Menlo Park City Council
January 31, 2023

City Response: Updated data regarding overpayment is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Affordability” subsection (Page 3-23). Out of Menlo Park’s 5,010 renter households, 2,020 units are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing (40 percent of all renters). 1,125 units pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing (22 percent of all renters). Of Menlo Park’s 2,910 renter 







 
   

Page C-1.284
households making less than 80 percent of area median income, 2,000 (69 percent) pay more than 30 percent of their household income on housing. Of these, 1,125 (39 percent of all lower income renter households) pay more than 50 percent of their household income on housing.

For Menlo Park’s 6,895 owner-occupied households, 2,070 units pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing (30 percent of all owner-occupied households). 885 pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing (13 percent of all owner-occupied households). Of Menlo Park’s 2,445 homeowner households making less than 80 percent of area median income, 1,455 (59 percent) pay more than 30 percent of their household income on housing. Of these, 815 (33 percent of all lower income renter households) pay more than 50 percent of their household income on housing.

Proportionally more renters are overpaying for housing compared to homeowners, and more lower income renters are overpaying than lower income homeowners. Additional housing opportunities for rental housing available to all income levels could help alleviate this overpayment issue. (Page 3-24). Additional data and analysis is provided using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy’s American Community Survey tabulation of 2013-2017 data (Page 3-26).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 3): Overcrowding: The element must quantify the total number of overcrowded households within the City and analyze their housing needs.

City Response: Updated data regarding overcrowding is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Overcrowding” subsection (Page 3-30).

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. 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. A new Table 3-9 (Overcrowding by Severity in Menlo Park and the Region) is provided to show overcrowding by severity in Menlo Park, San Mateo County, and the greater Bay Area (Page 3-31). 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.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 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.

City Response: Updated data regarding housing costs is available in Chapter 3 (Housing Conditions and Trends) within the “Typical Home Values and Rents” subsection (Page 3-19). Highlighted discussion points include:
• The Bay Area has seen a stark increase in housing demand in the past two decades but that has not correlated to an increase in housing supply. Home prices and rents 







 
   

Page C-1.285
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 (Page 3-19). • 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 (Page 3-21).
• 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) (Page 3-21).

4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 3): 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, 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.

City Response: 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 Park's RHNA with an additional 30 percent buffer, as recommended by HCD. Table 7-5 (Pipeline Projects) includes updated unit counts and footnotes with information regarding the availability or likelihood the units will be built in the planning period (Page 7-7). To clarify, the Willow Village project includes 1,730 dwelling units.

With regard to Willow Village, in December 2022, the City Council adopted resolutions and ordinances associated with entitlements required to carry out the proposed master plan. Future architectural control reviews by the Planning Commission are required to review the architectural designs for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, conditional development permit, development agreement, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program from the certified EIR. The City is working with the project team to process the architectural control packages for each building, the final subdivision maps and infrastructure improvement plans efficiently and believe the reviews and actions on these implementing items will be completed in the first half of 2023, at which point building permits could be filed. Construction could potentially begin as soon as building permits are issued, although the exact timing will depend on the developer’s priorities and 







 
   

Page C-1.286
market conditions at that time. For more information, please visit the project webpage:
https://menlopark.gov/WillowVillage. The City has included Program H1.H (Transparency on Progress towards RHNA). The City will publish information regarding below market rate development pipeline projects, including the anticipated number of units and affordability, on the City’s housing website in coordination with the Housing Element’s annual progress report. Should adjustments to the City’s housing plan be needed, they will be undertaken.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 3): 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 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 nonresidential 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.

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes a significant change to the realistic site capacity methodology used to estimate how many units could be developed on the 69 housing opportunity sites in the Site Inventory (Page 7-10). The City undertook a parcel-by-parcel 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 (Page 7-11). A full description of this methodology is available in Appendix 7-5 (Site Sheets), along with individual site sheets describing how unit capacity and affordability allocation was determined, as well as key findings for the sites. Parcels were analyzed for their capacity for lower-income units. Parcels that could hold a higher number of lower-income units tended to be located in central Menlo Park, a transit-rich area containing many amenities such as grocery stores and parks that would support fair housing goals for lower-income 







 
   

Page C-1.287
populations. Moderate and above-moderate housing tended to be located in other areas of the city (Page 7-11).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 4): 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.

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an enhanced “Small and Large Sites” subsection (Page 7-17) which discusses small sites (parcels less than

0.5 acres), large sites (parcels greater than 10.0 acres), and a “carveout” strategy of one or two acres on the larger sites that would allow residential development in mixed-use areas. These carveouts are intended to make land costs more manageable for residential developers, particularly lower income housing developers, and to complement the existing uses that may likely remain intact with new development.

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. The affordability allocation for the sites was also modified. In the revised draft, none of the sites consisting of small parcels have lower-income units allocated (Page 7-17). The only large sites with lower income units allocated are the USGS site at 345 Middlefield Road (Site #12), made up of two parcels that are approximately 12 and five acres in size, and the Menlo Park VA Medical Center site at 795 Willow Road (Site #64), which is the site of a collaboration project between the VA and MidPen Housing to develop a 61-unit, 100% affordable housing development for veterans. The rationale for allocating lower-income units on Site #12 and Site #64 site is provided (Page 7-18).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 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 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. 







 
   

Page C-1.288
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 lower-income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).). Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an enhanced “Nonvacant Sites Analysis” subsection (Page 7-24) to describe how the City is meeting lower income RHNA on non-vacant sites, including the highlighted sites within the HCD comment. Page 7-27 addresses § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2) and describes the City Council findings that shall be made based on substantial evidence that existing uses are not impediments and will likely discontinue during the planning period. Non-vacant sites are grouped into six potential redevelopment types to further analyze their development potential:
• Religious Facilities
• Parking Lots
• Non-Residential with Carveout
• Non-Residential with Complete Redevelopment
• El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area
• Underutilized Residential
Further, each site is described with a Site Sheet available in Appendix 7-5. The Site Sheets provide general planning information, site-specific HCD Housing Opportunity Site Criteria, and Key Findings for what development is likely to occur on the site.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 4): 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. City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an enhanced “City Owned Properties” subsection (Page 7-15). The City owns a majority of the downtown parking lots and can facilitate the use of these parking lots for development of affordable housing. The value of the land as a residential use and the opportunity for new affordable housing downtown provides a public benefit that exceeds the value as surface parking facilities. Also addressed in Chapter 7:
• Reference to Program H4.L (Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan” is included with the default density discussion (Page 7-10). • Surplus Land Act description and City compliance is included (Page 7-16). 







 
   

Page C-1.289
• The reference to nine City-owned surface parking lots is revised (Page 7-28). 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 City-owned parking lots in downtown and adhere to procedures consistent with the Surplus Lands Act to provide affordable housing developers a first right of refusal (AB 1486). The objective is to achieve the development of 345 affordable units on a combination of City-owned parking lot sites in the downtown, supporting the integration of affordable housing options in high resource areas of the community (Page 7-29).
• Added Program H4.K (Rezone for Lower Income Shortfall), to rezone sites to address a lower income RHNA shortfall.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 5): Federally-Owned Sites and School Sites: The element identifies two federally-owned 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.

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes enhanced description regarding the USGS (Site #12), VA (Site #64), and Ravenswood City School Districtowned sites (Site #38). Sites #12 and #64 are described within the “Carveouts and Large Sites” subsection (Page 7-17). Site #38, the only vacant site within the Site Inventory, is described within the “Non-vacant Sites Analysis” subsection (Page 7-24).

A new Program H4.K has been added to rezone sites to address a lower income RHNA shortfall.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 5): 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).

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes added description of replacement housing requirements within the “Non-vacant Sites Analysis” subsection (Page 7-24): 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 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 (Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Protect Existing Housing). 







 
   

Page C-1.290
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 5): 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.

City Response: Discussion regarding the availability of infrastructure is available in Chapter 7 within the “Infrastructure” subsection (Page 7-47). The water, sewer, and dry utilities review is taken from the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the project (Draft SEIR published November 4, 2022; Final SEIR published January 3, 2023).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 5): 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.

City Response: Discussion regarding environmental constraints is available in Chapter 7 within the “Infrastructure” subsection (Page 7-49). The environmental constraints review is taken from the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the project (Draft SEIR) published November 4, 2022; Final SEIR published January 3, 2023).

HCD Comment (Appendix pp. 5-6): 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 in appropriate 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of zoning for a variety of housing types. Highlighted revisions include:
• Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table) (Page 5-9). • The “Emergency Shelters” subsection (Page 5-11) includes updated text describing the Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Overlay, including compliance with AB 139 (2020), as well as information regarding the 2022 Pointin-Time count and shelters in San Mateo County. In an effort to reduce potential constraints to housing, the City will modify the Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Overlay to increase the number of beds allowed in an emergency shelter for the homeless.
• Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) is included to reduce actual and potential constraints to emergency shelters. Specifically, the City will modify Municipal Code 16.99, Emergency Shelter for Homeless Overlay, subsection .030 to increase the number of beds allowed in an emergency shelter for the homeless (Page 5-12).
• 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 







 
   

Page C-1.291
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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of zoning for a variety of housing types. Highlighted revisions include:
• Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table) (Page 5-9). • Program H3.G (Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing) is included to reduce actual and potential constraints to transitional and supportive housing. • 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of zoning for a variety of housing types. Highlighted revisions include:
• Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table) (Page 5-9). • 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: 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of zoning for a variety of housing types. Highlighted revisions include:
• Updated Table 5-1 (Land Use Controls Table) (Page 5-9). • Updated “Housing for Agricultural Employees” subsection with “Small Employee Housing” subsection (Page 5-11).
• 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): 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) provides description of zoning for a variety of housing types. Highlighted revisions include:








 
   

Page C-1.292
• 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 noncompliance issues in the ordinance. The City has included Program H4.F (Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development Standards and Permit Process) in the Housing Element to update the ADU ordinance to bring it into full compliance with current State requirements (Page 5-16).
• 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. Within six months of receipt of HCD’s letter regarding ADU regulations non-compliance issues, the City will make revisions to address the identified issues.

5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) HCD Comment (Appendix p. 6-7): Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. 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.

City Response: 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 5-5).
• Added text to the Conditional Development District description: 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 







 
   

Page C-1.293
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 has been one approved development (Willow Village, December 2022) on X district properties in the previous eight years and no rejected developments in the X district during that time frame (Page 5-17).
• Added text to the Conditional Development District description: 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).
• Corrected existing parking minimums in Table 5-2 (Summary of City of Menlo Park Zoning Requirements (2021)) for C-2-B and R-MU districts as 1 space/unit or 1 space/1,000 (Page 5-20).
• 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 (Page 5-23).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 7): 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.

City Response: 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. Measure V did not pass at the November 8, 2022 General Election, no additional analysis is provided.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 7): 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. 







 
   

Page C-1.294
City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes revisions. Highlighted revisions include:
• Added text: City staff note that particularly on smaller parcels, current development standards may preclude the achievement of maximum zoned densities. These development standards can include, but are not limited to, parking requirements 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 parking requirements for the C-2-B (Neighborhood Mixed Use District, Restrictive) and R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) districts are determined by a minimum parking space ratio (1 space per unit or 1,000 square feet) and maximum parking space ratio (1.5 space per unit or 1,000 square feet), and such requirements are potential constraints to housing. The Housing Element includes Program H4.M (Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards). Program H4.M 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, modifying parking maximums, eliminating parking requirements for affordable housing projects, expanding shared parking, exploring district parking, and exploring other parking recommendations provided by ABAG-MTC (Page 5-22).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 7): 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.

City Response: 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)) describes that the AHO will be structured so that State Density Bonus incentives can be utilized in conjunction with the AHO (Page 5-45).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 7): 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, 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.

City Response: 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 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 







 
   

Page C-1.295
(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%).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 7-8): 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes additional detail regarding local processing and permit procedures for a variety of zones and housing types. Highlighted in Chapter 5:
• Revised Table 5-7, with focus on review for single family and multifamily projects (Page 5-33):
o Updated 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 “Project Review by Planning Commission” section which includes calling out required Use Permit findings (Page 5-35)
• Added data following Table 5-8 (Typical Application Processing Times (Menlo Park)) regarding median length of processing time for single-family and multi-family projects (Page 5-37)
• Updated “Architectural Control” section (Page 5-39)
• Multifamily Rental Housing section (Page 5-10)
• Mobile Home Parks section (Page 5-15) – No mobile home parks exist in Menlo Park (Page 3-15).
• Small Employee Housing section (formerly Housing for Agricultural Employees) (Page 5-11)
• Supportive Housing section (Page 5-13)
• Added footnote describing ministerial review in M-2 Zoning District and removed reference to non-existent Policy H5.8 (Page 5-39).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 8): 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 







 
   

Page C-1.296
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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes additional detail regarding local processing and permit procedures. Addressed in Chapter 5:
• Added reference to Program H4.E (Streamlined Project Review) (Page 5-41). This program sets up revised processes to streamline development projects. • 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 (Page 5-35).
• Architectural Control design review subsection is clarified with project applicability and required findings (Page 5-39)
• 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.” (Page 5-40)
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes a new “Streamlining Provisions” subsection (page 5-40). Menlo Park is not currently subject to SB 35. Program H4.E (Streamlined Project Review) requires the development of SB 35 streamlining processes.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 8): 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) includes a new “Code Enforcement” subsection (Page 5-41). 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. Additional analysis of the City’s amendments to the building code is provided in Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) on Page 5-40. With several developments of varying scale over recent years (see Appendix 7-3: Development in Menlo Park) and more developments in the pipeline, the City’s amendments to the building code have not served as a constraint to development.








 
   

Page C-1.297
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 8): 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 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.

City Response: 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 (Page 5-9). • 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 (Page 5-43).
• 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) provides that the City will undertake revisions to the Municipal Code to amend 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 5-44).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 8-9): 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).

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) has been updated with 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) directs the City to improve ease of access 







 
   

Page C-1.298
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.

6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) HCD Comment (Appendix p. 9): 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.

City Response: Chapter 5 (Actual and Potential Constraints to Housing) has been updated with new “Developed Densities” and “Permit Times” subsections providing the required analyses (Page 5-48).

7. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 9): 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 at-risk units, as well as identify federal, state and local financing and subsidy programs.

City Response: 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” (Page 3-38). The Cityowned 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 (Page 3-40).

B. Housing Programs








 
   

Page C-1.299

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) HCD Comment (Appendix p. 9-10): 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H2.C, which includes proactive outreach and also funding and goal specifications for Habitat for Humanity’s Homeownership Preservation Program in the Belle Haven Neighborhood to prevent existing housing units, both single-family houses and apartments, from deteriorating (Page 8-9).
• Program H2.D (Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program): The program should include proactive outreach to owners.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H2.D, which includes a marketing program for homeowners on the benefits of ADUs and of legalizing unpermitted units, and the availability of funds to support conversion of unpermitted development (Page 8-10).
• 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H2.E, which includes a plan to conduct outreach and meet with residents and organizations primarily in the Belle Haven neighborhood to develop an anti-displacement strategy that the City Council can adopt after review from the Housing Commission and Planning Commission. This strategy should reflect community engagement, potentially including research and tools such as community meetings, surveys and field visits in collaboration with local community organizations. The timeframe includes developing an anti-displacement strategy for the City, particularly the Belle Haven neighborhood, by December 2026, and beginning program implementation in 2027 (Page 8-10). • 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. 







 
   

Page C-1.300
City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H3.E, which includes a timeline to conduct check-ins with the Menlo Park homeless Outreach Team at least once quarterly and to follow up with actions including, but not limited to, the program’s list of specific support activities intended to address homelessness in San Mateo County (Page 8-15).
• 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H3.F, which seeks to provide 60 supportive homes for very low income veterans and their families who were formerly homeless or at risk of homelessness on the Palo Alto Health Care System Campus in Menlo Park in cooperation with MidPen Housing. The program timeframe includes meeting with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs annually. Per the VA and MidPen, construction is intended to start in December 2024 and project opening would be in March 2026 (lease up period: March 2026 through July 2026) (Page 8-16).
• 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H3.H. As part of the development review process, the City will encourage increasing the number of accessible units beyond State building code requirements to provide more housing opportunities for individuals living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. The City will also incorporate incentives for accessible units beyond State requirements in the Affordable Housing Overlay and the City’s updated BMR Inclusionary Housing Regulations (Page 8-18).
• Program H3.L (Large Units): This program should include proactive outreach to developers.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H3.L. The City will develop floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses to encourage the development of affordable developments with three or more bedrooms that are suitable for larger families. The City will prepare an outreach handout for developers to identify the City’s various housing requirements and incentives, and will incorporate information on large unit bonuses (Page 8-19).
• Program H5.B (Undertake Community Outreach When Implementing Housing Element Programs): This program should clarify how often outreach will occur throughout the planning period.








 
   

Page C-1.301
City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H5.B, which lists a variety of outreach activities the City may pursue on an annual basis. The City will coordinate with local businesses, housing advocacy groups, neighborhood groups and others in building public understanding and support for workforce, special needs housing and other issues related to housing, including the community benefits of affordable housing, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development. The City will notify a broad representation of the community, including people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, to solicit ideas for housing strategies when they are discussed at City Commissions or City Council meetings (Page 8-32).
• 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H5.D, which provides for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational and mediation opportunities by continuing to fund and refer residents to Project Sentinel, as well as other non-profits that handle fair housing complaints. The City also plans for the following AFFH actions: Provide multilingual fair housing information at City facilities (2023); Conduct informational workshops at the Family Recreation Center and before City Council (2024, 2026); Provide fair housing information to rental property owners (2025, 2028) (Page 8-34). • 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H5.F, which includes proactive outreach with organizations the City already engages with such as the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART). The City will conduct program outreach by December 2024, including adding information on the HEART homeownership program to the City’s website, and coordinating with HEART on additional opportunities to promote the program (Page 8- 35).
• 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.

City Response: Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) actions have been updated with more specific details, commitment, metrics, and milestones. Refer to updated Program H7.A, which includes a timeframe for conducting objective design/development standards outreach in 2024 and pursuing City adoption in 2025 (Page 8-38).

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level 







 
   

Page C-1.302
that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) HCD Comment (Appendix p. 10-11): 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:

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site inventory and Analysis) has been updated. The City is meeting its 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. The housing opportunity sites, along with the “pipeline projects” identified in the "RHNA Progress" section of this chapter, provide sufficient site capacity to meet Menlo Park's RHNA with an additional 30 percent buffer, as recommended by HCD.

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 11): 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.

City Response: As shown in Table 7-3, the City has a shortfall of sites with zoning currently in place to address its lower income RHNA. A new rezone Program H4.K (Rezone for Lower Income Shortfall) has been added to the Housing Element consistent with Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i) to address this lower income RHNA shortfall. Rezoning will be implemented within one year of Housing Element adoption, encompassing programs 4H.I (Create New Opportunities for MixedUse Development), 4H.J (Increase Residential Density and Maximize Development Proposals), 4.HK (Rezone for Lower Income Shortfall), and 4H.L (Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan).

HCD Comment (Appendix p. 11): 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 







 
   

Page C-1.303
issued during the planning period and include a numerical objective consistent with assumptions in the sites inventory.

City Response: 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 (Page 8-26).

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 11): 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.

City Response: Program H4.E (Streamlined Project Review) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Polices and Programs) is updated (Page 8-25). The City will undertake the following actions to streamline project review and accelerate housing production, complemented by proactive outreach throughout the planning period:
• Solicit input from the development community in the creation and adoption of objective design and development standards that would apply to 100 percent affordable housing projects
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow ministerial review of 100 percent affordable housing projects
• Eliminate the current CUP requirement for multi-family projects in the R-3, R-3A and R-4 zoning districts
• Develop written procedures for SB 35 applications so the City is prepared should it be subject to SB 35 streamlining in the future
• 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.

City Response: Program H4.M (Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) is updated (Page 8-28). The City will review and modify parking requirements and design standards to provide greater flexibility in site planning for multifamily residential housing, including establishing a parking or alternative transportation in-lieu fee. Parking amendments could involve 







 
   

Page C-1.304
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.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 12): 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, placebased 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.

City Response: Chapter 4 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) includes an updated “Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and City Actions” subsection (Page 4-84).

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. Program H5.C (Provide Multilingual Information on Housing Programs) within Chapter 8 (Goals, Policies and Programs) is updated (Page 8-33).

Some multilingual information is currently available and the objective is to improve access to information on housing programs to persons with limited English proficiency.

The City will continue to provide readily translatable information on the City’s webpage and work to provide written information and handouts on the City’s key housing programs in multiple languages by December 2024.

5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a)... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
HCD Comment (Appendix p. 12): 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).

City Response: Program H2.A (Preservation of Assisted Housing; formerly 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 prepare an ordinance requiring an 18-month notice to residents, the City, and the San Mateo County Department of Housing of all proposed conversions of subsidized housing units to market-rate rents. In addition, the City will 







 
   

Page C-1.305
initiate discussions with property owners of potential "at-risk" units at least 3 years prior to expiration to monitor tenant noticing requirements for compliance with State preservation notice law (Page 8-8).

C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) HCD Comment (Appendix p. 12): 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.

City Response: Chapter 7 (Site Inventory and Analysis) includes an updated “Summary of Quantified Objectives” subsection (Page 7-50). Table 7-16 (Quantified Objectives) summarizes Menlo Park’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period across all income levels (Above Moderate, Moderate, Low, Very Low, Extremely Low). The objectives include the City’s new construction objectives to meet its RHNA (7,185units) 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 Haven neighborhood, with a goal of assisting 20 very low-income homeowners to complete major rehabilitation improvements to their homes.

D. Public Participation
Local governments 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 element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) HCD Comment (Appendix p. 13): 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.

City Response: Chapter 1 (Introduction) includes a new “Consideration of Public Comment” subsection that describes revisions that were made to the primary draft Housing Element in response to 108 comments from individuals, agencies, and organizations received through July 5, 2022 (Page 1-5). Comments were also received after July 5, 2022 and considered. Appendix 1-1 provides the comments received and considered. 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. 







 
   

Page C-1.306
1 Smith, Tom A
From: Skylar Spear <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:58 AM
To: Smith, Tom A; Chan, Calvin; Chow, Deanna M
Cc: [email protected]; _Planning Commission; Patterson, Adam P; Andrew Barnes; Chris DeCardy; Linh Dan; Riggs, Henry; Cynthia Harris; Michele Tate; Jennifer Schindler; Combs, Drew; [email protected]; Melissa A. Morris; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; Wolosin, Jen; Sam Tepperman-Gelfant
Subject: RE: January 6 Housing Element Draft
Attachments: 2023-01-12 Menlo Park Housing Element Letter.pdf 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 Menlo Park Community Development Staff,
We write to remind you of changes we recommend you make to your current draft Housing Element before the City Council adopts it. We have attached an initial letter recommending changes, which we wrote and sent to you on December 22nd, 2022 along with a Cover Letter, initially sent on January 12, 2023, addressing updates you made to the draft.

We additionally want to offer our support for some of the changes recommended by the Housing and Planning Commissions at their joint session on January 12, 2023.

First, we encourage you to prioritize and hasten development of affordable housing on the City-owned parking lots in the Downtown Specific Plan area. In addition to complying with the requirements of the Surplus Lands Act, the City should prioritize affordable development on these sites, and we encourage you to consider some of the options suggested by your Commissioners.

Second, we encourage you to consider modifying your language in the Housing Element to allow for the possibility of 100% affordable developments at more than 100 dwelling units per acre.

We thank you for your time, attention, and work on the Housing Element.

Sincerely,
Skylar Spear
From: Skylar Spear
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 4:51 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Chow, Deanna M <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Melissa A. Morris <[email protected]>; Sam Tepperman-Gelfant <stepperman[email protected]> Subject: January 6 Housing Element Draft
Dear Menlo Park Planning Commission,
ATTACHMENT H Page C-1.307
2 Please find attached updated comments regarding the City’s most recent draft of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element; we look forward to learning more about your draft at the joint meeting this evening.

Thank you,

Skylar Spear

METROPOLITAN EQUITY LEGAL FELLOW
131 Steuart St.|Suite 300|San Francisco 94105
415.625.8466
Pronouns: They| Them| Theirs
[email protected] www.publicadvocates.org
__________________________

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone. Thank you.

Page C-1.308
January 12, 2023
City of Menlo Park Planning Commission & City of Menlo Park Housing Commission City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Re: Special Joint Meeting, Item E.1, Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element Dear Members of the Housing and Planning Commissions of Menlo Park:

Public Advocates and the Public Interest Law Project write to provide comments regarding the City of Menlo Park’s draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element, dated January 6, 2023 (Draft). We are also including our December 22, 2022, comments to the City Council, which explain some of our concerns with an earlier draft Housing Element. Many of the issues raised in our prior comments have not been addressed in the current Draft, and we write to highlight some of the issues that continue to concern us.

I. Anti-Displacement Strategy
In our December letter, we highlighted the need for concrete commitments to robust tenant protections as a means of protecting low-income residents, especially in the Belle Haven neighborhood, from displacement. Other commenters, including Menlo Together and the San Mateo County Anti-Displacement Coalition have requested the same. We continue to appreciate the City’s commitment in Program H2.E to considering just-cause eviction protections for tenants of all tenures–going above and beyond state requirements–and its more recent revision to move up the deadline for doing so; but we continue to believe that a commitment to consider these protections is not enough. We urge you to make a firm commitment to adopting these protections, along with a rent control policy that ties rent increases to the cost of inflation, within the Housing Element itself. See 12/22/2022 Letter, 5-6, 9.

Additionally, the Housing Element needs stronger programs to protect its existing rental housing stock, especially those rare units that are currently affordable to lower-income households. In our prior letter we recommended changes to Policy H2.2 and Program H2.B to protect against the demolition of older rental housing for market-rate residential uses, to ensure compliance with Government Code 66300(d), and to adopt an Ellis Act ordinance that incorporates the maximum protections allowed by state law, and we reiterate those recommendations here. 12/22/2022 Letter, 8-9. Such policies, along with strong renter protections like rent control and just cause, are critical components of a comprehensive antidisplacement strategy.

Page C-1.309
II.Site Inventory
In our December letter, we requested additional analysis of your available sites, the likelihood that they would redevelop (including comparison to truly comparable sites that either have redeveloped or have had the opportunity to redevelop, but failed to do so), and discussion of why the sites are concentrated in a few areas. We appreciate your expanded discussion of the reasons for concentrating your sites downtown, near the VA Hospital, and near I-280 (generally, Council Districts 2-5). Draft 7-19. We continue to believe that further analysis of the likelihood of redevelopment would considerably strengthen your Housing Element. For example, we find your analysis of the likelihood of the Post Office redevelopment into housing uncompelling.

Draft 7-38. While it may be the case that one other operating Post Office in the region has redeveloped, you provide no evidence that this particular Post Office is actively likely to redevelop within the Housing Element Cycle. While this is only one example, the underlying problem is consistent throughout your redevelopment analysis: your realistic capacity coefficients would be more compelling if supported by more discussion of past trends and redevelopment projects that support their accuracy. Draft 7-11 to 7-12.

III. Homelessness and Emergency Shelter
The Draft still relies on data from the 2019 Point-in-Time Count instead of the 2022 Point-inTime Count, in turn failing to acknowledge or analyze the drastic increase in homelessness in both the City and Countywide since 2019. See 12/22/2022 Letter, 5-6; Draft, 4-80 to 4-81. It also does not address the disproportionate impact of homelessness on Black and disabled residents.

Further, the Draft also does not respond to our prior comments regarding the failure to analyze the emergency shelter overlay for adequacy and appropriateness to address the City’s need for emergency shelter; nor does it discuss the City’s shelter standards, its process for approving emergency shelters, or its citywide 16-bed cap on by-right shelter. See 12/22/2022 Letter, 6; Draft, 5-11 to 5-12, 8-17.

IV. Reasonable Accommodations
We appreciate that the City has amended Program H3.A to eliminate the fee for reasonable accommodation requests. Draft, 8-13. However, the Housing Element must engage in a thorough analysis of the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance, including both the procedure and the required findings for reasonable accommodations, and must commit to additional concrete actions to remove illegal barriers to reasonable accommodations. See 12/22/2022 Letter, 7.

V. Additional Fair Housing Issues
Pollution and Environmental Hazards. We appreciate that the Draft acknowledges the disproportionate impact of pollution on non-White and lower-income residents. Draft, 4-31. To address these disparities, we urge the City to include environmental disparities as a contributing factor in Table 4-26, and to adopt targeted policies and programs to reduce exposure and improve housing quality in neighborhoods impacted by pollution, consistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing, in addition to referencing the Environmental Justice Element.

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. The Draft continues to state, incorrectly, that there are no racially concentrated areas of affluence within the City. See Draft, 4-57, 4-2-49; HCD 10/21/2022 Findings, 1.

Page C-1.310
Family Child Care Homes. We appreciate the City’s commitment to allowing large family childcare homes by right in residential zones. We continue to urge the City to conduct a more thorough analysis on the impacts of current policies and additional actions the City could take to facilitate the siting and operation of family childcare homes. See 12/22/2022 Letter, 8-9.

VI. Conclusion
We appreciate the time that the City has spent drafting its Sixth Cycle Housing Element and the incorporation of a range of programs to address the City’s critical housing needs. However, additional changes are needed to comply with state law and to create a strong plan for the next eight years of your community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Melissa Morris, Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project
Skylar Spear, Legal Fellow
Public Advocates
CC: Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director Tom Smith, Principal Planner
Menlo Park City Council
Hillary Prasad, HCD
Page C-1.311
December 23, 2022
Dear Mayor Wolosin and Members of the City Council:

Public Advocates and the Public Interest Law Project write to provide comments on the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, which the City published in the agenda packet for the December 6, 2022, City Council Meeting (beginning at page H-1.20), and which the Council will discuss at the December 22, 2022, study session. While we appreciate that the City has made some revisions to respond to the October 21, 2022, findings of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD Findings) and to public input, the Draft still fails to adequately address some of the community’s most critical housing needs, and additional revisions will be necessary to comply with state Housing Element Law. This letter suggests changes you can make to your Site Inventory, your displacement-prevention programs, your Homelessness prevention programs, and your general programmatic goals that will help you come into compliance with Housing Element law.

Public Advocates is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice. Public Interest Law Project (PILP) is a statewide legal services support center that advances justice for low-income people and communities by building the capacity of legal services organizations through impact litigation, trainings, and publications, and by advocating for low-income community groups and individuals.

A. Site Inventory

1. The Draft does not adequately justify its reliance on “Pipeline Projects” to accommodate the RHNA.

The City credits eight “Pipeline Projects” against its RHNA, including crediting over 400 pipeline units against its lower-income RHNA. Draft, H-1.269-1.270. However, the Draft does not include the requisite information and analysis to treat these projects as “approved projects” pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(d). Per HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook:

Projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development. For these projects, affordability is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project (See Part E). For projects Page C-1.312
yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or final permit, the element must demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period.1 While Willow Village has since been approved, 123 Independence Drive and 333 Ravenswood Avenue are only “proposed,” and the Draft does not describe what process and further approvals will be necessary before these projects move forward. The City should amend the Draft to describe “barriers to development, phasing, anticipated build out horizons, and other relevant factors”2 and to demonstrate that the projected affordable units will be built before the end of the planning period.

2. The Draft does not demonstrate that sites are located throughout the community, consistent with the duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) means taking meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, and that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.3 Protected characteristics under California law include race, sex, national origin, and disability status.4 In this Housing Element Cycle, cities and counties are now required to analyze the fair housing issues, including “disproportionate housing needs” and “displacement risk” of members of protected groups, and identify and prioritize concrete actions to remedy these injustices. These analyses are meant to be incorporated into the development of any policies and programs designed to remedy histories of segregation and economic harm—that is, policies and programs are meant to be designed to respond to the particular causes of the particular fair housing issues specific to your jurisdiction.

In order to facilitate the development of housing for all members of your community throughout the City—including in areas of highest opportunity—the Housing Element must identify sites “throughout the community,” consistent with the City’s AFFH obligation and the Housing Element’s assessment of fair housing.5 Such site identification is critical for developing housing appropriate for all incomes, all disability statuses, and all family types throughout your community, so that all individuals have a meaningful choice in the neighborhood in which they live.6
The mandate to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing requires that each jurisdiction indicate how they will foster enough development to meet their RHNA during the Housing Element Cycle in a manner that continues to AFFH. As you know, this means that each jurisdiction has the responsibility to create an inventory of sites that are likely to develop at a cost that enables housing for all income levels. This inventory of sites should, as indicated above, be distributed evenly throughout your community, with a particular focus on placing moderate- and lowerIncome housing—including very low income and extremely low-income housing—in High Resource areas and areas from which they have been historically excluded. Each jurisdiction is 1 HCD, Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook (June 10, 2020), 5, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf. 2 HCD Findings, 3.
3 Gov. Code §§ 65583(c)(5), 8899.50(a)(1).
4 Gov. Code § 65583(c)(5).
5 Gov. Code § 65583.2(a).
6 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance Memo at 23. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf.

Page C-1.313
responsible for putting these sites into HCD’s Site Inventory Form and making it publicly available early enough to allow for the level of public participation required by Housing Element Law.

We have significant concerns that your current site inventory does not comply with Housing Element Law. While we applaud your effort to ensure that sites for moderate- and lower-income housing are located in higher resource communities and communities from where they have historically been excluded, we notice that your sites are still largely concentrated in a few neighborhoods. We particularly note that there are few to no sites located within historically white, wealthy, single-family neighborhoods. While we accept the possibility that there are not, in fact, many sites within those neighborhoods, your current Housing Element Draft contains insufficient analysis to indicate that you did search for sites within those neighborhoods and were unable to find any that were appropriate for development. To ensure compliance with the mandate to analyze your jurisdiction’s ability to AFFH, we recommend you conduct and write out a more explicit analysis of your choice of sites.

We additionally are concerned about the realistic capacity of the sites you have listed. As HCD noted in its findings, “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.”7 Unless the sites have minimum densities, “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.”8 Although the Draft has identified five adjustment factors, it does not provide adequate supporting information to support its application of those factors.9 For example, the Draft references 51 recent developments in Menlo Park, 30 of which had “a residential component” and 21 of which did not. It does not identify or describe these projects or their zoning; it does not compare them to the sites identified in the site inventory. The Draft references an Appendix 7-3 (at pp. H-1.274, H-184, H-300) but that appendix does not appear in the Draft. The version of Appendix 7-3 that appeared in the July 22, 2022, Primary HCD Review Draft did not include information about acreage, zone, allowable density, built density, or affordability for any of the identified projects. Further, the Draft does not discuss whether identified sites allow 100% nonresidential development or the likelihood that sites that permit nonresidential development, including mixed-use sites, will develop with all or a portion of non-residential uses. Accordingly, the Draft does not justify setting the Realistic Capacity adjustment factor at 80% in the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan Area and at 90% elsewhere in the City.10 Similarly, the Draft indicates that “Densities are typically built above allowed densities at the Lower and Moderate income levels in San Mateo County,” but it does not provide information about what the typical 7 HCD Findings, 3.
8 Ibid.
9 Draft, H-1.273-1.275
10 Draft, H-1-274.

Page C-1.314
allowed and built densities are, examples of projects, or analysis specific to Menlo Park.11 The City must provide adequate information and analysis regarding development projects and trends to justify its capacity projections; if the evidence indicates that the projections are unrealistic, then it must adjust them downward or add programs to facilitate the development at the projected capacities. Until it does so, the Housing Element will not comply with state law.

B. Displacement Prevention
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing includes a requirement to analyze the risk of displacement for residents in different neighborhoods throughout a community. AFFH also requires each jurisdiction to develop programs and policies to be included in their Housing Element that respond to the specific causes of risk of displacement discovered through an initial analysis. These programs are required to be related to the specific community at issue, rather than generalized policies; they are meant to be concrete and measurable, with specific timelines for implementation, at the time of adoption of the Housing Element; and they are meant to go beyond a promise to study potential policies and programs.

We appreciate the Draft’s additional analysis of displacement risk and causes of displacement risk and acknowledgment that “[s]trong 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.”12 The Draft notes that displacement in Belle Haven is largely tied to sudden increases in housing costs, and especially rental costs and the construction of thousands of market-rate units nearby Belle Haven; and you discuss the increased precarity caused by the inflow of highly-paid individuals and private investment.13 While development of affordable units may counteract some of the impacts of the recent development of market-rate units, the Draft’s list of programs is not sufficiently responsive to the full range of factors contributing to the risk of displacement in Belle Haven.

In the spirit of adopting policies that respond to the specific concerns highlighted by your analysis, we urge you to commit to adopting rent control that goes above and beyond the state restrictions on rent increases, and to commit to adopting just cause eviction protections for tenants of all tenures. These policies would specifically prevent the sudden increases in rent noted in your analysis and prevent landlords from taking advantage of the increased demand for market-rate housing by evicting tenants without just cause. It is important, too, to go above and beyond the State Rent Cap: The State Rent Cap prevents massive rent increases, but true rent control would ensure that rents do not rise faster than inflation and goes further towards providing the long-term stability that is the goal of any anti-displacement policy. As a bonus, true rent control preserves the affordability of homes that are currently at-risk of becoming market-rate—another Housing Element goal. We encourage the City to commit, in its Housing Element, to a rent control policy with annual allowable increases less than those allowed by state law, just cause eviction protections for all tenants, and protections against landlord harassment as a mechanism for landlords to pressure tenants out of rent stabilized units.

When you performed community outreach to gather local knowledge and expertise about issues specific to Belle Haven, your community indicated that true rent control—i.e., stronger than 11 Draft, H-1.274.
12 Draft, H-1.1.36.
13 H-1.167-170
Page C-1.315
state law requires—and stronger just-cause eviction protections for tenants of any tenure would go the furthest towards preventing displacement. Further outside data from the Urban Displacement Project similarly indicates that these measures are among the strongest available to prevent or mitigate the risk of displacement.14 Your own analysis sets you up for this determination, and for adopting true rent control and eviction protections for tenants of all tenures; but the Draft’s policy proposal is to consider adopting, at some point during the eight year Housing Element Cycle, stronger just cause eviction protections.

We urge you to make firm commitments to these policies. Housing Element Law requires that each jurisdiction develop “[a] program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element…”15 One of the most common concerns HCD cites in relation to Housing Element Drafts that it has reviewed is a lack of sufficiently specific, concrete plans and policies to be implemented over the 6th Cycle. HCD has repeatedly stated the view that plans to “study,” “examine,” or “consider'' particular policies are insufficient, and has made clear that the time for study, examination, and consideration is now— during the development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, rather than after its adoption.16 HCD is plainly looking for plans and policies that, while not fleshed out in the level of detail they will be upon adoption, are fleshed out enough that it is clear whether and how they will contribute to solving or mitigating the harms that have been done by a historical failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

C. Homelessness and Emergency Shelter
San Mateo County’s 2022 One-Day Homeless Count and Survey (Aug. 2022) identified 56 homeless residents of Menlo Park, more than double the number of homeless residents from 2019.17 However, the Draft continues to use data from the 2019 Homeless Count; the City should revise the Draft to use the most recent data, and it should discuss the significant increases in the unhoused population that have occurred both within Menlo Park and Countywide. The City “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.”18 For example, the Housing Element should analyze the disproportionate impact of homelessness on Black residents; per 2020 data, 14 Investment and Disinvestment as Neighbors, Urban Displacement Project. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/investmentdisinvestment-report200117.pdf. 15 Gov't Code § 65583(c).
16 AFFH Guidance at 55; Review Letter for Oakland; Review Letter for Menlo Park. 17 Available at https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2022-one-day-homeless-count. 18 HCD Findings, 2.

Page C-1.316

17.2% of unhoused San Mateo County residents are Black, compared with 2.3% of the general population and 3.9% of the population with incomes below the federal poverty limit.19 Homelessness also disproportionately impacts people with disabilities. “Critically, there are significant disparities by race within the population with disabilities, so jurisdictions should engage in an intersectional analysis of needs.”20
The Housing Element must identify a “zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit,” and the zone or zones must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter.21 The City does not have a zone or zones where emergency shelter is allowed by right. It does have an emergency shelter overlay, but that overlay applies only to 26 parcels and only allows for a total of 16 beds by right in an individual shelter and also limits by-right siting emergency shelter to 16 beds citywide.22 By its own terms, the City’s Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Overlay ordinance does not accommodate sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s need for emergency shelter.23 The Draft does not acknowledge or analyze this limitation, nor does it analyze the ordinance’s compliance review process, which subjects every application for an emergency shelter to have a Planning Commission hearing and findings by the director as a potential constraint to the siting of emergency shelters in the City.24 The Draft also does not include any information about the capacity, feasibility, or appropriateness of the overlay’s 26 parcels for emergency shelter. Program HG-3, which commits to allow more beds per shelter, does not remedy these deficiencies.25 The City must conduct the requisite analysis and commit to concrete programs that will help to address its unhoused residents’ shelter needs.

D. Constraints to the Development of Housing for People with Disabilities Residential care facilities represent an important community-based source of housing for people with disabilities, seniors, and members of other groups protected by fair housing laws. However, the Draft does not adequately analyze permitting and siting requirements for residential care facilities as a constraint to the siting of housing for people with disabilities, nor does it commit to adequate programs to remove such constraints. The Draft now acknowledges that the City must allow residential care facilities for six or fewer residents by right in residential zones, and it commits to doing so in program H3.G.26 However, the City does not allow residential care facilities for six or more residents by right in any zone. It allows them with a conditional use permit in certain zoning districts.27 The Housing Element must analyze the conditional use permit requirement as a potential constraint to the siting of residential facilities and must adopt 19 Data available at https://bcsh.ca.gov/calich/hdis.html. 20 HCD AFFH Guidance, 36.
21 Gov. Code § 65583(a)(4).
22 Draft, H-1.224; Menlo Park Mun. Code, ch. 16.99.
23 “The cumulative number of beds allowed through this chapter shall be no more than sixteen (16) beds, except as authorized by a use permit.” Menlo Park Mun. Code § 16.99.030. 24 Menlo Park Mun. Code § 16.99.070.
25 Draft, H-1.224, H-1.341.
26 Draft, H-1.253, 1.341.
27 Draft, H-1.341.

Page C-1.317
programs to remove constraints. As HCD noted in its findings, “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.”28 We encourage the City to consult HCD’s newly released Group Home Technical Advisory (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technicaladvisory-2022.pdf) in developing this analysis.

In its findings, HCD advised that “the element must describe the findings and approval procedure for the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure.”29 The Draft does not.30 Instead, Program H3.A commits to reviewing the reasonable accommodation ordinance “to ensure consistency with guidance provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Justice (DOJ)” by 2025. However, the Housing Element must analyze constraints and commit to programs to remove them, not defer analysis to a future year. Further, the analysis must consider state anti-discrimination law, which is generally more protective of people with disabilities. Notably, the City’s current ordinance does include required findings that violate the City’s fair housing obligations, including requiring findings that “The requested reasonable accommodation would not adversely impact surrounding properties or uses,” and that “There are no reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the city’s applicable rules, standards and practices.”31 It also requires payment of a fee, which is unlawful.32 Further, the ordinance limits reasonable accommodations to people who are disabled under the Fair Housing Act, even though California has a broader definition of disability. The Housing Element must analyze the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance, including a review of reasonable accommodation requests received, approved, and denied during the Fifth Cycle, and it must commit to a program to amend the ordinance to remove constraints.

E. Additional Fair Housing Concerns
In addition to the fair housing issues discussed above regarding sites, displacement, homelessness, and housing for people with disabilities, the City should also make the following revisions to the Draft’s Assessment of Fair Housing:
• Environmental Concerns. In analyzing disproportionate housing needs and access to opportunity among members of protected groups, the Housing Element must examine the disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards and pollutants.33 The Draft glosses over environmental issues, referencing the Environmental Justice Element and stating that “No 28 HCD Findings, 8.
29 HCD Findings, 8.
30 See Draft, H-1.341.”
31 Menlo Park Mun. Code § 16.83.050; see also HCD Group Home Technical Advisory, 18. 32 Menlo Park Mun. Code § 16.83.030; see also
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Master-Fee-Schedule?bidId= (Master Fee Schedule); HCD AFFH Guidance, 28; Cal. Code. Regs § 12180(a). 33 See HCD AFFH Guidance, 34 (highlighting environmental conditions as a component of opportunity).

Page C-1.318
census tract in Menlo Park has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden score over 75.”34 However, tract 6081611700, east of 101, has an EnviroScreen score of 66.38%, while all of the tracts west of 101 have EnviroScreen percentiles of less than 5%. Menlo Park is incredibly segregated by both race and income, and neighborhoods whose residents are disproportionately lower-income people of color are also disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards. Environmental justice issues are also fair housing issues; the Housing Element must analyze the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards and commit to programs to mitigate hazards and address disparities. • Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Although the draft now acknowledges racially concentrated areas of affluence, it continues to state that “no areas of the city are technically defined as Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) or Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA).”35 Notably, two of the twenty most segregated neighborhoods of white wealth (by Census tract) in the Bay Area are in Menlo Park.36 The City must ensure that it is both consistent and thorough in analyzing racial and economic segregation in the City and must commit to concrete programs to address that segregation.
• Family Child Care Homes. The Draft acknowledges a shortage of affordable childcare in Menlo Park and also commits to revising the Zoning Code “to allow large family day care byright in all residential areas.”37 The Housing Element should also review the City’s existing restrictions on family childcare homes and analyze the impact of those restrictions on members of protected groups, including women and families with children. Such analysis could help to inform further policy changes to facilitate the siting and operation of family childcare homes.

F. Policies and Programs
As discussed above, the Housing Element must have programs with concrete actions and firm timelines to achieve a beneficial impact within the planning period.38 While the Draft includes promising programs, including revisions made in response to HCD’s findings, many programs should be strengthened to address the community’s critical housing needs. • Policy H2.2 and Program H2.B—Protection of Existing Housing—the City should strengthen its policy and program to protect its existing rental housing stock and to prevent the displacement of tenants. Policy H2.2 should be amended to include demolition of older rental housing to build newer market-rate housing, in addition to loss of residential units to non-residential uses.39 It should also commit to the adoption of an Ellis Act ordinance that provides for the maximum notice, relocation, and right to return allowed by state law, as 34 Draft, H-1.137.
35 Draft, H-1.159-1.160; 1.168.
36 Bay Area Equity Atlas, “One in 10 Bay Area Neighborhoods are Segregated Areas of White Wealth” (July 27, 2022), https://bayareaequityatlas.org/mapping-segregation. 37 Draft, H-1.335.
38 Gov. Code § 65583(c).
39 Draft, H-1.331-1.332.

Page C-1.319
well as to the implementation of Government Code 66300(d) (requirements for new residential development on sites that had or have existing rental housing). • Program H2.E—Anti-Displacement Strategy—we appreciate the City’s addition of just cause, financial assistance, relocation assistance, and eviction data monitoring to this program, as well as the City’s commitment to target outreach in Belle Haven.40 However, the program’s plan to create an anti-displacement strategy—which may or may not include the policy options listed—by 2026, to be implemented beginning in 2027, is inadequate relative to the urgency of displacement risk, especially in Belle Haven. If the City does not act now, the relatively few lower-income households who remain in the City will be displaced from the City, and likely also from the Peninsula and Bay Area more broadly. As the Draft acknowledges, such displacement disproportionately harms Black and Latinx residents. The City has already received substantial community input regarding the need for strong antidisplacement policies like rent control and just cause. The Housing Element should make a firm commitment to develop and adopt such policies rather than just making them options to consider in a multi-year strategic planning process. • Program H2.F—Childcare Allowances—we are glad that the City is committing to allowing large family childcare homes by right in residential zones. We encourage the City to engage in further analysis and commit to further actions to facilitate the siting and operation of family child care homes, as discussed above.
• Program H3.A—Reasonable Accommodations—as discussed above, the Housing Element must engage in a thorough analysis of the City’s current reasonable accommodation ordinance, and this program must be revised to commit to concrete action to amend the ordinance to conform with state and federal law.
• Program H3.G-Zoning Code Text Amendments for Special Needs Housing—as discussed above, this program is inadequate with respect to emergency shelters and residential care facilities/group homes. Once the City has conducted adequate analysis, it should amend this program to take concrete actions to ensure that the City has an adequate zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed by right, that its shelter standards do not unlawfully limit the siting and operation of emergency shelters, and that its zoning and permitting requirements do not constrain the siting of group homes. • Programs H4.A and H.4C—BMR and Commercial Linkage Fee—we support amendment of the BMR and commercial linkage fee requirements to increase the number and depth of affordable housing units, as well as local financial resources to support affordable housing.
• Program H4.B—BMR Guidelines—any preference, including for renters who live or work in Menlo Park, would need to undergo a rigorous fair housing analysis to ensure that it does not have a discriminatory effect. For example, because the population of Menlo Park is predominately white, a preference for Menlo Park residents could have the effect of discriminating against other racial groups.
40 Draft, H-1.334-1.335.

Page C-1.320
• Policy H4.1, Program H4.J, and Program H4.L—Sites to Accommodate the RHNA—the Draft does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA, and Programs H4.J and H4.L indicate that the City will rezone sites to projected densities “[c]oncurrent with Housing Element adoption.”41 In addition to completing an adequate site inventory and analysis, the City must amend these rezone programs to ensure that the—and the sites they apply to—comply with all requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h).
• Program H4.P—Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA)—we are glad to see this program included with a commitment to adopt a COPA policy by 2024.42 • Program H5.A—Fair Chance Ordinance—we are glad that the City is committed to the adoption of a fair chance ordinance. This is an important policy tool to affirmatively further fair housing.

G. Conclusion
We appreciate the City’s efforts in developing a Sixth Cycle Housing Element. However, the current Draft still needs significant revisions before it will comply with Housing Element Law.

We welcome the opportunity to provide further comments on future revisions and would be happy to answer any questions.

Melissa Morris
Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project
41 Draft, H-1.350-1.351.
42 Draft, H-1.352.

Skylar Spear
Legal Fellow
Public Advocates
Type text here
Page C-1.321