Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, July 28, 2025 (part 4 of 4)

Attachment F
585 of 983
Spouse Veteran Status*** Required by System R:RegSrvsFCSP ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AP, AQ.

Send answer if date of consent is within 365 days of the last date of the quarter being sent.

Veteran Date of Consent*** Situational Optional ** YYYY-MM-DD Answer is required if Veteran Status or Spouse Veteran Status = 1.

Date veteran or family member signed form. This date will be used as the starting date for the 12 months person consents to their data being used.

ADL: Eating*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z ADL: Bathing*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z ADL: Toileting*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z ADL: Transferring in/out of bed/chair *** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z ADL: Walking*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z ADL: Dressing*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z ADL: Grooming*** Required by System MSSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Meal Preparation*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Shopping*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Medication Management*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Money Management*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Using Telephone*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Heavy Housework*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Light Housework*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Transportation*** Required by System R:RegSrvs Cluster 1 ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Stair Climbing*** Required by System MSSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Mobility Indoors*** Required by System MSSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Mobility Outdoors*** Required by System MSSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z IADL: Laundry*** Required by System MSSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col Y,Z Person at Nutritional Risk*** Required by System R:CsM, HDM, CgM, NC**** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AA,AB * CLIENT means an individual receiving AAA services with Title III BD, VII b funds. Client also means a CARE RECEIVER whose Caregiver receives AAA services with Title III E funds. CAREGIVER means an individual receiving AAA services with Title III E funds. ** For CAREGIVER/CARE RECEIVER ADL/IADL and other
requirements see: FCSP REFERENCE GUIDE WORKSHEET.

If ID is missing, record will be discarded by system, with the exception of Non-Registered services.

Provider ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Unique identifier (as assigned by your system) of the provider for which the units belong. This ID corresponds to the provider ID in the Service Provider File, Service Units File and Caregiver Relationshp File (if reporting a caregiver).

Service ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Unique identifier for each service delivered by each provider assigned by your system in which the participant is enrolled in the fiscal year.

This ID corresponds to the Service ID in the Service Provider File, Service Units File, and Caregiver Relationship File (assigned to a CAREGIVER service).

First ever service date Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP YYYY-MM-DD The very first time the participant enrolled in the service (e.g., John Smith first started receiving services from MoW HDM on 8/1/2004).

This is the first ever service date. This is used to determine the number of new participants receiving services each year for NAPIS reporting.

First service current fiscal year Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP YYYY-MM-DD The first service date for the participant in the current fiscal year for the specific service.

End service date/Deactivation date (if available) Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP YYYY-MM-DD The date on which the participant stopped receiving a service from a provider in the current fiscal year. This is valid only for those participants that did not receive services throughout the entire fiscal year.
*** REFER TO LOOKUP TABLE 1
**** PERSON AT NUTRITIONAL RISK: Case
Management (CsM), Home Delivered Meals
(HDM), Congregate Meals (CgM), and Nutritional
Counseling (NC).

Key:

R = Required
RegSrvs = Registered NAPIS Services
FCSP = Family Caregiver Support Program
SUM = Summary Data per NAPIS, no ADL/IADLs
Enrollment File

Page 2 of 5 ends

Attachment F
586 of 983
Reason for deactivation* Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AC,AD * REFER TO LOOKUP TABLE 1 NOTE:

Estimated Count of Client Served in Non-Registered services may be manually entered into CARS.

Field Required/Optiona
l for System
Required/Optional for
Reporting Data Type/Format Comments
Participant ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Unique identifier for each participant assigned by your system. This should correspond to the Internal Participant ID from the Client file. If ID is missing, record will be discarded by system, with the exception of Non-Registered services. A NULL (i.e. blank) value is acceptable in this field when entering service units for non-registered services.

Provider ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Unique identifier (as assigned by your system) of the provider for which the units belong. This ID corresponds to the provider ID in the Service Provider File, Enrollment File and Caregiver Relationshp File (if reporting units for a caregiver).

Service ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Unique identifier for each service delivered by each provider assigned by your system in which the participant is enrolled in the fiscal year.

This ID corresponds to the Service ID in the Service Provider File, Enrollment File, and Caregiver Relationship File (assigned to a CAREGIVER service).

Reporting Month (reported quarterly, but by individual month) Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER, 1-12 Month for which the service units are recorded Reporting year Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER, YYYY Year for which the service units are recorded Unit name* Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP TEXT
Specify unit of service from look-up Table AA (report hours as whole numbers only).

Quantity Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Total units of service delivered to participant in the month/year indicated. When reporting services for Non-Registered services you may also manually enter aggregate units directly in CARS. * REFER TO LOOKUP TABLE 1
Field Required/Optiona
l for System
Required/Optional for
Reporting Data Type/Format Comments
Provider name Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP TEXT
Name of the provider offering the Title III-funded service in which the participant is enrolled in the fiscal year (e.g., Meals on Wheels) Provider ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Unique identifier (as assigned by your system) of the provider for which the units belong. This ID corresponds to the provider ID in the Enrollment File, Service Units File and Caregiver Relationshp File (if reporting a caregiver).

Service name Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP TEXT
Name of the specific service offered by the provider (e.g., Meals on Wheels, Home Delivered Meals). Each service is specific to a service type.

Service ID Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER
Unique identifier for each service delivered by each provider assigned by your system in which the participant is enrolled in the fiscal year.

This ID corresponds to the Service ID in the Service Units File, Enrollment File, and Caregiver Relationship File (assigned to a CAREGIVER service).

Program Type ID* Required by System R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AE,AF Minority Provider* Required by system R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col U,V Is AAA the Provider?* Required by system R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col W,X A senior center Required by system R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AN, AO A focal point Required by system R-RegSrvsFCSP INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AP, AQ * REFER TO LOOKUP TABLE 1
Key:

R = Required
RegSrvs = Registered NAPIS Services
FCSP = Family Caregiver Support Program
SUM = Summary Data per NAPIS, no ADL/IADLs
Service-Provider File
Key:

R = Required
RegSrvs = Registered NAPIS Services
FCSP = Family Caregiver Support Program
SUM = Summary Data per NAPIS, no ADL/IADLs
Key:

R = Required
RegSrvs = Registered NAPIS Services
FCSP = Family Caregiver Support Program
SUM = Summary Data per NAPIS, no ADL/IADLs
Service Units File

Page 3 of 5 ends

Attachment F
587 of 983
Field Required/Optiona
l for System
Required/Optional for
Reporting Data Type/Format Comments
Caregiver (use Participant ID) Required by System R-FCSP Only INTEGER Insert the appropriate Internal Participant ID from the Client File for this individual. If ID is missing, record will be discarded by system, with the exception of Non-Registered services. A NULL (i.e. blank) value is acceptable in this field when entering service units for nonregistered services.

Care Receiver (use Participant ID) Required by System R-FCSP Only INTEGER Insert the appropriate Internal Participant ID from the Client File for this individual. If ID is missing, record will be discarded by system.

Caregiver Relationship* Required by System R-FCSP Only INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col AG,AH Provider ID Required by System R-FCSP Only INTEGER
Unique identifier for the FCSP provider assigned by your system.

This ID corresponds to the provider ID in the Enrollment File, Service Units File and Caregiver Relationshp File (if reporting a caregiver).

Service ID Required by System R-FCSP Only INTEGER
Unique identifier (as assigned by your system) of the CAREGIVER service for which the units belong. This ID corresponds to a service ID in the Service Provider File. There is no Service ID requirement for the CARE RECEIVER.
* REFER TO LOOKUP TABLE 1
Field Required/Optiona
l for System
Required/Optional for
Reporting Data Type/Format Comments
Client Unique ID Required by System Required INTEGER Unique identifier for each participant assigned by your system.

Gender Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col C,D Gender not listed, specify Situational Optional ** TEXT Answer is required if Gender = 6.

Sex at Birth Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col A,B Sexual Orientation or Sexual Identify Required by System Required INTEGER Answer is required if Sexual Orentation or Sexual Identity = 5.

Sexual Orientation not listed, specify Situational Optional ** TEXT Answer is required if Sexual Orientation = 5.

Date of Birth Required by System Required: DOB or Age ** YYYY-MM-DD When missing, submit value of "0000-00-00" or "0" for this field.

Age Required by System Required: DOB or Age ** INTEGER
Race Required by System Required MULTI-SELECT TEXT, Race1;Race2;Race4 (1;2;4) Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Sheet Col G,H Ethnicity Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col I,J Zip Code Required by System Required: Zip Code or Geographic Distribution ** ##### or #####-#### Geographic Distribution Required by System Required: Zip Code or Geographic Distribution ** INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col O,P Household Status Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col M,N Poverty Status Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables Sheet Col K,L * REFER TO LOOKUP TABLE 2
Field Required/Optiona
l for System
Required/Optional for
Reporting Data Type/Format Comments
Case Unique ID Required by System Required INTEGER Unique identifier for each case assigned by your system.

Client Unique ID Required by System Required INTEGER Unique identifier for each participant assigned by your system.

Case Open Date Required by System Required YYYY-MM-DD
Case Closed Date Required by System Situational YYYY-MM-DD Date is blank until the case is closed, then send the closed date.

Service Level Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col Q,R Case Type Required by System Required INTEGER Refer to Lookup Tables 2 Col S,T Key:

R = Required
RegSrvs = Registered NAPIS Services
FCSP = Family Caregiver Support Program
SUM = Summary Data per NAPIS, no ADL/IADLs
Legal Assistance Client File
Legal Assistance Case File
Key:

R = Required
RegSrvs = Registered NAPIS Services
FCSP = Family Caregiver Support Program
SUM = Summary Data per NAPIS, no ADL/IADLs
Caregiver Relationship File

Page 4 of 5 ends

Attachment F
588 of 983
Month Required by System Required INTEGER, 1-12
Year Required by System Required INTEGER, YYYY
Hours (units recorded) Required by System Required NUMERIC (Example 1 or 1.25) Total units of service delivered to participant in the month/year indicated.

Case data can be repeated
for every month/year/hours
combination to report.

Page 5 of 5 ends

Attachment F
589 of 983

ATTACHMENT G

SENIOR CENTERS & FOCAL POINTS

COMMUNITY SENIOR CENTERS AND FOCAL POINTS LIST
CCR Title 22, Article 3, Section 7302(a)(14), 45 CFR Section 1321.53(c), Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2020, Section 306(a) and 102(21)(36)
Designated Community Focal Point/Senior
Center
Address

1. Alzheimer’s Association of Northern California &
Northern Nevada 2290 N. 1st Street, San Jose CA 95131

2. Catholic Charities CYO San Carlos Adult Day
Services 787 Walnut Street San Carlos, CA 94070

3. Center for the Independence of Individuals with
Disabilities
1515 S. El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Mateo, CA
94402

4. City of Belmont Senior and Community Center 20
Twin Pines Lane B 20 Twin Pines Lane Belmont, CA 94402

5. City of Brisbane Senior Center 2 Visitacion Avenue Brisbane, CA 94005

6. City of Burlingame Recreation Older Adult and
Senior Programs 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010

7. City of Daly City Senior/Adult Services Doelger
Center 101 Lake Merced Blvd. Daly City, CA 94015

8. City of Daly City Lincoln Community Center 901 Brunswick Street Daly City, CA 94014

9. City of Daly City: Bayshore 450 Martin Street, Daly City CA 94014

10. City of Daly City: Gellert 50 Wembley Drive, Daly City, CA 94015

11. City of East Palo Alto: East Palo Alto Senior Center Inc. 56 Bell Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303

12. City of Menlo Park Senior Center 110 Terminal Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94015

13. City of Millbrae Recreation Department Senior
Activities 623 Magnolia Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030

14. City of Pacifica Senior Services Center 540 Crespi Drive Pacifica, CA 94044

15. City of San Bruno Senior Center 1555 Crystal Springs Road San Bruno, CA 94066

16. City of San Mateo Senior Center 2645 Alameda de las Pulgas San Mateo, CA 94403

17. City of San Mateo Martin Luther King Community
Center 725 Mount Diablo San Mateo, CA 94401

18. City of South San Francisco Adult Day Care
601 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA
94080

19. City of South San Francisco Magnolia Senior Center 601 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080
590 of 983

20. Coastside Adult Day Health Center 925 Main Street Half Moon Bay, 94019

21. Edgewood Center for Children and Families 957B Industrial Road San Carlos, CA 94070

22. Family Caregiver Alliance 101 Montgomery, Suite #2150 San Francisco, CA 94103

23.Fair Oaks Community Center 2600 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA 94063

24. Kimochi, Inc. 453 N. San Mateo Drive, San Mateo CA 94401

25. Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County 330 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123, Redwood City, CA 94065

26. Age Up (Formerly Ombudsman Services of SMC) 1455 Madison Avenue, Redwood City, CA 94061

27. Peninsula Family Service 24 2nd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401

28. Peninsula Volunteers, Inc. Rosener House 500 Arbor Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025

29. Peninsula Volunteers, Inc. Little House 800 Middle Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025

30. Puente de la Costa Sur 620 North Street, Pescadero, CA 94060

31. Rob Robinsoon Senior Care Center San Mateo
Medical Center 222 W. 39th Avenue, San Mateo CA 94403

32. San Carlos Adult Community Center 601 Chestnut Street, San Carlos, CA 94070

33. San Mateo County Aging and Disability Services 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, San Mateo, CA 94403

34. Second Harvest of Silicon Valley 1051 Bing Street, San Carlos, CA 94070

35. Self Help for the Elderly 50 East 5th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401

36. Senior Coastsiders 535 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

37. Sequoia Hospital Health and Wellness Center 749 Brewster Avenue, Redwood City CA 94063

38. Veterans Memorial Senior Center 1455 Madison Avenue, Redwood City CA 94061 591 of 983
Issued by County of San Mateo Contract Compliance Committee ~ December 9, 2015 Page 1 Attachment H
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Business Associate Requirements

DEFINITIONS
Terms used, but not otherwise defined, in this Schedule shall have the same meaning as those terms are defined in 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 160.103, 164.304, and 164.501. All regulatory references in this Schedule are to Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations unless otherwise specified.
a. Business Associate. “Business Associate" shall generally have the same meaning as the term "business associate" at 45 CFR 160.103, and in reference to the parties to this agreement shall mean Contractor.
b. Covered Entity. "Covered entity" shall generally have the same meaning as the term “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103, and in reference to the party to this agreement shall mean County.
c. HIPAA Rules. "HIPAA rules" shall mean the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and Enforcement Rules at 45 CFR part 160 and part 164, as amended and supplemented by Subtitle D of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. d. Designated Record Set. "Designated Record Set" shall have the same meaning as the term "designated record set" in Section 164.501.
e. Electronic Protected Health Information. "Electronic Protected Health Information" (EPHI) means individually identifiable health information that is transmitted or maintained in electronic media; it is limited to the information created, received, maintained or transmitted by Business Associate from or on behalf of Covered Entity. f. Individual. "Individual" shall have the same meaning as the term "individual" in Section 164.501 and shall include a person who qualifies as a personal representative in accordance with Section 164.502(g).
g. Privacy Rule. "Privacy Rule" shall mean the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information at 45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, Subparts A and E. h. Protected Health Information. "Protected Health Information" (PHI) shall have the same meaning as the term "protected health information" in Section 160.103 and is limited to the information created or received by Business Associate from or on behalf of County.
i. Required By Law. "Required by law" shall have the same meaning as the term "required by law" in Section 164.103.
j. Secretary. "Secretary" shall mean the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services or his or her designee.
k. Breach. The acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of PHI in violation of the Privacy Rule that compromises the security or privacy of the PHI and subject to the exclusions set forth in Section 164.402. Unless an exception applies, an impermissible use or disclosure of PHI is presumed to be a breach, unless it can be demonstrated there is a low 592 of 983
Issued by County of San Mateo Contract Compliance Committee ~ December 9, 2015 Page 2 probability that the PHI has been compromised based upon, at minimum, a four-part risk assessment:

1. Nature and extent of PHI included, identifiers and likelihood of re-identification;

2. Identity of the unauthorized person or to whom impermissible disclosure wasmade;

3. Whether PHI was actually viewed or only the opportunity to do so existed;

4. The extent to which the risk has been mitigated.
l. Security Rule. "Security Rule" shall mean the Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information at 45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, Subparts A and C.
m. Unsecured PHI. “Unsecured PHI” is protected health information that is not rendered unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals through the use of a technology or methodology specified by the Secretary in relevant HHS guidance. n. Security Incident. "Security Incident" shall mean the attempted or successful unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction of information or interference with systems operations in an information system. “Security Incident” includes all incidents that constitute breaches of unsecured protected health information.

OBLIGATIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF CONTRACTOR AS BUSINESS ASSOCIATE a. Business Associate agrees to not use or further disclose Protected Health Information other than as permitted or required by the Agreement or as required by law. b. Business Associate agrees to use appropriate safeguards to comply with Subpart C of 45 CFR part 164 with respect to EPHI and PHI, and to prevent the use or disclosure of the Protected Health Information other than as provided for by this Agreement. c. Business Associate agrees to make uses and disclosures requests for Protected Health Information consistent with minimum necessary policy and procedures. d. Business Associate may not use or disclose protected health information in a manner that would violate subpart E of 45 CFR part 164.504 if used or disclosed by Covered Entity.
e. Business Associate agrees to mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect that is known to Business Associate of a use or disclosure of Protected Health Information by Business Associate in violation of the requirements of this Agreement. f. Business Associate agrees to report to County any use or disclosure of Protected Health Information not authorized by this Agreement.
g. Business Associate agrees to ensure that any agent, including a subcontractor, to whom it provides Protected Health Information received from, or created or received by Business Associate on behalf of County, agrees to adhere to the same restrictions and conditions that apply through this Agreement to Business Associate with respect to such information.
h. If Business Associate has Protected Health Information in a Designated Record Set, Business Associate agrees to provide access, at the request of County, and in the time and manner designated by County, to Protected Health Information in a Designated Record Set, to County or, as directed by County, to an Individual in order to meet the requirements under Section 164.524.
593 of 983
Issued by County of San Mateo Contract Compliance Committee ~ December 9, 2015 Page 3 i. If Business Associate has Protected Health Information in a Designated Record Set, Business Associate agrees to make any amendment(s) to Protected Health Information in a Designated Record Set that the County directs or agrees to make pursuant to Section 164.526 at the request of County or an Individual, and in the time and manner designed by County.
j. Business Associate agrees to make internal practices, books, and records relating to the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information received from, or created or received by Business Associate on behalf of County, available to the County at the request of County or the Secretary, in a time and manner designated by the County or the Secretary, for purposes of the Secretary determining County's compliance with the Privacy Rule.
k. Business Associate agrees to document such disclosures of Protected Health Information and information related to such disclosures as would be required for County to respond to a request by an Individual for an accounting of disclosures of Protected Health Information in accordance with Section 164.528. l. Business Associate agrees to provide to County or an Individual in the time and manner designated by County, information collected in accordance with Section (k) of this Schedule, in order to permit County to respond to a request by an Individual for an accounting of disclosures of Protected Health Information in accordance with Section 164.528.
m. Business Associate shall implement administrative, physical, and technical safeguards that reasonably and appropriately protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of EPHI that Business Associate creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of County.
n. Business Associate shall conform to generally accepted system security principles and the requirements of the final HIPAA rule pertaining to the security of health information.
o. Business Associate shall ensure that any agent to whom it provides EPHI, including a subcontractor, agrees to implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to protect such EPHI.
p. Business Associate shall report to County any Security Incident within three (3) business days of becoming aware of such incident. Business Associate shall also facilitate breach notification(s) to the appropriate governing body (i.e. HHS, OCR, etc.) as required by law. As appropriate and after consulting with County, Business Associate shall also notify affected individuals and the media of a qualifying breach. q. Business Associate understands that it is directly liable under the HIPAA rules and subject to civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties for making uses and disclosures of Protected Health Information that are not authorized by this Attachment, the underlying contract as or required by law.

PERMITTED USES AND DISCLOSURES BY CONTRACTOR AS BUSINESS ASSOCIATE Except as otherwise limited in this Schedule, Business Associate may use or disclose Protected Health Information to perform functions, activities, or services for, or on behalf of, County as specified in the Agreement; provided that such use or disclosure would not violate the Privacy Rule if done by County.
594 of 983
Issued by County of San Mateo Contract Compliance Committee ~ December 9, 2015 Page 4

OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY
a. County shall provide Business Associate with the notice of privacy practices that County produces in accordance with Section 164.520, as well as any changes to such notice. b. County shall provide Business Associate with any changes in, or revocation of, permission by Individual to use or disclose Protected Health Information, if such changes affect Business Associate's permitted or required uses and disclosures. c. County shall notify Business Associate of any restriction to the use or disclosure of Protected Health Information that County has agreed to in accordance with Section 164.522.

PERMISSIBLE REQUESTS BY COUNTY
County shall not request Business Associate to use or disclose Protected Health Information in any manner that would not be permissible under the Privacy Rule if so requested by County, unless the Business Associate will use or disclose Protected Health Information for, and if the Agreement provides for, data aggregation or management and administrative activities of Business Associate.

DUTIES UPON TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
a. Upon termination of the Agreement, for any reason, Business Associate shall return or destroy all Protected Health Information received from County, or created, maintained, or received by Business Associate on behalf of County, that Business Associate still maintains in any form. This provision shall apply to Protected Health Information that is in the possession of subcontractors or agents of Business Associate. Business Associate shall retain no copies of the Protected Health Information. b. In the event that Business Associate determines that returning or destroying Protected Health Information is infeasible, Business Associate shall provide to County notification of the conditions that make return or destruction infeasible. Upon mutual agreement of the Parties that return or destruction of Protected Health Information is infeasible, Business Associate shall extend the protections of the Agreement to such Protected Health Information and limit further uses and disclosures of such Protected Health Information to those purposes that make the return or destruction infeasible, for so long as Business Associate maintains such Protection Health Information.

MISCELLANEOUS
a. Regulatory References. A reference in this Schedule to a section in the HIPAA Privacy Rule means the section as in effect or as amended, and for which compliance is required.
b. Amendment. The Parties agree to take such action as is necessary to amend this Schedule from time to time as is necessary for County to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Rule and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Public Law 104-191.
595 of 983
Issued by County of San Mateo Contract Compliance Committee ~ December 9, 2015 Page 5 c. Survival. The respective rights and obligations of Business Associate under this Schedule shall survive the termination of the Agreement. d. Interpretation. Any ambiguity in this Schedule shall be resolved in favor of a meaning that permits County to comply with the Privacy Rule.
e. Reservation of Right to Monitor Activities. County reserves the right to monitor the security policies and procedures of Business Associate. 596 of 983

ATTACHMENT I
Assurance of Compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended The undersigned (hereinafter called "Contractor(s)") hereby agrees that it will comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, all requirements imposed by the applicable DHHS regulation, and all guidelines and interpretations issued pursuant thereto.

The Contractor(s) gives/give this assurance in consideration of for the purpose of obtaining contracts after the date of this assurance. The Contractor(s) recognizes/recognize and agrees/agree that contracts will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Contractor(s), its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the person or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign this assurance on behalf of the Contractor(s).

The Contractor(s): (Check a or b)
☐ a. Employs fewer than 15 persons.
☐ b. Employs 15 or more persons and, pursuant to section 84.7 (a) of the regulation (45 C.F.R.

84.7 (a), has designated the following person(s) to coordinate its efforts to comply with the DHHS regulation.

Name of 504 Person:

Name of Contractor(s):

Street Address or P.O. Box:

City, State, Zip Code:

I certify that the above information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge Signature:

Title of Authorized Official:

Date:
*Exception: DHHS regulations state that: "If a recipient with fewer than 15 employees finds that, after consultation with a disabled person seeking its services, there is no method of complying with (the facility accessibility regulations) other than making a significant alteration in its existing facilities, the recipient may, as an alternative, refer the handicapped person to other providers of those services that are accessible." Issued by County of San Mateo Contract Compliance Committee August 5, 2013 Joanne Magrini
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
597 of 983
RESOLUTION NO. 081302

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE AREA

AGENCY ON AGING FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA * * * * * *
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING: A) THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH CHIEF OR THE CHIEF’S DESIGNEE TO ACCEPT OLDER AMERICANS ACT FUNDS FROM

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING FOR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES UNDER TITLE III AND TITLE VII; AND B) THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH CHIEF OR THE CHIEF’S DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE OLDER AMERICANS ACT COMMUNITY PROVIDER AGREEMENTS, DURING OR FOR THE TERM OF JULY 1, 2025 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2026, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,561,829 RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California acting as the Governing Board of the Area Agency on Aging for the County of San Mateo, that
WHEREAS, this Board has appointed the County’s Aging and Disability Services (ADS) division as the Area Agency on Aging (AAA) of San Mateo County to provide services pursuant to the Older Americans Act (OAA); and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, under Resolution No. 080316, this Board, through the AAA, executed an MOU (#AAA-2425-08) with the California Department of Aging (CDA) for the term of July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2029, to administer OAA programs for San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, CDA will present to the County for its consideration and acceptance a Funding Request Memo (FRM 2526-03) to provide funds for OAA Title III and VII programs, and ADS will work with community contractors to provide these programs during, or for the term of, July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026; and WHEREAS, in February 2022, ADS conducted a Request for Proposals for the provision of OAA services to older adults and adults with disabilities for the term July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026, and 21 providers were selected. 598 of 983
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Chief of San Mateo County Health or the Chief’s designee is authorized and directed to accept OAA funds for and on behalf of the County of San Mateo.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of San Mateo County Health or the Chief’s designee is authorized to prepare and execute FY 2025-26 OAA provider agreements to qualified providers as described in the transmitted memorandum accompanying this resolution in a total amount not to exceed $5,561,829 during or for the term of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of San Mateo County Health or the Chief’s designee is authorized to sign future MOU amendments with CDA and to execute amendments to individual provider agreements modifying the County’s maximum fiscal obligation, and/or modifying the contract term and/or services so long as the modified term or services is/are within the current or revised fiscal provisions, including future one-time-only funds or additional funds, received and allocated for the contract period.
* * * * *
599 of 983
RESOLUTION NUMBER: 081302
Regularly passed and adopted this 24th day of June, 2025 AYES and in favor of said resolution:

Supervisors: JACKIE SPEIER

NOELIA CORZO

RAY MUELLER

LISA GAUTHIER
DAVID J. CANEPA
NOES and against said resolution:

Supervisors: NONE
President, Board of Supervisors
County of San Mateo
State of California
Certificate of Delivery
I certify that a copy of the original resolution filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County has been delivered to the President of the Board of Supervisors.

Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
600 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 26 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 610027 File ID: 25-10185 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Department
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2025
SUBJECT:

Central Park Phase 1 Playground Improvements Project – Agreement Amendment No. 3 RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Amendment No. 3 to the agreement with RRM Design Group (RRM) to extend the term of the agreement from December 31, 2025 to December 31, 2026.

BACKGROUND:

On March 29, 2022, the City entered into an agreement with RRM for the preparation of final construction documents, bidding assistance, and construction administration services for the Central Park Phase 1 Playground Improvements Project (No. 610027). Under Section 4 – Term, the services to be performed under this agreement commenced on April 1, 2022, with a contract expiration date of December 31, 2025.

On June 5, 2024, Amendment No. 1 was made to the agreement with RRM to provide additional construction administration services at no cost for the Fallen Heroes Memorial project, a sub-project within the Phase 1 Playground Improvements Project.

On December 9, 2024, City Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the agreement with RRM for additional scope of services to reduce the cost of the original playground design, to provide revised construction documents and to negotiate a lower contract price with the low bidder.

On March 3, 2025, City Council awarded a negotiated construction contract to Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc., (SMC) in the amount of $8,485,784.

The proposed Amendment No. 3 to RRM’s agreement will extend the expiration date from December 31, 2025 to December 31, 2026, to provide uninterrupted construction support services from RRM for the duration of the construction phase of the project.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budget impact for Agreement Amendment No. 3. There are sufficient funds allocated to complete the Central Park Phase 1 Playground Improvements Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
601 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
This agreement amendment is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).) In addition, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the Central Park Phase 1 Playground Improvements Project. The IS/MND concluded that the project would not have any significant effects with the incorporation of mitigation measures that have been included in the project’s Conditions of Approval to ensure compliance during project implementation.

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Agreement Amendment No. 3

STAFF CONTACT
King Leong, Sr. Project Manager
[email protected]
(650)522-7542
602 of 983
Contract Amendment Page 1 of 2
CAO Approved June 2024
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND

RRM DESIGN GROUP FOR
CENTRAL PARK PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND ADMINISTRATION This Amendment No. 3 is made and entered into this day of July 28, 2025 by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and RRM DESIGN GROUP ("CONSULTANT").

WHEREAS, City and Consultant wish to amend that certain Agreement dated March 29, 2022, to extend the term of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant executed Amendment No. 1 on June 5, 2024, to provide additional construction administration services at no cost for the Fallen Heroes Memorial Project; and WHEREAS, City and Consultant executed Amendment No. 2 on December 9, 2024, to reduce the cost of the original playground design and revise construction documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Section 4 of the Agreement is amended to read:

The services to be performed under this agreement shall commence on April 1, 2022 and be completed on December 31, 2026.

2. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
603 of 983
Contract Amendment Page 2 of 2
CAO Approved June 2024
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and RRM DESIGN GROUP ("CONSULTANT") have executed this Amendment No. 3 on ___________________.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Joanne Magrini
Parks and Recreation Director
Date Lief McKay
Its Authorized Agent
Principal
If a Corporation, can be either 1)
President or 2) Vice President plus
an additional corporate officer
(i.e., Secretary, Treasurer) who
shall sign below.

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM ADDITIONAL CORPORATE

OFFICER
(if necessary per the above)
Mazarin Vakharia
Assistant City Attorney
Date Date
604 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 27 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 26-4662 File ID: 25-10127 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2025
SUBJECT:

Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise – Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for the development of a Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise in the amount of $420,000 for a term from August 1, 2025, through August 1, 2028; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

In January 2024, the City applied for grant funding through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the development of a Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise.

The development of a Climate Adaptation Plan will build on regional efforts such as the County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment to produce a planning document specific to the City of San Mateo. The Climate Adaptation Plan will include an existing conditions assessment and technical analysis to develop criteria for evaluating vulnerable areas, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to establish minimum elevations required to address projected sea level rise in 2050 and 2100 and other technical analysis. The Climate Adaptation Plan will result in a prioritized list of facilities and infrastructure which may require site-specific adaptation strategies and will include funding and financing analysis that are intended to provide next steps toward implementation.

In 2023, the California State Legislature passed SB 272 (Laird), Sea level rise: planning and adaptation. SB 272 addressed the need for coordinated standardized sea level rise adaptation by requiring local governments along the San Francisco Bay shoreline to develop Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plans. Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plans are required to meet the Guidelines established by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP), ensuring effective and collaborative regional responses. Local governments that receive approval for their sea level rise plan are then prioritized for funding for the implementation of sea level rise adaptation strategies and recommended projects in approved plans.

In July 2024, the City of San Mateo received a Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program conditional grant award letter from Caltrans. In September 2024, City Council adopted a Resolution identifying approval authority for the agreements between the City of San Mateo and Caltrans, in compliance with the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program requirement.

On February 3, 2025, City Council adopted a resolution accepting grant funds in the amount of $360,500 from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the development of a Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise and appropriating the grant funds to the Climate Adaptation Plan project and authorized the City Manager to execute the Restricted Grant Agreement with Caltrans.
605 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
On March 21, 2025, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a technical consultant to work with City staff to develop the Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise that would meet Caltrans grant requirements and address BCDC RSAP requirements. The RFP closed on April 25, 2025 and five firms submitted proposals.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was selected because of their local and regional experience working on sea level rise in the Bay Area, their thoughtful and customized approach to meeting both BCDC RSAP guidelines and Caltrans RGA requirements, and the ESA team’s qualifications. The project will kick off with Existing Conditions analysis, followed by vulnerability assessment and evaluation of adaptation strategies and pathways. Equitable outreach and community engagement is planned throughout the duration of the project. Based on the above, staff recommends City Council approve an agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for the development of a Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise in the amount of $420,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BUDGET IMPACT:

On February 3, 2025, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant funds in the amount of $360,500 were appropriated to the Climate Adaptation Plan Project (46C005). Acceptance of the grant funding requires a local match of

11.47 percent, or approximately $41,350. The project has sufficient funding to provide the local match and cover the anticipated project costs that may exceed the grant amount.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This agreement is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.) CEQA review will be included as part of the Climate Adaptation Plan.

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7007
606 of 983
Professional Services Page 1 of 27
Rev 12/23

AGREEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES

FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR SEA LEVEL RISE This Agreement “Agreement”, made and entered into this day of ____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, a corporation, (“CONSULTANT”), whose address is 575 Market Street, Suite 3700, San Francisco, CA 94105.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain technical services for the development of a climate adaptation plan for sea level rise hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide these technical services for the development of a climate adaptation plan for sea level rise by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONSULTANT has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all services furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its services.

CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT agrees to comply with the City’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for meeting all of the requirements stated in the Caltrans Restricted Grant Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated by reference to this Agreement.
607 of 983
Professional Services Page 2 of 27
Rev 12/23
SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONSULTANT and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONSULTANT's work.

SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2025 and be completed on August 1, 2028.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount not to exceed of $420,000, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 6 - TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

Upon termination and upon CITY's payment of the amount required to be paid, documents become the property of CITY, and CONSULTANT shall transfer them to CITY upon request without additional compensation.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement, although instruments of professional service, are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. CITY acknowledges that its alteration of the instruments of service without the consent of CONSULTANT, or use of the instruments for any purpose other than the project described in this Agreement is, at CITY’s sole risk and without liability to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT may retain a copy of all documents and materials produced pursuant to this Agreement.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall retain all right, title, and interest in, including copyrights, to its standard details, drawings, designs, specifications, trade secrets, source code, software, or other intellectual property existing prior to the date of this Agreement or that is derived independent of CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement (collectively “Pre‐Existing Property”), subject to a limited, non‐exclusive, royaltyfree 608 of 983
Professional Services Page 3 of 27
Rev 12/23
license to CITY to use such Pre‐Existing Property that is included in any work product in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

SECTION 8 - CONFIDENTIALITY
All reports and documents prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONSULTANT shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONSULTANT or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release.

SECTION 9 - INTEREST OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement.

SECTION 10 - CONSULTANT'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the professional services required under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONSULTANT an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY
Indemnity for Design Professional Services. CONSULTANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of its design professional services under this Agreement. To the maximum extent permitted by law and Civil Code section 2782.8, CONSULTANT agrees to defend CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.

Indemnity for Activities Other Than Design Professional Services. CONSULTANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONSULTANT’s performance of nondesign professional services under this Agreement, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.

The CONSULTANT’S duty to indemnify shall survive expiration or early termination of this Agreement. 609 of 983
Professional Services Page 4 of 27
Rev 12/23
SECTION 12 - INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract and three years thereafter (five years for building or major improvements) the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

SECTION 13 - NON-ASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONSULTANT and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON PROFESSIONAL

SKILL OF CONSULTANT
It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONSULTANT is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONSULTANT to do and perform the work in a manner consistent with the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals providing the same or similar services under the same or similar circumstances. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from said obligation.

SECTION 15 - WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 16 - SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
610 of 983
Professional Services Page 5 of 27
Rev 12/23
SECTION 17 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this Agreement that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 18 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 19 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

SECTION 20 - LITIGATION
CONSULTANT shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT, or is based upon CONSULTANT's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 21 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
611 of 983
Professional Services Page 6 of 27
Rev 12/23
To CITY: Andrea Chow
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94402
To CONSULTANT: Environmental Science Associates
Attn: Jeff Caton
575 Market Street
Suite 3700
San Francisco, CA 94105
SECTION 22 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

SECTION 23 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT
CONSULTANT has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

SECTION 24 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
612 of 983
Professional Services Page 7 of 27
Rev 12/23
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Alex Khojikian
City Manager
Date Jeff Caton
Its Authorized Agent
Vice President
If a Corporation, can be either 1)
President or 2) Vice President
plus an additional corporate
officer (i.e., Secretary, Treasurer)
who shall sign below.

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM ADDITIONAL CORPORATE

OFFICER
(if necessary per the above)
Linh Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date Leslie Moulton-Post
CEO/President
Date
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Fee Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D: City of San Mateo and Caltrans Restricted Grant Agreement 613 of 983
Professional Services Page 8 of 27
Rev 12/23

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
ESA will prepare a Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise consistent with the City’s Caltrans Restricted Grant Agreement (RGA)1 and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) Guidelines2. ESA will address the requirements and tasks of both the Caltrans RGA and the BCDC RSAP with an efficient and comprehensive approach. As described in detail in the Scope of Work below, ESA will draft Elements A through G of a Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan as described by BCDC’s RSAP Guidelines.

Task 1. Existing Conditions
ESA will start the Project by developing a Project Management Plan, including draft content designed to address RSAP Element A. ESA will present the draft Project Management Plan at a kick-off meeting with City of San Mateo and ESA’s key personnel and the City and ESA will also walk through the contract, compensation and financial requirements, contract compliance, general terms and conditions, and the schedule. ESA will also facilitate one (1) virtual project kickoff meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee, discussed in more detail in Task 4, to review the scope of work, discuss big-picture goals, and define roles and responsibilities.

Consistent with BCDC’s Element A requirements, the Project Management Plan will include a description of the plan type, planning project team, a description of efforts that will be taken to include diverse perspectives on the planning team, a description of how language services will be included in the planning effort, a list of affected and interested parties, a description of tribal consultation, and a description of multijurisdictional and county coordination. The plan will include a description of equitable outreach and engagement efforts and how the engagement process will include people from vulnerable communities, as well as Tribes. The plan will also include a map showing the boundaries of the planning area and a map showing Environmental Justice Communities, socially vulnerable communities and Tribal communities, as applicable to the City.

BCDC’s RSAP requires that prior to initiating the process to prepare a Subregional Plan, a Notice of Intent to prepare a Subregional Plan must be submitted electronically to BCDC. The notice must include a detailed description of the process including local government staff contact, project scope, schedule, plan for the preparation of any necessary environmental documentation (i.e., compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act), an engagement plan describing the public process, and the anticipated timing of the two required consultations with BCDC staff. ESA will attend the preliminary consultation meeting with the City at which BCDC will advise the City on whether information contained in the notice aligns with the RSAP. After the meeting, BCDC will post notice on the agency’s website notifying the public that the City intends to initiate a process to prepare a Subregional Plan and the City will also post a notice notifying the public that the City intends to initiate the process of preparing a Subregional Plan.

Regular coordination meetings are not assumed within this Project scope, but the ESA Project Management Team will coordinate with City staff by phone, email, or focused virtual meetings as needed to facilitate continuous progress.

Under Task 1, the ESA team will also review relevant existing resources to understand the current state of SLR planning on the City of San Mateo shoreline. The review will consider existing and available documents to be provided by the City or otherwise readily available public information, including:
1 https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=cf2d3ceb-a3ea-4043-9864-c2fe13ff4f76 2 https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/12/regional-shoreline-adaptation-plan-spreads.pdf 614 of 983
Professional Services Page 9 of 27
Rev 12/23
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) (2024) / Bay Adapt (2021) / Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area (2020): Including many of the assets and data layers that are required to be analyzed by BCDC’s RSAP in the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plans;
• Ocean Protection Council’s State of California SLR Guidance: Science and Policy Update (2024):

Including best available science on SLR projections, planning horizons and adaptation pathways; • City of San Mateo’s General Plan 2040 (2024): Including the updated Safety Element that contains goals, policies and actions related to sea level rise;
• OneShoreline’s Planning Policy Guidance3 and Map of Future Conditions4(2023): Sets county-wide guidance for Bay shoreline, to facilitate coordination at jurisdictional boundaries; • San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s San Francisco Estuary Blueprint (2022): Including habitat protection goals for the peninsula and its wetlands;
• State Agency SLR Action Plan for California (2022): Including seven principles to “guide unified, effective action toward SLR resilience” and the long-term goals of the Action Plan; • San Mateo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021): Including information about assets and hazard exposure in San Mateo County;
• City of Burlingame’s Sea Change Assessment5(2019) and Zoning Ordinance Update6(2021): ESA assisted Burlingame with its vulnerability assessment and development of adaptation strategies; • BCDC’s San Francisco Bay Plan7(2020): Including policies to protect Bay communities and ecosystems from the impacts of SLR;
• Caltrans District 4’s Adaptation Priorities Report (2020): Including vulnerability data for Caltrans assets such as roadway segments, culverts and bridges;
• San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Adaptation Atlas (2019): Including the adaptation recommendations for the San Mateo operational landscape units that includes the City’s shoreline; • San Mateo County’s SLR Vulnerability Assessment (2018): Including vulnerability data for assets in the City of San Mateo; and
• Any additional available general and land use plans, hazard and emergency plans, climate and resilience plans pertaining to the City.

As a part of this task, the ESA team will also identify and gather critical information on the physical, hydrological, historical and ecological conditions of the City’s shoreline, including the existing plans listed below and relevant information from the following sources:
• City of San Mateo General Plan 2040 and other applicable land use plans: Including a summary of how coastal flooding hazards are currently referenced and addressed, as required by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP). • Other relevant planning documents: Including transportation plans, bike and pedestrian plans, trails and access plans, shoreline management plans, ecological management plans, economic development plans, hazard or contaminated sites plans, utility plans, and/or other similar applicable plans for relevant information.
• Coastal Hazard and SLR Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data: These data will be obtained from BCDC’s RSAP Mapping Platform (expected to be released in 2025) and from FEMA (e.g., Letter of Map Revision Document8) which will capture additional fluvial flooding hazards. • Asset GIS Data (available via BCDC’s RSAP Mapping Platform unless otherwise noted):
3 https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/OneShoreline-Planning-Policy-Guidance-Final-June-21-2023-For-Web.pdf 4 https://oneshoreline.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=ed2a5cb599ca4651bc6a0c3530271905&locale=env 5 https://www.burlingame.org/637/Sea-Level-Rise
6 https://www.burlingame.org/DocumentCenter/View/2208/Section-2512050-PDF 7 https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/bayplan.pdf 8 https://map1.msc.fema.gov/mipdata/23-09-1024P-060328.pdf?LOC=e7291f524c0f3e6b213368085ae4a29a 615 of 983
Professional Services Page 10 of 27
Rev 12/23
o Community Health and Wellbeing
▪ Displacement Risk
▪ Population demographics
▪ Vulnerable communities
▪ Environmental Justice Communities (Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0) ▪ Tribes (Source: CA Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), tribes) ▪ Healthcare facilities
▪ Historic, cultural and tribal cultural resources (Source: City or San Mateo County) o Ecosystem Health and Resilience
▪ Existing Baylands habitats
▪ Endangered species occurrences and habitats (Source: California Natural Diversity Database)
▪ Baylands resilience characteristics and ecosystem services ▪ Restoration and connectivity opportunities
▪ Nature-based adaptation
o Development, Housing and Land Use
▪ Plan Bay Area Growth Geographies
▪ Current and Future Land Uses and Development (Source: City; County, NAHC, tribes) ▪ Adaptation Projects
o Critical Infrastructure and Services
▪ Utilities infrastructure (Source: City; County; Special Districts) ▪ Stormwater and flood management (Source: City; County; Special Districts) ▪ Emergency management
▪ Public trust lands (Source: City; County)
o Public Access and Recreation
▪ BCDC priority use areas
▪ Trails
▪ Parks and Open Space
▪ Water-oriented recreation (Source: City; County)
o Transportation and transit
▪ Land transportation (Source: City; County; special districts) ▪ Air transportation
▪ Water transportation
▪ Emergency transportation (Source: City; County; Water Emergency Transportation Authority)
o Shoreline contamination
▪ Existing and projected future depth-to-groundwater
▪ Location and status of subsurface contamination
o Collaborative Governance, Flood Management, and Funding ▪ Hydraulically connected shorelines
▪ Operational landscape units
▪ Partnerships (Source: Special Districts)
The Existing Conditions Report will include maps and descriptions of the physical and ecological characteristics of the landscape within the planning area as well as a map and description of existing populations, assets, sectors, services, and land uses within the planning area. As a part of Task 1, ESA will organize and facilitate one (1) site visit to meet with City staff and project stakeholders, to perform field reconnaissance at areas of particular interest, such as areas where interagency coordination may be required.

Task 1 Deliverables
616 of 983
Professional Services Page 11 of 27
Rev 12/23
• Draft and Final Project Management Plan
• Draft and Final Master Project Schedule, including timelines for review of major deliverables • One (1) kick-off meeting, including agenda, presentation and meeting minutes • Monthly progress reports and invoices in an approved format to support quarterly grant reporting • Agendas and meeting minutes for check-in meetings with the City • Project website materials, with website itself to be hosted by the City • Draft and Final Notice of Intent to prepare a Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan • Draft and Final Existing Conditions Report (RSAP Element B) • Compiled geodatabase, developed largely from BCDC’s RSAP Mapping Platform • Preparation for and facilitation of one (1) in-person site visit Task 1 Assumptions:
• This task will address BCDC’s RSAP Element A – Planning Process and Element B – Existing Conditions.

However, the effort required to satisfy BCDC’s requirements cannot be determined with precision, as BCDC has not yet reviewed or approved a Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and compliance determinations are subjective and at BCDC staff’s discretion. Effort estimated for this task reflects ESA’s professional opinion, based upon past experience with similar projects. ESA will support the City in gaining BCDC approval to the best of ESA’s ability. However, ESA cannot guarantee successful procurement of BCDC approval of Element A and B, or the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan within a desired timeframe. Should BCDC require additional information or rounds of review that are not identified in this scope, additional budget may be required to complete the work described in this task. • ESA will attend one (1) kickoff meeting with City staff and one (1) in-person site visit with City staff and stakeholders.
• ESA will participate virtually in the Preliminary Consultation meeting with BCDC. • ESA will provide a description of tribal consultation, but will not conduct the tribal consultation. • City staff will post the Notice of Intent on their respective websites and/or on the project website. City staff will submit the Final Notice of Intent to prepare a Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan to BCDC. • Revisions to the project after initiation of analysis may cause schedule delays and require additional budget.
• City staff will consolidate and deconflict all comments before sending to ESA for incorporation into the Draft Existing Conditions Report. ESA assumes one round of City staff review and comments for ESA to incorporate into the Final Existing Conditions Report.
• BCDC’s RSAP Mapping Platform is expected to be available in September 2025. Delays in the completion of the platform may impact the completion of Task 1 and subsequent tasks. • Unless otherwise specified, all deliverables will be submitted electronically (MS Word and PDF versions). • The City shall arrange for access to and make all provisions for ESA to enter upon public and private property as required for ESA to perform its services.

Task 2. Analysis
Under Task 2, the ESA team will work with City staff to develop Elements C through G of the Subregional Plan.

Task 2 will rely upon existing conditions information collected in Task 1 as described above.

Task 2-1. Element C – Vulnerability Assessment
Once the data and studies have been gathered and reviewed, the ESA Team will compile the inventory of existing assets and group the assets into broad categories that will facilitate the SLR risk vulnerability assessment and development of adaptation solutions in a simplified manner (e.g., transportation, water and wastewater, habitats, recreational, residential and commercial, etc.). Then ESA will conduct hazards mapping and asset exposure predictions, with the goal of gaining comprehensive insights into the vulnerability of shoreline assets 617 of 983
Professional Services Page 12 of 27
Rev 12/23
and resources to SLR, including their exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, and to identify threatened community assets, including habitats, across different SLR scenarios.

The asset exposure predictions will detail key assets with high exposure to rising sea levels, storm surges, and flooding, focusing on natural areas and habitats, critical infrastructure that supports essential services (e.g., transportation, wastewater treatment, energy), as well as residential areas and communities with heightened social vulnerability, particularly disadvantaged and underserved populations. Because social factors influence a community’s adaptive capacity or ability to prevent or recover from a climate change−related event, ESA will also assess social determinants of health within the City. These determinants, such as race and ethnicity, age, gender, economic stability (e.g., cost of living, access to living wage), education level, housing and transportation options, and physical and economic access to critical services, will be evaluated by leveraging existing data such as BCDC’s environmental justice and social equity datasets, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index.

Additionally, ESA will consider the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, such as the existing North Shoreview and Bayfront levees, US Route 101, CA Route 92, Caltrain stations and railroad tracks, Seal Point Park and its underlying landfill, and water and wastewater infrastructure, both with and without existing protective measures. Geosyntec’s geotechnical engineers will assist with seepage, slope stability, and settlement assessments of the levees and landfill. Paradigm will focus its assessments on surface water, including the City’s stormwater system and San Mateo Creek. Finally, ESA will analyze risks for key habitat areas in the City, including Coyote Point Recreation Area and Mariner’s Point Marsh.

ESA will complete the following as part of the coastal hazards mapping and asset exposure predictions:
• Analyze potential impacts of various SLR projections, as required by BCDC’s RSAP, including:
o 2050 (0.8 ft);
o 2100 Intermediate (3.1 ft);
o 2100 Intermediate-High (4.9 ft); and
o 2100 High (6.6 ft);
• Assessment and description of shoreline flood risk conditions, including the likely timing of exposure of assets as a function of SLR projections;
• Prioritization of risks based on the following criteria:
o Exposure to the 0.8 ft scenario;
o Any applicable BCDC RSAP Strategic Regional Priorities; o Vulnerable communities;
o Baylands habitats; and
o Locally identified significant high priority populations, assets and services; • Identification of highest priority areas / assets; and • Evaluation and summary of vulnerability using relative scoring that will be assigned to exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of assets and the consequences of exposure in highest priority areas.

As described by BCDC’s RSAP Guidelines, the vulnerability assessment will include the maps and summaries of the exposure of assets to SLR projections for 2050 (0.8 ft) and 2100 Intermediate (3.1) and 2100 IntermediateHigh (4.9 ft) and 2100 High (6.6 ft) that will be developed as a part of this task. After completing the hazards mapping, ESA will conduct the SLR risk vulnerability assessment by using a combination of GIS tools and scripts and engineering assessment and judgment, including asset prioritization and the primary failure pathways for key facilities. Geosyntec groundwater experts will collaborate with ESA to develop an understanding of local 618 of 983
Professional Services Page 13 of 27
Rev 12/23
groundwater conditions for the City. This assessment will refer to regional existing and projected depth-togroundwater mapping9,10 .

This scope of work assumes the use of existing modeling and tools/framework and risk assessment methodologies to analyze the potential impacts of the SLR scenarios. ESA will strive to leverage the best available data, tools, and science to complete the coastal hazards mapping. As part of Task 2-1, ESA will also identify additional technical tasks or studies that to recommend completing to better facilitate SLR vulnerability and resilience planning as part of the recommended future projects (Element G).

Central to ESA’s assessment of risk is an understanding of the vulnerability of each asset type. Where information exists and budget allows, this approach may entail translating hazard exposure into potential damages or direct impacts by establishing clear relationships between hazard likelihood, severity, and consequences across varying levels of impact. Where possible, the focus will be on generating consistent risk metrics that facilitate the comparison of risks across different hazards and asset types, enabling effective ranking and prioritization.

As required by BCDC and SB 272, the Vulnerability Assessment (VA; Element C) will also include a high-level assessment of the potential cost of inaction. Previous studies by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have analyzed the potential cost of inaction for the San Francisco Bay region as exceeding $230 billion.

These estimates will be tailored to the City of San Mateo.11 MTC estimates that the potential cost of regional SLR adaptation through 2050 could exceed $110 billion and the cost of SLR adaptation for San Mateo County was estimated at $11 billion.

In summary, the SLR risk vulnerability assessment will include the following:
• Hazard maps
• Asset exposure predictions
• High-level analysis of the potential cost of damages from inaction The draft VA will be shared with the City and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for review and ESA will incorporate feedback. Then ESA will present the results of VA at the first community meeting, as described below in Task 3.

Task 2-2: Element D – Adaptation Strategies and Pathways Following the completion of the draft VA, ESA will analyze potential adaptation solutions to address SLR and flooding risks for 0.8 ft and 3.1 ft SLR scenarios for the priority areas that were identified in the VA. Under this Task, ESA will help the City to frame its local vision and goals for the shoreline. This step will focus on identifying a suite of solutions that span green (nature-based), green-gray (hybrid), and gray (traditional engineering) infrastructure alternatives. The objective is to create a balanced approach to resilience that combines ecological benefits with effective flood protection. Green infrastructure solutions may include nature-based strategies like wetland restoration, floodplain reconnection, eelgrass beds, oyster reefs, and vegetated buffers. These naturebased solutions create aquatic habitat as well as attenuate waves, support biodiversity, and improve water quality. ESA will also review the findings of SFEI’s Adaptation Atlas (2019), which indicates that tidal marsh restoration, polder management, ecotone levees, and reconnecting creeks to baylands may be appropriate strategies for certain locations on the City’s shoreline. Green-gray solutions will also be considered, including hybrid approaches that blend natural and engineered features, such as green stormwater management, living shorelines and reinforced levees with ecosystem enhancements (such as seaweed and cobble blankets), to combine flood resilience with environmental and social benefits. Gray solutions will be considered, including 9 https://www.sfei.org/projects/shallow-groundwater-response-sea-level-rise 10 https://ourcoastourfuture.org/hazard-map/
11 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07/SLR_Framework_Final_Report.pdf 619 of 983
Professional Services Page 14 of 27
Rev 12/23
traditional engineered methods, such as seawalls, levees, bulkheads, revetments and drainage systems, especially where nature-based solutions are less feasible or practical. Finally, ESA will explore potential policy and regulatory measures, described in more detail in Task 2-3: Element E below.

The Adaptation Strategies and Pathways will include an evaluation of adaptation alternatives to determine which are the most effective strategies for the City. For each adaptation solution, ESA will assess physical feasibility, using existing resources such as SFEI’s Adaptation Atlas; high-level construction, maintenance and operational costs, using existing cost-estimating resources such as MTC’s SLR Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework Final Report; potential environmental impacts; and social acceptance, to be determined via community outreach; as well as alignment with BCDC RSAP’s Adaptation Strategy standards and the San Francisco Bay Plan. Structural and non-structural solutions that offer co-benefits—such as improved public access to green spaces, enhanced water quality, or biodiversity support—will be prioritized to maximize value for the community. The evaluation criteria will include a relative scoring system that allows the potential solutions for the 0.8 ft SLR scenario to be compared to each other. The Adaptation Strategies and Pathways will include maps of the conceptual designs, descriptions of the strategies and a description of potential adaptation pathways over time, as described in BCDC’s RSAP Guidelines.

The Adaptation Strategies and Pathways will be developed with input from the local community, to reflect the needs and priorities of the people and ecosystems most affected by SLR. ESA will propose place-based adaptation solutions tailored to high-risk areas identified in the vulnerability assessment. These solutions will emphasize nature-based and hybrid infrastructure approaches, which offer resilience benefits while enhancing ecosystem health and public access. Community engagement will play a key role, with feedback at the second public outreach meeting (Task 3) from local residents, businesses, and other interested parties informing the selection and prioritization of adaptation measures. Finally, ESA recommends that one of the two required BCDC consultations should occur after the VA (Task 2-1) and adaptation strategies and pathways (Task 2-2) are drafted to check on progress and compliance with BCDC’s RSAP guidelines.

Task 2-3: Element E – Land Use and Policy Plan
For the Land Use and Policy Plan (Element E), ESA will describe potential land use and policy changes that may be necessary to enact the adaptation strategies and pathways that have been identified, particularly those sea level rise actions that are already described in the City of San Mateo’s General Plan 2040 and OneShoreline’s guidance, such as sea level rise and flood hazard monitoring; developing a community rating system and early flood warning system; developing a sea level and/or flood overlay zone; floodplain ordinance update; and creating a fee for new development to fund SLR and flood protection measures, such as a climate resiliency district. Additional non-structural solutions could include shoreline and creek setbacks or buffers; building codes and building retrofits; rebuilding and redevelopment restrictions; as well as other financial measures, such as conservation easements; tax incentives; special assessments; Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHAD); transfer of development rights; OneShoreline’s / City of Burlingame’s sea level rise zoning code and/or buyouts.

Task 2-4: Element F – Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy For the Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy (Element F), ESA will outline potential high-level costs for the selected adaptation strategies and potential funding and financing pathways, including public grants, private partnerships, and other financial mechanisms, as well as implementation leads or responsible entities. ESA has developed unit-costing methods to inform several cities’ shoreline planning efforts, which can be efficiently applied to this plan.

ESA will specifically explore the high-level feasibility of establishing a Climate Resiliency District to provide sustainable, long-term funding for implementation and maintenance of the adaptation strategies. The City’s experience with the South Bayfront Flood Control Facilities Assessment District and the North Shoreview Assessment District can serve as templates for funding future sea level adaptations. To support the ongoing 620 of 983
Professional Services Page 15 of 27
Rev 12/23
effectiveness of these solutions, the action plan will include a strategy for monitoring and adaptive management that will allow for regular assessment and adjustments based on changing conditions. The monitoring program will also describe triggers, thresholds and/or decision points for adaptation pathways and responsible entities for monitoring. The implementation plan will also include a timeline and strategy for updating the plan as bestavailable science and conditions change.

Task 2-5: Element G – Project List
As required by BCDC, ESA will also prepare a high-level list of adaptation projects (Element G) for consideration for funding prioritization and for inclusion in regionwide databases if the strategies are advanced enough to generate a list.

Task 2 Deliverables
• GIS Data Inventory
• Hazards map, showing BCDC RSAP-required assets and SLR scenarios • Asset exposure predictions
• Additional Data Analysis Memo, if data gaps are identified • Draft and Final Vulnerability Assessment Report (Element C) • Draft and Final Adaptation Strategies and Pathways (Element D) • Draft and Final Land Use and Policy Plan (Element E)
• Draft and Final Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy (Element F) • Draft and Final Project List (Element G)
• Draft and Final Technical Memorandum of Analyses, compiling Elements C-G, as required by the Caltrans grant
Task 2 Assumptions
• City staff and other partners will provide files, documents, surveys, maps, geospatial information/data, and other information not otherwise publicly available but on file with those agencies. • If GIS data for particular assets are not readily available, ESA will document the missing data in a brief data gaps memo. For historic, cultural and tribal cultural resources, ESA specifically will not prepare a cultural resources technical report but instead will rely on existing GIS data sources. • BCDC’s RSAP mapping platform was expected to be available in June 2025. Delays in the completion of the platform may impact the completion of Task 2 and subsequent tasks. • The coastal hazards maps will leverage existing data and may be augmented with other information and methods within the available budget. In the event that new data is released after completion of the task, our team could update the maps and analyses for an additional cost. • City staff will provide input on the selection of the SLR scenarios. • ESA will participate virtually in the BCDC consultation meeting. • Revisions to the project after initiation of analysis may cause schedule delays and require additional budget.
• This task will address BCDC’s RSAP Elements C through G. However, the effort required to satisfy BCDC’s requirements cannot be determined with precision, as BCDC has not yet reviewed or approved a Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and compliance determinations are subjective and at BCDC staff’s discretion. Effort estimated for this task reflects ESA’s professional opinion, based upon past experience with similar projects. ESA will support the City in gaining BCDC approval to the best of our ability. However, ESA cannot guarantee successful procurement of BCDC approval of Elements C through G or the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan within a desired timeframe. Should BCDC require additional information or rounds of review that are not identified in this scope, additional budget may be required to complete the work described in this task. 621 of 983
Professional Services Page 16 of 27
Rev 12/23
• City staff will consolidate and deconflict all comments before sending to ESA for incorporation into the draft documents. ESA assumes one round of City staff review and comments for ESA to incorporate into final versions.
• City staff will be responsible for ensuring that the draft policy documents align with other applicable City plans and planning efforts.
• Unless otherwise specified, all deliverables will be submitted electronically (MS Word and PDF versions).

Task 3. Public Outreach
The ESA team will draft an Equitable Outreach and Engagement Plan as described in the RSAP Guidelines (A4) and assist the City with the establishment of an interested parties list and coordination of community meetings and information exchanges. The types of interested parties may include representatives from environmental advocacy groups, land trusts, and non-profits, recreational users of the San Mateo shoreline, as well as local residents and other interested parties, particularly from vulnerable communities. This task will include a minimum of three (3) community meetings, with potential meeting topics listed below.

1. Existing Conditions (Task 1/Element B), Vulnerability Analysis (Task 2/Element C) & Draft Local Adaptation Vision (Task 2/Element D)

2. Adaptation Strategies & Pathways (Task 2/Element D)

3. Draft Plan, including land use and policy options, implementation plan and funding and the draft project list (Task 5/Elements E, F, & G)
This task will also include one virtual presentation to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission and one virtual presentation to the City Council.

ESA’s approach and recommended engagement techniques will take into consideration BCDC’s Environmental Justice and Tribal Consultation policies. This process will be designed to continue to cultivate existing relationships and grow new relationships through established community networks in the diverse communities along the City’s shoreline. To foster those discussions, the ESA team will coordinate with City staff to distribute relevant outreach materials for interested parties or “ad hoc advocates” to take back to their organizations and agencies in other meetings, thereby providing an additional method of public outreach from trusted community members. As a part of this task, ESA also proposes to leverage the City’s website to create project materials that can be added to the City’s project webpage for ongoing documentation and sharing. ESA will work with the City to determine the content of the webpage.

Task 3 Deliverables
• Draft and final Equitable Outreach and Engagement Plan • Interested party contact list
• Two (2) in-person and one (1) virtual community meetings, with the following items for each workshop/session:
o Presentation materials and handouts (e.g., PowerPoint slides, maps) o Meeting Agendas
o Sign-in sheets
o Community outreach flyer design
• Documentation of community meeting outcomes
• One (1) draft and final presentation to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission • One (1) draft and final presentation to the City Council Task 3 Assumptions:
622 of 983
Professional Services Page 17 of 27
Rev 12/23
• This scope assumes that ESA will prepare presentations, agendas, and flyers and attend two (2) in-person and one (1) virtual community meetings. Preparation for and attendance at additional community meetings could be provided at additional cost.
• This scope assumes that City staff will arrange for meeting location, advertising, and translation services. • Unless otherwise specified, all deliverables will be submitted electronically (MS Word and PDF versions). • This scope assumes that City staff will print and distribute the community outreach flyers. • This scope assumes that ESA will prepare draft and final presentations and virtually attend one (1) Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting and one (1) City Council meeting to support City staff by being available to present and/or answer questions.

Task 4. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings
The ESA team will assist the City in convening a TAC comprised of staff from relevant agencies, which may include:
• Local Agencies and Special Districts, including Cities of Burlingame, Foster City, and Belmont; San Mateo County Parks Department and OneShoreline; and the San Francisco Airport; • State Agencies, including BCDC, Caltrans, State Parks, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board;
• Federal Agencies, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and US Fish and Wildlife Service; • Native American Tribes to the extent that they are willing and interested in participating; • Environmental advocacy groups, land trusts, and non-profits; and • Additional technical experts.

ESA will facilitate three (3) virtual TAC meetings during the Project. The TAC will review and provide direction for the project as precursor to the public outreach meetings (Task 3), as identified in the TAC Coordination Plan. In between TAC meetings, ESA can share project updates via email, the project website or other communication methods.

TAC meeting topics could include:

1. Discussion of the draft Existing Conditions and Vulnerability Assessment;

2. Discussion of the draft Adaptation Strategies and Pathways; and

3. Discussion of the draft Climate Adaptation Plan.

Deliverables
• TAC Coordination Plan
• Preparation of three (3) virtual TAC meeting agendas, presentations and meeting minutes Assumptions
• The ESA team will facilitate and attend three (3) virtual TAC meetings. Additional TAC meetings would be optional tasks for a separate cost.
• Unless otherwise specified, all deliverables will be submitted electronically (MS Word and PDF versions).

Task 5: Draft and Final Climate Adaptation Plan
Building on the work of prior tasks, ESA will prepare the Draft and Final Climate Adaptation Plans that will provide a strategic roadmap for implementing the proposed adaptation solutions. The Final Plan will address the requirements of BCDC’s RSAP Guidelines for Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plans and will serve as the roadmap for the City’s future SLR adaptation and can be used to support future funding applications for planning, design, and implementation of SLR adaptation projects. The Plan will include the following sections and will address the Equity Assessment Standard, as required by BCDC’s RSAP:
623 of 983
Professional Services Page 18 of 27
Rev 12/23
• Element A: Planning Process (Task 1)
o A1 - List of subregional plan partners including jurisdictions, planning project team members and affected parties, as well as tribal consultation. o A2 – Map of the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan area based on the 6.6 ft SLR scenario
o A3 – Description of the multijurisdictional coordination process o A4 – Summary of equitable engagement efforts throughout the planning process, including vulnerable community identification and equitable outreach and engagement • Element B: Existing Conditions (Task 1)
o B1 – List of existing plans, studies and/or other information that may be relevant to addressing and responding to coastal hazards
o B2 – Map and description of physical and ecological characteristics of the landscape of the planning area
o B3 – Map and description of existing populations, assets, sectors, services and land uses within the planning area
• Element C: Vulnerability Assessment (Task 2)
o C1 – Map and description of the exposure of people, assets, ecosystems and services to coastal flood hazards across a range of SLR scenarios
o C2 – Summary of the vulnerability assessment for priority areas • Element D: Adaptation Strategies and Pathways (Task 2) o D1 - Local vision and goals for the planning area
o D2 - Adaptation strategy alternatives for priority areas o D3 – Evaluation of adaptation alternatives
o D4 – Conceptual plans and descriptions of selected strategies • Element E: Land Use and Policy Plan (Task 2)
o E1 – Description of proposed land use and policy changes necessary to implement selected strategies and pathways identified in Element D o E2 – Description of policy and programmatic changes necessary to implement selected strategies and pathways identified in Element D
• Element F: Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy (Task 2) o F1 – Implementation Plan that identifies next steps and responsible entities for implementing the selected adaptation strategies and pathways. • Element G: Project List (Task 2)
o G1 – Priority Project List
The Administrative Draft Plan will be shared with the City, TAC and BCDC for review and ESA will incorporate one round of comments. The Public Review Draft Plan, which will be shared in advance of the third public outreach meeting (Task 3). The Final Climate Adaptation Plan will include feedback received on the Public Review Draft.

ESA suggests that the second of the two required BCDC consultations should occur after the Admin Draft Plan is shared with BCDC for their review and before the Public Review Draft is shared with the public and presented at the third public meeting.

Deliverables
• Admin Draft, Public Review Draft and Final Climate Adaptation Plan, which will credit Caltrans as the funder of this project on the cover page.

Assumptions:
• ESA will participate virtually in the BCDC consultation meeting. 624 of 983
Professional Services Page 19 of 27
Rev 12/23
• This task will address BCDC’s RSAP requirements for the development of a Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (SSAP). However, the effort required to satisfy BCDC’s requirements cannot be determined with precision, as BCDC has not yet reviewed or approved a SSAP and compliance determinations are subjective and at BCDC staff’s discretion. Effort estimated for this task reflects ESA’s professional opinion, based upon past experience with similar projects. ESA will support the City in gaining BCDC approval to the best of our ability. However, ESA cannot guarantee successful procurement of BCDC approval of the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan within a desired timeframe. Should BCDC require additional information or rounds of review that are not identified in this scope, additional budget may be required to complete the work described in this task. • City staff will consolidate and deconflict all comments before sending to ESA for incorporation into the draft documents. ESA assumes one round of City staff / TAC review and comments for ESA to incorporate into Public Review Draft Plan. City staff will distribute draft documents for review. ESA assumes city staff will consolidate and deconflict public comments, which ESA will review and then incorporate into the Final Plan.
• City staff will be responsible for ensuring that the draft policy documents align with other applicable City plans and planning efforts.
• As noted above, this scope assumes that ESA will not conduct formal Tribal consultation on behalf of the City, but the Tribes will be invited to participate in the process. • Unless otherwise specified, all deliverables will be submitted electronically (MS Word and PDF versions). • The City will be responsible for publishing legal notices and providing the costs for such posting. • This scope assumes no more than 50 individual comment letters will be received for the public review draft; however, if additional comments are received whose responses require greater effort than estimated herein, additional budget would be needed.

Task 6: Board Review and Approval
Once the Draft Climate Adaptation Plan has been prepared with community and TAC and BCDC input has been incorporated, ESA will present the Draft Plan to a joint meeting of the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission (SIC) and Planning Commission. Then once SIC and Planning Commission input has been incorporated into the Draft Plan, the Final Draft Plan will be presented to the San Mateo City Council, which will provide another opportunity for additional public comment that will be incorporated into the Final Plan. As a part of this task, ESA will advise the City on the level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis that may be needed for the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.

Deliverables
• Draft and Final CEQA and Approvals Strategy
• One (1) draft and final presentation to a joint meeting of the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission and Planning Commission
• One (1) draft and final presentation to the San Mateo City Council for plan acceptance and approval Assumptions
• ESA staff will attend the hearings virtually to support City staff by being available to present and/or answer questions.
• If additional commission, board and/or public comments are received whose responses require revisions to the Final Plan, then additional budget would be needed. • This scope assumes that preparation for the submittal of the Subregional Plan to BCDC or assistance with BCDC’s review and/or BCDC’s hearing process would be optional tasks for a separate cost. • The City will be responsible for publishing legal notices and providing the costs for such posting. • As a part of Task 6, ESA will advise the City on the level of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis that may be needed for the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, but this scope does not 625 of 983
Professional Services Page 20 of 27
Rev 12/23
include review of the subregional shoreline adaptation plan for compliance with the CEQA. CEQA review would be an optional task for a separate cost.
626 of 983
Professional Services Page 21 of 27
Rev 12/23
Estimated Project Schedule
The goal of the City’s Caltrans grant is to develop a Climate Adaptation Plan for Sea Level Rise. The grant work is divided into six (6) tasks. The City is required to submit final grant deliverables to Caltrans by June 30, 2027, it is assumed that City staff will work with Caltrans to extend the grant term. This schedule assumes an anticipated award of contract in August 2025. The ESA team will strive to meet the schedule as outlined below and per grant requirements.

TASK ESTIMATED TIMING
Task 1 – Project Management and Existing Conditions Project Duration

1.1 Draft Project Management Plan August 2025

1.1.1 City Staff Review August 2025

1.1.2 Final Project Management Plan August 2025

1.2 Draft Master Project Schedule August 2025

1.2.1 City Staff Review August 2025

1.2.2 Final Master Project Schedule August 2025

1.3 One (1) kickoff meeting August 2025

1.4 Project website August 2025

1.5 Draft and Final Notice of Intent submitted to BCDC August 2025

1.6 One (1) virtual Preliminary Consultation Meeting with BCDC August 2025

1.7 One (1) in-person Site Visit September2025

1.8 Monthly progress reports and invoices Project duration

1.9 Draft Existing Conditions Report August-November 2025

1.9.1 City staff review December 2025

1.9.2 Final Existing Conditions Report and Maps January 2026 Task 2 - Analysis January 2026 –June 2027

2.1 Element C – Vulnerability Assessment January – June 2026

2.1.1 City Staff Review July 2026

2.2 Element D – Adaptation Strategies and Pathways August - 2026

2.2.1 City Staff Review September 2026

2.3 Element E – Land Use and Policy Plan October 2026

2.3.1 City Staff Review November 2027

2.4 Element F -Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy December 2027

2.4.1 City Staff Review January 2027

2.5 Element G – Project List February 2027

2.5.1 City Staff Review March 2027
627 of 983
Professional Services Page 22 of 27
Rev 12/23

2.6 Draft Technical Memo, summarizing analysis April 2027

2.6.1 City Staff Review May 2027

2.6.2 Final Technical Memo June 2027
Task 3 – Public Outreach Project duration

3.1 Draft equitable outreach and engagement plan August 2025

3.1.1 City Staff review September 2025

3.1.2 Final equitable outreach and engagement plan September 2025

3.2 First public meeting–Existing Conditions and Vulnerability Assessment August 2026

3.3 Second public meeting – Adaptation Strategies and Pathways September 2026

3.4 Third public meeting – Draft Climate Adaptation Plan July 2027

3.5 Presentation to Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission To be scheduled

3.6 Presentation to City Council Study Session To be scheduled Task 4 – Technical Advisory Committee Meetings Project duration

4.1 First TAC meeting – Existing Conditions and Vulnerability Assessment August 2026

4.2 Second TAC meeting – Adaptation Strategies and Pathways September 2026

4.3 Third TAC meeting – Draft Climate Adaptation Plan July 2027 Task 5 – Draft and Final Plan August 2027 – April 2028

5.1 Admin Draft plan August-September 2027

5.1.1 City staff review October-November 2027

5.1.2 Public Review draft December-January 2028

5.1.3 Public review February 2028

5.1.4 Final Plan March-April 2028
Task 6 – Board Review and Approval

6.1 Final presentation to a joint meeting of the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission and Planning Commission
February or March 2028

6.2 Final presentation to San Mateo City Council May 2028 Project closeout June 2028
628 of 983
Professional Services Page 23 of 27
Rev 12/23

EXHIBIT B

FEE RATES
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request on a monthly basis. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of receipt of CONSULTANT’s invoice. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount not to exceed of $420,000 pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B.

ESA Consultant Fees $336,898
Subconsultant Costs $40,005
Project Contingency $43,097
TOTAL $420,000
See following page for rates and estimated hours per task. 629 of 983
Shannon Fiala Matt Brennan Elizabeth Felter Eryn Pimentel Jeff Caton Melissa Tanaka Kari Tsubota Dane Behrens Managing
Consultant 4
Managing
Consultant 4
Managing
Consultant 3
Senior
Consultant 3
Principal
Consultant 3 Consultant 6
Managing
Consultant 3
Managing
Consultant 4
Task # Task Name/Description $266 $266 $243 $202 $276 $179 $243 $266 . ($) Dollar 5%
Markup
Total ($)
Amount ($) Dollar 5% Markup
Total ($)
Amount .
1 Task 1. Existing Conditions 86 30 62 40 5 40 263.00 $ 62,542 $ 1,595 $ 64,137 $ 7,800 $ 390 $ 8,190 $ 4,500 $ 225 $ 4,725 $ 12,915 $ 77,422

2.1 Vulnerability Assessment 30 30 40 80 8 80 268.00 $ 58,368 $ 2,189 $ 60,557 $ 60,557

2.2 Adaptation Strategies and Pathways 30 30 40 20 8 80 40 40 288.00 $ 66,608 $ 2,498 $ 69,106 $ 69,106

2.3 Land Use and Policy Plan 20 40 8 68.00 $ 17,248 $ 647 $ 17,895 $ 17,895

2.4 Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy 10 20 6 36.00 $ 9,176 $ 344 $ 9,520 $ 9,520

2.5 Project List 10 20 5 35.00 $ 8,900 $ 334 $ 9,234 $ 9,234 2 Task 2. Analysis 100 60 160 100 35 160 40 40 695.00 $ 160,300 $ 6,011 $ 166,311 $ 19,050 $ 953 $ 20,003 $ 4,950 $ 248 $ 5,198 $ 25,200 $ 191,511 3 Task 3. Public Outreach 50 40 60 16 3 169.00 $ 42,580 $ 2,108 $ 44,688 $ 44,688 4 Task 4. TAC Meetings 10 10 10 30.00 $ 7,750 $ 384 $ 8,134 $ 8,134 5 Task 5. Draft and Final Plan 20 20 80 20 8 40 188.00 $ 43,488 $ 4,349 $ 47,837 $ 47,837 6 Task 6. Board Review and Approval 16 16.00 $ 4,256 $ 426 $ 4,682 $ 4,682 Total Hours 282 160 372 176 51 240 40 40 1,361.00 $ 320,916 $ 14,872 $ 335,788 $ 28,050 $ 1,403 $ 29,453 $ 10,050 $ 503 $ 10,553 $ 40,005 $ 376,163 Total ($) Amount $75,012 $42,560 $90,396 $35,552 $14,076 $42,960 $9,720 $10,640

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY TABLE
ESA Labor $ 320,916
Annual Rate Escalation Allowance $ 14,872
ESA Labor Amount $ 335,788
ESA Non-Labor Expenses
Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,110
Subtotal ESA Non-Labor Expenses $ 1,110
Subconsultant Costs $ 40,005
PROJECT TOTAL $ 376,903
TOTAL

PROJECT
COST ESA Total
Hours
ESA Labor
Subtotal ($)

TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT & TOTAL ESA EXPENSE
Total
ESA Labor
Cost
Total
Subconsultant
($ Amount)

TOTAL ESA LABOR COST & FEES
Geosyntec Paradigm
City of San Mateo Climate
Adaptation Plan for Sea Level
Rise Rate
Escalation
Confidential Page 24 of 27
630 of 983
Professional Services Page 25 of 27
Rev 12/23

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

If the CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the CONSULTANT’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 631 of 983
Professional Services Page 26 of 27
Rev 12/23
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
CONSULTANT hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the CONSULTANT to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Verification of Coverage
CONSULTANT shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the CONSULTANT’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. 632 of 983
Professional Services Page 27 of 27
Rev 12/23

EXHIBIT D

CITY OF SAN MATEO AND CALTRANS RESTRICTED GRANT AGREEMENT 633 of 983
634 of 983
635 of 983
636 of 983
637 of 983
638 of 983
639 of 983
640 of 983
641 of 983
642 of 983
643 of 983
644 of 983
645 of 983
646 of 983
647 of 983
648 of 983
649 of 983
650 of 983
651 of 983
652 of 983
653 of 983
654 of 983
655 of 983
656 of 983
657 of 983
658 of 983
659 of 983
660 of 983
661 of 983
662 of 983
663 of 983
664 of 983
665 of 983
666 of 983
667 of 983
668 of 983
669 of 983
670 of 983
671 of 983
672 of 983
673 of 983
674 of 983
675 of 983
676 of 983
677 of 983
678 of 983
679 of 983
680 of 983
681 of 983
682 of 983
683 of 983
684 of 983
685 of 983
686 of 983
687 of 983
688 of 983
689 of 983
690 of 983
691 of 983
692 of 983
693 of 983
694 of 983
695 of 983
696 of 983
697 of 983
698 of 983
699 of 983
700 of 983
701 of 983
702 of 983
703 of 983
704 of 983
705 of 983
706 of 983
707 of 983
708 of 983
709 of 983
710 of 983
711 of 983
712 of 983
713 of 983
714 of 983
715 of 983
716 of 983
717 of 983
718 of 983
719 of 983
720 of 983
721 of 983
722 of 983
723 of 983
724 of 983
725 of 983
726 of 983
727 of 983
728 of 983
729 of 983
730 of 983
731 of 983
732 of 983
733 of 983
734 of 983
735 of 983
736 of 983
737 of 983
738 of 983
739 of 983
740 of 983
741 of 983
742 of 983
743 of 983
744 of 983
745 of 983
746 of 983
747 of 983
748 of 983
749 of 983
750 of 983
751 of 983
752 of 983
753 of 983
754 of 983
755 of 983
756 of 983
757 of 983
758 of 983
759 of 983
760 of 983
761 of 983
762 of 983
763 of 983
764 of 983
765 of 983
766 of 983
767 of 983
768 of 983
769 of 983
770 of 983
771 of 983
772 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 28 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 25-10192 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2025
SUBJECT:

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy – Adoption RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to adopt the Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy establishing policy direction for decarbonizing existing buildings in San Mateo.

BACKGROUND:

Building energy use represents 38 percent of communitywide greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo. Building electrification refers to the transition from gas equipment to electric equipment for space and water heating, clothes drying, cooking, and more. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) provides carbon-free electricity communitywide. Electrifying existing buildings is critical to reducing communitywide greenhouse gas emissions and is a key strategy in attaining the objectives contained in the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. To continue to advance existing building electrification to meet the City Council decarbonization priority, City staff began working with Rincon Consultants to develop the Electrify San Mateo: Sustainability Building Strategy. The project team completed a building inventory and market segmentation analysis that was presented at the September 13, 2023, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting. After completing Phase I of community engagement, the project culminated in the identification of five potential policy pathways that were presented at the January 16, 2024 City Council meeting. City Council directed the project team to conduct community engagement on all five policy pathways to determine overall feasibility and support from the community.

On June 16, 2025, the project team presented community feedback and other information on the five policy pathways and City Council directed which of them to include in the final Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy. City Council directed staff to continue a “business as usual” approach which includes new construction reach codes and a continued emphasis on incentives and outreach. City Council also directed development of a municipal electric first policy with exception language for public safety and life cycle costs. City Council also requested more evaluation, data analysis, and community engagement for reach codes for renovations and building performance standards for commercial buildings.

City Council did not recommend proceeding with Zero Nox standards ahead of the Bay Area Air District.

On June 30, 2025, California Assembly Bill (AB) 130 was signed into law restricting local governments from amending residential state building codes between October 1, 2025 through June 1, 2031. This bill does not appear to impact the City’s currently adopted reach codes requiring energy performance margins for new construction. The final language in the bill includes some exceptions that allow for the adoption of reach codes after October 1, 2025. Staff is in the process of evaluating reach code approaches while ensuring compliance with AB 130.

Staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution to adopt the Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy to formalize the June 16, 2025 City Council direction on how to advance decarbonization policy efforts for existing buildings. 773 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
This action would complete City Council Priority #1: Establish policies to decarbonize existing buildings and infrastructure and eliminate methane gas use by 2030.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The development of the Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy was funded by an appropriation from the available fund balance in the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) and had no impact on the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This plan adoption is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Resolution
Att 2 - Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy

STAFF CONTACT
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7007
774 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2025)

ADOPTING THE ELECTRIFY SAN MATEO SUSTAINABLE BUILDING STRATEGY WHEREAS, building energy use represents 38% of communitywide greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, in FY 2022-23, the City Council prioritized the evaluation and adoption of decarbonization policies for existing buildings to meet the City’s climate goals; and WHEREAS, in November 2022, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking an experienced team knowledgeable in decarbonization policy planning, analysis, and implementation, to develop a decarbonization strategy that centers equity and promotes a collaborative pathway to electrification; and WHEREAS, in March 2023, City Council approved an agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for consultant services to develop the Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy; and WHEREAS, City staff and Rincon Consultants, Inc. completed building inventory, market segmentation, building electrification cost analysis, policy pathways analysis and community engagement; and WHEREAS, the final Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy summarizes the work completed and City Council direction on how to advance decarbonization policy for existing buildings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. This Council action is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of the Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)

2. The Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy, as attached to this resolution, is approved. 775 of 983
July 2025
Draft
Electrify San Mateo

SUSTAINABLE

BUILDING STRATEGY
776 of 983
Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................1

2. Building Segmentation Analysis...........................6

3. Community Engagement .......................................17

4. Electrification Challenges and Solutions ......23

5. Policy Pathways...........................................................26

6. Community Electrification Resources ............33

7. Appendices .................................................................... 38 Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy TOC
777 of 983

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings
Strategy provides a roadmap for the City of
San Mateo to decarbonize the buildings where
residents live, work, and play. Decarbonizing
buildings through electrification is a crucial
step in the City’s work to reach its 2030 and
2045 climate goals, comply with future regional
air quality regulations, and provide healthy
air and living spaces for all San Mateans.

This report provides a summary of what
building electrification is (Introduction), what
electrification looks like in the City of San
Mateo (Building Segmentation), the community
engagement completed as part of developing
this report (Community Engagement), and
the final policy recommendations selected for
further planning and eventual implementation.

WHAT IS ELECTRIFICATION
AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

1. https://gridworks.org/initiatives/cagas-system-transition/

2. About 72 percent of residential new-construction line extensions were all-electric and 91 percent of non-residential projects were all-electric in 2024. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/about-cpuc/divisions/ energy-division/building-decarbonization
The City of San Mateo is committed to reducing GHG emissions through the implementation of the Climate Action Plan. Residential and commercial buildings currently account for 38 percent of the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making them a critical area for climate action. To meet the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) targets and align with California’s statewide climate goals, reducing emissions from residential and commercial buildings is imperative. While electricity emissions are expected to decrease to zero by 2045 due to Senate Bill (SB) 100 and the renewable portfolio standard, natural gas emissions will remain relatively constant. In San Mateo, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) already provides electricity that is 50 percent renewable and virtually 100 percent carbon free and is committed to delivering 100 percent renewable and carbon free electricity by 2025. Due to the low cost and availability of carbon free electricity, building electrification has been identified as the most costeffective strategy for reducing GHG emissions from our buildings.1 Building electrification involves replacing fossil fuel-powered equipment – such as gas furnaces, water heaters, stoves, and dryers – with highefficiency electric alternatives. These electric systems can be powered by clean, renewable energy, significantly reducing a building’s carbon footprint. The City of San Mateo and the State of California have already made significant strides in electrifying new construction and a majority of buildings constructed in the state today are already all-electric2.

However, the City of San Mateo is already mostly built out, with a majority of buildings having been constructed before 1970 as shown in Appendix A. With new construction increasingly all-electric, nearly all the natural gas emissions in 2030 will be from buildings which exist today. About 48 percent of the City’s Climate Action Plans projected emissions reductions come Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 1
778 of 983
from the electrification of existing buildings. Transitioning these existing buildings to all-electric systems is essential for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and achieving the City’s climate goals.

THE BENEFITS OF BUILDING

ELECTRIFICATION
While electrification is a critical climate action strategy, GHG reductions are not the only reason to electrify buildings.

Electrification of buildings will improve health outcomes, increase energy efficiency, decrease utility bills, and provide additional resilience and comfort.

Health and Air Quality
Negative health impacts related to ambient air pollutants generated by the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, vehicles, and industrial operations are widely acknowledged.3 By contrast, sources of air pollution inside of buildings and related health effects are often overlooked. Commonly used natural gas appliances, including stoves, furnaces, and water heaters, emit substantial amounts of air pollutants, and if not properly ventilated can present significant indoor air quality impacts. Natural gas-powered appliances emit nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde (CH2O). The potential health impacts related to combustion of natural gas can be serious but generally are not widely understood by consumers.4
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) concluded that long-term exposure to NO2 is linked to the onset of asthma in children5. The US EPA has also reported that short-term exposure to NO2 can also lead to respiratory complications and

3. https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/

4. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.122-a27

5. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879 Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 2
779 of 983
trigger asthma attacks. A 2013 meta-analysis of prior research assessed the impact of indoor NO2 pollution on asthma in children living in suburban and urban homes. Results demonstrated that children in homes with gas stoves have a 42 percent higher chance of developing asthma symptoms.6
Increased Energy Efficiency
Building electrification presents an opportunity to significantly increase the energy efficiency of our homes and other buildings.

The development of electric heat pumps which move heat rather than create it, can heat our water and provide air-conditioned spaces with 400 percent efficiency.7 This means that every 1 kWh of electricity can provide 4 kWh of heating capacity. This increase in efficiency means that most homes will see on-bill savings after electrification when using PCE rates.8 Recent NREL studies have found that homes nationwide would see building energy use (natural gas and electricity combined) decrease by between 31 percent and 47 percent on average after installation of heat pump technologies.9 Utility Bill Savings
Analysis of Peninsula Clean Energy buildings has identified that an average single-family home can save up to $30 a month on average after installing a heat pump water heater and HVAC unit. These savings can be increased even further with the installation of solar and/ or building efficiency upgrades.10 While making some homes ready for electrification can carry increased upfront costs (Appendix A), when paired with available incentives these long-term cost savings can help offset upfront costs.

6. 1Weiwei Lin, Bert Brunekreef, Ulrike Gehring. International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 42, Issue 6, December 2013, Pages 1724–1737, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt150

7. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/14/1068582/everything-you-need-to-know-about-heat-pumps/

8. See Appendix A for more details on costs

9. https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/press/2024/benefits-of-heat-pumps-detailed-in-new-nrel-report

10. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/news-releases/savings-switching-gas-to-electric/ Figure 1. Efficiencies of various space heating technologies (Rewiring America) Increased Resilience
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 3
780 of 983
Increased Resilience
A city's resilience is defined by its community’s ability to survive, adapt, and thrive in the face of both sudden shocks and long-term challenges. All-electric buildings, especially when paired with solar panels and battery storage, can reduce the effects of power outages and utility-led Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events during periods of high fire risk. Natural gas appliances such as furnaces and water heaters also rely on electricity to function, making them no more resilient during extended power outages. In addition, switching to a heat pump that provides both heating and cooling can provide much needed protection against extreme heat which is becoming more common in San Mateo.11

THE POLICY CONTEXT OF

BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION
The City of San Mateo, the Air District, and the State of California have adopted legislation and policies which are driving electrification of new and existing buildings. The 2025 Title 24 Building Code will heavily favor all-electric construction due to the associated cost and energy savings associated with all-electric new construction.

11. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/extreme-heat/#lat=37.5519&lng=-122.3150&boundary=place&climvar=Temperature

12. https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/building-appliances-rule-implementation Regionally, the Bay Area Air District (Air District) has developed zero nitrous oxide (NOx) standards for space and water heating appliances. Currently only electric appliances can meet the zero NOx standard, meaning that the upcoming zero NOx rules will effectively require all-electric water heaters to be installed in residential buildings by 2027 and all-electric HVAC units by 2029.12 Many of the strategies identified in the San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy work in tandem with the Air District regulations to prepare San Mateo for these upcoming changes and save money over time.

Locally, the City Council has prioritized the decarbonization of existing buildings and elimination of methane gas use by 2030, reinforcing the goals outlined in the CAP. CAP goals Building Electrification 1 and Building Electrification 2 call for all-electric new construction and decarbonization of existing buildings, respectively. These two actions represent the largest GHG reduction opportunity identified by the CAP, demonstrating electrification of existing buildings as the cornerstone of climate action in the City.
4 Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 4
781 of 983
In May 2023, the City launched Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy as part of the broader Electrify San Mateo initiative. This strategy outlines a long-term roadmap to electrify the City’s existing residential and non-residential buildings. The Sustainable Building Strategy conducted a variety of research into the types of policies and actions which could increase building electrification while managing costs and considering the equity impacts of building electrification as displayed in the timeline below. This report provides a summary of the building segmentation analysis, community engagement, analysis of primary challenges and solutions, and the final policy pathways completed as part of the City of San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy.

Summer 2023
Development of Equity +
Effectiveness Criteria
Identify range of feasible
policy options
Building Inventory and
Market Segmentation
Analysis
Incorporation of
community feedback for
equity and effectiveness
criteria
Draft policies & pathways
list-community feedback
Plan Adoption
Phase 1: Outreach:

Effectiveness + Equity
Criteria Feedback
Results of building
inventory and market
segmentation
Draft prioritized
policies list
Phase 2: Outreach:

Community feedback
on policy pathways
Incorporation of
community feedback
in prioritized policy list
Drafting of Policy
Pathways
Fall 2023 Spring 2025
Winter 23-24 Summer 2025
Strategy Development Timeline
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 5
782 of 983

2. BUILDING

SEGMENTATION

ANALYSIS
To inform policy development, the City
conducted an analysis of the existing building
stock and appliance types within the City.

This section summarizes the results of this
analysis including the number of residential
and nonresidential buildings as well as the
appliance types within the City. Additional
information on the analysis methodology
as well as additional results, are provided in
Appendix A.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
According to parcel data from San Mateo County, there are approximately 19,350 single-family and 2,350 multifamily buildings within the City of San Mateo. Figure 2 shows the number of single-family and multifamily buildings by type.

Figure 2. Number of Single Family and Multifamily Buildings in the City of San Mateo
Data Source: San Mateo County Parcel Data
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 6
783 of 983
To better understand the use of natural gas in these residential buildings, data provided by Peninsula Clean Energy based on the California Energy Commission’s Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS)13 for Climate Zone 3 was used to analyze the prevalent fuel types of existing appliances in buildings (i.e., water heater systems, space heating systems, stoves, clothes dryers, pools). While appliance data specifically for the City of San Mateo was unavailable, data for San Mateo County is used as a proxy.

As shown in Figure 3, most of the residential water heaters in San Mateo County are standard gas-fired tank water heaters, especially in single family homes. These water heaters can be replaced with heat pump tank water heaters in most scenarios. Whole house tankless gas-fired water heaters are the next most common followed by standard electric resistance water heaters, tankless electric varieties, and then heat pumps.

13. California Energy Commission. 2019 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS). Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/ publications/2021/2019-california-residential-appliance-saturation-study-rass.

Figure 3. Number of Water Heater Systems by Residential Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 7
784 of 983
Space heating in San Mateo County sees a broader range of fuel and appliance types, as shown in Figure 4. Gas-fired space heating systems are still the most common in single family owned and rented buildings while multifamily buildings, especially multifamily rentals and multifamily condos, use more electric space heating systems. While some propane and wood are used across the County, these fuels are likely limited to unincorporated regions without access to the natural gas system.

Figure 4. Number of Space Heating Systems by Residential Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 8
785 of 983
Figure 5 shows the total number of residential stoves in San Mateo County by fuel type and building type. Gas stoves are most common in single family units while multifamily units tend to use electric stoves.

Figure 5. Number of Stoves by Residential Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Most residential buildings in San Mateo County have a clothes dryer, especially single-family buildings. As shown in Figure 6, electric clothes dryers make up nearly 40 percent of all dryer use, while only 27 percent are gas. The remaining 34 percent of units do not have a dryer in the building.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 9
786 of 983
Figure 6. Number of Clothes Dryers by Residential Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Lastly, pools are also a possible appliance type. While RASS data is not available on pools, according to Peninsula Clean Energy, approximately 849 residential buildings (i.e., four percent) have pools within the City of San Mateo. Pools in the City of San Mateo are likely to be heated using gas if they are heated at all.

Overall, natural gas consuming water heaters, stoves, and furnaces are the most common appliances of each type. However, a smaller yet substantial portion of the community is already using electric equipment including heat pumps, demonstrating the feasibility of the technology.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 10
787 of 983

COMMERCIAL BUILDING SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS
According to parcel data from San Mateo County, there are approximately 1,244 commercial buildings within the City of San Mateo. Figure 6 shows the number of commercial buildings by type. The most common commercial building is office/professional building followed by retail building. Mixed use buildings, automobile sales and repair buildings, and warehouses make up the next most common building by total count.

Figure 7. Number of Commercial Buildings in the City of San Mateo Data Source: San Mateo County Parcel Data
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 11
788 of 983
While data on the number of appliances by fuel type is unavailable for commercial buildings, Peninsula Clean Energy provided data on equipment prevalence for commercial buildings based on the California Energy Commission’s Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS).14 Commercial Heating Ventilation and, Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment types for San Mateo County are included in Figure 7. As shown, the majority of HVAC equipment are gas-powered packaged single zone (SZ) furnaces with cooling, which are also the easiest to electrify.

14. California Energy Commission. 2022 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS): Final Report. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/ publications/2023/2022-california-commercial-end-use-survey-ceus-final-report.

Figure 8. Commercial Space Heating Equipment Prevalence by Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Peninsula Clean Energy 2035 Decarbonization Plan Peninsula Clean Energy also provided information on commercial water heating. Water heating equipment is broken down into five categories with a mix of both gas and electric appliances being present in commercial buildings within San Mateo County. Most of the systems are gas-powered tank water heaters, as shown in Figure 8.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 12
789 of 983
Figure 9. Commercial Water Heating Equipment Prevalence by Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Peninsula Clean Energy 2035 Decarbonization Plan Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 13
790 of 983

EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE

TO ELECTRIFY
The building segmentation analysis demonstrated that most of the water heating systems, space heating systems, stoves, and pools in the City of San Mateo are gas-fired. The following subsections summarize the types of electric equipment available to replace these gas-fired appliances.

Heat Pump Water Heaters
Most of the residential and commercial water heater systems in the City are standard gas-fired tank water heaters. These water heating systems can be replaced by heat pump tank water heaters in most scenarios. Rather than generating heat, heat pump tank water heaters use electricity to move heat from the surrounding areas into the appliance to heat the water in the storage tank. These heat pump water heaters can be two to three times more energy efficiency than conventional electric resistance water heaters. The second most common residential and commercial water heater system in the City is gas-fired tankless water heaters. These water heating systems can also be replaced with heat pumps—specifically geothermal heat pumps—which draw heat from the ground during the winter and from the indoor air during the summer to heat water.

These geothermal heat pumps achieve higher energy efficiencies and can provide the majority of hot water needs during the summer.15 Heat pump swimming pool heaters are also available to replace gasfired pool heaters. These devices use a small amount of electricity to transfer heat from the outdoors into the pool water.

While heat pump water heaters cannot heat a pool as fast as a gasfired heater, they provide even and consistent heat, operating with less energy demand and providing energy cost savings.16

15. Department of Energy. Heat Pump Water Heaters. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/ energysaver/heat-pump-water-heaters.

16. Department of Energy. Heat Pump Swimming Pool Heaters. Available at: https://www.energy. gov/energysaver/heat-pump-swimming-pool-heaters.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 14
791 of 983
Heat Pump HVAC Units
The most common residential and commercial space heating systems in the City—gas-fired space heating systems—can be replaced by heat pumps as well. Heat pump HVAC units provide both heating and cooling with one appliance.17 This means that one unit can replace both a gas fired furnace and electric powered air conditioning unit. These heat pump space heating and cooling systems use electricity to transfer (or pump) heat from a cool space to a warm space to heat and cool buildings with up to 400 percent efficiency.18 Heat pump water heating and space heating and cooling systems can also be combined for further energy and cost efficiencies.19 Induction
Most residential stoves in the City are gas-fired. These stoves can easily be replaced by induction stoves. While traditional gas-fired stoves use a flame to radiate and conduct heat to cookware, induction stoves use an electromagnetic field powered by electricity to transfer currents directly to the cookware placed on its glass surface.

These induction stoves only create heat through cookware surfaces.

As such, they are up to three percent more energy efficient than gas stoves and ten percent more energy efficient than electric stoves.20 They also provide faster cook times (i.e., up to 40 percent faster than gas and traditional electric stoves), do not cause burns like gas and electric stoves, and do not produce indoor air pollutants like gas stoves. While most stoves operate using 240v circuits, some new stoves utilize batteries to provide fast cooking while using a standard 120v outlet. This reduces installation costs and lowers grid impacts.

17. Peninsula Clean Energy. 2035 Decarbonization Feasibility Analysis and Plan. Available at: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022.09-BOD-2035-Decarb-Plan-Complete-Analysis-Draft-Plan-1.pdf.

18. Department of Energy. Heat Pump Systems. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems.

19. Department of Energy. Heat Pump Water Heaters. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-water-heaters.

20. Department of Energy. Making the Switch to Induction Stoves or Cooktops. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/articles/making-switch-induction-stoves-or-cooktops.

Electric Resistance
Electric resistance appliances are also an option to electrify gas-fired appliances. These appliances convert incoming electric energy into heat. Electric resistance appliances, however, are not as energy efficient as heat pumps water and space heating systems or induction stoves which use electricity to move heat instead of create it. Thus, while they make up a considerable share of existing appliances in the City, they are not usually a preferable option for electrification.

Buildings with existing resistance heating may want to consider upgrading to a heat pump where feasible to gain considerable on-bill savings.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 15
792 of 983

ELECTRIFICATION IMPACTS ON ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421524002581 One of the common concerns regarding electrification is the impact that increasing electrical demand has on a buildings existing wiring, electrical panel, and service line (which runs from the utilityowned pole to the specific building). These important electrical components are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Diagram of Building Electrical Equipment
While most natural gas equipment (including stoves, water heaters, and HVAC units) require 120v electrical connections, some all-electric appliances require a dedicated 240v circuit. This means that a new electrical circuit needs to be installed and there needs to be space on the existing panel. This added circuit can cause space or capacity constraints on the panel and service line. However, new technologies and approaches are limiting the impacts of electrification on these electrical components. New “retrofit ready” appliances such as heat pump water heaters and HVAC units are now available that only use 120v and can be plugged into existing outlets. New induction stoves are also available that use batteries to provide fast heating while only using 120v power. These new appliances can also be paired with smart circuits and smart panels which only allow one load (for example an EV charger OR electric dryer) to operate at one time. These new approaches are allowing homes to electrify on panels of 100amps.

A recent study conducted by UCLA added more detail to the proportion of homes needing panel upgrades. The study found that only three percent of single family residential and ten percent of multi-family properties will need panel upgrades in order to fully electrify, while an additional 32 percent (single-family) and 59 percent (multi-family) will require further load management or watt diet approaches to electrify on their current panel.21
ce Upgrades for Electrification Retrofits Study Final Report 7, 2022
Courtesy of Emily Higbee, Redwood Energy Research Director ove image displays ownership of basic electrical service equipment that will be assessed by an cation retrofit contractor to complete an overhead Service Upgrade. All the components depicted in the m are within the scope of an electrical Service Upgrade discussed in the report except for new wires to the he home.

C STUDY ID: PG&E046701
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 16
793 of 983

3. COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT
To guide equitable and practical policy creation,
the City conducted extensive community
engagement in two distinct phases reaching
over 350 constituents during 16 individual
engagement events. See Appendix B for a
full summary of the methodologies, events,
and results of the community engagement
conducted as part of the engagement process.

PHASE I ENGAGEMENT
During the first phase of community outreach, the City aimed to understand the goals and concerns of the community as they relate to San Mateo’s buildings and decarbonization. Outreach events included a meeting with the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, a City Council meeting, five General Plan Town Hall meetings, and an online survey.

Through the initial round of engagement, the City identified affordability, health and safety, resilience, and climate as the primary goals of the community. Figure 10 shows the results of the survey question asking community members which qualities they value most from their buildings. Affordability was the most important attribute followed by health and safety, resilience, and sustainability.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 17
794 of 983
What qualities are most important to you in the San Mateo buildings where you live, work, and play? (Select all that apply) Climate and
sustainability
(e.g. energy...)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Health, safety,
and comfort
(e.g...)
Modern and
upgraded
buildings
(e.g...)
Affordable
energy costs
(e.g. low co...)
Resilience
(e.g. 24/7 power
during...)
Functionality
(e.g. performance...)
Climate and sustainability (e.g. energy efficient, zero carbon buildings) 43.00% 126 Health, safety, and comfort (e.g. Healthy indoor air quality, comfortable indoor temperatures, hire-safe buildings) 65.19% 191
Modern and upgraded buildings (e.g. New and highly functioning modern appliances like stoves and washers) 19.45% 57
Affordable energy costs (e.g. low cost of energy for electrical and natural gas service; energy efficient buildings) 74.40% 218
Resilience (e.g. 24/7 power during power outages; building stock prepared to function during natural disasters) 58.70% 172
Functionality (e.g. performance of appliances, features such as connected/ smart appliances) 29.96% 79

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Figure 11. Survey Results Showing the Most Important Qualities of Buildings For San Mateans The largest concerns related to building
electrification were the potential for higher costs, increased energy bills, and a difficult installation process. These sentiments are reflected in the survey responses for
the question of what are your biggest
concerns regarding electrification in San
Mateo as shown in Figure 11. The top two
biggest concerns were related to costs and
housing affordability with the third largest concern relating to the complexity of installing electric equipment.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 18
795 of 983
Figure 12. Survey Results Showing the Most Important Qualities of Buildings For San Mateans Based on this feedback and direction
from City Council, an initial list of potential
building electrification policies for the City
to consider was narrowed down to five
primary policy options. These policies were
chosen based on their effectiveness to
support the City’s GHG reduction targets,
their overall cost-effectiveness, and their
feasibility to implement. The five policy
pathways included:

1. Continue adopted reach codes and
focus on outreach and incentives (Business as Usual)

2. Explore and adopt new reach codes to
encourage and require electrification

3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of the Bay Area Air District’s Zero NOx requirements

4. Establish Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings

5. Adopt an electric-first policy for City
facilities
What are your biggest concerns regarding electrifying
buildings in San Mateo (Select all that apply)
Access to
health and
safety benef...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Increased
costs for
housing/rent
Loss of
housing due
to higher...

Installation
process for
electric...

Rebates and
incentives
will be too...

Economic
benefits such
as new jobs...

Energy bills
could increase
after...

Building
electrification
will ignore...

Access to health and safety benefits from electrification (e.g. concerns that safer indoor air quality and new electric appliance benefits won’t be accessible to all; especially for renters and environmental justice, or low-income communities) 24.23% 71 Increased costs for housing/rent 61.09% 179
Loss of housing due to higher rents/housing costs 30.72% 90 Installation process for electric appliances will be difficult, confusing, or information is not available 52.22% 153
Rebates and incentives will be too difficult to access 43.00% 126 Economic benefits such as new jobs won’t be centered in San Mateo 12.63% 37 Energy bills could increase after electrification 63.82% 187 Building electrification will ignore other more important building upgrades that should be prioritized or conducted (e.g. solar installation, energy efficiency, building envelope upgrades, asbestos and lead abatement) 47.50% 138

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 19
796 of 983

PHASE II ENGAGEMENT
In the second phase of community outreach, the City presented the five potential policy pathways and aimed to get specific feedback, concerns, and required support for each pathway. Phase II engagement included an in-person workshop and an additional virtual workshop for community members, a virtual information session on Building Performance Standards for commercial building owners, a hybrid information session with the San Mateo United Homeowners Association, presentations and feedback from City Commissions and City Council, and an online survey.

A total of 25 residents attended the in-person workshop where they learned about the five potential pathways and participated in an exercise to discuss concerns and brainstorm solutions and required support to make building electrification feasible. Following the exercise, residents voted for which of the five policies they would be in favor of. Photos from the in-person workshop are shown in Figure 12. Overall, residents were excited about building electrification policy and were eager to see the City pursuing climate action, evident in the zero votes for the “Do Nothing” or “Business as Usual” options during the vote. Despite this, many residents still had concerns about cost, grid reliability, equity, technology and engineering challenges, and needed City education and support through the electrification process. To address these issues, residents said there should be continued education and technical support as well as connections to incentives and rebates to ease the potential cost impacts of electrification. This sentiment was echoed throughout the various engagement events throughout Phase II.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 20
797 of 983
Figure 13. In-Person Community Engagement at the City of San Mateo Public Library In addition to the in-person and online workshops, the City conducted a survey which received 217 responses from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Generally, the survey demonstrated polarized responses with many supporters and opposers for each policy. While Policy Options 1, 4, and 5 received overall positive support with more responses in support than not, Policy Options 2 and 3 were more polarized with almost equal numbers of supporters and opposers. Policy Option 3 was the only option where opposition outweighed support by a small margin.

The five policies were also presented to various interested parties including the San Mateo United Homeowners Association who were overall unsupportive of moving too quickly on building electrification due to the potential costs and challenges around electrical infrastructure and grid resilience. Some attendees did express interest and/or support in low-cost opportunities for building electrification.

A Building Performance Standard focus group was also held with commercial building owners. Attendees were generally supportive of a building performance standard and provided ideas to make Policy Option 4 more feasible.

The policies were also presented to three City commissions/committees (Senior Advisory, Sustainability and Infrastructure, and Community Relations) who provided overall supportive feedback, but did note concerns regarding cost impacts. Several of the commissions/ committees identified infeasibility or hardship exemptions as a strategy to address the potential of uncertain costs impacts.

Finally, a summary of the engagement results and policy pathways were presented to City Council who expressed similar feedback to the general community with a desire to drive climate action and decarbonization, but with concerns over cost and feasibility. City Council provided direction to staff to include policy options 1, 2, 4, and 5 into the final strategy, but expressed the need for continued engagement and refining before final adoption of any policy. A more detailed engagement summary is available in Appendix B.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 21
798 of 983

PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIES

AND CHALLENGES
Through the robust community engagement process developed for the Sustainable Building Strategy the project team heard from a large cross section of community members and building owners.

Throughout the engagement process community members were polarized in their responses relating to the building electrification policies discussed. While most constituents care about addressing the climate crisis and agree that the City should pursue existing building electrification in some form, many residents also expressed concerns especially over cost.

The primary opportunities identified during Phase I and Phase II engagement that are motivating building electrification included:
y The climate crisis is a priority issue
y Health and air quality benefits of building decarbonization y Urgent need for the City to act now
y Availability of electric equipment incentives and rebates to support property owners
The primary concerns identified during Phase I and Phase II engagement included:
y Upfront costs of electric equipment
y On-bill or operational costs of electric equipment
y Installation and electrical infrastructure challenges y Grid reliability and resilience
y Lack of education surrounding electrification
These opportunities and concerns were driving forces behind the development of the final policy recommendations included in this Sustainable Building Strategy. The Electrification Challenges and Solutions section below highlights how community concerns were addressed through the policy development phase.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 22
799 of 983

4. ELECTRIFICATION

CHALLENGES

AND SOLUTIONS
Based on feedback from the community,
the project team analyzed the potential
policy pathways to reflect constituent values
and address their concerns. The concerns
demonstrate common challenges involved
with building electrification implementation
including cost and grid impacts. However,
these challenges can be mostly addressed
through detailed policy development and
targeted exemptions. The policies which
have been included in the Sustainable
Buildings Strategy seek to address each of
these concerns specifically while setting the
City up for future success. Solutions for each
challenge are summarized below and covered
in more detail under each policy in the Policy
Pathways Section.

UPFRONT COSTS OF

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
For many building owners, making the switch from natural gas to electric appliances results in higher upfront costs without additional incentives or rebates. This is due in part to higher equipment costs, but also due to additional electrical work including new electrical circuits, and in some cases electric panel upgrades, new sub-panels, or even a service upgrade. As shown in Appendix A, the upfront costs of electrifying individual appliances vary across appliance type and depend on the existing electrical equipment in the buildings. While rebates can cover up to 100 percent of these costs in some scenarios and for some appliances, rebates are not always available. Therefore, the City has targeted specific conditions under which electrification becomes highly cost effective while avoiding additional electrical infrastructure upgrades. While Appendix A provides detailed costs relating to several appliances, it should be noted that the policies ultimately included in the Policy Pathways section do not trigger specific electrification upgrades and costs have been included for informational purposes.

More details about each proposed policy’s costs are included in the Policy Pathways Section.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 23
800 of 983

ON-BILL OR

OPERATIONAL COSTS
Ongoing operational costs (how much our monthly energy bills are) were another primary concern regarding building electrification. However, recent studies by Peninsula Clean Energy show that the cost savings from building electrification are increasing as natural gas rate increases outpace electricity rates. When paired with all-electric friendly rates from Peninsula Clean Energy, average savings were $29 per household per month after electrifying both water and space heaters. These savings are demonstrated in Figure 14.

Operational cost savings for electrification are consistent across each policy based on the equipment electrified.

GRID RELIABILITY

AND RESILIENCE
Grid reliability and resilience concerns arose due to the perception that increased electrical use would put strain on the grid and that electricity was less reliable than gas. However, it has been nearly 20 years since California had a power outage due to lack of electricity.22 Furthermore, the utilities, the CPUC, and the CEC, are all planning for increased electricity usage over time. Integrated Resource Planning conducted at the state level now assumes a 27 percent increase in peak demand by 2035 due to electrification of buildings and vehicles and is expanding the grid to meet that demand. The CPUC has approximately 20,000 megawatt hours (MW) of new generation resources currently under contract and in development.23

22. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/community-health/building-appliance-implementation/grid-impacts-final-pdf.pdf?rev=14a3ea4d46704d19a48cf03e3984c90e&sc_lang=en

23. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/irp/
Figure 14. Average Monthly Bill Savings from Electrification $19
HPWH
Note: Results include savings from electric rate optimization which lowers costs for all home usage. Therefore, savings do not stack linearly.

HP HVAC HPWH + HP
HVAC
$20
$29
Average Monthly Bill Savings
from Home Electrification
(rates updated: 1/1/2025)
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 24
801 of 983
In addition, cities and individual building owners play a critical role in limiting electrification’s impact on the grid. By limiting the number of panel upgrades through smart circuits and other load management approaches, many buildings can electrify on 100amp panels or smaller. A recent study by Peninsula Clean Energy of over 700 all-electric homes found that 99% of homes never exceeded 100 amps during the course of a year. Limiting the number of service and panel upgrades will decrease strain on the grid and keep overall costs lower.24
As noted above, neither gas water heaters nor most furnaces work without electricity, meaning gas appliances are no more resilient to power outages than their electric upgrades. On average, customers in PG&E’s peninsula territory suffer less than 1 outage per year which lasts less than 2 hours.25 San Mateo County also did not experience one PSPS event in 2024.26

LACK OF EDUCATION

SURROUNDING

ELECTRIFICATION
Another concern across every community engagement event was the need for additional education resources to clearly explain new technologies, guide building owners through the installation process, and connect residents to rebates and incentives. While electric technologies like heat pumps are not new, they have historically not been common in California due to low gas prices and an extensive natural gas system. This means that some of the appliance specific considerations around installing heat pumps is new for many San Mateans. This education gap is already being closed through several sources and this Strategy will direct the City to continue to build on the resources that are currently available to suit the needs of the community. Ongoing and adaptive engagement to contractors, homeowners, and other interested parties

24. Powerpoint Presentation

25. https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/about/pge-systems/CPUC-2023-Annual-Electric-Reliability-Report.pdf

26. https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/outages-and-safety/outage-preparedness-and-support/2024-post-season-report-1-narrative.pdf will be critical to the successful adoption of electric appliances.

The City has already started this process through the engagement efforts surrounding this Strategy as well as through their website and collaboration with the County of San Mateo to provide education to contractors on upcoming requirements. For more information on the resources currently available to San Mateans, see the Community Electrification Resources Section.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 25
802 of 983

5. POLICY

PATHWAYS
At the June 16, 2025 City Council meeting,
the project team presented policy analysis of
five potential existing building electrification
policy pathways and the community feedback
received on the five pathways. The City Council
directed the project team to include four of
the five pathways in the final Electrify San
Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy. Detailed
policy analysis can be found in Appendix C. The
following section outlines each of the policy
pathways and provides information on the
electric infrastructure impacts, GHG emissions
reductions, costs, implementation steps, and
timelines for implementation.

POLICY 1 - ELECTRIFY NEW

BUILDINGS AND INCREASE

EDUCATION, OUTREACH,

AND INCENTIVES
Policy Description
Policy 1 continues to implement the City’s adopted reach codes and identifies opportunities to incentivize the electrification process using education, outreach, and connecting the community to rebates and technical support.

The City’s adopted reach code requires energy compliance margins for new buildings will be effective through December 31, 2025, the end of the code cycle. As part of this policy option, the City would investigate options around continuing the new building electrification reach code through either an updated performance standard which complies with the 2025 building code, or a zero NOx standard for new buildings.

For example, this option could include an education campaign to encourage homeowners to prewire for water heaters and furnaces, so they are ready to make the switch once their appliance burns out. Another example incentive would be waiving permit costs for electric equipment upgrades.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 26
803 of 983
Electric Infrastructure Impacts
This policy focuses on new construction and voluntary upgrades to existing buildings. The 2025 California Building Code already requires pre-wiring for all appliances and sufficient electrical capacity for all-electric buildings in new construction. Due to the voluntary nature of the existing building upgrades, while some upgrades will likely be needed for some homes to electrify, it will not be a requirement. Therefore, the electric infrastructure impacts of this policy are assumed to be low.

GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS – 1,770 MT CO2
e per year by 2030
Policy Cost
This policy approach would continue to incentivize all-electric new construction and direct the City to expand outreach efforts with the community to increase voluntary existing building electrification.

New Construction reach codes have been shown to save money.

Research from the New Buildings Institute (NBI) highlights that all-electric homes save between $7,500 and $8,200 in construction costs compared to mixed-fuel homes.27 These cost savings are primarily due to avoiding installing fees for natural gas infrastructure like gas meters and pipelines. These homes also save money over time especially when paired with heat pumps and solar.

Outreach, education, and sharing incentives incur no cost to community members and can help connect people to resources that will lessen costs for electrification. The City will need to provide adequate staff time to support building electrification engagement and other programs like peer-to-peer home tours for this approach to be effective. These engagement activities, when paired with other strategies listed below, can help the community feel more comfortable and informed on the benefits of electrification.

27. NBI. 2022. New Study on Electrification Costs Shows Benefits to Building Owners and Society. https://newbuildings.org/ new-study-on-electrification-costs-shows-benefits-to-building-owners-and-society/ Implementation Steps and Timeline
y Staff is in the process of evaluating reach code approaches while ensuring compliance with AB 130.
y If there is a path forward to adopt a local reach code that meets the new state law, staff will bring updated new construction ordinances to Council for consideration as cost-effectiveness studies are made available.
y Staff will develop an annual engagement work plan for outreach and engagement leveraging partnerships and other connections to reach the community.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 27
804 of 983
POLICY 2 – REACH CODES

FOR RENOVATION
Policy 2 includes the evaluation of reach codes during renovations of existing buildings. Reach codes are typically evaluated on a three-year cycle in alignment with the new Building Code. As part of Policy 2, the Strategy focuses on two priority existing building reach codes which include a Two-Way Air Conditioning (AC) reach code or a Flexible Path reach code. These policies could be adopted individually or both adopted to complement each other.

Policy 2a – Air Conditioning
to Heat Pump
Policy Description
The Two-Way AC reach code requires all new central air conditioning units to provide both heating and cooling through the installation of a two-way heat pump or significantly increase the efficiency of a standard AC unit. A two-way heat pump is a versatile HVAC system that can both heat and cool a building by reversing the flow of refrigerant within the system. In heating mode, it extracts heat from an external source, such as outdoor air or the ground, and transfers it indoors. In cooling mode, it reverses the process, removing heat from inside the building and releasing it outside. This dual functionality eliminates the need for separate heating and cooling systems which can save building owners money in the long term. Two-way heat pumps run completely off electricity and heat and cool spaces with high efficiency, making them a great way to reduce emissions coming from homes.

This policy would be adopted as part of a local amendment to the building code and would only affect installations of air conditioning units in new or existing buildings. Standard AC units would need to upgrade efficiency through duct work, air sealing, and other means.

While this code focuses initially on residential buildings, future work may also investigate the cost effectiveness of expanding the code to commercial buildings if feasible.

Electric Infrastructure Impacts
This policy only affects the installation of central AC units. AC units and heat pumps are structurally similar in their operations and footprints; this means that no additional building or electrical changes are necessary compared to a standard AC installation. No additional electrical upgrades beyond those needed for a standard AC unit would be required, so the potentially high costs of panel or service upgrades are not applicable to this policy.

GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS – 2,200 MT CO2
e per year by 2030
Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 28
805 of 983
Policy Cost
The installation of a two-way heat pump is highly cost-effective as it can both cool and heat a space, effectively replacing both a central air conditioner and furnace within a home. This reduces the need for separate furnace replacements. According to Peninsula Clean Energy and statewide cost analysis, the cost difference between an AC and two-way heat pump ranges between no cost difference to $1,500. However, Peninsula Clean energy provides a $1,500 rebate to offset this cost. Peninsula Clean Energy also offers on-bill financing through the Zero Percent Loan program28 to cover the up-front costs of installing a heat pump, which leads to utility bill savings over time due to appliance efficiency.

Implementing a Two-Way AC policy is particularly advantageous given the upcoming Air District Zero NOx requirements. If a constituent's air conditioner breaks before 2029 and is replaced with a standard AC which only provides cooling, they will need to purchase a Zero NOx alternative when their furnace eventually breaks after 2029. Conversely, adopting a Two-Way AC policy in preparation for these requirements would ensure that all air conditioner replacements in the next few years have two-way heating and cooling capabilities. This would prevent homeowners from needing to install an additional furnace with savings of up to $10,000 (Appendix C).

Implementation Steps and Timeline
y Staff is in the process of evaluating reach code approaches while ensuring compliance with AB 130.
y Staff will conduct engagement with the community and
contractors, evaluate cost-effectiveness studies, and present at a City Council study session prior to ordinance development.

28. Peninsula Clean Energy. 2025. 0% financing & rebates. Available: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/residential/financing/ Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 29
806 of 983
Policy 2b – Flex Path Reach
Code at Time of Renovation
Policy Description
Under the Flex Path policy the City will require additional energy efficiency or electrification actions at time of renovation. The Flex Path policy requires new renovations over a specific dollar amount to complete an efficiency checklist and includes one to two cost effective and energy saving approaches in their project. The flex path policies do not ban gas and provide flexible pathways for building owners to meet the decarbonization requirements. Flex Path options include items like:
y Installing a heat pump water heater
y Installing additional insulation
y Using higher efficiency windows
y Installing a heat pump HVAC unit
y Duct sealing
y Cool roof
y Floor insulation
Each project would be provided a complete list of demonstrated cost savings approaches to choose from. Projects would select the most applicable and feasible approaches for their project (hence the Flex Path name). For example, a bedroom remodel would likely not elect to install a cool roof but may upgrade their floor or wall insulation while a major remodel may elect to install a heat pump water heater to take advantage of rebates from Peninsula Clean Energy.

The final list of measures and the thresholds for project inclusion (cost of permit, sq. ft. of project, etc..) would be determined in the final ordinance language.

Electric Infrastructure Impacts
Since this policy provides many options for compliance, many of which do not require electrification, the impacts on electricity infrastructure are assumed to be low. However, conducting pre-wiring at a minimum during renovation is a great way to save money over time and prepare for upcoming Air District rules.

GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS – 730 MT CO2e per year by 2030 Policy Cost
The Flex Path reach code is also cost-effective. By providing a range of retrofits and upgrades that building owners can choose from, this policy allows each project owner to pick the most cost-effective and efficient options. Based on a conducted cost analysis conducted by the Local Codes and Standards team, each check list item would need to be demonstrated to have cost savings over the lifespan of the upgrade. Costs range from approximately $300 to $4,000 and represent a small portion of the overall project costs. To be included in the final list each project would need to have a positive return on investment, meaning that it saves money overall during the life of the project. Furthermore, many homeowners may receive additional savings through incentives provided by PCE, the State (Tech rebates) or the Inflation Reduction Act. While the overall costs are expected to be low, the City will also work to develop a hardship exemption clause in the ordinance language out of an abundance of caution.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 30
807 of 983
POLICY 3 – ZERO NOX

STANDARDS
Based on community feedback and City Council direction, Zero NOx standards were not selected to be pursued at this time. This policy is already being pursued by the Bay Area Air District and will begin phasing in for covered appliances like water heaters in 2027. The costs as well as uncertainty around electric infrastructure upgrades like panels and services was too great a concern to speed up the timeline for electrification. Community members are still urged to follow the guidance in Section 6 Community Electrification Resources, to make a plan as these requirements roll out.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 31
808 of 983
POLICY 4 - BUILDING

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Policy 4 creates new standards for buildings (Building Performance Standards) aimed at increasing energy efficiency, and eventually, decarbonizing large buildings as a phased efficiency-focused approach. In comparison to relatively homogonous single-family and small residential buildings, commercial and large multifamily buildings can be highly variable in their systems and needs. Commercial and large multifamily building heating and cooling systems are also frequently oversized, meaning replacing existing gas equipment in a like for like manner with electric equipment is not economical.

Process loads also vary significantly across multifamily and non-residential building types. For these reasons, decarbonizing large buildings necessitates a flexible approach where building managers can first make strides towards understanding their buildings and cost-effective opportunities before committing to a specific approach. Typically, a BPS Program is implemented in phases where buildings first report energy use for several years (benchmarking), then perform a retro-commissioning process to identify opportunities before finally reducing emissions below an established threshold (performance standard). y Phase I: Benchmarking (Years 1-2): This initial phase establishes a building’s energy performance baseline by comparing
its energy use intensity (EUI) to similar buildings. Covered Buildings (buildings and properties with buildings totaling the specified size threshold or larger) report their annual energy usage in Energy Star Portfolio Manager. The data collected in the benchmarking phase improves building manager and City understanding of building energy usage and will inform GHGemissions performance standards. Benchmarking also identifies underperforming facilities and prioritizes improvements, with studies showing benchmarked buildings achieve average
annual energy savings of 2.4 percent.29

29. National Association of State Energy Officials. 2025. Benchmarking and Building Performance Standards. Available: https://www.naseo.org/issues/buildings/benchmarking y Phase II: Retro-commissioning (Years 3-4): Retro-commissioning is a process through which a building’s energy consuming systems are analyzed for efficiency and proper operation. The retro-commissioning process serves two primary purposes.

The first is to uncover inefficient operations, increase energy efficiency, and save building owners money. The second is to identify cost-effective opportunities to reduce building GHG emissions through electrification and energy efficiency. y Phase III: Performance Standard (Year 4+): Jurisdictions set phased energy or emissions targets for GHG reductions over time on a square feet basis. The targets are based on data collected from the benchmarking phase and can be met
through a variety of retrofits, such as upgrades, electrification, or renewable energy adoption. The most cost-efficient retrofits for each building were identified in the retro-commissioning phase.

Standards often allow flexible compliance paths, such as achieving specific EUI thresholds or offsetting emissions via clean energy investments.

Electric Infrastructure Impacts
This policy does not establish specific requirements and therefore, specific infrastructure impacts cannot be identified. The phased-in approach of this program has been designed so that buildings owners can collect the necessary data to more thoroughly understand their buildings prior to any project requirements. The City will work to understand the costs of increasing commercial building energy efficiency prior to setting thresholds in Phase III.

GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS – Variable based on Performance Standards Set in Phase III.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 32
809 of 983
Policy Cost
The cost of decarbonizing buildings under a Building Performance Standard (BPS) policy varies significantly based on factors such as building age, equipment types, and energy end uses. This variability necessitates a flexible, performance-based approach, allowing owners to prioritize cost-effective solutions tailored to their assets.

The BPS framework’s phased implementation mitigates financial burdens:
y Benchmarking identifies inefficiencies (e.g., leaks, malfunctioning systems) and establishes a baseline for improvement.

Benchmarking reporting costs approximately $3,000 annually. y Retro-commissioning pinpoints low-cost operational optimizations (e.g., HVAC adjustments, controls recalibration), which typically yield 16 percent energy savings at an average cost of $0.30/sq. ft., often with payback periods under two years.
y Performance standards are deferred for 4+ years postbenchmarking, enabling strategic capital planning for equipment replacements and system upgrades.
y Electrification of commercial building electric retrofits will likely have to be paired with a suite of demand management, energy efficiency, or renewable energy projects to make building electrification economical for building owners. Specific costeffective system upgrades include heat pump rooftop package units, which are the most promising electrification solution for commercial building electrification, offering a replicable model for a 1:1 equipment swap-out.30
Implementation Steps and Timeline
y Staff will conduct additional engagement with multifamily property and commercial building owners.
y Analyze available commercial performance data from the CEC y Staff will present a workplan to City Council prior to ordinance development.

30. Rocky Mountain Institute. 2022. Medium-Size Commercial Retrofits. Available: https://rmi.org/ insight/economics-of-electrifying-buildings-medium-size-commercial-retrofits/ Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 33
810 of 983
POLICY 5 - MUNICIPAL

ELECTRIC-FIRST POLICY
Policy Description
This policy establishes a mechanism for local government renovations to go electric first. The policy ensures financial and feasibility data is being collected for municipal facilities that will allow the City to compare costs to electrify versus replacing with gas equipment.

This policy has a limited reach as it only applies to municipal buildings and GHG reductions potential would depend on the rate of equipment failure and availability of replacements. However, it demonstrates City leadership on hard-to-electrify existing buildings that mirror the commercial sector. Several other cities have adopted similar municipal electrification policies. Residents were largely in favor of this policy as it would not incur any costs to the community.

Electric Infrastructure Impacts
Electric infrastructure impacts from this policy are expected to be variable from low impact to potentially high impact. While some appliances may be simple to electrify, others such as boilers or pool heaters may require significant upgrades to City owned facilities and local grid infrastructure. The City will address these challenges on a case-by-case basis.

GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS – 146 MT CO2e per year by 2030 Policy Cost
This policy enables the City to conduct a comprehensive feasibility assessment to evaluate the cost differentials between electrification and gas equipment replacement for municipal facilities. By incorporating exemptions for projects demonstrating technical or financial infeasibility, the policy ensures a targeted approach to identifying the most cost-effective energy upgrades, consistent with methodologies applied to commercial buildings. Implementation costs will vary based on building-specific factors, including system age, infrastructure readiness, and operational requirements.

As these facilities are City-owned, the municipality retains full decision-making authority over capital expenditures, eliminating potential equity concerns that might arise in privately owned housing or commercial properties. Furthermore, since many City owned facilities are used by the public such as libraries or park properties, creating healthier and more comfortable spaces while lowering operational costs provide an equity benefit to the community. These costs can be offset with grants, loans, and other incentives provided by Peninsula Clean Energy as well as the State and other sources.

Implementation Steps and Timeline
y Staff will work to develop a policy and provide an update to City Council in Spring of 2026.
y Staff will develop a reasonable cost exemption threshold based on lifecycle costs.
y Staff will maintain a database of project costs, hurdles, and successes for use in understanding other electrification policies.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 34
811 of 983

6. COMMUNITY

ELECTRIFICATION

RESOURCES
The City of San Mateo has access to an extensive
support program provided by Peninsula Clean
Energy. Peninsula Clean Energy provides a
customizable home upgrade support service
that can walk you through the electrification
process whether it’s due to a program identified
in the Policy Pathways Section or through a
voluntary action to improve your health, lower
your bills, and help address climate change. The
Home Upgrade Service can help connect you
to rebates and incentives, provide one-on-one
support and professional expertise to guide
your decisions, and even connect you to trusted
contractors.

In addition to support, PCE also provides
zero interest loans, unique incentives just
for Peninsula Clean Energy customers, and
electrification specific rates. There are also
special programs including direct installation
of electric appliances for low- and medianincome homeowners. These support systems can make building electrification easier and
less expensive.

Visit Peninsula Clean Energy to choose your
level of support today.

Making a plan to electrify can help you plan around future upgrades and avoid costly or challenging emergency repairs. Knowing what appliances you have that run gas, the size/space available on your panel, and the age/expected lifespan of each appliance can help you minimize stress and maximize savings. Peninsula Clean Energy can help you walk through these steps:

1. Understand your electricity system – What size panel do you have? If your panel is smaller than 100amps or you have outdated or unsafe electrical systems (knob and tube or a Zinsco panel) you may want to start planning to replace it. If you have a 100amp panel, but no space, you can add a sub-panel instead of replacing the full panel.

2. Consider “Retrofit Ready” appliances – If your panel is out of space or you want to save money on running a new 240V circuit (the wires that to go the outlet) you can opt for a 120V version which plugs into any outlet.

There are even new induction stoves that utilize a battery to deliver high temperatures quickly without needing to upgrade your wiring.

3. Plan out your appliance replacements – How old are your appliances? Water heaters tend to last around 10 years and furnaces 18 years. If have an appliance that is already questionable, that it’s a good time to start thinking about upgrading to a heat pump.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 33
812 of 983

4. Get quotes – Work with Peninsula Clean Energy to find a contractor and get quotes to complete your work. Try and get at least 3 quotes before moving forward. The data shows a wide range of costs for similar projects based on contractor experience. Peninsula Clean Energy can provide average costs and help you understand the quotes.

5. Identify your rebates – Work with Peninsula Clean Energy or The Switch is On to see what rebates you qualify for.

6. Consider solar + storage – Adding solar and storage could provide significant savings in conjunction with an all-electric home.

While the cost of these systems is high, financing can provide on-bill savings from day one.

While the Policy Pathways Section outlines key policies the City can enact to help target the most cost effective and feasible electrification opportunities, these policies alone will not reach San Mateo’s GHG reduction targets. It will be up to the community to make the decisions that will help reduce the impacts of climate change.

Over 42 percent of nationwide GHG emissions are the result of just a handful of kitchen table decisions. What water heater you have might not be noticeable in the temperature of your water, but the emissions benefits of electrification can be significant. These voluntary resources can fill the gap between the City’s identified policies and the climate action goals we need to achieve in order to address climate change.

Electrify San Mateo Sustainable Building Strategy 36
813 of 983

APPENDIX A
Building Inventory and Market Study
814 of 983

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com
July 21, 2025
Project No: 23-14014
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
City of San Mateo
City Manager’s Office
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2*)
*Version 2 applies updated PCE Incentives (-$1,000 from previous memo) as of 08.24.2023 to electrification marginal costs, and cost savings listed in this memo Dear Ms. Chow:

To develop an equitable, implementable, and effective Sustainable Building Strategy (SBS), the City of San Mateo (City) first needs to understand the existing building stock and energy usage and develop estimates for the various costs associated with building electrification.1 Part of this analysis includes investigating the up-front appliance costs2 for electrification, the cost of other upgrades that may be required to convert energy usage in buildings from gas to electricity, the financial incentives currently available for this work, as well as existing conditions of the building stock within the City and other practical opportunities or barriers to electrification of existing buildings. To answer questions about up-front costs, available incentives, existing conditions, and other opportunities and barriers, in collaboration with the City, Rincon completed a meta-analysis of existing cost studies and reviewed several electrification project case studies which have been completed within the City and County of San Mateo. This memo summarizes the information gathered from these reviews and case studies.

This memo is intended to be used in developing educational materials for the community and informing future policy development. Data in this report was summarized from existing sources, some of which are not specific to the City of San Mateo. However, the findings are of sufficient scale and accuracy to help guide this process but not intended as an accurate interpretation of the final cost of electrification for any one building in the City. This memo includes the following pieces of analysis, which is organized according to San Mateo building stock categories: Single-Family Homes and LowRise Multifamily and High-Rise Multifamily and Nonresidential Building Costs. • Part 1: Residential Building Segmentation Analysis
o Building Stock
o Building Vintage
o Appliance and Fuel Source Analysis
1 Building electrification refers to the replacement of gas-fired equipment or appliances in a building with electric equipment or appliances. 2 Up-front costs include the cost to buy a new appliance and have it installed by qualified personnel. Up-front costs include additional costs that may come with other upgrades needed to make installation of the new appliance possible (e.g., installation of new wiring to install an electric stove, where there was previously only a gas hookup). 815 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 2 • Part 2: High-Rise Multifamily and Commercial Building Segmentation Analysis o Building Stock
o Building Vintage
o Appliance and Fuel Source Analysis
• Part 3: Residential and Commercial Buildings Electrification Cost Analysis o Upfront Residential Costs
– Incentives for Electrification
– Gas-for-Gas Scenario
– Gas-to-Electric Scenario
– Gas-to-Electric Scenario (marginal costs)
– Costs to Electrify Scenario (marginal costs- incentives) – Commercial Building Cost Analysis
o Description of Building Electrification Costs Overview – Single-Family Electrification Cost Discussion
– Baseline Scenario: Gas to Gas Appliance Replacement
– Electrification Scenario: Gas to Electric
– Electrification Incentives Overview
– Electrification Scenario + Incentives
– Applicability to low-rise multifamily
o High-Rise Multifamily and Nonresidential Buildings Electrification Cost Discussion – Cost Considerations
– Package Unit Opportunity
– Current Incentives
o On Bill Costs
This memorandum’s costs and building energy usage will be updated to reflect the current data as additional information becomes more available through project development. Once finalized, this memo will also serve as a technical appendix to the final Sustainable Buildings Strategy.

Part 1: Residential Building Segmentation Analysis
Single-Family Homes and Low-Rise Multifamily Building Segmentation Analysis For this analysis, single-family homes and low rise (3 stories and under) multifamily are discussed together. This is because they generally utilize similar equipment and share similar costs for electrification. These building types include single-family, duplex, townhouse, rowhouse, and parcels with multiple single unit/duplex buildings. Commercial and high rise (over 3 stories) buildings are discussed in a later section.
816 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 3 Significance of Building Vintage
Building vintage3 can be used to provide a sense of the technologies employed in a particular building.

While vintage does not tell us if updates have been made, it does provide some idea of potential hurdles that might be faced when completing electrification work. Based on anecdotal evidence, buildings constructed after 1970 are more likely to have electric panels of 100 amps or more instead of lower amp panels or fuse boxes which may require upgrades and may impede electrification work.

A significant number (70%) of San Mateo’s single-family homes were built before 1970 and could potentially need panel upgrades or other electrical work prior to full electrification as shown in Figure 1.

However, progress on and availability of circuit sharing technologies and retrofit ready (120 volt) heat pump products continues to lower the number of buildings which require panel upgrades. Adding an electric vehicle (EV) also increases the chance of needing a panel or service upgrade which should be considered when looking at whole home electrification.

Building Segmentation Analysis
According to the parcel data obtained from San Mateo County, there are approximately 19,350 singlefamily residential buildings within the City of San Mateo. The years in which they were built (building vintage) are included in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Number of Single-Family Residential Buildings Built by Year in the City of San Mateo
Data Source: San Mateo County Parcel Data
3 Building vintage refers to the age (‘vintage’) of the building, based on the approximate date it was built. 27 16,897
2,281
145
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Unknown 1969 or earlier 1970 to 2009 2010 or newer
Number of Buildings
Year Built
817 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 4 In addition, there are approximately 2,305 multifamily buildings. The breakdown of buildings by type is included in Figure 2. No building vintage data for multifamily buildings was available at the time of drafting this report.

Figure 2 Multifamily Housing in the City of San Mateo
Data Source: San Mateo County Parcel Data
Appliance and Fuel Source Analysis
To better understand where natural gas is being used in San Mateo’s buildings, an appliance fuel source analysis was completed using existing data provided by PCE. The data provided by PCE leveraged the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) for Climate Zone 3 for most appliance types with the exception of heating fuel source.4 Heating fuel source data was based on the American Community Survey which utilizes specific San Mateo County Data.5 Heating system types were pulled from the RASS Study but normalized using American Community Survey (ACS) fuel source data which is more specific to San Mateo County. This normalization process weighted fuel types more heavily towards the ACS results for fuel types but utilizes the relevant equipment types from the RASS. This data is not specific to the City of San Mateo but provides a good understanding of the fuel and appliance types common in the region. Based on this analysis, most gas consumption in residential buildings comes from space and water heating, as shown in Figure 3. 4 The California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) is a comprehensive look at residential energy use. The California Energy Commission (CEC) manages the study, which is based on the California Home Energy Survey. The survey collects information from residents about appliances, heating and cooling equipment, electric vehicles, and energy. 5 The American Community Survey (ACS) detailed population and housing information and is intended to helps local officials, community leaders, and businesses understand the changes taking place in their communities. 1,182
60 162
632
269
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Duplex Triplex Fourplex Five or more units Other
Number of Buildings
818 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 5 Figure 3 2019 California Residential End Use Survey Gas Consumption Data Source: California End Use Survey (CEUS)
Water Heating Fuel Types
In San Mateo County the vast majority of water heaters run on natural gas (though most gas water heaters also require electricity to operate) as shown in Figure 4.6 Multifamily buildings have the largest percentage of electric water heating. A small percentage of buildings within the county also run on bottled gas (propane), but these buildings are likely to be in the unincorporated areas away from natural gas infrastructure.

Figure 4 Water Heater Fuel Types by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) 6 https://www.schnellerair.com/blog/shower-during-power-outage/ 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Single family owned Single family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Percent Adoption by Appliance Type
Gas Water Heater Electric Water Heater Bottled Gas Water Heater 819 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 6 As shown in Figure 5, most of the water heaters in San Mateo County are standard gas fired water heaters, especially in single-family homes. Whole house tankless gas water heaters are the next most common followed by standard electric resistance water heaters, tankless electric varieties and heat pumps. Different types of water heaters will have different space and cost impacts on operations. This detail will likely be building specific. However, standard gas tank water heaters are most common and can be replaced by heat pump tank water heaters in most scenarios.

Figure 5 Water Heater System Counts by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Furnace Types
Space heating is the second largest gas consumption device in residential buildings. Space heating in San Mateo County sees a much broader use of electric appliances especially in multifamily rentals and multifamily condos, as shown in Figure 6. Single-family owned and rented buildings still use gas most commonly. Some wood and propane use is seen within the County, but is most likely in the unincorporated regions.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Single-family owned Single-family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Number of Appliances
Standard tank gas water heater Whole house tankless gas water heater Standard tank electric water heater Heat pump electric water heater Whole house tankless electric water heater Point of use tankless electric water heater Standard tank propane water heater Whole house tankless propane water heater 820 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 7 Figure 6 Space Heating Fuel Types by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) As shown in Figure 7, central gas furnaces are the most common space heating system type in the County, driven primarily by single-family buildings. Currently, most electric space heating is electric resistance in both single and multifamily buildings. Different types of furnaces will have different space and cost impacts on operations. This detail will likely be building specific. However, central gas furnaces are most common and can be replaced by central air source heat pumps in most scenarios.

These heat pumps also provide air conditioning.

Figure 7 Space Heating System Counts by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Single family owned Single family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Percent Adoption by Appliance Type
Utility gas Electricity Propane Wood
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
Single-family owned Single-family rented Multifamily rented Multifamily condo Mobile homes Number of Appliances
Central gas furnace Floor/wall gas furnace Other gas heating Electric resistance Central electric furnace Heat pump
Other electric heating Propane Wood
821 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 8 Air Conditioning Prevalence and Type
Most residential buildings in San Mateo County do not have air conditioning. Those that do, mostly single-family owned homes, use central air conditioning. The lack of air conditioning within the County is important to note as projected increases in temperatures related to climate change may increase the need for air conditioning installations as a resilience measure. This represents an important opportunity for buildings to use a “two-way” air-conditioning system or heat pump. When considering the cost of both a furnace and air conditioner, a heat pump is significantly less expensive (see cost analysis below).

Figure 8 Air Conditioning System Counts by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Stove Types
Within San Mateo County, gas and propane (bottled gas) fueled units make up approximately 60% of all stoves while electric units make up the remaining 40% as shown in Figure 9. Electric stoves are most common in multifamily rental units.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Single-family owned Single-family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Number of Buildings with Air Conditioning Types
Central air conditioning only Central evaporative cooler only Room air conditioning only Multiple air conditioning types No air conditioning
822 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 9 Figure 9 Stoves Fuel Type by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Figure 10 shows the total number of residential stoves in San Mateo County by fuel type and building type. Gas stoves are most common in single-family units while multifamily units tend to use electric stoves.

Figure 10 Stove Counts by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Single family owned Single family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Percent Adoption by Appliance Type
Natural Gas Electricity Bottled Gas
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Single-family owned Single-family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Number of Appliances
Natural gas Electricity
823 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 10 Clothes Dryer Types
Most residential buildings in San Mateo County have a clothes dryer with dryers being most common in single-family units. Electric clothes dryers make up nearly 40% of all dryer use, while only 27% are gas. The remaining 34% of units do not have a dryer on site according to the RASS data.

Figure 11 Clothes Dryer Counts by Building Type in San Mateo County Data Source: Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) Pools
Approximately 849 residential buildings (4%) have pools within the City of San Mateo, according to PCE. Pools in the City of San Mateo are likely to be heated using gas.

Part 2: High-Rise Multifamily and Commercial Building
Segmentation Analysis
Commercial Buildings and High-Rise Multifamily Building Segmentation Analysis
Total commercial buildings (1,244 individual buildings) segregated by type based on San Mateo County parcel data are shown in Figure 12. The most common commercial building type in San Mateo is office followed by retail. Mixed use, auto sales, and warehouses make up the next most common building by total count.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Single-family owned Single-family rented Multifamily rent Multifamily condo Mobile homes Number of Appliances
Natural gas Electricity No dryer
824 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 11 Figure 12 Commercial Buildings by Type in the City of San Mateo Data Source: San Mateo County Parcel Data
Data on commercial building energy usage by appliance/end use specific to San Mateo or San Mateo County was not available at the time of this memorandum’s analysis. However, the California Energy Commission published the 2006 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) which details statewide commercial energy use. An updated 2018-2022 CEUS is likely to be released soon, though it is currently delayed due to COVID-19 related impacts. Therefore, the 2016 CEUS is the most up-todate information available on California’s commercial building energy consumption. CEUS filters results by utility which allows for some refinement, compared to the statewide results. The PG&E results are summarized below. The full report is no longer on the CEC website, but can be found here.7 Within the PG&E service area there are just under 2 billion square feet of commercial floor space. The building types with the largest floor area are miscellaneous with 23%, large offices with 15% and retail with 14%. Total natural gas usage from these buildings is estimated at 565 Million therms per year with three building types representing over 54% of total natural gas usage: restaurants (21%) miscellaneous (20%) and health (13%). Total electricity and gas usage by end use are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14, respectively.
7 https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C19.pdf 291
268
144
122 108
84 51 50 39 45 42
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Number of Buildings
825 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 12 Figure 13 Commercial Electricity by End Use (2006 CEUS) Figure 14 Commercial Gas Consumption by End Use

28.9%

14.8%

12.4% 12.4%

8.2%

5.9% 5.2% 4.6% 3.8%

1.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
Space Heating, 44%
Water Heating, 30%
Cooking, 20%
Process, 5%
Miscellaneous, 1% Cooling, 1%
Space Heating Water Heating Cooking Process Miscellaneous Cooling 826 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 13 As shown in the figures above, gas is the predominant energy source for commercial space and water heating with less than 1% of all electricity being used for commercial water heating and less than 2% of electricity being used for space heating.

Commercial Space and Water Heating Types
The CEUS does not provide energy consumption by type of space and water heating equipment.

However, PCE did provide data on equipment prevalence for commercial buildings based on Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS). Commercial Heating Ventilation and, Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment types for San Mateo County are included in Figure 15. The majority of HVAC equipment are packaged single zone (SZ) furnaces with cooling, which are also the easiest to electrify.

Figure 15 Commercial Space Heating Equipment Prevalence by Type in San Mateo County (PCE)
Data Source: PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan
PCE also provided information on commercial water heating. Water heating equipment is broken down into five categories with a mix of both gas and electric appliances being present in commercial buildings within the County. Most of these systems are natural gas tank water heaters, as shown in Figure 16.
827 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 14 Figure 16 Commercial Water Heating Equipment Prevalence by Type in San Mateo County (PCE)
Data Source: PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan
Part 3: Residential and Commercial Buildings Electrification Cost Analysis
Electrification Up-Front Costs - Single-Family and Low-Rise Multifamily Buildings Up-front costs include the costs to purchase an appliance, install it, and make it operational. Up-front costs to electrify were analyzed using the most recent and location specific data available. Third party vetted sources from local government and community choice aggregator (CCA) reports and data sets specific to the City and County of San Mateo were used for most data sources. Sources for each data set used in the analysis are summarized in Table 1 below.

For most up-front costs, median install values were selected to inform the cost analysis. Using median costs helped remove outlier quotes from contractors, which would have influenced the average value.

Quotes for some equipment, such as HVAC units, could vary by as much as $15,000 for the same project.

Where there are exceptions to this data filtering process, due to missing data, data substitution methods will be clarified in the relevant cell of the analysis. 3% 5% 5% 5%
16%
25% 25%
7% 5%
25%
11% 5%
5%
21% 35% 12%
10% 10%
13%
15%
10%
12%
69%
60% 60%
75% 80%
60% 68%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Electric tankless Electric tank Natural gas boiler Natural gas tankless Natural gas tank 828 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 15 Table 1 Data Sources Analyzed for Single-Family Cost Analysis Author/Source Source Description Analysis Use and Considerations Peninsula Clean Energy
(PCE)
2035 Decarbonization Feasibility
Analysis & Plan: Complete Analysis and
Draft Plan (September 2022)8
Electric and gas appliance installation costs,
including wiring, appliance cost, labor, and
markup.

Commercial rooftop package unit cost data.

Josie Gaillard & Tom Kabat
via funding from BayREN &
County of San Mateo Office
of Sustainability
Decarbonizing Single-Family Homes
(January 2023)9
Single-Family Home Decarbonization
Case Study: San Mateo 1-Story Home
(March 2023)10
Electric and gas appliance installation costs
(all-cost inclusive), based on specific
equipment and models, bids for 10 homes
under consideration as part of cumulative
case study.

One City of San Mateo Single-Family Home
case study analyzed.

BayREN Contractor Install
Dataset
BayREN Contractor-Input Raw Data for
Electric Appliance Installation (Excel),
filtered for most recent year input (2022)
This raw data source was also used to inform
the PCE 2035 Decarbonization Feasibility
Analysis and Plan
TECH Clean California
Install Dataset
TECH Clean California Install DatasetInput Raw Data for Electric Appliance Installation (Excel), filtered for most
recent year input (2022)
This raw data source was also used to inform
the PCE 2035 Decarbonization Feasibility
Analysis and Plan
Note: Existing datasets and reports did not cover the cost of air conditioning (both appliance and installation), which was found using desktop research (Angie’s List), filtering for location-specific costs11 Low Rise Multifamily Applicability
In general, the costs for single-family homes and the costs per unit for low rise multifamily homes (3 stories and under) will be similar. Low rise multifamily homes tend to use similar equipment and one piece of equipment (such as a hot water heater or furnace can serve one or multiple units). In some low-rise multifamily units there may be a single larger piece of equipment shared between multiple units (an example would be an 80 gallon hot water heater being used by both units in a duplex).

Therefore, the per unit costs for electrification in Table 3 are assumed to be conservative for multifamily buildings which use residential (as opposed to commercial) sized equipment. High rise multifamily homes (over 3 stories) look more like commercial buildings with a wide variety of equipment and the potential for larger centralized systems, which will be described further in HighRise Multifamily and Nonresidential Building Costs. 8 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022.09-BOD-2035-Decarb-Plan-Complete-Analysis-Draft-Plan1.pdf 9 https://www.smcsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/Decarbonizing-Single-Family-Homes.pdf 10 https://www.smcsustainability.org/energy-water/decarbonizing-homes/cost-plans/ 11 https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-installing-new-ac-cost.htm 829 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 16 Up-Front Costs for Electrification
• Key Figure Highlight. Whole home electrification could be less expensive for building owners in San Mateo than replacing appliances with gas once rebates are included. o Full-home appliance replacement with new gas appliances: $11,012 - $18,51212 o Before incentives: Full-home appliance replacement with new electric appliances13 marginal cost: $13,291- $20,93614
o After incentives: Full-home appliance (no AC) replacement with new electric appliances marginal cost: +$709 in cost savings – $4,83615 and get the benefit of air conditioning. o After incentives: Homes with AC + Furnace that need replacing could save up to $2,665 To understand the up-front costs of electrification, Rincon gathered data through existing analysis described in Table 1 to determine the cost to install new gas appliances as well as new electric appliances. These costs were all-inclusive, incorporating wiring upgrades, labor costs, appliance costs, permitting, and contractor markup.

Rincon assumed that in an electrification scenario for a home, switching any gas appliances to an electric appliance would only occur if the gas appliance no longer functioned or was due for replacement (‘burnout’), for other consumer preference reasons (ex. public health, climate consciousness), or was voluntarily upgraded to a modern electric option. Because of this electrify on replacement scenario, Rincon further determined the marginal cost of the electrification scenario by comparing:
• Gas to gas “like for like” scenario- an old gas appliance is replaced with a new similar gas appliance.
• Gas to electric “electrification” scenario- an old gas appliance is replaced with a new similar electric appliance.

The marginal cost is the difference between the electrification scenario, and the gas to gas, or “like for like” scenario. By focusing on the time of replacement the cost of electrification is the difference between a standard gas replacement and an electric upgrade. While some building owners may opt to replace their appliances before burnout in order to gain the benefits of electrification (improved air quality, lower GHG emissions, bill savings) most people are expected to wait until burnout to replace their appliances. Therefore, while both gross and marginal costs are included in this memorandum, the marginal cost described in detail in Table 7 should be the focus for determining cost effectiveness.

In reviewing the San Mateo existing data, there were four key factors that determine costs for home electrification that were apparent in the literature and data:
• Avoiding panel upgrades through a watt diet16, panel management, or home electrification plan could result in significant savings ($3,700) for home electrification, though building owners may want to consider that installing future charging capacity for an electric vehicle may necessitate a panel upgrade anyway.17
12 Low scenario does not include AC, high scenario does include AC (in addition to a gas powered furnace) 13 Also known as ‘electrification’ 14 This scenario does not include air conditioning, which would subtract $7,500 from both scenarios as a heat pump would displace the need to install an AC in addition to a gas fired furnace. 15 Low scenario = Total costs with no panel upgrade with low-cost HVAC scenario and no AC, median HVAC scenario 16 Watt Diet refers to the practice of minimizing the peak electricity demand through smart chargers and other technology to avoid a panel upgrade.
17 https://www.smcsustainability.org/energy/decarbonizing-homes/ 830 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 17 • HVAC appliance costs and HVAC installation costs made up the largest single cost of electrifying a building. The cost range for HVAC installation was also the largest with quotes for the same HVAC system ranging by as much as $15,000. This variability emphasizes the need to get multiple quotes is very important.18
• The large cost range for HVAC equipment necessitated the Project Team running both a low-cost and median cost for electric heat pump HVAC System, which had a $3,944 difference between scenarios.
• Labor costs and quotes from contractors are likely the most expensive and variable factor in home electrification, not appliance cost.19
Electrification Scenario: Gas to Gas “Like for Like” Upfront Costs In the gas ‘like for like’ scenario (base case), where it is assumed that the building owner replaces existing natural gas appliances with new gas-fired appliances, the typical whole-home cost in San Mateo, without air conditioning20 is $11,012. Once costs for air conditioning are added in, the total projected cost to replace all appliances that run on gas plus an AC is $18,512. This analysis demonstrates the amount of money that building owners would spend as a baseline if they planned on replacing their appliances.

These costs describe all up-front costs for installation, appliance, and labor, by taking the average of collected median values for appliance types, while aggregating appliance types by end use (with the exception of AC, described in the note below Table 2).

Table 2 Like-for-Like Scenario: Replace Gas Appliances with Similar, New Gas Appliances (Total Costs)
Appliance, Install, Wiring End Use Median/Average Cost (All Data) Gas-fired water heater Water Heating $2,800
Gas-fired HVAC system Space Heating $6,132
AC (keep existing furnace) * Space Cooling $7,500
Gas-fired dryer Clothes Drying $925
Gas-fired stove Cooking $1,155
Whole-Home Cost w/o AC $11,012
Whole-Home+ AC $18,512
* Note: Existing datasets and reports did not cover the cost of air conditioning, which was found using desktop research (Angie’s List), filtering for location-specific costs by zip code, refers to central air conditioner.21 The air conditioner (AC) uses electricity not gas to operate.
18 PCE 2035 Decarb Plan Analysis 19 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022.01.13-CAC-2035-Decarb-Feasibility-Plan.pdf 20 According to the 2035 Peninsula Clean Energy Decarbonization Analysis, only 25% of homes in San Mateo County have Air Conditioning, with central air conditioning being the most common type of air conditioner. 21 https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-installing-new-ac-cost.htm 831 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 18 Electrification Scenario: Gas to Electric – No Incentives Applied Upfront Cost In the gas to electric scenario (electric scenario) where it is assumed that the building owner replaces existing natural gas appliances with new electric appliances, the total whole-home electrification cost to replace all gas-powered appliances with all-electric, with no incentives or rebates applied, is:

Assuming that home electrification does not require an electric panel upgrade22:
• $24,303-$28,248
Assuming that home electrification does require an electric panel upgrade (particularly for homes with electric panels less than 100 amps):
• $28,003-$31,948
The difference between both electric panel scenarios described above is the difference between the ‘low’ and ‘median’ heat pump scenario, which was broken out to detail the significant difference in installation bids for electric heat pump HVAC systems. This discrepancy in installation bids from contractors stems from home-specific needs for ductwork upgrades, locations to house HVAC systems, and labor costs which are highly variable depending on the contractor. These two scenarios show that installation costs for HVAC and the potential need for an electric panel upgrade are two of the largest influencers of cost in home electrification for the City of San Mateo.

These costs can be significantly or partially offset by stacked federal and local incentives as described in the Current Incentives for Electrification section below. Whole home costs for replacing gas appliances with electric with no incentives applied are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3 Electrification Scenario: Cost to Replace Gas Appliances with Electric Appliances (No Incentives, Total Costs)
Appliance, Install, Wiring* End Use
Median/Average
Cost (All Data)
Electric heat pump water heater Water Heating $6,000
Electric heat pump HVAC system (heating and cooling) Space Heating/Cooling - Median Scenario
$17,910
Space Heating/Cooling- Low Scenario $13,965
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $1,963
Electric stove Cooking $2,375
Panel Upgrade (Only if needed) Electrical (additional one-time costs) $3,700 Low Cost HVAC Scenario: Whole-Home Cost (w/o panel upgrade) $24,303 Low Cost HVAC Scenario: Whole-Home Cost (+ panel upgrade) $28,003 Median Cost HVAC Scenario: Whole-Home Cost (w/o panel upgrade) $28,248 Median Cost HVAC Scenario: Whole-Home Cost (+ panel upgrade) $31,948 22 As discussed in the BayREN Decarbonizing Single-Family Homes Case Study, potentially costly electric panel upgrades are frequently recommended by contractors without first understanding the many potential avenues to avoid this cost through maximum usage of existing service capacity. The amp cutoff for electric panel upgrade is widely understood to be 100 amps or higher- a building with below 100 amps likely will need a panel upgrade to accommodate all-electric appliances. The BayREN Decarbonization Case Study recommends several ways for “panel optimization”, including making a whole home electrification plan, and investing in circuit sharing and pausing infrastructure instead of a panel upgrade.
832 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 19 Electrification Scenario: Marginal Costs (Difference Between Gas and Electric Install Costs)
‘Marginal costs’ for electrification are at the core of this analysis as they describe the cost difference between the assumed investment needed to replace a gas appliance that would happen during ‘burnout’ or equipment upgrade with all-electric technologies. Put simply, marginal costs describe how much more expensive it would be to go all-electric, rather than replace non-functioning appliances with gas. Zeroing out this difference between electric and gas install costs would mean that electrifying does not increase the cost burden on building owners in San Mateo when compared to the baseline ‘gas for gas’ replacement, addressing a key cost and equity hurdle for developing existing building electrification policies.

Assuming that the home electrification scenario replaced a combined furnace and AC with a heat pump23 , the marginal cost to electrify (without incentives) would range from:
• $5,791-$9,736
Assuming that the home electrification scenario does not have AC/does not want AC, and also does not require a panel upgrade, marginal costs to electrify before rebates would range from:
• $13,291-$17,236
o This cost range for both scenarios is based on the install difference between low and median heat pump HVAC systems
o If an electric panel upgrade was added, $3,700 would be added to each cost range scenario Marginal costs for replacing gas appliances with electric, with no incentives applied are shown below in Table 4 by appliance type and end use, and with different full-home electrification scenarios with and without air conditioning cost savings, panel upgrades, and low and median cost heat pump scenarios included in Table 5.

Table 4 Electrification Scenario Marginal Costs (Appliance Level) Appliance End Use
Median/
Average Cost
Electric heat pump water heater Water Heating $3,200
Without AC: Electric heat pump HVAC system Space Heating/Cooling: Median Cost Scenario
$11,778
Space Heating/Cooling: Low-Cost Scenario $7,833
With AC: Electric heat pump HVAC system (heating and
cooling; replaces need for additional AC)
Space Heating/ Cooling $(7,500)
Electric dryer Clothes Drying $1,038
Electric stove Cooking $1,220
Additional One-Time Costs: Panel Upgrade $3,700
23 This would entail subtracting out the additional cost of replacing an AC, as a heat pump provides both heating a cooling functions, functionally displacing the need to replace both a gas-powered furnace and an air conditioner under the ‘like for like’ scenario 833 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 20 Table 5 Full-Home Electrification (Replace All Appliances with Electric) Marginal Cost Scenarios
Scenario Cost
Full-Home Electrification (Replace all Appliances with Electric) Marginal Cost – No AC Cost Savings
Low-Cost Heat Pump (HP) HVAC Scenarios – No AC
Full-home electrification (w/o AC or panel Upgrade) $13,291 Full-home electrification marginal cost (w/o AC with Panel upgrade) $16,991 Median-Cost Heat Pump (HP) HVAC Scenarios – No AC
Full-home electrification marginal cost (w/o AC or panel upgrade) $17,236 Full-home electrification marginal cost (w/o AC with Panel upgrade) $20,936 Full-Home Electrification (Replace All Appliances with Electric) Marginal Cost – With AC Cost Savings
Full-home electrification, with AC, no panel upgrade, low cost HP $5,791 Full-home electrification, with AC, no panel upgrade, median cost HP $9,736 Full-home electrification, with AC, panel upgrade, low cost HP $9,491 Full-home electrification, with AA, panel upgrade, median cost HP $13,436 Current Incentives for Electrification
Depending on project availability, current appliance electrification incentives available through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), BayREN, TECH Clean California when combined make building owners eligible for $21,600 in rebates, which are summarized in Table 6.

Incentives take the form of both rebates and tax incentives. Tax incentives through the IRA require the building owner to have some tax burden to reduce.

Data for existing rebates were collected from most recent online sources on existing federal-level (IRA24), local (PCE25, BayREN26, TECH Clean California27) sources of home electrification rebates. 24 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/IRAguide 25 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/residential-programs/ 26 https://www.bayren.org/articles-tools-tips/electrification 27 https://switchison.org/ 834 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 21 Table 6 Current Incentives (as of August 2023)
Appliance End Use
$ Rebate/Tax
Credit* Available Funder Notes
Electric heat pump water heater Water Heating $3,000 PCE Stackable with other incentives, but most cannot exceed cost of projects; All PCE- capped at $14,000 $1,000 BayREN All BayREN- capped at $7750
$2,000* IRA Max for IRA 30% heat pump water heater tax incentive ($2000) max, must have paid taxes in calendar year. Additional low-middle income IRA incentives are upcoming but not included here.

Heat Pump Water Heater Total Stackable Rebates and Tax Credits Available $6,000 HVAC System Space Heating/Cooling $3,500 PCE Stackable with other incentives, but most cannot exceed cost of projects $1,000 BayREN
$2,000* IRA Tax Credit, same as description for electric heat pump water heater $1,000 Tech Single-family incentives of $1,000 for new heat pump HVAC systems, with up to two incentivized systems per home for a total of $2,000; must be a TECH-enrolled contractor; project must be a non-heat pump to heat pump installation; no new construction, retrofits only; equipment must be AHRI matched systems; equipment must meet Title 24 code minimum standards.

HVAC System Total Stackable Rebates and Tax Credits Available $7,500 Electric dryer Clothes Drying $250 BayREN Specifies heat pump clothes dryer Electric Dryer Total Stackable Rebates and Tax Credits Available $250 Induction Stove Cooking $250 BayREN Specifies Induction Range Induction Stove Total Stackable Rebates and Tax Credits Available $250 Additional One-Time Costs - Panel and New Circuits $1,500 PCE $600* IRA Tax credit for panel upgrades- available in conjunction with other home upgrades (ex. weatherization, electrification, solar) Electric Panel Total Stackable Rebates and Tax Credits Available $2,100 Total electric home rebates available All-systems $5,500 Tech Single-family - Each single-family property (includes duplex, townhomes, and manufactured homes) must install heat pump space heating, heat pump water heating, electric or induction cooking, and an electric dryer.

Electric Panel Total Stackable Rebates and Tax Credits Available $5,500 Total Electrification Incentives (Rebates + Tax Credits) Available $21,600 Total Electrification Rebates Available $ $17,000
Total Electrification IRA Tax Credits Available $* $4,600 *While rebates can be applied upfront by either the building owner or contractor, depending on the incentive program, IRA tax credits can be deducted from total taxes owed, meaning that the building owner would have to wait until tax season to receive the full cost reduction to electrify 835 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 22 Federal Electrification Incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) & the High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act28
The IRA was signed into law on August 2022, ushering in significant federal policy support and funding for building decarbonization. The High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act (HEEHRA) is the official name of the IRA’s rebate program for electric home technology including heat pumps, electrical wiring, and induction stoves, which will be available starting in 2023. Low-income households up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) can access 100% of upfront discount incentives, while moderate-income households from 80-150% AMI can access up to 50% of the upfront discount, in addition to tax credits that vary based on household income. Total HEEHRA discounts are capped at $14,000 across all electrification projects.

Cost reductions under HEEHRA are not included in this analysis as details are still developing and the incentives may not be available to everyone, as City of San Mateo building owners are generally classified as high income. However, for low and moderate-income households up to 150% of AMI in San Mateo, IRA incentives may further increase the effectiveness of local electrification incentives available via PCE and BayREN, and help to close the gap for appliances where subsidies don’t always zero-out marginal costs, like HVAC systems, dryers, and induction ranges.

Electrification Upfront Costs with Incentives Applied
In the final piece of the cost analysis, we have applied the rebates described in Table 6 to the marginal costs described in Table 4 to see if rebates and tax incentives can make electric technologies the same, or less costly than the gas scenario. For this analysis, the referenced $5,500 total home electrification rebate provided by Energy Smart Homes California was not applied since it requires a complete home electrification project at one time. Since this analysis focuses on time of replacement, this rebate was not applied to the analysis.

The analysis shows that with the low-cost scenario for HVAC applied, in a house without AC, when all incentives are stacked, total costs without a panel upgrade, electrification could save building owners in San Mateo $709. If a home has both a furnace and AC to replace, fully electrifying would save $2,665 in marginal costs even with a panel upgrade, since one heat pump would replace two appliances.

On the high end of the marginal costs + incentives range, electrifying a home without AC, with a panel upgrade, under the Median HVAC cost analysis scenario, would be $4,836 more expensive than a gasfor-gas scenario. These results are summarized in Table 7.

PCE Zero Percent Loans
In addition to these rebates, PCE offers up to $10,000 in zero percent loans to electrify gas water heaters, gas heaters/furnaces, panel upgrades, and efficiency upgrades (insulation, air sealing, duct replacements, and smart thermostats). These loans allow PCE-customers who are property owners to borrow up to $10,000 in 0% APR loans to electrify with a 2-10 year payback period.29 28 https://www.rewiringamerica.org/IRAguide 29 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/zero/ 836 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 23 Table 7 Electrification Marginal Up-Front Costs + Incentives* Appliance
Cost
Estimate
Combined
Incentives
Total Marginal Cost
with Incentives
Electrification Scenario Marginal Cost with Peninsula Clean Energy, BayREN, IRA Incentives Electric heat pump water heater $3,200 $(6,000) $(2,800) Without AC-Low Cost HVAC $7,833 $(7,500) $333
Without AC- HVAC system $11,778 $(7,500) $4,278
With AC- HVAC System $4,278 $(7,500) $(3,222)
Electric dryer $1,038 $(250) $788
Electric stove $1,220 $(250) $970
Additional One-Time Costs - Panel and New Circuits $3,700 $(2,100) $1,600 Total Costs No Panel Upgrade Low Cost HVAC No AC $(709) Total Costs No Panel Upgrade Median HVAC no AC $3,236
Total Costs with Panel Upgrade Median HVAC w/o AC $4,836 Total Costs and Panel Upgrade Median HVAC with AC $(2,665) *Note that IRA incentives take the form of tax credits, while other rebates can be applied upfront by the building owner or contractor after completing program documentation requirements. Please refer to Table 6 for a full summary of rebates and incentives by funder.

High-Rise Multifamily and Nonresidential Building Costs To better understand costs and other constraints related to multifamily and nonresidential building electrification, Rincon reviewed best-available existing resources on this topic, namely, the PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan (2022), and The Rocky Mountain Institute The Economics of Electrifying Buildings: Medium Size Commercial Retrofits (2022)30. This document review is also supplemented by original contractor interviews conducted by Rincon for the upcoming Sacramento Electric Buildings Strategy (2022). Though not strictly City of San Mateo specific, the technical considerations of challenges to electrify oversized buildings are consistent between Sacramento and San Mateo, so are referenced here as recent region-specific resources for commercial electrification in Northern California.

Electrification Up-Front Costs and Other Considerations While single-family and low rise multifamily residential buildings tend to use similar equipment and operate in similar ways, commercial buildings and high-rise multifamily buildings tend to be highly variable. In original research conducted by Rincon for the City of Sacramento in the summer of 2022, all interviewees31 communicated that larger multifamily and nonresidential buildings are more complicated to electrify than single-family homes and estimating costs is typically only possible on a project-by-project basis. This is because for most larger buildings, replacing a gas system with a similarly sized electric system is cost-prohibitive and therefore, often requires building re-engineering to determine appliance replacement and sizing options. For this reason, a detailed cost analysis for larger multifamily and commercial buildings was not developed and included here. Smaller buildings 30 https://rmi.org/insight/economics-of-electrifying-buildings-medium-size-commercial-retrofits/ 31 To better understand costs and other constraints related to multifamily and nonresidential building electrification, Rincon conducted interviews with three energy engineering consultants working on large building decarbonization in Sacramento. Five additional interviewees were identified through the City’s contact network to speak to this topic, including energy managers and directors of UC Davis Health. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Brighton Energy, Association for Energy Affordability, TRC Companies. 837 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 24 with domestic-sized space and water heating end uses, such as small to medium-sized retail or service buildings, have similar electrification costs as seen for single-family homes.

However, some equipment types are similar across building types and the cost to electrify can be more readily analyzed at a high level. The PCE analysis notes that packaged commercial HVAC equipment, namely, packaged Single Zone (SZ) Gas Furnace with Cooling, are easy to electrify, as existing building 2-way A/C ordinances can cover most units without the requirement for incentives. The PCE Analysis also notes that the Packaged SZ Gas Furnace with Cooling offers a sizable opportunity to electrify, with 5,441 Packaged SZ Gas Furnace with Cooling units across the County of San Mateo as shown below in Figure 17. Because of the relative cost parity and ease of adoption, there is already uptake of allelectric packaged SZ heat pumps, accounting for nearly 20% of analyzed existing commercial HVAC Equipment, as shown previously in Figure 15.

Figure 17 PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan Commercial HVAC Equipment Analysis PCE analyzed commercial rooftop packaged unit costs, finding that rooftop heat pumps are nearly identical to gas-fired rooftop packaged units, even without additional incentives, as shown below in Figure 18. This indicates that local policy and potential new incentives to retrofit using heat pump RTUs could be an impactful and cost effective strategy to achieve widespread commercial building electrification.
838 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 25 Figure 18 PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan Commercial Rooftop Package Unit Cost Analysis
The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) ‘The Economics of Electrifying Buildings: Medium-Size Commercial Retrofits’ Report notes that local policy, or expectations of new local building electrification policies, will be a key driver in advancing commercial energy electrification, as portfolio owners will want to avoid stranded assets unless they undertake electrification. The RMI report focused on the electrification of HVAC systems from rooftop units (RTUS) with Heat Pump Rooftop Package Units (RTUs), on a prototypical 50,000 sq ft office building.

The RMI report modeled 5 cases to assess the economics of RTU retrofits: Case 1: No electrification, Case 2: Partial electrification, Case 3: Full electrification, Case 4: efficient electrification, Case 5:
efficient electrification + demand management, Case 6: Efficient electrification + demand management and PV. These cases, found that in the cases of more temperate climates like Las Vegas and Seattle, building owners could achieve either neutral or positive 20-year net present value through full electrification (Seattle), or with full electrification with demand management and solar photovoltaics (Las Vegas), as shown in Figure 19.
839 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 26 Figure 19 RMI Report Exhibit 3: the 20-year Net Present Value of Each Case by City32 The results from the RMI study have three important San-Mateo-relevant takeaways, which is that 1) electrification policy, with electrification-specific prescriptive language for commercial building owners will be critical in actually electrifying commercial buildings, and 2) electrification of commercial building electric retrofits will likely have to be paired with a suite of demand management, energy efficiency, or renewable energy projects in order to make building electrification economical for building owners, and 3) heat pump rooftop package units are the most promising electrification solution for commercial building electrification, offering a replicable model for a 1:1 equipment swap-out.

Case Studies
In addition to the PCE analysis, Rincon identified all-electric retrofit case study projects related to offices, schools, and restaurants. Schools (primary and secondary), restaurants (full-service and quickservice), and hospitals represent large commercial gas users in the City of San Mateo. Case studies were pulled from The Redwood Energy Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits,33 the William J Worthen (WJW) Foundation Building Decarbonization Practice Guide Volume 5,34 and the California State University (CalState) Decarbonization Framework,35 and summarized here. Rincon will continue to look for more resources in these areas as the project progresses. 32 Page 20 of: https://rmi.org/insight/economics-of-electrifying-buildings-medium-size-commercial-retrofits/ 33 Redwood Energy. June 2022. A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings. 34 William J Worthen Foundation. March 2022. The Building Decarbonization Practice Guide Volume 5: All-Electric Residential + Commercial Kitchens.
35 CalState Office of the Chancellor. 2022. CSU Decarbonization Framework. 840 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 27 Office
IMMIX LAW OFFICE, PORTLAND, OR (11,615 SQUARE FEET; ALL-ELECTRIC RETROFIT) The building utilizes a highly efficient dedicated outside air system (DOAS) with heat recovery ventilation (HRV) for their HVAC system, which separates heating and cooling from the ventilation system to allow for optimal control of each of these critical building functions. The new HVAC system is comprised of a 16-ton Mitsubishi variable refrigerant flow (VRF) and four Ventacity VS1000RT HRVs.

The HVAC system heats and cools 30 office spaces, five conference rooms, a lunchroom, exercise room, two restrooms, and open common spaces. The project resulted in increased occupant comfort, improved indoor air quality, lower energy bills (between $300 to $700 per month to heat, cool, and ventilate the building), saved roof space, and precise temperature and humidity control. The building has seen a 63% reduction in energy usage.36
100 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, MANHATTAN, NY (>20,000 SQUARE FEET; ALL-ELECTRIC RETROFIT) This building was retrofitted to meet all winter space heating needed for exterior offices with waste heat from the air conditioning in the interior core of the building during the winter through an all-electric multizone heat pump HVAC system. Multizone systems are best for larger (20,000 square feet or more), more diverse buildings. While only 6% of HVAC systems in California are multizone systems that could be replaced with multizone heat pump technology, these buildings represent 37% to 75% of the GHG emissions from all buildings. They are technically complex to design and require highly skilled installers but also represent the largest GHG reduction opportunities.37 SONOMA CLEAN POWER HEADQUARTERS, SANTA ROSA, CA (15,000 SQUARE FEET; ALL-ELECTRIC RETROFIT) The building was originally built in 1979 in Downtown Santa Rosa and retrofitted with all new insulation, all-new windows, all-new siding, and all-new mechanical systems. As part of the retrofit, the building installed Daikin rooftop units with variable air volume delivery and thermofusers at the zone level. The project also included its own microgrid and electric vehicle charging, which required an electrical service upgrade.38
School

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA
The CSU Chancellor’s Office released a building decarbonization framework for the CSU system, which includes tools to evaluate central plan equipment, thermal overlap calculations for each campus, and a life cycle cost calculation tool for different decarbonization strategies. The framework provides all 23 campuses with a technical roadmap for replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with clean, electrified alternatives. The associated heat recovery potential and natural gas reduction at each campus was analyzed. The Sacramento CSU campus currently uses 78,164 million British Thermal Units per hour (MBTU) for cooling and 52,739 MBTU for heating. The heat recovery potential estimated for the building after adding thermal energy storage on site is 64% and the estimated natural gas reduction potential is 422,000 therms.39
36 Redwood Energy. June 2022. A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings. 37 Redwood Energy. June 2022. A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings. 38 Redwood Energy. June 2022. A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings. 39 CalState Office of the Chancellor. 2022. CSU Decarbonization Framework. 841 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 28 CHATHAM UNIVERSITY EDEN HALL CAMPUS, PITTSBURGH, PA (ALL-ELECTRIC NEW CONSTRUCTION) The campus is the world’s first fully self-sustained and zero net energy (ZNE) university campus. The campus includes 46 geothermal wells, an on-campus water treatment site, and a 40-acre farm. The campus kitchen was designed based on extensive energy analysis focusing on commercial kitchen equipment and HVAC systems. The analysis showed that induction equipment would reduce total kitchen energy consumption by over 50% compared to a traditional gas kitchen. The campus also installed demand-based exhaust hoods with integrated heat recovery, a geo-exchange heat pump, and radiant heating and cooling systems for a low-energy HVAC system. The facility operates with an energy usage of approximately 60% below the typical full-service restaurant.40 Restaurant
OYSTERMAN SEAFOOD BAR & KITCHEN, LONDON, ENGLAND; RETROFIT (INDUCTION UNITS) The restaurant switched from gas to induction units, which allowed the restaurant to serve guests at a significantly faster rate. Gas ranges and fryers are half as efficient at transferring heat as electric ranges and fryers (35% vs. 75%), and electric ranges boil water twice as fast as gas ranges. Electric kitchens, therefore, use half or less as much heat to cook food and require half as much air conditioning. Electric equipment also takes less space to do the same amount of cooking, making it easier for a kitchen to expand its cooking capacity. In addition to these benefits, Oysterman also experienced fewer chef burns with their induction burners and found cleaning to be much easier, ultimately reducing staff turnover.41
BENIHANA JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE, VARIOUS LOCATIONS, U.S.; RETROFIT (INDUCTION GRILL) The first Benihana steakhouse was started in New York City in 1964 and has since grown to 116 restaurants. Benihana performs teppanyaki cooking on steel grills. Recently the restaurant chain converted its gas teppan grills to electric resistance and induction grills, which can cook meats faster, hotter, and more efficiently than gas while reducing the risk of uncontrolled fires.42 HOTEL MARCEL, NEW HAVEN, CT; NEW ALL-ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION The hotel has an all-electric commercial kitchen, which uses induction, including an induction wok setup.43 Induction woks are not common in American commercial kitchens, however, they are becoming increasingly popular in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. Many commercial options exist on the market for induction cookers that can accommodate concave pans (such as woks). 15 million induction cookstoves were sold in Mainland China in 2020, with a growth of nearly 4% from the previous year.44
MICROSOFT REDMOND CAMPUS CAFETERIA, REDMOND, WA; NEW ALL-ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION The Microsoft Redmond Campus serves over 12,000 meals a day in 77,000 square feet of all-electric kitchens. The project had to overcome barriers such as equipment availability, throughput 40 William J Worthen Foundation. March 2022. The Building Decarbonization Practice Guide Volume 5: All-Electric Residential + Commercial Kitchens.
41 Redwood Energy. June 2022. A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings. 42 Redwood Energy. June 2022. A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings. 43 Business Wire article, accessed at: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220420005918/en/The-First-Anticipated-Net-ZeroHotel-and-First-Passive-House-Certified-Hotel-in-the-US-Slated-to-Open-This-Spring 44 HKTDC Market Research, accessed at: https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/MzA3OTE4MTUw 842 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 29 considerations, and station design. Microsoft has noted a positive response from the industry in the past few years enabling the transition for them.45
High-Rise Multifamily

BAYVIEW TOWER, SEATTLE, WA
The 100 unit high rise multifamily building was retrofit to be all electric using the Origin heat pump water heater system that provides all needed water heating components (heat pump, storage tank, valves, controls, etc..) on one skid to maximize ease of installation. The system is expected to reduce energy use by 59%. 46

ELIZABETH JAMES HOUSE, SEATTLE, WA
Elizabeth James House is a four story, 60 unit low income senior apartment building built in 1968.

This project had a central plan of four ECO2 heat pumps, with three existing 120 gallon tanks in a series swing configuration. In addition, the system kept the three electric water heaters, and a 175 gallon swing tank was installed.29
Recommendations from Interviewees
As part of the interview process for previous work with the City of Sacramento, Rincon asked contractors what recommendations they have for the City or utility provider for reducing barriers to electrification in the City. While some of these recommendations may be specific to the City of Sacramento, many of these recommendations hold for the City of San Mateo, to account for the viewpoint of contractors and building developers dealing with complex commercial building stock.

These recommendations included:
• Alleviate the burden on the customer for upgrading older, last-mile equipment such as transformers and services. Having to upgrade this equipment can kill a project. SMUD (in San Mateo, PG&E) could identify transformers that are already at peak capacity and deal with them pro-actively, or identify grant funds to help cover these costs. • More workforce training and work with the unions is needed to prepare the workforce for electrification work.
• Encourage projects to build-in more hot water storage to help avoid an increased peak electrical load.
• Develop policy to avoid over-estimation of panel needs, which can trigger larger-scale electrical upgrades that are prohibitively expensive. Default calculations on equipment tend to overestimate peak load and using real data from a building instead can help avoid ballooning expenses. • Adjusted rate structures could be an incentive for early electrification adopters, since this would help guarantee on-bill savings in many cases. Peak demand for commercial customers currently sets their billing rate. Many customers are on the edge of hitting their peak demand charge and electrification would bump them into a higher tier, creating a disincentive to electrify. A specific commercial electrification rate with a discount would help remove this barrier. This suggestion item would require coordination with PCE.
45 William J Worthen Foundation. March 2022. The Building Decarbonization Practice Guide Volume 5: All-Electric Residential + Commercial Kitchens.
46 https://www.redwoodenergy.net/publications/redwood-energys-pocket-guide-to-all-electric-commercial-retrofits 843 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 30 • Expedited permits could create an incentive for commercial customers to electrify, especially on smaller jobs. Ideally, the permit could be filled out online over-the-counter with a simple set of questions with a permit turn-around rate of 24 hours.
• A building performance standards approach could work well for commercial buildings. San Francisco’s program is recommended as a model. San Francisco’s program is self-reporting but is validated. Buildings over 10,000 square feet are required to complete a level 1 audit; buildings over 50,000 square feet are required to complete a level 2 audit, and reporting requirement is every five years. Setting up the reporting system online with simple report requirements and very low rigor at the start would help get the most buildings into the system. • Releasing a building performance standards program under something other than an electrification strategy may be the best tactic. This approach could appear more feasible, and avoid misunderstandings on potential for mandatory upgrades.

Current Incentives
Current electrification programs and rebates are available for commercial and multifamily buildings in the City of San Mateo from PCE, TECH, and BayREN are summarized in Table 8. All residential appliance incentives described in Table 6 should also apply to multifamily residents if the applicant for rebates is also the owner of the apartment, in the case of PCE Incentives.47 47 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Peninsula-Clean-Energy-Appliance-Rebates-TermsConditions_10.01.22.pdf 844 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 31 Table 8 Current Incentives and Programs for Commercial Buildings (as of August 2023) Description Amount/Type Details
Commercial Building Incentives
Data Connect (PCE) Technical assistance Access or share PCE Data Connect platform to analyze facility energy data, access data to
help calculate energy carbon footprint. Could
be useful for future building performance
standard work.

Technical Design Assistance (PCE) Technical Assistance Free project assistance for all-electric buildings with TRC via AllElectricDesign.org
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Commercial
Buildings Tax Credit
Tax Credit Tax credit for energy efficiency based on
square footage (Tax Credit 179D)
Multifamily Building Incentives
TECH Heat Pump HVAC Systems Serving
Multiple Apartments
$1,000/unit HP HVAC equipment serving multiple
apartments
TECH Common area HPWH rebate $1,800/ system Split or packaged rooftop/ multi/position heat pump (ducted or ductless)
TECH Electrical panel upgrade $1,400/ apartment
receiving electrical upgrade
Undersized apartment electrical
infrastructure is upgraded as part of an
apartment’s HPWH or HP HVAC Installation
BayREN Common Area HVAC $1,000/equipment Common area heat pump HVAC BayREN Laundry/Common Area Heat
Pump Water Heater
$1,000/equipment Common area laundry or heat pump water heater
BayREN Heat Pump Pool Heater $1,500/pool
BayREN Subpanel Upgrade $1,000/apt served
BayREN Central/common area panel
upgrade
$5,000/property
Source : https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/commercial-programs/, https://techcleanca.com/incentives/multifamilyinformation/, https://www.bayren.org/multifamily-property-owners/building-improvements On-Bill Costs
On-bill costs are another important piece of the overall economics of electrification. Understanding onbill costs requires more complex modeling due to the change in electricity pricing during a day/season as well as the many different electricity rates that are available. However, Peninsula Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Clean Energy partnered to complete an in-depth analysis of their customers cost savings before and after electrification. The results of the analysis show that on average customers save between $20-$30 on their bills after electrification. These savings are driven primarily by heat pump HVAC and water heating.48 This is shown in Figure 20.
48 Bill Impacts of Home Electrification Study - Feb 2025 845 of 983
City of San Mateo
Building Inventory and Market Segmentation Memorandum (Task 1) Building for the Future – City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy (Version 2) 32 Figure 20 Average On-bill Savings for Peninsula Clean Energy Customers In addition, Peninsula Clean Energy conducted case studies on real buildings which they had electrified in the City of San Mateo. Of those buildings one saved $11 per month on their energy bills and the other saved $42 per month. It is also important to note that these buildings did not have air conditioning before the switch. The results of these two case studies as well as several more from across the peninsula are included below in Figure 21.

Figure 21 Cost Savings After Electrification Case Studies from Peninsula Clean Energy 846 of 983

APPENDIX B
Community Engagement Summary
847 of 983

Executive Summary of all Outreach
Outreach has been conducted in two phases to understand community priorities, concerns, and needed support for successful policy implementation. During Phase I of engagement, the City presented at multiple meetings to gather feedback on the equity and effectiveness criteria and educate the community about costs and benefits of building electrification. This included a meeting with the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, a City Council meeting, five General Plan Town Hall meetings, and an online survey. After Phase I of engagement, the initial suite of policy pathways was narrowed down to five policy pathways to advance existing building electrification within San Mateo. Phase II of engagement aimed at further refining these priority policies for inclusion within the final Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Buildings Strategy. During Phase II, the community engagement efforts included an in-person workshop and an additional virtual workshop for community members which focused on the five policy pathways, a virtual information session on Building Performance Standards for commercial building owners, presentations at City Commissions and community and stakeholder meetings, and an online survey.

Throughout the community engagement process, there have been polarized responses to building electrification. While most constituents care about addressing the climate crisis and agree that the City should pursue existing building electrification in some form, many residents also expressed concerns.

The primary constituent values identified during Phase I and Phase II engagement that are motivating building electrification included:
• Urgent need to address the climate crisis is a priority issue • Health and air quality benefits of building decarbonization • Need for local action and the City to act now
• Availability of electric equipment incentives and rebates to support property owners The primary concerns identified during Phase I and Phase II engagement included:
848 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
2 • Upfront costs of electric equipment
• On-bill or operational costs of electric equipment
• Installation and electrical infrastructure challenges • Grid reliability and resilience
• Lack of education surrounding electrification
In general, the results of the community outreach conducted by the City point to a general desire to address climate change and decarbonize buildings tempered by concerns about cost and feasibility.

Based on these findings, a focus on policies that support decarbonization when cost effective and efficient while providing flexible alternatives for particularly challenging cases should be prioritized.

Below is a detailed summary of outcomes and themes from each engagement event. A record of public comments and photos is listed at the end of this memorandum.

Community Engagement Phase I: Community Concerns and Values During Phase I of engagement, the City held multiple events to gather feedback on the equity and effectiveness criteria and educate the community about costs and benefits of building electrification.

The goal of this phase was to both provide information to the community on what building electrification is and why the City is pursuing it, as well as learn about the core values and concerns the community has around upgrading their homes and businesses. This included a meeting with the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, a meeting with the Equity and Inclusion Task Force, a City Council meeting, five General Plan Town Hall meetings, and an online survey.

General Plan Town Hall Meetings
In Fall of 2023, five General Plan Town Hall meetings were held to solicit feedback on the City’s General Plan Update. The General Plan Town Hall events were in-person events located throughout the community, one event in each of San Mateo’s five districts. At each outreach event, doors opened at 5:30 pm to allow attendees to view poster boards (example at end of memorandum) on various topics (circulation, land use, safety, noise, etc.) with a formal presentation on the Draft General Plan at 7:00 pm. An average of 60 community members attended each event.

The project team had a poster board summarizing the Sustainable Buildings Strategy project effort.

Community members were very engaged at the Sustainable Buildings Strategy poster board. Staff received a mix of both supportive feedback for working on electrification requirements as well as concerns about costs related to electrification.

Diversity Equity and Inclusion Task Force Presentation
On September 22, 2023, presented to the City’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Task Force. Feedback from the Task Force included: the need to include education, data, and storytelling in outreach. The Task Force’s biggest concerns regarding electrification were related to the electric power outages and costs to homeowners. The Task Force also helped identify follow up opportunities for partnerships and project outreach.

Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Meeting
At the September 13, 2023 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission meeting, staff and the consultant team presented the building inventory and market segmentation analysis as well as 849 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
3 building electrification cost analysis. Over 120 written public comments were submitted for the item with the majority in support of decarbonization. 24 verbal comments were also provided at the meeting. Proponents of decarbonization support electrification policy efforts to reduce gas use in the community to combat climate change, improve air quality, and improve health. Proponents also encouraged the leveraging of incentives and rebates for electrification.1 For those opposed, the number one concern about electrification is the costs to the property owner. Other concerns include power outages, growth of the grid to accommodate future electric buildings, and passed on costs to renters.

Survey
The project team also launched an online survey to assess community priorities for building electrification that was open December 2023 through January 10, 2024. Results of the online survey were shared at the January 16, 2024 City Council Study Session. A summary of the survey results is included below. The survey had a total of 194 respondents from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 .

Figure 1 Household Income of Survey Respondents
1 San Mateo, City of. 2023. Public Comments Submitted for the August 9, 2023 SIC Meeting. Available:
https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=9062&type=2. 850 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
4 Figure 2 Race of Survey Respondents
The Phase I survey primarily focused on what priorities and concerns the community had relating to buildings and building decarbonization. As shown in Figure 3, affordable energy costs was the highestranking quality for San Mateo Buildings, followed by a tie between Health and Safety and Resilience.

Climate and sustainability ranked fourth followed by Modern Appliances and Functionality.

Respondents also provided feedback on their biggest concerns regarding building electrification in San Mateo. Figure 4 shows that increasing energy bills was the largest concern relating to building electrification. This concern was followed by concern over increased housing/rent costs as the second most common concern. Respondents also ranked difficulty in accessing rebates (3rd) and building electrification ignoring other more pressing building issues (4th) as primary issues that would need to be addressed.
851 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
5 Figure 3 Survey Respondents Most Important Building Qualities 852 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
6 Figure 4 Concerns Relating to Building Electrification in San Mateo These survey results highlighted major concerns of building electrification of both upfront and on-bill cost, reliability concerns, and challenges accessing the funding and financing opportunities meant to decrease the cost of electrification. These topics were carried through into Phase II of outreach as the project team worked to refine the policy options based on community feedback. 853 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
7 City Council Meeting
In January of 2024, Rincon Consultants and City staff provided a presentation to City Council on the Phase I results. The presentation focused on the results of the building segmentation analysis, cost analysis, engagement to date, and initial policy recommendations. During this meeting five policy options were provided for City Council feedback including:

1. Continue adopted reach codes and focus on outreach and incentives (Business as Usual)

2. Explore and adopt new reach codes to encourage and require electrification

3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of the Bay Area Air District’s Zero NOx requirements

4. Establish Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings

5. Adopt an electric-first policy for City facilities
City Council provided feedback which included direction for City Staff to continue exploring the feasibility, cost, and community support for each of the five options.

Community Engagement Phase II: Policy Pathways Feedback Following direction from City Council, City staff with support from Rincon Consultants, conducted additional outreach on the five policy strategies presented to City Council during Phase I. Phase II outreach events included an in-person community workshop, virtual community workshop, virtual meeting with commercial building owners, presentations to community and developer groups, and several upcoming Commission meetings. A second survey was also developed and distributed through these and other City channels. The second survey was developed to get more detailed information about support for/concern around the five policy pathways.

Each community meeting and survey was advertised to the community through multiple avenues including the City’s social media channels, e-newsletter, and at City events, and to individuals who attended prior events.

The following sections detail the feedback received from the community during each engagement opportunity.

In-Person Community Feedback Meeting
Feedback Meeting Summary
The in-person community feedback meeting was advertised to the community through multiple avenues including the City’s social media channels, City e-newsletter, and direct emails. There were 20 attendees.

The in-person community feedback meeting took place on March 5th, 2025 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the San Mateo Public Library. The goals of the meeting were for participants to:
1) Understand the definition and importance of existing building electrification in the context of climate change and the City of San Mateo’s climate goals 2) Note an overview and timeline of the City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy 3) Recognize previously shared concerns and solutions about existing building electrification 4) Be introduced to the five policy options and how each would impact the community 854 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
8 5) Share community feedback on the policy options through an interactive “Sailboat” Activity and Voting Activity
A total of 25 community members attended the feedback meeting. City of San Mateo Sustainability Analyst, Andrea Chow, began the meeting and introduced Ryan Gardener, Director of Climate Action and Adaptation at Rincon Consultants, who gave a 25-minute presentation on goals one through four described above. Community members had the opportunity to ask questions a various points during the presentation.

After the presentation, community members were split into three groups to participate in the Sailboat Activity facilitated by a City or Rincon staff member. Each group contained a variety of members including industry professionals like contractors, climate activists, students, and renters and homeowners who have electrified portions of their own homes. The Sailboat Activity helped community members brainstorm electrification challenges and support solutions to help the City achieve its decarbonization goals. The activity featured a poster board with a sailboat heading for an island while being supported by wind and held back by an anchor. The island represents the City’s decarbonization goals, the anchor represents barriers and challenges keeping the City from achieving its goals, and the wind represents various policy and support solutions to help the City reach its goals. Using post-it notes, participants were asked to first brainstorm various “anchors” or barriers to success. Then, participants were asked to brainstorm various solutions, or “wind”, to overcome such “anchors”. The activity lasted approximately 25 minutes.

After the Sailboat Activity, community members were asked to participate in a final Voting Activity where they used post-its on a large posterboard to vote for as many of the five policy options that they would support the City adopt. There was also a “do nothing” option where participants could show that they did not support any electrification policy. Any community member who voted and left their email on a post-it was entered into a raffle for the chance to win one $50 visa gift card.

Key results from each activity are included below, and a full record of all activity responses and photos are included in the Appendix.

Sailboat Activity Themes
Between the three groups, participants shared 30 “anchor” comments and 41 “wind” comments.

Overall, the main concerns in the “anchor” category included costs, lack of education, grid reliability, equity, supply issues, and resistant social factors. The main support requested in the “wind” category included cost savings, education and outreach, grid reliability, equity programs, adequate supply, and a changing market. Below is a summary of comments in each section.

Anchor Comments
1) Cost
a. Unexpected upgrades
b. Expensive quotes
c. Speed of installation
d. $52,000 to fully electrify and $30k to $40k in rebates e. Uncertainty of federal incentives
2) Lack of Education
f. Complicated topic
g. Confusing software
855 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
9 h. Confusing permitting process
i. Lack of communication between City departments
3) Grid Reliability
j. Unexpected utility shut offs
k. Demand response software
l. Emergencies
4) Equity
m. Unclear how renters fit into electrification
n. Concerns with mandates
5) Supply issues
o. Equipment availability
p. Contractor availability
6) Social factors: people and industries are resistant/ have a fear of change q. Loss of aesthetics (fireplaces, etc.)
r. Perception of convenience/ procrastination
s. Too many setup variations (space, house layout)
Wind Comments
1) Cost Savings
a. We need incentives – Credits & Rebates, lower interest loans and On bill loans (PG&E) b. We need to waive city building permit fees for electric upgrades c. Operation Cost – Gas, Water, Heater is more expensive d. Cost of Rebuilding after disaster is way more
e. Solar + Batteries + All Electric = Lower energy costs f. Better health – Lower medical bills
2) Education/ Outreach Programs
g. Home Tours – Peer to Peer Education (led by non-profits) h. Collaborate and share solutions with other jurisdiction (like Cupertino or San Carlos) i. Need a “Vision” to strive for and rally behind
j. Volunteer Advisor Program
k. Residential education on AC & Heat Pumps
l. Collaboration between contractors, City, residents, and non-profits m. Targeted marketing to those who already have solar/ those who installed an appliance 10 years back
n. Contractor training
o. Communications tool to consider upgrade costs specific to home insulation, wiring return flow ducts
p. Education about climate benefits, health benefits, safety benefits q. Electrification Starter Pack
856 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
10 r. Peninsula Clean Energy Help Desk
s. Advertising/ signage for electrified homes with QR code to more resources t. Need data about what works and what hasn’t
3) Grid reliability
u. Solar + Batteries + All Electric = Resiliency
4) Equity Programs
v. Support for renters
w. Credits people of color
x. 0% interest rate or community fund for people with low income 5) Supply chain
y. Need guaranteed supply of the incentivized electrified appliances z. Need service availability
6) Social factors: changing market
aa. When the electric appliances perform better, they will be more attractive than gas bb. Gas exposure causes health problems
cc. Green homes
Voting Activity Results
There was support for the following policy options:
1) Business as Usual: 0 supporters
2) Reach Codes for Renovations: 9 supporters
3) Zero NOx Equipment: 14 supporters
4) Commercial Building Performance Standard: 11 supporters 5) Municipal Electric First Policy: 11 supporters
6) Do Nothing: 0 supporters
Virtual Community Feedback Meeting
Feedback Meeting Summary
The virtual community feedback meeting took place on March 13th, 2025 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. via Zoom to provide an alternative time to the in-person meeting for community members to actively engage with the policy feedback process. The goals and meeting format were the same as the in-person event. 11community members participated in the virtual feedback meeting.

Andrea Chow and Ryan Gardner facilitated the meeting. After the 25-minute presentation, community members participated in the same Sailboat Activity as the in-person meeting but in a virtual format.

Participants remained in one large group using the engagement software Mural. Community members could enter comments into the Mural board themselves or leave comments in the chat or unmute themselves and leave verbal comments for Rincon staff to add onto the Mural board on their behalf.

After the Sailboat Activity, community members were asked to take an exit poll to vote for as many of the five policy options that they would support the City adopt. There was also a “do nothing” option 857 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
11 where participants could show that they did not support any electrification policy. Any community member who voted was entered into a raffle for the chance to win one $50 visa gift card.

Key results from the virtual Sailboat Activity and exit poll are included below, and a full record of all activity responses, meeting chat, and photos are included in the Appendix.

Sailboat Activity Themes
Participants shared 9 “anchor” comments and 12 “wind” comments. Overall, the main concerns in the “anchor” category included costs, lack of education, grid reliability, technology and engineering challenges, equity, and legislative red tape. The main support requested in the “wind” category included cost savings, education, equity, and technology solutions. Below is a summary of comments in each section.

Anchor Comments
1) Cost
a. Large percentage of buildings that cannot replace at end of life at a reasonable cost 2) Lack of education
b. Lack of information and support for implementation
c. Lack of cohesive city support for resident transitions 3) Grid reliability
d. power outages/ need grid resiliency
4) Technology and engineering challenges
e. lack of drop-in products (40G small diameter water heater will not be available for another few years)
f. difficult targets are multifamily homes in City of San Mateo are not well suited for heat pump upgrades. Electrical power is an issue, as requirements for engineered solutions 5) Equity
g. Rent increases in multifamily
6) Legislative red tape
h. PG&E policies against solar
Wind Comments
1) Cost savings
a. Start with low hanging fruit
b. must identify easy targets where building envelope is more important than heat pumps 2) Education
c. Peer coaching
d. Collaboration with San Mateo County Heat Pump Advocates e. Need info on total GHG reductions for each option
f. Work together with manufacturers of electric equipment 858 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
12 g. Watt diets
h. Learn form other Bay Area cities
3) Equity
i. Tie incentives to renter protections
j. exemptions for difficult cases
4) Technology solutions
k. Saddle mounts and "copper" battery powered stoves
Exit Poll Results
Of the five people voted and entered their emails, there was support for the following policy options:
1) Business as Usual: 2 supporters
2) Reach Codes for Renovations: 3 supporters
3) Zero NOx Equipment: 0 supporters
4) Commercial Building Performance Standard: 2 supporters 5) Municipal Electric First Policy: 1 supporters
6) Do Nothing: 1 supporters
San Mateo United Homeowners Association Feedback Meeting Feedback Meeting Summary
The San Mateo United Homeowners Association (SMUHA) meets regularly to coordinate efforts between neighborhood and homeowner associations. The project team presented at the March 20th meeting at 7pm. There were 10 attendees.

Results and Themes
Similar to other feedback, most attendees voiced concern about the potential costs to property owners and the potential for costs to be passed on to renters. There was discussion of grid resilience and PG&E power safety shut offs. Most attendees were opposed to the City moving too quickly on building electrification policy.

Commercial Building Performance Standard Information Session Feedback Meeting Summary
The virtual Commercial BPS Information Session was advertised to building owners with buildings above 50,000 square feet through email. City staff spoke at the Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Group and Chamber of Commerce Developers Roundtable to promote this event. The City and Rincon Consultants created a BPS 1-pager explaining the relevance of the policy to distribute to building owners (available at end of this memorandum).

The virtual Commercial BPS Information Session took place on April 10th, 2025 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. over zoom. The goals of the meeting were for participants to:
859 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
13 1) Learn about the importance of a Building Performance Standard in the context of the City’s climate goals and legislation advancing a BPS across the state
2) Note an overview and timeline of the City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy 3) Learn about the phased implementation process of a Building Performance Standard 4) Share feedback, concerns, and ask questions about the policy A total of six building owners attended the information session. City of San Mateo Sustainability Analyst, Andrea Chow, began the meeting and introduced Ryan Gardener, Director of Climate Action and Adaptation at Rincon Consultants, who gave a 25-minute presentation on goals one through three described above. After the presentation, building owners had the opportunity to share feedback, concerns, and ask questions about a potential BPS.

Key results from the discussion are included below, and a full record of all activity responses and photos are included in the Appendix.

Results and Themes
Overall participants were thankful for the event as they were able to learn valuable information and share their feedback and desires for implementation of the policy. Several building owners from both retail and multi-family backgrounds shared insights as to how a BPS might affect them and the ways in which the policy thresholds could be structured to make implementation more successful. The main comments included:
1) Setting a threshold based on an average of all commercial buildings (comparing old buildings to all-electric, new construction) could skew the threshold to require old buildings to convert to allelectric which could be financially infeasible. One idea provided by an attendee was to set an individual threshold where buildings must reduce their emissions compared to their own historical emissions rather than meet a City or building type average. 2) Converting to electric appliances also creates a possible space issue as electric rooms are increasingly taking up more space and old buildings may not have room for it. Relocating equipment due to space limitations poses increased engineering and financial burdens. 3) For new construction that must meet the recent Title 24 requirements, can there be a vintage threshold to avoid unnecessary financial and time burden for buildings that are already wellperforming. 4) For landlords with complicated tenant and lease structures, landlords would need City support to navigate conversations with tenants and financial responsibility.

Survey
Survey Summary
An online survey was created to collect community feedback from those who were unable to participate in any of the other engagement events. It was shared broadly through City email listservs, social media, and during City events including the State of the City event. The survey was also advertised at the end of every engagement meeting so participants could share it with their networks.

The Phase II survey aimed to gauge support for the five policy pathways while being brief and accessible. The survey provided a background on the project and its importance, defined the five policy options, and asked community members which of the policies they would support. Respondents could 860 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
14 choose options “Do not support”, “Neutral”, “Support”, or “Not sure.” Respondents also had the opportunity to leave other feedback in a comment box.

Results and Themes
The survey had a total of 217 respondents from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds as shown in Figure 5and Figure 6.

Figure 5 Household Income of Survey Respondents
861 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
15 Figure 6 Race of Survey Respondents
Of the five policy pathways, support for each policy was polarized with large percentages of constituents supporting and opposing each policy. The results of each policy are seen in Figure 7 through Figure 11 below. Although answers were polarized, a majority of constituents supported policy options 1, 2, 4, and 5. Policy option 3 was the only policy that had a majority “do not support” vote at

47.47% versus a 43.78% support vote.
862 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
16 Figure 7 Policy Option 1 Survey Results
863 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
17 Figure 8 Policy Option 2 Survey Results
864 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
18 Figure 9 Policy Option 3 Survey Results
865 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
19 Figure 10 Policy Option 4 Survey Results
866 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
20 Figure 11 Policy Option 5 Survey Results
Senior Advisory Commission
Feedback Meeting Summary
The project team presented to the Senior Advisory Commission on May 12, 2025. The Commissioners did not provide a formal policy recommendation and provided general feedback on the policy pathways. In general, the Commissioners agreed with the need to address climate through building decarbonization and electrification, but had reservations around requirements which could result in high upfront costs (specifically Policy Option 3) for those on fixed incomes.

Results and Themes
• Most commissioners not supportive of Policy Option 3 due to the potentially high upfront costs • Lots of discussion about upfront costs and concern for community members on a fixed income • General understanding and support of project goal and need to electrify • Some interest and discussion in Policy Option 4, one commissioner pointed out how this was adopted in a lot of other cities
• Support of pursuing policy options along with providing resources and programs to help homeowners transition
• Noted need for technical support especially for older folks with less understanding of new technologies
867 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
21 • Commissioners were happy to see support options from Peninsula Clean Energy • Two commissioners voiced support for Policy Option 1, 2, and 5 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
Feedback Meeting Summary
The project team presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission on May 14, 2025.

The Commission’s policy recommendation supported Policy Options 1, 2, 4, and 5 with consideration of additional engagement and/or hardship exemptions where needed.

Results and Themes
• Discussion of greenhouse gas emission impact of different measures • Discussion of City funds and other programs/resources to support homeowners in electrification transition noted support for other programs like sewer lateral replacements • Need for programs like PCE concierge services to support transition • Some interest in Policy Option 3 but worried about compliance and concern for timeline • Concerns over Policy 2 and 3 were primarily tied to potential for high costs in edge cases. • Interest in hardship exemption language in future ordinances to help with cases that are hardto-electrify • Some commissioners noted the need to phase in Policy 4 to ensure the City understands the costs/feasibility of commercial electrification
• Discussion of compliance challenges
Community Relations Commission
Feedback Meeting Summary
The project team presented to the Community Relations Commission on May 21 that included five Commissioners. The Commissioners made a unanimous motion to support all five policy pathways.

Results and Themes
• Commissioner discussion of engagement and messaging about current resources, programs, and rebates. Pointed out how some community members do not access information online resources and the need for in-person presentations and other channels • Commissioner discussion of language access to resources and programs and the need for different programs based on income-level
• Discussion of contractor workforce transition
• All commissioners supportive of the need for existing building decarbonization policies and commissioners made a motion to support all five policy pathways 868 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
22 Final City Council Feedback
Feedback Meeting Summary
The project team presented to City Council on June 16th with a summary of the project including all findings of the analysis as well as a summary of the feedback collected during the engagement process.

The Council Members provided feedback and direction on the policies to be included in the final Sustainable Buildings Strategy.

Results and Themes
• Council members were unanimously supportive of Policy 1. • Council members were generally supportive of Policy 2, with the caveat that hardship exemptions were provided in the case that an electrification project was too costly. • Council members were generally unsupportive of Policy 3. This was due to the potentially high cost of some electrification projects.
• Council members were generally supportive of Policy 4. However, many council members stressed the importance of additional engagement and continued analysis as the program was developed in order to fully understand the impacts to building owners. • Council members were unanimously supportive of Policy 5. Council members noted the importance of managing costs to the City as well as collecting data/knowledge around the electrification process that could be leveraged for other programs.

Attachments
Attachment 1 General Plan Town Hall Meetings Poster Board Attachment 2 In-person Feedback Meeting photos, comments, and voting board Attachment 3 Virtual Feedback Meeting Mural Board
Attachment 4 Building Performance Standard Marketing One Pager 869 of 983
Attachment 1
General Plan Town Hall Meetings Poster Board
870 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
1-1
871 of 983
Attachment 2
In-person Feedback Meeting photos, comments, and voting board 872 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
2-1
873 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
2-2
874 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
2-3
875 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
2-4
876 of 983
Attachment 3
Virtual Feedback Meeting Mural Board, exit poll, and comments 877 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
3-1
878 of 983
Attachment 4
Building Performance Standard Marketing One Pager
879 of 983
City of San Mateo
Summary of Conducted Community Engagement
4-1
880 of 983

APPENDIX C
Proposed Policy Summary
881 of 983

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com
June 16, 2025
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Electrify San Mateo: Existing Building Electrification Policy Pathways Analysis In the City of San Mateo (City), the residential and commercial built environment make up 38 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To achieve emissions reduction targets consistent with state goals and the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City must decarbonize its residential and commercial buildings. This is strengthened by the 2022 City Council priority to “Establish policies to decarbonize existing buildings and infrastructure and eliminate methane gas use by 2030.” The decarbonization or electrification of buildings refers to the transition from gas equipment to carbon-free electric equipment for space and water heating, clothes drying, cooking and more. Decarbonization can also focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy. In San Mateo, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) provides electricity that is 50% renewable and virtually 100% carbon free and is committed to delivering 100% renewable and carbon free electricity by 2025. The City has already passed a New Construction Reach Code aimed at decarbonizing new buildings, however, electrifying existing buildings offers the largest opportunity and most cost-effective strategy for GHG emission reductions.

In May 2023, the City, with the help of Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon), began developing the Building for the Future: City of San Mateo Sustainable Buildings Strategy project as a part of the larger Electrify San Mateo initiative. The goal of this project is to develop a long-term strategy document to electrify San Mateo’s existing building stock, including policies and actions for both residential and nonresidential buildings. This report provides Rincon’s final policy findings which are based on the cumulative technical analysis and community feedback completed to date.

Project Timeline and Overview
The City of San Mateo and Rincon began the initial research for this project in the Summer of 2023.

The initial analysis included building segmentation analysis and an electrification cost study. Rincon also conducted research on the current best practices and a wide range of feasible policy options being deployed by other cities around the country. The project timeline is shown below in Figure 1. 882 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
2 Figure 1 Project Timeline to Date
Community Outreach (Phase I)
During the first phase of community outreach, the City aimed to understand the goals and concerns of the community as they relate to San Mateo’s buildings and decarbonization. Through the initial round of engagement, the City identified affordability, health and safety, resilience, and climate as the primary goals of the community. The largest concerns related to building electrification were the potential for higher costs, increased energy bills, and a difficult installation process. Based on this feedback and direction from City Council, the initial policy scan list was narrowed down to five potential policy directions.

Policy Pathways
The results from the Phase 1 of outreach helped narrow the initial policy scan into a list of five policy pathways, which were presented to City Council in January of 2024. These policies were chosen based on the GHG reductions potential as well as cost-effectiveness. The five policy pathways include

1. Continue adopted reach codes and focus on outreach and incentives (Business as Usual)

2. Explore and adopt new reach codes to encourage and require electrification

3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of the Bay Area Air District’s (BAAD)1 Zero NOx requirements

4. Establish Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings

5. Adopt an electric-first policy for City facilities
1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) changed their name to the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) in 2025. 883 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
3 City Council provided feedback which included direction for City staff to continue exploring the feasibility, cost, and community support for each of the five options.

Community Outreach (Phase II)
In the second phase of community outreach (see Engagement Summary Memo for detailed results), the City aimed to get specific feedback about the five policy pathways. Phase II outreach events included both in-person and virtual workshops, presentations to the Senior Advisory Commission, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, and Community Relations Commission, as well as a second online feedback survey. Feedback received from Phase II of outreach is incorporated into an analysis of each policy pathway in the following sections.

Addressing Community Concerns
Throughout the community engagement process, there have been polarized responses to building electrification. While most constituents care about addressing the Climate Crisis and agree that the City should pursue existing building electrification in some form, many residents also expressed concerns. The primary concerns identified during Phase I and Phase II engagement included:
• Upfront costs of electric equipment
• On-bill or operational costs of electric equipment
• Installation and electrical infrastructure challenges • Grid reliability and resilience
• Lack of education surrounding electrification (addressed in Policy Option 1) Each of the pathways balance the City’s climate goals and the roughly half of respondents who strongly support building electrification with the concerns voiced during the engagement process in different ways. Each primary community concern is addressed below and further covered in the policy summaries.

Upfront Costs of Electrical Equipment
For many building owners, making the switch from natural gas to electric appliances results in higher upfront costs without additional incentives or rebates. While rebates can cover up to 100% of these costs, rebates are not always available. However, not installing electric equipment when it is most cost effective can have significant cost impacts in the future. Therefore, the City has identified flexible policies that allow building owners to choose electrification or other cost-effective strategies. Each policy below provides additional details of the upfront costs and savings.

On-Bill or Operational Costs
Ongoing operational costs (how much our monthly energy bills are) were another concern regarding building electrification. However, recent studies by Peninsula Clean Energy show that the cost savings from building electrification are increasing as natural gas rate increases outpace electricity rates.

Average savings (when using electric rates like e-elec) were $29 per household per month after electrifying both water and space heaters. These savings are demonstrated in Figure 3. 884 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
4 Figure 2 Average Monthly Bill Savings from Electrification Installation and Electrical Infrastructure Challenges
While most electric appliance upgrades are relatively simple, some buildings present difficult edge cases. Some buildings may not have sufficient space or electrical infrastructure to easily upgrade.

Upgrading electric panels and service lines can take months to complete. While all-building owners are encouraged to make a plan for electrification over time, many of the policies avoid these challenges by providing flexible paths to compliance or focusing on specific appliances which do not have these challenges. For example, the flex-path retrofit policy provides many options including insulation and other cost-effective efficiency upgrades at the time of major renovation. The AC to heat pump policy avoids these challenges because the heat pump upgrade uses the same electrical circuit as an AC, eliminating the need for upgrades. Grid Reliability and Resilience Grid Reliability and Resilience
Grid reliability and resilience concerns arose due to the perception that increased electrical use would put strain on the grid and that electricity was less reliable than gas. However, it has been nearly 20 years since California had a power outage due to lack of electricity.2 Furthermore, the utilities, the 2 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/community-health/building-appliance-implementation/grid-impacts-finalpdf.pdf?rev=14a3ea4d46704d19a48cf03e3984c90e&sc_lang=en 885 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
5 CPUC, and the CEC, are all planning for increased electricity usage over time. The CEC now assumes a 27% increase in peak demand by 2035 due to electrification of buildings and vehicles and is expanding the grid to meet that demand. Furthermore, neither gas water heaters nor most furnaces work without electricity, meaning gas appliances are no more resilient to power outages than their electric upgrades. Therefore, the policies identified below focus on these appliances.

Policy Findings Summary
To analyze the feasibility and benefits of each policy pathway, Rincon provided a description of each pathway, pro’s and con’s, precedent legislation in other cities and the state, GHG reductions potential, community feedback, cost-effectiveness, and equity considerations. Based on the detailed analysis in the Policy Analysis section, the following summary highlights the major takeaways of the five policy pathways.

1. Business as usual: The City could continue with adopting reach codes for new construction and expand outreach, education, and incentives. In the past, the City adopted local building code amendments to require more sustainable new construction than the State code. To continue to surpass State code, the City could consider other new construction reach codes including an energy performance or Zero NOx reach code. This approach has a limited impact because new construction accounts for a fraction of San Mateo’s development. However, this approach is already in place, cost saving up front and over time, and received community support based on our engagement efforts. There are no policy-related additional costs to building owners unless they voluntarily decide to electrify. A Zero NOx approach would save an estimated 1,770 MT CO2e per year by 2030 while a performance approach would save 20 MT CO2e per year by 2030.

2. Reach codes for renovations: This approach would include the evaluation of additional reach codes to encourage and/or require electrification during renovations or at time of replacement for select appliances (air conditioners). New reach codes would vary depending on the updated State codes. One example of a reach code during renovations is requiring the installation of a two-way heat pump when an air conditioner (AC) is installed. A Two-way AC time of replacement reach code could help residents save money by installing a single heat pump, rather than an AC and furnace, ahead of upcoming Bay Area Air District (BAAD) regulation which essentially mandates electric furnaces starting in 2029. The incremental cost of installing a heat pump instead of a traditional AC is the same (from $1,000 savings to $1,000 cost) and is covered by a $1,500 PCE rebate.

Installing a heat pump today is alignment with future Air District regulations and thus could also save a building owner money when their furnace needs replacement. Reach codes during renovations also help encourage electrification at an opportune time when a property owner is already considering home improvements. Another policy example is a Flex Path reach code which would require additional energy efficiency or electrification actions at time of renovation or replacement of certain appliances. The upfront costs of electrification improvements can vary depending on the project and unique circumstances of your home. These policies target the most cost-effective time to electrify and provide a variety of pathways for compliance. Cost-effectiveness studies must be completed to validate any adopted reach codes. Past studies have shown utility savings over time make electric equipment upgrades cost-effective compared to gas equipment replacements. Additionally, the Flex Path reach code allows residents to find the most costeffective retrofit for their unique situation. Two-Way AC reach code would reduce emissions by 2,200 MT CO2e per year by 2030, while the Flex Path reach code would reduce emissions by approximately 730 MT CO2e per year by 2030.

3. Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAD Zero NOx requirements: BAAD adopted zero nitrogen oxides (NOx) standards that will prohibit the sale and installation of gas water heaters starting in 2027 and gas furnaces in 2029 in the nine-county Bay Area. A local 886 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
6 ordinance ahead of these milestones would require the replacement of gas appliances with zero NOx versions when they fail or are voluntarily upgraded. This policy would have the most significant impact on greenhouse gas reductions with the ability to reduce emissions an average of 9,700 MT CO2e per year by 2030. However, this policy could incur large installation costs for residents in some cases which was the number one concern documented during both phases of community engagement. Due to the polarized community feedback, with some constituents being unsupportive of mandates that increase costs, it may be difficult to garner public buy in for a Zero NOx Equipment Requirement policy. This policy prioritizes GHG emissions reductions but does not address the community’s major concerns over costs and difficult installations.

4. Building Performance Standards for commercial buildings: This pathway would establish a new set of policy standards for commercial buildings aimed at increasing energy efficiency, and eventually, electrifying commercial buildings as a phased approach. This is a well-established policy mechanism that has been adopted by many local governments across the country and builds off of AB 802 benchmarking requirements mandated by the state for buildings larger than 50,000 SF. This approach can be customizable and lead to incremental reductions in energy use but not necessarily electrification. The flexibility of this policy and phased approach allows for building owners to plan for appliance replacement and decarbonize buildings in the most efficient way for each unique situation. Commercial building space makes up over 39 million square feet within the City and is a significant contributor to GHG emissions. However, due to the phased approach, this policy would likely not lead to significant GHG reductions before 2030. However, it could have significant reductions before 2045 as the thresholds are calculated and implemented. The development and operation of such a local program would necessitate significant staff time, so choosing a threshold that maximizes square footage covered while minimizing the number of building owners affected is crucial. Although this policy received majority community support, equity for renters is also a significant concern and guardrails would need to be set in place to avoid exacerbating the housing crisis especially for multifamily properties.

5. Electric first policy for City facilities: This policy establishes a mechanism for local government renovations to go electric first. The policy ensures financial and feasibility data is being collected for municipal facilities that will allow the City to compare costs to electrify versus replacing with gas equipment. This policy has a limited reach as it only applies to municipal buildings and GHG reductions potential would depend on the rate of equipment failure and availability of replacements. However, it demonstrates City leadership on hard-to-electrify existing buildings that mirror the commercial sector. Several other cities have adopted similar municipal electrification policies. Residents were largely in favor of this policy as it would not incur any costs to the community. The City’s municipal buildings are estimated to generate approximately 586 MT CO2e per year of natural gas emissions, this policy was estimated to be able to reduce this by 25% by 2030 for an estimated savings of 146 MT CO2e.

Policy Analysis
Policy Option 1: Continue adopted reach codes and focus on outreach and incentives (Business as Usual)
Description
Policy Option 1 continues to implement the City’s adopted reach codes and identifies opportunities to incentivize the electrification process using education, outreach, and connecting the community to rebates and technical support. The City’s adopted reach code requires energy compliance margins for new buildings will be effective through December 31, 2025, the end of the code cycle. As part of this 887 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
7 policy option, the City would investigate options around continuing the new building electrification reach code through either an updated performance standard which complies with the 2025 building code, or a zero NOx standard for new buildings.

This option would also use staff time to conduct additional engagement and connect homeowners to incentives and technical information regarding building electrification. It would also promote existing programming and incentives run by partners (e.g. PCE) to assist in a voluntary shift towards electrification while preparing the community to electrify space and water heating end uses in advance of upcoming BAAD (previously BAAQMD) Zero NOx requirements. For example, this option could include an education campaign to encourage homeowners to prewire for water heaters and furnaces, so they are ready to make the switch once their appliance burns out. Another example incentive would be waiving permit costs for electric equipment upgrades.

Policy Pros
• Policy already in place/ has received community support • No policy-related additional costs to building owners unless they voluntarily opt-in • Allows community to prepare for upcoming BAAD requirements through City-led outreach and education
• Allows community to prepare for upcoming requirements through electric-readiness requirements Policy Cons
• Limited impact and reach: The adopted reach codes do not affect the existing building stock • Relies on engagement to reach community members which can be difficult • Outreach and education programs on their own are extremely variable in their effectiveness.

Investment of staff time and city resources into outreach may not achieve substantial shifts in behavior that will be required to decarbonize buildings, even with major outreach campaigns. • Education and outreach campaigns can be very time/resource intensive with minimal programmatic results and unlikely to result in widespread behavior changes above baseline Greenhouse Gas Reductions Potential
New construction reach codes have varying GHG reduction potential. For example, a new construction zero NOx requirement could save up to 1,770 MT CO2e per year by 2030 if all new buildings were built without natural gas. An energy performance reach code for new construction would lead to approximately 20 MT CO2e GHG reductions due to the stringency of the 2025 building code, however, precise reductions potential is unknown because the flexible nature of the pathway does not always guarantee electrification.

As mentioned above, education and outreach and sharing incentives with residents is an important tool for the successful implementation of electrification policy but are not substantial enough to gauge GHG emissions on their own. It is difficult to predict what impact these voluntary programs would have on overall electrification rates, however, they are expected to be lower than the policy requirements identified in the other policy pathways.

Community Feedback
Across engagement events, this approach received broad community support. In the community survey, responses were 50% of respondents supporting this policy option, 11% neutral, and 38% do not support. At the in-person community event, many community members expressed that the City has 888 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
8 not done enough in terms of electrification policy beyond new construction and that a “business as usual” approach is not sufficient to meet the City’s climate goals. Those opposed to this approach are opposed to any local building electrification policy and recommend reliance on regional and state regulations. The Senior Advisory Commission, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, and Community Relations Commission were supportive of this policy pathway.

Cost Effectiveness and Equity Considerations
This policy approach would continue to incentivize all-electric new construction and direct the City to expand outreach efforts with the community to increase voluntary existing building electrification. New Construction reach codes have been shown to save money. Research from the New Buildings Institute (NBI) highlights that all-electric homes save between $7,500 and $8,200 in construction costs compared to mixed-fuel homes.4 These cost savings are primarily due to avoiding installing fees for natural gas infrastructure like gas meters and pipelines. These homes also save money over time especially when paired with heat pumps and solar. Outreach, education, and sharing incentives incur no cost to community members and can help connect people to resources that will lessen costs for electrification. The City will need to provide adequate staff time to support building electrification engagement and other programs like peer-to-peer home tours for this approach to be effective. These engagement activities, when paired with other strategies listed below, can help the community feel more comfortable and informed on the benefits of electrification.

Policy Findings
The adoption of reach codes while expanding education, outreach, and incentives to promote building electrification have been critical pathways for the City of San Mateo to support decarbonization to date. This approach is supportive of the other policy options because expanding education and engagement can potentially increase the number of cost-effective voluntary projects and expand community understanding of new technologies and regulations (like the upcoming Air District’s Zero NOx rules). The community expressed the need education campaigns like helping to facilitate peerto-peer home tours and partnering with larger County initiatives like PCE’s helpdesk to ensure residents are receiving the guidance they need on their electrification journey. While this policy offers several benefits, it is important to acknowledge that this approach alone will not be sufficient to meet the City's climate goals. .

Policy Option 2: Reach Codes for Renovations
Description
Option 2 would include the evaluation of additional reach codes to encourage and/or require electrification. Reach codes are typically evaluated on a three-year cycle in alignment with the new Building Code. New reach codes options would vary depending on the updated Energy Code and Green Building Code. The City’s adopted reach codes apply to residential remodels. The City could consider a variety of reach codes that apply to different building types and/or equipment. The City focused on two priority existing building reach codes include a Two-Way Air Conditioning (AC) reach code or a Flexible Path reach code. These policies could be adopted individually or both adopted to complement 4 NBI. 2022. New Study on Electrification Costs Shows Benefits to Building Owners and Society. https://newbuildings.org/new-study-onelectrification-costs-shows-benefits-to-building-owners-and-society/ 889 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
9 each other. Other reach codes which were not covered with the community but may be important in the future are time of sale requirements similar to the policy adopted by the City of Berkeley.5 Policy Option 2a: Two-Way Air Conditioning Reach Code
The Two-Way AC reach code would require all new air conditioning units to provide both heating and cooling through the installation of a two-way heat pump. A two-way heat pump is a versatile HVAC system that can both heat and cool a building by reversing the flow of refrigerant within the system. In heating mode, it extracts heat from an external source, such as outdoor air or the ground, and transfers it indoors. In cooling mode, it reverses the process, removing heat from inside the building and releasing it outside. This dual functionality eliminates the need for separate heating and cooling systems which can save building owners money in the long term. Two-way heat pumps run completely off electricity and heat and cool spaces with high efficiency, making them a great way to reduce emissions coming from homes.

Policy Option 2b: Flex Path Reach Code
Under the flex path policies, the City could adopt one or more policies that require additional energy efficiency or electrification actions at time of renovation or replacement of certain appliances. One example would be an energy efficiency checklist in which renovation projects over $75,000 must include two cost effective energy efficient improvements in their project. The flex path policies do not ban gas and provide flexible pathways for building owners to meet the decarbonization requirements.

Policy Pros:
• The City has experience exploring, adopting and implementing reach codes • Two-Way AC is a cost-efficient and simple solution
• Flex path offers variety of compliance pathways to reduce emissions and building owners could find the most cost-efficient pathways for their homes
Policy Cons:
• Community and builder resistance to new regulations.
• Further analysis needed, dependent on reach code adopted.

Other Cities and Legislative Drivers
In May 2023, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, now the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) adopted zero nitrogen oxides (NOx) standards that will prohibit the sale of gas water heaters starting in 2027 and gas furnaces in 2029 in the nine-county Bay Area. These standards are the most ambitious in the country and outpace the state’s goal of banning the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters throughout the state starting in 2030. These policy efforts drive California closer to the ambitious climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Reach codes during renovations present an opportunity to ensure that the City’s residential building stock is prepared for this upcoming mandate.

Two-Way AC policies are relatively new, so no jurisdiction has yet to officially adopt this reach code, but many are expected to in the 2025 building cycle. The “Flex Path” reach code style is more common with several jurisdictions who have adopted this policy listed below:
5 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04-15-Amendments-to-the-BESO.pdf 890 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
10 • City of San Rafael (Adopted 2024): San Rafael has adopted a "Flex Path" for single family remodels over 500 square feet. This policy requires homeowners to choose from a menu of energy-saving measures, such as insulation upgrades, HVAC improvements, or solar installations, to meet a target score based on their home's vintage. The program is designed to encourage energy efficiency and electrification while allowing homeowners to select measures that best suit their needs and budget.
• City of San Luis Obispo (Adopted 2024): Starting January 1, 2025, single family major additions or alterations must install a set of energy efficiency measures to achieve a target score from a weighted menu of measures. Projects that include a new electrical panel and service upgrade to 200A shall include electric readiness components.
• Town of Corte Madera (Adopted 2024): Single family additions or alterations greater than 750 square feet of floor area shall install a set of measures to achieve a target score from a weighted menu of measures; which varies based on building vintage. Projects that include a laundry room or kitchen remodel, or an electrical service panel upgrade, must also install electric readiness measures.

Greenhouse Gas Reductions Potential
The Two-Way AC reach code would reduce emissions by 2,200 MT CO2e per year by 2030. Two-way heat pumps tend to be two to four times more efficient than both one-way air conditioners and traditional heating sources, leading to large potential GHG reductions.7 While the Flex Path reach code would reduce emissions by approximately 730 MT CO2e per year by 2030. The Flex Path reductions are lower since they only capture remodels over a certain size which occur at a lower rate than other appliance replacements.

Community Feedback
Across community engagement events, constituents were supportive of this policy approach.

Community members recognized the importance of electrifying during planned renovation projects. In the community survey, responses were mixed with 49% respondents supporting this policy option, 6% neutral and 45% do not support. Multiple constituents expressed a desire for an exception for edge cases that are financially or spatially infeasible. Those opposed are concerned about upfront costs or are generally opposed to all local building electrification policy. The Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission and Community Relations Commission were supportive of this policy pathway.

Cost Effectiveness and Equity Considerations
Although the Two-Way AC policy would mandate installation of a two-way heat pump at time of replacement, this retrofit is highly cost-effective as it can both cool and heat a space, effectively replacing both a central air conditioner and furnace within a home. This reduces the need for separate furnace replacements. Implementing a Two-Way AC policy is particularly advantageous given the upcoming BAAD Zero NOx requirements.

If a constituent's air conditioner breaks before 2029 and is replaced with a gas HVAC system, they will need to purchase an electric furnace when their furnace eventually breaks after the 2029 BAAD Zero NOx implementation date. Conversely, adopting a Two-Way AC policy in preparation for these requirements would ensure that all air conditioner replacements in the next few years have two-way 7 Canary Media. A new bill could speed up American electrification by 20 years. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/heat-pumps/anew-bill-could-speed-up-american-electrification-by-20-years 891 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
11 heating and cooling capabilities and comply with BAAD’s ruling. This would prevent homeowners from installing outdated gas appliances for heating and cooling, which could be replaced by a single heat pump.

Additionally, the difference between a central AC and a two-way heat pump is essentially zero (from a $1,000 savings to a $1,000 cost) especially after the applied $1,500 rebate from Peninsula Clean Energy. Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) also offers on-bill financing through the Zero Percent Loan program8 to cover the up-front costs of installing a heat pump, which leads to utility bill savings over time due to appliance efficiency. This financing model can be particularly advantageous for low-income tenants who might not have access to traditional financing options. It removes the need for credit checks and upfront payments, making energy efficiency upgrades more accessible. Additionally, onbill financing can be an effective way for tenants and landlords to manage payment responsibilities for energy efficiency upgrades. Tenants could enjoy the benefits of lower utility costs, without being tied to a load if they move (because the payment is tied to the meter rather than a person) and the landlord can improve their building without needing to pay an upfront cost.9 A Flex Path reach code is also cost-effective by providing a range of retrofits and upgrades that building owners can choose from, allowing them to pick the most cost-effective and efficient options. Based on a conducted cost analysis conducted by the Local Codes and Standards team, each check list item would need to be demonstrated to have cost savings over the lifespan of the upgrade. Figure 3 shows some of the cost-effective strategies for the City of San Mateo based on the 2022 Title 24 Building Code. Heat pumps provide the most cost-effective solutions, often paying back in 6-7 years.

Furthermore, many homeowners may receive additional savings through incentives provided by PCE, the State (Tech rebates) or the Inflation Reduction Act.

Figure 3 Cost Effective Existing Building Upgrades (Cost Effectiveness Explorer) Both the Two-Way AC and Flex Path policies emphasize cost-efficient solutions for both the short and long term, ensuring that the City maintains equitable and sustainable practices. 8 Peninsula Clean Energy. 2025. 0% financing & rebates. Available: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/residential/financing/ 9 United States Department of Energy. Issue Brief: Low-income Energy Efficiency Financing through On-Bill Tariff Programs. Available: IB L-I EE Financing through On-Bill Tariffs_Final_0.pdf
892 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
12 Policy Findings
Both a Two-Way AC policy and Flex Path policy promote cost-efficient and equitable solutions for building decarbonization. Implementing these policies would help the City achieve meaningful greenhouse gas reductions, get closer to climate goals, prepare the community for future regulations, and support residents in making energy-efficient upgrades. Both of these policies fit with the community feedback received by pursuing climate action and decarbonization policies but being sensitive to cost impacts, the need for flexibility, and reliability/resilience.

Policy Option 3: Require electric equipment upon replacement ahead of BAAD’s Zero NOx requirements
Description
BAAD will require zero NOx (currently the only options for Zero NOx appliances are all-electric) appliances for water heating by 2027 and space heating by 2029. This policy bans the sale of qualifying NOx -emitting appliances in the Bay Area, requiring all-electric appliances when covered gas appliances are replaced. Option 3 has the greatest potential to achieve GHG reductions and the goals outlined in the City’s CAP by moving faster than the 2027 and 2029 timelines outlined by BAAD.

However, it could also result in higher upfront costs especially for space heating. Under this policy the City would adopt and implement a local version of the BAAD zero N0x threshold ahead of the current schedule to require all new space and water heating to have zero NOx emissions, and therefore, zero GHG emissions.

This ‘time of replacement’ ordinance would require the replacement of gas water heaters and space heaters with zero NOx versions when they fail or are voluntarily upgraded. This approach maximizes the lifespan of the existing gas appliances and reduces the cost of compliance as the increased cost would only be the difference between a gas appliance and the upgraded electric appliance. Focusing on time-of-replacement is the most cost-effective approach for the building owner. Furthermore, since these appliances may function for dozens of years, it also is the timeliest option to replace gas appliances with electric-run appliances instead of locking in emissions from natural-gas appliances which could potentially continue to operate past the City’s target for carbon neutrality.

Policy Pros:
• Community and workforce prepared for 2027 and 2029 BAAD requirements • On-bill savings for homes that go all-electric
• Largest GHG emissions reduction potential
Policy Cons:
• Higher upfront costs for residents for home electrification • Uncertainty of incentives
• Some homes may face electrical upgrades (panels or service lines) that increase costs and lengthen timelines for replacement
Other Cities and Legislative Drivers
The BAAD requirements will be implemented in 2027 and 2029 and getting ahead of the ruling offers an opportunity to have the highest GHG impact. Currently, there are no jurisdictions who have adopted this policy for existing buildings. .
893 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
13 Greenhouse Gas Reductions Potential
A zero NOx equipment requirement policy would have the most significant impact on greenhouse gas reductions with the ability to reduce emissions an average of 9,700 MT CO2e per year by 2030 assuming a zero NOx policy was put in place for water heating and space heating in 2026 for residential/small commercial appliances and 2028 for larger commercial appliances.

Community Feedback
Feedback on this policy was largely unfavorable. In the community survey, 44% of respondents supported this policy option, 5% neutral, and 48% do not support. Those opposed were concerned about getting ahead of the Air District’s schedule and challenges with compliance and enforcement.

Those who support this approach emphasize that this approach has the greatest GHG reduction potential. The Community Relations Commission was supportive of this policy pathway.

Cost Effectiveness and Equity Considerations
Based on the initial cost study conducted for this project, a zero NOx policy median-cost scenario could increase water heating incremental costs by $3,200 and space heating incremental costs by $11,778 before rebates. However, between state, local, and federal incentives high income households could see an overall cost savings for water heaters and incremental costs of $5,878 dollars for space heating. When also considering the avoided cost of an AC unit (once it breaks down) from installing a two-way heat pump that acts as a furnace and an AC unit, then the incremental costs in a median-cost scenario for space heating would be $4,278 before rebates and incur cost savings with rebates.

Similar conclusions were found in another cost study done for BAAD.10 However, many of the incentives originally modeled for this analysis have changed or have uncertain futures, especially at the federal level.

Similarly to Policy Option 2, residents could utilize on-bill financing from PCE to cover up-front costs of electric water heater or space heating appliances, utilizing a zero percent interest loan and repaying that installation cost over time via their utility bill.8 The PCE program fosters equitable installation of electric equipment and allows renters to enjoy the same energy savings as homeowners. However, the availability of rebates and incentives is volatile which could impact the cost-effectiveness of an electricappliance mandate.

Policy Findings
A Zero NOx Equipment Requirements policy would achieve the highest greenhouse gas emissions reduction , mandating electric heat pump water heaters and furnaces ahead of the BAAD requirement.

This policy offers a significant opportunity to reduce GHG emissions and capture appliance replacements over the next four years before BAAD’s mandate is fully implemented. Implementing this policy could potentially save residents money depending on the availability of rebates on water and space heating appliances. However, there are cases in which this policy could result in increased upfront costs for homeowners, which was the biggest concern identified in Phase II of engagement.

The changing rebate landscape also makes it difficult to understand how costs will change over time.

Due to the polarized community feedback, with some constituents being unsupportive of mandates, it may be difficult to garner public buy in for a Zero NOx Equipment Requirement policy. 10 BAAD. 2024. Installation Costs for Zero-NOx Space and Water Heating Appliances. Available:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/community-health/building-appliance-implementation/task1_electrificationcostspdf.pdf?rev=3cb66a09f3094f94b35fa7fc90cfd4ec&sc_lang=en 894 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
14 Policy Option 4: Commercial Building Performance Standards Description
Option 4 introduces new policy standards for commercial buildings (Building Performance Standards) aimed at increasing energy efficiency, and eventually, decarbonizing commercial buildings as a phased efficiency-focused approach. In comparison to relatively homogonous residential buildings, commercial buildings can be highly variable in their systems and needs. Commercial building heating and cooling systems are also frequently oversized, meaning replacing existing gas equipment in a like for like manner with electric equipment is not economical. Process loads also vary significantly across commercial building types. For these reasons, decarbonizing commercial buildings necessitates a flexible approach where building managers can first make strides towards understanding their buildings and cost-effective opportunities before committing to a specific approach. Typically, a BPS Program is implemented in phases where buildings first report energy use for several years (benchmarking), then perform a retro-commissioning process to identify opportunities before finally reducing emissions below an established threshold (performance standard). • Phase I: Benchmarking (Years 1-2): This initial phase establishes a building’s energy performance baseline by comparing its energy use intensity (EUI) to similar buildings. Covered Buildings (buildings and properties with buildings totaling the specified size threshold or larger) report their annual energy usage in Energy Star Portfolio Manager. The data collected in the benchmarking phase improves building manager and City understanding of building energy usage and will inform GHG-emissions performance standards. Benchmarking also identifies underperforming facilities and prioritizes improvements, with studies showing benchmarked buildings achieve average annual energy savings of 2.4 percent.11
• Phase II: Retro-commissioning (Years 3-4): Retro-commissioning is a process through which a building’s energy consuming systems are analyzed for efficiency and proper operation. The retrocommissioning process serves two primary purposes. The first is to uncover inefficient operations, increase energy efficiency, and save building owners money. The second is to identify costeffective opportunities to reduce building GHG emissions through electrification and energy efficiency.
• Phase III: Performance Standard (Year 4+): Jurisdictions set phased energy or emissions targets for GHG reductions over time on a square feet basis. The targets are based on data collected from the benchmarking phase and can be met through a variety of retrofits, such as upgrades, electrification, or renewable energy adoption. The most cost-efficient retrofits for each building were identified in the retro-commissioning phase. Standards often allow flexible compliance paths, such as achieving specific EUI thresholds or offsetting emissions via clean energy investments.

Policy Pros:
• BPS approach addresses a high degree of variability in commercial building types by focusing on performance-based requirements
• Phased approach allows for structured guidance for facility managers, uncovering cost savings over time
• Focuses on worst performing buildings first
11 National Association of State Energy Officials. 2025. Benchmarking and Building Performance Standards. Available:
https://www.naseo.org/issues/buildings/benchmarking
895 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
15 • Reduces pressure on harder to electrify equipment types (e.g. gas stoves) through phased approach, longer runway for electric equipment to become widely available and cost-effective onmarket • Robust programming examples from Cities who have already implemented • Tiers off of existing State energy disclosure laws (AB 802) Policy Cons:
• Necessitates new staff time and staff members to implement and track BPS • Does not guarantee all-electric end usage in short term until phased retro commissioning phase, potentially missing some appliances that could be electrified • Limited building stock reach, best suited to large commercial buildings (for example buildings >25,000 sq ft)
• Possibility to have equity implications from increased rents in multifamily if tenant protections are not integrated into the policy
Other Cities and Legislative Drivers
Commercial Building Performance Standards are already mandated by California’s statewide building energy benchmarking and public disclosure law (AB 802), which require owners of commercial and multifamily buildings 50,000 square feet or larger to annually benchmark and report their wholebuilding energy usage to the California Energy Commission. A City BPS could implement the same threshold as the state or have a more stringent threshold including buildings with a smaller square footage.
• Compared to other policy approaches listed here, building performance standards are a wellestablished policy mechanism that has been adopted by many local governments including the City of San Jose, City of San Francisco, and City of Brisbane. 13City of Brisbane Building Efficiency Program passed in 2019, requires annual energy and water benchmarking and reporting, and compliance with Beyond requirements to show that they are high performing, or improving performance for commercial buildings 10,000 SF and larger.14 • City of San Jose’s Energy and Water Building Performance Ordinance passed in 2018 and requires commercial and multifamily buildings above 20,000 square feet to annually benchmark and report their energy and water usage. Beginning in 2023, building have been required to meet energy and water efficiency standards on a rolling five-year basis.15 • Greenhouse Gas Reductions Potential
Commercial building space makes up over 39 million square feet within the City with 44 percent and 30 percent coming from space and water heating respectively. The building performance standard would likely not result in significant GHG emissions reductions before 2030 due to the phased in nature of the program. However, 83,660 MT CO2e were generated by commercial buildings in 2019 These emissions could be reduced by 2045 depending on the final thresholds adopted by the City.17 14 https://www.brisbaneca.org/bbep 15 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/environmental-services/climate-smart-san-jos/energy-and-waterbuilding-performance-ordinance 17 City of San Mateo Climate Action Plan (Page 41) https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/93755/Climate-Action-Plan2024-Update?bidId= 896 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
16 Community Feedback
Across engagement events, community members were supportive of a BPS policy. In the community survey, approximately 58% of respondents were supportive of a BPS policy, 12% neutral, and 29% do not support. The Senior Advisory Commission, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, and Community Relations Commission were supportive of this policy pathway.

During our direct outreach to building owners, respondents understood the importance of a BPS policy and made suggestions of how to set thresholds to be most efficient and minimize unnecessary costs like setting individual reductions targets measured against a buildings own emissions rather than a City average and including a vintage threshold to exclude new buildings which are already more efficient. Building owners also shared that limited physical space for electric equipment upgrades and complicated tenant lease structures would be challenges to implementation that building owners would need guidance navigating.

Cost Effectiveness and Equity Considerations
The cost of decarbonizing buildings under a Building Performance Standard (BPS) policy varies significantly based on factors such as building age, equipment types, and energy end uses. This variability necessitates a flexible, performance-based approach, allowing owners to prioritize costeffective solutions tailored to their assets. The BPS framework’s phased implementation mitigates financial burdens:
• Benchmarking identifies inefficiencies (e.g., leaks, malfunctioning systems) and establishes a baseline for improvement. Benchmarking reporting costs approximately $3,000 annually. • Retro-commissioning pinpoints low-cost operational optimizations (e.g., HVAC adjustments, controls recalibration), which typically yield 16% energy savings at an average cost of $0.30/sq. ft., often with payback periods under two years.
• Performance standards are deferred for 4+ years post-benchmarking, enabling strategic capital planning for equipment replacements and system upgrades.

Electrification of commercial building electric retrofits will likely have to be paired with a suite of demand management, energy efficiency, or renewable energy projects in order to make building electrification economical for building owners. Specific cost-effective system upgrades include heat pump rooftop package units, which are the most promising electrification solution for commercial building electrification, offering a replicable model for a 1:1 equipment swap-out.18 Analysis from PCE found that for these easy to electrify units (packaged/split units with both heating and cooling) the marginal costs to upgrade to an all-electric packaged or split heat pump system were found to be negligible as shown in 3.
18 Rocky Mountain Institute. 2022. Medium-Size Commercial Retrofits. Available: https://rmi.org/insight/economics-of-electrifyingbuildings-medium-size-commercial-retrofits/ 897 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
17 Figure 4 PCE 2035 Decarbonization Plan Rooftop Package Unit Marginal Cost Analysis
Equity is addressed by allowing building-specific compliance pathways and avoiding prescriptive mandates that could disproportionately burden older or under-resourced properties. There are additional equity implications when considering multifamily housing which could exacerbate disparities and lead to rent increases if not properly designed. Key considerations for equitable BPS implementation include anti-displacement measures for buildings that receive any City subsidy, incentive, or funding. Equity implications and design measures for multifamily are still being investigated. Due to the phased in nature of this program, those considerations can be addressed over time, but before thresholds for reductions are finalized (year 4+).

Policy Findings
A BPS policy builds on state legislation and addresses a large source of emissions reductions. There is overall community support and flexible and cost-efficient implementation. However, a BPS policy obligates a significant amount of staff time. Therefore, for efficient implementation, the City could set a threshold that would maximize the captured square footage while minimizing the number of impacted building owners. A threshold that initially only applies to buildings greater than 50,000 square feet (which are already mandated to report benchmarking data under AB 802) would ensure the City’s building stock is complying with state law and allow the City to understand the benchmarking process without a significant staff burden.

Policy Option 5: Municipal Electric First Policy
Description
This policy establishes a mechanism for local government renovations to go ‘electric first’. This means that new appliance purchases, renovations, and replacements should prioritize using all-electric equipment. This policy would also allow for technical and cost infeasibility on a project-level when an all-electric alternative is either not available or deemed infeasible due to cost. The main purpose of 898 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
18 the policy is to position the City as the leader in decarbonization within the community as well as prepare City facilities for upcoming requirements. The City would also learn best practices through this approach which it can share with the community and electrified city facilities would serve as demonstration buildings to highlight the comfort, health, and safety benefits of going all-electric.

Policy Pros:
• Demonstrates City leadership in building electrification • Availability of significant local government incentives to electrify through Peninsula Clean Energy’s Gov BE and Willdan GK12 program
• Existing resources available through County of San Mateo including staff report, model code language, and case studies
• Prepares City for future requirements while incentives are available • Lower operating costs
Policy Cons:
• Limited reach as policy only covers municipal buildings Other Cities and Legislative Drivers
Some other jurisdictions who have implemented this policy include:
• City of Mountain View: Municipal Green Building Policy (2020): requires analysis of opportunities for electrification upon major upgrade of City-owned buildings, and develops a minimum of LEED Gold for new construction.19
• City of San Diego: Zero Emissions Municipal Buildings and Operations Policy (2022): any time a natural gas burning system is being replaced, requires the new equipment to be electric.20 Greenhouse Gas Reductions Potential
In 2005 municipal natural gas use was 86,096 therms which equates to approximately 586 MT CO2e annually after accounting for natural gas leakage. If fully implemented, the electric first policy would aim to reduce these emissions over time as equipment needed replacement. The total reductions by 2030 and 2045 would depend on the availability of all-electric replacements and the rate of equipment failure.

Community Feedback
Across community engagement events, there was broad support for this policy option. In the community survey, approximately 60% of respondents were supportive of this policy option, 15% neutral, and 24% do not support. Multiple constituents and building owners expressed a desire for the City to better understand the permitting process and technical implications, which would be achieved if the City led first by example. The Senior Advisory Commission, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, and Community Relations Commission were supportive of this policy pathway. 19 https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/790/637940944813700000 20 https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/zero_emissions_municipal_buildings_operations_policy.pdf 899 of 983
City of San Mateo
Electrify San Mateo: Policy Pathways Analysis
19 Cost Effectiveness and Equity Considerations
This policy enables the City to conduct a comprehensive feasibility assessment to evaluate the cost differentials between electrification and gas equipment replacement for municipal facilities. By incorporating exemptions for projects demonstrating technical or financial infeasibility, the policy ensures a targeted approach to identifying the most cost-effective energy upgrades, consistent with methodologies applied to commercial buildings. Implementation costs will vary based on buildingspecific factors, including system age, infrastructure readiness, and operational requirements.

As these facilities are City-owned, the municipality retains full decision-making authority over capital expenditures, eliminating potential equity concerns that might arise in privately owned housing or commercial properties. Furthermore, since many City owned facilities are used by the public such as libraries or park properties, creating healthier and more comfortable spaces while lowering operational costs provide an equity benefit to the community. This approach ensures alignment with both fiscal responsibility and the City’s broader decarbonization objectives.

Policy Findings
The adoption of a Municipal Electric First Policy establishes a process to systematically evaluate electrification opportunities during renovations and new projects for City-owned facilities. This policy aligns with the City’s climate goals while providing data-driven insights into cost and feasibility, enabling informed decision-making for future building decarbonization efforts. Furthermore, the municipal electrification first policy saw general support throughout the community engagement process.
900 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 29 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 25-10159 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2025
SUBJECT:

Amendment to Contribution Limits for City Candidate Campaigns – Ordinance Introduction and Public Financing Briefing RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 2.80: "Contributions and Loans to City Candidate Campaigns” to adjust contribution limits for individuals to $1,000, thereby aligning with organizational contribution limits, link future contribution limits adjustments to the CPI, and enhance incentives for participation in the voluntary expenditure limits program, all in accordance with Council direction. Receive an informational briefing on Public Financing of City Candidate Campaigns and provide direction on future action.

BACKGROUND:

In 2005, the City Council adopted Chapter 2.80 of the San Mateo Municipal Code, entitled “Contributions and Loans to City Candidate Campaigns.” This chapter originally established limits of $250 from individuals and $500 from organizations to City Council candidate campaigns, as well as a $15,000 cap on the amount a candidate could loan to their own campaign.

Subsequent amendments include:
• 2012: Section 2.80.070 was revised to state that any violation of this chapter constitutes a public offense. • 2017: Contribution limits increased to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for organizations. • 2021: “Contribution” revised to include goods and services received at no charge or at a discount • 2024: Voluntary expenditure limit added
Recent Council Direction and Proposed Amendments:

On February 18, 2025, staff provided the City Council with a post-election review of candidate campaign activity from the November 5, 2024 general municipal election, pursuant to Section 2.80.080. Following this review, the Council directed staff to return with an ordinance proposing two changes:

1. Aligning the contribution limits for individuals and organizations at $1,000.

2. Future contribution limit adjustments to align with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rounded up to the nearest $10.

Voluntary Expenditure Limits:

In 2024, the City Clerk’s Office administered its first election under the newly implemented Voluntary Expenditure Limit (VEL) program. This program allows City Council candidates to voluntarily agree to a spending cap in exchange for specified benefits intended to encourage broader participation and promote transparency.

During the post-election review on February 18, 2025, the City Council noted that additional incentives may be necessary to increase candidate engagement with the program. In response, staff reviewed comparable programs in other 901 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
jurisdictions, including the City of Redwood City’s VEL program.

Currently, candidates in San Mateo have the opportunity to publish a statement in the County’s Voter Information Guide and the Charter mandated newspaper publication, and the City publishes which candidates have agreed to the VEL on its website, in its regular digital newsletter, and in a newspaper of general circulation. The draft ordinance would include the additional benefit of allowing candidates who agree to the VEL to submit a 400-word written statement that would appear on the City’s website, exactly as submitted, and in accordance with guidelines to be provided by the City Clerk, along with Elections Code Section 13307(a)(1). This law includes certain technical requirements and requires a Spanish translation to those candidates who wish to have one.

These changes largely mirror language in the City of Redwood City municipal code, which offers participating candidates the opportunity to publish a 400-word candidate statement and a photo on the City's website. Candidates who opt into their program are likewise prominently identified on the website, and their statements are published exactly as submitted—without editing by staff. If a statement exceeds the 400-word limit, it is returned to the candidate for revision and resubmission. Candidate statements must conform to the guidelines established by the City Clerk and comply with the content requirements set forth in the same Elections Code provision. Guidelines from the City Clerk could incorporate other provisions from the Redwood City code.

Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) includes amendments to San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 2.80 to reflect recent City Council direction for contribution limits, which would be increased from the current $500 to $1,000, thereby matching the contribution limit applicable to organizations. Future increases to the contribution limit would be adjusted according to the CPI, and rounded up to the nearest $10. Staff has also included language providing for an additional candidate statement for candidates who opt to participate in the voluntary expenditure limits program, as noted above. If approved, the ordinance would take effect on January 1, 2026 in order to align with campaign reporting periods. It is scheduled to be considered on the consent calendar at the regular City Council meeting on August 18, 2025.

Public Financing of Candidate Campaigns:

At the September 5, 2023 Study Session, City Council expressed general interest in further exploring a public financing model for City Council elections, however due to existing staff commitments at the time it was decided to pause further review. Subsequently, during the February 18, 2025 post-election review, City Council provided staff with further direction to return with a discussion on exploring public financing of election campaigns. Below is an overview of the legal framework, existing systems for participating in such programs and an approximate estimate of their cost for implementation in San Mateo.

Legal Framework:

Under current state law, public financing of candidate campaigns are prohibited for general law cities, counties, and special districts. However, charter cities like San Mateo may establish such programs under their “home rule” authority. A small number of charter cities—including San Francisco, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Long Beach—have adopted different public financing systems, most of which include expenditure limits for candidates who accept public funds, with the objective to reduce candidate reliance on private donations and increase participation in local elections.

1. Matching Funds Model
Under this model, small contributions from individual donors are matched with public funds, typically at a fixed rate. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Berkeley all provide a 6:1 match. • San Francisco: Candidates receive up to $1.2 million (mayoral) and $255,000 (supervisorial). In 2022, $1.16 million was disbursed, with a 46% participation rate. San Francisco’s Ethics Commission has a $4.9 million annual budget. • Los Angeles: Candidates must meet contribution thresholds and spending limits. In 2022, LA disbursed $12.8 million, with a 65% participation rate.
• Estimated Cost for San Mateo: Based on 2022 campaign activity, a 6:1 match would have cost approximately 902 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
$127,000 in public funds (excluding administrative costs to operationalize the program).

2. Grant-Based Model
Candidates who meet eligibility criteria receive a lump-sum grant for campaign use. • Santa Fe, New Mexico: The City provides $60,000 for mayoral and $15,000 for council candidates. A total of $150,000 is budgeted annually. Participation in 2022 was 33%. • Estimated Cost for San Mateo: A grant model could require budgeting $100,000–$200,000 per cycle, depending on participation.

3. Reimbursement Model
Candidates are reimbursed for qualified campaign expenses. • Oakland’s Former Model: Provided reimbursements up to a capped amount. In 2022, $159,038 (90% of allocated funds) was disbursed, with a 63% participation rate.
• Note: This program has been phased out in favor of a voucher model starting in 2024.

4. Voucher Program
Eligible residents receive vouchers (publicly funded) to donate to candidates. • Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers: Voters receive four $25 vouchers. In 2021, the program reached 7.6% of voting-age residents and cost $3 million annually (funded by property tax). • Estimated Cost for San Mateo: If 7.6% of voters (approx. 4,365 people) used $100 in vouchers, it would result in $436,500 in public funds, plus administrative costs—bringing the total to at least $500,000 per election cycle.

Table 1: Summary of California Cities Public Financing Models:

City Qualification System Maximum
Funds Per
Candidate
Expenditure
Limits in
Place?
Enforcement
Berkeley 30 contributions of $10–$50
totaling at least $500 from
unique Berkeley resident.
6:1 matching
on small
contributions
(≤ $50).
$43,000 per
candidate.

None. Berkeley Fair
Campaign
Practices
Commission.

Long Beach $5,000 in contributions
≤ $400.

Matching
funds: 1:2
match for
Primary and
1:1 match for
Runoff for
contributions
up to $400 per
unique donor.
$23,760 -
$28,380 for
Primary,
$18,000 -
$21,500 for
Runoff (varies
by district:
33% [Primary]
and 50%
[Runoff] of the
expenditure
limit).
$72,000 -
$86,000 in
Primary,
$36,000 -
$43,000 in
Runoff (varies
by council
district based
on voter
registration).

City Attorney
with Ethics
Commission’s
assistance.

Los
Angeles
Raise at least $11,400 in
district contributions
between $5-$800 from
individual contributor.
6:1 matching
funds for
contributions
up to $114 per
unique Cityresidentdonor.
$161,000 for
Primary,
$201,000 for
Runoff
$571,000 for
Primary,
$476,000 for
Runoff.

Los Angeles
City Ethics
Commission.

Oakland Receive at least 125
contributions from
Vouchers:
each eligible
resident
2/3 of
expenditure
limit
$150,000 Oakland Public
Ethics
Commission
903 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
individual residents
between $10-$600.
registered to
vote receives
four $25 public
vouchers to
distribute to
candidates.
($150,000) for
competitive
races, no more
than 10,000 for
noncompetitive
races.
and City
Attorney.

San
Francisco
Receive a minimum amount
of qualifying contributions
from residents: Mayor -
$50,000 from at least 500
contributors; $10,000 from
at least 100 contributors.
6:1 matching
on small
contributions
(≤ $50).
$1.2 million
(mayoral) and
$255,000
(supervisorial).

Supervisorial
candidates:
$350,000.

Mayoral
candidates:
$1.7 million.

San Francisco
Ethics
Commission
Summary and Next Steps:

Public financing programs are designed to reduce the influence of money in local elections and encourage broader participation in the democratic process. However, these programs often require significant financial and administrative resources to implement effectively. In the City of Oakland, voters approved Measure W in 2022, which established a “democracy voucher” program intended to expand access to public financing, as seen in Table 1. Despite voter approval, the City has delayed implementation of the program due to budgetary constraints. In the interim, Oakland continues to offer a more limited public financing option.

Under Oakland’s Limited Public Financing (LPF) program, the amount available to candidates is determined by the total funding appropriated by the City Council and the number of participating candidates in the current election cycle. For the 2024 election, approximately $177,000 was available for distribution among eligible City Council District candidates.

Individual candidates could receive between $8,000 and $25,000, but no more than 30% of the voluntary expenditure ceiling for the office they are seeking.

To manage the distribution of funds, Oakland’s Public Ethics Commission oversees the program in two phases. In Phase I, eligible candidates opt in, and the Commission determines the initial disbursement amounts. Phase II involves a reallocation of remaining funds following a deadline for participants to submit required reimbursement documentation.

Candidates who meet this deadline may receive increased distributions, depending on how many participants remain in the program.

Oakland’s experience illustrates both the potential benefits and practical challenges of implementing a public financing program. While the City has prioritized equitable access to campaign funding, limited resources have required a measured and adaptive approach. Notably, the administration of Oakland’s program is supported by a dedicated ethics agency with significant staffing and infrastructure.

In considering similar models, it is important to recognize that in San Mateo many of these responsibilities—such as verifying candidate eligibility, processing reimbursements, and tracking compliance—would fall to the City Clerk’s Office.

Successful implementation would therefore require careful planning, clear procedures, and potentially additional administrative support to ensure the program is both effective and manageable within existing capacities.

Direction Needed:

To guide staff’s next steps on public financing of candidate campaigns, Council is asked to provide direction on the following options regarding public financing of future election campaigns:

1. Should staff actively pursue the development and implementation of a public financing program for future City elections, including evaluating feasibility, administrative requirements, and potential funding mechanisms?

2. Should staff continue to monitor developments in Oakland and other jurisdictions to gather best practices and lessons learned, with the possibility of revisiting the topic at a later date? 904 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

3. Should no further action be taken at this time?
BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budgetary impact associated with this study session.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This ordinance introduction is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Ordinance
Att 2 – Proposed Ordinance – Tracked Changes

STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7044
905 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, staff provided the City Council with a post-election review of candidate campaign activity from the November 5, 2024 general municipal election, pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code Section 2.80.080; and
WHEREAS, following this review, the Council directed staff to return with an ordinance to align contribution limits for individuals and organizations at $1,000, with future adjustments to follow changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and to include additional incentives for participating in the voluntary expenditure limits program.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 2.80.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, has increased. The increase of the contribution limitation amount shall not exceed the CPI increase, using the index published in June 2025 as the index year. The adjustment shall be rounded up to the nearest $10.00. The City Clerk shall publish the contribution limitation amounts no later than February 1st of each year in which an increase occurs. (c) Any contribution or portion thereof that exceeds the limits in this section shall be returned to the contributor within 72 hours of receipt.
(d) The limitations imposed by this section shall not apply to contribution of a candidate's personal funds to the candidate's own campaign, or to any loan which is personally guaranteed by the candidate or is secured by property owned by the candidate.

Section 2. Subsection (c)(1) of Section 2.80.055 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

2.80.055 VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMIT.
(c) Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary campaign expenditure limit shall receive the following benefits and incentives at no cost to themselves:
906 of 983
(1) The City's website will prominently identify which candidates have agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit. Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary campaign expenditure limits may submit a written statement up to four hundred words. The statement will appear exactly as submitted and shall conform to candidate statement guidelines provided by the City Clerk and Elections Code section 13307(a)(1), as amended.

Section 3. Environmental Determination. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15378(b)(5), this action is not a project subject to CEQA because it will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Section 4. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 5. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.

Section 6. Legislative History and Effective Date. This ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective on January 1, 2026.

Place attachments here
907 of 983
Chapter 2.80

CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOANS TO CITY CANDIDATE CAMPAIGNS

2.80.010 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) The City Council hereby finds that preserving integrity and openness in the political process is a matter of the highest public interest; that the people of the City of San Mateo can be better served through a more informed electorate; that the trust of the people is essential to representative government; and that regulation of certain campaign contributions and loans is necessary to promote public confidence in government and to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
(b) The City Council further finds that regulation of campaign contributions is required because the costs of running political campaigns have reached levels that lead to a public perception that special interests and wealthy individuals may have undue influence on or access to elected officials.
(c) It is the policy of the City to promote and encourage broad-based citizen involvement in the financing of election campaigns.
(d) The City Council further finds that allowing candidates to lend unlimited amounts of their personal funds to their campaigns tends to undermine public confidence in the election process, because the public may perceive that candidates with large outstanding loans will seek contributors to repay their loan after the election, and may be predisposed to favor their postelection contributors. (e) Protecting public confidence in the political process requires adequate enforcement of the provisions of this article.

2.80.020 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the words and phrases shall be defined in the same manner as they are defined in the Political Reform Act of 1974 (including any amendments thereto) as found in California Government Code Section 81000 et seq., unless defined otherwise in this section. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms below are defined as follows:
(a) "Candidate" means any individual listed on the ballot for election to any City office, or who otherwise has taken affirmative action to seek election to City office, or who receives a contribution or makes an expenditure, or who gives his or her consent for any other person to receive a contribution or make an expenditure with the purpose of bringing about his or her election to any City office.
(b) "Candidate committee" means a committee that is controlled directly or indirectly by a candidate or that acts jointly with a candidate in connection with the making of expenditures. 908 of 983
(c) "Contribution" means a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, a payment of a loan by a third party, or an enforceable promise to make a payment except to the extent full and adequate consideration is received unless it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that it is not made for political purposes. Except as provided herein, "contribution" includes (1) an expenditure made at the behest of a candidate or candidate committee unless full and adequate consideration is received for making the expenditure, and (2) any goods or services received by or behested by a candidate or candidate committee at no charge or at a discount from the fair market value, unless the discount is given in the regular course of business to members of the public.

The term "contribution" does not include a payment made by the occupant of a home or business for costs related to any meeting or fund raising event held in the occupant's home or business; or volunteer personal or professional services if the services are donated without any understanding or agreement that they shall be directly or indirectly repaid to him or her. (d) "Individual" means a natural person and shall not include a partnership, corporation, association, firm, business entity, committee, club, or other organization. (e) "Organization" means a partnership, corporation, association, firm, business entity, committee, club, union, or company.

2.80.030 LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) For any particular election, no individual or organization shall make, and no candidate, candidate committee treasurer or other person acting on behalf of a candidate committee shall solicit or accept from any individual or organization any contribution which will cause the total amount contributed by such individual to exceed $51000.00. (b) Beginning January 1, 2027, the City Clerk shall once biennially, on a calendar-year basis, increase the contribution limitation amount upon a finding that the cost of living in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area, as shown on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items in the San Francisco Bay Area as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, has increased. The increase of the contribution limitation amount shall not exceed the CPI increase, using the index published in June 2025 as the index year. The adjustment shall be rounded up to the nearest $10.00. The City Clerk shall publish the contribution limitation amounts no later than February 1st of each year in which an increase occurs. For any particular election, no organization shall make, and no candidate, candidate committee treasurer or other person acting on behalf of a candidate committee shall solicit or accept from any organization any contribution which will cause the total amount contributed by such organization to exceed $1,000.00. (c) Any contribution or portion thereof that exceeds the limits in this section shall be returned to the contributor within 72 hours of receipt. 909 of 983
(d) The limitations imposed by this section shall not apply to contribution of a candidate's personal funds to the candidate's own campaign, or to any loan which is personally guaranteed by the candidate or is secured by property owned by the candidate.

2.80.040 CANDIDATE LOANS.

No candidate shall personally loan their campaign an amount the outstanding balance of which exceeds $15,000.00 at any given point in time.

2.80.045 Aggregation of Contributions.
(a) To determine when contributions are aggregated under this chapter, "majority owned" means ownership of more than 50 percent.
(b) If an individual directs or controls an organization's contributions, the organization's contributions shall be aggregated with contributions made by both of the following:
(1) That individual.
(2) Any other organization whose contributions that individual directs or controls. (c) If two or more organizations make contributions that are directed or controlled by a majority of the same persons, the contributions of those entities shall be aggregated. (d) Contributions made by organizations that are majority owned by a person shall be aggregated with the contributions of the majority owner and all other organizations majority owned by that person, unless those organizations act independently in their contribution-making decisions.
(e) Aggregated contributions under this section shall be subject to the $1000 contribution limit.

2.80.050 CANDIDATE CAMPAIGNS ONLY.

The provisions of this chapter apply to election campaigns for candidates only. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to any ballot measure, referendum or initiative election.

2.80.055 VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMIT.
(a) Each candidate for election to the City Council in November 2024, and for each City Council election thereafter, shall, prior to the time they file their nomination papers with the city clerk, advise the city clerk in writing on a form provided by the City whether or not the candidate will opt to voluntarily limit their campaign expenditures in accordance with the voluntary campaign expenditure limits set forth in this section and by resolution. The agreement to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures shall pertain to all expenditures incurred by the candidate or the 910 of 983
candidate's committee in support of their candidacy and shall include all such expenditures that a candidate or candidate's committee is required to report pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, whether those expenditures are made before or after the filing of nomination papers.
(b) Withdrawal Period: within three (3) business days after the deadline to file nomination papers with the city clerk, a candidate that previously accepted the voluntary campaign expenditure limit will have one (1) opportunity to notify the city clerk that they have decided not to accept the voluntary campaign expenditure limit. The candidate shall thereafter be relieved of abiding by the expenditure limit.
(c) Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary campaign expenditure limit shall receive the following benefits and incentives at no cost to themselves:
(1) The City's website will clearly prominently identify which candidates have agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit. Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary campaign expenditure limits may submit a written statement up to four hundred words.

The statement will appear exactly as submitted and shall conform to candidate statement guidelines provided by the City Clerk and Elections Code section 13307(a)(1), as amended. (2) The City will publish in its regular digital newsletter which candidates have agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit. This will be published twice (once at the next publishing of said newsletter after the withdrawal period and once when the ballots are mailed to residents.)
(3) The City will publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation the candidates who agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit. (d) Calculation of Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Limit. (1) A candidate for district City Councilmember who voluntarily agrees to expenditure ceilings shall not make qualified expenditures exceeding two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per resident in the electoral district for each election in which the candidate is seeking elective office. Residency of each electoral district shall be determined by the latest decennial census population figures available for that district. The City Clerk shall publish on its website and in a newspaper of general circulation the expenditure ceiling amount for each district, rounded to the nearest hundred dollars ($100), no later than sixty (60) business days following adoption of the ordinance from which this Section is derived. (e) Beginning on January 1, 2026, the City Clerk shall in even-numbered years increase the expenditure ceiling amounts based upon a finding that the cost of living in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area, as shown on the CPI for all items in the San Francisco Bay Area as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, has increased. This increase shall be the 911 of 983
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) computed by reference to the CPI as indexed from a base year that commences in November 2023 (by way of example, on January 1, 2026, the City Clerk will adjust the voluntary expenditure ceiling amounts by determining the increase in CPI from November 2023 — November 2025). The increase shall be rounded to the nearest hundred dollars ($100). The City Clerk shall publish the adjusted expenditure ceiling amounts no later than February 1st of each even-numbered year.
(1) The following shall not count toward the voluntary campaign expenditure limit:
(A) Filing fees related to the candidacy, including fees paid to the Secretary of State to open or maintain a committee, and fees to translate the candidate statement.
(B) Contributions returned by the candidate within thirty (30) days of receipt. (C) Legal fees and costs incurred in connection with litigation arising out of a campaign for City office.
(D) Non-monetary contributions as defined by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
(E) Post-election party expenses.
(F) Post office box expenses.
(f) Penalties: Any violation of this section, including the filing of false reports that entitle the candidate to the benefits conferred by this section, shall within seventy-two (72) hours of the City's knowledge of the violation:
(1) Be posted on the City's website, and
(2) Be posted in the City's regular digital newsletter; and (3) Be forwarded to newspapers of general circulation for publication.

2.80.060 INJUNCTION, OTHER COURT ACTION.

In addition to all other remedies and penalties provided for violation of this chapter, the City Attorney may bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to seek an injunction or other appropriate relief, to halt any violation of this chapter. Such action may include seeking a temporary restraining order or temporary injunction and other appropriate temporary relief. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to restrict a suit for damages on behalf of the City or on behalf of any other person or entity.
912 of 983

2.80.070 PENALTIES.

Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a public offense.

2.80.080 Post Election Review.
(a) No later than three (3) months after the certification of the results of a City election at which a City Council member is elected, the City Clerk shall calendar for City Council consideration a review of the provisions of this chapter. The purpose of such review is to allow the City Council to consider the ongoing appropriateness of the provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the amount of the contribution and loan limits established in Sections 2.80.030 and 2.80.040.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the City Clerk's failure to calendar this review within the time period specified shall not subject the City Clerk to any criminal or civil penalty.

2.80.090 SEVERABILITY.

Each section and provision of this chapter shall be considered severable and the invalidity of any section or provision of this chapter shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section or provision.
913 of 983
From:

To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: CORRECTION Greetings,: Campaign Financing, July 28 Council Regular Meeting Item #29 Date: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:51:06 AM
A typo has been corrected. Please use this for the package! From: >
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 11:21 AM
To: San Mateo City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Campaign Financing, July 28 Council Regular Meeting Item #29 Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing regarding the July 28, 2025, Regular City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #29, “Amendment to Contribution Limits for City Candidate Campaigns – Ordinance Introduction and Public Financing”.

Ethics San Mateo has not, and most likely will not, take a position on this matter. At this time, although campaigning financing most certainly can raise questions about ethics, I believe taking a position could place our issue-agnostic pledge in question. Therefore, I am writing as an individual, not on behalf of ESM.

The entire subject matter of how funds are raised to run a campaign is both practical and political. No one can overlook the ever-increasing costs, and those costs can be well out of proportion to the size of the electorate. We need smart, engaged, and selfless candidates to select from. Many voters don’t do a deep dive into the backgrounds, qualifications, and to seek out which candidate reflects their sentiments.

I believe far too often the candidates with the highest “bankroll” and thus, the ability to plaster their name and image disproportionately, have a great advantage. While true that the more popular a candidate is, the more contributions they may receive. It also places candidates in a delicate position, in that high dollar donors may expect favorable treatment. This is when a high level of ethical conduct must be fostered and maintained.

There are many solutions proposed at every level of government. All can be critiqued to have both good and bad elements.

The public funding of campaigns with spending limits is one and is very attractive. It could create an even playing field and no ethical challenges. However, in San Mateo there are several aspects that would need to be resolved. The city would need to find sources of 914 of 983
funding, and it is facing a budget deficit. Additionally, how would the funds be distributed, proportionally by the number of voters in the district? Or, as city council members are elected by district, they serve the entire city, split equally among all candidates? Should all candidates receive funding? Who would administer and monitor it?
These are just some of the questions that need to be resolved, and it is JUST one potential solution.

Therefore, I urge you to take this slowly and very carefully.

Regards,
Dave Cohen
915 of 983
Campaign Finance:

Contribution Limits, Voluntary
Expenditure Limits & Public
Financing Models
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
916 of 983
Overview
• Background and Direction Received
• Draft Ordinance Summary
• Contribution Limit Amendment
• Voluntary Expenditure Limits
• Public Financing Models
• Council Feedback & Direction
2 of 11
917 of 983

1. Does the Council wish to proceed with introducing the draft ordinance as presented?

2. Does the Council have any additional feedback or direction on the Public Financing research presented?
3 of 11
Council Questions:
918 of 983
Background on Campaign Finance Ordinance
2005: Chapter 2.80 adopted, setting contribution and loan limits $250 from individuals; $500 from organizations
$15,000 self-loan cap for candidates
2012: Violations deemed a public offense (Sec. 2.80.070) 2017: Contribution limits increased
$500 individuals; $1,000 organizations
2021: Definition of “contribution” expanded to include in-kind support 2024: Voluntary expenditure limit introduced
2025: Council directed updates to align contribution limits at $1,000 for individuals and organizations and adjust for inflation
4 of 11
919 of 983
Voluntary Expenditure Limits (VEL)
5 of 11
• Self-imposed spending limits candidates choose to adhere to during electoral process
• Aim: Equitable and transparent political landscape
• Mandatory expenditure limits are constitutionally
impermissible, hence the interest from jurisdictions in voluntary limits
• 2024: First election administered under VEL
• 2025: Council discussed enhancing VEL incentives
• Proposed Change: Add 400-word candidate statement on City website.
• Modeled after Redwood City and aligned with Election Code Section 13307 (a)(1)
920 of 983
Proposed Ordinance Summary
Proposed Campaign Finance Ordinance – Key Updates

1. Increases contribution limits to $1,000 for both individuals and organizations

2. Future adjustments tied to CPI, rounded to the nearest $10

3. Adds optional 400-word candidate statement for VEL participants Next Steps:

Scheduled for Council consideration on August 18, 2025 (Consent Calendar) • Ordinance effective January 1, 2026
6 of 11
921 of 983
Public Financing of Election Campaigns
7 of 11
Background:
• September 2023: Council expressed interest in exploring public financing: review paused due to staff capacity
• February 2025: Council directed staff to revisit public financing discussion Legal Context:
• Prohibited for general law cities, counties, and special districts • Permitted for Charter Cities, like San Mateo under home rule authority Examples:
• San Francisco, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Long Beach
Common Objectives:
• Expenditure limits, reduced reliance on private donations, increased electoral participation 922 of 983
Summary of Public Financing Models
8 of 11
Grant-Based Model:
• Lump-sum grant to eligible candidates
• Example: Santa Fe – $60K (Mayor), $15K (Council)
• Estimated Operational Costs for San Mateo: $100K–$200K per cycle Reimbursement Model:
• Reimbursement for qualified campaign expenses
• Example: Oakland (pre-2024) – 63% participation; $159k disbursed Voucher Program:
• Public funded vouchers distributed to voters
• Example: Seattle – 4 x $25 vouchers, $3M annual cost
• Estimated Operational Costs for San Mateo: $500k per cycle (administrative costs not included) 923 of 983
Summary of Public Financing of Election Campaigns
9 of 11
• Analysis:
• Public Financing aims to reduce private influence and broaden public participation • Parameters have been modified consistently towards this goal • Implementation requires significant funding and administrative capacity • Oakland’s experience:
• Voter approved voucher program delayed due to budget constraints • Interim Limited Public Financing (LPF) offers $8K-$25K per candidate • Administered by a dedicated publicly funded Ethics Commission • San Mateo context:
• City Clerk’s Office would absorb key responsibilities (eligibility verification, compliance, disbursement of funds) • Participation rate varies across jurisdictions and model used • Additional resources and planning would be required for success • 2024 Election: City covered candidate statement fees in County Sample Ballot and Voter Information Guide 924 of 983

1. Does the Council wish to proceed with introducing the draft ordinance as presented?

2. Does the Council have any additional feedback or direction on the Public Financing research presented?
OPTION 1: staff to actively pursue the development and implementation of public financing program for future City elections, including evaluating feasibility, administrative requirements, and potential funding mechanisms OPTION 2: staff continue monitoring developments in Oakland and other jurisdictions to gather best practices and lessons learned, with the possibility of revisiting the topic at a later date? OPTION 3: No further action taken at this time.
10 of 11
Council Questions:
925 of 983
Thank You
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
[email protected]
11 of 11
926 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 30 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 34-3133 File ID: 25-10101 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: July 28, 2025
SUBJECT:

Emergency Rental Assistance Program - Adoption and Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to establish an Emergency Rental Assistance Program, appropriate $168,000 from the Low and Moderate Income Asset Fund for FY 2025-26, approve an agreement with Samaritan House to administer the program, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

On April 21, 2025, the City Council held a Study Session on Tenant Protections and Anti-Displacement. This study session was held to support the implementation of the following policies contained in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element:
 Policy H 3.4: Expand tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB 1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.  Policy H 3.6: Monitor rents, evictions, and tenant displacement citywide.  Policy H 5.4.1: Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB 1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.

A frequent topic that came up during community outreach and engagement, as well as at the study session, was that nonpayment of rent was a key factor for many of the evictions in and around San Mateo. Following public comments and discussion, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the establishment of an emergency rental assistance program as part of the City’s efforts to address tenant protection and displacement, and to meet Housing Element commitments.

Background Research
Prior to the April 21 Study Session, staff met with legal service providers serving San Mateo clients to obtain data on eviction cases and general trends in caseloads over the last five years. These organizations provide services prior to formal eviction proceedings and legal aid in unlawful detainer (UD) cases. All reported a significant increase in caseloads. For example, Project Sentinel, a non-profit that provides services in fair housing, dispute resolution, and support to tenants facing eviction in San Mateo County, found a 24 percent increase in their caseload, from 346 cases in 2018 to 428 cases in 2023. Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County reported that their caseload on unlawful detainers went from 1,120 in 2019 to 1,520 in 2023, a 35 percent increase. This trend can be attributed in part, but not entirely, to the termination of COVID-19 pandemicrelated rental assistance and eviction moratoria. The primary reason for most eviction cases in the County is related to nonpayment of rent.

A study of court records of eviction filings in San Mateo County published in February 2025 by Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School supports these observations. AB 1482 appeared to contribute to a significant drop in “no-cause” evictions, with 927 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
most evictions due to alleged nonpayment of rent. San Mateo (city), with 141 filings, was one of the four San Mateo County jurisdictions with more than 100 unlawful detainers in 2019 and 2023 combined, along with Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City.

Emergency Rental Assistance Programs
Staff reviewed emergency rental assistance programs in nearby jurisdictions to gather more information on best practices and how program administrators were selected. Jurisdictions with such programs did not launch a Request for Proposals (RFP), but sole sourced eligible administrators who have the capacity to effectively administer an emergency rental assistance program. Many jurisdictions selected core service agencies who previously ran rental assistance programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and had previous service agreements. There are eight core service agencies within San Mateo County who work in collaboration with the County’s Human Service Agency to provide individuals and families with basic emergency and support services to stabilize their living situations. Core Service Agencies provide clients with crisis intervention and referrals based on an evaluation of their needs and qualifications for assistance. By partnering with a core service agency, San Mateo residents will have access to receive the services these agencies provide and can address other disparities that impact their housing stability.

Cities with an Emergency Rental Assistance Program:

Through Samaritan House, individuals who apply to the emergency rental assistance program can be connected to other resources that can help stabilize their household and finances. Samaritan House provides a variety of services such as food distribution, case management, shelter services, housing case management, and financial empowerment services.

Proposed Program Description
Staff developed program guidelines to set expectations for the operation of this Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program 928 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
based on the City’s prior program, current programs in nearby jurisdictions and input from Samaritan House staff. The program guidelines are included as Exhibit A in the Resolution (Attachment 1) and as follows:

Term
The ERA Program is proposed with a one-year term from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, with the option to renew the service agreement for additional years, subject to City Council approval. Staff recommends that the initial term be for one year to function as a pilot for the program. If renewed, a two-year contract term may be considered.

Eligibility
Below are the requirements for potential applicants to be eligible for the ERA Program:
 Gross Income meets the 60 percent or less of the County of San Mateo’s AMI of the Poverty Guidelines  Gross Income is determined as amount received within the previous 30 days/1 month  Verification of reason for financial assistance request (example: layoff notice, email from employer, etc.)  Other Income Verification (example: letters or statements from public assistance (CalWorks), child support, Social Security, unemployment, employment offer letter, bank statements for the last 2-3 months)  Proof of Address to establish residency (example: lease, utility bill, mail with client’s name received at the current address)
 Verification of rental documents (example: Letter of Intent, Lease, Housing Voucher and/or Inspection Report with new address, etc.)
 Proof of identification for each member of the household (example: picture of ID, birth certificate, etc.) Staff received feedback that there can be barriers in meeting the documentation requirements; so Samaritan House will assist applicants, when needed, to support obtaining the necessary documentation.

Eligible Fund Uses
Assistance can be for “housing” (rent, security deposits) or both housing and utilities. If including utilities, verification of the utility bill must be submitted when applying.

Budget – Maximum Amount Per Household
Samaritan House shared that they incorporate approximately 12 percent of the budget for personnel and overhead costs.

To maximize the number of clients assisted, Staff determined that a budget of $168,000 would be an effective contribution to establish the ERA.
 $150,000 for rental assistance
 $18,000 for administrative expenses
With a $150,000 allocated for rental assistance, as directed by Council, and a maximum of $4,000 per household, at least 37 clients will be able to receive assistance. The maximum number of times a client can receive assistance is once a year (fiscal year), or until they reach the $4,000 threshold.

Assistance Payments
Payments will be made by Samaritan House to landlords/property managers and/or utility companies. Under no circumstances should the client receive the payment.

Intake Form
The intake form (in English and Spanish) can include questions on the client’s demographics, income information, reason for seeking assistance and amount, and household information.

This is a great opportunity to add questions that can contribute to local data collection on displacement. Examples of questions can be if the client has ever been evicted/displaced in San Mateo, do they live in overcrowded or unsafe conditions, and if they would like more information on tenant protections. 929 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Program Outreach
Staff will conduct outreach on the program utilizing the Housing website, social media, eNews, printed materials at city facilities, targeted flyering, and email notifications as well as through partner organizations and agencies. Samaritan House will also conduct their own outreach and share their marketing materials with the City. Outreach will be completed in both English and Spanish.

Monitoring
Samaritan House will submit a progress report to the City each quarter to highlight successes and challenges, and track how many San Mateo clients were served. Additionally, Requests for Reimbursement and Expense Summaries will be submitted each quarter to reimburse Samaritan House for their expenses related to the City’s ERA Program. Staff will review personnel documentation such as paystubs and time sheets. Samaritan House will also include copies of the checks issued with the intake form attached.

All monitoring reports templates will be provided to Samaritan House by City staff as part of program initiation. Reports will be submitted to the Community Development Department via email no later than 14 days after the end of each quarter.

Program Administration
Samaritan House will be the administrator of the ERA program in fiscal year 2025-26. A Professional Service Agreement with Samaritan House (Attachment 2) was developed to outline the contractual requirements and the scope of work of the program. The term of this agreement will go through July 31, 2026. Since this year will function as a pilot, staff will bring this item back to Council during the first half of 2026 with a report on how the ERA Program did with meeting its objectives, and bring potential options for how the ERA Program could be funded and run on a longer-term basis.

Housing Element and TOC Policy Compliance
This program supports Housing Element Goal H-3: Protection of Current Residents to Prevent Displacement. A rising issue identified in the Housing Element is the displacement of low-income renters in San Mateo. The increasing rental rates, along with the slow progress in incomes, disproportionally impacts communities who spend more than 30 percent of their monthly income towards rent. And when they are displaced, households often must leave their community in San Mateo to seek more affordable housing elsewhere.

To protect our existing communities, programs such as an emergency rental assistance program can prevent housing insecure households from having to leave the City entirely. With the intervention of a service operator, households can get more housing stability through the introduction of additional resources. Establishment of an emergency rental assistance program to prevent San Mateo residents from being displaced from their homes and be at-risk for homelessness supports implementation of Policy H 3.1: Prevent Homelessness.

This program is also in compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. To meet TOC Policy requirements, jurisdictions need to establish local policies that address minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development; affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and stabilizing businesses to prevent displacement; parking management; and transit station access.

By establishing an emergency rental assistance program, the City will meet the TOC’s Affordable Housing Protection Policy #5: Rental Assistance Program. This Protection Policy requires jurisdictions to provide a dedicated funding source and program for rental assistance to low-income households. The proposed rental assistance program meets the requirements for TOC Policy Compliance:
 Provide a total allocation of at least $300,000 over a four-year One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) cycle. At the time of publication of this report, the current OBAG cycle is in its third round covering the years of 2023-2026. If funded for four years, this program’s budget will exceed the $300,000 threshold with a total of $672,000. Since we are approaching the end of the third OBAG cycle, this program will continue to comply during the fourth OBAG cycle.  The program will be funded through the Housing Successor Fund, a local funding source that allows homelessness programs such as rental assistance to be funded.
 This policy requires the eligibility of applicants to meet the 80 percent of AMI or less threshold, to be considered 930 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
low-income. This program will be eligible to residents who meet the 60 percent AMI or less threshold.  Bilingual outreach for this program will include promotion via the City’s website and other communication channels as a method to make information available to City of San Mateo residents.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The Housing Successor Fund, also known as the Low and Moderate Income Asset Fund (Fund 255), is proposed as the funding source for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. To fund this pilot Emergency Rental Assistance Program, staff recommends a budget of $168,000 for FY 2025-26 to launch this pilot program, allocating up to $150,000 for rental assistance and $18,000 for administrative costs.

In addition to this program, $190,000 from Fund 255 was already allocated in the FY 2025-26 budget to support operations of the Police Department’s Homeless Outreach Team (HOT Team), which plays a critical role in connecting unsheltered individuals to housing and critical resources in San Mateo County.

Fund 255 is a public fund used by California “successor housing agencies” to manage and utilize revenues left over from dissolved redevelopment agencies. The City of San Mateo receives revenues to this fund from loan repayments, lease payments and sales of property previously acquired with Housing Set Aside funds. These funds are regulated to be used in the future for housing assistance to households whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the median income, as well as a portion that is allowed for administrative purposes.

Section 34176.1(a)(2)(A) of the California Health and Safety Code allows up to $500,000 of Housing Successor Funds per fiscal year, plus any percentage change in the cost of living, for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for individuals and families who are homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance, including the provision of shortterm or medium-term rental assistance, contributions toward the construction of local or regional homeless shelters, housing relocation and stabilization services including housing search, mediation, or outreach to property owners, credit repair, security or utility deposits, utility payments, rental assistance for a final month at a location, moving cost assistance, and case management, or other appropriate activities for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become homeless.

Together, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program and the HOT team funding represent a combined investment of $358,000 in FY 2025-26 in homelessness prevention efforts, which is within the $500,000 annual limit allowed under State law. Funding the two programs will expand services that help support individuals who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness.

Fund 255 has a current fund balance of $5,237,647 and received annual revenue of approximately $289,000 in FY 2024-25.

If this proposal is approved, the fund balance is expected to be moderately drawn down by approximately $69,000 in FY 2025-26.

Program Budget for 2025-26:

Line Item Low and Moderate Income Asset Fund (F255)
Administration $18,000
Rental Assistance $150,000
Total: $168,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This resolution is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
931 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
All meeting noticing requirements were met. Announcements on the implementation of the ERA program were shared through the City’s Housing and Policy Updates newsletter for the public. Staff also reached out to community partners who have engaged with the City on tenant protections issues to provide notification about this public meeting.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Jennifer Mora, Housing Specialist I
[email protected]
650-522-7230
932 of 983

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2025)

ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT

WITH SAMARITAN HOUSE TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo’s adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element is a plan to help address the region’s housing crisis, a blueprint for supporting all forms of housing, and a demonstration of the City’s commitment to achieving greater housing equity and access for all residents; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes Goal H-3 to “protect current residents to prevent displacement,” and Policy H 3.1 to “prevent homelessness;” and WHEREAS, the City Council held a study session on April 21, 2025 to discuss tenant protections and antidisplacement issues to support implementation of Housing Element policies and programs; and WHEREAS, nonpayment of rent was identified as a major factor behind many of the evictions in and around San Mateo, contributing to increasing displacement rates; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the establishment of an emergency rental assistance program as part of the City’s efforts to address tenant protections and displacement, and meet Housing Element commitments; and
WHEREAS, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program was developed based on the City’s prior emergency rental assistance program, existing programs in nearby jurisdictions and input from local service providers; and
WHEREAS, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program was developed to follow the anti-displacement and tenant protection policies listed in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element and to meet the requirements in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy; and WHEREAS, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program is an eligible activity for the City’s Housing Successor Funds/Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMIHF), which will serve as the funding source for the Program; and
WHEREAS, Samaritan House possesses the experience and capability to administer the City’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, based on their role as a core services provider in the City and their previous experience managing a similar program from 2020-2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. In accordance California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(5), an agreement award is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)).

2. An Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program is approved and established pursuant to the program criteria and guidelines contained in EXHIBIT A. 933 of 983

3. An appropriation in the amount of $168,000 from the Housing Successor Fund (F255) to fund the ERA Program for fiscal year 2025-26 is authorized.

4. The City will partner with Samaritan House to administer and operate the ERA Program. 934 of 983
City of San Mateo
Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program
Adopted July 28, 2025
935 of 983
1 Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 Housing Element......................................................................................................................... 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission – Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Grant......... 2 Funding ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Samaritan House......................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of The Guidelines.......................................................................................................... 6 Contact Information.................................................................................................................... 6 Application ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Eligibility...................................................................................................................................... 7 Income Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 7 Amount and Type of Assistance.................................................................................................. 7 Duplication of Benefits................................................................................................................ 8 Required Documentation for Tenants......................................................................................... 8 Application Process..................................................................................................................... 9 Language Access Plan ................................................................................................................. 9 Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Grant Administration .................................................................................................................... 11 Reimbursements....................................................................................................................... 11 Leveraging Funds ...................................................................................................................... 11 Performance Progress Reports ................................................................................................. 11 Recordkeeping........................................................................................................................... 11 Additional Program Information............................................................................................... 12 Compliance Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 12 936 of 983
2 Introduction
On April 21, 2025, City Council directed Housing Staff to develop an emergency rental assistance program to help San Mateo’s low-income residents from being displaced from their homes. Staff presented to City Council the prevalence of displacement within the City of San Mateo, with nonpayment of rent being a key factor. As a proposal to reduce evictions and displacement, an emergency rental assistance program was mentioned. Multiple jurisdictions throughout San Mateo County (South San Francisco, Brisbane, Foster City, Redwood City) currently have emergency rental assistance programs, many of which started in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These programs have been successful in reducing displacement and keeping community members in their homes. Thus, these jurisdictions continued funding these forms of assistance using various funding sources, including Housing Successor funds.

Housing Element
In connection with the City’s Housing Element, this program supports the Housing Element’s Goal to address the City’s housing needs through protection - Goal H-3: Protection of Current Residents to Prevent Displacement. A rising issue identified in the Housing Element is the displacement of low-income renters in San Mateo. The increasing rental rates, along with the slow progress in incomes, disproportionally impacts communities who spend more than 30% of their monthly income towards rent. When experiencing eviction or displacement, households often have to leave their community in San Mateo to find more affordable housing.

To protect our existing communities, programs such as an emergency rental assistance program can aid housing insecure households from having to leave the City entirely. With the intervention of a service operator, households can get more housing stability through the introduction of additional resources. Therefore, based on the data that shows nonpayment of rent as being a key driver of displacement, and to support implementation of Policy H 3.1:

Prevent Homelessness, establishing an emergency rental assistance program will be an effective tool to help reduce San Mateo residents from being displaced from their homes and at-risk for homelessness.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission – Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Grant
This program is also in compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. To meet TOC Policy requirements, jurisdictions need to establish local policies that address minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development; affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and stabilizing businesses to prevent displacement; parking management; and transit station access. By establishing an emergency rental assistance program, the City will meet the TOC’s Affordable 937 of 983
3 Housing Protection Policy #5: Rental Assistance Program. This Protection Policy requires jurisdictions to provide a dedicated funding source and program for rental assistance to lowincome households. The proposed rental assistance program meets the requirements for TOC Policy Compliance:
• Provide a total allocation of at least $300,000 over a four-year One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) cycle. At the time of publication of this report, the current OBAG cycle is in its third round covering the years of 2023-2026. If funded for four years, this program’s budget will exceed the $300,000 threshold with a total of $672,000. Since we are approaching the end of the third OBAG cycle, this program will continue to comply during the fourth OBAG cycle.
• The program will be funded through the Housing Successor Fund, a local funding source that allows homelessness programs such as rental assistance to be funded through.
• This policy requires the eligibility of applicants to meet the 80 percent of AMI or less threshold, to be considered low-income. This program will be eligible to residents who meet the 60 percent AMI or less threshold.
• Outreach for this program will include promotion via the City’s website and other communication channels as a method to make information available to City of San Mateo residents.

Funding
The City will provide up to $168,000 from the Housing Successor Fund, also known as the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF), to the emergency rental assistance program to support eligible City of San Mateo residents for FY 2025-26. Funding may be renewed annually upon City Council approval. The program administrator, Samaritan House, will provide assistance of up to $4,000 per household and per fiscal year for rental and utility payments to prevent tenants from being evicted and displaced from San Mateo.

Line Item Amount
Administration $18,000
Rental Assistance $150,000
Total: $168,000
The Housing Successor Fund is a public fund used by California “successor housing agencies” to manage and utilize revenues left over from dissolved redevelopment agencies. The City of San Mateo receives revenues to this fund from loan repayments, lease payments and sales of property previously acquired with Housing Set Aside funds. These funds are regulated to be used in the future for housing assistance to households whose income does not exceed 80% of the median income, as well as a portion that is allowed for administrative purposes. 938 of 983
4 Under Section 34176.1(a)(2)(A) of the California Health and Safety Code allows up to $500,000 of Housing Successor Funds per fiscal year, plus any percentage change in the cost of living, per fiscal year for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for individuals and families who are homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance, including the provision of short-term or medium-term rental assistance, contributions toward the construction of local or regional homeless shelters, housing relocation and stabilization services including housing search, mediation, or outreach to property owners, credit repair, security or utility deposits, utility payments, rental assistance for a final month at a location, moving cost assistance, and case management, or other appropriate activities for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become homeless.

Staff reviewed emergency rental assistance programs in nearby jurisdictions to gather more information on best practices and how operators were selected. Jurisdictions with such programs did not launch a Request for Proposals (RFP), but sole sourced eligible operators who have the capacity to effectively administer an emergency rental assistance program. Many jurisdictions selected core service agencies who previously ran rental assistance programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and had previous service agreements. There are eight core service agencies within San Mateo County who work in collaboration with the County’s Human Service Agency to provide individuals and families with basic emergency and support services to stabilize their living situations. Core Service Agencies provide clients with crisis intervention and referrals based on an evaluation of their needs and qualifications for assistance. By partnering with a core service agency, San Mateo residents will have access to receive the services these agencies provide and can address other disparities that impact their housing stability.

Cities with an Emergency Rental Assistance Program:

Samaritan House
The City of San Mateo partnered with Samaritan House during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020- 2022) to utilize $961,000 of Community Development Block Grant CARES Act (CDBG-CV) funds for an emergency rental assistance program. The success of this program led to the recommendation of Samaritan House to be the operator for the City’s new emergency rental assistance program. Samaritan House is part of the core service agencies in San Mateo County that provide safety net services to help stabilize households seeking food, clothing, and emergency housing assistance. Aside from the services Samaritan House provides, they are also the only core service agency in the City of San Mateo. Samaritan House administers an existing emergency rental assistance program that uses various funding sources to help with rent payments. The City’s Emergency Rental Assistant Program will supplement this existing program to expand services and rental assistance to more City of San Mateo residents.

Through Samaritan House, individuals who apply to the emergency rental assistance program can be connected to other resources that can help stabilize their household and finances.

Samaritan House provides a variety of services such as food distribution, case management, shelter services, housing case management, and even financial empowerment services.

Samaritan House works in close collaboration with the County’s Human Services Agency to provide individuals and families with basic emergency and support services to stabilize their living situations. Core Service Agencies such as Samaritan House provide clients with crisis intervention and referrals based on an evaluation of their needs and qualifications for additional assistance. Through Samaritan House, a household experiencing certain socio-economic challenges can be addressed and increase their housing and financial stability. 940 of 983
6 Purpose of These Guidelines
The purpose of these guidelines is to define program rules and requirements, and to provide information to potential applicants as well as the community. Since guidelines can never address every type of administrative/accounting problem or situation that may arise during the contract period, the City’s Housing Division staff is available to respond to requests for clarification or additional information. If new procedures or policies are implemented during the contract period, Housing staff will provide timely notification and technical assistance.

Note that these Guidelines are neither intended to be all inclusive or so restrictive that they cannot be amended. Minor modifications to these Guidelines can be made with approval of the Community Development Department Director. Major modifications (such as those that would significantly affect funding levels, potential applicants or recipients) must be approved by the City Council.

Contact Information
The following is contact information for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

Housing Division, Community Development Department
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
(650) 522-7220
Rachel Horst at [email protected]
Jennifer Mora at [email protected]
941 of 983
7 Application
Eligibility
To be eligible to receive rental assistance, applicants must meet the following requirements:
• Live in the City of San Mateo
• Household gross income at 60% AMI or lower of the San Mateo County Income Guidelines
• Not related to Landlord
• Have a signed lease agreement or application to a rental unit • Utility bill must be under the applicant’s name
Income Guidelines
60% AMI – San Mateo County Income Guidelines
Size of Family or Number in
Household
Monthly Gross Income Annual Gross Income
1 $6,855 $82,260
2 $7,835 $94,020
3 $8,815 $105,780
4 $9,790 $117,480
5 $10,575 $126,900
6 $11,360 $136,320
7 $12,140 $145,680
8 $12,925 $155,100
Effective April 1, 2025
Gross income is determined as the amount received within the previous 30 days/1 month.

Household income is determined by all household members who are 18 years or older. For cases where a roommate needs financial assistance, they are considered separately from the main household if they are not related to the main household.

Income guidelines are updated on an annual basis; therefore, the most recent income guidelines will be included in the grant agreement if extended for an additional year.

Amount and Type of Assistance
The City will provide up to three months of rental and/or utilities assistance in an amount not to exceed $4,000 per household per fiscal year. Security deposits are also an eligible expense if the applicant got displaced. Applicants can seek financial assistance multiple times until they hit the $4,000 limit. However, each time they return to request additional assistance, they must show proof of the latest critical need.
942 of 983
8 Upon finalizing an application, Samaritan House will introduce the client to additional resources that can increase their housing stability to prevent the risk of displacement after the $4,000 limit. In the case that an applicant has already reached their $4,000 limit, but demonstrates an urgent need to receive assistance, Samaritan House will contact the Community Development Department for approval.

Payments will be made directly to the applicant’s landlord, property management firm, and/or utility company. Under no circumstances will payments be made directly to the applicant.

Samaritan House will process all financial assistance payments.

Duplication of Benefits
Best practices for rental assistance are recommended for Samaritan House to check that the applicant is not receiving duplicative benefits to cover rental costs. To ensure that there is no duplication of benefits, applicants must inform Samaritan House about other financial assistance or applications to other rental assistance programs. Receiving financial aid does not disqualify the applicant from receiving emergency rental assistance but must be noted in their application.

Samaritan House must also ensure that the applicant is not receiving rental assistance through another source of funding through their rental assistance program.

Required Documentation for Tenants
• Complete intake form
• Proof of rent due, including one of the following:
o Eviction notice
o Notice of Delinquent Rent
o 3-Day Pay or Quit
• Proof of utility bill due
• Proof of Identification for each member of the household. One of the following:
o Photo ID
o Birth certificate
o Social Security
• Employment/Income Verification
o Paycheck stubs (within the past 30 days)
o CalWorks
o Child Support
o Social Security
o Unemployment letter
o Termination Letter
o Employment offer letter
943 of 983
9 o Bank statements for the last 2-3 months
• Rental/lease agreement
Application Process
Applicants must complete an application, gather the required documentation noted above, and set an appointment with Samaritan House by calling (650) 347-3648 or visiting their office at 4031 Pacific Boulevard, San Mateo, CA 94403. During their appointment time, applicants will meet with a case manager to ensure their application is complete, and all required documentation is secured. Incomplete applications or missing documentation will result in a delay of services. Once the appointment is done, the case manager will advise the client of the application review process. Clients are contacted about the status of their application within one week of their appointment date.

In the event that an application for rental assistance is denied, the applicant is eligible to submit an appeal to Samaritan House and the Community Development Department and the Housing Division. Applicant must express to Samaritan House their interest in submitting an appeal, and Samaritan House will provide the applicant with the Appeal Request forms and notify City staff.

Appeals will be responded within a week of receiving an appeal request.

Language Access Plan
To increase accessibility to our community members, intake forms will be available in English and Spanish. For other languages, translation and interpretation services can be available throughout the application process.
944 of 983
10 Outreach
To promote the availability of the program, City staff will announce the implementation of the program through their Housing and Policy Updates newsletter and through the City’s website and social media channels. Information on the eligibility requirements and on how to apply will be added to the Housing and Neighborhood Services website. Samaritan House promotes its services to the community at large through a host of means. These include flyers, social media, tabling events, presentations, and sharing information with other community-based organizations and governmental entities.
945 of 983
11 Grant Administration
Reimbursements
Reimbursements requests are to be prepared by Samaritan House containing invoices for eligible expenses. Reimbursement requests will be prepared on City-provided templates and are due quarterly via email. The following documentation is required to support each listed expense:

Personnel/Administrative Costs:

1. Timesheets (signed by staff and supervisor)

2. Paycheck stubs

3. Fringe benefit documentation
Rental Assistance:

1. Copy of check made to landlord or property management company

2. Copy of applicant intake form
Leveraging Funds
In the case that Samaritan House is in a budget deficit for the emergency rental assistance program, City staff must be notified. Samaritan House is expected to first utilize the $168,000 award for City of San Mateo residents prior to leveraging other funding sources.

Performance Progress Reports
Samaritan House will submit a progress report to the City each quarter to highlight any success or challenges and track how many San Mateo clients were served. City staff will provide a template to Samaritan House to track their progress each quarter. Submissions will be accepted through email.

Staff will utilize the data shared in the performance progress report to prepare an annual progress report for the City Council and will be presented on an annual basis at a City Council meeting.

Recordkeeping
Recordkeeping and Record Retention requirements must be in compliance with 24 CFR 92.508.

Records must be retained for five years after the period of rental assistance ends or from the time the project is closed, whichever is longer. Records shall include documentation of compliance with the requirements stated in these guidelines, including:
• Tenant eligibility
• No duplication of benefits
946 of 983
12 • Lease requirements
Documentation will be available for review by City’s Housing staff. Samaritan House is responsible for ensuring that all records are maintained for the appropriate period for all households receiving emergency rental assistance.

Additional Program Information
Additional requirements include but are not limited to:

1. Samaritan House will develop and utilize a standard program application form. Each household must complete the standard application form. If necessary, the City will aid in preparing the form; especially to the elderly, handicapped, non-English speaking persons, and persons who are unable to read and/or write.

2. All households deemed ineligible for assistance must be notified by Samaritan House in writing (or via their preferred method of communication) of such determination and the reasons for such determination. The household should also be notified of other potential resources.

3. Samaritan House should document their efforts to ensure clients are complying with the requirements.

4. Conflict of Interest: Samaritan House must disclose all real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest to City as outlined in 2 CFR Part 200, as applicable, regarding the receipt of, assistance provided with, or expenditure of City funds. All conflicts of interest must be disclosed and resolved prior to providing emergency rental assistance to the household.

5. Conflicts are applicable to both City staff and Samaritan House staff as well as their immediate family members. This assistance would not be permitted when such conflict existed.
a. Any exceptions to the Conflict of Interest policy can only be granted directly by the City Manager, and no assistance will be issued without approval.

6. Samaritan House has access to technical assistance through the City’s Housing Division.

Compliance Monitoring
The City is responsible for conducting monitoring reviews of the Emergency Rental Assistance program.

1. The City will utilize a risk assessment tool to determine the relative risk among funded entities and projects.

2. Samaritan House will receive on-site, desk, or remote monitoring reviews based on the risk assessment.
947 of 983
Contract for Services Page 1 of 11
Rev 12/22

AGREEMENT WITH SAMARITAN HOUSE

FOR COMMNUNITY SERVICES
FOR

EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and SAMARITAN HOUSE, a California nonprofit organization ("ORANIZATION"), whose address is 4031 Pacific Boulevard, San Mateo, CA 94403.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain Emergency Rental Assistance services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage ORGANIZATION to provide these Emergency Rental Assistance services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and ORGANIZATION has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
.

The scope of services to be performed by ORGANIZATION under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF ORGANIZATION
ORGANIZATION shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by ORGANIZATION under this Agreement. ORGANIZATION shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work.

ORGANIZATION represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

ORGANIZATION shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of ORGANIZATION.

ORGANIZATION agrees to comply with the City’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.
948 of 983
Contract for Services Page 2 of 11
Rev 12/22
SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by ORGANIZATION and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of ORGANIZATION'S work.

SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2025 and be completed on July 31, 2026.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay ORGANIZATION a fee in an amount of $168,000, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 6 - TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to ORGANIZATION. ORGANIZATION agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared by ORGANIZATION in the performance of this Agreement are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.

SECTION 8 - CONFIDENTIALITY
All reports and documents prepared by ORGANIZATION in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. ORGANIZATION shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by ORGANIZATION or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release.

SECTION 9 - INTEREST OF ORGANIZATION
ORGANIZATION covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement.
949 of 983
Contract for Services Page 3 of 11
Rev 12/22
SECTION 10 - ORGANIZATION'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the services required under this Agreement, ORGANIZATION shall at all times be considered an independent ORGANIZATION as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make ORGANIZATION an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY
ORGANIZATION agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of ORGANIZATION’s performance of this Agreement, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. ORGANIZATION agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. The ORGANIZATION’S duty to indemnify shall survive expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 12 - INSURANCE
ORGANIZATION shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

SECTION 13 - NONASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of ORGANIZATION and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by ORGANIZATION without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON SKILL OF ORGANIZATION
It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that ORGANIZATION is skilled in the performance of the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of ORGANIZATION to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and ORGANIZATION agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of ORGANIZATION's work by CITY does not operate as a release of ORGANIZATION from said obligation. 950 of 983
Contract for Services Page 4 of 11
Rev 12/22
SECTION 15 - WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 16 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 17 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
ORGANIZATION warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither ORGANIZATION nor any of its sub-ORGANIZATIONS shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 18 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties. 951 of 983
Contract for Services Page 5 of 11
Rev 12/22
SECTION 19 - LITIGATION
ORGANIZATION shall testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with ORGANIZATION's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by ORGANIZATION, or is based upon ORGANIZATION's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate ORGANIZATION for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at ORGANIZATION's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 20 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Alex Khojikian
City Manager
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
To ORGANIZATION: Samaritan House
Attn: Laura Bent, Chief Executive
Officer
430 Pacific Boulevard
San Mateo, CA 94403
SECTION 21 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and ORGANIZATION and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and ORGANIZATION.

SECTION 22 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
952 of 983
Contract for Services Page 6 of 11
Rev 12/22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and SAMARITAN HOUSE have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO ORGANIZATION
Alex Khojikian
City Manager
Date Laura Bent
Its Authorized Agent
Chief Executive Officer
Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mazarin Vakharia
Assistant City Attorney
Date
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Agreement Budget
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements
953 of 983
Contract for Services Page 7 of 11
Rev 12/22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. PROJECT SUMMARY: Provide emergency financial assistance in the form of rent, security deposit, and/or utility payments to individuals and families to stabilize their housing and prevent displacement. This will be accomplished by assessing client eligibility according to the City’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program guidelines. Upon approval, rent payments will be disbursed directly to vendors (i.e. landlords, owners, property managers, etc.). Samaritan House will serve 37 households in the City of San Mateo this program year (2025-2026).

2. TIMELINE: Samaritan House’s Emergency Rental Assistance program is a continuing program.

Therefore, we do not foresee any obstacles to implementing our project workplan as described, fully achieving our projected goals, and fully expending our contracted funds by the end of the fiscal year ending July 31, 2026.

3. RECIPIENT ELIGIBILITY: Households who receive rental assistance shall be residents of the City of San Mateo and are at-risk of displacement. Their income shall not exceed the 2025 60% AMI of the San Mateo County Income Guidelines, as updated from time to time (Attachment 1).

4. DETERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE AMOUNT: Samaritan House will use its standard procedures for determining the amount of rental assistance for each household. In no event shall the total assistance to a household exceed $4,000 per fiscal year.

5. INCOME VERIFICATION: Each client who arrives at Samaritan House must be screened for income eligibility prior to receiving services. Each client has an intake session in which they fill out the intake questionnaire packet with an Intake Coordinator. The packet includes screening forms, which gather information on demographics, household information, income and expenses, history of program utilization, and other relevant information. Supporting documentation is required to support eligibility and verify income including pay stubs, bank statements, lease agreements, benefit letters and other documents as appropriate as stated in the program’s guidelines. Other verification (i.e. direct staff contact with landlord) may be required. This third-party documentation and/or client signatures on certification forms are always available on file for review.

6. DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS: Samaritan House will check that the applicant is not receiving duplicative benefits to cover rental costs. To ensure that there is no duplication of benefits, applicants must inform Samaritan House about additional financial assistance or applications to other rental assistance programs. Receiving financial aid does not disqualify the applicant from receiving emergency rental assistance but must be noted in their application. Samaritan House will also ensure that the applicant is not receiving rental assistance through another source of funding through their existing rental assistance program.
954 of 983
Contract for Services Page 8 of 11
Rev 12/22

EXHIBIT B

AGREEMENT BUDGET
Budget Line Item San Mateo Program Total
Labor
Case Manager $7,200 $7,200
Case Manager $7,200 $7,200
Taxes/Benefits $3,600 $3,600
Rental Assistance $150,000 $150,000
TOTAL $168,000 $168,000
955 of 983
Contract for Services Page 9 of 11
Rev 12/22

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if ORGANIZATION has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

If the ORGANIZATION maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the ORGANIZATION.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the ORGANIZATION; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the ORGANIZATION including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the ORGANIZATION’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the ORGANIZATION’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the ORGANIZATION’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City. 956 of 983
Contract for Services Page 10 of 11
Rev 12/22
Waiver of Subrogation
ORGANIZATION hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said ORGANIZATION may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. ORGANIZATION agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the ORGANIZATION to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Verification of Coverage
ORGANIZATION shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the ORGANIZATION’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. 957 of 983
Contract for Services Page 11 of 11
Rev 12/22
ATTACHMENT 1
60% AMI – 2025 SAN MATEO COUNTY INCOME GUIDELINES
Size of Family or Number in
Household
Monthly Gross Income Annual Gross Income
1 $6,855 $82,260
2 $7,835 $94,020
3 $8,815 $105,780
4 $9,790 $117,480
5 $10,575 $126,900
6 $11,360 $136,320
7 $12,140 $145,680
8 $12,925 $155,100
958 of 983
From: Thomas Morgan II
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian
Subject: Agenda item No. 30
Date: Friday, July 25, 2025 7:46:28 AM
Dear Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to Agenda Item No. 30 in its current form. While I understand the intent behind the proposal, I believe it introduces significant uncertainty for housing providers. This uncertainty could ultimately increase the overall cost of providing housing, rather than reduce it.

Additionally, while the policy aims to support tenants facing financial hardship, it may unintentionally enable the transfer of problematic tenants from one landlord to another.

This could create further strain on housing providers and diminish the quality of housing communities.

The proposal reminds me of an observation by Morgan Housel in one of his books, who once explained why people buy lottery tickets despite the odds: “When you can’t afford to put groceries in the refrigerator, buying a lottery ticket feels like a small risk for a potentially life-changing reward. If you win, your situation improves dramatically. If you lose, you’re no worse off.” Similarly, this policy may incentivize tenants not to pay rent at all believing that partial payment offers no benefit and full payment is out of reach.

To improve the proposal, I recommend requiring tenants who access these funds to waive relocation benefits and/or other non-essential tenant rights . In addition, I would also recommend a faster pathway for eviction in the event the tenant is legitimately a bad tenant trying to game the system. This would help ensure that the support is used responsibly and does not create further imbalance between tenant protections and landlord rights.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Thomas Morgan
959 of 983
Emergency Rental
Assistance Program
Jennifer Mora
Housing Specialist I – Housing Division
Community Development Department
La Trice Taylor
Senior Director of Programs and Services
Samaritan House
July 28, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting
960 of 983
Agenda
• Background
• Emergency Rental Assistance Program
• Samaritan House Presentation
• Staff Recommendation
961 of 983
Background: Housing staff presented on the
implementation of the following policies in
the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element:
• Policy H 3.4 and Policy H 5.4.1: Expand
tenant protections in local ordinance to
extend measures of AB 1482 related to
relocation, documentation, and right to
return policy in eviction cases.
• Policy H 3.6: Monitor rents, evictions,
and tenant displacement citywide.

April 21, 2025, City
Council Study
Session on Tenant
Protections and
Anti-Displacement
962 of 983
Background: Outreach conducted over a 7-month period
from August 2024 – March 2025:
• Legal service providers (2)
• Community partners (6 focus groups)
• Community workshops (2)
• Local jurisdictions and collaboratives (8)
Examples of frequently-mentioned topics:
• Termination of COVID-19 rental assistance
• Evictions due to non-payment of rent
• Concerns about cost of living
• Support for City rental assistance program
• Rental assistance as anti-displacement tool
April 21, 2025, City
Council Study
Session on Tenant
Protections and
Anti-Displacement
963 of 983
Background: Research:
• Zumper, Census data, CoStar, City’s Business
License Tax Records, etc.
• Eviction study: Mills Legal Clinic – Stanford Law
School: Evictions in San Mateo County 2019-2023
Findings:
• San Mateo is one of the four jurisdictions (Daly
City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City) with more
than 100 unlawful detainer cases in 2019 and 2023.
• Unlawful detainer: special court proceeding to evict a tenant from a business or residence.
• Most unlawful detainer cases are due to nonpayment of rent April 21, 2025, City
Council Study
Session on Tenant
Protections and
Anti-Displacement
964 of 983
City Council Direction – April 21, 2025
• Prioritize the establishment of an emergency rental assistance program and amending the City’s Tenant Relocation Ordinance to protect tenants from unsafe living conditions.
• $150,000 for assistance plus administrative costs.
• Extend AB 1482 provisions: relocation assistance for no-fault evictions for tenants with a tenure of less than one year (11 months) and the right-toreturn to substantially rehabilitated or demolished units. • Staff to continue analyzing available data sources and return with a proposal how to build on existing City data collection to monitor rental rates and evictions citywide.
• Emphasis on tenant and landlord education on current policies, such as AB 1482
965 of 983
Emergency Rental Assistance Programs
• Staff met with local jurisdictions to learn more about existing emergency rental assistance programs.
• Cities with an existing emergency rental assistance program:

City Funding Source Amount Max per Household People Served Operator South
San Francisco
Housing
Successor Funds
$150,000 $4,5000 33 individuals YMCA
Half Moon Bay General Fund $50,000 $3,000 16 individuals Coastside Hope Daly City Housing
Successor Funds
$50,000 $5,000 10 individuals Daly City
Partnership
Redwood City General Fund $120,000 $5,000 24 individuals Fair Oaks Community Center
Foster City Measure K $35,000 – One
time
$3,000 11 individuals In-House
Brisbane Housing
Successor Funds
$100,000 –
One time
$4,000 25 individuals Samaritan House
*Foster City’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program is only available to residents living in Below market Rate Units 966 of 983
Emergency Rental Assistance Programs
• Cities with an existing emergency rental assistance program:
• Sole sourced eligible operators
• Core Service Agencies selected
• Identified potential operator: Samaritan House
• Previously administered the City of San Mateo’s emergency rental assistance program during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Administrated City funds for flood relief during the 2023 storms. 967 of 983
City of San Mateo’s
Emergency Rental
Assistance Program
Eligibility:
• Live in the City of San Mateo
• Gross income 60% or less of County’s
AMI of the Poverty Guidelines
• Not related to landlord
• Have a signed lease agreement or
application to a rental unit
• Utility bill must be under applicant’s
name
Program budget: $168,000
• $150,000 for client assistance
• $18,000 for administration
968 of 983
City of San Mateo’s
Emergency Rental
Assistance Program
Assistance Payments:
• Made directly to landlords/property managers
and/or utility companies:
• Rent
• Security Deposits
• Utilities
Maximum Amount Per Household:
• $4,000 per household, per fiscal year
• 37 households proposed
969 of 983
Program Administration
• Pilot Year: One-year agreement with Samaritan House.
• Program guidelines developed for program administration. • Samaritan House to submit on a quarterly basis:
• Expense summary for reimbursement
• Supporting documentation for expenses required
• Progress report
970 of 983
Housing Element and Transit-Oriented Communities
• Program supports the City’s Housing Element Goal H-3: Protection of Current Residents to Prevent Displacement.
• Also supports Policy H 3.1: Prevent Homelessness
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy:
• In compliance with the TOC’s Affordable Housing Protection Policy #5: Rental Assistance Program.
• Increases eligibility for the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) for Year 4. 971 of 983
Program Administration – Budget
• Proposed budget for 2025-2025 of $168,000 using Housing Successor Funds, also known as Low and Moderate Income Asset Fund (Fund 255):
• Also funding $190,000 out of Fund 255 for the City’s Homeless Outreach Team.
• Two concurring programs focusing on homelessness in the City of San Mateo.

Line Item Amount
Personnel $18,000
Client Assistance $150,000
TOTAL: $168,000
972 of 983
Samaritan
House
Fighting Poverty, Lifting Lives
Copyright Samaritan House 2024
973 of 983
Staff Recommendation
• Establish an Emergency Rental Assistance Program.
• Appropriate $168,000 from the Low and Moderate Income Asset Fund for 2025-2026.
• Approve an agreement with Samaritan House to administer the program.
• Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in the substantially the form presented.
974 of 983
Thank You
Jennifer Mora
Housing Specialist I,
Housing Division, Community Development Department
[email protected]
975 of 983
976 of 983
Key Themes of San Mateo Rental Market
Unit Type San Mateo
Average
Rent
Income
needed
Area Median
Income
Low Income
(up to 80%
AMI)
Studio $2,352 $94,080 $130,600 $109,700
1 bedroom $2,706 $108,240 $149,300 $125,350
2 bedrooms $3,609 $144,360 $167,950 $141,000
3 bedrooms $4,948 $197,920 $186,000 $156,650
4 bedrooms $9,993 $399,720 $201,550 $169,200
Source: Zumper, Q2 2025 and CA Department of Housing and Community Development. Occupancy assumption is number of bedrooms plus one.
• Gap between incomes and rents is a known driver of displacement • Renters constitute ~ 50%* of San Mateo residents, and ~ 49%* of renters are in lower-income category (50% AMI - 80% AMI)
• Rents in older (and often smaller) buildings significantly lower than “market” • Ownership type varies significantly across housing type (individual vs. entity) • Exact number of units not known:
• 1,110 rental properties (excl.
single-family homes) on CoStar
vs. 1,028 registered rental
properties in City records
• Significant older/smaller housing
stock
*2023 5-yr American Community Survey/HUD Comp. Housing Afford. Survey 2019 977 of 983
Evictions Data – Overall Trends
• Providers reported increase in caseloads after COVID-19 pandemic • Termination of rental assistance and eviction moratoria contributing factors • AB 1482 associated with decrease in “no-cause” eviction rates • Non-payment of rent is the main cause for evictions
• Rents and areamedian income (AMI) are increasing, but many lower-income tenants’ incomes static
• Does not cover “soft” or “functional” evictions. Full extent of displacement is unknown.
• Data from legal aid providers is only a portion of the total number of eviction cases in San Mateo County.
978 of 983
Mills Legal Clinic – Stanford Law School: Evictions
in San Mateo County 2019/2023
• Analysis to identify underlying basis for unlawful detainers in San Mateo County by reviewing eviction cases in San Mateo County through a court order • Compared cases from 2019 and 2023 (pre- and post- COVID-19) Findings:
• San Mateo had 141 unlawful detainer filings in 2019 and 2023 combined • One of the four jurisdictions (Daly City, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City) with more than 100 unlawful detainer cases
• Most unlawful detainer cases are due to non-payment of rent • AB 1482 has shown apparent success in reducing “no-cause” evictions • Disparity between tenant and landlord representation
979 of 983
Public Feedback:
• Concern about displacement
• Concerns about the cost of living and
overcrowding
• Support for more protections against unsafe
living conditions, such as mold or pests
• Support for improved tenant and landlord
education
• Support for City rental assistance program
• Support for, and opposition to, a rental
registry
• Concerns about risk to mom-and-pop
landlords from expanded tenant protections
beyond AB 1482
Community Workshop #1
Hosted by Community
Relations Commission
November 20, 2024
980 of 983
Public Feedback:
• Support for anti-harassment and rental registry policies • Insurance and maintenance expenses on rental
properties are increasing
• Consistency of relocation assistance amount across City Code provisions
• Fairness of relocation assistance amount in substantial rehab scenario
• Limiting no-fault evictions during the school year
• Support for more education on current policies and
resources
• Additional restrictions/policies on landlords can add administrative burden
• Support for just-cause protections, regardless of tenure • Support for rent registries to support policymaking
Community Workshop #2
Hosted by Community
Relations Commission
January 15, 2025
981 of 983
Focus Group Meetings
• Focus groups in December 2024 and January 2025 with tenant/property owner groups, nonprofit service providers, developers, and general public. Feedback included:
• Rent increases as driver of displacement
• Outreach and education on existing laws, especially AB 1482 • Impact of escalating external costs on rents (e.g., utilities) • Relationship between tenant protections and new housing production/maintenance of existing units
• “Functional evictions” (lack of reasonable accommodations, substantial rehab, etc.) • Relocation assistance and right to return after substantial rehab (incl. amount of assistance; rent upon return to unit; means-testing of recipient household) • Rent registries
• Language barriers in outreach and policy-making
• Negative effects of eviction, especially on school-age children • Rental assistance and mediation as anti-displacement tools 982 of 983
983 of 983

San Mateo City CouncilJuly 28, 2025

San Mateo City Council
July 28, 2025