San Mateo City Council
May 20, 2024

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


/dzK&^EDd
K
ϮϬ ϰϬ'
E
Z>W>E
,Kh^/E'
>
D
Ed

 ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž,Ͳ&
WW
E/y&ͮWh>/WZd//Wd/KE 
ƒ dƌƵĞEŽƌƚŚ^ƵƌǀĞLJZĞƐƵůƚƐ;
džĐĞƌƉƚƐͿʹ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϮ
ƒ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
ŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕WŽƉhƉƐĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌĐĞƉƚƐʹWƵďůŝĐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ ƒ KŶůŝŶĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ^ƵƌǀĞLJZĞƐƵůƚƐ
ƒ ƵŝůĚĞƌƐ&ŽĐƵƐ'ƌŽƵƉʹEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ƒ &Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉʹ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϭϯ͕ϮϬϮϮͲŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚWŽůů^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ƒ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐWŽůŝĐLJtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉʹEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮ͕ϮϬϮϭͲŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚWŽůů^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ƒ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJZĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶʹ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ͗^ƉĞĂŬĞƌEŽƚĞƐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJEĞĞĚƐĂŶĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐEĞĞĚƐ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉEŽƚĞƐ
ƒ ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJǁŝĚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚƐ>ŝƐƚĞŶŝŶŐ^ĞƐƐŝŽŶƐʹ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJEŽƚĞƐ
o &Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐʹ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϭ
o ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŽĐĂƚĞƐʹKĐƚŽďĞƌϭϴ͕ϮϬϮϭ
o ƵŝůĚĞƌƐʹEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭ͕ϮϬϮϭ
o ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞWƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐʹEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ƒ ZŽŽƚWŽůŝĐLJ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ^ƵƌǀĞLJ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJʹ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨWƵďůŝĐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ƒ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƉƌŝůϲϮϬϮϮ͕ĂŶĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶDĂLJϳ͕ϮϬϮϮĂŶĚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϵ͕ ϮϬϮϮ͘
ƒ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůDŝŶƵƚĞƐʹƉƌŝůϮϲ͕ϮϬϮϬƚŽEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϳ͕ϮϬϮϮ ƒ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĐŽůůĂƚĞƌĂůĂŶĚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͗ o ŝƚLJǁŝĚĞŵĂŝůĞƌƐĞŶƚKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϭ
o DĂŝůĞƌƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚƚŽƌĞŶƚĞƌƐƐĞŶƚ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϮϬϮϮ
o ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ&ůLJĞƌ
o /ŶƚĞƌĐĞƉƚ^ƵƌǀĞLJƐ;
ŶŐůŝƐŚĂŶĚ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚͿ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌͲĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϭ
o tŚĞƌĞĚŽLJŽƵůŝǀĞͬŽŶĚĞsŝǀĞƐŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJƌĞƐƵůƚƐ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ o ͞
ŐŐƐƚƌĂǀĂŐĂŶnjĂ͟ŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ͕Ɖƌŝůϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϮ
ƒ KĨĨŝĐŝĂůŝƚLJƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞůĞƚƚĞƌƐƚŽŽŚĂŶŶŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĐƚŝŽŶŽĂůŝƚŝŽŶ ƒ ^ĞĞĂůƐŽ͗ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž'ʹWƵďůŝĐZĞǀŝĞǁWĞƌŝŽĚĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁƉĞƌŝŽĚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJƉƌŝůϲ͕ϮϬϮϮƚŽDĂLJϲ͕ ϮϬϮϰ͘
CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
TRUE NORTH SURVEY RESULTS (EXCERPTS) – FEBRUARY 21, 2022

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 1
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

1. US Census estimate, April 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 3City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 4
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

CITY SERVICES
• Close to three-quarters (74%) of San Mateo resi dents indicated they were either very (25%) or somewhat (49%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approxi- mately 16% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
• Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with 18 specific services provided by the City of San Mateo. Although the majority of residents surveyed were satisfied with 13 of the 16 services tested, they were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by maintain public buildings and facilities like City Hall, libraries, and parking garages (91%), provide parks, sports fields, and recreation facilities (87%), provide paths and trails for walk- ing, jogging, and running (82%), and provide a variety of recreation programs for all ages (81%).
• At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the creation of affordable housing (33%), address homelessness (42%), manage traffic congestion (48%), and maintain local streets and roads (54%).

Just the Facts
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 5City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

COMMUNICATIONS
• Overall, 62% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communi- cate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means in 2022. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (25%) or unsure of their opinion (13%).
• Thirty percent (30%) of respondents indicated th e were interested in receiving more informa- tion from the City.

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

Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 7
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 10
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

24.5 26.2

26.1 17.8

18.2 9.9

60.5 51.1

42.0 44.4

41.1 27.2

11.4 18.3

16.8 15.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

23.6 16.0

12.8 12.4

11.7 8.9

8.3 6.6

6.6 4.8

4.4 3.0

2.8 2.7

2.5 2.5

2.4 2.4

2.0 1.8

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

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

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

18.8 12.9

10.0 7.5

7.1 6.3

6.0 5.2

5.1 3.7

3.5 3.2

3.2 3.0

3.0 2.6

2.5 2.5

2.3 2.3

2.3 2.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53.9 12.4

8.4 24.5† 19.2

49.4†

10.6 5.35.2

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

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

22.4 18.5

26.7 24.3 27.8

50.5 52.6

49.7 49.5 48.2

23.728.223.1
Ver y
satisfied

25.9 48.4

48.8 49.5
Smwt
satisfied

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

18.5 24.6 27.8 23.1

52.7 52.4 50.3

48.9 Ver y
satisfied

52.6 24.8 23.4 18.3
Smwt
satisfied

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

20.2 29.9 24.1 25.5

56.3 43.2 48.6 51.1

18.9 32.5

20.1 Ver y
satisfied

23.3 53.7

45.4 43.3
Smwt
satisfied

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

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

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

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

45.3 39.1

39.3 30.2

34.0 29.2

22.0 20.6

21.2 22.7

22.9 16.6

20.4 21.7

14.0 10.3

10.2 9.1

48.6 52.2

47.6 51.5

46.7 48.1

53.3 54.7

54.0 51.6

46.6 49.5

45.3 40.1

40.1 37.5

31.6 23.8

32.2 32.3

28.1 19.9

39.0 24.0

18.8 19.8

16.7 14.2

15.1 13.4

9.4 6.8

4.3 16.5

19.0 20.8

23.7 26.7

4.2 5.0
4 2
2 8.3

6.7 9.7

10.2 25.8

19.3 8.5

8.1 5.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.3 28.0 24.8

68.5 7.94.04.5 6.6

28.7†

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

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

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

When compared to the other items tested, respon dents indicated that ke eping building heights low (68%) and minimizing the number of new un its added to single-family neighborhoods (68%) were the least important when planning for future housing in the City.

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

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

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

62.0 42.9

33.9 40.1

44.0 29.2

28.1 30.8

39.2 45.0

26.2 25.1

22.2 17.3

27.8 12.7

24.2 20.7

30.8 35.3

41.3 35.4

34.5 43.3

37.0 38.5

35.2 28.6

31.9 39.6

30.8 31.2

30.8 33.3

21.4 22.3

4.7 18.5

19.4 18.0

14.3 20.4

26.5 22.1

16.7 17.0

27.5 20.6

32.1 36.5

24.3 35.3

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

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

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

TABLE 15 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES OF CITY DEVELOPMENT BY CHILD IN HSLD, ADULT OVER 65 IN HSLD & SURVEY LANGUAGE (SHOWING % EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)
Yes,
under 18
Yes,
under 6 None Yes No English Spanish
Ensuring adequate water supplies 69.4 67.5 58.8 64.9 60.8 61.5 69.1 Creating homes that are affordable for
low- and middle-income residents 43.2 39.6 46.9 39.6 48.8 42.9 74.8 Minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 44.4 39.1 44.6 43.8 45.0 43.0 57.2 Preserving open space and creating new park lands 46.9 44.4 41.5 39.4 43.9 42.9 42.5 Creating pedestrian-friendly areas that encourage people to walk rather than drive 39.1 39.0 40.6 31.9 43.4 39.4 49.6 Avoiding new development in areas that are at higher risk of natural hazards, climate change, or sea level rise 38.2 34.8 40.3 46.1 37.1 38.5 48.7 Minimizing vehicle trips and traffic congestion 32.2 27.1 33.5 35.5 32.4 33.2 43.6 Improving access to transit and increasing transit ridership 26.5 26.0 32.5 26.4 33.1 29.6 46.8 Producing revenue necessary to pay for cost of providing police, fire, other city services to new housing units 34.2 33.1 26.3 34.1 26.3 29.2 28.4 Ensuring sufficient parking spaces 29.4 25.1 27.0 39.2 22.8 28.2 27.0 Ensuring that the impacts of growth are not concentrated in disadvantaged areas 28.8 28.7 27.6 25.9 28.5 27.5 31.2 Preserving the City’s historic buildings and resources 25.3 21.0 26.4 30.8 23.5 25.9 31.2 Having a plan that will meet the State’s requirements for at least the next 20 years 23.4 19.6 26.1 25.4 25.1 24.3 36.4 Minimizing the number of new units added to single-family neighborhoods 28.9 25.7 21.0 29.6 21.0 24.4 21.1
Creating bike lanes and paths 24.1 19.6 21.2 18.4 23.7 22.0 25.3 Keeping building heights low 24.2 22.3 18.4 27.8 16.2 20.4 24.6 Locating additional shops and restaurants near new
housing units 20.9 18.9 16.4 17.0 18.2 16.4 29.8
Creating commercial zones that will attract high-paying jobs 15.2 13.5 11.5 14.3 12.1 11.9 24.8
Child in Hsld (QD3,4) Adult Over 65
in Hsld (QD5) Survey Language
housing & Land Use
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 26City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAN MATEO & AGE

10.8 23.9

17.7 33.333.3

30.0 14.0

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

33.3 34.0 33.6

23.1 27.6

10.6 7.5 9.7 7.4

8.9 27.3 24.6

17.9 29.4 22.2 23.0

32.2 7.7 6.6

19.8 16.4

19.6 9.8

11.2 14.9 11.8 15.3

12.3 8.7 13.3 23.5

6.1 14.9 17.1 16.7 22.2 19.7

24.5 52.1 46.2

31.4 22.0

46.9 7.1

13.3 6.2

10.9 25.2

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

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

ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE

23.4 22.3

39.2 9.1

7.5 12.0 12.0

10.6 25.4 19.7 26.5 25.9 27.6

23.1 14.0 9.6 12.5

16.9 9.3

12.5 15.4 16.1

11.6 20.3 19.7 14.5 16.9 10.5

20.4 22.9 21.0 14.3

31.232.135.733.530.3

48.7 11.7 10.6 13.711.5

23.0 21.1

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

33.4 32.1

9.7 11.4

10.6 13.2

18.0 15.0

21.3 24.8

10.2 10.8 14.7

17.2 10.2

13.2 12.3 12.8

20.8 13.9 13.3 19.5 26.8 19.9 14.9 17.6

19.2 30.238.1 32.7 28.9 35.7 38.8

8.5 12.4

15.37.8 30.4 26.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 48City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, POP UPS AND INTERCEPTS – PUBLIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED City of San Mateo Housing Element
Intercept Survey Results
October 16, 2021 – December 21, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22% 23% 22%
18% 15%
3%
18%
53%
20%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0-20 20-35 35-50 50-65 65+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark
% of Intercept Survey Responses
0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
0%
25%
3%
46%
7%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Intercept Survey Responses 62%
7%
14%
7% 6% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
94401 94402 94403 94404 94010 Other
Zip Code
% of Event
57%
22%
0% 3%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Connection to City - % Surveyed*
CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F

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

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

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

This report includes three sections:
x Section I Results for survey responses (Questions 1-7) x Section II Demographic breakdown of those who completed the survey x Section III All open-ended responses provided by those who completed the survey (296 responses for Question 7, and 450 responses for those completing the “Other” option for Questions 2-6) City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
2 SECTION I
OVERALL RESULTS FOR SURVEY RESPONSES (QUESTIONS 1-7)
Question 1: How important do you think these housing-related challenges are in San Mateo? When asked to rank how important various housing-related challenges were, two options received the most support: “Service workers’ salaries cannot support existing rents in San Mateo” and “Service workers, teachers, first responders, and small business owners are moving out of San Mateo.” Seven responses were ranked in the middle tier of importance relative to the other options. Challenges in the middle tier included concerns about lack of variety of housing types, overcrowding, difficulty retaining employees, not enough transit options, options for seniors, concerns about traffic, and young people who cannot afford to live here.

Responses that were ranked with the least amount of importance relative to other options included: “The move-in costs are too high to rent a unit in San Mateo,” “Growing families can’t afford larger homes,” and “Concerns about environmental impacts of new housing.”
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
3 City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
4 Question 2: As the economy and population grow and change, more housing must be produced to accommodate this growth. Where are the best locations to place more housing? (Pick your top three) Key priorities from multiple choice options
Regarding the best location to place additional housing, community members identified two ideas more than others. About 53-54% of community members identified “New housing should be walkable/bikeable to shops and services,” and “New housing should be concentrated near public transit” as one of their top three choices.

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

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

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
5 The most common response themes included:
x New housing should be located in high opportunity areas x New housing is not needed or not desired
Common responses:
x Locate new housing to create mixed-use
x Locate new housing in Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas x Increase density throughout the city
x Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
x Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built x Prioritize single family housing
Some responses:
x Create new public housing authority-developed units
x Regional solutions: new office developments should be built outside of San Mateo to change the jobs- housing balance
x Regional solutions: new housing should be built outside of San Mateo or that people should leave San Mateo
Others noted:
x Vacant lots should be incentivized for (re)development Select responses:
x “New housing should be located in all parts of the city. It does not need to be evenly spread. But we should plan for all parts to contribute.”
x “There shouldn't be more housing until the infrastructure can support it” x “Locate along the Caltrain corridor, like redeveloping the Caltrain parking lots for the downtown train station”
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
6 Question 3: Given that there is limited land available, what do you think are the best strategies to manage production of new housing? (Pick your top three)
Key priorities from multiple choice options
Regarding the best strategies to manage production of new housing, three ideas received the highest level of support. About 46-51% of community members identified “Encourage mixed-use projects that have both commercial and residential uses” (51%), “Create housing by redeveloping existing properties that have additional potential” (49%), and “Increase allowable density in areas that are close to transit” (46%) as one of their top three choices. One idea received the next-highest level of support. About 33% identified “Allow taller developments if they include open space” as one of their top three choices.

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

The most common response themes included:
x Increase density throughout the city

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
7 x New housing is not needed or not desired
x Prioritize single family housing
Common responses:
x Locate new housing in Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas Create mixed use areas
x Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built x Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
Some responses:
x Regional solutions: new office developments should be built outside of San Mateo to change the jobs- housing balance
x Rezone older commercial and retail to housing or mixed-use x Regional solutions: new housing should be built outside of San Mateo or that people should leave San Mateo
Others noted:
x Create new public housing authority-developed units
x Vacant lots should be incentivized for (re)development Select responses:
x “The best place to locate more housing depends on the housing. Inclusionary housing should be located near transit, shops, parks etc. [Market] rate [housing] can be located anywhere" x “Increase density in all areas. but also increase transportation options. Increase parks and open space.” x “Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. Wage" City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
8 Question 4: What types of housing do you think should be prioritized? (Pick your top three) Key priorities from multiple choice options
Regarding what types of housing should be prioritized, one response received the more support than the others. About 52% of community members identified “Smaller units that are less expensive to live in” as one of their top three choices. A group of three ideas rece ived the next-highest level of support. About 36-37% identified “Larger units for families with children and/or multiple generations,” “Rental units,” and “Ownership units” as one of their top three choices.

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

The most common response themes included:
x Support for building housing in general
x Prioritize affordable housing, require affordable housing, or establish mandatory inclusionary zoning

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
9 x Prioritize senior housing
Common responses:
x Strengthen rent regulations
x Establish rent control
x Desire for environmentally sustainable buildings
x Increase density throughout the city
x Prioritize single family housing
x New housing is not needed or not desired
x Prioritize "missing middle" housing
Some responses:
x Create mixed-use areas
Others noted:
x Establish linkage fees: new office developments should pay for new housing or new office developments should build housing onsite/nearby
Select responses:
x “Residential units above commercial property near El Camino” x “Preserve single family neighborhoods”
x “Truly affordable housing. Much of affordable housing is not affordable” City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
10 Question 5: What do you think are the best ways to address housing affordability? (Pick your top three) Key priorities from multiple choice options
Regarding the best ways to address housing affordability, three responses received the most support. About 40-44% of community members identified “Incentives for private developers to build more affordable housing” (44%), “Locate affordable housing near transit and jobs” (42%), and “Financial assistance for people who cannot afford housing, such as subsidized rent and down payment loans” (40%) as one of their top three choices. Two ideas received the next-highest level of support. About 30-31% identified “Public funding to construct new housing” and “Streamline residential construction” as one of their top three choices.

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

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
11 The most common response themes included:
x Strengthen rent regulations or establish rent control x Streamline regulations: reduce height, density, parking, or other regulations Common responses:
x Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
x Increase density generally and increase density most in transit-rich areas (TOD) x The city should not take steps to address affordability x Let the market decide or less regulation would be better x New housing is not needed or not desired
Some responses:
x Regional solutions: new housing should be built outside of San Mateo or that people should leave San Mateo
x Build for diverse incomes
x Create new public housing authority-developed units
x Linkage: New office developments should pay for new housing or new office developments should build housing onsite/nearby
Others noted:
x Financial literacy training for low-income households Select responses:
x "Repeal Prop 13"
x “Continue building single family homes so the existing SFH don't keep raising in price. Not everyone wants to live in a box without a yard/privacy.”
x "Remove the barriers to building housing of any kind. Height limits, too much emphasis on wants of existing property owners."
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
12 Question 6: What do you think are the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of San Mateo, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past? (Pick up to three)
Key priorities from multiple choice options
Regarding the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of San Mateo, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past, two responses received the most support. About 51% of community members identified “Ensure affordable housing opportunities are created throughout the entire city” and “Improve infrastructure, transit and services in underserved neighborhoods” as one of their top three choices. One idea received the next-highest level of support. About 37% identified “Target outreach for new affordable housing to underserved groups” as one of their top three choices.

Open-ended responses for “Other”

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
13 Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 81 responses are included in Section III.

The most common response themes included:
x More housing equals more opportunity, focus on expanding supply Common responses:
x Let the market decide, less regulation would be better x Strengthen rent regulations or establish rent control Some responses:
x Special programs for educators, first responders, or service workers x Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
x Prioritize housing for people with disabilities
x Increasing wages should be a priority way to expand fair access x Investing in transit expands fair access
Others noted:
x Concern about overcrowding
x Pay people to move away
x Rent to own opportunities
x Loan and remodel support
x Existing residents or workers should be prioritized
x Strengthen enforcement of Fair Housing policies
x End single family zoning
x Prioritize more starter homes
Select responses:
x "We need a reality check, it should NOT require dual income to rent an apartment. I work in tech but if I didn't have reasonable rent even I can't afford to live in San Mateo" x "Allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods" City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
14 Question 7: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about housing needs in San Mateo? Open-ended responses for “Other” were analyzed for common themes. All 296 responses are included in Section III.

The most common response themes included:
x Housing is a priority issue: use whatever means are available to substantially increase supply x Improve public transportation and make walking and biking safer, this is also better for the environment
x Infrastructure improvements should happen before housing is built, with particular emphasis on traffic congestion, roads, parking, and water
x Locate new housing in Transit Oriented Developments (TOD)/increase density most in transit-rich areas x New housing is not needed or not desired
Common responses:
x Concern for the needs of seniors and senior housing
x Housing is a crisis-level issue and requires the highest level of response x Increase density throughout many parts of the city
x Increase density in single family housing areas
x Prioritize single family housing
x Establish city-wide mandatory inclusionary zoning/set a minimum percentage of affordable housing for all developments
x First time buyer supports
x Let the market decide, less regulation would be better x Linkage: New office developments should pay for new housing or new office developments should build housing onsite/nearby
x Prioritize affordability
x Prioritize deeply affordable housing
x Prioritize renters
x Special programs for educators, first responders, or service workers, or long-term residents x Streamline regulations: reduce height, density, parking, or other regulations x Strengthen rent regulations in general and establish rent control and a rental registry City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
15 Some responses:
x Integrate neighborhoods, address existing segregation x Concern for school funding
x Coordinate regionally
x Create an affordable loan for single family homeowners to build additional units on their property x Ensure sufficient open space for more dense housing
x Find ways to limit developer profits
x Prioritize sustainability
x Vacant lots should be incentivized for (re)development Others noted:
x Fight Sacramento housing mandates
x Prop 13 is the problem
x Retain beauty and historical character
x Support for ADUs and “Missing Middle”
x Dislike of ADUs
Select responses:
x "San Mateo is a beautiful, beautiful place, I would like to buy a small house and grow old here to see the sunsets”
x “Forcing residents to live in more crowded conditions by increasing density throughout the city and converting homes to multiple housing units or converting single-family zoning to multi-unit zoning might get more people into the city, but it won't be a place I want to live.” x “Rent is now 150% more expensive than when I first moved to San Mateo, and the cost of housing is a primary reason I haven't chosen to start a family here. Even buying a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for dual-income couple with no kids.”
x “Current home owners act as a rent seeking cartel, discouraging any change despite the negative externalities this imposes on everyone else. This is ethically dubious and should be discouraged or penalized.”
x “Single family home type zoning laws are a huge issue, especially for large lot sizes. Everyone who already owns a home thinks that a new neighbors home is a ‘development’ (negative connotation), but not his/her existing home. We need to educate existing home owners about how the homelessness crisis is related to decrease in affordable housing which is caused by scarcity of housing in the area.” City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
16 x “Please do not create another Bay Meadows-type situation, where their community is built to further house and serve privilege... Stop prioritizing non-affordable ‘luxury’ rental housing for high-wage tech workers.”
x “As someone who has lived in San Mateo since 1963 and in my single-family home since 1966, I want my neighborhood to stay the same until I die.”
x "Apply the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, by evaluating the respective underlying targets and their applicability to San Mateo's development."
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
17 SECTION II
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (QUESTIONS 8-15)
0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
0%
16%
2% 7%
15%
60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
27%
17%
15%
13%
12%
15%
1%
11%
25%
23%
19%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0-25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
54%
0%
46%
64%
8%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Owner Occupied Other Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
60%
3%
33%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Live Here Work Here Live and Work
Here
Other
Connection to City - % of Survey
Responses*
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
18 2.6 2.8
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 People in Household
Household Size
% of Benchmark % of Online Survey Responses
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
19 SECTION III
ALL OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES FROM QUESTION 7, AND THOSE COMPLETING THE “OTHER” OPTION FOR QUESTIONS 2-6
Question 2: As the economy and population grow and change, more housing must be produced to accommodate this growth. Where are the best locations to place more housing? Other (81 Responses):
x TOD high rise
x affordable housing should be concentrated near public transit. market housing doesn't have to be and we need both
x New housing should FIRST be supported by infrastructure! And laws about tearing down single-family dwellings to crowd multi-family units on property are GARBAGE. x only downtown, not in established neighborhoods
x More housing is not a must, new housing is not needed. x There is plenty of housing already and not enough infrastructure to maintain what we currently have.

As a native of the area, it is hard to see how additional housing can benefit the area. Parking and traffic are horrendous already. Stop building!
x Too much dense housing and not enough schools, parks and grocery stores! x New housing SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE, above all.
x new housing should be built after there is enough water and electricity to support them x NOT in single family neighborhoods
x use of public lands to lower cost of site development x As a 20yr resident who was force out by dramatic rent increase, please don't restrict affordable housing to only specific areas. All people regardless of low income need to decide where they would prefer to live
x NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it x New housing should be built in on vacant land
x Infrastructure should support any growth (roads, water, power grid, etc) x The best place to locate more housing depends on the housing. Inclusionary housing should be located near transit, shops, parks etc. Mkt rate hsng can be located anywhere x SAN MATEO DOES NOT NEED OR WAN T MORE HOUSING!!wE ARE TOO CROWDED AS IT IS!! THE PEOPLE OF SAN MATEO DO NOT WANT MORE APARTMENT CONDOS. GO TO OAKLAND AND BUILD IT THEREIF YOU MUST. NO MORE BUILDING HOUSING IN SAN MATEO!!THE PEOPLE SPEAK!! x The forgotten poor - under $40,000 income - need housing more than any other group City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
20 x We have NO Water!
x NO MORE MARKET RATE APPROVALS. NONE OF WHICH HAS LOWERED HOUSING PRICES IN THE BAY AREA. THE FACT IS THERE IS PLENTY OF FOR SALE/RENT MARKET RATE HOUSING AVAILABLE IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND THE PENINSULA. APPROVALS ONLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. x Minimize population growth to minimize new housing.
x locate along the Caltrain corridor, like redeveloping the Caltrain parking lots for the downtown train station
x Don't impact existing neighborhoods!
x Infrastructure needs to be addressed before housing. Your building bigger at any cost is stripping San Mateo of those characteristics which made it such an appealing place to live. x Preferably - No New Housing!!! - Getting too crowded. x The affordable housing push simply perpetuates the problem of unaffordable housing. We have a demand problem. Housing costs prevent people from moving here which flattens demand which starts leveling out the market. Not what people want to hear
x New housing must not diminish access to resources of existing citizens (ie, water, transportation, worsening traffic, public safety, etc.)
x some new housing everywhere but more dense & focused around transit & walkable areas x Corner blocks should be converted to 6-8 unit 2 story apt bldg x New housing should be everywhere...transit and shops and services can follow. Just get housing built. x No matter where new housing is located it will impact traffic and resources we are running out of. x Spread out. It's been a terrible assumption that more housing on the train line is good. Less and less people are taking Caltrain. Spread out!!
x New housing cannot happen without a serious investment in public transit options. x Minimize new housing, especially low income housing
x Downtown
x New housing located under a stable Infrastructure (water/trash/power/gas/emergency services/air quality/ green zones/pedestrian paths/bike lanes/traffic/disaster plans) before development begins. x It is a proven fact that too many rats in the cage causes death, disease and damage. California is a large state, with plenty of area for growth. San Mateo is already too crowded. These numbers are dangerous already.
x New housing should be developed based on the best profit from it to get the country back to the capitalism, where everything was great.
x No more housing
x Not in San Mateo
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
21 x Rezoned retail parcels should have the bulk of the new housing units. Retail will shrink permanently and there will be surplus.
x There really shouldn't be any "new" housing. Convert existing housing to low cost housing. x Zoning should allow retail and grocery and other walkable services in current residential only neighborhoods
x Since the development of the race track area that us located near Whole Foods and the train, there are still too many cars. Infrastructures first as well as transportation. 101 is a nightmare and people don't move in without cars. Train only goes N/S.
x With limited land, companies should move out of cities and build housing for their employees x [Nice] housing should be available to individuals who add to the local economy x I don't agree with the premise. This is not a fact but a viewpoint. Most economist wouldn't agree x It should NOT be in misc. small vacant lots that add more traffic and block the coming/goings of existing neighborhoods. What about schools? Will there be new schools to accommodate more population???
x Occupy old business centers
x These choices are too either/or. Assumes there is adequate public transit. Explain who determines level of growth & who benefits from it.
x New housing should serve the people that will live in the housing. x Stop allowing commercial development without the proponent thereof adding housing for the new jobs created.
x New housing should be limited. San Mateo is suburban community and appears to be mostly built out.
x new housing should be located in all parts of the city. It does not need to be evenly spread. But we should plan for all parts to contribute.
x If you can not afford San Mateo there are plenty of other places to live. NO NEW OR LOW INCOME HOUSONG!
x New housing should consider infrastructure issues like water, sewage, utility usage to not strain our current levels.
x Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage x New housing might be built by non-Profit entities to make them affordable x Build public transit necessary so all housing locations are accessible to public transit x New housing has not solved the affordability issues so far in spite of thousands of units added over the past decade. How will this be different?
x Away from existing homes, unwanted land, no new housing, no new growth City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
22 x New housing should be repurpose duplex to 5 units into more dense housing (Affordable housing % = City Affordable% + retaining existing affordable units) x it depends :)
x More market rate housing is unnecessary. Stop the madness. You can't have it both ways with tech AND affordable housing. Let's get real and stop ruining our region in a game we can't win. x housing should NOT upset current seniors
x The mad dash in the past 10 years, Bay Area-wide, to create jobs, has contributed *greatly* to lack of housing and high costs. The equally mad dash to build a million more housing units as a result is equally crazy. Put the brakes on both -- please!!!
x New housing should replace older, low-use commercial buildings. x This is a flawed question--we DO NOT have to accommodate growth, just tell people we are full, go live some place else
x not in San Mateo
x New housing should not impact present residents of San Mateo negatively. It is known that overpopulation is detrimental to the health and safety of all its residents x we don’t need more here / move to areas of less density x AFFORDABLE HOUSING not just market rate
x I don't want new housing, I want to make the housing that is available more accessible. x New housing should be located in areas that already have low density residential development. x There shouldn't be more housing until the infrastructure can support it x With all these apartment complexes sprouting up, there should be 15 percent of them designated for “working family” incomes, and 10% small studios that can house very low wage workers. It is better to mix income levels in communities.
x Only in business and commercial areas
x New housing should be spread evenly across the city North-South in transit corridors x New housing should be concentrated in low density neighborhoods x New housing doesn't need to be evenly spread, but all parts of the city need new housing x New housing should include duplexes and quadplexes in residential neighborhoods and support distributed access to school sites across the city
Question 3: Given that there is limited land available, what do you think are the best strategies to manage production of new housing? Other (102 Responses):
x Allow very high density for sale housing (tall buildings) downtown, near transit City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
23 x People live where they live for a reason. Turning single family homes into multi-family dwellings ruins the character of a neighborhood. And I mean that NO MATTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. x If there is no available land, then maybe we are at capacity and should look to stop landlords from charging so much for rent.
x It's not given, no new housing needed
x I don't agree there needs to be new/additional housing. x How about updating original parts of San Mateo with parks, fix buckled roads and clean the disgusting sidewalks. Too much focus on building new, when the existing needs maintenance. x Preserve single family neighborhoods
x Allow for a higher percentage of units at one complex to be below market rate. x No More high Density projects
x Increasing better 24 hour public transit to SFO The airport runs 24 hours but SM transit doesn't, also with more housing there needs to be equal amounts of public park space cause most apartments do not provide any outdoor space
x NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it x Most of these option may are horrible for current home owners. #1 talk about issues are traffic, parking, and congestion.
x Build in any remote parts of the county/peninsula
x The options presented are false choices. State law already allows most of them x NO MORE HOUSING BUILT IN SAN MATEO!! WE ARE DENSE ENOUGH!! THE PEOPLE OF SAN MATEO DO NOT WANT MORE 5 STORY HOUSING AND WE DO NOT WANT OUR TAX DOLLARS GOING TO SUPPORT IT!! WE HATE THE 5 STORY APARTMENTS THE CITY IS THROWING UP!! x residential over retail, or residential along train corridor. DO NOT impact existing family neighborhoods!!
x No more building here. There are too many people. My brother moved to Marin county because we are too populated here. He has more land and it is more affordable. x We already have plenty of market rate housing in San Mateo... Some 70% of San Mateo County is in restricted or permanent open space...FACT. Convert hotels on the eastside of 101 into affordable housing.
x Again, limit population growth to reduce need for more housing. x Buy existing apartments and convert them to affordable housing x Streamline remodeling for all houses, not just ADU's
x single family housing properties with large lots/acreage should sell off lots for additional housing x Don't ruin neighborhoods
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
24 x If I had wanted to live in a city I would have chosen to live somewhere else; the smaller town aspect of San Mateo is what drew me back here.
x Build "on top" of existing commercial offices (i.e. the office buildings near the Hillsdale Caltrain Station) - "Below Ground" level (instead of building tall - build below) x Allow taller developments and forget the open space or the other extreme by allowing nothing which will drive up prices and cause people to look for more affordable cities. The idea that San Mateo can be everything to everyone is absurd.
x Choose not to develop if infrastructure can not be developed at the same rate of speed. x reduce rents to match local income
x The school district has many empty parcels they should participate with city to create affordable housing for their teachers using their vacant land.
x I feel that before you expand the housing availability you should figure where the water and power will come from.
x Tell Sacramento NO, NO, NO
x Allow apartments to offer income based pricing
x Only downtown
x City/County to pay for additional story and/or additional unit (turn a 4-plex into a 6-plex) and in return, get to rent one of the two new additional units, giving the landlord the other unit as a thank you for participating and donating their property.
x enable faster transit systems, initiate business incentives to hiring local employees. x Encourage large properties in the wealthy areas to subdivide or build ADUs there to take on their share of the density
x Stop the madness
x New housing should be developed based on the best profit from it to get the country back to the capitalism, where everything was great.
x Already too crowded, no more construction
x Increase allowable density everywhere how is that not a choice??!!! x To not do it. All of these would make the city worse. x Stop building offices which create population increases! Encourage regional shifts of commercial activities. It seems that only city officials think it's “cool” to have and brag about this influx of business. x Do Not Build Higher Than 5 Stories High! - I Never Want San Mateo Co To Be/Look Like S.F., Los Angeles of New York City!!!
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
25 x Rezone disused retail - with higher density zoning. I would greatly prefer having a 10 story building replace a strip mall than having 4 story apartments next to single family homes in neighborhoods where this is currently not allowed.
x build affordable housing. Our kids who grew up in SM can't afford to live here. x Again, there should not be any additional housing. Any new development has to consider biodiversity and land conservation.
x Set a percentage and numerical target for truly affordable housing to close the existing gap over a five year period
x Change zoning and tax policy to allow mutually beneficial ways for people to split ownership of existing real parcels.
x Let's see if remote work reduces housing impact.
x Companies should move out of cities and build housing for the employees x Allow taller developments where taller developments already exist x Convert shopping malls to housing over retail units
x The other option is to allow the market to prevail
x DO NOT lose single-family homes and neighborhoods. This is a town, not a Metro City!!! x ADUs only on large lots that also allow for parking
x strongly against ADUs on single family properties
x Rezone vacant office buildings and other underutilized areas to residential and stop construction of more office buildings
x Again, these choices are incredibly biased.
x Prioritize public and quasi publicly owned sites for deeply affordable homes x increase public transit at affordable rates from areas where housing costs are lower. Like the buses that google/apple/facebook etc run
x No further expansion necessary.
x Increase density in all areas. but also increase transportation options. Increase parks and open space. x Strongly oppose SFR conversion to duplexes. It should be prohibited to convert a garage into an ADU. x NO NEW HOUSING! Plenty of housing in the east bay
x We don't have enough water to support the existing population. Stop building new housing. x Keep San Mateo Beautiful! No more added housing! Redevelop what we already have. x I see none of these as viable options, but the third one is heinous. x Provide transit option so new houses can be built all over the city City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
26 x San Mateo should not build anything unless they can provide adequate parking space. We are too crowded already. People who are low income, cannot afford to rent or but a home so who are you building more housing for?
x Publicly financed housing, directed by a community oversight board, tasked with approving sites and designs
x there are too many people here already. don't build any more multi unit complexes x Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage x none, none
x Allow more BMR Below Market Rate Rental availability on new apartment developments x Convert empty shopping centers into housing
x Buy/Build Beautiful, Mixed Income, Social Housing! As long as housing is treated as a commodity instead of a right, working class people won't be able to afford to live here. See Vienna, Austria:
https://youtu.be/LVuCZMLeWko
x Build it in San Mateo Park! Or , better yet, Hillsborough. We are already overcrowded. Infrastructure not keeping up. Can't even get the kids across town to a Cub Scout meeting without sitting in traffic.

This overdevelopment ruins quality of life.
x No new housing, tell the elected to abide by what residents voted on or they get voted out x Increase the affordable housing Percentage/ density bonus and give developer say in who rent the additional units.
x Stop building offices & then allowing new workers in these offices to move into housing that should be going to existing residents & workforce that have gone unprioritized. Existing workforces & residents first!
x No ADUs west of The Alameda; any conversion to duplexes also east of El Camino x Convert commercial areas for housing
x Build buildings with 3 and more floors and underground parking not just 1 floor x Utilize current open lots that exist throughout the city for new housing x Declare some open land available for construction
x Best strategy is NO NEW HOUSING, but the city council never listens to this x Create public transit that will enable greater mobility and lessen demand for existing housing. x All these options add to more cars and more congestion x Only where parking is available, to be sure not to add to existing congested areas. x Build affordable housing not market rate
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
27 x without infrastructure improvement, I don't believe any of these options work. San Mateo is becoming unbearable to live and work in due to the traffic congestion and lack of resources (Police & fire and water). These things need to be addressed first.
x We should do all of these
x Single family neighborhoods should remain single family no ADU or duplexes if the parcel can not support the additional vehicles
x There shouldn't, that is the problem.
x Create more lower/moderate income housing options that are dependent on a certain income brackets. Stop the ridiculous outbidding process.
x No new housing, we are built out
x Affordable Tiny houses on parcels.
x Create greened rooftops, living walls, and streets that can better manage storm water runoff and improve climate. Smart metering should be included in any new housing. Choose sites of already built but inadequately used areas.
x My 3rd is a combo of applying SB9 laws recently enacted w/inclusionary zoning & offering other incentives to property owners/developers
x No contracts to greedy developers who have council members in their pockets. x Cities should joint venture to build in the entire housing market area x Encourage conversion of less-used office space into apartments Question 4: What types of housing do you think should be prioritized? Other (73 Responses):
x Please stop trying to overbuild in areas that are already maxed out. Go into outskirts of county to build new.
x Preserve and maintain affordability in existing multi family housing x Do not approve new office buildings
x prevent investors from buying new housing units
x Preserve single family neighborhoods
x all of it
x inter institutional development...with schools/hospitals/govt. entities x My experience has shown that greedy landlord's extreme rent increases have forced a huge exodus from SM People's mortgage do not increase at the rates my rent was increasing Please help assist in building units for affordable ownership to prevent gouging x NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
28 x NONE!! WE DO NOT WANT MORE HOUSING!!DO NOT SPEND ONE MORE TAX DOLLAR SUPPORTING THESE CROOKED DEVELOPERS!! WE DO NOT WANT ANY MORE HOUSING BUILT, ESPECIALLY USING PUBLIC FUNDS!!IF YOU HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY, LOWER OUR TAXES!!!! x Build in less expensive areas like Chico, Ca or Vallejo. Someplace where starter homes are more affordable.
x Residential units above commercial property near El Camino x AFFORDABLE HOUSING
x No flag lots, no ADUs.
x Subsidize new and existing housing
x Just build housing of any kind. New development has been too limited for decades x We should support a wide variety of options
x "Interim/transitional" homeless individuals/families who lost their current home (thru unforeseen circumstances to no fault of their own) to transition to a new home that they will afford on their own. x MORE
x All housing, there's no need to prioritize
x Mixed used tower with more units
x If you make housing so dense, it will impact the city. Our close neighborhoods will be lost. this is crazy x Loans for families to buy homes
x Old people housing
x Build only spacious, beautiful homes. Stop making hideous concrete and steel apartments that will someday become ghettos.
x What ever type of housing with maximize the number of families that can keep living in San Mateo. x Single family houses
x Capsule inns by businesses and transit areas
x Maintain the current population and limit growth.
x Larger units for families with children for rent and for ownership. Limited stock of 3BR units for rent and ownership.
x Whatever our service workers, first responders, and teachers need so they don't have to spend their whole non-working lives commuting
x When converting public land the project should be low income or affordable for a teacher x Truly affordable housing. Much of affordable housing is not affordable. x Make sustainability conscious, case by case decisions about what to do with available properties. x Affordable housing prioritized over greed of owners and developers City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
29 x Ex. When we create affordable communities to live in, we seem to eventually want to remove them (i.e. Dock Town).
x Building type should be considered in overall development of the city. Piece meals will be x Adding housing above existing commercial properties in downtown areas (3,4th ave, 25th ave, 37th) x Senior housing
x Housing in the Downtown area
x Single Family Homes with yards/privacy.
x Again, biased, leading questions.
x housing that is affordable for lower income people.
x Live where you can afford. If you can't afford it here, live where you can x Affordable senior housing
x Mixed use properties in transit areas.
x Do not change the character of SM by making every neighborhood multi unit. Build more AFFORDABLE housing and less market rate
x Publicly owned and subsidized housing, including direct municipal ownership as well as other options like publicly subsidized coop ownership.
x Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage x Allow Easy application process for BMR Below Market Rate Rental x Affordable housing, whether created through new construction or through preservation of existing units with their affordability deeded going forward
x Social Housing. South San Francisco has started: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/south- san-francisco-eyes-public-housing/article_00a19af8-3eb2-11ec-a4cf-4fdd622236d7.html x Stop overbuilding. Stop kowtowing to developers.
x Housing for seniors
x Affordable housing but PLEASE don't make them small, it's a torture living in tiny apartments. Build taller buildings please
x single unit houses
x Multiplex units (e.g. duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes) x seniors living
x Build affordable housing on city land.
x LEED certified and otherwise sustainable housing
x high density, multi stories, multi tenets
x no adding units to lots under 6,000 sf
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
30 x Stop building unsustainable housing
x Include access to real storage units nearby at reasonable rental prices so families with kids can consider living in a smaller unit. They can access seasonal stuff w/o filling all the living space. Green spaces make living in smaller units enjoyable.
x Housing options based on income brackets.
x Affordable housing
x Reduce rent in existing rental units
x No increase in density in residential areas
x Rent control, rent needs to be based on what owner owes, not capitalize off renters. Raising property owners’ taxes tolls back to the proletarians.
x Green, LEED-certified existing buildings and new green units for underused, renovated structures. x Housing for senior citizens who have been long time residents of the county x Multi-residential rentals, condos, & ADUs (yes, correct, multi-residential ADUs is 'thing') x Options that go beyond the current "studio" arrangement for seniors and people with special needs who may need a live-in aide and for whom a studio will not be viable. Also prioritize workers who support them in adult day services, whose wages are low Question 5: What do you think are the best ways to address housing affordability? Other (113 Responses):
x Cut developer profits
x Change policies (like tax relief) that make it cheaper for older folks to stay in large homes instead of moving to free up housing stock for new families
x Add supply of new, high density housing, rental and for sale x I've seen plans to tear down homes along W Hillsdale (in residential areas) and turn them into apartments. What garbage. Benefits developers and turns neighborhoods into traffic nightmares. But maybe that's your dream. Seems like it.
x Rent control.
x Increased wealth of individuals and families
x Again, build in the outer parts of county - please leave over-impacted areas alone. It's already too crowded and there are not enough schools, grocery stores to support current residents. x Allow increase supply.
x Penalize frivolous use of CEQA
x who are your other institutional partners goals
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
31 x Put public funds into building more affordable housing units, houses, duplexes, fourplexes, and help those making low income with down payments for buying their own homes if you are vested with where you live you will take better care & gain equity for self x Build for diverse income
x NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it x Cap on “˜expensive' housing
x DO NOT SPEND MY TAX DOLLARS FOR SOME ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT CROSS OUR BORDER ILLEGALY!! I HAD TO WORK AND SWEAT AND SAVE FOR YEARS AND MY HOUSE IS STILL NOT PAID OFF!! HELP OUT YOUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST BEFORE YOU GIVE MY MONEY AWAY TO HOUSE ILLEGALS!! x Choose a more affordable community. I love Atherton and Hillsborough, but I don't think I can ever afford those towns, so I chose San Mateo. Now I wish I chose a town with less people, congestion and growth!
x Build more of all types of housing by increasing density x Encourage multiple dwelling units near transit corridors and train station x OPEN UP SOME OF THE 70% RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE IN SAN MATEO COUNTY FOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIFICALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
x Lower population growth requires less new housing.
x Remove the barriers to building housing of any kind. Height limits, too much emphasis on wants of existing property owners.
x Change single family home zoning laws
x Eliminate height and density restrictions, especially in downtown. x Increase density and height downtown through mixed use development x 1) Publicly owned housing (2) repeal prop 13
x Eliminate height/density restrictions
x Improve the frequency and reach of public transit so dense housing is feasible without the added cost of allocating space for so many cars.
x Don't ruin existing neighborhoods
x Incentives for private funding. If someone want's housing, that person/group etc. should pay a majority share for their housing. - Don't use tax dollars. x Reduce restrictive zoning and allow tons of market-rate housing. x reduce over paying rent back to 10 yrs ago
x The State of California should have a fund for very important assistance and encourage developers with Incentives to create more affordable housing
x MORE
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
32 x Figure out where all of the automobiles are going to park. x Demand (not encourage) developers build greater % affordable x Moratorium on new office construction. Trying to make housing more affordable by increasing stock is futile if you keep expanding the population and driving prices up -- nothing will ever change. x Build majority affordable housing. Google and Facebook engineers don't need help finding another million dollar home, teachers and service sector people need $200k homes. x Convince the federal government to restore the 20th-Century tax rates for high-income earners, so they have less money with which to buy up property and drive up prices. x Tell landlords they must lower rents. None of the above is really going to work well. x Make commute easier and faster, say from east bay to San Mateo x Subsidies for families
x Build only beautiful homes - no more ugly glass and steel apartment buildings - and let the market decide housing costs and wages that support cost of living. x Require all new development to be at least 50% affordable x lower property taxes
x Create more jobs and increase pay enough to afford housing on their own like everyone else. x Remove developers from being key decision makers. Create Business incentives for hiring local residents
x These are all terrible ideas.
x This is a systemic issue beyond the score of the city of San Mateo. x Encourage people to work harder to make more money to afford what they need. x Move someplace else
x Get large employers contributing to housing subsidies and construction as a benefit x It doesn't need to be addressed.
x Increase the allotment of affordable housing for all new development x Do Not Turn San Mateo Co into New York City, NY!! Long term residents of San Mateo Co Have/Are Moving Away Due To 'Over Population' Of San Mateo & The Bay Area! x don't incentivize developers, make it mandatory to build affordable housing for approval of their projects
x I know someone who runs homes for homeless. Every summer they leave but if their checks come in, they hold their spot for winter. Homelessness are we talking about working poor? Good thing but needs to be separated from mental illness.
x Incentive for companies to move out to remote areas
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
33 x Senior housing
x large numbers of housing prices will not come down till there's a glut. You can barely move the needle without building in remote, low cost areas. not San Mateo. x None of these. Let the market prevail
x Continue building single family homes so the existing SFH don't keep raising in price. Not everyone wants to live in a box without a yard/privacy.
x Limit corporate take over of housing. Stop allowing real estate investors to out bid local families for houses.
x Incentives for developers to build housing instead of offices x Give essential workers purchasing priority over investors not living in the housing x Reduce taxes
x Increase zoning in R2, R3s. R1s are now essentially supporting duplexes given State law. x affordable housing by developers should actually be affordable. not just a small percentage off their 'luxury' units
x Not the city's purview to subsidize expanded housing and paying residents' rent. x Move where you can afford.
x We can't pay taxes to cover incentives for residents and developers. We shouldn't rezone existing neighborhoods and cover all of every property with dwelling units x Look at the need for less office buildings more townhomes for families and less higher buildings x Reduce bureaucracy and cost for all sorts of building fees x Consider dormitory living for homeless and must do work at site to “repay” for having a place to stay.

Will help to create dignity while staying is such a transitional site. x The Peninsula is too overcrowded now. Stop adding to the problem. x Again, I am highly opposed to being forced to turn my single dwelling home into a duplex. x cap rent increases
x Don't build luxury units. Focus on affordable housing for everyone, and build lots of them x Public financing and management of housing as a basic human right x Stop building more housing; lower rents; raise min. wage x Easier application process for BMR Rentals for Senior Housing programs x Ferry stops into San Mateo county from SF and east bay x The City must retain ownership of the housing when using public funds to construct new housing/buy existing housing stock. Start the path to de-commodify housing. Rent control + vacancy control until we get there.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
34 x Stop ruining the character of our small city! The City should demonstrate how effective past strategies have been in addressing this problem. Building more units will not resolve it. NO INCENTIVES FOR BUILDERS. THEY ARE ALREADY PROFITTING NICELY..
x Don't use MY money for any of these options
x Revise building codes to make housing competitive to commercial x Massively increase allowed density around transit stops x A light version of rent control, something not fixed for life but a couple of years x Relax parking minimums near public transit, so it takes less land to build apartments x What about young people who are not homeless but can't start families? Not everyone is a coder but we all should have good housing. There should be rent and unit quality control. Ventilation is important
x not in San Mateo
x Limit development that adds to existing over-crowded areas. x have them move to affordable areas
x Encourage homeless to move to affordable states (Texas, etc) x Build affordable housing not just market rate
x Please, see the reality people are unable to pay your "affordable housing of half million or more with the squalid salaries that we have in the Bay area or in the entire USA. It is a shame in how allow crowded rent units families living in a bedroom
x Zoning changes - allow taller buildings to be built, which naturally incentivizes developers to buy old, short buildings and convert them into high rises
x Eliminate or reduce property taxes on affordable housing and ADU's. x public funding for established affordable housing developers x Allow the free market to work. Manipulation made things worse. x Whatever happened to double depreciation incentives that were used to encourage apartment construction in the 1980s?
x Research based approaches/proven strategies
x Allow dense/tall residential/mixed around transit/job/commercial centers x Have people live where they can afford to
x Independent housing for middle class seniors who rent! x Improve public transit so people can efficiently get to this area from further away. Have businesses have varied start times to reduce traffic.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
35 x Having a rent cap. Not allowing home owners to be charging first, last and security. Maybe only 1st and security deposit.
x Support Affordable housing organizations such as MidPen and Bridge housing that develops workforce, senior and family housing
x Work more closely with local Non-Profits, Faith Leaders/Institutions to donate resources, & Housing Authority to expand programs such as Section 8 housing, subsidizing rents/security deposits (or move- in fees), & educating/incentivizing property owners.
x Does zoning new office jobs increase people wanting to live here? (see below) x Create a city run non-profit public housing department. Compete with developers. Rents would not increase simply because housing prices increased. Also, encourage cooperative housing. Residents would own the building collectively.
x No contracts to greedy developers who have council members in their pockets. x Require new commercial development to contribute to housing funds for public non-profit housing. x Enlist additional support from large companies to help offset housing demand by donating land, $, or converting office space to living space for employees/others Question 6: What do you think are the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of San Mateo, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past? Other (81 Responses):
x impact fees on new construction for affordable units
x Rent control
x Priority to existing San Mateo residents, not new populations looking to move into San Mateo x Assist those that need quality housing to outlying areas that are available to them. x Build more supply, put downward pricing pressure
x rent control
x Decrease the poor of the home owning majority
x The max rent increase currently is approximately 9% a year. This is not sustainable. Home owners do not see their mortgages increase at this rate. Provide affordable units are made available that don't allow Landlord ability to price gouge
x NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it x City can allow access to public work kind of jobs for homeless people who struggle to find employment.

Replace liberal arts academic units with math, STEM, and financial education. Disincentivize street camping.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
36 x None of the above. These options result in govt regulation of housing where there was none previously and a restriction of property rights.
x I HAVE NOT HAD FAIR ACCESS TO HOUSING IN THE PAST BUT I WENT TO SCHOOL WHILE ON GENERAL

ASSISTANCE WHILE LIVING IN THE TENDERLOIN IN SAN FRANCISCO AND WOEKED THE SAME JOB FOR 21 YEARS! EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME ACCESS!
x I tell everyone to leave San Mateo. There are too many people, it is too expensive, I encourage people to leave or move. I wish I could. I work at Aragon High School. We are BUSTING at the seams. There is no more room, parking, water, etc.
x Rent Control
x Affordable units near El Camino, 101 and transit corridors. aow x MAKE DEVELOPERS OF MARKET RATE STACK AND PACK HOUSING PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SUPPORT BRIDGE HOUSING. THERE HAS BEEN MORE YEAR ON YEAR BUILDING PROFITS FOR MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS IN THE CITY. x Your definition of "fair access" may not be shared by many other residents. What is it anyway? x Just. Build. More.
x Change single family home zoning laws
x fair access to housing? discrimination or no money? Discrimination is illegal. No money is another matter and short term shelters need to be available. We all have access if we have money. x Fund robust auditing of bias behavior (whether intended or unconscious) of landlords and real estate agents.
x None of the above
x Assistance for educators and first responders
x disallow landlords to continue to raise rents, simple rules, no rent increase till after the second year. x Again, stop trying to increase population by building new office buildings - we don't need more. x Enact empty property taxes on homes that stay empty the majority half the year plus one day, and tax owners with more than one property.
x Prioritize housing for service workers (who work full time but cannot afford housing in San Mateo) x Infrastructure needs significant attention before moving forward with any changes to our population. x What about water issues, parking, traffic, quality of SM life, etc.? Do I get to move into Hillsborough if I can't afford it? There should be no incentives to build new housing, especially dreary apartment buildings & low-cost (i.e., crappy) housing.
x More loan opportunities; More remodel opportunities; Partnership with landlords to improve/increase their number of units if they use part of the increase to house the underserved.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
37 x I do not agree with this! We are not guaranteed housing in the locations people want. Public transit and infrastructure needs to improve.
x good employees create good communities; create business incentive plan to hire locals and generate housing solutions (residential/work sites or company assist housing solutions) x We are currently paying people not to work and giving them free rent. The first step is to put all welfare under 1 roof. Everyone is entitled to housing. It's our system that causes the problem. Working class people have become the chumps of society.
x Require large employers to engage subsidize worker housing close to work or otherwise support proximate housing supply
x Stop The Condos After Condos After Condos Construction! San Mateo Never Need The Smog & Filthiness & Mass Population of Los Angeles!! No!!
x I don't understand the effects of most of these on housing availability. I.e., how significant of a factor each might be.
x Add more housing units at market rates
x Increase affordable housing limits to include middle class wage earners. x Stop restricting businesses with covid mandates so that they can make more money and hire more people.
x Seems like you've already made up your mind. Are you trying to be housing experts or social workers? Are you trying to build a community or a welfare city.
x First time homebuyer programs, require financial institutions to increase lending options, increase salaries for low wage workers, discourage housing ownership by Wall Street REITs and other investment properties and international ownership .
x Require minimum training for property managers and property management, access to lawyers for renters
x Any policies that place limits on housing providers will be counter-productive as the owners of such will convert their properties to owner occupied housing
x work with 'underserved' groups on how to obtain and hold onto housing x allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods x Who is a member of San Mateo? Strict Federal & State laws are already in place regarding fair housing. x What do you mean by “have not had fair access”. If you have the money you get the house. It's that simple
x I don't see anything here to check
x Rents are too high. We need to dramatically increase supply to offset the out of control housing costs x Provide education & job training to help people get better jobs.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
38 x Enforcement of more BMR in each rental developments. x Build more housing, faster
x Rent control + vacancy control, build/buy social housing. x It's just possible that not everyone will be able to afford living here-and this includes my own children- but possibly that's the reality of living in a place with limited land. x Programs to educate people on how to be responsible, contributing members of society. x Financial literacy and budgeting
x Stop allowing new office workers to move into housing until there is enough housing for the residents & workforce who are already living & working here & are in need of housing. x Everyone has the ability to live in San Mateo if they make enough money. The cost of living in San Mateo is dependent on location, location, location. Remove illegal immigrants and that will solve some of the housing problems.
x Make it easier for landlords to kick out deadbeats. If they can't afford to live here they should move! x not in San Mateo
x Establish give and take for both existing and new residents. Do not over crowd any area of San Mateo. x Support residents who can't afford living in SM to move away x Prevent landlords from continually raising the rents even year. People's salaries do not go up hundreds of dollars each year.
x First build affordable. The City has approved thousands of stack and pack market rate housing that has done nothing to help with the affordability of housing
x Provide rent to own and similar opportunities to provide more equitable opportunity and a path to property ownership
x Examine the people salaries and then see what kind of housing you are going to rent/sale. Stop developers that are a cancer hurting our communities and the environment and favoriting x Just build more housing! Increase the supply
x Don't. It sounds harsh but delaying the market is bad x If land is limited BUILD TALLER. More DENSITY close to mass transit. Build PROTECTED bike lanes to get people out of CARS.
x Significantly increase housing supply. If we want people of all means to live here, we need to build enough for those who can currently afford AND those with less. Otherwise, we have to outspend the increasingly smaller and richer pool of who can afford. x Raise minimum wage. Significantly.
x We need a reality check, it should NOT require dual income to rent an apartment I work in tech but if I didn't have reasonable rent even I can't afford to live in San Mateo City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
39 x None of the above. The people are responsible for their own housing needs x Give priority to public transit, bikes, and pedestrians over individual cars. Create dedicated bike and bus routes that are straight shots and intersect across the city. Create parking structures with solar panel shading at the ends of these lanes.
x Rent Control & increase the percentage of affordable housing in new housing development. Ask business to support affordable housing for workforce and senior citizens x See answer in "Other" in response to most recent prior question above. x Use rent control to provide rent stabilization. Do not allow landlords to abruptly raise the rent simply because housing prices shot up.
x No contracts to greedy developers who have council members in their pockets. x Aggressively enforce fair housing laws
x Streamline permitting. Resist NIMBY and embellished negative impact of proposed projects. Maximize available space. Minimize # of single family homes on large lots. Incentive building of affordable rental and starter home units for would-be buyers.
x Work collaboratively with the Golden Gate Regional Center and its clients to meet critical housing needs, so that clients can remain in their community--not be sent to far-flung parts of CA away from familiar supports on account of local housing costs
Question 7: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about housing needs in San Mateo? (296 Responses) x Build taller buildings, TOD with bike/pedestrian infrastructure so citizens don't have to drive everywhere.
x Housing affordability is complex and most of the suggested solutions thus far have been simplistic.

Housing affordability is not by and large the City's fault as many developers and some legislators tend to make it out to be.
x Need to have quality dense developments. So many proposals could, at low cost, have much better design and public spaces. We are just doing up or down votes instead of insisting on good design.

Design defines the character of a community. It makes dense housing more acceptable to existing residents. And it says that we, as a city, care about all residents. I feel like city leaders don't care about the quality of life for people less fortunate, same as decades ago when we built ugly boxes for homes instead of nice developments. Good example = below market rate housing on El Camino near Michaels. Bad example = Station Park Green (had paint instead of good design and a fence between it and the train station!)
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
40 x If we can't convince developers to do affordable housing, then San Mateo needs to do it themselves x housing needs parking. condo and apartment units created should have a minimum of 1 parking space onsite per 1 bedroom unit. housing near public transit will help those who can not afford to have a car still travel to work. park space/open space must be preserved as humans need to be able to be outside safely. bike lanes, safe walking corridors are essential x San Mateo has some highly segregated neighborhoods that have experienced profound disparities in their historical level of investment and maintenance, housing needs (like severe overcrowding), and access to local neighborhood-serving schools with a balanced and integrated student body. We need to make significant strides in rectifying this segregated living pattern, investing in neighborhoods that need it, and working to prevent displacement through tenant protections and the production of new, integrated housing that serves both rich and poor.
x The jobs housing imbalance is due to bay area cities allowing lots of new office space to be built but rejecting new housing. High cost housing is fundamentally a supply problem. Nimby-ism has to stop.

The Peninsula is now an urban area.
x All of the new building projects thus far are ridiculously expensive and go nothing to help anyone except tech employees. Who else can afford $3000+ for a studio or one bedroom? Because the new places are so expensive, even the "affordable housing" is simply out of reach for the average person.

The same rent controls in place in SF, need to be added to San Mateo (both city and county) to stop the greed. I recently tried to assist a friend find an affordable apartment ($2200 budget) which were mostly crappy places without even a kitchen. It's appalling what has happened to housing in San Mateo.
x Your priorities seem to be developers and environmentalists, as well as activists from SF and the East Bay (plus SM officials who don't even live here). I've grown weary of attending your meetings because you all seem wholly disinterested in actual residents who pay property taxes. x "The term affordable unit in a construction project is misleading as the unit is usually unaffordable to the middle and lower income people. Developers should be encouraged to use less expensive/ fancy items in the units to keep the price affordable.
x Also there should be more rules regarding first and last deposits when renting a unit. The deposits are too high and difficult to get back at end of a lease."
x We continue to hear that there is no affordable housing here, but every place you turn there are new housing units going up, so how can we be so low on housing? Maybe the answer is not new housing, but better management of the housing we currently have. Big real estate companies come in here and build new housing, then charge an arm and leg for it then everyone cries that we don't have affordable housing. Control rent prices for these companies and we might be in a better position. How much of City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
41 the new housing is filled? Would love to see actuate information and not those from big real estate companies.
x We need to distribute additional housing throughout the city to avoid ghettoization. Mixed-use mid- rise (~5 floors - think the buildings of Haussmann's Paris rebuild, although perhaps with more variation) redevelopment along El Camino and the Caltrain line seems promising. This would require walk and bikeability improvements. Protected connections for pedestrians and bicycles ought to be added across 101 and 92. Open and green space should be added, microparks and street trees help too.

Vertical growth to two floors for single family properties should be made easier to preserve green space and permeable surface. This will add housing for ADUs or multigenerational households, reduce the load on storm sewers and runoff, and preserve green space in yards. Native re-plantings for yards should be encouraged/subsidized.
x This survey questions are heavily biased in the way they are asked. x Building more housing is not always the answer. It may provide more tax income to the city but it doesn't do a lot to preserve the value of the area. Filling in every empty piece of open space makes for more crowding, adds to current traffic issues that are bad enough already and limits the joy current and future homeowners experience already in this lovely city. Why not work on the current infrastructure first to make sure those who currently live here have access to all that they need before adding more people and cars. More is not always better. x As mentioned in bulk of my survey - the City I have lived in for over 22 years (and pay taxes) is run down and over crowded. Please start investing in infrastructure - green space, clean sidewalks on 25th Ave, fix dilapidated streets. Traffic is unbearable and stop building housing - on top of housing - on top of housing! There are too many people living on top of one another. Sometimes we don't get what we want. If you can't afford to live here, there are other cities to enjoy life in. I would love to live in Hillsborough, but just can't afford it. So that is life. Funny how Hillsborough is exempt from having to deal with city officials who want to build compacted dense housing and homeless shelters 500 feet from their home.
x Rent is now 150% more expensive than when I first moved to San Mateo, and the cost of housing is a primary reason I haven't chosen to start a family here. Even buying a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for dual-income couple with no kids.
x I love San Mateo but it has to become more dense. I support many of the proposed state laws to overrule cities that are artificially restricting residential construction. x It is important to have affordable housing for people to live and work Area.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
42 x Great need for 1-2 person small residences with allowed pets and pet area at affordable rates/rents.

My children want to be able to stay in San Mateo. They are college age but don't make lots of money.

Housing in this area is too expensive for them to stay. More places also need to allow pets. x Developers must pay their fair share of the additional resources needed for the resulting increased residency in any location throughout San Mateo.
x I wish our elected leaders would realize that in the Bay area with our geographical issues that limit building, that an area can only support some number of people/jobs and trying to cram more into that area just leads to a poorer quality of life for everyone. People come for jobs, if large developments that have many jobs were limited then the need for more housing would also be reduced. Don't approve more Apple "flying saucers" or Salesforce towers. Just look at the "stack and pack" massive drab apartment complexes of the former Soviet Union countries or today's China and you see what our country is heading for. Unchecked population growth is the greatest evil the world faces today. Since there is very little the US can legally do to assist with population control via foreign aid, looking to control our own population is the best we can do.
x "Preserve single family neighborhoods.
x We don't need high rise apartment buildings -- we have vacant office spaces, and most new apartments aren't affordable anyway.
x Traffic and parking are a problem already in downtown San Mateo and highways 92 and 101 and have been for years. We don't have the infrastructure to support mass new housing builds." x Over all the years I have lived in San Mateo, I have noticed more new market rate units being allowed than affordable housing units. The percentage rate to build here should increase for affordable units.

Maybe even at a rate of 50/50, to be totally fair.
x Current home owners act as a rent seeking cartel, discouraging any change despite the negative externalities this imposes on everyone else. This is ethically dubious and should be discouraged or penalized.
x We should compare with other Peninsula cities' approaches’¦ there may be good ideas and opportunities to align
x Where is the leadership? Stop kicking the can down the road to housing needs...The county is buying hotels and shovel ready opportunities...The city of San Mateo and Educational organizations (surplus study of owned real estate) has controlling interest in owned real estate (former Delaware street SM Police station/ fire station sites)...what are the plans for those properties? x I'm a renter and have come to peace knowing I can never afford to buy a house here in San Mateo. But I love the area so much. I cannot afford another rent hike. The next one will probably force me to move City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
43 away. I want to stay but the high cost of living will eventually push me out. Please in your planning process, keep renters in mind.
x Need to increase density and services throughout the city, not just along Caltrain/El Camino. Ease the process for small, more dense develop and not just focus on a few large new projects. x San Mateo broke my heart! I lived in San Mateo for over 20 years and was forced to leave due to dramatic rent increases (134% in 10yrs) I still work in San Mateo but can not afford to live there. I want to help be part of the solution and that is why I'm taking so much time to fill out this questionnaire. I sent a heartfelt detailed email to the Mayor of San Mateo after his state of the Union address. His response was a one line curt form response with typos that only said thanks for feedback very upsetting! His state of the Union address only spent a few mins addressing the housing crisis. The housing crisis is a CRISIS! and the city of San Mateo is not treating it like one. x Incentivize home selling by reducing capital gains tax. There is not enough inventory for any income level.
x "NO MORE F*&$! HOUSING - SM infrastructure cannot support it. x Thank God I'm moving away from here."
x Stop building. Go outside and see that business are leaving, vacancies everywhere. Most people would agree to chip in to help homeless, but not by spending millions to build in the middle of already overdeveloped city with failing infrastructure.
x San Mateo's infrastructure is in need of upgrades and there is a drought, most likely for the long term.

Any growth creates more problems and there seems to be no solution for them. x Restricting private property rights as a tool to make housing more affordable results in housing even less affordable than previously. Don't believe me, check San Francisco & NYC with their rental housing restrictions.
x I strongly believe the voting public was misled or at least purposely misinformed when the 2 ballot propositions were voted on and passed limiting height in buildings already 6 stories...those measures should be repealed or replaced allowing developers downtown and along the rail corridor and other transportation roads to build up...doing so would ultimately preserve the best of San Mateo's historic character while allowing thousands of housing solutions x More dense housing needs to be partnered with more community services, parks, community centers, retail options, and realistic parking space. Also, if you increase density, you must increase security with more cops on the beat, more and better traffic patterns. x "THIS IS A BIASED PREJUDICED DISCRIMINITORY SURVEY. YOU ASK THE WRON G QUESTIONS AND

THERE IS NOT AN OPTION TO SAY,
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
44 x 'HELL NO! I DON'T WANT ANY MORE HOUSING!"" LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS!! THEY DO NOT WANT ANY MORE HOUSING!!"
x I know there has been a log of pushback about duplexes/ADUs/multiple-unit housing in single-family zoned neighborhoods. I happen to think that this would be a helpful solution and would welcome it in my neighborhood.
x "Improve building code enforcement to discourage absentee landlord neglect of shoddy house conversions to multi-family dwellings. I fear the house next door will burn down from electrical and cable service overloads.
x Find homes for the forgotten poor
x ADU permission needs to be easier I have spent 3 years and over $50,000. On consultations with all manner of city requirements. I still have no permit issued and am going to give up. When it takes years and costs thousands no wonder no one is able to build affordable housing or ADUs in San Mateo. x "Please be aware that many policies will push out the 'Mom and Pop"" landlords. We are the ones servicing long term tenants and providing fair value housing. We should be encouraged not penalized. x "1. There is NO SUCH THING AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING here. x 2. There is not enough water to sustain all these people. x 3. What good are good schools when we are so overworked and overwhelmed with so many students. x 4. We should be encouraging people to live within their means. x We severely need more density and more high rise projects in and around downtown! This helps the supply of housing and local businesses with foot traffic while keeping cars off the road with walkability! x Que los precios de alquiler están muy altos
x Plenty of apartments and townhouse style units are already in the pipeline. City needs more single level 2-3 BR condos targeted to active senior downsize market around Central Park, Hillsdale and San Mateo Drive. That should provide opportunities in established neighborhoods for families. x There needs to be more options. The lack of supply is the problem. Too few available units for rent or ownership drives up prices.
x Developers should not be able to get out of building sufficient parking. Maybe offer incentives for individuals who do not have cars. Some of us can't live without cars unfortunately since schools are located so far away from homes. The density/building height limit in San Mateo is a joke. There is no reason measure y should have passed. The NIMBYs won (by like 10 votes! seriously get out and vote people) and it's sad.
x Stop adding so many units. We are taking a huge burden created by other neighboring cities. Let them take care of their housing issues. We've done our fair share.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
45 x I object to the ADU units created on the hills behind houses. There is not enough parking. Access to the dwelling I have seen is incredibly difficult such as a narrow wooden staircase, and lacking access for emergencies. This is objectionable and unsafe building on these steep hills behind houses. Not enough foresight, and over sight.
x Lots of good ideas in here. But ultimately we just need to build more housing. Less red tape, more density, more roofs over heads.
x "NO MORE MARKET RATE APPROVALS... NONE OF WHICH HAS OR WILL EVER LOWER HOUSING PRICES IN THE BAY AREA. THE NUMBERS ARE JUST NOT THERE.
x BESIDES, THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF FOR SALE/RENT MARKET RATE HOUSING AVAILABLE IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND UP AND DOWN THE PENINSULA. TAKE MINUTE TO CHECK ZILLOW OR REALTOR.COM.
x SO....APPROVALS ONLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS....... PERIOD. x FINALLY, WHY IS THIS SURVEY AND IT'S QUESTIONS BIASED, WITHOUT REAL CLARIFICATION OR

DIFFERIENTATION BETWEEN THE NEED FOR HOUSING AND THE FACT THAT THERE A VERY REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET RATE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. x THE COUNCIL, STARTING WITH BAY MEADOWS, HAS APPROVED THOUSANDS OF STACK AND PACK,

MARKET RATE HOUSING THAT HAS DONE NOTHING TO LOWER THE PRICE OF HOUSING OR ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY ISSUES IN SAN MATEO."
x Apparently, your division wishes growth to continue and plans accommodations or what many residents consider excessive population growth.
x We are living with the impact of too restrictive building policies, over decades. Height limits, too much concern for supposed impacts (not based on facts) on traffic, the environment, water, etc. We need to approve more housing anywhere it can be built. Much of the single family housing stock is old and in disrepair. Modern, multifamily housing is preferable to old, small houses packed with people. x Develop new options but keep single family neighborhoods in tact. We need to support many types of families/people and their choices.
x Not sure how we can ever go back to affordable housing for all. But I appreciate any efforts to try. x I'm a third generation San Mateoan and I'm saddened by what this town has become. There's too much traffic on the road, people are angry all the time, car accidents have increased. The solution is not to cram more people into small spaces. Honestly, this is an unsolvable problem and I will likely move in the next few years so I don't have to deal with it anymore. Good luck! x Create some kind of incentive for current property owners since we will be paying for all these programs, in part with property taxes. Possibly charging “property taxes” to the renters or have them City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
46 pay some kind of tax for this new housing initiative instead of current property owners paying for these things and the renters don't have to because they “rent”, not own. x Single family home type zoning laws are a huge issue, especially for large lot sizes. Everyone who already owns a home thinks that a new neighbors home is a "development" (negative connotation), but not his/her existing home. We need to educate existing home owners about how the homelessness crisis is related to decrease in affordable housing which is caused by scarcity of housing in the area.
x The real estate market like all markets must remain free with government interference minimized. If you cannot afford San Mateo, then consider Hayward. We do need to create effective and efficient mass transit to help those who work on the peninsula.
x I believe adding more housing units is not going to satisfy the ever growing need and the infrastructure of San Mateo cannot take anymore housing without major improvements. What you really need to be asking the citizens of San Mateo is how are your roads, congestion, water resources, response time for medical, police and fire? Has your quality of life improved over the last 5, 10, 15 years or declined in San Mateo? I can say as a long time resident, none of these issues are being addressed. Traffic and congestion is horrible and no matter how many times it comes up at a city council or planning commission meeting from neighbors and citizens who already live there, the new development continues and the congestion increases. How are you go address these issues? I know that there has not been an increase in police and fire personnel to accommodate the past and future growth of this city, and our roads are horrible. I cannot drive down El Camino without hitting huge potholes. I'm really tired of new development and the cost to infrastructure bared on the backs of long time residents.

Enough is enough. Building more housing does not solve any of these issues and creates more congestion, collapsing infrastructure and stressed emergency services not to mention the water shortage we are currently in.
x Allow density in TOD'S. Streamline approvals. Let the private sector work. x "We need to streamline the housing approval process, and eliminate the restrictions that prevent housing from getting built, such as onerous zoning laws, and height and density limits. x We also need to focus on building sustainable, walkable neighborhoods, where a variety of goods and services are a short distance away. This cuts down on traffic, and emissions. " x We have a highly developed downtown with a train station and access to buses along El Camino. This is a great opportunity to develop green, car-free, condos in mixed- use buildings. Removing or increasing height limits between 2nd-5th and Delaware to El Camino for these sorts of buildings would encourage development. Increased density in this area would also support the local businesses.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
47 x 1) San Mateo has traditionally done a great job of creating a mix of housing types/opportunities. (2) however, like many towns, it has a regrettable history wrt equity and racial discrimination. (3) it needs to acknowledge that history and make amends.
x The only true solution for the housing crisis is more housing. Given that the largest threat facing us as a community and a civilization is climate change, more housing that provides walkable living is the best solution.
x There's far too little of it. We need to streamline development, eliminate height and density restrictions around transit, do away with parking minimums, and just generally make it as easy to build new housing as possible.
x It is difficult to believe that the city takes our current housing crisis seriously when it spends 4 years and over $450,000 dollars trying to block 10 units along El Camino. The scale of the city's proposed solutions is deeply inadequate compared to the size of the problem and even them we've historically failed to deliver on planned housing under RHNA requirements. x I don't hear anyone talking about the “water shortage” or general quality of life for existing residents.

Who is paying for this housing and why?
x There should also be more housing developed along the El Camino Real corridor x "We don't need more new luxury apartments. My understanding is that developers have all the incentive to keep making luxury apartments/condos, so the city should be more involved either in funding the building itself or fixing the incentive structure. x As a resident with high enough income to live here comfortably, but not enough income to have more than a 1BR, I would be happy to pay more in taxes if the money is going toward more equity in housing and services."
x There is a reason for why San Mateo is unique. It's the lack of mass housing units that create more traffic which creates a bigger load on the environment. Station Park Green and the proposed Rite Aid redevelop ruin the quality of life that has been the hallmark of why San Mateo is special. Don't do more!
x Plan before building. And I don't mean plan the building. Get the infrastructure in place before any thoughts of adding new building begins.
x "Improve infrastructure before adding any more housing and stop pretending that people are going to give up their cars. In my neighborhood every household has 2 to 3 cars and there is not enough parking.
x Traffic is horrible and adding more housing makes it more of a nightmare. Replacing grocery stores and other shops with housing means we have further to drive For everything. " City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
48 x "If at all possible, don't use ""tax dollars"" for such projects. Privatize it as much as possible. If tax dollars are being used, there should be ""transparency"" to disclose groups/individuals etc who utilize public ""tax dollars"".
x We DO NOT want to have living conditions like ""San Francisco"". After worked/lived (and even heard the residents complaints) in that city for the past 20+ years, that city got way out of hand with ""affordable housing"". Best to travel up to SF to see first hand in the areas where ""affordable housing"" is located - imagine that in San Mateo. Please avoid their ways of managing ""affordable housing""
x Make good use of existing empty lots. We need housing more than we need Christmas Tree and Pumpkin lots.
x I have lived here over 40 years. The traffic is a serious issue for me. I work in Woodside and it is about 9 miles away. Pre-pandemic it took me one hour on a good day to get home. How will the traffic change with more housing? At what point does the commute force me to leave my job and the city I love? Also there is a severe water shortage. How is there enough water for all the new housing? x "In my opinion, added affordable housing will work best if it is near transit & services so people with limited resources can walk to work, services, etc . More cars on 101 and on El Camino Real should be avoided. The housing problem is somewhat caused by the offices that have been built in the past 10 years in & around San Mateo. Office space should NOT be added. Fewer people are working in offices - accelerated by COVID. Same with storefront retail - which has been decreasing for the past 5 years. x My first sentence states that housing should be near transit, services, and where people work - so there is less reliance on cars and fewer cars on 101 & ECR. However, there is currently a plan to demolish Draegers & replace it with more offices (not needed), more retail (not needed), a parklet (it is next to Central Park), and housing (needed). Draegers is the only full service grocery store in downtown San Mateo. So if someone with limited resources moves into an affordable place downtown where they can walk to work, services, etc - they can't buy groceries in downtown San Mateo and they'll have to DRIVE elsewhere. This defeats the purpose of a live/work environment. " x We do not need more housing in San Mateo. Just drive around the streets and you will see hundreds of for rent and for lease signs for both residential and commercial property. Many of the huge housing projects that have been built recently are vacant. The rents are so high people cannot afford them. It is a joke that these properties are providing "affordable" housing. x Give priority affordable housing to teachers and other service workers. They deserve to afford to live where they work. The fallout of that lack is detrimental. x Building large apartment houses and condos do not serve the poor, but serve to make developers rich on the backs of these people.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
49 x Given that we're paying rents/mortgages comparable to Manhattan, it's absolutely crazy that there isn't a lot more vertical development. Put it near transit and without much parking to make it greener and avoid ticking off neighbors. The Belmont Condominiums are an example of how attractive such developments can be. As long as there's only a trickle of new building, developers are going to make sure that every unit is as luxurious as possible. We need a FLOOD of new housing so that it's not just the richest who get it. Also put new apartment buildings in the fancy rich neighborhoods with good schools and parks, so that middle-class and working-class folks can benefit from these schools and parks. And don't let the loudest complainers derail projects that will benefit many more people.

Thanks!
x Housing growth should be paired with infrastructure development. If infrastructure can not be developed or added to (including resources such as water supply and sanitation) then housing expansion should be slowed.
x It's not fair to build so many new units all in one location. It completely changes the neighborhood to the detriment of those already here. Why make less lanes on the road and build more housing in that area?
x We need a variety of housing types, sizes and locations. Mixed use buildings work well. x Few newly built apartment complexes - rents too high, non-affordable, allow less than 50% of private and public ownership to not rent over a certain dollar amount. x The housing needs are critical. I am concerned we do not have the critical infrastructure to support the huge amount of housing given to us via RHNA numbers. Water, Sewer, Roads should be taken into consideration and communicated via our legislators to Sacramento. They should be providing $$ to support this growth. Otherwise it's just higher taxes which low to moderate income families can't afford either.
x We need to immediately move forward with proven initiatives for increasing supply around public transit.
x If the choice is to become a tenants society, then make tenants rights a priority. Social housing where the city enters into long term leases with the builders and allow for ownership with capped appreciation (Singapore model) is important next step.
x When I purchased my home the cost was a lot less but my salary was much less also. I had to have help from my parents for my down payment, but I paid it back. x It is almost impossible to drive or park in this city most of the day. I don't understand how you plan to add housing and increase the congestion. The quality of life here keeps going down and the cost of living keeps going up. Time to rebalance, not make one problem worse for the sake of the other.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
50 x "A good case for greater density is being made. if done right it can be nice. https://www.strongtowns.org/about
x https://www.bluezones.com/services/blue-zones-project/#section-1" x collect data on renter rates, rent increases and study evictions and outcomes x We need to stop building new housing because we don't have enough water. People should not feel a right to live here. Move somewhere cheaper that actually has water. x Teachers need priority for housing in SM
x Let's stop building more housing unless it is "affordable." Our area is already behind past commitments for affordable housing. We should demand developers build higher % of affordable units. If developers refuse, find other developers. Why do we allow developers to get away with so few affordable units? Our local politicians are all bought off? Given our changing climate, uncertain water futures, our politicians need to show some courage and quit placating developers. x I think we need to find ways to provide needed housing in open spaces, on the transit corridor, etc., while maintaining the quality of life of current SM residents; more specifically, I believe adding large numbers of ADUs and multi-family dwellings in established single-family home neighborhoods is likely to increase traffic, reduce parking, and generally negatively impact life in the city of San Mateo. x There are not enough options for seniors that want to downsize, yet can't afford the luxury high rise apartments that require a buy-in. Nor not all seniors want to be in an apartment. Some just want a smaller 1-level house/condo with a yard. Seems as though newer construction involves stairs. Not suitable for seniors. We can't/won't downsize if there are no options. Or if the options are more expensive than just staying put.
x Forcing residents to live in more crowded conditions by increasing density throughout the city and converting homes to multiple housing units or converting single-family zoning to multi-unit zoning might get more people into the city, but it won't be a place I want to live. x The identity of San Mateo is changing as the population grows. The city council needs to live in reality, not with its head in the clouds about what it used to be or some other ideal scenario. There needs to be a mix of population demographics in order for the city to thrive and prosper. No one is safe if more and more people are forced to live in the street.
x Build more of everything. And each project that is targeted to be built should go for maximum capacity of housing units. Every pre-existing lot with an apartment building should be allowed to rebuild as tall as possible. Streamline the ADU process. Allow duplexes. x Please have more density around public transit like the train! Make mixed use developments so more shops and stores are walkable!
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
51 x As a business owner, we have to pay insane taxes, our employees are demanding outrageous hourly rates while our customers aren't willing to pay more for the services we offer. Employees need more income to live here”¦ so the service rates must go up to our clients x Allowing duplexes in single family neighborhoods is not the way to solve the problem. It only creates new problems and changes the character of neighborhoods. Those houses will still be high priced at least in the near term. If enough of them are built, you've now just replaced the character of a neighborhood and likely driven out and down homeowners for a mix of owners and renters in a more crowded neighborhood that our schools won't be able to accommodate. x We need a lot more housing. The 'prioritize / top three' structure of this survey feels wrong to me, like it implies we can focus on a few types/places and that'll be sufficient. x "Streamline housing approval process so that homes can get built. x Build near transit and job centers.
x Allow duplex on single family zoning.
x We need to hit our housing goals.
x Educate and influence people that are on the fence or overly defensive. x Listen to the young and under represented."
x Yes , we need housing that out senior can afford. With most senior receiving about 1,200 a month they can't afford nothing out here in San Mateo they end up in the streets . x The affordable housing crisis is just that - a crisis. We absolutely need to do everything we can to welcome in new neighbors and build more homes. Given San Mateo's location as a job center and also its temperate climate, any new homes we build here will also be very good for addressing climate change.
x "The huge problem is that the city's population is already beyond its infrastructure capacity. For the existing population, there isn't enough water (due to drought), electricity for really hot days, or highway capacity. So, no housing plan should be developed without sections that address those issues. x Also, please be realistic about the percentage of new residents who will commute by rapid transit. Yes, the K-Mart development is right next to the Hayward Park CalTrain station, but it is also right next to the onramps to Hwy. 92, making driving an attractive option for commuting." x Build more housing. Build more housing. Any kind of housing. Rich housing, affordable housing, duplexes, apartment complexes, tall buildings, short buildings, all the housing. Build more and denser housing. The housing crisis is 98% a supply crisis made far, far worse by opposition to all new construction. BUILD MORE HOUSING.
x "Prioritize people that have a history of Residing and working in the county or Bay area, and would like to live in San Mateo due to family ties (many diverse communities are in this category) City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
52 x Then, prioritize full time service workers (teachers, doctors, nurses, small business owners including independent workers like plumbers, gardeners, cooks, etc). x People and households that have a history of working full time and paying taxes should have priority in affordable housing, and fear rate housing and rent. Once SM workers are secured in their housing, then we can then help other populations that have not been able to hold steady jobs or income. " x We need to build more housing, allow duplexes in single family neighborhoods, and fund more multimodal transit throughout the city (especially buses). x I appreciate the time and thought going into creating a plan for housing growth in San Mateo. x I understand you think building, building, building is great. I think all of the scheduled building right now does little if anything to assist those who cannot afford to live here now. I do not see how or when that could happen things being what they are currently. Tell Sacramento NO! x There is an important opportunity for the city to launch a PR campaign helping illuminate the reality that our growing population of folks over 65 (heck, over 70 and 80) NEEDS affordable housing nearby for our important service providers: 1) in-home care folks!!!; 2) out-patient and in-patient healthcare providers, especially all the CNAs who are trying to provide sufficient care to folks in our nursing homes and other care facilities; 3) delivery folks for pharmacies, groceries, packages. Even the younger well- paid residents of San Mateo are impacted by the lack of affordable housing - there is a reason why our restaurants, cleaners, grocery stores and SCHOOLS are struggling to provide pre-pandemic levels of service. Finally, the lack of affordable rents for our non-profits and their employees (Edgewood Center for Families and Children, CA Clubhouse, StarVista, Caminar, etc.) means the county is losing great provider staff regularly because they can't justify the cost and personal impact of commuting an hour or more in each direction to provide support for mental health, domestic violence, substance abuse, etc. It does me no good to have enough retirement savings to afford great in-home care if there is nobody to provide it in San Mateo!
x Schools and community parks also need to be prioritized. Housing needs to be spread out in the city so the schools also get a fair spread of new students. Currently with everything getting built along El Camino/Caltrain only a handful of school get the burden of the increase in population. Developers need to find ways to provide money back to SMFCSD to improve conditions. x Stop giving in to the developers who say they can't make low income/middle income house development work.
x Turning the El Camino corridor into a mixed use commercial/residential area with affordable housing and transitional housing included would be an ideal solution! x Improve pedestrian and bicycle access, make it easier for people to walk or bike to places up to a mile away. Match higher density housing relatively close to parks and shopping with easy and safe access City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
53 without requiring a car. Balance open space to housing; include parks, green space, and plazas so that people can get outdoors without crowding. Allow for higher density housing (i.e. taller buildings) near downtown or along ECR. We need both smaller spaces for individuals or roommates and larger spaces for families.
x Please make sure that development of additional housing includes money to the school districts to account for increased enrollment.
x San Mateo is a beautiful, beautiful place, I would like to buy a small house and grow old here to see the sunsets
x For families with children., having a place (park) to play outside would be nice like community park. x There is no 'need' for housing in SM; the need is for employers to expand elsewhere, off the Peninsula! Growth is no longer a good thing in California, especially on the Peninsula. Stop promoting it under the false pretense of humanitarianism, when really it is all about tax revenues, as quality of life deteriorates. Let's not allow SM to become a 'low income' dumping ground, but instead a haven for the most productive and creative. If housing is too expensive, let wages catch up, and not by minimum wage mandates, but by natural forces, as we are now actually witnessing with the labor shortage that is indeed tied to high cost of living.
x No more building of Offices, we are a built out city and should convert empty office building to residential as in the empty hi- rise on El Camino also all new development with no parking should require tenants not to own cars
x San Mateo is overdue for creating neighborhoods that are more diverse in terms of housing so that young people, families, and seniors can all live together as a community. Increasing duplexes and triplexes in traditionally single family neighborhoods would improve everyone's quality of life and bring vitality to our neighborhoods by making them more dynamic, fresh and interesting. x Housing issues are very nuanced and there is not one answer for all. Any government run program should not create more layers of bureaucracy, which only stifles innovation and costs more in the long run. Think outside the box. Try pilot programs or look to other countries and communities to see how they have addressed housing and homelessness. Don't create unnecessary obstacles that create barriers for the people who need assistance today, not tomorrow. x Do something at the same time or before that addresses parking. Do something at the same time or before that addresses the increased traffic that is now present. Thank you. x STOP! Before anyone anywhere builds more housing, see how things shake out after the pandemic. If businesses continue to close and people continue to move away to work from homes outside of San Mateo, there need to be an adjustment in all sorts of housing and businesses that cannot be answered at this time. The fact that the state mandates every city build a certain amount of housing is ludicrous.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
54 Besides that, the concept of "affordable" housing is a misnomer, for lack of a better more descriptive word. Affordable to whom? What is considered afford able now, won't be by the time it is built and made available. Also, make sure there is adequate infrastructure to support any additional housing.

That includes water availability, what with drought and climate change. We should all be under water restrictions now regardless if more housing is built or not. Anyone have the courage in San Mateo or state government to approach that topic?
x Do not over crowd San Mateo with housing. Boom and bust will hit hard. Spend the money on infrastructure first so we can get the people that already live here the appropriate living conditions that they have paid taxes for over the years. That infrastructure will last longer than the housing and help out people that visit San Mateo and live here as well. Build for long term sustainability not right now!
x New housing requires stable Infrastructure (water/trash/power/gas/emergency services/air quality/ green zones/pedestrian paths/bike lanes/traffic/disaster plans) before development begins.

Developers must be removed from the decision process. Support business that hire locals and provide housing assistance (good employees create good communities) x Increased public transit is key to being able to expand housing without negatively impacting traffic and other things. If we run more routes more frequently the city will be easier to access. New developments should have walkable or safely bikeable access to regular stores like groceries. x We have ruined our city by overpopulating without a traffic plan. Our downtown is an embarrassment of a traffic and parking mess!
x Stop building luxury apartments on the train tracks and start building family homes in residential areas. x San Mateo should have enough housing projects that allow low to median income to buy/rent at an affordable price.
x Get a job first!
x Retain the beauty and historical character of San Mateo's homes and commercial areas as the Council takes action to address our housing needs.
x I recently moved at the beginning of the month. While looking for new housing I noticed there are a lot of vacant apartments but the asking rent is way too overpriced. Landlords rather have a vacant property than reduce rent. San Mateo does not need to build more, they need the developers/owners to come down in price. A family of four simply cannot afford a $5,000/month 2 bed apartment. x We need parking solutions. If parking was easier, we could have denser housing. Build a parking garage. Only allow people with resident permits to park there. Then we could have more ADUs, more duplexes. Until the bus system is more robust, working people cannot use public transit; it's not City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
55 reliable enough and it's not frequent enough. If you miss your bus, it could be an hour until the next one.
x We hopefully can become more creative than ugly multiunit unit structures (i.e. Delaware Street) with retail shops underneath. If a senior wants to downsize it is not affordable or desirable to live in San Mateo any longer. San Mateo is losing its charm.
x With housing should come a plan to make sure our roads can support new housing. x Too many people
x We need housing assistance for those of us whose incomes look high but who are spending enormous amounts for things like childcare. We have very little opportunity to save for a home given the cost of living here (and truly insane home prices even for "starter" homes). Incentives like very low interest rates for mortgages or low to no down payment programs could go a long way. x I have been a long-time renter in San Mateo and my young growing family would like to purchase a home here, but it's proving to be impossible because of the limited stock of 3BR homes and homes that are affordable. This is not a new narrative at all. Does the City have an idea as to how many single-family homes (3BR+) are owned and occupied by a single individual or couple? With single family home prices what they are right now, I understand that it would be financially prohibitive for seniors to downsize and also challenging to move from the neighborhood that they've called home for so long, but could there be a way for those, who do want to downsize, to more easily do so such that these homes could be available for young growing families? x Don't know how you are going to evaluate the data from the first question. I had to force myself not to put 5 for each response so you'd have some variation in importance. x Build more! Get employers involved. They should have a responsibility to take care of their employees and ensure their quality of life isn't terrible.
x High-density cities are worse to live in. Adding more housing makes San Mateo worse. Yes, housing prices have risen, but why is that a problem? Would a business with a rising stock price start programs to drive it down? While it could be a problem if some underpaid professions can't afford to live in the area, for example teachers, the solution is not to drive housing prices down so we can continue to underpay our teachers, it is to pay teachers more. I've lived in San Mateo all my life, and every time new housing is built, the neighborhood gets worse.
x I think the state mandates are unreasonable and should be challenged as many city in the area are doing. We should fight for local control. Additional housing does not lower prices, we have added 1000 of units, and COVID lowered rent more than all the housing built. We need to reevaluate post COVID as where people are working has changed. I doub t a new office building will be built in the next 10 years.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
56 x Stop building offices which create population increases! Encourage regional shifts of commercial activities. It seems that only city officials think it's “cool” to have and brag about this influx of business. x Partner with other cities and counties
x San Mateo is losing its character. I feel like Bay Meadows, while I do like it, feels like I could be in any city, not to mention it is crazy expensive. Hillsdale Avenue is the main artery to Foster City and pre- pandemic levels of traffic were at gridlock from 4 - 6 pm. Incredibly frustrating to go from the top of 92 to the east side of San Mateo. The city of San Mateo should be working with Foster City as well...they keep adding more units with what seems little regard for traffic implications. The units that are being built on Norfolk at Bridgepoint is, I feel, not well thought out with traffic implications. Norfolk can't handle that traffic. And forget about having your kids ride their bikes along there to get to Bayside/Parkside etc. That intersection will be terrible. I do understand the complicated nature of housing/population/traffic, but San Mateo is just becoming a cookie cutter city with box stores, plenty of traffic and rent/housing prices that are forcing out so many generations that grew up here. x "Due to proposition 13 we will always have a problem. I'd you build workforce housing you should be prepared that those who love there must leave when the retire of leave that job. x The area has always been expensive so please realize even if you do all of this we will never have enough housing and many who struggle financially will need to move. It is unfair to out this on the backs of landlords."
x It's a challenging issue that requires study. I personally don't know enough to feel qualified to give a lot of input on how to achieve more housing in a city that already feels crowded. We have to be very careful as we add more housing/cars that we don't destroy our quality of life. It's tragic that most young adults who grew up here and still have family/parents here have to move to the east bay! x I have applied for housing for over 25 years, and so far the City of San Mateo has not done anything for me. I've lived and worked here for 40 years, pay my taxes in a timely manner. Staff has me on a list for 25 years for first time home buyer program . so far nothing has happened. Staff tells me I'm not on her waiting list. I am very disappointed with the city of San Mateo. I'm hoping someone will contact me. I am a good citizen. Hoping to hear from someone back. Thank you!. x I have lived and worked with a car-free, bike-heavy lifestyle in San Mateo for the last five years, renting various single family units alongside other adult roommates. While I think San Mateo has a high quality of life, it is very clear from transport, zoning, and city services that San Mateo is not intended for people with my lifestyle. I want to voice my full support for increasing density, walk ability, and safety for those outside of vehicles. I think this will be essential for the affordability and minimization of the city's environmental impact.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
57 x I think many of the above questions were poorly designed - they seem to me like they were fishing for opinions, but they don't provide actual choices, and don't inform people of trade-offs. Overall, the needs are huge, so large that no individual city or county can really produce enough housing to make up for laggards in the greater region. And logically, if a city has a large underutilized piece of land, like, say, an outmoded office park on the Eastern side of San Mateo, or a shopping mall, you could add a significant number of units if you built tall. But you'd probably run into opposition to anything over 4 stories, which is ridiculous. So some think you can distribute production more widely. But recent decisions to allow 2-story ADUs in single-family neighborhoods like mine, without setbacks and directly on property lines bother me greatly - and I support ADU's in general. However, they are a nice lifestyle addition for homeowners; they will never be produced in large enough numbers to make a difference.

Duplexes will never generate much production in San Mateo either; land and construction costs are way too high. It's a somewhat-better solution for lower cost cities. The only way to add real volume of housing units is through height. Utilize retail parcels. Utilize parts of the event center. Utilize the area near the juvenile detention center. Utilize parcels on El Camino - many are huge, e.g. Ah Sam. Utilize Hillsdale Mall - I live nearby. I would be happy with a mini-city of 10 story buildings - if designed well.

Utilize the area near Molly Stone, on the SM side. There is plenty of land to add tall housing. If it's not going to be tall, then it winds up having minimal impact. x New housing units need to be developed at every income level. x While I agree with the premise of more affordable housing and appreciate all the creative options listed here, it seems we're putting the cart before the horse. Building all this housing requires infrastructure to support the increase in population. Where will these kids go to school? What park will they play in? Is there enough parking? Love the idea of people living near public transportation and/or their jobs, but that does not mean they won't drive on the streets, or need parking. We can't even get El Camino re-paved! It seems like we need to present the vision for the city first and then figure out how to get there.
x Frustrating when young adults who grew up in San Mateo cannot afford to live here and are forced to move away. Much of housing in SM which is considered "affordable", is still not to many and there is not enough of it.
x Yes, there is a need for more affordable housing, but there is no need and no space for more housing overall. The population is dense enough, the infrastructure can hardly support the people that are already living here. In my mind we need to discourage further growth. Any growth that needs to happen needs to be sustainable and consider its effect on biodiversity. Apply the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, by evaluating the respective underlying targets and their applicability to San Mateo's development.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
58 x Making affordable housing a top priority; connecting it to social justice and equity work x "San Mateo needs to add more housing units to make it more affordable. We should spend less time adding rules and restrictions (such as zoning that limits to single family, requirements to include affordable units, etc) and instead be open to all alternatives that will add more housing units. x All of the following is welcome:- converting single family unit to duplexes and triplexes x - converting single family unit to duplexes and triplexes x - affordable units
x - taller building with units at market rates
x - units near mass transit and far from mass transit " x please don't neglect parking and traffic impacts. I heard about a new proposed development in San Bruno with over 100 apartments and something like 20 parking spots. THAT IS NOT REALISTIC. Even if people use transit for jobs and other basic elements of living, most people need a car sometimes and therefore need a spot to park it.
x Please do not create another Bay Meadows-type situation, where there community is built to further house and serve privilege. Prioritize community, not developer's financial outlook. Put a “build by” stipulation into agreements, removing the power of developer ls to delay infrastructure development to times when it best serves their individual interests. Stop prioritizing non-affordable “luxury” rental housing for high-wage tech workers.
x Address transportation. I am a SF native and have not see any new bridges ir roads that have dealt with the increase in bay area population. I have a clipper card. I am concerned about traffic, air quality, lack of infrastructure improvements (roads etc.) And yet we want to keep adding more homes. x Money should be used wisely. Many of the above solutions are short sighted. Housing should have blended in overall city development plans. Piece meals will be disaster for any city. It is the big tech created these housing problems. They should be hold responsible for solving it. They have the money to build new communities and cities in mountains. Policies should be made to encourage them to move out.
x None of my children who are now young adults can afford decent housing here. The airspace above our three downtown areas is wasted space. We should allow and encourage those property owners to build apartments over the existing businesses.
x Single family neighborhoods should remain as they are. Use unused/undeveloped space to create affordable housing.
x Do not allow taller buildings in R1 neighborhoods and keep taller developments located in areas with existing taller developments.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
59 x Improving transit in the community, and co-locating housing with such transit, would be a huge benefit!
x Housing near public transportation is a must. Low income residents often do not have access to cars. x I think the covid restrictions have really hurt businesses in San Mateo, especially restaurants. These restrictions mean less profit which means higher prices for goods sold. This impacts everyone and trickles down to those trying to save for a house in San Mateo. x What is the vacancy rate in San Mateo with all the new housing that have been built in the past few years.
x Spend some money along with the other interested peninsula cities to fight the Sacramento Mandates that no one seems to want. You never asked the question would you like to preserve the community as it is? This survey gives the flavor of confirming the biases of the survey writers. x Inflated RHNA numbers exaggerate the need. Basic resource limitations, such as water and electricity, are not available to support the growth targets. Basic policies to over develop the peninsula while avoiding other parts of California should be re-evaluated. Housing to commercial ratios should be determined and enforced.
x Let's have owners rent places at a reasonable price and owners being responsible for paying water and trash. As well for properties who are in charge of apartments or houses need to be more considerate when asking for rent because you still have to pay water and trash and if they would like that every apartment should have its own meter for the water.
x I love what the city has done in the Bay Meadows development. I'd love to see more developments like this in strategic areas.
x We should have Rent Control Policy to limit the rent increase % to make sure the market rental is affordable to low income population
x Schools and roads need to be considered and improved with add'l housing. Traffic is already a mess, how are we to enjoy living here with 1000s more added?? More family-centered places need to me considered too. There is no roller skating, arcades, mini-golf, etc anymore. Is the plan for San Mateo to become a metro downtown that's not intended to raise children? The quality of life here is not being considered in the forced addition of housing. Big tech companies should included housing on their large properties rather than squeezing more units in already small single family lots. x Over building will ruin this city.
x I have been a renter in San Mateo county for about 25 years and city of San Mateo for almost 15 years.

I work at SFO as an essential worker where I have been since first moving here. I dream of being able to afford to buy a house near my job, but on my salary I cannot compete against wealthy investors, City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
60 who only want an investment, not a place to live. It is unfortunate, and will likely never change until essential services are more severely impacted from lack of workers. x The housing (both selling and rent) is ridiculous. Due to the high prices, people like me who are young and grew up in the Bay Area are forced to live in sketchy areas since they are cheaper, or move out.

The problem is if you have a job here and have to live in San Mateo, but it is so right because the rent is taking up so much of our income.
x Yes. Please explain why high levels of job/population growth in the already most populated state are being encouraged without environmental impacts being resolved. Please identify the so-called benefits of "growth" to the existing residents and the environment. How will water be provided for all the projected population growth and how can we keep increasing housing/population without knowing this. Who benefits; who pays for the externalities of growth? Link the big money development interests to their environmental damage. Will the construction unions, whose salaries have boomed, decrease their labor costs for affordable housing projects? Ten years ago, pre-tech boom, SM was much more balanced, diverse and sustainable. We need a development "time-out" to improve the social and environmental equity of the current population and environment. And also, to start restoring trust in government.
x The last question is more about preserving existing housing than it is access to housing. Both are important but they are not the same. We need to increase access to opportunity by creating new housing and keep existing residents housed by providing rental assistance, creating a rental registry, and enforcing just cause eviction.
x Rent control and eviction moratoriums will do more harm than good in the long run. The voters spoke to these policies in 2015. Let's move on and not go down that rat hole again. x I think in order to get buy-in for denser housing, you need address people's traffic concerns. I'd like to see more multistory flats, like what you find in the Richmond and Eureka Valley districts in SF. x We need more housing of all types, especially housing for middle and low income people. I live in a single family home and would be delighted to add a small rental unit but I would need two things - an affordable loan and assistance overseeing the project. I would like to see a city program helping people to add second or third units to their properties. There are environmental impacts to new housing - but there are far greater environmental costs to Not building new housing in places like San Mateo that have jobs, transit, and quite a bit of land area that has low exposure to natural hazards. Without housing in places like San Mateo, people end up on the streets where, through no fault of their own, they leave trash and human waste on streets and in streams. Other people live far from their jobs and do super-commutes. We need more housing that is designed in such a way that it preserves public green spaces, reduces or is traffic-neutral, and increases the diversity of neighborhoods.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
61 x While I do think that adding ADUs and in-law units will be helpful, that process depends on homeowners having the desire and funds and energy to push things forward one parcel/unit at a time.

We need faster progress than that, so I also support larger projects, particularly city- or county- sponsored housing that looks similar to Lesley Towers (close to downtown and amenities, large building with lots of units).
x "Establish rental registry.
x Look for ways to prevent homelessness through preventing evictions." x "when private developers set aside 'affordable' housing, it should really be affordable. 10% off the normal price in this area isn't affordable either. make it a deeper discount and make the developer pay for it.
x "
x San Mateo does not need expanded housing policies. The city is becoming urbanized and losing its suburban qualities.
x We need specific plans with measurable results to address the past housing discrimination and it's resulting impacts on those discriminated against. We need to try and address the housing inequality that is the result of past unfair actions.
x I think this survey is "slanted". The City's priority should be to existing property owners. x L
x Stop assuming we have to provide housing for everyone. There are PLENTY of places to live. If you want to live in San Mateo, there is a cost.
x "This survey is very biased with circular reasoning and biased towards high density housing questions coming up as options in every question.
x Work with existing land and property owners to improve their land and building to accommodate more housing units by offering cost reductions and cost sharing for construction and modifications. " x Affordable housing for independent seniors
x "Please do not ruin our great neighborhoods like San Mateo Park by allowing unrestricted building of multiplex units.
x "
x We can't add housing until we fix the traffic problems that continue to escalate in this area. You mention building smaller housing units which only will increase density in this city. This only adds to the problems we have on the road. Traffic is a concern on the major highways but also is a concern on the smaller city streets. San Mateo was built as a residential suburb, with mostly single-family home neighborhoods. Don't take that away from us who pay the property taxes.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
62 x The price and availability of housing in San Mateo is greatly affected by the amount of disposable income from the high tech, bio tech, and finance professionals in this area. The values are continually driven up by sales that are hundreds of thousands over asking. You can't make up for this by ruining the character of San Mateo neighborhoods and taxing the residents to pay for developer and underserved community services. The middle class is being wiped out here and it's starting to look like San Jose.
x The push to develop downtown San Mateo with multiple high rise buildings is not giving the community what is needed. Housing with space for families, and is affordable housing really affordable? Increasing density comes with increased traffic and this affects existing residents and does not offer a better quality of life. I am looking to leave San Mateo county because of the lack of planning and vision for the Peninsula. People don't want to be forced into small “chicken coops” which are still very expensive. My children have no desire to return to where they grew up, focus on ADU's to add space for both young and old in life transitions.
x It may not be necessary to build any new housing. San Mateo may have maxed out in that regard. We don't need to feel compelled to build on every square foot of undeveloped land. We certainly do not want tall or high rise or high density apartments or housing. That would be ugly and an eyesore. Some things are just better left alone. There are many other small cities, towns and suburbs with abundant undeveloped land where housing can be built.
x We must ensure that our infrastructure can support additional housing wherever built. Water, utilities and services need to be met and can support new developments before permitting projects can be done.
x See above under other.
x I highly oppose the idea of turning single family homes into duplexes, as well as adding ADUs. While I understand the need for more housing, overcrowding could become an issue. It feels like the City is Justin's trying to “warehouse” bodies.
x Right now, lots of people live in RV parks. There are no protections for those who rent space in such parks. They can raise the rent $500 in one year if they want. Renters of RV space need protection.

Cap rent increases across the board at .5% or 1% per year. x "- Convert 1960s style subdivisions into walkable, mixed use, and denser zoned communities. x - Stop the building of luxury studio apartments. Incentivize for accommodating blue collar families. We need 1000s more units quickly.
x - Implement road diets & replace with bike paths & mass transit" x Build new houses outside of the main transit area to avoid traffic congestion. Also developers should stop building small rental units with high rent that only benefiting young high-income groups.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
63 x There is continued building of high density rental units while there is still a high vacancy rate because the rents are too high for these new units. Even the so called 10% affordable units are not affordable.

The new building of multiple unit buildings is removing neighborhood businesses ie: independent grocery stores, pharmacies and neighborhood restaurants. The roads cannot support the traffic the building is causing along with the lack of infrastructure. x No new housing should be created until the city has the infer structural to support it. The city so far in my opinion is careless and not disciplined in its housing policy. The city is willing to build housing at the expense of small businesses. The city appears to allow housing without regard to business and open space . The city is willing to sacrifice quality housing just for the building fees. x Pre-fabricated housing can lower the cost of housing and has been an available technology for 50 years. Union opposition is a big hurdle but pre-fab can be built with union workers. It is more efficient and therefore there will be fewer jobs but there has to be a trade off to get costs down. The only "model" we have is "trailer park" type units. But any type of housing can be build off site. x Housing is a human right, and the fact that we cannot house our own community's teachers, nurses, plumbers, carpenters, janitors, grocers, and service workers ””the people who keep our society functioning”” is nothing less than shameful. People simply should not be stuck choosing between commuting 2.5 hours from Tracy or living in old broken down housing to work the jobs required to make this city livable. We need a robust social housing program, and I believe the Vienna model has a lot to offer. This video from The Gravel Institute is a nice introduction: https://youtu.be/LVuCZMLeWko x Freeways are already congested. Even though some apartment buildings are built near train stations, people still drive. Building more apartment complex with hundreds of families will only make it worse.

All we need is a good public transportation system, so people can commute easily to peninsula from less densely populated area. For ex, train from Hayward to San Mateo, Palo Alto, etc. x More housing is more pollution, more cars with no place to park or to drive. x Please build inside each Independent (but not disabled) Senior Housing apartments to include a washer and dryer inside each unit.
x Maintain open space, consider traffic and noise.
x There's no silver bullet in solving our housing crisis. We need to work together to encourage the development of new units in the form of multi-family and mixed use buildings as well as in ADUs and lot splitting of SFH => duplexes. All of these tools must utilized to ease costs. The state and possibly federal government also have a role to play in regional planning and the creation of funding streams or tax credits to make it all happen.
x I feel the peninsula is busting at the seams. I feel ferry service stops with connecting buses, either corp shuttles or SamTrans would help tremendously
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
64 x San Mateo needs to create a rental database to collect valuable and otherwise unavailable information about the rental market. This could also help to ensure that landlords are complying with laws that have been created to protect tenants from abuse.
x I think a rent stabilization mechanism is needed here and state wide to prevent rent gouging and profiteering..
x We also need a rental data registry to provide valuable and otherwise unavailable data about the rental market, and to track whether landlords are adhering to laws intended to protect tenants from abuse.
x More density, higher construction especially in and around downtown x Allow Caltrain to own residential property around the stations and rent it out (Transit-oriented development) like in Arlington, VA and Hong Kong. Upzone all of San Mateo. x Important to ensure affordable housing opportunities throughout entire city. Provide rental data registry.
x San Mateo should be a leader in housing production in terms of diversity and affordability. x The Permit needs to be more efficient.
x More opportunities to purchase homes through programs like via Housekeys x Market-based solutions will never solve the housing affordability crisis because the market treats housing as a commodity instead of a human need / human right. We must start to de-commodify housing through public/social ownership. Until we reach that point, use all available means to keep current residents protected and prices down: rent control + vacancy control, and impose a vacancy tax to incentivize landlords to rent all units / discourage speculators from buying units and keeping them empty because it's simply an investment / place to park their money. x "A decade of TOD, what's basically a whole new city within San Mateo, thousands of housing units added over that time and we still have a problem? Not a big surprise. Building more units will not only NOT solve the problem but will continue making the city unlivable and ruining it's character and degrading the quality of life. The only winners are the developers who are making millions. Already, there are certain times of day when it's impossible to get from one side of town to the other by auto.

All this development is ruining our city.
x San Mateo is and always has been expensive. Trying to out build the law of supply and demand is not working."
x No new housing, no more growth. This survey is all about your personal ultra liberal views. Stop catering to the lazy people that want to work the system. Recognize that “underprivileged” are mostly people who want it all for free. People can move to where they can afford to live. I want to live in City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
65 Beverly Hills, but I don't expect to get to live there, because I can't afford to. I work hard for what I have, I've seen the “underprivileged” they are “under motivated.” The elected officials best be careful and remember who they work for.
x Since renters account for half of San Mateo's population, it's critical to do more to ensure affordable rental units in the city and that policies are in place to protect renters from unjust evictions. Yet, we lack even the most basic data about rental units in San Mateo. I think the city should establish a rental registry to help gather key data about rental rates, evictions, and track landlord compliance with state and local laws. These data will be critical for the city to develop effective policies to address the city's housing needs moving forward.
x "- 100+ Units project should be broken up into smaller parts so there is a phased approach versus needing to wait 2+ years for planning then 2+ years for construction. (Creating supply constraint). x - Since 2008 most new housing has been for rent, need more private ownership. (Creating supply constraint).
x - Need sticks for project that are approved the go undeveloped Essex Central Park and 28th & El Camino (Creating supply constraint).
x - Densities should mirror ADU policy, use and density should be proportional to lot size versus a one size fits all policy (makes land costs too expensive and encourages hold outs)." x Less offices & housing built exclusively for the employees of the offices. Priority should be given to working class residents who serve the community.
x "cap private owners from raising rents, not allowed to increase over 5%; fine owners who raise rents over 5% each year.
x Landlord incentives to keep rents down."
x Stop the current Bohannan survey asking same questions. x As someone who has lived in San Mateo since 1963 and in my single-family home since 1966, I want my neighborhood to stay the same until I die.
x San Mateo drastically needs better mass transit to service a growing population. Increasing housing without improving mass transit should be avoided at all costs. Make it possible for more people to CONVENIENTLY leave their cars at home.
x "(1) To make housing more affordable, there must be more housing which equates to higher density.

Higher density puts a strain on public infrastructure: parks, traffic, schools. In lieu payments do not create more roads, more classrooms or more parkland. Incremental additional housing does not address these problems.
x (2) Housing is a regional issue. Additional development in San Mateo will not change regional trends.

Housing costs are increasing region wide. San Mateo alone cannot adequately address the problem.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
66 What San Mateo does must be compared and coordinated with Hillsborough, Foster City, Belmont, etc.

Changing San Mateo alone will not ""fix it all"".
x (3) Traffic is a major issue. Transit-orientated or near-amenities-housing will still create additional traffic.
x (4) Those that currently own homes in San Mateo, are thrilled with the rise in property values and are not impacted by a housing shortage. Those that currently rent in San Mateo, will not see any relief from rental prices from incremental additions of housing units. Asking current residents to formulate long term housing plans may be unproductive, because the current residents 9including myself) may be naive and under informed. The different communities on the peninsula are geographically similar but substantially different flavors (compare Atherton to Redwood City). Perhaps a better question is what does San Mateo want to be? More like Foster City or more like Palo Alto or more like San Carlos? x (5) Not addressed in this survey is what housing options are the most sustainable and address climate change? Envision where San Mateo needs to be 100 years from now. Okay, now with that vision - adopt policies and plans to move in that direction. " x There really needs to be a rent control limit for the county, these landlords are going way too high in rent and their units are so small
x "Again (see 3rd answer to first question), we're paying the price for San Francisco especially, along with other high-job-growth cities in Silicon Valley, adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs (mostly very high-paying) in the last decade, with almost zero regard for the impact on housing and surrounding local communities. Now most rank-and-file workers and families are priced out of the market. x But while we *do* need to provide more affordable housing, we have to resist the urge to build so urgently and imprudently that we destroy existing neighborhoods and communities -- and the things that make those communities attractive and livable -- in the process. x Finally, the mindset that even recent high school and college grads MUST be provided with affordable, $1K-a-month rental units with ocean or bay views, before they've even toiled at a job for awhile (seemingly a prevalent viewpoint among the oh-so-enlightened in SF or Sacramento), and that thousands of such units must be built immediately, regardless of cost or impact on communities, seems a bit idiotic.
x On the flip side, those that have toiled and saved and worked in and served our local communities and/or have children in our communities and schools DO indeed have a just expectation that they should have at least a fighting chance to afford some place, any place, to live in our communities. x -- Good luck to you, city officials, in this quest !!!" City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
67 x Rent is high. Houses to purchase are unaffordable. I would like to see programs for first-time home buyers. More single housing developments with 3 plus bedrooms to accommodate families, which San Mateo is comprised of. Thank you.
x Desperately need more units.
x I think the City has done a good job thus far with adding more units, and hopefully they will continue on this path. Public transportation is a big issue and could be improved upon. Adding the additional railroad crossings has also been very helpful.
x An increase in housing capacity, and particularly of high-density housing, is necessary and unavoidable.

Subjective standards about "look and feel" should not be used as a veil for what is opposition against higher density housing.
x The city council keeps approving more and more buildings which increases the traffic jams. But the council doesn't care about this. Then we're told to conserve water. So how does the council conserve water? They allow more buildings that have more showers and toilets that need more water! The redevelopment at the site near the main post office is a good example. How many toilets were flushing back then? 10-20? Now how many toilets are flushing with all those apartments? 100's! How is that conserving water? We need to stand up to the state politicians and say NO MORE BUILDING! x "Please have a rent control in San Mateo. Apartment is so expensive. I have no money left for saving. x Please open more housing for low income and first time buyer program in San Mateo l, so that we have an opportunity to own a house."
x More affordable housing is great however the impact is limited to a small group of beneficiaries.

Improving access to San Mateo via public transit benefits both a larger portion of the population by reducing demand for existing units.
x Improve program similar to that found with "Housekeys" programs for area such as Menlo Park, Hayward, Campbell.
x Do not bring BART into city of San Mateo to keep crime down. Give more of a voice for opposing view points that are concerned about the negative impact that over building the town of San Mateo can bring and never be undone. The survey is biased.
x quit trying to solve everyone problem education is the key to income and affordability x "This survey is a bit disingenuous. It drives the person answering the survey to a predetermined set of conclusions. It would have been nice to choose 3 options I did not want like lot splits or inappropriate multi family developments in single family neighborhoods. x "
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
68 x "My family has lived in San Mateo for generations and we're getting pushed out because of the cost.

Houses are ridiculously over priced, land lords are gouging people for rent money and the bay area is just plain over populated.
x If houses and apartments were affordable that would alleviate a lot of the problem. Also cramming people in high density apartments is not the solution.
x I've seen families who have lived here for generations pack and leave. So sad. All I know is I wish with all my heart I could afford a house. A home should be for everyone not just the wealthy." x "The elephant in the room...approve affordable housing...not just market rate. x Use affordable housing developers, like Mid-Peninsula to build 1000's of affordable units, not just a couple of hundred of them.
x Look around there is plenty of market rate housing available, both rental and for sale, right now up and down the Peninsula. Thousand of units...why approve more, when clearly that is not the solution to affordability. We can't build the millions of market rate units that it would take to lower the cost of California real estate.
x This whole process seems to be some kind of game, in which the only stated alternatives have a clear pro-market rate development bias. Why is the section about designating affordable housing? x The same kind of game pushed by the Bohannon Companies in their recent, losing campaign. x Running out first responders and essential workers as the target market has been used for over 40 years now as a front for market rate developers...it's getting old. x This is a critical issue for our city and appreciate you seeking freed back and working to solve a very complex and challenging issue.
x As an educator in San Mateo, and a middle-age woman living on a single income, I have a great deal of trouble finding appropriate housing in San Mateo. I currently rent a duplex, and must live with my two adult children (it only has two bedrooms), and need to work a side job to afford my rent. I don't have a bedroom, I live in the living room. I would really like to finish my career and enter retirement in a more comfortable housing situation, but fear none exists for me on my income on the Peninsula. If I move out of the area, I will pay more commuting. It is a catch 22. x the question at the beginning of this survey suggests that San Mateo can continue to add more housing and still be a great place to live. I feel that San Mateo is already over-built and the infrastructure needed for more development is not there and San Mateo has slowly deteriorated from a place that was great to live to a place that I no longer identify with and the quality of life has diminished. Over the past 15 years I have seen an rise in the population of San Mateo yet we have less emergency services and overall infrastructure. What is being done about that? There is basically no protection for residents City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
69 when things are stolen because we have no police force. You can read it all over NextDoor, property is stolen everyday and as citizens, there is no protection anymore. x Jobs need to pay more!! If wages kept up with inflation and the housing market, we wouldn't be in this mess. The minimum wage should be increased even more! This is one of the most expensive places to live in the country and minimum wage is woefully behind. x Of course, Please review your policies and your commitments about serving communities. Want to solve the housing problem? So, build houses or rent houses with prices that are not abusive and that help people to have decent housing. No for free but paying decent prices according how our county pay our salaries.
x smaller homes on small lots but restrict vehicles to 2 per parcel x Duplexes please
x We need to improve and increase public transportation so people could get around without cars thereby freeing up space for more apartments and reducing the need for more parking and reducing congestion on the streets. I hear so often that we shouldn't build any more housing because it will bring more cars to the neighborhood and tie up traffic. If we had efficient, safe, and clean public transportation maybe that wouldn't necessarily be the case. x Build infrastructure (roads, power, transit) and stop trying to manipulate the housing market and it will improve.
x Glad to see San Mateo taking steps to increase supply of housing/reduce cost of housing. I feel that new housing/denser housing needs to go hand-in-hand with improved transit options. A denser San Mateo can also be a greener San Mateo if we improve the range of non-car-based options for getting people to work, school, etc.
x "Build more, lots more!
x Especially west of El Camino Real."
x We need more housing urgently. Any measures that can lead to more housing have my support! x It is a near suicide wish to try to bicycle anywhere without the kind of BICYCLE only infrastructure that makes the safety threshold enough that the masses, including old people, and people with small children, feel safe. Paint on streets doesn't prevent cars from going into bike lanes! You MUST have separation with planters (which also add beautifying foliage). Allocating space to park cars, in a system where each person owns their own car is NOT sustainable. Cars need to be LESS needed in our system.

We should have them on a shared basis similar to the public library system where each of us doesn't have to own a copy of Charles Dickens but it is the occasional access that needs to be met...most of the time most peoples cars sit parked! And here we are talking about parking being a problem? Decrease dependence on cars by creating housing density (building UP), near meaning walkable or bikeable to City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
70 shops, parks and places to eat and stop allocating space for giant metal boxes on wheels that take up so much space, add to pollution and we then have the trouble to having to allocate parking space for. x "We were homeowners for 30+ years in Burlingame, but in 2009 with the depression 2.0, we lost a teaching job and graphic arts job. So we had to sell our home and lost all our equity since this whole depression was caused by housing speculation. The home values were back up to their “real Burlingame” values 2 years later, but we couldn't wait that long since the panic caused the closure of the business I had worked for went bankrupt and the state of California cut back many night school teaching jobs, including my husband's. We are now making it work by having a large storage rental space for legacy and current business items. The rent takes up 25% of our income and we are continuing our day-jobs so we can currently afford it. I don't see many opportunities to downsize from here. I do see an effect in our rent from the new rental units built along the Rail Road tracks. More units would help everyone in that respect, because there are many lower paying jobs WAITING for employees that can't afford to live here any more.
x Full-on public housing for low income workers is not the answer (Bedford-Stivason in NYC proves that) but making new apartment units have to include 20% of smaller units for regular low wage workers with some kind of double depreciation for those units could help them be built. Living in mixed income housing brings it back to the “village” idea where low income folks can watch and learn how better income folks live, as well as having better income folks seeing that low income folks are working just as hard as they are, but at jobs they wouldn't want to do anyway." x Hope there's special Loan program for those medium-income families to purchase house in San Mateo County.
x Improve educational system, lower commercial rates so business can stay open to promote jobs and increase seasonal entertainment and leisure programs
x Reduce the amount of investment properties. Such as an HOA with CC&R's restricting a certain percentage of rental properties within that area. Safely and affordably build up. x "I don't think homeowners should be able to own more than 1 property in the city, or the state. x
x Is there anyway to create temporary units with shipping containers? x
x Or perhaps to continue to buy empty hotel rooms for the homeless? x
x Public transportation should be more frequent so it encourages more ridership. More commuter shuttles to popular industrial parks would be useful."
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
71 x Make project parking requirements pragmatic and on-site. DO NOT rely on neighborhood street parking to "absorb" the overflow! (BTW, that is the opposite of good bike lane land use policy also.) Stop the expectation that if a project has insufficient parking, residents will forego car ownership and use public transport instead - that is SO unrealistic! Studios must get 1.0 parking spaces, 1 & 2 bedroom units get 2.0 parking places, etc. Most low income residents work 2 jobs to make sufficient income to pay rent of "affordable" units. Mass transit will never work for getting to /from 2 jobs/day. x It has reached criminal levels. It should NOT cost $5000 to rent a one bedroom, nor should it take duel income. Read the fine print, they are expecting 4 to 6 time monthly rent at $5000 to even apply. I work in tech and can't afford the $5000 a month rent so have been stuck in my apartment for over 25 years because there is NOTHING I can afford to move to either in rental or to purchase. If I do move it will be out of the area due to the lack of options.
x We are a built out city, no more room density is bad, it spreads Covid and increases crime and is not healthy. People are leaving California, because of plans like this to destroy our cities and neighborhood.
x Affordable housing for middle class folks who make ok salary & not high salaries of those in tech industry.
x "1. Cost of property tax.
x 2. Cost of homeowners insurance.
x 3. Cost of flood insurance.
x 4. Cost of upkeep (maintenance and repair).
x 5. Limited parking and transportation costs (eg. toll lanes are a parasitic cost). x 6. Maintain/establish neighborhood quality of life (careless housing growth). x 7. Deteriorating quality of life that drives people out of the city. x 8. Livable/stagnant salaries (housing cost is at the mercy of inflation). x 9. Understand/education of the total and escalating cost of housing. x 10. Assure rental property is worthwhile to own or just a losing proposition." x There is not enough affordable senior housing in San Mateo. If you earn $40,000/year and are retired, where can you live?
x Frankly, matter how much additional housing is built, it will have little benefit to current residents as long as new people/new businesses from outside the area continue to move into San Mateo. Perhaps preference can be given to long term residents and their children. Exactly how that could be accomplished would be the question.
x I don't understand why buildings aren't taller here. We're pretty far from SFO flight paths. For example, I live in a 4 story apartment building. I often wonder why it wasn't 6 stories. That could have been 50 City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
72 percent more units on the same footprint. I think downtown San Mateo can support and should have taller developments. There's one 15 story apartment building, but there could be more. x "Educate retiree's in low income and subsidized relocation. I was a Kaiser Secretary, fell down, several surgeries later forced to retire. Could not move on disability. I looked for years to relocate and did not know that subsidized rent was available. Went through entire inheritance after partner died, covid sheltered me in place and basically I'm homeless, all I own is in storage, I care for a elder after my battling cancer. What is needed is a consultant who knows properties and relocates me into affordable housing.
x Looking online for months, years at I thought was unaffordable rentals I tired from chemo, older age and exhaustion. I asked San Mateo Housing if there was a class or training, I would love helping place those having a hardship. Us seniors do not wish to move out of state, away from our doctors, friends, family. We are not a throw away generation of retirees. " x Higher buildings downtown, transforming some of the old unattractive single story commercial buildings along el Camino into taller, more attractive buildings but with assistance for small businesses who may be impacted, turn Hillsdale mall into mixed use commercial and residential. Include small studio units, perhaps like those in Asia, and larger units that are multigenerational or can accommodate families, build housing for teachers and their families on school grounds and perhaps for other civil servants as well, turn the old OSH property into housing- so convenient to restaurants and shopping. If feasible, convert vacant commercial buildings into apartments- even just some floors if allowed could be a win win, esp given more remote work for certain sectors. How about the set of low buildings near the Marriott and 19th Ave neighborhood- they are on a big piece of land. Could those be knocked down and turned into mixed commercial/retail and housing. People don't get on Caltrain to go to target, build close to shopping so it is in walking distance. Please do not mix apartment buildings in with single family homes. If I wanted to live in high density housing I would not have chosen a single family neighborhood. Ensure adequate water, Etc are available for people, build green buildings. While I sympathize with homeless folks, providing more resources may draw more homeless people to the area- need to work with neighboring cities to ensure they are offering the same. For example, what does Hillsborough plan to do to address homelessness in the county? Any open land in unincorporated San Mateo that is available? I worry about creating hotels for homeless folks along el Camino. While I could be wrong, it is my understanding that the rates of meth use is quite high, esp among people living in encampments. People screaming, agitated, etc are not going to do well living in high density housing, those around them will expect neighborly behaviors. If some of the hotels purchased by the city are for homeless populations, there also needs to be access to appropriate mental health and City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
73 substance abuse treatment, job assistance, etc along with it. LifeMoves for homeless families is a good example.
x Please consider that the infrastructure for this city will not support too many more people. The infrastructure for electricity, water, plumbing, trash/recycling should all have enough capacity to support more housing before the housing is put in. Also, there should be enough parks and open spaces in every neighborhood of the city before additional construction is considered. We won't be doing current residence any service if adding more residence reduces the quality of life for all. x Not allowing tech companies to take over multiple units for employees. Each occupant should be able to find their own without tech companies stepping in.
x Government and community leadership needs to collect data related to the number of jobs and income of the population. How many jobs in the city or county are full-time? How many are part-time.

How many single income jobs can afford a studio or one bedroom dwelling? x The highest-resource neighborhoods should allow more types of housing: plexes, townhomes, small- to-midsize apartment and condo buildings, cottage courts, and more. x Is zoning additional *office* jobs relevant to housing price? Based on Economics 101, the price of anything is a balance of supply and demand. I presume we do need more office jobs, but would that also generate more demand for people (understandably) wanting to live in San Mateo? How does San Mateo find the optimal balance?
x It is time to do something, rather than just talk about what to do. x Don't allow tall buildings to be constructed in areas that have single family homes. x San Mateo has a history of developers who live away from San Mateo and develop in their own self interest. They have supported racism, segregation, and "old boys" ways of doing business. San Mateo needs to find some new developers with ethics and a sense of community. Business as usual will not support affordability or fair housing. Some Council members need to think about who they should be serving.
x I wasn't able to write in above, but I would love to see office spaces (especially of large tech sector offices) be purchased and repurposed for housing now that nearly two years have passed where most large companies have allowed employees to work from home. I understand there is significant re- zoning that would need to be done to convert these spaces to housing but I really think it would be a valuable opportunity to make use of the desirable land we have in San Mateo County which is currently being vastly underutilized.
x Unlimited growth is not sustainable. Public education regarding environmental limits to growth should be on-going and at the fore front. Affordable housing is only achievable by public no-profit housing.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
74 The private sector has not and will not build sufficient affordable housing as there is no profit in it.

Water is a very limited resource and existing supplies are not sufficient to sustain long-term growth. x Outdated ordnances, unfavorable permitting requirements and obstructionist NIMBYism has exacerbated housing affordability in San Mateo for decades. It is now a crisis for the middle and lower classes. New homes for rent and purchase must be built, despite opposition from existing residents who benefited from and exacerbated supply limits. Action to ameliorate this dire issue is crucial or the economy and body politic of the area will lead to greater heights of crisis. x We need more housing everywhere, especially in existing single family neighborhoods. To avoid increased traffic, we need to prioritize better options for waking, biking and transit. x "San Mateo, many other cities the County and the State have tended to approach affordable housing by focusing on building new buildings and then worrying about everything else later. Affordable housing that is sustainable and attractive must be a holistic effort. Preserving existing affordable housing is key. If new buildings are created, however, there must be a holistic plan at the same time that shows how there will be sufficient public transit (both east/west as well as north/south), open space, parking, traffic safety, retail/grocery/etc shops and services around the housing. This will make the new/preserved housing more attractive to the purchasers/renters, as well as to their neighbors.

Everyone wants quality of life. Just building a building doesn't do it. x We also need to encourage more affordable rentals and purchases. Helping with downpayment loans/subsidies for both rentals and subsidies removes a huge obstacle. More innovative public/private partnerships can speed up creation/preservation of affordable housing rather than putting impact fees in bank accounts where they sit for a very long time doing no good for the community.
x We need more focus on specifically preserving/creating affordable housing, not just building lots more market rate housing in the hopes that that will put pressure on less new housing units to lower their rents/prices. While this is a strategy, we have leaned on it far too much for our city's needs. x Finally, while there are greater financial incentives for our City to keep approving more commercial buildings, this only continues to throw our housing/jobs imbalance further out of wack and makes residents cynical about our City's commitment to affordable housing. If the State is serious about addressing affordable housing, State/local and private developer collaborations should focus on encouraging more mixed use housing (and not just luxury housing units). This is not just about $$$. It is about regulations and short and long term incentives. x Thanks for putting this survey out. Everyone in San Mateo wants more affordable housing. There may be several reasons for this, but there is a common goal. I look forward to how our General Plan 2040 presents a holistic and actionable approach to affordable housing that we all can get behind." City of San Mateo Housing Element
Online Survey Results
October 11, 2021 – January 16, 2022
75 x Housing needs easy transit - public or bike connections for new housing is necessary x In my opinion we need higher density housing near transit and we need to invest in a high quality transit network and a high quality bike network.
x We are not meeting the critical needs of extremely low income people who grew up in this community and who are either elderly or challenged by a disability. A studio apt is not adequate for those who need live-in personal assistance in order to remain in their home community. The federal incentive/reimbursement formula for developers based on number of units should not be allowed to preclude/disincentivize options for those whose needs require more square footage than a studio.

Exploration of duplex/quadplex arrangements, in addition to 1-2 bedroom apts, would be very helpful in meeting some of these needs. We also need to address housing needs of direct support persons who make it possible for individuals with disabilities to access and participate in the life of this city.

CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
BUILDERS FOCUS GROUP – NOVEMBER 15, 2021
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

1 The following comments were collected as part of a workshop with housing developers, builders, and architects on policies and programs for the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element on November 15th, 2021 via Zoom Webinar. Seven external participants and ten City of San Mateo Housing Element team members joined the event and results from the discussion are presented below.

Discussion Topic 1: Zoning and Building Regulations
Summary: There was general interest in relaxing height restrictions, particularly as they can conflict with minimum height requirements for ground floor uses. There was support for relaxing parking requirements in general and for excluding above grade parking from FAR calculations. There was also interest in establishing a local density bonus program to complement the State Density Bonus law. x “The height calculation is too rigid; the City should regulate height by story rather than by feet.” x “For modular construction, the minimum heights go up within same number of floors, an extra 14-15" per floor. As modular becomes more popular, the City could consider allowing additional height to accommodate modular construction.”
x “To have FAR and density (e.g. FAR of 2) at the same time is at conflict. State Density Bonus language on FAR appears to be mutually exclusive of unit per acre density. I would like greater flexibility here.” (comment supported by multiple participants).
x “For sites with limited frontage, requiring a fire control room on ground floor and frontage can create a conflict with density and height criteria.”
x “We need more ground floor height if we want to allow mechanical parking options or active commercial.”
x “For an all-residential wood frame construction, five stories within 55’ is ok, but not for taller ground floor, parking or modular construction, it's difficult or not possible to get five stories within 55’.” x “Above ground parking shouldn't be counted as FAR area, and below grade parking is very expensive and drives up unit cost.”
x “I support increasing height and density limits”
x “I support creating a local density bonus program. HOME SF is a program that allows for increases in height for increases of affordability. In one recent project I saw an increase in density of 225% (much more than State Density Bonus) with an increase from 21% to 30% affordable units (ended up with same number at low end, but got more middle-income units). An increase in density led to only a slight cost increase moving from type 5A to type 1 with 3A above.” x “I support the idea that density of 50 du/acre is too low with a 55' height limit.” x “Open space and lot coverage requirements are also constraints, so the 50 units/acre isn’t always the controlling requirement. In South SF at 100 du/acre, the project was aided greatly by reduced parking and open space requirements.”
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

2 x “Height limits should have more flexibility. In a recent project a stair bulkhead was counted as an additional floor causing a series of conflicts (including with setbacks). I request additional and broader carve outs or exceptions.”
x “FAR of 1.0 limits density to ~25-30 du/acre, should be addressed. “ x “I request above grade parking not to count as FAR to bring City’s regulations in line with other cities, or include a carve out for housing and mixed-use projects in how FAR is calculated.” x “Any relaxation for mixed-use projects helps with the cost of housing development.” x “Density and height limits are inhibiting smaller unit creation and should be relaxed: I had a project with ~700 sf units and bumping against 3.0 FAR and height limits.” x “State Density Bonus law is sometimes invoked to get the state financing available for affordable housing development. Because state has prioritized cost efficiency, in a high-cost area like San Mateo the only way to demonstrate efficiency is to go for scale with as tall and dense and large as possible.

Lowering parking requirements also helps with this. So does lowering other development standards (e.g. small three bedroom units, and 1.5 baths in a 2 or three bedroom unit).” x “Consider eliminating single-family zoning and/or establishing minimum units per development.” x “I support all of the tenant supports being considered.” x “I support the highest heights and densities possible to get more units. “ x “Eliminating parking requirements could get projects to 75+ du/acre within height limit.” Discussion Topic 2: Development Review and Entitlement Process Summary: Participants suggested that departmental and review agency expectations for level of detail required during the Planning Application (PA) phase should be further clarified and streamlined. There was also a common sentiment that some development standards (e.g. height limits and guest parking requirements) were increasingly out of step with contemporary trends on the Peninsula. x “We need to calibrate the expectations of departments, e.g. Public Works expects Design Development-level design during early entitlements phase.” x “Many development standards are based on more of a suburban community, it takes a lot of effort and work to satisfy those standards that other cities don't have (e.g. guest parking), height limits are too rigid, all of which adds costs to housing development.” x “The application requirements are concise but followed by more robust list of comments that are hard to accommodate, this bogs down resources on both sides. It would be better to have clarity up front on submittal requirements at both pre-app and application phases to limit total number of reviews e.g. streetlight design doesn't need to be done during PA phase.” x “Eliminate the early study session with PC.”
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

3 x “Develop a clearer submission checklist to clarify the right element of the appropriate code to be satisfied.”
x “Additional fee clarification would be helpful.”
x “We need to confirm the definition of substantial conformance.” x “Height limits are onerous and inhibit housing development.” Discussion Topic #3: Affordable Housing Alternatives
Summary: There was general interest in seeing an expansion of available incentive programs to bring additional affordable units online in general, and particular interest in creating a strong local density bonus program to extend incentives beyond those in the State Density Bonus. x “Deed restricting is a significant way to address this, greater clarity on what the requirements and thresholds are would be helpful.”
x “Acquisition and upgrading of existing housing units is a worthy concept.” x “All of these programs (inclusionary requirements, including units onsite and offsite, in lieu fees, deed restrictions, land dedication) are good. They should be mutually available.” x “The more options: a bigger toolkit will give developers more opportunities to bring projects online.” x “Be very cautious when setting the relative cost of participation in one program vs another (e.g. if you make offsite 3x more expensive present a clear rationale for the policy that is furthering).” x “Make community benefits a clear formula anyone could calculate.” x “With a base density of 50du/acre, it’s hard to get much of value.” x “Create a local density program: its ok if State doesn't cross match local 1:1, as long as local is extending the tool.”
Discussion Topic #4: Housing in Mixed-Use Developments
Summary: The City should set a minimum density if it wants a higher percentage of housing in mixed-use projects, height limit, FAR and parking a constraint on developing mixed-use, be sensitive to economic thresholds and constraints; consider adopting codes that are more form based. x “The 55’ height limit makes it difficult to have an active ground floor. State Density Bonus is almost always needed to achieve optimal heights. Consider an overlay zone to make this easier to achieve without using State Density Bonus.”
x “For mixed-use with a 15' ground floor ceiling, and 12’-13’ on 2nd/3rd floors, then five stories cannot be achieved within 55’ height limit and constraints created for installing mechanical and HVAC. Allow for greater ground floor flexibility.”
City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

4 x “Consider more flexible ways to achieve an active ground floor without a traditionally leased commercial space. E.g. amenities for housing, a coffee cart vendor in the lobby, etc.” x “Consider defining number of floors instead of linear feet for height limit.” x “Use Redwood City’s Form Based Code downtown as a model, the city can dictate the form for the sites you want to develop, that can be the roadmap and the applicant can come in and take pieces out of it.”
x “Building systems are more expensive in mixed-use, so a critical mass (minimum size) is necessary to make investment worthwhile; otherwise, mixed-use can be cost prohibitive.” x “I suggest eliminating above ground parking from FAR.” x “We should consider ways to count the inverted parking demand inherent in much mixed-use to lower the total required parking; have shared parking allowed under the code and offer clarity around how shared parking is counted.”
Discussion Topic #5: Parking
Summary: There was significant interest in relaxing parking requirements, particularly in walkable areas close to transit, but there was also an understanding that the market demand supports providing a certain amount of secure on-site parking for residents. There was general agreement that guest parking was unnecessary, but that electric vehicle charging requires more area than traditional parking, and on-site bike parking requirements are high.

x “I would prefer to build to a parking ratio of 1.15 spaces/unit in general but less in more challenging sites and in very-walkable sites. Or we can consider lower ratios.” x “Access to secure parking is a big deal. We put garages into a multi-family because didn't have enough parking.”
x “There are mixed views on mechanical lifts, some developers avoid them while others have had success using them. We have concerns over user error, reliability and unknown maintenance costs. “ x “Mechanical parking allows you to better future proof the floor for other uses going forward if paradigm changes. They can also be cost-efficient (parking can be 1/3 or more of overall budget).” x “Guest parking is less market driven than resident parking.” x “Electric vehicle charging equipment can be challenging to squeeze into a typical 30’ column grid.” x “For affordable housing projects, I would prefer a parking ratio around 0.7, or even lower in TOD areas.

Demand can be lowered effectively through transit passes, car share packages, and that guest parking isn’t well utilized or needed.”
x “I suggest eliminating the covered parking requirement for lower density residential projects.” x “Given Reach code and EV demands, larger transformers are needed. Also, PG&E doesn't want transformers underground, and transformers occupy a lot of ground floor space.” City of San Mateo
Housing Builders Workshop
November 15th, 2021

5 x “City’s on-site bike parking requirement is very high.” x “Projects should be given more latitude on parking requirements, and that parking studies should be a method to support alternative solutions to parking/mobility requirements on a site-specific basis.” x “We need to make clear and have more grades of flexibility in parking requirements: one set of requirements for greater than ½ mile to transit, one for ¼ to ½, yet more flexibility for less than ¼ mile to transit.”
x “Policy driver should be walkability and proximity to transit, not bike use or size of bike room.” x “Locating housing near schools and strengthening safe routes to schools will eliminate the need for many cars from the origin point.”
Discussion Topic #6: Amenities
Summary: There was agreement that open space and roof decks are attractive amenities supported by market demand, however, physical location and climate can reduce usability, being located in a walkable downtown is an amenity in itself and can lessen the need for onsite open space. x “Because densities are so low compared to rest of Peninsula, open space requirements are relatively easy to meet.”
x “When located near high-sound areas (freeway and train) and near very walkable areas (e.g. downtown) open space isn’t as well utilized and shouldn’t be required as strongly as it might be elsewhere.”
x “Roof decks are an attractive amenity, and the market supports their existence, however privacy conflicts should be managed sensitively and can be done by guardrails being strategically set back from edge to manage sightline privacy, etc.”
x “Climate conditions of a site can impact usability of a roof deck (e.g. windy location).” x “Many projects require every inch of roof for solar, for common area electricity load, so there can be tension there if roof decks are effectively required by open space minimums.” x “We need to allow for flexibility in code re: elevator override, what can be counted as a shade structure in roof (what counts as temporary vs permeant, ability to bolt down objects, etc.” x “Downtown is an amenity in and of itself, so other amenity requirements can be flexible in the downtown.”
CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
FAIR HOUSING WORKSHOP – JANUARY 13, 2022 – DISCUSSION AND POLL SUMMARY City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

1 The following comments were collected as part of a community workshop on the topic of Fair Housing as it relates to the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element on January 13, 2022 via Zoom Webinar. Twenty-nine community members participated in the workshop and results from each three breakout room discussions is presented below. Reponses to an optional demographic poll conducted during the event can be found at the end this document.

Each breakout room conducted two discussion sessions. Following a presentation of background information, each discussion group considered these questions: “Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?” After a second presentation on existing demographic patterns across city neighborhoods, each discussion group responded to the following questions: “Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?”

Breakout discussion group #1
Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? x “I’ve been a resident for 40 years. We need solutions for supportive homes. Approx. 1000 people need extremely low income housing in the City.”
x “I moved here with family and became renter because I had difficult time finding somewhere affordable to live. Having an affordable place for a single person to live has been a challenge” x “I work in housing for people with special needs, it’s difficult for people with disabilities to navigate the application process”
x “I’ve been on the BMR home buying list for 20+ years and am having a difficult time purchasing a house. There’s no communication where people are on the list and any properties that were coming up for BMR. I want to know the queue for the list and status for BMR housing” x “I’m a part of the One San Mateo group. There is no place in San Mateo for people who make extremely low income”
x “It’s a daily occurrence to see people who are overcrowding multiple households in a single household.

This hurts children doing schooling outside of class because there’s not enough room. x “I’m a practicing architect that used to have a firm in DT that was priced out”

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

2 What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?
x “We need to look at the income of people and make it affordable at all income levels” x “We have to prevent evictions, particularly for communities of color who are more threatened for eviction more than others. We have to avoid the abuse of evicting tenants without just cause and provide better benefits if eviction is necessary”
x “The City should require developers to have more affordable units” x “Can we revamp low to mod income to include the extremely low income and protected class? The real low income is not shown and missing because the “real” low income are people with $1000 or less income per month.”
x “There are no programs that support or help people that are potentially going to be homeless. No vouchers or anything.
x “It’s hard to find landlords who are willing to rent to people who have been homeless” x “We need education for people on how to apply and how to get into low income housing. More skills and programs to educate like the Life moves homeless program. We should provide vouchers/funding for people who face homelessness.
x “Let’s add more links and resources on the City webpage – make prominent the organizations that support these programs.”
x “We need a minimum wage in City of SM, particularly an increase of minimum wage/accelerate min. wage”
x “Provide resources that could assist people who are facing homelessness” x “We need to find more people who are willing to rent to people who were homeless. Perhaps create a program which promotes this with tax credit incentives?” x “Promote ADUs as a way to increase housing available” x “Create a rent registry for rent units in the City of SM that tracks compliance with rent and ordinances since many of these items are violated by landlords. If landlords are forced to record, it would lead to more accountability.”
x “It’s possible for homeowners to rent out a bedroom through home sharing.” x “We should continue to provide further guidance and rental assistance”

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

3 Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?

x “Fixing existing patterns of segregations can result in extremely different outcomes for children. More segregated areas have less opportunities and more challenges.” x “There is an issue with single family zoning and isolating lower income housing away from those areas.

We must rezone some of these R1 districts along with adding ADUs which may help with opening more opportunities to move into these R1 districts”
x “There is a huge disparity between east and west side in the equity and resources” x “We should increase access to opportunity through transportation” x “The City of San Mateo has exclusionary zoning. The majority of the City is covered in R1 zoning and we need to explore how to make these areas more accessible to others.” x “We should create a bike path in North Central. Biking is a means of transportation and livelihood in this neighborhood.”
x “It’s time to invest in getting affordable housing built City-wide by creating an affordable housing overlay.”
x “Central neighborhood needs improvements in infrastructure. Sidewalks are in disrepair, lighting could be improved for safety, we need more traffic calming measures, and better bike lanes. x “We should increase preservation of these neighborhoods. Provide nonprofits or programs that support low income housing a priority when it comes to purchasing low-income properties.” x “Investment is a double-edged sword where investing will lead to more unaffordability/gentrification.

Finding a good way to balance both of those is difficult.”

Breakout discussion group #2
Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? x “My child has autism, has trouble finding affordable housing, and is looking for resources. Rent has been increasing (from $2,700 to now $3,100) and I’m not sure how to deal with rent increases.” x “I live in San Mateo. I know many people who are getting rent increases and also evicted, despite the moratorium against doing so. Theoretically with state law they should still have protections because they have rent relief, but they are being evicted, so that is a big concern. There are no low-income or affordable units for them to move into. “
x “I work for organization called Housing Choices where I help people and families with members who have developmental or intellectual disabilities. I was formerly was a housing coordinator who worked City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

4 with clients to help them find housing where I saw many issues with Section 8 – landlords who don’t know or don’t care about rules, especially with raising rents illegally or refusing to accept Section 8 vouchers although they are required to. There are source of income discrimination laws now, yet I still see these issues quite often. Many clients depend on social security incomes which is less than $1,000 per month (might have increased recently to $1,400 – still very low for this area). A lot of clients are at risk of homelessness because they are burdened with high housing cost. Example: worked with single black mother with a disability who lived in San Mateo County who rented an ADU for $1,200/month.

Had a total income of $1,600/month, so majority of income went towards rent. Landlord did not take care of maintenance issues, so she called Code Enforcement out, who red tagged the unit as unpermitted and so she was forced to leave the unit, which was unfortunate. It’s difficult for her to relocate; she has family and other circumstances in this region, so was homeless for several months after. So there are many people who are at extremely low income category that are at risk of homeless or homeless already. This is a huge priority that should be addressed.” x “I have a question: what kind of relationship does City of San Mateo have with housing authority? I do a lot of investments out of state, especially Section 8 housing in Chicago – Section 8 is very engaged there. I don’t see that here. I’ve been lifelong San Mateo resident since 1975, and often engaged in General Plan, am an ADU provider, am real estate broker. We need to change ADU laws - right now too many discretionary items that need to be clarified. Non-discretionary, ministerial items are fine, but discretionary items need to be clarified because that prevents homeowners from providing ADUs.

What can we do to make it easier for property owners to build ADUs?” x “I have a question about interest numbers, and how that would impact me. Interest has been too high – Every time I try to put a down payment for house, interest goes up, but my salary does not go up. I would like the opportunity to be able to purchase a house. I live in Millbrae, and wanted a unit in new residential project, but was limited to buying.”

What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?
x “It appears the rate increase described previously was probably illegal – seems higher than what state law 1482 allows. The rent went up $400 which is 15% when it is supposed to cap out at 8 or 10%.

Unfortunately, City does not have ability to track activities of certain landlords and how contracts are or are not being upheld. There is discussion about getting some program in place so that incidents similar to what was described can be addressed through the courts; we don’t have those mechanisms in place now, yet we know there are issues out there, and that is one of the solutions I think that a wide variety of people with numerous different conditions could be addressed by the courts. We need City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

5 to figure out the extent of the abuses that may or may not be occurring. Can the City consider a renter registry?”
x “It’s good to remind or educate people these resources are available. We have a diverse group; we need to pay more attention to outreach to Latin groups.” x “We need education on what rights people currently have pertaining to renter’s rights.” x “Education is key, the City can partner with Housing Authority to have workshops regarding source of income discrimination. We should make sure tenants understand what their rights are so that they’re in these situations where they’re taken advantage of by landlords. We need to create more Extremely Low-Income Housing. The State Density Bonus law focuses on very-low income and low-income housing, and the City can go further by providing concessions/waivers for Extremely Low Income or Acutely Low Income as well as creating a menu of options of affordable housing. Another suggestion:
an inclusionary housing ordinance that allows for more units to be below market rate if the higher income levels are less units to be below market rate if they’re lower income levels.” x “I have seen the housing crisis across own personal family experiences, teachers at kids’ schools, doctor moving away, etc. This is an important issue for community. I am here to move the needle as much and as quickly as we can.”

Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?

x “How can we desegregate in order to create housing equity? How do we answer this tough question? We need to make housing more affordable to make it more equitable.” x “This has been a problem for a long time; there are deep historic reasons why we have segregation and unequal opportunities across the city. I would like to have a deeper conversation about this as we try to address this issue. Zoning is a big problem – my neighborhood is lower resourced, it’s multi-family zoning. Other parts of city doesn’t have multi family zoning which keeps costs very high. We should create opportunities for more multi-family and affordable housing, in high-resource areas as well.” x “I’m a 12 year resident of San Mateo, still a renter, probably always will be. The low resource areas are in the flats closer to the shore, which is bad land, and led to certain patterns in development.” x “Zoning is an issue. Compare high resource areas to SFD zonings. Creating more SFDs is an inefficient use of space, when we need to get more people into a smaller area. Down payments are one of the greatest barrier to home ownership – loan/funding programs available for down payment assistance would be helpful. For prioritizing improvement in lower resource areas, this is tricky because you want to help improve people’s quality of life but you also don’t want to displace people or gentrify the area.

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

6 Are we doing what’s best for the people who live here, or are we creating an environment that is going to be as unaffordable in the future as other areas in the city?” x “Our R1 neighborhoods have negative impacts. R1 neighborhoods are currently excluded from housing element upgrades… we can’t build anything in R1 neighborhood. We can now start to change R1 neighborhoods with duplexes, etc. We need to change zoning, density, and height requirements. We need to look at our site inventory and understand what realistically can be built where, and make sure it’s not concentrated at lower resourced areas.”
x “SB9 was only became effective recently, but how are we incentivizing property owners of lower resource areas (R1) to provide more ADUs, duplexes, or lot splits?” x “I have a question about SB 10. Is the City exploring this, which is optional compared to SB 9?” x “I agree with what many have said. Legacy of segregation is still very present in our communities, and is still contributing to housing inequities. One opportunity I would like to focus on: housing preservation, specifically support to renters. We need to be pro-housing, both production and development, affordable and market rate, but without coupled with preservation strategy, I worry we will continue contributing to the displacement of our existing communities.”

Breakout discussion group #3
Share housing opportunity challenges you have experienced or know about? x “I’m a renter in 19th Ave Park. I know someone who recently moved due to unlivable conditions.

Renters must go rent-to-rent after initial one-year lease.” x “I know several people served with eviction cost or moved away due to housing costs.” x “I’m an owner in Hayward Park for 25 years. I’ve lived in neighborhoods with high crime rate before moving to San Mateo.”
x “I live with my parents, I hope to afford the ability to move out someday.” x “I work in special education. There is a lack of federal funding for people with learning disabilities. The disabled have less access to education and income and thus housing.” x “We need to build affordable housing”
x “I’m an owner in North Central neighborhood. There are lots of young families with children, seeing diversity change.”

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

7 What do you think are the highest equity priorities for SM to focus on? Do you have ideas to address these needs?
x “We need more tenant protections. Rents in older buildings may be affordable, but rent increases may drive the renter out. Nearly 48% of City are renters. To increase protections we should increase renter/eviction protections, consider rent stabilization to avoid rent fluctuation, establish a renter registry to promote access to data, and increase access to open space when designing projects. x “Home prices in San Mateo are make ownership inaccessible we need to make affordable housing construction more feasible. We should eliminate Zoning restrictions placed on certain zones that prevent affordable housing production by allowing 100% affordable housing production in all zones.

We could establish an overlay zone to open opportunities for affordable housing developers and establish an expedited review process to allow certain projects to move through the process faster. x “There is a lack of federal funding/assistance to those with learning disabilities” x “To preserve Neighborhood Diversity we must allow more types of housing to promote diversity to allow those who cannot afford a single family home to be within neighborhoods they otherwise could not afford.”

Do you think that the segregation patterns in SM create any housing equity issues? Can you think of ways to address? Should the City prioritize improving lower resourced neighborhoods? If so, how?

x “Absolutely yes, as evidenced by racial and economic disparities among neighborhoods” x “Higher resourced neighborhoods tend to be single family” x “We need to invest, through development impact fees for example, in the infrastructure of lower resourced neighborhoods, which are often found in higher resourced neighborhoods. Investment in bike and pedestrian level improvements, which increases access to sustainable transportation, should focus on proper implementation of bike improvements in consideration of the existing neighborhood infrastructure and housing stock and should avoid parking impacts. We need to provide residential parking solutions via residential parking permit programs x “We also need to invest in parks and open space”
x “It’s important to engage residents of lower resourced neighborhoods in a robust manner to find what they need and want rather than have others decide.”
x “We need to increase investment to reduce parking issues and increasing access to sustainable transportation”
x “Affordable housing should be available throughout the City, but we have to emphasize housing production in our transit corridor around our three Caltrain stations”

City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

8 Demographic data:

0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
6% 6%
0%
6%
24%
59%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
21%
15%
32%
21%
11%
0%
18%
35%
41%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Under 18 18-29 30-49 50-69 70+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
54%
46%
71%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
24%
12%
24%
18%
6%
12%
6%
0%
14%
10%
24% 25%
14%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Don't
Live
Here
Moved
In 1989
Or
Earlier
(or 21+
years)
Moved
In 1990
To 1999
Moved
In 2000
To 2009
(or 11-
20 years)
Moved
In 2010
To 2014
(or 6-10
years)
Moved
In 2015
To 2016
Moved
In 2017
Or Later
(or 0-5
years)
How long Lived in City**
% of Event % of Census Benchmark
City of San Mateo Housing Element
Fair Housing Workshop Results
January 13, 2022

9 71%
6% 6%
0%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Live Here Work Here Live/work
in another
city in San
Mateo
County
Own a
Business
Here
Interested
in San
Mateo
County
Housing
Issues
Connection to City - % of Total
Outreach*
CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
HOUSING POLICY WORKSHOP – NOVEMBER 2, 2021 – DISCUSSION AND POLL SUMMARY City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

1 The following comments were collected as part of a community workshop on policies and programs for the City of San Mateo’s Housing Element on November 2, 2021 via Zoom Webinar. 35 participants joined the event and results from each five breakout room discussions is presented below. Each breakout room conducted their discussions following a presentation of background information and an overview of existing programs and policies and potential new strategies. 23 of the participants completed a poll during the event, results can be found at the end this document.

Across all five groups, community members expressed a preference for strengthening housing production and affordable housing programs and policies. Specifically, San Mateo community members in all five discussion groups expressed interest in expanding the City’s commercial linkage fee. Expanding the production of missing middle housing was proposed in four of the discussion groups. Supporting the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), establishing an affordable housing overlay, and increasing support for housing for people with physical and intellectual disabilities were supported in three of the discussion groups.

Each discussion group considered the following questions: “What do you think about the existing programs? Are there revisions to them that you think would be helpful to explore? As the City moves forward with planning efforts, which options would best match San Mateo’s needs and community character? What questions, concerns, and ideas do you have?”

Group One Discussion:

Summary: San Mateo community members in group one expressed interest in strengthening Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and “missing middle housing” production as effective strategies to improve the supply and affordability of housing, while addressing historical discrimination by locating new lower-cost units in communities they have historically been excluded from. Specifically, community members would like the City: increase commercial linkage fees to pay for housing and TOD programs, relaxing height limits, especially for missing middle developments; and establish an ADU program for the City to incentivize nonprofits and smaller employers to develop ADUs. Community members also expressed interest in building more units to reduce the problem of overcrowding and traffic congestion and including small commercial pockets in residential neighborhoods.
x “I like the housing programs and I like what they’re doing, but I want to know the potential negatives and concerns that come with increases in population relative to existing people within San Mateo area. How crowded does it make San Mateo? How many more people do they allow to live in the City? I have concerns about parking requirements for ADUs. There is existing crowding within neighborhoods but extra concern for parking requirements.”
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

2 x “We need programs that increase people in proximity to where they work. The current commercial linkage fee is too low. When you create jobs, you create demand for housing. Many jobs, specifically office jobs, can be well paying, but that creates demand for lower income jobs as well (clerks, daycare, retail, etc). Funding should come from higher commercial linkage fees and office developments in order to offset impact from office projects and create a good jobs-housing balance.” x “Other cities in area have similar struggles to San Mateo. As industries expand, office space demand increases. I think there will be a large move back towards office space as opposed to staying with remote work. If we don’t build more housing then traffic problems will only get worse. Even in offices with high paid workers, there are low paying jobs that are essential to servicing them. Commercial linkage fees are critical with the amount of people coming and going for work. More people living in the City will make it more livable. The population might rise, but people will contribute more in San Mateo rather than if they were on the road all the time. One existing program that we should put more thought into is ADUs. As people have problems about putting too many housing units in single family areas, this is a way to increase units in a way that is a compromise for people who don’t want higher density buildings in lower density areas. A local church has built an ADU with minimal impact to the surrounding area, we can use it as a case study for how it can be effective programs. Smaller employers and nonprofits could provide partnership possibilities for homeowners to relieve staffing or other issues related to housing. It may be a useful strategy to help need at the individual level rather than through larger projects. People’s 1-on-1 needs could be enhanced by use and City sponsorship of ADU program.”
x “Missing middle housing is especially important (duplexes, triplexes, etc). San Mateo, like most cities, has a long history of housing discrimination. The solution to that is not to let things sit as they are but to look at how to fill diversity across the City. Missing middle is good place to start, where you can infill to put lower income people in areas where they have otherwise been excluded while being best for the long term health of the City. Transportation is also key; the City needs to think about how to expand transportation options when there are areas outside of immediate routes like train stations.

One example being an office development that had shuttle programs. These types of programs with high frequency, convenience, and reliability could help prevent people from using single occupancy vehicles and reduce cars. We should dovetail housing plans with transportation plans outside of El Camino Real and the train stations. More data is necessary – we need to take into account: diversity, renters vs owners, and where do we have housing that is underutilized. We need to encourage people to use properties that are not currently used. For neighborhoods to be walkable, there needs to be commercial or other areas than residential within walking distance. Opening up areas that are currently residential, but could have small commercial spaces in them, could make for increased walkability. When rethinking the Housing Element we could make the City have smaller pockets where City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

3 people could walk to rather than using vehicles. This will increase sustainability for the existing uses while reducing the need for cars.”
x “We should enact vacant property taxes like Oakland does. I support missing middle – there are small sites around the City that are not utilized in a variety of areas, especially along El Camino Real, that may be too small for larger projects but are perfect for smaller units in the missing middle scale – duplexes, etc. Utilizing those sites could add a good number of units in an easier way to facilitate affordable housing. There was a habitat for humanity project in a former firehouse where height bonuses where applicable. We should pursue allowing density bonuses plus height bonuses. Taking height limitations off would help make projects more economically feasible for developer incentives.

Larger projects could continue under current programs – but missing middle and underutilized parcels could help fill gaps. Redevelopment agencies previously facilitated these types of projects perhaps would should start up something similar.”

Group Two Discussion:

Group two also identified increasing commercial linkage fees and strengthening missing middle production as strategies to address housing affordability. Community members in this group also called for: an affordable housing overlay with clear regulations for community benefits; a City density bonus in addition to the State’s; a policy for nonprofit developers to have first dibs on the purchase of older apartment buildings to avoid displacement; and utilization of SB10 to create missing middle housing. There was also support for Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) and marketing of apartments for people with physical disabilities. x “I think its important that we maintain a wide variety of programs” x “We see that there is a lack of “deeply” affordable housing for very impoverished people that needs to be addressed”
x “I think housing affordability is always going to be behind the 8 ball if developers/ landlords are always chasing profits”
x “It feels as though we’re never going to catch up to meet all the housing needs” x “Its hard for young people to find housing once they graduate from college, so they end up having to move far away.”
x “There is lots of difficulty for disabled people to find the right housing. They need to live here to be close to their doctors”
x “Its very hard to find housing in San Mateo on limited income” x “It feels like profit is the main driver that makes development in San Mateo” x “The Commercial linkage fee should be higher”
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

4 x “All programs for new housing development should allow increased height and density. There is a project called 1458 San Bruno Ave providing 200 units/ acre with 50% affordable units. We need developments like that.”
x “We need to also look at increasing medical facilities, entertainment, and other things that keep up the quality of life in San Mateo”
x “We need an affordable housing overlay with clear regulations for community benefits as well as a City density bonus in addition to the State Density Bonus.”
x “We should pursue adding more Transit Oriented Development wherever possible” x “I think transit needs to be expanded since it is only available for those who live next to it” x “I think existing residents are excluded from transit. The new development/higher density surrounding transit makes it more difficult for people farther away to access. This leads to more congestion/traffic and less parking”
x “We should explore having shuttles that take residents of large developments to the train station. Then we could increase the area where increased density can be added while still connecting the development with transit.”
x “We need to establish competitive financing for City land acquisition when it is for affordable housing” x “I believe basic services need to be met before we expand housing” x “I think union workers should lower their fees when building affordable housing” x “We need more affirmative marketing of apartments for the physically disabled” x “We should explore more housing in missing middle options.” x “We need more options for people to travel around the City in different forms of micromobility” x “A new policy could be enacted where nonprofit developers can have first dibs to purchase when an older apartment building goes up for sale so that all the residents aren’t displaced” x “I like the form of garden court apartments to allow higher density” x “Missing middle would allow us to build smaller”
x “It seems that studio apartments are no different than dorms. Why don’t big companies provide these for their employees on their campuses so there is more room for families to settle in the City?” x “I think company towns haven’t gone too well in the past. I wouldn’t want to have my employer as my landlord.”
x “We should use SB10 to create missing middle housing.”

Group Three Discussion:

Group three identified increasing commercial linkage and other fees to pay for affordable housing, as well as expanding missing middle housing, and establishing an affordable housing overlay. Transit Oriented City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

5 Development and locating housing and jobs near transit to reduce commutes and congestion was also emphasized. Some community members noted concerns over service and infrastructure to accommodate growth and concerns that the programs being discussed did not enhance the City. x “We should explore increasing commercial linkage fees and similar developer in-lieu/impact fees that would directly support affordable housing. The current fees are too low.” x “The City needs to develop in a sustainable manner by locating housing and jobs near transit.” x “Housing development also needs to accommodate for families (with unit sizes of 2+ bedrooms)” x “How will we accommodate all this future growth (e.g. services, infrastructure)?” x “We must ensure that the inclusionary BMR percentage of housing does not make affordable housing projects infeasible”
x “We need to increase housing to reduce the job/housing imbalance and reduce commutes; especially for low-income community members”
x “The Bay Meadows planned unit development is a successful example of good Transit Oriented Development.”
x “We need to explore expanding middle housing (especially in townhomes)” x “The City should approach a strategy of land acquisition for affordable housing development” x “Zoning/Planning should include an affordable housing overlay” x “We need more adaptive reuse policies for existing buildings (e.g. office to residential)” x “We can ensure preservation or creative adaptative reuse of existing housing stock with affordability deed restrictions”
x The HIP housing home-sharing program would be a good method to get more use out of existing housing”
x “We need to spread fair housing throughout the City and encourage diversity” x “In my view, none of these programs enhance the City” x “The main issue of affordability is the imbalance of housing vs jobs (there is one unit for every 11 jobs created)”
x “I’m concerned that the existing housing stock benefits long-time residents, but we need to consider the needs of the future/younger generation”

Group Four Discussion:

Community members in group four would like the City to: set clearer standards to streamline the production of ADUs and missing middle housing options in the City; strengthen renter protections; increase below- market-rate housing requirements from 15% to at least 20%; and increase the supply of 3-bedroom below- City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

6 market-rate rental units. Group members also were concerned about the City overly relying on ADU production to meet housing projections and would like to retain developers building affordable units onsite rather than a move toward offsite fees. While some voiced support for expanding commercial linkage fees, others noted setting these fees too high may drive employers away. x “I’m excited the City is intentional about building affordable housing, because the market by itself will keep driving the cost up. It’s important to have a diverse community that we live in. For environmental reasons, it is important to live near work. Not just tech workers in Silicon Valley; service sector, government employees, and teachers also need to be able to live nearby.” x “One of my biggest concerns is that commercial linkage fees are not high enough, and the timing of commercial projects which can take a decade to plan and build. It doesn’t actually get occupied by employees and affects RHNA numbers. The impact of job building won’t be felt until well into RHNA cycle; which means we are not seeing real numbers. I’m worried about ADU production: how much is reasonable to expect from ADU production? There might be a surge in the beginning, but I’m unsure how sustainable that is over time.”
x “The ADU program is kind of in disarray. I’m an ADU provider and do a lot of advertising in SMDJ, but I don’t see demand for ADUs. If there are applications for ADUs, they tend to be for conversions of garages into ADUs. It seems there are a lot of discretionary items that still need clarification by City Council such as height requirements and other factors. Council needs to provide tools to the Planning Dept to educate public about ADUs and raise awareness. In San Mateo, they have point of sale matters or ordinance where if you do an addition or improvements of $90k or more, you have to do a sewer lateral inspection… what that means is that they have all these requirements (impact fees, etc.) that make it harder for property owners to want to do ADUs. Also, below-market-rate housing requirements for new development (15%?) should be a lot higher for developers. It should be 20% or more – because 15% is not enough, and I believe City Council would agree. I think there’s an oligarchy that’s been established in the City for so long, which is a reflection of all the initiatives (with Measure H that turned into Measure Y, and so forth.) The Housing Element needs to address this.” x “The existing programs are excellent as far as they go, but will continue to be insufficient for two reasons. (1) The graph shown in the original presentation which shows out of control job growth from 2010 to 2015. Until we can get a handle on job growth and tamp it down a little, we will continue to have this problem. (2) The market continues to push prices up, and affordability down. Until we get a handle on the job growth and turn things around, the great programs we have will be insufficient. In a sense, the private sector pushes the cost of housing onto the public.” x “A more sustainable form of construction is to reuse an existing building. I like efforts where organizations and their partners purchase existing buildings, renovate, and provide to people who City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

7 need lower cost housing. I’m concerned about the revision to policy where developers can contribute to a fund instead of actually building housing.”
x “I’m concerned with the idea of tamping down job growth…. The only reason that people have equity and extreme value in their homes is the phenomenal job situation. Once those jobs and the companies leave, they are gone forever.”
x “Having continued job growth will continue to make housing unaffordable. We take the good with the bad, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
x “SB9, dubbed the duplex initiative, is starting at 2022. I would like to see workshops that addresses SB9, which would open up housing.”
x “Are there any renter protection measures that the City has in place, besides the County and the State, now that eviction protections (from COVID-19) have sunsetted? Is the City doing anything now to help renters who may no longer be able to pay their rent?”
x “We need to examine what size units developers are proposing; because we need variety. There is a need for 3-bedroom below-market-rate units in San Mateo, which is rare to see here. Developer incentives are not clearly defined. I’m constantly asking: what would be an appropriate public benefit? We need variety of units and at least some should be accessible to those with mobility challenges or mental disabilities. I live in North Central and see the effect of too many people living in one housing unit – parking and trash impacts.”
x “We need to address Missing Middle, which might be a good solution for people trying to purchase a home. Not everyone needs a single-family residence, which was the gold standard a while ago, but folks now are open to more dense options that provide housing. The appetite in the City of San Mateo might be more amendable to the missing middle densities. We need all types of housing: which means densifying Transit Oriented Districts and certain parts of the City that make sense. There will be some neighbors who are against higher density, so maybe the missing middle and SB 9 is the appropriate baby step. My perspective is that of a former real estate developer. Developers are incentivized by fee reductions. We should consider perhaps if more affordable units are provided, then the more some impact fees can be reduced. The City can push on market rate developers, who are making so much money right now in this time. Do not be afraid; no reason to not push envelope on affordable units.

We need renter protection: there is so much displacement at all levels of the income spectrum in San Mateo. How do we help people stay, especially people who have been born and raised here, but can no longer can? Oftentimes it is children of families who grew up here. How do we help with displacement?”
x “Getting foot into home buying is difficult; we need education on how for our community. There is RHNA pressure. If you build 3-bedroom unit, do you get credit for 3 units? Current housing production City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

8 does not support trades people who need space. We need to provide housing that supports these types of jobs. More and more people are going to work out of home.” x “I’m interested in Missing Middle. We need more focus on quality, not just quantity. Need high quality design in order to put Missing Middle housing in single-family neighborhoods or any neighborhoods.

We need high quality design that is contextual and matches the neighborhood.” x “The Missing Middle is is the element that is needed to blend everything that has been discussed:
including keeping trades workers close to where people work, Transit Oriented Development, and first- time home buyers. Its important to include faith leaders in community, which can be accomplished by adding residential to churches. The same concept can work with schools. Many doors can be opened up with the Missing Middle concept, which can allow people to live near where they work.”

Group Five Discussion:

Community members in group five would like the City to: expand the first-time homebuyer program; invest more in upgrading existing buildings, increase density and mixed uses around transit hubs, increase the commercial linkage fee, strengthen tenant protections. There was also interest in expanding the 15% below- market-rate program and to target it toward deeper affordability levels. There was also a suggestion to develop a program to require rental site managers to take an online housing regulations class/test. x “I’m proud of redevelopment commitment that exists in San Mateo. The inclusionary program is pretty good and the commercial linkage fee is a great start. The City is also very good about identifying publicly owned sites and prioritizing them for affordable housing development/redevelopment.” x “I’m happy that the Kiku crossing affordable housing development has come to fruition. We are seeing multi generations living in small quarters originally designed for a small number of people. We would like for older first-time homeowner properties to be upgraded for today’s environments and add to more affordable housing on properties. Additionally, we need an expansion of the first-time homebuyer program. The Gateway housing development has a park behind us, and it is not built or utilized to its full potential and not usable by the neighborhood, unlike King’s park. This is an area the City can invest more money to rebuild and upgrade existing buildings and enhance existing facilities. I would prefer for more first-time homeowner properties rather than rentals. More common spaces in multi-unit developments is desired.”
x “I like mixed use zoning and building around transit hubs. Affordable housing is important: personally I am a household of 4 on the cusp of lower income. When we had to move out of the home we were renting, we took a look at affordable housing and we were still priced out. Affordable housing doesn’t feel affordable. This is why there are multiple generations in small units contributes to parking issues/impacts. We are always going to be renters and will eventually have to move out because City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

9 ownership will never be an option for us. Affordable housing is a major challenge for the City to address.”
x “It feels like 15% BMR rate is an arbitrary number that does not actually meet the needs of the people to retain our young families and seniors. We need to study what the actual percentage of affordable units we need and explore revisiting this percentage.”
x “I’d like to see more events on B Street. There was a past event where City Council came before COVID.

Seeing the street activated and people participate was great. I would like more events like that… maybe a farmers’ market? We need different types of events that brings the community together. I would also like to see more European flat style houses instead of (or rather than just) townhomes.” x “I’d want to increase the commercial linkage fee. We need better regulations for rental properties to include better restrictions on why and when people have to move out. With more renter protection/safety nets, we can reduce homelessness.”
x “I like the idea about looking out and building for special needs populations. We need to be very specific and deliberative about sites. How much does the City use overlay zones for family/special needs affordable housing/something with services? Is it appropriate to use housing overlay sites for El Camino Real? It would be great if properties along El Camino Real being redeveloped are required to have affordable housing and not market rate units (or a larger percentage of BMR units over the 15%) through an overlay. One thing that Sonoma County does is that they require a site manager for rentals take and pass an online test for verification and so that they are aware of housing rules/regulations.

This has cut down their legal claims by 80%. Let’s all know the basic rules so we can be fairer to each other. Looking at these programs in addition to zoning/landuse will be helpful/effective for tenants.” x “I’ve observed regarding the option for missing middle…From a practical standpoint that’s already what is occurring in North Central. There are quite a bit of duplexes and three unit townhomes being added to the area. One thing that I would note especially for our neighborhood is that I agree with ideal of getting more cars off of the road. However, I work at a part of the county where transit is not an option. Most of my neighbors are service workers with their livelihoods tied to their vehicles. We are in an in-between state where we still have to provide for parking while we are trying to transition away for that. It’s a hard place to be.”
x “Fair housing is really important for San Mateo to address. We tried to address tenant protection through the voting process which did not pass. Tenant protections and accessibility are essential issues. I would like for the City to reduce auto use through programs and incentives. During the pandemic I could cross El Camino Real against the light because there was so little traffic. That is all gone now. We need incentives to reduce auto use and get back closer to nature. I would also really want to know if the 15% BMR is going to get us where we need to be for people who are living in the City and would like to stay.”
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

10 Results of a poll conducted during the workshop:

70%
13%
4% 0%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Live Here Work Here Live/work in
another city in
San Mateo
County
Own a
Business Here
Interested in
San Mateo
County
Housing Issues
Connection to City - % of Event
0%
26%
2%
25%
6%
41%
0%
13%
0% 0% 4%
83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Race & Ethnicity
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
26%
30%
22%
4%
9%
4% 4%
0%
14%
10%
24% 25%
14% 12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Don't
Live
There
Moved
In 1989
Or
Earlier
(or 21+
years)
Moved
In 1990
To 1999
Moved
In 2000
To 2009
(or 11-
20 years)
Moved
In 2010
To 2014
(or 6-10
years)
Moved
In 2015
To 2016
Moved
In 2017
Or Later
(or 0-5
years)
How long Lived in City
% of Event % of Census Benchmark
City of San Mateo
Housing Policies Workshop
November 2nd, 2021

11 54%
46%
74%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
21%
15%
32%
21%
11%
0%
9%
26%
39%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Under 18 18-29 30-49 50-69 70+
Age
% of San Mateo Benchmark % of Event
CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 – COMMUNITY NEEDS

AND HOUSING NEEDS WORKSHOP SPEAKER NOTES
CRC 9/29/2021 – meeting notes
Speaker notes (in order of speaker):

1. A staff representative from HIP Housing, a Ho me sharing program: HIP Housing is celebrating their 50th Anniversary and their archives show housing challenges from 20-30 years ago that are still relevant today. It takes a variety of housing choices to address housing needs, which the Home Sharing program provides. About 30% of Home Share matches in their program are in San Mateo. About 50% of home share seekers state that their reason for using the program was that the client needed a place to stay near family or caregivers. The coronavirus pandemic posed additional challenges due to loss of income and home owners used Home Sharing as a way to keep their housing costs below 30% of their monthly income. Most of Home Share owners were in the older age group (90 yrs +). They hope home sharing can remain a housing program of San Mateo.

2. A staff representative from Mid-Pen Housing, an affordable housing developer: Mid Pen is breaking ground soon on Downtown affordable housing project (Kiku Crossing) which has 225 affordable housing units. Mid-Pen operates three properties in the city and there are approximately 18,000 people on the wait list in the County. There are approximately 25,000 low- income people in the County who do not have access to housing. Studies have shown that the high housing costs have disproportionately affected people of color. Historically, resources have not been shared equally; affordable housing can and should be in San Mateo’s future.

3. A staff representative from Housing Choice: There are 817 residents in San Mateo with developmental disabilities and many live with their parents due to lack of housing. The best way to address this need is to use CDBG funds to incentivize developers to include units for people with severe disabilities. Cities can grant additional points for housing or services in developments for people with developmental disabilities.

4. A regional center client of Housing Choice: Speaking as a representative of someone with developmental disabilities, the city has a hammer to make developers build affordable housing and should use it wisely and firmly. Cities need to ask the following questions: 1) If there are $5,000/month units, why not have 1-2 units for $1,000-2,000/month? 2) Where are people supposed to park? His place has a fire hydrant in front of the building, so there is no ability for handicapped parking or loading zone for residents/people with disabilities.

CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE HOUSING ELEMENTS LISTENING SESSIONS – SUMMARY NOTES

1 MEETING SUMMARY
A

Countywide Stakeholder Listening Session #1: Fair Housing 9/27/2021, 1-2:30 pm on Zoom

Overview
On September 27, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the first of four housing element stakeholder listening session with several organizations focused on fair housing issues. Presenters, resources and details on what we heard follow.

Key themes included:
x Concern about the upcoming end of the eviction moratorium x The importance of transit-oriented affordable housing and stronger anti-displacement policies x The need for more education around accessibility regulations and reasonable accommodation x The ability of jurisdictions to use their platform (including jurisdiction websites) to promote education and resources for tenants and landlords.

Policies & Programs to consider:
x More funding for subsidized affordable housing near transit or good access to transit x Stronger just cause protections
x Rent stabilization and rent registries as a tool
x Tenant and community first right of purchase or right of first refusal (TOPA and COPA) x Creation of more ADUs and program to increase access for lower-income people Stakeholder Presenters & Additional Resources
Organization Speaker Name Contact
Center for Independence of
Individuals with Disabilities
Benjamin McMullan, Systems
Change Advocate
[email protected]
Community Legal Services
of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA)
Michelle Trejo—Saldivar, Law
Fellow, Housing Program
[email protected]
Housing Equality Law
Project
Mary Prem, Executive Director [email protected] Legal Aid for San Mateo
County
Shirley Gibson, Directing Attorney [email protected] Project Sentinel Ann Marquart, Executive Director [email protected] Housing Choices Jan Stokley, Executive Director
Kalisha Webster, Housing Advocate
(presented at a prior meeting)
[email protected]
[email protected]

2 Public Interest Law Project Michael Rawson, Director, (unable to attend)
[email protected]
Root Policy Research AFFH
consultant to 21E
Heidi Aggeler, Managing Director [email protected]

Jurisdictions in Attendance

Belmont Millbrae San Mateo (County)
Brisbane Pacifica South San Francisco
Burlingame Portola Valley Woodside
Daly City Redwood City
East Palo Alto San Bruno California Department of
Half Moon Bay San Carlos Housing and Community
Menlo Park San Mateo (City) Development (HCD)

Key Themes and Actions
x Eviction Moratorium: There was widespread concern about what will happen when the California eviction moratorium ends on October 1, 2021. Just Cause eviction ordinances and Covid rent relief (especially for back rent) have been important to keep people in their homes.

CLSEPA shared a flyer after the session with a summary of renters’ rights and resources.

x Vulnerable Populations: The stakeholder groups shared several details about the housing needs of the most vulnerable populations.
o People with disabilities experience the most housing discrimination. Legal assistance organizations get the most calls regarding discrimination against people with and find it is the most misunderstood category.
o Displacement disproportionately affects Latinx, African American/Black households and families with children.
o Many or most evictions are no-fault evictions, not resulting from a failure to pay rent.

x Anti-Displacement Policies: Jurisdictions were curious about which anti-displacement policies were favored by the stakeholder groups.
o Affordable housing: More subsidized affordable housing is needed. Stakeholders noted that it is key to locate affordable housing in places located on transit or with good access to transit.
o Just Cause protections, rent stabilization: While there are some baseline protections at the state level, they need to be strengthened. The rent gauging gap does not go far enough to protect lower-income households.
o TOPA and COPA: Currently, there is significant interest in Tenant and Community Opportunity to Purchase Act policies that give tenants and nonprofits a first right to purchase or a right of first refusal when a property goes on the market.

3 o Rent registries: Stakeholders noted that a rental registry is important in order to obtain data that can be used to inform anti-displacement policies, but it is not an anti- displacement policy on its own.
o Section 8 vouchers: Stakeholders noted that while vouchers can provide opportunities for lower-income households to live or remain in the county, there are not enough vouchers to meet the need. In addition, vouchers have resulted in some concentration of low-income households in areas with less economic and educational opportunity. o Accessory dwelling units: ADUs are a great housing solution in the suburbs, as they provide suburb-appropriate density along with a good quality of life and provide more affordable options without requiring subsidy.

x Accessibility: Cities’ housing elements typically only have the minimum standard/generic language for accessibility. Some of the participating jurisdictions indicated an interest in doing more and are looking for examples of cities going beyond what is required. o Cities should be prominently promoting organizations working with tenants. City websites get the most visibility out of any form of advertisement/media o Jurisdictions were very interested in data that quantifies the existing supply of accessible housing and the demand for accessible housing. o Stakeholders suggested that affordability and accessibility must be considered together. o Transit-friendly locations are key for people with disabilities. o Stakeholders noted that “visitability” policies – making sure homes allow for access to those who are visiting – are less common today and should be considered. Consider requiring some degree of accessibility and visitability in new homes. o Lack of accessibility requirements for new townhomes were a point of concern.

x Reasonable Accommodation: The speakers indicated that there is widespread confusion about the meaning of reasonable accommodation. They shared ideas that could help educate residents and landlords.
o Building departments should be posting reasonable accommodations policies. o Education for and outreach to apartment managers, property owners and homeowner associations is needed.

x Ideas for Action:
o Perform an audit of each jurisdiction website for reasonable accommodation policies. o Improve jurisdiction websites to give a more prominent platform to organizations that work with tenants on fair housing issues.
o Create a program to rent ADUs to people who need housing (run by HIP Housing?). o Look at SB 9 and how it may increase the # of duplexes (will they be accessible?). o Identify cities that go beyond the standard accessibility language in housing elements. o Find data that quantifies the need for accessible housing (and the existing supply).

4 Appendix: Raw Notes

Room 1 (Josh) Notes:

Ben McMullan – CIID

1. Areas that can use work

2. Inaccessible new house – Many are built in town homes. There is a lack of visibility. No ground floor restroom. One bedroom on ground floor.
a. Restroom on ground floor
b. Access to kitchen

3. All new construction be accessible and visitable

4. Encourage more ADUs

5. Funding for home repairs for people with disability

6. Affordability

7. Mary to circle back with best practices for policies a. Report on where there are systemic violations

8. Education on reasonable accommodation for cities and apartment managers a. Require they take localized training
Ann Marquart – Project Sentinel

1. Tenant landlord

2. Mediation

3. Special emphasis

4. More visibility for fair housing

5. Make it clear how to make it more visible

6. Post reasonable accommodation

7. Most complaints about disc rimination of disability

8. Reforms coming to service/companion animals rules

9. Companion animals have same civil rights protections

10. Many property owners do not understand laws

11. The lack of affordable housing

12. People are very worried about Oct 1 and after emergency rental restrictions end

13. Biggest issue with reasonable accommodation - landlords Shirley – Legal Aid

1. Eviction data from Legal Aid and EPA Legal Aid are based on that data

2. Black, Hispanic and families with children are the most hard-hit

3. It’s not a crisis of nonpayment, it is many no-fault evictions a. Even more disproportionately hitt ing black, Hispanic and children

4. Had the benefit of expanded just ca use for 18 months. Been helpful.

5 5. Goals – strengthen no fault protections

6. “We don’t need data to figure out if there is a problem. We know there is a problem”

7. Rent registry does not prevent displacement, but data is useful, and as part of that lets get data about displacement

8. Covid rules did not cause the sky to fall

9. There are hotspots about how to use vouchers, there has been limited areas where vouchers getting used
a. But many of these are not in areas of opportunities

10. Time limited vouchers less useful

11. Make sure there are not group home discrimination

12. Post reasonable ac commodation clearly
Michele – CLESPA

1. Just cause protections. They help tenants and inform tenants

2. Better rent stabilization

3. COPA/TOPA – Help displacement

Room 2 (Kristy) Notes:

x Ben McMullan - Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities o Advocate with housing, also look at transportation and health care issues o Biggest issues: Lack of affordable, accessible housing o Like to encourage affordable housing
o On transit lines, near transit
o Q from Nancy - with more power shutoffs, fire evacuation, etc. happening these days, for units not on the 1st floor, how is that being addressed? ƒ PSPS (Public Safety Power Shutoff) program where help distribute backup power packs for people dependent on power

x Ann Marquart - Project Sentinel
o More affordable housing
o Disability is the protected category that they get the most calls about, and is the most misunderstood
o Want housing next to transportation
o Protected categories
ƒ Race
ƒ National origin
ƒ Gender
ƒ Families
ƒ Section 8 (NEW)
ƒ There is now fair housing protection for Section 8
ƒ But concern is that there are not enough certificates to go around, years of waiting lists, etc.

6 ƒ Criminal history (is a little different)
o Q from Jennifer Rose: would be beneficial to all of the cities if you came up with collective wish-list of actions! Funding, help with promotion, policies, etc. ƒ Ann: Promote fair housing groups in big letters on a lot of city websites, give agencies a bigger platform
ƒ For example, for first-time homebuyer training in San Jose, the only promotion was a notice on the city’s website, and it became clear that people go to city websites for information! Distributing flyers, holding zoom workshops - can only go so far, reach some people. ƒ Suggestion: “How can we promote project sentinel”
ƒ HIP housing helped write language in last housing element (?)

x Mary Prem - Housing Equality Law Project
o Full service
ƒ Focused on unserved or underserved areas
ƒ Investigate complaints
ƒ Counsel tenants
o Accessible housing
ƒ Not just accessibility but visitability
ƒ New construction (townhomes)
o Housing solutions for people seeking reentry
ƒ Worked with SF city and human rights commission on “unchecking the box” o Add more ADUs
ƒ housing is such a scarcity
ƒ More affordable solution
ƒ Greater life experience for people living in suburbs, not as dense o Really important that accessible housing is located near transit

x MIchelle Trejo-Saldivar - Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) o San Mateo County, plus Mountain View
o Especially serve low income, very low income, LatinX
o Housing needs: stronger rent stabilization policies, just cause protections ƒ There is a state just cause and rent control, but there is a need for stronger policies
ƒ TOPA and COPA policies, other anti-displacement policies o Low income populations know where they will find affordable housing and where they will not: Recommendation jurisdictions take a look at where LI and VLI people live - they should only be paying 30% of income - where should we be pushing more affordable housing development

x Shirley GIbson - Legal Aid of San Mateo County
o Similar mission and population served as CLSEPA
ƒ But only San Mateo County
ƒ The 2 organizations share information across 2 organizations (Tableau), lots of data at fingertips

7 o Why are these policies necessary from fair housing standpoint ƒ Displacement falls squarely and disproportionately on Black and Latinx households, households with children
ƒ Disproportionality is even bigger when you look at no-fault termination evictions (not failure to pay rent)
o Biggest barriers to housing choice?
ƒ We heavily rely on housing choice vouchers - unfortunately have managed to isolate and concentrate those tenants in areas of low economic and educational opportunity
ƒ We must take take areality check: time-limited vouchers that transition people from homelessness to permanent opportunity are not working. It’s a revolving door because there isn’t enough time to stabilize households ƒ Look at how housing vouchers are administered and distributed o Note that while a rent registry is an interesting source of data, and it is great to have more info, it is NOT a anti-displacement policy in itself. Can use the data (which is better if you require data from landlords) to inform and structure more robust anti- displacement policies: looking at turnover, tenancy, how often, why

Room 3 (Vu-Bang) Notes:

x Mary Prem, Housing Equality Law Project
o Visitable housing units with accessibility on the ground floor unless there’s an elevator to other floors
o Serve areas that are deemed unserved, areas not covered by fair housing o Investigate fair housing complaints
o Training housing providers for more affordable housing o Collaborate with UC Berkeley - race studies in high school o City of SF- unchecking the box - re-entry housing programs, previously incardinated o Reasonable accommodations denial and other accessibility issues are most common work
o New construction, esp around transportation hub - housing that’s in townhome and not “visitable” (no toilet in common area, no elevators)
o Affordability and availability biggest concern - ADU units encouraged o Topic brought up with jurisdictions but haven’t seen adopted o Affordability and availability for housing
o Congestion on highways and accessibility in hubs

x Michelle Trejo-Salvidar
o Just Cause protections - provide tenants with their rights when tenant gets notice

x Shirley Gibson
o Be wary of full scale models of Just Cause - can pick and choose from model ordinances to shore up the weak Just Cause ordinances

x Ann Marquart, Project Sentinel

8 o Disability and familial status got the most complaints - reasonable modifications, can go to CID to pay for modifications, VA will pay for some of those repairs. Reasonable Accommodations - companion/service animals (anyone giving the certificate now has to note how many hours of therapy), different parking space, reminder to pay the rent, o Policies: wishlist - something to project tenants after the moratoriums and now focused on back rents
o Something (not rent control) - new housing near transportation o Education - getting word out to housing providers, raise Project Sentinel to larger visibility so people can find them
o What cities have the best visibility to Project Sentinel - will follow up. o Section 8 renters - no discrimination
o Landlord should not evict everyone in the household after domestic disturbances

x Ben Mcmullan
o Systems change for Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities o San Bruno, SSF, County offices
o Visitability - wheelchair and mobility devices can adequately visit. Not many obstacles on different levels - Home Modification Program that people can take advantage of.

Having new housing be accessible from the get-go

o Plug for transit oriented housing - people with disabilities face needing housing and transit.
o Explore transit oriented housing - vastly great step forward o Paratransit coordinating chair on SamTrans and CalTrain accessibility advisory committee
o Biggest barriers to housing for vulnerable households - affordable and accessible housing. If it's affordable and not accessible, it only goes so far, and vice versa.

x Burlingame - has standard language on accessibility - want to know what language to use to go above and beyond. Townhouse units esp have concerns with. Set up well for TOD, but linking TOD + Accessibility + Affordability . SB9 - two flats or 2 townhouses preferred when it comes to accessibility.

x Hillsborough – language is generic, actual implementation only on ADUs, but predominantly single family housing. Transportation corridor only on El Camino Real and ½ mile from Burlingame Caltrain station.

x Jan (HCC): Physical accessibility is not the only type of accessibility barrier--I am thinking of people with cognitive disabilities--they shouldn't be left out of the discussion.

1 MEETING SUMMARY
A

Countywide Stakeholder Listening Session #2: Housing Advocates 10/18/2021, 1-2:30 pm on Zoom

Overview
On October 18, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the second of four housing element stakeholder listening sessions with housing advocacy organizations. A majority of 21 E jurisdictions attended the listening session. Five stakeholder advocate groups introduced themselves and spoke about their group’s interest in the Housing Element process. Detailed information about speakers and attending jurisdictions is below and in the appendix.

Key themes included:
x Ongoing outreach needed to underserved and diverse communities x Production of new housing is critical to the SMC workforce o Greatest need for deeply affordable housing, dense, infill x Connecting labor, environment and equity to housing
x Rent increases are a primary concern
x Protecting vulnerable renting populations with assistance from the governments

Policies & Programs to consider:
x Additional funding for affordable housing through commercial linkage fees, inclusionary zoning, vacancy tax, sales tax, etc.
x Protections: eviction assistance, anti-harassment measures, stronger just cause, tenant right-to return, relocation assistance, improvements to the building inspection process, rental registries as a tool
x Production: Increase density within existing communities in non-high fire severity zones, eliminating harmful restrictions on density, eliminating parking minimums, streamlining housing building process, fair and inclusive zoning policies
x Prioritize BIPOC families in housing policies, outreach and practice (all stages of the practices) x Manage the threat of climate risk by adding green infrastructure.

2 Stakeholder Presenters & Additional Resources
Organization Speaker Name Contact
Housing Leadership Council Angela Solis [email protected] Faith in Action Nani Friedman [email protected]
Greenbelt Alliance Zoe Siegel [email protected]
San Mateo County Central
Labor Council
Rich Hedges [email protected]
Peninsula for Everyone Jordan Grimes [email protected] San Mateo County Association
of Realtors
Gina Zari (invited, unable to
attend)
[email protected]

Learn more about Greenbelt Alliance’s endorsement program: https://www.greenbelt.org/climate- smart-development-endorsement-program/
Learn more about Greenbelt Alliance’s Resilience Playbook: https://www.greenbelt.org/resilience- playbook/
Full list of Greenbelt Climate Policies can be found in the draft housing element playbook (under policies tab) https://coda.io/@gazoe-siegel/housing-element-toolkit For those who wish to learn more about the focus groups in Redwood City that Trinidad from Faith in Action mentioned,, you can read the report here (posted on the City of Redwood City website):
https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/23755/637623096709130000 Faith in Action supported with two other reports (tenant protections and preservation), found here:
https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/city-manager/housing-services/housing-policies/anti- displacement-strategic-plan
Note Faith in Action works mostly with renter leaders in Daly City, San Mateo and Redwood City, but they have a presence in several other cities in the county as well.

Jurisdictions in Attendance:

Atherton Half Moon Bay San Mateo (City)
Brisbane Menlo Park San Mateo (County)
Burlingame Millbrae South San Francisco
Daly City Pacifica Woodside
East Palo Alto Redwood City
Foster City San Bruno +HCD

3 Key Themes and Actions:

Themes
x Ongoing outreach needed to underserved and diverse communities x Production of new housing is critical to the SMC workforce o Greatest need for deeply affordable housing, dense, infill x Connecting labor, environment and equity to housing
x Rent increases is a primary concern
x Protecting vulnerable renting populations with assistance from the governments o Rental registries, eviction assistance, section 8 availability, anti-harassment measures.

Questions/Discussion
x How do you best balance providing adequate living wages for construction workers with keeping housing units affordable?
o Fair labor is critical to the building process
x Who should operate rental registries (city, county, nonprofit?) o Administered by RWC city staff
x Potential policies prioritizing BIPOC
o Understand needs of BIPOC communities throughout the process o Understand displacement policies
o More housing in transit rich corridors
x Section 8 Vouchers
o How to increase the availability
x Housing as a benefit to the community/not extracting from it

4 Appendix: Additional Stakeholder Information & Input
o Housing Leadership Council: Angela Solis
ƒ Network of organizers to support affordable housing
ƒ Advocating for and preserving affordable housing
ƒ Greatest need:
ƒ Deeply affordable homes
ƒ Focused on funding for affordable homes with example policies:
ƒ Commercial linkage fees
ƒ IZ, vacancy tax, sales tax, etc.
ƒ Seeking greater outreach from jxs for Housing Element process- window into populations

o Faith in Action Bay Area: Trinidad Villagomez
ƒ Focus in Redwood City
ƒ Community organizers, leaders working in congregations schools, neighborhoods and apartments across SMC to uphold dignity of all people ƒ Listening to community experiences with housing (phone calls, door knocking, church involvement, people at food distribution sites)
ƒ What the group heard from the community:
x Poor building conditions, harassment, discimination, rent increases, fear to speak to authorities, difficulty relocated, evictions for renovations and owner move in, unclear how to enforce existing rental rights, pandemic insecurity, rental debt, financial hardship, credit limitations, application fees
ƒ From focus groups:
x Rent increase is the majority primary issue
ƒ Vision:
x Regulations on eviction due to renovations
x Preventing harassment of tenants
x Partnership with city to work with tenants and landlords as a mediator o City to inspect buildings
o Rental assistance
o Process relocation assistance
o Report rent increases, eviction notices, their business license and taxes
o Education for tenant about rights
ƒ Policies:
x Stronger just cause policy (define substantial renovation) and give tenants right to return (right of first refusal)
x Stronger relocation assistance administered by the city x Improvements to the building inspection process, with greater confidentiality with the tenant
x Rental registry program by city-tenant/landlord office x Anti-harassment policy

5 ƒ More information:
https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/23755/6376230 96709130000

o Greenbelt Alliance: Zoe Siegel
ƒ Inclusive, climate resilient communities for all to thrive ƒ Housing and climate are linked
ƒ Advocating for climate smart development
o SMART: Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit- Oriented development
x Resilience Playbook
o Resources for local decision-makers and community leaders with policies, model ordinances, etc.
ƒ Ensure fair and inclusive zoning policies that makes housing accessible to everyone
x Prioritize BIPOC families in housing policies, outreach and practice (all stages of the practices)
x Advance racial and social equity in process
ƒ Increase density within existing communities in non-high fire severity zones ƒ Manage the threat of climate risk by adding green infrastructure. x Prepare for climate impacts, require nature-based solutions for climate resilience

o San Mateo County Labor Council: Richard Hedges
ƒ Advocate for increased outreach
ƒ Increases for min. wage, building of housing for all workers (safe and affordable) ƒ Builders: getting the work/pay required to live in San Mateo County (can afford to rent/own home)
x Service workers are struggling to live in SMC (especially retail pay) ƒ Advocated for housing built at Bay Meadows, advocated for 10% inclusive ƒ State law to allow for more density for affordable housing ƒ Qualified workforce is critical
ƒ Removing barriers for Section 8 voucher holders

o Peninsula for Everyone: Jordan Grimes
ƒ Frustration with lack of dense infill housing in SMC
ƒ Member engage in local project advocacy, and planning meetings and are politically active at the local and state level
ƒ Huge housing shortage in the county, decades of underbuilding ƒ Focus on as much being built as quickly as possible
ƒ 3 Ps of housing policy, preservation, production, protection (interested in rental registries, want more rent data)
x Protection: Rent control, right to counsel with the eviction process x Production: eliminating harmful restriction on density, parking min, streamlining housing building process

1 MEETING SUMMARY
A

Countywide Stakeholder Listening Session #3: Builders/Developers 11/1/2021, 1-2:30 pm on Zoom

Overview
On September 27, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the third of four housing element stakeholder listening sessions with housing developers and builders, including both affordable housing developers and market-rate housing developers. Detailed information about speakers and attending jurisdictions is below.

Key themes for affordable housing development included:
x Primary constraints to affordable housing include: the limits of local funding, tax credit availability (the county’s pool is small, limiting the size of a development that could get an award), appropriate sites
x Key policies and programs: sufficient and flexible local funding; either public land or land that is eligible for SB 35; streamlined process and alignment across city departments x Local governments should be aware of state and tax credit policies/requirements; be cognizant of the cumulative impacts of multiple layers of funding requirements; be prepared for community pushback now that high-resource areas are being targeted Key themes for market-rate housing development included:
x Primary constraints include competition for sites (with other uses) which drives up land costs; construction costs; city process and zoning; all the “easy” sites have already been developed, leaving sites with environmental or political (close to single-family homes) or other sensitivities x Key policies and programs: Specific plans and master plans and form-based zoning have been successful; removing CEQA from the equation is helpful; seek a balance of flexibility and predictability
x Localities should exercise caution with parking and ground-floor commercial requirements x Property tax exemption is likely best tool for encouraging moderate/middle income housing created by the market

2 Stakeholder Presenters & Additional Resources
Organization Speaker Name Contact
MidPen Housing
(Affordable)
Abby Goldware Potluri [email protected]
HIP Housing
(Affordable)
Kate Comfort [email protected]
BRIDGE Housing
(Affordable)
Brad Wiblin [email protected]
Mercy Housing
(Affordable)
William Ho [email protected]
Habitat for Humanity—
Greater SF
(Affordable)
Maureen Sedonaen [email protected]
Eden Housing
(Affordable)
Ellen Morris [email protected]
Affirmed Housing
(Affordable)
Rob Wilkins [email protected]
The Core Companies
(Affordable, Market
Rate)
Chris Neale

[email protected]
Sand Hill Property
Company (Affordable,
Market Rate)
Candice Gonzalez (invited,
unable to attend)
[email protected]
Sares | Regis
(Market Rate)
Andrew Hudacek (invited,
unable to attend)
[email protected]
Summerhill Apartment
Communities
(Market Rate)
Elaine Breeze [email protected]
Greystar
(Market Rate)
Jonathan Fearn [email protected]

Jurisdictions in attendance:

Belmont Half Moon Bay San Bruno
Burlingame Menlo Park San Mateo (City)
Daly City Pacifica San Mateo (County)
East Palo Alto Portola Valley South San Francisco
Foster City Redwood City Woodside

3 Roundtable Discussion Questions/Answers
Affordable Housing Developers

1. What do you perceive are the primary constr aints on affordable housing development? o Local funding – esp since state housing laws have helped on the land use side o Having funding programs that actually match the supply side/building of the homes o Local Funding and Operating Subsidy
o Current cap in the 9% tax credit round (in last several rounds, not many projects going in because not enough credits in the region) – only projects with fewer than 60 units, plus high costs
o On preservation side – have to be agile and fast, if cities want to do this, they need to have systems to deal with tight escrow periods
o Appropriate sites

2. Are long lead (escrow) times possib le in the property market today? o Sellers are amenable to longer lead times than pre-covid, though Peninsula is still tight o What’s key is having a good read on public partners’ funding commitment o For every site where factors line up, you lose a site because other things don’t line up o You can tie it up to close upon entitlements, but carrying cost adds up, so if public commitment can come in earlier that helps reduce cost

3. What are new policies or improved policies that you think would go farthest to making it easier to develop affordable housing?
o Local Funding and Operating Subsidy, esp flexible funding o 20% setaside dedicated to homeownership programs-
o Fee waivers
o Streamlined project timelines on the city’s side
o Consistent, regular NOFA timelines
o Having all departments aligned on goals
o Not having extra requirements/costs for affordable housing developments o Affordable housing should not bear burden for infrastructure costs o Remove restrictive racial covenants
o More policies like SB 9 and 10
o Update zoning of sites that were zoned in the 1960s
o Resources for site analysis, more points awarded when possible to incentivize and also help with by right potentially

4. What would you say are the 3 most important thin gs that jurisdictions can provide in order to facilitate affordable housing development in their jurisdiction? o Local Funding and Operating Subsidy
- Shift unused resources (downpayment a ssistance for example) to production allocation for more housing or land purchases
- Nimble funding sources
- Affordable homeownership
o Land with appropriate zoning

4 - Public land, esp in high resource areas ( https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2021- tcac-opportunity-map)
- Making more land available with by right zoning or SB35 - Or priority zoning for affordable – Sa n Jose allowing affordable housing to convert industrially zoned land
o Process
- Streamlining and alignment across city Departments
- Dedicated planner to shepherd affordable housing projects o I’d like to encourage jurisdictions to think outside the box and find ways to encourage partnerships between for and nonprofit developers. HIP Housing has had several great experience on projects using diverted impact fees and limited partnerships.

5. What should jurisdictions be aware of as th ey designate sites for affordable housing? o Think about how state funding sources/developers are looking at sites. “Vanilla” Aff family is gone unless in high resource areas so need operating subsidy. Sites need to be in amenity rich area (put site through amenity scoring lens) o Operating subsidies needed to support the deeper affordability that is sought today o Layering of requirements and compatibility of different populations o Think about not just # of units but also # of people being served o A comprehensive view of constraints, impacts of delays on developers o Be prepared for pushback in high resource areas
o We need more ownership, multifamily sites should be funded and counted by # of people served, not just # of doors; make residential "only" or limit commercial so can residential compete

6. Most of the Cities I consult for are small and do not have the capacity or expertise to shepherd affordable projects. What can you recommend otherwise?
o Important who the city chooses to partner with. Experienced developers can do some education on that. Hire a consultant or someone who can help to navigate the process o Small cities are sometimes great because they don’t have as much bureaucracy and can get things done more quickly
o Smaller cities could look to partner with Developers who build under 20 units (like Habitat and others on this call) and we welcome the opportunity to learn together. P.S.

It's hard to make it work financially if there are under 6 units however:)

7. What is your experience with rolling NOFAs (no deadline) versus NOFAs that have a fixed deadline for responses? Are there particular advantages or disadvantages to either one of these?
o Affordable developers rely on consistent, regular process o Don’t create a land rush and have affordable developers bid up land o Like rolling deadlines, since in the preservation world, can’t wait until a NOFA o No deadlines better align with development
o Rolling NOFA's are good, allow for flexibility to be responsive o If you really need to schedule it, make sure NOFA schedules coincide with other funding sources

5 8. Would you have advice for jurisdictions with a lot of environmental constraints that can make housing expensive--faults, steep slopes, limited sewer, fire hazard, etc.? o Often they aren’t as bad as you might initially think. A second look can make something workable
o All the easy land has been developed on already! So don’t hold back, this is the norm, not the exception
o There are sometimes sources for brownfield funding

9. What is the densities that are working best for 10 0% affordable projects that cities should be planning for in the Housing Element process?
o Anything over 20 duac but 30-50 is better, gives more flexibility

10. What site criteria make a site feasible for securing tax credits? o High resource area (amenity rich)
o Site logistics (e.g. flat site, sufficient size)
o No need to build out infrastructure

11. Do you have a "rule of thumb" for how much local subsidy you are looking for in order to make an affordable housing development "pencil"? Do you typically need to secure County funds for the project as well as city funds and/ or land?
o 100-300K per home
o 30% local subsidy. Typically need county, city funding and land but depends on project specifics

12. Do you have any advice as jurisdictions release NOFAs/prioritize their affordable housing trust funds?
o Put more money in production! Support ownership programs, modify program to accommodate and understand their impacts
o Family housing that can compete (e.g. high resource area) o Senior housing at lower AMI's
o Operating Subsidies that aren't a COSR (e.g. LOSP) to serve homeless/ELI

13. From your experience in responding to site-specific RFPs, what would you say makes for a good RFP that you would be super excited to respond to?
o Large sites
o Sites with good logistics
o Consider RFQ's instead of RFP's

Market-Rate Housing Developers

1. What do you perceive are the primary constr aints on market-rate housing development? o Competing with other land uses in acquisitions - life science and industrial and certain commercial driving more value
o City constraints
o Construction costs
o All the easy sites are gone. Now they’re politically sensitive, closer to single-family neighborhoods

6 2. What are new policies or improved policies that you think would go farthest to making it easier to develop infill housing?
o Clear paths to entitlements would help
o Specific plans and master plans are great, CEQA document, design standards o Other paths that remove CEQA from the equation
o Would be a mistake to only think about high density residential, need to think about housing of all shapes and sizes (SB 9, ADUs, duplexes)

3. Which jurisdictions are doing a good job? (A nswers were mostly about specific plans) o Redwood City
o Milpitas
o Santa Clara County
o City of Santa Clara
o Oakland – 4 specific plans
o Burlingame’s general plan
o Caution that specific plan does take time, often falls behind schedule o San Mateo County’s transit has a lot of potential

4. Conversely, what are some cities that took appr oaches you think didn't work out well and why? o A city that got very detailed in a specific plan, and it wasn’t relevant to the market, so it sat for a very long time before the city realized they needed to adjust the specific plan

5. What would you say are the 3 most important thin gs that jurisdictions can provide to facilitate more housing development in their jurisdiction?
o Flexibility is key, but balance with predictability and consistent standards o Form-based zoning allows for evolution of details – we talk in terms of density, but form-based zoning images make more sense to people
o Resources
o Streamlined processes
o Restrictions on other competing uses
o Partnerships with city departments that streamline and adhere to code standards and other standards

6. What should jurisdictions be aware of as th ey designate sites for multifamily housing? o Anticipate objections and set up ways to mitigate them

7. Is there a range of project densities or size that is your sweet spot? o Depends on location
o Depends on rents
o Summerhill - Type III over Type I garage, (5 stories wood over 2 stories concrete), 20-22 units to the acre – 3 story resioential density
o Densities are going down, because unit mix is changing, putting bigger units in them.

Used to have a lot of studios and 1BRs, now making 2BRs and larger 1BRs

8. Questions on parking. Are you finding car stackers practical for your developments? o Yes starting to do this in the right locations (Core, Summerhill) o Not necessarily cheaper but allows you to use land more efficiently and not go underground

7 o Hard parking minimums can be problematic when it comes to site planning, so some flexibility on parking is key
o 1:1 parking ratio works near transit

9. Does this group see a lot of potential in SB 10 ? -- urban infill for up to 10 unit multi-family projects -- exempt from CEQA
o Fan, there are possibilities, but we’ll see how much it actually gets implemented o What’s missing is the small scale developer (they’ve been zoned out), if SB 9 and 10 can spawn that ecosystem, it can make a difference. Right now the pool isn’t deep enough, not enough to sustain a business. If a community wants them, they will need to cultivate these types of development and developers

10. How does developing mixed use developments affect housing? How does it affect competing land uses?
x Summerhill has mixed-use projects with ground floor commercial that is not leased x What makes good retail is sometimes at direct odds with what makes for good unit plans above. Depth of retail etc. It is a challenge
x Amount of retail, needs foot traffic, really depends on location. Only so much retail to go around

11. What are ways that you think jurisdictions could facilitate the development of moderate and middle income housing?
o Projects with JPA programs
o Property tax relief for moderate-income units
o Once upon a time, market-rate housing delivered housing for middle income households, we just don’t have a lot of housing opportunities. Restricting supply doesn’t restrict demand. Allow more housing generally
o Access to specialized loan products and property tax incentives would help with middle income housing

1 MEETING SUMMARY
A

Countywide Stakeholder Listening Session #4: Service Providers 11/15/2021, 1-2:30 pm on Zoom

Overview
On November 15, 2021, 21 Elements hosted the fourth of four housing element stakeholder listening sessions with San Mateo County service providers. Detailed information about speakers (see appendix for organizational information) and attending jurisdictions is below.

Key themes included:
x Key location characteristics were similar for most groups: access to transit, groceries, medical services, pharmacy, schools/parks/community centers/senior centers, jobs and job training. x Most of these stakeholder groups serve people with a range of incomes – focused primarily at the low end of the income spectrum but also into moderate levels. x Need affordable housing (or access to vouchers/subsidies that help with access to market-rate housing) of all shapes and sizes: mostly smaller units (studios to 2BR) but there is a need for larger units. It is hard for larger families (5-8 people) to find appropriately sized housing. Space, closets and storage, design for people with disabilities. See below for details. x Some people need onsite supportive services; others just need to be able to easily access services, whether by transit or if it can come to them. x Work with service providers and people experiencing issues firsthand before creating programs. x Use your networks and power to encourage business/tech/philanthropy to support service providers
Policies & Programs to consider:
x Actively partner with affordable housing developers to streamline and facilitate development x Stabilize market rents
x Use public land for affordable housing
x Create more workforce housing.
x Increase inclusionary housing
x Encourage and facilitate more homesharing
x Educate landlords on their rights so they are more willing to partner with Housing First service providers

2 Stakeholder Presenters & Additional Resources
Organization

Speaker Name Contact
Daly City Partnership
(one of San Mateo
County’s Core Agencies)
Marya Ouro-Gbeleou

[email protected]
HIP Housing Laura Moya [email protected]

LifeMoves Jacob Stone [email protected]

Mental Health
Association of San
Mateo County
Melissa Platte [email protected]
National Alliance on
Mental Illness
Michael Lim [email protected]
Ombudsman of San
Mateo County
Bernadette Mellott [email protected]

Samaritan House San
Mateo (one of San
Mateo County’s Core
Agencies)
C. LaTrice Taylor [email protected]

Youth Leadership
Institute
Alheli Cuenca [email protected]

Abode Services Jeremiah Williams (unable to
participate live, interviewed)
[email protected]
El Concilio Gloria Flores-Garcia (unable to
participate live)
[email protected]

Roundtable Discussion Questions/Answers

1. We assume that transit-oriented or transit accessible housing is important. Are there any other location characteristics that you would highlight are important for the people you serve? o Mental Health Association – access to transit, medical care, grocery stores, pharmacy o Daly City Partnership – in Daly city all services are sited in the govt center by design, so housing should either be close to it or have direct transit access o Youth Leadership Institute – parks within or near housing developments are important to young people, new community centers or access to existing ones, high walkability o HIP Housing – agree with all mentioned, near schools for family housing, senior centers for senior housing
o National Alliance on Mental Illness – justice-informed community (people who have experience with law enforcement, ranging from a 5150 call or involuntary hold to being incarcerated in jail or prison system) need access to services

3 o Abode – varies. Have some unique programs, sometimes relocate people out of the county. Medical, schools, childcare, transportation. Access to jobs/job training

2. What is the range of income levels of the population you serve? o Mental Health Association - 0 to 15%
o LifeMoves – range from 0 to 100%
o Daly City Partnership – weighted to the lower end 0 to 30, 0 to 50%, a lot at 80% too but not as many
o National Alliance on Mental Illness – lower end, but mental illness spans people across the whole income spectrum
o Abode – serve the lowest incomes

3. What role does market-rate housing play for th e people you serve? Are vouchers helping? o Mental Health Association – for most clients, market-rate housing is out of reach, even affordable is also often out of reach (since it serves 40% to 120% AMI) o Ombudsman – her clients in assisted living get a $1500 check, rent is $5000+, sometimes families or retirement funds make it work. Now facing a number of families who cannot help anymore because of lost jobs during the pandemic. 15 people on evictions list right now, many are 85+ years. If they are evicted they will end up on the streets. Looking for solutions for them. They don’t take transportation, they can’t o HIP Housing – 95% of clients in homesharing program are at or below 80% of AMI, sometimes not low enough to access affordable housing. And some are on fixed income and don’t qualify for affordable housing and don’t make enough to access homesharing program. Waiting lists are way too long
o Daly City Partnership – see a lot of same types of people that Ombudsman sees, just a few years earlier, before they need assisted living. It’s a tough spot to be aging in San Mateo County, unless you’re healthy or living with your adult children. Think about dignity for our older folks. We need to care for our elders. o Abode – do master leases, use vouchers, so existing and new market-rate housing plays an important role. Develop relationships with landlords that accept vouchers (provide case mgt/contact for landlords, help to avoid evictions). Important to educate landlords around their rights, not a lot of legal services available to them. Work with a range of landlord and building types.

4. Do affordable units need to be designed in a certain way or certain size to meet the needs of the people you serve?
o Mental Health Association – definitely need more units that are available for people with physical disabilities. Serve people with serious mental illness, HIV/AIDS debilitating conditions, etc. It used to be that they would die far younger than most, but now people are now living into 60s-70s-80s. This is great but long-term effects of medications have impact on their bodies, put them at greater risk for falls, etc. Mostly studios and 1BRs (preferred), closets and storage in the unit are critical o Youth Leadership Institute – serve young people – in Half Moon Bay they are seeing 3 HH living in one unit, looking to advocate for pathway to homeownership, also single family housing (3BR/2BA). Want as much space as possible, spacious living areas.

4 During pandemic school from home was incredibly challenging esp when community centers weren’t open or limited. Also like ADA accessible, parking spaces, access to community parks, trails, since there are not a lot of things for young people to do; storage units and closets, public bathrooms in developments o HIP Housing – serve single individuals, families and seniors. Larger families get missed, families of 5-8 or larger can’t find any affordable housing options. Some seniors would benefit from onsite services, during pandemic especially suffered from isolation o LifeMoves – serving more seniors every year, medically fragile folks – in terms of families serve primarily smaller households of 2-3, but do have a few large HH too o National Alliance on Mental Illness – agree with many things mentioned above, add better noise insulation since clients may have experienced trauma and loud levels of noise can trigger them to the next episode
o Abode – need all types of units

5. For the population you serve, if the cities were able to encourage a set-aside within affordable housing for special needs, who needs onsite supportive services? Who can live in general affordable housing (assuming deeper levels of affordability)? o Mental Health Association – only 30% of people we serve need to have site-based services onsite, but 100% of clients need access to support services. Deep affordability/subsidies/vouchers can work as long as there are services that can be brought in to work with them
o National Alliance on Mental Illness – some of our clients may lose custody of their children or have shared custody. Studio will suffice for most but for some who are working to get their life back in order, helps to have a little bit more space when they have their children visit
o Daly City Partnership – Was able to tour Sweeney Lane (MidPen Housing) in Daly City – wonderful onsite services. Was moved, this is what our people need, it’s a shame that it is so small. Excellent example of good practice of surveying residents about their needs and evolved services as needed. Many clients don’t need that level though. Echo importance of evolving services over time. Midway Village in Daly City – for several years there weren’t onsite services, people there for generations, underserved population historically. Some of the seniors today moved there when they were young – we need to think about aging in place, be thoughtful over the long term about evolving resident needs. There is a need for large units (4 children) in the market even though the smaller households are most common. # of kids is a limiting factor on affordable applications
o Ombudsman – there is no affordable assisted living. Pipe dream is that some people might be able to live in affordable housing with their families if they had some onsite services. Some need their medications to be given to them. Physical therapy is provided in nursing homes. Cheapest assisted living is $4500, ranges up to $10K/mo. Seniors need the same basic services no matter their income. Also serve mentally and physically disabled in residential homes. Nobody wants them, which is very sad.

6. Aside from more money, what can jurisdictions do to be helpful? Future programs and policies not just about the direct allocation of money

5 o Daly City Partnership – Sweeney Lane is an example of the city getting behind a development and working collaboratively to get everything together – zoning, permitting, convincing adjoining land owner with lot to sell the lot. Worked to move things as quickly as possible. It takes such a long time to make these projects happen, which is a problem when people are homeless *today*
o HIP Housing – one of the things jurisdictions can do is encourage and support affordable and accessible prices in the overall housing market. More supportive services for mental health issues, esp at earlier stages. More supportive services to people on fixed income, make sure they don’t lose fixed income if they get access to new resources. Jurisdictions may not recognize homesharing as a solution, but they should consider it, it is readily available, no cost, can help fill in the gaps o Mental Health Association – agree with everything that has been said. Use city and county owned property for low income housing. Support developers that include extremely low income units, that provide support services onsite or accessible. There’s a lot of talk about teacher housing – nonprofit staff need affordable housing too. Would help to recruit and retain employees, who we are losing every day. If we can’t hire staff, we will not be able to serve
o Ombudsman – all the market-rate developers who are building these beautiful residential buildings, but only put 3 low income units in 25 unit building. We should incentivize them to add more low-income units. Give the developer a tax credit to incentivize them to increase the # of low income units. Get more people off the streets and into nice apartments.
o National Alliance on Mental Illness – incentives to builders is great. Also think about how to halt the exchange of ownership on property. Every time land is sold and changes hands, it becomes more expensive. Think more creatively about ownership of land o Abode – Besides more money, we need more vouchers, more staff. More project-based housing. Education for landlords on their rights will help more landlords be willing to take vouchers, sign master leases. Rapid rehousing is needed but it doesn’t work for everyone; we need more permanent supportive housing. Jurisdictions should reach out to people at ground level for input before creating programs.

7. Are there options for people that have animals?
o Mental Health Association - Most of our clients can have an animal as long as we work with them to request a reasonable accommodation. 100% of our units can and will make the accommodation.
o National Alliance on Mental Illness – pets are huge thing for our clients, not only with soothing them but also creating a sense of responsibility, gives them second thoughts when they are thinking of ending their lives
o HIP Housing – it is still a big barrier in affordable housing when their pet is not a service or supportive animal. Many people have more than one pet which is also a barrier.

6 8. How much have the large companies--Apple, Facebook, YouTube, etc--stepped up to help provide money for these services and housing units?
o Mental Health Association - To our knowledge, not much. o Ombudsman – got turned down for grants from FB, Google, Genentech o Samaritan House – they do fund some things, some of the folks here do have funding, depends on the focus, housing, food, youth has been big. Need to understand what is it that they really want to fund and tailor what you’re doing to what they’re asking for o Daly City Partnership – CZI is funding all of the Core Agencies in SMC, doing a lot of work around free, high-quality training for their grantees and others. They are at the forefront. Key to support for Core Agencies: someone at County advocated for the Core Agencies. Jurisdictions, use your network and political power to help orgs o HIP Housing – has benefited from CZI as well

9. Additional comments
o Samaritan House – article came out today about most expensive zip codes in the country. For the 5th year in a row: Atherton. In the Bay Area we have 47 out of 100 zip codes that are among the highest in the country. In SMC, 10 of the 47. Somehow, some way we need to figure out how to solve this with partners, with developers (who have codes to follow, does tax credit offset how much they can make, when it’s more about the money and those who can afford it vs. police, firemen, nonprofit workers). We are fast approaching that cliff where we’re not only pricing out our clients but also the middle class. We need to do something, not sure what it is. We’ve got a fire. Where are the hoses, where is the water, where are the fire trucks? Tech companies should be a part of this process. We need the people with the money at the table. The tech companies are contracting with people so they don’t have to pay benefits. People are working from other parts of the state/country because their money doesn’t go as far in the Bay Area. $140K income for a family of 4 only covers the basics. I know the people who are here know that. But who else do we need at the table to know it too. o Daly City Partnership - One of my favorite quotes, "Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor." We need to educate the upper-class and business folks - appeal to their conscience. But that is my own personal view. LaTrice (Samaritan House) is so right. o National Alliance on Mental Illness – Need to look at transportation, exploring localities that are hubs. In a few years (or even now) we are facing the challenges of our own existence. NAMI San Mateo had to give up its permanent site and move offsite. Current location is not ideal, not close to any public transportation system. El Camino is going to look like two walls of buildings with homes. Is that what we want or do we want to add transit to allow people access to services. Jurisdictions should start thinking about transportation hubs. Think about housing density and building up because limited land, is precious. Need to think about it now since it takes time to build infrastructure

7 Appendix: Additional Stakeholder Information

Human Investment Project (HIP Housing)
x Mission: HIP Housing’s Mission is to invest in human potential by improving the housing and lives of people in our community. HIP Housing enables people with special needs, either from income or circumstance, to live independent, self-sufficient lives in decent, safe, low-cost homes. To achieve our mission, HIP Housing provides Home Sharing, Self-Sufficiency, and Property Development.
x Where you operate: All cities in San Mateo County
x Whom you serve: Families and Individuals who live, work, go to school or have a housing voucher in San Mateo County.

LifeMoves
x Mission: To provide interim housing and supportive services for homeless families, couples and individuals to rapidly return to stable housing and achieve long-term self-sufficiency. x Where you operate: Countywide, Daly City to East Palo Alto and Half Moon Bay on the coast x Whom you serve: families, couples and individuals experiencing homelessness Mental Health Association of San Mateo County
x Mission: Mental Health Association of San Mateo County is dedicated to improving and enriching the quality of life for individuals in our community who have a mental illness, HIV or AIDS or a co-occuring disorder by providing stable housing and supportive services. x Where you operate: San Mateo County
x Whom you serve: Individual adults, transition age youth, and families.

Samaritan House
x Mission: Fighting Poverty, Lifting Lives
x Where we operate:
o San Mateo Office: Belmont, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Carlos, San Mateo
o E. Palo Alto Office: E. Palo Alto, Menlo Park
x Whom we serve: residents in need, including families with children, seniors, persons living with disabilities, veterans, and unhoused individuals
Daly City Partnership
x Mission: Working together to enrich life in our community x Where you operate: Daly City, Colma, Broadmoor residents primarily. San Mateo County residents.

8 x Whom you serve: Residents in need, including families with children, seniors, persons living with disabilities, veterans, and unhoused individuals and families. Services for all ages and stages.

Youth Leadership Institute
x Mission: yli builds communities where young people and their adult allies come together to create positive social change. We achieve this in two key ways: providing training, tools and resources for effective youth advocacy, and by leveraging the experience and savvy of adult allies.
x Where you operate: Half Moon Bay, Daly City, & greater San Mateo County x Whom you serve: Low income and BIPOC youth
Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County
x Mission: The residents of Long Term care Facilities are often the most vulnerable in society.

OSSMC works to ensure the protection of these residents through advocacy, direct intervention and collaboration with service providers.
x Where you operate: OSSMC provides services to all licensed LTC facilities in San Mateo County. x Whom you serve: We service all residents in licensed LTC facilities in SMC. We presently serve 442 facilities with a total of 9278 residents
El Concilio of San Mateo County
x Mission: ECSMC is committed to increasing education, employment and access to quality of life services to underserved communities in San Mateo County x Where you operate: County wide, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, North Fair Oaks/Redwood City x Whom you serve: Low Income, non/limited English speaking and non/limited literacy residents Abode Services
x Mission: Abode Services' mission is to end homelessness by assisting low-income, un-housed people, including those with special needs, to secure stable, supportive housing; and to be advocates for the removal of the causes of homelessness. x Where you operate: Alameda, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Napa counties.
x Whom you serve: People identified as homeless or at risk of becoming homeless CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
ROOT POLICY FAIR HOUSING SURVEY SUMMARY – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C ITY OF SAN MATEO RESIDENT SURVEY, PAGE 1 City of San Mateo Resident Fair Housing
Survey Preliminary Results
As of January 20, 2022, the San Mateo County Fair Housing Survey has gathered 108 responses from residents in the City of San Mateo. Main findings are listed below.

Top challenges in housing situation.

I would like to move but I can’t afford anything that is available/My income is too low for me to find anywhere else to rent (30%);
My house or apartment isn’t big enough for my family members (28%); I worry that if I request a repair it will result in a rent increase or eviction (17%).

Top challenges in paying for housing:

I can’t keep up with my utilities (15%);
I can’t keep up with my property taxes (12%).

Top challenges in neighborhood:

There are not enough job opportunities in the area (22%), I can’t get to public transit/bus/light rail easily or safely (18%), Schools in my neighborhood are poor quality (17%).

Displacement. Twenty-eight percent of respondents indicated having been displaced in the past five years. The top reason for displacement was “Rent increased more than I could pay” (40%).

Availability of housing. Seventy-three respondents have looked for housing seriously in the past five years of those, 17 (24%) indicated that a “Landlord did not return calls and/or emails asking about a unit”, and 31 (44%) indicated they have been denied housing to rent or buy in San Mateo County in the past 5 years. The main reason for denial (37%) was “income too low.”
Voucher holders. The survey gathered responses from 25 voucher holders. The majority (77%) indicated that finding an affordable unit is somewhat or very difficult. Six of them indicated this is due to “Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders.” ROOT POLICY RESEARCH C ITY OF SAN MATEO RESIDENT SURVEY, PAGE 2 Residents with a disability. Twenty-seven percent of respondents indicated having a disability or having a member of their household with a disability. Seventy-five percent indicated their home does not meet the needs of their household member with a disability.

Improving quality of life. Residents were also asked about several resources that would improve their living situation.

When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing security, top answers were:

Help me with a down payment/purchase (39%);
Help me get a loan to buy a house (27%); and
Help me with the housing search (23%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their neighborhood, top answers were:

Better lighting (38%);
Improve street crossings (30%); and
Reduce crime (27%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their health, top answers were:

Make it easier to exercise (41%);
More healthy food (37%); and
Better/access to mental health care (26%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their job situation, top answers were:

Increase wages (49%);
Find a job near my apartment/house (28%); and
Help paying for college (24%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, top answers were:

Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (29%);
Make school more challenging (28%); and
Have more activities afterschool (26%).

CITY OF SAN MATEO 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Appendix H-F
COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY TH E CITY PRIOR TO APRIL 6, 2022, AND BETWEEN MAY 7, 2022 AND DECEMBER 20, 2022


s
>KWD
Ed>/^/>/d/
^^hD/^^/KE&KZ
/dzK&^EDd
K,Kh^/E'
>
D
Ed
/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƚŽĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ
WĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀĞĂĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚĞŵĞƌŐĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŐĞϭϴ͕ŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽďĞ ůŝĨĞůŽŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŝƐŽĨƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƐĞǀĞƌŝƚLJƚŽƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽ ůŝǀĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůůLJŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂƵƚŝƐŵ͕ ŽǁŶƐLJŶĚƌŽŵĞ͕ĞƉŝůĞƉƐLJ͕ĐĞƌĞďƌĂůƉĂůƐLJ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĚŝƐĂďůŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƐŝŵŝůĂƌŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚ ƚŽĂŶŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJ͘hŶĚĞƌĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͛ƐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞh͘^͘ ^ƵƉƌĞŵĞŽƵƌƚ͛ƐϭϵϵϵĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŝŶ KůŵƐƚĞĂĚǀ͘>͕͘͘ ƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞĞŶƚŝƚůĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJͲďĂƐĞĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁƚŚĞŵƚŽůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞůĞĂƐƚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝǀĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐĞƚƚŝŶŐ͘dŚŝƐ ƐŚŝĨƚƚŽĚĞͲŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐůĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐůŽƐƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƐƚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝǀĞƐĞŐƌĞŐĂƚĞĚƐĞƚƚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƚŽ ƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚůŽĐĂůũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƐƐĞƐƐĂŶĚƉůĂŶƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ ŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘
ĞŵŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂŶĚKƚŚĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐĨĨĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐEĞĞĚƐŽĨWĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ
dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ'ƌĞǁďLJϭϮй^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞ>ĂƐƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ

ůĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĐŽƵŶƚƐĨŽƌϮϭйŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐdŽƚĂůWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ŝƐŚŽŵĞƚŽ ϴϯϱ ƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ;dĂďůĞͺͺͿ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐĂŶ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨϭϮйŽǀĞƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϯƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨϳϰϲƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐϮϬϭϱ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ
ƌĞĨůĞĐƚƐĂŵƵĐŚŚŝŐŚĞƌŐƌŽǁƚŚƌĂƚĞƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƐĨŽƌϮϭйŽĨƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŽƵŶƚLJƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐƚŽƚĂůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŽŶůLJϭϰйŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐƚŽƚĂůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘ dĂďůĞͺͺͺŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨƚŚĞϮϬϮϭŝƚLJĂŶĚŽƵŶƚLJWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŐĞ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ŽƵŶƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ĂƐйŽĨŽƵŶƚLJ
hŶĚĞƌĂŐĞϭϴ ϯϬϰ ϭϭϲϵ Ϯϲй
ϭϴĂŶĚŽůĚĞƌ ϱϯϭ Ϯϳϲϰ ϭϵй
dŽƚĂů ϴϯϱ ϯϵϯϯ Ϯϭй
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĚĂƚĂŝƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶnjŝƉĐŽĚĞůĞǀĞůĚĂƚĂĨŽƌnjŝƉĐŽĚĞƐϵϰϰϬϭ͕ϵϰϰϬϮ͕ĂŶĚϵϰϰϬϯƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƐŽĨ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘ŽƵŶƚLJůĞǀĞůĚĂƚĂŝƐƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĂƐŽĨ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘ŽƚŚƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĞdžĐůƵĚĞĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĨƌŽŵďŝƌƚŚƚŽƚŚĞƚŚŝƌĚďŝƌƚŚĚĂLJďĞĐĂƵƐĞĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϳϱйŽĨƚŚŝƐĂŐĞŐƌŽƵƉŝƐĨŽƵŶĚŶŽƚ ĞůŝŐŝďůĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐůŝĨĞůŽŶŐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞŝƌƚŚŝƌĚďŝƌƚŚĚĂLJ͘ ĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶ>ŝǀŝŶŐƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐKƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞ&ĂŵŝůLJ,ŽŵĞ͘ KĨƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐƚŽƚĂůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ ϱϯϭ;ϲϰйͿ ĂƌĞĂĚƵůƚƐĂŶĚ ϯϬϰ;ϯϲйͿ ĂƌĞ ϭ
ƵŶĚĞƌĂŐĞϭϴ;dĂďůĞͺͺͿ͘ƐƐĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝƐŽĨ ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞďĞĐĂƵƐĞĂƐƚŚĞLJĂŐĞƚŚĞĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŽƉƚŝŽŶŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJ ŚŽŵĞ͕ǁŚĞƌĞĂƐƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞŝƐƚŚĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚůŝǀŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘/ŶϮϬϮϭ͕ϱϬϱŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐůŝǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJ ŚŽŵĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽϯϴϵŝŶϮϬϭϯĂƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϭϱƚŽϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͘dŚŝƐϯϬйŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶ
ƌĞůŝĂŶĐĞŽŶƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞŝƐϮ͘ϱƚŝŵĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐϭϮйŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƐĂŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƌĞůŝĂŶĐĞŽŶƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJ ĞdžƉůĂŝŶĞĚďLJŽǀĞƌĂůůŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĐŽƵƉůĞĚǁŝƚŚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ ĚĞĐůŝŶĞƐŝŶŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽůŝǀĞĞŝƚŚĞƌŝŶůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚ ĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ;ϭϭйĚĞĐůŝŶĞͿŽƌŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ϭϭйĚĞĐůŝŶĞͿ͘;dĂďůĞͺͺ͘Ϳ ƐĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŐĞ͕ƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƚŽůŝǀĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞ ďŽƚŚďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂŐŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĨĂŵŝůLJĐĂƌĞŐŝǀĞƌƐĂŶĚĂůƐŽďĞĐĂƵƐĞŵĂŶLJĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘ dĂďůĞͺͺͺŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶ>ŝǀŝŶŐƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ >ŝǀŝŶŐƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ϮϬϭϯ
EƵŵďĞƌ
ϮϬϮϭ
EƵŵďĞƌ
ϮϬϮϭ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨdŽƚĂůĚƵůƚƐ йŚĂŶŐĞ^ŝŶĐĞϮϬϭϯ
dŽƚĂů;ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶΘĂĚƵůƚƐͿŝŶ
ƚŚĞ&ĂŵŝůLJ,ŽŵĞ ϯϴϵ ϱϬϱ ͲͲ ϯϬй
ĚƵůƚƐ/ŶƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞ
EŽƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚͲͲƐĞĞ
ŶŽƚĞ ϮϬϭ ϯϴй ͲͲ
KǁŶĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ
ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϲϰ ϱϮ ϭϬй Ͳϭϭй
>ŝĐĞŶƐĞĚ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ Ϯϵϰ Ϯϲϱ ϱϬй Ͳϭϭй
KƚŚĞƌ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐͿ ϳ ϭϯ Ϯй ͘ϴй
dŽƚĂůĚƵůƚƐ
EŽƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚͲͲƐĞĞ
ŶŽƚĞ ϱϯϭ ϭϬϬй ͲͲ
EŽƚĞ͗dŚĞϮϬϭϯĚĂƚĂĂƌĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϭϱ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĨĂŝůĞĚƚŽƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůLJĐŽƵŶƚƚŚŽƐĞƵŶĚĞƌϭϴĂŶĚƚŚŽƐĞϭϴĂŶĚŽůĚĞƌ͕ŵĂŬŝŶŐ ŝƚĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞĂƐĂƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƐĞƚƚŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJĨŽƌĂĚƵůƚƐ͘dŚĞϮϬϮϭĚĂƚĂĂƌĞƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚ ĂƚƚŚĞnjŝƉĐŽĚĞůĞǀĞůďLJƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƐŽĨ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘dŚĞƐĞĚĂƚĂĂƐƐƵŵĞƚŚĂƚŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐŽĨ ůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞϭϴĂŶĚŽůĚĞƌǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJƚƌƵĞ͕ďƵƚŝĨŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚƚŚŝƐĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶǁŽƵůĚƚĞŶĚƚŽƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂƚĞ͕ŶŽƚŽǀĞƌƐƚĂƚĞ͕ƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌ ŽƚŚĞƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨƵƚŝƐŵŝĂŐŶŽƐŝƐZĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶ/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶĚƵůƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌϮϬƐĂŶĚϯϬƐ͘ 'ƌŽǁƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ ŽĨ ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͛ƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞϮϬϭϱ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚĐŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚ
ĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĂŶŶƵĂůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚŚĞĚŝĂŐŶŽƐŝƐŽĨĂƵƚŝƐŵƚŚĂƚďĞŐĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŵŝĚͲϭϵϴϬƐĂŶĚĚŝĚŶŽƚůĞǀĞůŽƵƚ ƵŶƚŝůĂĨƚĞƌϮϬϭϱ͘dŚĞĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚŝƐƚƌĞŶĚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐĞĞŶŝŶƚŚĞŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ŽƵŶƚLJƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŐĞϭϴƚŽϰϭǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘dŚŝƐ ƚƌĞŶĚŚĂƐƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐĂŵŽŶŐŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨƚŚĞϮϬϮϯƚŽϮϬϯϭ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͘
Ϯ
dĂďůĞͺͺŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶŐĞŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨĚƵůƚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŝŶ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJ ŐĞ ϮϬϭϱEƵŵďĞƌ ϮϬϮϭEƵŵďĞƌ йŚĂŶŐĞ
ϭϴƚŽϯϭ ϭϬϮϯ ϭϭϴϵ ϭϲй
ϯϮƚŽϰϭ ϯϵϳ ϰϱϳ ϭϱй
ϰϭƚŽϱϮ ϯϴϮ ϯϯϱ ͲϭϮй
ϱϮƚŽϲϭ ϯϴϱ ϯϰϴ ͲϭϬй
ϲϮƉůƵƐ ϯϮϳ ϰϯϱ ϯϯй
dŽƚĂůĂĚƵůƚƐ Ϯϱϭϰ Ϯϳϲϰ ϭϬй
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ŽƵŶƚLJůĞǀĞůĚĂƚĂŝƐƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƐŽĨ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϭĂŶĚĂƐŽĨ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϱ͘ >ŽŶŐĞƌ>ŝĨĞ^ƉĂŶƐ͘ ĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϱĂŶĚ:ƵŶĞ ϮϬϮϭ͕ƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŐĞϲϮĂŶĚŽůĚĞƌŐƌĞǁďLJϯϯй;dĂďůĞͺͺͿ͘dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĚƵĞƚŽŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐĞŶŝŽƌĐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJ͕ďƵƚƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŽǁĞůůͲĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŐĂŝŶƐŝŶůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶĂŵŽŶŐ ƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘tŝƚŚůŽŶŐĞƌůŝĨĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĂŶĐLJ͕ŵŽƌĞĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŝůůŽƵƚůŝǀĞƚŚĞŝƌƉĂƌĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĨĂŵŝůLJŵĞŵďĞƌƐǁŝƚŚǁŚŽŵĂŐƌŽǁŝŶŐŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶ DĂƚĞŽĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŶŽǁůŝǀĞďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂĐŬŽĨŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ͘ >ŽŶŐĞƌůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶƐǁŝůůĂůƐŽƐůŽǁƚŚĞƉĂĐĞŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƚƵƌŶŽǀĞƌŝŶƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐůŝŵŝƚĞĚƐƵƉƉůLJŽĨůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚ ĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞĚƵĐĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŐƌŽǁŝŶŐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽƐĞĐƵƌĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞ͘ ĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶ>ŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ dŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĂƚ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϱĂŶĚ:ƵŶĞϮϬϮϭ͕^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJůŽƐƚϱйŽĨŝƚƐƐƵƉƉůLJŽĨůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĐĂƌĞ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕/ŶƚĞƌŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ ĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ^ŬŝůůĞĚEƵƌƐŝŶŐ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐͿ͕ƚŚĞƌĞďLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨƵŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ ͘dŚŝƐƚƌĞŶĚŝƐŵŝƌƌŽƌĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϭϭй ĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĂĚƵůƚƐĂďůĞƚŽůŝǀĞŝŶůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĐĂƌĞŚŽŵĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶϮϬϭϯĂŶĚ ϮϬϮϭ;dĂďůĞͺͺͿ͘dŚĞƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƌŽůĞŽĨůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ

ůĞŵĞŶƚƚŽƉůĂŶĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƐŽƚŚĂƚ ĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĨŽƌĐĞĚŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚLJǁŚĞŶƚŚĞLJůŽƐĞƚŚĞƐĞĐƵƌŝƚLJŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌƉĂƌĞŶƚ͛ƐŚŽŵĞ͘
ŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŚĂƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚĂϭϮйĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶ ƚŚĞĂŐĞŐƌŽƵƉϰϮƚŽϱϭĂŶĚĂϭϬйĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶƚŚĞĂŐĞŐƌŽƵƉϱϮƚŽϲϭŝŶ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϱĂŶĚ:ƵŶĞϮϬϮϭ͘;dĂďůĞͺͺͿ͘/ŶůŝŐŚƚŽĨŐĂŝŶƐŝŶůŝĨĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĂŶĐLJ͕ƚŚŝƐůŽƐƐĐĂŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůLJďĞ ĂƚƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚƚŽŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐŶĞƐƐŽƌĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚLJďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂĐŬŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůůŝǀŝŶŐ ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ;ĞŝƚŚĞƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐͿǁŚĞŶĂŶĞůĚĞƌůLJƉĂƌĞŶƚĐĂƌĞŐŝǀĞƌƉĂƐƐĞƐĂǁĂLJŽƌ ďĞĐŽŵĞƐƵŶĂďůĞƚŽŚŽƵƐĞĂŶĚĐĂƌĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĂĚƵůƚ͘ŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƚĂŬĞƐĂƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌƚŽůůŽŶĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚ ϯ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽĚĞƉĞŶĚŽŶĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌŝƚLJǁŝƚŚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŽƵƚĞƐĂŶĚƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂƐ ǁĞůůĂƐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĨƌŽŵĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJͲďĂƐĞĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂůŶĞƚǁŽƌŬƐďƵŝůƚƵƉŽǀĞƌLJĞĂƌƐŝŶůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͘
,ŝŐŚĞƌZĂƚĞƐŽĨWŚLJƐŝĐĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ WĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞŵŽƌĞůŝŬĞůLJƚŚĂŶƚŚĞ ŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽŚĂǀĞĂŶĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶLJŝŶŐƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJ͘dǁĞŶƚLJͲƐĞǀĞŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;ϮϳйͿŽĨ^ĂŶ DĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚŵŽďŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂŶĚϭϯйŚĂǀĞĂǀŝƐŝŽŶŽƌ ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŝŵƉĂŝƌŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƵŶŝƚĐŽƵƉůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚƐƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐďĂƌƌŝĞƌƐĨĂĐĞĚďLJƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚĐŽͲŽĐĐƵƌƌŝŶŐŝŶƚĞůůĞĐƚƵĂůĂŶĚƉŚLJƐŝĐĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘
/ŶĞůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌDĂŶLJĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞZĞŶƚĂůhŶŝƚƐ͘ ^ŽŵĞ ĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĚĞƉĞŶĚŽŶ ŵŽŶƚŚůLJŝŶĐŽŵĞŽĨƵŶĚĞƌΨϭ͕ϬϬϬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ^ƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJ/ŶĐŽŵĞ;^^/ͿƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ƉƌŝĐŝŶŐƚŚĞŵ ŽƵƚŽĨĞǀĞŶƚŚĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ
džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶ DĂƚĞŽ͘dŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚƚĞŶĚƚŽǁŽƌŬƉĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞŝŶƚŚĞůŽǁĞƐƚƉĂŝĚũŽďƐĂŶĚĂůƐŽƐƚƌƵŐŐůĞƚŽ ŝŶĐŽŵĞͲƋƵĂůŝĨLJĨŽƌŵĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌƌĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͘ dƌĂŶƐŝƚͲĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚ͘ DŽƐƚĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĚŽŶŽƚĚƌŝǀĞŽƌŽǁŶĂĐĂƌĂŶĚƌĞůLJŽŶ ƉƵďůŝĐƚƌĂŶƐŝƚĂƐĂŵĞĂŶƐƚŽŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘ ĞƐƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĨŽƌ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨWĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝŶdLJƉŝĐĂů ĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ƐĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚďLJĂŐƌŽǁŝŶŐŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŝŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐ ũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĐĂŶŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂů ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐďLJĂĚŽƉƚŝŶŐƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐƚŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƚŚĞŝƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŝŶ ƚLJƉŝĐĂůĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƐŚŽƵůĚŐƵŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŝŶƚŚŝƐ ƉƵƌƐƵŝƚ͗
Ɣ /ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚLJƉŝĐĂůĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŝƐĂƉƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ ŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĨĂŝƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽƌĂŐƌŽƵƉƚŚĂƚŚĂƐŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůůLJĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚŶŽĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐƚŽƐĞŐƌĞŐĂƚĞĚůŝǀŝŶŐĂŶĚĂůƐŽ ƚŽĐŽƵŶƚĞƌƚŚĞĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽƵƚŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJ͘ Ɣ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŽŶƐŝƚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĨƵŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂů ĞŶƚĞƌƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĚ͘dŚĞƐĞĨƵůůLJĨƵŶĚĞĚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽĂƉƉůLJĨŽƌĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝŶĂŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĂƌĞŽĨƚĞŶĂƐĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽĂƉĞƌƐŽŶǁŝƚŚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJĂƐĂƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůůLJ ŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚƵŶŝƚŝƐƚŽĂƉĞƌƐŽŶǁŝƚŚĂŵŽďŝůŝƚLJ͕ǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ŽƌŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŝŵƉĂŝƌŵĞŶƚ͘ Ɣ ŵŝdžŽĨƵŶŝƚƐŝnjĞƐ ĂƚŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ ǁŽƵůĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƚŚŽƐĞǁŚŽƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ ůŝǀĞͲŝŶĂŝĚĞƐ͕ǁĂŶƚƚŽůŝǀĞǁŝƚŚƌŽŽŵŵĂƚĞƐŽƌƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͕ŽƌŚĂǀĞĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͘ Ɣ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŶĞĂƌƉƵďůŝĐƚƌĂŶƐŝƚ ǁŽƵůĚĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚͲĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐLJŽĨŵŽƐƚĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘
Ɣ ĞĞƉůLJĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ͕ ƚĂƌŐĞƚŝŶŐŝŶĐŽŵĞƐ ŶŽƚŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϯϬйŽĨƌĞĂDĞĚŝĂŶ /ŶĐŽŵĞĂŶĚƚĂŬŝŶŐĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŽĨ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJWƌŽũĞĐƚĂƐĞĚsŽƵĐŚĞƌƐŽƌ,hϴϭϭWƌŽũĞĐƚ ϰ
ZĞŶƚĂůƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞǁŚĞŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚŽƐĞǁŚŽĐĂŶŶŽƚŵĞĞƚ ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŝŶĐŽŵĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƵŶŝƚƐƉƌŝĐĞĚĂƚϯϬйŽĨƌĞĂDĞĚŝĂŶ/ŶĐŽŵĞ͘ WŽůŝĐLJĂŶĚWƌŽŐƌĂŵZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ
dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŚĂƐĂƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŶŽƚƐŝŵƉůLJƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐďƵƚĂůƐŽƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞƉŽůŝĐLJ͕njŽŶŝŶŐ͕ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĂƚŵĂŬĞŝƚ ŵŽƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝŶ ƚŚĞŝƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂů ĞŶƚĞƌ ͘dŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐϮϬϭϱ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĂŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽƌĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůϯϬƚŽϴϳƉĞŽƉůĞ ǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ďƵƚƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌ ŽǁŶĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĚĞĐůŝŶĞĚďLJϭϭйƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞůĂƐƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĞǀĞŶĂƐƚŚĞƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐƌĞǁďLJ
ϭϮй͘dŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐůĂĐŬŽĨƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝŶŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞůĂƐƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐƚŚĂƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJ ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀŝnjĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ ͘
Ɣ
ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂŶĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĂƋƵĂŶƚŝƚĂƚŝǀĞŐŽĂů͘ dƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐƐƵĐĐĞƐƐŝŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝƐĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞǁŚĞƚŚĞƌƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐĂŶ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝŶŽǀĞƌĐŽŵŝŶŐŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐŽĨĚŝƐĐƌŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĞdžĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĨƌŽŵĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘ŐŽĂůŽĨ ϭϱϬŶĞǁ džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>ŽǁͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞ
ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨ ƚŚĞϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵůƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůƵŶŵĞƚ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚŽĨƚŚŝƐƐƉĞĐŝĂůŶĞĞĚƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƐŚĂůůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƐĂƋƵĂŶƚŝƚĂƚŝǀĞŐŽĂůŽĨ ϭϱϬŶĞǁ
džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĂƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŶĞĞĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂů ĞŶƚĞƌƚŽůŝǀĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞůLJŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘
Ɣ dĂƌŐĞƚŝƚLJͲKǁŶĞĚ>ĂŶĚ͕>ĂŶĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŽĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJ KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŝƚLJ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚƐƚŽDĞĞƚŝƚLJͲ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘ ŝƚLJͲŽǁŶĞĚůĂŶĚ͕ůĂŶĚ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŽĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶůŝĞƵŽĨƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJ ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚĐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞŽĨƚĞŶĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚŝƐĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůůLJĨĞĂƐŝďůĞŝŶŚŝŐŚͲĐŽƐƚŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͘/ŶĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĐŽƌŝŶŐŽĨ ĂŶLJĐŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞƐĐĂƌĐĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJƐŚŽƵůĚŐƌĂŶƚ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉŽŝŶƚƐƚŽĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶ DĂƚĞŽƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŚŽĂƌĞŵŽƐƚĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽŚŽƵƐĞƵŶĚĞƌĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞĂŶĚĨĞĚĞƌĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŝŶĂŶĐĞ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐͲͲĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ďLJƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐǁŝƚŚĂŚŝŐŚĞƌŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞ ƵŶŝƚƐŽƌƚŚĂƚŵĂŬĞĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƵŶŝƚƐƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĂƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĨŽƌŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐŽĨ ƐƉĞĐŝĂůŶĞĞĚƐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽǁŽƵůĚďĞŶĞĨŝƚĨƌŽŵĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐďƵƚŶŽƚ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽďĞŶĞĨŝƚĨƌŽŵƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞ ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ͘
ϱ
^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗/ŶƉƵďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨŽƌĐŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐĨŽƌĂŶLJĐŝƚLJͲŽǁŶĞĚůĂŶĚ͕ůĂŶĚ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŽĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŽƌĐŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨƵŶĚƐ͕ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƐŚĂůůŐƌĂŶƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉŽŝŶƚƐƚŽƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐƚŚĂƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŵŽƐƚĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚ ƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͕ďLJ͕ĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂŐƌĞĂƚĞƌŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJ ůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞƵŶŝƚƐŽƌĐŽŵŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŽŵĂŬĞĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƵŶŝƚƐƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĂƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĨŽƌ ƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚƐƉĞĐŝĂůŶĞĞĚƐǁŚŽǁŝůůďĞŶĞĨŝƚĨƌŽŵĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ͘ Ɣ KĨĨĞƌĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂZĂŶŐĞŽĨĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJKƉƚŝŽŶƐhŶĚĞƌƚŚĞ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘ DŽƐƚ ĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀĞŝŶĐŽŵĞƐƚŽŽůŽǁƚŽƐĂƚŝƐĨLJŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŝŶĐŽŵĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞƵŶŝƚƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŽĨĨĞƌĞĚƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚĂƌĞĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJĞdžĐůƵĚĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚŝƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƉƚŝŽŶ͘ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂůĂǁ;ϭϱϬϱ͕ƚŚĞ͞WĂůŵĞƌ&ŝdž͟Ϳ ĞdžƉůŝĐŝƚůLJĂůůŽǁƐĐŝƚŝĞƐƚŽĂĚŽƉƚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨŝŶĐŽŵĞ ůĞǀĞůƐĨƌŽŵŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲŝŶĐŽŵĞƚŽĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞ͘dŚĞŝƚLJƐŚŽƵůĚƚĂŬĞĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐ ĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJƚŽŵĂŬĞŝƚƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŵŽƌĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞƚŽůŽĐĂůŶĞĞĚƐďLJŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐŽĨŵĂƌŬĞƚ ƌĂƚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŵĞŶƵŽĨŽƉƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐ͕ĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ďLJƐĞƚƚŝŶŐĂŚŝŐŚĞƌ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƵŶŝƚƐƉƌŝĐĞĚĂƚŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞŝŶĐŽŵĞĂŶĚĂůŽǁĞƌƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƵŶŝƚƐƐĞƚĂƚĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJ ůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞ͘^ƵĐŚĂŵĞŶƵǁŽƵůĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂďƌŽĂĚĞƌƌĂŶŐĞŽĨŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐ͕ ǁŚŝůĞŐŝǀŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐŵŽƌĞŽƉƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƐŚĂůůƌĞǀŝƐĞŝƚƐŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƚŽŽĨĨĞƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂŵĞŶƵŽĨŽƉƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂĚũƵƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƵŶŝƚƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞĚĞŐƌĞĞŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚ;ŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲŝŶĐŽŵĞ͕ ůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞ͕ǀĞƌLJůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞ͕ĂŶĚĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞͿ͘ Ɣ ZĞĚƵĐĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚKƚŚĞƌŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ ĚƵůƚƐ ǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŚĂǀĞƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞLJƌĂƌĞůLJŚĂǀĞĂĚƌŝǀĞƌΖƐ ůŝĐĞŶƐĞŽƌŽǁŶĂĐĂƌ ͘dŚŝƐŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞƚƌƵĞŽĨŽƚŚĞƌĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞ ŝƚLJƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞǀŝƐĞŝƚƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐƚŽůŝŵŝƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽ͘ϱƐƉĂĐĞĨŽƌĞĂĐŚĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƐƚƵĚŝŽŽƌϭďĞĚƌŽŽŵƵŶŝƚĂŶĚϭƐƉĂĐĞ ĨŽƌĂŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞϮďĞĚƌŽŽŵƵŶŝƚŽƌůĂƌŐĞƌ ͘ƐŝŵŝůĂƌƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĨŽƌ ƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůůLJĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƵŶŝƚƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘ ^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗dŚĞŝƚLJƐŚĂůůĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƚŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐďLJƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌƚƌĂŶƐŝƚĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐ ůŽǁĞƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĂƚŝŽƐĨŽƌƵŶŝƚƐƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚƚŽƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŚĂŶ ǁŽƵůĚŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘
Ɣ >ŽĐĂůĞŶƐŝƚLJŽŶƵƐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞƐƚĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ ďŽŶƵƐůĂǁĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭϬйŽĨƚŚĞƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌĚŝƐĂďůĞĚǀĞƚĞƌĂŶƐ͕ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶͲĂŐĞĨŽƐƚĞƌLJŽƵƚŚ͕ĂŶĚŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĂƚƚŚĞǀĞƌLJůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞůĞǀĞů͘ ďŽǀĞĂŶĚ ďĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJďŽŶƵƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐŵĂŶĚĂƚĞĚďLJƐƚĂƚĞůĂǁ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJƐŚŽƵůĚĂĚĚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐǁŚĞŶĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭϬйŽĨƚŚĞƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ ϲ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽǁŝůůďĞŶĞĨŝƚĨƌŽŵĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ ͘
^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗/ŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĚĞŶƐŝƚLJďŽŶƵƐƐƚĂƚƵƚĞ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJƐŚĂůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJďŽŶƵƐ͕ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐ͕ŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚ ϭϬйŽĨƚŚĞƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƚƚŚĞǀĞƌLJůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞůĞǀĞůĂƐĂƌĞ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭϬйŽĨƚŚĞƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌĚŝƐĂďůĞĚǀĞƚĞƌĂŶƐ͕ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶͲĂŐĞ ĨŽƐƚĞƌLJŽƵƚŚ͕ĂŶĚŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĂƚƚŚĞǀĞƌLJůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞůĞǀĞů͘ ĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞDĂƌŬĞƚŝŶŐŽĨWŚLJƐŝĐĂůůLJĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞhŶŝƚƐ͗ ĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂƌĞĂůůŽǁĞĚƚŽĂĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ ŵĂƌŬĞƚĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƵŶŝƚƐƚŽĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲƐĞƌǀŝŶŐŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJ;ŝ͘Ğ͘'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞ ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ͕,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŚŽŝĐĞƐŽĂůŝƚŝŽŶĨŽƌWĞƌƐŽŶǁŝƚŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĞŶƚĞƌ ĨŽƌ/ŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞŽĨ/ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐǁŝƚŚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐͿďƵƚƌĂƌĞůLJƚĂŬĞƚŚŝƐƐƚĞƉ͘ ĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞŵĂƌŬĞƚŝŶŐŝƐƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůLJŶĞĞĚĞĚďLJƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽ͕ ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨĐŽŐŶŝƚŝǀĞ͕ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƐŽĐŝĂůŝŵƉĂŝƌŵĞŶƚ͕ŵĂLJƌĞůLJŽŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĂǀŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨƵŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌƚŽůĞĂƌŶĂďŽƵƚĂŶĚĂƉƉůLJĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘
^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗ƐĂĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŶLJĐŝƚLJͲŽǁŶĞĚůĂŶĚ͕ůĂŶĚĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŽ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ƚŚĞĂǁĂƌĚŽĨĐŝƚLJĨŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶLJ ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJďŽŶƵƐĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ŽƌůĂŶĚƵƐĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐŽƌǁĂŝǀĞƌƐĨŽƌĂŶLJĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ ƚŚĞŝƚLJƐŚĂůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĂĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞŵĂƌŬĞƚŝŶŐƉůĂŶĨŽƌ ƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůůLJĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƵŶŝƚƐǁŚŝĐŚ͕ĂŵŽŶŐŽƚŚĞƌŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJͲƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ ŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƉƌŝŽƌŶŽƚŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚĂƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĨŽƌ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚƋƵĂůŝĨLJŝŶŐĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽĂƉƉůLJ͘ Ɣ
džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>ŽǁͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞĐĐĞƐƐŽƌLJǁĞůůŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ͘ Ɛ ƉĂƌƚŽĨĂůĂƌŐĞƌƉůĂŶƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞƐƵƉƉůLJ ŽĨĐĐĞƐƐŽƌLJǁĞůůŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ;hƐͿ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJƐŚŽƵůĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂĨŽƌŐŝǀĂďůĞůŽĂŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ĨŽƌŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐǁŚŽďƵŝůĚhƐĂŶĚƌĞŶƚƚŚĞŵĨŽƌĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭϱLJĞĂƌƐĂƚ džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞ
ƌĞŶƚůĞǀĞůƐƚŽƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘
^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗^ƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJƐŚĂůůĚĞǀŝƐĞĂƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŽĨĨŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐĨŽƌ ĐĐĞƐƐŽƌLJǁĞůůŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƌĞŶƚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭϱLJĞĂƌƐĂƚ džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ
>ŽǁͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞƌĞŶƚůĞǀĞůƐƚŽƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂůĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŚŽǁŽƵůĚďĞŶĞĨŝƚĨƌŽŵ ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞŶƚĞƌ͘ Ɣ ĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘ EŽƚŽŶůLJŝƐĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚLJ ƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚͲƌĂŶŬĞĚƐŽƵƌĐĞŽĨ&Ăŝƌ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐ͕ĂŐƌŽǁŝŶŐďŽĚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽƵŶƚLJĚĂƚĂŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚůĂĐŬ͕/ŶĚŝŐĞŶŽƵƐ ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌWĞŽƉůĞŽĨŽůŽƌ;/WKͿǁŝƚŚĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŚŝŐŚĞƌƌĂƚĞƐŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĚŝƐĐƌŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƐĞǀĞƌĞƌĞŶƚďƵƌĚĞŶƚŚĂŶĞŝƚŚĞƌ/WKǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽƌǁŚŝƚĞƐǁŝƚŚ ĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŽĨĨĞƌƐŝƚƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚ͕ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚƐŽĐŝĂůŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐďƵƚƚŚĞƐĞǀĞƌĞƐŚŽƌƚĨĂůůŽĨ džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞƵŶŝƚƐ
ŵĞĂŶƐƚŚĂƚ/WKͲͲƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůLJƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐͲͲĂƌĞƚŽŽŽĨƚĞŶĞdžĐůƵĚĞĚĨƌŽŵĞŶũŽLJŝŶŐ ϳ
ƚŚŽƐĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƐƐĞƚƐ͘DƵůƚŝƉůĞďĂƌƌŝĞƌƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŚŝŐŚůĂŶĚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐŽƐƚƐĂŶĚ ůŝŵŝƚĞĚĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŵĂŬĞŝƚĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƚŽƉƌŽĚƵĐĞ džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞƵŶŝƚƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůů
ŽǀĞƌĐŽŵĞƐƵĐŚĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘WŽůŝĐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚůĞĂĚƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞ
ƵŶŝƚƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĐŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŽŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐĞĞŝŶŐƚŚŽƐĞƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͕ǁŝůů ĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĂŶĚĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐŶĞƐƐŶĞƐƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĂƚͲƌŝƐŬŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘ ^ĂŵƉůĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽΖƐƉůĂŶƐƚŽĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽƌůĂĐŬ͕ /ŶĚŝŐĞŶŽƵƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌWĞŽƉůĞŽĨŽůŽƌ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůLJƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚĚŝƐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ƐŚĂůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ
džƚƌĞŵĞůLJ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞƵŶŝƚƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƐƚĂĨĨ
ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJƚŽŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͘ ϴ
-1-

TENANT-PROTECTION POLICY OPTIONS FOR SAN MATEO

Proposed by ONE SAN MATEO | For more information:
[email protected]

March 3, 2021

According to many sources, nearly 47 percent of San Mateo households are renters. On average, these renter households have significantly lower incomes than homeowner households. According to the Affordable Housing Task Force’s 2016 final report, median household income for renters at the time was $64,445, whereas the median household income for owners was $117,700. Faced with constrained incomes and high rents, many renters in San Mateo pay a disproportionately high percentage of their income on housing, and many renter households are badly overcrowded. Latinos and African Americans are affected in especially large numbers by these adverse conditions.

Due to the nature of renting (as opposed to owning), renter households are vulnerable to disruptions completely outside their control. Chief among these is the possibility of rent hikes and eviction, both of which can have far-reaching impacts that easily lead to family trauma.

The passage of AB 1482 created minimal protections for renters against the threat of disruption. But these protections are minimal. Renters in San Mateo need and deserve more.

One San Mateo proposes the following policies for their potential to bring positive change to renters’ lives.

CLOSING GAPS AND LOOPHOLIES IN AB 1482

1. Create “just cause” protection from Day One.

Since AB 1482 stipulates that just cause protections apply to tenants who have been in place 12 months or more, the ordinance deprives compliant tenants of the security they would have if the protections were to go into effect on Day One. The most effective way to address this shortcoming is to pass an ordinance requiring that the just cause provisions under AB 1482 go into effect on Day One. Many local city councils have adopted just cause policies that go into effect on Day One, among them San Jose, Hayward, Oakland, and Alameda. Most just cause policies exist in combination with rent stabilization, but not all.

-2-

Resources on just cause policies adopted by local city councils:

x Information about Hayward’s just cause ordinance:

https://www.hayward-ca.gov/discover/news/mar19/just-cause-eviction- protections-extended-more-hayward-tenants

x Article on Alameda’s just cause ordinance:

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/06/05/alameda-adopts-additional- protection-for-renters/

x Alameda city staff report from 5/21/19 with link to ordinance:

https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3943916&GUID=B6 65E57F-45B4-4ECF-9269-3D98649DD5E3&Options=&Search=&FullText=1

A less effective approach to the problem is to pass a minimum lease requirement requiring that landlords provide tenants with the option of a one-year lease. This would provide tenants with security for the first year of tenancy but leave them vulnerable to eviction at the end of the first year before the just cause protections under AB 1482 go into effect.

Resources on minimum leases

x Menlo Park FAQ on minimum lease ordinance (with link to the ordinance):

https://www.menlopark.org/Faq.aspx?QID=386

x Redwood City minimum lease ordinance:

https://library.municode.com/ca/redwood_city/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=CH42AMILETEREREUN

2. Prevent renovictions by closing the “substantial remodel” loophole.

Under the terms of AB 1482, a landlord can evict a tenant if s/he intends to demolish or “substantially remodel” the property. The law says that the landlord has to be doing substantial modification that requires a permit from a governmental agency, that cannot be reasonably accomplished with the tenant in place, and that requires the tenant to vacate the property for at least 30 days. Now that there are fewer acceptable rationales for evicting tenants, landlords have manipulated the substantial remodel clause to their advantage. Shirley Gibson, attorney for Legal Aid of San Mateo County, said that in the months before COVID, “substantial remodel” was the most frequently chosen reason for -3-

60-day termination notices. She further said that when landlords were challenged about their intentions in the unlawful detainer process, it would often turn out that the plans were mostly cosmetic or possibly could be done within 30 days. In response to landlord abuses under the "substantial remodel" provision, several cities have passed an ordinance requiring that landlords obtain permits before serving tenants an eviction notice. Among these are Long Beach, Los Angeles and South Pasadena. The Long Beach and South Pasadena ordinances were passed by a unanimous vote. While One San Mateo has not yet confirmed the vote on the Los Angeles ordinance, we are aware that it was adopted as an urgency ordinance, which requires approval by at least three-fourths of the 15-member council.

Resources on renovictions:
x Article about Long Beach ordinance:

https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/02/18/long-beach-ordinance-tackles- substantial-remodel-loophole-in-tenant-protection-act

x Long Beach staff report from 2/11/20:

http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8060909&GUID=66F42 362-6D3D-4F94-B8E0-2106FFE60EBE

x Long Beach ordinance adopted with first reading on 2/18/20 with second reading on 3/11/20:

http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8075455&GUID=4EBE9 48B-965A-4FEE-8D72-873E14400F28

x Article about the Los Angeles ordinance adoption:

https://www.the-new-
inth.com/closing_a_loophole_in_the_tenant_protection_act

x Los Angeles ordinance:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2020/20-0203_ORD_186586_04-03- 2020.pdf

x Article about South Pasadena ordinance adoption:

https://southpasadenareview.com/city-council-passes-tenant-protection-for- remodels/

-4-

3. Create a data registry to track compliance.

While AB 1482 created a set of renter protections, there currently is no way to track whether the requirements of the law are being adhered to. A data registry would provide a mechanism for monitoring whether landlords were raising rents within the prescribed limits and eviting tenants only for just cause.

A data registry could provide other valuable information as well. During the course of San Mateo’s affordable housing task force in 2015/16, the absence of accurate data on rents was a complaint expressed by all parties. It was a strong impediment to understanding the realities of the rental environment that the group was charged with addressing.

The value of data cannot be overstated. It is the cornerstone to assessing current realities and responding with the creation of appropriate policies, whether in housing or any other area of human endeavor. As Matthew Desmond, author of the Pulitzer prize-winning book Evicted, wrote, “Imagine if we didn't know how many Americans were incarcerated each year or how many dropped out of high school, got divorced, or lost their job. If we don't know how big a problem something is, where it is happening, or how many families are touched by it, then how can we begin the critical work of finding solutions?” The City of El Cerrito created a data registry in 2019, and the City Council of Concord voted on December 1, 2020 to launch one.

Resources on data registry:
x El Cerrito FAQ on rent registry:

https://el-cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/14344/FAQ_Rent- Registry_2020-Final_v1

x El Cerrito rent registry ordinance:

http://www.el-cerrito.org/1356/Rent-Registry

x Article on Concord rent registry:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/15/east-bay-city-to-post-rent- increases-eviction-details-online

x Concord municipal code describing tenant protection program, including rent registry:

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Concord/html/Concord19/Concord194

0.html#19.40.110

-5-

x Link to January 12, 2021 Concord City Council meeting, Agenda Item 9A, when implementation details for the registry were discussed (what info should be collected, what would be made public, etc):

https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeetin g?id=578&doctype=1 (scroll to Agenda Item 9A for relevant documents)

x Staff report from the January 12, 2021 Concord City Council meeting

https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDoc ument/Agenda%20Staff%20Report%20for%20-
%20RENT%20REGISTRY%20REPORT%20INFORMATION%20(11054).pdf ?meetingId=578&documentType=Agenda&itemId=11054&publishId=7780&i sSection=false
6XEMHFW
6DQ0DWHR¶V'UDIW6L[WK&\FOH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW
)URP
$GDP%XFKELQGHU
7R
FKRUULVEHUJHU#FLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ
FF
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWV#KFGFDJRY3DXO0F'RXJDOO#KFGFDJRY )HEUXDU\
7RZKRPLWPD\FRQFHUQ

7KH&DPSDLJQIRU)DLU+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWVLVDFRDOLWLRQGHGLFDWHGWRHQVXULQJWKDWHYHU\FLW\LQ &DOLIRUQLDSURGXFHVD+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI +RXVLQJDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW¶VUHTXLUHPHQWV:HKDYHUHYLHZHG6DQ0DWHR¶V+RXVLQJ (OHPHQWSURFHVVDQG'UDIW$GHTXDWH6LWHV/LVWDVRI-DQXDU\ :HKDYHWKHIROORZLQJFRQFHUQV7KHFLW\
VHVWLPDWHVRI$'8SURGXFWLRQDUHWRRRSWLPLVWLF7KH
H[SHFWHGGHQVLW\RIVLWHVLVXQUHDOLVWLF7KHUH¶VQRHYLGHQFHWKDWVLWHVZLOOEHGHYHORSHGLQWKH ILUVWSODFH7KHVLWHLQYHQWRU\LVQRWLQIRUPHGE\$%¶VUHTXLUHPHQWVWR$IILUPDWLYHO\)XUWKHU )DLU+RXVLQJ
$'8(VWLPDWHV
7KHFLW\¶V$'8HVWLPDWHVDUHLQFRUUHFW$FFRUGLQJWR+&'¶V6LWH,QYHQWRU\*XLGHERRN SDJH

WKHUHDUHWZR³VDIHKDUERU´RSWLRQVIRU$'8FRQVWUXFWLRQHVWLPDWHV7KHVHDUH 
ILYHWLPHV
WKHDYHUDJHDQQXDOFRQVWUXFWLRQEHIRUHRU

WKHDYHUDJHDQQXDOFRQVWUXFWLRQVLQFH
$FFRUGLQJWR6DQ0DWHR¶V$QQXDO3URJUHVV5HSRUWVDQGWKHFLW\¶VFODLPVGDWDLVDYDLODEOH DVIROORZV

    
  
            
7KHVDIHKDUERURSWLRQVDUHWKHQDVIROORZV

2SWLRQ



 SHU\HDURYHUHLJKW\HDUVʹ ൅ ͵ ൅ ͳ ͸ 
͵  ൈ  ͷ ൌ  ͵ͷ
2SWLRQ



 SHU\HDURYHUHLJKW\HDUV ͺ ൅ Ͷͷ ൅ ͷʹ ൅ ͸͹ Ͷ  ൌ  Ͷ͵
7KH&LW\¶VHVWLPDWHRI$'8VLVQRWVXSSRUWHGE\WKHVHFDOFXODWLRQV,IWKH&LW\GRHVQ¶WXVHD 6DIH+DUERURSWLRQLWPXVWSURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOHYLGHQFH,IWKH&LW\GRHVQ¶WSURYLGHHYLGHQFHLW PXVWUHGXFHLWV$'8SURMHFWLRQV
KWWSV
ZZZKFGFDJRYFRPPXQLW\GHYHORSPHQWKRXVLQJHOHPHQWKRXVLQJHOHPHQWPHPRVGRFVVLWHVBL QYHQWRU\BPHPRBILQDOSGI
 KWWSV
FLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ'RFXPHQW&HQWHU9LHZ'UDIW$GHTXDWH6LWHV/LVWDQG0HWKRGRORJ\ 5HDOLVWLF&DSDFLW\
7KH&LW\VWDWHVRQSDJH
³:KHQHVWDEOLVKLQJUHDOLVWLFXQLWFDSDFLW\FDOFXODWLRQVWKHMXULVGLFWLRQ PXVWFRQVLGHUH[LVWLQJGHYHORSPHQWWUHQGVRIH[LVWLQJRUDSSURYHGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWVDW DVLPLODUDIIRUGDELOLW\OHYHOLQWKDWMXULVGLFWLRQ³7KHFLW\PXVWQRWRQO\FRQVLGHUSUHYLRXV GHYHORSPHQWWUHQGVEXWDOVRZKHWKHUDVLWHZLOOEHGHYHORSHGDWDOO+&'UHTXLUHVFLWLHVWR DFFRXQWIRUWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQDVLWH¶VQRPLQDOFDSDFLW\ WKHQXPEHURIXQLWVLWFDQ
WKHRUHWLFDOO\VXSSRUW
DQGLWVUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\
WKHQXPEHURIXQLWVOLNHO\WREHGHYHORSHGWKHUH
RYHUWKHQH[W5+1$F\FOH
7KH&LW\DVVXPHVWKDWLWVHQWLUHVLWHLQYHQWRU\ZLOOEHGHYHORSHGDQ XQZDUUDQWHGDQGXQVXSSRUWDEOHDVVXPSWLRQ
6SHFLILFDOO\DWOHDVWKDOIRIWKHFLW\¶VORZHULQFRPHLQYHQWRU\LVDVVLJQHGWRQRQYDFDQWVLWHV &LWLHVDUHWRSUHVXPHWKDWWKH\ZLOOQRWEHGHYHORSHGLQWKHDEVHQFHRI³VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFH´WR WKHFRQWUDU\7KH&LW\VWDWHVRQSDJH
³7KHDQDO\VLVGRHVQRWLQFOXGHWKHHFRQRPLFIHDVLELOLW\ RIVSHFLILFVLWHVQRUGRHVLWWDNHLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQWKHRZQHU¶VLQWHQGHGXVHRIWKHODQGQRZRU LQWKHIXWXUH´$VVXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHRIGHYHORSPHQWKDVQRWEHHQSURYLGHGWKHFLW\VKRXOG XVHWKHSUREDELOLW\RIGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVHVLWHVRYHUWKHSUHYLRXVF\FOHñ 5HVXOWVIURPWKHODVW5+1$F\FOHVKHGOLJKWRQWKHVLWHV¶UHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\$QDFFHSWDEOH6LWH ,QYHQWRU\ZRXOGWDNHLQWRDFFRXQW6DQ0DWHR¶VKLVWRULFUDWHRIGHYHORSPHQW2QO\RQHLQWZHOYH VLWHVZHUHGHYHORSHGGXULQJWKH)LIWK&\FOH
)LIWK&\FOH'HYHORSPHQW+LVWRU\
6LWHVOLVWHGLQWK+( 6LWHVGHYHORSHGGXULQJǫRIWK&\FOH 3HUFHQWDJH 3URMHFWHG


    
7KH&LW\KDVQRWSURYLGHGHYLGHQFHRIIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWIRUHDFKVLWH7KHUHIRUHWKH&LW\LV UHTXLUHGWRXVHWKLVSHUFHQWDJHWRFRPSXWHWKHUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\RILWVVLWHV6DQ0DWHRKDVD WRWDODOORFDWLRQRIXQLWV*LYHQWKLVOLNHOLKRRGRIGHYHORSPHQWDVLWHFDSDFLW\RI 
XQLWVZLOOSURGXFHRQO\
XQLWVRYHUWKHSODQQLQJSHULRG&RXQWLQJH[SHFWHGGHYHORSPHQWRI 6HHQRWHDERYH
.DSXU6'DPHUGML6(OPHQGRUI&6 0RQNNRQHQ3 
:KDW*HWV%XLOWRQ6LWHV7KDW&LWLHV
0DNH$YDLODEOHIRU+RXVLQJ"8&/$
7KH5DOSKDQG*ROG\/HZLV&HQWHUIRU5HJLRQDO3ROLF\6WXGLHV 5HWULHYHGIURPKWWSV
HVFKRODUVKLSRUJXFLWHP]M
0DSVDYDLODEOHDW
KWWSV
OHZLVXFODHGX5+1$PDSV
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW6LWH,QYHQWRU\*XLGHERRNS³,IDKRXVLQJHOHPHQWUHOLHVRQQRQYDFDQWVLWHVWR DFFRPPRGDWHSHUFHQWRUPRUHRILWV5+1$IRUORZHULQFRPHKRXVHKROGVWKHQRQYDFDQWVLWH¶V H[LVWLQJXVHLVSUHVXPHGWRLPSHGHDGGLWLRQDOUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWXQOHVVWKHKRXVLQJ HOHPHQWGHVFULEHVILQGLQJVEDVHGRQVXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHXVHZLOOOLNHO\EHGLVFRQWLQXHG GXULQJWKHSODQQLQJSHULRG´>(PSKDVLVPLQH@
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW6LWH,QYHQWRU\*XLGHERRNSS³/RFDORUUHJLRQDOWUDFNUHFRUGVSDVWSURGXFWLRQ WUHQGVRUQHWXQLWLQFUHDVHV\LHOGVIRUUHGHYHORSLQJVLWHVRUVLWHLQWHQVLILFDWLRQ7KLVHVWLPDWHPD\EH EDVHGRQWKHUDWHDWZKLFKVLPLODUSDUFHOVZHUHGHYHORSHGGXULQJWKHSUHYLRXVSODQQLQJSHULRGZLWK DGMXVWPHQWVDVDSSURSULDWHWRUHIOHFWQHZPDUNHWFRQGLWLRQVRUFKDQJHVLQWKHUHJXODWRU\HQYLURQPHQW,I QRLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHUDWHRIGHYHORSPHQWRIVLPLODUSDUFHOVLVDYDLODEOHUHSRUWWKHSURSRUWLRQ RISDUFHOVLQWKHSUHYLRXVKRXVLQJHOHPHQW¶VVLWHLQYHQWRU\WKDWZHUHGHYHORSHGGXULQJWKH SUHYLRXVSODQQLQJSHULRG´>(PSKDVLVPLQH@
XQLWVRQQRQLQYHQWRU\VLWHVDQG$'8VWKLVPHDQVWKDWWKH6LWH,QYHQWRU\KDVD VKRUWIDOORIXQLWV,QRUGHUWRSURGXFHWKLVPDQ\XQLWVDWDRQHWZHOIWKSUREDELOLW\VLWHV PXVWEHLGHQWLILHGIRU
XQLWV
6HH$SSHQGL[$IRUGHWDLOV

7KHVHQXPEHUVDUHKLJKEXWWKH\XQGHUVFRUHWKDWLI6DQ0DWHRFRQWLQXHVWRSURFHHGDVLWKDV RYHUWKHSUHYLRXVSODQQLQJF\FOHLWLVSODQQLQJWRIDLO7KHFLW\FDQHLWKHUSURGXFHURXJKO\ILIW\ WKRXVDQGPRUHXQLWVRISODQQHGFDSDFLW\RUMXVWLI\WKHVHIDYRUDEOHDVVXPSWLRQVE\LGHQWLI\LQJ DQGFKDQJLQJWKHIDFWRUVWKDWPDGHGHYHORSPHQWVRXQOLNHO\8QOHVVWKDWKDSSHQVWKH'UDIW +RXVLQJ(OHPHQWLVQRWLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWK+&'
VJXLGDQFHDQGVKRXOGEHUHMHFWHG
([SHFWHG'HQVLW\
2QSDJHDQDWWHPSWLVPDGHWRFDOFXODWHWKHDYHUDJHEXLOWGHQVLW\RIODUJHUHVLGHQWLDO SURMHFWV%XWWKLVLVRYHUO\RSWLPLVWLFLQWZRZD\V)LUVWWKH.LNX&URVVLQJSURMHFWLVDFOHDU RXWOLHU:LOORQHLQIRXUWHHQIXWXUHSURMHFWVEHDEHORZPDUNHWUDWHSURMHFWZLWKLQD KDOIPLOHRID&DOWUDLQVWDWLRQXVLQJ$%WRGHYHORSDWQHDUO\IRXUWLPHVEDVHGHQVLW\" &DOFXODWLQJDPHGLDQZRXOGKDYHEHHQEHWWHUKHUH6HFRQGO\WKH³DYHUDJH´ZDVFDOFXODWHGE\ DYHUDJLQJDOORIWKHSHUDFUHQXPEHUVUDWKHUWKDQGLYLGLQJWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIXQLWVE\WKHWRWDO DFUHDJHZKLFK\LHOGVGXDF
ZLWKRXW.LNX&URVVLQJ
DQGGXDF
ZLWK
7KHPHWKRGXVHG
E\WKHFLW\GRHVQRWUHIOHFWWKHW\SLFDO\LHOGRIDQDFUHRIKRXVLQJDQGWKHFLW\VKRXOGQRWXVHLW )XUWKHUPRUHWKH&LW\UHIHUVWRSURSRVHGDQGRUDSSURYHGSURMHFWVWKHQXVHVWKHPWR GHPRQVWUDWHWKDWDVEXLOWGHQVLWLHVDUHFRQVLVWHQWO\DERYH]RQHGGHQVLW\VRWKH&LW\PD\ DVVXPHPRUHUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\IRUWKHVLWHV6L[RIWKHSURMHFWVLQFOXGHGRQWKLVOLVWDOVR DSSHDURQWKH&\FOH'UDIW$GHTXDWH6LWHV/LVW3URMHFWVWKDWDUHEHLQJFRXQWHGWRZDUGV&\FOH VKRXOGQRWEHXVHGWRFDOFXODWH³DVEXLOW´GHQVLWLHVRYHU&\FOH(OLPLQDWLQJWKHVHVL[SURMHFWV \LHOGVGXDF7KXVWKHDVVXPSWLRQRI]RQHGGHQVLW\SURGXFWLRQIRU555'DQG 5SDUFHOV
EDVHGHQVLW\GXDF
ZKLFKWKH&LW\DSSOLHVWRVLWHVZLWKRQHRIWKHVH GHVLJQDWLRQVLVZURQJ
7KH&LW\SHUIRUPVDVLPLODUDQDO\VLVRQWKHDYHUDJHEXLOWGHQVLW\RIFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVH SURMHFWVZLWKUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWE\DYHUDJLQJDOORIWKHSHUDFUHQXPEHUVZKLFK\LHOGV GXDFUDWKHUWKDQGLYLGLQJWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIXQLWVE\WKHWRWDODFUHDJHZKLFK\LHOGVGXDF 7KHFLW\WKHQQRWHVWKDWRQO\RIFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVHSURMHFWVLQFOXGHGUHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQWDQGPXOWLSOLHVWKHLUFDOFXODWHG³DYHUDJHGZHOOLQJXQLWSHUDFUHIRUSURMHFWVZLWK UHVLGHQWLDO´E\WRJHWDQH[SHFWHGGZHOOLQJXQLWSHUDFUHIRUDOOFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVH SURMHFWV7KLVLVRYHUO\RSWLPLVWLFDVWKHFLW\KDVHOLPLQDWHGFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVHSURMHFWV ZLWKQRUHVLGHQWLDOIURPWKHLUFDOFXODWLRQZKLFKLVWKHQDSSOLHG DIWHUDGLVFRXQW
WRDOO
FRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVHSURMHFWV,WZRXOGEHPRUHDFFXUDWHWRVLPSO\FDOFXODWHDQGDSSO\WKH EXLOWUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\RIDOOFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVHSURMHFWVZKLFKLV GXDF
+RZHYHUVHYHQRIWKHSURMHFWVLQFOXGHGRQWKHOLVWRIFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVHSURMHFWVDOVR DSSHDURQWKH&\FOH'UDIW$GHTXDWH6LWHV/LVW(OLPLQDWLQJWKHVHVHYHQSURMHFWV\LHOGV GXDF7KXVWKH&LW\¶V³FRQVHUYDWLYH´DVVXPSWLRQRIGXDFIRUFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVH SURMHFWVGRHVQRWUHIOHFWWKHW\SLFDO\LHOGDQGWKH&LW\VKRXOGQRWXVHLW $GGLWLRQDOO\WKH&LW\VWDWHVRQSDJH³)RUWKRVHVLWHVOHVVWKDQDFUHVLQJHQHUDOLWZDV DVVXPHGWKDWWKHUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\ZRXOGEHDSSUR[LPDWHO\RI]RQHGFDSDFLW\JLYHQWKH GLIILFXOW\RIPD[LPL]LQJXVHRIWKRVHVLWHV´+RZHYHURIWKHVLWHVOHVVWKDQDFUHVDQG ]RQHGIRUFRPPHUFLDO PL[HGXVHRQO\RQHKDVDUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\RIOHVVWKDQRUHTXDOWR ]RQHGFDSDFLW\6L[W\WKUHHKDYHDUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\RIRI]RQHGFDSDFLW\DQG KDYHDUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\RIRI]RQHGFDSDFLW\
6SHFLILF,VVXHV
:H¶YHORRNHGDWVRPHRIWKHIDFWRUVZKLFKKDYHFDXVHGDFWXDOGHYHORSPHQWWRIDOOVKRUWRI H[SHFWDWLRQVLQWKHSDVWDQGWKHVHHUURUVFRQWLQXHWREHUHIOHFWHGLQWKHFXUUHQWLQYHQWRU\ )RUW\WZRRIWKHVLWHVLGHQWLILHGRQWKH&LW\¶V$GHTXDWH6LWHV/LVWZHUHDOVRLQFOXGHGRQWKH VLWHLQYHQWRULHVIRU&\FOHDQG&\FOH7KUHHRIWKHVHVLWHVDUHUDWHG RXWRI
RQ
GHYHORSPHQWSRWHQWLDODQGRIWKHVHVLWHVDUHUDWHG7KHFLW\GRHVQRWLGHQWLI\DQ\ FRQVWUDLQWVWRGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVHVLWHVRYHUWKHSDVWILIWHHQ\HDUVQRUQRWHDQ\QHZ LQFHQWLYHVWRGHYHORSPHQWEH\RQGWKHUH]RQLQJUHTXLUHGE\$% 
2QHVLWHDSSHDUVRQWKH&LW\¶V6LWHV/LVWWZLFHZLWKGLIIHUHQWXQLWDOORFDWLRQV 
6LWH$GGUHVV $VVHVVRU3DUFHO
1XPEHU
$31

9HU\
/RZ
/RZ 0RGHUDWH $ERYH
0RGHUDWH
7RWDO
(/&$0,125($/        (O&DPLQR5HDO        )RUHDFKVLWHWKH&LW\QRWHVWKH³0D['HQVLW\$OORZHG XQLWVDFUH
´³5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\

XQLWVDFUH
´DQG³3DUFHO6L]H
JURVVDFUHV
´7KH&LW\DOVRQRWHVWKH³5HDOLVWLF'HQVLW\WLPHV
VL]H´ZKLFKLVSUHVXPDEO\FDOFXODWHGE\PXOWLSO\LQJWKH5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\E\WKH3DUFHO 6L]H7KH³7RWDO´QXPEHURIXQLWVRQHDFKVLWHLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHQXPEHUUHSRUWHGIRUWKH ³5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\WLPHVVL]H´H[FHSWIRUVLWHVWKDWDOUHDG\KDYHDQDSSURYHGQXPEHURI XQLWV
+RZHYHUVLWHVKDYHD³5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\WLPHVVL]H´³7RWDO´WKDWLVODUJHUWKDQWKH 5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\PXOWLSOLHGE\WKH3DUFHO6L]H)RU RIWKHVHVLWHVLWDSSHDUV0D['HQVLW\
$OORZHGZDVXVHGLQVWHDGRI5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\LQWKHFDOFXODWLRQ KLJKOLJKWHGRUDQJHEHORZ

)RU
RIWKHVHVLWHVDQXPEHUODUJHUWKDQ0D['HQVLW\$OORZHGZDVXVHG KLJKOLJKWHGUHG
EHORZ
DQGIRUVLWHVDQXPEHUEHWZHHQ5HDOLVWLF0D['HQVLW\DQG0D['HQVLW\$OORZHGZDV XVHG
KLJKOLJKWHG\HOORZEHORZ
%HWZHHQWKHGXSOLFDWH$31DQGWKHRYHUHVWLPDWLRQRI5HDOLVWLF 'HQVLW\WKH6LWHV/LVWRYHUHVWLPDWHVFDSDFLW\E\XQLWV $VVHVVRU
3DUFHO
1XPEHU

$31

0D[
'HQVLW\
$OORZHG

XQLWV
DFUH

5HDOLVWLF
0D[
'HQVLW\

XQLWV
DFUH

3DUFHO
6L]H

JURVV
DFUHV

5HDOLVWLF
'HQVLW\
WLPHVVL]H
>UHSRUWHG@
7RWDO 5HDOLVWLF
'HQVLW\
WLPHVVL]H
>DFWXDO@
       
    
   

       

     
 
 

    

    
       
    
       
       
    

       

       

     
 
 
     
 
 
       
       
     
 
 
    
    
    

    
    

    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    
       
$GGLWLRQDOO\RQSDJHWKHFLW\VWDWHVWKDW³)RUWKLVLQYHQWRU\QRLQGLYLGXDOVLWHOHVVWKDQ DFUHVLVDOORFDWHGWRZDUGORZHULQFRPHXQLWV
KRZHYHUDVSHU6WDWHJXLGDQFHVXFKVPDOOVLWHV
FDQEHFRQVLGHUHGHLWKHUPRGHUDWHLQFRPHDERYHPRGHUDWHLQFRPHRUERWK³+RZHYHUWKH IROORZLQJVLWHVDUHDOORFDWHGWRZDUGORZHULQFRPHXQLWVDQGDUHEHORZDKDOIDFUHLQVL]H 6LWH$GGUHVV $VVHVVRU3DUFHO
1XPEHU
$31

3DUFHO6L]H

JURVVDFUHV

$OORFDWLRQ
16DQ0DWHR'U 
   9/,/,
7LOWRQ    9/,/,
7LOWRQ    9/,/,
(O&DPLQR5HDO    9/,/, QG$YH    9/,/,
(O&DPLQR5HDO    9/,/, (O&DPLQR5HDO    9/,/, (O&DPLQR5HDO 
   9/,/,
:RRGVLGH:D\    9/,/,
$IILUPDWLYHO\)XUWKHULQJ)DLU+RXVLQJ
$%

3HU+&'¶V*XLGDQFH0HPRRQ$IILUPDWLYHO\)XUWKHULQJ)DLU+RXVLQJ³$%QRZUHTXLUHVWKDW DMXULVGLFWLRQLGHQWLI\VLWHVWKURXJKRXWWKHFRPPXQLW\LQDPDQQHUWKDWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKLWVGXW\ WRDIILUPDWLYHO\IXUWKHUIDLUKRXVLQJ
$))+
DQGWKHILQGLQJVRILWVDVVHVVPHQWRIIDLUKRXVLQJ
SXUVXDQWWR*RYHUQPHQW&RGHVHFWLRQVXEGLYLVLRQ F



$
 :KLOHWKH&LW\KDV
 &DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI+RXVLQJDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW$IILUPDWLYHO\)XUWKHULQJ)DLU+RXVLQJ *XLGDQFHIRU$OO3XEOLF(QWLWLHVDQGIRU+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWV$SULOSJ UHOHDVHGH[FHUSWVIURPWKHLU+RXVLQJ1HHGV'DWD5HSRUWLWLVXQFOHDUKRZWKHGDWD DVVHVVPHQWVSUHVHQWHGLQWKHUHSRUWLQIRUPHGWKHVHOHFWLRQRIVLWHV )RUH[DPSOHQRVLWHVIDOOLQWRWKH³+LJKHVW5HVRXUFH´7&$&2SSRUWXQLW\$UHDGHVLJQDWLRQDQGLW DSSHDUVWKDWWKHVLWHVSUHGRPLQDQWO\IDOOLQWRDUHDVZKHUHWKUHHRUIRXUUDFLDOJURXSVPL[ 0DSRI1HLJKERUKRRG6HJUHJDWLRQE\&HQVXV7UDFW

([FHUSWVIURP'UDIW+RXVLQJ1HHGV'DWD5HSRUW
6DQ0DWHR'HFHPEHU

0DSRI6LWHVOLVWHGRQ6DQ0DWHR¶V'UDIW6LWH,QYHQWRU\ 3OHDVHLGHQWLI\HQRXJKVLWHVDQGFRPPLWWRDQDSSURSULDWHSURJUDPRIUH]RQLQJDQGFRQVWUDLQW UHPRYDOLQDPDQQHUWKDWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK\RXUGXW\WRDIILUPDWLYHO\IXUWKHUIDLUKRXVLQJDQG VXFKWKDWWKHDFWXDOFDSDFLW\RIWKH6LWHV,QYHQWRU\RYHUWKHQH[WHLJKW\HDUVPHHWVRUH[FHHGV \RXU5+1$
7KHKRXVLQJFULVLVLVDUHJLRQDOSUREOHPDQGRXUFLWLHVPXVWZRUNWRJHWKHUWRVROYHLW7KDQN \RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
$GDP%XFKELQGHU
&DPSDLJQIRU)DLU+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWV
3HQLQVXODIRU(YHU\RQH

$SSHQGL[$
2IWKHVLWHVOLVWHGLQWKH&LW\¶V6LWH,QYHQWRU\LQWKH)LIWK+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWRQO\DERXWRU RQHWZHOIWKKDYHEHHQGHYHORSHG
'DWDLVDYDLODEOHIRUILYH\HDUVRIWKHF\FOHVRWKHPDWKLV 
7KH'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWPXVWLQFOXGHWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQDQGXVHLWWRDGMXVWͷ   ͻͶ ൈ ͺ 
ͷ 
ൌ  Ͳ Ǥ  Ͳͺͷ
LWV6L[WK&\FOHHVWLPDWHVRIUHDOLVWLFFDSDFLW\
&UHGLWLVDOVRJLYHQIRUGHYHORSPHQWRQQRQLQYHQWRU\VLWHVPLQXV$'8VDVIROORZV7DNHWKH WRWDOSURGXFWLRQRYHUWKHWLPHIUDPH6XEWUDFWGHYHORSPHQWRQLQYHQWRU\VLWHVDV UHSRUWHGRQ+&'¶VGDVKERDUG
IRUDQGE\WKH&LW\EHIRUHWKDW%HFDXVH$0, SURMHFWVDUHQRWUHSRUWHGE\DGGUHVVDVVXPHWKDWQRQHZHUHLQWKHVLWHLQYHQWRU\%HFDXVHVLWH QDPHVZHUHQRWLGHQWLILHGE\DGGUHVVRU$31PDQXDOPDWFKLQJZDVQHFHVVDULO\IX]]\)LQDOO\ VFDOHWKHUHPDLQGHUE\WRJHWWKHH[SHFWHGGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWKHHQWLUH)LIWK&\FOH 'HYHORSPHQWRQ1RQ,QYHQWRU\6LWHV
9/, /, 0, $0,
3URGXFWLRQ   
 
$'8V

    
$'8V

    
'HYHORSPHQWRQ,QYHQWRU\6LWHV

  
  

'HYHORSPHQWRQ,QYHQWRU\6LWHV

    
1HW1RQ,QYHQWRU\3URGXFWLRQ   
 

0XOWLSOLHGE\    
KWWSV
ZZZFLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW$QQXDO3URJUHVV 
KWWSV
DSSSRZHUELJRYXVYLHZ"U H\-U,MRL0'$<M%P17,W<]<Z16='GL/7KP0*0W<P)K0]F<7$]0 '0,LZLG&,,M-L2',1M4/:,Z0]FW1*=O1\1'(/:80]9M='0<<1L- SDJH1DPH 5HSRUW6HFW
LRQGDH

DEDE
1HZ&DSDFLW\1HHGHGWR$FFRPPRGDWH5+1$
9/, /, 0, $0, 7RWDO
5+1$IORRU 
    
1RPLQDO&DSDFLW\  

   

5HDOLVWLF&DSDFLW\
$GMXVWHGWR
     

3URMHFWHG1RQ,QYHQWRU\3URGXFWLRQ      $'8V
9/,/,0,$0,
     
5+1$IORRU5HDOLVWLF&DSDFLW\$'8V
1RQ,QYHQWRU\3URGXFWLRQ 6KRUWIDOO      1RPLQDO&DSDFLW\5HTXLUHG7R(OLPLQDWH6KRUWIDOO    
  


&ƌŽŵ͗
ůĚƌŝĚŐĞ͕<ĂƌLJůф х
^ĞŶƚ͗ DŽŶĚĂLJ͕&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϬϳ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϬ͗ϮϭD
dŽ͗ ZŝĐŬŽŶŝůůĂфZŽŶŝůůĂΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ŵŽƵƌĞŶĐĞ>ĞĞфĂůĞĞΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ŝĂŶĞWĂƉĂŶ фĚƉĂƉĂŶΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖:ŽĞ'ŽĞƚŚĂůƐфũŐŽĞƚŚĂůƐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ ƌŝĐZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnj
фĞƌŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnjΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
Đ͗ ĚĂŵEƵŐĞŶƚфĂŶƵŐĞŶƚΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ZĂŵŝƌŽDĂůĚŽŶĂĚŽ:ƌ͘фƌŵĂůĚŽŶĂĚŽΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ DĂƌŐĂƌĞƚtŝůůŝĂŵƐфŵǁŝůůŝĂŵƐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖^ĞĞŵĂWĂƚĞůфƐƉĂƚĞůΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖:ŽŚŶ ďŶĞƚĞƌ
фũĞďŶĞƚĞƌΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ƌĞǁŽƌďĞƚƚфĚĐŽƌďĞƚƚΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖WĂƚƌŝĐĞKůĚƐ фƉŽůĚƐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ K^DƌĞŵĂƌŬƐŽŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ
'HDU0D\RU%RQLOODDQG0HPEHUVRIWKH6DQ0DWHR&LW\&RXQFLO ,QUHVSRQVHWRWKHVWDIIUHSRUWGDWHG)HEUXDU\ZKRVHVXEMHFWLV³+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW*RDOV3ROLFLHVDQG 3URJUDPV´2QH6DQ0DWHRZRXOGOLNHWRRIIHUWKHIROORZLQJUHPDUNVRQDIHZLWHPVWKDWDUHRIVSHFLDOLQWHUHVW WRXV
)5$0,1* )LUVWZHZRXOGOLNHWRVXSSRUWWKHXWLOL]DWLRQRIWKH 7KUHH3¶VLQWKHIUDPLQJRIWKH+RXVLQJ (OHPHQWJRDOV 7KLVUHIOHFWVFXUUHQWWKLQNLQJDERXWWKHKLJKOHY HOFDWHJRULHVRIDFWLRQVWKDWQHHGWREHLQFOXGHG LQDFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQWRSURPRWHLQFOXVLRQDQGSURYLGHIRUDMXULVGLFWLRQ¶VIXWXUHKRXVLQJQHHGV ,WLVDFULVS DQGHIIHFWLYHZD\WRRUJDQL]HWKLQNLQJDERXWWKHP\ULDGVWUDWHJLHVWKDWFDQEHXVHGWRDGGUHVVRXUDIIRUGDELOLW\ SUREOHPDQGHQVXUHDVXLWDEOHOLYLQJHQYLURQPHQWIRUDOO6DQ0DWHDQV :HHQFRXUDJHDGRSWLRQRIWKH7KUHH3¶V IUDPHZRUNDQGVXSSRUWWKHDGGLWLRQRIDVXVWDLQDELOLW\JRDODVZHOO ,QWKHLQWHUHVWRIFRQVLVWHQF\WKLVIRXUWK JRDOPLJKWEHJLQZLWKWKHZRUG³3XUVXLW´
',63/$&(0(17 8QGHUWKH³)DLU+RXVLQJ´KHDGLQJRQ$WWDFKPHQW ZHHQFRXUDJHWKHLQFOXVLRQRID QXPEHURIVWUDWHJLHVWKDWKDYHEHHQXSKHOGE\FRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIVXUYH\VDQGIRUXPVDQG ZKRVHLPSRUWDQFHZDVDFNQRZOHGJHGDWWKHFRXQFLO¶VEOXHVNLHVHYHQWRQ-DQXDU\  7KHVHVWUDWHJLHVDUH
LQWHQGHGWRUHGXFHGLVSODFHPHQWE\SUHYHQWLQJSHRSOHIURPEHLQJIRUFHGIURPWKHLUKRPHV 7KHVSHFLILFHQWULHV WKDWDGGUHVVWKLVDUHDVIROORZV

ƒ 5HTXLUHGRFXPHQWDWLRQIURPODQGORUGVZKRXVHUHPRGHOH[HPSWLRQWRHYLFWWHQDQWV $%

ƒ 5HTXLUHWHQDQWUHORFDWLRQSD\PHQWVIRU1R)DXOWHYLFWLRQVIRUWKRVHZLWKWHQXUHOHVVWKDQRQH\HDU

H[WHQG

ƒ (VWDEOLVKDUHQWDOUHJLVWU\WRWUDFNUHQWVDQGHYLFWLRQVFLW\ZLGH 3238/$7,2135,25,7,(6 7KHLQGLYLGXDOVPRVWXQGHUVHUYHGE\WKHP DUNHWZKRVHYHU\VXUYLYDOLV WKUHDWHQHGE\RXUVSHFWDFXODUKRXVLQJFRVWVDUHWKRVHZLWKWKHORZHVWLQFRPHVDQGWKRVHZLWKVSHFLDO QHHGV 7KHUHIRUHXQGHUWKH³)DLU+RXVLQJ´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

7KDQN\RXLQDGYDQFHIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQWRRXUWKRXJKWVDQGIRUWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRVKDUHWKHPZLWK\RX 
6LQFHUHO\

.DU\O(OGULGJH
9LFH&KDLURI2QH6DQ0DWHR

1 Sandra Council
From: Mary Way
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:31 PM
To: Joan Diskin
Cc: Sandra Council
Subject: FW: Joint Meeting on Housing Element
Hi Joan,

Here is another Public Comment for tonight’s meeting.

Mary

From: Evelyn Stivers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Rick Bonilla <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Eldridge, Karyl <[email protected]>; Jordan Grimes <[email protected]>; Adam Nugent <[email protected]>; Justin Alley <[email protected]>; Bob Whitehair <[email protected]>; Chris Blom <[email protected]>; Ellis Berns <[email protected]>; Schneider, Nancy <[email protected]>; Jim Sell <[email protected]>; Jan Stokley <[email protected]>; John Ebneter <[email protected]>; John Tastor <[email protected]>; Abreu, Ken <[email protected]>; Karyl Eldridge <[email protected]>; Valerie Rynne <[email protected]> Subject: Joint Meeting on Housing Element

Hello Mayor, members of the city council, and planning commission:

HLC is very interested in tonight’s joint Planning Commission and Council meeting to discuss policies for the housing element and I would like to share our perspective and our policy priorities. Housing Element policies are usually designed and formed to both meet the needs identified in the needs assessment and to overcome barriers identified under constraints. Additionally this year, the city must complete a fair housing analysis that would also present opportunities for solutions.

While this could hurt the city’s ability to get a certified housing element on the first try, if the city changes task order, it will make it easier to engage with the local community and to, make a better plan, and shorten the review process..

That said, we have some specific policies that we would like you to consider:

Funding:

1. Increase the commercial linkage fee and design it to preference partnerships between affordable housing providers and commercial developers.

2. Increase the transfer tax on real estate sales over 1 million dollars.

3. Make affordable homes exempt from some fees (like park fees) to decrease the cost and make the city’s limited resources stretch further.

On sites:

1. Beyond following state guidelines on the process for deve loping a sites list, look at publicly owned sites,
including areas that are owned by other agencies, for the opportunity to provide affordable homes. 2 2. Also look at quasi public sites (churches, nonprofits). If an institution is interested in developing affordable homes, what steps (including rezoning) does the city need to take to enable that development.

Overcoming Constraints:

1. Again, complying with state law and identifying constraints before you make decisions on policies is critical.

2. Strategies for parcel assembly

3. Lower your parking requirements, where appropriate

4. Review the neighborhood a ssociations practices for electing leaders, hosting meetings, and providing opportunities for everyone in the neighborhood to participate.

In addition, the city needs specific policies and programs to create ELI housing and housing for special needs populations, and to help prevent displacement and homelessness.

The process for developing a housing element has changed significantly since the last cycle. It is challenging to keep up with the changes and meet the deadlines. But San Mateo has some of the strongest housing leaders on both the Planning Commission and City Council. It is HLC’s hope that the City will create a model Housing Element - one of the best in the state that will serve a an example to other communities in our county and follow the process as outlined by HCD. We look forward to the continued conversation about policies and programs after other work has been completed.

Thank you for your time and leadership.

Evelyn Stivers
Executive Director
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 S El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
510-334-3362 cell
www.hlcsmc.org

+RXVLQJ
(OHPHQW
%HVW
3UDFWLFHV

/HVVRQVIURP
3UHYLRXV&\FOHV
-DQXDU\
+286,1*(/(0(17%(6735$&7,&(6

/HVVRQVIURP3UHYLRXV&\FOHV
0LG3HQ+RXVLQJKDVFRPSLOHGDVHWRIFDVHVWXGLHVWRLOOXVWUDWHKLJKLPSDFWSROLFLHVDGYDQFHGLQWKHODVW +RXVLQJ(OHPHQWF\FOHDQGVXJJHVWVWUDWHJLHVEDVHGRQVXFFHVVIXOLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ7KLVFXUUHQWF\FOH SUHVHQWVDQLPSRUWDQWRSSRUWXQLW\WREXLOGDQGH[SDQGXSRQZKDWZRUNHGSUHYLRXVO\WRSODQIRUHTXLWDEOH JURZWK
$WWKHWLPHRIWKHODVW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWF\FOHPDQ\RIWKHWRROVSURILOHGZHUHGHVLJQHGWRH[FHHG6WDWH OHYHOSROLFLHVHVWDEOLVKHGE\WKH6WDWH'HQVLW\%RQXV/DZ 6'%/
IRUSURMHFWVZLWKDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ,Q
UHFHQW\HDUVWKH6WDWH¶VSROLFLHVWKURXJKWKHPRUHSRZHUIXO6'%/DQG6%SURFHGXUDOLQFHQWLYHVKDYH HYROYHGFRQVLGHUDEO\DFFHOHUDWLQJFKDQJH7KLVFUHDWHVDQRSSRUWXQLW\ZLWKWKLVQH[WF\FOHWRDJDLQORRN DWWKH6WDWHOHYHOODQGVFDSHDVDEDVHWRUHVSRQGWREXLOGIURPDQGH[FHHGZLWKORFDOSROLFLHVWDLORUHGWR ORFDOVSHFLILFVDQGQHHGV
$VZLWKWKHPRVWUHFHQWF\FOHMXULVGLFWLRQVFDQORRNDWWRGD\¶VWRROVDQGILQGZD\VWRPDNHWKHPPRVW HIIHFWLYHE\PDNLQJPRUHVLWHVHOLJLEOHRUVHWSROLFLHVWKDWJREH\RQGWKHPZLWKWKHJRDOVRIGHOLYHULQJPRUH KRXVLQJPRUHTXLFNO\-XULVGLFWLRQVDEOHWRPD[LPL]HODQGRSSRUWXQLWLHVDQGUHGXFHGHYHORSPHQWFRVWVFDQ KHOSVSUHDGOLPLWHGSXEOLFUHVRXUFHVIXUWKHU*LYHQWKHYDVWO\FKDQJHG6WDWHODQGVFDSHMXULVGLFWLRQVKDYHD PXFKGLIIHUHQWVWDUWLQJSRLQWWKDQWKHODVW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWF\FOHWRHYDOXDWHRSSRUWXQLWLHVWKDWJHQHUDWHWKH PRVWLPSDFWIURPWKHLUSROLFLHV
7KH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWLVDNH\VWHSWRDGYDQFHWKHLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHHGHGWRVXSSRUWLQFOXVLYHGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKSODQQLQJDQGEXLOGLQJWRROV7KHPRVWHIIHFWLYHMXULVGLFWLRQVKDGVLWHLQYHQWRULHVDQGSROLFLHVWKDW ZHUHFRPSOHPHQWDU\$VMXULVGLFWLRQVZRUNRQWKHLUSROLF\WRROVZLWKWKLVF\FOHLWLVFULWLFDOWRWDNHDWDFWLFDO DSSURDFKWRVLWHVHOHFWLRQWRUHDOL]HIHDVLEOHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ:HKRSHWKHVHH[DPSOHVDUHXVHIXOWRFLW\ SDUWQHUVDQGRWKHUFRPPXQLW\VWDNHKROGHUV

5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLELOLW\RIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJE\VSUHDGLQJGHQVLW\DQG RWKHUSODQQLQJFDOFXODWLRQVDFURVVDODUJHUGHYHORSPHQWVLWH &,7<(;$03/(
)RVWHU&LW\
)RVWHU&LW\LGHQWLILHGDQXQGHYHORSHGDFUH&LW\RZQHGSURSHUW\DGMDFHQWWR&LW\+DOODVD KRXVLQJRSSRUWXQLW\VLWHZLWKDYLVLRQIRUDPDVWHUSODQQHGPL[HGXVHPL[HGLQFRPHVHQLRU FRPPXQLW\,QWKH&LW\EHJDQQHJRWLDWLRQVZLWKWKHPDVWHUGHYHORSHUDQGSXUVXHGD SURMHFWWKDWFRQVLVWHGRIDIIRUGDEOHKRPHVDORQJZLWKPDUNHWUDWHDQGDVVLVWHGOLYLQJ XQLWV,QDGGLWLRQWRLQFOXGLQJWKHVLWHLQWKHLUKRXVLQJHOHPHQWDQRWKHUHQDEOLQJSROLF\ZDV XWLOL]DWLRQRIDVHQLRUKRXVLQJRYHUOD\]RQHWRIDFLOLWDWHDIIRUGDEOHVHQLRUKRXVLQJ UHGXFHG
SDUNLQJQHHGVUHGXFHGXQLWVL]HVLQFUHDVHGGHQVLW\IHHZDLYHUVSULRULW\SURFHVVLQJ 7KLV
IRUPEDVHG)ORRU$UHD5DWLR
)$5
EDVHGDSSURDFKWRGHQVLW\PDNHVVHQVHIRUSURMHFWVZLWK VPDOOHUXQLWW\SHVOLNHVHQLRURUVXSSRUWLYHKRXVLQJ6WUXFWXULQJWKHGHYHORSPHQW¶VKLJKOHYHO DSSURYDOVDVDODUJHUPDVWHUSODQLQVWHDGRIEUHDNLQJLQWRWKUHHWRIRXUVHSDUDWHSURMHFWV HQDEOHGFRVWVDYLQJVIRUWKHDIIRUGDEOHUHVLGHQWLDOFRPSRQHQWLQFUHDVLQJIHDVLELOLW\ 222 Shared
Surface Stalls
Retail C/D w/ Assisted
Living Above 28 Stalls in
Garage
Retail A w/
Affordable Senior
Housing Above
Retail B
Bldg Type B
28 Garage
Stalls
Typical
Bldg Type C
48 Garage
Stalls Typical
Bldg
Type B
Bldg
Type B
Bldg
Type B
Bldg
Type C
Bldg
Type A
Bldg
Type A
Bldg
Type A
Bldg
Type A
Bldg
Type ABldg
Type A
Bldg
Type A
Bldg Type A
24 Garage Stalls
Typical 36 Surface Stalls
39 Surface Stalls
CENTRAL ST - 31 Stalls

BALCLUTHA DR

FOSTER CITY BLVD

SHELL BLVD

PASEO B

CIVIC CENTER DR
A STREET - 20 Stalls B STREET - 7 Stalls

PASEO A
Bldg Type B
d
d
d
d
yp
yp
d
y
y
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
y
y
d
d
B
l
d
Bl
d
l
d
l
d
l
B
B
B
B
d
d
ld
d
d
l
d
l
l
d
28 Garage
8 8
8 e
e
e
ge
rag
rage
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
8 8
8 8
28 28
Stalls
lls
lls
l
l
Typical
T
T
T
ca
l
ca
l
l
c
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
T
T
c
c
T
T
T
T
Bldg
B
Type B
B
B
B
Ty
Ty
p
p
B
B
B
B
p
B
B
BldgBldgdgd
g
g
d
d
Bl
d
g
dg
g
g
BldgBldgd
Bldg
Type A
T
T
T
BldgBllld
l
g
g
l
ldg
B
BldgBldBld
Bldg
Type A
pyp
yp

SHELL BLVDD
352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

$OPD3RLQWDW)RVWHU6TXDUHFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUHXQLWVDFUHLQFOXGLQJVKDUHG
VXUIDFHSDUNLQJ

‡ ,PSDFW
7KH&LW\¶VVHQLRUKRXVLQJRYHUOD\HQDEOHGWKH
SURMHFWWRDFKLHYHDPXFKKLJKHUGHQVLW\OHYHOZKLOHILWWLQJ ZLWKLQDQDSSURSULDWHEXLOWIRUPIRUWKHVLWH*LYHQWKDWWKH VLWHLVVHQLRUKRXVLQJZLWKVPDOOHUXQLWVWKHVLWHFDQVXSSRUW PXFKKLJKHUXQLWVDFUHZLWKLQWKHVDPHEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQW )RVWHU&LW\¶VFRGHKDVDPLQLPXPVTXDUHIRRWDJHIRUUHQWDO XQLWVRIVTIWZKLOHVHQLRUKRXVLQJXQLWVDUHW\SLFDOO\ EHORZVTIWIRUVWXGLRVEHGURRPV7KHDELOLW\WR OHYHUDJHQRQUHVLGHQWLDOFRPSRQHQWVRIWKHSURMHFW
SXEOLF
VSDFHDQGFRPPHUFLDOVSDFH
UHGXFHGFRVWVIRUHOHPHQWV
OLNHSDUNLQJDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH6HQLRUSDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV RIXQLWIRUUHVLGHQWVDQGXQLWIRUJXHVWZRXOGKDYH UHVXOWHGLQDUHTXLUHG
UDWLR:LWKVKDUHGSDUNLQJWKH
SURMHFWZDVDEOHWRPRYHIRUZDUGZLWKD

UDWLR
‡ &RVWVDYLQJVRI0LQFOXGLQJ0LQVKDUHG
LQIUDVWUXFWXUHDQG.LQVDYHGFRVWVYLDWKHSDUNLQJ

UHGXFWLRQ
‡ ,QFUHDVHGGHQVLW\IURPXQLWVDFUHWRXQLWVDFUH 32/,&<
0DVWHUSODQQHGVLWHVZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRPD[LPL]H
KRXVLQJGHQVLW\DQGVKDUHLQIUDVWUXFWXUH
VHQLRUKRXVLQJRYHUOD\
32/,&<
)HHH[HPSWLRQVIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLELOLW\RIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJE\GHFUHDVLQJFRVWV &,7<(;$03/(
6XQQ\YDOHH[HPSWLRQIRUSDUNLQOLHXIHHV
‡ 3DUNGHGLFDWLRQLQOLHXIHH

SHUVTXDUHIRRW
‡ 7KLVLVWKHELJJHVWOHYHULQ6XQQ\YDOH¶VIHHVFKHGXOH ‡ 7KH&LW\ZDLYHVSDUNIHHVIRUDIIRUGDEOHUHQWDOSURMHFWVDQGI RUDIIRUGDEOHXQLWVLQ PL[HGLQFRPHUHQWDOSURMHFWVVXFKDVDIIRUGDEOHXQLWVLQGHQVLW\ERQXVSURMHFWV 352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

(GZLQD%HQQHU3OD]DFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ 3DUNLPSDFWIHH
0

.SHUXQLW

‡ ,PSDFW
7KLVH[HPSWLRQUHGXFHGWKH
WRWDOGHYHORSPHQWEXGJHWE\DERXW
7KHVHZDLYHGIHHVDUHDOVR
DGYDQWDJHRXVWRWKHSURMHFW¶VDELOLW\
WRVHFXUHILQDQFLQJDVWKH\FRXQW
WRZDUGVWKHORFDOOHYHUDJHFDOFXODWLRQ
XWLOL]HGE\FRPSHWLWLYHILQDQFLQJ
VRXUFHVOLNHWKH/RZ,QFRPH+RXVLQJ
7D[&UHGLWSURJUDP
/,+7&

352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

6RQRUD&RXUWLQGHYHORSPHQW
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ 3DUN,PSDFW)HH
$SSUR[LPDWHO\0

.SHUXQLW

‡ ,PSDFW
7KLVH[HPSWLRQUHGXFHGWKH
WRWDOGHYHORSPHQWEXGJHWE\DERXW
7KHVHZDLYHGIHHVDUHDOVR
DGYDQWDJHRXVWRWKHSURMHFW¶VDELOLW\WR
VHFXUHILQDQFLQJDVWKH\FRXQWWRZDUGV
WKHORFDOOHYHUDJHFDOFXODWLRQXWLOL]HG
E\FRPSHWLWLYHILQDQFLQJVRXUFHVOLNH
WKH/RZ,QFRPH+RXVLQJ7D[&UHGLW
SURJUDP
/,+7&

32/,&<
5HGXFHGSDUNLQJVWDQGDUGVIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLELOLW\RIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJE\GHFUHDVLQJFRVWV 6DYHVRQHRIWKHW\SLFDOZDLYHUVLQWKH6WDWH'HQVLW\%RQXV/DZ 6'%/
VR
GHYHORSHUVFDQXVHLWIRUDQRWKHUIHDVLELOLW\LPSURYLQJPRGLILFDWLRQ &,7<(;$03/(
6XQQ\YDOHSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQV
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¶VSURSRVHGSDUNLQJVWDQGDUGLVDGHTXDWHWKURXJKDFRPELQDWLRQRIDQ\ RIWKHIROORZLQJFRQVLGHUDWLRQV
ORFDWLRQRUSUR[LPLW\WRWUDQVSRUWDWLRQYDULHW\RUIRUPV RIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDYDLODEOHDFFHVVLELOLW\VHUYLFHVDQGSURJUDPVRIIHUHGRUSRSXODWLRQ VHUYHGE\WKHSURSRVHGKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW0DQ\MXULVGLFWLRQVKDYHDGRSWHGORZHU SDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJEDVHGRQUREXVWGDWDVKRZLQJORZHUUDWHV RIFDURZQHUVKLSDQGXWLOL]DWLRQDWDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURSHUWLHVJLYHQLQFRPHDVZHOODV ORFDWLRQVWKDWDUHRIWHQSUR[LPDWHWRKLJKTXDOLW\WUDQVLWJLYHQILQDQFLQJSURJUDPFULWHULD 352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

2QL]XND&URVVLQJFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ 3DUNLQJVSDFHVUHTXLUHGZLWKRXWUHVWULFWLRQV

‡ 3DUNLQJVSDFHVSURYLGHGZLWKUHGXFWLRQV


‡ &RVWSHUVSDFH
.
‡ 3DUNLQJVDYLQJV
.
‡ ,PSDFW
7KLVSROLF\UHGXFHGWKHWRWDOGHYHORSPHQW
EXGJHWE\DERXWDQGHQDEOHGWKHSURMHFW
WRXWLOL]HLWV6'%/FRQFHVVLRQVIRURWKHULWHPV
LPSDFWLQJIHDVLELOLW\

32/,&<
([FHSWLRQVWRGHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ 5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLELOLW\RIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWKURXJKH[HPSWLRQVWKDWJR DERYHDQGEH\RQGZKDWZRXOGEHHQDEOHGWKURXJK6'%/
&,7<(;$03/(
+DOI0RRQ%D\
6HFWLRQ
+
RIWKH]RQLQJFRGHVWDWHVWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVIRUUHVLGHQWLDO XVHVPD\EHZDLYHGRUUHOD[HGIRUDQDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURMHFW7KLVSURYLVLRQDOORZV GHYHORSHUVPXFKIOH[LELOLW\LQGHVLJQLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURMHFWV0LQLPXPORWVL]HV ZLGWKVVHWEDFNVSDUNLQJDQGRWKHUUHTXLUHPHQWVFDQEHUHGXFHGRUZDLYHGDVORQJDV WKHUHVXOWLQJGHYHORSPHQWFRQIRUPVWRWKHFHUWLILHG/RFDO&RDVWDO3URJUDP /&3
DQGRWKHU
DSSOLFDEOHSURYLVLRQVRIWKH]RQLQJFRGHRXWVLGHRIFKDSWHU7KLVZDVDSSOLHGLQ 0LG3HQ¶V+DOI0RRQ9LOODJHSURMHFWZKLFKZDVHQDEOHGWKURXJKSDUWQHUVKLSZLWKWKH6DQ 0DWHR&RXQW\+RXVLQJ$XWKRULW\DQG&LW\RI+DOI0RRQ%D\ 352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

+DOI0RRQ9LOODJHFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ ([FHSWLRQV
PD[LPXPKHLJKW
IURP
WRIW
DQGSDUNLQJ
WR

3HUIRUPHGGHQVLW\FDOFXODWLRQVORRNLQJ
DWWKHODUJHUFDPSXVDUHDZKLFK
DUULYHGDWDGHQVLW\WKDWPHW/&3

UHTXLUHPHQWV
‡ ,PSDFW
:LWKUHGXFHGSDUNLQJDQG
LQFUHDVHGKHLJKWWKLVSROLF\HQDEOHG
UHGHYHORSPHQWWRLQFUHDVHWKHQXPEHU
RIKRPHVIURPH[LVWLQJXQLWVWR
QHZXQLWV
&RVWVDYLQJVRI0IRUUHGXFHG
SDUNLQJRIWKHWRWDOGHYHORSPHQW
EXGJHW

32/,&<
$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ2YHUOD\]RQH
5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLELOLW\RIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWKURXJKWDUJHWHGLQFHQWLYHV WKDWH[FHHGWKH6'%/
8S]RQLQJWLHGWRFRPPXQLW\EHQHILW
&,7<(;$03/(
0HQOR3DUN$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ2YHUOD\
$+2

7KURXJK0HQOR3DUN¶V+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWSURFHVVDQGVLWHLQYHQWRU\DQDO\VLVWKH\DUULYHG DWWKHSROLF\WRRORIDQ$+2]RQHZLWKLQFHQWLYHVWKDWJREH\RQGWKH6'%/7KHUH]RQLQJ DSSOLHGWKHRYHUOD\WRDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJRSSRUWXQLW\VLWHVDVZHOODVDWDUJHWHGVSHFLILF SODQDUHD2YHUOD\VOLNHWKLVFUHDWHDZLQZLQIRUVLWHRZQHUVDQGGHYHORSHUVWKDWZDQWWR SURYLGHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJDVWKHRYHUOD\LQFUHDVHVVLWHYDOXHIRUWKRVHZKRFDQH[HFXWH RQWKHGHYHORSPHQWYLVLRQEHLQJLQFHQWLYL]HG0HQOR3DUN¶V*DWHZD\$SDUWPHQWVDQ DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURSHUW\DFTXLUHGE\0LG3HQLQWKH VSUHVHQWHGDQRSSRUWXQLW\IRU
DGGLQJXQLWV7KH&LW\ZRUNHGWRLGHQWLI\SURSHUWLHVWKDWFRXOGEHDILWIRUERWKSODQQLQJDQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQORRNLQJDWRZQHUVKLSDQGDOLJQPHQW
352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

6HTXRLD%HOOH+DYHQFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV


XQLWVDFUH

‡ 8QLWVSHUPLWWHGXQGHU56]RQLQJZLWKRXW$+2

XQLWVDFUH
‡ 8QLWVSHUPLWWHGXQGHU56]RQLQJZLWKWKH$+2

XQLWVDFUHYVXQLWVDFUHXQGHUPD[6'%/
‡ 8QLWVSHUPLWWHGXQGHUSULRUVLWH]RQLQJ
5
ZLWKWKH
6'%/
XQLWVDFUHPD[SOXV6'%/IRUXQLWV
DFUH
‡ 2WKHU$+2LQFHQWLYHVXWLOL]HG

  IHHZDLYHU
  UHGXFHGSDUNLQJ
  VHWEDFNV
  EXLOGLQJKHLJKW
‡ ,PSDFW
7KLVSROLF\HQDEOHGDGGLWLRQDOXQLWVRQWKH
VLWH
IURPH[LVWLQJWR
ZLWKWKHUHGHYHORSPHQW

WKURXJKWKHUH]RQLQJSXUVXHGGXULQJWKH&LW\¶V
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWSURFHVVDQGLQFUHDVHGSURMHFW
IHDVLELOLW\WKURXJKWKH$+2DOWHUQDWLYHWRWKH6'%/

32/,&<
8VHRIVXUSOXVODQGDQG&LW\OHGUH]RQLQJ
0,'3(1+286,1*3$*( 5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLEOHGHYHORSPHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHVDQGUHPRYHV]RQLQJULVN &,7<(;$03/(
)UHPRQW
7KH&LW\RI)UHPRQWUHYLHZHGWKHLUSURSHUWLHVDQGLGHQWLILHGVXUSOXVRSSRUWXQLWLHVLQFOXGLQJ DFWLRQVWRHQKDQFHIHDVLELOLW\RIGHYHORSPHQWWKURXJKLWV*HQHUDO3ODQ$PHQGPHQW *3$

DQGUH]RQLQJ7KH\LGHQWLILHGDDFUHYDFDQWVLWHZKLFKEHFDPH6WHYHQVRQ7HUUDFHDV ODQGWRVHOORUOHDVHWRORFDOSXEOLFHQWLWLHVSURSRVLQJWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIORZDQGPRGHUDWH LQFRPHKRXVLQJSHUWKH6WDWH¶V6XUSOXV/DQG$FWUHTXLUHPHQW7KH&LW\DOVRLVVXHGD1RWLFH RI)XQGLQJ$YDLODELOLW\
12)$
WRSURYLGHILQDQFLQJIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW ZKLFKDFFHOHUDWHGWKHSURFHVVVRWKDW6WHYHQVRQ7HUUDFHFRXOGEHHQWLWOHGSRVLWLRQHGWR VHFXUHDGGLWLRQDOQHHGHGILQDQFLQJDQGFRQVWUXFWHGWRSURYLGHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWRIDPLOLHV TXLFNO\$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHXVHRIWKH6'%/SHUPLWWHGDKLJKHUGHQVLW\DQGFRQFHVVLRQVWR VXSSRUWDFRVWHIIHFWLYHGHVLJQVXSSRUWLQJWKH&LW\¶VYLVLRQIRUPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ 352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

6WHYHQVRQ7HUUDFHFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ 5H]RQLQJ
&LW\UH]RQHGIURPRSHQVSDFHWRPHGLXPGHQVLW\UHVLGHQWLDOSULRUWRGLVSRVLWLRQ ‡ ,PSDFW
7KLVSROLF\HQDEOHGKLJKGHQVLW\KRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWDQGDFFHOHUDWHGGHOLYHU\RI KRXVLQJXQLWV

32/,&<
,GHQWLI\LQJKRXVLQJRSSRUWXQLW\VLWHVRZQHGE\PLVVLRQDOLJQHG RUJDQL]DWLRQV
5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVOLNHOLKRRGRIQHDUWHUPSURJUHVVRQKRXVLQJJRDOV &,7<(;$03/(
6DQWD&UX]&RXQW\
6W6WHSKHQV6HQLRU+RXVLQJLVDXQLWVHQLRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFRPPXQLW\LQWKH /LYH2DNFRPPXQLW\RIXQLQFRUSRUDWHG6DQWD&UX]&RXQW\/RQJFRQVLGHUHGD³SULRULW\ GHYHORSPHQWDUHD´E\WKHIRUPHU&RXQW\5HGHYHORSPHQW$JHQF\LWZDVWKURXJKD SDUWQHUVKLSZLWKUHJLRQDOQRQSURILW&RPPXQLWLHV2UJDQL]HGIRU5HODWLRQDO3RZHULQ $FWLRQ
&23$
WKDWDORFDOPHPEHURUJDQL]DWLRQH[SUHVVHGDZLOOLQJQHVVWRVXSSRUWWKH SURYLVLRQRIPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJE\XWLOL]LQJDYDFDQWSRUWLRQRIWKHLUSURSHUW\7KH &RXQW\RI6DQWD&UX]VXEVHTXHQWO\DSSURYHGWKHVXEGLYLVLRQDQGUH]RQLQJRIaDFUHV RIWKHH[LVWLQJ6W6WHSKHQV&KXUFKSURSHUW\IURPSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHVWRPXOWLIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO WRHQDEOH6W6WHSKHQV6HQLRU+RXVLQJWREHEXLOW%H\RQGWKHXWLOL]DWLRQRIWKH6'%/ WRDFKLHYHKLJKHUGHQVLW\WKH&RXQW\¶VFRGHDOVRSURYLGHGDSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQIRU VHQLRUKRXVLQJDVZHOODVDOORZHGDVKDUHGSDUNLQJDUUDQJHPHQWZLWKWKH&KXUFKZKLFK VLJQLILFDQWO\UHGXFHGGHYHORSPHQWFRVWV7KHVHSROLFLHVHQDEOHGWKH&KXUFKWRHQDFW WKHLUYLVLRQRIDOLJQLQJVXUSOXVUHDOHVWDWHWRPHHWWKHLUFRUHPLVVLRQWKURXJKDGYDQFLQJ DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

6W6WHSKHQV6HQLRU+RXVLQJFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ 3DUNLQJVDYLQJV
.
‡ ,PSDFW
5H]RQLQJDQG6'%/HQDEOHGDGGLWLRQDOXQLWVRQWKHVLWHDQGWKHUHGXFHGSDUNLQJ DOORZDQFHLQFUHDVHGSURMHFWIHDVLELOLW\DQGORZHUHGGHYHORSPHQWFRVWV VWDQGDUGUHTXLUHPHQWV

32/,&<
3XEOLFVHFWRUOHGUH]RQLQJIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
5$7,21$/(
,QFUHDVHVIHDVLEOHGHYHORSPHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHVDQGUHPRYHV]RQLQJULVN &,7<(;$03/(
6DQWD&UX]&RXQW\
$VSDUWRIWKH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWHIIRUWWKH&RXQW\UH]RQHGVLWHVWRWDOLQJ DSSUR[LPDWHO\
DFUHVWRDGHQVLW\RIXQLWVDFUHFUHDWLQJSRWHQWLDOIRUQHDUO\XQLWV 7KH\DOVRFRPSOHWHGWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZSURFHVV
352-(&7,03$&7(;$03/(

7RGDWH0LG3HQKDVGHYHORSHGRIWKHVLWHVLQFOXGLQJ6FKDSLUR.QROOV3LSSLQ2UFKDUGV $SDUWPHQWVDQG$SWRV%OXHDQGLVLQWKHSURFHVVRIGHYHORSLQJ3LSSLQ3KDVH,,7KHVH SURMHFWVZHUH]RQHGE\ULJKWSHUWKH&RXQW\¶V3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQW 38'
'HVLJQ
UHYLHZLVWKHRQO\UHPDLQLQJGLVFUHWLRQDU\DSSURYDOUHTXLUHGWRGHYHORSWKHSURSHUW\7KLV UHPRYHVVXEVWDQWLDOEXVLQHVVULVNIRULQFRPLQJGHYHORSPHQWSDUWQHUVDQGGHFUHDVHVWKH WLPHDQGPRQH\QHHGHGWRREWDLQHQWLWOHPHQWV0LG3HQHVWLPDWHVWKLVVDYHG0EHWZHHQ WKHSURMHFWVDQGDOVRVKRUWHQHGHDFKWLPHOLQHE\DWOHDVWPRQWKV 6DQWD&UX]&RXQW\+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW6LWHV'HYHORSHG,Q'HYHORSPHQW ‡ 3URMHFWDQG8QLWV
FRPPXQLWLHVWRWDOLQJKRPHV
‡ ,PSDFW
7KLVSROLF\HQDEOHGDGGLWLRQDOXQLWVEH\RQGZKDWZRXOGKDYHEHHQIHDVLEOHXQGHU WKHSUHYLRXV]RQLQJ
32/,&<
,GHQWLI\LQJSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHO\RZQHGVLWHVZLWKH[LVWLQJ KRXVLQJVWRFNIRUWRWDOUHGHYHORSPHQWWRLQFUHDVHGHQVLW\ 5$7,21$/(
3RWHQWLDOWRERWKLPSURYHDQGH[SDQGVWRFNRIKRXVLQJ
,QFUHDVHVOLNHOLKRRGRIQHDUWHUPSURJUHVVRQKRXVLQJJRDOV &,7<(;$03/(
3OHDVDQWRQ
.RWWLQJHU*DUGHQVLVWKHUHGHYHORSPHQWRI.RWWLQJHU3ODFHDQG3OHDVDQWRQ*DUGHQVWZR H[LVWLQJVHQLRUFRPPXQLWLHVLQWKH&LW\RI3OHDVDQWRQLQWRRQHLQWHJUDWHGVHQLRUDIIRUGDEOH KRXVLQJFRPPXQLW\ZLWKQHZXQLWVGRXEOLQJWKHRULJLQDOFRXQW.RWWLQJHU3ODFHZDV RZQHGE\WKH&LW\¶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
(;$03/(

.RWWLQJHU*DUGHQVFRPSOHWHG
‡ 8QLWV

XQLWVDFUH

‡ ,PSDFW
5HGHYHORSPHQW
RI
IXQFWLRQDOO\REVROHWH
SXEOLFKRXVLQJXQLWVDQG
SULYDWHO\RZQHGDIIRUGDEOH
KRPHVIRUVHQLRUVLQWRD
KLJKTXDOLW\QHZVHQLRU
DIIRUGDEOHGHYHORSPHQWRI
XQLWV
32/,&<
,GHQWLI\LQJSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHO\RZQHGVLWHVZLWKH[LVWLQJ KRXVLQJVWRFNIRUWRWDOUHGHYHORSPHQWWRLQFUHDVHGHQVLW\ February 28, 2022
Policy Recommendations for 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Planning staff:

YIMBY Law submits this letter to share our policy goals and recommendations for the Policies and Programs section of your Housing Element. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Housing Element process.

The Policies and Programs section of the city’s Housing Element must respond to data, analysis and findings presented in the Housing Needs section. We repeatedly see findings that housing prices are high, segregation exists, and there is a lack of housing for special populations, but the Policies and Programs don’t respond to these findings or try to change outcomes. The overview of the city’s housing environment should set the scene, and the policies and programs should explain what the city is going to do to fix it.

Our policy goals are as follows:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

1. Prioritize rezoning in high resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods.

Many of the highest resource neighborhoods with the best access to jobs, good schools, and other amenities have histories of exclusion which are still reflected in their zoning. Cities should rezone to allow more housing opportunities in those neighborhoods, particularly those with low Vehicle Miles Traveled, as part of their 1 Housing Elements.

2. Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone. Development should not permanently displace current residents.

Housing replacement programs, temporary housing vouchers, right of return, and demolition controls will create stability for renters while allowing new homes to be built for new households and to accommodate the growth associated with RHNA.

In your sites inventory and rezoning programs, you should prioritize development on sites with owner-occupied housing & commercial uses over those with existing rent-controlled apartments or other rental housing with lower income residents.

3. Support homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups.

Homeownership continues to be a path to building financial security and inter-generational wealth, which has been systematically denied to many Americans. As a society, we need to make this right by intentionally offering opportunities to communities who have been excluded. The housing element should identify opportunities to create a variety of for-sale housing types and create programs to facilitate property ownership among excluded groups.

Site Capacity

4. Adequately plan for density. Ensure that a site’s density will accommodate the number of homes that are projected to be built. In addition, make sure height limits, setback requirements, FAR, and other controls allow for adequate density and the ability to achieve a site’s realistic capacity. Housing will not be feasible if you have a high density paired with low height limits. This density should be emphasized around jobs and transit and should go beyond the Mullin density in those areas.

5. Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%. Not every site will be developed at maximum density during the eight-year planning period. Identify an ample amount of opportunity sites and zone the sites to accommodate lower-income housing types (usually a statutory minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre) to give the city the best chance at meeting its RHNA.

6. Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory. Likelihood of development is a measure of the probability of an inventory site being developed during the planning period. The median likelihood of development across the state is 25%, meaning only one of every four sites will likely be developed during the planning period for the median city. Incorporating the likelihood of development into the zoned capacity will set the city up to successfully achieve their RHNA, making the housing element less of a paper exercise and more of an actionable, functional document.

Accessory Dwelling Units

7. Commit to an automatic mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element. We highly recommend complying with HCD’s standards of using one of its “safe harbor” methodologies to anticipate future ADU production. However, if the city is optimistic about ADU growth, then creating an automatic mid-cycle adjustment will automatically facilitate alternative housing options (i.e., a rezoning program, removing development constraints, ADU incentives, etc.) if the city falls behind the estimated ADU production.

8. Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate- or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.

Zoning

9. Allow residential to be built in areas that are zoned for commercial use.

There are a myriad of ways to do this, but a housing overlay is one common policy.

Additionally, consider eliminating new commercial space in mixed-use developments where there is not a strong demand or there is otherwise a glut of commercial space that is unused or frequently vacant.

10. Allow flexibility in inclusionary zoning. Cities should require different percentages for different AMI levels. Additionally, we urge cities to incentivize land dedication to affordable developers in order for market-rate developers to meet their inclusionary requirements. Avoid getting trapped into thinking that the affordable units must be “sprinkled throughout” the market-rate units, or require the market-rate units to look exactly the same as the affordable ones. This should be balanced against not locating all of the affordable units in one place and ghettoizing neighborhoods by creating or perpetuating racially concentrated areas of poverty.

Better Entitlement Process & Reducing Barriers to Development

11. Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multi-family housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing. A discretionary process for housing development creates uncertainty and adds to the cost of construction. For example, multi-family housing should not require a conditional use permit or city council approval unless the builder is asking for unique and extraordinary concessions. Right-sizing governmental constraints, entitlement processes, and impact fees will help the city successfully meet its RHNA.

12. Reduce parking standards and eliminate parking minimums. Minimum parking requirements are a major constraint on housing, especially for lower cost housing types. They can cost in excess of $30,000 per spot and can raise rents by as much as 17%, and eliminating them is particularly important for smaller & other spatially constrained sites. Consider adopting a parking maximum.

13. Cap fees on all new housing. Most construction costs are outside the City’s control, but reducing impact fees can demonstrate that a city is serious about building new housing. At a minimum, cities should delay the collection of impact fees until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to reduce financial impacts on new housing and make the units cheaper by not asking the developer to carry impact fee charges or debt throughout the construction phase.

14. Provide local funding. One of the largest barriers to building new affordable homes is the lack of city/county funds available to assemble sites, provide gap funding, and to pay for dedicated staff. Without new funding, especially at the local level, we will not be able to build more affordable homes. There are three new revenue streams that should be considered: 1) Transfer tax, a one-time payment levied by a jurisdiction on the sale of a home, may be utilized to raise much needed revenue to fund affordable homes; 2) Vacancy tax may be collected on vacant land to convince landowners to sell their underutilized properties and be used to fund the construction of affordable homes; 3) Commercial linkage fees should be adopted or revisited for increases on new commercial developments.

We urge you to include these policies in your 6th cycle Housing Element.

Best regards,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
[email protected]


)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7KXUVGD\0D\
$0
7R

6XEMHFW
):
&LW\&RXQFLO'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW0HHWLQJ
)ROORZ8S)ODJ
)ROORZXS
)ODJ6WDWXV
)ODJJHG






&ƌŽŵ͗  
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϭϮ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϬ͗ϮϳD
dŽ͗'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶфŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉůĂŶΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚDĞĞƚŝŶŐ

*RRGPRUQLQJ

3OHDVHFRQVLGHUWKHGHQVLW\RIKRXVLQJLQ6DQ0DWHR
x 7KHQFRQVLGHUWKDWZHDUHLQDGURXJKW:KHUHZLOOWKHZDWHUF RPHIURPWRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHSOXPELQJLQDOORI WKHVHQHZKRPHV\RXZLVKWREXLOG"
x :LOOWKHUHEHQHZO\EXLOWTXDOLW\VFKRROVWRSURYLGHVWDWHRI WKHDUWOHDUQLQJRUZLOORXUFODVVURRPVEH RYHUFURZGHG"
x $VRIQRZ0LOOV3HQLQVXODILQGVLWFKDOOHQJLQJWRDFFRPPRGDWH WKHDPRXQWRISDWLHQWVJRLQJWRWKHODEDQG

GRFWRUV
DSSRLQWPHQWVHYHU\GD\:KDWZLOO6DQ0DWHRSURYLGHWRDOOHYLDWHWKHDPRXQWRIODEWHFKVWKDWDUH QHHGHGDYDLODELOLW\RIPHGLFDODSSRLQWPHQWVWKHDELOLW\WRWUHDW(5SDWLHQWVDQGWRSURYLGHWKHWLPHVORWVQHHGHG IRURSHUDWLRQV"
x 7KHSDQGHPLFGHPRQVWUDWHGKRZTXLFNO\IRRGDQGKRPHJRRGVGLVD SSHDURIIVKHOYHV:LOO6DQ0DWHRSURYLGH PRUHJURFHU\VWRUHVIRUWKHDPRXQWRISHRSOHWKDWZRXOGPRYHLQWR$//RIWKHQHZKRXVLQJ" x :LWKWKLVLQFUHDVHRISRSXODWLRQRXUQHLJKERUKRRGVWUHHWVDV ZHOODVIUHHZD\VDUHDOUHDG\FRQJHVWHGWRWKHSRLQW RIVORZLQJGRZQWRPSKDWJLYHQWLPHVGXULQJWKHGD\DQGZHHN:KDWDUHWKHFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDQGSRVVLEO\ FDXWLRQVLQUHJDUGWRWKLVFOHDUO\SUHVHQWVLWXDWLRQWKURXJKRXW6DQ0DWHR" 1HHGOHVVWRVD\WKHJHQHUDOSODQRIKRXVLQJLQ6DQ0DWHRQHJOHFWVWRORRNDWWKHELJSLFWXUH,QVWHDGVDGO\LWLVP\RSLF LQUHJDUGWRILOOLQJTXRWDVUDWKHUWKDQSURYLGLQJIRUWKHQHHGVRILWVFRPPXQLW\ 
:LWKGHHSFRQFHUQV
0DXUHHQ=DQH



2ULJLQDO0HVVDJH
)URP
&LW\RI6DQ0DWHRJHQHUDOSODQ#FLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ!
7R
0DXUHHQ=DQH 
6HQW
7KX0D\

DP
6XEMHFW
&LW\&RXQFLO'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW0HHWLQJ
6KDUH<RXU7KRXJKWVRQ'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW


9LHZWKLVHPDLOLQ\RXUEURZVHU


7RKHOSSURWHFW\ RXUSULY DF\ 0LFURVRIW2 IILFHSUHY HQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW 
&LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ
127,&(2)38%/,&+($5,1*

127,&(,6+(5(%<*,9(1WKDWWKH&LW\RI6DQ0DWHR&LW\&RXQFLOZLOOKROGDSXEOLFKHDULQJ UHJDUGLQJWKH&LW\¶V'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW

0((7,1*'$7(
0RQGD\0D\DW
SP

0((7,1*/2&$7,21
&LW\&RXQFLO&KDPEHU&LW\+DOO:WK$YHQXH6DQ0DWHR&$


DQG5HPRWHO\YLD]RRPSOHDVHYLVLWZZZFLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJSXEOLFPHHWLQJVIRU PHHWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQDQGDFFHVV

352-(&71$0(
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW8SGDWH

352-(&7/2&$7,21
&LW\ZLGH

352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
%DVHGRQFRPPXQLW\3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQG&LW\&RXQFLO LQSXWWKH&LW\KDVGHYHORSHGD'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWWKDWLGHQWLILHVKRZWKH&LW\ 

FDQDFFRPPRGDWHKRXVLQJXQLWVRYHUWKHQH[W\HDUVDQGHVWDEOLVKHVJRDOVSROLFLHV DQGSURJUDPVWRKHOSDGGUHVVWKHFXUUHQWDQGIXWXUHKRXVLQJQHHGVZLWKLQWKH&LW\ZKLOH DIILUPDWLYHO\IXUWKHUIDLUKRXVLQJSROLFLHV,WLVDQLPSRUWDQWGRFXPHQWWKDWZLOOJXLGHIXWXUH GHFLVLRQVDERXWKRXVLQJDQGVHWVIRUWKDQDFWLRQSODQWRLPSOHPHQWKRXVLQJJRDOVLQWKHQH[W HLJKW\HDUV7KH&LW\&RXQFLOZLOOKROGDSXEOLFKHDULQJWRUHFHLYHFRPPXQLW\LQSXWDQG FRQVLGHUWKH'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW7KH'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWLVDYDLODEOHIRUSXEOLFUHYLHZ DW&LW\+DOODQGRQOLQHDWKWWSV
ZZZFLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW 
67$))&217$&7
0DQLUD6DQGKLU3ODQQLQJ0DQDJHU 
KRXVLQJ#FLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ

&LW\RI6DQ0DWHR3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ:HVWWK$YHQXH6DQ0DWHR&$ 



7KH&LW\&RXQFLOSXEOLFKHDULQJKDVEHHQVHWIRUWKHDERYHGDWHZKLFKLVRSHQWRWKHSXEOLFLQ SHUVRQRUUHPRWHO\<RXPD\VHQGZULWWHQFRPPHQWVWRWKH&LW\6WDII&RQWDFWOLVWHGDERYH DQGSOHDVHUHIHUHQFH³+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW´LQWKHVXEMHFWOLQH 
,IDQ\SHUVRQFKDOOHQJHVWKLVLWHPLQFRXUWWKDWSHUVRQPD\EHOLPLWHGWRUDLVLQJRQO\WKRVH LVVXHVWKHSHUVRQRUVRPHRQHHOVHUDLVHGDWWKHSXEOLFPHHWLQJGHVFULEHGLQWKLVQRWLFHRULQ ZULWWHQFRUUHVSRQGHQFHGHOLYHUHGDWRUSULRUWRWKHSXEOLFPHHWLQJ 
$0(5,&$16:,7+',6$%,/,7,(6$&7²,QFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH$PHULFDQVZLWK 'LVDELOLWLHV$FWWKRVHUHTXLULQJDFFRPPRGDWLRQVIRUWKLVPHHWLQJVKRXOGQRWLI\WKHFLW\VWDII KRXUVSULRUWRWKHPHHWLQJDWFOHUN#FLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJRU 


)RUDGGLWLRQDOSURMHFWLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHUHIHUWR
KWWSV
ZZZFLW\RIVDQPDWHRRUJ+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW 

7+$1.<28








4XHVWLRQV"&RQWDFW

0DQLUD6DQGKLU3ODQQLQJ0DQDJHUDQG=RQLQJ$GPLQLVWUDWRUWHO  ID[
 HPDLO


RIILFH
&LW\+DOO3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ:WK$YH6DQ0DWHR&$ 
:DQWWRFKDQJHKRZ\RXUHFHLYHWKHVHHPDLOV"
<RXFDQXSGDWH\RXUSUHIHUHQFHVRUXQVXEVFULEHIURPWKLVOLVW 




7KLVHPDLOZDVVHQWWRPDXUHHQW]DQH#DROFRP
why did I get this?XQVXEVFULEHIURPWKLVOLVWXSGDWHVXEVFULSWLRQSUHIHUHQFHV &LW\RI6DQ0DWHRā:WK$YHā6DQ0DWHR&$
ā86$

7RKHOSSURWHFW\ RXUSULY DF\ 0LFURVRIW2 IILFHSUHY HQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW (PDLO0DUN HWLQJ3RZHUHGE\ 0DLOFKLPS



)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7XHVGD\0D\

$0
7R

6XEMHFW
):
&DUSHPQWHUV8QLRQ,QSXWRQ+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW
$WWDFKPHQWV
6DQ0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWSGI




ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞdĞĐŚͮ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ








&ƌŽŵ͗
ĚǁĂƌĚ
ǀĂŶƐ 
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϮϵ͗ϰϯD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ĂƌƉĞŵŶƚĞƌƐhŶŝŽŶ/ŶƉƵƚŽŶ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ

Dear Sir or Madame,
Please accept the attached letter from the Carpenters Union as input on the San Mateo Housing Element. Thank you.

All the best,

Ed Evans
Senior Field Representative/Financial Secretary-Treasurer Local 217, San Mateo County
Nor Cal Carpenters Union


1 

"Any time you have an opportunity to make a difference in this world and you don't, then you are wasting your time on earth." Roberto Clemente




)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7XHVGD\0D\

$0
7R

6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW
$WWDFKPHQWV
6DQ0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW3XEOLF&RPPHQWB6SLHYDFNSGI




ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞdĞĐŚͮ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ








&ƌŽŵ͗EĂƚĂůŝĞ^ƉŝĞǀĂĐŬ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϭϮ͕ϮϬϮϮϵ͗ϭϬWD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ

,ĞůůŽ͕

/ŚŽƉĞƚŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůĨŝŶĚƐLJŽƵǁĞůů͘DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐEĂƚĂůŝĞ^ƉŝĞǀĂĐŬ͕ĂŶĚ/ĂŵĂDĂƐƚĞƌŽĨŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƚƵĚLJŝŶŐ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƚhĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͘/ǁĂƐĂůƐŽƌĂŝƐĞĚŝŶ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĂŶĚĂŵĂϮϬϭϰŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞŽĨ ,ŝůůƐĚĂůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů͘

/ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƚŚĞƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĂŶĚĞĨĨŽƌƚƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞŐŽŶĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĚƌĂĨƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚ͘ƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞŵLJƉƵďůŝĐ ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶŚŽǁ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽĐĂŶƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůĞƋƵŝƚLJĂŶĚƐĐŚŽŽůŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŝƚƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚ͘ 
/ĨLJŽƵĂƌĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚ͕/ĂŵŚĂƉƉLJƚŽĚŝƐĐƵƐƐƚŚŝƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌǁŝƚŚLJŽƵĂŶĚLJŽƵƌĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞƐ͘dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ 
ĞƐƚ͕
EĂƚĂůŝĞ


ͲͲ
1DWDOLH6SLHYDFN
0DVWHURI&LW\3ODQQLQJ
&ODVVRI

+RXVLQJ&RPPXQLW\ (FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW


E

2
EF5
FDFF



!+",-"'
(++",
+
+





0
'
$'
)
.
#

*)
$#!
&*
)-
#

$$!

#)
')
$#

#
#

)$2(
$*(
#

!"#)
7577

%)




+
,8
(++",
+
+5

&
0+"-"'
-(
)+(/"

+

(&&
'
-"(',
(+
-!

"-2
(
'
-
(9,
%''"'
"/","('
-(
)+"(+"-"3

.
-"('%

*."-2
'

,
!((%
"'-
+-"('
"'
-!

"-29,
FDFG=FDGE
(.,"'
%
&
'-8
,

'
-
(

+
,"

'-
.'-"%


EL
'


%,,
(
FDEH
+
.-

(
"%%,
%

" !

!((%5



'-!.,",-"
%%2
,.))(+-
-!


%''"'
"/","('9,
(
.,
('

*."-2
"'
-!


+-
(.,"'
%
&
'-8
(0
/
+5
-!


+-
(.,"'
%
&
'-

(
,
'(-


*.-
%2

(',"

+
-!

%"'$,

-0

'
!(.,"'
'

.
-"('%
())(+-.'"-28

.+

-!

"-2
-(

1)'

--
'-"('
-(
-!

,
!((%,=!(.,"'
'

1.,
"'
-!

"'%
FDFG=FDGE
(.,"'
%
&
'-8

'

("'
,(5
-!

(.,"'
%
&
'-
0"%%
&

-
-!

,--

+
*."+
&
'-
-(


+
,,

.
-"('%
())(+-.'"-2
"'

-!

,,
,,&
'-
(
"+
(.,"' 8


+
,,"'
-!

,
!((%,=!(.,"'
'

1.,
0"%%
%,(
%%(0
'
-
(
-(


--
+
)%'
(+
"-,
&"%"
,
'




%


+
&('
%"(+'"

"-"
,8
!",
%
--
+

,
+"
,
!(0

(''

-"'

!(.,"'
)(%"
2
0"-!

.
-"('
(%,

'

/'

*."-2
"'
(-!
,)

,
'

(
+,
-!+

,
-,
(
,-+-
"
,

-(
+"'
-!",
(%
-(
+."-"('8





%'(
()#)
!
#
),#
,
'
()*#)(
!
+
#
,
'
)
-

$
)$
(
$$!
"#(
)
)

$*(
#

#

*)
$#!

#&*
)
(
##$)

($!+

#
(
!$(1

"$

&(,-
,
!((%

",-+"
-,

+(,,
-!


(.'-+25
-!

'

-
(=(,-
+
"-2

!((%
",-+"
-
?@
%+
%2
,," ',
,-.

'-,
-(
,
!((%,
2

+0"'
,
!((%

,," '&
'-
(.'
+"
,
+(.'

,.++(.'
"'
'
" !(+!((
,
?))
'
"15
" .+

E@8
E
!",
&
',
-!-

,
!((%

&( +)!"
,
%+
%2
+
%

-
.'

+%2"'
'
" !(+!((

&( +)!"
,8
,

+
,.%-
(
)(%"
"
,
'


)+
-"

,
-!-
!/

%"&"-



,,
-(
!" !=())(+-.'"-2
'
" !(+!((
,5

-"'1
,-.

'-,F
'

%(0="'
(&


,-.

'-,
+


('

'-+-

"'
+
,
3('

(+
%(0
+=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,8G
!
,

+
,
"'
%.

-!


!(+
/"
05
(+-!

'-+%5
'

"
,-
+

',
'
" !(+!((
,
?" .+
,
F
'

G@8H

$!

$*(
#

%$!
-
%'%)*)(

$*(
#

#
(
$$!
(
'
)
$#

#
#

)$1
.+"'
-!

)%''"'

)
+"(

(+
-!

I
-!
2
%

(.,"'
%
&
'-
?FDEI=FDFG@5
-!

.%$
(
(+
%

&.%-"=&"%2
!(.,"'
-!-



E
!",
'%2,",
(
.,
,
('
5
-!

%(
%

%
&
'-+2
,
!((%

",-+"
-5


.,

,
+
-"('
%
/
%,
+

!" !
+
"'

%
&
'-+2
,
!((%
-!'
"'
&"

%

(+
!" !
,
!((%8
!-
",


.,

-!

%+
+
'.&
+
(

%
&
'-+2
,
!((%

--
'
'

3('
,
&
',
-!

+
"%

(&)(,"-"('
(
'
" !(+!((
,
'

,
!((%,
",
&(+


%(,
%2
%"'$

8

F
%
$5
-"/

0""'
'


""


,%'

+5
'

-"/

&
+"
'
,-.

'-,5
0!(
+

%,(
&+ "'%"3

5
+

'(-

"'
%.

"'
-!",
'%2,",


.,

-!
2
+
)+
,
'-
/
+2
,&%%
,!+
,
(
-!

'
-
(
)().%-"('
?QGP@8

G
(-!,-
"'5
"
!+
5
:!

%
$

"/
,

1-
((+5;








#
. .,-
EH5
FDFD5

!--),7<<0008'2-"&
,8
(&<FDFD<DL<EH<()"'"('<,.'
2<%&=+
,"

'-"%=,
+
-"('8!-&%8

H
!
+

+

,(&

'(-%


1 )-"(',8

(+

%%5
(%%

+$
'
+"'

&&
+,"('5
'

(+-!
!(+
/"
0

('-
,,(+"
+


!" !%2
+-

).%"

,
!((%,
%(
-

"'
%(0
+="'
(&

+
,8
(0
/
+5
(%%

+$
'

(+-!

!(+
/"
0
+

& '
-
,
!((%,5
&
'"'
-!
2
!/

'(
+
,"

'-"%
(.'
+"
,
'

+



,,"%

2
-+',
+

+
*.
,-
('%28
!"%

,"-"'
!" !=)
+(+&"'
& '
-
,
!((%,
"'
%(0="'
(&

+
,

'
!
%)
"'
+
,



,,
-(

())(+-.'"-25
+
,
+
!
!,
,!(0'
-!-
%(0="'
(&

&"%"
,
+

%
,,
%"$
%2
-(
))%2

.

-(

%
$
(
-"&

'


"'(+&-"('
-(
'/" -

-!

,
!((%
))%"
-"('
)+(

,,8


F

0,
))+(/

(+
."%-
0,
%(
-

"'
+
,
-!-
+

3('

(+
%(0
+=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
?" .+

H@8



"-"('%%25


(+
"'
-(
-!


+-
"-
,

'/
'-(+2
(+
-!

J-!
2
%

(.,"'
%
&
'-
?FDFG=FDGE@5
&(,-

,"-
,
"

'-""

(+
)(-
'-"%

/
%()&
'-
+

%(
-

"'
+
,
3('

(+
%(0
+=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,

?" .+

I@8
!"%

-!

"-2
&2



('

+'

(.-
."%
"'
(+
%

!(.,"'
"'
+
,
'
+
!" !=
)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,

.

-(

+
%-"/

%
$
(
).%"

-+',)(+--"('5
"-
",
"&)(+-'-
-(
'(-

-!-
&'2
%(0=
"'
(&

&"%"
,
!/

/
!"
%
,
'


(
'(-
+
%2
('
).%"

-+',)(+--"('8
--
+',
(
(.,"'
!("

(.
!
+
.-"%"3-"('
%,(
)
+)
-.-

!(.,"'
'

,
!((%
,
+
-"('8
(.
!
+
!(%

+,
+

&(+

('

'-+-

"'
+
,
3('

(+
%(0
+=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,5
%"$
%2


.,

-!(,

+
,
+
&"'
&(+


(+
%

(+


,,"%

?" .+

J@8

$'!

$*(
#

()')

(
)
)

#'(
((
)$

3%'$'"
#

(
$$!(
#
(
"*!)#$*(!-

'((

$*(
#

#
*)
$#!
&*
)-1
(.,"'
",
&

&(+


*."-%



.,

!" !=)
+(+&"'

,
!((%,
-
'

-(


%(
-

"'
!" !=())(+-.'"-2
'
" !(+!((
,
0"-!
(-!
+
&
'"-"
,
%"$

((

#(,5
,


).%"

,)

,5
'


%
'
"+
-!-

"%"--

)(,"-"/

%(' =-
+&
(.-
(&
,8

.
-"('
",
&

&(+

*."-%



.,

"'
+
,"'


,,
-(
!" !
)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
)+(&(-
,
,
!((%
"'-
+-"('5
0!"
!
!,

%(' =-
+&

.
-"('%
'

('(&"


'
"-,
(+
%(0="'
(&

,-.

'-,
'

,-.

'-,
(

(%(+5
'

,(
"%

'


"/"


'
"-,
(+
%%
,-.

'-,8I
.+-!
+&(+
5
-!


'
"-,
(
,
!((%
'

!(.,"'
"'-
+-"('

1-
'



+(,,

'
+-"(',
>

!"%
+
'
0!(
--
'

"'-
+-

,
!((%,
+

&(+

%"$
%2
-(
%"/

"'

"'-
+-

'
" !(+!((
,
'

,
'

-!
"+

!"%
+
'
-(
"'-
+-

,
!((%,
,

.%-,8J





*''#)
"$"#)
$'(

*#
&*
$%%$')*#
)-
$'
)


)-
$
#

)$
)$
")

)(

$!(
$

$*(
#

$'
!
)-
#
&*
)-
,

!
%'$"$)
#

(
$$!

#)
')
$#1
!

"-2
!,
&


!"
/"'

!(.,"'

*."-2
'



,,
(+
%%
+
,"

'-,

)+"(+"-2
(
"-,
FDFG=FDGE
(.,"'
%
&
'-8

!,

&(',-+-


,"&"%+

(&&"-&
'-
-(

*."-2
-!+(. !
-!

+

'-

+
-"('
(
"-,
*."-2
,$
(+

8



"-"('%%25
-!

+%
"+&-"/
%2
.+-!
+"'
"+
(.,"'
? @
+.%

'

-!

--

(
%"(+'"9,


%0
!/

"'-+(
.

,-+('
+
+
*."+
&
'-,
'



(.'-"%"-2
(+

"-"
,
-(


+
,,
,
+
-"('

-!+(. !
-!
"+
!(.,"'
)(%"
"
,8





$!!$,
#

()')

(
'
'$""#
$'

#$'%$')
$#

#)$
)

757837586
$*(
#

!"#)0



61

#'(
$'!

$*(
#
/
(%
!!-
"*!)
3"
!-

$*(
#

)
)
#
$""$)
"
!
(

,
)

(
$$!3



!'#/

#
'(
#'

3%'$'"
#

(
$$!(1

8
.+
!,


1",-"'
&.%-"=&"%2
+
'-%
)+()
+-"
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
'

,.))(+-

/
%()
+,
-(
+
&(/

-!
&
+(&
-!

&+$
-
'

+
,-+"
-
-!
&
,
)
+&'
'-%2
(+
%


!(.,"' 8

8

*."+

%'

'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
'


"%"--

/
%()&
'-
(
(+
%


!(.,"'
('
-!(,

,"-
,8



I

(!',('5
.
$
+
8
FDEM8







$

!








%

0
(+$7
,"

(($,6

.+'
+5
+
+2
.,-"'5
--!
0
8
!"' (,5
'

-%"

)"
/
$8
?FDFE@8



&
















$












"
,!"' -('5
7
+'

',-"-.-
8

J
+

(
$5

(&"%%,
85

5
'

&+2%%",

%
+&
'
('3%
38
?FDED@8
:(
"%

,(%-"('
'

(
"%
(!
,"('7
!




-,
(

=EF

" !(+!((

'


!((%

+
-"('
('

'-
+ +(.)
+"
'--"(',8;


!
+,
(%%



(+


EEF
?J@7
EJGE>IG6
(%
,&"-!5
-
."(8
FDED8
:

+'"'
)+-5

"/"'
)+-7
(0
-!


"%
'

-!'"


+
-"('

(

!((%,
'

(%%

,

+)
-.-
,

,"

'-"%

+
-"('8;


!
+,
(%%



(+

EEF
?J@7
EJDF>GD8




G

8
+
-
+
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
(+
.)3('"'
-(

'%

',
+

(',-+.
-"('8

8

'
+
,

"'
%.,"('+2
3('"'
+
*."+
&
'-,
"'
+
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
-(

'
+-



"-"('%
(+
%

.'"-,8



71
$'
,
)

)

$*#)-
$
#

)$
)$
()'#
)
#

$*(
#

%$!

(
#
(*%%$')(
)
)

!%

!$,3
#$"
"
!
(
!
+

#
'(
#'

3%'$'"
#

(
$$!(1

8
"+
'
0
!(.,"'
.'"-,
."%-
"'
+
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
0"-!
)+(#

-=,

/(.
!
+,
?,@
-(

',.+

-!
"+
%(' =-
+&
(+
"%"-28


8
+(/"

/(.
!
+
!(%

+,
0"-!
"'(+&-"('
(.-
.'"-,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
-!+(. !

&("%"-2

(.',
%"' 8

8

'
+
,

/(.
!
+

1 )-"('
)2&
'-
,-'
+
,
(+
+
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
-(

-!

!" !
,-
%
/
%
)(,,"%

-(

',.+

-!-
-!

%
/
%
(
,,",-'

",
,."
"
'-
-(
(+

+
'-
"'

1)
',"/

+
,8

8

&(/

++"
+,
-(
&(/"'
-(
'
" !(+!((
,
0"-!
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
2
)+(/"
"'

&"%"
,
0"-!
+'-,
(+
,

.+"-2

)(,"-,
'

&(/"'

1)
',
,8

8

'
(+)(+-

/(.
!
+
0"-%",-
)+

+
'

(+
&"%"
,
0"-!
2(.'

!"%
+
'
-(
&1"&"3

-!

-,
(
&(/"'
-(
!" !=())(+-.'"-2
'
" !(+!((
,
'


'+(%%"'
"'
!" !=)
+(+&"'

,
!((%,8

8

'
+
,

-!

/%.

(
-!


,!
)2&
'-,
(
+

-(
%'
%(+
,
-!+(. !
'
-
(
(.'-29,

'
%(+


'

'-"/

+( +&,
-(
%'
%(+
,
0!(
+
'-
)+()
+-"
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,

-(
/(.
!
+
!(%

+,8

8

'
+
,

-!

%
/
%
(
"+,-=-"&

!(&
(0'
+

(0')2&
'-
,,",-'

(
+

-(
&"%"
,

.2"'
!(&
,
'
+
!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
"'
(+

+
-(
"'
+
,

-!


,""%"-2
(
&(/"'

"'-(
&(+


1)
',"/

'
" !(+!((
,8

81

#'(
$$'
#)
$#
),#
)

!##
#


+
(
$#/

/
#
"'#(
)$
%*'(*

()')

(
)
)

#'(
((
)$

3%'$'"
#

(
$$!(
$'
"'

#!
.
()*#)(1

8
(%%(+-

0"-!

-(
"

'-"2
)+"(+"-2
(+
,-.

'-,
0!(
%"/

"'
,.,"
"3

!(.,"'
(+

.'

+,
+/

+
,
"'
-!

,
!((%
,," '&
'-
)(%"
28

8
(%%(+-

0"-!

'

&+',
-(

',.+

-!

)+(/","('
(

"
"
'-
-+',)(+--"('

()-"(',
(+
,-.

'-,
0!(
0'-
-(
--
'

!" !=)
+(+&"'
,
!((%,
(.-,"

-!
"+

'
" !(+!((
8



!"%

-!
,

,-+-
"
,
!/

-!

)(-
'-"%
-(
,.,-'-"%%2
"&)+(/

(-!
!(.,"'
'

.
-"('%

*."-25

-!
2
,!(.%

'(-
-$

-!

)%

(
"'/
,-&
'-
"'
!(.,"'
'

,
!((%,
"'
%(0="'
(&

'


-"'1

(&&.'"-"
,
"'
'
-
(8
!
,

"'/
,-&
'-,
!/

())(+-.'"-2=
'!'
"'

-,
('
-!

,.++(.'
"'

+

'

+


+"-"
%
(+
&

-"'
-!

'

,
(
)
()%

0!(

''(-
(+

(
'(-
0'-
-(
&(/
8K
"&.%-'
(.,

).+,."-
(
-!


((+
"'-

!(.,"'
'

,
!((%
"'-
+-"('
,-+-
"
,
(.-%"'

"'
-!",
%
--
+
'


"'/
,-&
'-
"'
!",-(+"
%%2

","'/
,-

'
" !(+!((
,
",
-!

&(,-
)+(&","'
)-!
-(

*."-28


"-"('%%25

-!

"-2
&.,-

(.)%

-!
,

)(%"
"
,
0"-!
,-+('
'-"=
",)%

&
'-
)+(-

-"(',
-(

',.+

-!-



K
"&('
5
85
A

.

5
8
?FDEM@8
!(
'-,
(+
%

(.,"'
"'
!
"+

$2+
4
'
*."%"+".&
'%2,",
(

(0=
'
(&

+()
+-2

/
%()&
'-8







!#
EFK?G@5
EDJG=EEEK8


H

'-+""
-"('
)+
,,.+
,

(
'(-
+

.

,
!((%

"/
+,"-2
2
).,!"'

-"'1
'

%(0="'
(&

,-.

'-,
(.-

(
,
!((%,8

 "'5


))%.

-!

)+"(+"-"3-"('
(

*."-2
"'
'
-
(9,

+-
FDFG=FDGE
(.,"'
%
&
'-8


0
%
(&


-!

())(+-.'"-2
-(
.+-!
+

",
.,,
-!

+

(&&
'
-"(',
"'
-!",
%
--
+
0"-!
2(.
'

2(.+

(%%
 .
,8

!'$
2(.
(+
2(.+

(',"

+-"('8


"'

+
%25

)!

%
+


,-
+
(
"-2
%''"'
'
"
-



'"/
+,"-2
(
%"(+'"5

+$
%
2








































































I
))
'
"1


6

$$!
)
#
(

)

#



$$!
((

#"#)
$*#'-/


$*'0
'
-
(=(,-
+
"-2

!((%
",-+"
-?FDFF@6
+
-
!((%, ?FDFF@8

J


7


#
"
!-

#$"
(

'#)
$
'
"
!-


#

#$"
$*'0
(%"
2)
.,"' &
+"
'
(&&.'"-2
.+/
2
I=
+
,-"&-
,
?FDEI=FDEM@8



8

'#)

(%#

$'

)
#$
$*'0
(%"
2)
.,"'
&
+"
'
(&&.'"-2
.+/
2
I=
+
,-"&-
,
?FDEI=FDEM@8

K


9

$'
$'!
$*(
#

+!$%"#)(
%%'$+
*'
#

)

756:37578
$*(
#

!"#)
-!
#

)
#

$
$#
!"#)'-

$$!

$)(0

"$.
+(,,"'
&+$

,
:
",)
+,

;


.,

"-
",
%(
-

"'
(+-!

'-+%
'
-
(5
0!
+
,-.

'-, +


,," '

-(
/+"(.,

%
&
'-+2
,
!((%,
-!+(. !(.-
'
-
(8
$*'0
(( %

+-!
.,"'
-!

"-2
(
'
-
(9,
+-
FDFG=FDGE
(.,"'
%
&
'-6
+
-
!((%,
?FDFF@8



:

')

)(

#+#)$'-$'
757837586 $*(
#

!"#)
#
)
#

$
$#
!"#)'-

$$!
$*'0
"-2
(
'
-
(9,
+-
FDFG=FDGE
(.,"'
%
&
'-6
+
-
!((%,
?FDFF@8

(%'(
*##-'
38
*##-'
38
*##-'
3
8

' (
39
*##-'
38

*'!
39
**$#
3
;

$()'

)-
3
<


(%'(
L


;

*"'
$
$*(
$!(
,
)

$*(
#


$

$*
'(
$*'0
(%"
2)
.,"'
&
+"
'
(&&.'"-2
.+/
2
E=
+
,-"&-
,
?FDFD@8

/dzK&^EDd
KϮϬϯϭ ,Kh^/E'
>
D
Ed
ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž,Ͳ&
d,
&K>>Kt/E'/d/KE>KZZ
^WKE
E
t^
dKd,/^WW
E/y&K>>Kt/E'd,

Z&d,Kh^/E'
>
D
Ed^hD/dd
dK,/E:h>zϮϬϮϮ͘

)URP

6HQW
0RQGD\0D\
$0
7R

6XEMHFW
):
$JHQGD,WHP6DQ0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&DUSHQWHUV,QSXW $WWDFKPHQWV
6DQ0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RXQFLOSGI
&z/

&ƌŽŵ͗  
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϮϯ͕ϮϬϮϮϴ͗ϮϭD
dŽ͗ 

^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗ŐĞŶĚĂ/ƚĞŵηϭ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚͲĂƌƉĞŶƚĞƌƐ/ŶƉƵƚ



Patrice M. Olds, MMC
ŝƚLJůĞƌŬͮŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ


&ƌŽŵ͗
ĚǁĂƌĚ
ǀĂŶƐ 
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϮϬ͕ϮϬϮϮϯ͗ϱϰWD
dŽ͗ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů;^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽͿфŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх Đ͗ůĞƌŬфĐůĞƌŬΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŐĞŶĚĂ/ƚĞŵηϭ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚͲĂƌƉĞŶƚĞƌƐ/ŶƉƵƚ

Dear Madame or Sir,
Please kindly provide a copy of this to each Council member's packet, before the next City Council meeting and please keep one for your records as well. Thank you very much on behalf of The Carpenters Union.

All the best,


Ed Evans
Senior Field Representative/Financial Secretary-Treasurer Local 217, San Mateo County


Nor Cal Carpenters Union


"Any time you have an opportunity to make a difference in this world and you don't, then you are wasting your time on earth." Roberto Clemente




)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
)ULGD\0D\
30
7R

6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW6LWHV,QYHQWRU\


&ƌŽŵ͗ŚĂƌŝƚLJtĂŐŶĞƌ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϮϰ͗ϬϯWD
dŽ͗ĂĐŚĂƌLJĂŚů 
Đ͗


^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ

dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĂĐŚĂƌLJ͘/ƚǁĂƐŽƵƌŝŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽƵŶĐŝůƐĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚͲƵƐĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŽďĞƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉůĂŶĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘hŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŶŽǁ͕ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶLJŽƵƌĞŵĂŝůďĞůŽǁ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJŝƐŽŶůLJŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶĂĚĚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞĂĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͕ŝƚŵĂŬĞƐƐĞŶƐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŶŽƚďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ͘/ĚŽŬŶŽǁ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌƐĂƌĞƐĞĞŬŝŶŐŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶĨƵƚƵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĐĞƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶƵƉĚĂƚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉůĂŶĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘

KŶdŚƵ͕DĂLJϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϮĂƚϯ͗ϱϭWDĂĐŚĂƌLJĂŚů ǁƌŽƚĞ͗
,ŝŚĂƌŝƚLJ͕

dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚůĞƚƚĞƌĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶŚĂǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͛ƐĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ^ŝƚĞƐ
/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ͘dŚŝƐůĞƚƚĞƌǁŝůůďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůǁŚĞŶƚŚĞLJƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞĚƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ

ůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚĂƐƉĞĐŝĂůŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽŶDŽŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϮϯƌĚ͘

/ŶƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐLJŽƵƌƐŝƚĞ͕ŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌƐƚŚĂƚďĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶŝƚ͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞĂŶĚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ŝƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂŶLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ͕ǁĞĂƌĞĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐŽŶƐŝƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĐĂŶĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƚƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůĂŶĚƵƐĞĂŶĚnjŽŶŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚŽŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂŶLJƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐdŚƵƐ͕ƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚ ŵĞĞƚƚŚĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂǁĞŚĂǀĞƐĞƚĨŽƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽŶŽƵƌ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌŽƌŶŽƚƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŽŶŽƵƌ ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞŝƚƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ŽƌĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽƉƵƌƐƵĞĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘

dŚĂŶŬƐĂŐĂŝŶ͕ĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĂŶŝĐĞĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ͘


Zachary Dahl, AICP 
ĞƉƵƚLJŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ



&ƌŽŵ͗ŚĂƌŝƚLJtĂŐŶĞƌ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϱ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϭ͗ϰϱD
dŽ͗ĂĐŚĂƌLJĂŚů ͖,ŽƵƐŝŶŐф ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх Đ͗ 

^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ

,ŝĂĐŚ͕

/ĂŵĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉŽŶŽƵƌƉŚŽŶĞĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵĂĐŽƵƉůĞǁĞĞŬƐĂŐŽƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĂƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŽĂĚĚƚŚĞϭϱϬϭͲϭϱϱϱt ,ŝůůƐĚĂůĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ;WĂƌŬǀŝĞǁdĞƌƌĂĐĞͿŽŶƚŽƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJůŝƐƚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚůĞƚƚĞƌĂƐĂĨŽƌŵĂů ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌ͘

dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐĂŶĞdžĐĞůůĞŶƚĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŐƌĞĂƚƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽŵĂŬĞƵƐĞŽĨƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝnjĞĚ ƐƉĂĐĞŽŶĂŶĂůƌĞĂĚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ͘ƐƐƚĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚůĞƚƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůů ƌĞŵĂŝŶ;ŶŽĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͿ͘dŝŵŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŝƐĂůƐŽǀĞƌLJůŝŬĞůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚŝƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJĐLJĐůĞ͘ >ĂƐƚůLJ͕ƚŚĞůĂŶĚŽǁŶĞƌǁĂƐƉůĞĂƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůΖƐĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚŝƐƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶůĂŶĚƵƐĞŵĂƉƵƉĚĂƚĞǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŽŵĞĚŝƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘ 
dŚĂŶŬƐŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕ŚĂƌŝƚLJ

KŶtĞĚ͕Ɖƌϭϯ͕ϮϬϮϮĂƚϵ͗ϱϮDŚĂƌŝƚLJtĂŐŶĞƌ ǁƌŽƚĞ͗ ,ŝĂĐŚ͕



/ŚŽƉĞLJŽƵĂƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐĂŐŽŽĚǁĞĞŬ͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŵŝŶƵƚĞƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĨŽƌĂĚĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƚϭϱϬϭͲϭϱϱϱtĞƐƚ,ŝůůƐĚĂůĞŝŶƚŽƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞ͘/ƐĞĞ
ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĚƌĂĨƚĞůĞŵĞŶƚŝƐŽƵƚĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘tĞΖĚůŝŬĞƚŽĨŽƌŵĂůůLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ͘tŝůůƚŚĞŝƚLJ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨŽƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽƌĂƌĞƚŚĞLJůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJĂƌĞĂƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĚƌĂĨƚƵƉĚĂƚĞ͍KĨ ĐŽƵƌƐĞ/ŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĚŽĞƐŶΖƚŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJůŝƐƚŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘tĞĂƌĞũƵƐƚůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂƚĂůůĂǀĞŶƵĞƐƚŽƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƚŚĞƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞ ƵŶĚĞƌƵƚŝůŝnjĞĚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘

>ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁLJŽƵƌƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƐŽŶŚŽǁďĞƐƚƚŽƉƌŽĐĞĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘ /ĂůƐŽůĞĨƚLJŽƵĂǀŽŝĐĞŵĂŝůLJĞƐƚĞƌĚĂLJ͘/ĂŵŚĂƉƉLJƚŽĐŚĂƚǀŝĂƉŚŽŶĞƚŚŝƐǁĞĞŬŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƚŝŵĞƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚ͘ 
DĂŶLJƚŚĂŶŬƐ͕ŚĂƌŝƚLJ

ͲͲ
ŚĂƌŝƚLJtĂŐŶĞƌ





ͲͲ
ŚĂƌŝƚLJtĂŐŶĞƌ


ΎWZ/s/>
'
EKE&/
Ed/>/dzEKd/
͗dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͕ƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌǁŝƚŚĂŶLJĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůLJĨŽƌƚŚĞƵƐĞ ŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůŽƌĞŶƚŝƚLJƚŽǁŚŝĐŚŝƚŝƐĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚ͘/ƚŵĂLJĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚŝƐĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĂŶĚƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ ĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͘/ĨLJŽƵĂƌĞŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕LJŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽƌĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐ ŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŽƌĂŶLJĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůLJƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚŝĨLJƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů ƐĞŶĚĞƌŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJďLJƚĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞŽƌďLJƌĞƚƵƌŶĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚĂŶLJĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌ ĐŽŵƉƵƚĞƌ͘dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘
ͲͲ

ŚĂƌŝƚLJtĂŐŶĞƌ


)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
0RQGD\0D\
30
7R

6XEMHFW
):
ZDWHU:$7(5:$7(5ZKHUHLVLWFRPLQJIURPIRUDOOWKHQHZWRLOHWV""""""" 

&ƌŽŵ͗^ƵƐĂŶWŝnjnjŝ 
^ĞŶƚ͗^ƵŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϬ͗ϬϬD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ǁĂƚĞƌ͕td
Z͕td
Z͕ǁŚĞƌĞŝƐŝƚĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵĨŽƌĂůůƚŚĞŶĞǁƚŽŝůĞƚƐ͍͍͍͍͍͍͍ 

From: Katrina Salas-Padilla < >
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 9:56 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing

Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of the City Council:

Below, in the forwarded message, is a letter that I sent to the Planning Commission on Wednesday May 11, after the study session the prior night, regarding the new building proposal for PA-2021-082 31- 57 S. B St Pre-App that has since been approved. I also attached it as a PDF for reference and for filing, as needed.

Though it is specifically addressing concerns about the proposed project on the corner of B St. and 1st St., I believe it touches on broader issues about housing scarcity, segregation - further marginalizing the low-income, hispanic communities in certain areas of San Mateo.

Since I sent this letter to the planning commission, I have been in correspondence with commissioner Adam Nugent. He provided me with the current draft of the Housing Element, as well as his notes pertaining to the prior draft as well as this draft. I have reviewed each of those three documents extensively, as well as appendix D of the Housing Element. I am writing to say that I fully support his concerns, particularly those around affordable housing in the North Central neighborhood of San Mateo, and the lack of explicit planning on how to address this issue, along with other issues of segregation in San Mateo. I believe that, as it stands, the Housing Element fails to address

In addition to supporting Adam's points, which he details in his notes on the current draft of the Housing Element that will be discussed tomorrow, Monday, May 23, I have some adjacent concerns detailed below:
x In the current draft of the Housing Element, I don’t see actionable evidence of real programs and policies intended to address issues of inequality, scarcity, and vulnerability among the low income population in San Mateo
x I am also struck by the fact that the North Central region was not identified as a location in need of more affordable housing, yet it cited multiple times throughout the Housing Element and subsequent appendices, that the region was “overcrowded”, thus I can only assume the assessment is made on a technicality that bases on raw volume of housing currently at or under market rate rather than the very observable fact that it still isn’t enough?
x I also don’t see acknowledgement around what COVID did to the rental and real estate market, which is an extremely temporary phenomena that will inevitably rebound and thus should be further factored into the immediate analysis regarding market value.

Failure to fully address and serve the low-income community that is directly impacted by the development projects in downtown San Mateo as they threaten their community cohesion and livelihood may be in direct violation of the CA Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as other recently revised and enacted CA laws on housing, particularly SB 330 and SB 8.

My primary draw towards issues of housing, aside from the homelessness and displacement issues that we and neighboring communities continue to witness and feel impacted by, is due to the ongoing development in the downtown region of San Mateo as it is also part of the North Central neighborhood. Rezoning to risk further impacting the neighborhood and negatively impacting housing options and costs for low-income community members is a real threat to the general wellbeing and safety of our whole city. Oakland saw a similar rise in re-development in the early 2010's just after the recession, as did part of San Francisco, and both cities are still struggling with increased crime, violence, homelessness, and civil unrest.

I appreciate your taking my concerns to heart when reviewing the Housing Element and subsequent city planning and development projects, particularly as they apply to the vibrant low-income and predominantly hispanic and latino communities in the North Central and North Shoreline neighborhoods of San Mateo. We should be contributing to a better, healthier community with real, sustainable longevity and opportunity for all of its members, and setting an example for the greater Bay Area and state of California at large. We should not continue to contribute to the issues of displacement, segregation, inequality, and housing crisis by overlooking the obvious threat of improperly calculated developments and failing to follow through with creating programs and resources for those struggling to get by.

Respectfully,
Katrina Monet Salas-Padilla
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Katrina Salas-Padilla <>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2022 at 9:46 PM
Subject: Concerns regarding the project proposed for the block on B Street and 1st To: <[email protected]>
To Whom it May Concern:

My name is Katrina Salas-Padilla, soon to be Katrina Butler. I spoke yesterday during the planning meeting about concerns that I have to do with the proposed rezoning and building project on B St. in San Mateo, on the corner of what is currently Donut Delite. I believe Harvest Properties is developing the proposed plans for the project.

My concerns were specifically about the plan for integrating the nearby latino and hispanic community members who regularly patron the vibrant B St corridor between Tilton and First St, and what efforts are in place to bolster the continued housing crisis in CA and, specifically, the SF Bay Area, particularly for the lower income community immediately surrounding the location of the proposed project.

My fiance and I moved to San Mateo last spring, so unfortunately I was not present at the time of the decision to remove the grocery store in that same vicinity to replace it with a luxury apartment complex, or I would have vocalized these same concerns.

I am a local to the greater Bay Area; I grew up in Benicia just over the bridge from Martinez and Concord. I did my undergraduate degree and worked for many years thereafter at Stanford University. I lived in San Francisco for nearly a decade prior to moving to San Mateo last year. I have seen what projects like the one that Harvest Properties is proposing can do to a community. More than that, I have devoted years of academic study to understanding precisely how displacement, specifically displacement due to industrial pursuits that subsequently brew gentrifying practices, can do to a marginalized group. In short, mental health issues rise, as do suicide rates. If you didn’t already know, while the pandemic lowered the overall suicide rate by 3%, it increased the rate by a combined total of 8% among latino, black, and native american young men.

Furthermore, crime will rise. In case you aren’t already aware, San Mateo crime rates are presently among the safest in the entire SF Bay Area. San Mateo is currently much safer than Burlingame - the city that Harvest Properties aspires to turn San Mateo into per his presentation last night - and it is even safer than the very safe town of Benicia where I grew up.

This is due to the fact that San Mateo possesses one of the most inspiring elements of any other city I’ve found in the SF Bay Area; an extremely diverse mix of races, ethnicities, and economic classes. The wealth gap here is very comfortably mended by a strong middle and upper middle class, and the surrounding cities are able to pick up the slack enough to prevent extreme inequality from doing what it does best; push people who do not deserve to suffer - to their very edge.

The economic views that the Harvest Properties representative proposed in last night's meeting were, at best, very flawed. Sure, regions that have a history of being red-lined might make prime real estate for developers who allow the few who own properties in such regions to profit on their coat tails, but how many of the working class families in the north central San Mateo area that pushes out toward the bay actually own their homes? I’d like to remind you that the state of California has recently put several measures in place to strengthen tenants rights for renters. They are also making it much harder to out zone multi family complexes precisely for reasons of scarcity around affordable housing. I am not a legal professional, but I am a policy professional within the National Laboratory system, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, and I believe that Harvest Properties’pursuit of turning the corner of B St. and 1st in downtown San Mateo solely into a mid-rise commercial and office building could be illegal according to current state regulations, and it is certainly unethical.

I haven’t even mentioned the fact that oneof the only homeless resource centers is literally on the very next block of this proposed project’s location. I intend to forward these concerns to San Francisco officials who might have a vested interest in the matter, given the fact that many of the neighboring homeless end up on their streets at a high cost to their residents.

Though I am a child of Mexican immigrants, and Spanish and English were both my first languages, I am also an entrepreneur, business wise, such that I have taught classes for Stanford in such subjects for years as a Subject Matter Expert. Given that study, I am also qualified to say that my background and history in this region make me a “super user”, “pro-sumer”, or particularly shaped for understanding what it would take to make this specific region of San Mateo vibrant and attractive to the broader Bay Area community without as much of a social and economic cost downstream. The key word is integration. People like me, like my peers - young to middle aged working professionals who are middle, upper middle class, and upper class, who are educated and active members of our communities - do not want to see MORE gentrification and MORE industrial complexes. What we would like to see is subtle preservation of the community gems like this particular corridor of B St. This doesn’t mean STOP ALL development projects, because I’m aware that at least two of the buildings on the proposed project’s block have been vacant for a long time. This means that building with affordable housing, homage to the historically diverse and primarily latino local groups, and other sustainable and environmentally focused elements, is crucial.

We do not have enough service workers and working class employees to fill our employment needs around the country and that is very true in San Mateo and the SF Bay Area. The moves that Harvest Properties is proposing is only going to make it harder for those people to live and work in our community. There will not be a supply to meet the demand that the development project envisions by opening the door for more working professionals. And where are those working professionals coming from? They don’t seem to be repopulating in droves given the new hybrid lifestyle many major companies have promised.

What you can expect to see should you accept Harvest Properties application without consideration for the needs of those currently inhabiting the immediate vicinity of the project location: Aside from rising mental health concerns, homlessness issues, and increased crime, you’ll experience even more homeowners fleeing to more affordable parts of the U.S., housing prices will not rise at the rate that they are in other Bay Area cities as has been the case in San Mateo for months. Furthermore, you might even be in over your head with tenant issues which will ultimately come down to planning oversights that should have attempted to promote projects that address the housing and other economic issues we continue to face as a country and as a state, rather than contribute to them.

I appreciate that two out of three of the commissioners who responded last night felt similarly to my above points, but to the one who did not; I encourage you to spend 15 minutes on this specific street corner at 9:45pm on ANY day of the week. It’s rather quiet, despite the train, and most of the dinner rush is gone by then. This includes most of the bar scene. Regardless, I lived in the heart of the Mission District as well as North Beach in San Francisco for a long time, and the bustle of a night scene is, for some people, very attractive. This might be especially true for the kind of people you want to work and live in a place like downtown San Mateo; young students, recent grads, working class people with strong work ethics. People who have a very long life and relationship to cultivate with this city - not just those who want to clog the streets on weekends for brunch and then leave like with Burlingame.

I will be sharing these concerns with other officials and interest groups who may also have a concern in the matter, and I will make an effort to continue to show up at planning meetings where this particular project is being discussed.

Respectfully,
Katrina Monet Salas-Padilla

San Mateo City Council
Who:

Shawn Leong representing the family that has operated Ah Sam Florist and Greenhouses since 1933 and owns the property at 2621 Palm Place and 2645 S El Camino Real San Mateo Observation:

I have been following planning and development of the areas around our business for 40+ years. The past choices our community has made for development in the past have led to some of the shortcomings now and into the future. We have eleven more years until Ah Sam’s centennial anniversary. Celebrating 100 years in business in San Mateo. The business, the family, the employees and retired employees and clients are woven into this community.

However, the lack of affordable housing, parking and synergies in our neighborhoods are impacting the quality of life and our ability to enjoy running our flower business. Many of my fellow business owners will repeat the same issues of lack of workers, affordable housing and parking. We continue to see the shrinking presence of the small business that make a community vibrant and captivating.

The short term decisions and loop hole weaving of developers have created a process for everyone looking out for their own needs at the present time. How many developers remain in San Mateo after they have concluded their business. There needs to be a commitment to the community and the future, not just the next 10 or 20 years, but long term, the next 50 to 100 years.

Open for discussion.

The development of 2624 Palm Place into affordable housing and below-market housing with the consideration of generational integration and plenty of parking on the site. We can’t just check the boxes to meet the current planning guidelines but need to develop the nucleus of a plan that will give long term purpose to the proposed property. This property and the adjective lots have been excluded from the high density zone even though the properties are closer to the Hillsdale train station than Hillsdale Mall itself. Palm Place would make the ideal commercial alley from 25th ave to the Hillsdale train station in the next 100 years. We are open to discuss how we can achieve this and meet the needs of the family, staff and community.

Summary,
We are part of this community now and will be into the future. By providing for our business, housing for our staff, retired staff and future staff we can continue to provide a service for all the residences. Plus as a member of our community we would like to help individuals be able to live in San Mateo and work in the different businesses that support our San Mateo community.

Ah Sam and our family and staff have a plan to continue in this community. We have grown and want to make plans to continue to thrive and that will not be possible unless we are able to do something about affordable housing and parking. No we are not selling our property and No we are not going out of business. We have fought this battle since 1985 when the business transferred from the 2nd generation to the current generation. We invite each member of the Council, Mayor and planning staff to visit with us to discuss this more. 
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\0D\
$0
7R
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
/LQGD/\
6XEMHFW
):
2QOLQH)RUP6XEPLWWDO
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP



Sandra Belluomini 
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞdĞĐŚͮ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ








&ƌŽŵ͗ŶŽƌĞƉůLJΛĐŝǀŝĐƉůƵƐ͘ĐŽŵфŶŽƌĞƉůLJΛĐŝǀŝĐƉůƵƐ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϮϳ͗ϮϵD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗KŶůŝŶĞ&Žƌŵ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĂů͗ƌĂĨƚϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵĞŶƚ&Žƌŵ

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW)HHGEDFN)RUP
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022. &ŝƌƐƚEĂŵĞ 'HQQLV
>ĂƐƚEĂŵĞ .HDQH

ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ
ƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ
7KLVVXUHGRHVQ
WVRXQGOLNHIL[LQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ

$URXQGZRXOGEHYHU\ORZLQFRPHORZ PRGHUDWHDQGDERYHDYHUDJH



,KDYHWRDVVXPHPRVWRIRXUFRXQFLOLVK\SQRWL]HGE\
GHYHORSHUV$V-RH%LGHQMXVWVDLG:KHUHLVRXUEDFNERQH 9HU\VDG



(PDLOQRWGLVSOD\LQJFRUUHFWO\"9LHZLWLQ\RXUEURZVHU 


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
0RQGD\-XQH
$0
7R
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW8SGDWH


&ƌŽŵ͗ůĂŬĞtĞůůĞŶ 
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕:ƵŶĞϭϯ͕ϮϬϮϮϵ͗ϬϭD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞ

Greetings, San Mateo Housing Element Update.

Can you please provide the most up-to-date list and map of the opportunity sites? Can you please tell me what the proposed densities and heights are as it relates to multifamily development? I assume those densities/heights cannot supersede Measure Y constraints, or can they? Please advise.

Kindly,

Blake Wellen
Bella Vista Land Advisors
Real Estate Brokerage & Development

www.bvla.net



1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
QRUHSO\#FLYLFSOXVFRP
6HQW
6XQGD\-XQH
30
7R
+RXVLQJ
6XEMHFW
2QOLQH)RUP6XEPLWWDO
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW)HHGEDFN)RUP
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022. &ŝƌƐƚEĂŵĞ 1HHO
>ĂƐƚEĂŵĞ 'HVDL

ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ
ƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ
&ULWLFDORIKRXVLQJSURSRVDOVORFDWHGDOZD\VQHDUGRZQWRZQ $EUHDVW
ORJLVWLFVQHLJKERUKRRGVFRXOGEHQHILWKLJKHUGHQVLW\EXLOGLQJV HVSHFLDOO\ZHVW6DQ0DWHRUHJDUGLQJXQLWVZK\HPSKDVL]H OHVVHU6WXGLRVDQGEUSXVKLQJRXW)DPLOLHVFRPPXQLWLHV QHHGWREHPL[XVDJHIDPLOLHVVHQLRUVDQGYHWHUDQV+RZPDQ\ KRWHOVZHUHSXUFKDVHIRUWHPSRUDU\KRXVLQJHYHQWXDOO\6ROG GXHPDQGDWHG6%
ZHUHFRQVWUXFWLRQRI%05LVLQ
GHYHORSPHQW6L
JQPHXSIRUQHZVOHWWHU7KDQNV


(PDLOQRWGLVSOD\LQJFRUUHFWO\"9LHZLWLQ\RXUEURZVHU 


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
QRUHSO\#FLYLFSOXVFRP
6HQW
6XQGD\-XQH
30
7R
+RXVLQJ
6XEMHFW
2QOLQH)RUP6XEPLWWDO
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW)HHGEDFN)RUP
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022. &ŝƌƐƚEĂŵĞ FKULVDQQ
>ĂƐƚEĂŵĞ QLQR

ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ
ƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ
+L
ZKRPHOLJLEOHFLW\UHVLGHQFHRUHYHU\RQHRUWKRVH:RUNLQJ LQWKHFLW\FULWLFDORQO\GLVPDODPRXQWIDPLOLHVKRZPDNLQJ KLJKHUEU)RU
IDPLOLHVUHVWULFWLQJQHHGVRIIDPLOLHV
PDMRULW\RIXQLWV
DOZD\V
VLQJOHRUVWXGLHV0DNHKRXVLQJIDLU,ZRUNKDYHDIDPLO\ LQFUHDVHWKHGHQVLW\
7KDQNV


(PDLOQRWGLVSOD\LQJFRUUHFWO\"9LHZLWLQ\RXUEURZVHU 


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
QRUHSO\#FLYLFSOXVFRP
6HQW
6XQGD\-XQH

30
7R
+RXVLQJ
6XEMHFW
2QOLQH)RUP6XEPLWWDO
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW)HHGEDFN)RUP
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022. &ŝƌƐƚEĂŵĞ (ULN
>ĂƐƚEĂŵĞ 3LHUUH

ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ
ƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ
6LPSO\UDWLRRIQHZGHYHORSPHQWVFRQVWUXFWLRQRIODUJHULV HIILFLHQW
)XOO\DZDUHORWVDUHROGPXVWSXUFKDVHORJLFH[FHOOHQW1HHGV IRU%05
KRXVLQJVPDOOGHQVLW\LVREVROHWHUHFRPPHQGSODQQLQJ
LQFUHDVHWKHGHQVLW\7DOOHUSRVVLEO\IOVZHQHHGWKH XQLWV7KDQNV


(PDLOQRWGLVSOD\LQJFRUUHFWO\"9LHZLWLQ\RXUEURZVHU 



:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϮ

ŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬ
ƚŚǀĞ͘
^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ
dƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ
ůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĂůůLJ

ĞĂƌ^ŝƌͬDĂĚĂŵ

Z
͗ϲƚŚLJĐůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ͗ŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ

dŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂLJƌĞĂ;/ͿƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJƐƵďŵŝƚƐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͛ƐĚƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ͘/ŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞŝŶĞĂĐŚĐŝƚLJ͛ƐZ&d,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚŝƐĂƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂĐŚĂƉƚĞƌƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĐŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞůŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚŚŽŶĞƐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƐĞĐƚŽƌ ĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŵĂLJŝŶŚŝďŝƚĂĐŝƚLJ͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞďƵŝůĚŽƵƚŽĨŝƚƐ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͘

WĞƌ,͛ƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶďLJ/ŶĐŽŵĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐƚŝǀŝƚLJŶŶƵĂůZĞƉŽƌƚ͕^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚϯϭϲƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐŝŶ ϮϬϮϭ;s>/͗Ϭ͕>/͗ϯϴ͕DŽĚ͗ϯϵ͕DŬƚ͗ϮϯϵͿ͘'͛ƐϲƚŚĐLJĐůĞZ,EĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ;ϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭͿĨŽƌ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽŝƐϳ͕ϬϭϱƚŽƚĂů ƵŶŝƚƐŝ͘Ğ͕͘s>/͗ϭ͕ϳϳϳ͕>/͗ϭ͕ϬϮϯ͕DŽĚ͗ϭ͕ϭϳϱĂŶĚDŬƚ͗ϯ͕ϬϰϬ͘ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐƌŝƐŝƐ͕ŝƚŝƐ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƚŚĂƚ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚůLJĂŶĂůLJnjĞĂůůŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚͲŝŵƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚŶŽŶͲ ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂĚĚƚŽƚŚĞĐŽƐƚĂŶĚͬŽƌŝŶŚŝďŝƚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽƉĞƌŵŝƚĂŶĚƉƌŽĚƵĐĞŶĞǁŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽĨ ĂůůŝŶĐŽŵĞůĞǀĞůƐŝ͘Ğ͕͘s>/͕>/͕DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞĂŶĚDĂƌŬĞƚZĂƚĞ͘ 
/ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ͕ĂƚĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ͕ĂůŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗

'Ks
ZED
Ed/DWK^
KE^dZ/Ed^͗
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗
x WĂƌŬŝŶŐ
x &Z
x ,ĞŝŐŚƚĂŶĚͬŽƌĞŶƐŝƚLJZĂŶŐĞƐ
x DŽƌĂƚŽƌŝƵŵƐŽŶĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨŶŽŶͲƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůnjŽŶĞĚůĂŶĚ x ZĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ŽŽƚĂŐĞǁŝƚŚŝŶDŝdžĞĚͲhƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ 
DŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĞĞƐ
x /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚWĂƌŬĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĞĞƐ
x /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ĞĞƐ
/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ;/Ϳ
x /ŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐŝ͘Ğ͕͘ĂĐĐĞůĞƌĂƚŝŶŐͬŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐs>/ͬ>/ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌŶĞǁŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
x ŵĞŶŝƚLJͬŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶĞĨŝƚWůĂŶƐ;WƵďůŝĐƌƚ͕WŽWŽ͛Ɛŝ͘Ğ͕͘WƌŝǀĂƚĞůLJKǁŶĞĚͬWƵďůŝĐKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞƐ͕ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌƐͿ

x ZĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐ͞ĂďŽǀĞΘďĞLJŽŶĚ͟ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌWĂƌŬƐ͕ZŽĂĚƐͬdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĞƚĐ͘

ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ
x &ĂƵůƚŽŶĞƐ
x ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐͬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ
EĞǁdĂdžĞƐ
x &͛ƐĨŽƌ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ͕/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
x EĞǁͬ/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚͬ
džƚĞŶĚĞĚWĂƌĐĞůdĂdžĞƐ
x ŶLJͬůůEĞǁdĂdžĞƐŽŶ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
x ZĞǀĞŶƵĞ͞EĞƵƚƌĂů͟ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ;ƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐŶĞǁŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉĂLJϭϬϬйĨŽƌĐŝƚLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͿ DĂŶĚĂƚĞĚ>ĂďŽƌZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
x WƌŽũĞĐƚ>ĂďŽƌŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐ
x WƌĞǀĂŝůŝŶŐtĂŐĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
x ͞>ŽĐĂů͟ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶtŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
x hŶŝŽŶƉƉƌĞŶƚŝĐĞƐŚŝƉZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
x ͞>ŽĐĂů͟ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ^ŽƵƌĐŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚŝnjĞŶŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͗
x EŝŵďLJŝƐŵͬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚKƉƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ
x 
Y>ĂǁƐƵŝƚƐƐŽůĞůLJƚŽƐƚŽƉͬĚĞůĂLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ

WĞƌŵŝƚWƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐdŝŵĞ
>ŽŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŝŵĞƐŽƌƉĞƌŵŝƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞĂŚŝŐŚĚĞŐƌĞĞŽĨƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJŝ͘Ğ͕͘ĚŝƐĐƌĞƚŝŽŶĂƌLJ ƌĞǀŝĞǁƐŽƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐǁŝƚŚŵƵůƚŝƉůĞƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ͕ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐďLJ ;ϭͿŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐĐĂƌƌLJŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐǁĂŝƚŝŶŐĨŽƌƉĞƌŵŝƚƐŽƌ;ϮͿŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĂƚĂƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞũĞĐƚĞĚ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂůĞŶŐƚŚLJƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘
EKEͲ'Ks
ZED
EdKE^dZ/Ed^
>ĂŶĚΘ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚͬŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ
x >ĂŶĚ;ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĐŽƐƚƉĞƌŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůLJƵŶŝƚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚĂLJƌĞĂͿ x ,ĂƌĚŽƐƚƐ;ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐΘůĂďŽƌͿ
x ^ŽĨƚŽƐƚƐ;ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐ͕ŐŽǀƚĨĞĞƐ͕ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐͿ x ^ƵƉƉůLJͲĐŚĂŝŶĂŶĚŝŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶĂƌLJĐŽƐƚƐŽĨŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ

/ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚŝƐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐϲƚŚLJĐůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ
ĂŶĚůŽŽŬƐĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽǁŽƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽƚŽƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞůLJĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛ƐŽŶͲŐŽŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐƌŝƐŝƐ͘ ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ͕

WĂƚƌŝĐŝĂ
͘^ĂƵƐĞĚŽ͕ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
/ĂLJƌĞĂ^ŽƵƚŚĂLJ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĨĨĂŝƌƐ


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7KXUVGD\-XO\
30
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
6XEMHFW
):
6DQ0DWHRWK&\FOH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RQVWUDLQWV6HFWLRQ $WWDFKPHQWV
B%,$OWUB6DQ0DWHRB&RQVWUDLQWVGRF[


&ƌŽŵ͗ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕:ƵůLJϳ͕ϮϬϮϮϮ͗ϬϭWD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽϲƚŚLJĐůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ

ĞĂƌ^ŝƌͬDĂĚĂŵ͕
WůĞĂƐĞĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚůĞƚƚĞƌŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨ/ĂLJƌĞĂĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽϲƚŚLJĐůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕

WĂƚƌŝĐŝĂ^ĂƵƐĞĚŽ͕ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĨĨĂŝƌƐ^ŽƵƚŚĂLJ
/ͮĂLJƌĞĂ




1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
0RQGD\$XJXVW
$0
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW0HDVXUH<DQG+LOOVGDOH6WDWLRQ$UHD 

&ƌŽŵ͗zŽƐĞĨdĂŚďĂnjŽĨ 
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϮϯ͗ϯϮWD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚͲDĞĂƐƵƌĞzĂŶĚ,ŝůůƐĚĂůĞ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ

*RRGDIWHUQRRQ±ZRQGHULQJKRZPHDVXUH<UHVWULFWVWKHFLW\¶VDELOLW\WRLQFUHDVHKHLJKWDQGGHQVLW\DORQJ(O&DPLQR ZLWKLQWKH+LOOVGDOH6WDWLRQ$UHD

'RHVDQ\LQFUHDVHRYHUH[LVWLQJ]RQLQJUHTXLUHYRWHUDSSURYDOHYHQLILW¶VQHFHVVDU\WRFRPSO\ZLWK5+1$" 

5HJDUGV

<RVHI7DKED]RI(VT
7DKED]RI/DZ)LUP//3


dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞĂŶĚŝƚƐĐŽŶƚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͘/ĨLJŽƵƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĚŽŶŽƚƵƐĞŽƌƌĞůLJƵƉŽŶŝƚ͘/ŶƐƚĞĂĚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŝŶĨŽƌŵ ƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĚĞůĞƚĞŝƚ͘dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7KXUVGD\6HSWHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
6XEMHFW
):
6DQ0DWHR+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQWV
$WWDFKPHQWV
6DQ0DWHR+(&RPPHQWVB7UDQV)RUPSGI



Sandra Belluomini 
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞdĞĐŚͮ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ








&ƌŽŵ͗<ĞŶĚƌĂDĂ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϬ͗ϱϱD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх͖ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů;^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽͿфŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх Đ͗ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚΛŚĐĚ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ

+L6DQ0DWHR3ODQQLQJ7HDPDQG&LW\&RXQFLOPHPEHUV

0\QDPHLV.HQGUDDQG,DPWKH3ROLF\$QDO\VWDW7UDQV)RUP:HDUHDQRQSURILWSROLF\DGYRFDF\RUJDQL]DWLRQ IRFXVLQJRQEHWWHUODQGXVHDQGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSROLF\DWWKHORFDOUHJLRQDODQGVWDWHOHYHO7KDQN\RXIRU UHOHDVLQJDGUDIWRIWKH&LW\
V+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWIRUUHYLHZDQGSXEOLFFRPPHQW,DPDZDUHWKDWZH UHVHQGLQJ
WKLVSDVWWKHGD\FRPPHQWGHDGOLQHEXWLI\RXJHWWKHFKDQFHRXUWHDPKDVSXWWRJHWKHU VRPHIHHGEDFNWKDWZHZRXOGOLNHWRVHHDGGUHVVHGLQWKH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW 
:HDSSODXGWKH&LW\IRUUHOHDVLQJWKHLUGUDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWIRUIHHGEDFNVRHDUO\:H GORYHWRVHHLI
WKH(OHPHQWFDQLQFOXGHFOHDUHUJRDOVDQGODQJXDJHDURXQGSDUNLQJSROLFLHVDQG7'0VWUDWHJLHV3OHDVHVHH WKHDWWDFKPHQWLQWKLVHPDLOWRVHHRXUFRPPHQWVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 
)HHOIUHHWRUHDFKRXWLI\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVZHNQRZWKLVLVDEXV\WLPHRI\HDUDQGZHWKDQN\RXVR PXFKIRU\RXUKDUGZRUNDURXQGWKLV

7KDQNV
.HQGUD


ͲͲ
<ĞŶĚƌĂDĂ͕WŽůŝĐLJŶĂůLJƐƚ
;ƐŚĞͬŚĞƌͬŚĞƌƐͿ


7UDQV)RUP


6LJQXSIRURXUHPDLOVDWZZZ7UDQV)RUP&$RUJ)ROORZXVRQ7ZLWWHU,QVWDJUDP)DFHERRNDQG/LQNHGLQWRR September 22, 2022
Planning Manager and City Council
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Draft Housing Element Needs Ambitious Parking Updates Dear San Mateo Planning Department and San Mateo City Council, TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone. We applaud San Mateo’s work to date on the Draft Housing Element. However, to meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, San Mateo needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.

In particular, there will need to be an effective mix of:
● Reducing parking provision and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TDM)
● Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA We were disappointed to see only passing reference to parking as a constraint to development, in San Mateo’s draft Housing Element. The city code currently requires at least 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multi-family developments, and at most 2.2 spaces for 3+ bedrooms. Parking provision is reduced within the Hillsdale Station Area and the Central Parking Improvement District, but not by any substantial margin. Given that each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000
1, and with inflation driving up construction costs by these estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. This raises the cost of housing development and makes it hard to meet production goals.

TransForm recommends that San Mateo consider the following policies in the Housing Element:

1. Funding a dedicated study of parking reforms, particularly how smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation and other goals. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requireme nts.pdf
| WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
1 2. Requiring unbundled parking for certain transit oriented developments.This is easier for building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade.

3. Implementing TDMs such as requiring developers to buy annual bus passes for residents at a discounted bulk rate.

To show the tremendous transportation and climate benefits of these policies, as well as some of the financial savings for residents and reduced costs for development, we have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 480 N Bayshore Blvd. This site is identified in San Mateo’s draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a potential future opportunity site outside of any specific zoning district. The California Office of Planning and Research recommends GreenTRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Elements (the tool is free to use and supports better planning at the site and city-wide level).

By implementing the strategies above at 480 N Bayshore Blvd, GreenTRIP Connect predicts:

1. Implementing unbundling and providing transit passes at this site would decrease demand for parking by 26% and result in resident transportation savings of $792 per year.

2. With right-sized parking, incorporating the benefits of unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $6,350,500 less to build relative to current parking standards.

3. When combined with 100% affordable housing these strategies resulted in an incredible 58% reduction in driving and greenhouse gas emissions for the site, compared to the city average.

4. If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were built on this site each household would drive 6,654 less miles per year creating a greener and safer community.

By eliminating the high costs of parking, homes can be offered at more affordable prices, reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens, getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered. Residents, new and old alike, will greatly benefit from the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated air pollution (see the scenarios here).

In addition to parking and transportation strategies, we applaud some of the proposed strategies to support more affordable homes, since these would have such tremendous benefits as noted in the GreenTRIP scenario. Two of the most important are Policy 1.3 and 1.6 that streamline affordable development to help reach RHNA goals, by increasing density for BMR developments and streamlining affordable housing review, respectively. These programs are a cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production.

The GreenTRIP scenarios and the chart on the final page of our Scenario document also show the imperative of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes, like Policies 1.3 and

1.6. Not only do these households use transit more and drive much less than average, but | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
2 success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered individuals and families. A commitment to these programs will show that San Mateo is committed to planning for all levels of the 3,975 RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.

Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains why San Mateo should make parking reform a priority in the Housing Element update.

Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
| WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG
3 
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
)ULGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
6XEMHFW
):
2QOLQH)RUP6XEPLWWDO
'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP


&ƌŽŵ͗ŶŽƌĞƉůLJΛĐŝǀŝĐƉůƵƐ͘ĐŽŵфŶŽƌĞƉůLJΛĐŝǀŝĐƉůƵƐ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϰ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϬ͗ϬϵD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗KŶůŝŶĞ&Žƌŵ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĂů͗ƌĂĨƚϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵĞŶƚ&Žƌŵ

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW&RPPHQW)RUP

'UDIW+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW)HHGEDFN)RUP
Please share your comments regarding the Draft Housing Element.

Comment period for the draft document is April 6 through May 6, 2022. &ŝƌƐƚEĂŵĞ 7RP
>ĂƐƚEĂŵĞ /HDVH

ŵĂŝůĚĚƌĞƐƐ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϯϭ
ƌĂĨƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ
7KHUHQHHGVWREHPXFKPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJDQGZRUN IRUFHKRXVLQJ
%XLOGLQJDWRQRIOX[XU\FRQGRVLVQRWJRLQJWRPDNHWKHP DIIRUGDEOH
$OVRDGHTXDWHSDUNLQJQHHGVWREHLQFOXGHGZLWKHYHU\
GHYHORSPHQW



(PDLOQRWGLVSOD\LQJFRUUHFWO\"9LHZLWLQ\RXUEURZVHU 

[1 of 1]

VIA EMAIL
October 24, 2022
Zachary Dahl
Deputy Director
City of San Mateo
Community Development Department
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: 2745 S. El Camino, San Mateo (APN 039-351-070) - Development Capacity Dear Mr. Dahl:

As discussed, ownership is interested in redeveloping 2745 S. El Camino Real. This corner lot is ~36,000 sq.ft., located along the 28th street themed intersection, directly across from the newly improved Caltrain station and one block from the Hillsdale Shopping Center. Assuming an 85’ height limit, a midrise project could comfortably include 165 apartments with 72 x 1-bedrooms (679 average sq.ft.) and 93 x 2-bedrooms (1,071 average sq.ft.). We’d like the draft housing element’ssites inventory to reflect this amount. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further at your convenience. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Yosef Tahbazof, Esq.

Principal
CC:

Eloiza Murillo-Garcia
Christina Horrisberger








  









1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
7XHVGD\'HFHPEHU
30
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
(ORL]D0XULOOR*DUFLD
6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW



Sandra Belluomini 
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞdĞĐŚͮ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ
ϲϱϬͲϱϮϮͲϳϮϯϵͮďĞůůƵŽŵŝŶŝΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐ








&ƌŽŵ͗ůĂŬĞtĞůůĞŶ 
^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϲ͕ϮϬϮϮϭϭ͗ϯϬD
dŽ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚ

Hello, San Mateo Planning.

When do you expect to send HCD an updated draft of the Housing Element Update? When will the updated draft be available to view?

Kindly

Blake Wellen
Bella Vista Land Advisors
Real Estate Brokerage/Investment
DRE #02130931

www.bvla.net


1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
)URP
+RXVLQJ
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\'HFHPEHU

30
7R
1LFKRODV1LFN\9X
6XEMHFW
):
+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW'DWD5HTXHVW



Sandra Belluomini 
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞdĞĐŚͮ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ϯϯϬt͘ϮϬƚŚǀĞ͕͘^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕ϵϰϰϬϯ
ϲϱϬͲϱϮϮͲϳϮϯϵͮďĞůůƵŽŵŝŶŝΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐ








&ƌŽŵ͗DĂŬĞŶĂtŽŶŐ 
^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϮϮϵ͗ϱϲD
dŽ͗ĂĐŚĂƌLJĂŚů 
Đ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐфŚŽƵƐŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚĂZĞƋƵĞƐƚ

,ŝĂĐŚ͕

KŶĞ^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞŝƐŚŽƐƚŝŶŐĂWŚĨĞůůŽǁĨƌŽŵ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚƚŚĂƚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĂĐŽƵŶƚLJǁŝĚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƐŝƚĞƐŝŶĚƌĂĨƚŝƚLJͬŽƵŶƚLJ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚŚŽǁƚŚĞLJŵĂLJďĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďLJĨůŽŽĚŝŶŐͬƐĞĂůĞǀĞůƌŝƐĞ͘ tŽƵůĚLJŽƵďĞĂďůĞƚŽƐŚĂƌĞƚŚĞĚĂƚĂŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞĚƌĂĨƚƚŽŚĞůƉŝŶĨŽƌŵƚŚŝƐ
ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐďLJ&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϲƚŚ͍dŚĞƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƚĂƚĂďůĞƐĂŶĚĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶLJŝŶŐ'/^ƐŚĂƉĞĨŝůĞƐĨŽƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͕ ƉŝƉĞůŝŶĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƐŝƚĞƐƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌŵĞĞƚŝŶŐZ,EƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ 
6DQ0DWHR $SSHQGL[&+RXVLQJ5HVRXUFHV
)LJXUHDQG7DEOH$ʹ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞƐ/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ

^ŽƌƌLJƚŽĂĚĚƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŽLJŽƵƌůŝƐƚĂŵŽŶŐƐƚƚŚĞŵĂŶLJƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐLJŽƵĂƌĞďĂůĂŶĐŝŶŐƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁ͕ůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂ ŵŽƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĐŽƵůĚƌĞĨĞƌŵĞƚŽ͘/ĂůƐŽĐĐ͛ĚƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůĂĚĚƌĞƐƐůŝƐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ
hƉĚĂƚĞǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶĐĂƐĞĂŶLJŽŶĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚĞŵĂŝůŝŶďŽdžŝƐƚŚĞŵŽƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŝƚLJĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚ͘ 
dŚĂŶŬƐǀĞƌLJŵƵĐŚ͊



DĂŬĞŶĂ

Makena Wong
Project Manager | San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) OneShoreline.org
Pronouns: she/her

City of San Mateo
330 W 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
To the honorable San Mateo City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County appreciates this opportunity to engage the City of San Mateo on its housing element. Earlier this year, we sent the city two letters outlining opportunities to approve the initial draft of its housing element, one focused primarily on needs and constraints, the other focused on affirmatively furthering fair housing, the sites inventory, and the goals, policies, and programs.

Now that the city has received its review letter from the department of Housing and Community Development, San Mateo has a new opportunity to address the housing needs of its entire community. However, we are concerned that arecent staff report and matrix of responses to HCD’s commentsdoes not adequately reflect the city council’s strong commitment to meeting the housing needs of all. One line in particular raises concerns that San Mateo is considering legally dubious options. From the staff report:

It should be noted that HCD certification is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with State law. State law provides that a local jurisdiction may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with State law despite HCD’s findings. Thus, a local jurisdiction can continue to work with HCD to achieve certification of its adopted housing element after the deadline without being deemed out of compliance.

A local jurisdiction may attempt to adopt its own findings before receiving HCD certification, but doing so significantly increases the risk of lawsuits. Manhattan Beach attempted to adopt their housing element before receiving HCD certification; the city has now been sued twice by the nonprofit Californians for Homeownership (associated with the CA Realtors Association). If San Mateo were to attempt to adopt its current draft housing element without first implementing significant revisions, it would be asking for a lawsuit.

In order to plan for the needs of its entire community and comply with state law, San Mateo must revise large portions of its housing element as follows:

1. Adjust realistic capacity for sites within the inventory based on site-specific information, and remove unrealistic sites: Currently, San Mateo’s site inventory assumes all parcels will be built out to 100% of zoned capacity. On some sites, such as Hillsdale Mall, 100% buildout is inconceivable even if the city made dramatic policy

changes. 12 acres of the ~40-acre Hillsdale site were renovated within the past 3 years, making them extremely unlikely to become new homes anytime soon. Yet San Mateo’s current draft housing element assumes that 100% of the Hillsdale site will become new homes at 100% of zoned capacity, a clear violation of the law. 1 In another example, the
Bridgepoint Shopping Center recently renewed long term leases with several tenants, making development of the site highly unlikely. Unless the city can provide compelling evidence that these sites will be developed, such as property owner interest and the provision of favorable development standards, they must be removed from the inventory.
2 As referenced earlier, Manhattan Beach has been sued twice for including sites that will not become housing in the next eight years within its inventory. Other sites have similar pre-existing uses that impede housing. Upon removal of unrealistic sites from the inventory and appropriate reduction of realistic capacity for other sites, San Mateo will no longer be able to demonstrate capacity to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocations. As a result, the city will need to upzone beyond the limits created by Measure Y.

2. Fully analyze constraints to housing: The matrix of responses to HCD’s review letter provided by staff still makes no commitment to address Measure Y within the housing element. In its review letter, HCD writes “The element must describe the impacts of measure Y on height and density restrictions as a constraint on housing development and affordability. The element must add a program to include outreach and mitigation measures for the impact of Measure Y.” Addressing the constraint “as part of the GPU [General Plan Update] adoption process,” as staff offer in their matrix of responses, does not suffice. The housing element is a chapter of the general plan; as such, constraints to housing, including Measure Y, should be addressed within the housing element. HCD lists a number of other significant underanalyzed and unaddressed constraints, including discretionary review processes, development fees, and parking requirements.

3. Fully analyze Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: In its current housing element, San Mateo seeks to justify current patterns of segregation rather than analyze and address them. In fact, by concentrating all of its opportunity sites outside of San Mateo’s highest opportunity areas, the housing element actively promotes segregation. In order to satisfy AFFH requirements, the city needs new policies to protect lower-income renters and promote housing in its highest-opportunity areas.

4. Implement new policies and programs to increase validity of site inventory: Based on complete analyses of sites, constraints, and AFFH, San Mateo will need to implement new policies and programs. State law is particularly clear: Identified constraints must be 2 Gov. Code, § 65583.2(g)(2): “An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.”
1 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 20: “The capacity calculation must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development capacity on the sites in the inventory. Specifically, when the site has the potential to be developed with nonresidential uses, requires redevelopment, or has an overlay zone allowing the underlying zoning to be utilized for residential units, these capacity limits must be reflected in the housing element.”
removed to the extent possible.3 Programs must promote AFFH goals.4 HLC recommends the following programs:
○ Implement an affordable housing overlay focused on land owned by religious institutions and schools in high-opportunity single-family neighborhoods. The overlay should allow development standards at least as generous as the city’s R6-D development standards to provide maximum flexibility for these public and semi-public institutions to create new homes. Furthermore, proposals for housing on sites owned by religious institutions or schools should be exempt from design review hearings and limited to two planning commission hearings. (AFFH) ○ Implement a rental registry to track rentals and provide data to the city regarding prices and evictions. Data from a rental registry will help the city identify landlords violating the law and devise additional renter protections as needed. (AFFH) ○ Reduce fees on affordable housing, especially impact fees and open space fees.

Waive fees entirely for low- and very low-income units, defer them until reception of occupancy permit for moderate-income units. (AFFH, constraints) ○ Allow ministerial approval for all opportunity sites, eliminating design review and planning commission review. Discretionary review processes add cost and uncertainty to the development process; these processes also put a heavy burden on planning staff time, which the city is eminently short of. (constraints) ○ Reduce parking requirements by (1) requiring only 1 parking space for 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-or-more-bedroom units (2) eliminating guest parking requirements throughout the city (3) eliminating parking requirements for units serving those with physical or mental disabilities. (constraints) ○ Upzone opportunity sites above Measure Y limits to promote viability of opportunity sites. The exact quantity of upzoning required will depend in part on the results of a complete site inventory analysis. HLC believes that, in order to demonstrate viability of opportunity sites, the city should rezone as follow:
i. Rezone R3, R4, R4-D, R5, R5-D, R6-D; all C1, C2, and C3 districts; and all E zoning districts to allow:

1. 85 feet height and 8 stories

2. Eliminate density cap

3. Eliminate minimum lot size

4. Increase FAR to 5
ii. Rezone CBD, CBD/S, TOD, and all C4 districts to allow:

1. 125 feet height and 12 stories
4 Gov. Code, § 65583(c)(10)(A)(v): “Strategies and actions to implement [AFFH] priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement.
3 Gov. Code, § 65583(c)(3): “Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels.”

2. Eliminate density cap

3. Eliminate minimum lot size, rear setbacks, and side setbacks

4. Eliminate maximum lot coverage

5. Eliminate private open space requirement

6. Increase FAR to 8
San Mateo’s city council is responsible for providing staff direction to implement these policies and programs. These are not controversial proposals; according to the city’s own Community Input Survey, when asked about their zoning preferences, “63% of San Mateo residents indicated they would support concentrating new housing in higher-density buildings downtown and near transit up to 12 stories.
5 HLC’s proposals reflect the widely held preferences
of the San Mateo community.

Fundamentally, cities cannot analyze their way into new homes, nor can they analyze their way into compliance with state law. The housing element process challenges cities to provide a series of analyses and then commit to substantially change local policies in ways that incentivize new housing development. HLC looks forward to continue working with San Mateo’s leaders as they strive to meet the housing needs of the entire community.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County 5 Community Opinion Survey: Summary Report, p. 12

/0
/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/i255/10/1/2/3/11/12/10/i255/13/14
/15/16/5/17/18 /19/20/21/22/23/24/25
/26/27/28/29/18 /30/31/23/32/33/34/35/i255/37/20/38/39/40/41/39/31/i255/42/35/i255/43/44/43/43/i255/45/46/47/42/i255/48/49 /50/5/18 /37/23/51/52/20/53/33/22/i255/54/37/23/51/55/34/54/i255/56/21/57/i255/58/53/20/23/59/33/i255/49/21/31/23/53/53/20/60/61/33/31/51/23/33 /26/14/62/63/27/3/29/18 /30/64/46/i255/65/24/53/23/24/39/i255/30/20/31/40/i255/66/21/41/40/23/67/67/33/53/46/i255/68/31/33/69/67/i255/43/44/43/45/60/43/44/45/47/i255/19/20/21/22/23/24/25/i255/58/53/39/40/39/24/67/i255/70/20/40/40/39/24/67/i255/30/20/31/40 /i255
/i255
/72/73/74/75/76/i255/77/78/79/80/81/82/83/84/85/86/87/86/85/81/82/88/89/90/85/78/91/i255/92/77/78/79/80/81/82/83/84/85/86/87/86/85/81/82/88/89/90/85/78/91/93/i255/i255 /94/95/96/97/76/i255/98/79/86/99/100/83/101/i255/102/78/87/80/91/103/80/79/i255/104/101/i255/105/106/105/105/i255/107/106/108/106/109/i255/110/111/i255 /112/74/76/i255/113/78/88/89/86/77/114/i255/92/115/78/88/89/86/77/114/84/85/86/116/83/78/117/89/100/77/91/100/116/80/78/90/78/79/114/93/i255 /94/118/119/120/95/121/97/76/i255/122/77/82/86/77/80/i255/98/78/79/91/i255/123/88/103/91/86/116/116/100/82/108/i255/124/79/100/117/116/i255/105/106/105/125/126/105/106/125/107/i255/113/78/88/89/86/77/114/i255/127/82/80/91/80/77/116/i255/128/78/91/91/80/77/116/i255/98/78/79/91/i255 /i255
/129/130/131/132/133/i255/135/136/135/137/138/135/136/137/139/i255/140/141/142/143/144/145/146/i255/147/148/149/150/149/145/133/i255/151/141/150/150/149/145/133/i255/152/141/130/150 /i255/i255
/129/130/131/132/133/i255/140/141/142/143/144/145/146/i255/147/148/149/150/149/145/133/i255/152/149/149/153/154/131/155/156/i255/152/141/130/150/i255 /158/159/160/161/162/160/i255/162/163/161/164/160/i255/165/166/167/164/i255/168/166/169/169/160/170/171/162/i255/164/160/172/161/164/173/174/170/172/i255/171/163/160/i255/175/164/161/176/171/i255/177/166/167/162/174/170/172/i255/178/159/160/169/160/170/171/179/i255/i255 /180/166/169/169/160/170/171/i255/181/160/164/174/166/173/i255/176/166/164/i255/171/163/160/i255/173/164/161/176/171/i255/173/166/168/167/169/160/170/171/i255/174/162/i255/182/181/164/174/159/i255/183/i255/171/163/164/166/167/172/163/i255/184/161/165/i255/183/185/i255/186/187/186/186/179/i255/i255 /98/86/79/89/116/i255/102/100/91/80/i255 /188/141/150
/189/100/89/116/i255/102/100/91/80/i255 /190/149/131/143/149 /127/91/100/86/82/i255/110/99/99/79/80/89/89/i255
/128/78/91/91/80/77/116/i255/78/77/i255/105/106/105/125/126/105/106/125/107/i255 /124/79/100/117/116/i255/113/78/88/89/86/77/114/i255/127/82/80/91/80/77/116/i255 /188/191/149/130/149/i255/145/149/149/153/143/i255/133/141/i255/154/149/i255/150/142/155/191/i255/150/141/130/149/i255/131/132/132/141/130/153/131/154/148/149/i255/191/141/142/143/144/145/146/i255/131/145/153/i255/192/141/130/156/i255 /132/141/130/155/149/i255/191/141/142/143/144/145/146/193/i255 /194/142/144/148/153/144/145/146/i255/131/i255/133/141/145/i255/141/132/i255/148/142/195/142/130/196/i255/155/141/145/153/141/143/i255/144/143/i255/145/141/133/i255/146/141/144/145/146/i255/133/141/i255/150/131/156/149/i255/133/191/149/150/i255 /131/132/132/141/130/153/131/154/148/149/193/i255
/197/148/143/141/i255/131/153/149/198/142/131/133/149/i255/199/131/130/156/144/145/146/i255/145/149/149/153/143/i255/133/141/i255/154/149/i255/144/145/155/148/142/153/149/153/i255/192/144/133/191/i255/149/200/149/130/196/i255 /153/149/200/149/148/141/199/150/149/145/133/193
/i255
/i255/i255
/i255
/147/150/131/144/148/i255/145/141/133/i255/153/144/143/199/148/131/196/144/145/146/i255/155/141/130/130/149/155/133/148/196/201/i255/202/144/149/192/i255/144/133/i255/144/145/i255/196/141/142/130/i255/154/130/141/192/143/149/130/193 /i255/i255
/i255