CEP 04-07-2022 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
CEP - STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
This will be a teleconference meeting with no physical location
Thursday, April 7, 2022
11:00 AM
Special Meeting - Community Engagement Plan (CEP) - Strategic Advisory Committee
TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION TO HELP STOP THE
SPREAD OF COVID-19
In accordance with Government Code 54953(e), this will be a teleconference meeting
without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID-19.
Members of the public wishing comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the
following ways:
1) E-mail comments by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 6 to the Committee at
planning@cupertino.org. These e-mail comments will be received by the Committee
members before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting.
2) E-mail comments during the times for public comment during the meeting to the
Committee at planning@cupertino.org. The staff liaison will read the emails into the record,
and display any attachments on the screen, for up to 3 minutes (subject to the Chair’s
discretion to shorten time for public comments). Members of the public that wish to share a
document must email planning@cupertino.org prior to speaking.
3) Teleconferencing Instructions
Members of the public may observe the teleconference meeting or provide oral public
comments as follows:
Oral public comments will be accepted during the teleconference meeting. Comments may
be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the
public comment period for each agenda item.
To address the Committee, click on the link below to register in advance and access the
meeting:
Page 1
CEP 04-07-2022
1 of 83
CEP - Strategic Advisory Committee Agenda April 7, 2022
Online
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_IMmf7beyQLyqMQSD3APfgg
Phone
Dial: (669) 900 6833 and enter Webinar ID: 914 9376 4297 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak)
Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.
Or an H.323/SIP room system:
H.323:
162.255.37.11 (US West)
162.255.36.11 (US East)
Meeting ID: 914 9376 4297
SIP: 91493764297@zoomcrc.com
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about
joining the webinar.
Please read the following instructions carefully:
1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your
internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and
up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain
functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with
instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to
the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your
name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation.
3. When the Chair calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.”
Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT PLAN - STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino Community
Engagement Plan - Strategic Advisory Committee is hereby called for Thursday, April 7,
2022 commencing at 11:00 a.m. In accordance with Government Code 54953(e), this will be a
teleconference meeting without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID-19.
Page 2
CEP 04-07-2022
2 of 83
CEP - Strategic Advisory Committee Agenda April 7, 2022
Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters
listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1.Subject: Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Recommended Action: Elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Community Engagement
Plan - Strategic Advisory Committee
2.Subject: Report from staff and EMC Planning Group regarding the proposed
community engagement and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) plans for
the Housing Element update process.
Recommended Action: Receive report and provide guidance on plans for community
engagement and an engagement plan for ensuring compliance with State Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements.
Staff Report
A - Stakeholder Outreach List
B - AFFH Segregation Guide
C - Our Stories
D - San Mateo Fair Housing Assessment
E - EMC-WVCS Meeting Notes
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
ADJOURNMENT
Page 3
CEP 04-07-2022
3 of 83
CEP - Strategic Advisory Committee Agenda April 7, 2022
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
teleconference meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special
assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 24 hours in advance of
the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a
disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be
made available in the appropriate alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will
be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff
concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These
written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet
archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City
that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will
be made publicly available on the City website.
Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the
notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment.
Page 4
CEP 04-07-2022
4 of 83
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-10715 Agenda Date: 4/7/2022
Agenda #: 1.
Subject: Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Community Engagement Plan - Strategic Advisory Committee
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/5/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CEP 04-07-2022
5 of 83
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-10714 Agenda Date: 4/7/2022
Agenda #: 2.
Subject: Report from staff and EMC Planning Group regarding the proposed community
engagement and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) plans for the Housing Element
update process.
Receive report and provide guidance on plans for community engagement and an engagement plan
for ensuring compliance with State Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/5/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CEP 04-07-2022
6 of 83
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN-STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 7, 2022
Subject
Report from staff and EMC Planning Group regarding the proposed community
engagement and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) plans for the Housing
Element update process.
Recommended Action
Receive report and provide guidance on plans for community engagement and an
engagement plan for ensuring compliance with State Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) requirements.
Discussion
Background
On March 1, 2022, EMC Planning Group (EMC) provided a status update to the City
Council on the overall progress of the Housing Element update and the Stakeholders
Group selection process. The Council continued the Housing Element update and
Stakeholders Group discussions to its March 8 special meeting where the Council moved
to form the ad hoc Community Engagement Plan-Strategic Advisory Committee
(Advisory Committee), consisting of two Councilmembers, the Planning Commission
Chair and Housing Commission Chair, with the purpose of the Advisory Committee
being: 1) to provide guidance to staff on the creation of a Community Engagement Plan
and, 2) the creation of an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Engagement
Plan, which would include West Valley Community Services (WVCS) bi-weekly
meetings and focus group meetings to include the protected groups identified in the
Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department guidance on AFFH.
Additionally, the Council’s motion creating the Advisory Committee stated that
applicants for the proposed Stakeholder Group would have the opportunity to provide
input on the AFFH Engagement Plan.
CEP 04-07-2022
7 of 83
2
Analysis
The Advisory Committee held its first meeting on March 30, 2022. At the March 30
meeting, EMC and its team of sub-consultants made a presentation focusing on the
purpose and requirements of AFFH and approaches on how to engage the community in
an inclusive and equitable manner. EMC also solicited input from the Advisory
Committee regarding which local special needs populations and other groups should be
the focus of City outreach efforts. The Advisory Committee identified several special
needs populations and other groups, including:
seniors, including seniors with limited mobility;
individuals with autism (through the Center for Autism and Related Disorders);
individuals with developmental disabilities;
persons of all income levels, including moderate-income residents who cannot
afford market-rate housing in the Cupertino area;
employees of major local employers who reside outside the area;
public service employees who reside outside the area;
school employees and district representatives to determine school enrollment trends
One of the goals of this second Advisory Committee meeting is to focus on the best means
available to reach out to these groups, and others, as part of the Housing Element update
community engagement plan. As background to the outreach that has been done to date,
Attachment A, the Stakeholder Outreach Contact List, provides the names of individuals
and organizations that were emailed on January 20, 2022 by the City to encourage their
participation on the Stakeholders Group. The Stakeholder Outreach Contact List is
comprised primarily of:
the SiliconValley@Home (Countywide affordable housing advocacy group)
developer list;
the City’s Annual CDBG Below Market Rate Notice of Funds Available RFP
outreach list;
CDBG Consolidated Plan stakeholders (Agencies listed in Plan);
housing service providers contacts on the City’s Housing & Human Services
Grantees list;
small business grantees from the City’s CDBG-CV Small Business program;
churches and faith-based organizations.
In addition to this targeted effort to encourage Stakeholder Group participation, staff has
held general and topic-specific meetings and study sessions on the Housing Element
update process with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council.
CEP 04-07-2022
8 of 83
3
Staff has used a variety of methods to reach out to and inform the public about the
Housing Element update, including:
The week of January 10-14, 2022: mailing postcards to all Cupertino households to
inform residents about the Housing Element update and introducing them to the
engagecupertino.org website and the range of information located there.
January 19: sending letters of interest to over 400 property owners whose properties
could potentially be viable housing sites for the 6th Cycle update to gauge interest.
Since December 2021, providing regular monthly updates on the City’s “Items of
Interest” and “The Scene” newsletters.
Using social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor to inform
residents about upcoming Housing Element update meetings.
Attending the January 24, 2022 Senior Advisory Committee and the March 9, 2022
Block Leaders meetings to provide an overview of the Housing Element update
process and to inform meeting attendees about sources of information regarding the
update.
Also, included with this staff report are several attachments provided by EMC that relate
to AFFH requirements and analyses, these are: AFFH Segregation Guide (Attachment B),
Our Stories (Attachment C), San Mateo Fair Housing Assessment (Attachment D). EMC
has also provided a summary of meeting notes from their meetings with WVCS
(Attachment E), which were referenced at the March 30 Advisory Committ ee meeting.
Next Steps
When the Housing Element update was getting underway in late-2021, much of the
outreach and community engagement that was done was limited to virtual formats,
emails and letters, and the use of websites, due to Covid-19 restrictions. All these will
remain key outreach components, however, with the loosening of Covid-19 restrictions
there is now the opportunity to augment community engagement directly through face-
to-face meetings and attendance at in-person events. Given this, staff would like to
request that the Advisory Committee provide direction on the methods and media by
which future outreach efforts take place. For instance:
Should focus groups play a bigger role in community engagement in order to
encourage increased feedback? If so, are there specific organizations or
stakeholders that should be targeted for inclusion in the focus groups?
Should these focus groups be held in-person or be a hybrid of in-person and
virtual settings?
Are there specific ideas about how to better use the Housing Element website
(engagecupertino.org) to inform the public and encourage more participation?
Staff, in conjunction with EMC, looks forward to the Advisory Committee’s further
suggestions on how to most effectively engage the Cupertino community, its special
CEP 04-07-2022
9 of 83
4
needs populations, and to ensure that the City complies with State-mandated AFFH
requirements. It is expected that the Strategic Advisory Committee will meet again in
mid-April.
Prepared by: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney
Approved by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Attachment A – Stakeholder Outreach List
Attachment B – AFFH Segregation Guide
Attachment C – Our Stories
Attachment D – San Mateo Fair Housing Assessment
Attachment E – EMC-WVCS Meeting Notes
CEP 04-07-2022
10 of 83
Agency Name of Contact PositionEmailType of AgencyRise HousingMatt Warner Presidentmatt@risehousing.comRenterRenterRise HousingMatt Warner Presidentmatt@risehousing.comProperty OwnerProperty OwnerApple People Supportpeoplesupport@apple.comMajor EmployerSilicon Valley Small Business Development CenterAllie Lopez Program Directorallie@sbdchc.orgSmall Business OwnerCupertino Small Business Program GranteesSee CV Small Biz Grantee TabSmall Business OwnerCupertino Chamber of CommerceGeneralinfo@cupertino‐chamber.orgSmall Business OwnerSmall Business OwnerRise HousingMatt Warner Presidentmatt@risehousing.comLandlordLandlordCupertino Union School District ‐ Student ServicesKari ItoDirector of Support Servicesito_kari@cusdk8.orgSchool EmployeeCupertino Union School District ‐ Human ResourcesMike Ghelber Director of Human Resourcesghelber mike@cusdk8.orgSchool EmployeeFremont Union High School DistrictPolly Bove Superintendent of Schoolspolly bove@fuhsd.orgSchool EmployeeFremont Union High School DistrictRachel Zlotziver Coordinator of CommunicationsRachel zlotziver@fuhsd.orgSchool EmployeeFremont Union High School DistrictChristine Mallery Chief Business Officer/Associate Superintendentchristine_mallery@fuhsd.orgSchool EmployeeCupertino Chamber of CommerceGeneralinfo@cupertino‐chamber.orgService Industry EmployeeCupertino Chamber of CommerceAnjali KausChief Executive Officeranjali@cupertino‐chamber.orgCEOCupertino Chamber of CommerceRick Kitson Director of Communicationsrick@cupertino‐chamber.orgEmployeeRecent residentRotating Safe Car Park ProgramNorman Puck LeadFaith‐based organization LeaderLawson PTACommunicationsadmin@samlawsonpta.orgParent group LeaderKennedy PTAGeneralgeneral@samlawsonpta.orgParent group LeaderKennedy PTACommunicationscommunications@kennedymspta.orgParent group LeaderKennedy PTAPresidentpresident@kennedymspta.orgParent group LeaderStevens Creek Elementary PTAGeneralstevenscreekpta@gmail.comParent group LeaderEaton PTAGeneral eatonptocusd@gmail.comParent group LeaderFaria Magnet PrincipalAlarid‐Enright Mary@cusdk8.orgParent group LeaderFaria Magnet Educational Enrichment FundGeneralfaria.feef@gmail.comParent group LeaderSedwick PTAGeneralsedgwickpta95014@gmail.comParent group LeaderLincoln Elementary PTAGeneralLincolnPTAConnect@gmail.comParent group LeaderGarden Gate PTAGeneral Presidentptapresidentatgg@gmail.comParent group LeaderCollins Elementary PTAGeneralcontact@lpcollinspta.orgParent group LeaderCupertino‐Fremont‐Sunnyvale Council of PTAsDawn Ying Presidentdawnbying@gmail.comParent group LeaderParent group LeaderLive Oak, SALA, Catholic Charities‐‐See Housing Service Provider Tab Older AdultOlder AdultCompleteSee Housing Service Provider Tab Lived experience of being unhousedSee Non Profit Housing Developer Tab Non‐profit housing developerDeAnza ‐ Student ServicesRob Miesomiesorob@fhda.eduDe Anza Community College studentDeAnza ‐ Student ServicesErika Floresfloreserika@fhda.eduDe Anza Community College studentDe Anza Community College studentWVCS Kylie Clark Policy Coordinatorkyliec@wvcommunityservices.orgAdvocacy Group LeaderAdvocacy Group LeaderChurch groups?OtherUnion Church (SCB/Stelling)admin@unionchurch.orgAbundant Life Assembly of God (N. Stelling)alagoffice@alagonline.comValley Church of Santa Clara County (N. Stelling)info@valleychurch.orgChinese Church in Christ (Bandley)cciccu.connect@gmail.comSt. Josephs (SCB and De Anza)sjcparish@stjoscup.orgBethel Lutheran (Finch)No email foundLutheran Church of our Savior (Newsom/Bollinger)PastorJBestul@lcos.orgWest Valley Presbyterian (Bollinger/Miller)No email foundFirst Baptist Church of Cupertino (Miller/Creekside)No email foundStewards of the Church (Bollinger ‐ west of Blaney)No email foundPeninsula Bible Church (Blaney ‐ near 280)Robert Pershe Adminstratorbob@pbcc.orgChurch of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Bollinger ‐ west of Blaney)No email foundWest Diosese of the Armenian Church of North Am (S. Stelling/Robindell)standrewarmenianchurch@gmail.comHillview Bible Chapel (S. Stelling/Robindell)info@hillviewbiblechapel.orgChristian Light and Salt Foundation (S. Stelling/Jollyman)No email foundNew Life Church (McClellan/Stelling)hello@nlnc.orgSt. Judes (McClellan/Stelling)office@saintjudes.orgJehovah's Witness of Cupertino (McClellan/85)No email foundHome of Christ Church in Cupertino (Bubb)english@hoc5.orgInternational Baptist Church of Cupertino (SCB/Palo Vista)No email foundMarianist Province (Alcalde)No email foundGood Samaritan United Methodist Church (Homestead/Linnet)info@goodsam.infoCEP 04-07-2022 11 of 83
CEP 04-07-2022
12 of 83
CEP 04-07-2022
13 of 83
Non‐Profit Housing Developers (Gatherered from NOFA Outreach List: F:\Community Development Block Grant\1.
hbenson@abodecommunities.org;
LRegus@abodecommunities.org;
rhughes@abodecommunities.org;
jwhite@abodeservices.org;
lchicoine@abodeservices.org;
vwan@abodeservices.org;
jeff@affirmedhousing.com;
jim@affirmedhousing.com;
dstump@cchnc.org;
dferrier@chiphousing.org;
gtorres@chispahousing.org;
mleon@chochousing.org;
msilva@chochousing.org;
scallaway@chp‐sf.org;
mary.murtagh@eahhousing.org;
staff@ebho.org;
osgood@edenhousing.org;
lmandolini@edenhousing.org;
geoffreym@firsthousing.org;
tomi@firsthousing.org;
jrendler@ftfhousing.com;
jjensen@habitatebsv.org;
cwagner@homefirstscc.org;
Flaherty.Ward@hacsc.org;
kcomfort@hiphousing.org;
rebecca@linchousing.org;
bgualco@mercyhousing.org;
dshoemaker@mercyhousing.org;
jhoffman@mercyhousing.org;
amunoz@midpen‐housing.org;
pvillareal@midpen‐housing.org;
DBerg@NCPHS.org;
grants@epath.org;
marys@pephousing.org;
info@progressfoundation.org;
dsawislak@rcdhousing.org;
estewart@sahahomes.org;
sfriedland@sahahomes.org;
tomc@selfhelpenterprises.org;
wmleone@gmail.com;
mskelton@usapropfund.com;
sgall@usapropfund.com;
dnahas@velocepartners.com;
CEP 04-07-2022
14 of 83
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing:
Integration & Segregation Patterns
RHNA Cycle 6
March 2022
Developed by
For the Alameda County Housing Collaborative
CEP 04-07-2022
15 of 83
Agenda
1.) AFFH Requirements and Resources
2.) Notes on Interpreting Segregation Data
3.) Segregation Measurements in ABAG Reports
•Dissimilarity Index
•Examples
•Isolation Index
•Examples
•Theil’s-H Index
Source: UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute, March 24.
CEP 04-07-2022
16 of 83
AFFH Requirement & Resources
GC 65583(c)(10)(ii)An analysis of available federal,
state, and local data and knowledge to identify
integration and segregation patterns and trends,
racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity,
and disproportionate housing needs, including
displacement risk… The analysis shall identify …
patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and
needs…within the jurisdiction and comparing the
jurisdiction to the region…based on race and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act
Source: UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute, March 24.
•HCD AFFH Guidance
•ABAG AFFH Data Viewer
•ABAG Segregation Data Report
•Othering and Belonging Institute Racial
Segregation Research
•Racial segregation in the Bay Area
•US Census Bureau
CEP 04-07-2022
17 of 83
Notes For Interpreting Segregation Data
•There are many measurements used to evaluate aspects of segregation (i.e., econometrics)
•Each measurement evaluates individual aspects of segregation
•One measurement does not provide a full/complete picture of segregation/integration
•Segregation data is relative/relational to the overall demography of the region examined
•Data should be supplemented with other data and knowledge (See Resources Slide)
•Racial Residential Segregation: the separation of people and their place of residence, based on race (good
indicator of access to resources & opportunities -therefore inequality)
•Based off historical and present “de jure” (by law-government) forces and “de facto” forces (private market and
individual discrimination)
Source: UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute, Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, March 27.
CEP 04-07-2022
18 of 83
Notes For Interpreting Segregation Data (Cont.)
•Segregation data focus on analysis of the spatial and geographic
distribution of population based on race (ex. racial dot maps, indices
tables and graphs, etc.)
•Spatially, segregation can exist at one scale and not at another. (See next Slide)
•Concentrations (or lack thereof) of certain racial groups across geographic areas
•Disproportionate representation of a racial group in a smaller areas compared to an
overall, larger area (ex. neighborhood vs. city, city vs. region, city vs. region)
•According to UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging, mostly older, more
established Bay Area communities will exhibit the typical “intra city”
segregation/red-lining patterns at the neighborhood level (Oakland,
SF, Berkeley, San Jose, Richmond)
•Most other Bay Area communities experience inter -city segregation
trends, across municipal boundaries and on a more regional scale.
Source: UC Berkeley Othering & Belonging Institute, Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, March 27.
CEP 04-07-2022
19 of 83
Notes For Interpreting Segregation Data: Scale
Concentrations of dot colors can be
evident of higher segregation trends
An even, distribution of dot colors
generally reflects lower segregation
measures
Local / Intra-City: Between
neighborhoods within a city
Regional / Inter-City: Between
cities within the Bay Area Bay Area Wide
Different trends are
apparent at different scales
CEP 04-07-2022
20 of 83
Data within ABAG AFFH Segregation Reports
Analysis Based on 3 Indices:
1. Dissimilarity Indices
2. Isolation Indices
3. Theil’s-H Index
Source: US Census Bureau Housing Patterns: Appendix B: Measures of Residential Segregation
CEP 04-07-2022
21 of 83
1.) Dissimilarity Index
Dissimilarity Index: Evenness Measurement that measures how evenly two groups are distributed across
neighborhoods relative to their representation in the overall jurisdiction
Measures the percentage of either racial group that would have to move to a
neighborhood of opposing racial prominence to create a distribution that matches
that of the entire jurisdiction.
Source: HUD Assessment of Fair Housing Tool for Local Governments, 2017: Measures of Residential Segregation
Index ranges from 0.0 to 1.0:
0.0: No Segregation
0.0 to 0.39:Low Segregation
0.40 to 0.54: Moderate Segregation
0.55 to 1.0: High Segregation
1.0: Complete Segregation
Image: Twitter @louise_seamster, Associate Professor University of Iowa. 2019.
Example: A City is 50% White and 50% Black:
Index: 0.0 Index: 1.0
Not recommended
for groups that make
up less than 5% of
jurisdiction’s pop.
CEP 04-07-2022
22 of 83
1.) Dissimilarity Index
•Dissimilarity Index is limited in what it depicts:
•A 0.0 Means the racial demographics of an area are
proportionate to the overall jurisdiction’s (See right)
•A 0.0 Does not mean a community is “perfectly
integrated”, rather
•See right
•Ex. Dissimilarity is less accurate when
measuring groups that make up less than 5% of
•Perfect Integration is complex, multi-variable
phenomena –See UC Berkely Technical
Appendix
•As the Index Decrease, the distribution of the 2 racial groups across neighborhoods more closely resembles
the demographics of the entire jurisdiction
Example: A City is 50% White and 50% Black:
Index: 0.0 Index: 0.0
Note: Index is unreliable for groups that make up less than 5% of a population
(inaccurately low indices due to pop. size)
Image: Twitter @louise_seamster, Associate Professor University of Iowa. 2019.
Not recommended
for groups that make
up less than 5% of
jurisdiction’s pop.
CEP 04-07-2022
23 of 83
Dissimilarity Index Examples: Berkeley
•Moderate Segregation: 41.8%of Black (or white)
residents would need to move to a different
neighborhood to create a distribution that
matches the overall city.
•Visually “dissimilar” distribution of black
and white residents (see right)
•Low Segregation:30.3% of Asian (or White)
residents would need to move to a different
neighborhood to create a distribution that
matches the overall city.
Berkeley’s 2019
Population:
White:53.3%
Asian/API:21.3%
Latinx: 11.4%
Black: 7.7%
Other: 6.1%
Intra-City
CEP 04-07-2022
24 of 83
Dissimilarity Index Examples: Berkeley
Compared to Bay Area:
•Greater levels of dissimilarity in Berkeley neighborhoods, among all
racial groups.
•Greatest level of dissimilarity among black and white residents
•Visually apparent on dot maps (See Next Slide)
Bay Area’s 2020
Population:
White:35.84%
Asian/API: 27.69%
Latinx: 24.36%
Black: 5.60%
Other: 6.50%
Berkeley’s 2019
Population:
White:53.3%
Asian/API:21.3%
Latinx: 11.4%
Black: 7.7%
Other: 6.1%
Inter-City
CEP 04-07-2022
25 of 83
Dissimilarity Index Examples: Berkeley
Inter-City
Between Cities (Surrounding Areas and
Regional)
Intra-City
Within the City
CEP 04-07-2022
26 of 83
Dissimilarity Index Examples: Hayward
•Low Segregation:
•17% of Black (or white) residents would need to move
to a neighborhood of opposite racial predominance to
create perfect integration between Latinx & white
residents.
•27.1% of Latinx(or white) residents would need to
move to a neighborhood of opposite racial
predominance to create perfect integration between
Latinx & white residents.
•More even distribution of dots (racial groups)
Hayward’s 2019
Population:
White: 16.2%
Asian/API: 29.2%
Latinx: 40.3%
Black: 9.2%
Other: 4.7%
Intra-City
CEP 04-07-2022
27 of 83
Dissimilarity Index Examples: Hayward
Hayward’s 2019
Population:
White: 16.2%
Asian/API:29.2%
Latinx: 40.3%
Black: 9.2%
Other: 4.7%
Bay Area’s 2020
Population:
White:35.84%
Asian/API: 27.69%
Latinx:24.36%
Black: 5.60%
Other: 6.50%
•Dissimilarity indices among groups in Hayward are relatively
similar to the Bay Area average
•No index for any combination of racial groups is greatly higher or
lower than the Bay Area average
•Dissimilarity for black and white residents is lower in Hayward than
the Bay Area Average
Inter-City
CEP 04-07-2022
28 of 83
Dissimilarity Index Examples: Hayward
Inter-City
Between Cities (Surrounding Areas and
Regional)
Intra-City
Within the City
CEP 04-07-2022
29 of 83
2.) Isolation Index
Isolation Index: Exposure measurement that measures the degree of potential contact, or possibility of
interaction (exposure) between minority and majority group members.
A measure of degree to which groups share common residential areas, and the average
“experience” of a group member’s exposure to other groups
•Useful measurement but additional context
provides more accurate picture:
•Lower values do not necessarily mean a group
is not isolated
•Group just comprises small portion of
population
•Helps to compare against population
demographics
•Measurement ranges from 0.0 to 1.0
•Higher values indicate that a particular group is
more isolated (less exposure to other groups)
•Examples:
Jurisdiction with a Latinx population that has a
racial isolation index of 0.65
The average Latinx person in that jurisdiction lives
in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx
CEP 04-07-2022
30 of 83
Isolation Index Examples: Emeryville
Emeryville’s 2020
Population:
White: 40.3%
Asian/API: 29.0%
Latinx: 9.6 %
Black: 14.7%
Other: 6.3%
•Data Interpretations Visualized (2020):
•White and Asian persons have highest levels of
“isolation”
•Average white resident lives in neighborhood
that is 37% white
•Average Asian resident lives in neighborhood
that is 33% white
•Compared to demographics of city, no irregular
concentrations compared to whole city
CEP 04-07-2022
31 of 83
Isolation Index Examples: Emeryville / Bay Area Average
Emeryville’s 2020
Population:
White:40.3%
Asian/API: 29.0%
Latinx: 9.6 %
Black: 14.7%
Other: 6.3%
Data Interpretations Visualized (2020):
•Emeryville appears to have higher isolation index
for Black Residents than the Bay Area Average
Average Black Resident of Emeryville lives in
neighborhood that is 17.4% Black vs. 5.3% Bay
Area Average
Bay Area’s 2020
Population:
White:35.84%
Asian/API: 27.69%
Latinx: 24.36%
Black: 5.60%
Other: 6.50%
Emeryville also has a larger % of
Black population than the overall
Bay Area (14.7% vs. 5.6%)
Logically, Black residents should
see more other Black residents in
their neighborhood
CEP 04-07-2022
32 of 83
3.) Theil’s-H Index
Theil’s H Index: Evenness Measurement that measures how evenly all racial groups are
distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in the overall
jurisdiction
Closest/clearest summary of overall segregation for jurisdictions with multiple
racial groups comprising at least 10% of pop.
•Helpful to understand neighborhood-
level segregation within a jurisdiction
•Not an HCD-required measure
Source:Iceland, John. The Multigroup Entropy Index (Also Known as Theil’s H or the Information Theory Index. 2004
Dartmouth College. Measures of Segregation and Isolation. 2005
0:All neighborhoods have same demographic as overall city
(More Uniform Distribution of Racial Groups)
1.0:All racial groups live exclusively in separate neighborhoods
(Less uniform/even distribution of racial groups)
CEP 04-07-2022
33 of 83
How can you use this information?
•Examples of AFFH write ups:
•Carlsbad
•Culver City
•Long Beach (Appendix B)
•Los Angeles County (Appendix E)
•Rancho Cucamonga (Appendix D)
•Sacramento (Appendix A)
•San Diego
•San Juan Capistrano
•Victorville (Appendix B)
•West Sacramento
•Yorba Linda (Appendix B)•Next Steps
•Create place-based strategies in your programs –name specific
neighborhoods or geographies
•Connect policies and programs to racial desegregation and
racialized housing disparity (e.g., practice targeted advertising)
CEP 04-07-2022
34 of 83
Need more help?
EMAIL
HOUSINGTA@UP-PARTNERS.COM
SIGN UP FOR OFFICE HOURS AT
WWW.ACCOLLAB.COM
CEP 04-07-2022
35 of 83
Our stories
HOUSING IN SAN MATEO
COUNTY
“We need more affordable housing
because the rent is too expensive
and what one makes isn’t enough to
cover the high cost of rent. It would
be great to get a living situation that
is cheaper. Been here 15 years, I have
three kids and my wife. “
-Caleb*, small family
(translated from Spanish)
“We need to support and help those in our
community who need help, who are struggling
with affordable housing. Who don’t want to be
left behind or have to relocate because
everything has become too costly to live in the
community where they lived most of their life.”
-Dolores*, senior on fixed income
* Names have been changed and content has been edited for length
It is more important than ever to include as many voices
as possible in the Housing Element, which is why we
asked community members across the county to share
their housing experiences. We heard from a diversity
of residents, including small families, seniors on fixed
incomes, educators, people living with disabilities, and
single parents. We thank them for sharing.
CEP 04-07-2022
36 of 83
“I am hoping that my situation will bring
awareness to the housing emergency of
the working class that is being ignored.
Invest in the preservation of positive
members of this community that are
slowly falling behind in our ability to keep
up with the cost of living. Most residents
like myself, are both 6 months financially
away from being displaced, or 6 months
away from being stable and able to build
on a bit of attention to our struggle.”
- Tracy*, educator
“Been in San Mateo for, let’s see, 20 years,
and affordable housing here is no joke
because even a studio rents for almost
$1,900 if you want something in a place
where it’s a good community and your kids
are better off. I’m a single parent and it
gets pretty hard because two-thirds of
my income just goes [to] paying rent and
bills and then what’s leftover, you can’t
sometimes even provide for your kid.”
- Maya*, single parent
“It’s been a long term goal to live on my own, and I recently
got my housing voucher, so it came true. The places that are for
the tech companies, are not open towards people with housing
vouchers or with disabilities. And I think it’s important that
people are willing to help people with disabilities.“
-Ashley* , member of the disability community
*Names have been changed and content has been edited for length
CEP 04-07-2022
37 of 83
City of San Mateo Fair Housing Assessment
What is AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the
state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies
receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also
required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair
housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take
“meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.
AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing
and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no
action inconsistent with this obligation”1
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as
part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and
capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and
current fair housing practices.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to
combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive
communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful
actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to
opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living
patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and
programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd.
(a)(1).)”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.
CEP 04-07-2022
38 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 2
History of segregation in the region. The United
States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating
segregated living patterns—and Northern California
cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair
Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in
the Bay Area to historically discriminatory practices—
highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage
approvals—as well as “structural inequities” in society,
and “self segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near
similar people).
Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color
of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government
Segregated America chronicles how the public sector
contributed to the segregation that exists today.
Rothstein highlights several significant developments
in the Bay Area region that played a large role in
where the region’s non-White residents settled.
Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to
racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than
in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or
intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions
of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low income neighborhoods, where the
majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.
According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African
Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and
entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War
II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African
Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s
African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing
segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and
urban renewal developments.
The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting)
or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. In the City of San Mateo,
builders of the Hillsdale neighborhood in the mid-1900s recorded deeds that specified that only
“members of the Caucasian or White race shall be permitted” to occupy sold homes—the
exception being “domestics in the employ[ment] on the premises.”2 This developer went on to
develop many race-restricted neighborhoods in the Bay Area, became president of the National
2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm -residential-segregation.html
This history of segregation in
the region is important not
only to understand how
residential settlement
patterns came about—but,
more importantly, to explain
differences in housing
opportunity among residents
today. In sum, not all
residents had the ability to
build housing wealth or
achieve economic
opportunity. This historically
unequal playing field in part
determines why residents
have different housing needs
today.
CEP 04-07-2022
39 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 3
Association of Home Builders (NAHB), became national president of the Urban Land Institute
(ULI), and was inducted into California’s Homebuilding Foundation Hall of Fame.
The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954,
after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-
president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare
White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and
speculators. These agents then sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American
buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—
initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA
prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East
Palo Alto.
Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart
integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most
did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new
buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that
their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot
sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged
prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.
In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns
throughout the Bay Area, it’s also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization
and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being
felt today. The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush
Ohlone, who have “…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue
to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”3 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and
practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government
over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of
their population as well as their land.”4 The lasting influence of these policies and practices
have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively
experienced by Native populations today.5
The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning
and land use appears on the following page. As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning
practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory,
and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes
protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber
3 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html
4 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html
5 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
CEP 04-07-2022
40 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 4
Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial
uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the
potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time,
multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.
The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning
ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over
low income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented
choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable
rental units are available.
CEP 04-07-2022
41 of 83
Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing
CEP 04-07-2022
42 of 83
Maps and data referenced in this section. Throughout this section, there are references to
maps created by HCD to support the AFFH and data tables created by HCD, the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the consultant team. Those maps and tables appear in an
Appendix and follow the organization of this section and the state guidance. The maps, in
particular, are useful in demonstrating how the City of San Mateo compares with surrounding
jurisdictions and the county overall in offering housing choices and access to opportunity.
Report content and organization. This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021
State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21
Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo
County jurisdictions.
Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary
factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to
improve access to housing and economic opportunity.
Section I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement
actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and
regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.
Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of
segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation
Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation,
economic development, and healthy environments.
Section IV. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing
needs including displacement risk.
Appendices.
[Available February 2022] Resident survey results—findings from a survey of San Mateo
County residents on their experience finding and remaining in housing
Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities—findings from a countywide analysis of
access to education and educational outcomes by protected class.
[Available February 2022] State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations—summary of key
state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding
housing choice
[Available February 2022] Fair Housing Organizations in San Mateo County—mission,
services, and contact information
Primary Findings
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for the City of
San Mateo including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity,
CEP 04-07-2022
43 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 7
integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing
factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.
16% of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 (57
total) were in the City of San Mateo (9 total), even though the city accounts for 14%
of the county’s population. The most common issues cited in the city were refusal to rent
and discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to rental. Most complaints were
on the basis of disability status (6 complaints) and race (3 complaints) in the city.
Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low
household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic
White population in the City of San Mateo. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are
more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage
loan.
Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty
(Figure II-5) and lower household incomes (Figure II-4) compared to the non-
Hispanic White population in the City of San Mateo.
Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households
to experience overcrowding (Figure IV-17). Low and moderate income
households are also more likely to be overcrowded (Figure IV-18).
People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black, White, and
Hispanic are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their
share of the general population (Figure IV-22).
Hispanic, Asian, and Black residents are more likely to live in moderate resource
areas compared to high resource areas (Figure III-12). It is important to note
there are no designated low resource areas in the City of San Mateo.
Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native households have the highest
denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Figure IV-33).
Geospatially, the northeast area of the city is disproportionately impacted by high
poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores,
high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households,
overcrowding, and moderate resource scores. These areas are generally on either side of
Highway 101 and stretch to the San Francisco Bay waterfront, encompassing the North
Central and Shoreview neighborhoods. These areas have:
Higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% (Figure II-28).
Education opportunity scores between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they have lower
education scores compared to the rest of the city (Figure III-1).
Low economic opportunity scores between zero and 0.5 (Figure III-7).
CEP 04-07-2022
44 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 8
Low environmental scores—which account for PM2.5, diesel PM, drinking water,
pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous
waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites (Figure III-9). The northeast
area of the City of San Mateo has particularly poor environmental outcomes for
traffic, impaired water, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, and asthma.
The composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows census tracts
in the northeast area of the city fall within moderate resource areas while the
rest of the city is within high or highest resource areas (Figure III-14).
The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a
disaster and includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household
composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The northeast
area of the city is most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
Concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened households (Figure
IV-13).
Overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened
households (Figure IV-19).
These areas are also within Special Flood Hazard Areas (Figure IV-31) and are
vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).
The City of San Mateo has a slight concentration of residents with a disability with 9%
of the population compared to 8% in the county (Figure III-17). Residents living with a
disability in the city are more likely to be unemployed and are largely concentrated in areas
around Highway 101. Finally, the aging population is putting a strain on paratransit access
countywide.
Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a
disability at 12% compared to 3% for residents without a disability in the
City of San Mateo—particularly when compared to the county (Figure III-20).
Racial and ethnic minority students in the City of San Mateo—served by the San Mateo
Union High School District and the San Mateo-Foster Elementary School District—
experience lower educational outcomes compared to other students. Many high
schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or
California State University (CSU) school. However, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black
students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission
standards. Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low drop out rates—4%
of students—compared to other districts in the county, drop out rates among Hispanic
(7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher (Disparate Access to
Educational Opportunities Appendix).
CEP 04-07-2022
45 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 9
Nearly half of all renter households in the City of San Mateo are cost burdened—
spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and one in four are
extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing
costs (Figure IV-9). There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San
Mateo by race and ethnicity and family size (Figure IV-11 and Figure IV-12).
15% of respondents to the resident survey conducted for this AFFH said that schools in
their neighborhood were of poor quality.
Resident needs collected through local survey. A survey administered to capture
residents’ needs and support the AFFH found the following housing challenges. Nearly 150
residents completed the survey:
About 26% of residents said their house or apartment is too small for their family;
36% for racial and/or ethnic minority households;
42% for single parent households
14% of renters said they worry that if they request a repair they will experience rent
increase or get evicted;
16% for racial and/or ethnic minority households
21% for single parent households
27% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for
housing in San Mateo County ;
31% for racial and/or ethnic minority respondents;
43% for residents with a disability;
10% (14% for single parent households) of renters are often late on rent and 14% (20% for
residents with a disability) can’t keep up with utilities.
Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan. The disparities in housing choice
and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors
that limit employment and income growth, the inability of the broader region to respond to
housing demand, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited
resources to respond to needs. Specifically,
Fair housing issue: Hispanic households have disproportionate housing needs. These needs are
evident in mortgage denial gaps, geographic distribution of affordable housing, cost burden, and
overcrowding.
Contributing factors:
Higher rates of mortgage denial rates among Hispanic households stems from
decades of discrimination in housing markets and challenges building wealth
through economic mobility and homeownership.
CEP 04-07-2022
46 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 10
Although voucher holders and affordable housing (as captured in the HCD
Location Affordability Index) are not as highly concentrated in the City of San
Mateo as in many surrounding jurisdictions, the northern portion of the city offers
the most affordable homes. As such, residents living in these areas have lower
incomes and higher rates of poverty. Preference may be at play as well: A
recent article in Cityscape found that Hispanic homebuyers—when controlled for
demographics, loan characteristics, and finances—are more likely to purchase
homes in neighborhoods with fewer non-Hispanic White homeowners and lower
economic opportunity.6
Hispanic residents are more likely than others to work low wage jobs that do not
support the city’s or region’s housing prices, resulting in higher rates of cost
burden and overcrowding. Although, it is customary for Hispanic households to
live in multigenerational settings, which may account for higher rates of
perceived overcrowding, overcrowding is also an indicator of lack of access to
affordable and right-sized housing.
Hispanic residents are primarily concentrated in the northeastern area of the city
where residents face higher poverty and cost burden as well as poor opportunity
outcomes according to TCAC’s opportunity maps.
Fair housing issue: Hispanic residents and single female parent households are concentrated in
census tracts with higher poverty, low economic and environmental opportunity, high cost
burden, overcrowding, and flood hazards compared to the rest of the City of San Mateo.
Contributing factors:
Concentration of naturally occurring affordable ownership and rental housing
opportunities in the northeast areas of the city further concentrates poverty, cost
burden, and overcrowding in areas with low economic and environmental
outcomes.
There is a relative lack of affordable housing opportunities in higher resourced
areas of the city.
Highway 101 creates a major barrier between the Shoreview neighborhood—
where the geographic concentrations of these groups exist—and the rest of the
City of San Mateo.
Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities have higher housing needs due to challenges
accessing employment and housing discrimination and are concentrated in areas with lower
environmental and economic opportunity scores.
Contributing factors:
The unemployment rate for the City of San Mateo’s residents with a disability is
four times that of persons without a disability. The exact reasons for this
6 Sanchez-Moyano, R. (2021). Achieving spatial equity through suburban homeownership? Neighborhood attributes of
Hispanic homebuyers. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. Volume 23(3).
CEP 04-07-2022
47 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 11
disparity are unclear and are likely related to limited job opportunities, access to
employment, and market discrimination.
The undersupply of accessible housing units, particularly for renters, creates a
scarcity of units for residents living with a disability.
There were six complaints—out of the nine total complaints in the city—filed with
HUD in the City of San Mateo from 2017 to 2020 where the issues cited
included a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Landlords and property
owners are required to provide reasonable accommodations to residents living
with a disability upon request.
There are concentrations of the population living with a disability west of
Highway 101 in the North Central neighborhood. This area of the city has a
concentration of low and moderate income households (more than 50% per
census tract) and scores low on TCAC’s environmental and economic
opportunity scores.
Fair housing issue: Persons with disabilities and persons of color are most likely to file
complaints of housing discrimination due to discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or
services and facilities and failure to make reasonable accommodations.
Contributing factors:
Housing discrimination residents with disabilities and Hispanic households.
Lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation requirements by landlords
and property owners.
The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) below details how the City of San Mateo proposes to
respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.
CEP 04-07-2022
48 of 83
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and
Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and
enforcement, and outreach capacity.
Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the
protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—
race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law
offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic
information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including
federal housing assistance vouchers).
The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and
is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the
DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in
employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and
human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil
Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.7
DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly
significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not
included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD. DFEH’s website provides
detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and
other frequently asked questions.8 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for
investigation.
Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including
Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of
East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating
jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County
(Figure I-1).
From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Figure I-2)—16% of
complaints were in the City of San Mateo (9 complaints) (Figure I-3). Most complaints
submitted to HUD cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial
7 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
8 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/
CEP 04-07-2022
49 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 13
status (14%). In the City of San Mateo, the most common issues cited were refusal to rent and
discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges relating to rental.
Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful
conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily
submitted to HCD from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park (Figure
I-3, Figure I-4, and Figure I-5).
Of the 146 City of San Mateo respondents to the resident survey, 95 residents have looked for
housing seriously, of those, 23 (24%) indicated that a “Landlord did not return calls and/or
emails asking about a unit”, and 41 (46%) indicated they have been denied housing to rent or
buy in the past 5 years. The main reason for denial (40%) was “income too low.”
Similarly, of the 28 voucher holders responding to the survey, the majority (69%) indicated that
finding an affordable unit is somewhat or very difficult. Seven of them indicated this is due to
“Landlords have policies of not renting to voucher holders.”Fair housing complaints filed with
HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18
complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had
reached 6 by mid-2021.
Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the
number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints
nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial
status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in
the county.
NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking
regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want
to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.
Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of
harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by
private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government
agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased
funding for such organizations.9
9 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/
CEP 04-07-2022
50 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 14
Outreach and capacity. The City of San Mateo could improve the accessibility of fair housing
information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination.
The city’s website provides a link to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing—approved by
HUD in November 2017—and AFFH goals specific to the City of San Mateo.10 Housing
10 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3764/Fair-Housing-Assessment
Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021
Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021)
26
24
16
9
9
9
7
7
6
6
5
4
2
1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
9
6
8
5
2
3
5
0
5
4
4
2
0
1
HUD Fair Housing
Complaints
HCD Fair Housing
Inquiries
CEP 04-07-2022
51 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 15
resources are also available on the city’s website but there is not specific information or
resources for residents experiencing discrimination in housing or the Fair Housing Act.11
Compliance with state law. The City of San Mateo is compliant with the following state laws
that promote fair and affordable housing. The city has not been alleged or found in violation of
the following:
State Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Law (Gov. Code. Title 7. Division 1. Chapter
4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, amended and effective January 1, 2021)
Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing
Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
No Net Loss Law (Gov Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to
accommodate unmet RHNA allocations, including among income levels;
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov Code Section 65913.1);
Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov Code Section 65913.2);
Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov Code Section 65589.5).
Housing specific policies enacted locally. The City of San Mateo identified the following
local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development
in the city.
Local policies in place to encourage housing
development.
Mixed Use Zoning
Density Bonus Ordinances
Condominium Conversion Ordinance
Homeowner Rehabilitation program
General Fund Allocation Incl. former
RDA “Boomerang” Funds
Commercial Development Impact Fee
Locally Funded Homebuyer Assistance
Programs
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
Height limits on multifamily
developments
Voter initiatives that restrict multifamily
developments, rezoning for higher
density, height limits or similar
measures
Low floor area ratios (FAR) for
multifamily housing
Excessive parking requirements
Extensive time period/requirements to
develop multi-family properties
11 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/2506/Other-Resources
CEP 04-07-2022
52 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 16
Local policies that are NOT in place but would
provide the best outcomes in addressing housing
shortages.
Development and/or permit streamlining
Objective design standards
Local policies that are NOT in place, but have
potential Council interest for further
exploration.
Community land trusts
Acquisition of affordable units with
expiring subsidies
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low income households.
Condominium conversion regulations
Affordable housing impact/linkage fee
on new commercial development
Inclusionary zoning
Living wage employment ordinances
Promoting streamlined processing of
ADUs
Fair housing legal services
Acquisition of unsubsidized properties
with affordable rents
Dedicating surplus land for affordable
housing
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data
Viewer (HCD data viewer), the City of San Mateo does not have any public housing buildings
(Figure I-6). However, the city does have three census tracts with a moderate share of
households units housing vouchers (5% to 15%) and most other areas of the city have some
(5% or less) housing voucher utilization (Figure I-7).
Compared to nearby Millbrae, Burlingame, and Hillsborough, the City of San Mateo appears
accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the city has a greater share of
voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities (Figure I-7). The presence of
housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a lack of
exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city.
CEP 04-07-2022
53 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 17
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes
including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section
concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and
affluence.
Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of
persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a
disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.
Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of
a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a
type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic
area.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.
Race and ethnicity. Generally, the demographic characteristics of the City of San Mateo are
consistent with the overall characteristics of San Mateo County. The population distribution by
race and ethnicity is similar to the county with the largest proportion of the population being
non-Hispanic White (41%) followed by Asian (26%), Hispanic (25%), other or multiple races
(6%), and Black (2%) (Figure II-1).12
Since 2000, the share of the population that identifies as Asian, Hispanic, or some other race
has increased while the share of non-Hispanic White and Black or African American population
has decreased (Figure II-2). Older residents are less diverse with 67% of the population older
than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 46% of the population for children less than
18 years old (Figure II-3).
Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty and lower
household incomes compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the City of San
Mateo (Figure II-4 and Figure II-5).
12 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.
CEP 04-07-2022
54 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 18
Geospatially, the City of San Mateo has three White majority census tracts13 and several census
tracts that have a slim Hispanic majority (Figures II-6, II-7, II-8, II-9, and II-10).14
[PLACEHOLDER] Dissimilarity and isolation indices. . [ABAG DI and isolation indices
were not available at the time this report was prepared ]
The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The
DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed
across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would
have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the
county overall.
DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation.
Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between
40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally
indicate a high level of segregation.
The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident
shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values
of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.
Disability status. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 9% in
the City of San Mateo compared to 8% in San Mateo County (Figure II-13). There are a
handful of census tracts in the city that have a 10% to 20% share of the population living with a
disability (Figure II-14). Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate
the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this
population.
Familial Status. The City of San Mateo is home to more single-person households than the
county, with 28% of households compared to only 22% in the County (Figure II-16). Additionally,
there are fewer married-couple families and families with children in the city (Figure II-17
and Figure II-18).
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of
nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young
adults living alone or with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily
households indicate an increased need for one and two bedroom units.
The majority of married couple households and slim majority of residents living alone live in
owner occupied housing (Figure II-19). The number of housing units available by number of
13 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous.
14 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo
County.
CEP 04-07-2022
55 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 19
bedrooms and tenure is consistent with the familial status of the households that live in
the City of San Mateo (Figure II-16 and Figure II-20). Compared to the county, the City of San
Mateo has a smaller proportion of family households and greater proportion of single person
households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in
the city (Figure II-19 and Figure II-20). The distribution of households by family type are mapped
at the census tract level in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24.
Household income. The household income distribution by percent of area median income
(AMI) in the City of San Mateo is similar to the county (Figure II-25). There are several census
block groups in the city that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of
$87,100 for a family of four, but the majority of block groups have median incomes well above
that (Figure II-26 and Figure II-27). Poverty rates are highest in the City of San Mateo—
between 10% and 20%–in census tracts along the San Francisco Bay and Highway 101
(Figure II-28).
Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0%0%
Asian / API, NH 26%30%
Black or African American, NH 2%2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH)41%39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 6%4%
Hispanic or Latinx 25%24%
Disability Status
With a disability 9%8%
Without a disability 91%92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 9%10%
Male-headed Family Households 4%5%
Married-couple Family Households 51%55%
Other Non-Family Households 8%8%
Single-person Households 28%22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 13%13%
31%-50% of AMI 12%11%
51%-80% of AMI 16%16%
81%-100% of AMI 11%10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 49%49%
0%
26%
2%
41%
6%
25%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
9%
91%
8%
92%
9%
4%
51%
8%
28%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
13%
12%
16%
11%
49%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
CEP 04-07-2022
56 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 20
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence. Racially
Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation
spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent
predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs
as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of
Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to
acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high
opportunity and exclusion.15
It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and
ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part
of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant
to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be
challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas
of particular advantage and exclusion.
R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority)
or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR
A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority)
AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County,
whichever is lower.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.
For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as an R/ECAP was three times the
average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 19.1%. In 2010 there were three census
tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county. None of the R/ECAPs were
located in the City of San Mateo in 2010 (Figure II-29).
In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the
county. None were located in the City of San Mateo (Figure II-30).
15 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124
CEP 04-07-2022
57 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 21
[PLACEHOLDER] RCAAs. [ABAG data on RCAAs was not available at the time this report
was prepared ] HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
A census tract that has a percentage of total white population that is 1.25 times higher than
the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region, and a median
income that was 2 times higher than the COG AMI.
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including
access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.
Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to
critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of
life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to
‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic
development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other
opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe
neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.
Local knowledge: resident survey questions about access to opportunity. Residents were asked
about several resources that would improve their living situation in the survey conducted to
support this AFFH. When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing
security, top answers where:
Help me with a down payment/purchase (35%);
Help me with the housing search (26%); and
Help me get a loan to buy a house (24%).
When asked what type of help they need to improve their neighborhood, top answers where:
Better lighting (34%);
Improve street crossings (29%); and
Reduce crime (27%).
CEP 04-07-2022
58 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 22
When asked what type of help they need to improve their health, top answers where:
Make it easier to exercise (40%);
More healthy food (37%); and
Better/access to mental health care (23%).
When asked what type of help they need to improve their job situation, top answers where:
Increase wages (46%);
Find a job near my apartment/house (26%); and
Help paying for college (20%).
When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, top answers
where:
Stop bullying/crime/drug use at school (26%);
Make school more challenging (25%); and
Have more activities afterschool (24%).
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a
series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access
to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the
goal of improving outcomes for low income residents—particularly children.
The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource,
moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC
provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment,
transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one
and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
Education. TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high
school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational
opportunity map, most census tracts in the City of San Mateo score between 0.5 and 0.75—
opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the
more positive the outcomes (Figure III-1). However, there are a handful of census tracts along
Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay that score between 0.25 and 0.5—meaning they
have lower education scores compared to the rest of the city. This area also has higher
poverty rates, lower economic opportunity scores, and a greater share of minority households
compared to the rest of the city.
CEP 04-07-2022
59 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 23
According to the Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities Appendix, the City of San
Mateo is served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo-Foster
Elementary School District. San Mateo Union increased enrollment by 16% from 2010 to 2020
and the elementary district enrollment increased by 1% over the same time. However, both
districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.
San Mateo Union enrollment by race and ethnicity is similar to the countywide distribution.
However, there is a higher proportion of Asian students in San Mateo Union (23% compared to
17% countywide), a smaller proportion of Filipino students (5% compared to 8% countywide)
and Hispanic students (32% compared to 38% countywide).
The San Mateo-Foster Elementary District has the second highest share of homeless students,
with 2% of students experiencing homelessness. The district also has a high share of English
learners compared to the countywide proportion (26% compared to 20% countywide). Overall,
the elementary district is more diverse than the countywide average.
Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC)
or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County,
Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69%
followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students
in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards, with
rates of 29%, 46%, and 46% respectively.
Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low drop out rates—4% of students—
compared to other districts in the county, drop out rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%),
and Pacific Islander students are higher.
Employment. The top three industries by number of jobs in the City of San Mateo include
professional and managerial services, health and educational services, and arts and
recreation services (Figure III-2 and Figure III-3). The City of San Mateo has a lower job-to-
household ratio when compared to the county at 1.45 and 1.59 respectively—which means
there are fewer employment opportunities per household in the City of San Mateo (Figure III-4
and Figure III-5). The city also has a slightly lower unemployment rate of 5.2% compared to the
county at 5.9% (Figure III-6).
TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment,
employment, job proximity, and median home value. The western portions of the City of San
Mateo, adjacent to the City of Hillsborough and Belmont, score more than 0.75 for economic
opportunity, whereas tracts in the central city score between 0.5 and 0.75 (Figure III-7). Finally,
the lowest economic opportunity scores in the city are within tracts along the waterfront in
the northeast area of the City of San Mateo.
HUD’s job proximity index shows the City of San Mateo is in relatively close proximity to
jobs (Figure III-8). On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs the
majority of the city scores above 60.
CEP 04-07-2022
60 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 24
Transportation. [TCAC’s transportation opportunity score and maps were not available at the
time of this report] This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the
City of San Mateo and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to
transportation access in the city. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the
administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans
and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County,
including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.
In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area,
adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing
the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation
within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well
seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was
reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a
summary of comments relevant to the City of San Mateo and San Mateo County.
“San Mateo’s [Paratransit Coordinating Council] PCC and County Health System, as
well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common
themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations
throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked
cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate
motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility
providers, and transit fares were other common themes.
While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network
companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments
called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the
meantime.”16
Transit improvements recommended for the City of San Mateo include:
“More access to the College of San Mateo is needed. There is no direct service to Canada
College [from the College of San Mateo] and other local colleges from the Coastside.
Many sidewalks in the county are uneven and inaccessible to individuals using mobility
devices.
Some people with disabilities need personalized assistance (escort service) that is not
available.
Transfers into San Mateo County [from transit services outside of the county] continue to
be very difficult. SFMTA and SamTrans need a cost sharing agreement.”
16 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf
CEP 04-07-2022
61 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 25
A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and
community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate
Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication
between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation
system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco bay, served by MTC.”17
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or
good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is
my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall
disability accommodation.”
The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People
with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected
to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing
unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing
effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable
alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.18
MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18 month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare
discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the
federal poverty level.19
Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the
CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution
sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, , pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites,
groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.
Generally, all census tracts in the City of San Mateo score moderate to poorly on
environmental outcomes. Census tracts surrounding Highway 101 and 92 have the lowest
environmental scores in the city—primarily due to traffic on the highways, groundwater threats,
and impaired water bodies (Figure III-9 and Figure III-10). However, the city scores relatively
high compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places
Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III-
11).
17 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
18
https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilities.
html
19 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm
CEP 04-07-2022
62 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 26
The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social,
education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.20 The
northeast area of the City of San Mateo score the lowest on the HPI (Figure III-11).
Disparities in access to opportunity. Data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more
likely to live in moderate resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents (Figure III-
12). Nearly half (47%) of the population living in high resource areas are non-Hispanic White,
compared to one in three (33%) in moderate resource areas.
Conversely, Hispanic, Asian, and Black residents are more likely to live in moderate
resource areas. It is important to note that the City of San Mateo does not include any census
tracts that are designated as low resource areas. The share of the population with Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) is 8% compared to 7% in the county (Figure III-13).
TCAC’s composite opportunity score for the City of San Mateo shows census tracts in the
northeast area of the city fall within moderate resource areas while the rest of the city is within
high or highest resource areas (Figure III-14). The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by
the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to
a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or
ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Again, the northeast area of the city—
encompassing the neighborhoods North Central, Shoreview, and North Shoreview—is
most vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
The City of San Mateo does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535
as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts
of pollution and low populations.”21 (Figure III-16)
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Nine percent of the
population in the City of San Mateo are living with at least one disability, compared to 8% in the
county (Figure III-17). The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (4.2%),
independent living (3.6%), and cognitive (3.5%) (Figure III-18).
Of residents with a disability responding to the residents survey, 30% said that their home does
not meet the needs of their household member.
Disability
20 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
21 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
CEP 04-07-2022
63 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 27
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory
difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.
For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or
independent living difficulty increases (Figure III-19). As mentioned above under access to
transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore, this population with a disability is
likely to increase.
Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability with an
unemployment rate of 12%, compared with 3% for residents without a disability in the
City of San Mateo—particularly when compared to the county where the disparity is not
as high. Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%,
compared to 3% for residents without a disability (Figure III-20). High unemployment rates
among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this
population with employment opportunities.
Residents living with a disability are primarily concentrated geographically along the Highway
101 corridor (Figure III-21).
CEP 04-07-2022
64 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 28
Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 1.45 1.59
Unemployment Rate 5%6%
LEP Population 8%7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of San Mateo
Employment by Disability Status
0%
0%
27%
25%
3%
1%
33%
47%
5%
6%
32%
20%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
97%
88%
3%
12%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of San Mateo
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County
CEP 04-07-2022
65 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 29
SECTION IV. Disproportionate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and
severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness,
displacement, and other considerations.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are
significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a
category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant
groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable
geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on
such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and
substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
Housing needs. Population growth in the City of San Mateo has generally kept up with the
pace of growth countywide, except the city did not lose population during the great recession
whereas the county did (Figure IV-1). Population growth slowed again from 2019 to 2020,
likely due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020.
Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely
been priced for above moderate income households, with 1545 units permitted for above
moderate income households compared to 94 permits for moderate income households; 59
permits for low income households; and 126 permitted for very low income households (Figure
IV-2). The Housing Needs Data Report for the City of San Mateo indicates new construction has
not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing
prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 22
The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominately single family (44%)
and medium to large scale multifamily (39%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory
increased more than single family, and the city has a greater share of multifamily housing
compared to other communities in the region. 23
The majority of the housing inventory in the City of San Mateo was constructed from 1940 to
1980 (Figure IV-3). As such, the city’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to
22 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.
23 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.
CEP 04-07-2022
66 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 30
adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot
afford to make improvements.
Compared to San Mateo County, the city’s owner occupied housing market has a greater share
of units priced between $1 and $1.5 million—29% of units in the city fall within this price range
compared to 23% in the county (Figure IV-4). Conversely, units priced above $2 million make
up a smaller proportion of the city’s housing stock compared to the county with 14% and 19%
respectively. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced
remarkable growth in the city and county (Figure IV-5).
Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for sale market—however, median
rents increased more rapidly from 2017 to 2019 (Figure IV-7). Rent increases have likely been
dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the City of San Mateo has
more luxury rental units—27% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the city compared to 22%
in the county (Figure IV-6).
Cost burden and severe cost burden. Nearly half of all renter households in the City of
San Mateo are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing
costs—and one in four are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross
income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). Cost burdened households have less money to spend
on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare.
Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.
A greater portion of households in the City of San Mateo (39%) struggle with cost burden
compared to the county (37%) (Figure IV-8). Lower income households are more likely to
experience housing cost burden. Nearly three out of every four households earning less than
30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened,
compared to only 1% of households earning more than 100% of AMI (Figure IV-10).
There are disparities in housing cost burden in the City of San Mateo by race and
ethnicity and family size. Black or African American (59%) and Hispanic households (55%)
experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city. Non-Hispanic households of other races
(28% cost burdened), Asian households (33%), and non-Hispanic White households (34%)
experience the lowest cost burden (Figure IV-11).
Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience cost
burden at a rate of 46% compared to all other households at 37% (Figure IV-12). Cost burdened
households are primarily concentrated along the waterfront and Highway 101 (Figure IV-13 and
Figure IV-14).
Overcrowding. The vast majority of households (93%) in the City of San Mateo are not
overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room (Figure IV-15). However, renter
households are more likely to be overcrowded with 13% of households with more than one
occupant per room compared to 2% of owner households (Figure IV-16).
CEP 04-07-2022
67 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 31
The resident survey shows higher needs: 26% of respondents said that their house or
apartment isn’t big enough for their family members.
Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to
experience overcrowding. Other races (27% of households), Hispanic households (26%), and
American Indian or Alaskan Native households (12%) experience the highest rates of
overcrowding (Figure IV-17). Low and moderate income households are also more likely to be
overcrowded (Figure IV-18).
Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened
households, along the waterfront and Highway 101 (Figure IV-19).
Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent
data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which
captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. In the City of San
Mateo, renter households are also more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing
facilities compared to owner households. Generally, a low share of households are lacking
kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 1.3% are lacking kitchen facilities while less than one percent
are lacking plumbing. For owners, less than one percent are lacking either kitchen or plumbing
facilities (Figure IV-20).
Homelessness. In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county (74
people in the City of San Mateo) during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency
or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered
people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people
in transitional housing were in households with children (Figure IV-21).
People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% of the homeless
population compared to less than 1% of the total population), Black (13%, 2%), White
(67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population
compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22 and Figure IV-23). People
struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and
domestic violence (127) represented a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019
(Figure IV-24).
Displacement. Owner households generally experience a greater amount of housing stability
whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently). Households in the city
were more likely to have moved in the past year compared to the households in the county
(14% compared to 12% in the county) (Figure IV-25 and Figure IV-26).
In the City of San Mateo 10% of income assisted rental units are at high or very high risk
for displacement, a total of 72 out of 702 total units in the city. In San Mateo County, 417 units
are at risk—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county (Figure IV-27).
CEP 04-07-2022
68 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 32
Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they
met the following criteria:
They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased
redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017
AND
The tract meets two of the following criteria:
Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are
severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing
displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above
median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.
The resident survey conducted for this study found that 31% of residents in the City of San
Mateo have been displaced in the past 5 years. The top reason for displacement was “Rent
increased more than I could pay” (42%).
Sixteen census tracts in the city are vulnerable to displacement—these same Tracts have high
shares of renter households (Figure IV-28). Additionally, areas of the city with the highest
cost burden and overcrowding—along the waterfront—are included in the Special Flood
Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as
having a 1% chance of flooding annually (Figure IV-29, IV-30, and IV-31).
Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home
mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates (Figure IV-32). Hispanic (32% denial rate)
and American Indian or Alaska Native households (27%) had the highest denial rates for
CEP 04-07-2022
69 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 33
mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic Asian (17%), Black
(18%), and White households (19%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time (Figure
IV-33).
CEP 04-07-2022
70 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 34
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of San Mateo, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of San Mateo, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of San Mateo, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6%0%
Asian / API 6%30%
Black or African American 13%2%
White 67%51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8%17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of San Mateo San Mateo County
Number of Units 72 417
% of Assisted Units 10%8%
14%
23%
44%
65%
89%
13%
39%
39%
32%
10%
73%
37%
18%
3%
1%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used for Housing
0.4%
0.3%
1.3%
0.4%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter
7.5%
5.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3
1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
CEP 04-07-2022
71 of 83
DRAFT 4/5/2022
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH CITY OF SAN MATEO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 35
Placeholder for Site Inventory Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Once sites are identified, the analysis will be placed here and will consist of:
Map of identified sites by lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income
units;
Identification of sites within or proximity to R/ECAPs and/or low income/poverty
concentrations;
Proportion of low and very low income units located in that area, as well as concentrations
of Housing Choice Vouchers,
How the distribution of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units—and the share
located in low, moderate, and high resourced areas—will change with proposed site
inventory development;
Proximity to:
High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas;
Low social vulnerability;
Good jobs proximity;
Access to transportation;
Healthy places; and
Flood hazards.
CEP 04-07-2022
72 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
October 26, 2021
● Standing Meeting
○ This time every two weeks for WVCS, EMC zoom,
● West Valley Community Services
○ Kylie: public policy coordinator at WVCS, resident of Los Gatos
○ Sujatha: associate development director of WVCS, been here for 14 years
■ Can bring long-term view of how communities have changed overtime
○ Josh: executive director of WVCS, been here for 6 years
● Background
○ 1 of 7 agencies that cover entire Santa Clara County and each of them cover different zip
codes
○ “Outdoor dwellers” as nice term for people living outside whether in cars or elsewhere
○ Cupertino (started here 48 yrs ago), Monte Sereno technically but no clients here,
Saratoga, Los Gatos
● Key issues for clients currently: affordable housing, inflation, not a living wages
● Their number of clients are
Outreach in General
● Key: Always answer the question “What’s in it for me?” in how you frame it
● Languages
○ Mandarin, Spanish, English, Vietnamese, and Russian
■ Smaller: Farsi, Korean
● More than 60% of clients do have smartphones, text messaging works for our clients, but need
to be in
● Most don’t have flexible jobs (may not be available in evenings, family care, can’t all be via
zoom, outreach needs to be in-person outdoors)
● Without an incentive to participate, it’s hard to get participation due to competing survival
factors and a basic lack of information
● Gift cards have worked with pretty good results
● Can we do individual outreach at the WVCS offices, tables outside of their services where we
can engage folks in conversation
● Still working to figure out the best way to help them feel comfortable expressing their voice at
Council meetings and other public meetings
○ Why their voices are important
○ Poverty is not labeled in the right manner
● Client email newsletter goes out every two weeks
● Volunteer newsletter goes out as well as a way to reach Cupertino residents
● Distributions at end of year to include
○ Monday/Tuesday/Wed before THanksgiving a lot of people come in
○ Opportunity to see people who may not typically come by
CEP 04-07-2022
73 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
○ December 11th Gift Distribution
■ 4-500 families come through during the course of the day to pick up gifts
● Messaging
○ Maslov’s hierarchy of needs
■ You can help us figure out how to make more housing available
■ You can help change things in your community
○ Avoid “we want your feedback”, it is just gathering information and inactive
○ Make it clear that their voice actually will have an impact, that we’re not just checking
off a list, and it won’t just
○ Focus on empowerment in language
○ Remove the legislative angle, for most people, it is not as engaging
Cupertino
● Second highest number of clients here
● Clients in Cupertino: Seniors, families with children, single adults
● Seniors: face-to-face conversation, here at WVCS more often so it is a sense of community when
they pick of food
○ Ande could hold meeting here for seniors
○ Josh encourages
● Families: text works well for them
● WVCS has been in role of active advocacy (going to City Council meetings) in the last five years,
but especially in last year
● You should be able to live, work, and play here, or raise their families, or retire here
○ In order to be inclusive, you have to have affordability
○ Affordable housing will meet the needs of many income groups
● Another layer that homeless populations needs is not just affordable housing but supportive
housing with wrap around housing
● Perception of Vulnerable Populations with non-clients
○ People focus on what is lost with affordable housing, but none of these perceptions are
based in fact and unfortunately leaders sometime play into it
○ Important to do Myth-Busting of these perceptions
■ Kylie’s blog post
○ Example to use: WVCS housing near
○ Townhomes in Cupertino that target extremely low income
● Graphics
○ Vox video on affordable housing, Kylie will send
○ WVCS doesn’t have good source of visuals
● Cupertino is segregated, second highest, possible controversial
CEP 04-07-2022
74 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
November 9, 2021
Goal of Meeting: Expanding Equitable Outreach in Los Gatos
● Summary of WVCS Services
○ Kylie: outward facing, public policy work
■ Chairs Client Advisory Committee, works with Johnson Yi staff
○ Community Response Organization, very holistic
■ Referrals to shelters and food services
○ Three Key Buckets
■ Food
■ Housing and Homelessness
■ Supportive Services
● West Valley Community Services for their translation services use
○ GTS Translation, fast turnaround time but can be expensive
○ Los Gatos does not have good translation services but they are working to advocate for
more of this
● WVCS Strategy of Outreach
○ In Person priority
■ Open Doors Los Gatos every Friday
■ Farmers’ Markets in Los Gatos
■ Provide paper survey that mirrors what is on website
■ Need different languages:priority would be Chinese (mandarin primarily, some
Cantonese or Taiwanese), Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese
● This is specific to Los Gatos, but they do see Russian and Korean
○ Text messages
■ Picture format/image format with all languages included
● We would need to get the translated
■ Text itself doesn’t have translation so image preferred
■ Couple of days lead time
○ Email messages
■ Same as above
○ Client email newsletter goes out every two weeks
○ Volunteer newsletter goes out as well as a way to reach
○ 12/11 (confirm date?) holiday gift distribution event
○ Fridays Mobile Park It Market at Open Doors Los Gatos every Friday
■ They have about 200 Los Gatos households low-income families accessing their
services
● Los Gatos Outreach Tools
○ Website Launch
■ Can share link and social media outreach/newsletter blurb with WVCS
○ Los Gatos Mailer for Feb-March 2022 Workshop
○ Bi-Monthly Meeting for HEAB
CEP 04-07-2022
75 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
November 23, 2021
Agenda
● 12/11 Gift of Hope Holiday Program--Outreach Prep
● Survey Questions
● Client Newsletter Outreach
Video tools for education
● series, explainer on HE, ideally in multiple languages
12/11 Gift of Hope Holiday Program--Outreach Prep
● Attendance
○ Monte Sereno Planning Director Diana Perkins would like to attend
■ May not be worthwhile, they already have enough volunteers
■ In last 3-4 years, no clients from Monte Sereno
■ Up to Diana, but would need to connect Diana to volunteer manager
● Ande to make connection between Diana and WVCS
● Must be fully vaxxed
○ Ande, Lauren from EMC to hand out flyers
● Flyer to hand out vs survey
○ 1 page EMC to handle translation with Language Connections
○ Content draft and finalized, need to review with WVCS, MS, LG and Cup
○ ¼ of clients are Cup residents
○ Provide link to at least Cup website where there are multiple languages
■ Possible bit.ly link
○ QR codes do work for clients, give short directions (hold phone above)
○ Can give out at the exit to 12/11
○ Goal: help familiarize with HE process and hint at future survey at market/mobile
market
○ Sujatha to give Ande locations of each location and # of fliers per language
○ EMC to print
● Logistics
○ Drive through format thru parking lot on 12/11
■ If paper survey, how to hand out, allow time to take survey, then collect?
○ WVCS has exit survey already planned out, issue survey length
Survey Draft for Market during Week of 13th
● Easier to do at the weekly Market and Mobile Market during week of 13th (would be
throughout week)
CEP 04-07-2022
76 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
○ Use phrase “market” vs. “pantry”
● Will be 1 page format
● See other google doc
● EMC will send to our sub Language Connections for translation
○ English, Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese, Simplified Chinese
● Sujatha to get EMC estimate of #s for each language
● Send draft language to all 3 staff
● Can created shared Google Drive Folder
12/16 Client Advocacy Kick-Off Event
● Kylie to include a slide on Housing Element
● EMC to give Kylie survey copies/flyer copies
● Just in English at first
● WVCS is looking to try to recruit volunteer translators
Client Services Team
● Team with most direct contact with clients
● Sujatha to help set up 30 min meeting with team
●
Client Newsletter Outreach
● Goes out 1st and 3rd Friday of each month
○ Need Wednesday before each Friday
● Links to MS, LG, and Cup websites once live?
● Advertising 12/9 Cupertino Community Workshop 6-8pm (in English only)
○ EMC to send blurb to WVCS
● Online survey (google forms link) for MS, LG, and Cup clients
● Giftly or other tool for gift card/incentive?
Volunteer Newsletter Outreach
● Usually goes out 4th week of month
○ Get content to them 3rd week of month
CEP 04-07-2022
77 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
January 4, 2022
Agenda
● Survey
○ A statement at the end to garner interest in stakeholder group/policy work,
gaging participation or learning more
○ Add QR code for advocacy page
● Cupertino Balancing Act
○ Less engagement than ideal, issue that it is best viewed on a desktop
○ let people know that they don’t have to be experts to engage, think about
framing questions like “where would you like to live?”
○ Kylie to try it out, help show/share with clients at the next meetings
● WVCS Advocacy update
○ Had kick-off event in 12/16, both virtual and in-person attendees
○ highest issue mentioned is housing
○ Kylie having 1-on-1 meetings with each attendee
○ Goal: 20 attendees actively involved in housing element and housing advocacy in
each jurisdiction (5 from each zip code)
● Next WVCS Meetings
○ Thursday February 3rd: Client Advocacy Meeting
○ January 13th at 5pm: Prep meeting
● New Engagement Tools on Engage Cupertino
○ Framing: currently live in or want to live in Cupertino, let people know in
introductory text which one is more mobile friendly
○ Drop a Pin
■ have tool ready prior to 1/13, have Sujatha and Kylie time to review
■ Could have differently colored pins for different questions
■ Can also upload pictures
○ Share Ideas board
■ More mobile-friendly
○ Language priority: Mandarin/Chinese
● WVCS Housing Element webpage updates
○ Monte Sereno website will be up soon
● WVCS Los Gatos Event: late February on introducing the HE
○ Audience: Los Gatos residents
○ Inviting Town Council, Planning Commission, to attend/send reps
○ Ande and Kylie to coordinate panel participation
CEP 04-07-2022
78 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
○ Similar educational event was done in past for Cupertino where they had 70-80
attendees including some Council
■ What is an HE, why it’s needed, clients speaking on struggling with
housing in Cupertino
■ Kylie to send EMC video/notes of meeting
■ WVCS to email the participants to let them know about Engage Cupertino
website and the resources available there
○ Goal to do one for each jurisdiction they’re serving in, including MS
● Upcoming relevant Council/Commission meetings
○ February 1st Cupertino meeting--discussing sites
○ 12/9 Community Workshop
● Equity Statements for each client
○ EMC working with clients to come up with these statements, will keep WVCS
posted
○ Feature on website to make it clear we’re leading with equity, a reminder for
people as they visit the website that equity should be at the forefront of how
they engage with the website
○ Goal to make it interactive in how it is created, so the public can help craft the
message
○ EMC to let WVCS know on progress, if we want client input
○ Check out City of San Jose’s Council equity statement
● Ways to use Giftly
○ Possibly at Cupertino mobile market, potentially $10 amount, to encourage
taking survey
○ Make sure to get Cupertino staff sign-off
CEP 04-07-2022
79 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
January 18, 2022
● Attendees: Ande, Anastazia, Lauren, Kylie
● Introduced Anastazia
● Lea Robinson from Circle Up may join our next meeting--equity coordinator who will work on
Cupertino and possibly Los Gatos
Tuesday the 25th
● Planning Commission meeting at Cupertino to discuss sites
Survey Distribution
● Distributed at Cupertino market and mobile market (Park it Market)
● Kylie will check to make sure they have enough clipboards
● Ande will drive by on a Friday afternoon to pick them up
● Cupertino: they’ll talk to staff to make sure they or front desk volunteers can hand them out,
Kylie will talk to Sujatha about the details and when to pick them up
● People get in line and get a number, it’s a lottery system so they wait for their number to be
called,
● Kylie will also talk to Sujatha about the printing costs
● Later on: summary of results of survey, create and display at the market
Cupertino Stakeholder Group Update
● Ande has established a point system for review, we will present Council with the applicants and
the point system for Council to see
Update from Kylie: Proposed Los Gatos Meadows Development
● Kylie is now a Planning Commissioner for Los Gatos
● Los Gatos PC heard the proposal for it on Wednesday
● Large structure in the hills, visible from downtown
● Applicant is non-profit Covia (sp?), about 190 units for senior living, 5 stories
● Seemed to not have a priority for affordable housing, PC unanimously recommended denial, so
applicant is going to Council next
CEP 04-07-2022
80 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
February 1, 2022
● Attendees: Ande, Lauren, Kylie
Equity Coordinator Update
● Very close to having Lea Robinson from Circle Up will be our equity coordinator who will work
on Cupertino and possibly Los Gatos
● Ande idea: forum of CBOs in the three jurisdictions, an online forum
● A Virtual listening session with representatives of people/groups/community leaders, not
necessarily a public information
● WVCS is one of the few CBOs that serve in Los Gatos, Kylie has been working with people at the
non-profits within the county who are working on the Housing Element, so there is definitely
interest in talking directly with leadership with
● Next two weeks: Kylie to give us a short list of people to contact that Lea could use
● Collaborative’s list of Equity Advisor Group hasn’t been so helpful, more suggestions than
concrete contacts, but Lea can look into this
Updates on Los Gatos from Ande
● Kylie asked for an update on Los Gatos and why HEAB meetings keep being canceled
● Ande: idea: make an announcement about the reasoning for the canceling of the HEAB--to make
space for more meaningful public workshops
● Ande: we are also working with the Town to get the list of initial sites
Survey Distribution
● February 1st
○ Haven’t distributed it yet because Kylie was out sick
○ Including mobile market (500 max, outside the whole time, can be more hectic, #s vary
a lot depending on school schedule)
○ Cupertino market (500 a week usually)
○ Los Gatos mobile market 90% Russian
○ Will also hit the Saratoga market to get intro people who may not live in Cupertino or
Los Gatos but would want to
○ WVCS to collect data on dates, locations, and # of surveys gathered at each market
● January 18th Update
○ Distributed at Cupertino market and mobile market (Park it Market)
○ Kylie will check to make sure they have enough clipboards
○ Ande will drive by on a Friday afternoon to pick them up
○ Cupertino: they’ll talk to staff to make sure they or front desk volunteers can hand them
out, Kylie will talk to Sujatha about the details and when to pick them up
CEP 04-07-2022
81 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
○ People get in line and get a number, it’s a lottery system so they wait for their number
to be called,
○ Kylie will also talk to Sujatha about the printing costs
○ Later on: summary of results of survey, create and display at the market
Kylie Advocacy Group Update
● First topic of her meeting will be homelessness
● Additional topic upcoming will be
● 4 clients on the Client Advisory Committee (very involved)
● Attending Advocacy events (20 people in December,
Email Kylie sent out to me
● Everyone who attended the Housing Element Town Hall, went to about 120 people
● She got a good feedback
Update on Cupertino from Ande
● Property owner interest letters going out to people with the right size
Tuesday February 22nd
● 2nd Planning Commission meeting at Cupertino to discuss sites
Kylie Missing Middle Housing Tour
● Kylie as an individual is organizing, flyer will almost be done
● Open to any community members, they will be doing a walking tour of the neighborhood and
tour a missing middle housing unit
Envisioning an Inclusive Los Gatos: Housing Element Community Meeting
● Panelist Discussion and Breakout Rooms
● Attendees
● Thursday March 3rd, Kylie is almost done with the flyer
● Kylie will send us the recording of the last Cupertino “Housing Element Town Hall” and the notes
from the breakout rooms
CEP 04-07-2022
82 of 83
Meeting Notes between WVCS and EMC
March 15, 2022
● Survey Responses
○ 34 responses so far, clients are taking survey home and bringing it back
○ Mostly English, then a good amount of Mandarin, some Vietnamese and some Spanish
○ Kylie will scan what she has and give them to Ande once a week
● Cupertino Scope
○ Internship Stipends: They would hire Housing Element Interns
○ Discussion between Kylie, Lee, and Ande
○ Kylie to add separate line item for 1-on-1 meetings/videos and costs for that
○ Kylie to add predictions about whether things will be in person or on zoom
● Topics in Steering Committee
○ Re-introduction to Kylie and the role of WVCS
○ What kind of needs do they see in the community?
○ What issue areas do they want the focus groups to discuss?
○ How much direct interaction do they want with clients?
○ How much do they want the client input to be made publicly vs. just private focus
groups and giving it to decision makers in written form?
■ We’ll probably do both but what proportion
○ We’ll include some of this preliminary information and links within the memo we give to
Steering Committee
● Issue List & CBO
○ Vice Mayor Chao’s list of protected classes and we assume these lists and go forward
with that.
○ Start with this list and find organizations that correlate with that list
○ Excel with checkboxes for what focuses they have
○ Others: domestic violence
○ There will be a lot of intersectionalities
● Regional Listening Sessions
○ Ande meeting with Paul Peninger today to learn more about that and what ABAG is
doing but we’ll need to do our own Regional Listening Sessions
● Timeline for Sub Contract and Contract Amendment
○ Ande will check in today with Cupertino today
○ Contract is for set amount of time--this is a full year
○ Hit the ground running
CEP 04-07-2022
83 of 83