Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on development proposal and inclusionary requirement.
Environmental CEQA Categorical Exemption.
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project was found to be qualified for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption: Section 15332- Infill Development Projects. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain requirements. Infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements and have negligible environmental impacts may be eligible for this exemption.
Infrastructure The project would connect to existing electrical, communications, water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure that currently exists within public rights of way. The project included a utility plan, domestic water analysis and sewer capacity analysis to confirm that the project can be served by existing infrastructure. Applicant is still responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees. However, the project is expected to cause a small increase in sanitary sewer demand from 8 units.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 16
D.1.5.3 Projects Not Approved, but High Probability of Development FOUR CORNERS 1675 BAY RD.
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-111-250
Acreage 6.1 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Submitted Planning application; under review.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
4 Corners (up to 60 du/acre)
Zoned 4 Corners in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Area Specific Plan for up to 60 dwelling units per acre; General Plan designation of Mixed Use High zoning for up to 86 du/acre.
Unit Breakdown 36 VLI, 144 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Mixed-use project on a vacant site with retail, housing, and office.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
The number of total units and affordable units is based on the development application and inclusionary housing ordinance requirement of 20%. Using the 20% requirement, rather than assuming all affordable units is a conservative estimate given the zoning, which allows for a density suitable for lower-income housing.
Environmental EIR under preparation.
Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System on University Avenue and Bay Road.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other necessary measures will be determined by the EIR.
Other constraints The project must request an amendment to the current Specific Plan to accommodate one of the proposed uses (life science/laboratory) and the proposed height. The proposed community and office space will respectively require an administrative use permit and a conditional use permit to be in conformance with Specific Plan. Alternatively, updates to the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan may better align the proposed project and the Specific Plan, which could help the project achieve greater density for the residential component.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 17
717 DONOHOE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-374-350
Acreage .66 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Undergoing Planning Review with Planning staff. Approved Inclusionary Housing Plan.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Zoning: R-MD-2 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential (12-22 du/acre) General Plan: Medium Density Residential (12.1-22 du/ac) Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 2 MOD, 11 Above-Mod units.
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Vacant lot multifamily condominium project.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on development proposal and inclusionary requirement. Project’s Inclusionary Housing Plan to provide one median-income unit and two moderateincome units, as an Alternative Compliance Option, was approved by City Council on November 15, 2022. The inclusionary units will be comparable to the marketrate units in size interior/exterior, amenities, and uniform open space.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption.
Analysis shows that there are no serpentine soils, riparian, wetland, or other aquatic areas on or adjacent to the site. As a project with more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, it will be subject to the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for the San Francisco Bay Area and must implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff.
Infrastructure Water – The proposed 14 multi-family residences would result in a relatively small incremental increase in water demand and is consistent with the City’s projected growth. The project would connect to the existing water main in Donohoe Street.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees. However, the project is expected to cause a relatively small incremental increase in sanitary sewer demand, consistent with projected growth in the General Plan, and would connect to the existing sewer main in Donohoe Street.
Applicant is still responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire and EPASD.
Other constraints Site access based on Engineering’s comments.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 18
2340 COOLEY
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-253-410
Acreage .26 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Planning Application under review by Planning Staff.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Zoning Designation: R-MD-2 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential(12-22 du/acre)
General Plan: Medium Density Residential (12.1-22 du/ac) Unit Breakdown 1 LI, 7 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Redevelopment of site with an existing single-family home (owner-occupied) with density bonus.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Development proposal and inclusionary requirement/density bonus analysis.
Planning Commission review anticipated in Spring 2023.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 19
842 GREEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-130
Acreage .59
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Design Review and Tentative Map application being reviewed by Planning Staff.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Low Density (R-LD) for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.
Unit Breakdown 3 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Design Review and Tentative Map application for vacant lot subdivision to construct three single family homes.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Applicant proposing density of six dwelling units per acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size. Applicant proposing to pay in-lieu fee.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 20
1201 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-271-090
Acreage .932 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale Units
Project Status Anticipated submittal of revised proposal, which will require new entitlement process.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre)
Zoned as Urban Residential for up to 40 dwelling units per acre in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan, consistent with the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential with 22-43 du/acre.
Unit Breakdown 4 MOD, 16 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Previously entitled multifamily condominium project on a vacant lot. In December 2022, developer submitted preliminary plans for 20 townhouses in anticipation of formal submittal. Inclusionary housing proposal to be determined.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
This project was previously entitled for 32 multifamily units. Applicant has submitted new plans for lower density; this would require new Planning entitlement. Assumed 4 moderate-income units, although inclusionary housing ordinance will require two units deed-restricted at 70% AMI and two units deedrestricted at 110% AMI.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption.
Class 32 Categorical Exemption: Section 15332- Infill Development Projects. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain requirements. Infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements and have negligible environmental impacts may be eligible for this exemption.
Infrastructure As a project designated as High Density Residential in the City’s General Plan and studied in the General Plan EIR, the Notice of Exemption found that the site can be serviced by all existing utilities and public services. Water to be provided by the City’s system on Runnymede Street.
Applicant remains responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire and permit from EPASD and/or for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 21
755 SCHEMBRI LANE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-361-400
063-361-260
Acreage 1.381 acres (.918 acres where housing proposed) Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status A Planning application currently under review by staff.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD and RMD-1
The project consists of two parcels. The first is 1.13 acres with a zoning of R-LD Single-Family Residential and a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (up to 12 du/acre). The second is 0.25 acres and zoned RMD-1 Multiple-Family Medium Density Residential with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (12-15 du/acre).The Single-Family Residential zoned parcel is being proposed to be subdivided into four parcels of which two will remain open space while each of the other two will be developed with one primary dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The MultipleFamily Medium Density Residential zone parcel is proposed for two single-family attached residential units or a duplex.
Unit Breakdown Four (4) Above-Mod units and two (2) Above-Mod ADUs Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Both existing parcels are currently vacant with no infrastructure. The project proposes to transform the two-parcel site to a total of five parcels with easements for utilities and access.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Received application to build 6 dwelling units comprising two single-family detached homes, a duplex (two single-family attached homes), and two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). However, design remains conceptual. Developer is proposing to pay fees in-lieu of construction of a unit for the 0.8 unit inclusionary requirement applicable on the single-family homes and duplex. Developer wants to maintain ownership of lots and rent units.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 22
851 WEEKS
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-221-240
Acreage .65 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Application submitted for Planning review January 2023.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre); Density Bonus
Zoned as Urban Residential in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan for up to 40 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential at 22-43 du/acre.
Unit Breakdown 66 VLI, 23 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Vacant site was recently considered for affordable housing as part of another development in the City to fulfill the project’s inclusionary housing obligation.
Feasibility was discussed for affordable units. Eden Housing submitted application seeking to maximize the density, as affordable developers have done elsewhere in the City, leveraging SB 35 and density bonus. Development will likely go through ministerial approval process.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Eden Housing is working with the developer of the Woodland Park Euclid Improvements project to develop its inclusionary housing project at 851 Weeks, and submitted for preliminary review via SB 330 (objective design standards) on January 20, 2023. 100% affordable housing project with 89 units total. Eden Housing submitted application seeking to maximize the density, as affordable developers have done elsewhere in the City, leveraging SB 35 for by-right approval and density bonus. Proposing 62 studios, 26 1-bedroom units, and 1 2-bedroom unit for staff. The breakdown of the very low- and low-income units is an estimate, and the final breakdown is pending.
89 off-site inclusionary units: 22 assumed to be extremely low-income at 35% of the area median income (“AMI”); 44 assumed to be very low-income at 50% AMI; and 23 assumed to be low-income at 60% AMI, in accordance with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.
Environmental Potential CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 23
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 24
D1.5.4 Projects with Development Interest and Pre-Applications 547 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-201-190
Acreage .45
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Submitted Preliminary Proposal.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
RMD-2 (12-22 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Medium Density-2 (RMD-2) for 12-22 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium-Density Residential.
Unit Breakdown 8 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Preliminary proposal for a townhome development on vacant parcel.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Assumed density for unit calculation is 15 du/acre, which is comparable to other developments with this zoning and adjusted downwards due to smaller size of site.
Inclusionary housing agreement to be determined.
This site benefits from greater density zoning and General Plan designation, increasing its feasibility. Several projects with a smaller than .5-acre lot size zoned for lower density (R-LD) have been approved, including 990 Garden St, Lincoln St., and 1215 Cypress, Several projects less than 0.5 acres on R-MD-2 zoning are currently undergoing planning review, including 717 Donohoe and 2340 Cooley.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 25
1062 RUNNYMEDE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-262-060
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Ownership/For-Sale
Project Status Submitted Preliminary Proposal.
Acreage .92
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Low Density (R-LD) for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.
Unit Breakdown 6 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Preliminary proposal for subdivision with four single family homes (and 4 ADUs).
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Unit calculation assumes 6 du/acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size. Inclusionary housing agreement to be determined.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 26
812 GREEN
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-373-110
Acreage .89
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For Sale Units
Project Status Submitted Preliminary Proposal.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-LD (up to 12 du/acre)
Zoned for Residential Low Density for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.
Unit Breakdown 5 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Complete redevelopment of site and demolition of current site is being proposed.
Site has a preliminary proposal for a subdivision with five single family homes.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Currently large, underdeveloped site with one single family home. Assumes 6 du/acre, which is comparable to other R-LD-zoned projects of this size.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 27
801 DONOHOE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-374-170
Acreage .45
Vacant? No
Tenure Ownership/For Sale Units
Project Status Owner representative contacted staff with interest. Site is underdeveloped with one single family home.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
R-MD-2 (12 to 22 du/acre)
Zoned as Residential Medium Density-2 (R-MD-2) for 12 to 22 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential.
Unit Breakdown 5 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Parcel has a preliminary proposal for a subdivision with five single family homes.
Inclusionary housing agreement not yet determined.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Assumed density for unit calculation of 12 du/acre (the minimum) results in 5 units.
While single family homes may not be the primary intended use of a site with this zoning per the General Plan, the density may be more realistic, given the size of the site.
This site benefits from greater density zoning and General Plan designation, increasing its feasibility. Several projects with a smaller than .5-acre lot size zoned for lower density (R-LD) have been approved, including 990 Garden St, Lincoln St., and 1215 Cypress, Several projects less than 0.5 acres on R-MD-2 zoning are currently undergoing planning review, including 717 Donohoe and 2340 Cooley.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 28
807 E. BAYSHORE
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 062-221-340
Acreage .55 acres
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Property owner representative submitted pre-application that is currently under review. Underutilized site with one one-story commercial building likely to be redeveloped due to age.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
MUL-1 (up to 22 du/acre)
Zoned as Mixed-Use Low-1 for up to 22 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low-Density Mixed-Use.
Unit Breakdown 8 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Preapplication to demolish commercial space and build 6 apartments on second and third floor of new building.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Assumed density at 15 du/acre, given density of other projects with this zoning and tentative nature of preapplication. Inclusionary housing agreement not yet determined.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size and location of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Water to be provided by the City’s System.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 29
D1.5.5 Publicly Owned Sites with Potential for Development or Redevelopment 2277 UNIVERSITY
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-302-460
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Initial conversations with County and expressed County interest (see Appendix D3).
Acreage .36 acres
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
MUC-1 (22-65 du/acre)
Zoned as Mixed Use Corridor-1 (MUC-1) for 22-65 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Corridor that allows up to 65 du/acre. Allows for multi-family residential development.
Mixed Use Corridor Zone Description. This zone provides for vertical and horizontal mixed use developments along arterial roads and other high-activity areas. The zone supports structures with different uses (i.e., office, retail, service and residential) or other compatible uses. Structures located on individual parcels should contain a vertical mix of uses. In certain locations, ground floor retail or other active ground floor uses are required for a portion of the structure's frontage in order to activate the public realm. Structures in this zone are required to front the primary roadway and shall be designed to create an attractive pedestrian environment, regardless of the ground floor use. Mixed use projects located along corridors shall be developed in a manner that protects and preserves the adjacent residential neighborhoods by stepping down in density or height, and/or by providing appropriate buffer areas between the structure and the adjacent neighborhood. This zone implements the Corridor (MUC) land use designation in the General Plan. The MUC zone further specifies two subzones: MUC-1 and MUC-2.
General Plan Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) Description: This designation provides for vertical and horizontal mixed use developments along arterial roads and other high-activity areas throughout the City. The designation supports buildings with different uses such as office, retail and residential or other compatible uses. Uses on individual parcels may contain a vertical mix of uses, or be either stand-along residential or commercial uses. In certain locations, ground floor retail or other
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 30
active ground floor uses are required for a portion of the building frontage in order to activate the public realm. Buildings in this designation are required to front the primary roadway and shall be designed to create an attractive pedestrian environment, regardless of the ground floor use. New buildings with parking fronting the main corridor should not be allowed. Mixed-use projects along corridors should be developed in a manner that protects and preserves the adjacent residential neighborhoods by stepping down in density or height, and/or by providing appropriate buffer areas between the building and the neighborhood. This designation will be applied to a variety of parcel sizes and the City expects that parcel assembly may be necessary to build to the maximum density. The City shall implement policies and/or incentives to promote parcel aggregation along and behind University Avenue and other areas with this designation Unit Breakdown 20 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
City-owned parcel to be exchanged with County of San Mateo for the site at 2216 Beech St. and developed as housing. There is currently an underdeveloped singlefamily home structure on the site used by the City.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
According to Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A), sites smaller than a half-acre size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the Housing Element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing.
The current zoning of MUC-1 allows for 22-65 du/acre. For comparison, there are two entitled developments on the sites inventory list with MUC-2 zoning, which contains the same density minimum/maximum (22-65 du/acre), but which allows for uses other than residential above the ground floor, whereas MUC-1 zoning allows for residential uses only above the ground floor. Those two developments proposed a density of 75 du/acre (65 maximum plus density bonus) and 37 du/acre, respectively. Given the intention to use this site as affordable housing, and the likelihood the County will merge the parcel with the neighboring parcel to total over 0.5 acres, this site could be developed with 20 very-low-income units.
However, given HCD constraints for suitability of sites, staff assumes 20 above moderate-income units at 55 du/acre, roughly the average of the two other sites.
See Appendix D1 for more information, and Appendix D3 for the County’s letter of interest.
No lot splits needed. No City plans to sell the property during the planning period.
The City will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 31
Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 if any disposition of land occurs.
Environmental Anticipated CEQA Categorical Exemption due to size of project.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire. Project may benefit from University main upgrade.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 32
RAVENSWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT BAY RD. SITE/APN 063090080 Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-090-080
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Initial school district conversations. In January 2023, school board directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals.
Acreage 2.59 acres
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
PI. This site may require rezoning.
Zoned for Public Institutional (PI), consistent with General Plan land use designation of Public/Institutional.
PI - Public Institutional Zone Description. This zone provides for public uses. The zone also allows for a variety of support uses. Appropriate land uses include City buildings, City corporation yards, public schools, fire stations, police stations, and other public uses. Intensity of use is not regulated. This zone implements the Public/Institutional (PI) land use designation in the General Plan.
Public/Institutional (PI) General Plan Description: This designation provides for public uses such as government buildings, public schools (does not include private schools), colleges, community centers, water storage facilities, and utility stations or rights-of way. The designation also allows for a variety of support uses such as restaurants, housing and retail/service.
Allowed Land Uses: Education, city buildings, fire stations, police stations, city corporation yards, and other public and related ancillary uses.
Density/Intensity: N/A
Unit Breakdown Assumed breakdown: 26 VLI, 26 LI, 26 MOD.
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Ravenswood School District vacant site planned for staff affordable housing. See attached letter in Appendix D2 demonstrating the district’s intent.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on size of parcel and surrounding zoning (single family residential), assumed 30 du/acre for a total of 78 affordable units. The General Plan states that the site “allows for a variety of support uses such as restaurants, housing and retail/service, while the zoning code may encompass housing under “and other public uses.” Environmental To be determined. Possible EIR.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 33
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints The Ravenswood Elementary School District would be required to work with the state to develop this site as housing, as its City zoning designation currently may not allow for residential. The project is dependent upon the school district’s progress during the eight-year planning period. This site may have to go through the City’s process and would therefore require rezoning. Rezoning of this site will [Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 34
D1.5.6 Nonresidential Zoning, But Residential Development Application (RBD)
EPA WATERFRONT
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-050-050
Acreage Developable project area of 9 acres (29.6 acres for total site) Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Planning application under review by planning staff.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Industrial Flex Overlay– non-residential
Zoned as Industrial Flex Overlay in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD), consistent with General Plan designation of Industrial Buffer. Requires rezoning through RBD update to accommodate mixed-use residential.
Unit Breakdown 52 VLI, 208 Above-Mod
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
This is a vacant parcel, much of which is restricted to open space or recreation. It is likely to be rezoned to allow for housing. Of this, there would be a minimum 20% inclusionary requirement, and potentially additional affordable housing required as part of RBD update process/rezoning.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
According to Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A), sites greater than ten acres are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other evidence demonstrates the suitability of these sites. The EPA Waterfront project is suitable for lower income housing because the developable land size is only 9 acres, and re-zoning through the RBD update will allow the developer to build denser housing on this parcel (without infringing on sensitive environmental areas). The 260-unit total project is contained in the applicant’s 2021 proposal. The City could assume all lower-income units on this site, given the size and potential zoning of the parcel. However, knowing there is a development application for market-rate units, staff is assuming 20% (inclusionary) as the default and as a conservative estimate.
The community and City Council have provided strong support for affordable housing in the RBD area, and for providing a jobs-housing balance that expands housing at all affordability levels when new jobs are created. Neighboring sites in the RBD are proposing similar projects on their developable land. For example,
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 35
Colibri Commons (formerly known as 965 Weeks), is a 95-unit 100% affordable housing project being developed at a higher density of 54 dwelling units per acre.
The developer for EPA Waterfront, Emerson Collective, is a mission-driven organization that strives to provide every individual with access to opportunity.
Environmental A program EIR is being prepared for the RBD Specific Plan update, of which this site is included. Additional project specific analysis will be required and the specific CEQA clearance will be determined at that time Infrastructure Water – applicant will still be required to obtain clearance from Menlo Fire.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other necessary measures will be determined by the EIR.
Other constraints Aside from zoning, this project contains commercial square footage that cumulatively (together with other proposed projects in the RBD) exceeds the commercial square footage evaluated in the 2013 RBD EIR. The project is expected to build a lower amount of commercial than proposed, subject to the RBD update process. This is not, however, expected to affect the number of proposed housing units. This is a staffrecommended site for rezoning to allow for residential.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 36
HARVEST THE LANDING HOUSING OFFSITE 1103 WEEKS (Nonvacant) Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063240360, 063240370, 063240380, 063240270
Acreage 1.6 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status Planning application under review by planning staff.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Ravenswood Employment Center - nonresidential zoning
Zoned as Ravenswood Employment Center in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD), consistent with General Plan designation of General Industrial. Requires rezoning as part of RBD update.
Unit Breakdown 95 VLI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Applicant is partnering with Eden Housing to develop a 95-unit affordable project with ground floor civic/nonprofit space on ground floor. Site contains an unoccupied (according to applicant; must be verified) single family unit. Would require re-zoning of the parcel.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Based on affordable housing proposal. Applicant is making land donation to Eden Housing, increasing project’s feasibility.
Environmental A program EIR is being prepared for the Specific Plan update, of which this site is included. Additional project specific analysis will be required and the specific CEQA clearance will be determined at that time.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints This site must be re-zoned for housing and is therefore subject to the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Update process and its related rezoning. However, this is a staff-recommended site for rezoning to allow for residential.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 37
SOUTH OF WEEKS/FORMER PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE (1200 Weeks St.)/ APN 063271490 Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-271-490
Acreage 2.7 acres
Vacant? Yes
Tenure Rental Units
Project Status No application or interest yet.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Industrial Transition (Specific Plan) – nonresidential
Zoned for Industrial Transition in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD), consistent with General Plan land use designation. Requires rezoning.
Unit Breakdown 51 VLI, 30 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
This site is not zoned for housing and does not have a development application or known developer interest. However, the size is properly sized for lower-income housing and is one of the focus parcels for the RBD update (to be rezoned for residential).
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
If rezoned to an existing zoning, such as Urban Residential, which would allow for up to 40 du/acre, the site could accommodate up to 108 units. This calculation assumes development of site with 30 du/acre density, or a total of 81 units. City Council has expressed interest in residential development on this site.
Environmental Anticipated Categorical Exemption given size of site and location within RBD area.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 38
D1.5.7 Sites with (Re)development Potential in Ravenswood Business District 791 WEEKS
Prior Housing
Element?
Yes
APN 063-221-390
Acreage .89
Vacant? No
Tenure Rental
Project Status No application submitted, however, Ravenwood Business District Area is being redeveloped to allow for housing.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Urban Residential (up to 40 du/acre)
Zoned as Urban Residential in the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD) for up to 40 dwelling units per acre, consistent with General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (R-HD) at 22-43 dwelling units per acre.
Unit Breakdown 22 VLI, 12 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Underdeveloped well-sized site with single family home on the property and zoning that supports higher-density housing. Assumes 30 du/acre realistic development capacity for 34 total units.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Applied RHNA 6 distribution to 34 total units to calculate VLI and LI units.
Environmental To be determined. Assumed CEQA Categorical Exemption, given size of site.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints None known.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 39
1923 BAY RD.
Prior Housing
Element?
No
APN 063-132-110
Acreage .99 acres
Vacant? Yes
Project Status Developer expressed interest; Ravenwood Business District Area is being redeveloped to allow for housing.
Current Zoning and
General Plan
Designation
Mixed-Use Corridor (General Plan) MUC-2 zoning 22-65 du/acre Bay Road Central (Specific Plan) zoning up to 50 du/acre Unit Breakdown 25 VLI, 15 LI
Site Details (incl.
existing use)
Underdeveloped vacant site currently used to store cars.
Methodology used
to determine
realistic capacity
Property owner of underdeveloped vacant site has approached the City to change the designation, which will be done through Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan update. Potential interest in developing mixed-use on the site.
Density sufficient to support lower-income housing. Calculation assumes 40 du/acre, which is reasonable given proposals for developments in the area (e.g., 1804 Bay Rd. has a density of 75 du/acre with density bonus, or 65 du/acre without). Other applications within a mile radius include Harvest/The Landing, EPA Waterfront, Four Corners, and South of Weeks site. Applied RHNA 6 distribution to 40 total units to calculate VLI and LI units.
Environmental Unknown. Assumed Initial Study, given history of property.
Infrastructure Water – applicant is responsible for obtaining clearance from Menlo Fire.
Sewer –applicant is responsible for obtaining permit from EPASD and for paying any required fees.
Other constraints Site has an active code enforcement case. Site may require environmental remediation, given current use (parked vehicles).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 40
D1.5.8 Future Potential Moderate-Income Units from SB 9 Eligible Sites Beyond the sites identified to meet the RHNA 6, East Palo Alto has identified Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) projected units as an additional strategy to encourage housing production, providing flexibility for more housing to be built. While potential SB 9 sites are not listed toward the City’s RHNA obligation, they are an integral part of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing and proactively encourage housing throughout the community.
There has been significant interest from local developers in the use of SB 9 for projects on parcels zoned R-LD, or Low Density Residential. The City has multiple parcels that are deep and developed with only one residential unit. Due to the prevalence of these underdeveloped lots, the city has had a great level of interest in additional development and subdivision via SB 9. SB 9 allows for urban lot splits and a minimum of two units on each parcel zoned for single family homes. The application of SB 9 allows for a single-family zoned parcel to be split into two and for more units to be built on a lot than a single-family zoning designation.
Most lots in East Palo Alto are not large enough to be split into two lots of at least 5,000 square feet (sq ft) each, the minimum lot size to develop a single unit required in the City’s Development Code. Of the 125 SingleFamily Residential lots with more than 10,000 sq ft that can split in half, 8 are vacant. Most of these >10,000 sq ft vacant parcels are in the Weeks neighborhood (southeast in the City; east of Highway 101) or in the Palo Alto Park neighborhood (northeast in the City; east of Highway 101).
Table 5.9.A: Vacant Lots in East Palo Alto 10,000 Square Feet and Above Accessor’s Parcel Number
(APN)
Street Name Lot Size
(square feet)
63262200 N/A 11,947
63185210 N/A 12,887
63340999 N/A 12,968
63344140 N/A 26,810
63262060 Runnymede St 40,677
63262080 Runnymede St 40,684
63371170 Green St 41,157
63344420 Garden St 51,079
By enabling an urban lot split or two units on a single lot, SB 9 allows for housing types such as duplexes, or duplexes with ADUs, on parcels where it was previously not possible. Smaller units or attached units tend to be more affordable than large single-family homes, potentially resulting in a less expensive housing option, with rents that approximate a Moderate-Income unit (up to 120% of the Area Median Income). The City has already updated its website to include factsheets
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 41
Between January 2022, when SB 9 became effective, and December 2022, three projects have been entitled through SB 9. Their characteristics are listed below:
Table 5.9.B: SB 9 Projects Ministerially Approved in 2022 Site Size
(sq ft)
Zoning Existing Project Description Flood
Zone
Lincoln St.
(APN 063-186-
270)
5,149 R-LD Vacant lot Two units (Unit 1 at first floor: 1,030 sq ft/Unit 2 at second floor: 1,424 sq ft) with
one attached 511 sq ft ADU deed-restricted
at 35% AMI (inclusionary housing unit)
and one detached 727 sq ft ADU
N/A
805
Runnymede
(APN 063-253-
010)
40,075 R-LD Existing
single-family
dwelling on
lot
One 3,607 sq ft second unit with existing
dwelling on the same lot (total of 2 units
on the lot)
N/A
1215 Cypress
(APN 063-383-
280)
10,273 R-LD Vacant lot One 1,200 sq ft unit 100-year
floodplain
There are three incoming SB 9 projects that have already expressed interest, meaning they have spoken with staff and/or submitted a pre-application. These projects include:
Table 5.9.C: SB 9 Projects with Submitted Applications
Site Size
(sq ft)
Zoning Existing Project Description Flood
Zone
2127 Lincoln
(APN 063-181-
190)
5,000 R-LD Existing
single-family
dwelling on
lot
Lot split with duplex on each lot N/A
2268
Dumbarton
(APN 063-191-
030)
8,971.
35 R-LD Existing
single-family
dwelling on
lot
Lot split and construct a second unit on the
second lot.
N/A
785 Schembri
(APN 063-361-
440)
5,889 R-LD Vacant lot Construct a second unit on existing lot N/A
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 42
A small number of parcels may be considered as high-potential SB 9 sites based on their size and current SingleFamily Residential zoning. Given the interest in SB 9 in East Palo Alto, it is reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of eligible parcels could be the subject of an SB 9 application over the next eight years.
Of the 3,169 parcels zoned Single-Family Residential and with less than 10,000 square feet in size but more than 2,400 square feet—and therefore not suitable for more than a single unit under the City’s Development Code— approximately 61 of these are vacant.
Table 5.9.D provides a count of East Palo Alto sites zoned for Single-Family Residential.
Source: Raimi + Associates
Map 5.9.A shows potential SB 9 sites (meaning they are less than 10,000 sq ft and vacant) distributed throughout the City. Most of these <10,000 sq ft vacant parcels are in the Weeks neighborhood (southeast in the City; east of Highway 101) or in the Palo Alto Park neighborhood (northeast in the City; east of Highway 101).
Map 5.9.B shows in yellow and in red all the eligible SB 9 lots, both vacant and non-vacant, that could be counted toward the RHNA. Vacant lots are outlined in purple.
Staff assume that 25% of the 61 SB 9-eligible vacant parcels could be developed with two units via SB 9.
Approximately 25% of all eligible SB 9 lots (vacant and non-vacant) are also 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. This would result in 15 lots, where 30 units could be developed. These 30 units may count toward moderateincome units in the Sites Inventory, given they may serve as infill and “missing middle” developments. These 61 SB-9 eligible vacant parcels could account for 7% of the total RHNA 6 and 38% of the moderate-income RHNA allocation.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Table 5.9.D: Single-Family Residential Parcels in East Palo Alto All R-LD parcels Count, Total Vacant
Less than 2,400 sq ft 15 14
2,401 – 9,999 sq ft 3,169 61
More than 10,000 sq ft 125 8
Total 3,309 83
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 43
Map 5.9.A: SB 9 Eligible Parcels (Vacant)
Source: Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012, and Raimi + Associates
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D1: Sites Inventory Methodology – Page 44
Map 5.9.B: SB 9 Eligible Parcels, by Lot Size (Vacant and Non-Vacant) Source: Source: 2015 General Plan, 2010 U.S. Census, San Mateo County GIS Enterprise Database and Santa Clara County, 2012, and Raimi + Associates
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D2: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest
APPENDIX D2: RAVENSWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER OF INTEREST [Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D2: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest – Page 1 October 12, 2022
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Camacho –
I am writing on behalf of the Ravenswood City School District (Ravenswood) about the City of East Palo Alto’s Housing Element. Ravenswood owns a significant amount of land across the City of East Palo Alto and is committed to using that land to provide all students with an excellent education,
At this time, we are interested in seriously exploring changing the zoning at an underutilized field located off Bay Road that we own (highlighted in red below) as part of the parcel Ravenswood owns at 2450 Ralmar Avenue, East Palo Alto, 94303.
To be clear: at this time the Ravenswood Board of Trustees has not authorized a specific project for that site. However, the District is interested in exploring various options for the site and is interested in potentially using that site to address the significant need for housing among our staff and to address the regional housing crisis.
Happy to answer any questions that could be helpful.
Sincerely,
Will
William Eger
Ravenswood City School District
Chief Business Officer
[email protected]
650-329-2800
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D2: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest– Page 2
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D3: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest– Page 1 APPENDIX D3: COUNTY OF SAN MATEO LETTER OF INTEREST
[Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix D3: Sites Inventory Letter of Interest– Page 2 Main Office – Department of Housing
264 Harbor Blvd., Building A Belmont, CA 94002-4017
Housing & Community Development (HCD)
Tel: (650) 802-5050
Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM)
Tel: (650) 802-3300
Board of Supervisors:
Dave Pine
Carole Groom
Don Horsley
Warren Slocum
David Canepa
Director: Raymond Hodges
December 19, 2022
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Camacho –
I am writing on behalf of the County of San Mateo (County) regarding the City of East Palo Alto’s (City) Housing Element. County is exploring the opportunity to develop affordable housing at 2277 University (APN 063-302-460) and has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the City (dated April 14, 2022) regarding the potential for a land swap to occur between the City’s site at 2277 University and the County’s site at Beech Street which sets forth the terms by which City and County will explore various options for each site and benefits of a land swap.
At this time, the County Board of Supervisors has not authorized specific projects for the abovementioned sites.
Happy to answer any questions that could be helpful.
Sincerely,
Babs Deffenderfer
Housing and Community Development Supervisor
County of San Mateo Department of Housing
p: 669-252-2317 [email protected]
Department of Housing (DOH) website: www.smchousing.org • E-mail: [email protected]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) [Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) APPENDIX E: RHNA 5 HOUSING WORKPLAN PROGRESS
[Intentionally Left Blank]
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 1
Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress
RHNA 5 Housing Element
Program
Program Description and Objective Progress and Appropriateness
1.1 Meet with local non-profit
housing developers
Meet with local non-profit and for-profit developers to promote the affordable housing goals outlined in this Housing Element.
Timeframe: annually. City Staff has worked with EPA CAN DO, Eden Housing, and MidPen to develop affordable
housing (Light Tree Apartments, 965 Weeks) and preserve affordable housing (Nugent Square, Bay Oaks).
1.2 Consortium of non-profit
developers
Support the continuation of a consortium of non-profit
affordable housing developers to acquire and maintain
property as affordable housing and to redevelop property for the purpose of preserving or developing housing.
Timeframe: annually. There is no existing consortium of non-profit developers. However, in April 2020, the City held a “Meet & Greet” for affordable housing developers and East Palo Alto faith communities hosted by the City.
1.3 Make loans to developers
using set aside
Make loans, as feasible, to developers using the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to create affordable units.
Timeframe: variable; depends on revenue. The City made a loan commitment to the 965 Weeks project from its Housing Successor fund ($714,000) and an additional conditional commitment of $1.7 million to the project through the Local Housing Trust Fund program; that program was awarded in 2021.
1.4 Encourage 2nd Unit
Development
Encourage the production of second units as an affordable housing alternative and achieve an average of eight new secondary units annually. Evaluate success of recent policy changes. Consider implementing an amnesty program for
illegal second units.
Timeframe: ongoing. The ADU Technical Working Group
continued to meet monthly throughout 2021/2. The City
collaborated with EPACANDO and City Systems on the ADU
Streamlining initiative (funded by an SB 2 grant) and with EPACANDO on the CalHOME grant for ADUs/JADUs.
1.5 Secure two million dollars
for housing development
Secure at least $2,000,000 for housing development, and seek loan and grant funds from private, County, State, and federal sources. Funding will provide gap financing and/or
infrastructure improvements, as necessary and appropriate for affordable housing projects
Timeframe: ongoing. The Local Housing Trust Fund
application for 965 Weeks included a match for a City
commitment of $1.7 million. The City applied for and
received a CalHOME grant award of $2 million in 2019.
The 965 Weeks affordable housing development received
an AHSC award in 2021. The awards far exceeded the goal of $2 million.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 2
1.6 Acquire development sites Continue to acquire potential development sites for affordable housing, particularly for large family households. Use funds from the Affordable Housing Program to purchase sites.
Evaluate opportunities as resources become available.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.
1.7 Mobile Home and
Manufactured Homes
Continue to support development opportunities that allow for or incorporate mobile homes and manufactured homes within the City as a low-cost housing option.
Timeframe: ongoing. The application for 2 modular units was approved by the Planning Department in 2020 for
placement on the City-owned Tanklage site (1798 Bay Rd.).
An application for temporary use of 2081 Bay Rd. and
adjacent sites for production of manufactured housing was approved in 2022.
1.8 Permit Manufactured Homes
on permanent foundations
Continue to permit manufactured housing on permanent
foundations in single-family neighborhoods, and treat them the same as traditional single-family housing during the design review process
Timeframe: ongoing. There is an ongoing effort to support this housing type, though the City has not taken additional actions during this RHNA period. Under the provisions of State Law, the Planning Division treats manufactured
homes in the same manner as originally constructed single family homes.
1.9 Improve Earthquake
Readiness and Resilience
Improve East Palo Alto’s Earthquake Readiness and Resilience:
• Create a fragile housing inventory,
• If appropriate, develop and implement a soft
story retrofit program,
• Develop and implement a cripple wall retrofit program, • Require hazard disclosure for renters, and
• Ensure that major upgrades and repairs to
existing buildings address seismic and floodrelated hazards Timeframe: ongoing. The City adopted the MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2017. Work to renew this Plan began in 2021 and was completed in 2022.
1.10 Floodplain Management Continue to implement Government Code Section 65302, which involves analysis and policies regarding flood hazard and management. Annually review floodplain management
policies in accordance with FEMA regulations and the CRS program.
Additionally, review the Land Use Element for areas subject to flooding to facilitate the identification of sites for future Housing Element updates.
Timeframe: annually. Flood risk has been incorporated into the Housing Element update for the RHNA 6 cycle.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 3
1.11 Multi-Family Rental
Inspection
Consider developing a multifamily rental inspection program. Timeframe: Not completed as of 2022. San Mateo County is the lead party on conducting multi-family rental inspections.
The Building Division conducts life-safety inspections by referrals/complaints.
1.12 New Buildings follow
Crime Prevention
through Environmental
Design
Ensure that new buildings follow the principals of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff conducts CPTED analysis on all major projects via the East Palo Alto Police Department.
2.1 Four Corners TOD
Specific Plan
Implement the Ravenswood / 4 Corners TOD Specific Plan, which guides the conversion of the existing light and heavy industrial uses into higher density residential, commercial, and mixed-use uses that will support a future potential transit station.
Timeframe: ongoing. The Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2013. The City is currently making targeted updates to the Specific Plan area due to the amount of development interest. This is expected to be completed in 2023.
3.1 Review city ordinances
and policies to reduce
barriers to housing
On a regular basis, review City ordinances and programs regulating residential uses and construction practices to ensure consistency with the Housing Element and the rest of the General Plan and identify/correct any provisions that: (a) unnecessarily increase the cost of housing; (b) extend the time required for processing applications; or (c) preclude provision of housing to meet special needs.
Timeframe: annually. The City updated its zoning code in 2018 to address issues and concerns with development and is once again reviewing the code to ensure consistency
throughout. Updates to the zoning code are expected to take place in 2023.
3.2 965 Weeks Street
redeveloped as affordable
housing
Ensure that 965 Weeks (Olson Property) is redeveloped as affordable housing. Complete RFP and select a developer to complete the housing for lower income households.
Timeframe: 2019. A developer (MidPen Housing) was
selected via an RFP process and the Planning Commission approved the project in December 2019. City Council
approved the Disposition, Development, and Loan
Agreement and Ground Lease for the project in December
2020.
4.1 Improve permit
processing times
especially for affordable
housing projects
Continue to process residential development permits
expeditiously, providing priority review status for affordable housing to reduce holding and administration costs.
Timeframe: annual review of processing procedures. The
City reviewed its first “streamlined” project under SB 35 in 2020 (completed early 2021). ADU processing times were
reduced with the Zoning Clearance process for ministerial review of projects, and the process continues to be
improved upon. No other specific actions were taken to
shorten processing times.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 4
4.2 Continue to implement
Affordable Housing
Program
Continue to implement the Affordable Housing Program,
which requires developers to pay into a fund that is used to mitigate the impacts of their development.
Timeframe: ongoing. The City maintains an Inclusionary
Housing program, Commercial Linkage Fee program, and
Local Preference program, and monitors its BMR portfolio through EPACANDO.
4.3 Provide low-interest loans
and/ or grants for
affordable housing to
extremely low, very low,
and low income
Explore the possibility of providing low-interest loans and/or grants to pay for housing affordable to extremely low-, very low- and low-income households (when built by nonprofit developer), as well as the waiving of building and planning fees for said housing. If there is funding and appropriate opportunities, provide funding.
Timeframe: annual assessment of resources. As of January 21, 2020, the full amount of the Catalyst Fund, an affordable housing fund received from Facebook and administered by Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), was
committed to the Light Tree Apartments project and the 965 Weeks Street project. The City committed a loan of
$714,000 to the 965 Weeks project from the Housing
Successor Fund in December 2020. The City also rolled out its CalHome ADU/JADU Loan program for low-income
households in 2022, which includes a deed restriction on the ADU or JADU to be rented to a low-income household.
4.4 Evaluate, improve, and
promote City ordinances
that facilitate affordable
housing
Evaluate, improve, and promote City ordinances that facilitate affordable housing development, including: (a) secondary units;
(b) off-street parking standards; (c) development standards; (d) Planned Unit Development; (e) BMR; (f) density bonus; and (g) mixed-use/high-density residential development in Ravenswood and University Corner/Bay Road areas. Provide information on these mechanisms to developers to promote their use
Timeframe: annually. The City updated its ADU ordinance in 2020 to reflect changes in state law. The City is reviewing its Development Code to make necessary updates to align with state law, and to ensure internal consistency. A targeted zoning code update is expected in 2023. 2020 and 2021 saw a significant increase in ADU applications and approvals with affordability restrictions on ADUs.
4.5 Determine feasibility of
forming a local land trust
Support local land trust(s) as a way to expand affordable housing opportunities, once one is begun, or take steps to have one land trust in operation.
Timeframe: ongoing. The City participates in the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo
County, which is recognized by HCD as a Regional Housing Trust Fund. The City and its partners continue to implement the two-year Challenge Grant (2020-22) and subsequent
Breakthrough Grant (2022-24) from the San Francisco
Foundation to establish a community land trust and
cooperative ownership opportunities in East Palo Alto.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 5
4.6 Provide better
information to the
public and policymakers
about housing issues
Develop and disseminate newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, and other mediums to communicate to the public the City’s policies and programs regarding housing development in an adequate and timely manner.
Timeframe: ongoing/as-needed. City staff began a revision of the City’s website in 2020, with improvements to the Planning webpage that include updated fact sheets and
forms. The Inclusionary Housing Guidelines were approved by City Council in October 2020 (posted in 2021). The City submitted multiple comment letters to HCD on major
housing grant programs (e.g., AHSC) and to CDLAC
regarding tax-exempt bond allocations.
4.7 Encourage development on
small parcels
Disseminate the design toolkit to assist developers of small parcels. This toolkit provides ideas and examples of
techniques to develop small lots while providing usable open space, contributing to a pedestrian environment, and
enhancing community character.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions taken during the Housing Element period.
4.8 Bring wells into operation at
Gloria Bay and Pad D
Bring wells into operation at Gloria Bay and Pad D site to provide potable water to the city, including completing water treatment facilities if necessary.
Timeframe: 2018. Gloria Bay Well was completed in
2018. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was for
Pad D was certified in December 2020. Construction on
Pad D was near completion in 2022.
5.1 Encourage Senior Housing Continue to support senior projects by permitting smaller unit sizes, parking requirement reduction, and common dining facilities.
Timeframe: ongoing. No new applications have been
submitted for senior housing projects in the Housing
Element period..
5.2 Reasonable Accommodations
Ordinance
Implement the reasonable accommodation ordinance, which provides zoning and land use exceptions for housing serving persons with disabilities. The ordinance, adopted in 2011, provides people with disabilities a simple, ministerial process to receive minor exemptions to land use, zoning and building regulations. Publicize ordinance through the city’s website, notices at city offices, in the city newsletter and mailings, and with relevant stakeholder groups.
Timeframe: ongoing/publicize annually. No specific actions in the Housing Element period.
5.3 Financial Assistance/Priority
Planning for Affordable
Housing
Provide financial assistance and priority permitting for at least one affordable housing development in East Palo Alto.
Base funding decisions on the Comprehensive Affordable
Housing Plan. Objective is to assist 40 units.
Timeframe: ongoing. The City Council adopted a five-year Affordable Housing Strategy in 2018; the goal was to
produce an additional 500 deed-restricted affordable units.
The City has permitted two affordable housing developments during this time (Light Tree, 965 Weeks).
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 6
5.4 Promote Emergency Shelters Continue to permit emergency shelters in the Light Industrial (M-1) zone without discretionary permits.
Within this zone, emergency shelters are subject to the same development and management standards that apply
to the other permitted uses.
Timeframe: ongoing. The City’s only shelter, a Low
Barrier Navigation Center, is located outside of this zone.
No emergency shelters were permitted in the M-1 zone in the Housing Element period,
5.5 Transitional and Supportive
Housing
Continue to permit transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.
5.6 Encourage Transitional
Housing
Accommodate and facilitate the development of additional transitional housing facilities that serve victims of domestic violence, homeless individuals, and/or formerly incarcerated persons.
Timeframe: bi-annual assessment of needs and resources.
No specific action in the Housing Element period.
5.7 Single Room Occupancy
(SRO) Housing
Continue to allow by right the development of Single-RoomOccupancy projects in High Density Residential Zones.Timeframe: annual review and confirmation. No specific action in the Housing Element period.
5.8 Residential Care Facilities Continue to enforce the spacing requirement for residential care facilities, as identified in Section 6515.5 of the East Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, which is currently seven hundred and fifty feet (750) for facilities that house ten persons or more, and 500 feet for facilities that house 6-10 residents.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.
5.9 Implement High Priority
Items
Implement high priority items from Homeless Solutions Plan:
• Identify Point Person on Homelessness
• Create a Year-Round “Services Lite” Shelter
• Expand Homeless Outreach Team
• Develop Rapid Re-Housing Capacity Create
Permanent Supportive Housing
Timeframe: 2020. The City began regularly reporting to
City Council on homelessness starting in 2021. An
interdepartmental staff team continues to meet, as do
monthly City-led meetings with the County of San Mateo
Homeless Services Agency and service providers LifeMoves and Project WeHOPE. The County and these partners have
significantly increased capacity for homeless outreach and rapid-rehousing since 2020.
6.1 Rent Stabilization Implement the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Just Cause Ordinance.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff continues to implement the June 2010 Rent Stabilization Ordinance adopted by the
voters.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 7
6.2 Maximum Legal Rents Annually certify maximum legal rents that can be charged in the city.
Timeframe: annually. City staff is annually certifying the legal rents that can be charged in the City.
6.3 Working with Nonprofits Work with non-profit housing service providers to provide education and legal assistance to secure tenant rights.
Timeframe: Ongoing. City staff refer residents to
Community Legal Services and the Legal Aid Society of
San Mateo County for certain housing related issues. In 2019, the City released an RFP for tenant services, and in 2020, local nonprofits Community Legal Aid Services in
East Palo Alto, Youth United for Community Action, and
Nuestra Casa received funding for tenant education, tenant protections, and emergency assistance. Also in 2020, the City provided additional funding to nonprofit agencies to assist tenants with COVID-19-related financial hardships and prevent evictions. The City released an RFP for tenant education and assistance in fall 2022.
6.4 Monitor BMR Units Monitor housing units developed as part of the City’s Affordable Housing Impact Fee Ordinance to ensure
compliance. Monitor affordable units with deed-restrictions to ensure long-term availability of these units as affordable housing. Current terms of affordability are 59 years for ownership and 99 years for rental, both resetting when
properties are sold.
Timeframe: annually. The City has contracted with
EPACANDO since 2019 to administer the City's BMR
portfolio. This is an ongoing endeavor that included the refinancing and re-sale of BMR units in 2020-2022.
6.5 BMR and Condo Conversion
Ordinance
Monitor the effectiveness of the City’s affordable housing mitigation programs, including the Affordable Housing
Program and the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, as
tools to facilitate affordable housing development. In
particular, the fees associated with each program will be reassessed to confirm their ability to meet the City’s
affordable housing goals.
Timeframe: ongoing, fees are reassessed annually. City staff continues to monitor the City's BMR units and Condo
Conversion Ordinance.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 8
6.6 Affordable Housing Strategy Develop a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy to identify ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing in the city. The study should examine the success of current programs, including the density bonus ordinance, as well as the potential for new programs (e.g., affordable housing overlay zone). Topics to study include affordable housing overlay zone, the strategy should also prioritize spending for the city’s affordable housing trust fund and access to
affordable housing.
Timeframe: 2016. The City completed an Affordable
Housing Strategy in 2018; some of the workplan items are included in this report. Staff provide updates at regular intervals to City Council.
6.7 Discourage Mobile Home
Removal or Relocation
Discourage removal or relocation of conforming mobile
home parks by enforcing East Palo Alto’s mobile home park closure and relocation requirements.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff ensure compliance with
State laws related to mobile home parks on an ongoing
basis. Since September 2020, staff have closely monitored the conversion process of the Palo Mobile Estates Mobile Home Park.
6.8 Mobile Home Park
Ownership Program Funds
Assist eligible mobile home park residents in receiving Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP)
funds.
Timeframe: ongoing, based on State funding opportunities.
Staff began preparing an application to the Mobile home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program
(MPRROP) program to support the Palo Mobile Estates
conversion in September 2020 but were unable to submit the application in this cycle because the project did not yet meet key threshold criteria.
6.9 Mobile Home Funds Work with the property owners of existing mobile home parks to prepare infrastructure studies of said parks.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.
6.10 Home Sharing Program Support HIP Housing Home Sharing Program as part of a collection of policies, programs, and practices for addressing the housing needs of those at the lowest income levels
including seniors, those living with disabilities, those at risk of homelessness and female head of households. Objective is to make 10 home sharing placements by 2022.
Timeframe: ongoing. - The City refers individuals to the HIP home sharing program on an ongoing basis and contributes to the Home Sharing Program annually.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 9
7.1 Financial/Credit Counseling Make first-time homebuyer funds and mortgage enhancement available through as many means as possible, including:
• Participate in the San Mateo County Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program (MCC), which aims to
enhance the affordability of both new and existing
homes for first- time low- to moderate-income
homebuyers. Educate prospective buyers about the
MCC (i.e., distribute materials), seeking to enroll at
least 5 lower- and moderate-income East Palo Alto
households annually.
• Provide first-time homebuyer assistance to lowerand moderate-income households with funding available from the County HOME program.
Timeframe: ongoing implementation of existing programs.
The City’s BMR administrator, EPACANDO, provides
financial counseling to homeowners in the City’s BMR
portfolio.
7.2 First-Time Homebuyer
Assistance/Low-Interest
Loans
Work with lenders and fair-housing service providers to provide credit counseling workshops in East Palo Alto that assist residents in understanding home improvement and
purchase processes and how to access financing. Inform
households about opportunities to increase access to housing through credit repair to enhance, while educating them to recognize predatory lending and discrimination.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.
7.3 City Resident / Employee
Housing Assistance
Investigate new program possibilities that provide down payment assistance and/or low-interest loans for City
employees and residents. Use new programs to provide down payment assistance and/or low-interest loans to at least five very low-, low-, or moderate- income households by 2022.
Timeframe: 2018. No actions taken on this item in the Housing Element period.
8.1 Condominium Conversion
Ordinance
Implement the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions taken in the Housing Element period.
8.2 Replacement and
Preservation of RentStabilized Units
Conserve units governed by the Rent Stabilization Program by limiting commercial redevelopment which would reduce the supply of affordable units.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions taken in the
Housing Element period.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 10
8.3 No Net Loss If legally defensible, implement a no net loss housing policy ensuring that development in the West Side that results in the loss of affordable housing be required to replace that
affordable housing.
Timeframe: Policy developed in 2015. Most recently, the City reviewed the Woodland Park Communities
development proposal (for 605 residential units on the
Westside) for compliance with the 2035 General Plan; in particular, the specific policies within Chapter 11 (Westside Area Plan) that require newly- rezoned properties to provide affordable housing.
8.4 Short-Term Rentals Monitor the use of homes as short-term vacation rentals. If appropriate, consider additional legislation.
Timeframe: annually. The City began study of a shortterm rental ordinance in 2020, with specific updates to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) policy related to shortterm rentals included as part of a 2020 ballot measure. The ballot measure did not succeed and work on short-term
rental policy was temporarily de-prioritized due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This work has not resumed.
9.1 Public Outreach on health
and safety
Distribute literature on the health and safety risks of leadbased paint and continue to work with the San Mateo County Housing and Code Enforcement Division to explore
resources and programs available to address lead-based paint in the City’s housing stock.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff refer residents to the County Health Department on health issues related to housing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.
9.2 Home Repair Program Refer East Palo Alto homeowners to the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Division’s Home
Repair Program and explore ways to increase homeowner
participation. Disseminate information on the Home Repair Program through brochures available at public counters and the City’s website.
Timeframe: ongoing, through referrals. This program is no longer available. While partnerships with Rebuilding
Together and other organizations provided assistance to households with unpermitted garage conversions prior to 2020, some programs are longer funded. Staff continues to disseminate information about resources such as Habitat for Humanity, dependent on funding.
9.3 County Funded
Rehabilitation Program
Inform homeowners on the availability of County-funded
rehabilitation assistance with County brochures and multilingual postings to the City of East Palo’s website. Work with the County to host local workshops on rehabilitation
assistance for City residents.
Timeframe: ongoing. Staff provides information at the
counter and on the City’s website, but this is dependent upon availability of programs. The City is not aware of any rehabilitation assistance programs at this time.
9.4 Rehabilitation of Programs
(Home)
Assist eligible extremely low-, very low-income and lowincome homeowners in the City in pursuing funds to aid in the rehabilitation and renovation of their homes.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions in the Housing
Element period.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 11
9.5 Foreclosure Assistance Provide resources for homeowners facing foreclosure on the City’s website, including links to loan servicers and agencies that can provide counseling and legal assistance.
Timeframe: ongoing. Residents are referred to Community Legal Services and the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo
County for foreclosure issues.
9.6 Affordable Project Housing
Management
For affordable housing projects that have received financial assistance from the City, identify projects where a history of complaints and failed inspections by authorized agencies indicate continued and uncorrected mismanagement. Contact identified property managers to determine a Timeframe: for correction or negotiate change in property management per the stipulations set forth in the financial agreement between the City and the affordable housing developer.
Timeframe: ongoing. The City reviews annual compliance
reporting from all deed-restricted multifamily housing sites in East Palo Alto. In February 2020, the City issued a
Notice of Default to the Courtyard at Bay Road
Apartments for non- compliance and Health and Building
Code violations. The City continued to follow up in 2020 with the owner. This activity is ongoing.
10.1 Fair Housing Program
Referrals
Support, publicize, and make referrals to fair housing and legal assistance programs that provide information,
counseling, and investigation services concerning housing discrimination.
Publicize ordinance through the city’s website, notices at city offices, in the city newsletter and mailings, and with relevant stakeholder groups.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff, on an ongoing basis, refer residents to housing and legal assistance programs
concerning housing discrimination.
10.2 Predatory Lending
Protections
Support local, regional, State, and federal initiatives in addressing predatory lending practices to protect the most vulnerable segments of the community.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff, on an ongoing basis, refer residents to local, regional, State and Federal initiatives that address predatory lending.
10.3 Housing Discrimination
Prevention
Support private and public efforts to prevent discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.
Timeframe: ongoing. City staff comply with state and
federal laws related to fair housing.
11.1 Annual Housing Element
Monitoring
Allocate financial and staff resources to maintain a
monitoring system that collects information on the
accomplishments and lessons learned of concerning the
Housing Element’s objectives and programs. Prepare detailed progress report for review by the City Council, stakeholders, and the general public.
Timeframe: annually, through annual progress reports.
City staff annually prepare a Housing Element Progress
Report in accordance with State law.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Appendix E: RHNA 5 Housing Workplan Progress – Page 12
11.2 Housing Study Sessions The City Council shall hold public meetings and study sessions to discuss various housing policies in the city and to exchange input and information with residents and
developers about housing needs, resources, and program
options. To the extent possible, publish a schedule of study sessions.
Timeframe: annually, through public meetings and study
sessions. Study sessions were held throughout the Housing Element period on a variety of housing topics, including individual residential developments, the Inclusionary
Housing program, and a potential affordable housing
overlay zone.
11.3 Website Updates Update the website and explore other means to communicate important housing concerns, policies, and programs to the general public.
Timeframe: ongoing, overview and update annually. The
City migrated its website to a new platform in 2020 and staff continues to improve department webpages.
11.4 Annual Housing Reports Report to the City Council on the state of housing in East Palo Alto.
Timeframe: annually. The City provides semiannual
updates to the City Council on progress on the 5-year
Affordable Housing Strategy and other housing topics
throughout the year.
12.1 Enforce State Energy Codes Enforce State Energy Code for new residential construction and additions/renovations to existing structures.
Timeframe: ongoing. Building Division staff, on an ongoing basis, enforce the State Energy Code for new residential and additions/constructions to existing units. The City adopted a Building Electrification and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Reach Codes Ordinance in October 2020.
12.2 Grants for Energy
Efficiency
Pursue funding sources for rehabilitation loans and grants to low-income homeowners to improve energy
efficiencies, such as replacing existing energy inefficient appliances.
Timeframe: ongoing. No specific actions during the Housing Element period.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Attachment 3
City of East Palo Alto Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031 Response to California Department of Community and Community Development Letter of January 19, 2023 on Revisions for Substantial Compliance with State Housing Element Law (Article 10. 6 of Government Code)
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT HCD COMMENT CITY RESPONSE
A, Review and Revision
Review the previous element
to evaluate the
appropriateness, effectiveness,
and progress in
implementation, and reflect the
results of this review in the
revised element. (Gov. Code, §
65588 (a) and (b).)
As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must analyze the appropriateness of goals, objectives, and policies including a description of how the goals, policies, and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element. In addition, the element must analyze the cumulative impact and effectiveness of the previous housing element’s programs to address the housing needs of all special need populations (i.e., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).
A review and evaluation of the 5th cycle Housing Element is contained in Appendix E of the Draft Housing Element. The Housing Needs Assessment is covered in Chapter 2 of the Draft Housing Element, which include analyzing the needs of special needs populations. These two evaluations along with the AFFH analysis (Chapter 4 and Appendix C,) and
community input (Section 1.3, Section 1.4, and Appendix A) have informed the policies and programs in 6th cycle Housing Element. Policies and programs that address special needs and unhoused populations include the following:
Special Needs – 1.4, 4.8, 7.1
Homelessness – 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 10.2
An analysis of the cumulative impact and effectiveness of the previous housing element’s programs to address the housing needs for special needs populations can be found in Chapter 7, Section 7.1.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair
housing in accordance with
Chapter 15 (commencing with
Enforcement and Outreach: While the element describes the City’s outreach, it must describe the process to refer fair housing complaints. In addition, the element must include a fair housing Housing Element discusses the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Rent Stabilization Board, Project Sentinel, and Measure O anti-displacement programs offered through
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Section 8899.50) of Division 1
of Title 2…shall include an
assessment of fair housing in
the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
program to address the identified lack of fair housing information on the City’s website.
contract with non-profit organizations using Measure O local tax revenue to cover education, advocacy, enforcement, and outreach on fair housing issues (see 3.4. 5.7 and 5.8). The City’s rent stabilization program and its network of non-profit organizations comprise the City’s fair housing program and an integral part of the referral system. Referrals can also come to code enforcement.
Integration and Segregation: While the element addresses most of the requirements, it should analyze the local concentrations of familial status geographically within the City. It should analyze what contributes to the identified disparities in the area bordering Menlo Park with high concentrations of poverty and lower access to opportunity.
The fair housing analysis was prepared in accordance with state AFFH requirements and analyzes factors such as
household composition, income, racial composition, special needs populations, housing characteristics, and analyzes the geographic disparities within the City. The Housing Element programs and policies in Chapter 6 reflect the findings of the fair housing analysis (refer to C.4 below).
Disparities In Access to Opportunity: While the element includes some data, additional information is required. The element should analyze what contributes to the lower access to jobs and high unemployment rate within the City. It should also describe whether access to jobs is equal throughout the City and whether protected classes have access to jobs. In addition, the element must analyze access to transit geographically throughout the City as well as regionally.
Employment and local hiring was analyzed in a study
completed in 2021 by Brightline Defense Project that was commissioned by the City to provide recommendations for implementing the City’s First Source Hiring Ordinance and Measure HH, a local tax approved by voters in 2018 that includes funding for a local workforce development program that would benefit East Palo Alto residents. Policy 4.14 addresses the implementation of the City-approved Pilot Workforce Development Program.
Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: The element must analyze geographic concentrations of cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing within the City, as well as what contributes to the high concentration of disproportionate needs. In addition, the element should expand the analysis on displacement risk within the City and provide a regional analysis (City compared to the broader region).
The Housing Element has been edited to provide more
information on disproportionate housing needs such as
discussion on historic redlining, overcrowding, and
substandard housing (based on code enforcement records) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Identified Sites:
While the element analyzes the identified sites for each fair Discussion of the role City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is plays in affirmatively furthering fair housing is further
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) housing factor, the maps indicate that sites are concentrated by income level. The element should identify what actions the City is taking to address the potential concentration of sites for lower income in certain areas and it should analyze how the identified sites contribute to or mitigate fair housing issues.
expanded upon in the Housing Element. Policies and
programs are proposed to address affordable housing
financing, housing rehabilitation, and preservation of
affordable unit (refer to C.4 below)
Contributing Factors: The element identifies many contributing factors to fair housing issues. In addition, the element must prioritize these factors to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to AFFH.
Chapter 6, Section 6.2 summarizes the primary AFFH factors for East Palo Alto as revealed in the fair housing analysis and community input.C.4 below lists these factors and indicates the Housing Element policies and programs that address
these factors.
2. Include an analysis of
population and employment
trends and documentation of
projections and a
quantification of the locality's
existing and projected needs
for all income levels, including
extremely low-income
households. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element must identify and analyze the number of existing ELI households by tenure. In addition, the element must also identify the total number of projected ELI households. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income
households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households.
The City identifies and analyses the existing ELI households by tenure in Chapter 2, Section 2.5, and Section 2.6 and in Appendix B under Figure 12: Household Income Level by
Tenure. Discussion of the projected housing needs overall is in Chapter 2, Section 2.8, and discussion of the projected housing need for ELI households is in Chapter 5.
3. Include an analysis and
documentation of household
characteristics, including level
of payment compared to ability
to pay, housing characteristics,
including overcrowding, and
housing stock condition. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)
Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of households overpaying for housing, it also must identify and analyze the total number of lower-income households overpaying for housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner) and add or modify policies and programs as appropriate.
The fair housing analysis includes data on cost burdened households by income category (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) and by rental and ownership
households. See Housing Element Appendix B, Figure 27:
Cost Burden by Tenure. Policies and programs were modified as appropriate.
Housing Stock Condition: The element identifies the number of substandard housing units within the City. However, it must include analysis of the condition of the existing housing stock and estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates While a survey of the condition of the housing stock is not available, staff was able to assess housing conditions
through a review code enforcement records and records from administration of the City Rent Stabilization program. This information was added to Chapter 2 of the Housing Element.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) from a recent survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable
builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.
Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data.
The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge) to better reflect local market conditions.
For example, the element may utilize data from Zillow and Apartments.com.
Current rents for housing units in East Palo were estimated based on the listings and data in Zillow. This information was added to Chapter 2, Section 2.7 of the Housing Element.
4. An inventory of land suitable
and available for residential
development, including vacant
sites and sites having realistic
and demonstrated potential for
redevelopment during the
planning period to meet the
locality’s housing need for a
designated income level, and
an analysis of the relationship
of zoning and public facilities
and services to these sites.
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be
reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must demonstrate their affordability based on actual sales price, rent level, or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions).
At the time of preparation of the Housing Element, none of the entitled residential projects that qualify for inclusion in the Sites Inventory for 2023-2031 has been completed. Staff was able to obtain projected rents from the developer on the recently entitled Woodland Park Euclid Improvements
apartment project, which are discussed in the Sites Inventory Appendix D.
The element should also demonstrate their availability in the planning period. The availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period should account for any barriers to development, phasing, anticipated build out horizons, market conditions and other relevant factors.
The Sites Inventory (Chapter 5 and Appendix D) provides additional information on each project and site to
demonstrate the expected availability and development of the sites during the 6th cycle Housing Element and the factors for making this determination. Many of the sites have entitled projects or development applications are currently in process.
Furthermore, Tables 5.2 (high probability projects) and 5.3 (lower probability projects) should clarify whether what is listed are projects (projects) or sites and whether the unit counts are based on project applications submitted to the City.
The Sites Inventory (Chapter 5 and Appendix D) adds
information on the projects with approved and active
applications (pre-application or formal applications in process). Some sites were removed from the Sites Inventory with a lower probability of development by 2031.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Table 5.2, if considered projects, must also clarify how affordability is determined and provide the status of each development.
The Sites Inventory (Chapter 5 and Appendix D) provides further information for how the income category of the units were determined based on specific project information, such as 100% affordable housing projects or the number of units required per the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. As noted above, the projected Woodland Park rents were
provided by the developer and compared with markets rents in East Palo Alto to confirm validity.
In addition, if the units listed in Table 5.1.B are sites (p. 5-3), the element should clarify what the approved densities are based on since many of the assumed densities are much higher than what zoning allows.
The Sites Inventory (Chapter 5 and Appendix D) clarifies the approved and projected densities for the sites. Where
densities are higher than the zoning, these projects include a density bonus as allowed by state law and local ordinance.
Lastly, the element states that some projects listed to meet the RHNA have the potential of being sold. The element should describe whether the sale of the projects would affect likelihood of development during the planning period.
Staff cannot predict with confidence if the sale of a site will affect the likelihood of development. Project approvals run with the land and entitlements are transferred to the next owner. It is not uncommon for a developer to sell a property after entitlement are received which may delay construction or, conversely, facilitate financing to allow the project to proceed.
Sites Inventory: While the element identifies sufficient capacity for lower-income and above-moderate income households, there is an identified shortfall of sites to accommodate moderate income households. The element must identify sufficient capacity for all income levels or rezone as needed.
The sites in the Sites Inventory have been reevaluated for sale or rent level and staff now projects that the capacity will be significantly exceeded for all income categories. The Moderate-Income category was previously deficient, but staff now believes that the majority of the units in the Woodland Park project will qualify as Moderate-Income units (previously listed as all Above Moderate-Income units).
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for As noted above, staff has further evaluated the sites in the Sites Inventory to confirm the realistic capacity of the sites.
This includes reevaluating factors such as market condition, recent proposals from developers, site conditions, residential
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element should also analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). This analysis should consider the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential
development and adjust residential capacity assumptions as appropriate. For example, the element could describe
performance standards or evaluate all trends in the pertinent zones, how often residential occurs and adjust residential calculations as appropriate. In addition, the element should assess the realistic capacity assumptions of 755 Schembri Lane and East Bayshore properties which have a higher assumption than what is described as owner interest.
development patterns, trends, and densities in East Palo Alto, and sufficiency of utilities.
While mixed-use sites could conceivably be built with a 100% commercial project, that is not anticipated based on
submitted applications or discussions with the prospective applicants. Additionally, East Palo Alto’s Sites Inventory significant exceeds its RHNA so a generous buffer or
alternative sites are available if residential densities are not met on these sites. Several mixed-use sites are in the
Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan area; a specific plan update is in progress and staff is considering stipulating minimal residential density for mixed-use sites.
Staff has also clarified that where project units exceed density, these projects are SB35 projects or are taking advantage of the state density bonus law.
See revisions to Chapter 5 and Appendix D for more details.
Zoning for Lower-Income Households: The element must
demonstrate zoning appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. For sites with zoning meeting
specified densities or default densities (30 units per acre in East Palo Alto), no analysis is required. Otherwise, the element must include analysis based on statutory factors. While the element identifies densities of at least 30 units per acre for many of the sites to accommodate housing for lower-income households, other sites do not meet the default density. As a result, if relying on densities less than 30 units per acre to accommodate the lower-income RHNA, an analysis must be included to
demonstrate how the zoning encourages the development of units affordable for lower-income households. Please see HCD’s Building Blocks for more information.
Per Housing Element Law and HCD guidance,, the Sites
Inventory does not include any affordable units for sites that are less than one-half acre or more than ten acres. The only sites with an allowable density of less 30 units per acre that includes affordable units are those sites with entitled projects that are likely to be constructed during the 6th cycle Housing Element. The affordable units are required per the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element identifies nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for households For non-vacant sites, staff have expanded the information for these sites to explain the methodology and factors for
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) of all incomes. A complete analysis should describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment.
concluding the potential development of these sites by 2031.
The existing improvements on these properties were also further explained. For example, several sites are underutilized with an older single-family home on a sizable lot. The City has a history of similar sites being redeveloped with multiple residential units.
The Sites Inventory (Chapter 5 and Appendix D) provides a further explanation of the suitability of all nonvacant sites for redevelopment. Appendix D includes a description for every site included in the Sites Inventory.
In addition, specific analysis and actions are necessary if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.
For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential
development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Staff have calculated that slightly over 50 percent of the units required to meet the RHNA for lower-income units are on nonvacant sites. Per comment above, staff has provided
further explanation for concluding the suitability of all sites (vacant and nonvacant) in Sites Inventory for potential development within the 6th cycle Housing Element. As such, staff does not believe additional findings, as noted, are required.
SB 9 Sites: The element identifies SB 9 as a strategy to accommodate the part of the City’s need of moderate income RHNA. For example, the analysis should include experience, trends and market conditions that allow lot splits. The analysis must also include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and the existing use will not constitute as an impediment for additional residential use. The analysis should describe how the City determined eligible properties, whether the assumed lots will have turnover, if the The SB 9 parcels have been removed from the Sites
Inventory. These sites were previously listed as ModerateIncome units. Staff has identified other units (Woodland Park Euclid Improvements project mentioned above) that will
provide sufficient Moderate-Income units to excel the RHNA for this income category. While staff continues to believe these parcels are highly suitable tor SB 9 projects and the City has approved several SB 9 projects on similar parcels, the criteria or threshold for including these sites are difficult to
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) properties are easy to subdivide, and the condition of the existing structures. The analysis should also describe interest from property owners as well as experience. The analysis should provide support for the assumption of eligible properties being developed within the planning period. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs to establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development as well as monitor development every two years with and identify additional sites within six months if assumptions are not being met. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9. meet. Nevertheless, the Housing Element includes
Policies/Programs 1.7 and 1.25 to support and facilitate SB 9 projects.
4. continued City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on the City-Owned site identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Finally, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
Additional information has been included the Sites Inventory Methodology (Appendix D.1, Section D.1.5.5) regarding the potential for adding residential units to the City-owned site at 2277 University. While the 560 Bell St site was removed from the Sites Inventory, the City still has a Program 1.22 to determine the feasibility of redeveloping the current Senior Center; a General Plan and zoning change might be required to allow residential use.
Publicly Owned Sites and School Sites: The element identifies a senior center, a County- Owned site, and a Ravenswood School District site. The element should provide additional discussion on each of the sites and address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses, whether lot splits are needed, and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and Additional information has been included the Sites Inventory Methodology (Appendix D.1, Section D.1.5.5) regarding the potential for redeveloping the publicly owned for residential development. The site owned by the County of San Mateo at 2415 University Avenue was removed from the Sites
Inventory, after further analysis found the site to be too narrow and requiring shared parking. The site owned by the
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). The element must provide additional support and describe whether the City has contacted the owners regarding feasibility of development on these sites and whether they will be available during the planning period.
City at 560 Bell St was also removed from the Sites Inventory given the potential need to rezone. The Ravenswood School District submitted a letter (see Appendix D2) indicating its interest in developing its site for residential uses to address the significant need for housing among their staff and
regionally, which was affirmed by the School Board in
January 2023. The County of San Mateo submitted a letter (see Appendix D3) expressing interest in developing housing at 2277 University, after a land swap.
Programs 1.23 and 1.24 have been added to address
development of both sites for residential uses.
AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater). (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4).)
East Palo Alto meets this requirement for Above ModerateIncome RHNA units with over 25 percent of these units located on sites that will allow at least four housing units.
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: Sites identified in prior planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income households unless a
program, meeting statutory requirements, requires rezoning within three years. The element should clarify if sites were identified in prior planning periods and if so, which sites and include a program if utilizing previously identified sites in the current planning period. For more information on program requirements, please see HCD’s Housing Element Sites
Inventory Guidebook at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing- element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf Appendix D1 indicates which parcels in the City’s RHNA 6 sites inventory were identified in prior planning periods. Of the sites identified in previous planning years, some are already approved and are now proceeding to the building permit stage. The remaining projects do not require rezoning within three years, as they are not designated to
accommodate the housing needs for lower-income
households, or they have already been rezoned to allow for the number of units designated in the sites inventory.
Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, the element must include a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households Pursuant to Government Code section Policy 10.1 requires applicable residential projects to include replacement lower-income units pursuant to Government
Code Section 65583.2(g). However, East Palo Alto has
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) 65583.2, subdivision (g). Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in d
already been enforcing this requirement through its
application of SB 330.
Small and Large Sites: Sites smaller than half an acre or greater than ten acres are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other evidence demonstrates the suitability of these sites. The element must provide analysis of past trends or present other evidence to demonstrate the suitability of these sites. For example, the analysis could describe the City’s role or track record in facilitating past lot consolidation, common ownership, policies, or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation or other conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready-for-lot consolidation. For example, the element must describe feasibility of the waterfront site, the CityOwned site less than half an acre, as well as the numerous aggregated small parcels.
Per state law, staff amended the Sites Inventory to exclude any affordable units for sites that are less than one-half acre or more than ten acres unless the project is already entitled and developers have included affordable units in their
projects to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
4. continued Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): ADUs may be counted toward the RHNA based on past permitted units and other relevant factors. In the element, the City projects 125 ADUs will be constructed over the planning period, averaging 16 units per year. This projection was based on figures provided based on past ADU annual permit figures of 8, 10, and 29 for 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. However, Annual Progress Reports submitted by the City showed building permit figures of 0, 8, and 10 for 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. The element should reconcile these numbers and adjust assumptions as appropriate.
Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) for production and affordability, and specific commitment to adopt alternative Staff has reconciled the ADU production numbers and has taken a conservative approach. The projected ADUs units in the Sites Inventory has been adjusted to use the lower
numbers in the Annual Progress Report. See revised
Housing Element Section 5.8.
Various Housing Element Policies/Programs have been
included to address zoning standard update and incentives for ADUs (see Policies/Programs 1.7, 1.8, 1.10, and 10.5).
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) as needed.
Availability of Infrastructure: While the element analyzes the capacity of water and sewer to accommodate the City’s RHNA, capacity was identified as a constraint. The element must include a program to address capacity throughout the planning period. In addition, the element must include an analysis of access and availability of dry utilities to support sites identified in the inventory.
The Infrastructure Constraints section of the Housing
Element (Section 3.2.2) has been clarified to indicate that water supply capacity and the wastewater treatment plant capacity are sufficient, and no longer a constraint to meet RHNA needs. However, each residential project is required to pay water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater development
impact fees to pay for city-wide infrastructure improvements.
During project review, each project will be evaluated for the sufficiency of site-specific infrastructure.
For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority service allocations for water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a cover memo describing the City’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need.
Policy 5.4 has been added in the Housing Element to comply with this Government Code requirement. Staff will follow up with water and sewer service providers following certification of the Housing Element.
Environmental Constraints: On page 3-24, the element began discussing environmental conditions, but the analysis must fully describe how environmental conditions relate to identified sites including any other known environmental constraints within the City that could preclude or impact housing development in the planning period. In addition, the element should include a program to address the water moratorium and describe actions being taken to resolve the restrictions with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District.
The Non-Governmental Constraints section of the Housing Element (Section 3.3.6) has been revised to address
environmental constraints. The primary environmental
constraints to residential development are compliance with flood, geotechnical, and seismic standards. The City’s water moratorium was ended in 2018 upon East Palo Alto securing additional water allotments from the cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by An Electronic Sites Inventory will be submitted with the City’s adopted Housing Element per Government Code 65583.3
using the template provided by HCD.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at
[email protected] for technical assistance.
Emergency Shelters: The element should describe the
development standards of the industrial transition zone that allows emergency shelters by-right. In addition, the element should analyze proximity to transportation and services for these sites, hazardous conditions, and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability, as well as total capacity. Lastly, the element must describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.
Program 10.2 has been added to update the City’s zoning and development standards per the Government Code.
By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by- right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651.
The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
Program 10.3 has been added to update the City’s zoning and development standards per the Government Code.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element must clarify which zoning districts SROs are allowed in and whether the jurisdiction has a procedure to encourage and facilitate SRO development in the allowable zones. Programs should be added or modified as necessary.
Single Room Occupancy Units are not distinguished from
other multi-family uses in East Palo Alto’s Development Code and are allowed wherever residential uses are allowed.
Housing for Farmworkers: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee Program 10.4 has been added to clarify that the definition of “housekeeping unit” can include employee housing for six or fer employees for compliance with the Employee Housing
Act.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.
Manufactured and Mobile Housing: Manufactured and mobile homes that are built on a permanent foundation must be allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional or stick-built structures. Specifically, manufactured homes on a permanent structure should only be subject to the same
development standards that a conventional single-family residential dwelling would be subject to. The element must demonstrate consistency with this requirement or add or modify programs as appropriate.
Manufactured or mobile housing on a permanent structure is not distinguished from a conventional single-family home in the definition of a single-family dwelling in the City’s Development Code.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU
ordinance to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.
The Housing Element has multiple policies to update the Development Code to conform with the latest state laws.
Additionally, programs have been added to facilitate the production of ADUs through further relaxation of zoning standards; fee waiver, reductions, or deferrals; pre-approved plans; expanded homeowner resources; and incentives for rent-restricted ADUs.
Refer to Policy/Programs 1.7, 1.8, 1.10, 1.12. 1.13, and 7.8.
5. An analysis of potential and
actual governmental
constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all
income levels, including the
types of housing identified in
paragraph (1) of subdivision
(c), and for persons with
disabilities as identified in the
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. While the element lists development standards, it must also analyze them for constraints. The analysis should
specifically address requirements related to parking standards (p. 4-10) and clarify whether parking spaces for each zone are for all unit types and/or bedroom sizes. It should also analyze open space requirements (common and private), and the 30- foot rear An expanded discussion of development impediments is
included in the Housing Element under Government
Constraints (Section 3.1). Parking standards for residential uses are based on number of bedroom but does not vary
among zoning districts. However, programs are included in the Housing Element to update City zoning standards to
conform to the latest state laws, which include conforming parking standards to AB2097.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) analysis pursuant to
paragraph (7), including land
use controls, building codes
and their enforcement, site
improvements, fees and other
exactions required of
developers, and local
processing and permit
procedures... (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(5).)
setback in the BRC and Four Corners Zones. The element must also describe whether 100 percent residential and/or commercial uses are allowed in mixed-use zones. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice,
affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element must include a program to address all identified constraints.
The City is in the process of updating the Ravenswood
Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan (RBD) which will reevaluate all development standards for properties within the specific plan area. Several mixed-use sites are in the RBD; the update will consider stipulating minimal residential density for mixed-use sites.
Land use and development constraints are acknowledged
through multiple policies and programs to clarify, adjust, and streamline the project review process. Refer to Housing Element Policies/Programs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.11, 1.12,
1.21, 1,25, 10.7 and 10.8.
Fees and Exaction: While the element includes a link to fees on the City’s website, it should also list the typical permitting fees exacted in Table 3.7 (p. 3-16). In addition, the element should further clarify what planning fees are exacted (e.g., rezoning, general plan amendments, subdivisions, etc.). Fees should be compared with surrounding and/or similar jurisdictions and analyzed for potential constraints on a variety of housing types.
An expanded discussion of development fees and exactions that provides this information is included in the Housing Element under Government Constraints, Section 3.1.15 with Tables 3.1.15(A)-(E). Information was added regarding
development processing and estimated permit and
development fees for several hypothetically residential projects is shown in Table 3.1.15(A). A comparison of fees with surrounding communities is included in Table 3.1.15(E).
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing, and approval certainty. For example, the element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. In addition, the element should clarify whether the listed processing times for each approval are for both single family and multifamily developments. Lastly, the element should analyze the difference in the total processing Residential projects in East Palo Alto are subject to the same requirements as other cities under state laws governing processing times, objective design standards, and certainty in development requirements. The City adheres to the
requirements in SB 9, SB 35, SB 330, and the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) and have trained Planning
Commissioners on these laws. Staff has prepared guidelines for SB 9 and SB 35 by-right projects.
Information on development processing times is discussed in Housing Element, Section 3.1.13. Average processing times and approval authority for a single-family dwelling and multifamily project are listed in Table 3.1.13(A).
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) times for single and multifamily developments as a constraint, as multifamily developments take up to four times as long to approve as single-family developments and add programs as appropriate.
Housing Element Programs/Policies that address improving the development review process include 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. 1.4, and 1.11,
Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.
Currently, application of the City’s design guidelines for residential projects are limited due to SB 330 and HAA. The Planning Division’s work program for 2023 includes retaining a consultant firm to prepare objective design standards for all types of residential development through a REAP grant
authorized by ABAG Adoption of these standards will provide greater development certainty.
Program 1.1 pertains to all residential development in the City, and Program 10.8 pertains to residential development in the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan.
On/Off-Site Improvements: The element must analyze whether subdivision level improvement requirements (e.g., curbing requirements, street widths, circulation improvements) impose potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.
Housing Element, Section 3.2.1 discusses on and offsite improvements as a possible constraint and proposes
possible fee credits or waivers to ameliorate this potential constraint. Housing Element Policy 1.6 addresses seeking financial assistance for affordable housing projects to cover costs for design, development, and off-site public
improvements.
Zoning and Development Standards Transparency: The element must clarify compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and inclusionary requirements on the City’s website and add a program to address these requirements, if necessary.
The City’s Development Code and Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance are already available on the City’s website.
Additionally, the City has prepared informational flyers and resources that describe the City’s zoning and development standards and the City’s housing programs and services and this information is posted on the City’s website. Project applicants are strongly encouraged to seek community input before presenting their project to the Planning Commission and City Council.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Building Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze which building code (e.g., 2022) is enforced, any local amendments to the building code, and building code enforcement for their impacts on housing supply and affordability.
In addition, the element should explain how municipal codes are enforced (e.g., proactive, reactive, combination) and whether any resources are provided to the public.
East Palo Alto has adopted the 2022 Building Safety Code and adopted a Reach Code in 2020 governing electric
charging stations and electrification requirements for all new buildings with certain allowable exemptions, such as
affordable housing projects. The City will be considering amendments to the Reach Code in Spring 2023.
Enforcement of the Municipal Code is generally reactive based on community complaints, with health and safety
violations having priority. Occasionally, code enforcement staff will enforce codes proactively during the course of prosecuting existing code cases. Information on code
enforcement is posted on the City’s website.
Other Local Ordinances: While the element briefly mentions the City’s inclusionary ordinance, it requires 20 percent of units at varying levels of affordability. The element must analyze whether this is a constraint and add programs as needed.
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is acknowledged in the Housing Element as a government constraint. However, the ordinance is recognized as essential for helping to meet the City’s RHNA, achieving fair housing objectives, integrating affordable ownership and rental units into market rate
projects; and creating affordable housing throughout the City.
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: While the element describes the City’s reasonable accommodation
procedure, it must list and analyze findings of approval for constraints. In addition, the element lists additional requirements for residential care facilities for five or more residents including spacing from other residential care facilities “currently seven hundred and fifty feet (750) for facilities that house ten persons or more, and 500 feet for facilities that house 6-10 residents.” These spacing requirements are a constraint and must be revised in a program. Zoning and standards should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations. Zoning code regulations that isolate and regulate various types of housing for persons with disabilities may pose a constraint on housing choice for persons with disabilities. The element should include specific analysis of these and any other constraints for impacts on Reasonable accommodations are addressed in the City’s
Municipal Code, Chapter 14.10, and the Development Code, Chapter 18.98. Housing Element Policy 4.8 calls for
continuing to implement these ordinances to remove
constraints, along with implementing the City’s ADA
Compliance Plan for public accessibility improvements.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.
6. An analysis of potential and
actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all
income levels, including the
length of time between
receiving approval for a
housing development and
submittal of an application for
building permits for that
housing development that
hinder the construction of a
locality’s share of the regional
housing need in accordance
with Government Code section
65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (a)(6).)
Approval Times: The element must estimate the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and
submittal of application for building permits. While the element states it is difficult to estimate, it must include an estimated time between project approval and building permit. The analysis must address any hinderances on housing development and
programs should be added as appropriate to address constraints.
Residential projects in East Palo Alto are subject to the same requirements as other cities under state laws governing processing times, objective design standards, and certainty in development requirements. The City adheres to the
requirements in SB 35, SB 330, and the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) and have trained Planning
Commissioners on these laws.
Information on development processing times is discussed in Housing Element, Section 3.1.13. Average processing times and approval authority for a single-family dwelling and multifamily project are listed in Table 3.1.13(A).
Housing Element Programs/Policies that address improving the development review process include 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. 1.4, and 1.11,
7. Analyze any special
housing needs such as
elderly; persons with
disabilities, including a
developmental disability; large
families; farmworkers; families
with female heads of
households; and families and
persons in need of emergency
shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (a)(7).)
Elderly: While the element analyzes the special housing needs of the elderly, it must also quantify the total number of elderly living in the City.
Information on the age profile of East Palo Alto’s population is summarized in Section 2.4 of the Housing Element. More specific data on the elderly population is found in Appendix B, Section 4.2, Age, with further information on geographic distribution and racial composition also provided.
Persons Experiencing Homelessness: While the element
analyzes the special housing needs of the unhoused, it must also include and discuss the most recent Point in Time (PIT) count of the number of persons experiencing homelessness within the City.
A discussion of the Point in Time count of the number of persons experiencing homelessness within the City was
added to Appendix B Section 6: Special Housing Needs.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)
8. Analyze existing assisted
housing developments that
are eligible to change to nonlow- income housing uses
during the next 10 years due
to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of
use restrictions. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(9) through
65583(a)(9)(D).).
While Table 2.12.1 (p. 2-32) lists the jurisdiction’s inventory of atrisk units, it should provide the year affordability will expire for every development listed. In addition, the element must analyze the risk of conversion to market rate for these properties.
Table 2.12.1 has been revised to add the termination dates of at-risk units in the City. The earliest end date is 2053, so none of the at-risk units are at risk of conversion to market rate units during the 6th cycle Housing Element period.
C. Housing Programs
1.Include a program which
sets forth a schedule of
actions during the planning
period, each with a timeline for
implementation, which may
recognize that certain
programs are ongoing, such
that there will be beneficial
impacts of the programs within
the planning period, that the
local government is
undertaking or intends to
undertake to implement the
policies and achieve the goals
and objectives of the Housing
Element... (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code
section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate
implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive
implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:
1. All programs should identify responsible agencies and officials.
2. While the element includes a program to assist extremely low-income households, it must commit to specific actions toward housing outcomes.
3. Fee Reduction Program: The program should include actions beyond study feasibility and desirability of reducing fees.
4. Outreach Material Program: The program should include proactive outreach.
5. Available Rehabilitation/Repair Funding Program: The program should specify how often the City will apply for funding.
6. Pursue State Grant Funds Program: The program should specify how often the city will apply for funds.
Chapter 6, Section 6.3, Goals, Policies, and Programs
Summary, and Section 6.4, Implementation Plan, have been substantially revised to add, clarify, or provide more specifics on Housing Element Policies and Programs in response to HCD’s comment letter of January 19, 2023. The entire
Chapter has been redlined for readability. The following is a response to each comment:
1. A lead or responsible City department or division has been identified for all Policies and Programs.
2. More specific actions have been added to Policies and Programs pertaining to unhoused populations and
extremely low-income households.
3. Where fee reductions, reductions, or deferrals are
discussed, the Program or Policy has been amended to
be more descriptive.
4. Proactive outreach has been added to applicable Policies and Programs 2.1, 3.3, 4.11, 4.14, 5.7, 5.9, and 8.1.
5. Policies 1.6 & 9.4: language has been added to indicate that applying for funds will be considered as NOFAs are issued or annually (1.6, 9.4)
6. Same as above.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)
7. RBD Specific Plan Update Fee Waivers Program: The
program should include an implementing action or backup option if fee waivers aren’t implemented.
8. Parking Reductions Program: The program should clarify what type of transportation demand management program
and reductions will be included and whether it will apply to the entire City. It should also include proactive outreach.
9. First-Time Homebuyer Program: The program should include proactive outreach to residents.
10. Preservation Program: The program for at-risk properties should include actions to ensure owners comply with State Preservation Notice Law as well as include proactive
outreach to owners.
11. Doorway Program: The program should include proactive outreach.
12. Assistance to Low-Income Homeowners with Home Repair Needs: The program should go beyond researching public
sources. It should also include proactive outreach or
assistance to owners.
13. Direct Emergency Financial Assistance Program: The
program should include proactive outreach.
14. Anti-Displacement Program: The program should include proactive outreach to residents.
15. Sewer District Program: The program should clarify whether there is sufficient capacity to meet the City’s RHNA or identify actions needed to improve system.
16. Water System Master Plan Program: The program should clarify whether the first phase provides enough water to meet RHNA or identify additional actions to ensure sufficient capacity.
17. Program for Homelessness: The program should go beyond considering funding and include implementing actions.
18. Larger Affordable Units: The program should clarify how the City will incentivize larger affordable units and what actions will be implemented.
19. Encourage Deed-Restricted ADUs for ELI Program: The program should include specific actions on how the City will encourage deed-restricted ADUs for ELI households.
7. Other Policies/Programs for the RBD suggest alternative incentives such as by-right approval, density bonuses, or relaxed zoning standards (1.5, 1.21, 10.8)
8. Policy 1.20: The City’s existing TDM Program applies to recently approved projects (e.g., Woodland Park and
University Circle). A TDM program with maximum parking
standards is being discussed for the Ravenswood/Four
Corners Specific Plan (not a specific proposal, but
parking is mentioned on Program 10.8)
9. See 4 above
10. See 4 above
11. Policy 3.3: added as noted in 4 above.
12. See 4 above
13. See 4 above
14. See 4 above
15. Policy 5.2: Discussion in the Housing Element,
Infrastructure Constraints (Section 3.2) clarifies that there is sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to
accommodate the RHNA; projects will be required to pay
impact fees for upgrades to the sanitary sewer system.
16. Policy 5.3: Discussion in the Housing Element,
Infrastructure Constraints (Section 3.2) clarifies that there is sufficient water supply to accommodate the RHNA;
projects will be required to pay impact fees for upgrades to the water delivery system.
17. Policies/Programs 7.2 to 7.6 and 10.2 contain more
specific proposals for providing housing and support
services for the unhoused population.
18. Policy 7.7: policy has been revised to describe more specific actions.
19. Policy 7.8: policy has been revised to describe more specific actions.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)
2. Identify actions that will be
taken to make sites available
during the planning period with
appropriate zoning and
development standards and
with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of
the city’s or county’s share of
the regional housing need for
each income level that could
not be accommodated on sites
identified in the inventory
completed pursuant to
paragraph (3) of subdivision
(a) without rezoning, and to
comply with the requirements
of Government Code section
65584.09. Sites shall be
identified as needed to
facilitate and encourage the
development of a variety of
types of housing for all income
levels, including multifamily
rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobile homes,
housing for agricultural
employees, supportive
housing, single-room
occupancy units, emergency
shelters, and transitional
housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B4, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
As noted earlier, Chapter 5, Sites Inventory Analysis, and Appendix D, Sites Inventory, have been revised to further reinforce the validity of including these sites in the Sites Inventory and the probability of development during the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Overlay Zone Program: The program must identify whether there will be a back-up option if council denies the overlay zone. In addition, the timing includes SB 2 funding and should be adjusted to expenditure deadlines for the grant (December 31, 2023).
This program has been removed from the Housing Element
Policies/Programs. Recent state laws such as by-right
housing (SB 35), streamlined development review process (SB 330), allowance of residential uses in commercial
districts (AB 2011), and elimination of parking in transit area (AB 2079) reduces the need for this program.
Shortfall of Sites: The element describes a shortfall of sites and indicates rezoning will occur to accommodate the RHNA. The element must specifically commit to acreage, allowable densities, and anticipated units. In addition, if necessary, to accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households, the program should specifically commit to rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).
Staff does not expect to realize a shortfall of sites to meet its RHNA. The City’s RHNA for the 6th cycle Housing Element is 829 housing units and the Sites Inventory has identified 1794 potential housing units. The Sites Inventory exceeds the RHNA VLI units by 179%, the RHNA LI units by 156%, the
RHNA Moderate Units by 114%, and the RHNA Above
Moderate Units by 83%. Cumulatively, the Sites Inventory exceeds the total RHNA by 116%.
Adopt By-Right Zoning for Ravenswood 4 Corners Specific Plan Program; Senior Center Program; Gateway 101 Retail Site Program: The programs must clarify whether the rezoning is needed to meet the City’s RHNA. For your information, if any zoning amendment or rezoning is necessary in the planning period to accommodate a shortfall of adequate sites or
unaccommodated need for lower-income households, the zoning must permit multifamily uses without discretionary action and address several other requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1) and section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Specifically, if adoption does not Staff recognizes that limited sites in the Sites Inventory will need to be rezoned to allow residential uses, which includes several sites in the Ravenswood Business District/Four
Corners Specific Plan area (RBD). However, it is not certain that these sites will be necessary to meet the City’s RHNA for lower-income households. Nevertheless, the City
acknowledges the Government Code sections regarding the limitation on discretionary review if applicable. The Senior Center site has been removed from the Sites Inventory. In addition, the Gateway 101 Retail Site has been removed
from the Sites Inventory as the General Plan prioritizes
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) occur by January 31, 2023, or if the zoning is necessary after January 31, 2023, then sites must address the requirements described above.
retaining this property for commercial uses. The property will also be difficult to rezone because it consists of multiple parcels under separate ownership. There is also no active discussion about possibly adding residential uses on the property.
RBD Specific Plan Density Bonus/Relaxed Zoning Program: The program should include a specific implementing action beyond study.
This program will be considered along with other zoning measures to support residential development with adoption of the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan, which is expected to occur by the end of 2023. (see Program 10.8)
Land Swap with County Program: The program must clarify whether the site is needed to meet the City’s RHNA. It must also clarify whether rezoning is needed and comply with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1) and section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, if land is not swapped, the program should include back-up actions to identify additional sites within three years of the start of the planning period.
This site is not necessary for meeting the City’s RHNA. As previously noted, the Sites Inventory has a large buffer of Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-income units to meet the
City’s RHNA. So, while rezoning is possible, it is not likely given the buffer. If the land swap is delayed, sufficient sites are identified as back-ups, but staff recognizes this will need to be monitored during the 6th cycle Housing Element period.
3. Address and, where
appropriate and legally
possible, remove
governmental and
nongovernmental constraints
to the maintenance,
improvement, and
development of housing,
including housing for all
income levels and housing for
persons with disabilities. The
program shall remove
constraints to, and provide
reasonable accommodations
for housing designed for,
intended for occupancy by, or
As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental
constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Refer to responses under B5 and B6.
Persons with Disabilities: While the element includes Goal 7, it must also include a program with specific implementation to assist persons with disabilities, including reasonable
accommodation
Policy 4.8 has been added to address the City’s existing reasonable accommodations ordinances. Policies 1.4, 4.8,
5.9, and 7.1 addresses special needs populations, which includes persons with disabilities.
Updating Development Code for Inconsistencies with General Plan: This program is vague about what actions will be taken and what constraints will be mitigated. The program would be revised Policy 10.8: As mentioned earlier, the only General
Plan/zoning inconsistency in the City pertains to several parcels in the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan and
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) with supportive services for,
persons with disabilities. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
to include specific actions and timing for implementation to address identified constraints.
primarily pertain to differences in allowable development density and building height. These inconsistencies will be eliminated with adoption of the Specific Plan Update, which is currently being prepared, expected by the end of 2023.
Objective Development standards: The program should clarify what type of developments will have objective standards and whether it applies to single family and multifamily.
Policy 1.1: clarified that objective design standards will be developed to cover both single-family and multi-family
developments.
4. Promote and affirmatively
further fair housing
opportunities and promote
housing throughout the
community or communities for
all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability,
and other characteristics...
As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and, as appropriate, address housing mobility
enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity or higher income areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
Based on the results of review of the outcome of the 5th cycle Housing Element, the AFFH analysis, and community input during the public outreach for the 6th cycle Housing Element, priority fair housing needs were identified. Chapter 6 of the Housing contains various policies and programs that respond to the following needs:
Anti-displacement – 1.15. 1.17. 4.9, 4.11. 4.12. 5.1. 5.7. 5.8, 5-9, 6.1, 6.4, 10.1
Rent registry – 3.2. 3.3, 3.4
Homebuyer assistance – 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 9.4
Mortgage and rental assistance – 4.9, 4.11. 4.12
Foreclosure assistance – 4.9
Living wage employment – 4.14 (Measure HH programs)
Housing counseling – 5.7 (Measure O programs), 5.8, 5.9 Affordable housing development – 1.6, 1.15, 1.17, 1.22 to
1.24 (public lands)
Housing rehabilitation – 1.14, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 1.14 Large-family households – 1.4, 7.7
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Alternative housing solutions – 4.10 (land trusts)
Standardized review metrics (Including ADUs and SB9) –
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.11, 1.12, 1.21, 1,25, 10.7, 10.8
Special Needs Populations – 1.4, 4.8, 5.9, 7.1
Unhoused Population – 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 10.2
5. Develop a plan that
incentivizes and promotes the
creation of accessory dwelling
units that can be offered at
affordable rent...
“Next Phase” Streamlining for ADUs and SB9 Program: The program must specify what actions are included to streamline approval as well as clarify what will be implemented.
Policy 1.7 and 10.5 discuss measures to streamline the
approval of ADUs and SB 9 projects. Other
Policies/Programs also discuss incentivizing ADUs and SB projects (1.8, 1.10, 1.25)
ADU Preapproved Designs: The program should include specific implementation actions beyond revisiting feasibility.
Policy 1.10 includes the option of either the City preapproving ADU designs or participating in a clearinghouse to facilitate streamlined review of ADUs. The clearinghouse option is being discussed as a possible 21 Elements project by cities in San Mateo County.
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of
housing units, by income level,
that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved
over a five-year time frame.
The element generally did not address this requirement. The element must include quantified objectives for construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group, including ELI households. Please see the Building Blocks for additional information.
The Quantified Objectives are included as Table 5.0.B in Chapter 5.
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make
a diligent effort to achieve
While the element describes the public participation process and how all economic segments of the community were reached, it The third draft of the Housing Element, Sections 1.3,
Outreach and Public Participation Process, Section 1.4, How
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) public participation of all
economic segments of the
community in the development
of the Housing Element, and
the element shall describe this
effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd.(c)(9).)
must describe how public input was or will be considered and incorporated in the element.
We Incorporated What We Heard Into the Plan, and
Appendix A, Public Outreach and Participation, have been updated to summarize the most recent public comments. The most recent comments were received during the public
review period for the second draft of the Housing Element issued on January 17, 2023, the third draft of the Housing Element issued on February 5, Planning Commission public hearings on January 23 and February 9, 2023, and the City Council public hearing and adoption on February 21, 2023.
Appendix Section A8 further summarizes and how public
input has been incorporated into the Housing Element.
F. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall
describe the means by which
consistency will be achieved
with other general plan
elements and community
goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(7).)
While the element discusses how internal consistency will be achieved with other elements of the general plan as part of the housing element update, it should also discuss how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period.
East Palo Alto is a general law city and must maintain
consistency between its General Plan and Development
Code. Any proposed zoning change will be accompanied by a corresponding General Plan change if required. Currently, the only inconsistencies between the General Plan and
Development Code pertain to limited properties in the
Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan area. These
inconsistencies will be resolved with adoption of the Specific Plan.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: City Response to January 19, 2023 HCD Letter (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
To the honorable East Palo Alto City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council (HLC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the city of East Palo Alto’s housing element. HLC works with communities and their leaders to create and preserve quality affordable homes. We were founded by service providers and affordable housing professionals over 20 years ago to change the policies at the root cause of our housing shortage.
Over the prior RHNA cycle, East Palo Alto is the only city in San Mateo County to surpass its extremely low-income housing allocation. With 129 very low- and extremely low-income homes approved in the city from 2015-2021, East Palo Alto surpassed its 64-unit allocation by more than 200%. The city also approved over 80% of its low-income housing target, a testament to the city’s commitment to promoting affordable homes.
Nonetheless, East Palo Alto faces challenges with meeting its 6th RHNA cycle housing goals.
The city’s lower-income housing goals have more than doubled to 365 low- and very low-income units, reflecting the ongoing shortage of homes available at a price East Palo Alto residents can afford. Furthermore, the city entitled a small fraction of its market-rate housing allocation over the 5th RHNA cycle–though the city council’s approval of the Woodland Park Euclid Improvements proposal on November 1, 2022 fulfills a large portion of the upcoming market-rate housing goals.
This letter provides proposals for changes and additions that will enable East Palo Alto to meet its housing obligations for all residents regardless of income. The first part of this letter examines East Palo Alto’s sites inventory and constraints to housing. The second part evaluates East Palo Alto’s goals, policies, and programs, offering recommendations for changes and additions to remove constraints and promote housing for all.
Site Inventory and Constraints
The site inventory requires cities to demonstrate that they have adequate locations with the necessary policies in place to produce the RHNA allocations. Recent changes to state law require cities to meet a higher burden of proof for affordable housing in their site inventories. In particular, sites projected for lower-income housing must meet higher standards than in prior
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) cycles, particularly if more than 50% of sites are non-vacant–as is the case in East Palo Alto. 1 This isn’t a criticism, it’s a statement of fact: Almost all cities in the Bay Area rely primarily on non-vacant sites and therefore need to provide extra evidence to ensure the sites where they plan for affordable housing are realistic.
Overall, East Palo Alto presents an exemplary site inventory analysis. The analysis categorizes sites based on their placement in the pipeline, almost exclusively using sites with some form of developer interest. EPA’s draft housing element presents a strong site-specific analysis for most sites, with appropriate data to justify inclusion in the inventory. 2 However, two classes of sites merit further analysis: publicly owned sites and sites within the Ravenswood Business District. The draft housing element assumes 181 units will be built on 4 publicly owned parcels, each of which would benefit from stronger supporting evidence and clear programs to facilitate development. All publicly owned sites should be rezoned to densities that reflect the housing element’s projected buildout of each site. - 2277 University: As part of the land swap, EPA should commit to favorable development standards to incentivize very low-income housing. 50% very low income and 50% low income, a more accurate projection of realistic development potential for a publicly owned site. 100% very or extremely low-income housing is rarely financially feasible to build. In fact, most affordable housing developments require 10-20% moderate income housing to work financially, but HLC recognizes the unique needs of the East Palo Alto community for housing at lower levels of affordability. - 560 Bell: Commit to rezone to “Mixed-Use High” zoning to match standards of surrounding area and provide predictability for a developer. - Bay Rd. Site: Commit to rezone to the standards of the MUC-1 district to ensure that the school district has predictable rules to facilitate a project proposal on this site.
A number of sites within the Ravenswood Business District would also benefit from stronger supporting evidence and policies to justify inclusion in the housing element, some of which may be addressed as the city updates the RBD Specific Plan. Specifically, the housing element should commit to rezoning the EPA Waterfront, 1103 Weeks St., and 1200 Weeks St. properties to ensure predictability when these sites are developed. The housing element should also reapportion its projected affordability levels on these sites to include a proportion of moderateand above moderate-income housing, which would more accurately reflect realistic development trends on private property in East Palo Alto.
These adjustments will require East Palo Alto to reduce its number of very low- and low-income units that can be counted toward the city’s RHNA allocation. However, because EPA has an exceptionally high count of lower-income units already, this reduction will not fundamentally affect the viability of EPA’s site inventory. However, the city should make additions to its policies and programs to implement the recommended rezonings and ensure the listed sites can be justified for inclusion in the housing element.
2 Draft housing element, pp. 464-486
1 HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 27
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Addressing a handful of governmental constraints to housing development would help EPA justify its entire site inventory. For the most part, EPA’s zoning code is fairly generous, with relatively low parking requirements, reasonable lot coverage requirements, and heights and densities conducive to new development. However, a handful of unaddressed governmental constraints could serve as barriers to housing on EPA’s selected sites:
- Floor Area Ratio: Low FARs severely limit full utilization of most zoning districts. With no FAR above 2.5, and most FARs ranging from 1-2, it is very difficult to use the full lot size without density bonus concessions.
- Large rear setbacks: Several of EPA’s densest zones have significantly higher rear setbacks than the rest of the city. HLC recommends EPA align its rear setbacks throughout the community.
- Long discretionary approval times: East Palo Alto’s housing element recognizes community concerns that “the development process was too slow and there was too much uncertainty,” posing a constraint to housing.
3 In response, the housing element
offers to “Take reasonable measures to reduce overall processing times for residential development applications” in abstract. However, the housing element does not analyze specific aspects of its approval process as a constraint, nor does it make firm commitments to reduce long timelines in practice. All projects require both Planning Commission approval for the preapplication approval and design review for a completed application.
4, 5 East Palo Alto’s draft housing element estimates the average design review process takes 2-3 months; the city presents no evidence regarding the timeline for planning commission preapplication review or the frequency of council appeals.
Developments that comply with zoning regulations, building codes, and objective standards should generally be exempted from discretionary hearings.
Policies and Programs
In the following section, HLC describes how East Palo Alto can strengthen its Goals, Policies, and Programs to more effectively promote low- and very low-income housing as needed to create a viable site inventory. The city already has a number of strong policies and programs in place. However, several programs that would otherwise be adequate lack clear objectives and deliverables. Some opportunities to promote new homes go unconsidered New state laws have added new requirements to the goals, policies, and programs section of a housing element. Passed in 2018, AB 1397 requires cities to directly connect policies and programs to the identified needs, governmental constraints, and site inventory, among other 5 City Code Title 18, Article 7, Section 18.82.030(A)(2)(a): “All Pre-App projects are required to provide neighborhood notification and a minimum of one [Planning] Commission study session to discuss the proposed project and to document community concerns.” Furthermore, “Within calendar 15 days [sic] of the Commission study session, any member of the Council may request a study session with the Council.”
4 City Code Title 18 Article 2, Section 18.10.020(E): “Design Review is required for new or modified construction activities.”
3 Draft housing element, p. 18
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) analyses.
6 Another 2018 law, AB 686, implemented Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing mandates, specifically requiring cities to consider how their goals, policies, and programs can better advance fair housing goals, especially the production of low- and very low-income housing. The specific programs cities implement must include “concrete steps, timelines and measurable outcomes.”
7 East Palo Alto’s unique circumstances as a historically underinvested community makes the city’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis unique within San Mateo County.
Throughout the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s, explicitly racist blockbusting practices and redlining policies segregated East Palo Alto into a predominantly Black community. In recent decades, rising housing prices and gentrification have fueled demographic change and displacement. As a result, East Palo Alto has some of the strongest renter protections in California. Even with recent demographic change, the city’s population is more diverse than most other cities in the county. The estimated 2021 median income is $83,511, just over half the county’s 2021 median income of $149,600. Compared to most other cities in San Mateo County, East Palo Alto has already taken substantial action to affirmatively further fair housing.
Nonetheless, most of EPA’s policies and programs could make stronger commitments, with more actionable language and metrics for success. Several potentially impactful programs do not make a firm commitment to implement policy changes; rather, the programs offer to implement policy changes “If directed by City Council.” This non-commitment undermines the legitimacy of many programs in East Palo Alto’s housing element.
As described in a presentation delivered on May 9, 2022 by HCD staffer Melinda Coy to a group of planners from across San Mateo County, “a housing element is no longer a paper exercise–it’s a contract with the state of housing commitments for eight years.” 8 As part of their
contract with the state, cities are obligated to make firm commitments to implement policy changes, not merely to “study” or “review” them. The current council is responsible for providing direction to city staff and future councils as to how they will meet their obligation to plan for housing that meets the needs of the entire community.
In order to improve its policies and programs, several programs would benefit from revisions, and new actions may be required, as described below:
- Add a new supporting policy for “Objective: Take reasonable measures to reduce overall processing times for residential development applications,” to read as follows:
- Add “Policy: Reduce residential development application processing times by limiting public hearings to 2 planning commission pre application review hearings and eliminating design review entirely for 100% affordable housing proposals.” Affordable housing proposals that comply with objective development standards should not need to go through the cost and uncertainty of design review and should receive more certainty for the pre-application process. While the 8 May 9, 2022 HCD presentation, Housing Elements in the 6th Cycle: Common Shortfalls 7 HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidebook, p. 55 6 See Gov. Code, § 65583, sub. (b), (c); HCD, Building Blocks
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan update has the potential to address many of these issues, the housing element provides the city a good opportunity to make strong commitments to promote housing.
- Revise “Objective: Incentivize affordable housing development” to firmly commit to implementing an affordable housing overlay by the first quarter of 2024 rather than only “if directed by Council.” Specify goals of a new affordable housing overlay to which the city can be held accountable.
- Revise the supporting policies under “Objective: Encourage smaller scale housing that is relatively more affordable, including … ADUs” to provide a clear implementation date for preapproved ADU plans.
- Revise “Policy: Use the opportunity of the RBD Specific Plan Update to study feasibility and desirability of fee waivers or reductions or delayed fee payments for fully affordable projects” to make a firm commitment to implement a reduction or deferral of planning, building, and impact fees for fully affordable housing developments in the RBD by 2024. - Revise policies to support “Objective: Encouraging housing on sites zoned for mixed use in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area” to:
- Revise “Policy: For sites within the RBD Specific Plan Area, study feasibility and effectiveness of an RBD-specific density bonus and relaxed zoning controls” to specify that the city will rezone to accommodate assumed densities for sites within the RBD Specific Plan Area as described in the housing element’s site inventory. Furthermore, add language to evaluate the impact of the high rear setbacks within the RBD.
- Revise current programs and add new ones for “Objective: Leverage available public lands for affordable housing development” to ensure that public lands are utilized fully for affordable housing.
- Revise “Program: Study and determine feasibility for redevelopment of Senior Center at 560 Bell St. to include affordable housing” to make a firm commitment to pursue housing at 560 Bell St, including a commitment to release an RFP for the site by 2025. As an opportunity site in the housing element’s site inventory, the city is committing to pursue housing on this site and should plan accordingly. - Add supporting language to “Program: Work with County of San Mateo to complete land swap and determine feasibility of the County developing affordable housing at 2277 University” that commits to provide favorable development standards as needed by the county to develop affordable homes on this site, which otherwise is too small to count toward EPA’s lower-income RHNA allocation (the 0.38-acre site is currently projected to host 20 units, 19 very low income).
- Revise “Program: Work with Sequoia Elementary School District to facilitate development of the district-owned parcel at 2450 Ralmar Ave as affordable public school employee housing” to commit to zoning changes that reflect the assumed densities in the site inventory.
- Revise “Objective: Build housing in areas zoned for exclusive retail use, where the market has made retail less feasible” to reflect recently passed AB 2011, meaning EPA
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) may well be legally required to allow housing on its commercially zoned land. 9 The city
will have the most control over new development if it creates a zoning district to reflect state law now.
- Revise “Program: Study feasibility of creating a City rent registry” to make a firm commitment to implement a rental registry. East Palo Alto already has among the strongest renter protections in California; the addition of a rent registry would help the city track the impact of its protections and identify any remaining loopholes.
Several other objectives and programs, including plans to apply to make the East Palo Alto Sewer District a subsidiary district of the city, invest in tenant education, and implement a jobs-housing linkage requirement in the RBD, have high potential to facilitate new homes and support tenants in EPA. Nonetheless, the draft housing element may benefit from adoption or adjustment of other policies as well, which HLC may recommend in the coming months with future rounds of review and revision.
HLC wants to be a partner to the city, sharing our collective knowledge of state law and best practices to facilitate fair housing. Please contact me or other HLC staff if you would like to talk further about how East Palo Alto can identify and implement policies that will best meet the community’s needs.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County 9 AB 2011 Factsheet
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Corinne I. Calfee
P.O. Box 2369
Davis, CA 95616
[email protected]
510-809-8001
VIA Electronic Mail
Karen Camacho
Interim Housing and Economic Development Manager
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate St.
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
January 25, 2023
Re: Draft 2023-31 Housing Element
Dear Karen:
Opterra Law, Inc., represents Sand Hill Property Co. and Woodland Park Communities. We write today to provide comments on the Housing Element Draft #2. The following letter provides initial feedback on the updated draft Housing Element. My clients reserve the right to provide additional comments as the process proceeds.
As a preliminary matter, the recent process has been unclear and confusing. On the afternoon of January 18, 2023, an email was sent regarding the Housing Element Draft #2. It indicated that there would be a “Formal 7-Day Public Review Period” that started the day before notice was given and in fact only lasted 6 days, from January 17 through January 23. I trust that the public review period is in fact at least 7 days and that it extends from the time that the notice was provided, rather than beginning prior to the notice to the public.
The same January 18, 2023 email indicated that there would be a January 23, 2023 Planning Commission meeting and a January 24, 2023 City Council meeting. No agenda has been posted for any January 24, 2023 City Council meeting, so I trust that notice was in error or that the meeting is no longer scheduled. Nonetheless, as of today, the January 24, 2023 meeting is still listed on the Housing Element website.
I have repeatedly sought additional information and clarification from the City regarding the Housing Element process, and it has not been forthcoming. I have called you multiple times and emailed you, with no response. Instead, there are only the confusing, internally inconsistent public facing communications. I hereby reiterate my request for a copy of the letter from HCD regarding the City’s draft Housing Element.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) It should not be so difficult to obtain accurate, clear information about this important public process.
On a substantive note, my client appreciates the significant work that has gone into the Housing Element update process. It is more important than ever, given the new state requirements.
There are a few important issues that we would like to reiterate to the City and to HCD as the Housing Element works through the certification process.
1.) Governmental Constraints to Housing.
We are concerned that the analysis of governmental constraints to housing is incomplete and inaccurate. It does not address the infeasibility of the inclusionary housing ordinance. As we explained when the City adopted the inclusionary housing ordinance, the high level of inclusionary housing and the deep affordability combine to create a huge cost burden that threatens the viability of any market rate rental projects. Indeed, the Euclid Improvements were not able to comply with the conventional compliance mechanism and had to seek alternative compliance in an attempt to make the project feasible. We repeatedly provided an economic analysis to the City indicating the infeasibility of its inclusionary housing requirements. Furthermore, the City is considering increasingly onerous requirements for projects in the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Plan.
These will make housing more expensive, if not prohibitively expensive, to construct in the Specific Plan area. These local constraints to housing are not discussed in the Housing Element.
The discussion of governmental constraints is also inaccurate. The “average total processing time for typical residential developments” in Table 3.1.6 vastly understates the processing time for projects. First, the City has not, as a matter of course, regularly approved moderate or large multi-family housing projects so it is not clear how the averages were calculated.
Second, the City took 46 months from the submission of the required pre-application to the entitlements for the Euclid Improvements project. The City required the following 20 public meetings to approve the project:
1. May 6, 2019: Planning Commission Pre-application Study Session http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1227
2. July 30, 2019: City Council Pre-application Study Session
3. December 3, 2019: City Council Discussion of Relocation / OTRM
4. February 25, 2020: City Council Study Session
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1068
5. September 10, 2020: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1316
6. October 6, 2020: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1284
7. November 19, 2020: City Council Study Session on Infrastructure http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1340
8. February 23, 2021: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan and Fiscal Impact Report
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1357
9. June 22, 2021: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1403
10. July 26, 2021: Planning Commission Draft EIR Public Hearing http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1369
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)
11. October 5, 2021: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1427
12. November 30, 2021: City Council Study Session on Tenant Relocation Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1458
13. February 15, 2022: City Council Study Session on Tenant Relocation Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1488
14. June 27, 2022: Planning Commission Policy and Action Discussion http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1832
15. July 25, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing on Project http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1855
16. September 6, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements
17. September 20, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements (continued)
18. October 4, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements (continued / EIR certified)
19. November 1, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements (continued / entitlements approved)
20. November 15, 2022: City Council Second Reading re Entitlements (second reading approved)
Similarly, my client’s application for the Four Corners project, which is also listed in the Housing Element, has been in process for more than two years. The City continues to refuse to release the DEIR for public review. Our experiences with application processing is far different from the City’s average calculations. We are not clear what other projects were approved that bring the average down from 46 months to 12-24 months. We further note that this draft of the Housing Element reduced the average processing time. We are not clear how that occurred.
Finally, the City’s business license taxes create another substantial governmental constraint on housing. These taxes are not mentioned as constraints. Measure O, adopted in 2016, significantly increased the business license taxes to 1.5% of gross receipts for rental housing providers, taxing housing rather than encouraging it. Importantly, Measure O exempted new construction from the tax for the first 10 years after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In the fall of 2022, the City adopted Measure L, which increased the tax to 2.5% of gross receipts. It also reduced to only 3 years the period of time after new construction during which new homes are exempt. The taxation of housing and the reduction in exemption time are constraints on housing production that make it less likely that new housing will be created.
2.) Feasibility/Likelihood of Development within the Housing Element Cycle.
We note that the Housing Element relies heavily on the Euclid Improvements project to meet the City’s RHNA obligations. State law requires that a City rely upon sites and projects that are expected to be developed during the planning period. See Government Code section 65583.2(a). Here, despite our best efforts, we are concerned that the Euclid Improvements are unlikely to be developed during the planning period.
During the entitlement process, we repeatedly explained that we were concerned about the feasibility of constructing the project. We have continued our analysis in order to expedite development, but to date we have been unable to find a way to make the project feasible. During the entitlement process, through and including the final hearings, the City continued to impose ever more expensive and onerous requirements. The ultimate approval was conditioned on requirements to which my client objected because they made the project infeasible.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Given the current climate of high interest rates and extremely high construction costs, it is not reasonable for the City to rely upon the Euclid Improvements to meet their RHNA obligations as the project as it has been entitled is not likely to be built.
Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions or would otherwise like to discuss these issues.
Sincerely,
Corinne I. Calfee
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Ofelia Bello
Youth United for Community Action
2135 Clarke Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
February 3, 2023
City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
To Whom it May Concern:
On Behalf of Youth United for Community Action (YUCA), I respectfully submit the comments below regarding the City of East Palo Alto’s draft Housing Element. YUCA is a 29 year-old grassroots community organization created, led and run by young people of color, majority of whom are from low income backgrounds. YUCA provides a safe space for young people to empower ourselves and create positive systemic change through grassroots organizing. Over the past decade, YUCA has played a pivotal role in housing justice efforts in the City of East Palo Alto. In 2014, YUCA supported the successful passage of the Affordable Housing Linkage Fee and the Tenant Protection Ordinance. In 2016, YUCA played a key role in passing the East Palo Alto Residential Renter Business License Tax and in passing revisions that strengthened the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. Our organization has worked tirelessly to advocate for housing-friendly policies while strengthening the base of community members who participate in these efforts to ensure the City’s processes and housing efforts are equitable and just.
The City of East Palo Alto’s Draft Housing Element contains very promising concepts and goals that can prove to be effective for advancing our community’s housing landscape; however, there are a number of areas where more specificity and additional consideration is needed. The outline below details areas where the draft requires improvement or additional attention.
3.1 Governmental Constraints
reference to the sole Low-Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) in town, WeHOPE. While WeHOPE is an invaluable resource in our community and it technically satisfies government code 65660, it is not a resource that is available to youth who are minors. East Palo Alto has a severe youth homelessness issue that is not hypervisible but is very prevalent. It is necessary to recognize that this threshold of approval does not take into consideration some of the most vulnerable populations who find themselves in dire need of emergency and/or transitional housing shelters. It is appropriate and necessary for the City of East Palo Alto to take this into consideration and explore additional incentives or approaches that may help providers of transitional housing more likely to build in our city.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)
3.4 Levels of Review
One of the City of East Palo Alto’s biggest strengths is having robust community engagement processes and an accountable, responsive team who takes into serious consideration the concerns of our historically (and currently) largely disenfranchised community members. With our city undergoing rapid gentrification and displacement of majority households of color, it is imperative that the City continues to prioritize fair and lawful review processes that have helped community members be a part of the housing development process. It is because of these processes that community members have had the opportunity to express concerns, make suggestions, and actively participate in ensuring large-scale housing projects are advanced in the most thoughtful way that creates minimal harm to existing, vulnerable residents, while avoiding displacement and producing high-quality proposals by developers.
One example of this process working is demonstrated by the recently approved Euclid Improvement Project by Woodland Properties. The project has been underway for some time but was able to recently gain approval and set a development agreement in place to produce 445 net new units of housing in addition to the 160 rent stabilized units they will be demolishing and renovating. Furthermore, they have committed to building between 75-89 inclusionary units off-site at 851 Weeks St. as cited on page 5-2. Just this week on Wednesday February 1, 2023, Woodland Properties launched a series of meetings designed to inform residents about their relocation process and are encouraging people to select their relocation preference. Woodland also encouraged residents to approach their staff with additional questions or concerns they may have. While this process has been arduous, it is truly a testament to the effectiveness of the City’s housing policies and thorough levels of review.
4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Chapter 4 offers a thorough, thoughtful analysis of East Palo Alto’s historic housing challenges as well as the current legacy that continues to pose barriers for advancement. While all of the policies in place to encourage housing development are strong, it is of utmost importance to emphasize that the work to implement these policies is extremely difficult with severely understaffed teams. Page 4-10 cites low staffing capacity in the Building, Code Enforcement, Planning and Housing departments. It is critical that City Council reckon with this significant barrier by prioritizing the hiring of the additional staff on these teams and include it as one of the efforts it will put in place to address local barriers to affordable housing development.
6. Policies and Programs
Goal 2: Create homeownership opportunities for East Palo Alto residents and stability for existing homeowners There is a current policy awaiting further consideration by East Palo Alto’s city council and which is also cited in the City’s 2018 Affordable Housing Strategy. At a recent priority setting session convened by a City consultant, the City Council agreed that they would be further exploring the implementation of the Opportunity to Purchase Act or a variation of it, which would help advance this specific goal. This policy ought to be included in the Housing Element as the City Council indicated it would be continuing to work on this policy.
Goal 6: Promote safe and healthy housing in East Palo Alto While the policies under this goal are strong in concept, further detail is needed to ensure the City’s efforts effectively advance this goal. An additional level of specificity is needed, such as identifying “hot
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) spots”of neighborhoods, and perhaps buildings, with severe or chronic habitability issues. Moreover, the City ought to consider how they will prioritize this work to create a concrete, practical plan for addressing existing habitability issues in our community.
Goal 9: Build Capacity for long-term housing planning and implementation of a range of housing programs and initiatives
As elaborated upon in the section above, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, this goal inevitably calls for additional staff capacity at the City level. Hiring additional staff is not currently included as an approach that would advance this goal but it is perhaps one of the most critical strategies for enabling the City to reach its housing goals. When the City chooses to put resources behind these teams, it is investing in the public safety of our community and helping to truly address a significant number of the barriers that are cited in earlier parts of the draft.
YUCA is pleased to have participated in the development of this promising draft of the Housing Element and is eager to see the next iteration which we hope will include the suggested revisions mentioned above. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this comment letter please let me know via email at [email protected]. We look forward to continuing to monitor this process and provide further input, always keeping in mind our community’s most vulnerable residents.
Thank you,
Ofelia Bello
Executive Director, Youth United for Community Action
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Corinne I. Calfee
P.O. Box 2369
Davis, CA 95616
[email protected]
510-809-8001
VIA Electronic Mail
Karen Camacho
Interim Housing and Economic Development Manager
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate St.
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
February 13, 2023
Re: 2023-31 Housing Element
Draft Revised February 2023
Dear Karen:
Opterra Law, Inc., represents Sand Hill Property Co. and Woodland Park Communities. We write today to provide comments on the February 2023 Draft Revised Housing Element.
We would like to reiterate that my clients appreciate the significant work that has gone into the Housing Element update process. Given the new state laws, it is more important than ever to get the Housing Element right. A number of issues remain to address the January 19, 2023 HCD letter to the City of East Palo Alto indicating that revisions are necessary in order for the Housing Element to comply with state law.
As the City’s largest housing provider and as an active housing developer, Sand Hill and Woodland Park have relevant information on several of the open issues. We take this opportunity to share this information with both you and HCD. By way of introduction, Sand Hill Property Co., through its affiliate, Woodland Park Communities, owns more than 1,800 rental housing units in East Palo Alto. The overwhelming majority of these homes are rent-controlled and they comprise the majority of the City’s rent-controlled housing stock.
Sand Hill Property Co. is also a housing developer. Their Euclid Improvements Project was recently entitled, to replace 161 existing units with 605 new units, including replacement rentcontrolled units and 444 net new units. The financial feasibility of this new development is in question, due to both market conditions and conditions on the entitlement that increased the costs of development. Sand Hill has also applied to construct 180 apartments at the Four Corners site in a mixed-use development to be located at the corner of University and Bay. This project has been in process for more than two years, but the entitlement process has been significantly delayed.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Sand Hill and Woodland Park take this opportunity to share their experiences as a rental housing provider and as a housing developer in East Palo Alto. Our experiences since 2016 highlight the difficulty of entitling and building housing in East Palo Alto.
1.) Governmental Constraints to Housing.
We continue to be concerned that the analysis of governmental constraints to housing is incomplete and inaccurate. And, we agree with HCD that programs should be added to address the identified constraints. The revised Housing Element has not adequately discussed the governmental constraints or proposed programs to address or lessen those constraints.
Inclusionary Housing. We have repeatedly highlighted the infeasibility of the inclusionary housing ordinance. For rental housing, the City requires 20% on-site inclusionary housing at very deep levels of affordability. Twenty-five percent of the units must be affordable at 35% AMI, 50% affordable at 50% AMI, and 25% affordable at 60% AMI. They must be comparable in appearance and quality of construction and they must not be concentrated within the project. These requirements are expensive and require a large ongoing subsidy, and they also contravene the taxcredit financing rules and so preclude the use of the most common financing tools available for affordable housing.
When the City considered and adopted the inclusionary housing ordinance, we repeatedly explained that the high level of inclusionary rental housing and the deep affordability create a significant cost burden that threatens the viability of any rental housing projects. We provided an economic feasibility study from a qualified entity with demonstrated expertise in the preparation of such studies. It followed best professional practices and was sufficiently rigorous to allow an assessment of whether the inclusionary requirement influenced feasibility. The study confirmed that the inclusionary housing ordinance was not economically feasible. That is, compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance would make market rate housing projects too expensive to build and they would not get built. A copy of that study is again attached here. Although third parties requested that HCD evaluate the City’s rental inclusionary housing ordinance for economic feasibility when it was adopted, we do not believe that ever occurred.
Since that time, the City’s development pattern has confirmed the infeasibility of the inclusionary rental housing ordinance. No rental projects have proceeded in compliance with the plain terms of the inclusionary housing ordinance. It is not possible to build a market rate rental housing project and comply with those requirements. Instead, developers have had to seek discretionary City Council approval for alternative compliance. Indeed, our own project, the Euclid Improvements, was not able to comply with the conventional compliance mechanism. We were forced to seek alternative compliance in an attempt to make the project feasible. The City Council imposed numerous, ever increasing requirements on the alternative compliance proposal.
The revised Housing Element ignores this problem. It simply states that developers say that the inclusionary housing ordinance is a constraint. The Housing Element offers no analysis of the constraint, no economic feasibility study, and no programs to address this identified constraint.
Indeed, the analysis of inclusionary housing is very thin, and ignores a significant part of the problem, which is the depth of proposed affordability. For instance, Table 3.1.8.B makes no mention of affordability levels even though these contribute significantly to the infeasibility of the ordinance. HCD has said that the Housing Element “must analyze whether this is a constraint and add programs as needed.” The revised Housing Element has not yet done this.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Local Processing, Permit Procedures, and Approval Times. The discussion of local processing, permit procedures, and approval times continues to be inaccurate. The revised “average processing time for ‘typical’ residential developments” in Table 3.1.613.A continues to significantly understate the processing time for projects. It states an average processing time of 12-24 months for “large multiple-family” projects, which is defined as anything over 4 units. That timeframe was shortened in this draft of the Housing Element from the estimate in the original draft of 18-24 months. These “averages” significantly understate the amount of time it takes to process a project.
The City has not, as a matter of course, regularly approved moderate or large multi-family housing projects so it is not clear how the averages were calculated. The City took 46 months from the submission of the required pre-application to the entitlements for the Euclid Improvements project. The City required the following 20 public meetings to approve the project:
1. May 6, 2019: Planning Commission Pre-application Study Session http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1227
2. July 30, 2019: City Council Pre-application Study Session
3. December 3, 2019: City Council Discussion of Relocation / OTRM
4. February 25, 2020: City Council Study Session
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1068
5. September 10, 2020: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1316
6. October 6, 2020: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1284
7. November 19, 2020: City Council Study Session on Infrastructure http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1340
8. February 23, 2021: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan and Fiscal Impact Report http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1357
9. June 22, 2021: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1403
10. July 26, 2021: Planning Commission Draft EIR Public Hearing http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1369
11. October 5, 2021: City Council Study Session on Inclusionary Housing Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1427
12. November 30, 2021: City Council Study Session on Tenant Relocation Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1458
13. February 15, 2022: City Council Study Session on Tenant Relocation Plan http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1488
14. June 27, 2022: Planning Commission Policy and Action Discussion http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1832
15. July 25, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing on Project http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1855
16. September 6, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements
17. September 20, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements (continued)
18. October 4, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements (continued / EIR certified)
19. November 1, 2022: City Council Hearing re Entitlements (continued / entitlements approved)
20. November 15, 2022: City Council Second Reading re Entitlements (second reading approved)
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Similarly, the application for the Four Corners project, which is also listed as an opportunity site, has been in process for more than two years. The City continues to refuse to release the DEIR for public review. This project has already exceeded the City’s maximum estimated length of time for planning approval for large multi-family projects and the DEIR has not even been circulated.
These repeated experiences with application processing are far different from the City’s average calculations. We are not clear what other “large multiple-family” projects were approved that bring the average down from 46 months to 12-24 months. Indeed, the Housing Element admits that “[s]o far, the City has approved one multi-family housing project and it took longer than expected. (See Chapter 3, p. 19). The Housing Element should include an accurate average total processing time that reflects the City’s practices and experiences. That average will be significantly higher than 12-24 months.
HCD indicated in its comment letter that with regard to governmental constraints, the Housing Element should address the impacts on housing cost, supply, timing, and approval certainty and should “add programs as appropriate.” Here, the City’s uncertain and lengthy permit processing practices create material uncertainty, which adds to housing cost, delays the production of housing, and reduces the supply of new housing. The Housing Element fails to discuss these effects and it does not propose any modifications to the City’s many discretionary, time-consuming, and uncertain processes that would reduce cost, facilitate approvals, or increase the supply of new housing.
Fees and Exactions. The City’s business license taxes create another substantial governmental constraint on housing by expressly taxing rental housing. These taxes are not mentioned as constraints, even though we commented on this omission in January.
Measure O, adopted in 2016, significantly increased the business license taxes to 1.5% of gross receipts for rental housing providers, taxing housing rather than encouraging it. Importantly, Measure O exempted new construction from the tax for the first 10 years after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In the fall of 2022, the City adopted Measure L, which increased the tax to
2.5% of gross receipts. It also reduced to only 3 years the period of time after new construction during which new homes are exempt.
The taxation of housing and the reduction in exemption time are constraints on housing production that make it less likely that new housing will be created. This fee, which raises are not discussed in the Housing Element, despite HCD’s comment that the Housing Element needs more information and analysis about fees being a potential constraint on a variety of housing types.
2.) Feasibility/Likelihood of Development within the Housing Element Cycle.
State law requires that a City rely upon sites and projects that are expected to be developed during the planning period. See Government Code section 65583.2(a). HCD has commented that the Housing Element must discuss the availability or likelihood that opportunity site units will be built in the planning period, including any barriers to development, market conditions, and other relevant factors. We are very concerned that two of the largest projects on the opportunity sites list may not be constructed in the planning period. The Housing Element does not discuss the barriers to developing these sites.
Progress In Meeting the RHNA. The HCD letter has required additional information regarding “[t]he availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period [and] should
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) account for any barriers to development, phasing, anticipated build out horizons, market conditions and other relevant factors.” The Housing Element relies heavily on Sand Hill projects to meet the City’s RHNA obligations—the Euclid Improvements for 445 new units and the Four Corners for 180 new units. Here, despite our best efforts, we are concerned that neither the Euclid Improvements nor Four Corners are likely to be developed during the planning period.
As for the Euclid Improvements, the approval itself is infeasible. During the entitlement process, we repeatedly explained that we were concerned about the feasibility of constructing the project, given the City’s repeated requests for ever more exactions and concessions from the developer. We have continued our feasibility analysis to expedite development, but to date we have been unable to find a way to make the project feasible.
The City imposed obligations for an expensive off-site affordable housing alternative compliance program, a 1.5 million gallon water tank, electric vehicle charging requirements, a comprehensive relocation plan, impact fees, road dedications, park requirements, and other various exactions. During the entitlement process, through and including the final hearings, the City continued to impose ever more expensive and onerous requirements. The ultimate approval was conditioned on requirements to which my client objected because they made the project infeasible.
The City nonetheless insisted upon including these impossible requirements in the entitlements.
Given the City’s requirements, together with the current market conditions of high interest rates and extremely high construction costs, it is not currently feasible for the Euclid Improvements to be built. Therefore, it is not reasonable for the City to rely upon the Euclid Improvements to meet their RHNA obligations as the project as it has been entitled is not likely to be built. This removes 445 units from the sites inventory, including the 271 units that the City assumes as Moderate-Income category and 173 units that the City considers to be Above-Moderate Income.
The City is also relying on the Four Corners site at 1675 Bay Road to provide 36 Very Low Income units and 144 Above-Moderate Income units. This project has been under review for more than 2 years, and the City continues to refuse to circulate the DEIR or otherwise advance the application. Given the City’s significant delays in processing the application, it is not clear whether this will be entitled and at what density. In fact, HCD commented that the City should have a specific implementing action “beyond study” for the specific plan area in which the Four Corners site is located. This has not occurred.
Quantified Objectives. Finally, HCD remarked that the “element must include quantified objectives for construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group…” We note that the City added a new section to the Housing Element called “Quantified Objectives” that estimates the number of housing units at each affordability level that would be constructed in the first five years of the planning period. It is not clear how these objectives were calculated.
The document states that they are ½ of the overall objectives, but the math does not align with that calculation so it is not clear how they were calculated. Moreover, to the extent that a single project would provide a fixed number of units at a given affordability level, all of those units should be counted within a single planning period. It would be very unlikely for ½ of a single, unified project to be built earlier, and ½ to be built later, where the project was never proposed to be phased. And as we have explained herein, neither the Euclid Improvements nor Four Corners is on track to be constructed within the next five years. They should be removed from the Quantified Objectives table if they were included.
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption) Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions or would otherwise like to discuss these issues.
Sincerely,
Corinne I. Calfee
cc: Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager, Department of Housing and Community Development via Anthony Erricheto at [email protected]
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Public Review Comment Letters (2575 : 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption)
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin Gaines, City Manager
BY: Melvin Gaines, City Manager
SUBJECT: Police Chief Recruitment Process Update
Recommendation
1. Receive an update on Councilmember Martha Barragan’s appointment of Ms. Maria Rocha to the Community Panel in place of former Councilmember Regina WallaceJones's appointee, Mr. Olatunde Sobomehin and authorize the city manager to work directly with each City Councilmember appointing any alternates to the community panel, as needed.
2. Adopt a resolution approving an updated police chief selection process and repeal Resolution 5034.
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
• Promote Health & Public Safety
• Ensure our Financial and Organizational Health
Background
Resolution 5034 Police Chief Selection Process
On October 2, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 5034 (Attachment 1), defining the selection process for the Police Chief. This selection process is summarized as follows:
1. The City Council will select a recruitment firm to conduct the police chief recruitment.
2. The City Council and Human Resources (HR) will develop a recruitment brochure.
3. HR and the recruitment firm will:
9.1 Packet Pg. 774
a. screen the top 12 applications;
b. provide the City Council the top 12 applications; and c. produce a confidential closed session report recommending the top six candidates for City Council consideration.
4. In a closed session meeting, the City Council will review the top 12 applications and the HR/recruitment firm report and select the top six candidates.
5. For the top six candidates, HR will schedule two panel interviews:
a. A panel of law enforcement executives selected by HR and the recruitment firm (professional panel)
b. A panel of five community members, each appointed at the sole discretion of each councilmember (community panel).
6. The professional and community panels will interview the top six candidates and provide to HR their interview rating sheets, including comments, identifying their top three candidates.
7. HR will provide all materials from the professional and community panels to the City Council in a closed session report.
8. The City Council will interview the top six candidates and select the top three candidates for the city manager to consider.
9. The city manager will interview the top three candidates and make the final hiring decision.
The Current Police Chief Recruitment
Former Police Chief Albert Pardini announced his retirement in November 2021. The City Council began this recruitment process on February 1, 2022 by authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with Koff & Associates to provide recruitment services for the positions of city manager and police chief.
Currently, the police chief recruitment process is on step number 5 listed above. The City Council has identified the top six police chief candidates and HR and the recruitment firm are working to finalize the professional and community panels in preparation for interviews.
On September 20, 2022, the City Council agreed that each councilmember would appoint a community member to serve on the five-member community panel and directed the interim city manager to publish a future informational report complete with each Councilmember’s appointee. Each councilmember appointed a community member through emails to City staff, and staff provided an informational report documenting the community panel members appointed by each councilmember on October 18, 2022.
The appointees were as follows:
9.1 Packet Pg. 775
Table 1: City Council's Appointees for Five-Member
Community Interview Panel
Councilmember Appointee
Ruben Abrica (then-Mayor) Ms. Francisca Guzman
Lisa Gauthier (then-Vice
Mayor)
Pastor Paul Bains
Regina Wallace-Jones Mr. Olatunde Sobomehin
Carlos Romero Ms. Kenia Najar
Antonio Lopez Mr. Larry Moody
The recruitment process was originally expected to be completed by December 2022; however, the City placed the police chief recruitment process on hold in order to complete the city manager recruitment. Koff & Associates communicated to the top six candidates that the recruitment would resume once the new city manager began employment with the City. The City Council appointed a new city manager on January 17, 2023, commencing employment on January 30, 2023.
The city manager is working with Koff and Associates to resume the police chief recruitment process and requests that the City Council receive an update to the community panel and approve a modified police chief recruitment process.
Analysis
Update to the Community Panel
Because the police chief recruitment process is resuming after former Councilmember Regina Wallace-Jones has left the Council and Councilmember Martha Barragan has joined, Councilmember Barragan now has an opportunity to appoint a community member to the community panel. In consultation with the city manager, Councilmember Barragan proposed to appoint Ms. Maria Rocha to the community panel. Ms. Rocha will replace Mr. Olatunde Sobomehin, who was appointed by former Councilmember Regina Wallace Jones.
As the City and Koff & Associates work to schedule interview panels, some Councilmember appointed community panelist may no longer be available to participate on the community panel on the potential interview dates. If this occurs, the city manager will work with the appointing councilmember to receive a new appointment. Following the conclusion of the recruitment process, the city manager will provide an informational report summarizing any changes to the community panel.
Proposed Changes to the Police Chief Recruitment Process The ongoing recruitment to fill the vacancy left by former Police Chief Pardini is the City’s first police chief recruitment that is set to follow the process outlined in Resolution 5034. As the City is currently in step number 5 of the Resolution 5034 police chief recruitment process outlined above, the city manager, in consultation with Koff & Associates, recommends the modifications to the recruitment process outlined in Table 2, below. The proposed process is like what Council used for the city manager recruitment, where the Council conducted an initial interview via video conference to narrow down candidates, then invited the top three candidates to participate in community and professional panels followed by a final in-person interview with
9.1 Packet Pg. 776
the City Council.
Table 2: Existing vs Proposed Process Comparison
Step Existing Resolution 5034 Process Proposed Modifications
5. For the top 6 candidates, HR will schedule
two interview panels:
a. A panel of law enforcement
executives selected by HR and
the recruitment firm
(professional panel)
b. A panel of 5 community
members, each appointed at the
sole discretion of each
councilmember (community
panel).
For the top 6 candidates, HR and Koff &
Associates will schedule interviews with the
City Council.
6. Interview day 1. In person (ideally)
interviews. 6 candidates each participate in
2 interviews over the course of 6 to 8
hours).
Interview day 1. Video conference (ideally)
interviews. 6 candidates will meet with the
City Council over the course of 6 hours.
The professional and community panels
will interview the top 6 candidates and
provide to HR their interview and rating
sheets including comments identifying their
top 3 candidates.
The City Council will interview the top 6
candidates (via video conference) and
select the top 3 candidates to participate in
the next round of interviews.
7. HR will provide all materials and
recommendations from the professional
and community panels to the City Council
in a closed session report.
For the top 3 candidates, HR and Koff &
Associates will schedule two interview
panels:
a. A panel of law enforcement
executives selected by HR and
the recruitment firm (professional
panel)
b. A panel of five community
members, each appointed at the
sole discretion of each
councilmember (community
panel).
8. Interview day 2. Video conference
(ideally). 6 candidates will each participate
in one interview with the City Council.
Interview day 2. In person (ideally)
interviews. 3 candidates will each
participate in 2 panel interviews over the
course of 3 to 4 hours.
The City Council will interview the top six
candidates and select the top three
candidates for the City Manager to
consider.
The professional and community panels will
interview the top 6 candidates and provide
to HR their interview and rating sheets
including comments identifying their top
candidate.
9. Interview day 3. In person (ideally). The
top 3 candidates will participate in
interviews with the city manager.
Interview day 2 (continued). In person
(ideally). The top 3 candidates will
participate in interviews with the City
Manager.
The city manager will interview the top
three candidates and make the final hiring
decision.
The city manager will interview the top three
candidates.
9.1 Packet Pg. 777
10. Considering the input from the community,
professional, City Council and city manager
interviews, the city manager will make a
final hiring decision.
Challenges Implementing the Resolution 5034 Police Chief Recruitment Process The existing process requires the top six candidates to participate in three interview panels on at least two different dates (steps number 5 and 8 of Resolution 5034 listed above).
Furthermore, this process would likely require the top three candidates to participate in four interview panels on at least three different dates (Resolution 5034 steps number 5, 8 and 9 above).
Step 6: The professional and community panels (Resolution 5034 step number 6 above) would optimally be conducted in person as opposed to through video conference. To have in person community and professional panels, the existing recruitment process could require the City to provide travel accommodations to up to six candidates depending on where each candidate resides. Providing travel accommodations to candidates is standard practice for executive level recruitments.
Step 7: Resolution 5034 step number 7 listed above requires the City to compile the materials from the community and professional panels and to provide a closed session report to the City Council prior to the Council’s interviews of the top six candidates. Staff would be challenged to provide such a report to the Council on the same day that they facilitated six candidates each going through two interview panels; a process that would take six to eight hours to complete.
Thus, the community and professional panels would likely need to occur on a different date than the Council’s interviews.
Step 8. If the Council desires for these interviews do be conducted in person, the existing policy could require the City to provide travel accommodations to up to six candidates depending on where each candidate resides. This could be the second occurrence that the City would need to provide travel accommodations to up to six candidates.
Step 9: The city manager could interview the Council’s top three candidates on the same day that the Council interviews the top six candidates and reduces the number of candidates to three, but this is not recommended. This would be a very long interview day for the top three candidates (six hours for the Council’s six interviews and up to three hours for the city manager’s interviews).
Proposed Police Chief Recruitment Process
Step 6: The proposed process involves the Council interviews of the top six candidates as the first interview step. The council would interview all six candidates and identify the top three candidates to continue in the recruitment process. This interview could be done in person or via video conference; however, video conference is recommended to ease scheduling and reduce potential travel accommodation costs.
Step 8: Only the top three candidates identified by the City Council would participate in the community and professional panels. These panels are recommended to occur in person, so
9.1 Packet Pg. 778
having fewer candidates participate in these panels could reduce potential travel accommodation costs.
Step 9: Because only three police chief candidates would participate in the community and professional panels, it is possible for the city manager to conduct final interviews on the same date as the community and professional panels. This process does not require City staff or Koff & Associates to compile community or professional panel interview results prior to the city manager conducting interviews.
Step 10: Following the conclusion of the interviews, the city manager can consider the input on the top three candidates from the City Council, community panel, and professional panel to help make a final decision.
The proposed modified recruitment process will increase efficiency (two days of interviews as opposed to three) and will reduce potential travel accommodation costs the City could incur (one day of potential travel accommodations for up to three candidates as opposed to two days of potential travel accommodations for up to six candidates).
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation.
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.
Environmental
The proposed action is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378(b)(2), in that it is government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
Attachments
1. Resolution 5034
2. Proposed Resolution
9.1 Packet Pg. 779
RESOLUTION NO. 5034
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
DEFINING THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE
WHEREAS, the East Palo Alto Municipal Code ("EPAMC") sets forth the authority conferred upon City officers and employees to perform the functions oftheir respective offices; and
WHEREAS, in 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13 creating the Office ofthe City Manager and establishing the powers and duties ofthe position.
Ordinance No. 13 was subsequently amended and codified in Chapter 2.12 ofthe EPAMC; and
WHEREAS, in 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 49 creating the Police Department and the position ofChiefofPolice. Ordinance No. 49 is codified in Chapter 2.20 ofthe EPAMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the head administrative officer for the City of East Palo Alto, subject to the direction ofthe City Council. He is responsible for the administration ofthe affairs ofthe City, including management ofthe City's departments and divisions; and
WHEREAS, the ChiefofPolice is the director ofthe Police Department, is responsible for the performance ofthe functions ofthe department and reports to the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on March 20,2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 413 amending Chapter 2.20 ofthe East Palo Alto Municipal Code to authorize the City Manager to appoint the ChiefofPolice in consultation with the City Council; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No.413 and amended Chapter 2.20 provides that the form ofCity Council consultation shall be established by resolution ofthe City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO hereby establishes the following process for selection ofa ChiefofPolice:
1. The City Council shall select a recruitment firm to perform the recruitment for the position ofChiefofPolice. Once selected, the City Council, with Human Resources HR) support shall work with the recruitment firm to develop a recruitment brochure.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Resolution 5034 (2572 : Police Chief Recruitment Process Update)
2. HR staffand the recruitment firm shall conduct a review ofall applications received and reduce the candidate pool to the top 12 candidates.
3. HR staffand the recruitment firm shall: a) interview and screen the top 12 candidates, b) provide the City Council the top 12 applications; and, c) produce a confidential closed session report recommending the top six candidates for City Council consideration.
4. The City Council shall review the top 12 applications, consider HR and recruitment firm confidential closed session report including recommendations, and after deliberation in closed session will select the top six candidates.
5. HR staffshall schedule two interview panels of: a) law enforcement executives selected by HR staffand recruitment firm; and, b) five community members appointed at the sole discretion ofeach Council member.
6. Each panel will provide to HR stafftheir interview and rating sheets including comments identifying their top three candidates. HR staffwill provide all the material from the panels, in a confidential closed session report to the City Council.
7. The City Council shall meet in closed session to: a) review the HR confidential closed session report and consider the recommendation ofthe two panels, b) interview the top six candidates, and c) select the top three candidates for City Manager consideration.
8. The City Manager shall interview the top 3 candidates and make the final hiring decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2
nd day ofOctober, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: ROMERO, GAUTHIER, MOODY, RUTHERFORD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ABRICA
l~jO. BSTAIN: NONE ·
SIGNED:
Ruben Abrica, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Resolution 5034 (2572 : Police Chief Recruitment Process Update) RESOLUTION NO. XX - 2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE
WHEREAS, the East Palo Alto Municipal Code ("EPAMC") sets forth the authority conferred upon City officers and employees to perform the functions of their respective offices; and
WHEREAS, in 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13 creating the Office of the City Manager and establishing the powers and duties of the position.
Ordinance No. 13 was subsequently amended and codified in Chapter 2.12 of the EPAMC; and
WHEREAS, in 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 49 creating the Police Department and the position of Chief of Police. Ordinance No. 49 is codified in Chapter 2.20 of the EPAMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the head administrative officer for the City of East Palo Alto, subject to the direction of the City Council. He is responsible for the administration of the affairs of the City, including management of the City's departments and divisions; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police is the director of the Police Department, is responsible for the performance of the functions of the department and reports to the City Manager; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 413 amending Chapter 2.20 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code to authorize the City Manager to appoint the Chief of Police in consultation with the City Council; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No.413 and amended Chapter 2.20 provides that the form of City Council consultation shall be established by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 5034 defining the selection process for the Police Chief; and
WHEREAS, the selection process for the Police Chief outlined in Resolution 5034 has inefficiencies which the City Council desires to mitigate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO hereby establishes the following process for selection of a Chief of Police:
1. The City Council shall select a recruitment firm to perform the recruitment for the position of Chief of Police. Once selected, the City Council, with Human Resources (HR) support shall work with the recruitment firm to develop a recruitment brochure.
2. HR staff and the recruitment firm shall conduct a review of all applications received and reduce the candidate pool to the top 12 candidates.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (2572 : Police Chief Recruitment Process Update)
3. HR staff and the recruitment firm shall: a) interview and screen the top 12 candidates, b) provide the City Council the top 12 applications; and, c) produce a confidential closed session report recommending the top six candidates for City Council consideration.
4. The City Council shall review the top 12 applications, consider the HR and recruitment firm confidential closed session report including recommendations, and, after deliberation in closed session, select the top six candidates.
5. The City Council shall meet in closed session to: a) interview the top six candidates, and b) select the top three candidates to continue in the interview process.
6. HR staff shall schedule two panel interview, for the top three candidates, including: a) public safety executives selected by HR staff and recruitment firm; and, b) five community members appointed at the sole discretion of each Council member.
7. Each panel will provide to HR staff their interview and rating sheets including comments identifying their top candidate.
8. HR staff will provide all the material from the panels in a confidential report to the City Manager.
9. The City Manager shall interview the top 3 candidates and make the final hiring decision considering the input from the Council and all panels.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Lisa Gauthier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (2572 : Police Chief Recruitment Process Update)
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Bo-Kyoung Kim, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: Mid-year Budget Amendment FY22-23
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution approving Amendments to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Budget.
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Background
The City Council approved the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget on June 7, 2022. The Adopted Budget (excluding Successor Trust) reflects total revenues of $50.8M and total expenditures of
$48.8M resulting in positive net change in fund balance of $2.0M across all funds.
9.2 Packet Pg. 784
Description
General
Fund /
General
Reserves
Restricted
Funds
Capital
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
TOTAL CITY
FUNDS
Total Revenues 29,449 13,548 3,008 4,807 50,812
Total Expenditures (28,452) (11,238) (966) (8,110) (48,766) Net Sources / (Uses) 997 2,310 2,042 (3,303) 2,046
Net Transfers (997) 297 700 - (0)
Change in Fund
Balance 0 2,607 2,742 (3,303) 2,046
(In 000's)
FY 22-23 Adopted - Citywide Funds
The Mid-year Budget Amendment report provides an assessment of the City’s budget condition in the current fiscal year as compared to the adopted budget based on the actual performance during the first six months of the fiscal year 2022-23 ensuring that ongoing operating revenues will be sufficient to cover operating expenses.
The Mid-year Budget Amendment update includes adjustments that have resulted from past council meeting agenda items since the adoption of the budget.
Additionally, it contains adjustments related to encumbrances and capital expenditures carried forward from the prior fiscal year that were previously approved by the City Council, but not included in the adopted budget. The update also proposes and recommends adjustments to certain revenue and expenditure categories, as well as transfers based on staff analysis of current economic trends, program and capital project needs, and alignment with Council strategic priorities.
However, these adjustments are subject to Council approval through the attached resolution.
Analysis
General Fund
The General Fund Amended net change in fund balance decreased a total of $1.7M; from zero to negative $1.7 M. The net amended/carryforward change (negative $4.2M) relates to Council amendments previously approved ($2.0M) and encumbrances carried forward from the previous year ($2.2M). The proposed and recommended adjustments are mainly coming from changes in revenue projection based on the actual performance from the first half of the fiscal year and the recent economic trends which will be discussed in the General Fund Revenues section below. The proposed and recommended adjustments also include transfers to the Water Fund ($2.0M) for the priority water infrastructure projects related to the 965 Weeks affordable housing project and to CIP Fund for City Hall renovation ($350K).
The table below summarizes the General Fund budget amendments from the adoption to the Mid-year.
9.2 Packet Pg. 785
Description
FY 22-23
Adopted
Amended/
Carry -
Forward
Proposed
Total General
Fund/Reserves
Total Revenues 29,449 618 4,440 34,506
Total Expenditures (28,452) (4,938) 350 (33,040)
Net Sources / (Uses) 997 (4,321) 4,790 1,467
Net Transfers (997) 149 (2,391) (3,239)
Change in Fund Balance 0 (4,172) 2,399 (1,773)
(In 000's)
FY 2022-23 Q2 - General Fund and Reserves
General Fund Revenues
The General Fund revenue budget will increase approximately for $5.1M which is mainly due to changes in projection of tax revenues including Property tax ($3.2M), Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) ($0.5M), and Business License tax ($0.4M) and Pass-through development revenues ($0.6M) since Pass-through development revenues have associated costs reductions, there is no significant impact on the fund balance. The table below shows comparison by revenue source between FY22 audit, FY23 adopted and FY23 Mid-year amended.
FY 2021-22
AUDIT
FY 2022-23
ADOPTED
FY 2022-23 MID
YEAR
Property Tax $ 15,843,008 $ 15,725,421 $ 18,885,421
Sales Tax $ 5,738,443 $ 5,845,000 $ 5,845,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $ 1,158,314 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,600,000 Business License Tax $ 1,269,802 $ 1,348,250 $ 1,698,250 Other Revenues $ 3,948,354 $ 5,150,099 $ 5,580,163
Subtotal $ 27,957,921 $ 29,168,770 $ 33,608,834
Pass-Through Development $ 1,553,261 $ 280,000 $ 897,653 Total Revenues $ 29,511,182 $ 29,448,770 $ 34,506,487
Current trends by category are as follows:
Property tax - the shortfall in Property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF) was less significant than our initial estimate approximately for $2.4M which increases our projection and is included in the proposed adjustments. This shortfall is currently projected as a reduction that will continue to occur and grow as more San Mateo County schools become “basic aid” but has been repaid by the State. While the State consistently has backfilled smaller shortfalls in the past, there is no legislative mandate to provide for State replacement funding, and there is no certainty regarding the State’s future response as the shortfall continues to grow. In addition, a change in the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) in the current fiscal year
9.2 Packet Pg. 786
raised the projection of the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenue approximately for $0.8M.
Sales tax - the sales tax revenues had increased for 5.8% in the fiscal year 2021-22 compared to the previous fiscal year and according to Avenue’s analysis, they are projected to have the similar growth ratio in the current fiscal year. Staff will continue to monitor monthly payments to affirm $5.8M range estimate from the adopted budget.
Transient Occupancy Tax - current trends indicate a positive budget adjustment of $0.5M.
The collection remains suppressed at approximately 30% below pre-COVID levels. Due to the change in business meeting culture, the recovery is expected to be slow and limited.
Business License Tax - as a result of the initial review and analysis of the Business License Discovery and Compliance program, the HdL Companies estimated $0.4M of additional tax revenues from the findings.
Other Revenues - due to the series of federal rate hikes in the past eleven months followed by high inflation, the projected earnings in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and San Mateo County Pool have been positively adjusted resulting in an increase in the interest revenues for about $0.4M.
Pass through Development - these revenues are offset by contractual costs. Given the staff and consultants activities, staff recommends a proposed change in the revenue projection for $0.6M. However, the net impact on reserves is minimal since increased revenues will be offset by increased expenditures.
General Fund Expenditures
The General Fund Amended increase in expenditures, excluding transfers, totals $4.6M.
Notable changes in expenditures include increases in personnel costs as a result of the labor union negotiations, new contracts and contract amendments via Council meetings, and the encumbrances and capital projects carried forward from the previous year. Those increases were previously approved by the City Council. The proposed adjustment includes only a reduction in capital outlay for $350K related to City Hall renovation project which is, in turn, reclassified to a transfer to the CIP Fund for the same amount.
The table below reflects expenditure amendments by department:
9.2 Packet Pg. 787
DEPARTMENT
FY 2022-23
BASELINE
FY 2022-23
ADOPTED
FY 2022-23
MID-YEAR
AMENDED $ Chg
%
Chg
City Council 169,028 169,028 169,028 - 0.0%
City Attorney 827,827 827,827 878,456 50,629 6.1%
City Clerk 405,324 405,324 412,524 7,200 1.8%
City Manager 1,714,057 1,606,767 2,284,818 678,051 42.2% Administrative Services 1,779,730 2,879,851 3,173,145 293,294 10.2% Finance 1,371,771 268,126 274,938 6,812 2.5%
Community Development 3,015,796 3,119,396 3,629,230 509,834 16.3% CEDE - Pass Through 244,545 - 816,048 816,048 #DIV/0!
Public Works 4,377,249 4,358,249 5,269,745 911,496 20.9% PW - Pass Through - 10,000 10,000 - 0.0%
Police 13,973,827 13,383,969 14,320,612 936,643 7.0%
Non-Departmental
Capital/Technology - 350,000 101,878 (248,122) -70.9%
Insurance and Settlements 897,168 897,168 897,168 - 0.0% Other Non-Departmental 1,037,575 1,037,575 1,664,039 626,464 60.4% Overhead Allocation (861,730) (861,730) (861,730) - 0.0% Sub-total 28,952,167 28,451,550 33,039,899 4,588,349 16.1% Transfers 1,118,364 1,818,360 4,209,360 2,391,000 131.5% Total Expenditures $ 30,070,531 $ 30,269,910 $ 37,249,259 $ 6,979,349 23.1% A detail mid-year comparison of current to prior year General Fund budget to actual is presented in Attachment 2. In comparison to the prior year, the General Fund budget, as proposed, appears within the boundaries of recent mid-year trends indicating the budget overall is within a reasonable range given current information inputs and our conservative approach.
Restricted Funds
The Restricted Funds Amended net change in fund balance decreased $7.4M from $2.6M to negative $4.8M. The amended/carryforward changes relate to Council amendments previously approved including the $2.2M Annual Street Resurfacing (ASR) project carried forward from the prior year and Measure HH Pilot Workforce Development Program for $0.8M offset by the Measure M reimbursement revenue related to the ASR project ($0.7M). The proposed mid-year changes in the revenues include the $8M state earmark grant for 965 Weeks affordable housing project offset by a downward adjustment in the affordable housing commercial impact fee for $2.5M.
The proposed revenues also include a $0.6M increase in the interest revenues due to the federal rate hikes and a positive adjustment in the restricted TOT revenues for $124K. The proposed change in the expenditure relates to a loan disbursement for the 965 Weeks project passing through from the $8M state earmark. The following table summarizes the amended changes in restricted funds.
9.2 Packet Pg. 788
Description
FY 22-23
Adopted
Amended/
Carry -
Forward
Proposed
Total
Restricted
Total Revenues 13,548 656 5,996 20,200
Total Expenditures (11,238) (3,939) (6,500) (21,677)
Net Sources / (Uses) 2,310 (3,283) (504) (1,477)
Net Transfers 297 (149) (3,500) (3,352)
Change in Fund Balance 2,607 (3,432) (4,004) (4,829)
(In 000's)
FY 2022-23 Q2 - Restricted Funds
Capital Funds
The Capital Funds Amended net change in fund balance increased $2.6M from $2.7M to $5.3M. The amended/carryforward changes relate to carryforward capital balances for the major capital projects including Pavement Management Plan ($0.8M), University/Michigan improvement ($0.4M) and Addison Ave improvement ($2.3M) which are all primarily grant-funded projects reflecting both grant revenues and capital expenditures for the same amount except for the local match portion. An additional $3.4M increase is also included in the amended/carryforward revenues which is a deferred federal grant reimbursement related to Bay Rd project expenditures incurred in the previous year. The following table summarizes the amended changes in Capital funds.
Description
FY 22-23
Adopted
Amended
/ Carry -
Forward
Proposed
Total
Capital
Total Revenues 3,008 6,444 30 9,482
Total Expenditures (966) (3,568) - (4,534)
Net Sources / (Uses) 2,042 2,876 30 4,948
Net Transfers 700 - (350) 350
Change in Fund
Balance 2,742 2,876 (320) 5,298
(In 000's)
FY 2022-23 Q2 - Capital Funds
Enterprise Funds
The Enterprise Funds Amended net change in fund balance decreased $0.6M from $3.3M negative to $1.8M positive. The amended/carryforward changes relate to a design contract
9.2 Packet Pg. 789
amendment previously approved by the Council for priority water improvement projects and two other water infrastructure projects that are vital to advance the 965 Weeks project. The proposed changes are mainly due to an upward change in water impact fee projection.
Description
FY 22-23
Adopted
Amended
/ Carry -
Forward
Proposed
Total
Enterprise
Total Revenues 4,807 - 398 5,205
Total Expenditures (8,110) (1,534) - (9,644)
Net Sources / (Uses) (3,303) (1,534) 398 (4,439)
Net Transfers - - 6,241 6,241
Change in Fund Balance (3,303) (1,534) 6,639 1,802
(In 000's)
FY 2022-23 Q2 - Enterprise Funds
.
Transfers
The amended/carryforward change relates to a community survey and engagement contract previously approved by the Council and funded through ARPA fund. The proposed transfers are based on a funding strategy approved by the Council for the two water improvement projects related to the 965 Weeks project ($6.2M) and a reclassification from the General Fund capital budget to a transfer to the CIP fund for City Hall ($350K). The following table summarizes the amended changes in transfers.
FY 2022-23
ADOPTED
Amended/
CarryforwardProposed
FY 20223-23
MID YEAR
State Gas Tax $ 64,500 $ - $ - $ 64,500
NPDES $ 303,870 $ - $ - $ 303,870
Successor Housing $ 462,720 $ - $ (1,000,000) $ (537,280) Drainage District $ 287,270 $ - $ - $ 287,270
ARPA $ (821,140) $(149,000) $ - $ (970,140)
Housing in Lieu $ - $ - $ (1,500,000) $ (1,500,000)
Measure HH $ - $ - $ (1,000,000) $ (1,000,000)
Water $ - $ - $ 6,241,000 $ 6,241,000
Capital Improvement $ 700,000 $ - $ (350,000) $ 350,000 General $ (997,220) $ 149,000 $ (2,391,000) $ (3,239,220) Total $ - $ - $ - $ -
Upcoming projects and programs
The following projects and programs were not included in this Mid-year amendments and will
9.2 Packet Pg. 790
potentially impact the General Fund reserve. Staff will return and present to the Council with more detailed information as part of the FY 2023-2024 budget process.
No. Future Project and Program Department/
Division
Estimated
Amount
Funding Source
1 SFCJPA Reach II Contribution PW/CIP $ 1,500,000 General fund 2 Acquisition funding for the Library
Property
City Manager 1,200,000 General fund
3 Comprehensive building plans for Martin
Luther King Jr. Park Redesign
Community
Service
1,100,000 General fund
4 CEQA and design for Bell Street Park Community
Service
1,000,000 General fund
Total $ 4,800,000
Fiscal Impact
Total proposed amended budget is as follows for fiscal year 2022-23:
Description
General
Fund /
General
Reserves
Restricted
Funds
Capital
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
TOTAL
CITY
FUNDS
Total Revenues 34,506 20,200 9,482 5,205 69,393
Total Expenditures (33,040) (21,677) (4,534) (9,644) (68,895) Net Sources / (Uses) 1,467 (1,477) 4,948 (4,439) 499
Net Transfers (3,239) (3,352) 350 6,241 -
Change in Fund
Balance (1,773) (4,829) 5,298 1,802 499
FY 22-23 Mid Year Amended - Citywide Funds
(In 000's)
Environmental
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” pursuant to 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.
Attachments
1. Resolution FY22-23 Mid Year Budget
2. Mid Year Budget Summary
9.2 Packet Pg. 791
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2023
A RESOLUTIONOF THE CITYCOUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council, from time to time, reviews the annual spending plan for the City of East Palo Alto General, Special Revenue, Capital, Enterprise, and Trust Funds in order to account for anticipated revenues and to appropriate projected expenditures; and WHEREAS, the East Palo Alto Municipal Code section 3.08.110 requires the adoption of an annual budget no later than June 30th prior to the beginning of the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23 Budget on June 7, 2022, and has approved amendments of the budget since adoption; and WHEREAS, City staff propose amendments to the budget based upon noted mid-year trends and information.
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the information presented, the City Council desires to make amendments to the FY 2022-23 Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY APPROVES:
1. Amendments to the FY 2022-23 Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Resolution FY22-23 Mid Year Budget (2571 : 22-23 Mid year Budget) Lisa Gauthier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Resolution FY22-23 Mid Year Budget (2571 : 22-23 Mid year Budget) Exhibit
A
Revenues Expenditures In Out
10 General Fund $ 33,608,836 $ (28,968,798) $ (101,878) $ 970,140 $ (6,398,393) $ (890,093) 11 IT Replacement Fund $ - $ (1,977,349) $ - $ 1,121,861 $ - $ (855,488) 12 Equipment & Vehicles $ - $ (153,655) $ - $ 95,000 $ - $ (58,655) 13 Self Insurance $ - $ (972,168) $ - $ 972,168 $ - $ - 16 Community Benefit Fund $ - $ (50,000) $ - $ - $ - $ (50,000) 17 Com Dev Pass Thru $ 897,653 $ (816,048) $ - $ - $ - $ 81,605 99 Emergency Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ (2,189,029) $ 2,189,029 $ -
$ 34,506,489 $ (32,938,018) $ (101,878) $ 970,140 $ (4,209,364) $ (1,772,631) 201 State Gas Tax $ 1,569,470 $ (816,970) $ (1,100,000) $ 64,500 $ - $ (283,000) 202 Measure A $ 682,516 $ (3,210) $ (987,500) $ - $ - $ (308,194) 203 NPDES $ 867,059 $ (627,878) $ (708,359) $ 303,868 $ - $ (165,310) 204 Rent Stabilization $ 549,696 $ (960,898) $ - $ - $ - $ (411,202) 206 Park In Lieu $ 3,187 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,187
207 Housing In Lieu $ 9,105,257 $ (10,621,160) $ - $ - $ (1,500,000) $ (3,015,903) 209 Housing Assistance Program $ 7,764 $ (6,250) $ - $ - $ - $ 1,514 213 Police Grants $ 164,475 $ (200,548) $ - $ - $ - $ (36,073) 215 Misc Federal and State Grants $ 57,000 $ (209,883) $ - $ - $ - $ (152,883) 218 Affordable Housing TOT $ 245,955 $ (87,280) $ - $ - $ - $ 158,675 219 Measure HH $ 1,749,775 $ (1,399,613) $ - $ - $ (1,000,000) $ (649,838) 220 Lo-Mod Housing Successor $ 42,479 $ (1,272,055) $ - $ 462,724 $ (1,000,000) $ (1,766,852) 221 Lighting District $ 720,357 $ (177,828) $ (58,863) $ - $ - $ 483,666 222 Drainage District $ 151,732 $ (432,693) $ - $ 287,272 $ - $ 6,311 230 Local Grants $ 158,798 $ (17,256) $ - $ - $ - $ 141,542 231 CYSFF Grant Fund $ 216,013 $ (100,480) $ - $ - $ - $ 115,533 232 Measure C $ 2,701 $ (207,300) $ - $ - $ - $ (204,599) 233 Silicon Valley Community $ 1,031 $ (176,043) $ - $ - $ - $ (175,012) 234 County Measure W $ 349,451 $ (1,500) $ (640,000) $ - $ - $ (292,049) 290 ARPA $ 3,555,001 $ (863,755) $ - $ - $ (970,140) $ 1,721,106 301 Capital Improvement Fund $ 3,701,373 $ (176,701) $ (3,970,327) $ 350,000 $ - $ (95,655) 303 Capital Grant $ 3,919,142 $ - $ (360,000) $ - $ - $ 3,559,142 305 Parks & Trails $ 442,088 $ (27,058) $ - $ - $ - $ 415,030 306 Public Facilities $ 775,392 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 775,392 307 Transportation $ 279,258 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 279,258
308 RBD-I Storm D $ 360,302 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 360,302
309 RBD-O Storm D $ 4,736 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,736
510 Water Service Fund $ 508,913 $ (582,613) $ - $ - $ - $ (73,700) 511 Water Capital Fund $ 576,666 $ (111,118) $ (5,118,450) $ 6,691,000 $ - $ 2,038,098 512 Water Meter Fund $ 304,333 $ - $ (250,000) $ - $ - $ 54,333 513 Water Capacity Fee Fund $ 789,029 $ - $ (456,000) $ - $ (450,000) $ (116,971) 520 Garbage Service Fund $ 3,026,535 $ (3,126,071) $ - $ - $ - $ (99,536) $ 69,393,972 $ (55,144,179) $ (13,751,377) $ 9,129,504 $ (9,129,504) $ 498,416 Net Change
Fund Balance
ELIMINATING ENTRY
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
CITY OPERATING FUNDS
FY 2022-23 AMENDED GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
Fund Description
Operating Capital
Improvement
Plan
Operating Transfers
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Resolution FY22-23 Mid Year Budget (2571 : 22-23 Mid year Budget) Adopted Amended Proposed Amended 12/31/2022 12/31/2021 FY 2021-22 Revenues 2023 Changes Changes 2023 Actual YTD % Actual YTD Audited % Property Tax 15,725,421 - 3,160,000 18,885,421 11,239,746 60% 7,470,115 15,843,008 47% Sales Tax 5,845,000 - - 5,845,000 2,462,700 42% 2,137,433 5,738,443 37% Utility Users Tax 1,702,684 - - 1,702,684 773,046 45% 645,839 1,631,049 40% Transient Occupancy Tax 1,100,000 - 500,000 1,600,000 827,490 52% 318,885 1,158,314 28% Business License Tax 1,348,250 - 350,000 1,698,250 46,207 3% 110,904 1,269,802 9% Fees and Permits 1,626,300 - - 1,626,300 698,555 43% 566,041 1,600,598 35% Fines and Forfeitures 180,000 - - 180,000 73,534 41% 92,829 229,422 40% Use of Money and Property 336,500 - 430,064 766,564 1,635,814 213% (18,005) (1,001,011) 2% Grants and Intergovernmental 240,000 - - 240,000 86,185 36% - 668,581 0% Charges for Current Services 1,269,615 (198,395) - 1,071,220 326,380 30% 354,303 675,609 52% Other Miscellaneous 75,000 816,048 - 891,048 15,021 2% 87,085 1,697,367 5% Total Revenues 29,448,770 617,653 4,440,064 34,506,487 18,184,678 53% 11,765,429 29,511,182 40% Expenditures
City Council 169,028 - - 169,028 71,376 42% 44,104 109,373 40% City Attorney 827,827 50,629 - 878,456 286,760 33% 310,865 821,202 38% City Clerk 405,324 7,200 - 412,524 14,714 4% 102,840 164,977 62% City Manager 867,485 513,618 - 1,381,103 488,881 35% 585,532 1,239,216 47% Human Resources 739,282 164,433 - 903,715 233,284 26% 243,882 575,713 42% Administrative Services 939,974 (35,069) - 904,905 337,440 37% 372,644 926,065 40% Community Programs 688,506 58,984 - 747,490 346,770 46% 198,511 500,664 40% Senior Services 1,251,371 269,379 - 1,520,750 514,498 34% 78,846 226,612 35% Finance 268,126 6,812 - 274,938 141,878 52% 530,539 1,025,876 52% Community Development 629,770 114,733 - 744,503 325,404 44% 326,800 893,700 37% Building Services 1,287,113 176,324 - 1,463,437 505,830 35% 445,781 1,129,029 39% Planning 1,177,535 741,909 - 1,919,444 557,055 29% 570,474 1,534,520 37% Housing 24,978 292,916 - 317,894 73,012 23% (4,371) 196,047 -2% Public Works 447,001 18,503 - 465,504 72,864 16% 187,125 375,415 50% Engineering Services 966,749 730,604 - 1,697,353 463,780 27% 377,465 845,916 45% Maintenance 2,808,253 122,597 - 2,930,850 923,872 32% 837,124 1,977,942 42% Environmental Services 146,246 39,792 - 186,038 96,570 52% 42,027 111,165 38% Police 5,176,502 301,217 - 5,477,719 2,548,198 47% 2,219,949 3,905,672 57% Operations 6,530,719 435,795 - 6,966,514 3,054,441 44% 2,432,705 3,996,321 61% Investigations 1,676,748 199,631 - 1,876,379 450,604 24% 313,617 207,732 151% Non-Departmental:
Capital Outlay 350,000 101,878 (350,000) 101,878 - 0% 101,878 101,966 Insurance and Settlements 897,168 - - 897,168 806,859 90% 551,587 551,578 100% Other Non-departmental 1,037,575 626,464 - 1,664,039 636,300 38% 520,750 878,589 59% Overhead Allocation (861,730) - - (861,730) (430,865) 50% (416,955) (833,910) 50% Total Expenditures 28,451,550 4,938,349 (350,000) 33,039,899 12,519,527 38% 10,973,719 21,461,380 51% Revenues Over / (Under) 997,220 (4,320,696) 4,790,064 1,466,588 5,665,151 791,709 8,049,802 Other Financing Sources/Uses
Transfers In 821,140 149,000 - 970,140 - - - 0%
Transfers Out (1,818,360) - (2,391,000) (4,209,360) (559,180) 13% (533,596) (2,381,000) 22% Net Operating Transfers (997,220) 149,000 (2,391,000) (3,239,220) (559,180) 17% (533,596) (2,381,000) 22% Change in Fund Balance - (4,171,696) 2,399,064 (1,772,632) 5,105,971 258,113 5,668,802 Other Reserve Changes 2,200,000 - - 2,200,000 - (4,758,236) Projected Operating Reserves*
Beginning Balance 17,834,627 - - 17,834,627 17,834,627 16,924,061 16,924,061 Ending Balance 20,034,627 - - 18,261,995 22,940,598 17,182,174 17,834,627 * Projected Reserve Fund Balance is restated based on the most recent audited financial statements and include only unassigned fund balance without contingency reserve.
City of East Palo Alto
GENERAL FUND BUDGET FY 2022-23
For Second Quarter Ended December 31, 2022
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Mid Year Budget Summary (2571 : 22-23 Mid year Budget)
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin Gaines, City Manager
BY: Melvin Gaines, City Manager
SUBJECT: Meeting Format for Boards and Commissions after February 2023 Recommendation
By motion, provide direction on how the City Council and City boards and commissions shall conduct regular proceedings following the official expiration of the pandemic state of emergency.
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
The California Brown Act includes long-established requirements for local agencies to use teleconferencing to conduct meetings. In March 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 authorizing exemptions to the then-existing Brown Act teleconferencing requirements. Those requirements were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote social distancing and to facilitate remote work and meetings. Executive Order N-08- 21 extended Executive Order N-29-20 until September 30, 2021.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 into law to allow the continued use of virtual public meetings during a declared state of emergency when certain conditions are met.
AB 361 took effect immediately as an urgency statute and is effective through December 31, 2023. AB361 requires findings be made periodically to substantiate the rationale for continued virtual meetings, and the City Council has satisfied this requirement on a monthly basis. One key requirement is that there be a proclaimed state of emergency.
Governor Newsom recently announced that the State of Emergency he declared on March 4, 2020, will end on February 28, 2023. Assuming there is no major resurgence of COVID-19 or
9.3 Packet Pg. 796
occurrence of other conditions leading to a new state of emergency, a key component for making AB 361 findings will not be in effect and, therefore, virtual participation in meetings will not be available on that basis.
On September 13, 2022, AB 2449 was signed into law, effective January 1, 2023. It will remain in effect through December 31, 2025. AB 2449 clarified teleconferencing requirements and, for a two-year period, provided additional exceptions to the original Brown Act teleconference rules. The two new exceptions allow teleconferencing absent a declared state of emergency when a member of the legislative body is unable to attend in person due to “just cause” or due to an “emergency circumstance.” These new provisions are not as flexible as the AB 361 provisions people have become accustomed to. Accordingly, given that portions of AB 361 will sunset, the Council and the various boards and commission members will be required to attend in-person meetings unless either an exception under AB 2449 is invoked or the traditional Brown Act rules for teleconference would apply (e.g., posting location of remote attendance, permit public access to such location, etc.).
On December 15, 2022, with AB 361 set to expire at the end of February 2023, staff provided the City Council with information about possible approaches that the City may pursue with regard to future hybrid meetings. At the conclusion of staff’s presentation, the City Council directed staff to return with specific recommendations on February 21, 2023.
The purpose of this staff report is to seek City Council approval for the City’s approach to offering hybrid meetings for City Council and City boards and commissions beginning in March 2023.
Analysis
Boards and Commissions
There are four council appointed bodies that are subject to the Brown Act meeting requirements. One body, the Planning Commission, has two regular meetings scheduled each month on Mondays. The other three advisory bodies each have one monthly regular meeting scheduled on different Wednesdays.
Table 1: Advisory Body Size and Regular Meeting Schedule Advisory Body # of
Members
Regular Meeting
Date
Regular Meeting
Time
Planning Commission 8 2
nd & 4th Monday of month 7 pm
Public Works & Transportation
Commission 8
3 rd Wednesday of month 5:30 pm
Rent Stabilization Board 8 2
nd Wednesday of month 7 pm
Senior Advisory Committee 9 1
st Wednesday of month 6 pm
Existing Hybrid Meeting Capability
The Council Chambers at 2415 University is the only City location currently equipped for hybrid meetings. The current hybrid meeting set-up requires all on site participants to use a computer equipped with a camera/microphone to present or provide comments. Meetings are held via Zoom webinar. The chambers are equipped with five Zoom ready computers on the dais which are used by City Council members during council meetings and three to four Zoom ready
9.3 Packet Pg. 797
computers on the tables adjacent to the dais which are used by City staff and/or consultants during council meetings.
There is also a Zoom ready computer available at the podium in the chambers that may be used by members of the public to make comments. Staff and consultants may also use this computer to present from the podium. Members of the public in attendance in the chambers who only wish to observe the meeting may view the Zoom screen and observe remote panelists on the two television monitors located in the chambers.
Needs for Expanding Hybrid Meetings to Additional Bodies The size of City boards and commissions ranges from eight to nine members. Each of these members would need a camera equipped computer to participate in hybrid meetings.
Additionally, at minimum, one onsite staff member would also need a computer. This staff member would set up the chambers for a hybrid meeting, host the meeting, and troubleshoot any issues that arise. The nine computers located on the dais and adjacent table would suffice for most boards and commissions; however, an additional computer would be required for the Senior Advisory Committee. This computer could be added to the table adjacent to the dais, however, the resulting seating arrangement would require one meeting participant to have their back to other participants.
Alternative Hybrid Meeting Options
Many communities operate hybrid meetings that have a number of microphones and cameras that pan the meeting room and focus on different speakers as opposed to each speaker having their own camera/microphone and a separate Zoom square. With these configurations, only staff would be required to have access to a computer. Nevertheless, such a configuration would not be any less intensive for staff to set up the chambers, host the meeting, and trouble shoot any issues that arise.
Hybrid vs In Person Only Meetings
Staffing requirements:
Hybrid meetings will require at least one staff member to be present in the council chambers to set up the chambers for a hybrid meeting, host the meeting, and trouble shoot any issues that arise. Ideally, at least two staff members would be present onsite to help operate hybrid meetings. This will require training for multiple staff liaisons. Still, with hybrid meetings, other staff members and any consultants could attend the meeting remotely. The ability for staff to participate in meetings remotely is a valued benefit. Furthermore, the ability for consultants to participate in meetings remotely has decreased the costs the City pays for consultant travel.
In person only meetings will require all staff liaisons and any consultants to attend meetings in person. There are fewer moving pieces to oversee for in person only meetings and there is less technical training required.
Translation capabilities:
The current contractor that the City uses for translation services provides services remotely.
This provides a costs savings to the City as the costs for the translators to be onsite is higher.
9.3 Packet Pg. 798
If the City requires translation services at a non-hybrid meeting, the City will incur additional costs.
Public Participation:
The City has not tracked public participation in remote meetings; however, hybrid meetings provide an additional means for community members to participate in meetings. It is likely that community members who have other obligations are more likely to participate in a meeting with remote capabilities than they would be if the meeting was in person only. Community members who want to attend a meeting in person also have the ability to do so with hybrid meetings. Under Government Code Section 54953(b)(4), a hybrid format that allows virtual teleconference/video conference to allow both in-person and virtual public participation is permissible.
City Council Feedback on December 15, 2022
The City Council provided the following comments to staff regarding public meetings, beginning in March 2023:
• The City Council acknowledged that offering hybrid meetings for all public meetings would create a significant administrative and implementation burden to staff, including having the staffing necessary to ensure that computers, microphones, and speakers are available and operable for in-person and remote participation; • Several City Council members commented that the City should consider hybrid meetings for all policy bodies (e.g., City Council, Planning Commission, and the Rent Board);
• The City Council was supportive of the City Manager determining which staff and consultants need to be in attendance based on specific meeting requirements; and • City Councilmembers seemed generally supportive of supporting statewide efforts to rethink hybrid meetings in the future1.
Staff Recommendation
Due to the staffing and budget considerations associated with supporting hybrid meetings for public and staff/presenter attendance, staff has three options for the City Council to consider:
Option 1
1. Work to provide hybrid meeting capabilities for all boards and commissions, to the extent permitted by law; and
2. Direct staff to provide the City Council with detailed staff and cost implications associated with providing hybrid meetings for all boards and commissions during the budget process.
Option 2
1. Beginning in March 2023, offer hybrid meetings for City Council, Planning Commission, and the Rent Board complete with interpretation services.
2. Direct staff to provide the City Council with detailed staff and cost implications associated with providing hybrid meetings for these bodies during the budget process.
9.3 Packet Pg. 799
Option 3
1. Identify the specific boards and commissions that the City should provide hybrid meetings for.
2. Direct staff to provide the City Council with detailed staff and cost implications associated with providing hybrid meetings for these bodies during the budget process.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact is associated with this item.
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.
Environmental
The proposed action is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378(b)(2), in that it is government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
9.3 Packet Pg. 800