20221206-cc-agenda-packet-with-presentation — Menlo Park City Council, December 6, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

5. Acceptability of Insurers. Companies writing the insurance required hereunder shall be licensed to do business in the State of California. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII.

6. Verification of Coverage. Prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Section 1 above, duly executed endorsements evidencing the Indemnitees’ status as additional insured, and all other endorsements and coverage required hereunder pertaining to such coverage. Prior to commencement of any construction work on the Property, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraphs (d) and (g) of Section 1 above. Prior to City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy or equivalent for the Project, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraph (f) of Section 1 above. Owner shall Page F-1.393
080937\15890896v5
#84613392_v2
furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

7. Insurance Certificates and Endorsements. Owner shall submit to the City all of the necessary insurance documents, including the applicable amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of required Owner policies listing all required policy endorsements to the City. Insurance Certificates and Endorsements are to be received and approved by the City within the time periods specified in Section 6 above. Should Owner cease to have insurance as required at any time, all work by Owner pursuant to this Agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. Upon City’s request, Owner shall, within thirty (30) days of the request, provide or arrange for the insurer to provide to City, complete certified copies of all insurance policies required under this Agreement. City’s failure to make such request shall not constitute a waiver of the right to require delivery of the policies in the future.

Page F-1.394
080937\15946279v3
1 This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Menlo Park and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Sections 6103 and 27383 of the Government Code.

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Menlo Park
Attn: City Clerk
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025

BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT

AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
(Willow Village Masterplan 1350 Willow Road)

THIS BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (“Agreement”) is entered into as of , 2022, by and between the City of Menlo Park, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and [______________________], a [_______________] (“Owner”). City and Owner may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of that certain real property located at _________________ (APN _______), in the City of Menlo Park, California (“Property”), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. [Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC] (“Project Wide Developer”) applied to demolish an existing office, research and development and industrial site (the “Main Willow Village Project Site”) and to comprehensively redevelop the project wide site with up to 1.6 million square feet of office space (inclusive of meeting and collaboration space and accessory uses), up to 200,000 square feet of retail uses, a 193 room hotel (approximately 172,000 square feet in size), and up to 1,730 residential dwelling units, as well as publicly accessible open space and landscaping as a part of a master planned mixed-use project (the “Willow Village Project”), [which is subject to that certain Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement (“Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement”) between Project Wide Developer and City, dated as of [______________], 2022. The Property is part of Phase [___] as described in the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement.]
C. [The Project Wide Developer has transferred the Property to the Owner, and the City has released the Property from the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, in conjunction with the recording of this Agreement.]
EXHIBIT B2 Page F-1.395
080937\15946279v3
2 D. The Willow Village project re-subdivided the Main Willow Village Project Site into [___] new legal parcels shown on the proposed Vesting Tentative Map in Exhibit [___] of the Development Agreement. Amongst those new parcels is parcel [_____], which is approved for residential building RS7 with a new multifamily senior residential project with [one hundred twenty (120)] rental units, as well as associated open space, circulation, parking and infrastructure improvements. (“Project”), of which one hundred nineteen (119) rental units (“BMR Units”) shall be affordable to below market rate households as follows: eighty two (82) extremely low income units (“Extremely Low Income Units”) and thirty seven (37) very low income units (“Very Low Income Units”), and one (1) unit shall be a manager’s unit. The allocation of BMR Units across the unit-sizes in the Project is more particularly described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

E. On _____________, 2022, after a duly noticed public hearing, and on the recommendation of the Housing Commission, the Planning Commision, and the City Council certified the environmental impact report and granted General Plan Circulation Element and Zoning Map amendments, rezoning, conditional development permit, development agreement, vesting tenantive map, and below market rate (BMR) housing agreement for the Project (“Project Approvals”). The Project Approvals require the Project Wide Developer to provide BMR Units in accordance the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement. In accordance with the Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 16.96, the Below Market Rate Housing Program (“BMR Ordinance”), and the Below Market Rate Housing Program Guidelines (“Guidelines”), Owner is required to execute and record an approved BMR Housing Agreement as a condition precedent to approval of the issuance of a building permit for the Project. This Agreement is intended to satisfy that requirement.

F. [As required by the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, and pursuant to this Agreement,] Owner has agreed to observe all the terms and conditions set forth below for purposes of development and operation of the BMR Units. This Agreement will ensure the Project’s continuing affordability.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows. The recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

1.1 Construction of the Project. Owner agrees to construct the Project in accordance with the Menlo Park Municipal Code and all other applicable state and local building codes, development standards, ordinances and zoning ordinances.

1.2 City and Other Governmental Permits. Before commencement of the Project, Owner shall secure or cause its contractor to secure any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, including without limitation building permits. Owner shall pay all necessary fees and timely submit to the City final drawings with final corrections to obtain such permits; City staff will, without incurring liability or expense therefore, process applications in the ordinary course of business for the issuance of Page F-1.396
080937\15946279v3
3 building permits and certificates of occupancy for construction that meets the requirements of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, and all other applicable laws and regulations.

1.3 Compliance with Laws. Owner shall carry out the design, construction and operation of the Project in conformity with all applicable laws, including all applicable state labor standards, City zoning and development standards, building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, and all other provisions of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, and all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including without limitation the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., Government Code Section 4450, et seq., Government Code Section 11135, et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51, et seq.

2. OPERATION OF THE BMR UNITS

2.1 Affordability Period. This Agreement shall remain in effect and the Property, shall be subject to the requirements of this Agreement from the date that the City issues a final certificate of occupancy for the Project (the “Effective Date”) until the 55th anniversary of such Effective Date. The duration of this requirement shall be known as the “Affordability Period.”

2.2 Maintenance. Owner shall comply with every condition of the Project Approvals applicable to the Project and shall, at all times, maintain the Project and the Property in good repair and working order, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and in a safe and sanitary condition, and from time to time shall make all necessary and proper repairs, renewals, and replacements to keep the Project and the Property in a good, clean, safe, and sanitary condition.

2.3 Monitoring and Recordkeeping. Throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall comply with all applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements set forth in the Guidelines. City shall have the right to inspect the books and records of Owner and its rental agent or bookkeeper upon reasonable notice during normal business hours. Representatives of the City shall be entitled to enter the Property, upon at least 48-hour prior written notice, which can be provided via email, to monitor compliance with this Agreement, to inspect the records of the Project with respect to the BMR Units, and to conduct, or cause to be conducted, an independent audit or inspection of such records. Owner agrees to cooperate with the City in making the Property available for such inspection or audit. Owner agrees to maintain records in businesslike manner, and to maintain such records for Affordability Period.

2.4 Non-Discrimination Covenants. Owner covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, disability, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the Property, nor establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the Property.

Owner shall include such provision in all deeds, leases, contracts and other instruments executed by Owner, and shall enforce the same diligently and in good faith. a. In deeds, the following language shall appear:

Page F-1.397
080937\15946279v3
4 (1) Grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through it, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property herein conveyed nor shall the grantee or any person claiming under or through the grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the property herein conveyed. The foregoing covenant shall run with the land.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the Government Code. With respect to familial status, nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to affect Sections

51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 of the Civil Code and subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph (1).
b. In leases, the following language shall appear:
(1) The lessee herein covenants by and for the lessee and lessee’s heirs, personal representatives and assigns, and all persons claiming under the lessee or through the lessee, that this lease is made subject to the condition that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or disability in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property herein leased nor shall the lessee or any person claiming under or through the lessee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination of segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the property herein leased.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the Government Code. With respect to familial status, nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to affect Sections

51.2, 51.3, 51.4, 51.10, 51.11 and 799.5 of the Civil Code, relating to housing for senior citizens. Subdivision (d) of Section 51 and Section 1360 Page F-1.398
080937\15946279v3
5 of the Civil Code and subdivisions (n), (o), and (p) of Section 12955 of the Government Code shall apply to paragraph (1).
c. In contracts pertaining to management of the Project, the following language, or substantially similar language prohibiting discrimination and segregation shall appear:
(1) There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property nor shall the transferee or any person claiming under or through the transferee establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessee, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with respect to familial status, paragraph (1) shall not be construed to apply to housing for older persons, as defined in Section 12955.9 of the Government Code. With respect to familial status, nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to affect Sections

2.5 Subordination. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo and shall run with the land. The City agrees that the City will not withhold consent to reasonable requests for subordination of this Agreement for the benefit of lenders providing financing for the Project, provided that the instruments effecting such subordination include reasonable protections to the City in the event of default, including without limitation, extended notice and cure rights.

3. OPERATION OF THE BMR UNITS

3.1 BMR Units. Owner agrees to make available, restrict occupancy to, and lease not less than one hundred nineteen (119) BMR Units, inclusive of eighty two (82) Extremely Low Income Units and thirty seven (37) Very Low Income Units, to Qualifying Households, as hereinafter defined, at an affordable rent, pursuant to the terms set forth below. The BMR Units shall be of a quality comparable to all of the other rental units in the Project. The Project Approvals included a modification to the proportionality requirement to permit exclusively studio and one bedroom BMR Units and a modification to the location requirement to accommodate 119 BMR units at the Project. The BMR Units shall be initially distributed as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Thereafter, the location of the individual BMR Units may float to account for the next available unit requirement set forth below and as otherwise Page F-1.399
080937\15946279v3
6 necessary for the professional maintenance and operation of the Project provided that the distribution of BMR Units are equitably disbursed throughout the Project and the City’s City Manager or Deputy Director of Community Development (“Deputy Director”) shall be notified of any change or relocation of BMR Units by Owner.

3.2 Qualifying Households. For purposes of this Agreement, “Qualifying Households” shall mean those households with incomes as follows:
a. “Extremely Low Income Unit”: means units restricted to households with incomes of not more than thirty percent (30%) of AMI. “AMI” means the median income for San Mateo County, California, adjusted for Actual Household Size, as published from time to time by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision.

Qualifying Households shall continue to qualify unless at the time of recertification, the household’s income exceeds the Extremely Low Income eligibility requirements, then the tenant shall no longer be qualified. Upon Owner’s determination that any such household is no longer qualified, the unit shall no longer be deemed an Extremely Low Income Unit, and the Owner shall either (1) make the next available unit, which is comparable in terms of size, features and number of bedrooms, an Extremely Low Income Unit, or take other actions as may be necessary to ensure that the total required number of Extremely Low Income Units are rented to Qualifying Households, or (2) if the tenant’s income does not exceed eighty (80%) of the maximum income that would qualify the Tenant as a Very Low Income Household, the tenant shall be allowed to remain in the unit at a Very Low Income rent. If the tenant originally qualified as an Extremely Low Income Household, then the tenant’s rent will be increased to a Very Low Income rent upon the later of sixty (60) days’ notice or the renewal of the tenant’s lease, and the Owner shall rent the next available unit to an Extremely Low Income Household. Owner shall notify the City annually if Owner substitutes a different unit for one of the designated Extremely Low Income Units pursuant to this paragraph.
b. “Very Low Income Unit”: means units restricted to households with incomes of not more than fifty percent (50%) of AMI. “AMI” means the median income for San Mateo County, California, adjusted for Actual Household Size, as published from time to time by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations or successor provision.

Qualifying Households shall continue to qualify unless at the time of recertification, the household’s income exceeds the Very Low Income eligibility requirements, then the tenant shall no longer be qualified. Upon Owner’s determination that any such household is no longer qualified, the unit shall no longer be deemed a Very Low Income Unit and the Owner shall either (1) make the next available Very Low Income Unit, which is Page F-1.400
080937\15946279v3
7 comparable in terms of size, features and number of bedrooms, a Very Low Income Unit, or take other actions as may be necessary to ensure that the total required number of Very Low Income Units are rented to Qualifying Households, or (2) If the tenant’s income does not exceed one hundred twenty (120%) of the maximum income that would qualify the Tenant as a Very Low Income Household, the tenant shall be allowed to remain in the unit at a Very Low Income rent. If the tenant originally qualified as a Very Low Income Household, then the Tenant shall be notified they are no longer eligible for the BMR unit and tenant’s rent will be increased to a market rate rent upon the later of sixty (60) days’ notice or the renewal of the tenant’s lease, and the Owner shall rent the next available unit to a Very Low Income Household. Owner shall notify the City annually if Owner substitutes a different unit for one of the designated Very Low Income Units pursuant to this paragraph.

3.3 Income Verification and Annual Report. On or before July 1 of each year, commencing with the calendar year that the first residential unit in the Project is rented to a tenant, and annually thereafter, Owner shall obtain from each household occupying a BMR Unit and submit to the City an income computation and certification form, completed by a tenant of such unit, which shall certify that the income of each Qualifying Household is truthfully set forth in the income certification form, in the form proposed by the Owner and approved by the Deputy Director (“Annual Report”). Owner shall make a good faith effort to verify that each household leasing a BMR Unit meets the income and eligibility restrictions for the BMR Unit by taking the following steps as a part of the verification process: (a) obtain a minimum of the three (3) most current pay stubs for all adults age eighteen (18) or older; (b) obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year; (c) conduct a credit agency or similar search; (d) obtain the three (3) most current savings and checking account bank statements; (e) obtain an income verification form from the applicant's current employer; (f) obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if the applicant receives assistance from either of such agencies; or (g) if the applicant is unemployed and has no such tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. Copies of tenant income certifications shall be available to the City upon request. The Annual Report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for each BMR Unit: unit number, number of bedrooms, current rent and other charges, dates of any vacancies during the reporting period, number of people residing in the unit, total household Gross Income, and lease commencement and termination dates. The Report shall also provide a statement of the owner’s management policies, communications with the tenants and maintenance of the BMR Unit, including a statement of planned repairs to be made and the dates for the repairs.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, for so long as the Project is encumbered a Regulatory Agreement from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement”) due to the Project’s receipt of federal/and or state low-income housing tax credits, copies of any annual reporting required by the Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement delivered to the City shall satisfy the requirements of this Section.

3.4 Affordable Rent. The maximum Monthly Rent, defined below, chargeable for the BMR Units and paid shall be as follows:

Page F-1.401
080937\15946279v3
8 a. “Extremely Low Income Household”: maximum Monthly Rent shall be 1/12th of 30 percent of 30 percent of the AMI. The Monthly Rent for an Extremely Low Income Unit rented to an Extremely Low Income Household and paid by the household shall be based on an assumed average occupancy per unit of one person per studio unit, 1.5 persons for a onebedroom unit, 3 persons for a two-bedroom unit and 4.5 persons for a threebedroom unit, unless otherwise approved by the Deputy Director for an unusually large unit with a maximum of two persons per bedroom, plus one. b. “Very Low Income Household”: maximum Monthly Rent shall be 1/12th of 30 percent of 50 percent of the AMI. The Monthly Rent for a Very Low Income Unit rented to a Very Low Income Household and paid by the household shall be based on an assumed average occupancy per unit of one person per studio unit, 1.5 persons for a one- bedroom unit, 3 persons for a two-bedroom unit and 4.5 persons for a three- bedroom unit, unless otherwise approved by the Deputy Director for an unusually large unit with a maximum of two persons per bedroom, plus one.
c. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, if the the Project is encumbered by a Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement and there is a conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of such Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement regarding rent, utility allowance, and/or household size appropriate for each unit, the Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement shall govern.

For purposes of this Agreement, “Monthly Rent” means the total of monthly payments actually made by the household for (a) use and occupancy of each BMR Unit and land and facilities associated therewith, (b) any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Owner which are required of all tenants, other than security deposits, (c) a reasonable allowance for an adequate level of service of utilities not included in (a) or (b) above, and which are not paid directly by Owner, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuels, but not including telephone or internet service, which reasonable allowance for utilities is set forth in the County of San Mateo’s Utility Allowance Schedule for detached homes, apartments, condominiums and duplexes, and (d) possessory interest, taxes or other fees or charges assessed for use of the land and facilities associated therewith by a public or private entity other than Owner. Pursuant to the Guidelines, in no case shall the Monthly Rent for a BMR Unit exceed 75 percent of comparable market rate rents.

3.5 Agreement to Limitation on Rents. As described in Recital C above, Owner is developing at the bonus level of development, which is a form of assistance authorized by Chapter

4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. Sections 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2) of the Costa-Hawkins Act provide that, where a developer has received such assistance, certain provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Act do not apply if a developer has so agreed by contract. Owner hereby agrees to limit Monthly Rent as provided in this Agreement in consideration of Owner’s receipt of the assistance and further agrees that any limitations on Monthly Rents imposed on the BMR Units are in conformance with the CostaPage F-1.402 080937\15946279v3
9 Hawkins Act. Owner further warrants and covenants that the terms of this Agreement are fully enforceable.

3.6 Lease Requirements. No later than 180 days prior to the initial lease up of the BMR Units, Owner shall submit a standard lease form to the City for approval by the Deputy Director or his/her designee. The City shall reasonably approve such lease form upon finding that such lease form is consistent with this Agreement and contains all of the provisions required pursuant to the Guidelines. The City's failure to respond to Owner's request for approval of the standard lease form within thirty (30) business days of City's receipt of such lease, shall be deemed City's approval of such lease form. Owner shall enter into a written lease, in the form approved by the City, with each new tenant of a BMR Unit prior to a tenant or tenant household’s occupancy of a BMR Unit. Each lease shall be for an initial term of not less than one year which may be renewed pursuant to applicable local and State laws, and shall not contain any of the provisions which are prohibited pursuant to the Guidelines, local, state and Federal laws.

3.7 Selection of Tenants. Each BMR Unit shall be leased to tenant(s) selected by Owner who meet all of the requirements provided herein, and, to the extent permitted by law, with priority given to those eligible households (i) with a minimum of one household member who is a senior of age [__] and above, and (ii) who either live or work in the City of Menlo Park, or meet at least one of the other preferences identified in the Guidelines. The City’s BMR Administrator, on behalf of the City will provide to Owner the names of persons who have expressed interest in renting BMR Units for the purposes of adding such interested persons to Owner’s waiting list, to be processed in accordance with Owner’s customary policies. Owner shall not refuse to lease to a holder of a certificate or a rental voucher under the Section 8 program or other tenant-based assistance program, who is otherwise qualified to be a tenant in accordance with the approved tenant selection criteria.

4. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

4.1 Events of Default. The following shall constitute an “Event of Default” by Owner under this Agreement: there shall be a material breach of any condition, covenant, warranty, promise or representation contained in this Agreement and such breach shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the Owner without the Owner curing such breach, or if such breach cannot reasonably be cured within such 30 day period, commencing the cure of such breach within such 30 day period and thereafter diligently proceeding to cure such breach; provided, however, that if a different period or notice requirement is specified for any particular breach under any other paragraph of Section 4 of this Agreement, the specific provision shall control.

4.2 Remedies. The occurrence of any Event of Default under Section 4.1 shall give the City the right to proceed with an action in equity to require the Owner to specifically perform its obligations and covenants under this Agreement or to enjoin acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the provisions of this Agreement, and the right to terminate this Agreement.

4.3 Obligations Personal to Owner. The liability of Owner under this Agreement to any person or entity is limited to Owner’s interest in the Project, and the City and any other such Page F-1.403
080937\15946279v3
10 persons and entities shall look exclusively thereto for the satisfaction of obligations arising out of this Agreement or any other agreement securing the obligations of Owner under this Agreement.

From and after the date of this Agreement, no deficiency or other personal judgment, nor any order or decree of specific performance (other than pertaining to this Agreement, any agreement pertaining to any Project or any other agreement securing Owner’s obligations under this Agreement), shall be rendered against Owner, the assets of Owner (other than Owner’s interest in the Project), its partners, members, successors, transferees or assigns and each of their respective officers, directors, employees, partners, agents, heirs and personal representatives, as the case may be, in any action or proceeding arising out of this Agreement or any agreement securing the obligations of Owner under this Agreement, or any judgment, order or decree rendered pursuant to any such action or proceeding. No subsequent Owner of the Project shall be liable or obligated for the breach or default of any obligations of Owner under this Agreement on the part of any prior Owner. Such obligations are personal to the person who was the Owner at the time the default or breach was alleged to have occurred and such person shall remain liable for any and all damages occasioned thereby even after such person ceases to be the Owner. Each Owner shall comply with and be fully liable for all obligations the Owner hereunder during its period of ownership of the Project.

4.4 Force Majeure. Subject to the party’s compliance with the notice requirements as set forth below, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and all performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays or defaults are due to causes beyond the control and without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform, which may include, without limitation, the following: war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, assaults, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, lack of transportation, governmental restrictions or priority, litigation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools, acts or omissions of the other party, or acts or failures to act of any public or governmental entity (except that the City’s acts or failure to act shall not excuse performance of the City hereunder). An extension of the time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within 30 days of the commencement of the cause.

4.5 Attorneys’ Fees. In addition to any other remedies provided hereunder or available pursuant to law, if either party brings an action or proceeding to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. This Section shall be interpreted in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1717 and judicial decisions interpreting that statute.

4.6 Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given by the terms of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given by the terms of any such instrument, or by any statute or otherwise.

4.7 Waiver of Terms and Conditions. The City may, in its sole discretion, waive in writing any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Waivers of any covenant, term, or Page F-1.404
080937\15946279v3
11 condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term, or condition.

4.8 Non-Liability of City Officials and Employees. No member, official, employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Owner or any occupant of any BMR Unit, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Owner or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

4.9 Cure Rights. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, City hereby agrees that any cure of any default made or tendered by (i) Owner’s limited partner, or (ii) Owner’s senior mortgage lender, shall be deemed to be a cure by Owner and shall be accepted or rejected on the same basis as if made or tendered by Owner.

5. GENERAL PROVISIONS

5.1 Below Market Rate Guidelines (“Guidelines”). This Agreement incorporates by reference the Guidelines as of the date of this Agreement and any successor sections as the Guidelines may be amended from time to time. In the event of any conflict or ambiguity between this Agreement, the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws and the Guidelines, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws shall control.

5.2 Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

5.3 Notices. Unless otherwise indicated in this Agreement, any notice requirement set forth herein shall be deemed to be satisfied three days after mailing of the notice first-class United States certified mail, postage prepaid, or at the time of personal delivery, addressed to the appropriate party as follows:

Owner: _______________
_______________
_______________
Attention: ____________
Email: [_______________]
City : City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, California 94025-3483
Attention: City Manager
Such addresses may be changed by notice to the other party given in the same manner as provided above.

5.4 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement constitutes a covenant and legal restriction on the Property and shall run with the land, provided the Project remains on the Page F-1.405
080937\15946279v3
12 Property, and all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon Owner and the permitted successors and assigns of Owner.

5.5 Intended Beneficiaries. The City is the intended beneficiary of this Agreement and shall have the sole and exclusive power to enforce this Agreement. It is intended that the City may enforce this Agreement in order to, satisfy its obligations to improve, increase and preserve affordable housing within the City, as required by the Guidelines, and to provide that a certain percentage of new housing is made available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of very low, low and moderate incomes as required by the Guidelines. No other person or persons, other than the City and Owner and their assigns and successors, shall have any right of action hereon.

5.6 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement shall be declared invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired.

5.7 Governing Law. This Agreement and other instruments given pursuant hereto shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any references herein to particular statutes or regulations shall be deemed to refer to successor statutes or regulations, or amendments thereto. The venue for any action shall be the County of San Mateo.

5.8 Amendment. This Agreement may not be changed orally, but only by agreement in writing signed by Owner and the City.

5.9 Approvals. Where an approval or submission is required under this Agreement, such approval or submission shall be valid for purposes of this Agreement only if made in writing.

Where this Agreement requires an approval or consent of the City, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld may be given on behalf of the City by the City Manager or his or her designee. The City Manager or his or her designee is hereby authorized to take such actions as may be necessary or appropriate to implement this Agreement, including without limitation the execution of such documents or agreements as may be contemplated by this Agreement, and amendments which do not substantially change the uses or restrictions hereunder, or substantially add to the costs of the City hereunder.

5.10 Indemnification. To the greatest extent permitted by law, Owner shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably approved by City) and hold the City, its heirs, successors and assigns (the “Indemnitees”) harmless from and against any and all demands. losses, claims, costs and expenses, and any other liability whatsoever, including without limitation, reasonable accountants’ and attorneys’ fees, charges and expense (collectively, “Claims”) arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, as a result of or in connection with Owner’s construction, management, or operation of the Property and the Project or any failure to perform any obligation as and when required by this Agreement. Owner’s indemnification obligations under this Section

6.10 shall not extend to Claims to the extent resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. The provisions of this Section 6.10 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, but only as to claims arising from events occurring during the Affordability Period.

Page F-1.406
080937\15946279v3
13 5.11 Insurance Coverage. Throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall comply with the insurance requirements set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and shall, at Owner’s expense, maintain in full force and effect insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit D.

5.12 Transfer and Encumbrance.

5.12.1 Restrictions on Transfer and Encumbrance. During the term of this Agreement, except as permitted pursuant to this Agreement, Owner shall not directly or indirectly, voluntarily, involuntarily or by operation of law make or attempt any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance, assignment or lease (other than a lease of a BMR Unit on an approved form under Section 3.6 hereof to a qualified tenant as described in Section 3.7 hereof) (collectively, “Transfer”) of the whole or any part of any BMR Unit, without the prior written consent of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In addition, prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement, except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, Owner shall not undergo any significant change of ownership without the prior written approval of City. For purposes of this Agreement, a “significant change of ownership” shall mean a transfer of the beneficial interest of more than twenty-five percent (25%) in aggregate of the present ownership and /or control of Owner, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis; provided however, neither the admission of an investor limited partner, nor the transfer by the investor limited partner to subsequent limited partners shall be restricted by this provision.

5.12.2 Permitted Transfers. The prohibitions on Transfer set forth herein shall not be deemed to prevent: (i) the granting of easements or permits to facilitate development of the Property; or (ii) assignments creating security interests for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, or permanent financing of the Project or the Property, or Transfers directly resulting from the foreclosure of, or granting of a deed in lieu of foreclosure of, such a security interest.

5.12.3 Requirements for Proposed Transfers. The City may, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, consent to a proposed Transfer of this Agreement and/or a BMR Unit if all of the following requirements are met (provided however, the requirements of this Section 5.12.3 shall not apply to Transfers described in clauses (i) or (ii) of Section 5.12.2. (i) The proposed transferee demonstrates to the City’s
satisfaction that it has the qualifications, experience and financial resources necessary and adequate as may be reasonably determined by the City to competently complete and manage the Project and to otherwise fulfill the obligations undertaken by the Owner under this Agreement. (ii) The Owner and the proposed transferee shall submit for Page F-1.407
080937\15946279v3
14 City review and approval all instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect any Transfer of all or any part of or interest in the BMR Unit or this Agreement together with such documentation of the proposed transferee’s qualifications and development capacity as the City may reasonably request. (iii) The proposed transferee shall expressly assume all of the rights and obligations of the Owner under this Agreement arising after the effective date of the Transfer and all obligations of Owner arising prior to the effective date of the Transfer (unless Owner expressly remains responsible for such obligations) and shall agree to be subject to and assume all of Owner’s obligations pursuant to conditions, and restrictions set forth in this Agreement. (iv) The Transfer shall be effectuated pursuant to a written instrument satisfactory to the City in form recordable in the Official Records.

Consent to any proposed Transfer may be given by the City’s Authorized Representative unless the City’s Authorized Representative, in his or her discretion, refers the matter of approval to the City Council. If the City has not rejected a proposed Transfer or requested additional information regarding a proposed Transfer in writing within forty-five (45) days following City’s receipt of written request by Owner, the proposed Transfer shall be deemed approved.

5.13 Effect of Transfer without City Consent. In the absence of specific written agreement by the City, no Transfer of any BMR Unit shall be deemed to relieve the Owner or any other party from any obligation under this Agreement.

This Section 5.12 shall not apply to Transfers described in Section 5.12.2.

5.14 Recovery of City Costs. Owner shall reimburse City for all reasonable City costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in reviewing instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect a Transfer under this Agreement and in reviewing the qualifications and financial resources of a proposed successor, assignee, or transferee within ten (10) days following City’s delivery to Owner of an invoice detailing such costs.

5.15 [Satisfaction of Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement Requirements. The City hereby acknowledges and agrees that Owner’s execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of Owner’s obligations herein, satisfies Project Wide Developer’s obligation to execute and record a Below Market Rate Housing Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants against the Property as set forth in Section 5 of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement.]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year set forth above.

SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S).

Page F-1.408
080937\15946279v3
15 OWNER:
[_________________________], a
[______________]
By:

Its:

CITY:

CITY OF MENLO PARK, a California municipal
corporation
By:

City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
List of Exhibits:

Exhibit A: Property Description
Exhibit B: Allocation of the BMR Units
Exhibit C: BMR Unit Locations
Exhibit D: Insurance Requirements
Page F-1.409
080937\15946279v3
Exhibit A
Property Description
Page F-1.410
080937\15946279v3
Exhibit B
Allocation of BMR Units in the Project
BMR Units Extremely Low Very Low Manager’s Unit
Studio apartment
1 bedroom apartment
2 bedroom apartment 1
Total - BMR Units 82 37
Page F-1.411
080937\15946279v3
Exhibit C
BMR Unit Locations
Page F-1.412
080937\15946279v3
Exhibit D
Insurance Requirements
Prior to initiating work on the Project and continuing throughout the Affordability Period, Owner shall obtain and maintain the following policies of insurance and shall comply with all provisions set forth in this Exhibit.

1. General Requirements. Owner shall procure and maintain the following insurance providing coverage against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the Project, construction, management, or operation of the Property by the Owner or the Owner’s agents, representatives, employees and contractors, or subcontractors, including the following:
(a) Commercial General Liability: The Owner and all contractors working on behalf of Owner on the Property shall maintain a commercial general liability policy in an occurrence policy for protection against all claims arising from injury to person or persons not in the employ of the Owner and against all claims resulting from damage to any property due to any act or omission of the Owner, its agents, or employees in the conduct or operation of the work or the execution of this Agreement. Such insurance shall include products and completed operations liability, blanket contractual liability, personal injury liability, and broad form property damage coverage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage.
(b) Commercial Automobile Liability: The Owner and all contractors working on behalf of Owner on the Property shall maintain insurance for protection against all claims arising from the use of vehicles, owned, hired, non-owned, or any other vehicle in connection with the Project, construction, operation or management of the Property. Such insurance shall cover the use of automobiles and trucks on and off the site of the Property. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office covering Commercial Automobile Liability, any auto, owned, non-owned and hired auto.
(c) Workers' Compensation Insurance: The Owner (and the general partners thereof) shall furnish or cause to be furnished to City evidence satisfactory to City that Owner (and the general partners thereof), and any contractor with whom Owner has contracted for the performance of work on the Property or otherwise pursuant to this Agreement, shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. (d) Builder’s Risk: Upon commencement of any construction work on the Property, Owner and all contractors working on behalf of Owner shall maintain a policy of builder's all-risk insurance in an amount not less than the full insurable cost of the Project on a replacement cost basis naming City as loss payee as its interests may appear. (e) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions: Owner shall require any architects, engineers, and general contractors working on the Property to maintain Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions insurance with limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) each claim. Certificates evidencing this coverage must reference both the Owner and the Indemnitees. If the professional liability/errors and omissions insurance is written on a Page F-1.413
080937\15946279v3
#84613392_v2
claims made form: (i) the retroactive date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date, (ii) insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three (3) years after completion of Project construction, and (iii) if coverage is cancelled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the Effective Date, Owner must purchase, or require the provision of, extended period coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of construction.
(f) Property: Owner shall maintain property insurance covering all risks of loss, including earthquake and flood (if required) for 100% of the replacement value of the Project with deductible, if any, in an amount acceptable to City, naming City as loss payee as its interests may appear.

2. Minimum Limits; Adjustments. Insurance shall be maintained with limits no less than the following:
(a) Commercial General Liability and Property Damage: $2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 annual aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage; provided however, with City’s advance written approval, subcontractors may maintain liability coverage with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 annual aggregate. (b) Products and Completed Operations: $3,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate. (c) Commercial Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit. (d) Employer’s Liability:

Bodily Injury by Accident - $1,000,000 each accident.

Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 policy limit.

Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 each employee.
(e) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions: $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim.

If the policy provides coverage on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement or the beginning of the contract work.

Coverage limits, and if necessary, the terms and conditions of insurance, shall be reasonably adjusted from time to time (not less than every five (5) years after the Effective Date nor more than once in every three (3) year period) to address changes in circumstance, including, but not limited to, changes in inflation and the litigation climate in California. City shall give written notice to Owner of any such adjustments, and Owner shall provide City with amended or new insurance certificates or endorsements evidencing compliance with such adjustments within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice.

3. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention. Any deductibles or self-insured retention must be Page F-1.414
080937\15946279v3
#84613392_v2
declared to, and approved by, the City. Payment of all deductibles and self-insured retentions will be the responsibility of Owner. If the City determines that such deductibles or retentions are unreasonably high, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insurance retentions as respects the Indemnitees or Owner shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense.

4. Additional Requirements. The required general liability and automobile policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(a) The Indemnitees are to be covered as Additional Insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Owner; products and completed operations of the Owner; premises owned, occupied or used by the Owner; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Owner. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Indemnitees. Additional insured endorsements for the general liability coverage shall use Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form No. CG 20 09 11 85 or CG 20 10 11 85, or equivalent, including (if used together) CG 2010 10 01 and CG 2037 10 01; but shall not use the following forms: CG 20 10 10 93 or 03 94.
(b) All insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the Indemnitees. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Indemnitees shall be excess of the Owner’s/contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (c) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the Indemnitees. (d) The Owner’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except, with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. (e) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
(f) If any insurance policy or coverage required hereunder is canceled or reduced, Owner shall, within five (5) days after receipt of notice of such cancellation or reduction in coverage, but in no event later than the effective date of cancellation or reduction, file with City a certificate showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another insurance company or companies. Upon failure to so file such certificate, City may, without further notice and at its option, procure such insurance coverage at Owner’s expense, and Owner shall promptly reimburse City for such expense upon receipt of billing from City. (g) Owner agrees to waive subrogation rights for commercial general liability, automobile liability and worker’s compensation against Indemnitees regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all contractors, subcontractors or others involved in any way with any construction on the Property to do likewise. Each insurance policy shall contain a Page F-1.415
080937\15946279v3
#84613392_v2
waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City. If any required insurance is provided under a form of coverage that includes an annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs are included in such annual aggregate limit, such annual aggregate limit shall be three times the applicable occurrence limits specified above. (h) It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirement and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured. Furthermore, the requirement for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. For all liability insurance required by this Agreement, Owner (and Owner’s contractors, as applicable) shall obtain endorsements that name the Indemnitees as additional insured in the full amount of all applicable policies, notwithstanding any lesser minimum limits specified in this Agreement. This Agreement requires Owner (and Owner’s contractors, as applicable) to obtain and provide for the benefit of the Indemnitees, additional insured coverage in the same amount of insurance carried by Owner (or Owner’s contractors, as applicable), but in no event less than the minimum amounts specified in this Agreement. In the event that Owner (or Owner’s contractors as applicable) obtains insurance policies that provide liability coverage in excess of the amounts specified in this Agreement, the actual limits provided by such policies shall be deemed to be the amounts required under this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, the limits of liability coverage specified in this Agreement are not intended, nor shall they operate, to limit City’s ability to recover amounts in excess of the minimum amounts specified in this Agreement. (i) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

6. Verification of Coverage. Prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Section 1 above, duly executed endorsements evidencing the Indemnitees’ status as additional insured, and all other endorsements and coverage required hereunder pertaining to such coverage. Prior to commencement of any construction work on the Property, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraphs (d) and (g) of Section 1 above. Prior to City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy or equivalent for the Project, Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance in form acceptable to City evidencing the insurance coverage required under paragraph (f) of Section 1 above. Owner shall Page F-1.416
080937\15946279v3
#84613392_v2
furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

Page F-1.417
080937\16327866v1 1

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, California 94025
Attention: ____________
(Space Above for Recorder’s Use)
APN/Parcel ID: ______________

PARTIAL RELEASE
OF

PROJECT WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT

THIS PARTIAL RELEASE OF PROJECT WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT (“Release”) is made and entered into as of the ________ day of ___________________, 202_ by THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, a California municipal corporation (“City”) in favor of PENINSULA INNOVATION PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Project Wide Developer”) and its successors and assigns with reference to the following:

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to that certain Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement executed by Project Wide Developer and City, recorded on ______________ as Instrument No. ____________ of the County Recorder of San Mateo County, California (the “Instrument”), the City imposed certain covenants, conditions and/or restrictions upon the real property described therein, a portion of which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Released Property”).

B. As provided for in [Section 5]/[Section 16] of the Instrument, the City has agreed to release a portion of the real property from the Instrument.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Project Wide Developer hereby agree that the restrictions contained in the Instrument as they relate only to the Released Property are hereby unconditionally and irrevocably released and terminated as to the Released Property. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Pages Follow] EXHIBIT C Page F-1.418
080937\16327866v1 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Release is made and executed as of this ____ day of _______, 202_.
[ALL SIGNATURES TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED]
PROJECT WIDE DEVELOPER:

PENINSULA INNOVATION PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By:_____________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Its:______________________________________
By:_____________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Its:______________________________________
CITY:

CITY OF MENLO PARK, a California municipal corporation
By: _____________________________________
Name:

Title: City Manager
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
Date: _____________________
Page F-1.419
080937\16327866v1 3

CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of
County of
On _______________ ___, 2022, before me, ______________________________, a notary public, personally appeared ______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that s/he executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of _____________ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ________________________________ (Seal)
Page F-1.420
080937\16327866v1 4

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of _____________ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature ________________________________ (Seal)
Page F-1.421
080937\16327866v1 5

EXHIBIT A
Page F-1.422
080937\15889901v8 18
Exhibit “D”
Phase 1
Market Rate Units Affordable Units
Parcel 2 293 34
Parcel 3 376 43
Parcel 6 158 20
Parcel 7 1 (manager’s unit) 119
Phase 2
Market Rate Units Affordable Units
Parcel 4 378 62
Parcel 5 212 34
EXHIBIT D Page F-1.423
080937\16319350v1
1 Recording Requested by and
When Recorded Return to:
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT -

PROJECT WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of _____________, 20__, by and between ______________________, a _____________ company (“Assignor”), and ______________________, a _____________ company (“Assignee”).

RECITALS
A. Assignor owns that real property located in the City of Menlo Park (“City”), County of San Mateo, State of California, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).

B. On the date hereof, Assignee is acquiring approximately __ acres of the Property as more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Assigned Property”).

C. The City and Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, entered into that certain Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement dated as of ___________, 202_ and recorded against the Property on _______________, 202_ as Instrument No. _______________ in the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office (the “Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement”).

D. Assignor desires to assign to Assignee all of Assignor’s rights, duties and obligations under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property only (the “Assigned Rights and Obligations”), and Assignee desires to accept and assume Assignor’s rights and obligations under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property only (the “Assumed Rights and Obligations”), such assignment and assumption to be effective on the Effective Date (as defined in Section 1.3 below). The Assigned Rights and Obligations and the Assumed Rights and Obligations are referred to collectively herein as the “Assigned Property Rights and Obligations”.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these promises, and of the agreements, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

EXHIBIT E Page F-1.424
080937\16319350v1
2 ARTICLE 1

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF

THE ASSIGNED PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

1.1 Assignment. Assignor assigns to Assignee, as of the Effective Date (as defined in Section 1.3 below), all of Assignor’s rights, title and interest in and to the Assigned Property Rights and Obligations.

1.2 Assumption. As of the Effective Date, Assignee accepts Assignor’s assignment of the Assigned Rights and Obligations and assumes the Assumed Rights and Obligations. From and after the Effective Date, Assignee shall keep and perform all covenants, conditions and provisions of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement relating to the Assigned Property.Effective Date. For purposes of this Agreement, the “Effective Date” shall be the later to occur of (1) the date on which the deed from Assignor to Assignee for the Assigned Property is recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo; or (2) the date of the execution of this Agreement by all parties; provided, however, that this Agreement shall have no force and effect without the written approval of the City, as evidenced by the full execution by the City’s representatives of the form entitled City of Menlo Park’s Consent, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

2.1 Assignor’s Release; No Assignor Liability or Default for Assignee Breach.

Pursuant to Section 11 of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, Assignor shall be released from the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property and the Assumed Rights and Obligations as of the Effective Date. Any default or breach by Assignee under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement following the Effective Date with respect to the Assigned Property or the Assumed Rights and Obligations (“Assignee Breach”) shall not constitute a breach or default by Assignor under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement and shall not result in (a) any remedies imposed against Assignor, or (b) modification or termination of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property retained by Assignor after the conveyance of the Assigned Property, if any (the “Assignor Property”). No Assignee Liability or Default for Assignor Breach. As of the Effective Date, any default or breach by Assignor under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement prior to or after the Effective Date (“Assignor Breach”), shall not constitute a breach or default by Assignee under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, and shall not result in (a) any remedies imposed against Assignee, including without limitation any remedies authorized in the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, or (b) modification or termination of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property.

INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
Page F-1.425
080937\16319350v1
3 ARTICLE 4

AMENDMENT OF THE PROJECT WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT

4.1 Assignor. Assignor shall not request, process or consent to any amendment to the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement that would affect the Assigned Property or the Assigned Property Rights and Obligations without Assignee’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. The foregoing notwithstanding, Assignor may process any amendment that does not affect the Assigned Property, and, if necessary, Assignee shall consent thereto and execute all documents necessary to accomplish said amendment, provided that said amendment does not adversely affect the Assigned Property or any of Assignee’s Assigned Property Rights and Obligations pursuant to the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement.Assignee. Assignee shall not request, process or consent to any amendment to the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement that would affect the Assignor Property or the Assignor’s remaining rights and obligations pursuant to the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement without Assignor’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. The foregoing notwithstanding, Assignee may process any amendment that does not affect the Assignor Property or any of Assignor’s remaining rights and obligations pursuant to the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, and, if necessary, Assignor shall consent thereto and execute all documents necessary to accomplish said amendment.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

5.1 Notices. All notices, invoices and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be made in writing, and shall be delivered either personally (including by private courier) or by nationally recognized overnight courier service to the following addresses, or to such other addresses as the parties may designate in writing from time to time:If to Assignee:
with copies to:

If to Assignor:
with a copies to:

Page F-1.426
080937\16319350v1
4 Notices personally delivered shall be deemed received upon delivery. Notices delivered by courier service as provided above shall be deemed received twenty-four (24) hours after the date of deposit. From and after the Effective Date and until further written notice from Assignee to the City pursuant to the terms of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, Assignee hereby designates as its notice address for notices sent by the City pursuant to Section 17(k) of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, the notice address set forth above.

5.2 Estoppel Certificates. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request from time to time, either party shall execute and deliver to the other, or to an auditor or prospective lender or purchaser, a written statement certifying to that party’s actual knowledge:
(a) that the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if there have been modifications, that the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement is in full force and effect, and stating the date and nature of such modifications); (b) that there are no current defaults under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement by the City and either Assignor or Assignee, as the case may be (or, if defaults are asserted, so describing with reasonable specificity) and that there are no conditions which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a default; (c) that this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if there have been modifications, that this Agreement is in full force and effect, and stating the date and nature of such modifications); and (d) such other matters as may be reasonably requested.Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any legal or equitable proceeding in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements paid or incurred in good faith at the arbitration, pre-trial, trial and appellate levels, and in enforcing any award or judgment granted pursuant thereto. No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right, remedy, election or option accruing upon the noncompliance or failure of performance by the other party under the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute an impairment or waiver of any such right, remedy, election or option. No alleged waiver shall be valid or effective unless it is set forth in a writing executed by the party against whom the waiver is claimed. A waiver by either party of any of the covenants, conditions or obligations to be performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other covenants, conditions or obligations.Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement signed by both Assignor and Assignee, and subject to obtaining the City’s consent.

5.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement runs with the land and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. No Joint Venture. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating a joint venture, agency, or any other relationship between the parties hereto other than that of assignor and assignee.Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each remaining term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the full extent permitted by law; provided that, if the invalidation or unenforceability would deprive either Assignor or Assignee of material benefits derived from Page F-1.427
080937\16319350v1
5 this Agreement or make performance under this Agreement unreasonably difficult, then Assignor and Assignee shall meet and confer and shall make good faith efforts to modify this Agreement in a manner that is acceptable to Assignor, Assignee and the City. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.Third Party Beneficiaries. Assignor and Assignee acknowledge that the City is a third party beneficiary of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the extent necessary for City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement.

This Agreement shall not be deemed or construed to confer any rights, title or interest, including without limitation any third party beneficiary status or right to enforce any provision of this Agreement, upon any person or entity other than Assignor, Assignee and the City.Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance by each party of its obligations under this Agreement.Authority. Each party represents that the individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of such Party have the authority to bind his or her respective party to the performance of its obligations hereunder and that all necessary board of directors’, shareholders’, partners’ and other approvals have been obtained. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement, subject to any obligations under the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement that expressly survive the expiration or termination of the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, the parties shall have no further rights or obligations hereunder, except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such expiration or termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which occurred prior to such expiration or termination or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement or the Project Wide Affordable Housing Agreement.Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signature pages may be detached from the counterparts and attached to a single copy of this Agreement to physically form one document.Default. Any failure by either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default (a) if such defaulting party does not cure such failure within thirty (30) days following written notice of default from the other party, where such failure is of a nature that can be cured within such thirty (30) day period, or (b) if such default is not of a nature that can be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party does not within such thirty (30) day period commerce substantial efforts to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to completion with diligence the curing of such failure. Any notice of default given hereunder shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 5.1 hereof and shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing party claims and the manner in which such failure can be satisfactorily cured.
[remainder of page left intentionally blank – signature pages follow] Page F-1.428
080937\16319350v1
6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this Agreement by proper persons thereunto duly authorized, to be effective as of the Effective Date. “Assignor”
__________________________,
a ____________________________ company
By:

Name:

Title:

By:

Name:

Title:
“Assignee”
__________________________,
a ____________________________ company
By:

Name:

Title:

By:

Name:

Title:

Page F-1.429
080937\16319350v1
7 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss:

COUNTY OF )
On ___________________, before me, _____________________________________________, (insert name and title of the officer),
Notary Public personally appeared _________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _______________________________________
[Seal]
Page F-1.430
080937\16319350v1
8 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss:

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _______________________________________
[Seal]
Page F-1.431
080937\16319350v1
Exhibit A-1

EXHIBIT A
Description of the Property
(Attached)
Page F-1.432
080937\16319350v1
Exhibit B-1

EXHIBIT B
Description of the Assigned Property
(Attached)
Page F-1.433
080937\16319350v1
Exhibit C-1

EXHIBIT C

CONSENT OF CITY OF MENLO PARK
The City of Menlo Park hereby consents to the assignment and assumption of the Assigned Property Rights and Obligations as set forth in this Agreement and agrees to the terms and conditions set forth herein.

CITY OF MENLO PARK,
a California Municipal corporation
By:

Page F-1.434
1380
1190
1400
1350
1354 980
881
1105
1401 961
1005
978
940
1200
1080
1376
1399 1390
1370
1275
1038

PIERCE RD

US HIGHWAY
101
BAYRD

NEWBRIDGE ST

ALLEY CARLTON AVE MADERA AVE SEVIER AVE

WINDERMERE AVE HOLLYBURNE AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

O'BRIEN DR
IVY DR

HAMILTON AVE
HAC
KER
WAY
CASEY
CT
ALLEY

PRIVATE DR

WILLOW RD

KAVANAUGH
DR
WILLOW
RD

KELLY CT
STATE HIGHWAY 84
STATE HIGHWAY 84

ADAMS CT

ADAMS DR HENDERSON AVE

HAMILTON CT

US HIGHWAY
101
STATE HIGHWAY 84

ALLEY WILLOW RD

FRONTAGE RD
STATE HIGHWAY 84

CITY OF MENLO PARK

LOCATION MAP

WILLOW VILLAGE
Scale: 1:9,000 Drawn By: KTP Checked By: CDS Date: 10/24/2022 MidPen High
School
Meta Classic
Campus
Meta West Campus
Open Mind
School
SFPUC Hetch Hetchy
Right-of-Way
Dumbarton Rail
Corridor
Legend
Willow Village Project Parcels
Other Parcels
City Limits
F1 ATTACHMENT K
Page F-1.435
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 1 ends

WILLOW VILLAGE CAMPUS DISTRICT TRIP CAP

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY
This policy applies to the Campus District of the Willow Village Project (“Project"). For purposes of this policy, the term "Willow Village Campus District" is intended to include the six office buildings (O1 – O6) and the meeting and collaboration space (MCS) that are proposed as part of the Project. This trip cap does not apply to the Town Square District or Residential/Shopping District of the Willow Village Project.

There are separate trip cap monitoring and enforcement policies for the Classic and Bayfront Campuses that are independently enforced.

DEFINITIONS
Trip - A single vehicle (car, truck, van, shuttle, etc.) arriving at a location in Menlo Park, whose occupant(s)' final destination is the Willow Village Campus District, or a single vehicle departing from a location in Menlo Park, whose occupant(s)' origin is the Willow Village Campus District. Therefore, for example, a roundtrip by a single vehicle arriving at a location in Menlo Park and departing from a location in Menlo Park whose occupant(s)' destination and origin is the Willow Village Campus District equals two trips. A vehicle transiting from either the Classic or Bayfront campuses to Willow Village Campus District or from the Willow Village Campus District to either the Classic or Bayfront campuses is a trip. A single shuttle coming from outside Menlo Park or from the Menlo Park Caltrain station that makes stops at multiple Meta campuses shall only count as one trip against the Daily Trip Cap. Intra-campus shuttle trips that enter or exit the Willow Village Campus District via Willow Road or University Avenue during the peak periods shall count fully against the Peak Hour Trip Caps. Trams, shuttles, or other vehicles utilizing the planned Willow Road undercrossing between the Bayfront Campus and Willow Village Campus District shall not count against either the Daily Trip Cap or the Peak Hour Trip Caps. Trips also do not include bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, or other self-powered modes of travel.

Peak Hour Trip Cap -The maximum number of trips allowed in each hour of the AM Peak Period or the PM Peak Period.

Peak Period - Roadway morning and evening commuter peak travel times:
 AM Peak Period - 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
 PM Peak Period - 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Daily Trip Cap-The maximum number of trips per day.

Trip Cap - Generally refers to the AM Peak Hour Trip Caps, the PM Peak Hour Trip Caps and the Daily Trip Cap.

TRIP CAP
The Campus District must comply with the Trip Cap and may not exceed the Trip Cap without an application for and approval of a change to the Conditional Development Permit (CDP) for Willow Village.

ATTACHMENT M Page F-1.436
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 2 ends

If the Trip Cap is exceeded without the appropriate approval, the Campus District Property Owner is in violation of the CDP.

The Trip Cap proposed as part of the Willow Village Campus District is as follows:
 AM Peak Period Trip Caps:
o 1,670 trips are permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. o 1,670 trips are permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.  PM Peak Period Trip Caps:
o 1,670 trips are permitted between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. o 1,670 trips are permitted between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.  Daily Trip Cap: 18,237 trips

MONITORING
To monitor compliance with the Trip Cap, traffic counts shall be taken at the Willow Village Campus District. The monitoring shall be done through automated means (e.g., imbedded loop detectors in the pavement in each travel lane or video detection) approved by the City1. All vehicular entrances to the Willow Village Campus District parking facilities, transit hubs, and loading docks shall be included in the monitoring. The Campus District Property Owner shall be solely responsible for paying all costs related to monitoring, including, but not limited to, development, installation, maintenance, and repair of all monitoring equipment.

In addition to monitoring the Campus District parking structures, adjustments will need to be made for Campus District visitors that use the shared parking structures or arrive via ride hailing services (Uber, Lyft, or taxis). Since these activities will occur in areas shared by multiple land uses, they will be accounted for in the reliability (sensitivity) factors described later in this document.

The City reserves the option to require the Campus District Property Owner to monitor neighborhood parking intrusion in the Belle Haven neighborhood, parking on other public streets in the City, or parking at any off site parking lot(s) in Menlo Park (other than any property or properties leased or owned by and occupied by any affiliate of the Campus District Property Owner) if it is observed or suspected that vehicles whose occupant(s)' final destination is the Willow Village Campus District are parking at any of these locations. If the City requires monitoring of these off-site locations and, after investigation, it is confirmed that vehicle occupant(s) whose final destination is the Willow Village Campus District are parking vehicles at these off-site locations (other than a property or properties leased or owned and

1 City approvals related to monitoring equipment will be through the Director of Public Works or his/her designee.

Page F-1.437
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 3 ends

occupied by any affiliate of the Campus District Property Owner), the trips to these locations will be counted toward the Trip Cap.

Monitoring program details are as follows:
 Monitoring Days/Times- Each hour within the AM Peak Period, each hour within the PM Peak Period and total daily trips will be monitored on all non-holiday weekdays. Holidays are those days identified as State holidays in California Government Code Section 6700.  Exclusions - TwoThree types of exclusions from the Trip Cap shall be permissible as discussed below:
o Special Events: To account for special events and their effect on trips, the Campus District Property Owner may have up to 25 special event exclusions per year or 25 days on which one or more of the AM Peak Hour Trip Caps, PM Peak Hour Trip Caps or Daily Trip Cap are exceeded, but are not considered violations of the Trip Cap. These special events do not represent typical operating conditions at the Willow Village Campus District. A special event will be defined as an activity that is not typical of the normal operations of the Willow Village Campus District and may involve more than Meta workers. If the Trip Cap has been violated as a result of a special event, the Campus District Property Owner shall provide documentation to the City that a special event took place. Upon City review and approval, in the City's reasonable discretion, an exclusion for a special event shall apply. o Non-event exclusions: For non-special events, the Campus District Property Owner will be allowed three days on which one or more of the AM Peak Hour Trip Caps, PM Peak Hour Trip Caps or Daily Trip Cap are exceeded within a 180-day period without incurring penalties.

These nonevent exclusion days are intended to allow the Campus District Property Owner time to correct the Trip Cap violation. If the Campus District Property Owner exceeds the Trip Cap on more than three days within a 180-day period, then the non-event exclusion is exhausted, and penalties will be imposed for violations of the Trip Cap until compliance is reached for a consecutive 180-day period. Additional violations, if any, within the 180-day compliance period, will re-set the 180-day compliance period. If after a consecutive 180-day period, the Campus District Property Owner remains in full compliance with the Trip Cap, then the three days of non-event exclusions will become available again. o MCS Community Events: The Campus District Property Owner shall be entitled to an exclusion from the Trip Cap for MCS Community Events as defined in Section 5.3.I of the Development Agreement between the Property Owner and the City.  Count Equipment - Automated count equipment will be designed and constructed at the Campus District Property Owner’s sole expense to collect data on the number of trips at each of the Willow Village Campus District driveways including parking structures, underground parking, and loading areas, and send the data back to the City offices. The type of count equipment (initial Page F-1.438
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 4 ends

and any future changes) shall be approved by the City, in consultation with the Campus District Property Owner and considering the latest technologies for detection, counting and reporting.

The City shall not unreasonably withhold approval of initial count equipment or any future equipment which achieves the result envisioned in this document. The City shall also approve the count equipment that will be used to monitor off-site locations, if the City exercises the option to require such monitoring. The City shall not unreasonably withhold approval of such additional count equipment.
 Initial Calibration Process - Once any new count equipment has been established, a calibration process will be undertaken to determine the reliability and accuracy of the count equipment.

Depending on the type of equipment, the count accuracy can be affected by a number of environmental factors which will need to be confirmed. This calibration process would be conducted prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for the final Willow Village Campus District office building.
 Determination of Reliability (Sensitivity) Factor - Based on the calibration analysis, the City and the Campus District Property Owner will agree to a reliability factor for the count stations which will be used to evaluate the count results consistent with what the City and Meta have historically agreed upon for the Classic and Bayfront campus trip cap monitoring. The reliability factor would represent the margin of error inherent in the vehicle counting equipment, address the exclusion of shuttle trips that serve multiple Meta campuses, and address the inclusion of trips to and from the Campus District that do not use the office worker parking (Campus District visitors and ride hailing passengers). Periodically, the reliability factor will be updated using data provided by the Campus District Property Owner or collected by a third-party for the following trip types:
o Worker shuttles serving multiple Meta campuses. The reliability factor would account for single shuttles coming from outside Menlo Park or from the Menlo Park Caltrain station and making stops at multiple campuses. Periodically, the reliability factor, based on reporting from Meta, may be modified to address the anticipated or actual number of shuttles coming from outside Menlo Park or from the Menlo Park Caltrain station making stops as part of one trip at multiple campuses outside of the peak period. At a minimum, Meta shall provide an annual report to the City Transportation Manager for each upcoming year that provides data on the proposed number of shuttle trips so that the City may analyze whether the reliability factor is accurately accounting for single shuttles coming from outside Menlo Park or from the Menlo Park Caltrain station and making stops at multiple campuses. o Willow Road Tunnel Adjustments. The reliability factor will need to be adjusted for vehicles that access the Campus District via the Willow Road tunnel. The trips that use the Willow Road tunnel to access the Willow Village Campus District will not be adding traffic to Willow Road or Bayfront Expressway. These trips may include intraPage F-1.439 October 20November 22, 2022

Page 5 ends

campus trams, on-demand vehicles, and maintenance and security vehicles. These vehicles may be captured by one of the count locations, but would not count against the trip cap.

Some, or all, of the intra-campus trams will be routed through one or both of the Willow Village Campus District transit hubs. In addition, other Meta transportation vehicles (e.g. Campus Cars or Candidate Cars) may use the Willow Road tunnel and drop off or pick up passenger within the transit hubs. By using the Willow Road tunnel, these trips do not impact the public roadways. Similar to the workers shuttles, any intra-campus trams that use public roads (Willow Road or Bayfront Expressway) will need an adjustment factor to account for these trams passing through both of the Willow Village Campus District transit hubs. Meta will report the tram schedules, track on-demand trips, and provide adjustment factors during the annual reporting to account for these tram and on-demand trips.
o Maintenance and security vehicle trip adjustments. On the Classic and Bayfront campuses, many of the maintenance and security trips travel between origins and destinations within a single campus. These are internal trips to the Meta campuses so they never pass over a monitoring station. In addition, these trips do not travel on public roadways (e.g. Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road). The maintenance and security trips passing through the Willow Road tunnel will avoid travelling on Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road, but they would be counted entering and existing the parking structures or loading areas. Therefore, these trips should not be included in the trip cap. A process will be developed to account for these trips and subtract them from the driveway counts. The adjustment process will be included in the development of the annual reliability factor.
o Campus District Visitor Parking – Visitors to the Campus District will use the Town Square shared parking. The Campus District Property Owner will establish a system to track the Campus District visitor parking activity that is approved by the Public Works Director. The system will need to track the number of daily visitor trips and record the activity and provide the data to the City when the reliability factor is calculated. The shared parking areas will include control systems that will collect data on vehicles using the Town Square parking structure. Campus District visitors will be required to validate their parking when they check-in at the Campus District entrances. This data will be used to account for Campus District visitor parking. o Campus District Visitor Ride Hailing – Meta currently monitors ride hailing trips at their campuses as part of the trip cap monitoring for the Classic and Bayfront campuses. The existing ride hailing monitoring includes vehicle counts and origindestination surveys conducted at ride hailing lounges located at Meta buildings within in Menlo Park. A similar survey approach will be used to monitor ride hailing activity at the Willow Village Campus District. Unlike the other two campuses, ride Page F-1.440
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 6 ends

hailing at the Willow Village Campus District will occur on public streets that are shared with the other Willow Village districts. Therefore, a survey will be used to capture the number of vehicles and information on the origin/destination of passengers to determine if the trip if related to the Campus District or the other Willow Village Districts. The annual survey will be conducted of the ride hailing activity at the same time the reliability factor is developed. The Campus District Property Owner will establish a survey procedure that is approved by the Public Works Director. This is consistent with the procedure used for the Classic and Bayfront Campuses.

To capture the ride hailing activity for events, the Campus District Property Owner in consultation with City staff shall once a quarter select either a medium (1,001 -2,500 persons) or large (2,501 -5,000 persons) event to survey ride hailing trips for a minimum of two years after buildout of the Office Campus. During each twelvemonth period, at least one survey shall occur during a large event. In addition, surveys for two smaller events of less than 1,000 persons shall be conducted during each twelve-month period. The surveys should include rideshare location, arrival/departure date and time, drop-off or pick-up, and number of passengers.  Periodic Count Equipment Testing/Recalibration - The vehicle detection system will be periodically tested to ensure the accuracy of the monitoring counts. During the first two years of operation, testing will be conducted at six-month intervals. If these tests show that the system is operating reliably, then testing can be reduced to once a year. If the equipment is thought to be out of calibration, the Campus District Property Owner will work with the City to test and calibrate the equipment if necessary. The City will have final approval, which approval shall be granted or withheld in a reasonable manner, on all testing and calibration.  Installation and Repairs - New count equipment shall be installed and in good working order prior to final building permit sign-off for occupancy of first Willow Village Camus District office building. The City shall have final approval, which approval shall be granted or withheld in a reasonable manner, of the contractor completing the installation and the maintenance contractor completing any repairs. Non-emergency repairs and maintenance of the monitoring equipment shall occur only on evenings and weekends, unless otherwise approved by the City. The Transportation Division shall be notified at least 48 hours in advance of any nonemergency repairs or maintenance work. The City Transportation Division shall be notified within 24 hours of any emergency repairs. City inspection and approval of any repairs or maintenance is required.

Failure to keep monitoring equipment operational in good working order will be considered a violation of the Trip Cap after two working days, unless the repairs/maintenance require additional time as approved by the City and the Campus District Property Owner is diligently pursuing such repairs/maintenance. The Trip Cap penalty will not be enforced during the repair/maintenance of the monitoring equipment. If the City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, Page F-1.441
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 7 ends

determines that the Campus District Property Owner is not diligently pursuing the repairs/maintenance, the City may elect to perform the repairs/maintenance and charge the cost of the repair/maintenance, staff time, and 15 percent penalty fee to the Campus District Property Owner.
 Access to Count Equipment/Reporting- The City shall have the ability to access the count equipment at any time after reasonable prior notice to the Campus District Property Owner. The Campus District Property Owner will not have access to the count equipment, unless approved by the City or in case of the need for emergency repairs. The City shall not unreasonably withhold approval of access for repair/maintenance contractors. The Campus District Property Owner shall have "read-only" access to the reporting data but shall have the ability to record such data and run history reports in order to track trends. Reporting data shall be provided to the Campus District Property Owner and the City in real time. Real time data will provide the Campus District Property Owner the opportunity to take immediate action, if necessary, to avoid violating the Trip Cap.

ENFORCEMENT
The Campus District Property Owner shall be responsible not only for monitoring, but also for achieving compliance with the Trip Cap, which includes, by definition, all trip cap measurements on a daily basis (the AM Peak Hour Trip Caps, the PM Peak Hour Trip Caps and the Daily Trip Cap). The City shall enforce compliance with the Trip Cap.

If, on a given day, the results of the monitoring indicate that the number of trips is at or below the Trip Cap, considering the reliability factor, then the Campus District Property Owner is considered in compliance. If, however, the monitoring, considering the reliability factor, reveals that any of the AM Peak Hour Trip Caps or the PM Peak Hour Trip Caps or the Daily Trip Cap has been exceeded (after accounting for any permitted exclusions), the Campus District Property Owner is in violation of its CDP and the City may take steps to enforce the Trip Cap.

The specifics for enforcement are as follows:
 Threshold - If there are any AM Peak Hour Trip Cap, PM Peak Hour Trip Cap or Daily Trip Cap violations that do not qualify for an exclusion as discussed above, then penalties will be imposed.  Penalties - Monetary penalties will be imposed for violations of the Trip Cap in excess of the threshold. Penalties are calculated on a per trip basis and progressively increasing penalties will be imposed for subsequent violation(s) of the Trip Cap based on a tiered system described in the table below. Penalties will be applied for each violation including the AM Peak Hour, PM Peak Hour, and the Daily Period. If any of the AM Peak Hour Trip Caps, and/or PM Peak Hour Trip Caps and Daily Trip Cap are exceeded on the same day, the penalty paid shall be the greater of the sum of the penalties for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour or the Daily penalty. The penalty payment schedule is shown in the table below.

Page F-1.442
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 8 ends

Penalty Tier1 Applicability Penalty Amount
per Trip per Day
Tier 1 Tier 1 is the default tier and applies for the month unless one of the other tiers is applicable.
$66.26 per trip per day
Tier 2 Tier 2 applies for the month if either (a) penalties were imposed in both of the 2 months immediately
preceding that month or (b) penalties were imposed
in any 4 of the 6 months immediately preceding that
month. Tier 2 will not apply if Tier 3 applies.
$132.56 per trip per day
Tier 3 Tier 3 applies for the month if penalties were imposed in each of the 6 months immediately preceding that
month.
$265.11 per trip per day
1 - Only one tier is applicable for any given violation. In addition, the penalty amounts are shown in 2022 dollars based on the original 2012 penalty amounts that applied to the original project approvals for Building 20 adjusted by CPI.

An example table showing the penalty amounts:

Penalty Cost Per Day
Vehicles Over Trip Cap Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
100 $6,626 $13,256 $26,511
500 $33,130 $66,280 $132,555
1000 $66,260 $132,560 $265,110
2000 $132,520 $265,120 $530,220
Example calculation:

AM Peak Period exceeds AM Peak Period Trip Cap by 100 trips PM Peak Period exceeds PM Peak Period Trip Cap by 50 trips Daily trips exceed the Daily Trip Cap by 400 trips
AM penalty = 100 trips x $66.26 = $6,626
PM penalty = 50 trips x $66.26 = $3,313
Daily penalty = 400 trips x $66.26 = $26,504

The Payment would be:

AM + PM penalties = $9,939
Daily penalty = $26,504 - $9,939 = $16,565
Total Penalty = $9,939 (Peak Period Penalty) + $16,565 (Daily Penalty) = $26,504 Page F-1.443
October 20November 22, 2022

Page 9 ends

The base penalties are stated in 2022 dollars (based on the original 2012 penalty amounts that applied to the approval of Meta’s Building 20, as adjusted by CPI) and shall be adjusted annually per the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers All Items in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metropolitan Area [1982-84=100] (the intent is for the same penalty rate to apply to Classic, Bayfront and Willow Village Campuses). Penalties are due and payable to the City within 30 days of the issuance of an invoice, which the City shall issue on a monthly basis. The City shall use the penalties collected for programs or projects designed to reduce trips or traffic congestion within Menlo Park and the City shall share 25 percent of the penalties collected with the City of East Palo Alto for use on transportation systems and solutions that help reduce traffic in the City of East Palo Alto around the Classic, Bayfront and Willow Village Campuses.

In addition to monetary penalties, failure to comply with the Trip Cap is considered a violation of the CDP and could result in revocation of the CDP.

Violations of the Trip Cap for Willow Village are independent of violations of the Classic and Bayfront Trip Caps. This means, for instance, that if there are violations of the Trip Cap at the Classic and Bayfront campuses for the six months immediately preceding a particular month, but there are no violations of the Trip Cap at the Willow Village Campus District during that same period, Tier 3 would be applicable to the Classic and/or Bayfront Campuses and Tier 1 would be applicable to the Willow Village Campus District.  Interim Measure - If the Campus District Property Owner determines that it needs to secure parking in another location as an interim measure to maintain compliance with the Trip Cap, the Campus District Property Owner may, through the City's entitlement process, obtain approval for the use of another private property in Menlo Park (not the Classic, Bayfront or Willow Village campuses) that includes both a building and associated parking. Trips to such an off-site location will not count toward the Trip Cap only if there will be no more trips to that off-site location than is allowed under the then current use of that property.  Compliance - If after non-compliance, the Campus District Property Owner comes back into compliance with the Trip Cap and maintains compliance for 180 consecutive days, the scale of penalties will revert to the base level and the relevant threshold would once again apply before there is non-conformance and the onset of penalties.

Page F-1.444
1 Perata, Kyle T
From: Alan Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 1:43 PM
To: _CCIN
Cc: Willow Village; Perata, Kyle T; Murphy, Justin I C
Subject: Willow Village shuttle suggestion
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, DO NOT click links, open attachments or reply.

Hello,
I understand that Willow Village approval is still under negotiation. I have a suggestion for this.

I know Meta runs a number of electric shuttles through its properties. I have also noticed that there are lot of large residences being built in the are, not necessarily Facebook.

There have been a few concerns about traffic, grocery store utilization, and air pollution on this project.

I was wondering if there could be electric shuttles that use roads on Meta properties, that could be used by residents of these other large buildings to use the grocery store and other amenities. The advantage of using these paths are that they, for the most part, avoid local streets which may become clogged. Shuttles which service these apartment buildings would encourage the residents of these buildings to make use of this retail and other services, while not adding to traffic to the other roads. Opening it up to residents of these buildings would result in higher utilization of the shuttles and amenities of Willow Village, while not adding to overall traffic.

I suppose they could restrict usage to these residents (they might need an electronic card), and even charge a modest fee - so they could feel confident in security, and make it work well financially. Higher usage would justify improved frequency.

Sincerely,
Alan Brown
1155 Carlton Ave, Menlo Park, Ca 94025
ATTACHMENT N Page F-1.445
1 Perata, Kyle T
From: Chow, Deanna M
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 5:50 PM
To: Perata, Kyle T
Subject: FW: Please Support Willow Village - Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Attachments: Housing Leadership Council - Support Willow Village.pdf

Deanna M. Chow
Assistant Community Development Director
City Hall - 1st Floor
701 Laurel St.
tel 650-330-6733
menlopark.gov

From: Ken Chan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 8:37 PM
To: _CCIN <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Support Willow Village ‐ Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, DO NOT click links, open attachments or reply.

Dear Members of the Menlo Park City Council,
Please see the attached support letter regarding the Willow Village proposal set for discussion at the upcoming November 30, 2022 City Council Special meeting.

You may also find the text of the letter below:

Dear Mayor Nash and Members of the Menlo Park City Council,

The Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (HLC) works with our communities and their leaders to produce and preserve quality affordable homes.

On behalf of HLC, and as expressed in our previous communications, I’m writing to express our support for the Willow Village proposal by Peninsula Innovation Partners and Signature Development Group. Of the potential 1,730 homes, a total of 312 will be affordable, including 119 set aside for your senior community members at both the Very Low (VLI) and Extremely-Low Income (ELI) levels. These homes, combined with the newly increased $6 million in additional funding for Page F-1.446
2 affordable housing for your community members in Menlo Park and rent subsidies for local teachers, can provide the City of Menlo Park with the much-needed relief against the job-housing imbalance that all your residents are collectively experiencing at this moment.

In addition, by approving the Willow Village, you have the opportunity to help ensure that your city will achieve a legally compliant Housing Element in January 2023. HLC has been closely following the City of Menlo Park’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) RHNA obligations and Housing Element Update process over the past year. The City Council is scheduled to adopt the updated Housing Element on December 6, 2022 and the statutory deadline for HDC to certify updated Housing Element is no later than January 31, 2023.

As you may know, this proposal alone represents 1) 59% of Menlo Park’s total 6th Cycle 2023-2031 RNHA obligation, 2) 16% of the City's VLI RNHA obligation, and 3) 19% of Menlo Park's VLI to Moderate (MOD) ("BMR") RNHA obligation. Please see Table 7-1 RNHA Allocation below.

It has taken more than five years of input from your community members and fellow city leaders, and revisions by the developer, for Willow Village to get to this juncture; leading to its overlap with the aforementioned and upcoming Housing Element. With your support of this proposal, you can avoid the onerous task of revising your City’s Housing Element and the need to identify new housing sites throughout your city to fulfill it’s RNHA obligations,

We also caution you to fully comply with California State housing law and adopt a realistic Housing Element with viable versus theoretical housing sites, as the consequences, such as what has occurred in Santa Monica over the past year, are pronounced. Any city that does not have an adopted Housing Element by January 31, 2023 is subject to the “builder’s remedy.” Under California State law and the builder’s remedy application process, your authority to approve or reject certain housing proposals can temporarily be taken out of your control.

The only grounds for the rejection of a proposal is if it can be proven to “have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” which is a much higher standard than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a very difficult finding to make with a housing proposal.

According to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), any housing proposals submitted after a city fails to meet its compliance deadline, will earn automatic permit approval if they meet the standards for serving low- and moderate-income households by committing least 20% Page F-1.447
3 of their homes as affordable to lower income households or 100% as affordable to moderate income households. In addition, these proposals are not necessarily subject to community amenities requirements and may not be required to provide any; like the ones included in Willow Village. If a jurisdiction were to receive a housing proposal while it’s Housing Element is out of compliance, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status would remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process according to HCD. If Menlo Park falls into this category, it would make it that much harder for you to make impactful and meanful land use decisions for your community.

To illustrate the “builder’s remedy” in action: while the City of Santa Monica was out of compliance with Housing Element law, leaders had no choice but to approve 12 development proposals in just this year alone - totaling nearly 4,000 homes. Please see: Developers capitalize on Housing Element fiasco to force 3,968 undeniable units into the city’s pipeline.

With your support of the Willow Village proposal, Menlo Park can avoid the consequences experienced by your counterparts in Santa Monica and also provide much-needed quality affordable homes for your community members. We urge you to take all the necessary steps to approve this proposal at the November 30, 2022 City Council meeting.

Sincerely,
Ken Chan
--
Ken Chan
he/him/his
Senior Organizer
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 S El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
(408) 421 - 0586
www.hlcsmc.org
Page F-1.448
November 21, 2022
The Honorable Betsy Nash and Members of the Menlo Park City Council City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel St.

Menlo Park, CA 94025
Via Email: [email protected]
Re: Support Willow Village – Menlo Park RNHA Obligations / Housing Element Compliance - Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Dear Mayor Nash and Members of the Menlo Park City Council, The Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (HLC) works with our communities and their leaders to produce and preserve quality affordable homes.

On behalf of HLC, and as expressed in our previous communications, I’m writing to express our support for the Willow Village proposal by Peninsula Innovation Partners and Signature Development Group. Of the potential 1,730 homes, a total of 312 will be affordable, including 119 set aside for your senior community members at both the Very Low (VLI) and Extremely-Low Income (ELI) levels. These homes, combined with the newly increased $6 million in additional funding for affordable housing for your community members in Menlo Park and rent subsidies for local teachers, can provide the City of Menlo Park with the much-needed relief against the job-housing imbalance that all your residents are collectively experiencing at this moment.

Page F-1.449
It has taken more than five years of input from your community members and fellow city leaders, and revisions by the developer, for Willow Village to get to this juncture; leading to its overlap with the aforementioned and upcoming Housing Element. With your support of this proposal, you can avoid the onerous task of revising your City’s Housing Element and the need to identify new housing sites throughout your city to fulfill it’s RNHA obligations, We also caution you to fully comply with California State housing law and adopt a realistic Housing Element with viable versus theoretical housing sites, as the consequences, such as what has occurred in Santa Monica over the past year, are pronounced. Any city that does not have an adopted Housing Element by January 31, 2023 is subject to the “builder’s remedy.” Under California State law and the builder’s remedy application process, your authority to approve or reject certain housing proposals can temporarily be taken out of your control.

A builder’s remedy proposal also DOES NOT need to comply with your city’s Zoning or General Plan standards — it can be much larger than Menlo Park would otherwise permit AND you will not be able to deny a builder’s remedy proposal solely on the basis that it does not comply with those standards. The only grounds for the rejection of a proposal is if it can be proven to “have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” which is a much higher standard than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a very difficult finding to make with a housing proposal.

According to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), any housing proposals submitted after a city fails to meet its compliance deadline, will earn automatic permit approval if they meet the standards for serving low- and moderate-income households by committing least 20% of their homes as affordable to lower income households or 100% as affordable to moderate income households. In addition, these proposals are not necessarily subject to community amenities requirements and may not be required to provide any; like the ones included in Willow Village. If a jurisdiction were to receive a housing proposal while it’s Housing Element is out of compliance, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status would remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process according to HCD. If Menlo Park falls into this category, it would make it that much harder for you to make impactful and meanful land use decisions for your community.

Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94403 • (650) 242-1764 • hlcsmc.org Page F-1.450
To illustrate the “builder’s remedy” in action: while the City of Santa Monica was out of compliance with Housing Element law, leaders had no choice but to approve 12 development proposals in just this year alone - totaling nearly 4,000 homes. Please see Developers capitalize on Housing Element fiasco to force 3,968 undeniable units into the city’s pipeline.

Sincerely,
Ken Chan
Senior Organizer
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94403 • (650) 242-1764 • hlcsmc.org Page F-1.451
1 Perata, Kyle T
From: Perata, Kyle T
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 6:11 PM
To: Perata, Kyle T
Subject: Willow Village Undermines the Housing Element
On Nov 27, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Patti Fry <[email protected]> wrote:

City Council,

Your decisions related to Willow Village and the ConnectMenlo General Plan will communicate to our community ‐ and to the State – your dedication to remedy the housing shortage.

Our city’s final Housing Element to be submitted to the State in January needs to be a lot more realistic ‐ and convincing. It must describe strategies such as the five listed below that would repair ConnectMenlo’s rules that have already led to a 20% worsened jobs/housing imbalance in the six years since ConnectMenlo was adopted in 2015. Your Council can demonstrate that large projects are approved only when they improve the City’s ratio of housing to jobs.

The draft Housing Element Menlo Park submitted last summer did not include strategies that other cities have adopted to address jobs/housing imbalances:

1. Capping office growth when the jobs/housing ratio exceeds 2.0; Menlo Park's ratio was 2.9 in 2021 without a cap

2. Adjusting the ConnectMenlo Maximum Buildout so that the potential cumulative non‐residential square feet is reduced when housing replaces non‐residential square feet

3. Revising industrial and office zoning to reflect contemporary worker density practices by reducing the total allowable square feet

4. Enlarging mixed use zoning districts, while shrinking office‐only zoning districts

5. Revising mixed‐use zoning so that housing densities would exceed new demand from non‐residential elements

If the pending large projects such as Willow Village and Parkline are approved as currently proposed, the State would have evidence that Menlo Park is not serious about correcting its part in the regional jobs/housing imbalance. Each project worsens the housing shortage – and you have the power to require a different result.

You will not want to have your names attached to hefty RHNA allocations that will affect every District and neighborhood of Menlo Park. You will not want to be held accountable for large projects that worsen the jobs/housing imbalance. You will not want to be blamed for inherent problems in ConnectMenlo’s zoning that have not been addressed during your tenure.

Use this opportunity to get the City on the right path by beginning to unravel the mistakes of former Councils. This is the time and this is your moment.

Page F-1.452
2 Sincerely,
Patti Fry, former Menlo Park Planning Commissioner

Kyle T. Perata
Planning Manager
City Hall - 1st Floor
701 Laurel St.
tel 650-330-6721
menlopark.gov

Page F-1.453
1 Perata, Kyle T
From: Perata, Kyle T
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 6:04 PM
To: Perata, Kyle T
Subject: RE: Willow Village
From: Paul Collacchi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 1:06 PM
To: _CCIN <[email protected]>
Subject: Willow Village
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, DO NOT click links, open attachments or reply.

Council Members,
Here are my recommendations for Willow Village
 Deny unmitigated project configurations
 Move to cap ConnectMenlo (Bayfront) development as part of the Housing Element SEIR process.

1.) DENY UNMITIGATED PROJECT CONFIGURATIONS
As configured, the Willow Village project will worsen the housing deficit, displace low‐income families, gentrify District 1, and unleash Bayfront development beyond the ConnectMenlo Program EIR envelope into the enormous uncapped, unplanned ConnectMenlo zoning envelope.

I would urge you to deny Willow Village unless it contains the following mitigations:
 A reduced office footprint to eliminate the net housing deficits and displacement caused by the project,  A requirement that the applicant build all proposed housing units, and link office build‐out to housing unit build‐out, and
 A valid mechanism to monitor and enforce off‐site employment caps.

Denying the project might seem to require courage, but council might take a lesson from the most recent Stanford GUP approval process in which Supervisor Simitian led the call for full mitigation of that project, a call which then Mayor Taylor and Vice Mayor Nash joined. As with the Stanford GUP, denied or withdrawn projects don't go away, they return with more favorable configurations. Sometime denial is required as part of the process of setting community boundaries.

2.) MOVE TO CAP CONNECTMENLO (BAYFRONT) DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT SEIR PROCESS The future growth potential under the uncapped ConnectMenlo zoning envelope is staggering. In my view, and apparently in the view of at least three of you, ConnectMenlo is objectionable local land use policy. It enables unneeded levels of office development with little local benefit and large, permanent negative impacts. ConnectMenlo Page F-1.454
2 housing development will forever change the character of District 1, and ConnectMenlo office development will create perpetual housing pressure with RHNA‐driven political strife throughout the city.

Development in Bayfront should be capped and metered similarly to the way downtown development is capped and metered, and the caps should insure full housing mitigation during build out.

Rather than creating a separate process to revisit ConnectMenlo, council could move to create a subcommittee of council members to work with staff to create area development caps in Bayfront similar to those in the Downtown Specific Plan. These could be approved in conjunction with the Housing Element SEIR process.

At one time or another, three of you, members Mueller, Taylor, and Nash have expressed disapproval over ConnectMenlo Bayfront development. Your legacy will be defined by your actions or inactions to make it right when you had that chance.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Paul Collacchi
Virus-free.www.avast.com
Kyle T. Perata
Planning Manager
City Hall - 1st Floor
701 Laurel St.
tel 650-330-6721
menlopark.gov
Page F-1.455
Administrative Services

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

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-235-CC
Regular Business: Authorize the city manager to execute a community funding agreement and approve budget amendment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to execute the community funding agreement among City of Menlo Park (“City”), Menlo Park City School District (MPCSD) and Menlo Park Atherton Education Foundation (MPAEF) and approve a budget amendment.

Policy Issues
The City Council is required to approve all changes in the budget that increase appropriations and move monies between funds.

Background
The City and Stanford University entered into a development agreement effective November 9, 2017 governing the development of the Middle Plaza Project. This project involves redevelopment of an 8.4-acre parcel located at 300 through 550 El Camino Real consisting of retail/restaurant, office and residential units.

Following MPCSD’s expressed concerns that Stanford’s funding would not fully address project impacts and request for additional support, the City Council directed a budget amendment in fiscal year 2017-18 in the amount of $1.0 million which established a reserve. The fiscal year 2022-23 adopted fund balance schedule (Attachment B) demonstrates this General Fund reserve (Project related, encumbrance) has been maintained.

The Middle Plaza Project is nearing completion and will begin initial occupancy coming months. The June 13, 2022, staff report for the Planning Commission’s annual review of the development agreement referenced the status of the $1.0 million reserve.

Analysis
The community funding agreement (Attachment A) outlines the terms of acceptance and performance:
• confirms that the city has approved, appropriated and allocated $1.0 million in grant funding, • ensures that the grant will be deposited into the endowment fund, • establishes the purpose and use of funds, and
• specifies accounting and reporting requirements.

The work of MPAEF in support of MPCSD provides a direct benefit to the educational programs, services and activities afforded to the citizens of the City of Menlo Park; therefore, the grant serves a public purpose consistent with the California Constitution.

Page G-1.1 AGENDA ITEM G-1
Staff Report #: 22-235-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Impact on City Resources
The agreement will reduce it’s the General Fund’s assigned reserve balance (Project related, encumbrance) by $1 million as demonstrated in Attachment B.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Community funding agreement
B. Fiscal year 2022-23 budgeted fund balances
Report prepared by:

Marvin Davis, Interim Finance Director
Mary Morris-Mayorga, Interim Administrative Services Director Page G-1.2
-1-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4

COMMUNITY FUNDING AGREEMENT
This Community Funding Agreement (“Funding Agreement”), is entered into by and among the CITY OF MENLO PARK, a California municipal corporation (“City”), MENLO PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a California local school district (“District”), and MENLO PARK ATHERTON EDUCATION FOUNDATION, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (“Foundation”), effective as of the date of execution by the City (“Effective Date”), with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to State Planning and Zoning Law, California Government Code §65000 et.seq., the City plans for and regulates the physical development of land within its boundaries as more particularly set forth in Title 15 (Subdivisions) and Title 16 (Zoning) of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code (“Code”).

B. Stanford University (“Stanford”) applied for and secured required discretionary land use approvals from the City as required by the Code in connection with its redevelopment of an 8.4acre parcel of real property located at 300 through 550 El Camino Real, with approximately 10,286 square feet of retail/restaurant, 142,840 square feet of non-medical office, and 215 residential units (“Middle Plaza Project”).

C. In accordance with the Code, effective November 9, 2017, the City and Stanford also entered into a Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) governing the development of the Middle Plaza Project, and said Development Agreement provided for various financial contributions by Stanford as a means to address concerns regarding the effect of the Middle Plaza Project on the community beyond those measures imposed to mitigate the significant effects of the Middle Plaza Project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

D. As set forth in Section 6 of the Development Agreement, Stanford agreed to provide initial funding of $1.5 million to the Foundation to be placed in an endowment fund created and established for the support of the District (the “Endowment Fund”), and a second payment of up to $1 million, derived from any savings associated with the construction of the “Crossing” (as defined in the Development Agreement), also to be deposited into the Endowment Fund. However, as of the date of this Funding Agreement, the District and Foundation acknowledge that the City does not anticipate that there will be any savings associated with the construction of the Crossing that will be available for deposit to the Endowment Fund.

E. Notwithstanding the City’s good faith efforts to secure monetary exactions from Stanford pursuant to the Development Agreement to address community concerns beyond what the City may legitimately impose as proportional, reasonable and rationally related mitigation pursuant to CEQA, the District continued to express concern that the amount of funding to be provided by Stanford to the Foundation for the support of the District pursuant to the Page G-1.3 ATTACHMENT A
-2-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4
Development Agreement does not fully address the impacts of the Middle Plaza Project on the District; specifically, the District sought an additional $1 million beyond the amount to be provided pursuant to the Development Agreement.

F. As part of the City Council’s discussion of the proposed 2018-2019 fiscal year budget, the Council discussed and directed that a budget amendment for fiscal year 2017-2018 include funding from the City for the support of the District in the amount of $1 million to be derived from an estimated budget surplus of $3.5 million as of the end of said 2017-2018 fiscal year.

G. The City Council hereby finds that the work of the Foundation in support of the District provides a direct benefit to the educational programs, services and activities afforded to the citizens of the City of Menlo Park and thus the grant of $1 million provided by this Funding Agreement to the Foundation serves a public purpose consistent with the California Constitution.

Therefore, City, District and Foundation hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct, and the Recitals and all defined terms identified and set forth therein are hereby incorporated into this Funding Agreement.

2. Grant. City hereby confirms to District and Foundation that the City has approved, appropriated and allocated funding in an amount of one million and 00/100 dollars ($1,000,000.00) (“Grant”) from the City’s General Fund for distribution to Foundation for deposit into the Endowment Fund to be used to support the educational programs, services and activities carried out by the District within the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton. District and Foundation hereby represent and warrant that they will take all steps necessary to ensure the Grant will be deposited into the Endowment Fund which shall be utilized to carry out and implement educational programs, services and activities carried out by the District within the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton.

3. Disbursement of Grant. Within thirty (30) calendar days following the approval and execution of this Funding Agreement by the Parties, District and/or Foundation shall provide to City, in writing, wiring instructions for the disbursement of the Grant from the City to the Endowment Fund (“Instructions”). Within thirty (30) calendar days following City’s receipt of the Instructions, City shall cause the Grant to be deposited to the Endowment Fund.

4. Changes to Use of Grant. Neither District nor Foundation shall redistribute all or any portion of the Grant to any purpose or fund of either Party, other than the Endowment Fund, without the prior written consent of City, which consent may be granted or withheld in the sole discretion of the City. The foregoing notwithstanding, in no event shall all or any portion of the Grant be used for any purpose that is not directly related to supporting the educational Page G-1.4
-3-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4
programs, services and activities carried out by the District within the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton.

5. Annual Report and Financial Statement. Foundation shall make available to City within one-hundred-twenty (120) calendar days following the end of each fiscal year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) an annual financial statement and analysis setting forth in detail the manner in which, and the specific purposes for which, the Endowment Fund was expended to the date of such accounting, the balance of the Endowment Fund as of the date of such accounting, and such other data as the City may reasonably request from time to time.

6. Audit; Monitoring. City may audit the records and accounts of Foundation for the purpose of verifying expenditures from the Endowment Fund or verifying statements or analyses made or provided by Foundation.

7. Lobbying Prohibited. The Grant provided under this Funding Agreement shall not be used by Foundation or District for publicity or propaganda purposes designed to support or defeat legislation pending before federal, state, or local government.

8. Religious Activity Prohibited. There shall be no religious worship, instruction or proselytizing as a part of, or in connection with the performance of this Funding Agreement.

9. Events of Default. Failure by either Party to perform any action or covenant required by this Funding Agreement within the time periods provided herein following notice and expiration of the applicable cure period described below, shall constitute a “default” under this Funding Agreement. A Party claiming a default shall give written notice of default to the other Party specifying the default complained of. The other Party shall not be in default if (a) in the case of a monetary default, the defaulting Party cures the default within ten (10) days following receipt of the notice of default, or (b) in the case of a non-monetary default, the defaulting Party fully cures, corrects or remedies the default within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice of default or, if the non-monetary default cannot be cured within 30 days, the defaulting Party commences to cure the default within such 30-day period and thereafter diligently and continuously prosecutes such cure to completion.

10. Non-Binding Mediation. If the Parties are unable to resolve any dispute arising in connection with this Funding Agreement, the Parties agree to submit such dispute to a mutually acceptable professional mediator and to negotiate in good faith toward reaching a resolution of the dispute prior to taking legal action pursuant to Section 11, below. Each Party shall pay an equal share of the mediator’s fees and expenses. Each Party shall be responsible for any other fees or costs such Party incurs in connection with participation in the mediation.

The time between a Party’s written request for mediation and the mediation itself, not to exceed ninety (90) days, shall toll the running of any applicable period of limitations for filing a claim or action.

11. Remedies. If either Party is in default under this Funding Agreement following notice and expiration of applicable cure periods, the non-defaulting Party, following completion of Page G-1.5
-4-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4
the non-binding mediation conducted in accordance with Section 10 above, shall be entitled to pursue all remedies provided herein or available at law or in equity. Any legal actions under this Funding Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, State of California. Any failure or delay by either Party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive either such Party of its rights to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same time or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.

Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, neither Party shall be entitled to recovery of, and each Party hereby waives are right to pursue, any consequential, special or punitive damages in the event of a default by the other Party.

12. No Member Liability. No member, official, officer, employee, agent or volunteer of either Party shall be personally liable to the other in the event of any default or breach by the defaulting Party or for any amount to which the non-defaulting Party may become due under the terms of this Funding Agreement.

13. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Funding Agreement and the other documents referenced in this Funding Agreement, constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties, and supersede all negotiations or previous agreement between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. This Funding Agreement and the other documents referenced in this Funding Agreement, may be amended only in writing signed by authorized representatives of City, District and Foundation.

14. Notice. Any notice required or authorized under this Funding Agreement shall be effective if, and only if, in writing and if, and only if, mailed, postage prepaid, by registered or certified mail or sent via overnight courier, to the Party in question at the then current primary business of such Party, or at such other address as that Party may later designate by notice.

The current primary business addresses of the Parties are shown below:

District: Menlo Park City School District
181 Encinal Avenue
Atherton, CA 94027
Attention: Superintendent
with a copy to: County of San Mateo
County Attorney’s Office
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Attention: Ilana Mandelbaum, Deputy County Attorney
Page G-1.6
-5-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4
Foundation: Menlo Park Atherton Education Foundation
PO Box 584
Menlo Park, CA 94026
Attention: Carrie Chen, Executive Director
City: City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attention: City Manager
with a copy to: Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
181 Third Street
San Rafael, CA 94901-6587
Attention: Nira F. Doherty, City Attorney
Notices shall be effective three business days after mailing if sent by registered or certified mail or one business day after mailing if sent via overnight courier.

15. Severability. Should any provision of any of this Funding Agreement be found invalid by a court or other body of competent jurisdiction, said invalidity or ineffectiveness shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Funding Agreement which shall remain in force to the maximum extent possible.

16. Interpretation. The Parties acknowledge that each Party and its counsel have reviewed and revised this Funding Agreement and that the rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Funding Agreement or any document executed and delivered by either Party in connection with this Funding Agreement. The captions in this Funding Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not be used to interpret such Funding Agreement.

The defined terms in this Funding Agreement shall apply equally to both the singular and the plural forms of the terms defined. Whenever the context may require, any pronoun shall include the corresponding masculine, feminine and neuter forms. The words “include” and “including” shall be deemed to be followed by the phrase “without limitation.” The words “approval,” “consent” and “notice” shall be deemed to be preceded by the word “written.”

17. Governing Law. This Funding Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

18. No Conflicts of Interest. No member, official, officer, employee, agent or volunteer of the City, District or Foundation who exercises any function or responsibility with respect to this Funding Agreement or Endowment Fund during his or her tenure, or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Funding Agreement, Endowment Fund or a related subcontract agreement, or the proceeds thereof. District and Foundation shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all contracts funded by the Endowment Fund a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes of this certification.

Page G-1.7
-6-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4

19. Counterparts. This Funding Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different Parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

20. Further Assurances. From and after the Effective Date of this Funding Agreement, the Parties agree to do such things, perform such acts, and make, execute, acknowledge and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or proper and usual to timely complete the actions contemplated by this Funding Agreement.

21. Authorized Representatives. Whenever under the provisions of this Funding Agreement the approval of the City is required, or the City is required to take some action at the request of District or Foundation, such approval or request shall be given for the City by the City Manager or his or her designee, and District and Foundation shall be authorized to rely upon such approval or request.

22. No Assignment. District and Foundation may not assign its rights or obligations under this Funding Agreement without the express written consent of the City, which may be granted or denied in its sole discretion.

23. Authority. Each Party represents that the signatory has the authority to bind each respective entity, and assents to each and every term contained within this Funding Agreement.

24. No Third Party Beneficiaries. It is the intention of the Parties that under no circumstances are any rights created for persons or entities who are not parties to this Funding Agreement and City owes no duty to any persons or entities not parties to this Funding Agreement under a third party beneficiary theory or under any other theory of law.

25. Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Funding Agreement or the performance thereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover all litigation expenses, including but not limited to court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

26. No Joint Venture. It is expressly understood and agreed that neither Party shall become as a result of this Funding Agreement a partner of the other nor a joint venturer with the other Party in the conduct of such Party’s business or otherwise. This Funding Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture, or association as between City, District and Foundation.

27. Successors and Assigns. Subject to the restrictions on assignment set forth in Section 22 above, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Funding Agreement shall be binding upon City, District and Foundation and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

Page G-1.8
-7-
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Page G-1.9
OAK #4866-6444-9062 v4
CITY:

CITY OF MENLO PARK, APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a California municipal corporation
By: _______________________ ___________________________ Justin I. C. Murphy, City Manager Nira F. Doherty, City Attorney Date: ________________, 2022
DISTRICT:

MENLO PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a California local school district
By: ____________________________ ___________________________ Ilana P. Mandelbaum
Deputy County Attorney
Name: Erik Burmeister
Its: Superintendent
Date: ________________, 2022
FOUNDATION:

MENLO PARK ATHERTON

EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
a California non-profit public benefit corporation
By: ____________________________
Name: Carrie Chen
Its: Executive Director
Date: ________________, 2022
Page G-1.10
FY 2022‐23 Budgeted Fund Balances
Fund Name and Category 6/30/2022 Rev & TI Exp & TO CIP Rev CIP Exp Sur/(Def) 6/30/2023 100 General $        38,304,402 $74,002,730 $ ‐ 80,430,226 $ $ ‐ $       (6,427,496) $  31,876,906 Non‐spendable prepaids 458,698            458,698
Project related, encumb 4,010,180                       1,000,000 Strategic pension funding 3,250,860                Actual %        2,250,860 Emergency (Policy: 15‐20%) 10,300,000              15% 11,800,000 Economic (Policy: 20‐25%) 12,711,700              20% 16,000,000 Unassigned 7,572,964                         367,348
Total Reserve Breakdown 38,304,402                   31,876,906 One‐time, Developer, In‐lieu
111 One‐time               1,686,000       1,350,000 ‐ ‐ ‐           1,350,000        3,036,000 258 CRRSA 19,833 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐              19,833
332 Bayfront Mitigation                 6,932,487       2,561,226 ‐ ‐ ‐           2,561,226        9,493,713 353 Downtown Public Amenity                 2,503,706            10,000 ‐ ‐               300,000             (290,000)        2,213,706 369 Community Amenities                 9,405,000    20,900,000 ‐ ‐ ‐         20,900,000      30,305,000 395 Developer Funded Projects ‐       2,250,000       2,250,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 397 American Rescue Plan Act                7,382,917 ‐       3,717,830 ‐ ‐         (3,717,830)        3,665,087 201 EIR Fees 11,455 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐              11,455
202 Miscellaneous Trust   249,134 ‐          145,000 ‐ ‐             (145,000)            104,134 Housing Activity
221 Housing Special Revenue                 6,675,298               1,000             24,000 ‐ ‐                (23,000)        6,652,298 222 Below Mrkt Rt Housing Spec Rev             32,410,871       6,800,000          583,432 ‐ ‐           6,216,568      38,627,440 223 Federal Revenue Sharing 124,814                  500               4,000 ‐ ‐                  (3,500)            121,314 224 Community Devlpmt Block Grant               1,380,789               1,500               4,000 ‐ ‐                  (2,500)        1,378,289 364 HUT Repair and Maintenance 533,072          793,824 ‐ ‐               950,000             (156,176)            376,896 Library & Community Service ‐ ‐
203 Donations ‐ Library and CS (3,814)          145,000 ‐ ‐ ‐               145,000            141,186 251 Big Lift (Library) 23,670          295,000          260,109 ‐ ‐                 34,891              58,561 252 Childcare Food (Libray & CS) ‐            85,000             85,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 253 Belle Haven Child Devlpmt Ctr 61,696       2,003,000        ‐ 1,432,295 ‐               570,705            632,401 254 Preschool‐QRIS 8,936            12,000 ‐ ‐ ‐                 12,000              20,936 256 Recreation In‐Lieu               5,974,203            88,200       3,000,000 ‐           2,682,709          (5,594,509)            379,694 304 Menlo Park Community Campus               13,621,837       3,000,000             79,163 ‐         16,440,716        (13,519,879)            101,958 305 Diverse Literature LSTA 19,216            20,000             20,000 ‐ ‐ ‐              19,216 Police Enforcement
327 Supp Law Enforcement Services 253,036 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐            253,036 328 Downtown Parking Permits               4,635,473          100,000          195,600 ‐           2,400,000          (2,495,600)        2,139,873 Transportation. Streets, Maint
211 Heritage Tree (Transporation related) 465,236            10,000 ‐ ‐               135,000             (125,000)            340,236 255 Senior Transportation (37,768)            43,700 ‐ ‐ ‐                 43,700                5,932 351 Transportation Impact Fees               9,714,257          983,000 ‐       5,000,000         10,934,567          (4,951,567)        4,762,690 352 Transportation   913,991 ‐ ‐ ‐               909,692             (909,692)                4,299 354 Storm Drainage Fees 96,760               1,800             97,000 ‐ ‐                (95,200)                1,560 355 Shuttle Program 202,289       1,293,151       1,192,227 ‐ ‐               100,924           303,212 356 County Transp Tax (Measure A)               1,036,672       1,000,000       1,473,999 ‐               404,940             (878,939)            157,733 357 Highway Users (Gas Tax)                 3,061,738       1,021,080             19,613 ‐           4,050,940          (3,049,473)              12,265 358 Landscape/Tree Assessment 893,050       1,287,457       1,503,667 ‐ ‐             (216,210)            676,840 359 Sidewalk Assessment 361,728          305,838             27,050 ‐               302,512                (23,724)            338,004 360 Measure M 135,524          140,000          140,000 ‐ ‐ ‐            135,524 361 Storm Water Management 358,136          375,862          458,137 ‐ ‐               (82,275)            275,860 362 Construction Impact Fee                 5,227,809          865,000             85,775 ‐           3,787,020          (3,007,795)        2,220,014 363 Measure W               1,001,467          425,000 ‐ ‐               750,000             (325,000)            676,467 365 Landfill Post‐Closure               8,049,089          932,083          521,775 ‐           3,801,155          (3,390,847)        4,658,242 366 Vintage Oaks Landscape ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
367 Sharon Hills Park 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60
375 CA Coastal Consv Priority Grant (8,248) ‐ ‐          500,000 ‐              500,000            491,752 376 Caltrans ‐ ‐ ‐          426,000 ‐               426,000            426,000 368 Bayfront Park Maintenance 708,317               3,000          258,916 ‐ ‐             (255,916)            452,401 370 Haven Avenue Streetscape Grant 600,000 ‐ ‐ ‐               600,000             (600,000) ‐ 377 California State Parks Dept ‐ ‐ ‐          798,950 ‐        798,950            798,950 396 CA Arrearage Program Water Res 52,379 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐             52,379 FY 2021‐22 Fcst FY 2022‐23 Budget
Page G-1.11 ATTACHMENT B
Attachment B: FY 2022‐23 Budgeted Fund Balances
Fund Name and Category 6/30/2022 Rev & TI Exp & TO CIP Rev CIP Exp Sur/(Def) 6/30/2023 FY 2021‐22 Fcst FY 2022‐23 Budget
Transportation. Streets, Maint
501 General Capital Improvement               27,211,101       6,450,500          429,476       5,015,300         37,469,788        (26,433,464)            777,637 521 SMC Transportation Authority (4,991) ‐ ‐          170,000 ‐               170,000            165,009 525 CA Coastal Consv Priority Grt 1,353 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐                1,353 Debt Service
400 Library GO Bond 1990 362,585            12,545 ‐ ‐ ‐                 12,545            375,130 401 Recreation GO Bond               3,447,590       2,375,456       2,350,456 ‐ ‐                 25,000        3,472,590 500 Measure T 2002 GO Bond 2,049               1,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,500                3,549 510 Library Addition 122,446                  750 ‐ ‐ ‐ 750            123,196 Water Activity
600 Water Capital               17,271,936       1,919,425          196,894          500,000         17,287,319        (15,064,788)        2,207,148 601 Water Operations               32,561,137    13,914,073      ‐ 10,933,719 ‐           2,980,354      35,541,491 610 Solid Waste Service               2,792,268          674,038          276,505 ‐ ‐               397,533        3,189,801 Internal Services
701 Workers' Compensation                 1,217,654          923,217        ‐ 1,819,722 ‐             (896,505)            321,149 702 General Liability               (1,062,791)       2,582,824       1,286,150 ‐ ‐           1,296,674            233,883 703 Other Post Employment Benefits 934,981 ‐          934,980 ‐ ‐             (934,980) (0) 704 IT Internal Service                 2,568,780       3,625,584       5,751,762 ‐ ‐          (2,126,178)            442,602 705 Vehicle Replacement                 2,713,794       1,396,380       1,570,000 ‐ ‐             (173,620)        2,540,174 Page G-1.12
Community Development

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

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-236-CC
Study Session: Provide direction regarding revisions to the City’s draft Housing Element in response to comments
from the State Department of Housing and
Community Development, and potential Zoning
Ordinance and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
Plan amendments associated with the Housing
Element Update project
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council review and provide feedback on proposed revisions to the City’s draft Housing Element in response to comments from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD.) Staff also recommends the City Council provide feedback regarding potential Zoning Ordinance and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan) amendments associated with the Housing Element Update project.

Policy Issues
State law requires the City to have and maintain a general plan with specific contents in order to provide a vision for the City’s future and inform local decisions about land use and development. The Housing Element is one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan, and the Housing Element for the 2015 to 2023 planning period was adopted in 2014. State law requires the City to update and adopt the Housing Element for the eight-year planning period from 2023 to 2031 (also called the 6th Cycle) by January 31, 2023, while making any changes to other elements of the General Plan needed to maintain internal consistency and any related changes to zoning.

In compliance with state law, the City is also preparing an update to the General Plan Safety Element (as required by Senate Bill (SB) 379) and a new Environmental Justice Element (as required by SB 1000.) Background
The City is updating its Housing Element to comply with the requirements of state law by analyzing existing and projected housing needs and identifying how to meet its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), and updating goals, policies, objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for all income categories. On July 25, 2022, the City submitted an initial draft Housing Element to HCD (Attachment A), which initiated a 90-day review period for HCD to evaluate the document and return any comments to the City. On October 21, 2022 the City received a letter from HCD with a list of revisions requested in order to comply with state law (Attachment B.) Since then, the project team has been evaluating the requested revisions, performing additional research, gathering data, and preparing text modifications for a second draft Housing Element.

On December 1, 2022, the Planning Commission held a study session to provide feedback and receive AGENDA ITEM H-1 Page H-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov public comments on an overview of potential modifications to the Zoning Ordinance and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan.) These modifications could provide the capacity for up to 4,000 net new housing units on housing opportunity sites and zoning districts identified in the initial draft Housing Element and studied in the Housing Element Update project subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR.) Zoning changes would be necessary in order to make the development in the draft Housing Element feasible. A copy of the Planning Commission study session staff report is available as Attachment C. At the December 1 meeting, Planning Commissioners provided the following general comments:
• Proposed zoning modifications to densities, floor area ratios (FARs), and heights in the Specific Plan area should be increased beyond those discussed in the staff report. Densities in the range of 150 to 200 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) were suggested to be explored, with corresponding increases in FARs and heights to make development at those densities feasible. • When considering higher residential densities, thought should be given to creating adequate areas for open space and recreation for residents as part of projects and also off-site throughout the community. • Building façade heights adjacent to low density residential areas should remain lower than the maximum potential building heights to provide a more gradual transition to denser development. • Minimum parking rates should be removed in the Specific Plan area and new maximum parking rates created.
• Consideration should be given to removing the Zoning Ordinance requirement that certain single-family residential projects receive use permits from the Planning Commission. • Tentative support was expressed for combining parcels of a similar size and urban context in the C-1-A, C-2, C-2-A, C-2-B, C-2-S and C-4 zoning districts into a single zoning district utilizing the existing mixeduse C-2-B development regulations as a starting point. It was recommended that the project team explore increasing the density above the 30 du/ac currently allowed in the C-2-B district if the development community indicates it would be more likely to result in residential development on the parcels.

Analysis
The October 2022 HCD letter indicates that the initial draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but HCD believes that revisions are necessary to bring the document into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code (state housing element law.) HCD grouped the requested revisions into four topic areas:
• Housing needs, resources and constraints;
• Housing programs;
• Quantified objectives; and
• Public participation.

A brief narrative summary of the major revisions proposed in each topic area is provided below. A detailed response matrix with a note and document chapter and subsection reference for each HCD comment is provided as Attachment D, and a working copy of the revised draft Housing Element with red-lined text edits is provided as Attachment E.

The December 6 meeting is primarily intended to serve as a check-in with the City Council on the proposed responses to HCD’s comment letter, with a secondary aim to receive feedback on the associated zoning modifications necessarily to implement the Housing Element. The attached red-lined copy of the Housing Element is a working draft that is intended to be further revised and refined to address comments and based on feedback and guidance from the City Council.

Page H-1.2
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Housing needs, resources and constraints
The bulk of HCD’s comments on the draft Housing Element are related to three primary topic areas: 1) affirmatively furthering fair housing, 2) the housing opportunity sites inventory and realistic capacity methodology, and 3) the analysis of potential and actual constraints that would hinder housing development in the city. In order to address these comments, the project team has made proposed revisions primarily to the following chapters of the draft Housing Element:
• Chapter 3, “Housing Conditions and Trends;”
• Chapter 4, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing;”
• Chapter 5, “Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing;” and • Chapter 7, “Site Inventory and Analysis.”
Additional narrative and data has been added in Chapter 3 regarding extremely low income households, their incomes and housing tenure (i.e., percentage of renters and owners.) The chapter also analyzes the number of households overpaying by tenure and discusses overcrowding in households. Finally, the chapter includes an analysis of current market rents for residents based on various sources and websites.

These changes were made in response to HCD comments requesting more analysis of population and employment trends, and documentation of the City’s projected needs for housing at all income levels.

Chapter 4 has been updated to provide a more detailed discussion of integration and segregation in the city due to restrictive covenants, federal discrimination, the expansion of U.S. 101, and other factors that concentrated Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American resident’s north of U.S. 101. Additional data and maps have also been provided on household incomes, familial status, disabilities, segregation, isolation, cost burdens, displacement, and other factors that tend to highlight the disparity between areas of the city north and south of Highway U.S. 101. The chapter also includes an updated table (Table 4-24) of fair housing issues, contributing factors and proposed City actions. This table describes the contributing factors aggregated through an affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis and their connections to three fair housing issues affecting Menlo Park: fair housing outreach; the need for affordable housing options throughout Menlo Park to promote mobility; and the need for community conservation and revitalization in low and moderate resource neighborhoods located north of U.S. 101. This table includes proposed City actions that will be taken during the planning period in order to address the identified fair housing issues.

Although there is a degree of overlap between the actions in Chapter 4 and the programs in Chapter 8, HCD requires the City to undertake these actions in addition to the goals, policies, and programs identified in the Housing Element.

Chapter 5 includes responses to alleviate existing governmental constraints as applicable, many of which are now addressed as programs in Chapter 8 (some of which are highlighted in the next subsection of this report.) New descriptions of small employee housing (a state requirement that jurisdictions permit housing for six or fewer employees as a single-family use in zoning districts where single-family uses are allowed) and emergency shelters for the homeless have also been added. Existing potential zoning constraints have been further detailed, such as a description explaining how the Conditional Development District (X) is used, confirmation that the City complies with the provisions of SB 330 to streamline discretionary housing projects, and clarifications around the single-family and multifamily use permit and architectural control review process.

Finally, Chapter 7 includes a change to the realistic capacity methodology used to estimate how many units could be developed on the 69 housing opportunity sites in the draft Housing Element site inventory. The City determined if each site was eligible for allocation of lower-income units using the following general HCD Page H-1.3
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov criteria:
1 • The site allows a density of at least 30 du/ac. (This is called a “default” density but is not used to determine a site’s residential unit capacity.)
• The site is between 0.5 and 10 acres in size.

Then, the City determined site capacity according to methodology laid out by HCD, where the maximum unit capacity (developable acreage multiplied by maximum density) is multiplied by several adjustment factors (land use controls, realistic capacity, typical densities, infrastructure availability and environmental constraints.) The initial draft used adjustment factors taken from Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Realistic Capacity Methodology.

HCD indicated that although the method is consistent with state statute, the percentages of the adjustments provided by ABAG were believed to be high, did not discount from the maximum allowable density on sites, and should be more clearly and conservatively analyzed. In response, the second draft of the Housing Element uses more conservative adjustment factors that are consistent with the guidance provided by HCD in their Site Inventory Guidebook.

The five updated adjustment factors, based on HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, are:
• Land use controls – This factor considers how any development standards (e.g., height, FAR, etc.) impact the realistic development capacity on a site. Based on an analysis of the current zoning code and potential modifications to development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan, there is not anticipated to be an effect that would reduce the maximum development potential of the opportunity sites. However, the capacity factor was adjusted to 95 percent to account for sidewalks and easements. • Realistic capacity – The realistic capacity factor analyzes the potential for residential development on sites that allow mixed uses, require redevelopment (i.e., non-vacant sites), and/or other aspects that could affect development capacity on sites. In Menlo Park, there are very few vacant parcels, and most opportunities for new development occur throughout the redevelopment of sites with existing structures.

Of the 51 recent developments in the city, 30 have a residential component and 21 do not. The mixed use developments outside the Specific Plan area have much higher proportions of residential uses than those in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the realistic capacity factor for areas outside the Specific Plan area is set at 90 percent, but sites inside the Specific Plan area are set at 80 percent.
• Typical densities – This factor examines typically built densities of existing or approved residential development at a similar affordability level. Lower and moderate income housing in San Mateo County (including recent affordable development in Menlo Park) is typically built at densities greater than those densities permitted by the zoning of the subject sites. According to data collected by the ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for San Mateo County, 14 lower-income projects were built on average at 107 percent of maximum allowable density. 19 moderate-income projects were built at an average of 125 percent of maximum allowable density. A "Typical Densities" factor of 95 percent can be considered conservative. For areas within the Specific Plan, which tend to be smaller parcels that have historically developed at less than the maximum density, a factor of 90 percent is provided. • Infrastructure availability – The infrastructure availability factor accounts for the availability and accessibility of utilities to serve a site. There were no identified constraints on infrastructure availability,

1 All sites but Site #38, the Ravenswood City School District site, would allow a density of at least 30 du/ac to meet or exceed the HCD default density. Because Site #38 would permit a density at less than 30 du/ac, it is allocated for Moderate Income Housing.

One site, Site #64 (Veterans’ Affairs Hospital), is larger than 10 acres but has a portion of the site smaller than 10 acres eligible for residential development. Therefore, it is allocated for lower-income housing.

Page H-1.4
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov so a factor of 100 percent has been used, and supporting analysis is being developed in Chapter 7. • Environmental constraints – This factor accounts for any environmental factors that cannot be mitigated that may limit development on a site, such as the presence of hazards, wetlands or other constraints.

There were no identified constraints based on environmental factors, so an adjustment factor of 100 percent has been used, and supporting analysis is being developed in Chapter 7.

As a result of the modified adjustment factors above, sites would receive a total adjustment indicated in Table 1, which is multiplied by the maximum unit capacity described above.

Table 1: Total adjustment factors for housing opportunity sites Geography Land use
controls
Realistic
capacity
Typical
densities
Infra.

Availability
Enviro.
constraints Total
Specific
Plan area 0.95 0.80 0.90 1 1 0.684
Elsewhere in
City 0.95 0.90 0.95 1 1 0.812
In the initial draft Housing Element, the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) was not applied when evaluating potential development on the housing opportunity sites because it was structured as an alternative to the state density bonus program and could not be assumed to be available for projects where the developer elects to use the state density bonus instead. For the second draft Housing Element, the AHO is being modified to work in combination with the state density bonus (as requested by HCD to bring it into compliance with state law), and as a result, HCD allows the City to include the AHO density into the development potential for the opportunity sites.

The increased density due to the application of the AHO to all housing opportunity sites, even when multiplied by the reduced adjustment factors in response to HCD comments, increases the total number of affordable units that could be developed during the 6th Cycle planning period from 2,108 in the initial draft Housing Element to 2,906 affordable units in the revised draft Housing Element. The 2,906 amount is above the 1,490 affordable units (very low, low and moderate income) required to meet the City’s RHNA and is within the envelope of 4,000 net new units studied in the project environmental impact report (EIR.) Early in the Housing Element outreach process, staff considered an alternative method to calculate site capacity using a minimum density of 30 du/ac for all sites. In order to utilize this minimum density approach instead of the adjustment factors approach prepared for the initial draft Housing Element and proposed to be modified as described above, the City would need to adopt regulations requiring that development on housing opportunity sites contain a minimum residential density of 30 du/ac. As an example, a one-acre Specific Plan parcel in the Downtown area would be required to develop at least 30 housing units as part of any development on the site. HCD would then accept the site acreage multiplied by the minimum density as the site capacity of the housing opportunity sites under this method.

The site inventory includes 83 parcels (69 sites) totaling 72.6 acres of developable land in the city. The minimum density method would allow for 2,178 affordable units, which would be sufficient in conjunction with projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (85 units) and pipeline projects (3,644 units) to meet the City's RHNA with a 30 percent buffer (3,830 units.) However, at this time, a required minimum residential density of 30 du/ac for all of the housing opportunity sites has not been considered as part of the land use strategies or zoning modifications anticipated for the Housing Element Update project. Applying a required minimum residential density to the Housing Element opportunity sites may impact how, if, and/or when Page H-1.5
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov building additions and modifications, changes of use, and/or complete redevelopment could occur on the opportunity sites and may necessitate outreach to property owners. The 2,178-unit total using the minimum density method would also fall within the envelope of 4,000 net new units studied in the project SEIR.

Housing programs
The project team has revisited the goals, policies, and programs in Chapter 8 and provided greater specificity, concrete actions, quantified objectives, and clearer timelines for the programs identified in the HCD letter, and other programs where applicable. New programs have also been added to address comments received from community members, agencies, and organizations that submitted feedback on the initial draft Housing Element. In addition to the changes to programs H2.A and H2.C described in the next subsection of this staff report, quantified objectives, major highlights of the updated housing programs include:
• Program H2.D – ADU amnesty program. A description of public outreach and marketing for an amnesty program for unpermitted ADUs has been added, and the outreach and any necessary modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the program has been scheduled to occur before the end of 2024. • Program H2.E – Anti-Displacement strategy. The program now includes an outreach component and specifies a focus on the Belle Haven neighborhood. The updated actions include consideration to continue funding for the Menlo Park Housing Assistance Program beyond 2024 for lower income tenants and homeowners facing displacement. Implementation of the program has been set to occur no later than December 2026, with operations beginning in 2027.
• Program H3.F – Work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on homeless issues. Provision of 60 supportive homes for very low income (30 to 50 percent of area median income [AMI]) veterans and their families who were formerly homeless or at-risk for homelessness, in cooperation with MidPen Housing has been added to the program. The program includes a goal of project construction in 2024 and project opening in 2025.
• Program H3.G – Zoning text amendments for special needs housing. This is a new program that would undertake updates to the Municipal Code to explicitly allow transitional and supportive housing in all zoning districts allowing residential uses, allow supportive housing by-right in multi-family and mixed use zones, allow small employee housing (6 or fewer persons) in all residential zones, and other modifications to permit more types of special needs housing as required by state law. The modifications to the Municipal Code would be made by 2024.
• Program H4.A – Amend the below market rate (BMR) Inclusionary Housing Regulations. New text has been added to the program to consider implementing a sliding scale requiring increased percentages of BMR units for larger projects. A nexus study would be completed by 2024 to determine the cost of an updated BMR in-lieu fee, and the BMR inclusionary housing regulations would be updated within two years of the Housing Element adoption.
• Program H4.E – Streamlined project review. This is a new program that would result in the creation and adoption of objective design and development standards to be applied to all 100 percent affordable residential projects; allow ministerial review for 100 percent affordable housing developments; eliminate the current use permit requirement for multi-family projects in the R-3, R-3-A and R-4 zoning districts; and develop written procedures and objective development standards that would allow for a streamlined ministerial review process for SB 35 housing development applications (in the event that the City becomes subject to SB 35 in the future for not meeting RHNA targets.) Implementation of this program would be phased from 2024 through 2026.
• Program H4.G – Consider City-Owned land for housing (Downtown Parking Lots.) This program has been updated to include adherence to the Surplus Lands Act procedures, and includes more specific Page H-1.6
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov milestones such as site identification in 2023, issuance of a request for proposals (RFP) by the end of 2024, completion of entitlements by 2026, and development on some or all eight of the City-owned parking lots by 2028 in order to produce 345 or more affordable housing units. • Program H5.D – Address rent conflicts. The program now includes support for Project Sentinel in expanding fair housing outreach to residents and landlords by providing multilingual fair housing information at City facilities, conducting workshops, and providing information to rental property owners at multiple points throughout the Housing Element planning period. • Program H5.F – First-Time homebuyer program. The program specifies the City’s partnership with the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART) to offer first-time, moderateincome homebuyers down-payment assistance loans. The program now also indicates that information on the HEART program will be added to the City’s website and other channels promote the program.

Other programs have been supplemented with additional information and are fully described in the draft redlined text changes in Chapter 8 of the revised draft Housing Element document (Attachment E.) Quantified objectives
A new “Summary of Quantified Objectives” subsection has been added to Chapter 7 of the draft Housing Element. The subsection has been revised as requested by HCD to include a new construction objective for housing affordable to extremely low income households (zero to 30 percent of AMI), which has been set at 449 units. New rehabilitation and conservation objectives have also been established. For rehabilitation, a goal of assistance to 20 very low income homeowners in Belle Haven has been created, which would be accomplished by providing City funding to Habitat for Humanity’s Homeownership Preservation Program (included as Program H2.C in Chapter 8.) For conservation, Crane Place Apartments, a senior low income apartment complex, has been identified as being at moderate risk for conversion to market-rate prices. A goal has been set to preserve the 93 units of senior low income housing in the building as described in Program H2.A in Chapter 8.

Public participation
In Chapter 1 of the draft Housing Element, a new subsection called “Consideration of Public Comment” has been added, which describes revisions that were made to the draft Housing Element in response to 108 comments from individuals, agencies, and organizations received through July 5, 2022. In general, several new policies and programs were added to the document to remove constraints on the development of affordable housing; increase housing equity through transitional housing, inclusionary housing and antidisplacement strategies; provide support for special needs populations; increase coordination with schools; and increase opportunities for childcare facilities. A full list of public comments is also being created and will be provided as a new Appendix 1-1 to the draft Housing Element.

Correspondence
Following the receipt of HCD’s October 21, 2022 letter, the City received nine items of correspondence with feedback on the Housing Element. These letters and emails are included as Attachment F and cover a range of concerns and suggestions regarding potential revisions to the draft Housing Element.

Among the correspondence received is a request from a property owner, Divco, to have housing opportunity sites at 2400 Sand Hill Road (Quadrus, Site #4) and 2700 Sand Hill Road (formerly Site #48, now Site #49) removed from the draft Housing Element. Another property owner, Bohannon Development Company, has requested to add the property at 3750 Haven Avenue to the Housing Element site inventory. In addition, City staff has had conversations with the owners of the First Church of Christ, Scientist at 201 Ravenswood Avenue, who expressed interest in having the property added to the City’s site inventory. At this time, no sites are being added or removed from the site inventory in the draft Housing Element, unless directed Page H-1.7
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov otherwise by City Council.

Next steps
Following this study session, the project team will continue updating the draft Housing Element to respond to comments and incorporate City Council feedback. The City also intends to release drafts of the Safety Element and Environmental Justice Element for public review in December 2022.

A Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2023 and is anticipated to be a joint meeting with the Housing Commission to consider and take action on the following:
• Housing Commission recommendation to the City Council on adoption of the Housing Element; and • Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on:
• Certification of the SEIR;
• Adoption of the Housing Element and other General Plan elements, including updates needed for consistency with the new and revised elements; and
• Adoption of Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan amendments and rezoning of certain housing opportunity sites to allow multifamily or mixed-use developments.

A City Council meeting is scheduled for January 31, 2023 for the City Council to consider the recommendations of the Housing Commission and Planning Commission and take action on the following:
• Certification of the SEIR;
• Adoption of the Housing Element and other General Plan elements, including updates needed for consistency with the new and revised elements; and
• Introduction and first reading of the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan amendments and rezoning of applicable parcels.

Impact on City Resources
As part of the fiscal year 2020-21 budget, the City Council appropriated $1.5 million from the general fund to support the Housing Element Update (including preparation of the SEIR), which is a City Council priority. A budget amendment request for work related to the project SEIR and water supply assessment is being prepared and will be brought forward for consideration by City Council in early 2023.

Environmental Review
This study session is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § § 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment. A draft subsequent SEIR was released for the Housing Element Update project November 4, 2022 and a 45-day public comment period is currently underway, ending Monday, December 19, 2022. The notice of availability is included as hyperlink Attachment G. A copy of the draft SEIR is available as hyperlink Attachment H. Comments may be submitted through the web form (Attachment I) or by letter to Principal Planner Tom Smith, Community Development Department, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Following the close of the 45-day comment period, the project team will consider and respond to substantive comments received on the draft SEIR and compile a response to comments document. Once the responses and revisions are complete, a final SEIR will be released, consisting of the response to comments document and the draft SEIR. The final SEIR will be considered by the City Council for certification in compliance with CEQA.

Page H-1.8
Staff Report #: 22-236-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Hyperlink –Initial HCD review Draft Housing Element, submitted July 25, 2022:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/housing-elementupdate/menlo-park-2023-2031-housing-element-primary-hcd-review-draft.pdf B. Hyperlink – HCD review letter, dated October 21, 2022:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/housing-elementupdate/20221021hcd-review-letter-for-draft-housing-element.pdf C. Hyperlink December 1, 2022 Planning Commission zoning study session staff report:
https://menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission/2022- meetings/agendas/20221201-planning-commission-agenda-packet.pdf#page=3 D. HCD comment response matrix
E. Working copy of revised draft Housing Element with red-lined text edits F. Correspondence on the draft Housing Element since October 2022 G. Hyperlink – Notice of availability: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/housing-element-update/20221104-housing-element-update-notice-ofavailability.pdf H. Hyperlink – Draft SEIR: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/housing-element-update/menlo-park-housing-element-update-draftseir.pdf I. Hyperlink – Comment submission web form: menlopark.gov/HousingElementDEIRComments Report prepared by:

Tom Smith, Principal Planner
Report reviewed by:

Mary Wagner, Assistant City Attorney
Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Page H-1.9
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 1 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

1.1 Integration and Segregation: The element reports and maps data on components of the assessment of fair housing but should evaluate patterns and trends. The element should describe what contributes to the concentration of Hispanic residents within the City, as well as what contributes to the identified segregation in the Belle Haven neighborhood. In addition, the element should describe what contributes to the concentration of female headed households north of Highway 101. The element should also describe the concentration of low-income residents east of Highway 101 as well as describe and analyze the City’s high median income in relation to the immediate surrounding region (i.e., East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Redwood City).

A detailed discussion of integration and segregation is available in Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) within the “Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends” subsection. It includes detailed local histories as assembled by Menlo Together and other local organizations, and includes all items in the ABAG/MTC Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data Checklist from December 13, 2021.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

1.2 Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Affluence (RCAA): The element currently states that there are no RCAAs within the City. However, HCD’s fair housing data viewer indicates that the City and much of the surrounding region is considered a RCAA. The analysis should include updated data regarding the City’s RCAA designations and as noted above this should be analyzed relative to the broader region, County, and neighboring communities including the City’s eastern neighbors. For more information, please visit: https://affh-data-resourcescahcd.hub.arcgis.com.

A detailed discussion of racial or ethnic areas of concentrated affluence and poverty is available in Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) within the “Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas” subsection. Menlo Park is within San Mateo County, no part of which is defined as an area with Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP). However, much of San Mateo County – including Menlo Park – is classified as a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA).

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

1.3 Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element included some data, additional information is required. The element should analyze the identified disparities in access to opportunity locally as well as include a regional analysis (City compared to the broader region). In addition, the element should describe whether there is access to jobs for protected classes and analyze the relationship between the least positive economic outcomes located in the same areas with the highest proximity to jobs. The element should also describe availability and access to transit geographically within the City and whether protected classes have access to transit. Lastly, the element must describe what contributes to the low environmental scores other than location of the highway.

Updated analysis regarding disparities in access to opportunity is available in Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) within the “Disparities in Access to Opportunity” subsection. Analysis regarding schools, jobs, transportation, environment, and disability is provided. Discussion of Opportunity Area Maps prepared by HCD and the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) is also provided. The highest resource tracts are primarily concentrated in central neighborhoods. All the neighborhoods east of Highway 101 are considered low or moderate resource tracts.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

1.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: While the element reports some data on disproportionate needs, it should analyze what contributes to the concentration of cost burdened renters and owners. In addition, the element should analyze the identified concentration of substandard housing and provide a regional analysis. The element should also describe and analyze disproportionate housing needs for persons experiencing homelessness, including impacts on protected characteristics and patterns or areas of higher need relative to access to transportation and services. Lastly, the element must also describe and analyze areas sensitive to displacement, including displacement risk due to disaster (e.g., earthquake, fire, and flood).

Updated analysis regarding disproportionate housing needs, including displacement, is available in Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) within the “Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk” subsection. District 1 (east of Highway 101) is disproportionately impacted by equity issues, including being comparatively lower resourced and having a higher risk for displacement than the rest of the city west of Highway 101 (Districts 2 through 5). Analysis regarding cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and displacement is provided. Discussion regarding homelessness/unhoused individuals, large families, and other groups with particular needs, is available in Chapter 4 within the “Special Housing Needs” subsection.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

1.5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Identified Sites: While the element includes a general summary of fair housing related to the sites inventory, it must analyze how the identified sites contribute to or mitigate fair housing issues. The element must identify and analyze sites throughout the community to foster inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing. An analysis should address all of the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti-displacement and place-based community revitalization strategies).

The City is meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for the 2023-2031 planning period through the identification of 69 housing opportunity sites made up of 83 parcels. These sites are focused in Districts 2 through 5 to disperse affordable housing and housing development in general throughout the City of Menlo Park. A new requirement for this 6th Cycle Housing Element is for the Site Inventory to be consistent with a jurisdiction's duty for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). A detailed discussion regarding AFFH and identified housing opportunity sites is available in Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) within the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” subsection; Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing); and Appendix 4-2 (City of Menlo Park Assessment of Fair Housing).

Within Chapter 7, new text relating the AFFH data and population makeup to the Site Inventory is provided; references are made to Chapter 4 and Appendix 4-2 which provide further fair housing analysis; and a new “Site Inventory and Existing Social Patterns” subsection is included to discuss how the identified sites contribute to or mitigate fair housing issues.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

1.6 Goals, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have Chapter 4 includes an updated “Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and City Actions” subsection. The 2023-2031 Housing Element goals, policies, and programs were developed and refined based on community priorities and concerns.

Based on community input and an analysis of City capacity, the project team developed a table of fair housing issues, their contributing factors, a priority level for the fair housing issues, and City actions to remediate the issue. The fair housing issues identified are:

Page H-1.10 ATTACHMENT D
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 2 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
specific commitment, milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and, as appropriate, address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity or higher income areas, placebased strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

A. Fair Housing outreach (Medium Priority);
B. Need for affordable housing options throughout Menlo Park to promote mobility (High Priority); and C. Need for community conservation and revitalization in low and moderate resource neighborhoods located east of Highway 101 (Council District 1) (High Priority).

In Progress: As a resource, the City refers fair housing enforcement inquiries to organizations such as Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. The project team has requested data regarding fair housing complaints that the organization have interacted with over the last five years. The data could be used to develop/enhance programs to help address rent conflicts.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

2.1 Extremely Low Income (ELI): While the element includes the total number of ELI households in the City, it must include this data by tenure (i.e., renter and owner) and analyze their housing needs.

Updated data regarding extremely low-income (ELI) households is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Income” and “General Housing Characteristics” subsections. Highlighted discussion points include:
• Menlo Park's extremely low ownership vacancy rate is an indicator of the high demand for housing in the city, correlated with the high house sale prices seen in the city. By producing more housing units at all income levels, Menlo Park can ease the pressure on home sales. Meeting RHNA would increase the number of housing units by 21 percent over 2020 levels, which would help address this issue.
• Of the 1,400 extremely low-income households in Menlo Park (those making 0-30 percent of AMI, 565 households are owners and 835 are renters (40 percent and 60 percent, respectively). • Of the City’s extremely low income households, 73 are spending more than half their income towards housing, and as stated, 60 percent of the City’s ELI households are renters, a group particularly vulnerable to rising rents. Household overcrowding is not a particular issue for the City’s ELI households, with just 4.9 percent identified as overcrowded. • The City continues to encourage eligible persons to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program administered through the San Mateo County Housing Authority and will facilitate the provision of ELI units through the Affordable Housing Overlay. Supporting ELI homeowners in adding accessory dwelling units that can generate rental income, as well as promoting available housing rehabilitation programs can assist homeowners spending a large portion of their incomes on housing costs.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

3.1 Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lowerincome households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).Updated data regarding overpayment is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Affordability” subsection. Census data only tracks "Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 months" for income segments up to "$75,000 or more," which is still well below the lower income limit of approximately $128,000 in Menlo Park. The numbers of total homeowner households spending more than 30 percent of income on shelter is 2,172 (43 percent of homeowner households). The number of home-renter households spending more than 30 percent of their income on shelter is 2,049 (69 percent of homeowner households).

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

3.2 Overcrowding: The element must quantify the total number of overcrowded households within the City and analyze their housing needs.

Updated data regarding overcrowding is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Overcrowding” subsection. Households experiencing overcrowding require larger units with more bedrooms to increase the health and safety of their household. In many cities, overcrowding is more common amongst renters, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Menlo Park, 2.2 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded, compared to 0.8 percent of households that own. About 3.1 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding, compared to 1.7 percent for those that own. A new Table 3-8 (Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity in Menlo Park) is provided.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

3.3 Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge) to reflect more current market conditions.

Updated data regarding housing costs is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Typical Home Values and Rents” subsection. Highlighted discussion points include:
• The Bay Area is a great place to live, but throughout the region and county there just isn’t enough housing for all income levels, which has caused costs to go up. Home prices and rents have been steadily increasing the past two decades, but in recent years the jump has been dramatic. Since 2009, median rent increased 41 percent to $2,200, and median home values have more than doubled to $1,445,000.
• According to a review of rentals in Menlo Park using Zillow, Apartments.com, and Craigslist, rents range from $1,825 for a studio to $7,500 for a three-bedroom apartment. Houses can be rented for $2,000 for a one-bedroom to $9,000 for a fourbedroom house. There were also very few units available for rent: only 47 rental apartments and 48 rental homes (not including short-term rentals, which were not analyzed) were available. • Apartments available online tend to be older construction, and subsequently lower cost. Analysis of a single new apartment complex of approximately 400 units (ranging from studio to 4-bedroom units) demonstrated an average unit rent of $3,602 and a cost per square foot of $4.10. This is an average of market-rate and below-market-rate units. This is markedly higher than median apartment rental rates in the region ($3.76 in the San Francisco metropolitan area and $3.32 in the San Jose metropolitan area).

A – Housing
Needs,

4.1 Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): As you know, the City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, The housing opportunity sites, along with the “Pipeline Projects” identified in Chapter 7 (Site inventory and Analysis), detailed within the "Site Inventory Analysis and Methodology" subsection of the chapter, provide sufficient site capacity to meet Menlo Page H-1.11
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 3 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
Resources,
and
Constraints
2022, however, the element must demonstrate the affordability and availability of units in the planning period. The availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period should account for any barriers to development, phasing, anticipated build out horizons, market conditions and other relevant factors. This analysis should specifically address proposed projects, particularly the 1,729 units in Willow Village, rescale assumptions if appropriate and, given the magnitude of the project relative to the RHNA, should include a program to monitor progress and make adjustments as appropriate.

Park's RHNA with an additional 30 percent buffer, as recommended by HCD. Table 7-4 (Pipeline Projects) includes updated unit counts and footnotes with information regarding the availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.2 Realistic Capacity: The element must include a methodology for calculating the realistic residential capacity on identified sites. The methodology must account for land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element includes a methodology that essentially starts with developable area then multiplies that area by maximum densities then a series of adjustments. This method can be generally consistent with statute. However, in many cases the adjustments are 100 percent or more, do not appear to discount from the maximum allowable density and conflate non-residential likelihood and nonvacant development potential in a manner that the reasoning for the assumption is indiscernible. To address this requirement, the element could utilize a minimum density and HCD shall accept that methodology without any analysis or demonstration or the element could utilize a conservative methodology that will also assist in maintaining sites throughout the planning period pursuant to Government Code section 65863. Otherwise, the element must provide adequate supporting information for the various adjustment factors, rescale assumptions as appropriate and should separate the non-residential and nonvacant adjustment factor. Adequate supporting information would include a listing of all recent developments in the City by acreage, zone, allowable density, built density and affordability and then relate that information to the assumptions utilized in the inventory. For example, if the characteristics of past development are not similar to identified sites then the assumptions should not be utilized. With respect to the non-residential adjustment factor, the element should list or evaluate all development (residential and non-residential) to determine the likelihood for 100 percent nonresidential development than account for that trend in the adjustment factor. For example, the element could list and evaluate all recent development in the City by acreage, zone, allowable density, allowable uses, built uses, built densities and affordability.

Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes a significant change to the realistic capacity methodology used to estimate how many units could be developed on the 69 housing opportunity sites in the Site Inventory. The City undertook a parcel-byparcel capacity analysis that determined the likely potential capacity of each site. This parcel-by-parcel analysis was developed according to the realistic capacity methodology laid out by HCD, where the maximum unit capacity (developable acreage multiplied by maximum density) is modified by several adjustment factors (land use controls, realistic capacity, typical densities, infrastructure availability, and environmental constraints). The adjustment factors were renamed and modified to reflect the methodology and comments provided by HCD.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.3 Small and Large Sites: Sites smaller than a half acre and larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).).

The element lists small and large sites but also evaluate whether those sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower income households and add or modify programs as appropriate. For example, the element could list past consolidations by the number of parcels, number of owners, zone, number of units, affordability and circumstances leading to consolidation and then relate those trends to the identified sites or could explain the potential for consolidation on a site-by-site basis.

Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an enhanced “Small and Large Sites” subsection which discusses small sites (parcels less than 0.5 acres), large sites (parcels greater than 10.0 acres), and a “carveout” strategy to support the development of lower income housing on some of the larger sites.

Parcel consolidation has not been a demonstrated constraint in Menlo Park’s recent residential development history. Of the eight pipeline projects that are part of the Housing Element update, six include consolidated parcels. In a conservative measure, none of the parcels that are less than a half-acre in size are credited for lower-income housing in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. There are two large sites – Site #12, 345 Middlefield Road (USGS), and Site #64, 795 Willow Road (VA Medical Center) that have credit taken for lower income unit allocation and these are described in the “Carveouts and Large Sites” subsection.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.4 Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. While the element includes a detailed description of existing uses, it must also demonstrate the potential for additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element must analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an enhanced “Non-vacant Sites Analysis” subsection. Non-vacant sites are grouped into six potential redevelopment types to further analyze their development potential:
• Religious Facilities
• Parking Lots
• Non-Residential with Carveout
Page H-1.12
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 4 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
residential development. For example, the element includes sites identified as religious institutions, a post office, parking lots, a supermarket, and office buildings. The element should describe how residential development is likely to occur on sites including an office building built in 2013, as well as a supermarket, and an operating post office. The element can summarize past experiences converting similar existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. In addition, the element should tie the feasibility of parking lot developments mentioned in nearby cities to the sites listed in the inventory. The element should also provide additional support for development on church sites including a history of development with few units affordable to lower income, especially on the sites where there is not church interest.

In addition, as noted in the housing element, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lowerincome households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).).

Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.
• Non-Residential with Complete Redevelopment
• El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area
• Underutilized Residential
Because non-vacant sites comprise more than half of Menlo Park’s sites inventory, Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2) requires that the City analyze the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experience in converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment. Furthermore, as part of the resolution adopting the Housing Element, the City Council will make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue during the planning period. These findings will be based on a variety of factors including development trends, property owner interest, structure age, property valuation, and development capacity.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.5 City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the City- owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an enhanced “City Owned Properties” subsection. Also addressed in Chapter 7:
• Reference to Program H4.L (Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan” is included with the default density discussion.
• Surplus Land Act description and City compliance is included. • The reference to nine City-owned surface parking lots is revised. There are eight surface parking lots suitable for multifamily development.
• Added language regarding Program H4.G, the City-led process to promote housing development on underutilized Cityowned parking lots in downtown. The City’s goal is to develop 100-percent affordable housing on at least some portion of the eight parking lots, as determined by a feasibility study.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.6 Federally-Owned Sites and School Sites: The element identifies two federallyowned sites, the USGS and Veterans Affairs hospital site in addition to the Ravenswood School District site. The element should provide additional discussion on each of the sites and address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses, whether lot splits are needed, and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). The element must provide additional support and describe whether the City has contacted the owners regarding feasibility of development on these sites and whether they will be available during the planning period.

Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes enhanced description regarding the USGS (Site #12), VA (Site #64), and Ravenswood City School District-owned sites (Site #38). Sites #12 and #64 are described within the “Carveouts and Large Sites” subsection. Site #38, the only vacant site within the Site Inventory, is described as part of the “Non-vacant Sites Analysis” subsection.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.7 Replacement Housing Requirements: The element identifies sites with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing policy, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing policy has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).

Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes description of replacement housing requirements within the “Non-vacant Sites Analysis” subsection. Pursuant to Government Code 65583.2(g)(3), the Housing Element must include a program requiring the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a non-vacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915(c)(3). Replacement requirements shall be required for sites identified in the inventory that currently have residential uses, or within the last five years have had Page H-1.13
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 5 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and were either rent or price restricted, or were occupied by low or very low income households. This requirement is satisfied by Program H2.B.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.8 Availability of Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity, including the availability and access to distribution facilities, to accommodate the RHNA.

Discussion regarding the availability of infrastructure is available in Chapter 7 within the “Infrastructure” subsection. The water, sewer, and dry utilities review is taken from the Draft EIR, which was published on November 4, 2022.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.9 Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any other known environmental constraints or conditions within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period.

Discussion regarding environmental constraints is available in Chapter 7 within the “Infrastructure” subsection. The environmental constraints review is taken from the Draft EIR, which was published on November 4, 2022.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

4.10 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element should describe the permit processing, development, and management standards of the Homeless Overlay that allows emergency shelters by-right and should provide an analysis of proximity to transportation and services for these sites, hazardous conditions, and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. In particular, the element describes a limit of 16 beds per facility, which is a constraint. In addition, the element should describe the capacity of sites included in the overlay to accommodate the City’s need. Lastly, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB139/Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement.
• Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
• By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
• Housing for Employees: The Employee Housing Act permits housing under specific provisions. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone. The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): The element indicates the City modifies its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should modify Program H4-F to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of zoning for a variety of housing types.

Highlighted revisions include:
• Emergency Shelters
o Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table).
o The “Emergency Shelters” subsection includes updated text describing the Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Overlay, including compliance with AB 139 (2020), as well as information regarding the 2022 Point-in-Time count and shelters in San Mateo County. In an effort to reduce potential constraints to housing, the City will amend its emergency shelter regulations to increase the size limit from 16 to 30 beds. o Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) is included to reduce actual and potential constraints to emergency shelters.
• Transitional and Supportive Housing and By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing o Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table).
o Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) is included to reduce actual and potential constraints to transitional and supportive housing.
• Housing for Employees
o Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table).
o Replaced “Housing for Agricultural Employees” subsection with “Small Employee Housing” subsection. o Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) is included to reduce actual and potential constraints to housing for employees.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU):
o The “Accessory Dwelling Units” subsection includes revised text: The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the City’s ADU ordinance and has identified several areas which do not comply with State ADU law. HCD will be providing the City with a letter outlining non-compliance issues in the ordinance.

The City has included a program in the Housing Element to update its ADU ordinance to bring it into full compliance with current State requirements.
o Program H4.F (Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development Standards and Permit Process) is included to reduce actual and potential constraints for accessory dwelling units.

A – Housing
Needs,

5.1 Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of land use controls. Highlighted revisions include:
• Added responses to existing governmental constraints concerning General Plan policies.

Page H-1.14
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 6 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
Resources,
and
Constraints
analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to parking, heights, lot coverage and limits on allowable densities. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints. For example, the element should analyze the conditional use permit (CUP) requirement for multifamily development in the R4 zone where densities are allowed at 40 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the element should describe whether three stories are allowed without a use permit in the R-3, R3A, R3-C, C-2B, and R-MU zones where height limits are 35 feet or less. The element should also analyze the land use controls including landscaping, parking, and floor area ration (FAR) requirements in the R-3 zone and whether they allow maximum build out at allowed densities. The element should also describe and analyze densities and development standards that are allowed in the Affordable Housing Overlay. In addition, the element must describe and analyze the X Conditional Development District (p. 5-14) and any related land use controls. Lastly, the element should add programs as appropriate to address any identified constraints.
• Added text: The Conditional Development District (X), also referred to as combining district, is a zoning district specifically established for the purpose of combining special regulations or conditions with one of the zoning districts as set forth in Municipal Code Section 16.08.010. The X district is not delineated by any particular area of the city and can be generally described as a mechanism by which to regulate and plan development through approval of a Conditional Development Permit. A Conditional Development Permit may be issued to allow adjustment of the requirements of the district in order to secure special benefits possible through comprehensive planning of such large development. Further, such adjustment is intended to obtain public benefits; control the commercial component of projects in mixed-use areas; and to encourage more usable open space than would otherwise be provided with standard development. Conditional Development Permits are subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and ultimate action by the City Council. There have been ## approved developments on X district properties in the previous 8 years and ## rejected developments in the X district during that time frame [data analysis is in progress] (page 5-16). • Added text: The Housing Element Sites Inventory includes 3 sites (Sites #21, #28, #50) which have been previously developed with a Conditional Development Permit. Development regulations in the X district are as specified in the Conditional Development Permit and in no event does the number of dwelling units, floor area ratio, or floor area limit, exceed the development regulations as set forth in base zoning district with which the X district is combined (page 5-17). • Modified parking minimums in C-2-B and R-MU districts as 1 space/unit or 1 space/1,000 square feet through implementation of Program H4.M.
• Added text: City staff report that particularly on smaller parcels, current development standards may preclude the achievement of maximum zoned densities. The Housing Element includes a program (Program H4.M) to review and update the City’s multi-family development standards, including re-evaluation of parking, setbacks, height and other standards to enable compact, well-designed multi-family product types. • Added text: On January 1, 2020, Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) went into effect. The bill is intended to streamline housing projects that are subject to discretionary review under local zoning laws. The bill establishes a two-step process by which an applicant can “lock in” applicable fees and development regulations by submitting a Preliminary Application, then submit a complete development application within 180 days of the submittal of the complete Preliminary Application. The City of Menlo Park complies with SB 330. Resources such as application checklists and process guidance handouts are available on the City's webpage. As of October 2022, the City has received and processed eight development applications under SB 330.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.2 Voter Initiative: HCD was made aware of a proposed ballot measure in the City seeking to put any single-family rezoning to a vote, seemingly blocking affordable housing. The City must monitor and analyze the proposed ballot measure. If it passes, the element must add a program to include outreach and mitigation measures for the impact of the ballot measure on housing development throughout the planning period. The element should analyze the measure as a constraint on development based on site suitability for development and add or modify programs to address the constraint.

Measure V was a citizen-sponsored initiative measure to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to prohibit the City Council of the City of Menlo Park from re-designating or re-zoning certain properties designated and zoned for single family detached homes. As Measure V did not pass at the November 8, 2022 General Election, no additional analysis is provided.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.3 Parking: The element must analyze the parking requirements (p. 5-16) of more than one space per studio and one-bedroom unit and more than two spaces for two or more bedroom units. In addition, the element must describe what determines the parking requirements for C-2B and R-MU zones and analyze potential constraints. Should the analysis determine the parking standards or permit procedures are a constraint on residential development, it must include a program to address or remove any identified constraints.

Implementation of Program H4.M (Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) updates 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.

In Progress: The Community Development Department is working with the Public Works Department to assess potential modifications to parking requirements.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.4 Density Bonus: The City’s current density bonus ordinance should be reviewed for compliance with current state density bonus law and programs should be added as necessary. (Gov. Code, § 65915.). In addition, the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay states that the overlay will be an alternative to state density bonus law.

This is in conflict with state law and must be revised.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes added text regarding the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zoning and the State’s Density Bonus law. Chapter 16.97 of Menlo Park's Municipal Code lays out local compliance with State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 659115-95918).

Program H4.D (Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) describes that the AHO will be structured so that State Density Bonus incentives can be utilized in conjunction with the AHO.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,

5.5 Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. While the element lists some standard fees in Table 5-4, it must list typical fees including, Within Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing), the fees for Menlo Park are summarized within Table 5-4 (City of Menlo Park Fees (2019)) for three developments: (1) a 2,000-square foot single-family unit valued at $900,000 or greater; (2) a 16,000-square foot, 10-unit for-rent multifamily project valued at $5,000,000 ($500,000 for each unit); and (3) a 750 Page H-1.15
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 7 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
and
Constraints
but not limited to, CUPs, zone changes, general plan amendments, variances, site plans, specific plans, affordable housing in lieu fee, lot line adjustment, and other environmental fees. In addition, the element should describe and analyze fees as a proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should include programs to address identified constraints.
square foot detached accessory dwelling unit valued at $195,000. The fees below are shown for the entire 10-unit multifamily project, not on a per-unit basis, except within the fees summary in Table 5-5 (Summary of Fees).

Table 5-5 (Summary of Fees) has been updated with the project valuation estimates for the sample single family ($900,000), multifamily ($5,000,000), and ADU developments ($195,000). Typical development fees as a percentage of estimated project valuation are provided. Development fees for multifamily and ADU projects (5.4% and 6.4%, respectively) are much lower, as a proportion of the project value, than development fees for single-family developments (7.9%).

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.6 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes the use permit procedure for single family housing, it must describe and analyze the City’s permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing). The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

For example, the analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single- and multi-family developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures. The element should also describe and analyze the process and approval for a CUP and architectural control review. Lastly, the element should analyze the total processing time for both single family and multifamily developments and add a program as needed.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes additional detail regarding local processing and permit procedures. Addressed in Chapter 5:
• Added responses to constraints outlined in “Existing Governmental Constraints – General Plan Policies” • Revised Table 5-7:
o Revised title of Table 5-7 to “Single Family and Multifamily Use Permit and Architectural Control Review by Planning Commission”
o Added text to Step 4: Determine if project requires environmental review under CEQA o Added text to Step 5: Continue CEQA process (if necessary) o Added new Step 8: Certify EIR and public hearing on entitlements • Added footnote describing ministerial review in M-2 Zoning District and removed reference to non-existent Policy H5.8 (Page 5-38)
In Progress: City staff is exploring additional data to assess sample median project costs and typical processing/development timeframes. If available, this data would offer additional, conservative estimates for reference.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.7 Design Review: The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria, for their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes additional detail regarding local processing and permit procedures. Addressed in Chapter 5:
• New subsection for “Project Review by Planning Commission” added to describe the applicability of Use Permit review and the required findings for granting a Use Permit.
• Architectural Control design review subsection is clarified with project applicability and required findings. • Added clarification regarding design review generally: “The design review process is concurrent with the use permit process. Because it is not a separate process, it is not necessarily a constraint.” A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.8 Streamlining Provisions: The element must clarify whether the City has procedures in place consistent with streamlining procedures pursuant to Government Code section 65913.4 and include programs as appropriate.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes a new “Streamlining Provisions” subsection. Menlo Park is not currently subject to SB 35. Program H4.M (Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards) requires the development of SB 35 streamlining processes.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.9 Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe the City’s building and zoning code enforcement processes and procedures, including any local amendments to the building code, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes a new “Code Enforcement” subsection. The Menlo Park Police Department has primary responsibility for enforcing the City's codes and ordinances. Any police officer can take a complaint of unsafe conditions or issue citations for violations. Most complaints are referred to the City's Code Enforcement Unit for follow-up; this is the primary method by which Code Enforcement is conducted. Code Enforcement officers also look for violations, coordinate clean-up or repair; and issue notices, warnings and citations. Program H2.C (Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs) directs for the connecting of individuals to housing rehabilitation programs, including Habitat for Humanity’s Homeowner Preservation Program.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.10 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.

For example, the analysis must describe any zoning code definitions of family and any spacing or concentration requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. While the element describes the City’s definition of family, it should analyze the requirement of “a common housekeeping management plan based on an internally structured relationship providing organization and stability”, whether this is a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate. In addition, the element must describe the findings and approval procedure for the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure. Lastly, the element must describe and analyze how group homes for six or fewer and seven or more are allowed within the City and add programs as Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) has been updated. Addressed in Chapter 5:
• Added note (***) to “Residential Care Facilities” in Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table): Individual zoning district chapters do not mention large or small residential care facilities as permitted or conditionally permitted uses. • Added language within the “Group Homes” subsection: Pursuant to State law, there is no distance separation requirement for community care facilities. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 16.04 (Definitions) differentiates between large and small residential care facilities. Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) amends the zoning ordinance to ensure requirements for group homes of more than six persons are consistent with state law and fair housing requirements.
• Added language within the “Group Homes” subsection: In addition, HCD’s review of Menlo Park’s initial draft has identified the need for the city’s definition of a family to be revised. Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) amends the definition of family in the Code to eliminate the requirement of a common housekeeping management plan based on an internally structured relationship providing organization and stability .

Page H-1.16
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 8 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
appropriate. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, population types and licenses.

These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low-density zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or CUP could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary exceptions processes and standards where an applicant must, for example, demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

5.11 Zoning Fees and Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards, inclusionary requirements, and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) has been updated wjth a new “Zoning Fees and Transparency” subsection (page 5-16). As a means of providing information and transparency to the public, all zoning and development standards and development fees are posted on the City’s website. Program H5.G (Improve Access to City Law) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) directs the City to improve ease of access for the public to find fees, zoning, and development standards. The objective is to have a one-stop landing page for development information that can be easily understood by developers and members of the public.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

6.1 Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) will be updated with a new “Requests to Develop at Densities Below Those Permitted” subsection.

In Progress: City staff is working on developing Table 5-10 (Comparison of Zoned and Built Densities) and also collecting data to analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits.

A – Housing
Needs,
Resources,
and
Constraints

7.1 While the element includes Table 3-9 listing at-risk properties within the next 10 years, it must provide additional information on the expiration date on projects listed “n/a” and “beyond 2025” to help determine whether these properties are eligible to change to non- low-income housing uses during the next ten years. In addition, the element must identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the City to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage atrisk units, as well as identify federal, state and local financing and subsidy programs.

Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) includes an updated Table 3-9 (At-Risk Affordable Housing Developments in Menlo Park (2022) with added detail regarding certain properties with expiration years in “perpetuity.” The City-owned properties at 1175 and 1177 Willow Road do not have an expiration year as the units are foreseen to continue being rented as long as the City retains property control. Haven Family House (260 Van Buren Road) is managed by LifeMoves and Partridge Place (817 Partridge Avenue) is managed by Peninsula Volunteers, both mission-driven organizations with units foreseen to continue being rented as long as property control is retained. LifeMoves has relayed to the City that some government funding is dedicated to Haven Family House, however, much of their funding comes from philanthropy.

A new subsection on “Financial and Administrative Support” is included to detail public and nonprofit agencies with capacity to acquire at-risk units.

B – Housing
Programs

1.1 To address the program requirements of Gov. Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:
• Program H2.C (Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs): The program should include proactive outreach as well as specify how often sponsors and the City will apply for funding.
• Program H2.D (Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program): The program should include proactive outreach to owners.
• Program H2.E (Anti-Displacement Strategy): The program should include outreach to owners and organizations in the identified neighborhoods. It should also define which neighborhoods will be the focus. Lastly, the program should include timing for implementing the actions that result from the new programs identified.
• Program H3.E (Continue Support for Countywide Homeless Programs): The program should describe what the City is doing to implement the results of the check-in meetings. The program should also include timing of implementing the resulting actions.
• Program H3.F (Work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on Homeless Issues): This program should include specific timing to implement the potential programs identified.

Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones.

Page H-1.17
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 9 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
• Program H3.H (Inclusionary Accessible Units): This program should describe what the City will do to encourage the units and whether incentives will be provided.
• Program H3.L (Large Units): This program should include proactive outreach to developers.
• Program H5.B (Undertake Community Outreach When Implementing Housing Element Programs): This program should clarify how often outreach will occur throughout the planning period.
• Program H5.D (Address Rent Conflicts): This program should describe whether the progress is in place or include timing for implementation. The program should also include proactive outreach.
• Program H5.F (First-Time Homebuyer Program): This program should be revised to include proactive outreach. In addition, the program should include specific implementation timing.
• Program H7.A (Create Residential Design Standards): This program includes timing to start implementation two years after adoption but should also specify when the actions will be completed.

B – Housing
Programs

2.1 As noted in Finding A4, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Shortfall of Adequate Sites: If the element does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it must include a program(s) to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period. The program should identify the shortfall by income group, acreage, allowable densities, appropriate development standards and meet all by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), including but not limited to permitting multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households. The element must clarify whether programs 4H.I (Create New Opportunities for Mixed-Use Development), 4H.J (Increase Residential Density), 4.HK (Maximize Development Proposals), and 4H.L (Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) are needed to meet the City’s RHNA, and if so, address the requirements above. In addition, program 4H.L should include specific commitment to the action, beyond considering implementation.

Program H4.G (Consider City-Owned Land for Housing): This program should commit to comply with surplus lands requirements for City owned sites. In addition, the program should describe when the sites will be offered, when an RFP will be issued during the planning period and include a numerical objective consistent with assumptions in the sites inventory.

Chapter 7 (Site inventory and Analysis) has been updated. The RHNA requirements will be met with 3,645 units in pipeline projects, 85 units in projected Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and 2,906 units in potential housing opportunity sites. Table 7- 12 (Quantified Objectives) summarizes Menlo Park’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.

The objectives include the City’s new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation objectives.

Program H4.G (Consider City-Owned Land for Housing) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) is updated. This program has been updated to include adherence to the Surplus Lands Act procedures, and includes issuance of a request for proposals (RFP) by 2025, completion of entitlements by 2026, and development on some or all eight of the City-owned parking lots by 2028 in order to produce 345 or more affordable housing units.

B – Housing
Programs

3.1 As noted in Findings A5 and A6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Program H4.E (Ministerial Review of 100 Percent Affordable Housing): This program should clarify whether creating objective design standards are included within this program. Proactive outreach should also be included throughout the planning period.

Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) has been updated with additional analysis.

Program H4.E (Streamlined Project Review) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Polices and Programs) is updated. This is a new program that would result in the creation and adoption of objective design and development standards to be applied to all 100 percent affordable residential projects; allow ministerial review for 100 percent affordable housing developments; eliminate the current use permit requirement for multi-family projects in the R-3, R-3-A, and R-4 zoning districts; and develop written procedures for SB 35 applications (in the event that the City is subject to SB 35 streamlining in the future). Implementation of this program would be phased from 2024 through 2026.

Page H-1.18
Menlo Park Housing Element Update | HCD Comment Response Matrix | Page 10 of 10 Section # HCD Comment Comment Response
Program H4.M (Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards): The program should clarify what parking requirements will be revised and ensure updates will result in addressing constraints on development.

Program H4.M (update Parking Requirements and Design Standards) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) will be updated to clarify what parking requirements will be revised and ensure updates will result in addressing constraints on development.

In Progress: The Community Development Department is working with the Public Works Department to assess potential modifications to parking requirements.

B – Housing
Programs

4.1 As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH.

The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

In addition, Program H5.C (Provide Multilingual Information on Housing Programs) should clarify whether the multilingual information is currently available or whether they will need to be translated. If translation needs to occur, the program should include timing related to the action.

Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) includes an updated “Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and City Actions” subsection. The 2023-2031 Housing Element goals, policies, and programs were developed and refined based on community priorities and concerns. Based on community input and an analysis of City capacity, the project team developed a table of fair housing issues, their contributing factors, a priority level for the fair housing issues, and City actions to remediate the issue.

Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones.

Program H5.C (Provide Multilingual Information on Housing Programs) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) is updated to ensure the provision of information on the City's website that is readily translatable into multiple languages, maintaining multilingual information on programs at the City's public counters, and distributing multilingual information on programs at public locations (libraries, schools, etc.).

B – Housing
Programs

5.1 Program H2.A (Adopt Ordinance for “At-Risk” Units): While this program commits to actions for at-risk properties, it should also include a commitment to reach out to owners to ensure compliance with state preservation notice law (Gov. Code Sections 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13).

Program H2.A (Adopt Ordinance for “At-Risk” Units) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) has been updated to include a commitment to reach out to owners to ensure compliance with state preservation notice law. The City will initiate discussions with property owners of potential "at-risk" units at least 3 years prior to expiration to monitor tenant noticing requirements.

C –
Quantified
Objectives

1.1 The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives by income group for very low-, low-, moderate- and above-moderate income, the element must also include objectives for extremely low-income households. In addition, while the element includes these objectives for construction, it must also include estimates for rehabilitation and conservation/preservation.

Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an updated “Summary of Quantified Objectives” subsection. Table 7-12 (Quantified Objectives) summarizes Menlo Park’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.

The objectives include the City’s new construction objectives to meet its regional housing needs (RHNA) and conservation objectives which reflect preservation of Crane Place (93 units), which is at moderate risk for conversion to market-rate prices.

The City will fund Habitat for Humanity’s Homeownership Preservation Program in the Belle Have neighborhood, with a goal of assisting 20 very low-income homeowners to complete major rehabilitation improvements to their homes.

D – Public
Participation

1.1 While the element includes a summary of public participation including outreach to the community, it must also describe how comments from public participation were considered and incorporated into the element.

Chapter 1 (Introduction) includes a new “Consideration of Public Comment” subsection that describes revisions that were made to the draft Housing Element in response to 108 comments from individuals, agencies, and organizations received through July 5, 2022. In general, several new policies and programs were added to the document to remove constraints on the development of affordable housing; increase housing equity through transitional housing, inclusionary housing, and anti-displacement strategies; provide support for special needs populations; increase coordination with schools; and increase opportunities for childcare facilities.

In Progress: A full list of public comments is being created and is will be provided as a new Appendix 1-1 to the draft Housing Element.

Page H-1.19
City of Menlo Park
6th Cycle Housing Element: 2023-2031
Revised HCD Review Draft
With redlined changes
Published: January XX, 2022
Page H-1.20 ATTACHMENT E
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1 Chapter 2: 5th Cycle Evaluation .................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3: Housing Conditions and Trends ................................................................. 3-1 Chapter 4: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ......................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5: Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing ............................................... 5-1 Chapter 6: Energy ........................................................................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7: Site Inventory and Analysis ........................................................................ 7-1 Chapter 8: Goals, Policies and Programs .................................................................... 8-1 Chapter 9: Definitions of Key Housing Terms .............................................................. 9-1 Appendix 4-1: Outreach Summary ........................................................................... 4-1- 1 Appendix 4-2: City of Menlo Park Assessment of Fair Housing ................................ 4-2-1 Appendix 4-3: February 12, 2022 Community Meeting Notes ................................... 4-3-1 Appendix 4-4: Policy and Program Recommendations from
the Golden Gate Regional Center and Housing Choices .......................................... 4-4-1 Appendix 4-5: 21 Elements Resident Survey Analysis .............................................. 4-5-1 Appendix 4-6: Charts on Ethnicity/Race and Disabilities ........................................... 4-6-1 Appendix 5-1: San Mateo County Constraints .......................................................... 5-1-1 Appendix 7-1: Site Inventory ..................................................................................... 7-1-1 Appendix 7-2: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Maps ........................... 7-2-1 Appendix 7-3: Development in Menlo Park ............................................................... 7-3-1 Appendix 7-4: Sample Affordable Housing Developments ........................................ 7-4-1 Appendix 7-5: Site Sheets ......................................................................................... 7-5-1 Appendix 7-6: City-Owned Parcels in Menlo Park ..................................................... 7-6-1 Page H-1.21
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Introduction | Page 1-1
Introduction

PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Housing Elements are housing plans that are one part of a community’s General Plan – a guide to how each city, town, or county is planned and managed, from roads and sidewalks to parks and neighborhoods. With an update required every eight years by the State of California, this Housing Element covers a planning period from 2023-2031 (also referred to as the “6th Cycle”) and will create a foundation for all the goals, policies, programs, and objectives related to housing in Menlo Park.

While local governments do not generally build housing themselves, they create the rules that affect where housing can be built, how much, and how it is approved. The 2023-2031 Housing Element has been prepared to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in Menlo Park and provide a framework for the community’s longer-term approach to address housing needs. The Housing Element contains goals, information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing programs with objectives) that the City of Menlo Park (City) is committed to undertaking together with the community and other stakeholders to provide for housing development.

Housing affordability in San Mateo County and the greater Bay Area is a critical issue.

Menlo Park’s housing conditions reflect many areawide and even nationwide trends, influenced by rising housing costs and the lack of supply to meet the demand for all income levels.

Because of these issues, it becomes increasingly difficult for employers to fill job openings; roadways are congested with workers traveling long distances in and out of Menlo Park and surrounding areas; and many young people, families, longtime residents, lower-income households, and people with special housing needs face relocation challenges stemming from the inability to secure housing they can afford and/or that meets their needs. Additionally, unaffordable housing prices can exacerbate homelessness and create barriers to transitioning unhoused individuals and families into permanent housing.

The Housing Element touches upon many aspects of community life. This Housing Element updates the goals, policies, and implementing programs contained in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element (also referred to as the “5th Cycle”) and other City policies and practices to address housing needs in the community. New for the 2023-2031 Page H-1.22
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Introduction | Page 1-2
planning period is the emphasis on furthering fair housing. The overall focus of the Housing Element is to enhance community life, character, and vitality through the provision of adequate housing opportunities for people at all income levels.

The following are some of the specific purposes of the 2023-2031 Housing Element:

1. Promote Equity. Ensure equitable access to housing for all people regardless of age, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, ancestry, and national origin.

2. Maintain Quality of Life. Maintain a high quality of life in Menlo Park by ensuring new housing is well-designed and has access to services.

3. Support Diversity of Population and Housing. Assess housing needs and provide a vision for housing within the city to match the needs of a diverse population.

4. Provide a Variety of Housing Opportunities. Provide a variety of housing opportunities at different income levels to accommodate the needs of people who currently work or live in Menlo Park, such as teachers, young adults, seniors, and other groups of people who have expressed challenges in finding homes or cannot afford market-rate housing in Menlo Park.

5. Comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the Regional Housing Need Allocation at all income levels for the 2023-2031 planning period.

6. Maintain Existing Housing. Maintain the existing housing stock to assure highquality maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing housing resources.

7. Address Affordable Housing Needs. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected affordable housing needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households.

8. Address the Housing Needs of Special Needs Groups. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected housing needs of persons living with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), seniors, and other households with special needs in the community.

9. Remove Potential Constraints to Housing. Evaluate potential constraints to housing development and encourage new housing in locations supported by existing or planned infrastructure. Develop objective design standards for multifamily housing to reduce barriers to housing development.

Page H-1.23
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Introduction | Page 1-3

10. Address the Needs of People Experiencing Homelessness. Plan for and support emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, and transitional and supportive housing opportunities.

11. Provide Adequate Housing Sites. Identify appropriate housing sites within specified areas near transportation, commercial and public services, recreation opportunities, and schools; establish the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.

STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING ELEMENTS
State law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan containing at least seven elements, including a Housing Element. Regulations regarding Housing Elements are found in the California Government Code § 65580-65589. Although the Housing Element must follow State law, it is a local document. The focus of the Menlo Park Housing Element is to meet the housing needs of Menlo Park residents.

Unlike the other mandatory General Plan elements, which typically have a 20-year planning period, the Housing Element is updated every eight years and is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). According to State law, the Housing Element must:
 Provide a Housing Action Plan with goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve, improve, and develop housing.  Provide a housing needs assessment, including identifying and analyzing existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community and special needs populations.
 Include a summary of community outreach efforts and input received from the community.
 Evaluate progress on the policies and programs from the previous Housing Element cycle (2015-2023).
 Affirmatively further fair housing and include policies and programs that address fair housing.
 Identify adequate sites that will be rezoned and available within the Housing Element planning period (2023-2031) to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs at all income levels.
 Review affordable housing at risk of conversion to market-rate and identify potential resources to preserve affordable housing.
 Identify and analyze potential and actual governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the development of housing.

Page H-1.24
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Introduction | Page 1-4
 Analyze the zoning for various housing types, including multifamily housing, emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, mobile home parks, accessory dwelling units, and more.
 Provide a Site Inventory of housing opportunity sites.  Be submitted to HCD for certification that the Housing Element complies with state law.

State law establishes detailed content requirements for Housing Elements and establishes a regional “fair share” approach to distributing housing needs throughout all communities in the Bay Area. The law recognizes that in order for the private sector and non-profit housing sponsors to address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and implement regulations that provide opportunities for, and do not overly constrain, housing development.

The Housing Element must provide clear policies and direction for making decisions relating to zoning, subdivision approval, and capital improvements related to housing needs. The Housing Action Plan included within the Housing Element is intended to:
 Identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of housing types for all income levels.
 Focus on providing adequate housing to meet the needs of lower- and moderateincome households.  Address potential governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
 Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock.  Promote housing opportunities for all persons.

In accordance with State law, the Housing Element must be consistent and compatible with other elements (or sections) of the Menlo Park General Plan. Concurrent with the preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City is updating the Safety Element and creating a new Environmental Justice Element (collectively referred to as the “Housing Element Update project”).

CONSISTENCY WITH THE MENLO PARK GENERAL PLAN
The Menlo Park General Plan serves as the ‘constitution’ for development in the city. It is a long-range planning document that describes goals, policies, and programs to guide decision-making. All development-related decisions must be consistent with the General Plan, of which the Housing Element is but one part. If a development proposal is not consistent with a city’s general plan, it must be revised or the plan itself must be amended. State law requires a community’s general plan to be internally consistent.

This means that the Housing Element, although subject to special requirements and a Page H-1.25
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Introduction | Page 1-5
different schedule of updates, must function as an integral part of the overall Menlo Park General Plan, with consistency between it and the other General Plan elements.

A series of consistency modifications will be made to the City of Menlo Park General Plan as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The consistency modifications ensure that any potential impediments to the implementation of the Housing Element are addressed in the other elements of the General Plan.

PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Menlo Park’s history of extensive community involvement in local decision-making makes the community outreach process for the 2023-2031 Housing Element not only essential and valuable but also a critical component of the work effort. The approach for preparing this Housing Element is consistent with State law contained in Government Code § 65583(c)(7), which states that:

The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.

The development of the Housing Element was guided by the City’s extensive community outreach effort and the City’s participation in the outreach efforts and activities of 21 Elements, which is a collaborative effort to assist all jurisdictions in San Mateo County with their Housing Element preparations. The 21 Elements effort included presentations and coordination with housing experts and organizations that provide services to lower-income and special needs groups throughout San Mateo County. A detailed discussion of community outreach efforts undertaken by the City in developing the Housing Element is discussed in Chapter 4: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT
The City opened the Initial HCD Draft Housing Element for a 10-business-day review period June 13, 2022, and closed the comment period on June 24, 2022. With the intent to garner as much feedback as possible, the City continued to receive and consider comments for the draft Housing Element up through July 5, 2022. The full list of public comments can be found in Appendix 1-1, along with verbal comments provided at the May 16 and June 6, 2022 public meetings.

In consideration of all the comments received for the public review draft Housing Element, the major themes of the feedback are noted below, accompanied by a Page H-1.26
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Introduction | Page 1-6
summary of how the City made revisions to the draft Housing Element in response to the feedback.
 Removing Constraints on Development of Affordable Housing o Programs have been refined to modify regulations in order to support the development of affordable housing development. (Programs H1.A, H4.A, and H4.D)
o New Programs have been developed to make affordable housing development easier. (Programs H4.U and 4H.V)
 Increasing Housing Equity
o Policy H1.3 was refined to seek funding for the development of transitional housing.
o Program H5.C was refined to place greater emphasis on training/education regarding equity and past discriminatory practices. o Programs have been refined to place greater emphasis on inclusionary housing and anti-displacement. (Programs H2.E, H4.A, H4.B, and H4.D)  Support for Special Needs Populations
o Program H3.M was added for wheelchair visitability.
o Program H4.D was refined to consider outlining development targets for special needs populations.
 Increase coordination with Schools
o Policy H4.17 was added to increase coordination with developers and schools.
 Increase opportunities for childcare facilities
o Program H2.F was added to increase allowance for childcare.

Page H-1.27
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-1
5th Cycle Evaluation
REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
California Government Code § 65588 requires a Housing Element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress relative to achieving its stated goals and objectives. This complete and thorough review process provides information that informs best practices for achieving successful implementation over the next planning period during each revision cycle. Additionally, by comparing the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) performance for 2015-2023 against the RHNA target for 2023-2031, the City can assess the strengths and weaknesses of various strategies for continuous improvement.

Accomplishments under the 2015-2023 Housing Element are evaluated in this chapter to determine the effectiveness of the previous Housing Element, the City’s progress in implementing the 2015-2023 Housing Element, and the feasibility of the housing goals, policies, and programs.

The City of Menlo Park’s 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted on April 1, 2014, after a robust public outreach and engagement process. Through this process, the resulting 2015-2023 Housing Element focused on achieving an adequate supply of safe, decent housing for all residents of Menlo Park through maintaining and preserving the existing housing stock; preserving the character of Menlo Park’s residential neighborhoods; meeting the City’s RHNA; and providing additional affordable housing.

Specifically, the 2015-2023 Housing Element identified the following goals:

Goal H1 Continue to Build Local Government Institutional Capacity and Monitor Accomplishments to Effectively Respond to Housing Needs Goal H2 Maintain, Protect, and Enhance Existing Housing and Neighborhoods
Goal H3 Provide Housing for Special Needs Populations that is Coordinated with Support Services
Goal H4 Use Land Efficiently to Meet Housing Needs for a Variety of Income Levels, Implement Sustainable Development Practices, and Blend Well-Designed New Housing into the Community
Collectively, these goals and related policies and programs also served to meet the City’s RHNA housing targets. As indicated in Table 2-1, the City far exceeded its RHNA Page H-1.28
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-2
housing target for the above moderate-income level (788 percent) and is near to achieving the targets for the very low-income level (93.1 percent) through the end of 2021. The low- and moderate-income levels are 70.5 percent and 15.4 percent completed, respectively, through the end of 2021.

Table 2-1: 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Accomplishments Income Level RHNA
Allocation
Total Through
2021
Percent
Complete
Very Low 233 217 93.1%
Low 129 91 70.5%
Moderate 143 22 15.4%
Above
Moderate
150 1,182 788%
Total 655 1,512 N/A
Source: City of Menlo Park 2021 Annual Progress Report
Overall, during the 2015-2023 planning period, the City showed positive success in programs that focused on meeting the needs of unhoused individuals and families; adopting meaningful legislation to protect vulnerable populations and encourage housing production; and partnering with other jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, and developers to provide housing and services. The City also experienced challenges in executing certain programs, with efforts still ongoing or have been stalled. The City also faced difficulties producing lower-income housing that is attributed to legal challenges to the City’s inclusionary housing policy. A summary of these efforts is provided below, with references to specific program items that were included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Additional information and analysis for each policy and program are provided in Attachment A. The section concludes with a discussion on programs that were not addressed during the planning period.

Providing for Unhoused Individuals and Families
The City participated in multiple efforts working with partners locally and regionally to address the needs of unhoused individuals and families. Throughout the 2015-2023 planning period, a team of City staff facilitated and led the Menlo Park Homeless Outreach team, which includes community-based organizations that provide homeless outreach and support services (H3.H). City staff also works closely with the San Mateo County Department of Human Services to coordinate outreach and referral services, with the goal of ending homelessness in Menlo Park. The team meets regularly to discuss case management, strategize coordinated outreach and intervention, streamline resources, and prepare action plans for homeless individuals (H3.H).

Page H-1.29
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-3
In 2020, the City Council formed a subcommittee to address high-risk health and safety concerns at a large homeless encampment populated by approximately 60 individuals in an area called the Ravenswood Triangle. This effort involved multi-jurisdictional agencies coordinating an intensive effort to conduct outreach, remove debris and eventually remove and rehouse the encampment over the course of several months.

Legislative Changes
In conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City adopted a series of ordinances that established zoning for emergency shelters (H3.A), transitional and supportive housing (H3.B), and procedures for reasonable accommodation requests by individuals with disabilities (H3.C). The City also worked towards the goals of facilitating development standards and incentives to encourage residential and affordable housing projects within the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zone and a new Residential Mixed Use (R-MU) district (H3.G and H4.1).

Partnership Efforts
The City has a strong partnership with the County of San Mateo and community-based organizations in addressing the needs of unhoused individuals. Highlighted housing assistance providers recommended by the City include, but are not limited to, Samaritan House, HIP Housing, and HouseKeys which administers the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. The City has successfully partnered with the County Department of Housing to implement rental housing assistance programs. In the 2015- 2023 Housing Element, Menlo Park set a goal to assist 220 extremely low- and very low-income households every year. There are currently approximately 248 active housing vouchers issued for Menlo Park, which assist a total of 521 individuals. Of the total, 157 households include elderly residents or individuals with disabilities, and 86 are households with children (H3.D). The City has also leveraged the strength of publicprivate partnerships, for example, in the continuing work with MidPen Housing, an affordable housing developer, to facilitate a 140-unit housing development at 1300 Willow Road. This project received $9.3 million in funding from the City to offset development costs. In 2016, the City also supported the revitalization of 1221 Willow Road, which is a 130-unit development that primarily serves seniors (H3.1, H4.H).

In February 2021, the City Council approved $5.5 million of below-market-rate (BMR) housing funds awarded to HIP Housing to acquire a 14-unit apartment building. The purchase allowed HIP Housing to convert market-rate units to deed-restricted BMR rental housing and secure additional affordable housing opportunities for the Menlo Page H-1.30
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-4
Park community. HIP Housing has completed the purchase and filled all vacant units with qualified, low-income tenants.

In May 2021, the City Council authorized $1.2 million from the BMR housing fund to support Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco’s proposal to create a Homeownership Preservation Program. The program will assist low-income homeowners in Menlo Park with major repairs and rehabilitation projects that address acute safety issues and enable homeowners to age in place and remain in the community they have been a part of for many years. The program is scheduled to begin in 2022.

In October 2021, the City Council approved $250,000 in American Rescue Plan funds to increase funding of the Housing Assistance Program administered by Samaritan House San Mateo. The program provides rental and mortgage assistance to qualified households related to the COVID-19 pandemic or other emergency circumstances. At the end of 2021, Samaritan House had distributed a total of approximately $96,000 of the program’s initial $100,000 funding allocation, which assisted 32 households comprised of 86 individuals who remain stably housed.

Programs Not Completed
In the 2015-2023 Housing Element, Menlo Park pursued 46 program objectives. The following seven programs were not completed during the planning period because efforts are still ongoing, but not complete, or, efforts are stalled for reasons related to the prioritization of other tasks and/or reliance on outside funding or leadership:
‐ Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Protect Existing Housing (H2.C) ‐ Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs (H2.D) o In 2021, the City provided BMR funds to HIP Housing to support the purchase of a 14-unit development to preserve affordable housing. ‐ Investigate Possible Multi-Jurisdictional Emergency Shelter (H3.E) o San Mateo County recently launched a countywide effort to address homelessness through the Project Homekey program.
‐ Modify R-2 Zoning to Maximize Unit Potential (H4.A)
‐ Implement Inclusionary Housing Regulations (H4.B)
o The BMR program is ongoing and improvements are currently under consideration.
‐ Modify BMR Guidelines (H4.C)
o The BMR program is ongoing, and improvements are currently under consideration.

Page H-1.31
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-5
‐ Review the Subdivision Ordinance (H4.M)
Appropriateness of Housing Element
The overarching goals and policies of the 2015-2023 Housing Element continue to be appropriate and are generally kept in the Housing Plan, with modifications to streamline or clarify objectives where applicable. As indicated in Attachment A, many housing programs continue to be appropriate and the intent of these programs will be kept in the Housing Element and revised to address specific housing needs, constraints, or other concerns identified as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The policies and programs of the 2015-2023 Housing Element that were developed to modify the City’s former Zoning Code (Menlo Park Municipal Code Title 16) have been implemented and will be removed from the Housing Element as they are no longer necessary.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element will revise existing programs and include new programs, where appropriate, to ensure that the City’s priorities are addressed, that requirements of State law are addressed and that constraints to housing are removed, to the extent feasible. See Chapter 8 for the goals, policies, and programs of this Housing Element.

Housing and Services for Special Needs Populations
Menlo Park provides services and housing resources for special needs populations such as seniors (age 65 plus), those living with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), people experiencing homelessness, and families with female heads of households—groups that have historically experienced greater challenges in securing affordable housing options that meet specific needs.

To finance these programs, the City maintains a Below Market Rate Housing Fund as a source of funding for housing and services for special needs population groups, as well as supporting countywide housing efforts (H1.H and H1.F). While many programs provide services to a breadth of special needs populations, the following are highlighted actions that contributed to targeted efforts:
- Farmworkers: There are no farms or farmworker housing in Menlo Park.

Although less than one-tenth of one percent of the population in Menlo Park is employed in agriculture, the City provides funding through County-wide housing programs that provide housing and services for farmworkers at the county level (H1.F).

Page H-1.32
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-6
- Seniors (Age 65 Plus): During the planning period, the City approved a 90-unit senior housing development (Sequoia Belle Haven Project at 1221 Willow Road), which utilized the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay program to receive a residential density bonus and development concessions (H3.G). Additionally, the City currently assists approximately 157 senior or disabled households in Menlo Park with housing vouchers received through the County and State (H3.C). - People Living With Disabilities (Including Developmental Disabilities):

During the planning period, the City adopted Ordinance 1003 to establish Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 16.83, Reasonable Accommodation, which provides reasonable accommodation procedures for individuals living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities (H3.C). The City also provides support to HIP Housing, which provides services for households living with disabilities (H3.F).
- People Experiencing Homelessness: During the planning period, the City adopted Ordinance 1002 that permitted emergency shelters, with up to 16 beds, by-right in various areas of the city (H3.A). The City also developed the Menlo Park Homeless Outreach Team to better serve people experiencing homelessness, address encampments and re-house individuals, and has strengthened its partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs on homelessness-related issues (H3.H and H3.I).
- Families with Female Heads of Household: During the planning period, the City adopted Ordinance 1004 to allow supportive and transitional housing as a permitted use within the city. While the provision of supportive and transitional housing benefits many types of individuals, it is an especially important type of housing for families with single-person heads of household – particularly female heads of households – that may require emergency and transitional housing services (H3.B). The City also supports the County’s Housing Voucher Program for low-income families, with approximately 86 households with children in Menlo Park, a portion of that population are households with one parent (H3.D).1

1 Menlo Park. 2020 Housing Element Annual Progress Report.

Page H-1.33
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-7
Attachment A: City of Menlo Park 2015-2023 Housing Element Evaluation Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Goal H1: Implementation Responsibilities; Continue to Build Local Government Institutional Capacity and Monitor Accomplishments to Respond Effectively to Housing Needs Policy H1.1 Local Government Leadership Recognize affordable housing as an important City priority and the City will take a proactive leadership role in working with community groups, other jurisdictions and agencies, non-profit housing sponsors, and the building and real estate industry in following through on identified Housing Element implementation action in a timely manner.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H1.2 Community Participation in Housing and Land Use Plans Strengthen a sense of community by providing opportunities for community participation, developing partnerships with a variety of groups, and providing community leadership to effectively address housing needs. The City will undertake effective and informed public participation from all economic segments and special needs groups in the community in the formulation and review of housing and land use policy issues.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H1.3 Neighborhood Responsibilities within Menlo Park Seek ways, specific to each neighborhood, to provide additional housing as part of each neighborhood’s fair share of responsibility and commitment to help achieve community-wide housing goals. This may range from in-lieu fees, secondary dwelling units, higher density housing sites, infill housing, mixed-use, or other new housing construction.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H1.4 Neighborhood Meetings
Encourage developers of major housing projects to conduct neighborhood meetings with residents early in the process to undertake problem-solving and facilitate more informed, faster, and constructive development review.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. For all discretionary review projects, the City requires a Project Description document, which includes the purpose of Modify application guidelines for the Project Description Page H-1.34
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-8
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
the proposal, scope of work, architectural style, site layout, existing and proposed uses, and outreach to neighboring properties. document to require (not optional) documented outreach to neighboring properties.

Policy H1.5 Inter-Jurisdictional Strategic Action Plan for Housing Coordinate housing strategies with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County as appropriate to meeting the City’s housing needs.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. This policy occurred as part of the City’s participation in 21 Elements for the Housing Element Update.

Retain
Policy H1.6 Equal Housing Opportunity
Actively support housing opportunities for all persons to the fullest extent possible. The City will ensure that individuals and families seeking housing in Menlo Park are not discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, marital status, disability, age, sex, family status (due to the presence of children), national origin, or other arbitrary factors, consistent with the Fair Housing laws.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City works 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.

Retain
Policy H1.7 Local Funding for Affordable Housing
Seek ways to reduce housing costs for lower-income workers and people with special needs by developing ongoing local funding resources and continuing to utilize other local, state, and federal assistance to the fullest extent possible. The City will also maintain the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program requirements for residential and non-residential developments.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City’s Below Market Rate Housing Fund has contributed to increased affordable housing opportunities in Menlo Park, building on successful public-private partnerships and interjurisdictional coordination with entities such as the County of San Mateo Department of Housing.

Retain
Page H-1.35
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-9
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Policy H1.8 Organizational Effectiveness
Seek ways to organize and allocate staffing and community resources effectively and efficiently to implement the programs of the Housing Element. In recognition that there are limited resources available to the City to achieve housing goals in implementing this policy, the City will, to the extent practical:
a. Provide technical and administrative support, as
well as assist in finding outside funding, to agencies and private sponsors in developing and/or rehabilitating housing to accommodate special housing needs. b. Provide representation on committees, task forces,
or other forums addressing housing issues at a local, regional, or state level.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to include expansion of staff capacity to monitor and implement affordable housing policies and projects.

Policy H1.9 Housing Element Monitoring, Evaluation, and Revisions Establish a regular monitoring and update process to assess housing needs and achievements, and to provide a process for modifying policies, programs, and resource allocations as needed in response to changing conditions.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City continues to meet all Annual Progress Report requirements for the Housing Element and acknowledges the need to continually seek opportunities to enhance communication regarding housing issues. There is strong collaboration between City staff, the Housing Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.

Retain
Program H1.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 and 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
This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City continues to meet all Annual Progress Report requirements for the Housing Element. Annual Progress Reports are available on the City’s website. The City continues its participation with the countywide 21 Elements effort.

Modify program references to reflect updated housing programs.

Page H-1.36
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-10
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
(Program H1.B).
b. Review options for funding housing affordable to
extremely low-, very low-, low, and moderateincome households. (Program H4.Q). c. Make recommendations to City Commission 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 H4.H). e. Conduct community outreach and provide
community information materials through an open and non-advocacy process (Program H1.E). f. Engage property owners in identifying opportunities
for the construction of affordable housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households (Program H4.H). g. Pursue unique opportunities where the City can
participate in the construction of affordable housing, either on City-owned sites or through funding or regulatory means (Program H4.J). h. Develop ongoing and annual outreach and
coordination with non-profit housing developers and affordable housing advocates (Program H1.I). i. Continue to participate in ongoing regional
activities related to housing, including participation in ongoing efforts as part of the countywide 21 Elements effort.

Objectives: Establish staff priorities for implementing Housing Element programs.

Specific priorities that relate to other programs are addressed in this table for that program.

Page H-1.37
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-11
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Program H1.B Review the Housing Element Annually
As required by State law, review the status of the Housing Element programs by April of each year, beginning April 2014. As required by statutes, 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 ensure that internal consistency is maintained. 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.

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.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City continues to meet all Annual Progress Report requirements for the Housing Element. Annual Progress Reports are available on the City’s website.

Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Program H1.C 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. The City Manager shall designate an Equal
Opportunity Coordinator in Menlo Park with responsibility to investigate and deal with complaints. b. Discrimination complaints will be referred to the
appropriate agency. Specifically, the City will continue to work with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) and the San Mateo County This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. An Equal Opportunity Coordinator is no longer needed as the City provides public information materials and referrals to Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA), Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Project Sentinel to assist tenants and landlords in resolving conflicts and understanding their respective rights and obligations. Project Sentinel, an independent non-profit, provides free education and counseling to community members, housing providers, and tenants about fair housing laws. They also investigate complaints and provide advocacy services for those who have experienced housing discrimination.

Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Modify to remove designation of Equal Opportunity Coordinator and update references to community partners. Focus program on Page H-1.38
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-12
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Department of Housing in handling fair housing complaints. Calls to the City are referred to ECHO for counseling and investigation. ECHO also provides direct fair housing education to Menlo Park residents. c. Enforce a non-discrimination policy in the
implementation of City approved housing programs.
d. The City will provide public information materials
and referrals to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) and the Landlord and Tenant Information and Referral Collaborative (LTIRC) to assist tenants and landlords in resolving conflicts and understanding their respective rights and obligations. e. Information regarding the housing discrimination
complaint referral process will be posted on the City’s website and available for the pubic and City staff consistent with Program 1H.D. f. As needed, the City will outreach to lenders to
increase flow of mortgage funds to city residents.

Objectives: Obtain and distribute materials. (See Program 1H.D) Information regarding the housing discrimination complaint referral process is posted on the City’s website and available for the public and City staff to review. strengthening ties and resource offerings with community partners who are subject-matter experts.

Program H1.D Provide Information on Housing Programs
Promote the availability of San Mateo County programs for housing construction, homebuyer assistance, rental assistance, and housing rehabilitation through the following means: (a) creating a link on the City’s website that describes programs available in the City of Menlo Park, including the City’s designated BMR administrator, 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 This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City currently uses a third party to administer the BMR housing program. This policy should be modified to reflect current practice. The City provides a housing-specific website that includes information and direct links for its programs. Informational Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Modify to include focus on multilingual information and people with Page H-1.39
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-13
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
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.); and (f) using the activity calendar and public information channel. Objectives: Review and obtain materials by June 2014; distribute and post materials, conduct staff training by December 2014; 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. materials are also available at City Hall. The public may also opt-in for an available email subscription to receive Housing Commission agendas and general updates. Materials and information for specific programs such as the Energy Workshop in 2016, Grid Alternatives, HERO, PACE, water rebate and BMR programs have also been provided on dedicated webpages, through social media, as City Council Digest items, in quarterly garbage and water bill inserts, or as letters sent directly to affected residents. special needs.

Program H1.E 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 to solicit ideas for housing strategies when they are discussed at City Commission or City Council meetings. Specific actions should be linked to the preparation and distribution of materials as identified in Programs H1.D. Specific outreach activities include:
a. Maintain the HE 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
This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Materials and information are available on the City's website and at City Hall. Housing Commission meetings are conducted monthly. The public may opt-in for an available email subscription to receive Housing Commission agendas and general updates. Additional public outreach is conducted based on program type. Agendas and notices for all meetings of City commissions and committees are posted at City Hall and on the City's website. Since 2016, the Housing Commission has also formed various subcommittees to focus on specific topics, such as BMR Housing Guidelines, BMR Nexus, Housing Policy, NOFA, Anti-Displacement, and Marketing. In 2017, the Housing Commission also modified its meeting schedule by meeting monthly as opposed to quarterly, and its membership expanded from five to seven commissioners.

Modify to include outreach to people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, including partnering with groups such as Housing Choices.

Page H-1.40
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-14
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
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 community as a whole. g. Provide public information materials concerning
recycling practices for the construction industry, as well as use of recycled materials and other environmentally responsible materials in new construction, consistent with Ch. 12.48, Salvaging and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris, of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code and CBC 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 installation of renewable energy systems, such as rooftop solar panels, available to property owners and builders.

Objectives: Conduct community outreach and distribute materials (see Programs H1.C and 1H.D).

Program H1.F Continue to coordinate with the San Mateo County This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Retain Page H-1.41
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-15
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing
Department of Housing (DOH) for management of the affordable housing stock in order to ensure permanent affordability, and implement resale and rental regulations for very low-, low- and moderate-income units, and assure that these units remain at an affordable price level. Objectives: Coordinate with County efforts to maintain and support affordable housing.

Housing Element. Continued participation and coordination have occurred as part of the countywide 21 Elements organization. The City works with the County Department of Housing and other jurisdictions on housing-related topics such as accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals, and coordination in implementing Housing Element programs. The City continues to participate in the Home for All Learning Network and Community Convenings, all efforts that aim to support affordable housing.

Program H1.G Adopt an AntiDiscrimination Ordinance
Adopt an Anti-Discrimination Ordinance to prohibit discrimination based on the source of a person’s income or the use of rental subsidies, including Section 8 and other rental programs. Objectives: Undertake Municipal Code amendment and ensure effective implementation of anti-discrimination policies and enforcement as needed.

This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed. In 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1048 to establish Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 8.54, Tenant Anti-Discrimination. The purpose and findings of Chapter 8.54 are:
a. Equal housing opportunities should be available to all people. The City is opposed to and desires to eliminate discrimination in a person’s ability to obtain housing based on a person’s source of income. b. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a right of tenants to be free from discrimination based on their use of a rental subsidy, including Section 8 and other rental programs.

Remove – Completed
Program H1.H Utilize the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Fund Administer and no longer 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. Objectives: Accumulate and distribute funds for housing This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City advertises the availability of funds in the BMR Housing Fund on regular basis, not less than every two years.

Retain
Page H-1.42
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-16
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households.

On September 15, 2020, City Council approved an increase in funding to MidPen Housing's 1300 Willow Road project to reach a total of $9.3 million. This project was approved for $6.7 million from the BMR housing fund in March 2019.2 On November 18, 2020, a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) of approximately $10 million from the BMR Housing Fund was released to support the preservation or production of permanently affordable housing. The City received three proposals by the submission deadline. All applications were received from nonprofit housing organizations with a strong track record of assisting residents in Menlo Park and throughout San Mateo County. The proposals were diverse and included property acquisition for affordable housing conversion, a home rehabilitation program, and construction of BMR ownership units.3 In February 2021, the City Council approved $5.5 million of BMR housing funds to HIP Housing to acquire a 14-unit apartment building. The purchase allowed HIP Housing to convert market-rate units to deed restricted BMR rental housing and secure additional affordable housing opportunities for the Menlo Park community. HIP Housing completed the purchase in March 2021 and filled all vacant units with qualified, low income tenants.4 In May 2021, the City Council authorized $1.2 million from the BMR housing fund to support Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco’s proposal to create a Homeownership Preservation Program. The program will 2 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021). 3 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021). 4 City Council Agenda Packet, Item K-1 (February 23, 2021).

Page H-1.43
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-17
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
assist low-income homeowners in Menlo Park’s Belle Haven neighborhood with major repairs and rehabilitation projects that address acute safety issues and enable homeowners to age in place and remain in the community. The program is scheduled to begin in 2022.5 A third proposal received from MidPen Housing to build 12 low-income ownership units at 335 Pierce Road is under review. The property has also been identified as a potential housing opportunity site in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.6 Program H1.I Work with NonProfits on Housing
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. Participation of non-profits in an advisory role when implementing housing programs would be desirable to help understand the needs and opportunities for nonprofit housing development in the community. The City currently works with and provides partial funding support for Human Investment Project (HIP Housing), Center for Independence of the Disabled (CID), Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO), Rebuilding Together; HEART memberships and Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center. Objectives: Maintain a working relationship with non-profit housing sponsors.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City works with a variety of community partners to deliver housing services and increase affordable housing opportunity. Highlighted housing assistance providers recommended by the City include, but are not limited to, Samaritan House, HIP Housing, and HouseKeys which administers the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. Menlo Park currently works 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. The tenant relocation assistance ordinance was passed by City Council in 2019. In addition, the Council approved the establishment of a community housing fund to be administered by local nonprofit, Samaritan House. As of 2020, Samaritan House, with support from the City, has Modify references to community partners.
5 City Council Agenda Packet, Item M-1 (May 11, 2021). 6 City Council Agenda Packet, Item E-4 (March 22, 2022).

Page H-1.44
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-18
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
continued to offer financial assistance to lower income tenants experiencing hardships and/or potential displacement. The City also continued to assist MidPen Housing as they finalized funding sources for their 1300 Willow Road project, including the completion of their Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant application preparation and submittal in early 2020. In September 2020, The City increased its funding commitment by $2.631 million for the 1300 Willow Road project to help MidPen Housing reach 100 percent funding. As part of the Notice of Funding Availability released in November 2020, the City intended to continue its support of strong partnerships with local nonprofit housing organizations (see Evaluation Notes for Program H1.H for other highlighted work with housing nonprofits).7 Program H1.J 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 to address the City’s RHNA 5 for the 2015-2023 planning period. Objectives: Assure consistency with SB375 and Housing Element law.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element on April 1, 2014, which was certified by HCD on April 16, 2014. The City was awarded both SB2 and LEAP grant funding to assist with the preparation of the Housing Element for the RHNA 6 cycle (2023-2031). The City continues to participate in the countywide 21 Elements effort as part of the Housing Element Update process.

Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Program H1.K Address Rent
Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational and mediation opportunities and continue the This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify references to
7 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021).

Page H-1.45
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-19
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Conflicts City’s financial contribution to and encourage resident use of the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center as a vehicle to resolve rental disputes between renters and property owners. Objectives: Resolve rent issues as they arise The City provides public information materials and referrals to Project Sentinel to assist tenants and landlords in resolving conflicts and understanding their respective rights and obligations.

Project Sentinel, an independent non-profit, provides free education and counseling to community members, housing providers, and tenants about fair housing laws. They also investigate complaints and provide advocacy services for those who have experienced housing discrimination. Information regarding the housing discrimination complaint referral process is posted on the City’s website and available for the public and City staff to review. In November 2019, the City Council passed an urgency ordinance to enact state law AB 1482 locally prior to the January 1, 2020 effective date, enacting rent increase and just cause protections. Throughout 2020, the City has continued to be an informational resource for local tenants unfamiliar with new state laws. Informative material is available on the City's website, including contact information for free legal services. community partners.

Program H1.L 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) Objectives: Comply with Government Code § 65589.7.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The water demands presented in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Menlo Park include projected future water use by lower income households.

Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Program H1.M Lobby for
In coordination with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, as appropriate, lobby for modifications to State This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Remove
Page H-1.46
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-20
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Changes to State Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element requirements to address unfunded State mandates and enable a more community-driven process and more local control in developing appropriate housing policies and programs. Specific modifications to State requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Enable State projections and the development of
regional housing needs to be a more transparent process, subject to public hearings and peer review. b. Enable more consideration of local issues such as
water supply, infrastructure needs, schools, roadway improvements, as well as the fiscal demands that come with providing additional city services to new residents. c. Address unfunded mandates and expenses local
governments must incur to comply with State requirements, especially when rezoning of sites to meet State mandated densities is required. d. Assist local governments in meeting their
affordable housing requirements and the resulting need for additional schools and infrastructure required (water, waste water, etc.). e. Recognize the importance of second units as a
particularly viable mechanism to address housing needs in providing housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled and others at below market prices, and allow jurisdictions to use GIS to count illegal second units, and if an amnesty plan is adopted, allow cities to count a high percentage of the illegal units toward the housing need. f. Provide greater flexibility to allow a city to mix
affordable housing with community serving retail, like a grocery store, that may make development of affordable housing a more financially attractive to Various members of the City Council and City staff have attended meetings with legislators and other jurisdictions to provide input on proposed legislation. The City also continues to participate with the countywide 21 Elements effort which enables coordinated review, discussion, analysis, and comment for local jurisdictions within San Mateo County on various housing and planning related legislation.

Page H-1.47
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-21
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
local developers and may increase the likelihood that affordable housing will be built (and in a sustainable fashion where dependence on the automobile is reduced). g. Recognize that in high housing cost localities, like Menlo Park, higher density zoning may not necessarily produce affordable housing and results in incentives for developers to build market rate housing rather than affordable housing. Modify Government Code Section 65583.2 that requires cities to zone sufficient property at 30 units/acre as the major mechanism to define affordable housing and for jurisdictions to provide their share of the regional housing need.

Objectives: Work with other San Mateo County jurisdictions and lobby for modifications to Housing Element law (coordinate with Program H1.B) Goal H2: Existing Housing and Neighbors; Maintain, Protect and Enhance Existing Housing and Neighborhoods. Policy H2.1 Maintenance, Improvement and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing.

Encourage the maintenance, improvement, and rehabilitation of the City’s existing housing stock, the preservation of the City’s affordable housing stock, and the enhancement of community stability to maintain and improve the character and stability of Menlo Park’s existing residential neighborhoods while providing for the development of a variety of housing types. The provision of open space and/or quality gathering and outdoor spaces shall be encouraged.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H2.2 Preservation of
Limit the conversion of residential units to other uses and regulate the conversion of rental developments to nonThis policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Retain Page H-1.48
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-22
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Residential Units residential uses unless there is a clear public benefit or equivalent housing can be provided to ensure the protection and conservation of the City’s housing stock to the extent permitted by law.

Policy H2.3 Condominium Conversions
Assure that any conversions of rental housing to owner housing accommodate the tenants of the units being converted, consistent with requirements to maintain public health, safety and welfare. The City will also encourage limited equity cooperatives and other innovative housing proposals that are affordable to lower income households.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H2.4 Protection of Existing Affordable Housing
Strive to ensure that affordable housing provided through governmental incentives, subsidy or funding, and deed restrictions remains affordable over time, and the City will intervene when possible to help preserve such housing.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H2.5 Maintenance and Management of Quality Housing and Neighborhoods.

Encourage good management practices, rehabilitation of viable older housing, and long-term maintenance and improvement of neighborhoods.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H2.6 Renewable Energy/Energy Conservation in Housing Encourage energy efficiency and/or renewable energy in both new and existing housing and promote energy conservation and/or renewable energy in the design of all new residential structures and promote incorporation of energy conservation and/or renewable energy and weatherization features in existing homes. In addition, the City will support the actions contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. In 2019, the City of Menlo Park adopted groundbreaking local amendments to the State Building Code that would require electricity as the only fuel source for new buildings (not natural gas). This ordinance only applies to newly constructed buildings from the ground up, and does not include additions or remodels.

Modify to align with Reach Codes and goals and include reference to CAP.

Page H-1.49
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-23
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Program H2.A Adopt Ordinance for “At Risk” Units
While there are currently no “at risk” subsidized units in Menlo Park, prepare an ordinance requiring a one-year notice to residents, the City and the San Mateo County Department 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 who may be 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. Objectives: Protect existing affordable housing.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. “At risk” homes are those that are at risk of converting into market rate housing within the next five years. Menlo Park continues to have no "at risk" subsidized affordable units in Menlo Park. "At risk" units are those that appear to be in danger of conversion from subsidized housing units to market rents. In 2021, the City exercised its right to purchase a below market rate (BMR) ownership unit, which had a sales term of only 90 days so that the City could find a new, qualified BMR owner. The City's purchase will preserve the unit and allow the City to identify and sell the unit to a new BMR buyer outside the original 90-day sales term; new purchase agreements include an updated resale term that allows the City 180 days to find a qualified buyer for potential resales.8 Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and increase notice period to tenants.

Program H2.B Promote Energy Efficient/Renewable Programs Develop local policy and/or programs that promote and/or increase energy efficiency/renewable energy in the community. Promote county, state (Energy Upgrade California), federal and PG&E energy programs for energy assessments and improvements. Seek grants and other funding to supplement City energy conservation/renewable activities. Objectives: 50 or more homes and businesses participating in a program.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The objectives were met. In 2021, 98 percent of residents and businesses are served by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE). PCE provides greenhouse gas free (fossil-fuel free) electricity to homes and businesses. With the ECO plus service, at least 50 percent of the electricity provided by PCE comes from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, and none comes from coal and natural gas. Only 1.62 percent opted out of the program and went back to PG&E. Menlo Park continued to participate in regional energy Modify to reflect participation in Peninsula Clean Energy and to continue promoting energy efficient programs on the City’s website. 8 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021).

Page H-1.50
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-24
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
efficiency/renewable energy regional programs, such as Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO), GRID Alternatives, and Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN). 9 In 2018 and 2019, GRID Alternatives installed 14 solar arrays in the Belle Haven neighborhood. Within the past two years, the City Council approved a couple of progressive initiatives to capitalize on the greenhouse gas free electricity provided by PCE by: 1) Adopting an all-electric reach code requirement for all new construction (2019). 2) Adopted a 2030 Climate Action Plan with the bold goal to reach carbon neutrality (zero emissions) by 2030. One of the first actions is to explore policy or program options to convert 95 percent of existing buildings to all-electric by 2030 (adopted 2020).

Program H2.C Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Protect Existing Housing Consistent with State law, amend the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Housing Element policy of limiting 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. 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.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The Zoning Ordinance modification efforts during the ConnectMenlo General Plan updating process (2016) focused on the creation of new live/work/play opportunities in the Bayfront (M-2 Area), including allowing housing in an area that previously did not include residential uses. The City recognizes that potential Zoning Ordinance changes to limit the loss of residential units and/or the conversion of units can be strategies to maintain the City's housing stock. This is an ongoing item the City will evaluate along with other housing priorities.

Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. 9 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021).

Page H-1.51
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-25
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
d. Collaborate with the San Mateo County
Department of Housing, Mid-Pen Housing Corporation and others, as needed to ensure protection of affordable units in Menlo Park. e. Consider rezoning of properties for consistency to
match and protect their existing residential uses.

Objectives: Protect existing rental housing as part of infill implementation and other Zoning Ordinance changes Program H2.D Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs Continue to target Belle Haven as a primary area for rehabilitation to prevent existing standard units, both single family and apartments, from becoming deteriorated and to significantly reduce the number of seriously deteriorated units. Emphasis will be placed on the rehabilitation of apartments along Pierce Road. In addition, the City will:
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 emergency and other repairs. c. Work with San Mateo County to compete for
Community Development Block Grant funds to ensure 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 secondary dwelling unit programs.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. This program should cover the entire city. Rehabilitation and preservation projects are currently funded through the City’s BMR fund. The City may also rely on non-profit agencies and leveraging of local, county, state, and federal funding sources when available. The County has temporarily stopped administering the CDBG rehabilitation loan program, except in emergency situations. The City continues to service existing loans in the portfolio.

Modify to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and highlighted properties/areas of interest. Modify objectives to identify coordination with the County to assess needs/resources.

Page H-1.52
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-26
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Objectives: Apply to the County for CDBG funds to provide loans to rehabilitate very low- and low-income housing (20 loans from 2015-2023) Goal H3: Specialized Housing Needs; Provide Housing for Special Needs Populations that is Coordinated with Support Services. Policy H3.1 Special Needs Groups Encourage non-profit organizations and private developers to build and maintain affordable housing for groups with special needs, including the needs of seniors, people living with disabilities, the homeless, people with HIV/AIDS and other illnesses, people in need of mental health care, single-parent families, large families and other persons identified as having special housing needs.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.2 Health and Human Services Programs Linkages Assist service providers to link together programs serving the needs of special populations to provide the most effective response to homelessness or persons at risk of homelessness, youth needs, seniors, persons with mental or physical disabilities, substance abuse problems, HIV/AIDS, physical and developmental disabilities, multiple diagnoses, veterans, victims of domestic violence and other economically challenged or underemployed workers.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.3 Incentives for Special Needs Housing
Use density bonuses and other incentives to assist in meeting special housing needs, including housing for lower income elderly and disabled.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.4 Adaptable/Accessible Units for the Disabled Ensure that new multi-family housing includes units that are accessible and adaptable for use by disabled persons in conformance with the California Building Code. This will include ways to promote housing design strategies to allow seniors to ‘age in place’ or in the community.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Page H-1.53
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-27
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Policy H3.5 Transitional and Supportive Housing
Recognize the need for and desirability of transitional and supportive housing and treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use that will be subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same zone.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.6 Rental Assistance Programs
Continue to publicize and create opportunities for using available rental assistance programs, such as the projectbased and voucher Section 8 certificates programs, in coordination with the San Mateo County Department of Housing (DOH) and other entities.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.7 Emergency Housing Assistance
Participate and allocate funds, as appropriate, for County and non-profit programs providing disaster preparedness and emergency shelter and related counseling services.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.8 Coordination with Other Agencies in Housing the Homeless Engage other jurisdictions in San Mateo County to support long-term solutions for homeless individuals and families in San Mateo County, and to implement the Shelter Plus Care Program or similar activities. The City will allocate funds, as appropriate, for County and non-profit programs providing emergency shelter and related support services.

This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H3.9 Local Approach to Housing for the Homeless
Support a “housing first” approach to addressing homeless needs, consistent with the countywide HOPE Plan. “Housing first” is intended to provide homeless people with housing quickly and the provide other services as needed, with a primary focus on helping individuals and families quickly access and sustain permanent housing. The City also recognizes the need for and desirability of emergency shelter housing for the homeless and will allow a yearround emergency shelter as a permitted use in specific This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Page H-1.54
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-28
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
locations to be established in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the following would apply:
a. In recognition that homeless veterans are a special
needs in San Mateo County, the City will work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Menlo Park to identify possible programs and locations for housing and support services for homeless veterans. b. The City will encourage positive relations between
neighborhoods and providers of permanent or temporary emergency shelters. Providers or sponsors of emergency shelters, transitional housing programs and community care facilities shall be encouraged to establish outreach programs within their neighborhoods and, when necessary, work with the City or a designated agency to resolve disputes. c. It is recommended that a staff person from the
provider agency be designated as a contact person with the community to review questions or comments from the neighborhood. Outreach programs may also designate a member of the local neighborhood to their Board of Directors. Neighbors of emergency shelters shall be encouraged to provide a neighborly and hospitable environment for such facilities and their residents. d. Development standards for emergency shelters for
the homeless located in Menlo Park will ensure that shelters would be developed in a manner which protects the health, safety and general welfare of nearby residents and businesses, while providing for the needs of a segment of the population as required by State law. Shelters shall be subject only to development, design review and management standards that apply to residential or Page H-1.55
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-29
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
commercial development in the same zone, except for the specific written and objective standards as allowed in State law.

Program H3.A Zone for Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Establish an overlay zone to allow emergency shelters for the homeless to address the City’s need for providing at least 16 beds to address homeless needs in the community. Appropriate locations for the overlay zoning will be evaluated based on land availability, physical or environmental constraints (e.g., flooding, chemical contamination, slope instability), location (e.g., proximity to services, jobs, and transit), available acreage (i.e., vacant or non-vacant sites), compatibility with surrounding uses and the realistic capacity for emergency shelters. In reviewing potential non-vacant sites, the potential for reuse or conversion of existing buildings to emergency shelters will be considered. The City will also investigate the use of local churches providing temporary shelter for the homeless. In addition, the City will establish written and objective standards in the Zoning Ordinance covering:
a. Maximum number of beds; b. Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need; c. Size and location of on-site waiting and intake areas;
d. Provision of on-site management; e. Proximity to other shelters; f. Length of stay; g. Lighting; and h. Security during hours when the shelter is open.

Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance.

This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed. Ordinance 1002, adopted on April 29, 2014, identifies the location of the overlay to allow an emergency shelter for the homeless for up to 16 beds as a use by-right and includes standards consistent with State law as established in SB2.

Remove – Completed
Program H3.B Zone for
Amend zones to specifically allow residential care facilities, transitional and supportive housing (see definitions), as This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed.

Remove – Completed
Page H-1.56
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-30
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Transitional and Supportive Housing
required by State law. Transitional and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance.

Ordinance 1002, adopted on April 29, 2014, updated the definitions of transitional and supportive housing to be consistent with State law and adds transitional, supportive housing and small (6 or fewer persons) residential care facilities as part of the definition of a “dwelling” in the Zoning Ordinance, so these uses are treated the same way as other residential uses as required by State law under SB2.

Program H3.C Adopt Procedures for Reasonable Accommodation Establish internal review procedures and/or ordinance modifications to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of these procedures and/or ordinance modifications is to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make a request for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City. Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance and/or modify administrative procedures; create public handout.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Ordinance 1002, adopted on April 29, 2014, established procedures, criteria, and findings for enabling individuals with disabilities to make housing improvements to improve living conditions.

Modify adoption language to be focused on continuation/ support and to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Program H3.D Encourage Rental Housing Assistance Programs Encourage the use of federal, state and local rental housing programs for special needs populations. Continue to publicize programs and 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.D.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element There are approximately 248 housing vouchers issued for incorporated Menlo Park, which assist a total of 521 individuals. Of the total, 157 households include elderly or disabled persons and 86 are households with children.10 Modify objectives to reflect existing voucher use and to reflect timeframe of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. 10 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021).

Page H-1.57
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-31
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Objectives: Provide assistance at current Section 8 funding levels to assist 220 extremely low and very low-income households per year (assumes continued funding of program).

Program H3.E Investigate Possible MultiJurisdictional Emergency Shelter Pursuant to State law requirements, and as the opportunity arises, consider participation in a multi-jurisdictional emergency shelter, should one be proposed in the future. Objectives: Coordinate in the construction of homeless facility (if determined feasible).

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to reflect recent developments at the County level and explore opportunities for partnership.

Program H3.F Assist in Providing Housing for Persons Living with Disabilities Continue to contribute financial support for the programs of the Center for the Independence of the Disabled and other non-profit groups that improve housing opportunities for disabled persons, including people with developmental disabilities. Objectives: Provide housing and services for disabled persons.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Continued participation and coordination has occurred as part of the countywide 21 Elements organization. Working with the County Department of Housing and other jurisdictions on housing-related topics such as accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals. Participation in the County's Home For All initiative has continued and aims to identify housing needs for all sectors of the community. The City also supports the activities of local non-profit housing providers, such as HIP Housing, whom provide services for persons living with disabilities.

Modify to identify partnership with 21 Elements and modify objective to indicate outreach and promotion of available funds.

Program H3.G 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 density bonus and other incentives for needed senior housing, senior care facilities and other special needs housing for persons living with This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City's Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which was established in 2013, was applied to MidPen's 90-unit affordable, senior housing development. Along with financial Modify to include additional incentives and to reflect the timeframe of the 2023-2031 Page H-1.58
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-32
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
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 moderate-incomes. 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 units are sponsored by a nonprofit organization or when developed under the Retirement Living Unit (RLU) 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.

Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide opportunities for housing and adequate support services for seniors and people living with disabilities. incentives, the AHO provides density bonuses and a parking reduction for senior housing.

Housing Element.

Program H3.H Continue Support for Countywide Homeless Programs Support activities intended to address homeless needs 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.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. City staff have continued to lead and support the Menlo Park Homeless Outreach Team (Team), which consists of staff from the Housing Division, Police Department and community-based organizations that provide homeless outreach and support services.

Modify to include partnerships with non-profits and reference to the Menlo Park Homeless Outreach Team.

Page H-1.59
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-33
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Objectives: Support housing and services for the homeless and at-risk persons and families City staff work closely with community-based organizations and the San Mateo County Human Services Agency to coordinate outreach and referral services, with the goal of ending homelessness in Menlo Park. The Team meets regularly to discuss case management, strategize coordinated outreach and intervention, streamline resources and prepare action plans for homeless individuals. The City continued to support HEART, HIP Housing and other community based organizations to support efforts to reduce homelessness and increase housing stability.

Program H3.I 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 homeless veterans. Objectives: Coordination in addressing the needs of the homeless This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working with local non-profit housing developer MidPen Housing to build new affordable housing focused on serving veterans in Menlo Park and the greater region. The City has participated in discussions with both the VA and MidPen to stay informed about the project and learn about opportunities to be involved. The City will continue to work with the VA, MidPen, and other affordable housing developers and advocates to improve conditions for the unhoused.

Retain
Goal H4: New Housing: Use Land Efficiently to Meet Community Housing Needs at a Variety of Income Levels, Implement Sustainable Development Practices and Blend Well-Designed New Housing into the Community. Policy H4.1 Housing Opportunity Areas Identify housing opportunity areas and sites where a special effort will be made to provide affordable housing consistent with other General Plan policies. Given the diminishing availability of developable land, Housing Opportunity areas should have the following characteristics:
a. The site has the potential to deliver sales or rental This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to include supporting language to affirmatively further fair housing.

Page H-1.60
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-34
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
units at low or below market rate prices or rents.
b. The site has the potential to meet special housing
needs for local workers, single parents, seniors, small families or large families. c. The City has opportunities, through ownership or
special development review, to facilitate provision of housing units to meet its objectives. d. The site scores well for Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) subsidy or has unique opportunities due to financing and/or financial feasibility. e. For sites with significant health and safety
concerns, development may be tied to nearby physical improvements, and minimum density requirements may be reduced. f. Site development should consider school capacity
and the relationship to the types of residential units proposed (i.e., housing seniors, small units, smaller workforce housing, etc. in school capacity impact areas). g. Consider incorporating existing viable commercial
uses into the development of housing sites.

Policy H4.2 Housing to Address Local Housing Needs
Strive to provide opportunities for new housing development to meet the City’s share of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In doing so, it is the City’s intent to provide an adequate supply and variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs of Menlo Park’s workforce and special needs populations, striving to match housing types, affordability and location, with household income, and addressing the housing needs of extremely low-income persons, lower income families with children and lower income seniors.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Page H-1.61
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-35
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Policy H4.3 Housing Design
Review proposed new housing in order to achieve excellence in development design through an efficient process and will encourage infill development on vacant and underutilized sites that is harmonious with the character of Menlo Park residential neighborhoods. New construction in existing neighborhoods shall be designed to emphasize the preservation and improvement of the stability and character of the individual neighborhood. The City will also encourage innovative design that creates housing opportunities that are complementary to the location of the development. It is the City’s intent to enhance neighborhood identity and sense of community by ensuring that all new housing will (1) have a sensitive transition with the surrounding area, (2) avoid unreasonably affecting the privacy of neighboring properties, or (3) avoid impairing access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to be less subjective and emphasize design that meets the needs of seniors and people living with disabilities.

Policy H4.4 Variety of Housing Choices
Strive to achieve a mix of housing types, densities, affordability levels and designs in response to the broad range of housing needs in Menlo Park. Specific items include:
a. The City will work with developers of non-traditional and innovative housing approaches in financing, design, construction and types of housing that meet local housing needs. b. Housing opportunities for families with children
should strive to provide necessary facilities nearby or on site. c. The City will encourage a mix of housing types,
including: owner and rental housing, single and multiple-family housing, housing close to jobs and transit, mixed use housing, work force housing, special needs housing, single-room occupancy This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to emphasize increased housing opportunity for people living with disabilities.

Page H-1.62
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-36
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
(SRO) housing, shared living and co-housing, mobile-homes, manufactured housing, self-help or “sweat-equity” housing, cooperatives and assisted living. d. The City will support development of affordable,
alternative living arrangements such as co-housing and “shared housing” (e.g., the Human Investment Project’s – HIP Housing – shared housing program).

Policy H4.5 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Development Use density bonuses and other incentives to help achieve housing goals while ensuring that potential impacts are considered and mitigated. This will include affordable housing overlay zoning provisions as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to include considerations for expanding the ministerial review process, fee waivers, and reduced parking requirements.

Policy H4.6 Mixed Use Housing
Encourage well-designed mixed-use developments (residential mixed with other uses) where residential use is appropriate to the setting and to encourage mixed-use development in proximity to transit and services, such as at shopping centers and near to the Downtown to support Downtown businesses (consistent with the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan).

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to include commercially zoned areas that will be re-zoned to allow limited residential.

Policy H4.7 Redevelopment of Commercial Shopping Areas and Sites Encourage the development of housing in conjunction with the redevelopment of commercial shopping areas and site when it occurs as long as adequate space for retail services remain.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to remove caveat that adequate retail services remain. This is in response to affordable Page H-1.63
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-37
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
housing developers citing such requirement as a barrier to the development of new housing.

Policy H4.8 Retention and Expansion of Multi-Family Sites at Medium and Higher Density Strive to protect and expand the supply and availability of multi-family and mixed-use infill housing sites for housing.

When possible, the City will avoid re-designating or rezoning multi-family residential land for other uses or to lower densities without re-designating equivalent land for multi-family development and will ensure that adequate sites remain at all times to meet the City’s share of the region’s housing needs.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to eliminate discussion of downzoning multi-family sites.

Policy H4.9 LongTerm Housing Affordability Controls
Apply resale controls and rent and income restrictions to ensure that affordable housing provided through incentives and as a condition of development approval remains affordable over time to the income group for which it is intended. Inclusionary units shall be deed-restricted to maintain affordability on resale to the maximum extent possible (at least 55 years).

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H4.10 Inclusionary Housing Approach
Require residential developments involving five (5) or more units to provide units or an in-lieu fee equivalent for very low, low and moderate-income housing. The units provided through this policy are intended for permanent occupancy and must be deed restricted, including but not limited to single-family housing, multi-family housing, condominiums, townhouses or land subdivisions. In addition, the City will require larger non-residential developments, as job generators, to participate in addressing housing needs in the community through the City’s commercial in-lieu fee This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to include amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Program.

Page H-1.64
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-38
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
requirements.

Policy H4.11 Secondary Dwelling Units
Encourage the development of well-designed new secondary dwelling units (e.g., carriage houses, attached independent living units, small detached living units) and the legalization of existing secondary dwelling units or conversion of accessory buildings or structures to safe and habitable secondary dwelling units as an important way to provide affordable housing in combination with primary residential uses on low-density lots.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to replace “secondary dwelling units” with “accessory dwelling units.” Policy H4.12 Fair Share Distribution of Housing throughout Menlo Park Promote the distribution of new, higher density residential developments throughout the city, taking into consideration compatibility with surrounding existing residential uses, particularly near public transit and major transportation corridors in the city.

This policy is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to include supporting language to affirmatively further fair housing.

Policy H4.13 Preferences for Affordable Housing
Implement BMR housing preferences for people who live or work in Menlo Park to the extent consistent with Fair Housing law.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Policy H4.14 Infill Housing Adjacent to Downtown
Create opportunities for a limited number of new housing units in areas adjacent to the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area to meet the City’s share of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), support Downtown retail activities, and to locate new housing near jobs and transit. New housing opportunities are not intended to significantly change the character of these areas but would allow larger properties to redevelop at higher densities with design review to assure a fit of new housing with the character of the area and adjacent uses.

This policy is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Retain
Page H-1.65
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-39
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Program H4.A Modify R-2 Zoning to Maximize Unit Potential Modify R-2 zoning to tie floor area to dwelling units to minimize underutilization of R-2 zoned lots and maximize unit potential, unless unique features of a site prohibit additional units being constructed. In addition, allow secondary dwelling units on R-2 lots that are less than 7,000 square feet with approval of a use permit. Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to minimize underutilization of R-2 development potential.

This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Staff plans to revisit modifications to the R-2 Low Density Apartment District in the future and assess the utilization of the allowed density for this zoning district.

Remove
Program H4.B Implement Inclusionary Housing Regulations Continue to administer the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program for Commercial and Industrial Developments and the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program for Residential Developments. Objectives: Implement requirements to assist in providing housing affordable to extremely low, very low-, low- and moderate-income households in Menlo Park.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis completed by BAE Urban Economics, Inc. and approved a resolution establishing a process for determining the affordable in-lieu fee for rental housing projects not providing some or all of their inclusionary housing requirements. This study also tested the feasibility of adding additional affordable housing requirements for new rental projects and provided analysis to inform the City’s decision-making processes related to setting BMR in-lieu fees.

Modify to include amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Program.

Program H4.C Modify BMR Guidelines
Review and amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the cost of providing BMR units and to encourage new BMR units to be built, and to identify ways to construct housing affordable 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 that prioritizes non-profit development of workforce rental housing affordable to low and very-low income households on sites the City has determined to be viable for Low Income This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The last revision to the BMR Housing Program guidelines was approved by Menlo Park City Council in 2018. Additional changes to the BMR program guidelines are an ongoing topic of consideration by the City’s Housing Commission and other elected/appointed bodies.

Modify to clarify objectives of the BMR Housing Program and to emphasize continuous evaluation of the BMR Housing Program to match best Page H-1.66
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-40
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) funding by setting aside a substantial portion of the uncommitted BMR fund balance and of future BMR fees received by the City for such development. The City will also modify provisions regarding rental housing to be consistent with the Costa Hawkins Act. Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require affordable units in market rate developments. practices within the affordable housing sector.

Program H4.D Update the BMR Fee Nexus Study
Coordinate the update of the BMR nexus fee study with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County as part of the Countywide 21 Elements project, which is a collaborative effort among all 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County to provide assistance and collaborate on housing element implementation. Modify fees accordingly following the nexus study. Objectives: Update to fees consistent with the nexus of potential impacts on affordable housing need This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. BAE Urban Economics, Inc. completed their study known as the Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis in 2020. The City commissioned BAE to study the following four scenarios: 1) Providing low income rental units (i.e., units affordable to households with incomes equal to or less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income or AMI) in compliance with the City's existing BMR Housing Program; 2) Providing 20 percent of units as low-income units; 3) Adding a small number of units reserved for households with moderate incomes (defined in this analysis as households with incomes equal to 120 percent of AMI) addition to meeting a 15 percent low-income requirement; and 4) Payment of an in-lieu fee that represents the “point of indifference,” or the fee that would be equivalent in cost to providing affordable units on site, from the perspective of a developer. The City Council adopted a resolution establishing a process for determining the in-lieu fee for rental housing, which would be done on a case-bycase basis.

Modify to address commercial linkage fee and move affordable housing in-lieu fee discussion to the Inclusionary Housing Regulations program.

Program H4.E Modify Second Dwelling Unit
Continue to encourage secondary dwelling units, and modify the City’s current regulations to reduce the minimum lot size, and consider allowances for larger secondary This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to reflect State Law and additional
Page H-1.67
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-41
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Development Standards and Permit Process
dwelling units, flexibility in height limits, reduced fees (possible reduction in both Planning/Building fees and impact fees as a result of the small size of the units), flexibility in how parking is provided on site and a greater City role in publicizing and providing guidance for the approval of secondary dwelling units as part of the General Plan update. Specifics would be developed as part of program implementation. Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot size to create greater opportunities for new second units to be built. Achieve Housing Element target for new second units (40 new secondary dwelling units between 2015-2023, with 5 per year) — 18 very low, 18 low and 4 moderate income second units.

Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 16.79, Accessory Dwelling Units, was last revised by Ordinance 1066 in 2020. The purpose of the codified Accessory Dwelling Units regulations include:
a. Increase the supply of smaller units and rental
housing units by allowing accessory dwelling units to locate on lots which contain existing or proposed single-family dwellings and existing two (2) family and multifamily dwellings; b. Establish standards for accessory dwelling units to
ensure that they are compatible with existing neighborhoods; and c. Comply with state law regarding accessory dwelling
units (California Government Code § 65852.2 and 65852.22). opportunities to encourage accessory dwelling units.

Program H4.F Establish a Process and Standards to Allow the Conversion of Accessory Buildings and Structures to a Secondary Dwelling Unit Allow converted accessory buildings/structures that do not comply with the current secondary dwelling unit ordinance to be reviewed through a new process that establishes an allowance for one or more exceptions from the secondary dwelling unit development regulations. Modify the existing development regulations of accessory buildings/structures to more clearly distinguish how accessory buildings/structures can be used (such as modifying the regulations to prohibit living areas without main dwelling unit setbacks and/or the number of plumbing fixtures) and consider reduction or waiver of fees. Reevaluate the effectiveness of this program in producing secondary dwelling units and consider other options, such as a secondary dwelling unit amnesty program, after one year from adoption of the ordinance. Objectives: Adopt procedures and requirements to allow This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed. Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 16.79, Accessory Dwelling Units, was last revised by Ordinance 1066 in 2020. The codified Accessory Dwelling Units regulations include specific development standards for projects involving conversions of existing structures, with the intent of minimizing obstacles for development.

Remove – Completed
Page H-1.68
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-42
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
conversion of accessory structures and buildings (15 new secondary dwelling units: 6 very low-income, 6 low-income and 3 moderate-income units) Program H4.G Implement FirstTime Homebuyer Program
Continue to work with agencies and organizations offering first-time, moderate income-homebuyers down-payment assistance loans for homes purchased in the city. Objectives: Provide referrals This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City is referring first time homebuyers to HEART of San Mateo County for down payment assistance since BMR funds are no longer available for this program. Information is available on the City's Housing webpage per Housing Programs H1.C and H1.D. The City continues to maintain a BMR interest list for other potential BMR unit sale and resale opportunities as they occur.

Retain
Program H4.H Work with NonProfits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites Work with non-profits and property owners to seek opportunities for an affordable housing development. Undertake the following actions on sites zoned R-4-S and/or AHO to encourage development of multi-family housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households: a. Work closely with non-profit housing developers and property owners to identify housing development opportunities, issues and needs; b. On larger sites with multiple properties the City will strive to identify opportunities for parcel consolidation to ensure a minimum density of 20 units/acre is achieved and integrated site planning occurs by (1) identifying sites where common ownership occurs, (2) contacting property owners of contiguous vacant and underutilized sites, (3) conducting outreach to This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. In March 2019, the City Council approved the abandonment of City owned right-of-way, which allows for a greater number of units for extremely low and very low-income households to be developed on the 1300 Willow Road site. In September 2020, the City Council approved an increase in funding to MidPen Housing's 1300 Willow Road project to reach a total of $9.331 million.11 The City will continue to identify partnership opportunities that further the development of affordable units in Menlo Park.

Remove and incorporate language into other programs that direct the City to work with non-profit housing developers. 11 City Council Agenda Packet, Item H-3 (March 23, 2021).

Page H-1.69
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-43
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
affordable housing developers, and (4) offering the incentives contained in the R-4-S and AHO zoning to promote lot consolidation; c. Undertake community outreach as part of the rezoning and, as appropriate, in coordination with the potential developer and property owner; d. Use the affordable housing overlay zone (when
adopted – see Program H4.C) to incentivize housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households and lot consolidation on specific sites; e. Complete site-planning studies, continue community
outreach, and undertake regulatory approvals in coordination with the development application; f. Facilitate development through regulatory incentives, including the establishment of housing as a ‘permitted use,’ the reduction or waiver of City fees, enable the processing of affordable housing development proposals to, as best as possible, fit with the varied financing requirements for housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households, use of affordable housing funds, implementation of other Housing Element Programs, and other assistance by City Planning staff in development review; g. target sites in Downtown and surrounding infill areas and, especially properties where lot consolidation is possible and provide incentives for lot consolidation and property redevelopment with housing; h. Investigate the potential for development of new
housing on underutilized commercial and industrial sites, including the creation of residential overlay zoning, to allow for residential development in selected, underutilized industrial areas; i. establish specific mechanisms to expedite processing Page H-1.70
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-44
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
of permits for housing projects that include on-site residential units affordable to persons of lower or moderate income. This may include granting priority in scheduling such proposals for public review and priority in plan check and subsequent issuance of building permits; j. encourage the use of funding techniques such as
mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates, and low-income housing tax credits to facilitate the development of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households.

Objectives: Identify incentives and procedures to facilitate development of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households on higher density housing sites.

Program H4.I Create MultiFamily and Residential Mixed Use Design Guidelines Provide more specific guidance in the appropriate design of multiple family and mixed-use housing development outside of the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan boundary area. The intent would be to more clearly establish City expectations to make the design review process as efficient as possible. Objectives: Adopt design guidelines for multi-family and mixed-use housing developments This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. As part of the General Plan and M-2 Area Zoning Update, the City Council adopted the new R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning district. The proposed zoning district includes design standards, which include several provisions addressing building modulation, height variation, site design, and open space requirements.

Modify to address the adoption of objective design standards.

Program H4.J Consider Surplus City-Owned Land for Housing Promote the development of housing on appropriate surplus City-owned land. Objectives: Identify opportunities for housing as they arise This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City does not have identified surplus City-owned property available for housing, however, through the Housing Element Update process, there has been expressed interest in the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots in the Modify to specify housing will be considered on City-owned parking lots.

Page H-1.71
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-45
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Downtown for housing.

Program H4.K 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 achievement of the City’s housing goals. Objectives: Undertake local amendments to the State Fire Code and approve City Council Resolution ratifying the Fire District’s local amendments This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Menlo Park Fire District developed a draft ordinance to the 2019 Fire Code, which was approved by their board of directors in October 2019. The City Council approved a resolution ratifying the Fire District’s amendments to the Fire Code in December 2019.

Retain
Program H4.L 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, site development should consider school capacity and the relationship to the types of residential units proposed. Objectives: Coordinate with local school districts in planning for future housing in consideration of each school districts long-range planning, resources and capacity.

This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. City staff have continued to be in contact with local school districts to share information on new residential development proposals. Staff have also been participating in the Home for All effort to convene school districts throughout the county to help identify development opportunities and to support the process. The Sequoia Union High School District noted that this program has not been successful in their opinion.

Modify for consistency with changes to Policy H4.1.

Program H4.M Review the Subdivision Ordinance
Review the Subdivision Ordinance to assure consistency with Housing Element policies and implementing actions and update the Ordinance to fully comply with the current Subdivision Map Act and streamline the review and approval process. Objectives: Modify the Subdivision Ordinance as needed This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. There is no activity to date.

Retain
Program H4.N Create
Study modifications to zoning to allow residential uses in commercial zones dependent on proximity to other services This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Modify to identify specific areas
Page H-1.72
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-46
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Opportunities for Mixed Use Development
and transit and the preservations of viable local-serving commercial uses. Objectives: Conduct study and establish regulations to allow housing in commercial zones
As part of the General Plan and M-2 Area Update approval in December 2016 (ConnectMenlo), the City Council adopted zoning amendments to the C-2-B zoning district to allow residential uses to create mixed-use opportunities in key areas along the Willow Road Corridor and created the R-MU zoning district. Several properties that were previously zoned for commercial and industrial uses were rezoned with the new zoning district to create opportunities for higher density housing and mixed-use developments. In April 2022, the City Council decided not to pursue evaluation of potential downzoning in the Bayfront area with concurrent upzonings elsewhere in the city. where mixed use development will be considered.

Program H4.O Review Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Review the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to reduce the processing time for projects that are not exempt from CEQA. Objectives: Modify Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed. In December 2016, the City Council adopted a new Circulation Element, recognizing that work on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was a high priority. A consultant team was hired in 2017 to lead the TMP effort and an 11-member city-led Oversight and Outreach Committee (OOC) was formed to help guide the process. In 2019, the City Council added update of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to their work plan. In early 2020, the City Council provided feedback on the approach to modify the TIA Guidelines. An updated version of the TIA Guidelines was adopted by City Council on June 16, 2020. On November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan.

Remove – Completed
Program H4.P Update Parking Stall and Driveway
Review and modify Parking Stall and Driveway Design Guidelines, including driveway widths, back-up distances, and turning templates to provide greater flexibility in site This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Remove – This will be replaced with a program to
Page H-1.73
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-47
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Design Guidelines planning for multi-family residential housing.

Objectives: Modify Parking Stall and Driveway Design Guidelines In 2017, the City began a preliminary review of the parking stall and driveway design guidelines. Review of the guidelines is underway. According to the Fire District, projects shall conform to the CA Fire Code for Access and design for emergency access easements, if required. evaluate changes to parking requirements.

Program H4.Q Achieve LongTerm Viability of Affordable Housing Work with non-profits and other project sponsors to implement the City’s Preferences for Affordable Housing policy (Policy H4.13), as appropriate, and to assure a fair tenant selection process, appropriate project management, high level 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. The City will also encourage project sponsors to conduct outreach with the neighborhood and City decision-makers to identify project design and other concerns. Objectives: Establish project management and other ongoing project coordination needs This program is desired for retention in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The City continues to process applications for the development of market-rate, below market-rate, and mixedincome projects in accordance with State law and industry best practices. City staff work closely with project applicants to encourage and document neighborhood outreach and incentivize affordable housing.

Retain
H4.R Modify Overnight Parking Requirements to include the R-4-S Zoning District Work with other City staff and the City Attorney to review and modify Section 11.24.050 [Night Parking Prohibited] of the Municipal Code to incorporate the R-4-S Zoning District as needed. Objectives: Modify Section 11.24.050 [Night Parking Prohibited] of the Municipal Code as needed This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed. In October 2015, the City Council approved the removal of on-street parking along the north side of Haven Avenue as part of the Haven Avenue Streetscape Project. Identified as housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element, two parcels along Haven Avenue were redeveloped with 540 multi-family residential units. The objective of the Haven Avenue Streetscape Project is to provide a direct connection for bicyclists and pedestrians between the Bay Trail and the City of Redwood City's bikeway and sidewalk network by constructing sidewalks and bicycle facilities along Haven Remove – Completed
Page H-1.74
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-48
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
Avenue. The removal of on-street parking is helping facilitate the enhanced multi-modal improvements along this corridor. Bike lanes along a portion of Haven Avenue have been installed. The City is working with Caltrans to complete the remaining portion by 2022-2023.

H4.S Explore Creation of a Transportation Management Association Explore creation of a Transportation Management Association focused on the Haven Avenue/Bayfront Expressway area to coordinate grants, shuttles and other forms of transportation to the area as part of the City’s comprehensive General Plan update. Objectives: Explore creation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA).

This program is desired for removal in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as it has been completed.

Remove – Completed
H4.T Explore Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Coordinate with the City of Redwood City to explore a pedestrian and bicycle overpass over Highway 101 between Marsh Road and 5th Avenue in Redwood City as part of the City’s comprehensive General Plan update. Objectives: Coordinate with Redwood City on potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements This program is desired for modification in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. In November 2020, the City adopted the Transportation Master Plan that now serves as an update to the City’s previous Sidewalk Master Plan and Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan. The City was awarded a grant from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (Measure A funds) to implement the Haven Avenue bicycle/pedestrian improvements. The improvements include new facilities to a key corridor that connects Menlo Park, San Mateo County and Redwood City. The project area includes Haven Avenue between Marsh Road and the Redwood City boundary, an area where several properties were recently rezoned to higher density housing. Through work on the Transportation Master Plan, improvements in the area have been identified. In addition, as part of the Menlo Gateway hotel and office project, pedestrian and bicycle improvements will be implemented. Bike lanes along a portion of Haven Avenue Modify to broaden language to apply to general multimodal improvements.

Page H-1.75
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft:
5th Cycle Evaluation | Page 2-49
Policy or Program Description, Program Objectives and Timeframe Evaluation Notes Recommendation to Retain, Modify or Remove
have been installed. The City is working with Caltrans to complete the remaining portion by 2022-2023. The City will be completing multiple grant funded bicycle/pedestrian improvements by winter 2021. These improvements include: new sidewalk facilities on Pierce Road, Coleman Avenue, and Oak Grove Avenue, and new bicycle facilities on San Mateo Drive and Ringwood Avenue. The City will be commencing the design and construction of a new sidewalk on the north side of Sharon Road between Altschul Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas.

Page H-1.76

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-1
Housing Conditions and Trends
The overall purpose of Chapter 3: Housing Conditions and Trends, is to provide a quantified analysis of housing needs for Menlo Park as required by Government Code § 65583, subdivision (a)(1)(2) and § 65583.1, subdivision (d).

This chapter provides a numerical analysis of housing needs based on various metrics mainly provided by 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. This analysis sets the stage for the types of policies and programs that are required to address specific housing needs for Menlo Park.

OVERALL HOUSING NEEDS
Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth.

Menlo Park's population was estimated at 35,254 in 2020 (California Department of Finance). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 8.4 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the population continued to increase, though at a slower rate of 4 percent. The population grew by about 10 percent from 2010 to 2020, one of the fastest growth changes in the city over the past 30 years. Population growth over the past 10 years in Menlo Park is slightly higher than the region with the city's population rising at approximately 2.5 percentage points higher than San Mateo County and 1 percentage point higher than the greater Bay Area. In Menlo Park, 17.4 percent of the population moved during the past year, which is 4 percentage points greater than the regional rate of 13.4 percent. Population growth trends are shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.

Page H-1.77

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-2
Table 3-1: Population Growth, 1990 – 2020
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Menlo Park 28,403 30,048 30,785 30,541 32,026 33,440 35,254 San Mateo
County 649,623 685,354 707,163 719,844 718,451 761,748 773,244 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Department of Finance, E-5 series Figure 3-1: Population Growth, 1990-2020
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents the population for Menlo Park, San Mateo County, and the greater Bay Area region indexed to the population in the year 1990. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

Population Age
Similar to national and regional trends, Menlo Park has an increasing senior population as baby boomers1 reach
retirement age. According to the U.S. Census, the median age in Menlo Park increased from 37.4 to 38 years of age between 2000 and 2019, which is slightly older than the

1 Baby Boomer is typically categorized as a person born between 1946 and 1964.

Page H-1.78

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-3
median age of 36.5 years in California and younger than the median age of 39.7 years in San Mateo County. More specifically, the population of those under 14 and those who are 55 and over has increased since 2010 (Table 3-2).

Baby boomers and millennials2 have significant impacts on shaping the city's housing needs. Millennials have surpassed baby boomers as the largest generation and are beginning to enter their 40s. The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the future.

An increase in the older population adds to the need for more senior housing options. Higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services.

There has been a move by many older adults to "age-in-place" or downsize to stay within their communities, which contributes to the demand and need for multifamily and accessible units. Millennials are less likely to own a home and tend to have fewer savings than previous generations. They may need more support when purchasing a new home, particularly as housing prices continue to rise.

Table 3-2: Age of Residents in Menlo Park, 2000-2019
Age Group 2000 2010 2019
Age 0-4 2,030 2,458 2,580
Age 5-14 3,778 4,275 4,935
Age 15-24 2,825 2,889 3,455
Age 25-34 5,345 4,507 4,540
Age 35-44 5,344 5,056 4,739
Age 45-54 4,100 4,713 4,697
Age 55-64 2,474 3,550 4,412
Age 65-74 2,070 2,138 2,427
Age 75-84 1,935 1,516 1,533
Age 85+ 884 924 820
Totals 30,785 32,026 34,138
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Census 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary

2 Millennial is typically categorized as a person born between 1981 and 1996.

Page H-1.79

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-4
zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement, that have occurred and continue to impact communities of color today.

The Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API) (Non-Hispanic) population has increased the most from 8.5 percent in 2000 to 16.9 percent in 2019. The Other Race or Multiple Race (Non-Hispanic) population increased from less than one percent in 2000 to 4.7 percent in 2019. The Black/African American (Non-Hispanic) population decreased from 7.1 percent in 2000 to 4.3 percent in 2019. The Hispanic/Latinx population decreased slightly from 16 percent in 2000 to 15.5 percent in 2019. The greater proportional decrease was in the White (NonHispanic) population, which decreased from 68 percent in 2000 to 58.2 percent in 2019 (Figure 3-2).

Figure 3-2: Population by Race in Menlo Park, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)
Approximately 80 percent of all residents live in neighborhoods identified as "High/Highest Resource" areas as defined by the State, while 3.4 percent of residents live in areas identified by this research as "Low Resource or High Segregation and Poverty" areas.

These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors. Communities of color are disproportionately living in low and moderate-resource areas. The Hispanic/Latinx population consists of over half of the population living in low or Page H-1.80

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-5
moderate resource areas but only makes up 7 percent of the population in high resource areas (Figure 3-3).

Figure 3-3: Menlo Park Populations By Race and Resource Area Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002 Over one-quarter of residents, 26.1 percent, were born in a different country.

Approximately 4.4 percent of households are limited English-speaking households, which the U.S. Census defines as households where no household member over the age of 14 speaks English "very well." The language spoken by these families varies greatly, with Spanish, Asian languages, and other European languages being the most common.

Employment Characteristics
According to the U.S. Census, about 3.9 percent of workers in Menlo Park also live in the city, and 12.8 percent of Menlo Park residents work in Menlo Park.

The percentages differ because there are approximately three times as many jobs in Menlo Park as employed residents. The high percentage of inPage H-1.81

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-6
commuters is attributable to a range of factors including the limited affordability and availability of housing which limits the ability to find housing within the city.

Another contributing factor is the city's location and boundary configuration, making many other jurisdictions a short commute distance away (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3: Local Workers Commuting In Menlo Park
Commuting Characteristics Menlo Park
Employed Population in Jurisdiction 15,404
Jobs in Jurisdiction 52,830
Workforce In‐Commuting (%) 96.1
Population Out‐Commuting (%) 87.2
Source: U.S. Census, OnTheMap (2019)
Figure 3-4 shows the jobs-to-worker balance broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may employ relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers – or conversely, it may house residents who are low-wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may provide insight on the high demand for housing in specific price ranges.

A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests an inflow of workers from other jurisdictions for those jobs, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will not have enough jobs for those residents and they will work in other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though sub-regional imbalances may appear over time. Menlo Park has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000 annually). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city also has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000 annually).

Page H-1.82

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-7
Figure 3-4: Menlo Park Workers by Earnings
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519
The majority of residents who are in the workforce (69 percent) were in "management, business, science and arts occupations", significantly more than the rate in San Mateo County and the Bay Area where this occupation accounts for 50 percent of the workforce. The Census Bureau also analyzes employment by industry. As shown in Figure 3-5, the industries of greatest employment for Menlo Park residents are health and educational services (32 percent) and financial and professional services (31 percent). The health and educational services industry is also the largest employer in San Mateo County and the greater Bay Area.

Page H-1.83

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-8
Figure 3-5: Resident Employment by Industry
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019
As the regional council of governments for the San Francisco Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) makes projections for increases in population and the number of households for each jurisdiction in the ninecounty Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint includes ABAG's most recent projections for demographic, economic, and land use changes in the coming decades.

The projections outlined in Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint cover the period from 2015 through 2050. Based on the economic composition of the Bay Area and expected growth nationwide, the region is projected to add approximately

1.4 million jobs between 2015 and 2050. San Mateo County is projected to gain 129,000 more households between 2015 and 2050, representing a 48 percent increase. Over the same period of time, the county is projected to experience job growth of 29 percent, resulting in approximately 114,000 new jobs.

Unemployment rates have been low in the city. There was a 3.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions in the Bay Area experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in the early months of 2020 due to impacts related to the Covid-19 pandemic and experienced general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

Page H-1.84

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-9
Figure 3-6: Unemployment Rate
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-countySub- County areas monthly updates, 2010-2021 Menlo Park residents tend to be well-educated. Ninety-four percent of residents who were 25 years old or older had at least a high school degree in 2019 and close to 70 percent had at least a bachelor's degree. Approximately 67 percent of residents ages 16 and older were in the labor force in 2019, which is approximately 2.5 percentage points lower than the county rate and 3 percentage points higher than the state.

Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – the ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, displacement of renters occurs quicker with price increases.

In Menlo Park, more households are homeowners than renters: 57.9 percent are owners and 42.1 percent are renters. The proportion of households that own their homes in the city is slightly lower than the proportion for county (60 percent) and slightly higher than the Bay Area (56 percent) as shown in Figure 3-7.

Page H-1.85

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-10
Figure 3-7: Housing Tenure
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race and ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that historically limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for White residents.

While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.3 In Menlo Park, 37.5 percent of Hispanic/Latinx households own their homes and

37.2 percent of other or multiple races households own their homes compared to 63 percent of non-Hispanic White households (Figure 3-8).

3 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

Page H-1.86

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-11
Figure 3-8: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder in Menlo Park Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Due to high housing costs, younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Menlo Park, 62 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, compared to 25.5 percent of householders over 65 who are renters (Figure 3-9).

Page H-1.87

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-12
Figure 3-9: Housing Tenure by Age in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007
Income
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation and the Bay Area has the highest household income inequality in the state.4
The median household income for Menlo Park residents in 2019 was $160,784 (Table 3-4). In Menlo Park, 58.8 percent of households (6,959 households) make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)5, compared to

11.8 percent (1,400 households) earning less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (Figure 3-10). Of the 1,400 extremelylowextremely incomelow-income households in Menlo Park (those making 0-30 percent of AMI, 565 households are owners and 835 are renters (40 percent and 60 percent, respectively).

4 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 5 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very lowincome, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

Page H-1.88

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-13
Of the City’s extremely low incomelow-income households, 73 are spending more than half their income towards housing, and as stated, 60 percent of the City’s ELI households are renters, a group particularly vulnerable to rising rents.

Household overcrowding is not a particular issue for the City’s ELI households, with just 4.9 percent identified as overcrowded.

The City continues to encourage eligible persons to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program administered through the San Mateo County Housing Authority, andAuthority and will facilitate the provision of ELI units through the Affordable Housing Overlay. Supporting ELI homeowners in adding accessory dwelling units that can generate rental income, as well as promoting available housing rehabilitation programs can assist homeowners spending a large portion of their incomes on housing costs.

Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 15 percent earn less than 30 percent AMI. Per HCD data from 2021, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $54,800 for a family of four in San Mateo County. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries. Most households receiving public assistance, such as social security or disability, are considered extremelylowextremely incomelow-income households.

Table 3-4: Median Household Income, 2019
Household Income Menlo Park San Mateo County California Less than $25,000 10.7% 9.1% 16.4%
$25,000 to $34,999 3.6% 4.4% 7.5%
$35,000 to $49,999 4.6% 6.5% 10.5%
$50,000 to $74,999 10.5% 10.7% 15.5%
$75,000 to $99,999 7.0% 10.7% 12.4%
$100,000 to $149,000 11.3% 17.3% 16.6%
$150,000 to $199,999 11.9% 12.8% 8.9%
$200,000 or more 40.4% 28.5% 12.2%
Median Household Income $160,784 $122,641 $75,235
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) Page H-1.89

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-14
Figure 3-10: Households by Income Level
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release General Housing Characteristics
Over the past 30 years, new home construction has not kept up with job growth, leading to a job shortage in the region. According to the California Department of Finance, there were 14,124 homes in Menlo Park in 2021. This is approximately an eight percent increase from 2010. This rate is higher than the

4.2 percent growth rate for San Mateo County and the 5.6 percent growth rate for the state as a whole (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5: Housing Production
Jurisdiction 2010 2021
Percent
Change
Menlo Park 13,085 14,124 7.9%
San Mateo County 271,031 282,299 4.2%
California 13,670,304 14,429,960 5.6%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series (2010, 2021) In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in "missing middle housing" – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types can create more options across incomes and Page H-1.90

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-15
tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

Between 2015 and 2019, 1,160 housing units were issued permits in Menlo Park, which included 81.6 percent for above moderate-income housing, 0.9 percent for moderate-income housing, and 17.4 percent for low- or very lowincome housing (Table 3-6).

Table 3-6: Housing Permitting
Income Group Units
Above Moderate
IncomeModerate-Income
Permits
947
Very Low-Income Permits 148
Low-Income Permits 54
Moderate Income Permits 11
Total 1,160
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020) The housing stock of Menlo Park in 2020 was made up of 51.8 percent singlefamily detached homes, 7.8 percent single-family attached homes, 12.4 percent multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, and 27.8 percent multifamily homes with 5 or more units (Figure 3-11). In Menlo Park, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was multifamily housing with five or more units.

Menlo Park has no mobile home parks. However, the California Department of Finance estimated that there were 28 mobile homes in 2020, which is likely the result of recreational vehicles and trailers being counted.

Page H-1.91

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-16
Figure 3-11: Housing Types in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Department of Finance, E-5 series (2010, 2020)
The rental vacancy stands at 8.7 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is

0.1 percent. Menlo Park has a higher vacancy rate than the rest of San Mateo County and the greater Bay Area. Approximately 9 percent of units were vacant in 2010 (Figure 3-12), with the most common type of vacancy being "For Rent" (Figure 3-13). Menlo Park's extremely low ownership vacancy rate is an indicator of the high demand for housing in the city, correlated with the high house sale prices seen in the city. By producing more housing units at all income levels, Menlo Park can ease the pressure on home sales. Meeting RHNA would increase the number of housing units by 21 percent over 2020 levels, which would help address this issue.

In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated or repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the "Other Vacant" category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of "Other Vacant" units in some jurisdictions.

Page H-1.92

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-17
Figure 3-12: Vacancy Rates
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25002
Figure 3-13: Vacant Units by Type
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004
Page H-1.93

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-18
Year Structures Built and Potential Housing Problems
Menlo Park has an older housing stock with the largest proportion of housing built between 1940 and 1959 (46 percent). Approximately 19 percent were built after 1980. According to the US Census’ 2015-2019 American Community Survey data, 512 new units have been built, amounting to 3.9 percent of the current housing stock (Table 3-7). This data source is not updated as frequently as State Department of Finance data (seen in Table 3-5) or City data (seen in Table 3-6), so the number of units built in 2010 or later is smaller than in those two tables.

Table 3-7: Housing Units by Year Built
Year Built Percent
Built 1939 Or Earlier 6.5%
Built 1940 To 1959 45.6%
Built 1960 To 1979 29.1%
Built 1980 To 1999 10.5%
Built 2000 To 2009 4.4%
Built 2010 Or Later 3.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 As can be seen in Figure 3-14, slightly over half of the housing units in Menlo Park are 3-bedroom units or larger. With an average household of 2.6 persons in 2020, there is somewhat of a mismatch between the size of the housing available and the housing need in the community.

Page H-1.94

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-19
Figure 3-14: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042
Typical Home Values and Rents
The region's home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. In the last 10 years, the typical home value has increased much more steeply in Menlo Park than in San Mateo County and the greater Bay Area. The Bay Area is a great place to live, but throughout the region and county there just isn’t enough housing for all income levels, which has caused costs to go up. Home prices and rents have been steadily increasing the past two decades, but in recent years the jump has been dramatic. Since 2009, median rent increased 41 percent to $2,200, and median home values have more than doubled to $1,445,000.6

6 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, Zillow
Page H-1.95

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-20
One method of determining local home values is by Zillow's home value index (ZHVI). The ZHVI is a seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes in the region. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including single-family homes and condominiums, and reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. According to Zillow, the typical home value in Menlo Park in December 2020 was $2,438,631 with the largest proportion of homes valued above $2,000,000. In comparison, the typical home value in 2010 was $1,086,337 (Figures 3-15 and 3-16).

After adjusting for inflation, this is about an 89 percent increase from 2010.

Home values in Menlo Park are approximately 72 percent higher than typical home values in San Mateo County and over double the cost of home values in the state.

Figure 3-15: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)
Page H-1.96

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-21
Figure 3-16: Zillow Home Value Index
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In Menlo Park, the largest proportion of rental units are being rented for $3,000 or more (24.8 percent), followed by 22.7 percent of units renting for $2,000 to $2,500 (Figure 3-17). The largest proportion of rental units are being rented at $3,000 or more in San Mateo County. A nearly equal percentage are being rented for $1,500 to $2,000. Rents in Menlo Park and San Mateo County are on average being rented at higher prices than the Bay Area where the highest proportion of rental units are being rented for $1,500 to $2,000.

According to a review of rentals in Menlo Park using Zillow, Apartments.com, and Craigslist, rents range from $1,825 for a studio to $7,500 for a threebedroom apartment. Houses can be rented for $2,000 for a one-bedroom to $9,000 for a four-bedroom house. There were also very few units available for rent: only 47 rental apartments and 48 rental homes (not including short-term rentals, which were not analyzed) were available.

Apartments available online tend to be older construction, and subsequently lower cost. Analysis of a single new apartment complex of approximately 400 units (ranging from studio to 4-bedroom units) demonstrated an average unit Page H-1.97

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-22
rent of $3,602 and a cost per square foot of $4.10. This is an average of marketrate and below-market-rate units. This is markedly higher than median apartment rental rates in the region ($3.76 in the San Francisco metropolitan area and $3.32 in the San Jose metropolitan area).7
Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 43.7 percent in Menlo Park, from $1,770 to $2,260 per month (Figure 3-18). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1 percent, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54 percent increase.

Figure 3-17: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)

7 Silicon Valley Indicators (Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, from Zillow Real Estate Research data: 2019). Available at https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/data/place/housing/housingaffordability/median-apartment-rental-rates-per-square-foot-table/ Page H-1.98

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-23
Figure 3-18: Median Contract Rent
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)
Affordability
The cost of housing in Menlo Park is largely unaffordable for workers in Menlo Park and increasingly unaffordable for existing residents. As a result, people who work in the city must commute long distances resulting in increased traffic and carbon emissions. Additionally, young people who grew up in Menlo Park and older residents who seek to age in place may be unable to afford to continue living in the city.

Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered "cost-burdened", while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered "severely cost-burdened." Lowincome residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

According to the US Census’ 2015-2019 American Community Survey data,

62.5 percent of all households in Menlo Park (42 percent of which are renteroccupied and 58 percent of which are owner-occupied) spend 30 percent or less of their income on housing, 18.2 percent spend between 30 and 50 percent of their income on housing, and 17.2 percent spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. The data is not available for 2.1 percent of all households.

Page H-1.99

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-24
Renters are often more cost-burdened than homeowners. While the housing market has caused drastic increases in home prices, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Menlo Park,

22.7 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing compared to 13.3 percent of homeowners (Figure 3-19).

Figure 3-19: Cost Burden by Tenure in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)
Census data only tracks "Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 months" for income segments up to "$75,000 or more," which is still well below the lower income limit of approximately $128,000 in Menlo Park. The numbers of total homeowner households spending more than 30 percent of income on shelter is 2,172 (43 percent of homeowner households). The number of home-renter households spending more than 30 percent of their income on shelter is 2,049 (69 percent of homeowner households).

Page H-1.100

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-25
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy’s American Community Survey tabulation of 2013-2017 data, in Menlo Park, 16.3 percent of households overall, across income levels, spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing. In addition,17.3 percent spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing. Of all Menlo Park households, 66.4 percent spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

When looking across income categories, there is much more variation in housing cost burden (Figure 3-20). About 72.9 percent of Menlo Park households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Menlo Park residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, only 2.1 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 88.4 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

Figure 3-20: Cost Burden by Income Level in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Page H-1.101

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-26
When cost-burdened seniors (age 65 or greater as defined by ABAG/MTC) can no longer make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of their community. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for lowincome seniors. Of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI, 58.4 percent are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, 85.5 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (Figure 3-21).

Figure 3-21: Cost Burdened Senior Households by Income Level in Menlo Park Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Page H-1.102

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-27
Generally, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability due to federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing and are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost-burdened with 27.3 percent spending 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing. Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native is the population that is most severely cost-burdened, with 61.5 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (Figure 3-22).

Figure 3-22: Cost Burden by Race in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)
Page H-1.103

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-28
Large family households, defined as five or more people in a household, often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately-sizedadequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

Although large families tend to be more cost-burdened than other households, the percentage of households in the city that are cost-burdened is greater among households that are not large households. Approximately 27 percent of large family households with five or more people are cost-burdened in Menlo Park, while 34 percent of all other households are cost-burdened (Figure 3-23).

Figure 3-23: Cost Burden by Household Size in Menlo Park Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release The San Mateo County Housing Authority (SMCHA) manages programs to provide housing assistance to low-income households. According to SMCHA, the Housing Authority provided rental assistance to 238 households in Menlo Park (422 individuals) as of November 2021.

Page H-1.104

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-29
Overcrowding
One consequence of high housing prices is overcrowding. The U.S. Census defines overcrowding as more than one person per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 occupants per room are considered severely overcrowded. Because this standard uses rooms8 (not bedrooms), two people can share a one-bedroom apartment and not be overcrowded. Households experiencing overcrowding require larger units with more bedrooms to increase the health and safety of their household.

In many cities, overcrowding is more common amongst renters, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Menlo Park, 2.2 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded, compared to 0.8 percent of households that own (Figure 3-24). About 3.1 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding, compared to 1.7 percent for those that own.

Figure 3-24: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Menlo Park Source: ABAG/MTC Data Packet; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

8 Kitchens, bathrooms and hallways are excluded from the calculations.

Page H-1.105

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-30
Low-income households are more likely to experience overcrowding. About 4 percent of households making less than 50 percent of AMI are severely overcrowded, while 0.7 percent of households making more than 100 percent AMI experience the same level of severe overcrowding (Table 3-8).

Table 3-8: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity in Menlo Park Income Group

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than

1.5 Occupants
per Room
0%-30% of AMI 3.5% 1.4%
31%-50% of AMI 6.5% 2.7%
51%-80% of AMI 4.0% 0.0%
81%-100% of AMI 2.7% 0.5%
Greater than 100% of AM 1.7% 0.7%
Geography

1.00 occupants
per room
or less
% 1.00 or
less

1.01 to 1.50
occupants
per room
% 1.01 -

1.49 1.50
occupants
per room
or more
% 1.50
or
more
Menlo Park 11,472 96% 269 2% 165 1.4%
San Mateo
County 242,599 92% 12,333 5% 8,611 3.3%
Bay Area 2,543,056 93% 115,696 4% 72,682 2.7%
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Communities of color are also more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White (Non-Hispanic) residents. In Menlo Park, the racial group with the greatest overcrowding rate is Hispanic or Latinx (Figure 3-25).

Page H-1.106

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-31
Figure 3-25: Overcrowding by Race in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019)
Housing Stock Condition
The housing stock in Menlo Park is generally in sound condition, except for individual units scattered throughout the city and a small concentration of units in poor condition within the Belle Haven neighborhood.

A housing conditions survey of the city was conducted in July 2021, as part of the Housing Element Update, which included 2,061 of the city's 13,020 housing units. This survey evaluated the conditions of residential buildings based on an evaluation of the building's exterior surface conditions. Based on this evaluation, buildings were classified as Sound, Minor, Moderate, Substantial, or Dilapidated.

Among the surveyed units, 96.8 percent were in Sound condition, 2.1 percent were in need of Minor repairs, 0.9 percent needed Moderate repairs, 0.2 needed Substantial repairs, and one house (0.05 percent) was found in Dilapidated condition. Of the 12 neighborhoods surveyed in Menlo Park, only Belle Haven had less than 95 percent of surveyed homes in Sound condition.

Of the surveyed homes in Belle Haven, 90 percent were in Sound condition.

Housing in Belle Haven accounts for 61 percent of the total number of homes that need Minor repairs, 44 percent of the total homes in need of Moderate repairs, three of the four homes that need Substantial repairs, and includes the Page H-1.107

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-32
one home in Dilapidated condition. Nearly all the homes in need of repairs are single-family houses.

Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, resulting in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions to afford housing. The Census Bureau provides limited data on substandard housing issues to supplement the local housing conditions survey completed in Menlo Park. According to the Census Bureau, 1.7 percent of renters in Menlo Park reported lacking a kitchen and 0.5 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to no homeowners who reported lacking a kitchen or plumbing.

The San Mateo County Department of Housing operates several rehabilitation loan programs to address housing conditions. In addition, organizations such as the Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities, El Concilio of San Mateo County, and Rebuilding Together Peninsula offer rehabilitation assistance.

In 2021, the City of Menlo Park was awarded a $1.2M grant for the preservation of existing homes from Habitat for Humanity. Through this grant, 20 home rehabilitation projects will be funded in the Belle Haven neighborhood.

Housing Needs Programs
The primary housing issue facing the general community is the high cost of both rental and for-sale housing. As a result, the city is increasingly unaffordable with

35.4 percent of households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The high cost of housing creates secondary impacts, such as overcrowding and risk of displacement. Additionally, 96 percent of the city's workforce are in-commuters from other cities due to the lack of available and affordable housing in Menlo Park.

The specific housing needs of special needs populations are discussed in Chapter 4: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Key programs that address housing affordability through the provision of financial assistance to residents, the incentivization of affordable housing, and the preservation of existing affordable housing are listed below:
 Program H1.C – Work with the San Mateo County Department of Housing
Page H-1.108

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-33
 Program H1.E – Work with Non-Profits on Housing
 Program H1.I – Utilize the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Fund  Program H2.A – An Adopt Ordinance for "At-Risk" Units  Program H2.C – Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs  Program H2.E – Anti-Displacement Strategy
 Program H4.A – Amend the Below Market Rate Inclusionary Housing Regulations
 Program H4.B – Modify BMR Guidelines regarding allocations.  Program H4.D – Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)  Program H4.E – Ministerial Review of 100 percent Affordable Housing  Program H4.N – Achieve Long-Term Viability of Affordable Housing  Program H5.F – First-Time Homebuyer Program
Additional programs for special needs populations are outlined in Chapter 4.

Projected Housing Need
The 6th Cycle Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the City projects a need to plan for 2,946 units for households of various income levels, of which approximately 56 percent would need to be planned for units affordable at the moderate-income level or below. Within the Housing Element, Menlo Park is required to plan for its fair share allocation of housing units by income group as follows:
 Very Low-Income – 740 units (25 percent of RHNA; 0-50 percent of AMI) o As approximately 11.8 percent of households have incomes in the Extremely Low-Income category (0-30 percent of AMI), the projected need is estimated to be 348 units of the 740 Very LowIncome units (47%).  Low-Income – 426 units (14 percent of RHNA; 51-80 percent of AMI)  Moderate-Income – 496 units (17 percent of RHNA; 81-120 percent of AMI)
 Above Moderate-Income – 1,284 units (44 percent of RHNA; greater than 120 percent of AMI)
Page H-1.109

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-34
Page H-1.110

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-35
ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING "AT RISK" OF

CONVERSION
Government Code § 65583 requires each city
and county to analyze and identify programs for
preserving assisted housing developments. The
analysis is necessary to identify any low-income
units at risk of losing subsidies over the next 10
years. The termination of federal mortgage and
or rent subsidies to housing developments built
by the private sector is a potential threat to affordable housing throughout the country. Communities with low-income housing supported by federally subsidized housing are required to address the needs of residents who may become displaced.

Table 3-9 below lists assisted affordable housing developments in Menlo Park.

Several non-profit organizations operating in Menlo Park have been acquiring and managing affordable housing developments, such as HIP Housing, Habitat for Humanity, MidPen Housing, and EAH Housing.

The various service providers identified in Table 3-9 all have the mission to provide affordable housing for very low- and low-income people. The waiting lists for these projects tend to be long and vary from one to several years, illustrating the demand and need for affordable units in Menlo Park. This is especially true since affordable units are rarely vacated once a unit is occupied by a very low- or low-income person or household.

As of November 2021, 789 applicants on the County's housing waiting lists reside in Menlo Park, and there are 670 applicants on the waiting list for subsidized housing properties in Menlo Park.

The California Housing Partnership Corporation categorizes units that are at risk of converting into market-rate homes into the following categories:
 Very-High Risk – Affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate within the next year. These homes do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a stable non-profit, mission-driven developer/owner.

Page H-1.111

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-36
 High Risk – Affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years and do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability. These homes are additionally not owned by a stable non-profit, mission-driven developer/owner.
 Moderate Risk – Affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years and do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability. These homes are additionally not owned by a stable non-profit, mission-driven developer/owner.  Low Risk – Affordable homes that are at risk of converting to market rate in more than 10 years and are owned by a stable mission-driven nonprofit developer/owner.

The expiration dates in Table 3-9 are based on discussions with the project sponsors and City staff review of information maintained by the California Housing Partnership Corporation. As of 2022, there are 404 units with low-tomoderate risk for conversion to market-rate prices over the next 15 years.

Page H-1.112
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-37
Table 3-9: At-Risk Affordable Housing Developments In Menlo Park (2022) Name of
Development Address Year Built/ Acquired Tenure Developer/ Owner Funding Source Number of Affordable Units Expiration Year Risk Level Willow Court 1105 and 1141 Willow Road 1992 Rental MidPen Housing LIHTC; HCD 6 2076 Low Willow Terrace 1115, 1121, 1123, 1125, 1139, 1143 Willow Road 1995 Rental MidPen Housing n/a 31 2051 Low HIP Housing 1157 and 1161 Willow Road 2013 Rental HIP Housing n/a 12 2067 Low 1175 Duplex 1175 Willow Road Rental City of Menlo Park n/a 2 City-owned Low1177 Duplex 1177 Willow Road Rental City of Menlo Park n/a 2 City-owned Low Sequoia Belle Haven 1221 Willow Road Rental MidPen Housing LIHTC 89 2069 Low Crane Place 1331 Crane Street 1979 Rental Peninsula Volunteers HUD 93 2028 Moderate Haven Family House 260 Van Buren Road 2000 Transitional Housing Shelter Network of San Mateo County n/a 23 Beyond 2025 Low 335 Pierce 335 Pierce Road Rental MidPen Housing n/a
4 n/a Moderate
Anton Menlo 3639 Haven Ave 2017 Rental Anton Development Company n/a 37 2072 Low Willow Housing
(V.A.) 605 Willow Road 2014 Rental Palo Alto V.A Heathcare Sys. LIHTC 59 2069 Low 650-660 Live Oak 650 Live Oak 2020 Rental Live Oak Lytton, LLC n/a 2 2075
Partridge Kennedy
Apartments 817 Partridge Avenue 1961 Rental Peninsula Volunteers n/a 30 Beyond 2025 Low Coleman Place 6-8 Coleman Place 2021 Rental HIP Housing City of Menlo Park BMR 14 2076 Low Total 404
Page H-1.113
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-38
Name of
Development Address Year Built/ Acquired Tenure Developer/ Owner Funding Source Number of Affordable Units Expiration Year9 Risk Level Willow Court 1105 and 1141 Willow Road 1992 Rental MidPen Housing LIHTC; HCD 6 2046 Low Willow Terrace
1115, 1121, 1123,
1125, 1139, 1143
Willow Road
1995 Rental MidPen Housing n/a 31 2051 Low
HIP Housing 1157 and 1161 Willow Road 2013 Rental HIP Housing n/a 12 2067 Low 1175 Duplex 1175 Willow Road Rental City of Menlo Park n/a 2 City- ownedPertetuity Low 1177 Duplex 1177 Willow Road Rental City of Menlo Park n/a 2 City- ownedPerpetuity Low Sequoia Belle
Haven 1221 Willow Road Rental MidPen Housing LIHTC 89 2069 Low Crane Place 1331 Crane Street 1979 Rental Peninsula Volunteers HUD 93 2028 Moderate Haven Family
House 260 Van Buren Road 2000 Transitional Housing Shelter Network of San Mateo CountyLifeMoves n/a 23 Perpetuity Low 335 Pierce 335 Pierce Road Rental MidPen Housing n/a 4 (market rate) n/a Moderate 9 The City-owned properties at 1175 and 1177 Willow Road do not have an expiration year as the units are foreseen to continue being rented as long as the City retains property control. Haven Family House (260 Van Buren Road) is managed by LifeMoves and Partridge Place (817 Partridge Avenue) is managed by Peninsula Volunteers, both mission-driven organizations with units foreseen to continue being rented as long as property control is retained. LifeMoves has relayed to the City that some government funding is dedicated to Haven Family House, however, much of their funding comes from philanthropy.

Page H-1.114
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-39
Anton Menlo 3639 Haven Ave 2017 Rental Anton Development Company n/a 37 2072 Low Willow Housing
(V.A.) 605 Willow Road 2014 Rental Palo Alto V.A Heathcare Sys. LIHTC 59 2067 Low 650-660 Live Oak 650 Live Oak 2020 Rental Live Oak Lytton, LLC n/a 2 2075 Partridge
Kennedy
ApartmentsPlace
817 Partridge
Avenue 1961 Rental Peninsula Volunteers n/a 30 Perpetuity Low Coleman Place 6-8 Coleman Place 2021 Rental HIP Housing City of
Menlo Park
BMR Funds
14 2076 Low
Total 400
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2021; City of Menlo Park, 2022 Page H-1.115

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-40
In 2022, BAE Urban Economics (BAE) conducted research in support of the Housing Element Update and found that there are 93 assisted senior units that are potentially at risk of conversion in 2028 due to an expiring Section 8 rental subsidy contract. All 93 units are located within the Crane Place development.

The owner of that development is Peninsula Volunteers, a nonprofit entity dedicated to providing affordable housing to seniors and adults with disabilities.

As such, the 93 assisted senior units are not at high risk of converting to market rate.10
In addition to the 93 assisted senior units at Crane Place, there are four lowerincome units located within a fourplex at 335 Pierce Road that are potentially at risk of being lost from the City's low-income rental housing inventory due to redevelopment. The owner of the fourplex, MidPen Housing, is a nonprofit affordable housing developer that purchased the property as part of a larger effort to assemble land to support a new higher density affordable project on Pierce Road. Although the four units are not subject to any expiring local affordability requirements since they are not technically deed restricted, MidPen plans to preserve the four units as affordable rental units until the site is redeveloped sometime within the next few years. In November 2021, MidPen unveiled plans to redevelop the site with twelve affordable townhomes. The townhomes would be intended for first-time, low-income homebuyers earning between 51 and 80 percent of the area median income. According to MidPen, the current tenants at 335 Pierce Road will be offered a first right of refusal to purchase one of the townhomes.

Financial and Administrative Support
In addition to the Housing Element’s Program H2.A: Preservation of Assisted Housing, there are several resources available for supporting at-risk units, most notably:
 Golden State Acquisition Fund

10 BAE Urban Economics was unable to reach anyone at Peninsula Volunteers who had direct knowledge about whether Peninsula Volunteers would seek to extend the Section 8 contract for the Crane Place development in 2028. However, BAE did speak with the Director of Asset Management at the management company for the Crane Place development, Sean Barcelon, who noted that it was highly likely that the organization would seek to renew the contract.

Page H-1.116

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-41
 HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program  HCD’s Portfolio Reinvestment Program
 Federal Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA)
Costs and Financing
Ensuring that existing affordable housing remains available and affordable is critical to minimizing displacement in neighborhoods. Additionally, it is typically less costly and faster to preserve existing housing than to build new affordable housing.

In 2019, the City provided MidPen Housing with $635,502 to renovate six affordable units at 1105 and 1141 Willow Road, amounting to approximately $105,917 per unit. In comparison, the construction cost for a new affordable multifamily development project was approximately $850,000 per unit in Menlo Park.

According to research conducted by BAE, the average construction costs for the county are slightly lower. Information provided in low-income housing tax credit applications submitted to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) suggests that the typical cost to construct a new affordable unit (i.e., total development costs) in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties is approximately $746,000 per unit (Table 3-10). This suggests a total cost of $72,362,000 million to replace the 97 units (93 units at Crane Place and four units at 335 Pierce Road) that are potentially at risk.

The cost to rehabilitate and preserve an affordable housing project is often lower than the cost of new construction but can be as high as or higher than new construction, particularly if the project must be acquired as part of the preservation effort. Among TCAC applications submitted in 2021 for proposed projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, four were for acquisition and rehabilitation projects. These four projects had total development costs averaging approximately $643,000 per unit, suggesting that the total cost to acquire and preserve at-risk units is similar to the cost of replacement. However, it is important to note that these preservation costs reflect costs associated with acquiring and rehabilitating a 100 percent affordable housing development, Page H-1.117

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-42
which may differ from the costs associated with preserving units in an existing development through rental assistance.

Table 3-10: Average Total Development Cost per Unit,
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, 2021
Rehabilitation/
Replacement/ Preservation
New Construction of Existing Unit
Land/Acquisition Cost $81,000 $273,000
Construction/Rehabilitation Costs $452,000 $209,000
Financing/Other Project Costs $213,000 $161,000
Total Development Costs per Unit $746,000 $643,000
Sources: CTCAC Tax Credit Applications, 2021; BAE, 2022.

The cost to preserve a unit through rental assistance largely depends on the household's income and the rent for the unit. BAE reviewed TCAC applications for acquisition and rehabilitation projects in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties in 2021 and identified one senior project with existing assisted units.

The project, Lytton Gardens 1 Apartments, is located in Palo Alto and currently receives rental assistance for a total of 184 units through an existing Section 8 contract. Based on information obtained in the project's 2021 TCAC application, the annual rental subsidy equals $13,805 per assisted unit. Assuming an affordability term of 20 years, the total cost of rental assistance would be approximately $276,100 per assisted unit. This would suggest a total cost of $26,781,700 to preserve the 97 units that are potentially at risk.

Affordable housing financing often requires multiple funding sources that may have varying requirements. The developments in Table 3-9 have been financed through various sources, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Project Based Section 8 (HUD), and City loans.

Additionally, the City manages a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Fund that is used to fund the development and preservation of affordable housing units.

The City Council retains sole discretion to award available monies from the BMR Housing Fund collected in accordance with Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter

16.96, Below Market Rate Housing Program.

As an impact fee, the City's use of the BMR housing in-lieu fee funds is subject to state laws governing impact fees, California Government Code § 66000- 66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"), as amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 518 and Senate Bill (SB) 1693, which require that impact fees be expended or encumbered within five years of collection.

Page H-1.118

Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Housing Conditions and Trends | Page 3-43
Page H-1.119
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-1
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing

INTRODUCTION
Housing Elements adopted after January 1, 2021, are required to contain an Assessment of Fair Housing that is consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means “…taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on projected characteristics1.” The Assessment of Fair Housing in the 2023-2031 Housing Element analyzes populations with special needs as required by State law and recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Resources in the City of Menlo Park and/or San Mateo County are identified to help address these needs. The highlighted special needs considered in the Assessment of Fair Housing include people living with disabilities, seniors (age 65 or greater), large families (five or more persons per household), female-headed households, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness.

AFFH was considered and applied at all stages of preparation for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, including, but not limited to, site analysis and screening (Chapter 7), community outreach (Chapter 4), and policy and program development (Chapter 8). The City has taken efforts to ensure that site selection and housing programs combat segregation and foster more equitable housing opportunities. It is acknowledged that affirmatively furthering fair housing is an action-oriented process that the City will continually work towards, with collective efforts and collaboration from housing developers and advocates, and the greater Menlo Park and San Mateo County communities.

1 California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Page H-1.120
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-2
Menlo Park's AFFH analysis is organized as follows:
 Community Outreach
 Assessment of Fair Housing
o Background Information
o Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity
o Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
o Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
o Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk
o Special Housing Needs
 Contributing Factors
 Goals, Policies, and Implementing Programs
The AFFH analysis begins with a summary of the community outreach undertaken throughout the preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Findings from the community outreach are tied into the Assessment of Fair Housing, which uses quantitative data from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and other resources, as well as qualitative data from local outreach efforts to analyze special housing needs of people living with disabilities, seniors (age 65 or greater), large families (5 or more persons per household), female-headed households, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness.

The AFFH analysis continues with the Assessment of Fair Housing, which details analyses of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity and four topic areas required by HCD: integration and segregation patterns and trends; racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; disparities in access to opportunity; and disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk. The Assessment of Fair Housing also identifies and analyzes special housing needs.

The AFFH analysis concludes with the identification and analysis of contributing factors to fair housing issues and a table showing how Goals, Policies, and Implementing Programs within the Housing Element relate to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Page H-1.121
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-3
Importance of Affirmatively FutheringFurthering Fair Housing Affirmatively furthering fair housing is important to address the legacy of systematic discrimination from both public and private sectors. The City of Menlo Park values equity and has taken a comprehensive approach to further fair housing. The outreach conducted as part of the Housing Element is one of many steps to further equity.

Policies and programs developed through this outreach are intended to reverse adverse effects of historical practices. Additional equity topics are addressed in the Environmental Justice Element.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
An integral part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element preparation was to create a community engagement and outreach process that was inclusive and intentional in order to adopt an overall Housing Element Update project2 that reflects the community’s input and values while meeting State requirements. The City Council expressed support and affirmed the importance of elevating the conversation about racial equity. While the Housing Element alone cannot resolve racial disparities, it can be used as a stepping stonesteppingstone for broader dialogue, understanding, and action.

A strong effort was made to identify underrepresented populations and areas based on socioeconomic data, local knowledge, and planning best practices (e.g., engaging the historically underrepresented Hispanic/Latinx community in City Council District 1). The intention was to have these populations and areas particularly highlighted for meaningful involvement in the Housing Element Update project. The multifaceted outreach plan engaged residents and stakeholders citywide and included intentional engagement of community service providers, housing developers, and housing advocates that work with populations and areas that have historically been underrepresented in planning processes.

At the beginning of the Housing Element Update process, a community outreach and engagement plan was developed with the goal of providing multiple entry points into the process for members of the community and other interested people. Strategies were identified to reach people in a variety of settings ranging from informal discussions at “pop-up” locations at community events, to large format virtual and in-person community meetings, and also a communitywide survey (hardcopy and digital). Further, open and authentic discussions were encouraged at stakeholder interviews, slightly larger focus

2 The Housing Element Update project encompasses updates to the City’s General Plan Housing Element and Safety Element, and preparation of a new Environmental Justice Element.

Page H-1.122
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-4
group discussions, as well as in community meetings. Intentional efforts were made for the community outreach and engagement plan to be multifaceted and with a safety-first focus as the Housing Element Update project/process occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Internet-based tools such as a comprehensive project website with an embedded project timeline and links to related resources and documents, social media, and enews announcements were used. In-person/tangible outreach tools such as a project gallery with informational boards and draft Housing Element-related documents, as well as mailed letters and newsletters to targeted audiences (e.g., property owners of identified housing opportunity sites) and the general public (e.g., every postal address in Menlo Park), were also employed.

The below list provides a high-level overview of community engagement and outreach efforts completed as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. A comprehensive summary of the outreach is available in Appendix 4-1. This appendix includes a list of the organizations the City reached out to as part of the preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
 Project Website (MenloPark.org/HousingElement)
o A dedicated website for the Housing Element Update project was utilized with the purpose of being a “one stop shop” for all project-related updates, information, and documentation. The project website included drop-down menus with information for the following topic areas: Environmental Review; How to Get Involved; Project Timeline; Related Documents; Frequently Asked Questions; and Contact Us.
 Community Meetings
o The purpose of the community meetings was to share information regarding the Housing Element Update project at various stages of development and to provide a forum for the public to provide comments and feedback and to ask questions of the project team. To support equitable outreach to the Spanish-speaking community, professional interpreters were available at community meetings to provide live interpretation and presentation slides were translated into Spanish and made available to meeting attendees.
 Community Engagement and Outreach Committee Meetings
o A Community Engagement and Outreach Committee (CEOC) was formed with representation from residents of all five City Council Districts. The CEOC assisted the City in ensuring a broad and inclusive community Page H-1.123
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-5
outreach and engagement process, and helped guide and provided feedback on the types and frequency of activities, events, meetings, and the strategies and methods for communicating with the various stakeholders in the community. A total of five CEOC meetings were held in 2021.
 Community Survey
o The purpose of the community survey was to receive feedback from a wide cross section of the community on a variety of issues and concerns related to all three elements of the Housing Element Update project, with a focus on receiving feedback for the Housing Element. The survey was available in both physical/paper format as well as electronically/online.

Both formats were available in English and Spanish, and a gift card raffle was included as an incentive for participation.
 Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council Meetings o The purpose of these meetings was to provide updates, draft documents for review, and receive feedback and recommendations from the Housing and Planning Commissions as well as the City Council. The public meetings also provided an opportunity for members of the public to share their feedback.
 Project Gallery
o The City hosted two project galleries, one at the Main Library and one at the Belle Haven Branch Library in District 1. The project galleries were intended to provide a low-tech, approachable forum for individuals to learn about the Housing Element Update project without the need to rely on the internet or other technology.
 Pop-Up Events
o The purpose of pop-up events was to “meet people where they are” in an informal, relaxed setting, and to share information and garner input. The pop-up events were focused in two primary areas of Menlo Park — Downtown and the Belle Haven neighborhood in District 1.  Social Media
o Social media platforms were used as a tool to reach residents, organizations, and other interested parties to participate throughout the engagement process. Posts included updates on the project and invitations to attend community meetings and other outreach events.

Page H-1.124
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-6
 Focus Groups and Interviews
o These meetings were designed to garner comments and enable the project team to better understand local issues and concerns from those experiencing them firsthand. The purpose of the focus groups was to gain insight from a wide variety of perspectives. When focus groups weren’t an option, smaller group or individual interviews were planned to actively include various groups and individuals in the engagement process.

Overall, community feedback has guided and influenced every project milestone of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Public participation was essential in the formation of a land use strategy that identified where and how Menlo Park’s housing goals were to be achieved. Community feedback also guided the development of policies and implementing programs for all three General Plan Elements included under the Housing Element Update project – an update to the Housing Element; an update to the Safety Element, and the preparation of a new Environmental Justice Element.

The initial outreach period in late 2021 guided the land use strategies presented to the City Council as well as the policy discussions held with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. In early 2022, a community meeting on housing goals and policies gave the community an opportunity to provide input on the draft goals and policies composed from the initial outreach. The feedback from this community meeting was developed into the public review draft that was reviewed at two public meetings.

In addition to overall input and feedback on the Site Inventory, specific policies surrounding specialized housing needs (particularly housing for people with disabilities, including developmental disabilities) and equity were developed from the public outreach process.

ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
The Assessment of Fair Housing provides an in-depth analysis of fair housing data and housing needs for special needs populations. The analysis was developed with data from ABAG/MTC; a fair housing assessment conducted by BAE Urban Economics (Appendix 4-2); and policy recommendations from Root Policy Research, 21 Elements, and service providers in Menlo Park (e.g., Housing Choices and Golden Gate Regional Center). Policy recommendations were refined based on community outreach findings.

A summary and analysis of general housing needs in Menlo Park is available in Chapter 3, Housing Conditions and Trends.

Page H-1.125
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-7
Background Information
An understanding of local history, economy, demographics, and housing tenure and type,An understanding of local history, economy, demographics, and housing tenure and type is essential in the development of housing solutions for Menlo Park’s current and future residents. The below sections provide a high-level overview of these topics.

History
Menlo Park was established on Ohlone Native American land by two Irish settlers who purchased land from Rancho de las Pulgas in 1851 and shortened the name of their ancestral hometown of Menlough, County Galway, when transcribing it onto a wooden arch. In 1863, the railroad came to Menlo Park and turned it into an attractive suburban getaway for San Francisco business leaders. During World War I, much of the city was converted into a training camp for the war effort, and the still-extant Menlo Park Veterans Affairs Medical Center is located on the former site of Camp Fremont.

A multi-year collaborative effort among San Mateo County jurisdictions, known as 21 Elements, facilitated coordination across the county’s jurisdictions in their respective 2023-2031 Housing Element preparations and shared information on housing goals, policies, and programs. According to Root Policy Research, prior to the Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968), San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities. In Menlo Park, this resistance took the form of “blockbusting”3 and “steering”4 or other intervention by public officials.

These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by the actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low-income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program. Menlo Park was one of the cities in San Mateo County where Black/African American families were barred from buying homes. Asian Americans were also denied housing in some areas or harassed by neighbors after purchasing homes.

3 Private sector practices that convinced White homeowners to sell their homes at a discount for fear of integration and then resold those homes at a higher price to non-White buyers.
4 Practice of influencing a buyer's choice of communities based upon one of the protected characteristics under the Fair Housing Act, which are race, color, religion, gender, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Page H-1.126
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-8
Economy
In the second half of the 20th century, Menlo Park became one of the world's preeminent technological research and development centers – seen first from Stanford Research Institute and later, Facebook, now known as Meta.

The number of jobs in Menlo Park has boomed since the turn of the 21st century, from 26,965 in 2002 to 48,550 in 2018 (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Menlo Park Job Trends, 2002-2018
Sector 2002 2018 Change
Agriculture & Natural Resources 14 50 257%
Arts, Recreation & Other Services 2,500 3,322 33%
Construction 1,010 1,196 18%
Financial & Leasing 2,173 3,399 56%
Government 540 1,011 87%
Health & Educational Services 2,053 4,188 104%
Information 915 19,185 1997%
Manufacturing & Wholesale 6,569 4,237 -36%
Professional & Managerial Services 8,754 9,409 7%
Retail 1,966 1,564 -20%
Transportation & Utilities 471 989 110%
Total 26,965 48,550 80%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 There are three general employment nodes in Menlo Park: Bayfront (NorthEast), Downtown/Middlefield (Central), and Sand Hill (SouthWest). The largest is in the Bayfront (north east of US-101), where many technology and light industrial firms are located (Figure 4-1).

Page H-1.127
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-9
Figure 4-1: Employment Density in Menlo Park
Source: U.S. Census (2019)5
Demographics
Menlo Park's population in 2020 was 35,254. This was a 10 percent increase from its population in 2010 (32,026). Menlo Park’s population experienced a greater increase than both San Mateo County (7.6 percent) and the Bay Area as a whole (8.9 percent) during the same time period (2010 to 2020).

Compared to San Mateo County, 20 percent more households are above the area median income (AMI) in Menlo Park. In Menlo Park, 20 percent of households are below half the AMI – slightly lower than the County proportion of 24 percent. There is an acute housing need for lower-income households in Menlo Park. Overall, in 2017, 33 percent of Menlo Park households spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Of households making 80 percent or less than AMI, 72 percent spend more

5 Employment location is generalized by the US Census Bureau at the census tract level. Exact locations may contain inaccuracies, as can be seen by the large employment mass at Bedwell Bayfront Park in the above map.

Page H-1.128
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-10
than 30 percent of their income on household.6 Figure 4-2 shows a map of household incomes in the city.

Figure 4-2: Map of Household Incomes in Menlo Park
Housing Tenure and Type
According to the California Department of Finance, there was an 8 percent increase in new housing units constructed in Menlo Park between 2010 and 2021. Of these, the majority have been multi-family housing consisting of five or more units. Refer to Table 3-5 and Figure 3-11 in Chapter 3, Housing Conditions and Trends, for additional details.

Since 2000, housing tenure has remained consistent in Menlo Park, with approximately 58 percent of housing units being owner-occupied. This is slightly different than, but generally on par with, the county figure of 60 percent and the Bay Area figure of 56 percent. However, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than those for households in multi-family housing. In Menlo Park, 83

6 Cost Burden, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30 percent of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Page H-1.129
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-11
percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while only 14 percent of multi-family homes are homeowners.

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities reflect differences in income and wealth and stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for people of color while prioritizing and facilitating homeownership for White residents.

While many of the discriminatory housing policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.

From 2015 to 2019, Menlo Park homeownership rates were 56 percent for Asian households, 53 percent for Black or African American households, 38 percent for Latinx households, and 63 percent for non-Hispanic White households. Refer to Figure 3-8 (in Chapter 3) for additional details.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), fair housing complaints can be used to indicate the overall magnitude of housing complaints and identify characteristics of households experiencing discrimination in housing. Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act [Government Code § 12921 (a)], the opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing cannot be determined by an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.” Federal law also prohibits many kinds of housing discrimination.

Housing discrimination complaints can be directed to either HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). It is acknowledged that local fair housing issues may not always end up being referred to FHEO or DFEH; instead, service organizations such as Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Project Sentinel are referred to by the City for fair housing enforcement inquiries and the City will continue to partner with these organizations to be informed of demographic data regarding fair housing complaints in Menlo Park, with the intention of continually bolstering fair housing.

Fair housing issues that may arise in any jurisdiction include, but are not limited to:

Page H-1.130
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-12
 Housing design that makes a dwelling unit inaccessible to an individual with a disability;
 Discrimination against an individual based on race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, sex, or other characteristics when renting or selling a housing unit; and
 Disproportionate housing needs, including cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and risk of displacement.

A total of six complaints have been filed and resolved with FHEO in Menlo Park between 2013 and 2020. A no-cause determination was made for three complaints, one complaint was closed because the complainant failed to cooperate, and one complaint was closed because an election was made to go to court. Only one complaint was settled or conciliated, with compensation provided to the plaintiff on the basis of discriminatory refusal to rent and discriminatory advertising, statements, and notices based on familial status.

In San Mateo County, 130 complaints were filed and resolved between 2013 and 2020, including 48 complaints that were settled. The remaining complaints in the County included 61 complaints that were dismissed for no cause and 17 complaints that were withdrawn (BAE). Further details are provided in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2).

Table 4-2: FHEO Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution Type Total, Percent Total, Percent
Resolution 2013-2020 of Total 2013-2020 of Total
Complainant failed to cooperate 1 16.7% 2 1.5%
Conciliated/settled 1 16.7% 48 36.9%
Election made to go to court 1 16.7% 1 0.8%
No cause determination 3 50.0% 61 46.9%
Unable to locate complainant 0 0.0% 1 0.8%
Withdrawn after resolution 0 0.0% 12 9.2%
Withdrawn without resolution 0 0.0% 5 3.8%
Subtotal, Closed Complaints 6 100.0% 130 100.0%
City of Menlo Park San Mateo County
Sources: HUD, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 2021; BAE, 2021.

Page H-1.131
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-13
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Schools
As also discussed in the Environmental Justice Element, there are four primary school (elementary and middle) districts that serve Menlo Park:
 Las Lomitas Elementary School District
 Menlo Park City School District
 Ravenswood City School District
 Redwood City School District
Ravenswood City School District serves Belle Haven, Bayfront, and the neighboring jurisdiction of East Palo Alto (a minority-majority city). Historically, there was also a Ravenswood High School that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) argued – unsuccessfully – was illegally segregated at its 1958 opening.7 This high school was subject to a 1970 desegregation order and was eventually shut down due to declining enrollment in 1975.8 In the present day, Ravenswood City School District is the sole school district serving the city with student math and English test scores below state averages:

Table 4-3: Test Scores in Menlo Park School Districts9
School District
% of Students
White, NonHispanic
% Passing
State Test
Math English
State Average 21% 40% 51%
Las Lomitas 55% 82% 86%
Menlo Park 57% 83% 84%
Ravenswood City 0% 12% 18%
Redwood City 20% 43% 54%
There is a pattern where the school districts with more white students are also more proficient. The housing element seeks to balance this discrepancy through encouraging

7 Tracy Jan “Ravenswood revisited, reunited” (Palo Alto Online: September 11, 1996, available at https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/cover/1996_Sep_11.COVER11.html. 8 Kim-Mai Cutler “East of Palo Alto’s Eden: Race and the Formation of Silicon Valley” (TechCrunch: January 10, 2015) available at https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-altos-eden/. Cutler notes that two community “Nairobi Schools” in East Palo Alto were firebombed in 1975.
9 Data via California Department of Education, 2019
Page H-1.132
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-14
more above moderate income units in the Ravenswood City School District and more affordable units in the other three primary school districts that serve Menlo Park.

Jobs
In the second half of the 20th century, Menlo Park became one of the world's preeminent technological research and development centers – seen first from Stanford Research Institute and later, Facebook, now known as Meta.

The number of jobs in Menlo Park has boomed since the turn of the 21st century, from 26,965 in 2002 to 48,550 in 2018 (Table 4-1).

Table 4-4: Menlo Park Job Trends, 2002-2018
Sector: 2002 2018 Change
Agriculture & Natural Resources 14 50 257%
Arts, Recreation & Other Services 2,500 3,322 33%
Construction 1,010 1,196 18%
Financial & Leasing 2,173 3,399 56%
Government 540 1,011 87%
Health & Educational Services 2,053 4,188 104%
Information 915 19,185 1997%
Manufacturing & Wholesale 6,569 4,237 -36%
Professional & Managerial Services 8,754 9,409 7%
Retail 1,966 1,564 -20%
Transportation & Utilities 471 989 110%
Total 26,965 48,550 80%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 There are three employment nodes in Menlo Park: Bayfront (NorthEast), Downtown/Middlefield (Central), and Sand Hill (SouthWest). The largest is in the Bayfront (eastnorth of US-101), where many technology and life science firms are located (Figure 4-1).

Page H-1.133
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-15
Figure 4-3: Employment Density in Menlo Park
Source: U.S. Census (2019)10
A large portion (96 percent) of Menlo Park workers commute into the city from elsewhere in the region (see Table 3-3: Local Workers Community In Menlo Park in Chapter 3). In addition, there are more jobs than workers in each income category tracked by the US Census – but much more jobs than workers at the highest end of the spectrum.

10 Employment location is generalized by the US Census Bureau at the census tract level. Exact locations may contain inaccuracies, as can be seen by the large employment mass at Bedwell Bayfront Park in the above map.

Page H-1.134
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-16
Figure 3-44-4: Menlo Park Workers by Earnings
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park
For Menlo Park residents of prime worker age (16-64 years), there are no substantial differences between the percentage of men and women employed, as a percentage of the labor force. There are also no substantial differences between Menlo Park and San Mateo County as a whole.

Table XX4-35: Employment by Sex
Menlo Park San Mateo County
Count
Employed %
Total in Labor
Force
Count
Employed %
Total in Labor
Force
Men 8913 96% 9238 217597 96% 227511
Women 7,711 96% 8,054 192,314 96% 200,206
Total 16,624 96% 17,292 409,911 96% 427,717
Source: ACS 5-Year Community Survey 2014-2018 Table DP03. “Labor Force” is defined as those who are employed or actively seeking work and does not count individuals not seeking work or unable to work.

Employment is higher for all races in Menlo Park compared to the County except for the employment rate for Black or African American workers.

Table 4-46XX: Employment by Race
Menlo Park San Mateo County
Count % Total Count % Total
White 10,323 96% 10,739 130,491 94% 138,510
Black 816 88% 930 7,243 91% 7,952
American Indian 133 100% 133 1,655 84% 1,963
Asian 2,802 98% 2,852 121,091 94% 128,204
Page H-1.135
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-17
Native Hawaiian/API 362 99% 364 3,422 80% 4,292
Other 944 96% 988 42,065 85% 49,640
Two or More Races 791 99% 800 43,866 94% 46,649
White Alone (not
Hispanic) 9,078 96% 9,408 120,549 95% 127,508
Hispanic or Latino 2,565 94% 2,722 85,399 92% 92,916
Source: ACS 5-Year Community Survey 2016-2020 Table C23002 Transportation
Much of Menlo Park has convenient access to jobs due to the city’s connectivity: I-280 to the southwest, El Camino Real and Caltrain in the center, and US-101 and CA-85 to the northeast. The one pocket of relatively low connectivity is predominantly highincome single family detached housing.

Figure XX4-3: Jobs Proximity Index (2014-2017)
The city’s strong connectivity provides strong access to jobs. However, this also leads to high demand for housing in proximity to the jobs in Menlo Park, which is a factor leading to displacement. Strong anti-displacement policies are needed in order to support the local lower-income population as Menlo Park continues to be a job center for the region.

Page H-1.136
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-18
Environment
As discussed in the Environmental Justice Element, the greatest environmental issues in Menlo Park are pollution from the major highways in the northeast and westsouth of the city, particularly US-101. The Environmental Justice Element, particularly Appendix EJ-A Neighborhood Profiles, goes into detail of the limited environmental hazards in the city. No census tract in Menlo Park has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden score over 75.

Disability
In Menlo Park, a disproportionate number of Black/African American individuals are disabled, across age categories.

Table XX4-57: Disability by Age and Race
U18 18‐64 65+
With a
Disability
No
Disability %
With a
Disability
No
Disability %
With a
Disability
N
D
White 127 5301 2% 570 13028 4% 1030
Black 60 109 36% 105 1017 9% 157
American Indian 0 23 0% 100 221 31% 0
Asian 18 1206 1% 87 3433 2% 148
Native
Hawaiian/API 13 223 6% 52 479 10% 8
Other Race 15 494 3% 20 1259 2% 18
Two or More
Races 22 1061 2% 78 928 8% 42
Hispanic or Latino 69 1559 4% 202 3269 6% 58
Source: ACS 5-Year Community Survey 2016-2020 Table B18101 This could be due to the higher health risks in Belle Haven, which is a disproportionately Black/African American community. For more details, see “People Living with Disabilities” under “Special Housing Needs,” beginning on page 4-5254.

Opportunity Mapping
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires the Housing Element needs assessment to include an analysis of access to opportunities. To facilitate this assessment, HCD and the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened an independent group of organizations and research institutions under the umbrella of the California Fair Housing Task Force, which produces an annual set of Opportunity Area Maps. The maps identify areas within every region of the state “whose characteristics have been shown by research to support Page H-1.137
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-19
positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families – particularly long-term outcomes for children.”11
TCAC and HCD created these “Opportunity Maps” using reliable and publicly available data sources to derive 21 indicators to calculate Opportunity Index scores for Census tracts in each region of California. The Opportunity Maps categorize Census tracts into the following five groups based on the Opportunity Index scores:
 Highest Resource
 High Resource
 Moderate Resource/Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing)  Low Resource
 High Segregation & Poverty
Before an area receives an Opportunity Index score, some Census tracts are filtered into the High Segregation & Poverty category. The filter identifies Census tracts where at least 30 percent of the population is below the federal poverty line and has a disproportionate share of households of color. After filtering out High Segregation and Poverty areas, the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map allocates the 20 percent of tracts in each region with the highest relative Opportunity Index scores to the Highest Resource designation and the next 20 percent to the High Resource designation. The remaining non-filtered tracts are then evenly divided into Low Resource and Moderate Resource categories.

11 California Fair Housing Task Force. December 2020. Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Available at:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2021-hcd-methodology.pdf Page H-1.138
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-20
As illustrated in Figure 4-3, Menlo Park has no tracts with High Segregation and Poverty, but otherwise has tracts ranging across the other four categories. The highest resource tracts are primarily concentrated in central neighborhoods. All the neighborhoods north east of Highway 101 (US-101) are considered low or moderate resource tracts.

Figure 4-34: Resource and Opportunity in Menlo Park
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2021.

Page H-1.139
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-21
Tracts in San Mateo and Santa Clara County also cover a broad range of categories, although there is one tract with High Segregation and Poverty located in San Jose (see Figure 4-4). In Santa Clara County, the Highest Resource tracts are largely concentrated in western Santa Clara Valley cities such as Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Los Altos. In San Mateo County, there are high concentrations of the Highest Resource tracts in the areas west of Highway 280 on the peninsula.

Figure 4-45: Resource and Opportunity in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; HCD; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2014-2018 five-year sample data; BAE, 2021.

A more detailed analysis of the individual TCAC factors is included in Appendix 4-2.

In 2021, a countywide housing survey was conducted by 21 Elements and Root Policy Research. The countywide housing survey found that several financial, infrastructural, and other place-based improvements could improve access to opportunity. A total of Page H-1.140
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-22
2,382 county residents participated. A more extensive analysis of the survey is included in Appendix 4-5.

When asked what type of help they need to improve their housing security, the top answers were:
 Help me with the housing search (34%);
 Help me with a down payment/purchase (34%); and
 Prevent landlords from evicting me for no reason (17%), Help me get a loan to buy a house (17%), and Move to a different city (17%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their neighborhood, the top answers were:
 Build more sidewalks (41%);
 Better lighting (34%); and
 Bike lanes and public transit (31%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their health, the top answers were:
 Make it easier to get to health clinics (35%);
 Better/access to mental health care (32%); and
 More healthy food (32%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve their job situation, the top answers were:
 Find a job near my apartment/house (33%);
 Increase wages (33%); and
 Help paying for job training (11%) and access to consistent childcare (11%).

When asked what type of help they need to improve children’s education, the top answers were:
 Have more activities after school (32%);
 Better transportation to school (29%); and
 Better school facilities (building quality, playgrounds, etc.) (29%).

The top needs overall expressed by residents were:
 37% of residents said the bus/rail does not go where they need to go or does not operate during the times they need;
 22% of residents said their house or apartment is too small for their family; Page H-1.141
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-23
 22% indicated they would like to move but can’t afford anything else available; and
 16% of respondents can’t keep up with utility costs.

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), hHousing policies and actions are developed effectively when a city’s racial makeup is understood and drives equitable outreach and engagement discussion. The racial patterns in Menlo Park, like many other cities, are shaped by economic factors and government decisions, such as exclusionary zoning and discriminatory lending practices. Historical segregation and displacement have had one of the largest impacts on racial patterns and continue to impact communities of color today. A decrease in racial and ethnic housing representation can occur when residents can no longer find affordable housing that meets their needs.

Menlo Park is relatively less diverse when compared to San Mateo County overall. The population distribution by race and ethnicity shows the largest portion of the population being non-Hispanic White (58% v. 39% in the county), followed by Asian (17% in Menlo Park, 27% in the county), Hispanic (15% in Menlo Park, 24% in the county), and Black (4% in Menlo Park, 5% in the county). Older residents are less diverse with 80 percent of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to only 63 percent of the population for children less than 18 years old.

Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher poverty rates and lower household incomes than the non-Hispanic White population in Menlo Park. The exception to this is the Asian population, which has an income distribution similar to the non-Hispanic White population.

Geospatially, most of the census tracts west of US-101 are majority White, while Hispanic/Latinx majority tracts with large Black/African American populations are concentrated east of US-101. This demographic disparity, with US-101 serving as a dividing line between two distinct communities, is due to the restrictive covenants and federal discrimination that were in place when Menlo Park expanded after World War II.

US-101 was expanded in the 1950s, which created what the NAACP referred to as a “Concrete Curtain” as Black residents moved in to Belle Haven during the same time frame. Generations later, in the 2008 financial crisis, homes in Belle Haven were Page H-1.142
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-24
disproportionately foreclosed upon and purchased by outside investors, which has led to displacement in the years since the crisis.12
Race and Ethnicity
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), Menlo Park shows a race and ethnic mix somewhat different from the two-county region. As shown in Table 4-3, while their numbers and proportion have declined since 2000, White Non-Hispanic persons still make up a majority of the local population, while the region shows a generally stronger declining trend for this group, making up less than one-third of the total population in 2020.

In both Menlo Park and the region, the small Black Non-Hispanic population has been declining, and the Asian Non-Hispanic population has increased substantially. The number of persons identifying as Some Other Race or Two or More Races has also increased both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the overall population. The Hispanic population has increased absolutely, but its proportion of the total has risen only slightly. As illustrated in the Table 4-3 below, some groups have very limited populations in the city.

12 This overview is a summation of a February 2021 presentation by Menlo Together, available at:
https://www.menlotogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MPCSD-Slides-Color-of-Law.pdf Page H-1.143
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-25
Table 4-36: Menlo Park, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County by Race and Ethnicity 2000-2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census 2000, 2010, and 2020; BAE Urban Economics, 2021 Page H-1.144
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-26
Income
Areas of the city north east of US-101, notably Belle Haven, are disproportionately more composed of low to moderate income households than the areas of Menlo Park southwest of US-101.

Figure XX4-6: Low to Moderate Income Households in Menlo Park (2019) Comparison to the Region
Menlo Park has a higher median income than some if its neighboring jurisdictions.

Table XX4-7: Median Income in Menlo Park and Nearby Cities (2020) Jurisdiction # of
Households
Median Household
Income
Atherton 2,192 $250,000+
East Palo Alto 7,900 $83,511
Menlo Park 12,174 $167,567
Palo Alto 26,150 $174,003
Redwood City 30,175 $123,294
Woodside 1,761 $250,000+
This is likely due to Menlo Park’s history as a racially-exclusive suburb, albeit one that was more exclusive than some and less exclusive than others. As with most regions in Page H-1.145
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-27
the United States, a jurisdiction’s proportion of single-family zoned land roughly corresponds with that jurisdiction’s exclusivity and segregation.13 Familial Status
Much of Menlo Park consists of households that include children. There are larger proportions of households without children in Sharon Heights (the southwesternmost portion of the city) and near downtown. Notably, there are many large multifamily developments proposed in the northeast of the city that will consist of studio and onebedroom units (see Pipeline Projects in Chapter 5), which will likely increase the proportion of households without families northeast of US-101.

Figure XX4-7: Familial Status in Menlo Park (2019)
Disabilities
The proportion of population with a disability is markedly consistent throughout Menlo Park. There are slightly more individuals with disabilities, proportionate to the census tract population, near the VA Hospital.

13 See Michael Manville, Paavo Monkkonen and Michael Lens, “It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning” (Journal of the American Planning Association: December 6, 2019). Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216 Page H-1.146
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-28
Figure XX4-8: Disability Proportion in Menlo Park (2019) Groups with Highest Levels of Segregation
HCD has collected data on racial composition at a census tract level, identifying which groups have more than 10 percent representation in each census tract.14

14 See “Neighborhood Segregation”, available at https://affh-data-resourcescahcd.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/132ee252757e4610adc0da257fe49641_33/about.

Page H-1.147
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-29
Figure XX4-9: Neighborhood Composition in Menlo Park (2019) In Menlo Park, the vast majority of census tracts southwest of US 101 are mixed of Asian and white, with some predominantly white (“White-Shared”) and some near downtown also composed of some Latinx households. NorthEast of US-101, there are disproportionately more Black households, with some Black-Latinx-Other-White in or near Belle Haven, and other areas with fewer white households.

Dissimilarity Index
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), the dissimilarity index is one of two key metrics recommended for fair housing analysis as part of the federal AFFH rule. The dissimilarity index measures the evenness with which two groups are distributed across the geographic units that make up a larger area, such as Census block groups within a city. The index can range from zero to 100, with zero meaning no segregation, or spatial disparity, and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be interpreted as the percentage of one of the two groups that would have to move elsewhere in the community to produce an even distribution. An index score above 60 is considered high, while 30 to 60 is Page H-1.148
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-30
considered moderate, and below 30 is considered low.15 The sub-city analysis, including the calculation of both the dissimilarity index and isolation index (described in the next section below), relies on block group level data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The index used here compares the distribution of other groups relative to the White nonHispanic population.

Menlo Park shows high variability between dissimilarity index scores by race/ethnicity (see Table 4-84). From 2015 through 2019, the scores range from 26.8 for non-Hispanic persons of two or more races to 90.1 for non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. It should be noted that, as discussed above, some minority groups make up a very small proportion of the City’s population; their higher dissimilarity index scores and large changes in the index over time may in part reflect segregation fluctuations resulting from their limited numbers. For instance, the index for the Native American population has nearly doubled over the period while the population declined by almost 40 percent to only 26 individuals in 2020. The other race-alone index more than doubled, even as this population increased to 156 in 2020, as movement between neighborhoods of small numbers of persons may lead to greater segregation. Most groups show an increase in the dissimilarity index between 2010 and the 2015 through 2019 period. While this is partially due to a decline in the non-Hispanic White population, the index is also susceptible to changes for the minorities with very small populations in the City.

Table 4-48: Menlo Park Dissimilarity Index, 2010 and 2015-2019 Dissimilarity Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2015-2019
Black or African American alone 79.2 77.2
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 48.0 87.0
Asian alone 19.0 34.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 80.7 90.1 Some other race alone 36.3 81.0
Two or more races 15.9 26.8
Hispanic or Latino 72.6 65.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P9, ACS 2014-2018 five-year sample data, Table B03002; BAE Urban Economics, 2021
Isolation Index
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), the other key metric recommended under the federal AFFH rule is the Isolation Index, which compares a

15 Cloud Nine Technologies and Brent Mast, (2017). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) Data Documentation. HUD Office of Policy Development and Research, and Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Page H-1.149
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-31
group’s share of the overall population to the average share within a given block group.

Ranging from 0 to 100, the isolation index represents the percentage of residents of a given race or ethnicity in a block group where the average resident of that group lives, correcting for the fact that this number increases automatically with that group’s share of the overall study area’s population. Using Hispanic or Latino residents as an example, the isolation index of 29.7 indicates that the average Hispanic or Latino resident lives in a block group where the Hispanic or Latino share of the population exceeds the overall citywide average by 29.7 percent. An Isolation index of zero indicates no segregation.

Table 4-59: Menlo Park Isolation Index, 2010 and 2015-2019 Isolation Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2015-2019
Non-Hispanic White 38.9 29.5
Black or African American alone 10.4 11.8
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.2 5.2
Asian alone 3.1 11.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 5.0 11.1 Some other race alone 0.2 2.7
Two or more races 0.5 1.6
Hispanic or Latino 39.8 29.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P9; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data, B03002, BAE Urban Economics, 2021

16 HUD. (2013). AFFH Data Documentation. Available at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pdf/FR-5173-P01_AFFH_data_documentation.pdf 17 Glaeser, E. and Vigdor, J. (2001). Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/glaeser.pdf Page H-1.150
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-32
Figure 4-510: Census Block Groups by Percent Non-White, Menlo Park Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE Urban Economics, 2021 Page H-1.151
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-33
Figure 4-611: Census Block Groups by Percent Non-White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE Urban Economics, 2021 Historic Patterns of Racial Discrimination
As stated in a Housing Element Update project staff report to the Planning Commission and Housing Commission from October 4, 2021:

To achieve compliance with the Housing Element’s requirement for AFFH, the City must acknowledge the existing level of segregation that has been created from past practices and patterns of segregation. This history includes racial covenants in neighborhoods as early as the 1920s, the expansion of Highway 101 in the 1950s, and the subsequent disenfranchisement of northern eastern neighborhoods (particularly Belle Haven) through predatory real estate practices like blockbusting. These past practices have resulted in segregation based on Page H-1.152
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-34
race, income level, property value, access to high-performing schools, and proximity to services.18
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), two recent reports provide documentation of historical patterns of discrimination in Menlo Park and nearby communities. “Uneven Ground,” by Kate Bradshaw, published in 2019 by Palo Alto Online Media,19 documents the discrimination faced by minority homebuyers in Menlo Park and nearby cities in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Two women, one white and one Black, sought out real estate brokers in the area and were “steered” to different neighborhoods based on their race.20 Brokers explicitly refused to sell homes in Menlo Park’s Belle Haven neighborhood or East Palo Alto to the White woman, calling the areas “undesirable” due to the presence of African American residents. Most brokers simply avoided providing much information to the Black woman, in some cases suggesting she talk to other brokers specializing in the communities already having a substantial Black population.
“The Color of Law: Menlo Park Edition,”21 presented at a series of workshops facilitated by Menlo Together, a citizen’s group promoting the city as a diverse, equitable, and sustainable community, provides a longer-term view of the national, regional, and local practices that have contributed to housing segregation in Menlo Park. For instance, neighborhood covenants restricted minorities from purchasing in certain neighborhoods, and zoning laws kept lower-income housing types out of single-family communities.

Redlining made it impossible for minorities to obtain loans for single-family homes; blockbusting generated White flight and steered minorities toward Belle Haven and East Palo Alto, and subprime lenders preyed on minority households. More recently, gentrification linked in part to the growth of jobs in the area has led to the replacement of lower-income renters with higher-income owners. These historical laws, rules, practices, and trends have resulted in continuing disparities in Menlo Park, the region, and the nation.

18 Staff Report, Menlo Park Planning Commission and Housing Commission, Meeting Date 10/4/2021, Staff Report Number: 21- 048-PC
19 “Uneven Ground,” Kate Bradshaw, Palo Alto Online Media, August 27, 2019, https://multimedia.paloaltoonline.com/2019/08/27/uneven-ground/, accessed January 5, 2022. 20 Hearings before the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Hearings held in Los Angeles, California, January 25, 1960, January 26, 1960; San Francisco, California, January 27, 1960, January 28, 1960. Hathi Trust Digital Library, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102835885
21 “The Color of Law: Menlo Park Edition,” February 13, 2021, https://www.menlotogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MPCSDSlides-Color-of-Law.pdf, accessed January 5, 2021.

Page H-1.153
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-35
Dissimilarity Index
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), the dissimilarity index is one of two key metrics recommended for fair housing analysis as part of the federal AFFH rule. The dissimilarity index measures the evenness with which two groups are distributed across the geographic units that make up a larger area, such as Census block groups within a city. The index can range from zero to 100, with zero meaning no segregation, or spatial disparity, and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be interpreted as the percentage of one of the two groups that would have to move elsewhere in the community to produce an even distribution. An index score above 60 is considered high, while 30 to 60 is considered moderate, and below 30 is considered low.22 The sub-city analysis, including the calculation of both the dissimilarity index and isolation index (described in the next section below), relies on block group level data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The index used here compares the distribution of other groups relative to the White nonHispanic population.

Menlo Park shows high variability between dissimilarity index scores by race/ethnicity (see Table 4-4). From 2015 through 2019, the scores range from 26.8 for non-Hispanic persons of two or more races to 90.1 for non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. It should be noted that, as discussed above, some minority groups make up a very small proportion of the city’s population; their higher dissimilarity index scores and large changes in the index over time may in part reflect segregation fluctuations resulting from their limited numbers. For instance, the index for the Native American population has nearly doubled over the period while the population declined by almost 40 percent to only 26 individuals in 2020. The other race-alone index more than doubled, even as this population increased to 156 in 2020, as movement between neighborhoods of small numbers of persons may lead to greater segregation. Most groups show an increase in the dissimilarity index between 2010 and the 2015 through 2019 period. While this is partially due to a decline in the non-Hispanic White population, the index is also susceptible to changes for the minorities with very small populations in the city.

22 Cloud Nine Technologies and Brent Mast, (2017). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) Data Documentation. HUD Office of Policy Development and Research, and Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Page H-1.154
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-36
Table 4-4: Menlo Park Dissimilarity Index, 2010 and 2015-2019 Dissimilarity Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2015-2019
Black or African American alone 79.2 77.2
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 48.0 87.0
Asian alone 19.0 34.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 80.7 90.1 Some other race alone 36.3 81.0
Two or more races 15.9 26.8
Hispanic or Latino 72.6 65.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P9, ACS 2014-2018 five-year sample data, Table B03002; BAE Urban Economics, 2021
Isolation Index
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), the other key metric recommended under the federal AFFH rule is the isolation index, which compares a group’s share of the overall population to the average share within a given block group.

Values between zero and 30 indicate members of that minority group live in relatively integrated neighborhoods, 31 to 60 indicate moderate segregation, and values above 60 indicate high segregation. A score of 100 would indicate complete segregation.23 24 Table 4-5 summarizes isolation index scores by racial and ethnic affiliation. The data indicates that most racial and ethnic subpopulations live in areas with relatively high racial and ethnic integration degrees. The isolation indexes showed limited changes over the 2010 to 2015-2019 period, but none of the scores indicate a high degree of isolation for any group. For a broader perspective, Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 are provided to show Census block groups by percent of Non-White population in Menlo Park and the greater San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. In Menlo Park, more than 50 percent of the population north of US-101 (District 1) is Non-White.

23 HUD. (2013). AFFH Data Documentation. Available at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pdf/FR-5173-P01_AFFH_data_documentation.pdf 24 Glaeser, E. and Vigdor, J. (2001). Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/glaeser.pdf Page H-1.155
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-37
Table 4-5: Menlo Park Isolation Index, 2010 and 2015-2019 Isolation Index
Racial and/or Ethnic Group 2010 2015-2019
Non-Hispanic White 38.9 29.5
Black or African American alone 10.4 11.8
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.2 5.2
Asian alone 3.1 11.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 5.0 11.1 Some other race alone 0.2 2.7
Two or more races 0.5 1.6
Hispanic or Latino 39.8 29.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P9; American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data, B03002, BAE Urban Economics, 2021
Page H-1.156
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-38
Figure 4-5: Census Block Groups by Percent Non-White, Menlo Park Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE Urban Economics, 2021 Page H-1.157
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-39
Figure 4-6: Census Block Groups by Percent Non-White, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Note: Includes all categories except White non-Hispanic persons.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; BAE Urban Economics, 2021 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas
Local and Regional R/ECAP and RCAA
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), Menlo Park is within San Mateo County, no part of which is defined as an area with Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP). However, much of San Mateo County – including Menlo Park – is classified as a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA).

Page H-1.158
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-40
Figure XX4-12: RCAA/RECAP (2020)
As noted in the Assessment of Fair Housing report (Appendix 4-2), Menlo Park is within San Mateo County, which is not defined as an area with Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP). The census tracts south of US-101 that are high or highest resource according to TCAC (see Figure 4-4) are also designated as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). To be an RCAA, a census tract had to have a non-Hispanic white population of more than 1.25 that of the ABAG region.25

25 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence” (July 8, 2022). Available at
https://cahcd.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4100330678564ad699d139b1c193ef14 Page H-1.159
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-41
The areas of Menlo Park southwest of US-101 are designated as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, but the areas northeast of US-101 are not.

While none of the tracts in Menlo Park or nearby meet the criteria for a R/ECAP, it should be noted that Menlo Park is adjacent to East Palo Alto, historically one of the more segregated and lower-income areas of San Mateo County. The nearby Belle Haven neighborhood in Menlo Park is physically separated from other neighborhoods in Menlo Park by Highway 101 and has historically been both racially segregated and lower-income.

Table 4-106 reports the prevalence of poverty by race and ethnicity in the City between 2015 and 2019. The data show that many communities of color, namely Hispanics and Latinos, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Other Pacific Islanders, and residents of two or more races, have poverty rates above the citywide average of 7.6 percent.

Page H-1.160
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-42
Table 4-610: Menlo Park Poverty by Race And Ethnicity, 2015-2019 Total
Total Below Poverty
Racial/Ethnic Group Population Poverty Rate
White alone 22,776 1,340 5.9%
Black or African American alone 1,520 77 5.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 243 176 72.4%
Asian alone 5,030 332 6.6%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 699 107 15.3%
Some other race alone 1,844 369 20.0%
Two or more races 1,664 165 9.9%
Total, All Races 33,776 2,566 7.6%
Hispanic or Latino 5,165 768 14.9%
Not Hispanic or Latino 28,611 1,798 6.3%
Total, All Ethnicities 33,776 2,566 7.6%
Note: Includes only those for whom poverty status was determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019 five-year sample period, S1701; BAE Urban Economics, 2021 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk
Community outreach highlighted resident concerns about inequity in Council District 1, east of US-101. District 1 is disproportionately impacted by equity issues, including being comparatively lower resourced and having a higher risk for displacement than the rest of the city (Districts 2 through 5).

As a result, site selection, particularly for lower-income housing, was focused on other areas of the city to provide equitable distribution of housing across the entire city.

Please see Chapter 7, Site Inventory and Analysis, for how fair housing was integrated into site selection. Housing production that can decrease displacement risk and provide greater numbers of affordable units is crucial. The City will continually work towards affirmatively furthering fair housing with collective efforts and collaboration from housing developers, housing advocates, and the greater Menlo Park and San Mateo County communities.

Cost Burden
A household that spends more than 30 percent of its income on home payment is considered cost burdened. In Menlo Park, 16.3 percent of households are severely cost burdened and spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing, while 17.3 Page H-1.161
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-43
percent of households spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing.26 Lowincome residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest cost burden rates. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

In Menlo Park, renter households northeast of US-101 are disproportionately more likely to be cost-burdened.

Figure XX4-13: Overpaying Renters in Menlo Park (2019)
The pattern does not hold for homeowner households, however. Homeowners in Sharon Heights, the southwesternmost portion of the city, are most likely to be cost burdened. Sharon Heights has many market-rate condominium units that may be resided in by households on fixed incomes or incomes relatively low compared to house cost. Note that this calculation does not include homes with mortgages.

26 ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Page H-1.162
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-44
Figure XX4-14: Overpaying Homeowners (Without Mortgage) in Menlo Park (2019) There is a distinct racial disparity of cost-burdened households, as 50 percent of Black or African American households and 55 percent of Hispanic or Latinx households are cost burdened, while 31 percent of Asian/API households and 29 percent of white households are cost burdened (refer to Figure 3-22 in Chapter 3).

This disparity and displacement risk was cited overwhelmingly as a concern during the outreach process for the Housing Element Update. The 2023-2031 Housing Element acknowledges the historical and present-day patterns of segregation that have led to disproportionate housing needs for communities in lower access-to-opportunity areas and the displacement risk felt by the communities in these areas, which are predominantly located northeast of US-101 (District 1).

Overcrowding
Households are considered overcrowded if there is more than one resident per room.

They are considered severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Of renter-occupied households, 3.1 percent are overcrowded while only 1.7 percent of owner-occupied households are overcrowded.

Page H-1.163
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-45
Table XX4-11: Overcrowding by Tenure in Menlo Park (2017) Tenure

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than

1.5 Occupants
per Room
Owner Occupied 1.7% 0.8%
Renter Occupied 3.1% 2.2%
Overcrowding affects fewer households in Menlo Park than in the county or region as a whole, with only approximately 4 percent of households experiencing overcrowdedness.

Table XX4-12: Overcrowding in Menlo Park Compared to the Region (2017) Geography

1.00 occupants
per room
or less

1.01 to

1.50 occupants
per room

1.50 occupants
per room
or more
Menlo Park 11,472 269 165
San Mateo County 242,599 12,333 8,611
Bay Area 2,543,056 115,696 72,682
In terms of race and income level, Hispanic or Latinx populations and lower-income populations are disproportionately affected by overcrowding.

Page H-1.164
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-46
Figure XX4-15: Overcrowding in Menlo Park by Race (2017) Table XX4-13: Overcrowding in Menlo Park Compared by Income Level (2017) Income Group

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than

1.5 Occupants
per Room
0%-30% of AMI 3.5% 1.4%
31%-50% of AMI 6.5% 2.7%
51%-80% of AMI 4.0% 0.0%
81%-100% of AMI 2.7% 0.5%
Greater than 100% of
AMI 1.7% 0.7%
Households northeast of US-101 are disproportionately more likely to be overcrowded in Menlo Park.

Page H-1.165
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-47
Figure XX4-16: Overcrowding in Menlo Park (2019)
There are only 165 severely overcrowded households (with more than 1.50 occupants per room) in Menlo Park. These households are not possible to map because they fall within the tract-level margins of error for the city.

Substandard Housing
Households are considered substandard if they do not have complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. There are very few such households in Menlo Park.

Page H-1.166
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-48
Figure XX4-187: Substandard Housing in Menlo Park (2017) Due to the low number of households with substandard housing, it is difficult to identify special needs populations disproportionately affected by substandard housing.

Homelessness
Rates and demographics of Menlo Park’s unhoused population is discussed further in this chapter under “Special Housing Needs.”
Large Families
The needs of large families is discussed further in this chapter under “Special Housing Needs.”
Displacement
Home prices and rental costs have skyrocketed in Menlo Park over the past 10 years.

Although housing costs have been more expensive than in San Mateo County and the Bay Area generally since the turn of the 21st century, the trend has increased more recently. As measured using the Zillow Home Value Index, Menlo Park housing costs have grown from 51 percent greater than the Bay Area in 2001 to 72 percent greater in 2020 (refer to Figure 3-15 in Chapter 3). In 2019, about 56 percent of owner-occupied Page H-1.167
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-49
units were valued at more than $2 million, and 25 percent of renter-occupied units rented for $3,000 per month or more.

These cost increases are complementary to an increase in high-wage jobs in Menlo Park. In 2010, there were 1.91 jobs per Menlo Park worker with wages of more than $3,330 per month; in 2018, there were 3.59 such jobs. In 2010, there were about 535 jobs in the information industry in Menlo Park, compared to 19,185 such jobs in 2018.

Menlo Park’s significant increases in high-wage jobs have not kept pace with increases in housing units, with only 1,026 new units built between 2010 and 2021.27 In addition, there are approximately 3,644 housing units in the pipeline which includes 584 below market rate (BMR) units. See Table 7-4.

The dramatic imbalance between housing built and jobs created has led to disproportionate housing needs in Menlo Park's neighborhoods with lower incomes and lower access to opportunities. As Menlo Park has transformed into a job center for the region, residents north east of US-101 (City Council District 1), namely the Belle Haven neighborhood, have felt a housing squeeze. The new construction of over 3,000 marketrate units (most of which are being constructed north east of US-101 in the Belle Haven and Bayfront neighborhoods) contributes to housing insecurity.

Areas in Menlo Park north east of US-101 are Moderate Resource or Low Resource, compared to areas south west of the highway, which are all High Resource or Highest Resource Areas. And while no areas of the city are technically defined as Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) or Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA), the neighborhoods north east of US-101 are predominately Hispanic or Latinx and have a significant Black or African American community, unlike the neighborhoods south west of US-101.

Displacement has the most severe impact on low- and moderate-income residents.

When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network. According to the Urban Displacement Project developed at the University of California, Berkeley, census tracts, including the areas north east of US-101 (District 1), are susceptible to displacement unlike the areas south west of the highway (Districts 2 through 5) which are considered “stable/advanced exclusive” (Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8).

27 California Department of Finance.

Page H-1.168
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-50
Figure 4-1987: Gentrification and Displacement
Source: Urban Displacement Project: UC Berkeley (2021)
Page H-1.169
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-51
Figure 4-82019: Gentrification and Displacement
Source: Urban Displacement Project: UC Berkeley (2021)
Displacement and Movement of People
The many large employers in Menlo Park serve as magnets for high-income workers and their households to move to Menlo Park. This pressure of high-income households moving to Menlo Park can lead to displacement of currently-present lower-income households who cannot keep up with increased rents or other displacement pressures.

Displacement and Public Policies and Investments
Although Menlo Park has a history (like many of its neighbors) of discriminatory policies that promote displacement and segregation, the City is adopting an Environmental Justice Element concurrently with the 6th Cycle Housing Element that will serve in part to remedy these historical discriminatory measures and promote equitable investments in Menlo Park’s underserved communities.

Displacement and Flows of Private Capital
There has been substantial private investment in new development throughout Menlo Park, as seen in the Pipeline Projects listed in Chapter 7: Site Inventory and Analysis.

This includes new development in and near Menlo Park’s downtown, and more Page H-1.170
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-52
emphatically in the Bayfront area – particularly after the 2015 adoption of ConnectMenlo that allows residential, hotel, and professional uses in the Bayfront area.

Menlo Park is seeking to balance these flows of private capital with public benefits as part of the ConnectMenlo plan, this 6th Cycle Housing Element, and the Environmental Justice Element
Displacement and Safety
As described in the Safety Element, updated concurrently with the 6th Cycle Housing Element, there are low safety and hazard risks in Menlo Park relative to San Mateo County, the Bay Area region, and the state of California. However, the areas of Menlo Park most at risk of displacement due to social and economic factors are also the areas at the greatest risk due to sea level rise in San Francisco Bay. Other potential hazards, such as earthquakes and wildfires, disproportionately risk other areas of Menlo Park.

As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cost Burden considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30 percent of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.”
In Menlo Park, 16.3 percent of households are severely cost burdened and spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing, while 17.3 percent of households spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing.28 Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest cost burden rates.

Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

There is a distinct racial disparity of cost-burdened households, as 50 percent of Black or African American households and 55 percent of Hispanic or Latinx households are cost burdened, while 31 percent of Asian/API households and 29 percent of white households are cost burdened (refer to Figure 3-22 in Chapter 3).

28 ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Page H-1.171
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-53
disproportionate housing needs for communities in lower access-to-opportunity areas and the displacement risk felt by the communities in these areas, which are predominantly located north of US-101 (District 1).

The community outreach that was conducted generally confirms resident concerns about inequity in District 1. In addition to Menlo Park specific resource access maps, many of these factors were utilized in the site selection process to meet the City’s fair share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). District 1 is disproportionately impacted by equity issues, including being comparatively lower resourced and having a higher risk for displacement than the rest of the city (Districts 2 through 5). As a result, site selection, particularly for lower-income housing, was focused on other areas of the city to provide equitable distribution of housing across the entire city. Please see Chapter 7, Site Inventory and Analysis, for how fair housing was integrated into site selection. Housing production that can decrease displacement risk and provide greater numbers of affordable units is crucial. The City will continually work towards affirmatively furthering fair housing with collective efforts and collaboration from housing developers, housing advocates, and the greater Menlo Park and San Mateo County communities.

Page H-1.172
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-54
Assisted Rental Housing at Risk of Conversion
A discussion and analysis of subsidized affordable units at risk of conversion is in Chapter 3: Housing Conditions and Trends, on page 3-32.

SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
In addition to overall housing needs, cities and counties must plan for the special housing needs of certain groups identified by State law:29  Seniors
 People Living with Disabilities
 Large Families
 Female-Headed Households
 Farmworkers
 Unhoused Individuals
Each of these groups with special housing needs is discussed in this section. An overview of each group is provided, followed by quantitative data from ABAG/MTC; lessons learned through community outreach concerning the special needs group; key housing issues determined through the data analysis; and a policy approach to the identified housing issues.

Seniors
Like much of the Bay Area, Menlo Park has a growing aging population. In 2019, 14 percent of the population was 65 years old or older. Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing challenging. Seniors who live on their own often have fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility.

Data
Seniors who are renters are more likely to experience housing challenges than seniors who are homeowners due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior household renters make 0 to 30 percent of AMI. Conversely, the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make more than 100 percent of AMI (Figure 4-8).

29 California Government Code 65583(a)(7)
Page H-1.173
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-55
Figure 4-9210: Menlo Park Senior Households by Income and Tenure Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Outreach
The community has identified the need for senior housing and housing that supports aging in place. Seniors in Menlo Park identified that their housing priorities included increasing opportunities for affordable housing and planning for people who have fixed incomes. Many seniors are living on fixed incomes, and the high costs of housing in the city make it increasingly difficult for seniors to remain in their homes and communities. A suggestion posed by a focus group of seniors was to consider rent caps or freezes to address housing affordability. Service providers who work with seniors have also identified the lack of available and affordable senior housing as a growing challenge – limited supply, high demand, and supply that does not match the ability to pay for most seniors.

Issues
The incomes of seniors tend to decline as they age. Lower-aged seniors often have some retirement savings or employment income that can supplement social security; these seniors also tend to need less support from others, and most prefer to reside in their homes for as long as they can. They may benefit from programs to help them Page H-1.174
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-56
rehabilitate their homes, which would allow them to more comfortably, safely, and healthily age-in-place. Conversely, higher-aged seniors often are unable to maintain a single-family home and desire to move to a smaller home or some type of senior living development. Encouraging the development of senior housing, smaller accessible units, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are generally more affordable by design due to their smaller size and placement with an existing primary residence, can be potential strategies to increase affordable housing opportunities for seniors.

Policy Approach
Regarding rent caps or freezes, Assembly Bill 1482 addresses the community’s concerns by capping yearly rent increases to 5% + Consumer Price Index (CPI), or 10%. Therefore, the need is being addressed on a statewide level. Housing vouchers were also encouraged and are currently being addressed through existing rental assistance services (i.e. Section 8).

To address these priorities and the aging population in Menlo Park, Table 4-7 includes the policies and programs that will support the needs of older residents.

Table 4-714: Policies and Programs for Seniors
Policies/Programs Carried Over or Minor
Modifications from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element
New Policies/Programs
 Policy H3.1 Special Needs Groups
 Policy H3.2 Health and Human
Services Programs Linkages
 Policy H3.3 Incentives for Special
Needs Housing
 Policy H3.7 Adaptable/Accessible Units
for People Living with Disabilities
 Program H3.C Assist in Providing
Housing for Persons Living with
Disabilities
 Program H3.D Develop Incentives for
Special Needs Housing
Page H-1.175
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-57
People Living with Disabilities
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as “A long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business.”
People living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities30, face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and require specialized care, yet often must rely on friends and/or family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. When it comes to housing, people living with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but also accessibledesigned housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Data
The need for affordable accessible housing typically exceeds what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People living with disabilities are at high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 4-9 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Menlo Park. Overall, 8.1 percent of people in Menlo Park have a disability.31 This is comparable to the percentage of people living with a disability in San Mateo County (8 percent) (Figure 4-10).

30 “Developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. Developmental disabilities are defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
31 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability.

These counts should not be summed.

Page H-1.176
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-58
Figure 4-221-10: Disability by Type in Menlo Park
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019)
Page H-1.177
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-59
Figure 4-232-11: Percentage of Persons Living with a Disability, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015-2019 data; BAE, 2021.

A subset of people living with disabilities includes people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. “This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.”32 This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe forms of intellectual disabilities. Persons with developmental disabilities may benefit from a suite of coordinated support services. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with

32 CA Welfare and Institutions Code 4512 (a)(1)
Page H-1.178
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-60
family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member can no longer care for them.

In Menlo Park, children under the age of 18 make up 50.4 percent of the population with a developmental disability, while adults account for 49.6 percent. Individuals with disabilities in Menlo Park most commonly live in the home of a parent, family member, or guardian (Table 4-8). According to the California Department of Developmental Services, 86 percent of the population living with either a physical or developmental disability live in the home of a family member or guardian.

Table 4-158: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence in Menlo Park Residence Type Number
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 107
Independent /Supported Living 13
Other 4
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Totals 124
Sources: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) People with physical and/or developmental disabilities face additional housing challenges due to physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments. Fair housing laws and subsequent federal and state legislation require all cities and counties to further housing opportunities by identifying and removing constraints to the development of housing for individuals with disabilities, including local land use and zoning barriers, and to also provide reasonable accommodation as one method of advancing equal access to housing.

Housing plays a key role in the life of a person with a physical or developmental disability. Affordable and accessible-designed housing allows people with a disability to have greater mobility and the opportunity for independence. Due to the high demand for housing, it has become extremely difficult for people with disabilities to secure affordable housing that will meet their needs. People with disabilities are at a high risk of experiencing housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization. The risk significantly increases when they lose aging caregivers.

Page H-1.179
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-61
Furthermore, people with disabilities tend to have fixed incomes, and not all job opportunities are feasible for someone with a physical or developmental disability. Many people with developmental disabilities are unable to secure long-term employment. This results in many people relying on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and many earn only 10 to 20 percent of the AMI. Among residents living with a disability, unemployment is disproportionately high at 18 percent, compared to 3 percent for residents without a disability in Menlo Park, particularly when compared to San Mateo County where the disparity is not as high. Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4 percent, compared to 3 percent for residents without a disability. High unemployment rates among this population point to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

In addition to Table 4.8, Housing Choices provided their data on people with developmental disabilities categorized by the age (under 18 and 18 and above) and living arrangement. Further, Housing Choices provides information for the following issues:
 Increase of Autism Diagnosis in adults (20s and 30s)
 Longer life spans of people with developmental disabilities  Decline in Licensed Care Facilities
 Displacement
 Higher rates of physical disabilities
 Ineligibility for many affordable units
 Transit dependance
Each of these issues point to a growing challenge for people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Please see Appendix 4-4.

Housing Choices also provided bar charts on the intersection of ethnicity/race and disabilities. This information is provided as Appendix 4-6.

Outreach
Non-profits that serve and work with people with disabilities, including Golden Gate Regional Center and Housing Choices, reported that most people with disabilities live on fixed or low incomes, which are often inadequate to cover housing and living expenses. Some adults with developmental disabilities have a monthly income of under $1,000 from the SSI program, which prices them out of the limited number of extremely low-income housing options in Menlo Park.

Page H-1.180
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-62
There has also been a growth in the number of adults with developmental disabilities living in family homes. The California Department of Developmental Services reported a longer life span for San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities, but licensed care facilities are on the decline and there are limited housing options suitable for the needs of this population. Service providers report that best practices for addressing the needs of people with disabilities include coordinating housing with onsite supportive services, providing disability-accessible units that include a mix of unit sizes, targeting the development of more affordable housing, integrating accessible housing into typical affordable housing developments, and concentrating accessible housing near public transit.

Issues
People with disabilities face many challenges when looking for housing:
a. Limited supply – There is a limited supply of accessible, affordable housing generally, and the supply is especially limited near transit. Being near transit is critical because many people with disabilities cannot drive. b. Lack of rental history – Many people with developmental disabilities have lived with their parents or guardians, so they often do not have rental or credit history.

This makes it harder for them to compete for the limited available housing. c. Unable to afford high rents – Due to the challenge of securing long-term employment, people with developmental disabilities are often extremely low income and San Mateo County residents with developmental disabilities often cannot afford the rents in the communities where they live.

Policy Approach
The City can meet the needs of people living with disabilities by encouraging the development of affordable accessible units, incentivizing housing with on-site supportive services, and encouraging the construction of units for people with disabilities near transit. Visitabilitiy, or building design focused on the ability of people who have trouble with steps and/or use wheelchairs or walkers, is another key concept in the City’s policy approach. In addition to easing home life for people with disabilities, visitability-focused building design removes barriers for people with disabilities to visit friends, family, or otherwise live as members of the community.

Housing policies and programs that support the needs of people with disabilities were developed in collaboration with Golden Gate Regional Center and Housing Choices, Page H-1.181
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-63
and are listed below in Table 4-9. A full list of recommendations provided by the Golden Gate Regional Center and Housing Choices is included in Appendix 4-4.

Table 4-169: Policies and Programs for People with Disabilities Policies/Programs Carried Over or Minor
Modifications from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element
New or Modified Policies/Programs
 Policy H3.1 Special Needs Groups
 Program H3.C Assist in Providing
Housing for Persons Living with
Disabilities
 Policy H4.3 Variety of Housing Choices
 Program H5.B Undertake Community
Outreach When Implementing Housing
Element Programs
 Program H3.D Develop Incentives for
Special Needs Housing
 Program H3.H Inclusionary Accessible
Units
 Program H3.I Accessible ADUs
 Program H3.J Marketing for Accessible
Units
 Program H3.K Employment Services
 Program H3.M Wheelchair Visitability
 Program H4.A Amend the Below
Market Rate Inclusionary Housing
Regulations
 Program H4.B Modify BMR Guidelines
regarding allocations
 Program H4.D Modify the Affordable
Housing Overlay (AHO)
 Program H4.F Modify Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development
Standards and Permit Process
 Program H4.G Consider City-Owned
Land for Housing (Downtown Parking
Lots)
 Program H5.C Provide Multilingual
Information on Housing Programs
Page H-1.182
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-64
Large Families
The U.S. Census Bureau defines large family households as households comprised of five or more people. Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households and typically require housing with three or more bedrooms. There is often a limited supply of housing options, particularly rental housing options, that can accommodate the needs of large families. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions.

Data
In Menlo Park, for large households with five or more persons, most units (78.4 percent) are owner-occupied versus renter-occupied (21.6 percent) (Figure 4-11). In 2017, 10.7 percent of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50 percent of AMI.

Figure 4-242311: Menlo Park Household Size by Tenure
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019)
The range of housing unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can live in that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are about 6,726 units (approximately 56 percent of all housing units) in Menlo Park. Among these larger units with three or more Page H-1.183
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-65
bedrooms, 16.3 percent are renter occupied and 83.7 percent are owner occupied (Figure 4-12).

Figure 4-25142: Menlo Park Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019)
Outreach
After multiple attempts to contact service providers for interviews, the City was ultimately unable to connect with non-profits that work specifically with large families.

However, outreach was conducted with service providers who work generally with families with children. These service providers include:
 El Concilio of San Mateo County
 Garfield Community School
 GeoKids
 Little Ages (in-home childcare)
 Mariposa Day Care
 McNeil Boys and Girls Clubs of the Peninsula (BGCP)
Page H-1.184
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-66
 Youth United for Community Action (YUCA)
Large families will benefit from many of the same programs as families with children, such as affordable housing and housing types suitable for their household size.

Issues
The primary challenge facing large families is the lack of available and affordable larger housing types that can accommodate their household size. The supply of rental housing available to meet their needs is limited and is often cost-prohibitive, particularly for larger families with lower incomes. Opportunities to meet the needs of this population include the provision of rental assistance and incentivizing the development of larger affordable housing units.

Policy Approach
The Menlo Park Housing Element includes policies and programs that provide rental assistance that benefit larger families. Additional programs that specifically address larger household sizes are noted in Table 4-10.

Table 4-1017: Policies and Programs for Large Families
Policies/Programs Carried Over or Minor
Modifications from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element
New or Modified Policies/Programs
 Policy H3.1 Special Needs Groups  Program H3.L Large Units  Program H4.A Amend the Below
Market Rate Inclusionary Housing
Regulations
Page H-1.185
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-67
Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity because these types of households often support children or a family with only one income. Single-parent-headed households need affordable housing options and can benefit from on-site child care services.

Data
In Menlo Park, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 55.1 percent of the total, while Female-headed Households make up 9.3 percent of all households (Figure 4-13).

Figure 4-13265: Household Type
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019)
Female-headed households with children may face additional housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding an affordable home more challenging. In Menlo Park, 25.4 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 1.2 percent of female-headed households without children live in poverty (Figure 4-14).

Page H-1.186
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-68
Figure 4-14276: Menlo Park Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019)
Outreach
Interviews with service providers that work with families with children were conducted to understand the challenges facing families with children and female-headed households.

Service providers reported a high demand for childcare in Menlo Park that has not been met. Furthermore, many families require financial assistance for childcare. There is a general shortage of childcare providers, and often childcare is financially straining, resulting in tradeoffs for other life necessities.

There is inadequate affordable housing that can meet the needs of families with children and housing resources are often not inclusive because they are only offered in English.

Service providers are additionally burdened by the lack of housing affordable to staff, which further reduces their capacity to serve clients.

Page H-1.187
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-69
Issues
Strategies to address the needs of female-headed households include providing multifamily housing that includes childcare facilities that can allow single parents to secure gainful employment outside of the home. In addition, community engagement efforts identified locating affordable housing in high-resource areas connected to transit as an important quality of life improvement for families.

The creation of innovative housing types for female heads of households could include co-housing developments where childcare and meal preparation responsibilities can be shared. The economies of scale available in this type of housing would be advantageous to this special needs group as well as all other low-income households.

Limited equity housing cooperatives allow residential developments to be managed, owned and sponsored by non-profit housing developers. This could be another financing structure to be considered for the benefit of all special needs groups.

Policy Approach
Female-headed households will benefit from broad housing programs that encourage affordable housing development and provide financial assistance, as identified in Chapter 3: Housing Needs Assessment. Additional policies that are intended to provide support for single person-headed households with children are noted in Table 4-11.

Table 4-1118: Policies and Programs for Female-Headed Households Policies/Programs Carried Over or Minor
Modifications from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element
New or Modified Policies/Programs
 Policy H4.3 Variety of Housing Choices
 Policy H5.1 Equal Housing Opportunity
 Program H2.F Childcare Allowances
 Program H3.B Encourage Rental Housing
Assistance Programs
 Program H3.L Large Units
 Program H5.C Provide Multilingual
Information on Housing Programs
Page H-1.188
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-70
Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

Data
Regionally, the farmworker population has been declining in the last 20 years.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farmworkers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017; the number of seasonal farmworkers has also decreased, totaling 343 in 2017.

While there is a need for farmworker housing in San Mateo County (primarily in western San Mateo County areas), there is no demand for farmworker housing in Menlo Park.

In Menlo Park, there were no reported student children of migrant workers in the 2019- 2020 school year. For the past few years, the trend for the region has been a decline of

2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-2017 school year.

The change at the county level is a 57.1 percent decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-2017 school year (Table 4-12).

Table 4-1219: Student Children of Migrant Worker Population Academic Year Menlo Park San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 85 657 4630
2017-18 28 418 4607
2018-19 0 307 4075
2019-20 0 282 3976
Source: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Report: Menlo Park, April 2021; California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)
Outreach
Outreach to farmworkers was not conducted due to the absence of this population in Menlo Park. In addition, service providers that were contacted did not identify farmworker housing needs for Menlo Park.

Page H-1.189
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-71
Issues
There are no farms in Menlo Park. Due to the absence of farmworkers in Menlo Park, there are no farmworker-specific issues that the City must address. However, the City will continue to work with the County to address regional housing shortages and affordability challenges facing farmworkers throughout the county and greater Bay Area.

Farmworkers are more similar to very low- or extremely low-income households than traditional migrant workers. Today’s farmworkers are more settled and typically live in one location, rather than following the crops. Per the USDA, today’s farmworkers can commute up to 75 miles to the workplace. They are also more likely to have families and are looking for schools, employment for a spouse/partner and a location to live in that provides a community.33 Because of this, they will benefit from the existing affordable housing programs in Menlo Park.

Policy Approach
Although there are no farmworkers in Menlo Park, the City will coordinate with regional partners to address regional housing issues to meet the needs of farmworkers.

Additionally, the needs of farmworkers will largely be addressed through policies and programs that broadly address affordability (Table 4-13).

Table 4-1320: Policies and Programs for Farmworkers
Policies/Programs Carried Over or Minor
Modifications from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element
New or Modified Policies/Programs
 Program H1.C Work with the San
Mateo County Department of Housing
 Program H1.D Regional Coordination

33 21 Elements (2022). Approach for Farmworker Housing.

Page H-1.190
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-72
Unhoused Individuals
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or long term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people living with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.

Data
The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HSA) coordinates a biannual, oneday, point-in-time count of the county’s unhoused population. No count was conducted in 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Based on the 2019 count conducted on January 31, 2019, there were 27 unsheltered individuals living in Menlo Park. Unsheltered persons include people sleeping on the street, in cars, in RVs, or in tents and encampments. In 2019, there were 1,512 unhoused individuals in San Mateo County, including 901 unsheltered individuals and an additional 611 individuals living in emergency shelters or transitional housing (Table 4-14).

Table 4-1421: Unsheltered Population Count
Year Menlo Park County
2019 27 901
2017 47 637
2015 27 775
2013 16 1,299
2011 72 1,162
Source: 2019 San Mateo County One Day Homeless County and Survey.

The number of unhoused people in Menlo Park decreased from 47 people in 2017 to 27 people in 2019. This is not indicative of a general reduction in the homeless population as the number of unhoused people in San Mateo County increased. The increase in homelessness between 2017 and 2019 in San Mateo County is attributed to an increase in people living in recreational vehicles (RVs). HSA has been working with community partners to connect unhoused individuals with services that specifically Page H-1.191
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-73
serve the unhoused. While overall homelessness increased between 2017 and 2019, the number of unhoused families with children and people sleeping in tents and encampments decreased. Below are the countywide demographics of unhoused persons from the 2019 count (Table 4-15).

Table 4-1522: Demographics of People Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County

% of
Sheltered
% of
Unsheltered
% of Total
Unhoused
Gender Female 32.7% 21.2% 24.1%
Male 66.2% 79.0% 75.6%
Transgender 1.1% 0.1% 0.3%
Ethnicity Non-Hispanic 77.6% 60.7% 64.9%
Hispanic 22.4% 39.3% 35.1%
Race White 58.1% 74.5% 70.5%
Black/African American 22.4% 8.9% 12.3%
Asian 5.2% 0.0% 1.3%

American
Indian/Alaskan Native 3.6% 8.2% 7.1%
Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander 7.0% 0.1% 1.8%
Multiple Races 3.7% 8.2% 7.1%
Chronicity Chronic Homelessness 24.2% 30.0% 28.6%
Source: 2019 San Mateo County One Day Homeless County and Survey Outreach
In preparation for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, the project team met with representatives from the County of San Mateo Department of Housing, the U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs, and affordable housing developers and advocates.

San Mateo County selected Samaritan House to administer the Coordinated Entry System program (CES), which is a countywide program designed to streamline and prioritize access for the most vulnerable San Mateo County residents seeking homelessness services. CES diverts clients from shelters when possible to effectively utilize the County’s limited shelter spaces. For additional information on County services for the unhoused, refer to the San Mateo County Center on Homelessness.34

34 San Mateo County Center on Homelessness: https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/center-homelessness Page H-1.192
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-74
Menlo Park is unique in having a facility operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that already provides for the needs of unhoused veterans through the Veterans Affairs Domiciliary Program and the Veterans Affairs Compensated Work Therapy Program. The Veterans Affairs campus in Menlo Park administers the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH) and provides coordinated mental health and substance use assistance.

The HUD-VASH is a collaboration between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This program helps veterans who are homeless find permanent housing through housing vouchers and supportive services. In 2021, the HUD-VASH served 56 veterans living in Menlo Park.

The Menlo Park VA campus is also the site of Willow Housing, an affordable housing development in partnership with EAH Housing, serving formerly unhoused veterans and veterans at risk of imminent homelessness. Additionally, the VA is working with MidPen Housing, a local non-profit developer, to develop a new veterans-focused affordable housing project at the Menlo Park VA campus.

The Menlo Park Homeless Outreach Team, which includes staff from the Housing Division, Police Department, and community-based organizations, provides homeless outreach services to unhoused individuals living in Menlo Park. The Outreach Team provides case management, coordinates outreach and intervention, and prepares action plans for unhoused individuals, with the ultimate goal of transitioning individuals from being unhoused to being permanently housed.

Issues
A priority for meeting the needs of people experiencing homelessness is providing pathways to permanent housing solutions. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has developed a five-point plan to address homelessness.  Assistance for the most vulnerable
 Increasing employment and income
 Community-wide coordinated approach
 Crisis response system
 Rapid re-housing
Many of these strategies have been incorporated into the City’s policy approach.

Page H-1.193
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-75
Policy Approach
Policies and programs to meet the needs of people who are experiencing homelessness prioritize the dignity of people and provide housing and services to this population (Table 4-16).

Table 4-1623: Policies and Programs for Unhoused People Policies/Programs Carried Over or Minor
Modifications from the 2015-2023 Housing
Element
New or Modified Policies/Programs
 Policy H3.4 Transitional and
Supportive Housing
 Policy H3.5 Coordination with Other
Agencies in Housing People
Experiencing Homelessness
 Policy H3.6 Local Approach to Housing
for the Homeless
 Program H3.E Continue Support for
Countywide Homeless Programs
 Program H3.F Work with the
Department of Veterans Affairs on
Homeless Issues
 Program H3.G Low Barrier Navigation
Centers
 Program H5.C Provide Multilingual
Information on Housing Programs

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Contributing factors to fair housing issues include segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and discrimination or violations of civil rights laws or regulations related to housing. Identifying contributing factors shapes how the City of Menlo Park will address fair housing issues.

The following sections summarize known fair housing issues and their contributing factors, as identified through the Assessment of Fair Housing above and within Appendix 4-2. Where applicable, instances where protected classes are disproportionately impacted are identified.

Page H-1.194
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-76
The Housing Element has identified four key issues that can be addressed to affirmatively further fair housing in Menlo Park. These four key issues are described below along with their contributing factors. Together, the key issues and contributing factors help inform the City’s continued actions to affirmatively further fair housing in Menlo Park.

Key Issue 1: Disproportionate Housing Needs
The harm caused by segregation manifests in disproportionate housing needs and disparities in access to opportunities.

Contributing Factors:

Menlo Park is a high opportunity environment that provides access to high-quality resident services, job opportunities, and good quality schools. However, there are significant geographical and racial disparities in access to opportunities due to segregated housing conditions. These disparities are evident through differences in poverty rates, homeownership rates, and housing conditions.

Key Issue 2: Displacement
High housing costs in Menlo Park have created a high housing cost burden for many residents, particularly low-income renters, which makes these households particularly vulnerable to displacement.

Contributing Factors:

High housing cost burden and the associated displacement risk disproportionately impact non-White residents, residents with disabilities, and other residents with special needs that tend to have lower incomes. Households are also vulnerable to displacement to the extent that high housing costs and a strong real estate market create an incentive for property owners to convert deed-restricted affordable units to market rate, increase rents on market-rate rental properties, or convert existing affordable units to other uses.

Displacement due to these changes has a disparate impact on communities of color, seniors, people with disabilities, and other households that disproportionately rely on affordable units.

Page H-1.195
Menlo Park 2023-2031 Housing Element Primary HCD Review Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | Page 4-77
Key Issue 3: Housing Costs
The high cost of housing in Menlo Park disproportionately impacts special needs populations and non-White residents, who tend to have lower incomes and therefore have a disproportionate need for affordable housing.

Contributing Factors:

Many special needs populations and households that tend to have low incomes, such as persons with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, and single-parent households, are disproportionately impacted by the high housing costs in Menlo Park. Due to the high cost of housing, there are limited opportunities for lower-income households to find housing units they can afford. There is also a significant shortage of accessible and affordable housing for residents with disabilities or other special housing needs, which further exacerbates housing problems for these groups. As a result, special needs populations and non-White residents tend to experience housing problems at higher rates, with high housing cost burden being perhaps the most common housing problem.

Key Issue 4: Disproportionate Transportation Issues
Transportation problems and challenges create barriers to accessing opportunities, especially for residents with disabilities.

Contributing Factors:

The Regional Assessment of Fair Housing35 identified several transportation-related issues potentially limiting access to opportunities such as employment, education, health care services, community amenities, and other public services. Transportation barriers disproportionately impact persons with disabilities. At least in some cases, lack of access to public transportation and/or alternative transportation infrastructure may present an impediment to fair housing choice for those who rely on such services/facilities to access employment, resident services, and educational opportunities. Development of affordable housing near transit is essential to addressing this contributing factor. In addition, the lower a person’s income, the higher the percentage of the person’s income is spent on transportation which also limits transportation choices.

Menlo Park City CouncilDecember 6, 2022

Menlo Park City Council
December 6, 2022