Allow for Conversion of Single-Family Units into Two Units
Priority
Missing middle housing by allowing single-family conversions to duplexes
Proposal:
Link to ProposalResources:
Belmont
In Compliance
Out of Compliance
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Overview
Population
27820
Avg. Household Income
$
185944
Experiencing Rent Burden
42
Providing adequate housing options is a key function of local governments. To help residents ensure their local government is meeting this need, we’ve compiled important information about this jurisdiction’s housing efforts below.
Housing Element is In Compliance
This city is currently working on implementing its housing element.
Housing Element is Out of Compliance
This city is currently working on implementing its housing element.
Good Progress
This city is currently on track to meet their RHNA housing targets.
Making Slow Progress
This city is falling behind. It is not on track to meet its housing targets.
Housing Targets
Every 8 years California assesses housing need and assigns each city with a target they must hit. If
Belmont
repeats its efforts from the previous cycle
it will only meet 43% of the identified need.
Current RHNA Target
2022
-
2030
On Target
Behind
Hit Target
Missed
Very Low Income
Low Income
Median Income
Above Median Income
State Statutes
Organizers fighting for fair housing can use many state laws to ensure that jurisdictions meet their housing targets.
Builder’s Remedy
When a city’s Housing Element is out of compliance, the Builder’s Remedy allows developers to bypass the zoning code and city general plan for qualifying affordable housing projects. If a Builders Remedy project application was submitted prior to 1/1/2025, there are virtually no limits on the size and density of a project proposed. Subsequent to 1/1/2025, in exchange for more certainty in the entitlement process, AB 1893 limits the density for Builders Remedy projects.
Does not apply
Does not apply
Does not apply
SB 423
When cities lack a compliant housing element or are behind on RHNA, this statute streamlines approval of projects that meet a threshold of affordable units.
50% Affordable
50% Affordable
Conditions in
San Mateo County
HE Compliance
How does
Belmont
compare to its neighboring cities?
This city is currently doing a worse job than its neighbors at meeting housing needs.
Progress
-3
-3
Income
15
15
Density
10
10
Belmont
's Plan
Add Policy
Key parts of
Belmont
’s housing element are currently being worked on. Get involved to hold them accountable for meeting their deadlines.
Impactful Housing Element Policies:
Due
Dec 31
,
2025
Decreased parking requirements
Priority
No more than 1 parking spot minimum for studios and one bedrooms
Proposal:
Link to ProposalResources:
Due
Mar 31
,
2025
Lot Consolidation Fee Waivers
Priority
Waive lot consolidation fees for projects at least 20% very low or extremely low income
Proposal:
Link to ProposalResources:
Due
Mar 31
,
2024
Other Tracked Housing Element Policies:
Expand Tenant Protections
Extending statewide just cause for eviction relocation payment requirements to tenants from day one of tenancy
Proposal:
Link to ProposalResources:
Due
Dec 31
,
2024
Due
Sep 30
,
2024
Join the Fun!
Our volunteers, watchdogs, push cities to enact good housing policy and keep tabs on the city’s policy progress. Sign up to help push
Belmont
reach its housing targets.
San Mateo County
's Volunteers
33
Current Watchdogs
Level III
33/40 Volunteers
Upcoming Opportunities
Add Event
These upcoming events and tasks are great opportunities to make a difference in your community.
Event Name
Stop by Drinks & Agendas
Each Friday at 12:00PST our team gets together via Zoom to monitor local agendas so we can direct watchdogs to key meetings where decisions are being made about housing.
Watchdog Reports
Add Report
Our watchdogs are on the ground observing and taking part in the fight for fair housing. Read their reports below.
Belmont
's Reports
Anonymous
Leora Tanjuatco Ross
11
/
24
HCD told them that they didn't do their re-zoning correctly, but only required small changes. They should get re-certified soon.
/
Loss
/
Pro Housing
/
Win
/
Pro Housing
/
Deferred
/
Pro Housing
Anonymous
Leora Tanjuatco Ross
10
/
24
San Carlos has also adopted objective standards and worked on the permit process. So they have:
- Completed rezoning
- Completed object design standards
- Improved the permit process
- Has approved some significant multi-unit projects
- Has transferred ownership of property from a defunct developer to San Mateo County in prep for for future housing
Which is pretty good for a town that wants to retain its charm and character.
/
Loss
/
Pro Housing
/
Win
/
Pro Housing
/
Deferred
/
Pro Housing
Anonymous
07
/
23
County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.
/
Loss
/
Pro Housing
/
Win
/
Pro Housing
/
Deferred
/
Pro Housing
Anonymous
06
/
23
Three general policy changes were discussed:
- Rezoning: previous draft relied on rezoning primarily in the North Fair Oaks to meet the county's RHNA affordable quota. Housing advocates provided public comment urging the board to expand rezoning to also include higher opportunity neigborhoods. Supervisor started the conversation in firm support for this effort, and Pine and Corzo backed him up. Mueller suggested the Board not weigh in on the issues and essentially let the planning department work it out, which was met with criticism
- Tenant protections: Corzo and Pine have been working on a tenant protection ordinance to strengthen just cause standards and explore options of a rental registry, etc. Advocates called on the county to incorporate these updates into the housing element. The county attorney provided clarification to the board that the housing element would have supremacy over an ordinance, and any future ordinance would need to comply with the element. The board generally agreed that since the ordinance is already in the works, there was no need to further slow down the element drafting process by incorporating tenant protections
Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense."
The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that.
/
Loss
18
/
20
Pro Housing
/
Win
18
/
20
Pro Housing
/
Deferred
18
/
20
Pro Housing
Anonymous
06
/
23
/
Loss
13
/
20
Pro Housing
/
Win
13
/
20
Pro Housing
/
Deferred
13
/
20
Pro Housing
Anonymous
04
/
23
It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws
/
Loss
15
/
30
Pro Housing
/
Win
15
/
30
Pro Housing
/
Deferred
15
/
30
Pro Housing
Anonymous
magpie
10
/
22
William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him.
Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).
Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments).
San Mateo County Planning Commission - Oct 12, 2022
10
/
22
Loss
3
/
6
Pro Housing
San Mateo County Planning Commission - Oct 12, 2022
10
/
22
Win
3
/
6
Pro Housing
Planning Commission
10
/
22
Deferred
3
/
6
Pro Housing