 – Study the Creation of Below Market Rate Set Asides: conduct a best practices review to determine the feasibility of prioritizing groups with special needs, including large families, single female heads of households, and others with disparate housing needs and implement as directed by City Council.

Policy H 4.1 – Update the Housing Webpage: this would improve the City’s webpage with comprehensive housing-related materials in multiple languages, with a specific effort to ensure that households with disproportionate housing needs are targeted with this information.

Policy H 4.3 – Expand Community Education and Outreach: The City plans a robust and adaptive community engagement program with targeting to underrepresented groups, including those with special needs, disparate housing needs, and others.
654 of 2271

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

H O U S I N G E L E M E N T
Page H-D-94
Policy H 4.4 – Enable Affirmative Marketing: This would require developers of affordable housing to create a Marketing Plan during the final phase of construction on a project-by-project basis, focusing on outreach to special needs individuals and those least likely to apply based on racial make-up of neighborhood, including those with disparate housing needs.

9.1 Related Environmental Justice Activities
As noted previously, Policy H 2.4 – Implement Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Neighborhoods directs substantial activities targeted to North Central and North Shoreview. The General Plan Update further articulates the City’s commitment to environmental justice in these areas, and proposes a number of actions to improve conditions that address additional AFFH concerns in the Land Use Element, including, but not limited to:

Action LU 8.8 -- Streetscape and Safety Improvements. Work with residents in equity priority communities to identify sidewalk, lighting, landscaping, and roadway improvements needed to improve routes to parks, schools, recreation facilities, and other destinations within the community. Prioritize investments to address health disparities in equity priority communities in the annual Capital Improvement Program.

Action LU 8.9 -- Equity Priority Community Mapping. Regularly update the map identifying equity priority communities with data from CalEnviroScreen or other sources, including information from community members.

Action LU 8.10 -- Equity Priority Communities Plan. Prepare a plan for the equity priority communities that addresses the needs of each community, including health, safety, and improved circulation with community input. The plan shall seek to ensure the streets in each community are measurably safe, include ADA accessibility, and have adequate on-street parking. Changes included in the plan shall be developed and enacted with the express purposes of improving health, safety, and welfare for the members of each community.

Action LU 8.11 -- City Services. Work with residents in equity priority communities to identify services that the City or other partners could provide to improve safety, sanitation, and security in these neighborhoods.

Action LU 8.12 -- Neighborhood Beautification. Support and promote neighborhood clean-up and beautification initiatives in equity priority communities, including in partnership with neighborhood organizations.
655 of 2271
APPENDIX D | Attachment 1 – Fair Housing Action Plan
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Category Action
Type of
Action Responsible Party Objectives Quantified Objectives Timeline Action Area 1. Enhancing housing mobility strategies: consist of removing barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access.

Action 1.1: Adjust the city's Below
Market Rate (inclusionary)
program to provide larger density
bonuses, and/or increased city
support in exchange for
affordable units in high resource
areas or in areas of affluence that
address the needs of residents
with disproportionate housing
needs (e.g., accessible/visitable
units for persons with disabilities,
child-friendly developments with
day care on site for single parents,
and 3-4 bedroom units for larger
families).

Hispanic and single
female parent
households are
concentrated in low
opportunity census
tracts. Persons with
disabilities face a
shortage of accessible,
affordable housing.

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

Currently developments
of 11 or more units
require 15% affordable to
moderate income families
for ownership and 15%
for low income families
for renters.
a) Perform a feasibility analysis to redesign
the program to allow a menu of options,
including targeting of units for ELI
households.
b) Ensure analysis includes review of housing
for households with disproportionate housing
needs, along with income levels.

This item is connected to Policy H 1.3, Policy
H 1.5., Policy H 1.14, and Policy H 1.15.

Geographic Targeting: Citywide
Metrics: Increase affordable housing in highresource areas or areas of affluence by 15% a) Complete feasibility
analysis by Fall 2023;
b) Implement
redesigned program by
Spring 2024.

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

Hispanic households,
single female parent
households and persons
with disabilities have
disproportionate
housing needs.

Historic discrimination
and continued mortgage
denials; Concentration in
low opportunity census
tracts; High housing
costs and low wages
Disparities in
access to
opportunities
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Financial
resources
Regional
Partnership with
HEART (San Mateo
County has
program with
them)
Improve accessibility to
home mortgage loans for
Hispanic households who
have the highest loan
denial rates, as well as
single female parent
households, ELI
households, and people
with disabilities. Provide
wealth building through
homeownership for
moderate income
households.
a) Affirmatively market down payment
assistance to 1,000 households with
disproportionate housing needs, including
persons with disabilities, single parents and
Hispanic households;
b) Provide down payment assistance to 30
total households;
c)Provide homebuyer education to 200
households.
d) Assist households in proportion to the
demographic profile of the City
In addition, the City will work with other
jurisdictions to conduct outreach and
education. Ensure that programs
target/affirmatively market to households in
impacted neighborhoods, including North
Central and North Shoreview, among others.

This item is connected to Policy H 4.4.

Geographic Targeting: North Central and
North Shoreview Neighborhoods
a) Meet quantified
objectives by the end of
the Housing Element
period from 2023-2031;
b) Conduct
homebuyer/outreach
and education quarterly
in partnership with
HEART
Action 1.3: Explore the potential
to implement a loan program for
ADU construction If a City-funded
ADU loan program is determined
to be infeasible. the City will
support the design a regional
forgivable loan program for
homeowners to construct an ADU
that is held affordable for
extremely low income households
for 15 years.

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

Persons with disabilities
face a shortage of
accessible, affordable
housing.

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

Explore the potential for a city ADU loan
program. Work with 21 Elements
collaborative to design a regional loan
forgiveness program. Ensure that programs
target/affirmatively market to households in
impacted neighborhoods, including North
Central and North Shoreview, among others.

To enhance mobility in high resource/areas of
affluence, additionally target to areas outside
lower resource areas. Target those with
disproportionate housing needs, with a goal
to reach 5 households annually.

Explore City loan
program Summer 2024.

If joining regional
collaborative,
begin design in Summer
2025 and complete by
winter 2026.
656 of 2271
Provide support to 21 Elements in the
development of a countywide ADU forgivable
loan program.

Promote the use of Housing Choice Vouchers
(HCVs) for ADUs to allow lower income
households the opportunity to live in lower
density neighborhoods. The goal is to reach
20% of households with HCVs annually.

Provide targeted outreach to ELI households.

This item is connected to Policy H1.4.

Geographic Targeting: Impacted
neighborhoods, including North Central and
North Shoreview.

ADDITIONAL MOBILITY ACTIONS FROM THE GENERAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Policy H1.4 – Support Increased Accessory Dwelling Unit Development: expands the resources available for homeowners to add ADUs, which provide an important source of affordable housing.

Policy H1.7 - Update Zoning Code Development Standards: includes an action to create an affordable housing overlay to support the development of affordable housing on religious or educational institutions’ sites, thereby increasing mobility into lower-density areas.

Action Area 2. Encouraging new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas and areas of affluence: promoting housing supply, choices and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside of areas of concentrated poverty.

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

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

Persons with disabilities
face a shortage of
accessible, affordable
housing.

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

Disproportionate
housing need for
low income
households and
protected classes
Provide additional
resources to facilitate
the development of
housing for low income
households and
households with special
needs in higher
opportunity/areas of
affluence.

Financial
resources
City of San Mateo Affirmatively market the
housing to households
with disproportionate
housing needs including
persons with disabilities,
single parents, and
Hispanic households (e.g.,
Spanish and English,
targeted identified
neighborhoods).

Require developers to affirmatively market
approximately 1,000 units to those with
disproportionate housing needs over the
eight-year period (approximately 125
annually) by preparing and submitting and
affirmative marketing plan to the City for
review. The affirmative marketing plan shall
include items, such as advertising (print,
social media) and targeting community
organizations that serve households with
disproportionate housing needs Ensure that
programs target/affirmatively market to
households with disproportionate housing
needs. Of the 1,000 affordable units,
approximately 15% will benefit special needs
and/or ELI households.

Continue to update the housing inventory
and provide on the City’s website so that
developers can target housing in moderate
and high opportunity areas, as well as areas
of affluence.

This item is connected to Policy H1.2. and
Policy H4.4.

Geographic Targeting: Areas of higher
opportunities and affluence.
2031 (Annually); as
development projects
come in for
approvals/financing
Action 2.2: Incentivize developers
through direct subsidies, fee
waivers, and/or density bonuses,
to increase accessibility
requirements beyond the federal
requirement of 5% for subsidized
developments.

Persons with disabilities
and persons of color
have disproportionate
housing needs.

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

Disproportionate
housing need for
low income
households and
protected classes
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Financial
resources
City of San Mateo Increase development of
accessible units beyond
minimum requirements
a. Update development agreements for
projects with City subsidies to include
additional accessible units.
b. Update the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Policy to require projects that receive City
subsidies to increase the percentage of
units that meet accessibility
requirements. This item is connected to
Policy H1.3
c. The City will proactively outreach to
developers throughout the planning
a. 2023 - 2031
(ongoing) as
development
opportunities come
available.
b. 2026 Update
Inclusionary Housing
Policy
c. Every two years,
beginning in 2024
657 of 2271
period every two years, beginning in
2024.

Geographic Targeting: Citywide
Metrics: Approximately 10% of units
within projects with City subsidies will be
accessible.

Action 2.3: Prioritize city funding
proposals for city funded
affordable housing that are
committed to serving hard to
serve residents (e.g., extremely
low income, special needs, on site
services)
Persons with disabilities
and persons of color
have disproportionate
housing needs.

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

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

Conduct a best practices review and develop
a program to prioritize City funding for
housing projects. This item is connected to
Policy H1.5, Policy H1.14, and Policy H1.15.

Geographic Targeting: Citywide, but will
target impacted neighborhoods, including
North Central and North Shoreview.

Metrics: A minimum of 15% of City-funded
affordable housing units will be committed to
serving hard to serve residents.
2028 Conduct a review
of best practices and
develop a program for
City Council adoption
Policy H5.2.4: In conjunction with
San Mateo County, develop a
housing mobility program that
provides support to tenants
seeking to move to high
opportunity areas in the region.

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

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack of
access to economic
opportunity;
Concentrationinlow
incomeandlow
opportunitycensus
tracts.

Disparities in access
to opportunity
Promote equal housing
opportunity
Financial
resources
City of San Mateo
and San Mateo
County
Increase the number of
households with housing
vouchers living in areas of
high opportunity
throughout the region.

Policy H5.2.4: In conjunction with San Mateo
County, develop a housing mobility program
that provides support to tenants seeking to
move to high opportunity areas in the region.

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

Action Area 3. Improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing: involves approaches that are focused on conserving and improving assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty. In addition to those described below, see Policy H Policy H2.4 – Implement Capital Improvements in Lower-Resourced Areas above, as well as excerpts from the General Plan Update’s actions towards environmental justice, following this section.

Action 3.1: As part of the General
Plan, conduct an area plan for the
North Shoreview and North
Central neighborhoods and
prioritize land use and design
around Highway 101 to improve
access and reduce the division of
the urban form produced by the
highway.

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

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

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

Prepare an area plan for North Shoreview and
North Central neighborhoods.

Geographic Targeting: North Shoreview and
North Central neighborhoods.

Metrics: Increase housing capacity in North
Shoreview and North Central by a minimum
of 15%.
2029 Create plan
through the General
Plan Update
implementation process
Action 3.2: Continue to fund
minor home repairs,
infrastructure improvements and
public services, implementing a
preference for projects in low
opportunity census tracts
identified in the analysis.

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

Persons with disabilities
lack accessible,
affordable housing.

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

Continue funding for
service providers reaching
households with
disproportionate housing
needs, Make additional
infrastructure
improvements in low
resource areas.

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

Provide home rehabilitation loans for lowincome homeowners and landlords making accessibility modifications. Fund service
providers that target households with
disproportionate housing needs, including
services for seniors, ELI households, youth,
and fair housing.

Affirmatively market to Hispanic and single
female heads of household biannually; ensure
that programs target/affirmatively market to
households in impacted neighborhoods,
including North Central and North Shoreview,
among others.
2023-2031 (Fund
annually; consistent with
Policy H2.1; outreach
biannually in target
neighborhoods)
658 of 2271
Bi-annually apply for funding through the CIP
or other actions to address infrastructure
needs.

This item is connected to Policy H2.1 and
Policy H2.3.

Geographic Targeting: Citywide, but will
target impacted neighborhoods, including
North Central and North Shoreview.

Action 3.3: Monitor affordable
housing projects that are at risk of
conversion to market rate.

Support regional and local efforts
to examine displacement of
affordable housing and lower
income households. Assist with
the retention of special needs
housing that is at risk of expiring
affordability requirements.

Facilitate ownership transfer to
nonprofit organizations.

Hispanic households,
single parent
households and persons
with disabilities have
disproportionate
housing needs.

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

Bridgepointe Condominiums affordability
requirements for 59 affordable units expire in
2027, out of which 24 are very low- income
units (35 are at 120% AMI). Belmont Building
affordability requirements for 6 units expire in
2032. The rental property is owned by a forprofit entity, potential for loss of units is high.

Proactively coordinate with owners to
preserve the 24 very low- income units as
affordable, including identifying potential
funding sources, advertise conversion units to
non-profits, provide conduct tenant outreach
and education, add a displacement
preference for new affordable housing for
people displaced, including those displaced as
a result of conversion. Provide noticing to
tenants and affected public entities in
accordance with Gov. Code, § 65863.10,
65863.11, and 65863.13 Outreach and
negotiate with owners for affordability
extensions beginning at least two years prior
to the affordability expiration date. This item
is connected to Policy H2.2
Geographic Targeting: N/A, Bridgepoint
Condominiums and Belmont Building.
a) 2027 (Bridgepointe
Condominiums)
b) 2032 (Belmont
Building); Consistent
with Policy H2.2
Action Area 4. Protecting existing residents from displacement: strategies that protects residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing choices and affordability.

Action 4.1: Establish tenant
protections in local ordinance to
extend measures of AB1482
related to relocation,
documentation, and right to
return policy in eviction cases.

Persons with disabilities
and persons of color
have disproportionate
housing needs.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack of
access to economic
opportunity;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts; Historic
discrimination and
continued mortgage
denials; High housing
costs and low wages
Disparities in
access to
opportunity
Address governmental
and non-governmental
constraints
Human
resources
City of San Mateo Increase tenant
protections to prevent
displacement of those
with disproportionate
housing needs.
a) Extend AB1482 provisions to require
tenant relocation payments for No Fault
evictions for those with tenure less than one
year.
b) Make recommendations to the City
Council for establishing tenant protection
policies that include the requirement of
documentation from landlords who use the
substantial remodel exemption to evict
tenants and a Right to Return policy for
tenants displaced from homes due to
demolition or substantial remodels.
c) Amend the Code to strengthen
enforcement penalty structure to aid in
protecting tenants from unsafe or
substandard units. This item is connected to
Policy H 3.4.

Geographic Targeting: Citywide.
a) 2024
b 2026
c) 2024; consistent with
general Policy H 3.4
659 of 2271
Action 4.2: Partner with Project
Sentinel to perform fair housing
training for landlords and tenants.

Focus enforcement efforts on
race-based discrimination and
reasonable accommodations and
source of income discrimination.

Persons with disabilities
and persons of color
have disproportionate
housing needs.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack of
access to economic
opportunity;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts; Lack of
understanding of
reasonable
accommodation
requirements by
landlords and property
owners.

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

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

Geographic Targeting: Citywide.

Annually as part of
CDBG allocation in the
spring
(Annually by July 1)
Action 4.3: Create a webpage
specific to fair housing including
resources for residents who feel
they have experienced
discrimination, information about
filing fair housing complaints with
HCD or HUD, and information
about protected classes under the
Fair Housing Act. The webpage
will have accessibility features and
a Spanish language version.

Persons with disabilities
and persons of color
have disproportionate
housing needs.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack of
access to economic
opportunity;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts; Lack of
understanding of
reasonable
accommodation
requirements by
landlords and property
owners.

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

Provide information on the City's website
about housing discrimination, laws, and
protections. Fair Housing resources will also
be advertised on the City’s eNewsletter, social
media channels and various email listservs.

Update the webpage every two years, along
with other transparency updates.

Geographic Targeting: Citywide
Metrics will be used to focus outreach:

Advertise Fair Housing resources to the
community every six months.

See H4.4 regarding partnering with
community intermediaries to conduct
outreach activities fair housing resources in
priority communities.

This item is connected to Policy H4.1. and
H4.4
2024 and bi-annually
thereafter; consistent
with Policy H3.4
Action 4.4: Ensure that all
multifamily residential
developments contain signage in
both English and Spanish to
explain the right to request
reasonable accommodations for
persons with disabilities. Make
this information available and
clearly transparent on the city's
website and fund landlord
training and outreach on
reasonable accommodations.

Persons with disabilities
and persons of color
have disproportionate
housing needs.