Agenda — Menlo Park City Council, June 6, 2022

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Date: 6/6/2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Location: Zoom.us/join – ID# 897 1582 9805
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, COVID-19, EMERGENCY ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), and in light of the declared state of emergency, the meeting will not be physically open to the public and all members will be teleconferencing into the meeting via a virtual platform. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods. • How to participate in the meeting
• Submit a written comment online up to 1-hour before the meeting start time:
[email protected]
Please include the agenda item number you are commenting on. • Access the meeting real-time online at:

Zoom.us/join – Meeting ID 897 1582 9805
• Access the meeting real-time via telephone at:
(669) 900-6833
Meeting ID 897 1582 9805
Press *9 to raise hand to speak
• Watch meeting:
• Cable television subscriber in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, and Palo Alto:

Channel 26
Note: City Council closed sessions are not broadcast online or on television and public participation is limited to the beginning of closed session.

Subject to Change: Given the current public health emergency and the rapidly evolving federal, state, county and local orders, the format of this meeting may be altered or the meeting may be canceled. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website www.menlopark.org. The instructions for logging on to the webinar and/or the access code is subject to change. If you have difficulty accessing the webinar, please check the latest online edition of the posted agenda for updated information (menlopark.org/agenda).

According to City Council policy, all meetings of the City Council are to end by midnight unless there is a super majority vote taken by 11:00 p.m. to extend the meeting and identify the items to be considered after 11:00 p.m.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Special Meeting Agenda
June 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

Closed Session (Zoom.us/join – ID# 897 1582 9805)
A. Call To Order
B. Roll Call
C. Study Session
C1. Review and provide feedback on the draft City of Menlo Park Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element (Staff Report #22-108-CC)
D. Closed Session
Public Comment on these items will be taken before adjourning to Closed Session.

D1. Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54957(b)(1): Public Employment Title: City Manager
D2. Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54957(b)(1): Public Employment Evaluation Title: Interim City Manager
D3. Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54957(b)(1): Public Employment Evaluation Title: City Attorney
E. Report from Closed Session
F. Adjournment
At every regular meeting of the City Council, in addition to the public comment period where the public shall have the right to address the City Council on any matters of public interest not listed on the agenda, members of the public have the right to directly address the Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during the City Council’s consideration of the item.

At every special meeting of the City Council, members of the public have the right to directly address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during consideration of the item.

For appeal hearings, appellant and applicant shall each have 10 minutes for presentations.

If you challenge any of the items listed on this agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Menlo Park at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Any writing that is distributed to a majority of the City Council by any person in connection with an agenda item is a public record (subject to any exemption under the Public Records Act) and is available by request by emailing the city clerk at [email protected]. Persons with disabilities, who require auxiliary aids or services in attending or participating in City Council meetings, may call the City Clerk’s Office at 650-330-6620.

Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at menlopark.org/agenda and can receive email notification of agenda and staff report postings by subscribing to the “Notify Me” service at menlopark.org/notifyme.

Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting City Clerk at 650-330-6620. (Posted: 06/02/2022) Community Development

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-108-CC
Study Session: Review and provide feedback on the draft City of Menlo Park Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a study session to receive an overview, ask clarifying questions, and provide comments for the draft City of Menlo Park Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element, in preparation for transmittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the required initial review of the draft Housing Element. No formal action will be taken on the draft Housing Element or any zoning amendments at the June 6, 2022, meeting. The draft Housing Element is included as Attachment A.

Policy Issues
The City of Menlo Park is updating its required Housing Element and Safety Element, and preparing a new Environmental Justice Element. Collectively, these are referred to as the "Housing Element update." Under California law every jurisdiction in the state is required to update its Housing Element every eight years and have it certified by HCD. The Housing Element must be consistent with the City’s General Plan and updated for compliance with State law, and include goals, policies, and implementing programs to facilitate the construction of new housing and preservation of existing housing to meet the needs across all income levels in Menlo Park. Similarly, the City is required to update the City’s Safety Element for compliance with SB 379 and prepare an Environmental Justice Element per SB 1000.

The components of the Housing Element update project will consider several land use, housing and environmental policies. The City is preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) to comply with the project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and a fiscal impact analysis (FIA.) The purpose of these technical studies is to help inform members of the public and decision-makers about the potential environmental and fiscal impacts associated with the project.

Background
All jurisdictions in the Bay Area must update their Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period. The City is in the process of updating the Housing Element of Menlo Park’s General Plan for the 2023-2031 planning period, also referred to as the sixth cycle, as required by State law. The Housing Element is an opportunity to have a community conversation about how to address local housing challenges and find solutions. The Housing Element serves to identify priorities for decision makers, guide resource allocation for housing programs and services, and identify how and where the City should plan for new housing to meet or exceed Menlo Park’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement (2,946 units) by 2031.

AGENDA ITEM C-1 Page C-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Since initiating efforts to update the Housing Element in May 2021, the project team has held seven community meetings; administered a citywide survey; facilitated numerous focus groups, conducted individual interviews, held pop-up events; and presented key components of the Housing Element at public meetings with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. The feedback received from these efforts, along with staff analysis, is reflected in Appendix 4-1, Outreach Summary, of the draft Housing Element (included as hyperlink Attachment A.)
The draft Housing Element was released for public review and comment May 11, 2022. The draft Housing Element is available on the Housing Element update webpage (included as hyperlink Attachment B) and at the Belle Haven Branch Library and the Main Library. The release of the draft Housing Element began a 30- day public comment period in preparation for transmittal to HCD for their required initial review of the draft Housing Element. The final Housing Element is anticipated to be reviewed by the City Council at the end of this year.

The purpose of the June 6, 2022, City Council study session is to further promote the availability of the draft Housing Element, to provide an opportunity for public comments, and to seek guidance from the City Council on policy matters before transmittal to HCD. At any time during the 30-day comment review period, which ends June 10, 2022, members of the public may submit written comments via an online web form (included as hyperlink Attachment C) accessible from the Housing Element update webpage and advertised by email. As of May 27, 2022, the City has received 23 written comments for the draft Housing Element, which have been incorporated into this report as Attachment F. Following the June 6, 2022, City Council study session, staff will incorporate appropriate revisions to the draft Housing Element in response to comments. The draft Housing Element will then be submitted to HCD for a 90-day initial review period.

May 16, 2022, joint Planning Commission and Housing Commission study session A joint Planning Commission and Housing Commission study session was held May 16, 2022, to provide an opportunity for both Commissions and the public to provide early comments. The May 16, 2022, staff report is included as hyperlink Attachment D and the meeting video is included as hyperlink Attachment E.

Planning and Housing Commissioners generally expressed support for the overall direction of the Housing Element. A number of commissioners recommended that certain programs be prioritized for expedient implementation during the eight-year RHNA 6 cycle. These programs include:
• Program H2.D: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Amnesty Program • Program H2.E: Anti-Displacement Strategy
• Program H4.O: Identifying SB 10 Sites
• Program H4.E: Ministerial Review of 100 Percent Affordable Housing • Program H7.A: Create Residential Design Standards
Attachment F is a summary of comments received as of the publication of this report (May 27, 2022) on the draft Housing Element, including comments provided by Commissioners and the public at the May 16, 2022, joint Housing Commission/Planning Commission study session. While no formal response to comments is required by State law and/or HCD guidelines, staff and City consultants have included responses to all comments set forth in Attachment F. These responses to comments are intended to: 1) acknowledge and circulate publicly the comments that have been received, 2) clarify information and/or identify where information could be found in the draft document, and 3) address how comments may be included in the revised draft Housing Element before submittal to HCD. Some of the comments are policyPage C-1.2 Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org focused, which staff has highlighted in the below Analysis section. The City Council may wish, but is not obligated to provide feedback on these topics to guide any revisions to the draft Housing Element.

Analysis
Publication of the draft Housing Element is the first opportunity for members of the public and decision makers to review previously discussed topics as part of a complete document and consolidated strategy. An explanation of the structure and content of the Housing Element is provided below and may serve as a reference guide when navigating the document.

Additionally, when considering the draft Housing Element as a whole, staff recommends giving particular attention to Chapter 7, Site Inventory and Analysis, and Chapter 8, Goals, Policies and Programs. Together, these two chapters will serve as the policy framework for housing-related decisions from 2023 to 2031. It is imperative that the decisions reflected in these chapters reflect the goals of Menlo Park as a community.

Menlo Park’s housing needs have been considered in the development of these chapters, particularly special needs populations and requirements to affirmatively further fair housing, which are outlined in Chapter 4.

For the June 6, 2022, City Council study session, in an effort to assist discussion on the draft Housing Element, staff has highlighted points of consideration that the City Council may desire to provide feedback and guidance on. The highlighted points of consideration are subsequently discussed in this report.

Structure and content of the Housing Element
The draft Housing Element includes the following chapters:

1. Introduction. This chapter contains an overview of the purpose of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and an outline of State legal requirements, including the need for consistency with the other elements of the General Plan and the procedural obligations for preparing the Housing Element.

2. Fifth Cycle evaluation. This chapter reviews the Menlo Park Housing Element for the planning period from 2015 to 2023, also referred to as the fifth cycle. As part of this review, the chapter evaluates Menlo Park’s effectiveness in meeting its housing goals for the fifth cycle, highlights strengths of the City’s action on housing, acknowledges programs that were not completed, and assesses overall effectiveness at meeting the needs of special populations identified by the State.

3. Housing conditions and trends. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a quantified analysis of housing needs for Menlo Park as required by the State. This assessment considers overall housing needs based on demographics specific to Menlo Park, and analyzes and identifies programs that preserve assisted housing developments.

4. Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Pursuant to AB 686, all housing elements that are revised on or after January 1, 2021 must meet requirements to ensure that the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing is a part of a jurisdiction’s planning process and guiding documents for community development. AB 686 expands upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the federal Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA.) The law: (1) requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities and (2) creates new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. The passage of AB 686 protects the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing within California state law, regardless of future federal actions.

This chapter assesses Menlo Park’s community engagement and outreach process during the update of the Housing Element and also provides an in-depth analysis of fair housing data and housing needs for special needs populations, including the following groups identified by State law: seniors; people living Page C-1.3
Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org with disabilities (including developmental disabilities); large families; female-headed households; farmworkers; and unhoused individuals. The chapter concludes by identifying specific policies and programs in the updated Housing Element designed to address identified fair housing issues.

5. Actual and potential constraints to housing. This chapter evaluates actual and potential governmental and non-governmental constraints to new housing development in Menlo Park. The analysis addresses recent actions already taken by the City to facilitate housing production, identifies remaining constraints, and identifies specific policies and programs that could further eliminate constraints and support new housing development.

6. Energy. As part of the Housing Element Update process, the State requires local jurisdictions to evaluate opportunities for increased conservation of energy. This chapter identifies current policies and programs that Menlo Park strategically implements with the intent of lowering energy consumption related to housing.

7. Site inventory and analysis. Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development must be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period. This chapter provides an analysis of sites within Menlo Park that have an opportunity to provide housing during the sixth cycle planning period given the policies and programs outlined in the Housing Element. The goal of this analysis is to demonstrate that sites chosen in the Housing Element update process have the capability of meeting Menlo Park’s RHNA requirements.

8. Goals, policies and programs. This chapter includes a comprehensive list of the Housing Element’s goals, policies, and programs that will provide a framework for Menlo Park from 2023 to 2031.

9. Definitions of key housing terms. This chapter provides helpful definitions and acronyms used within the Housing Element to assist review.

10. Appendices. This chapter contains the complementary documents referenced within other chapters of the Housing Element.

Chapter 7: Site inventory and analysis
As described above, Chapter 7, site inventory and analysis, addresses the selection of sites in Menlo Park that are identified as opportunity sites for housing and contribute to meeting Menlo Park’s RHNA requirements. The narrative provided in the draft Housing Element supports the site selection recommended by staff after initial public outreach and discussions with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. When reviewing the proposed site inventory, members of the public and decision makers are advised to keep in mind the requirements necessary to comply with State law along with universal constraints to housing development such as land availability and development costs.

To facilitate the site selection process, the State sets forth multiple requirements. These requirements include specifications related, but not limited to, the following: designing and developing the site inventory; methodology for calculating site capacity; infrastructure availability; alignment with AFFH guidance; criteria for non-vacant sites; locational requirements; and size limitations. Additionally, sites that were included as opportunity sites in the previous fifth cycle Housing Element have specific considerations should they be reused in the inventory again for the sixth cycle.

As Menlo Park is mostly built out (i.e., has limited vacant land), most of the opportunity sites have existing structures and/or uses (also known as “non-vacant sites.”) As such, HCD requires additional analysis regarding development potential when more than 50 percent of the RHNA is accommodated on non-vacant sites. Development potential should be based on the likelihood of existing uses to not be an impediment; development trends; market conditions; and availability of regulatory and/or other incentives. A site-by-site summary of these factors is highlighted within Appendix 7-5, Site Sheets.

Page C-1.4
Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org It is acknowledged that during the course of updating the Housing Element, several property owners and/or representatives of potential housing opportunity sites have come forward to express that they do not intend and/or have no interest in developing housing on their sites. In addition, Commissioners and community members have recommended potential housing sites not currently identified in the draft Housing Element as viable sites for housing and/or modification of existing residential development capacity.

Staff has prepared a summary table of highlighted potential housing opportunity sites for further City Council consideration (Attachment G.) The intent of this summary table is to provide a reference guide to assist discussion of sites, including options for modification and related analysis of pros and cons, and recommended next steps from the project team. This table was developed as a response to comments made by Housing and Planning Commissioners, as well as members of the public, regarding particular sites.

The sites inventory has been developed and created in reliance on HCD’s sites inventory guidance1 and State Housing Element law.2
In compliance with State law, the inventory identifies both vacant and nonvacant sites for potential housing development. Property owner support in of itself is not the determinative factor when identifying sites that have a potential for residential development within the next eight years. In compliance with HCD guidance, the non-vacant sites identified on the City’s sites inventory is based on realistic development potential and should account for and build off of potential policies that can incentivize housing development.3 In formulating the sites inventory, the City has examined current impediments and constraints to potential housing development on vacant and non-vacant sites, including, but not limited to, existing density, parking requirements, processing times, and type of environmental review required, and potential development modifications to help foster the production of housing, particularly affordable housing.

The following list highlights points of consideration that the City Council may want to consider when providing feedback and guidance:
• With consideration to the holistic site selection process governed by State law and informed by the Menlo Park community, including the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council, does the site inventory represent an appropriate inventory of land suitable for residential development to meet the City’s RHNA requirements?
• Are there particular potential housing opportunity sites that should be added to, removed from or modified (such as a modification to increase or decrease density) on the proposed site inventory list? Depending on the feedback received from the City Council, the project team would also need to consider whether the proposed changes are within the project description and scope of the subsequent EIR that is being prepared for the Housing Element update. Substantial modifications and/or changes to the EIR project description could trigger revisions to the draft EIR and delay approval of the Housing Element.

The three broad categories of potential changes are outlined below:

1. Modifying density on existing sites: This would not trigger revisions to the EIR, because the larger 4,000- unit allocation would not change and therefore the potential environmental impacts of the 4,000-unit allocation will have been properly analyzed. Any increase in allowed densities that would result in potential housing units above the 4,000-unit number may require revision to the draft EIR. Additionally, in the future, sites proposed for development above what was allocated for that site would require separate environmental analysis because such development will not have been analyzed in the Housing Element EIR.

1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf 2 Gov. Code § 65583 et seq. 3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf, page 24.

Page C-1.5
Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

2. Adding new sites: This may trigger revisions to the EIR, because it might affect several environmental factors assessed as part of EIR including transportation, air quality, noise and utilities.

3. Removing sites: This would not trigger revisions to the EIR, because the EIR studies “up to” the 4,000- unit allocation. The Site Inventory, however, must be adequate to meet RHNA. With 73 sites in the Site Inventory totaling approximately 72 acres, about 10-15 percent of the site acreage would need to be developed with 100-percent affordable housing to meet RHNA. If all nine sites at issue were removed from the Site Inventory, with 64 sites (58 acres) remaining, approximately 25 percent of the sites (or acreage) would need to be developed with 100-percent affordable housing. In order to realistically meet this affordable housing goal with fewer sites, the City may need to consider utilizing a greater number of downtown City-owned parking lots as well as additional development incentives that would substantially reduce the costs of affordable housing development.

Chapter 8: Goals, policies and programs
Local governments typically do not build housing, but they do create the rules that shape where housing can be built, what types and how much, and implement a framework of goals, policies, and programs to support housing production for current and future residents. Chapter 8, Goals, Policies and Programs, is tailored to ensure that the City of Menlo Park meets the RHNA and is responsive to community feedback received over the last year.

The development potential of the sites is partially determined by the effectiveness of the Housing Element goals, policies, and programs (along with implementation objectives.) As part of the review of the draft Housing Element, members of the public and decision makers should review this chapter and provide feedback to adequately incentivize housing development, particularly affordable housing development, to affirmatively further fair housing for all.

At the May 16, 2022 joint Housing Commission/Planning Commission study session, a summary table of housing programs by timeframe was requested and is included as Attachment H.

The following list highlights points of consideration that the City Council may want to consider when providing feedback and guidance:
• With consideration to State law, AFFH requirements, and guidance by the Menlo Park community, including the Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, do the goals, policies, and programs of the draft Housing Element reflect an appropriate plan for housing in Menlo Park between 2023 and 2031?
• Are the implementation timeframes and sequencing for proposed housing programs appropriate? All of the proposed Housing Element programs are intended to address the various housing needs in the City, whether through affirmative changes mandated by the City (e.g., revising and updating the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Guidelines) or through changes implemented by third parties and incentivized by the City (e.g., by removing barriers and providing incentives to increase the development of affordable housing.) The implementation of the proposed programs is distributed across the eight-year planning period. In discussing whether any modifications are needed to the timing of program implementation, the City Council may wish to consider a variety of factors, including a program’s impact on addressing community needs, effect on housing production, complexity, staffing resources, and community participation.

Next steps
Feedback from the Planning Commission, Housing Commission, and City Council, along with comments from the public will be reviewed by staff. Staff will revise the document based on guidance from the City Page C-1.6
Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Council and submit the draft Housing Element to HCD for a 90-day review period. Following HCD’s review, HCD is required to issue a letter to the City with comments on the draft Housing Element. These comments will need to be addressed prior to review and adoption of the final Housing Element.

Concurrent with the 90-day review period, staff will continue to move forward with updates to the Safety Element and development of the City’s first Environmental Justice Element. Both of these efforts relate to the Housing Element update process and will need to be considered collectively. Preparation of the EIR and FIA are also underway. These documents are anticipated to be released during the summer, and the Planning Commission will conduct a meeting to receive comments on the EIR during its 45-day public review period. Additional public outreach meetings will occur over the summer, with formal adoption hearings occurring in the latter part of 2022.

Impact on City Resources
The City Council appropriated $1.5 million from the general fund to support the Housing Element update, which is a City Council priority.

Environmental Review
This study session is intended to obtain comments and feedback for the Housing Element. As there will be no formal action to adopt the Housing Element, this study session will not result in a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Before the adoption of the Housing Element, an EIR is being prepared to evaluate the Housing Element update. No final action on the Housing Element update will be taken until a final CEQA determination has been made by the City.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Notice of the release of the draft Housing Element and the June 6, 2022 meeting was emailed to all Housing Element update email list subscribers and announced on the project webpage.

Attachments
A. Hyperlink – Draft City of Menlo Park General Plan Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element:
menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/housing-element-annualprogress-reports/2023-2031-menlo-park-housing-element-public-review-draft.pdf B. Hyperlink – Housing Element update webpage: menlopark.org/housingelement C. Hyperlink – Draft Housing Element feedback web form: us.openforms.com/Form/e8f0a714-80cd-4687- 8951-54d506787433
D. Hyperlink – May 16, 2022 Planning Commission and Housing Commission joint meeting Staff Report:
menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission/2022- meetings/agendas/20220516-housing-commission-and-planning-commission-joint-agenda-packet.pdf E. Hyperlink – May 16, 2022 Planning Commission and Housing Commission joint meeting video:
youtube.com/watch?v=v4t_dryiAKM
F. Comments on public review draft Housing Element (May 11, 2022 through May 27, 2022) G. Highlighted potential housing opportunity sites for further City Council consideration H. Housing programs and timeframes
Page C-1.7
Staff Report #: 22-108-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Report prepared by:

Asher Kohn, AICP, Associate Planner, M-Group
Tom Smith, Acting Principal Planner
Calvin Chan, AICP, Senior Planner
Report reviewed by:

Sung H. Kwon, AICP, Principal Planner, M-Group
Geoff Bradley, AICP, Principal, M-Group
Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Nira Doherty, City Attorney
Page C-1.8
Community Development
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element (May 11, 2022 through May 27, 2022) **DRAFT** This document provides a summary of comments received for the Draft Housing Element from release through publication of this report, including comments provided by Commissioners and the public at the May 16, 2022 joint Planning Commission and Housing Commission meeting.

Responses from City staff are provided to help identify where information may be found in the current draft document and to solicit feedback from the City Council on how comments may be addressed in the revised Draft Housing Element. Note, verbal comments have been summarized and edited for clarity/presentation.
# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 1 2022-05-07 Vickie Kelly
Medlock
Email
I am writing to ask that you include the Flood Site on the YIMBY bike tour today. It is controversial but I think it should be seen by those interested in the housing element to
understand the pros and cons of the site. NOT including it on the tour seems intentionally deceptive, given the controversy.

On May 7, 2022, a “Menlo Park Bike Tour
for New Homes” was conducted by local
housing advocates including Menlo
Together, Peninsula for Everyone, Housing
Leadership Council, and the Silicon Bicycle
Coalition. This was not a City-sponsored or
managed event.

On May 3, 2022, the City held a community
meeting to provide an opportunity to learn
more about the former James Flood
Elementary School site at 321 Sheridan
Drive, which is currently identified as a
potential housing opportunity site.

The City Council may desire to provide
feedback and guidance on this matter.
2 2022-05-11 Gabriel Castellanos
Online Form
Seeing as Stanford just built ten thousand condos on El Camino I’m not sure we need more housing. Our city is pretty small, and as you can tell by driving through downtown, it’s barely functioning. We also need to address how to allow regular households the opportunity to buy their first homes, instead of being priced out to cash multi-millionaire buying only to turnaround and rent the properties at insane prices.

Everyday I hear about hard working families having to leave because they can’t buy and then get priced out of rent.

Something needs to be done about rent-for-profit properties, either disallowing the practice or limiting it to only one property per person.

The Draft Housing Element includes Policy
H5.7 (Opportunities for Homeownership)
and Program H5.F (First-Time Homebuyer
Program). These policies and programs
increase opportunities for homeownership
and also support tenant protections and
anti-displacement efforts.

ATTACHMENT F Page C-1.9

Page 2 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 3 2022-05-11 Katie Behroozi
Online Form
quick note; haven't read it yet. But you're going to want to check the formatting of the .pdf. The Table of contents doesn't seem to work, which makes navigating the 700pp document ridiculously cumbersome. Probably a simple formatting fix.

Hope this is helpful!
The Table of Contents for the Draft Housing
Element was verified as functioning
correctly upon release. Navigation
bookmarks were added for ease of PDF
review.
4 2022-05-12 Nina Wouk
Online Form
The draft is not actually available on themenlopark.org website. In its absence I can submit only a general comment:

NO NEW BUILDING INDISTRICT ONE, PERIOD. Let the rest
of Menlo Park do its share.

The Draft Housing Element is available on
the project webpage
(menlopark.org/housingelement) and at the
Menlo Park Main Library and Belle Haven
Branch Library. As part of the Housing
Element Update, the City has focused on
identifying housing opportunity sites in
Districts 2 through 5.
5 2022-05-12 Paul Kick
Online Form
With all due respect to the process required by the state, it is a shame that Menlo Park must change its personality to meet these ridiculous requirements that could change at the whim of politicians.

The Draft Housing Element has been
prepared in accordance with State law. An
extensive community engagement and
outreach process has occurred over the
past year to tailor the document to meet the
needs of current and future Menlo Park
residents.
6 2022-05-12 Ron Matsui
Online Form
I am very much in favor of more abundant and affordable housing for everyone, but NEVER at the risk of destroying the current quality of life of the houses and neighborhoods already constructed. Specifically, if Menlo Park City or Ravenswood School District decides to offer affordable housing for teachers and staff of Ravenswood, then it should be regulatorily mandated that ONLY CURRENT teachers and staff of
Ravenswood school district to live in those subsidized units.

The regulations should also mandate that these subsidized units to NOT be allowed to subleased or occupied by nonteachers or staff of Ravenswood school district. Further, the regulations should require that the city and the school district be mandated to annually maintain all newly constructed units so that they do not fall into disrepair, as that could cause harm to those teachers and staff members. In addition, it should be mandated that adequate parking for all units intended to be constructed must exist at the time of completion of
The City has not received an application for
development at the Flood School site.

If/when an application comes forward, it will
be reviewed similar to any other
development project. Any site/program
restrictions, development agreement, etc.,
would be analyzed thoroughly and there
would be opportunities for public comment.

Under the City’s Below Market Rate
Housing Program, units may not be
subleased and maintenance costs for rental
units are included. Comments on the
construction costs and transparency are
acknowledged.

Page C-1.10

Page 3 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff construction, and not impact the surrounding neighborhoods.

Lastly, the City and Ravenswood School District should be mandated to make public the costs of construction, if any City Employees are related or connected to any of the
construction-related companies whom might benefit from this construction including the City Planner entire staff, and they should annually make public the costs of subsidized housing, all revenues generated to the City and Ravenswood School District, all maintenance and expenses to maintain the units.

The City and Ravenswood should make all efforts proactively to be fully transparent of the entire project including all costs and all subsidies including taxpayer subsidies.
7 2022-05-14 Michael DeMoss
Email
Before you decide to change any “residential single family zoning” to “multiple dwelling zoning”, at your next meeting, I recommend that you go door to door ( as I did this week ). Of the approximately 20+ people that I talked to so far, NOT ONE was in favor of such a change. ( they were angry about such changes) ( I walked the “west of downtown“ Menlo Park
area ). In fact there is a petition being circulated, and signed, to require any single home zoning change in Menlo Park to be put on the ballot. (My summary of the petition).

You may view it in full at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.m enlobalance.org&c=E,1,nUCQOAelKmxJJAy0zrmgm‐
LN26gG5wNNA0i_gc1hYkQtP3JPSPB4mb4v1_4kZUSaVrl7
W5IesGVgkNf1cmhovQJxejzcve30bO3OglgF‐
sExdw,,&typo=1
This petition will probably have enough signatures to be on the November ballot.

It seems logical that 5 people on the council should NOT be allowed to make such a vast change in a neighborhood,
without VOTER APPROVAL; especially in light of a petition circulating that opposes re‐zoning without voter approval.

Please table this decision, for much further discussion.

The Flood School site is discussed within
Attachment G and the City Council may
desire to provide feedback and guidance on
this matter.

Any zoning modifications will be considered
through an open, public process.

Page C-1.11

Page 4 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 8 2022-05-14 Michael DeMoss
Email
Please forward this, AND my previous email, to the Housing and Planning commissions for their 5/16 @7pm zoom
meeting.

Dear members of the Housing and Planning Commissions:

Please review the petition at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.m enlobalance.org&c=E,1,UyC0CT5lpZBSd4T4HdRV4KIZu9
eeMqQt‐4MSOSY68P_nO0j‐
rYLk8qUDZEklFWvKaDx13OJjMs04huFzC‐SCkuiLj‐
2qfwbS5WiSYtxEioYQ&typo=1
There is strong opposition to changing any “residential single home zoning” to “multiple dwelling zoning”. The MenloBalance petition will likely put such changes in the hands of the voters.

Please table any decision, since the petition will likely be in conflict with any decision that is not supported by the Menlo Park voters.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. The email was forwarded to the
Planning and Housing Commissioners.
9 2022-05-15 Karen Wang
Online Form
I am very concerned about the high number of housing units being considered for the SRI Parkline project. I believe this neighborhood, and the surrounding streets, cannot handle that much additional traffic. At peak periods there is already too much gridlock. We need to better distribute new housing across town - more equally and fairly, and ensure adequate infrastructure exists to support it!
The SRI Parkline project is currently under
review and is proposing 400 dwelling units,
with a potential project variant of up to 600
dwelling units. As part of the project, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
including a traffic analysis, will be prepared.

As part of the Housing Element, the City
must demonstrate its ability to meet its fair
share of housing. New housing is intended
to be dispersed in City Council Districts 2-5,
throughout Menlo Park. District 1 includes a
number of approved and pending
residential projects as result of zoning
changes during the ConnectMenlo process.
10 2022-05-15 Lynne Bramlett
Email (2022-05-15)
and Online Form
(2022-05-16)
Dear Council,
Please see my input into the Housing Element. I may not be able to attend tonight's meeting in time to make a public comment.

1. In the event of a natural or human-made
disaster, the City would coordinate with the
San Mateo County Department of
Emergency Management (DEM). DEM
coordinates countywide preparedness,
response and protection services, and
activities for large-scale incidents and
Page C-1.12

Page 5 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff

1. Emergency Housing. What's the plan to house residents displaced due to a disaster? My understanding is that the Red Cross sets up temporary shelters only. I believe they arrive within 72 hours and disband the shelters after 30 days. I read that a jurisdiction should plan for shelters for about 10% of our population as most displaced people
stay with family or friends. Please see the attached April 2021 Disaster Response Guidelines that I made a public
records request to obtain. The shelter list (page 25) is extremely out of date. We need an updated list and MOUs with each, along with possibly pre-securing needed
supplies. The Fire District's Disaster Response Guidelines were developed without jurisdictional and public input and review. This type of process is one reason why I believe Menlo Park needs to take more responsibility for its
disaster management.

2. Policy H2.1 and H2.C. Menlo Park has hundreds of softstory apartment buildings and even some condos. The HOA board may be unaware of the seismic risk. We need
a soft-story incentive to get them seismically retrofitted as they are prone to collapse in earthquakes. Retrofitting doesn't cost that much and residents can live in the
building during a retrofit. I believe the average cost is about $7,500 but this needs verifying. I counted the soft story buildings in District 1/Belle Haven and I got a count of 17 buildings (I excluded 335 Pierce Road which is
slated to be torn down) and a total of 72 units. That could be anywhere from 150-300 people at risk of displacement in Belle Haven alone following an earthquake. Another
resident has made a count of soft stories all over Menlo Park. There are hundreds.

3. Program H4.R. Work with the Fire District and Policy H6.2.

The H4.R implication is that the plan is to get the Fire District to cooperate in lowering fire safety standards. I consider this a major mistake. Fires following earthquakes are a typical secondary consequence. Fires are what
destroyed San Francisco in 1906, not the earthquake. I
disasters. It is noted that the Draft Housing
Element includes policies and programs for
“emergency shelters” which are focused for
addressing needs for the unhoused, as well
as for “emergency housing” which are
focused for responding to disasters (e.g.,
Policy H6.5, Emergency Housing
Assistance, carried over from the 5th Cycle
Housing Element).

2. The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. The City does not currently
mandate or incentivize soft-story building
retrofits, but permits voluntary retrofits as
desired by property owners. Potential costs
for soft-story building retrofits vary widely
depending on the size and conditions of the
building and the amount of work necessary.

3. Program H4.R is a carryover program
from the 5th Cycle Housing Element.

Typically, local changes to the building/fire
codes are minor and focused on local
specifics. Fire Marshal Jon Johnston
(Menlo Park Fire Protection District) has
noted Program H4.R is appropriate.

Page C-1.13

Page 6 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff would like the City to work with the Fire District on
incenting fire and wildfire defense solutions. We could train more people on fire safety and help to outfit Belle Haven (for example) residents with fire extinguishers and the knowledge of how to use them. Our building codes could
also be stronger. I believe we have adopted the bare
minimum of "life and safety only." We could do better. As to wildfires, one of the most common ways that wildfires spread is through embers and burning debris that gets into attics. The Fire District and the City could work together to provide incentives to help people to retrofit attic vents and to add sprinklers. Outside vegetation could also be
hardened. The downtown business district particularly
needs sprinklers in most of the buildings. Suitable new large housing units could also include underground water storage. The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief should give input into H4.R.
11 2022-05-15 Sandra Bardas
Online form
My concern is for fire safety in both the new housing elements and the existing stock. As we infill housing, little attention has been made to preventative fire safety measures for all
buildings and the ease of equipment access to all areas of the jurisdiction. On my CAL-MAT deployment to the Camp Fire, access sand evacuation were paramount issues. So much
new housing is centered around the El Camino Real corridor.

Even before these units are occupied, there is significant traffic access problems especially along Oak Grove at
Maloney, El Camino Real, Alma and Laurel. A similar situation occurs along Menlo Ave/Ravenswood at El Camino, Alma and Laurel. This is complicated by the railroad crossing, cars stopped for left turns, on demand cross walks and confusion over bike lanes (cars using bike lanes for right turns). If we have these jams on ordinary days, what will happen in the case of a disaster? Our current, and I might add, outdated, emergency plan is woefully inadequate. As we move forward, I urge attention to be made to this important element of disaster preparedness and emergency response. Our
jurisdiction has experienced floods, earthquakes and fires. As a member of both the federal and state disaster medical assistance team I would like to see a more robust plan of The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. The concurrent update to the
Safety Element will consider these topics.

Page C-1.14

Page 7 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff action to prepare out community for a future disaster. In my deployments I have seen that the best emergency
preparedness aid is community mitigation and preparedness. I would like to see our jurisdiction have such a program. 12 2022-05-16 Curt Conroy Greetings Housing and Planning Commission Members, While you are contemplating revisions to the Housing Element I would like you to consider that the California Department of Finance recently reported that the State and the Bay area experienced declining populations in 2021. In an article with the headline, "Bay Area, state population still declining" the Mercury News reported on May 5, 2022 (Page B1) that the Bay Area's population declined for the second consecutive year and that at down .7% for 2021 that it was more than twice the State's 3% decline. It was in fact 42.9% of the State's decline of
117,600 people. I would also like to bring to your attention that the Wall Street Journal in a front page article on May the 14th entitled, "Large Tech Companies Hit Pause On Hiring"
reported that Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. announced the previous week that it would "sharply slow its hiring".

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. Refer to Chapter 3 of the Draft
Housing Element, Housing Conditions and
Trends, for metrics from the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), who are jointly responsible for
regional planning of the nine county, 101
city San Francisco Bay Area.
13 2022-05-16 David Bohannon
Email
We are writing on behalf of the David D. Bohannon
Organization (“DDBO”), whose entities own multiple properties in Menlo Park, CA (the “City”). We have been following the City’s Housing Element process and we have appreciated our dialogue with City staff with respect to our properties’ inclusion in the list of Potential Housing Opportunity Sites for the City’s Housing Element 2023-2031. We have reviewed the Draft
Housing Element (“Draft”) that was released for public review last week and we continue to have concerns about how the City is approaching density for the next Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) cycle.

DDBO entities own 1000 Marsh Road, 3885 Bohannon Drive, and 4065 Campbell Avenue (collectively, the “Properties”), which are listed in the Site Inventory attached to the Draft. (Sites 65, 66, and 73 on the Marsh and US-101 map,
respectively). Page 7-2 of Chapter 7—Site Inventory and Analysis states that the Site Inventory is “developed in order The Marsh Road and Bohannon Drive sites
are discussed within Attachment G and the
City Council may desire to provide
feedback and guidance on this matter.

Page C-1.15

Page 8 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff to identify and analyze sites that are available and suitable for residential development. This serves to determine Menlo Park's capacity to accommodate residential development that serves the city's RHNA. These sites are suitable for residential development if they have appropriate zoning and are available for residential use during the planning period.”
According to the Draft, the City has identified the Properties for “horizontal mixed use” where housing would be developed on vacant portions of the site or atop existing surface level parking. (Chapter 7—Site Inventory and Analysis, p. 7-25.) However, the City then proposes a 30 dwelling unit per acre (“du/ac”) density for the Properties (and across the entire City). Unfortunately, the assumption that housing could be developed in office parking lots at 30 du/ac is neither realistic nor feasible. The only way DDBO would consider
redeveloping our well-performing office buildings would be if the City created residential density incentives that make financial sense and are economically viable, such as the Residential Mixed Use zoning created for the ConnectMenlo General Plan. At this current density level (even with State Density Bonus Law), the City simply will not meet its goal, stated above, of identifying site that are suitable for residential development, with appropriate zoning, and available for residential use during the next RHNA cycle.

There is no doubt that the west side of Menlo Park has not done its fair share to provide housing and to help the City’s RHNA obligations. And we would like to be part of the
solution, but the City is woefully underestimating the density needed to make residential development be financially
feasible. We urge the City to be bold and create real housing opportunities during this unprecedented housing crisis. 14 2022-05-16 Janet Davis
Online form
HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 45 OBJECTIONS
This is a case of “déjà vu all over again” This site at Rural Lane was suggested at the last Housing Element sessions. It was dismissed as completely impractical by, I believe, Peter Ohtaki. John Donohoe of Stanford also stated that Stanford, The Stanford-owned site at Alpine Road
and Stowe Lane is discussed within
Attachment G and the City Council may
desire to provide feedback and guidance on
this matter.

Page C-1.16

Page 9 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff the owner, had no intention at that time of developing the land.

The site is half within city jurisdiction and half within the county jurisdiction so would require annexation. Last time this site was suggested without any notice whatsoever to the abutting residents of Stowe Lane. Any further discussion should be noticed to all the residents of Stanford Weekend Acres.

Objections raised last time are even more compelling this time given the growth of traffic. The site is located just south of a blind corner, right before the gridlocked Junipero Serra/Alpine intersection. At this point the road is 3 lane heading north: one heading towards Campus Drive West; one towards Santa
Cruz Ave and lower Sand Hill; and one towards Alameda and upper Sand Hill Road; and one lane heading south towards I280. There is no turn lane into the property and it is virtually impossible, and highly dangerous, to enter or exit that location.

It is also adjacent to the Stanford golf course where flying balls would present a danger. In addition it floods severely during winter and there is no drainage. Several weeks ago an eminent Stanford professor died on the golf course, and the emergency vehicles could not get to him because they were stuck in the mud at Rural Lane. At present there is no practical way for fire or emergency access, nor could one be devised given the Alpine Road traffic situation. The site is adjacent to the 109 gas line that crosses Alpine and which appears to have frequent problems since the right hand lane has been blocked for weeks at a time and large numbers of trucks and workers have been engaged in safety work. We were recently noticed of yet more closures for “safety” reasons. Crossing the site is the main fiber optic line that serves SLAC. The site is well below road level and there is no drainage system along Alpine Road. The sewer line runs perilously close to the creek, south of the site until it reaches the pumping station at the bottom of Stowe Lane. There is another sewer line on the far side of Alpine that services Portola Valley but it is at a higher elevation. Menlo Park’s basic problem has been that it has proliferated commercial structures to gain revenue, which has caused the housing/jobs imbalance. The houses that have Page C-1.17

Page 10 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff been built are large luxury homes. Years ago City Council member Andy Cohen pushed for “granny units” to ease the problem. His advice was scorned at the time. Even if Stanford were to develop that land some time in the future it would be for faculty, it would not mitigate Menlo Park’s problem of finding sites for affordable housing. Site 45 is NOT a viable option because of its dangerous location that would also impact evacuation routes and normal traffic flow, especially since it is located along the main access to Stanford Hospital. 15 2022-05-16 Jill Olson
Email
I just read the site 38 text in the new Housing Element Update. Despite several emails from Suburban Park
neighbors of site 38, our public comments at City Council meetings and Housing Element meetings, and our comments in the Almanac newspaper, our concerns regarding this site do not appear in your Housing Element. We also had the
majority of City Council members come to Suburban Park and talk with neighbors in person about site 38 and yet the concerns voiced in those in person meetings do not appear in the Housing Element regarding site 38. Please allow me to briefly list the vital issues the Housing Element is missing regarding site 38 and ask you to please correct these
omissions in your housing element document:

1. Site 38 has only one narrow road leading to it called Sheridan. Neighbors have repeatedly requested an
evaluation by the fire marshal of the narrow roads in
Suburban Park leading to site 38 regarding access for
emergency vehicles. Your housing element makes no
mention of this safety concern.

2. We have requested that TWO access points be required of the developer before the site is approved by the City of Menlo Park for development to reduce traffic from site 38 through our dead-end community of Suburban Park. The
proposal makes no mention of this community concern
and second entry/road request.

3. It is my understanding that this property has air pollution from highway 101 that prohibits it from being rebuilt as a school. How is it appropriate to put families in apartments on this polluted site 38? Is this not a social justice issue?

4. This site has an incredibly LOW AFFH scoring site of 2.

The Flood School site is discussed within
Attachment G and the City Council may
desire to provide feedback and guidance on
this matter.

The City has not received an application for
development at the Flood School site.

If/when an application comes forward, it will
be reviewed similar to any other
development project, with opportunities for
public input.

Page C-1.18

Page 11 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff

5. Currently there is no binding legal guarantee that this site will house mostly teachers and staff of Ravenswood
School District which is an idea that we as neighbors
support. Ravenswood City School district has made no
binding or legal guarantee that this site will house 80% teachers, 70% teachers or even 50% teachers. Several
neighbors recently wrote and asked in writing that the city and the school district legally and contractually make this site majority teacher housing as advertised by
Ravenswood School district. We have not received any
public promise of a legally binding contract as we have requested to insure teachers and staff are actually the majority renters at site 38 over the life of the 90 year lease.

Please update your housing element to address the
concerns of your residents, the missing information about air pollution, narrow streets and emergency vehicle
access, the community request for two entrances, etc.

Thank you.
16 2022-05-16 John Pimentel
Email
I would like to submit the following two comments regarding the Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Review
Draft.
(1) Housing AND Parking on Downtown Lots
With staff’s assistance I was able to see on Page 329 Item H.4.G. the one-paragraph reference to “Consider City-Owned Land for Housing (Downtown Parking Lots)” in the document.

I also note that most of the City owned parking lots are listed in the Housing Opportunity Site Assessments in Appendix 7-5.

I respectfully request that City staff work with M-Group to significantly expand this discussion.

I believe the Housing Element would be strengthened if the document went into greater depth on this possible solution.

Elements of a robust discussion in the Housing Element would include a detailed workplan identifying the specific
components of an RFI that would be released widely to
developers to see what ideas the market may bring to the City. The work plan would include specific dates, responsible

1. Program H4.G is intended to promote
housing development on underutilized Cityowned parking lots in the downtown. The objective includes the development and
issuance of a request for proposal (RFP)
which will be the opportunity to be more
prescriptive of what the City desires to be
built, including analysis of constraints and
opportunities.

2. The Flood School site is discussed within
Attachment G and the City Council may
desire to provide feedback and guidance on
this matter.

Page C-1.19

Page 12 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff parties, and resources needed by the City staff to implement this process. The Housing Element would we well served by a discussion of specific tradeoffs such as no-net loss in free parking spaces, requirements to not create excessive shading on existing residences, variances to building heights which would allow for 5 or 6 story structures where appropriate, and specific affordability requirements. The Housing Element could reference the successful developments in other nearby communities who have similarly converted public parking lots to housing and commercial activity. Implementing this policy (Downtown Parking AND Housing) should not create
significant workload for City staff if the Housing Element details a process to put the public relations, planning, and development risk on developers by soliciting their input through a broad RFQ/RFP/Request for Ideas and Information.

I have attached an Opinion piece published in January which discusses this option.
(2) Flood School Site (#38)
I appreciate that the Draft Housing Element has identified this R-1 site for possible higher density housing development. At this site the Ravenswood School District is currently
evaluating the possibility or 90 units of affordable housing for teachers and school staff. Legitimate concern has been
raised by Suburban Park neighbors regarding traffic to serve such a development if R-2 zoning and 100% affordable
resulted in a possible 100 units/acre designation. I
recommend we use the Housing Element to define a particular use (and density) for this site which is suitable for the neighbors and meets the school district’s modest goals. 17 2022-05-16 Jon Johnston,
Menlo Park Fire
Protection District
Email
Here are my responses.

Pg 2‐106. Looks good
Pg 2‐111 Driveway Design Guidelines. Projects shall
conform to CA Fire Code for access and design as
Emergency Vehicle Access Easements if required.

Pg 5‐25 Why is Fire part of Utilities? It seems like a wrong category. The CA Fire Code is part of the Building Codes, therefore I think should be in the Building section. The tiny Fire fee appears to be exorbitant with the large Utilities total.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment and will continue to collaborate
with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District
for the Housing Element Update.

Page C-1.20

Page 13 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff Pg 8‐25 Program H4.R Looks good.

FYI. We are in a code adoption process right now that will be adopted with Ordinance by the end of the year. Also
completing a fee schedule study for implementation at the end of the year. We are more than happy work with the City for inclusions to aid in equity and ease of housing. Let me know how we can partner.
18 2022-05-16 Heather Leitch,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Is there a plan to build a parking structure? Is there a plan to address the parking going away?
Program H4.G is intended to promote
housing development on underutilized Cityowned parking lots in the downtown. The objective includes the development and
issuance of a request for proposal (RFP)
which will be the opportunity to be more
prescriptive of what the City desires to be
built, including analysis of constraints and
opportunities. The intent would be to
replace parking if it is removed.
19 2022-05-16 Nevada Merriman,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Are there any interjurisdictional regional efforts that our city council or staff are currently participating in and what might be some targets for participation? Provide a list of county and regional efforts occurring. It would be great to have staff track and have a real strategy on the Council level for our
participation in that effort.

Are we tracking extremely low-income housing?
The City participates in 21 Elements, which
is a countywide effort to coordinate updates
to the Housing Element and other
housing/land use topics. The City also
participates in San Mateo County-managed
programs for the unhoused and coordinated
services for special needs populations,
such as the San Mateo County Home for All
initiative. The City also participates in
HEART, the Housing Endowment and
Regional Trust of San Mateo County. The
City Council also has representation on a
variety of cross-jurisdictional joint powers
authorities.

Housing Division staff currently tracks
extremely low-income units in the City’s
rental housing inventory and pipeline.

Page C-1.21

Page 14 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 20 2022-05-16 John Pimentel,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
What is the timing of the RFP for developing housing on parking lots?
Program H4.G is intended to promote
housing development on underutilized Cityowned parking lots in the downtown. The timeframe states, “Community outreach and
development strategy shall be completed
by the end of 2025.”
21 2022-05-16 Lauren Bigelow,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Acutely low-income housing isn’t addressed in RHNA,
correct?
Acutely low-income housing is included
within the very low-income category but is
not specifically called out.
22 2022-05-16 Michele Tate,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
What regional collaborations or projects have other
jurisdictions been working on? What is everyone going to do to try to work together on addressing housing?
Is hiring one additional person enough to monitor the
implementation of the housing element?
Has the civic center been considered as a site for affordable housing?
The City participates in 21 Elements, which
is a countywide effort to coordinate updates
to the Housing Element. 21 Elements has
been discussing potentially sharing housing
staff to support interested jurisdictions in
San Mateo County.

As part of the upcoming fiscal year budget,
staff is proposing one additional staff
member to support the City’s Housing
Division.

Discussion related to potential residential
development at the Civic Center occurred
early on in Housing Element Update
process. The City Council considered the
matter and did not express interest in
pursuing the Civic Center as part of the site
inventory.
23 2022-05-16 Naomi Goodman
HC/PC Meeting
The safety plan and housing element could be used to
promote construction of additional housing in a way that is less disruptive to the city residents than filling in parking lots and displacing small businesses. In a major earthquake soft story buildings are susceptible to collapsing, leaving the potential loss of life and a significant decrease in housing stock.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. The City does not currently
mandate or incentivize soft-story building
retrofits, but permits voluntary retrofits as
desired by property owners. Potential costs
for soft-story building retrofits vary widely
depending on the size and conditions of the
building and the amount of work necessary.

Page C-1.22

Page 15 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff Survey identified approximately 240 parcels containing one or more potentially soft story buildings in Menlo Park. I did not count units that, based on the typical building size these likely represent more than 1000 housing units, the greatest number of these buildings are located in the following areas: Coleman Ave, Linfield, Downtown both north and south, Santa Cruz Ave, San Antonio St, and Belle Haven.

I would like you to consider implementing a soft story
ordinance requiring structural retrofits, such as those in Palo Alto in Berkeley. Coupled with financial incentives to property owners to replace them with taller apartment buildings with more units would increase public safety and the housing stock. Addition of a soft story building replacement as a program would assist implementing housing rehabilitation programs. However, it would need to be applied city wide.

One analysis by the City of San Francisco
(the Community Action Plan for Seismic
Safety) estimated a cost between $60,000
and $130,000, depending on the building
size. An equivalent analysis has not been
performed for the City of Menlo Park, but
single-family homes and smaller multifamily residential buildings may have reduced retrofit costs in comparison.
24 2022-05-16 Karen Grove
HC/PC Meeting
There are some really good ideas and really great intentions in this. We could use clarity, robustness, and metrics to be successful. In addition to monitoring progress, we also need to be clear about which programs achieve which types of
housing because not all programs achieve extremely low or acutely low income, housing, but they may achieve very low income housing.

I love the idea of housing at the civic center because we have buildings there and we could just add housing on the top and it would be a beautiful vision, in my opinion.

Monitor the number of accessible units available to people who live with disabilities. And when a milestone is set for five years after housing element adoption I'd love us to adopt some interim milestones that will ensure that we are
successful at reaching that long term five year milestone.

It's really important that we consider City-owned land for deeply affordable housing, because we control that land. I really support the parking lots and the civic center.

Staff does not currently track accessible
units in the city. However, new multistory
housing developments with elevators must
be 100% adaptable for conversion to
accessible units, and other types of new
multifamily housing must up to 100%
adaptable as required by the California
Building Code Chapter 11A; therefore,
many new units have the ability to be
converted to accessible units as needed
and/or required.

Page C-1.23

Page 16 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff I love the idea of ministerial review of 100% affordable housing, but as written right now it's contingent on adopting.

Universal design standards for residential homes in every single zoning category that we have. I would like there to be sort of a sunset on that contingency so that, if we don't adopt universal design standards within three years, we still adopt ministerial review of 100% affordable housing, maybe with some defaults design standards.

Tenant protections need to be more robust and also achieved in a shorter timeframe, because the best time to do our tenant protections was 10 years ago, so the next best time is now.

I loath to do more community outreach to impacted
communities, because I feel like they've already told us what they need, and our city council has said no. They need rent control or rent caps they need just cause for eviction.

I'm very glad that we've done funding for emergency rent and mortgage assistance, and I hope that we continue that.

Program H4.G is intended to promote
housing development on underutilized Cityowned parking lots in the downtown.

Program H4.E includes ministerial review of
100% affordable housing concurrent with
the development and adoption of objective
design standards. The program is intended
to establish objective standards for 100%
affordable projects, not all zoning districts in
the City.

Highlighted tenant protections and antidisplacement policies and programs include: Policy H2.7 (Develop and Enforce
Anti-Displacement Strategy); Program H2.E
(Anti-Displacement Strategy); Policy H5.5
(Equitable Investments); Program H5.E
(Publicize Fair Housing Laws and Respond
to Discrimination Complaints); and Program
H5.F (First-Time Homebuyer Program). The
City adheres to State provisions regarding
rent limits and just cause evictions, which
took effect on January 1, 2020.
25 2022-05-16 Ken Kirshner
HC/PC Meeting
When is the first time that ABAG and HCD will see this draft housing element?
How will the impact on the transportation master plan be incorporated? It is generally well understood that land use, housing, and transportation, need to be planned together to create a safer, more walkable community. I'm advocating for the Complete Streets Commission to be formally included in this timeline.

The Housing Element will be sent to HCD
after the 30-day public review period and
the project team has considered comments
and made applicable revisions.

Concurrent with the update to the Housing
Element, the City is preparing a new
Environmental Justice Element and there
may be opportunities for formal involvement
with the Complete Streets Commission.

Throughout the Housing Element Update
process, the City is seeking input through a
variety of engagement opportunities. All
members of the public are encouraged to
Page C-1.24

Page 17 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff participate and provide input for the
Housing Element Update project.
26 2022-05-16 Adina Levin
HC/PC Meeting
I also encourage looking at the civic center as a housing site because of its access to transportation and services and because it’s City-owned. Some sites identified don’t have evidence that that site would be made available for
development of affordable housing. Additionally, the cost of land for those sites is extremely expensive and therefore extremely difficult and possibly unlikely to develop as affordable housing.

Multimodal transportation policies could be more specific and robust, particularly north of Highway 101. Set goals that build on the transportation master plan.

Support more robust tenant protections with a faster timeline for implementation.

Refer to Attachment H for an overview of
housing programs and timeframes. The City
Council may desire to provide feedback and
guidance on the matter.
27 2022-05-16 Susan Arrington
HC/PC Meeting
Housing needs to foster a sense of community and include private open space. It shouldn’t be big 270 unit developments.

Provide safe transportation connections for kids.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.
28 2022-05-16 Pam Jones
HC/PC Meeting
Support affordable housing on the main campus where the library is. At least 20% of units should be affordable.

Build highest density housing on parking lots and provide underground parking in downtown. Do not concentrate lowincome housing in Belle Haven.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.

Program H4.G is intended to promote
housing development on underutilized Cityowned parking lots in the downtown.

No new potential housing opportunity sites
are located in District 1 where Belle Haven
is located, with the exception of one
Page C-1.25

Page 18 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff affordable housing development by MidPen
Housing located at 335 Pierce Road.
29 2022-05-16 Michal Bortnik
HC/PC Meeting
How many of these affordable housing sites are actually going to develop into affordable housing?
While local governments do not build
housing, they do create the rules that shape
where housing can be built, what types, and
how much. The Draft Housing Element
includes goals, policies, and programs that
address the housing needs of all types of
households and income levels, both
existing and projected ones.
30 2022-05-16 Kirk Connor
HC/PC Meeting
The Bay Area may not be continuing to grow in population.

Tech companies are slowing down on their hiring. Vacancy rates have been high since the pandemic and still are. The housing shortage isn’t as dire as it may seem.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.
32 2022-05-16 Nevada Merriman,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Big jump in income bracket for very low income between 5th and 6th cycle. Would like to see more context in Ch 2
regarding this and about the number of ELI homes that were produced. “Very low income” is misleading because in today’s dollars, this is for families that earn less than $91,000 a year.

We don’t have policies that address families that make less than $90k. Staff should look into tracking extremely low income housing. Would like to see more in the HE or staff presentation about ELI and the urgency for addressing
housing affordable to this income level.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. Housing Division staff currently
tracks extremely low-income units in the
city’s rental housing inventory and pipeline.
33 2022-05-16 Lauren Bigelow,
Housing
Commissioner
Appreciate the thoroughness of the constraints section and fee structures. The site inventory and analysis was also very clear.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.

Page C-1.26

Page 19 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff HC/PC Meeting
34 2022-05-16 David Thomas,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Table 2.1 and Table 7.1. Why is there a gap in housing
production for the moderate income level category? How can we address this in the 6th cycle?
Refer to pg 140. Revise sentence regarding half of the people make more than 100% AMI.

Page 553 ends

distance from a park.

Smaller units are more effective for some of the goals but over 15% of Hispanic households experience overcrowding and
they could be disproportionately impacted.

Moderate-income housing needs tend to be
overlooked by market rate developers and
affordable housing developers, often
referred to as the “Missing Middle.”
For programs regarding moderate-income
housing, refer to Program H4.A (Amend the
Inclusionary Housing Regulations) and
Program H5.F (First-Time Homebuyer
Program). Program H4.O (Identifying SB 10
Sites) and H 7.B (Develop and Adopt
Standards for SB 9 Projects) may also
encourage production of homes better
targeted to moderate income families
seeking ownership opportunities.

Refer to Program H3.L (Large Units) for
addressing needs of larger households.

The Draft Housing Element will be revised
to include language to clarify the fact that
Menlo Park has on average, a higher
income level than the greater Bay Area.
35 2022-05-16 Cynthia Harris,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting

Page 3 ends

commuting to Menlo Park. Would like to have a sense of
vehicle miles traveled.

Page 3 ends

According to the US Census, approximately

96.1% of the Menlo Park workforce
commutes into the city for work. Although
an estimated average of the vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) of these workers is not
readily available, the US Census also
indicates that approximately 95 percent of
workers living in San Mateo County
commute to jobs in San Mateo, Santa
Clara, and San Francisco Counties, so the
majority of commuting employees are likely
coming from within the three-county
subregion.

Page C-1.27

Page 20 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff According to Figure 3-21 of the draft
Housing Element, based on data from the
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), nearly 950 Menlo
Park seniors at 80% or less of area median
income (AMI) are considered costburdened.

The balance of housing and jobs, as well as
planning for seniors, are an important
considerations for the Housing Element.
36 2022-05-16 Nevada Merriman,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Are there areas where our transportation triggers for an EIR are so low that it’s causing additional delays to project review? The City Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) Guidelines indicate which projects are
subject to a TIA as part of the development
review process. One hundred trips is the
threshold between not needing/needing a
traffic study. Generally, affordable housing
near major transit stops do not create
significant vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
impacts. The TIA also includes a level of
service (LOS) analysis, but LOS is no
longer a CEQA criteria.
37 2022-05-16 Heather Leitch,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting

Page 7 ends

early in the development review process.

More information can be found on the
project webpage at:
https://beta.menlopark.org/Government/De
partments/CommunityDevelopment/Projects/Underreview/Parkline. 38 2022-05-16 John Pimentel,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Should the Flood Park site be included for discussion in the Housing Element?
Call out the ongoing discussion in the HE.

The Flood School site is one of the few
vacant sites with expressed developer
interest for affordable housing.

The Flood School site is discussed within
Attachment G and the City Council may
desire to provide feedback and guidance on
this matter.

Page C-1.28

Page 21 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 39 2022-05-16 Nevada Merriman,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Ch 7 and Appendix 7-2: Could something similar to the
transportation access map be created as part of the fair housing analysis to identify sites that could be eligible for AB 1763? I’d like to see analysis on the densities that could be built when the 30 units/ac is combined with state density bonuses included in the HE.

Although the City’s strategy to meet the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
does not rely on State Density Bonus, it is
an allowance that housing developers may
use to increase residential development
capacity. The City is unable to rely on the
use of State Density Bonus Law to meet its
RHNA.

The allowances under AB 1763 were
previously discussed and the City Council
may desire to provide further guidance for
study.
40 2022-05-16 David Thomas,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting

Page 7 ends

repurposed parking lots? What is the history of successful conversions of parking lots into housing in Menlo Park, Redwood City, and San Mateo?
Burlingame, San Carlos and Mountain View
are recent examples of cities using public
parking lots for infill housing. The
BART/Caltrain parking lot in Millbrae is an
example of a carved out portion of a
parking lot for residential development near
transit.
41 2022-05-16 Cynthia Harris,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Site sheets are very helpful. Concerned that many of the sites are unlikely to develop into housing, especially affordable housing, and there is inadequate evidence. Sites of concern include non-residential parcels, such as Robinhood
headquarters, Safeway site, and Sand Hill offices.

Market trends demonstrate that there is a
likelihood that affordable housing mixeduse development will be developed on nonresidential properties. Of the 51 developments and development proposals
that included multifamily residential or new
non-residential in Menlo Park during the
past five years, 42 (84 percent) have been
on or involved non-vacant sites. Of these
51 developments, 30 (59 percent) have
included residential uses, 22 (43 percent)
have introduced new residential (including
in mixed-use developments) into a
previously non-residential site, and eight
(16 percent) have expanded an existing
residential use. This strong history of
residential development on non-vacant
sites demonstrates a market demand for
such development that can be expanded
Page C-1.29

Page 22 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff with the new policies in this Housing
Element.
42 2022-05-16 Chris DeCardy,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
We need to look at where we can reduce housing costs, and this starts with looking at the civic center and potential density on the former school site that is vacant. We need to include all the options in this document because things could change over the next 8 years.

The Flood School site is discussed within
Attachment G and the City Council may
desire to provide feedback and guidance on
this matter.
43 2022-05-16 Henry Riggs,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
We need to be planning for the residents who live in the city now. This HE is enabling the construction of predominantly upper market housing. We need to utilize city-owned parking lots for affordable housing. I don’t support the use of the civic center for housing because it currently provides open space.

ADUs don’t just provide for upper income extended families.

ADUs are largely used to supplement paying a high mortgage. 100% affordable projects shouldn’t be limited, and they should include for-sale units.

While local governments do not build
housing, they do create the rules that shape
where housing can be built, what types, and
how much. The Draft Housing Element
includes goals, policies, and programs that
address the housing needs of all types of
households and income levels and plans for
a variety of housing types. Program H4.F
(Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Development Standards and Permit
Process) would evaluate regulations,
process and to tools to further encourage
ADU production and Program H2.D
(Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Amnesty
Program) would evaluate the inclusion of a
program to allow ADUs that do not comply
with building codes or development
standards if the violation is not necessary to
protect health and safety.

Page 23 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff pursuing the Civic Center as part of the site
inventory.
44 2022-05-16 Lauren Bigelow,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Table 7-15: Doesn’t sound right that we’re only projecting 621 above moderate income units.

The projected 621 units are created from
“other land use strategies,” which include
zoning updates. Further discussion is
provided on Draft Housing Element page 7-

37. 45 2022-05-16 Andrew Barnes,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
The 2 most important housing types are deeply affordable housing and homeownership housing. We need to zone for
denser homeownership housing types. We need to create
policies and funding mechanisms that allow for affordable housing. The parking lots are a great opportunity, but I don’t support it at the city center.

We need to be planning with the schools.

While local governments do not build
housing, they do create the rules that shape
where housing can be built, what types, and
how much. The Draft Housing Element
includes goals, policies, and programs that
address the housing needs of all types of
households and income levels. The
proposed Housing Element includes a
program that would increase densities
within the El Camino Real/Downtown
Specific Plan (H4.L) and in the R-3 areas
around Downtown (H4.J), and all proposed
housing opportunity sites would allow a
density of 30 du/ac, which would encourage
denser housing types. Program H4.C
(Increase Commercial Linkage Fee) would
evaluate the City’s BMR fee for commercial
projects. The funds are used to assist with
the production and preservation of
affordable housing, in particular with the
release of the City’s Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA).

Page C-1.31

Page 24 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff Potential impacts to schools are being
evaluated through a fiscal impact analysis.

The Housing Element includes Program
H4.S, in which the City will coordinate with
School Districts to link housing with School
District planning activities.
46 2022-05-16 Heather Leitch,
Housing
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Program H5.A: This sounds very fair, but are there any limits or qualifying factors to this?
Program H5.A (Fair Chance Ordinance)
would prevent housing providers from
asking on a physical housing application if
the person has had a criminal record.
47 2022-05-16 Lauren Bigelow,
Housing Chair
HC/PC Meeting
Supportive of all the metrics for implementation. Discuss antidisplacement strategy in Program H2.E. Consider moving the timeline up for SB 10 (Program H4.O)
Refer to Attachment H for an overview of
housing programs and timeframes. The City
Council may desire to provide feedback and
guidance on the matter.
48 2022-05-16 Linh Dan Do,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Policy H6.6: Would like to see how far we can push on
eliminating parking requirements, but we’ll need to balance this with improving walkability and bikability.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. Policy H4.M is to review and
modify parking requirements and design
standards to provide greater flexibility. The
City would explore reducing parking
minimums, including parking maximums,
parking alternatives such as an-lieu fee and
other parking considerations.
49 2022-05-16 Cynthia Harris,
Planning
Commissioner,
HC/PC Meeting
I would like to see a master timeline for the implementation of all the programs. Design standards and ministerial review (Program H4.E) should occur sooner in the process. Maybe 2 years for design standards and 3 years for ministerial review.

Policy H1-4: Who will be monitoring the housing element’s implementation? This needs to be clearly figured out before capacity can be added.

Program H2.A: Language should be tightened to discuss how the City will make sure that assistance is available and how the City will reach at-risk tenants in a proactive way. A rental registry would be useful for getting in touch with tenants and landlords. Samaritan House has been helping the City with this. Maybe we could reference them in this program.

Refer to Attachment H for an overview of
housing programs and timeframes. The City
Council may desire to provide feedback and
guidance on the matter. The draft Housing
Element currently proposes the program to
establish objective design standards for 100
percent affordable housing developments
and 100% ministerial review within three
years of adoption of the Housing Element.

The City monitors implementation of the
Housing Element and reports progress
annually through the Annual Progress
Report. This report is submitted to HCD by
April 1 each year.

Page C-1.32

Page 25 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff Does Menlo Park have a no net loss rule?
Program H3.H: What does “encourage” mean and how can
we define it?
Goal H6: Would like to see how far we can push to reduce personal automobiles usage. This could have more
policies/programs. We need to identify multimodal
improvements and be more prescriptive on how to accomplish this. Support eliminating parking minimums, especially for 100% affordable and accessible or senior housing.

The City adheres to the State law’s no net
loss provision under SB 330.

Policy H4.M is to review and modify parking
requirements and design standards to
provide greater flexibility. The City would
explore reducing parking minimums,
including parking maximums, parking
alternatives such as an-lieu fee and other
parking considerations.
50 2022-05-16 Michele Tate,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Program H2.D: Please explain the amnesty program for
ADUs. The timeframe for this should be moved up to within one year.

Is there a way to monitor the ADUs in the city so that we can have a more accurate count of which ADUs are being used for housing and which are affordable?
State law allows for a deferral of enforcing
building codes on unpermitted ADUs
through January 1, 2025. Program H2.D
would amend the ADU Ordinance to
create an amnesty program for unpermitted
ADUs. This effort will preserve existing
ADUs created without building permits by
providing a non-punitive pathway to
legalization.
51 2022-05-16 Cynthia Harris,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
H2.B(e): What is the intent? Revise to ensure that this can’t be interpreted as downzoning.

Program H2.D: Timeline should be moved up.

Program H2.E: We’ve already heard from the community
multiple times. We should focus more on preventing evictions and increasing housing quality.

The intent of Program H2.B is to protect
existing residential uses from being
displaced by non-residential or lower
residential density uses.

Refer to Attachment H for an overview of
housing programs and timeframes. The City
Council may desire to provide feedback and
guidance on the matter.
52 2022-05-16 Lauren Bigelow,
Housing Chair
HC/PC Meeting
Are the BMR funds distributed every 2 years? The City accepts applications requesting use of BMR funds and the funding
allocation would be dependent on how
much is in the housing fund at that time.

The Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
is on a biannual schedule.

Page C-1.33

Page 26 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 53 2022-05-16 Henry Riggs,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
ADU amnesty program has not been put into practice. It is currently easier for property owners to stay under the radar until they have to sell the home. Additional fire fees are extremely expensive. PG&E can also hold up an ADU project.

Menlo Park may want to lobby the State to modify the
oversight of Fire and PG&E.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.
54 2022-05-16 Michele Tate,
Planning
Commissioner
HC/PC Meeting
Program H2.E: Why is the timeframe 3 years? It should be sooner.

Program H2.E is the development of an
anti-displacement strategy. The preparation
of the document would involve outreach
and engagement with the community and
community partners to develop a strategy.

The City of Redwood City is currently in the
process of developing an AntiDisplacement Strategy, which began in 2020. Refer to Attachment H for an
overview of housing programs and
timeframes. The City Council may desire to
provide feedback and guidance
prioritization of the programs.
55 Katie Behroozi
Email
Dear City Council,
I am a fan of the proposed housing development at Flood School for multiple reasons, but I do share neighborhood concerns about site access and I am deeply worried about the divisive impact (and unintended consequences) of the
proposed ballot measure, which apparently now has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

I have a handful of requests to make of the city leadership:
1) Voter education is sorely needed.

A lot of residents don't know enough about how the city does zoning and general plan updates. I know some of the people who signed the Menlo Balance petition were confused about what it might actually do.

Here's some of what I've heard:
–I've heard residents express hope that by voting for this ballot measure, they could block developments on non-R1 sites (e.g. Willow Village or SRI). This is not the case.

The City has not received an application for
development at the Flood School site.

If/when an application comes forward, it will
be reviewed similar to any other
development project, with opportunities for
public comment. Review for considerations
related to traffic, fire/life safety, utilities, etc.,
will all be taken into account.

The City Council may desire to provide
feedback and guidance on this matter.

Page C-1.34

Page 27 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff –I've heard residents express concern that if they *don't* vote for this ballot measure, developers could buy up R1 lots and convert them to apartments with the council's blessing. My understanding is that this would be "spot zoning"–effectively illegal and highly undesirable.
–I think there are residents who imagine that you, council, have apartments and big box stores planned for every
neighborhood. In fact, there are only five R1 sites listed in the draft Housing Element, none of which was ever a single family home, and you are certainly not planning to convert any residential properties into mixed use or commercial usage. –New Finance and Audit commissioner Mike DeMoss just
wrote in implying that you, council, were using the Housing Element to somehow eliminate single-family zoning in
neighborhoods across the city. It sounds as though he's been sharing that message with other residents. There is an urgent need for clear, concise facts about how this stuff works. The voters need to understand what this measure would actually do, and they need to be able to ask questions (even
anonymously) in a way that puts their fears to rest.
**Please work with staff to put together an information session about how these things actually work–and ideally also an FAQ, or an article in the Almanac.••
2) Consider a better/unique zoning designation for the Flood School site
I've never been able to find out why the Flood School parcel is zoned R1 instead of Public Facility (like the rest of the public schools in our community). Regardless, there are mixed
messages about the amount of housing
that could theoretically be developed there. Ravenswood is asking for up to 90 units and up to 4 stories, which would be no more than 40 du/acre. This is very similar in scale to the Gateway Rising project in Belle Haven, as well as other workforce housing projects in communities on the Peninsula.

The hypothetical bonus density max of 260 units that is listed in the Housing Element is generating a lot of understandable confusion and opposition from people who might otherwise be Page C-1.35

Page 28 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff more supportive of this project. Do we need to do that for this site?
Please work with staff and the consultants to come up with a zoning designation for this site that will match what
Ravenswood wants to do, and dispel concerns about
something that is nearly 3x the scale of what is proposed. 3) Please work with the county staff and Board of Supervisors to facilitate access through Flood Park
I think a lot of residents in this area are actually on the same page–generally supportive of the idea of creating affordable housing in a way that helps the Ravenswood district;
concerned about how people who eventually live there can safely and conveniently access our shared roads and
amenities. Flood Park access is key. I hope you will join me in encouraging our county leaders to make it happen–sooner rather than later. (see my email below)
4) Clarify how BMR rental housing would work for the
hypothetical Ravenswood project
Finally, there seems to be a lack of clarity about how BMR rental housing in this sort of case would be administered. I have heard concerns expressed that it will only be "affordable" housing in the near-term. My understanding is that we have a standard program for managing BMR rentals to qualified
individuals.

Explaining how this works–deed restrictions, income
categories, etc.–would be helpful. (This might not need to happen quite so quickly, but considering the level of
community confusion and distrust, it couldn't hurt.)
Thank you for your service.
56 2022-05-17 Thomas Prussing
Online Form
Menlo Park City Council,
What are the provisions for increased traffic on Ravenswood and Middlefield which are already high density traffic and emergency response corridors,
The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.

If related to the SRI/Parkline proposal, the
application is undergoing a development
review and environmental review process.

Page C-1.36

Page 29 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff especially during the hours 7 AM to 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM to 6 PM?
What are the provisions for the electrical consumption of these 600 units and 200 offices given the instability of our California and county electrical grid at current usage levels?
Will there be an extensive solar panel deployment for this complex?
What are the provisions for increase sewage treatment of these 600 units and 200 offices? What are the provisions for the increased water consumption of these 600 units and 200 offices especially during out extended drought? Will there be water storage (cisterns) on this property for firefighting and back up consumption needs? What additional parcel taxes will you proposed to cover the cost of community infrastructure for project. Remember that this is in additional to proposed county sponsored parcel taxes? What do you define as lowincome housing and low income rent? Who will subsidize these rents – not the developer? We, the taxpayer will pay those subsidies via county, state, and federal programs to reimburse developers and owners for the difference between low-income rents and market-level rents in new county or city bond issues. Please also take note that the low-income
housing percentage of the project hardly addresses the issue of SB9 and SB10 that you are so frenetically attempting to resolve. We must provide adequate housing for all but this rush to overpopulate our neighborhoods Is not the solution.

And while you are focusing only on providing developers with no-accountability revenue providing, please focus on finding safe locations for our homeless camped out throughout
downtown Menlo Park and the Burgess Pool area.
57 2022-05-18 Rob Jordan
Online Form
I am in support of protecting existing affordable housing and building mid- and high-density housing wherever feasible in Menlo Park. I urge the council to
continue its good work in this regard and not be intimidated by NIMBY voices. Thank you for your efforts.

The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment.

Page C-1.37

Page 30 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff 58 2022-05-24 Karen Grove
Email
Hi Mike,
This is probably going to be the first of many questions for you! Do you agree that the Housing Element should include “Housing Division” among those responsible for the following programs?
• H1.A - Establish City Staff Work Priorities for Implementing Housing Element Programs
• H1.F - Update the Housing Element
• H1.H - Transparency on Progress towards RHNA
• H2.A - Adopt Ordinance for “At-Risk” Units
• H3.C - Assist in Providing Housing for Persons Living with Disabilities
• H3.E - Continue Support for Countywide Homeless
Programs
• H3.F - Work with the Department of Veterans Affairs on Homeless Issues
• H4.A - Amend the Inclusionary Housing Regulations
• H4.B - Modify BMR Guidelines
• H4.C - Increase Commercial Linkage Fee (I think this one is debatable – but clearly should have input from Housing Division - what are your thoughts?)
• H4.D - Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay
• H4.G - Consider City-Owned Land for Housing (Downtown Parking Lots)
• H4.J - Increase Residential Density (I think this could be just a Planning Division responsibility – what are your thoughts?)
The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. The Draft Housing Element will
be revised to modify the responsibilities for
program implementation, as appropriate.

The Planning Division and Housing Division
are both under the Community
Development Department and work closely
together for program implementation.
59 2022-05-27 Nina Wouk
Email
HI, Council
I have looked over the draft housing element (not read it, because it’s enormous) and here is what I think: It’s great that nobody is trying to jam any more development into District 1.

However most of the identified properties are businesses that have indicating no interest in selling to developers. The city has no way to force the property owners to either build housing on those sites or sell them. The only way to improve the housing supply, especially the affordable housing supply, is to use city land. If that means the downtown lots that I like The City acknowledges receipt of this
comment. Included in the draft Housing
Element is a program (H4.G) to consider
use of City-owned Downtown parking lots
for housing.

Page C-1.38

Page 31 of 31 ends

# Date Name and Source Comment Response from City Staff parking in, such is life. Menlo Park needs not to be a rich people ghetto. People who we depend on to work here ‐ like police, firefighters, nurses, EMTs, etc ‐ should be able to live here or else in a disaster the same people would work an endless shift until they became incoherent and
useless and that would make it worse for us all. Not to mention that kids who go to school in Menlo Park, even in the Ravenswood District, shouldn’t have to live in cars. So please bite the bullet and put housing on the land where you can put it.

Page C-1.39
Community Development
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Highlighted Potential Housing Opportunity Sites for further City Council Consideration This document provides a list of highlighted potential housing opportunity sites for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Through the iterative process of developing the Draft Housing Element, these sites have received particular feedback from property owners/representatives and community members that City staff is highlighting for further City Council consideration. Note, this document is not intended to be an exhaustive list of feedback received over the last year regarding site selection, but is instead intended to serve as a tool for City Council discussion/review of the Draft Housing Element in preparation for transmittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their required initial review. 1 Acreage: In development of the site inventory, it was recognized that certain parcels would benefit from a “carve out” of area (as opposed to using the entire parcel) when considering potential for residential development. In discussions with affordable housing developers, 1 to 2-acre parcel sizes were generally noted as desirable.
2 Potential Density: Density would allow 30 du/ac, but could be higher. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for base residential development density and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) bonus density for 100% affordable developments are shown to provide a sense of the range. For planning purposes, “AHO Bonus” density is proposed as 100 du/ac. Note, zoning criteria listed may not be currently in effect and may require additional review/approval (e.g., Program H4.D, Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay).

Ref. Site Name or
General Ref.

Acreage1 Potential Density2 Potential Units Considerations for the Site Inventory
Potential Options
(Bold Text = Staff
Recommendation)
A Marsh Rd. and
Bohannon Dr. Sites
Site #65 (1000
Marsh Rd.)
Site #66 (3885
Bohannon Dr.)
Site #73 (4065
Campbell Ave.)
Site #65

2.5 acres
(1-acre carve out)
Site #66
5 acres
(1-acre carve out)
Site #73

1.4 acres
Site #65
30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
Site #66
30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
Site #73
30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
Site #65
30 units Base
100 units AHO Bonus
Site #66
30 units Base
100 units AHO Bonus
Site #73
42 units Base
140 units AHO Bonus
Why Remove
Property owner stated
disinterest in housing
development
unless higher densities
considered
Why Keep
Limited sites in District
2 and desire to spread
housing opportunity
throughout the city
• Keep on
opportunity
sites list and
increase
densities on
sites
• Keep on
opportunities
sites list with
AHO Bonus
• Remove from
opportunity sites
list
ATTACHMENT G Page C-1.40

Page 2 of 6 ends

3 Acreage: In development of the site inventory, it was recognized that certain parcels would benefit from a “carve out” of area (as opposed to using the entire parcel) when considering potential for residential development. In discussions with affordable housing developers, 1 to 2-acre parcel sizes were generally noted as desirable.
4 Potential Density: Density would allow 30 du/ac, but could be higher. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for base residential development density and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) bonus density for 100% affordable developments are shown to provide a sense of the range. For planning purposes, “AHO Bonus” density is proposed as 100 du/ac. Note, zoning criteria listed may not be currently in effect and may require additional review/approval (e.g., Program H4.D, Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay).

Ref. Site Name or
General Ref.

Acreage3 Potential Density4 Potential Units Considerations for the Site Inventory
Potential Options
(Bold Text = Staff
Recommendation)
B Sharon Heights
Office Parks
Site #4 (2480 Sand
Hill Rd.)
Site #49 (2700
Sand Hill Rd.)
Site #4

6.8 acres
(2-acre carve out)
Site #49

10.9 acres
(2-acre carve out)
Site #4
30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
Site #49
30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
Site #4
60 units Base
200 units AHO Bonus
Site #49
60 units Base
200 units AHO Bonus
Why Remove
Property owner stated
disinterest in housing
development during the
planning period and
current
investment/improvemen
ts at the larger site.

Why Keep
• Plans to use site for
housing can change
and this would allow
more
options/potential
• Limited sites in
District 5 and desire
to spread housing
opportunity
throughout the city
• Remove from
opportunity
sites list
• Keep on
opportunities
sites list with
AHO Bonus
Page C-1.41

Page 3 of 6 ends

5 Acreage: In development of the site inventory, it was recognized that certain parcels would benefit from a “carve out” of area (as opposed to using the entire parcel) when considering potential for residential development. In discussions with affordable housing developers, 1 to 2-acre parcel sizes were generally noted as desirable.
6 Potential Density: Density would allow 30 du/ac, but could be higher. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for base residential development density and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) bonus density for 100% affordable developments are shown to provide a sense of the range. For planning purposes, “AHO Bonus” density is proposed as 100 du/ac. Note, zoning criteria listed may not be currently in effect and may require additional review/approval (e.g., Program H4.D, Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay).

Ref. Site Name or
General Ref.

Acreage5 Potential Density6 Potential Units Considerations for the Site Inventory
Potential Options
(Bold Text = Staff
Recommendation)
C Stanford-owned
Site
Site #45R (Alpine
Rd. at Stowe Ln.)

0.9 acres 30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
28 units Base
93 units AHO Bonus
Why Remove
Property owner stated
the site has constraints
such as drainage,
accessibility and is
impacted by the
Stanford golf course
and operations, which
would make housing
development highly
unlikely in the planning
period.

Why Keep
• Plans to use site for
housing can change
and this would allow
more
options/potential
• Issues could
potentially be
addressed during
site planning
• Remove from
opportunity
sites list
• Keep on
opportunities
sites list with
AHO Bonus
Page C-1.42

Page 4 of 6 ends

7 Acreage: In development of the site inventory, it was recognized that certain parcels would benefit from a “carve out” of area (as opposed to using the entire parcel) when considering potential for residential development. In discussions with affordable housing developers, 1 to 2-acre parcel sizes were generally noted as desirable.
8 Potential Density: Density would allow 30 du/ac, but could be higher. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for base residential development density and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) bonus density for 100% affordable developments are shown to provide a sense of the range. For planning purposes, “AHO Bonus” density is proposed as 100 du/ac. Note, zoning criteria listed may not be currently in effect and may require additional review/approval (e.g., Program H4.D, Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay).

Ref. Site Name or
General Ref.

Acreage7 Potential Density8 Potential Units Considerations for the Site Inventory
Potential Options
(Bold Text = Staff
Recommendation)
D St. Bede’s Church
Site #40(C) (2650
Sand Hill Rd.)

0.5 acres 30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
15 units Base
50 units AHO Bonus
Why Remove
• Property owner
stated disinterest in
housing
development
• Site also serves as
school and parking
needs and hours of
use are different
than a church-only
site
Why Keep
Plans to use site for
housing can change
and this would allow
more options/potential
• Remove from
opportunity
sites list
• Keep on
opportunities
sites list with
AHO Bonus
E Menlo Church
Site #6 (900 Santa
Cruz Ave.)

1.8 acres 30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
55 units Base
183 units AHO Bonus
Why Remove
Property owner stated
disinterest in housing
development
Why Keep
Plans to use site for
housing can change
and this would allow
more options/potential
• Remove from
opportunity
sites list
• Keep on
opportunity sites
list with AHO
Bonus
Page C-1.43

Page 5 of 6 ends

9 Acreage: In development of the site inventory, it was recognized that certain parcels would benefit from a “carve out” of area (as opposed to using the entire parcel) when considering potential for residential development. In discussions with affordable housing developers, 1 to 2-acre parcel sizes were generally noted as desirable.
10 Potential Density: Density would allow 30 du/ac, but could be higher. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for base residential development density and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) bonus density for 100% affordable developments are shown to provide a sense of the range. For planning purposes, “AHO Bonus” density is proposed as 100 du/ac. Note, zoning criteria listed may not be currently in effect and may require additional review/approval (e.g., Program H4.D, Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay).

Ref. Site Name or
General Ref.

Acreage9 Potential Density10 Potential Units Considerations for the Site Inventory
Potential Options
(Bold Text = Staff
Recommendation)
F Former Flood
School
Site #38 (320
Sheridan Dr.)

2.6 acres 30 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
78 units Base
260 units AHO Bonus
Why Remove
The site should not be
removed as a housing
opportunity site but a
lower density could be
considered given
concerns raised by
neighbors.

Why Keep
Only vacant site in
Menlo Park with
expressed property
owner and developer
interest for affordable
housing
• Keep on sites
list but limit
density (30
du/ac minimum
for HCD) and do
not apply the
Affordable
Housing
Overlay
• Keep on
opportunities
sites list with
AHO Bonus
• Remove from
opportunity sites
list
G USGS
Site #12 (345
Middlefield Rd.)

5.0 acres 40 du/ac Base
100 du/ac AHO Bonus
120 units Base
200 units AHO
Bonus*
*Potential units were
based on a 2-acre
carveout at 100 du/ac
and 3 acres at 40
du/ac for a total of
320 units
Why Remove
N/A
Why Keep
The site is up for sale
and increased housing
allowance could
incentivize a housing
developer to participate
in a bid to develop
housing on the site
• Keep on
opportunity
sites list and
increase
densities on
site
• Keep on
opportunities
sites list with
AHO Bonus
• Remove from
opportunity sites
list
Page C-1.44

Page 6 of 6 ends

11 Acreage: In development of the site inventory, it was recognized that certain parcels would benefit from a “carve out” of area (as opposed to using the entire parcel) when considering potential for residential development. In discussions with affordable housing developers, 1 to 2-acre parcel sizes were generally noted as desirable.
12 Potential Density: Density would allow 30 du/ac, but could be higher. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for base residential development density and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) bonus density for 100% affordable developments are shown to provide a sense of the range. For planning purposes, “AHO Bonus” density is proposed as 100 du/ac. Note, zoning criteria listed may not be currently in effect and may require additional review/approval (e.g., Program H4.D, Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay).

Ref. Site Name or
General Ref.

Acreage11 Potential Density12 Potential Units Considerations for the Site Inventory
Potential Options
(Bold Text = Staff
Recommendation)
H SRI/Parkline
333 Ravenswood
Ave.
63 acres 40 du/ac 400 units Why Remove
N/A
Why Keep
• Listed as Pipeline
Project (not on sites
inventory), but counted
towards RHNA as a site
that has a development
proposal
• Project currently calls
for approximately 400
residential units in a 10-
acre "Residential Zone"
Keep as Pipeline
Project and
consider the
potential for more
units. The
applicant is
proposing to study
a variant as part of
the environmental
review process,
which would
include up to 600
dwelling units on
the site.

I Civic Center
701 Laurel St.

26.5 acres 0 du/ac 0 units Why Keep Off
City Council has previously
provided direction to not
consider the Civic Center
as a potential housing site
Why Add
Some Housing and
Planning Commissioners
and members of the public
expressed interest in using
the site for housing
• Reaffirm – Do
not include in
the inventory;
No change.
• Add new
program to
consider housing
on at Civic
Center
Page C-1.45
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Review Draft Housing Programs | Page 1
Housing Element Programs

TIMEFRAME REFERENCE PROGRAM
Concurrent
with HE
adoption
Program
H1.F
Update the Housing Element.

In coordination with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, update the Menlo Park Housing Element to be consistent with State law requirements and address the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) every eight years.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Assure consistency with SB 375 and Housing Element law Timeframe: Update the Housing Element by January 2023
Concurrent
with HE
adoption
Program
H4.D
Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO).

Update the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) to provide density bonuses and other incentives for the development of multifamily housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households and units that are preferential for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated on-site services including people with disabilities and developmental disabilities. The AHO is offered as an alternative to the density bonus described in AB 1763.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Commission
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Incentivize affordable housing development in the city Timeframe: Concurrent with Housing Element adoption
Concurrent
with HE
adoption
Program
H4.I
Create New Opportunities for Mixed-Use Development.

Adopt a zoning code amendment for non-residential zones, including, but not limited to, C-4, C-2, C-2-A, C-2-B, C-2-S, C-1-C, C-1-A and P, to allow residential uses with 30 units/acre and/or mixed-use developments.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Adopt a zoning ordinance amendment
Timeframe: Concurrent with Housing Element adoption
Concurrent
with HE
Program
H4.J
Increase Residential Density.

Modify the zoning ordinance to allow a base density of 30 units/acre in R-3 zoned lots in the area around the El ATTACHMENT H Page C-1.46
Programs Implementation Table | Page 2
adoption Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Increase residential density in certain areas of the City Timeframe: Concurrent with Housing Element adoption
Concurrent
with HE
adoption; 2
years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H4.K
Maximize Development Proposals.

Modify minimum densities and development standards to facilitate development proposals that maximize use of R3 properties near Downtown. Explore potential rezoning of other R-3 properties.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Develop additional multifamily housing on suitable parcels Time Frame: Rezoning of R-3 properties near Downtown will be completed concurrently with the Housing Element adoption. Study for rezoning all other R-3 properties will occur within two years of Housing Element adoption.

Concurrent
with HE
adoption
Program
H4.L
Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan.

Consider modifications to the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan to include, but not limited to, the following changes:
a. Eliminate housing cap in El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan to align with SB 330. b. Increase the maximum base level density to at least 30 units/acre across all subareas. c. Increase the maximum bonus level density in certain subareas to encourage more housing. d. Establish a minimum density of 20 units/acre to all subareas, upon the addition of residential uses on a site.
e. Review development standards such as height and parking ratios to reduce potential constraints on development and evaluate the design guidelines to establish objective design standards. Investigate opportunities for shared or district parking and parking in-lieu fees as part of district parking.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Increase housing opportunities in El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area Time Frame: Concurrent with Housing Element adoption
Concurrent
with HE
Program
H4.M
Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards.

Page C-1.47
Programs Implementation Table | Page 3
adoption Review and modify parking requirements and design standards to provide greater flexibility in site planning for multifamily residential housing, including establishing a parking or alternative transportation in-lieu fee. Parking amendments could involve reducing parking minimums, expanding parking maximums, eliminating parking requirements for affordable housing projects, expanding shared parking, exploring district parking, and exploring other parking recommendations provided by ABAG-MTC.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Public Works; City Commissions; City Council; City Attorney Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Modify Municipal Code to include amended parking requirements and establish a parking or alternative transportation in-lieu fee
Timeframe: Concurrent with Housing Element adoption; in-lieu fee shall be established within two years of Housing Element adoption. Additional amendments will be completed as needed thereafter with ongoing staff review of parking standards Concurrent
with HE
adoption
Program
H7.B
Develop and Adopt Standards for SB 9 Projects.

Develop and adopt objective design standards for SB 9 (2021) projects, including urban lot splits and duplexes.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Ensure new development is of high architectural quality and consistent with State law Timeframe: Concurrent with Housing Element adoption
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H-1.A
Establish City Staff Work Priorities for Implementing Housing Element Programs.

As part of the annual review of the Housing Element (see Program H1.B), establish work priorities to implement the Housing Element related to community outreach, awareness and input on housing concerns. Strive to ensure that all City publications, including the City's Activity Guide, include information on housing programs. City staff work priorities specific to Housing Element implementing programs include:
a. Conduct the annual review of the Housing Element (Program H1.B). b. Review options for funding housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Program H1.I)
c. Make recommendations to City Commissions on strategies for housing opportunity sites and funding (Program H1.B).
d. Provide follow-up on housing opportunity sites and funding based on directions provided by the City Council, including working with the community and implementing Housing Element programs (Program H1.E, H5.B)
e. Conduct community outreach and provide community information materials through an open and nonadvocacy process (Program H5.B).

Page C-1.48
Programs Implementation Table | Page 4
f. Engage property owners in identifying opportunities to construct housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households (Program H5.B). g. Pursue opportunities where the City can participate in constructing affordable housing on City-owned sites (Program H4.G).
h. Develop ongoing and annual outreach and coordination with non-profit housing developers and affordable housing advocates (Program H1.E).
i. Continue to participate in ongoing regional housing-related activities, including participation in ongoing efforts as part of the Countywide 21 Elements effort (Program H1.C, H1.D).

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Manager; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Establish staff priorities for implementing Housing Element programs.

Timeframe: Participate in ongoing regional planning activities throughout the Housing Element planning period and develop a work program as part of the annual review of the Housing Element (see Program H1.B)
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H1.C
Work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing.

Continue to coordinate with the San Mateo County Department of Housing (DOH) to manage the affordable housing stock to ensure permanent affordability; implement resale and rental regulations for very low-, low- and moderate-income units; and assure that these units remain at an affordable price level.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; City Manager Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Meet with the County twice a year. Coordinate with County efforts to maintain and support affordable housing
Timeframe: Every 6 months
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H1.D
Regional Coordination.

Continue participating in regional housing efforts and collaborations, including San Mateo County's 21 Elements.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Work with other San Mateo County jurisdictions to address regional housing needs and attend 21 Elements coordination calls
Timeframe: Ongoing
Ongoing/ On Program Work with Non-Profits on Housing.

Page C-1.49
Programs Implementation Table | Page 5
a Project-byProject
Basis
H1.E Continue to work with non-profits to assist in achieving the City's housing goals and implementing programs.

Coordination should occur on an ongoing basis, and as special opportunities arise as the Housing Element is implemented. Non-profits should have an advisory role when implementing housing programs to help understand the community's needs and opportunities for non-profit housing development. The City currently works with and refers households in need to Samaritan House San Mateo, Human Investment Project (HIP Housing), and the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART). The City will continue to implement the bi-annual notice of funding availability (NOFA), which allows non-profits to apply for funding to promote the preservation and production of affordable housing.

Responsibility: Housing Division; Planning Division; City Manager Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Maintain a working relationship with non-profit housing sponsors Timeframe: Engage with non-profits at least twice a year Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H1.H
Transparency on Progress towards RHNA.

Publish information regarding below market rate development pipeline projects, including the anticipated number of units and affordability, on the City's housing website in coordination with the Housing Element's annual progress report.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Increase accessibility and transparency of affordable housing development in the city Timeframe: Ongoing; website shall be updated at least yearly Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H1.I
Utilize the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Fund.

Administer and no less frequently than every two years advertise the availability of funds in the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Fund as it applies to residential, commercial and industrial development projects through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).

Responsibility: City Commissions; Housing Division; Planning Division; City Attorney; City Manager; City Council
Financing: Below Market Rate Housing Fund and General Fund Objectives: Accumulate and distribute funds for housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, lowand moderate-income households Timeframe: Advertise the availability of funds in the BMR Housing Fund at least every two years Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Program
H2.C
Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs.

Concentrate housing rehabilitation outreach and funding in the Belle Haven neighborhood to prevent existing housing units, both single-family houses and apartments, from deteriorating and significantly reducing the number Page C-1.50
Programs Implementation Table | Page 6
Basis of seriously deteriorated units. Emphasis will be placed on the rehabilitation of multifamily developments. As city infrastructure ages, rehabilitation efforts may be expanded more broadly throughout the city. a. Continue to work with and refer people to the San Mateo County Department of Housing programs, including the Single Family Ownership Rehabilitation Program and the Multi-Family Rental Rehabilitation Program.
b. Encourage private sponsors to develop and maintain housing units using state and federal housing assistance programs for emergencies and other repairs.
c. Work with San Mateo County to compete for Community Development Block Grant funds to ensure the continuation of the Single-Family Ownership Rehabilitation Program for low- and very low-income families in the community.
d. Investigate possible use of housing rehabilitation loans to assist homeowners in implementing the City's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) programs.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Building Division; Housing Division Financing: Outside subsidy
Objectives: Utilize the City's BMR funds to rehabilitate very low- and low- income housing Timeframe: Ongoing with annual progress monitoring
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H3.B
Encourage Rental Housing Assistance Programs.

Continue to publicize federal, state and local rental housing programs for special needs populations programs on the City's website. Work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing to implement the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and, as appropriate, assist similar non-profit housing sponsor rental assistance programs.

Information will be provided through implementation of Housing Element Program H1.C and H5.C.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; City Manager; San Mateo County Department of Housing and non-profit housing sponsors; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Financing: Outside subsidy
Objectives: Provide assistance at current Section 8 funding levels to assist 230 extremely low and very low-income households per year (assumes continued funding of program)4 Timeframe: Ongoing; Update website annually
4Source of data: Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, from the San Mateo County Department of Housing (Housing Authority)
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProgram H3.C
Assist in Providing Housing for Persons Living with Disabilities.

Continue to partner with Countywide 21 Elements organization to contribute support and engage in programs that Page C-1.51
Programs Implementation Table | Page 7
Project
Basis
develop housing and improve housing opportunities for people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Manager; City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund; other sources
Objectives: Conduct outreach on the availability of funds for non-profit organizations that provide housing and programs for people with disabilities. Promote available funds through the community funding grant program, which provides an allocation of up to 1.7 percent of the collected property tax revenue.

Timeframe: Outreach would be conducted yearly
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H3.E
Continue Support for Countywide Homeless Programs.

Support activities intended to address homelessness in San Mateo County. Below are specifics:
a. The City will work with and support the Veteran's Administration and Haven House emergency shelter programs.
b. The City will continue to support Human Investment Project (HIP Housing) programs.6 c. Continue to partner with non-profits on conducting outreach to people experiencing homelessness. d. Collaborate with other jurisdictions to house people experiencing homelessness, including the Project Homekey program and multi-jurisdictional navigation centers. e. Continue to support the County goal of achieving functional zero homelessness, meaning that anyone who desires shelter can access it through an array of County facilities and programs.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Manager; City Council; San Mateo County Housing Department; HIP Housing; Veteran's Administration; Life Moves; HEART (The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust)
Financing: General Fund; other sources
Objectives: Conduct quarterly check-ins with the Menlo Park Homeless Outreach Team, which consists of staff from the Housing Division, Police Department and community-based organizations that provide homeless outreach and support services. Support housing and services for the homeless and at-risk persons and families.

Timeframe: Conduct check-ins with Menlo Park Homeless Outreach Team at least once quarterly 6 HIP Housing programs include home-sharing, rental subsidies and case management for individuals and families. Home Sharing is a living arrangement in which two or more unrelated people share a home or apartment.

Each resident has a private room and shares the common living areas. The Self-Sufficiency Program (SSP) provides housing assistance and support services to low-income parents and emancipated foster youth to become Page C-1.52
Programs Implementation Table | Page 8
financially self-sufficient within 1-5 years. Participants receive subsidized rent or a housing scholarship while completing an education or job training program and finding employment in their field. While in the program, HIP Housing provides monthly case management and life skills workshops to encourage continued progress.

Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H3.F
Work with the Department of Veterans Affairs on Homeless Issues.

Work with the Department of Veterans Affairs to identify possible programs and locations for housing and support services for the homeless, including unhoused veterans.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Manager; City Council; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Financing: General Fund and outside
Objectives: Contact the Department of Veterans Affairs to coordinate in addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness
Timeframe: Meet with the Department of Veterans Affairs annually Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H3.H
Inclusionary Accessible Units.

As part of the development review process, encourage increasing the number of accessible units beyond State building code requirements to provide more housing opportunities for individuals living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Expand housing opportunities for people with disabilities Timeframe: Ongoing on a project-by-project basis
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H3.J
Marketing for Accessible Units.

As a condition of the disposition of any City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the City's inclusionary housing ordinance, the award of City financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City shall require that a housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disabilityserving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Commission; Planning Commission Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Expand housing opportunities for people living with disabilities Timeframe: Ongoing on a project-by-project basis
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Program
H4.N
Achieve Long-Term Viability of Affordable Housing.

Work with non-profits and other project sponsors to implement the City's Preferences for Affordable Housing policy (Policy H4.10), and to ensure a fair tenant selection process, appropriate project management, a high level Page C-1.53
Programs Implementation Table | Page 9
Basis of project maintenance and upkeep, and coordination with the City departments (such as Planning, Public Works, Police, etc.) and other agencies on an ongoing basis as needed.

Responsibility: Housing Division; BMR Administrator (House Keys); Planning Division; City Attorney Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Establish project management and other ongoing project coordination needs Timeframe: As developments are proposed and ongoing thereafter Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H4.S
Coordinate with School Districts to Link Housing with School District Planning Activities.

Work with the four school districts in Menlo Park to coordinate demographic projections and school district needs as the Housing Element is implemented and housing is developed. Consistent with Policy H4.1(e), site development should consider school capacity and the relationship to the types of residential units proposed.

Responsibility: Planning Division; School Districts; City Manager; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Coordinate with local school districts in planning for future housing in consideration of each school district's long-range planning, resources and capacity Timeframe: Ongoing through project implementation
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H5.B
Undertake Community Outreach When Implementing Housing Element Programs.

Coordinate with local businesses, housing advocacy groups, neighborhood groups and others in building public understanding and support for workforce, special needs housing and other issues related to housing, including the community benefits of affordable housing, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development. The City will notify a broad representation of the community, including people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, to solicit ideas for housing strategies when they are discussed at City Commissions or City Council meetings. Specific actions should be linked to the preparation and distribution of materials as identified in Program H5.C. Specific outreach activities may include:
a. Maintain the Housing Element Update mailing list and send public hearing notices to all interested public, non-profit agencies and affected property owners.
b. Post notices at City Hall, the library, and other public locations. c. Publish notices in the local newspaper.
d. Post information on the City's website.
e. Conduct outreach (workshops, neighborhood meetings) to the community as Housing Element programs are implemented.
f. Assure that Housing Commission meetings are publicized and provide opportunities for participation from housing experts, affordable housing advocates, special needs populations, and the larger community.

Page C-1.54
Programs Implementation Table | Page 10
g. Provide public information materials concerning recycling practices for the construction industry, as well as the use of recycled materials and other environmentally responsible materials in new construction, consistent with Chapter 12.48, Salvaging and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris, of the Municipal Code and California Building Code requirements. h. Provide public information materials about available energy conservation programs, such as the PG&E Comfort Home/Energy Star new home program, to interested property owners, developers, and contractors.
i. Promote and help income-eligible households to access federal, state and utility income qualifying assistance programs.
j. Provide public information materials to developers, contractors, and property owners on existing federal, state and utility incentives for the installation of renewable energy systems, such as rooftop solar panels, available to property owners and builders.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Conduct community outreach and distribute materials Timeframe: Ongoing on a project-by-project basis
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H5.C
Provide Multilingual Information on Housing Programs.

Promote the availability of San Mateo County programs for housing construction, homebuyer assistance, rental assistance, special needs housing and programs including for people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; shelters and services for people experiencing homelessness; and housing rehabilitation through the following means: (a) providing information on the City's website that describes programs available in the City of Menlo Park and provides direct links to County agencies that administer the programs; (b) including contact information on County programs in City mail-outs and other general communications that are sent to residents; (c) maintaining information on programs at the City's public counters; (d) training selected City staff to provide referrals to appropriate agencies; (e) distributing information on programs at public locations (library, schools, etc.); (f) using the activity calendar and public information channel; and (g) continue using multilingual translation/interpretation services and providing additional financial compensation to multilingual staff working on housing programs.

Information may include:
a. Fair Housing Laws
b. Rehabilitation loan programs
c. San Mateo County Housing Authority information
d. Housing programs, including rental assistance programs such as Section 8 Page C-1.55
Programs Implementation Table | Page 11
e. Code enforcement
f. Homebuyer assistance
g. Foreclosure assistance
h. Information about affordable housing
i. Information about shelters, navigation centers, and other supportive programs for people experiencing homelessness
Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Review and obtain materials by end of 2023; distribute and post materials, conduct staff training by the end of 2026; annually update as needed thereafter Timeframe: Distribute educational materials at public locations and make public service announcements through different media at least two times a year Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H5.D
Address Rent Conflicts.

Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational and mediation opportunities by continuing to refer residents to Project Sentinel and other non-profits that handle fair housing complaints.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; City Manager; City Attorney Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Update the City's website with resources for addressing rent conflicts and fair housing complaints
Timeframe: Update the City's website and other housing materials at least annually with information Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H5.E
Publicize Fair Housing Laws and Respond to Discrimination Complaints.

Promote fair housing opportunities for all people and support efforts of City, County, State and Federal agencies to eliminate discrimination in housing by continuing to publicize information on fair housing laws and State and federal anti-discrimination laws. Below are specific aspects of this program:
a. Discrimination complaints will be referred to the appropriate agency. Specifically, the City will continue to work with Project Sentinel, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County Department of Housing in handling fair housing complaints. Calls to the City are referred to these resources for counseling and investigation. These resources also provide direct fair housing education to Menlo Park residents.
b. Enforce a non-discrimination policy in the implementation of City approved housing programs. c. Information regarding the housing discrimination complaint referral process will be posted on the City's Page C-1.56
Programs Implementation Table | Page 12
website and available for the public and City staff.
d. As needed, the City will reach out to lenders to increase the flow of mortgage funds to city residents.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; City Manager; City Attorney Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Post fair housing laws on the City's website. Refer discrimination complaints to appropriate agencies.

Timeframe: Update the City's website annually
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H5.F
First-Time Homebuyer Program.

Continue implementing the first-time homebuyer program by working with agencies and organizations offering first-time, moderate-income homebuyers down-payment assistance loans for homes purchased in the city.

Responsibility: Planning Division
Financing: HEART; Union Bank (or other bank affiliated with the program) Objectives: Provide referrals
Timeframe: Ongoing
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H6.A
Reach Codes. Continue implementing reach codes that go beyond State minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating more opportunities to support greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Responsibility: Building Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets
Timeframe: Ongoing on a project-by-project basis
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H6.D
Promote Energy Efficient/Renewable Programs.

Continue to encourage participation in Peninsula Clean Energy and publicize energy efficient and renewable energy programs on the City’s website.

Responsibility: Sustainability Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Encourage participation in the energy efficient and renewable energy programs Timeframe: Update the City’s website annually
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H6.F
Transit Incentives.

Integrate transit demand management strategies for all residential development, particularly in areas further away from transit to increase access to transit and reduce vehicle trips and parking demand.

Page C-1.57
Programs Implementation Table | Page 13
Responsibility: Planning Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Reduce vehicle trips and parking demand and increase use of alternative forms of mobility.

Timeframe: Ongoing on a project-by-project basis
Ongoing/ On
a Project-byProject
Basis
Program
H6.G
Neighborhood Connectivity.

Invest in neighborhood connectivity, walkability, and access to services, healthy food, and recreation, particularly in low-resource neighborhoods north of US-101, to improve access and reduce the division of the urban form produced by the highway. Coordinate and prioritize activities with consideration of the City's capital improvement projects list.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Public Works; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: State Cap and Trade; General Fund; State and Federal grants; project impact fees Objectives: Reduce disparities in access to opportunities Timeframe: Identify project priorities annually through coordination with the City's capital improvement projects list; implementation of the projects shall be ongoing throughout the planning period
1 year from
HE adoption
(by
December
2023)
Program
H1.B
Review the Housing Element Annually.

As required by State law, review the status of Housing Element programs by April of each year, beginning April 2023. As required by statute, the annual review will cover:
a. Consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan Elements. As portions of the General Plan are amended, this Housing Element will be reviewed to maintain internal consistency. In addition, a consistency review will be implemented as part of the annual general plan implementation report required under Government Code § 65400.
b. Statistical summary of residential building activity tied to various types of housing, household need, income and Housing Element program targets.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; Housing Division; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Review and monitor Housing Element implementation; conduct public review with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council, and submit Annual Report to HCD
Timeframe: April 2023 and annually thereafter
1 year from
HE adoption
(by
Program
H2.A
Adopt Ordinance for "At-Risk" Units.

Prepare an ordinance requiring an 18-month notice to residents, the City and the San Mateo County Department Page C-1.58
Programs Implementation Table | Page 14
December
2023)
of Housing of all proposed conversions of subsidized housing units to market rents. In addition, the City will establish regular contact with the owners of potential "at-risk" units to assure long-term coordination. If the units appear to be in danger of conversion or being lost as affordable housing, the City will establish contact with public and non-profit agencies interested in managing or purchasing the units to inform them of the project's status and inform tenants of any assistance available. In working with other agencies, the City will ensure that funding sources are identified and timelines for action are executed.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Adopt an ordinance for at-risk units.

Timeframe: Adopt ordinance within one year of Housing Element adoption. The City will also contact owners of potential at-risk units every two years
1 year from
HE adoption
(by
December
2023)
Program
H3.G
Low Barrier Navigation Centers.

Amend Municipal Code Chapter 16.04, Definitions, to include a "Low Barrier Navigation Center" definition consistent with AB 101. Amend mixed-use and nonresidential zoning districts that allow multifamily housing to permit low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Provide a pathway to permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness Timeframe: Within one year of Housing Element adoption
1 year from
HE adoption
(by
December
2023)
Program
H4.C
Increase Commercial Linkage Fee.

Evaluate and modify commercial linkage fee based on nexus study and higher fees adopted by surrounding jurisdictions.

Responsibility: Planning Division, City Council; City Attorney Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Increase funding for affordable housing development Time Frame: Within one year of Housing Element adoption 2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H2.B
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Protect Existing Housing.

Consistent with State law, amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Housing Element policy that limits the loss of existing residential units or the conversion of existing residential units to commercial or office space (see Policy H2.2). Zoning Ordinance changes and City activities should address residential displacement impacts, including the following:
a. Avoid contradicting the Ellis Act.

Page C-1.59
Programs Implementation Table | Page 15
b. Consider regulations used in other communities.
c. Consider a modified replacement fee on a per unit basis or replacement of a portion of the units, relocation assistance, etc. to the extent consistent with the Ellis Act. d. Collaborate with the San Mateo County Department of Housing, HIP Housing, Mid-Pen Housing Corporation, and others to protect affordable units in Menlo Park. e. Consider rezoning of properties for consistency to match and protect their existing residential uses.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Protect existing rental housing as part of infill implementation and other Zoning Ordinance changes
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption 2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H3.D
Develop Incentives for Special Needs Housing.

Initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment, including review of the R-L-U (Retirement Living Units) Zoning District, to ensure it is consistent with Housing Element policies and fair housing laws, and to develop, for example, density bonus and other incentives for needed senior housing, senior care facilities and other special needs housing for persons living with disabilities in the community, including people with developmental disabilities. Emphasis will also be placed on ways to facilitate the development of housing for seniors with very low-, low- and moderateincomes. Below are specifics:
a. The regulations should address the changing needs of seniors over time, including units for independent living and assisted living as well as skilled nursing facilities. b. The City will continue to allow the development and expansion of housing opportunities for seniors and special needs persons through techniques such as smaller unit sizes, parking reduction and common dining facilities when a non-profit organization sponsors units or when they are developed under the Retirement Living Unit (R-L-U) District provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. c. The City will coordinate with the Golden Gate Regional Center to ensure that the needs of the developmentally disabled are considered as part of the program. d. Provide a density bonus for affordable housing mixed-use projects accessible to people with disabilities and developmental disabilities within a half-mile radius of a public transit stop. e. Amend the Zoning Code to reduce parking requirements for developments that house people with special needs, including affordable housing mixed-use projects accessible to people with disabilities and developmental disabilities and projects within a half-mile radius of a public transit stop.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Manager; City Attorney; City Council Page C-1.60
Programs Implementation Table | Page 16
Financing: General Fund; other sources
Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide opportunities for housing and adequate support services for seniors and people living with disabilities Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption 2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H3.I
Accessible ADUs.

Adopt incentives to encourage the development of accessible ADUs, such as allowing larger ADUs for accessible units and waiving fees in exchange for providing a deed-restricted ADU affordable to low-income households.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Expand housing opportunities for people with disabilities Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption concurrent with Program H3.A 2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H4.A
Amend the Inclusionary Housing Regulations.

Amend the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program for Commercial and Industrial Developments and the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program for Residential Developments. Modifications could include the following:
a. Increase the BMR requirement.
b. A menu of options for achieving affordability, particularly for extremely low-income households. c. Adjust the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income) or provision of housing for residents with disproportionate housing needs (e.g., 3-4 bedroom units for larger families, units for people living with disabilities).
d. Provide a density bonus for developments that include housing for people living with disabilities. e. Provide a density bonus for developments with on-site services that include units intended for employees. f. Initiate a study to explore amending affordable housing in-lieu fees for developments of five or more units.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Prepare a nexus study to determine the cost of the in-lieu fee. Implement requirements to assist in providing housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households in Menlo Park Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption 2 years from
HE adoption
Program
H4.B
Modify BMR Guidelines.

Review and amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the cost of providing BMR units, encourage new BMR units to Page C-1.61
Programs Implementation Table | Page 17
(by
December
2024)
be built, and identify ways to construct affordable housing for lower-income households, including family housing.

As part of the BMR program evaluation, the City will establish clear policy and criteria for the allocation of funds from the City's BMR housing fund to prioritize:
a. Development of 100 percent affordable housing developments. b. Workforce rental housing affordable to moderate-, low- and very low-income households. c. Housing for individuals with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

The BMR program should support development on sites the City has determined viable for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) funding by setting aside a substantial portion of the uncommitted BMR fund balance and future BMR fees received for such development. The City will also modify provisions regarding rental housing to be consistent with the Costa-Hawkins Act.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require additional affordable units in market rate developments
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption 2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H4.F
Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development Standards and Permit Process.

Continue to encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and modify the City's regulations to increase flexibility in how parking is provided on-site, streamline approval, and increase the City's role in providing guidance for the approval of ADUs. The City will work with a third party to develop a tool with a list of potential ADU designs. One or more ADU designs shall be accessibility-focused, particularly for persons living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Zoning Ordinance amendment and accompanying public-facing documentation (i.e., on City website)
Timeframe: Modifications to the Zoning Code and development of potential ADU designs tool shall be completed by the end of 2024
2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H4.P
Community Opportunity to Purchase.

Adopt an ordinance that gives qualified non-profit organizations the right of first offer, and/or the right of first refusal to purchase buildings with five or more residential units or vacant land that could be developed into five or more residential units, within the city.

Page C-1.62
Programs Implementation Table | Page 18
Responsibility: Planning Division; City Council; City Attorney Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Adopt a community opportunity to purchase ordinance. Increase opportunities for affordable housing development
Time Frame: Adopt ordinance by the end of 2024
2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H6.C
Air Conditioning or Cooling Alternatives.

Require alternatives to conventional air conditioning for new construction, including high-efficiency heat pumps, ceiling fans, air exchangers, increased insulation and low-solar-gain exterior materials to reduce peak electrical demands during high heat events to ensure the reliability of the electrical grid. Encourage cooling products that recirculate inside air and do not bring in outside air, such as efficient HVAC systems and heat pumps.

Responsibility: Building Division; City Council
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Ensure healthy building environments
Timeframe: Within two years of Housing Element adoption 2 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2024)
Program
H7.A
Create Residential Design Standards.

Adopt objective design standards for each residential zoning district.

Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Adopt objective design standards for multifamily developments, mixed-use housing developments, and ADUs
Timeframe: Commence within two years of Housing Element adoption 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H1.G
Update Priority Procedures for Providing Water Service to Affordable Housing Developments.

At least once every five years, update written policies and procedures that grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households consistent with SB 1087 (Government Code § 65589.7).

Responsibility: Planning Division; Department of Public Works (Menlo Park Municipal Water); City Manager; City Council
Financing: Water Fund
Objectives: Comply with Government Code § 65589.7
Timeframe: When the Urban Water Management Plan is updated (anticipated 2025 and 2030) 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
Program
H2.D
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Amnesty Program.

Amend the ADU Ordinance to include an amnesty program for ADUs that do not comply with building codes or Page C-1.63
Programs Implementation Table | Page 19
December
2025)
planning development standards if the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Building Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Count ADUs towards the City’s total housing inventory Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H2.E
Anti-Displacement Strategy.

Meet with individuals and organizations in historically segregated neighborhoods to develop an anti-displacement strategy that City Council can adopt after review from the Housing Commission and Planning Commission. This strategy should reflect community engagement and local research and include policies that could:
a. Increase housing quality while preventing evictions
b. Consider neighborhood tenant preference for affordable housing c. Identify new sources of funding for anti-displacement efforts d. Develop localized anti-displacement programs that could accompany large-scale developments e. Provide deposit assistance, particularly for veterans f. Connect tenants to housing supportive programs and ensure that tenants are aware of their rights by posting resources on the City's housing website and other media. g. Inform tenants of opportunities for rental assistance, such as revolving loan funds or external funding sources
Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; Housing Commission; Planning Commission; City Council; City Attorney
Financing: General Fund; commercial linkage fees; outside funding Objectives: Mitigate displacement in historically segregated areas of the city and provide financial assistance to tenants
Timeframe: Develop anti-displacement and tenant support programs within three years of Housing Element adoption
3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H3.A
Continue to Implement Procedures for Reasonable Accommodation.

Maintain internal review procedures to provide individuals living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, with reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures to ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of these procedures and/or ordinance is to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City.

Page C-1.64
Programs Implementation Table | Page 20
Responsibility: City Commissions; Planning Division; City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Create a public handout and provide a digital copy on the City's website and a physical copy at City Hall and the public libraries.

Timeframe: Publish the handout by the end of 2025. Implementation of reasonable accommodation procedures will be ongoing throughout the planning period 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H3.L
Large Units.

Develop floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses to encourage the development of affordable developments with three or more bedrooms that are suitable for larger families.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Encourage the development of housing for large families Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H4.E
Ministerial Review of 100 Percent Affordable Housing.

In conjunction with the development and adoption of objective design standards, allow 100 percent affordable housing developments to be eligible for ministerial review.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Council
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow ministerial review of 100 percent affordable housing. Adopt objective design standards for residential development Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption and concurrently with the adoption of objective design standards
3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H4.G
Consider City-Owned Land for Housing (Downtown Parking Lots).

Promote housing development on underutilized City-owned parking lots in downtown. In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city's inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds, the City of Menlo Park shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city's most difficult to achieve housing priorities including providing a greater number of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate- income units, or committing to make a percentage of the units subject preferential for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated on-site services, such as for people living with disabilities, including and developmental disabilities.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Page C-1.65
Programs Implementation Table | Page 21
Objectives: Develop and issue a request for proposal to explore development options, including affordable housing with consideration for extremely low-income housing.

Timeframe: Community outreach and development strategy shall be completed by the end of 2025 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H4.H
Review the Subdivision Ordinance.

Review the Subdivision Ordinance to ensure consistency with Housing Element policies and implementing actions. Update the Ordinance to fully comply with the current Subdivision Map Act and streamline the review and approval process.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Public Works; Building Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Review and adopt amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance as needed Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H4.Q
Reuse Sites.

Modify the Zoning Ordinance so that parcels in the Site Inventory identified as Reuse Sites allow for by-right processing (ministerial review) for housing developments propose at least 20 percent of the units be affordable to lower-income households, in accordance with Government Code § 65583.2(c).

Responsibility: Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Allow for ministerial review for housing development on reuse sites that propose at least 20 percent of the units as affordable for lower-income households Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H6.B
Electric Vehicle Charging.

Evaluate opportunities for retrofitting existing multifamily housing developments with electric vehicle charging stations.

Responsibility: Building Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets
Timeframe: Concurrent with the next building code update in 2025 3 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2025)
Program
H6.E
Explore Multimodal Improvements.

Identify multimodal improvements in the city that support housing development. This includes pedestrian and bicycle improvements, transportation demand management programs, and coordination with neighboring cities and transit providers to explore investments that provide multimodal connections to regional destinations.

Page C-1.66
Programs Implementation Table | Page 22
Responsibility: City Manager; Public Works, City Attorney; City Council Financing: General Fund; outside funding sources
Objectives: Coordinate with Redwood City on potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements Timeframe: Within three years of Housing Element adoption 4 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2026)
Program
H3.K
Employment Services.

Work with area employers and advocacy organizations to develop a program to increase the employment rate of people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

Responsibility: Economic Development Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Host a working meeting or workshop with employers and advocacy groups to develop a strategy for creating jobs for persons with disabilities and boosting the number of workers with disabilities among area employers
Timeframe: Meeting will be held by the end of 2026. Program implementation will be ongoing thereafter.
4 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2026)
Program
H4.R
Work with the Fire District.

Work with the Fire District on local amendments to the State Fire Code to pursue alternatives to standard requirements that could otherwise be a potential constraint to housing development and achieving the City's housing goals.

Responsibility: Fire District; Planning Division; Public Works; Building Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Undertake local amendments to the State Fire Code and approve City Council Resolution ratifying the Fire District's local amendments
Timeframe: Complete local amendments to the State Fire Code by the end of 2025. Ratify amendments by the end of 2026.
5 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2027)
Program
H4.O
Identifying SB 10 Sites.

Develop an overlay zone where SB 10 could be implemented throughout the city, particularly in transit-rich areas.

Parcels identified in the overlay zone could be developed with up to 10 housing units.

Responsibility: Planning Division; City Attorney; City Commissions; City Council Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map to implement an SB-10 overlay Page C-1.67
Programs Implementation Table | Page 23
Timeframe: Within five years of Housing Element adoption 5 years from
HE adoption
(by
December
2027)
Program
H5.A
Fair Chance Ordinance.

Adopt a Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance, which would prohibit housing providers from inquiring about or using criminal history and criminal background as a factor in the tenant selection process.

Responsibility: Planning Division; Housing Division; Housing Commission; Planning Commission; City Council
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Expand renter protections
Timeframe: Within five years of Housing Element adoption Page C-1.68
Housing Element Programs
Reference Number and Title
At Plan
Adoption
Year 1
2023-24
Year 2
2024-25
Year 3
2025-26
Year 4
2026-27
Year 5
2027-28
Year 6
2028-29
Year 7
2029-30
Year 8
2030-31
Program H1.F: Update the Housing ElementProgram H4.D: Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)Program H4.I: Create New Opportunities for Mixed-Use Development Program H4.J: Increase Residential DensityProgram H4.K: Maximize Development ProposalsProgram H4.L: Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific PlanProgram H4.M: Update Parking Requirements and Design StandardsProgram H7.B: Develop and Adopt Standards for SB 9 ProjectsProgram H2.A: Adopt Ordinance for "At-Risk" UnitsProgram H3.G: Low Barrier Navigation CentersProgram H4.C: Increase Commercial Linkage FeeProgram H2.B: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Protect Existing HousingProgram H3.D: Develop Incentives for Special Needs HousingProgram H3.I: Accessible ADUsProgram H4.A: Amend the Inclusionary Housing RegulationsProgram H4.B: Modify BMR GuidelinesProgram H4.F: Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards and Permit ProcessProgram H4.P: Community Opportunity to PurchaseProgram H6.C: Air Conditioning or Cooling AlternativesProgram H7.A: Create Residential Design StandardsProgram H1.G: Update Priority Procedures for Providing Water Service to Affordable Housing DevelopmentsProgram H2.D: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Amnesty ProgramProgram H2.E: Anti-Displacement StrategyProgram H3.A: Continue to Implement Procedures for Reasonable AccommodationProgram H3.L: Large UnitsProgram H4.E: Ministerial Review of 100 Percent Affordable HousingProgram H4.G: Consider City-Owned Land for Housing (Downtown Parking Lots)Program H4.H: Review the Subdivision OrdinanceProgram H4.Q: Reuse SitesProgram H6.B: Electric Vehicle ChargingProgram H6.E: Explore Multimodal ImprovementsProgram H3.K: Employment ServicesProgram H4.R: Work with the Fire DistrictProgram H4.O: Identifying SB 10 SitesProgram H5.A: Fair Chance OrdinanceProgram H1.A: Establish City Staff Work Priorities for Implementing Housing Element ProgramsProgram H1.B: Review the Housing Element AnnuallyProgram H1.C: Work with the San Mateo County Department of HousingProgram H1.D: Regional CoordinationProgram H1.E: Work with Non-Profits on HousingProgram H1.H: Transparency on Progress towards RHNAProgram H1.I: Utilize the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing FundProgram H2.C: Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation ProgramsProgram H3.B: Encourage Rental Housing Assistance ProgramsProgram H3.C: Assist in Providing Housing for Persons Living with DisabilitiesProgram H3.E: Continue Support for Countywide Homeless ProgramsProgram H3.F: Work with the Department of Veterans Affairs on Homeless IssuesProgram H3.J: Marketing for Accessible UnitsProgram H4.N: Achieve Long-Term Viability of Affordable HousingProgram H4.S: Coordinate with School Districts to Link Housing with School District Planning ActivitiesProgram H5.B: Undertake Community Outreach When Implementing Housing Element ProgramsProgram H5.C: Provide Multilingual Information on Housing ProgramsProgram H5.D: Address Rent ConflictsProgram H5.E: Publicize Fair Housing Laws and Respond to Discrimination ComplaintsProgram H5.F: First-Time Homebuyer ProgramProgram H6.A: Reach CodesProgram H6.D: Promote Energy Efficient/Renewable ProgramsProgram H6.F: Transit IncentivesProgram H6.G: Neighborhood Connectivity * - Shaded cells indicate the anticipated year in which the program would be implemented. Development of the program and the implementation process may take multiple years leading up to the completion year.

Timeframe*
Page C-1.69

Menlo Park City CouncilJune 6, 2022

Menlo Park City Council
June 6, 2022