NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK:
Section 1. Findings.
The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct findings of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park.
Section 2. Amendment.
Chapter 16.04 – Definitions of Title 16 – Zoning of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in underline, deletions in strikethrough text):
16.04.164 Child day care center. “Child day care center” means any child care facility other than a large child family day care home or small child family day care home as defined by Section 16.04.165. (Ord. 1030 § 2, 2017).
16.04.165 Child Family day care home. “Child Family day care home” means both a “small child family day care home” and a “large child family day care home” as further defined herein. A “small child family day care home” means a private single-family residence licensed by the appropriate state or county agency for the day care or instruction of no more than six (6) children, or up to eight (8) children without an additional adult attendant, if all of the following conditions are met: (1) at least one (1) child is enrolled in and attending a kindergarten or elementary school and a second child is at least six (6) years of age; (2) no more than two (2) infants are cared for during any time when more than six (6) children are cared for; (3) the licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two (2) additional school-age children and that there may be up to seven (7) or eight (8) children in the home at one (1) time; and (4) the licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. A “large child family day care home” means a private single-family residence licensed by the appropriate state or county agency for the day care or instruction of no more than twelve (12) children, or up to and including fourteen (14) children, if all of the following conditions are met: (1) at least one (1) child is enrolled in and attending a kindergarten or elementary school and a second child is at least six (6) years of age; (2) no more than three (3) infants are cared for during any time when more than twelve (12) children are cared for; (3) the licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two (2) additional school-age children and that there may be up to thirteen (13) or fourteen (14) children in the home at one (1) time; and (4) the licensee obtains the written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on property that is leased or rented. (Ord. 1030 § 3, 2017: Ord. 546 § 1(1), 1973).
Section 3. Amendment.
Chapter 16.08 – Districts Established—General Regulations of Title 16 – Zoning of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in underline, deletions in strikethrough text):
16.08.085 Child Family day care homes.
(a) A small child family day care home, as the same is defined in this titleSection
16.04.165, may be a home occupation and as such is a permitted use in a legal dwelling unit in any residential district.
Page C-1.147
Ordinance No. XXXX
(b) A large child family day care home, as the same is defined in this title, may be a home occupation and as such is a permitted use in a legal dwelling unit in any residential district. requires a permit. A person who desires to obtain a permit for a large child day care home ("applicant") must follow the process described below in order to use their home as a large child day care home:
(1) The city must provide notice of the proposed use to adjoining property owners within a one hundred (100) foot radius of the exterior parcel boundaries of the large child day care home. Notice shall be given not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date on which the decision will be made on the application.
(2) A public hearing is required if one (1) is requested by the applicant or any other affected party.
(3) If a public hearing is not required, the community development director, or his/her designee, shall approve a permit for a large child day care home if the property on which the proposed large child day care home is located and applicant comply with all of the following conditions and standards:
(A) The applicant must possess a current and valid large family child care home license from the state of California, Department of Social Services. The city’s permit shall not become effective until such time as the state license is obtained. If said license is suspended or revoked by the state for any reason, the city’s permit for a large child day care home shall immediately be suspended or revoked to the same extent. (B) The applicant must reside at the property and the use must be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the property for residential purposes.
(C) The property is not bordered on more than one (1) side by a child day care home or child day care center.
(D) The property is not located adjacent to a business that uses, sells or stores significant amounts of hazardous materials or creates high noise levels or fumes.
(E) Residences with sole access from major arterial and/or collector streets must provide an off-street drop-off/pick-up area. The residential driveway may be used as the drop-off/pick-up area, provided such use does not cause a backup of vehicles on the street.
(F) The large child day care home operation shall not result in cars blocking neighbors’ driveways or backing up traffic on the street. (G) Provisions have been made to provide, at a minimum, one (1) offstreet parking space per employee of driving age not living at the residence. The residential driveway is acceptable if the parking space will Page C-1.148
Ordinance No. XXXX
not conflict with any required child drop-off/pick-up area and does not block the public sidewalk or right-of-way.
(H) The applicant must comply with all applicable regulations of the fire marshal regarding health and safety requirements.
(I) Any permanently installed playground apparatus (swings, jungle gym, etc.) shall conform to setback requirements for accessory structures in that particular residential zoning district.
(J) Outdoor playtime shall be limited to the hours from nine (9) a.m. to seven (7) p.m.
(K) Outdoor play areas shall be set back at least five (5) feet from adjoining residential dwellings and enclosed with a minimum six (6) foot fence. A six (6) foot wood or masonry fence is required along the boundaries with residential uses.
(L) A minimum of seventy-five (75) square feet of outdoor space for each child over two (2) years old that is not located in any required front or street side yard. This area must be either owned or leased by the applicant and cannot be shared with any other property owners unless written permission is granted by the other property owners. This requirement may be waived if the applicant can demonstrate that there is a public park, school or other public area open within five hundred (500) feet of the child day care home.
(M) Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of six (6) a.m. to seven (7) p.m., Monday through Friday. Additional hours may be allowed subject to approval of a use permit.
(N) The community development director or designee may consider and specify other reasonable conditions that relate to parking, traffic, noise, and spacing and concentrations of large child day care homes that might otherwise have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. (4) If a public hearing is requested, the community development director or his or her designee shall give notice to residents and property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed large child day care home and shall conduct a public hearing. The decision of the community development director or his or her designee shall be limited to and based on the criteria set forth in subsection (b)(3) of this section.
(5) The applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision of the community development director or his or her designee to the planning commission within fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice of decision in accordance with Chapter 16.86, Appeals; provided, that the criteria for upholding or denying decision of the community development director or his or her designee shall be limited to and based on the criteria set forth in subsection (b)(3) of this section. (Ord. 1030 § 4, 2017: Ord. 546 § 1(3), 1973).
Page C-1.149
Ordinance No. XXXX
Section 4. Severability.
If any section, subsection, phrase or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrase or clauses be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied.
Section 5. Compliance with CEQA.
The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance was considered within the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015062054) (SEIR) for the Housing Element Update project, certified by Council Resolution No. 6808, adopted January 31, 2023. No supplemental or subsequent EIR is required because none of the circumstances requiring a supplemental or subsequent EIR exist (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162):
(a) No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments do not create any additional environmental impacts.
(b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. The SEIR was certified in January 2023, and no substantial evidence has been submitted showing any change in the circumstances applicable to the project. (c) No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous SEIR was certified as complete, has been submitted to the City.
Section 6. Publication; Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, the ordinance shall be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Menlo Park, and the ordinance, or a summary of the ordinance, shall be published in a local newspaper used to publish official notices for the City of Menlo Park prior to the effective date.
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
Page C-1.150
Ordinance No. XXXX
INTRODUCED on the twenty-eighth day of November 2023.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Menlo Park at a regular meeting of said City Council on the __ day of __ 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________________________
Jen Wolosin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page C-1.151
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Type of Shortfall Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Total Capacity Vacant/ Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses Optional Information 1 (Developable Acreage) Optional Information 2 (AHO Density) Optional Information 3 (Site Category) Menlo Park 525 El Camino Real (Site #1) 94025 071332130 72 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.91 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 72 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 1.91 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1610 El Camino Real (Site #2) 94025 060344250 0 0 22 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.15 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: NE-L)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NE-L) w/ AHO
20 30 6 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 0.15 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 1620 El Camino Real (Site #2) 94025 060344240 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.42 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: NE-L)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
w/ AHO 20 30 16 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 0.42 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 2500 Sand Hill Road (Site #3) 94025 074270240 0 49 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
5.50 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1C Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1C w/ AHO 0 30 89 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.00 55 Non-Res W/Carve Menlo Park 2480 Sand Hill Road (Site #4) 94025 074270280 0 49 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
6.80 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1C Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1C w/ AHO 0 30 89 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.00 55 Non-Res W/Carve Menlo Park 1100 Alma Street (Site #5) 94025 061412440 44 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.75 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: SA E)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA E) w/ AHO
20 60 31 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 0.75 60 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 1100 Alma Street (Site #5) 94025 061412430 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.31 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: SA E)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA E) w/ AHO
20 60 13 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 0.31 60 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 900 Santa Cruz Avenue (Site #6) 94025 071084220 0 0 70 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.44 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 17 Non-Vacant Church 0.44 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1111 University Drive (Site #6) 94025 071084200 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.39 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 15 Non-Vacant Church 0.39 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1187 University Drive (Site #6) 94025 071084090 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.37 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 14 Non-Vacant Professional
Building
0.37 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1155 University Drive (Site #6) 94025 071084110 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.34 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 13 Non-Vacant Professional
Building
0.34 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1177 University Drive (Site #6) 94025 071084100 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.28 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 11 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 0.28 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 728 Willow Road (Site #7) 94025 062202050 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.19 Retail/Commercial C4 Retail/Commercial C4 w/ AHO 0 30 8 Non-Vacant Store & Residence
0.19 55 Non-Res
W/Redev.
Menlo Park 728 Willow Road (Site #7) 94025 062202060 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.13 Retail/Commercial C4 Retail/Commercial C4 w/ AHO 0 30 6 Non-Vacant Store 0.13 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 728 Willow Road (Site #7) 94025 062202210 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.11 Retail/Commercial C4 Retail/Commercial C4 w/ AHO 0 30 5 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 0.11 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 906 Willow Road (Site #8) 94025 062211170 0 0 21 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.44 Retail/Commercial C4 Retail/Commercial C4 w/ AHO 0 30 19 Non-Vacant Store & Office 0.44 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 906 Willow Road (Site #8) 94025 062211180 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.16 Retail/Commercial C4 Retail/Commercial C4 w/ AHO 0 30 7 Non-Vacant Store & Office 0.16 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 906 Willow Road (Site #8) 94025 062211050 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.23 Medium Density
Residential
R3 Medium Density
Residential
R3 w/ AHO 1 30 10 Non-Vacant Residential:
Duplex
0.23 55 Non-Res
W/Redev.
Menlo Park Between Chestnut and Curtis (Site
#9)
94025 071284100 26 0 0 0 Shortfall of
Sites
0.59 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 22 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 0.59 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Between Chestnut and Curtis (Site
#9)
94025 071284080 0000 Shortfall of
Sites
0.10 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 4 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 0.10 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Between Crane and Chestnut (Site
#10)
94025 071283140 38 0 0 0 Shortfall of
Sites
1.00 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D
(Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 38 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 1.00 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park 325 Sharon Park Drive (Site #11) 94025 074283100 24 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
7.00 Retail/Commercial C2 Retail/Commercial C2 w/ AHO 0 30 45 Non-Vacant Shopping Center
1.00 55 Non-Res
W/Carve
Menlo Park 345 Middlefield Road (Site #12) 94025 062390700 89 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
12.00 Public Facilities PF Public Facilities PF w/ AHO 0 30 89 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 3.00 55 Non-Res W/Carve Menlo Park 345 Middlefield Road (Site #12) 94025 062421070 0000 Shortfall of Sites
5.00 Public Facilities PF Public Facilities PF w/ AHO 0 30 0 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.00 55 Non-Res W/Carve Menlo Park 1105 Valparaiso Avenue (Site #13) 94025 071071070 0 10 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
4.86 Very Low Density
Residential
RE Very Low Density
Residential
RE w/ AHO 1 30 18 Non-Vacant Church 0.40 55 Religious
Facilities
Menlo Park Lot between El Camino Real and
Chestnut on west side of Santa Cruz (Site #14)
94025 071102400 86 0 0 0 Shortfall of
Sites
2.28 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific Plan
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 86 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 2.28 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Lot between University and Crane
on west side of Santa Cruz (Site #15)
94025 071092290 75 0 0 0 Shortfall of
Sites
1.99 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific Plan
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 75 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 1.99 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Lot between Evelyn and Crane
(Site #16)
94025 071281160 38 0 0 0 Shortfall of
Sites
1.00 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 38 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 1.00 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Lot between Curtis and Doyle (Site
#17)
94025 071285160 38 0 0 0 Shortfall of
Sites
1.00 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 38 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 1.00 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Lot behind Draegers (Site #18) 94025 071273160 23 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.62 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 23 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 0.62 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park Lot off Oak Grove (Site #19) 94025 071094180 21 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.56 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 21 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 0.56 55 Parking Lots
Menlo Park 275 Middlefield Road (Site #20) 94025 062422120 0 49 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
8.20 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 w/ AHO 0 30 89 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.00 55 Non-Res W/Carve Menlo Park 350 Sharon Park Drive (Site #21) 94025 074281120 0 0 45 0 Shortfall of Sites
10.90 Medium Density
Residential
R3A(X) Medium Density
Residential
R3A(X) w/ AHO 1 50 45 Non-Vacant Residential:
Five or More
1.00 55 Underutilized
Res.
Menlo Park 85 Willow Road (Site #22) 94025 062422080 0 77 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
3.16 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 w/ AHO 0 30 141 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 3.16 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 200 Middlefield Road (Site #23) 94025 062271540 0 50 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
2.03 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 w/ AHO 0 30 91 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.03 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 250 Middlefield Road (Site #24) 94025 062271010 0 49 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
2.03 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 w/ AHO 0 30 91 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.03 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 8 Homewood Road (Site #25) 94025 062421010 0 49 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
2.01 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1 w/ AHO 0 30 90 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 2.01 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 401 Burgess Road (Site #26) 94025 062390170 0 12 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.50 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A w/ AHO 0 30 22 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 0.50 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 570 Willow Road (Site #27) 94025 062370420 0 25 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.01 Retail/Commercial C4 Retail/Commercial C4 w/ AHO 0 30 45 Non-Vacant Hospital 1.01 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 2200 Sand Hill Road (Site #28) 94025 074283070 0 51 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
2.11 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1(X) Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1(X) w/ AHO 0 30 94 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.11 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 445 Burgess Drive (Site #29) 94025 062390200 0 0 10 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.40 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A w/ AHO 0 30 18 Non-Vacant Professional
Building
0.40 55 Non-Res
W/Redev.
Menlo Park 720 Menlo Avenue (Site #30) 94025 071284110 25 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.67 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: D) w/ AHO
20 40 25 Non-Vacant Supermarket 0.67 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 800 Oak Grove Avenue (Site #31) 94025 071091520 29 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.78 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 29 Non-Vacant Financial 0.78 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 930 Santa Cruz Avenue (Site #32) 94025 071084140 23 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.62 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 23 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 0.62 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 1008 University Drive (Site #33) 94025 071274140 21 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.56 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 21 Non-Vacant Parking Lot 0.56 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 707 Menlo Road (Site #34) 94025 071288610 19 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.52 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 19 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 0.52 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 1300 University Drive (Site #35) 94025 071091310 19 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.50 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: DA) w/ AHO
20 30 19 Non-Vacant Professional
Building
0.50 55 El Camino-Dtwn
ATTACHMENT L
Page C-1.152
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Type of Shortfall Parcel Size (Acres) Current General Plan Designation Current Zoning Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Total Capacity Vacant/ Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses Optional Information 1 (Developable Acreage) Optional Information 2 (AHO Density) Optional Information 3 (Site Category) Menlo Park 1377 El Camino Real (Site #36) 94025 071103490 31 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.82 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NW) w/ AHO
20 40 31 Non-Vacant Store 0.82 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 855 El Camino Real (Site #37) 94025 071331180 51 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.36 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 51 Non-Vacant Shopping
Center
1.36 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 320 Sheridan Drive (Site #38) 94025 055303110 0 0 41 0 Shortfall of Sites
2.60 Low Density Residential R1U Low Density Residential R3 1 20 41 Vacant Vacant Land 2.60 20 Vacant Land Menlo Park 2250 Avy Avenue (Site #39) 94025 074351100 0700 Shortfall of Sites
3.94 Low Density Residential R1S Low Density Residential R1S w/ AHO 1 30 13 Non-Vacant Church 0.30 55 Religious Facilities
Menlo Park 2650 Sand Hill Road (Site #40) 94025 074260740 0 12 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
4.14 Low Density Residential R1S Low Density Residential R1S w/ AHO 1 30 22 Non-Vacant Religious Facility
0.50 55 Religious
Facilities
Menlo Park 431 Burgess Drive (Site #41) 94025 062390190 0060 Shortfall of Sites
0.24 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A w/ AHO 0 30 11 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 0.24 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 425 Burgess Drive (Site #42) 94025 062390180 0060 Shortfall of Sites
0.24 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A w/ AHO 0 30 11 Non-Vacant Professional
Building
0.24 55 Non-Res
W/Redev.
Menlo Park 1149 El Camino Real (Site #43) 94025 071102130 22 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.54 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W) w/ AHO
20 60 22 Non-Vacant Store 0.54 60 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1436 El Camino Real (Site #44) 94025 061422350 26 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.69 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NE)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NE) w/ AHO
20 40 26 Non-Vacant Service Shop 0.69 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 796 Live Oak Avenue (Site #46) 94025 071288560 0 15 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.63 Medium Density
Residential
R3 Medium Density
Residential
R3 w/ AHO 1 30 28 Non-Vacant Residential:
Five or More
0.63 55 Underutilized
Res.
Menlo Park 555 Willow Road (Site #47) 94025 062285300 0 0 10 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.42 Medium Density
Residential
R3 Medium Density
Residential
R3 w/ AHO 1 30 19 Non-Vacant Store 0.42 55 Underutilized Res.
Menlo Park 700 El Camino Real (Site #48) 94025 071333200 82 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
6.20 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SE)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SE) w/ AHO
20 60 82 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.00 60 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 2722 Sand Hill Road (Site #49) 94025 074260750 0 0 49 0 Shortfall of Sites
10.93 Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A Professional and
Administrative Offices
C1A w/ AHO 0 30 89 Non-Vacant Office: MultiStory 2.00 55 Non-Res W/Carve Menlo Park 600 Sharon Park Drive (Site #50) 94025 074282070 0 45 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
3.66 Medium Density
Residential
R3A(X) Medium Density
Residential
R3A(X) w/ AHO 1 50 45 Non-Vacant Residential:
Five or More
1.00 55 Underutilized
Res.
Menlo Park 959 El Camino Real (Site #51) 94025 071288210 0040 Shortfall of Sites
0.11 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 4 Non-Vacant Store 0.11 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1246 El Camino Real (Site #52) 94025 061430070 0080 Shortfall of Sites
0.22 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NE-R)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: NE-R) w/ AHO
20 50 8 Non-Vacant Restaurant 0.22 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1189 El Camino Real (Site #53) 94025 071102350 0050 Shortfall of Sites
0.12 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W) w/ AHO
20 60 5 Non-Vacant Store 0.12 60 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 607 Menlo Avenue (Site #54) 94025 071288190 0080 Shortfall of Sites
0.22 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 8 Non-Vacant Store & Office 0.22 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 1161 El Camino Real (Site #55) 94025 071102390 0050 Shortfall of Sites
0.13 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W) w/ AHO
20 60 5 Non-Vacant Indoor
Recreation
0.13 60 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 1179 El Camino Real (Site #56) 94025 071102370 0070 Shortfall of Sites
0.17 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W) w/ AHO
20 60 7 Non-Vacant Store 0.17 60 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 761 El Camino Real (Site #57) 94025 071332080 0 0 11 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.30 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 11 Non-Vacant Restaurant 0.30 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 751 El Camino Real (Site #58) 94025 071332090 0 0 11 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.30 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 11 Non-Vacant Restaurant 0.30 55 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 905 El Camino Real (Site #59) 94025 071288580 0 0 12 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.33 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SW) w/ AHO
20 40 12 Non-Vacant Store & Office 0.33 55 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 335 Pierce Road (Site #60) 94025 062013170 0090 Shortfall of Sites
0.13 Medium Density
Residential
R3 Medium Density
Residential
R3 w/ AHO 1 30 6 Non-Vacant Residential:
Fourplex
0.13 55 Underutilized
Res.
Menlo Park 335 Pierce Road (Site #60) 94025 062013230 0000 Shortfall of Sites
0.24 Medium Density
Residential
R3 Medium Density
Residential
R3 w/ AHO 1 30 11 Non-Vacant Vacant Land 0.24 55 Underutilized Res.
Menlo Park 610 Santa Cruz Avenue (Site #61) 94025 071102140 0 0 13 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.32 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA W) w/ AHO
20 60 13 Non-Vacant Store & Office 0.32 60 El Camino-Dtwn Menlo Park 550 Ravenswood Avenue (Site
#62)
94025 061412160 0 0 17 0 Shortfall of
Sites
0.42 El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA E)
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific
SP-ECR-D (Subarea: SA E) w/ AHO
20 60 17 Non-Vacant Supermarket 0.42 60 El Camino-Dtwn
Menlo Park 795 Willow Road (Site #64) 94025 062470060 60 0 0 0 Shortfall of Sites
90.00 Public Facilities PF Public Facilities PF w/ AHO 0 30 60 Non-Vacant Hospital 2.10 55 Non-Res W/Carve
Menlo Park 3905 Bohannon Drive (Site #67) 94025 055253140 0 0 25 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.01 Bayfront Innovation Area O Bayfront Innovation Area O w/ AHO 0 30 45 Non-Vacant Warehouse 1.01 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 3925 Bohannon Drive (Site #68) 94025 055253150 0 0 26 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.05 Bayfront Innovation Area O Bayfront Innovation Area O w/ AHO 0 30 47 Non-Vacant Warehouse 1.05 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 4005 Bohannon Drive (Site #69) 94025 055253240 0 0 16 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.64 Bayfront Innovation Area O Bayfront Innovation Area O w/ AHO 0 30 29 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 0.64 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 4025 Bohannon Drive (Site #70) 94025 055253190 0 0 24 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.00 Bayfront Innovation Area O Bayfront Innovation Area O w/ AHO 0 30 45 Non-Vacant Office: SingleStory 1.00 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 4055 Bohannon Drive (Site #71) 94025 055253030 0 0 42 0 Shortfall of Sites
1.72 Bayfront Innovation Area O Bayfront Innovation Area O w/ AHO 0 30 77 Non-Vacant Warehouse 1.72 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Menlo Park 4060 Campbell Avenue (Site #72) 94025 055253200 0 0 20 0 Shortfall of Sites
0.82 Bayfront Innovation Area O Bayfront Innovation Area O w/ AHO 0 30 37 Non-Vacant Warehouse 0.82 55 Non-Res W/Redev.
Page C-1.153
CITY OF MENLO PARK HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Prepared for November 2023
City of Menlo Park
ATTACHMENT M Page C-1.154
CITY OF MENLO PARK HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Prepared for November 2023
City of Menlo Park
575 Market Street
Suite 3700
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.896.5900
esassoc.com
Atlanta
Bend
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Rancho Cucamonga
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
Thousand Oaks
D202100009
Page C-1.155
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update i ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update
Addendum to the Program Subsequent EIR
Page
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 CEQA Requirements for an EIR Addendum ....................................................................... 1 Certified SEIR ........................................................................................................................ 2 Revised HEU.......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 Proposed Revisions to the 2023 HEU............................................................................ 5 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................... 6 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................... 9 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 10 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 11 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 12 Energy.......................................................................................................................... 14 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity..................................................................................... 14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 15 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 17 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 18 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................ 19 Noise and Vibration...................................................................................................... 21 Population and Housing............................................................................................... 22 Public Services and Recreation ................................................................................... 24 Transportation.............................................................................................................. 24 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 27 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................... 28 Wildfire......................................................................................................................... 30 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 31 Figures
Figure 1 Housing Opportunity and Land Use Strategy Sites............................................... 7 Tables
Table 1 Proposed Unit Count Changes by TAZ................................................................. 8 Page C-1.156
Table of Contents
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update ii ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 This page intentionally left blank
Page C-1.157
Introduction
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 1 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Introduction
In 2016, the City of Menlo Park (City) updated its General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements (referred to as ConnectMenlo) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan update (ConnectMenlo EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 20150622054). On January 31, 2023, the City of Menlo Park City Council adopted an updated 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element to its General Plan and certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which incorporated and relied on the previously certified ConnectMenlo EIR. The SEIR assessed the environmental effects of further updates to the City’s General Plan; notably, adoption of an update to the General Plan Housing Element in accordance with the requirements of State law. The SEIR also supported adoption of an update to the General Plan Safety Element and a new Environmental Justice Element and was written to support later adoption of amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, El Camino Real/ Downtown Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map intended to implement the 2023- 2031 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Since the SEIR’s certification, the City has determined that further enhancements to the adopted 2023 Housing Element Update (HEU) are needed to provide additional housing opportunities in the city and to further the City’s commitment to the provision of affordable housing through amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map. This Addendum assesses whether the proposed revisions to the 2023 HEU would create any new or substantially greater significant environmental impacts than those that were assessed in the SEIR.
The SEIR analyzed whether implementation of the goals, policies, programs, zoning changes, and housing strategies contained within the 2023 HEU would result in significant impacts to the environment. The SEIR imposed mitigation measures to reduce the significant impacts that were identified. This Addendum finds that the proposed enhancements to the 2023 HEU would not result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts than those that were identified and assessed in the SEIR and the ConnectMenlo EIR. This Addendum also reaffirms that the SEIR’s mitigation measures, which would reduce significant impacts, would continue to be implemented as part of the revised HEU. Consequently, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, a subsequent EIR is not required for the proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map and the City Council may adopt this Addendum in fulfillment of its obligations under CEQA.
CEQA Requirements for an EIR Addendum
As described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously adopted EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The following identifies the standards set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Page C-1.158
Certified SEIR
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 2 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Section 15162, for which the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration would be required:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Thus, if the revised 2023 HEU would not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), an Addendum to the SEIR would be appropriate and no subsequent EIR would be required. As demonstrated in the analysis herein, this assessment concludes that an Addendum to the SEIR is appropriate.
Certified SEIR
The City of Menlo Park certified an SEIR for the 2023 HEU (State Clearinghouse No. 20150622054) on January 31, 2023.1 The SEIR concluded that, at a program level, the impacts of future development and policies included in the HEU would all be reduced to less‐than‐ significant levels, except for:
Air Quality Impact AQ-2: Implementation of the HEU would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which the project region is in non1 The Draft and Final SEIRs can be viewed at the following location: https://menlopark.gov/Government/ Departments/Community-Development/Planning-Division/Comprehensive-planning/Housing-Element/2023-2031- Housing-Element-Update.
Page C-1.159
Revised HEU
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 3 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Significant and Unavoidable Impact, with Mitigation).
Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Implementation of the HEU could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an architectural historic resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact, with Mitigation)
Cultural Resources Impact CR-4: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to historic architectural resources (Significant and Unavoidable Impact, with Mitigation)
Transportation Impact TRANS-1: Implementation of the HEU would conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) Transportation Impact TRANS-2: Implementation of the HEU would exceed an applicable VMT threshold of significance (Significant and Unavoidable Impact, with Mitigation)
Transportation Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the HEU, in combination with cumulative development, would conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact)
Transportation Impact TRANS-6: Implementation of the HEU, in combination with cumulative development, would exceed an applicable VMT threshold of significance (Significant and Unavoidable Impact, with Mitigation)
No feasible mitigation measures were identified for these impacts that could reduce impacts to less-than‐significant levels. Therefore, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 when certifying the SEIR to explain why the HEU was being approved, despite significant and unavoidable impacts.
Revised HEU
Introduction
2023 Housing Element Update
State law requires every city and county in California to have an adopted comprehensive longrange general plan with specific contents in order to provide a vision for the jurisdiction’s future.
The general plan is an overarching policy document that informs local decisions about land use and development.
The City began the process to update its Housing Element in 2020. The City maintains an ongoing commitment to providing meaningful community engagement and has been using social Page C-1.160
Revised HEU
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 4 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 media, posters and flyers, a website, in-person engagement, one-on-one interviews and listening sessions, surveys, and meetings to share information and gather insights for the update of the Housing Element. The HEU was adopted on January 31, 2023 and included several principal provisions, as summarized below.
Housing Goals, Policies and Programs
The adopted 2023 HEU includes updated goals, policies, and programs to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and to affirmatively further fair housing in the City. The updates to the goals, policies, and programs in the HEU were informed by a review of the implementation and effectiveness of the previous Housing Element (adopted in 2015), as well as updated information on demographic and economic trends, existing housing and market conditions, and special housing needs experienced by disabled persons, elderly households, large family households, single female-headed households, and homeless persons. The HEU’s goals, policies, and programs were also crafted to address an updated assessment of non-governmental and governmental constraints to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing in the City, and to affirmatively further fair housing.
Housing Sites Inventory
The 2023 HEU identified specific sites appropriate for development of housing (in particular affordable units), and the City would rezone those sites, as necessary, to meet the requirements of State law. The final housing opportunity sites inventory was refined based on additional community input and analysis. The SEIR evaluated potential environmental effects of adding up to 4,000 new residential units in the City within the HEU’s eight-year planning period through 2031 via a variety of strategies in addition to possible pipeline projects and accessory dwelling units.
Housing Sites Inventory Strategies
While pipeline projects (i.e., projects for which a development application has been received or are otherwise reasonably foreseeable) are generally located on the north side of US-101, the 2023 HEU identified additional housing sites that were geographically dispersed throughout the City, primarily located in City Council Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5—generally, the areas south of US-101.
The sites were identified as being available for multifamily housing through a combination of rezoning, increased densities, and/or updates to the Zoning Ordinance based on the following general strategies:
• “Re-use” of sites from the City’s previous Housing Element. The Housing Sites Inventory would reuse selected sites from the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2025-2023) with densities to allow at least 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and possibly more. Consistent with State law, sites that were “re-used” would either be up-zoned (increasing allowable residential density) or would be zoned to allow by-right (ministerial review) development for projects that include at least 20 percent affordable units (units affordable to low and very low-income households).
• Increase the permitted densities within the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area and modify associated development standards. The 2023 HEU’s Housing Sites Inventory included sites in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area. The HEU allowed at least 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) as the base level density, and potentially Page C-1.161
Revised HEU
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 5 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 increased the maximum bonus level density to 80 dwelling units per acre depending on the location within the Specific Plan area. Under the HEU, bonus level development would require a developer to provide a public benefit in exchange for higher density development potential. The intent of this strategy was also to remove the existing residential cap of 680 units permitted in the Specific Plan area and to modify development standards such as height and/or parking ratios to allow greater development potential on parcels. • Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay. The 2023 HEU provided that Specific Plan area and sites in the Housing Sites Inventory would be rezoned to include the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) provided in Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 16.98. The HEU called on the City to amend the Code to allow for densities up to 100 du/ac for 100 percent affordable housing developments (meaning 100 percent of units would be available to low and very lowincome residents). This strategy also included provisions for increased residential densities for mixed-income developments (market-rate units and affordable units combined) where the percentage of affordable housing exceeds the City’s Below Market Rate requirement as provided in Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 16.96.
• Modify Retail/Commercial Zoning Districts. The Housing Sites Inventory included some sites in the C-1, C-1-A, C-1-C, C-2, C-2-A, C-2-B, C-2-S, C-4, and P zoning districts and required the City to modify Code provisions regarding retail/commercial zoning districts to allow for residential uses that would allow 30 du/ac and include other potential modifications to the development standards to encourage the production of mixed-use developments (residential and non-residential uses combined).
• Remove the minimum lot size for R-3 zoned properties located around downtown. The Housing Sites Inventory included some R-3 zoned sites around downtown and required the City to modify applicable Code provisions to remove the 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size, which would allow all sites in the R-3 area around downtown a residential density of up to 30 du/ac.
Proposed Revisions to the 2023 HEU
This Addendum assesses the effects of adopting several enhancements to the 2023 HEU as currently adopted and assessed in the SEIR. The City is considering additional Specific Plan and zoning modifications for increased densities as part of revising the 2023 HEU, as requested by the City Council. The general changes that would be implemented for the Housing Element-related Specific Plan and zoning updates, as summarized in the housing strategies discussed above, would be:
• Increase the permitted densities in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area from current maximum base densities of up to 50 du/ac and bonus densities of up to 60 du/ac to maximum base densities of up to 60 du/ac and bonus densities of up to 100 du/ac or more, with corresponding increases in floor area ratio (FAR) and height. • Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow more than 100 du/ac for 100 percent affordable housing developments (meaning 100 percent of units would be available to residents at the low-income and lower affordability levels) when used in combination with state density bonus law, and a potential increase in densities for mixed-income developments where the percentage of affordable housing exceeds the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirement.
Page C-1.162
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 6 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 In addition, the City is considering modifying the zoning of the Sharon Heights Shopping Center (located at 325 Sharon Park Drive) to allow a height increase from the existing 30 feet maximum to an up to 80 feet maximum, with a potential corresponding increase in density from a maximum of 30 du/ac to up to 100 du/ac or more.
Collectively, these Specific Plan and zoning changes would result in a potential net increase of 862 dwelling units through 2031, with a portion of the increase (142 units) in City Council District 5, which includes Sharon Heights, and 720 units elsewhere in the City. Figure 1 shows the locations of the various opportunity sites and land use strategy sites identified in the HEU.
Table 1 provides additional detail concerning the potential changes to unit counts by transportation analysis zone (TAZ). In three TAZs, the revised number of units decreased compared to the original unit count due to the removal of certain inventory sites based on City Council direction and reduced expectations for housing development in those TAZs.
Impact Analysis
As described above, the revised housing sites inventory and land use strategies are expected to result in potential production of approximately 862 additional units above the 4,499 units2 evaluated in the SEIR, for a total of 5,361 units. The analysis in this Addendum addresses whether these changes to the HEU and/or new circumstances relevant to the project would, as compared to the previously certified SEIR, result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than the significant impacts previously disclosed. The Addendum also considers if there is new information of substantial importance showing that the revised project would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed. Finally, the Addendum considers whether any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects identified in the SEIR, necessitating preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
This Addendum evaluates each topic addressed in the SEIR. The SEIR determined that there would be no impact to agricultural, forestry, and mineral resources potentially resulting from the HEU. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the SEIR included a brief discussion indicating the reasons why these topics were not discussed in detail (SEIR Section 4.18).
Accordingly, this Addendum does not include impact analysis sections for agricultural, forestry, and mineral resources since there would be no change that would necessitate preparation of these analyses.
2 As shown in Table 3-5 of the SEIR, the 2023 HEU as evaluated in the SEIR would provide for 4,000 additional units, 85 ADU’s, and 414 pending project units, for a total of 4,499 units.
Page C-1.163
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Jefferson
Ave
Selby Ln
Marsh Rd
Main
St
Atherton Ave
Bay Rd
Bay Rd
E Bayshore Rd
Alameda
de las Pulgas
Woodside Rd
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
Bayshore Fwy
Bayshore Fwy
280
Alpine
Rd
Sand Hill Rd
Junipero Serra Blvd
Junipero Serra Fwy
114
84 Willow
Rd
U
niver sity Ave
Pulgas Ave
Middlefield Rd
Embarcadero Rd
Bayshore Fwy
Dumbarton Brg
Middlefield Rd
Arastradero Rd
Stanford
Ave
Page Mill Rd
El Camino Real
Alma St
Foothill
Expy
Oregon Expy
£¤101
¨¦§280
ÅÄ82
ÅÄ84
San Francisco Bay
Palo Alto
Atherton
East Palo
Alto
Los Altos Los Altos
Hills
Mountain
View
Stanford University
Portola Valley
Redwood City
Woodside
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100009_MenloPark_HEU_Update_EIR\03_MXDs_Projects\MenloPark_HEU\MenloPark_HEU.aprx Fig3-3_OpportunitySites, EPimentel 8/17/2022 SOURCE: Esri, 2022; M-Group, 2022; ESA, 2022
N
0 1
Miles
City of Menlo Park
Housing Opportunity Sites
Retail Commercial Parcels
R3 Upzoned Parcels
Specific Plan Parcels
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Menlo Park Housing Element Update SEIR Addendum
Figure 1
Housing Opportunity and Land Use Strategy Sites
Page C-1.164
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 8 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 TABLE 1: PROPOSED UNIT COUNT CHANGES BY TAZ
TAZ Original Unit Count Revised Unit Count Change
3001 75 111 36
3003 283 422 139
3004 8 13 5
3006 100 90 -10
3007 0 0 0
3009 28 0 -28
3016 11 18 7
3019 76 76 0
3020 0 0 0
3021 41 51 10
3022 21 21 0
3023 160 200 40
3024 185 310 125
3025 313 518 205
3026 199 199 0
3027 371 421 50
3028 60 73 13
3029 54 54 0
3030 83 96 13
3031 60 82 22
3033 41 62 21
3034 0 0 0
3035 22 37 15
3036 0 0 0
3037 177 245 68
3038 0 0 0
3039 11 17 6
3040 18 18 0
3041 56 67 11
3044 49 72 23
3046 155 230 75
3048 780 810 30
3049 3 3 0
3050 18 18 0
3051 133 193 60
3056 30 45 15
3057 74 81 7
3058 38 56 18
3060 25 25 0
3061 85 85 0
3062 427 280 -147
3063 10 10 0
3064 8 17 9
3065 0 0 0
3066 0 0 0
3074 0 0 0
3080 99 123 24
TOTAL 4,387 5,249 862
Page C-1.165
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 9 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Aesthetics
In the same manner as the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR, the SEIR determined that aesthetic impacts from the 2023 HEU would be less than significant. This finding was supported by the absence of designated scenic vistas, scenic resources, and State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the housing development sites. Further, the housing development sites would all be located in areas that are already fully urbanized, and future development associated with the 2023 HEU would be consistent with the already-urbanized setting. In addition, the SEIR found that potential future development in the City would be subject to the City’s existing architectural control process, in accordance with Section 16.68.020 of the Zoning Ordinance and would be required to comply with existing design standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and identified in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan. In addition, the SEIR identified General Plan goals and policies (see Section 4.1.3 of the SEIR) that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to aesthetic resources, including scenic vistas.
With respect to potential impacts from new sources of substantial light and glare, the SEIR found that numerous General Plan policies and development regulations are already in place to avoid significant impacts from light and glare. These include general best management practices that require lighting that is context sensitive in style and intensity required under the California Green Building Standards Code of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. The SEIR found that new development in the City would also be required to comply with General Plan policies that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels that would spill on to adjacent sensitive receptors and reduce light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses. For example, Policy LU‐2.3 requires that the City allow mixed‐use projects with residential units if the project design addresses potential compatibility issues such as light spillover. Policy LU‐4.3 requires the City to limit parking, traffic, and other impacts of mixed-use and nonresidential development on adjacent uses and promote high‐quality architectural design and effective transportation options. Policy LU‐6.8 requires the City to encourage extensive and appropriate landscaping in public and private development to maintain the City’s tree canopy, which would buffer new development with landscaping and trees. Policy OSC‐1.15 requires the protection of Heritage Trees, including during construction activities, through enforcement of the Heritage Tree Ordinance (Chapter 13.24 of the Municipal Code). The preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development and glare generated by windows of multistory buildings in the areas of Menlo Park with mature trees. Accordingly, the SEIR determined that impacts related to adverse light and glare would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The revisions to the HEU being assessed in this Addendum would not change these findings. The sites under consideration for higher density development are the same as those evaluated in the SEIR, so the same conclusions as to the absence of scenic resources and the existing urbanized development context remain the same. While the greater development densities under consideration for certain areas could increase building heights, the same General Plan policies and development regulations would still apply to any development in the City and would effectively address the potential for adverse aesthetic effects. Therefore, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related Page C-1.166
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 10 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 to aesthetics than previously disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR or the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects related to aesthetics not previously discussed in the two previous EIRs. For these reasons, impacts related to aesthetics from the proposed HEU revisions would not require the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration or EIR.
Air Quality
In the same manner as the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR, the 2023 SEIR determined that the 2023 HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which is the currently applicable air quality plan for the project area. This finding was based on the HEU’s required compliance with applicable Clean Air Plan regulations related to transportation, energy, building construction and operation, and water conservation. These same requirements would apply to the revised HEU. The SEIR concluded that the HEU would generally result in dense multifamily housing with many units being located close to transit and/or bicycle/pedestrian facilities and would support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan through continued implementation of numerous existing regulations that have been established for new developments throughout the City of Menlo Park. These same conclusions are applicable to the revised HEU and would remain unchanged from the conclusions reached in the SEIR.
The SEIR found that the 2023 HEU would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment. The SEIR determined that the HEU’s effects related to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in relation to population growth would be positive, and that the HEU’s operation effects would also be positive based on the HEU’s higher residential densities and subsequent reductions in VMT and most operational emissions. However, the SEIR also determined that criteria pollutant emissions during construction could exceed applicable thresholds, particularly for larger projects. The SEIR therefore conservatively determined that the HEU’s effects could be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. These same findings would apply to the revised HEU. The HEU’s air quality benefits related to VMT reductions and favorable operational effects would still occur.
However, criteria emissions exceedances during construction could still occur at similar levels documented in the SEIR.
With respect to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollution concentrations, both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR found that impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
This is a function of the housing opportunity sites locations and their lack of proximity to sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as high-volume roadways and other sources. To conservatively address any worst-case scenarios that could arise during a project’s construction, the SEIR prescribed mitigations for future HEU residential projects that could be potentially located near sensitive receptors and exceed applicable standards. The SEIR determined that implementation of these measures would effectively reduce TAC emissions from off-road, diesel construction equipment, and that the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. These same mitigations would also apply to the revised HEU, and the impact would accordingly be less than significant, the same as that found in the SEIR.
Page C-1.167
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 11 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR found that the HEU would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. This is a function of the fact that the residential uses associated with the HEU would not include uses such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composing stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants that are known to create substantial odor sources. Since the revised HEU would also not include these types of odorproducing uses, this same finding would also apply to the revised HEU, the same as that found in the SEIR.
In summary, the air quality impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR.
While the increase in potential new units could result in additional construction, the incremental increase in emissions would not materially change the impact conclusions or mitigations in the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to air quality than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions.
For these reasons, impacts related to air quality from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Biological Resources
The SEIR found that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. This is largely a function of the urbanized nature of the HEU’s housing opportunity sites and the general lack of sensitive resources thereon. However, the SEIR conservatively carried over the mitigations from the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR that prescribed biological resources assessments of individual residential projects and listed required protocols and processes for avoiding significant effects to biological resources such as sensitive species, riparian communities, sensitive natural communities, wildlife corridors, native nursery sites, and wetlands that could be present on individual sites. The revised HEU would not introduce any new sites that have not already been evaluated in the SEIR, so it can therefore be determined that these same findings would still be applicable and that the revised HEU’s impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, the same as that found in the SEIR.
The ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR both determined that there would be no conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Both EIRs noted that with adherence to General Plan goals and policies in the Land Use Element, Open Space/Conservation Element, the Noise and Safety Element, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, and Municipal Code Chapters
12.44, Water-Efficient Landscaping and 13.4, Heritage Trees, no conflicts with local plans and policies would occur, resulting in a less than significant impact. As above, the revised HEU would not introduce any new sites that have not already been evaluated in the SEIR, so it can Page C-1.168
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 12 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 therefore be determined that these same findings would still be applicable and that the revised HEU’s impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, the same as that found in the SEIR.
In summary, the biological resources impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR.
Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to biological resources than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to biological resources from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Cultural Resources
Historical Resources
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR evaluated potential impacts to historical resources including historic buildings. It determined that although General Plan polices were in place to identify and protect historic buildings, there was still a potential for future development to cause a significant impact on historical resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 was prescribed, which required evaluation and recordation of buildings more than 50 years old and required that the characterdefining features of buildings deemed eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources be preserved. The measure essentially precludes demolition of eligible structures, which the City concluded was unlikely to present a substantial constraint on development in the Bayfront Area (the area north of US-101 that was the focus of ConnectMenlo) since the area was determined to contain no such structures. However, as determined in the SEIR, development under the HEU would have the potential to result in more severe impacts since it covers the entire City of Menlo Park, whereas the ConnectMenlo EIR was restricted to the Bayfront Area. As described in the SEIR, of the 74 potential housing opportunity sites, one includes a National Register-listed property3
, 10 are vacant (no buildings are present), and 24 have buildings that are historic-era that have not yet been evaluated. It is also likely that there are additional historic resources outside of the housing opportunity sites, but within the boundary of the City. Furthermore, in the future additional sites and buildings may qualify for consideration (i.e., 45 years old or older) as historic resources at the time they are proposed for redevelopment.
The SEIR prescribed mitigation to address this potentially significant impact. The measures required evaluations of age-eligible buildings, identification of character-defining features, and recordation of identified historic resources prior to demolition or alteration. Ultimately, however, 3 As indicated in Section 4.4.2 of the SEIR, the NRHP-listed property is the Menlo Park Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center complex at 795 Willow Road. Proposals have been advanced to place housing on undeveloped portions of the site, or in parking areas. No direct impacts to listed structures are proposed at the site.
Page C-1.169
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 13 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 the SEIR found that even with implementation of these requirements, historic resources could still be lost, which would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Since the revised HEU concerns the same sites as those evaluated in the SEIR, this same finding is therefore also applicable to the revised HEU. That is, the loss of identified historic resources resulting from residential development under the revised HEU would have a significant and unavoidable impact, even with mitigation. This finding is identical to that found in the SEIR.
Archaeological Resources
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant, with mitigation. This finding was based on the lack of known archaeological resources in the Bayfront Area, which was a focus of the ConnectMenlo project, together with standard compliance regulations concerning the treatment of previously unknown archaeological resources if discovered during project construction. The ConnectMenlo EIR prescribed mitigations to ensure compliance with these requirements and thus determined that the project’s effects would be less than significant, with mitigation.
The SEIR noted that the 2016 mitigation measures did not conform with current best practices with respect to inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources and human remains. The measures were therefore updated to conform to the most current standards, and included requirements related to cultural resources investigations, subsequent treatment protocols, and the treatment of resources and human remains if found during construction. The SEIR ultimately determined that the HEU’s impacts would be less than significant, with mitigation.
Since the revised HEU concerns the same sites as those evaluated in the SEIR, this same finding is therefore also applicable to the revised HEU. That is, the impacts to archaeological resources and human remains from residential development under the revised HEU would be less than significant, with mitigation. This finding is identical to that found in the SEIR.
Conclusion
In summary, the cultural resources impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR.
Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to cultural resources than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to cultural resources from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Page C-1.170
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 14 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Energy
Preparation of the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR predated the inclusion of energy as a topic in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. While some elements of energy use were evaluated in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of that EIR, the issues discussed were considerably different from those now listed under the revised Appendix G checklist. Therefore, the SEIR did not evaluate the HEU’s impacts against those evaluated in the ConnectMenlo EIR. Rather, the SEIR evaluated the HEU’s effects as measured against the thresholds defined in the Appendix G checklist in effect at the time of the SEIR’s preparation. That analysis found that the HEU’s impacts with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and conflicts with state and local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant. This finding was based on compliance with applicable local and State policies and regulations, such as those related to energy-efficient construction equipment, building codes, and household appliances. The SEIR also found that the HEU’s favorable effects related to VMT would further reduce the HEU’s energy impacts. Finally, the SEIR also noted that the HEU would also be required to comply with greenhouse gas emissions mitigations (see the analysis of that topic below), which would ensure that all future projects proposed for development under the HEU would be consistent with the BAAQMD’s updated GHG thresholds and would further reduce use of gasoline and diesel fuels during operation.
These same findings would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply, as would compliance with prescribed GHG mitigations. The energy impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR.
Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to energy use than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions.
For these reasons, impacts related to energy from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR determined that required compliance with numerous existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies that govern the required geotechnical testing of geotechnical conditions at building sites and the development of geotechnical recommendations to address seismic shaking and seismic-induced ground failures would ensure structures are designed to withstand seismic shaking and seismic-induced ground failures. Accordingly, both EIRs determined that project implementation would result in less‐ than‐significant impacts with respect to the seismic shaking and seismic-induced ground failures.
These same requirements and findings would also apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
Page C-1.171
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 15 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Similarly, the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR both determined that required compliance with numerous existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies that govern construction activities and the design of erosion prevention measures would prevent substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Accordingly, both EIRs determined that project implementation would result in less‐ than‐significant impacts with respect to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. These same findings apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
Both the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR also determined that compliance with existing laws, regulations, and standard design and engineering protocols would effectively address potential effects related to unstable geologic units, unstable soils, expansive soils, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence (i.e., settlement), liquefaction, and collapse. These same findings apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
The ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR also evaluated project effects on paleontological resources, and both EIRs found that the impact would be less than significant. The analysis in both documents pointed to existing regulations that address impacts to these resources, and also prescribed mitigations to address inadvertent finding of paleontological resources during construction. The prescribed measure would provide a mechanism to stop work in the event that a paleontological resource is discovered and enable an evaluation of the discovery by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist would be qualified to determine the significance of the find and would prepare and implement an excavation plan to preserve the paleontological resource, if significant. Both EIRs determined that implementation of the prescribed measure would reduce the significance of the impact to a Less than Significant Impact, with Mitigation. This same finding would apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
Each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The geology and soils impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to geology and soils than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to geology and soils from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR determined that the proposed General Plan Update would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions from existing conditions by the proposed General Plan horizon year 2040 and would not achieve the 2040 efficiency target, based on a trajectory to the 2050 goal of an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels pursuant to Executive Order (EO) S‐03‐05.
Page C-1.172
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 16 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 The EIR determined that additional state and federal actions would be necessary to ensure that state and federally regulated sources (i.e., sources outside the City’s jurisdictional control) take similar aggressive measures to ensure the deep cuts needed to achieve the 2050 target. The ConnectMenlo EIR identified mitigation measures requiring the City to update its Climate Action Plan prior to January 1, 2020 to address the GHG reduction goals and set targets to comply with EO B-30-15 and EO S-03-05 for GHG sectors that the City has direct or indirect jurisdictional control over. The City adopted an updated 2030 Climate Action Plan in July 2020.
The SEIR determined that GHG emissions from housing development allowed under the HEU and development of associated infrastructure to support that development would result in both direct and indirect emissions from construction and operational activities. Direct GHG emissions would be generated during construction including emissions from the combustion of fuel (e.g., gasoline and diesel) in construction equipment and vehicles. Indirect GHG emissions during construction would be generated from electricity used to power any electric construction equipment, lighting at construction sites and for conveyance of water used for dust suppression activities. Upon completion of construction, housing projects would generate direct GHG emissions from area sources (such as landscaping equipment), on-road motor vehicle trips, and natural gas usage in homes. While the City’s Reach Codes prohibit natural gas in all new construction for space and water heating, the code allows certain exceptions for cooking appliances and fireplaces in residences. Indirect operational GHG emissions would be generated from the increase in electricity use associated with building energy use along with water and wastewater treatment and conveyance. The SEIR’s evaluation of GHG impacts used the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) updated GHG thresholds to address the two main direct sources of GHG emissions in land use development projects: building energy use and motor vehicle trips.
The SEIR’s analysis described the City’s Reach Code requirements that essentially preclude the use of natural gas in future residential projects. The SEIR noted that since the Reach Codes provide for exceptions to this rule, any project proposing natural gas usage (relying on the Reach Code exception) could result in a CEQA finding of a significant unavoidable impact (inconsistency with BAAQMD prohibition), which would therefore require that an EIR be prepared for the project. The City would then be required to establish a finding of overriding considerations to support project approval.
The SEIR discussed requirements to avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage, such as those contained within Title 24 energy efficiency standards, CALGreen Tier 2 standards, and the inherent location of many of the HEU sites in areas with access to transit which would also ensure that electricity usage associated with building energy use and transportation would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. The SEIR also pointed to the HEU’s consistency with the SB 743 VMT Reduction Target of 15 percent below the regional average.
The SEIR then determined that, with mitigation, implementation of the HEU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The SEIR evaluated the HEU’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, EO S-3-05, Plan Bay Area, and Menlo Park’s Climate Action Plan. The SEIR Page C-1.173
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 17 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 conservatively prescribed mitigation to ensure that all future HEU projects would be consistent with BAAQMD’s updated GHG significance thresholds. Compliance with these thresholds would mean that these projects would not generate GHG emissions that would conflict with the State’s GHG reduction goals or plans and policies in place to achieve these goals.
Each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies, regulatory requirements, and mitigations would still apply. The GHG impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to GHG emissions than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to GHG emissions from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration or EIR.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR determined that required compliance with numerous existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies that govern the testing, handling, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the routine use or accidental release of hazardous materials. Both EIRs also determined that the required compliance with numerous existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies that govern the testing, handling, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. These same findings would apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
The SEIR evaluated each of the HEU’s housing opportunity sites in relation to areas of known hazardous materials contamination. The SEIR noted that there are known hazardous materials release sites on or adjacent to potential housing opportunity and land use strategy sites. These hazardous materials release sites could contain contaminated soil and/or groundwater as a result of previous land uses. During construction, potential to encounter previously unknown contaminated soil would be present, and, if dewatering is needed, groundwater. Under such a scenario, construction workers, the public, and the environment could be exposed to hazardous materials and the impact could be potentially significant. As with the above discussions, the SEIR noted that there are numerous regulations covering the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities. The required compliance with these regulations would reduce exposure to hazardous materials. As was also done in the ConnectMenlo EIR, the SEIR prescribed mitigations to further ensure that contaminated materials are properly handled and that any development on sites near known release sites would be Page C-1.174
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 18 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 required to implement an Environmental Site Management Plan and a Vapor Intrusion Assessment. Per standard regulatory requirements, development would not be allowed to occur until a No Further Action Required determination was made by applicable regulatory agencies.
Thus, significant impacts related to hazardous materials would be avoided and the impact would be less than significant. This same finding would apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
Finally, the SEIR evaluated the HEU’s impacts on emergency response and emergency evacuation, finding again that existing City codes and other requirements would lessen the HEU’s effects on emergency response and evacuation, particularly during construction. This same finding would apply to implementation of the revised HEU.
The revisions to the HEU being assessed in this Addendum would not change these findings. The sites under consideration for higher density development are the same as those evaluated in the SEIR, so the same conclusions related to hazardous materials and emergency evacuation and response remain the same. Therefore, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials than previously disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR or the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects related to hazards and hazardous materials not previously discussed in the two previous EIRs. For these reasons, impacts from the proposed HEU revisions would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrological and water quality related impacts were evaluated in both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Both EIRs found that impacts would be less than significant, with the findings principally based on compliance with established regulations, best management project, and development standards. For instance, construction projects that result in one or more acres of ground disturbance, or less than one acre but would be part of a larger plan of development or sale, would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit.
Preparation of a SWPPP, along with its implementation during construction, is required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit. Moreover, development projects would be subject to controls and requirements described in the Menlo Park Municipal Code. Specifically, development projects would be required to submit a grading and drainage plan and an erosion and sediment control plan and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control stormwater runoff during construction. If subsurface excavation would require dewatering of groundwater, coverage under the construction dewatering general permit or waste discharge requirements would also be required. Additional requirements related to project operation would also be in effect, such stormwater management requirements and Low Impact Development design measures for stormwater capture and pretreatment. These requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and these same requirements would also apply to the revised HEU. It thus follows that the revised HEU would result in the same less than significant effects.
The ConnectMenlo EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level would Page C-1.175
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 19 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 occur. Although the ConnectMenlo EIR was drafted before the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act went into effect, the requirements for groundwater sustainability planning are not applicable for the San Mateo Plain subbasin, which is a very low priority groundwater subbasin.
These findings were also found in the SEIR, and therefore also apply to the revised HEU.
The SEIR evaluated effects related to flood zones, tsunami hazard areas, and dam inundation zones and determined that impacts would be less than significant would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation and determined that impacts would be less than significant because none of the housing opportunity sites are located in those hazard areas. Since the revised HEU does not propose any new housing opportunity or land use strategy sites that differ from those assessed in the SEIR, the SEIR’s previous findings would also be applicable to the revised HEU.
In summary, each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR.
Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to hydrology and water quality from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Land Use and Planning
Both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR found that neither project would physically divide an established community. The ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR listed a number of General Plan policies related to future development, and determined that existing and proposed goals, policies, programs, and zoning regulations would provide the long-term planning framework for orderly development of the City. Both EIRs determined that future development would generally retain the existing roadway patterns and could include circulation improvements such as new streets, paseos, access points, sidewalks and bike paths that would improve circulation. The analysis noted that these improvements would not include any new major roadways or other physical features through parcels designated for residential use or other communities that would create new barriers in the City. Therefore, both EIRs found that the projects would not divide an existing established community. These same findings apply to implementation of the revised HEU. Development of new housing units under the revised HEU would promote coordinated land use patterns within the City, and would conform to the City’s revised zoning allowances, in response to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and State law, which requires the City to identify sufficient housing sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
Page C-1.176
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 20 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 As with the development assessed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR, development under the revised HEU would not alter the physical layout of the City such that movement within or across the housing sites or the City would be obstructed. Like the HEU analyzed in the SEIR, the revised HEU does not propose any roadways, such as freeways, that would divide the City or isolate individual neighborhoods within it. In addition, future development would occur per the requirements established under Title 16 of Menlo Park’s Municipal Code, and as part of the City’s project approval process, would be required to comply with existing regulations and General Plan policies. Based upon each of these considerations, implementation of the revised HEU would not physically divide an established community, and the impact would therefore be less than significant. This is the same determination as that found in the SEIR.
The ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR also found that the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Both EIRs noted that the analysis addressed future development consistency with the General Plan and how each project was consistent with other applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations that focus on land use and planning. As with the General Plan and zoning updates discussed in the ConnectMenlo EIR, the proposed updates associated with the HEU are intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Because the General Plan is the overriding planning document for the City, and because the HEU includes amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to increase consistency, consistency impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
To ensure consistency with the General Plan, the SEIR prescribed mitigation to require that consistency with the General Plan be demonstrated for each residential project that could be advanced under the HEU. The mitigation required that prior to individual project approval, as part of the project application process, future development in Menlo Park be required to demonstrate consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan and the supporting Zoning standards. A future project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning standards if, considering all its aspects, it would further the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and supporting Zoning standards and not obstruct their attainment. These same requirements would apply to the revised HEU.
Each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The land use and planning impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to land use and planning than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these Page C-1.177
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 21 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 reasons, impacts related to land use and planning from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Noise and Vibration
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR found that the project would have a substantial adverse effect with respect to future projects in Menlo Park resulting in construction‐related noise that could exceed noise limits required under the City’s regulations, which considered commercial and industrial development and the possibility of impact pile driving. To address this potential impact, the ConnectMenlo EIR identified Mitigation Measure NOISE‐1c to require project applicants to minimize the exposure of nearby properties to excessive noise levels from construction‐related activity through CEQA review, conditions of approval and/or enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Specifically, the mitigation measure required a mechanism by which the owner/developer would be responsible for requiring contractors to implement a menu of measures to limit construction-related noise.
The SEIR found that the above impacts could be effectively mitigated through refined mitigation. These would include restrictions on construction hours (already required under the City’s Noise Ordinance), demonstration of construction noise abatement measures, installation of sound barriers if needed, maintenance of construction equipment, and other requirements. The SEIR ultimately found that construction noise impacts of subsequent projects would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation by incorporating best construction noise management practices as outlined in the prescribed mitigation. These same requirements would also apply to the revised HEU.
The SEIR also found that operational noise impacts would be less than significant. This finding was based on the low levels of noise associated with residential development, and compliance with City requirements for maximum noise levels for roof-mounted equipment such as HVAC systems. Specifically, such mechanical equipment (air conditioning equipment, ventilation fans, vents, ducting, or similar equipment) is prohibited from generating a noise level in excess of 50 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from such equipment. In addition, such equipment is required to be screened from view as observed at an eye level horizontal to the top of the roof-mounted equipment, except for the SP-ECR/D district which has unique screening requirements. Based on these requirements, the SEIR found that operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
These same requirements would apply to the revised HEU, and it thus follows that the revised HEU’s effects would also be similar.
The SEIR then assessed groundbourne vibration effects from the HEU’s implementation and also determined that those impacts would be less than significant. The analysis found that construction activities at distances of 25 feet or further from the nearest existing buildings would be well below the threshold of 0.25 PPV to avoid structural damage to historic and older buildings. Based on established building setbacks and other requirements, the low likelihood of use of heavy equipment most likely to produce excessive levels of vibration, and other requirements, groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons, project-related construction and operational groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant. These same findings would also apply to the revised HEU.
Page C-1.178
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 22 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 The SEIR also evaluated impacts associated with increased roadway noise that could result from implementation of the HEU. Modeling was conducted to determine the likely effects of increased automobile traffic brought about by development of residential projects made possible by the HEU. The analysis found that increases in noise levels would range from 0.1 dBA to 0.9 dBA.
The SEIR noted that the smallest increase in loudness perceptible by the human ear is 3 dBA and increases of 5 dBA or greater are clearly perceptible. The HEU’s increase in traffic noise levels would be well below those amounts. It was therefore determined that adoption of the HEU would have a less than significant impact with respect to operational roadway noise.
The SEIR also evaluated noise effects from airport operations. The SIR noted that a small portion of Menlo Park falls within two miles of Palo Alto Airport, but that no portion of the City is covered by the airport’s influence area, nor is it within the airport’s 55 dB noise contour. All other airports are located 4 or more miles away from the City. As such, there would be no noise impacts from airport operations. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
In summary, each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The noise and vibration impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to noise and vibration impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions.
For these reasons, impacts related to noise and vibration impacts from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Population and Housing
Both the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR determined that impacts from substantial unplanned population growth, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) would be less than significant. In both EIRs, it was determined that additional development in the City would occur in a manner that would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, as amended. For the HEU, it was also noted that development of new housing units would be conducted in response to the City’s RHNA allocation, which is in itself a plan to meet the housing needs of the area’s current and future planned population. Ultimately, development of new housing units under the HEU would promote coordinated land use patterns within the City, and would conform to the City’s revised zoning allowances, in response to the ABAG’s RHNA allocation and State law, which requires the City to identify sufficient housing sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. By definition, such development would be “planned” rather than unplanned and would Page C-1.179
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 23 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 conform to the City’s zoning code and General Plan as amended, as well as the ABAG RHNA Plan. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
The SEIR also determined that the HEU would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The SEIR noted that much of the developable area of the City is already developed, and nearly all the parcels identified for upzoning as part of the HEU are already developed with some sort of use, typically office or commercial. However, the City’s General Plan contains a number of policies to limit the conversion of existing residential areas to non-residential uses. Policy LU-2.7, for example, limits the loss in the number of residential units or conversion of existing residential units to nonresidential uses. Policy H4.1 requires City planning efforts to identify opportunity sites and areas where a special effort will be made to provide affordable housing consistent with other General Plan policies. The policy identified specific characteristics that housing opportunity sites must possess, and these characteristics were incorporated into the sites identified as part of the HEU. Policy H4.8 directs the City to retain and expand multi-family and higher density sites, and to avoid rezoning multi-family residential land for other uses or to lower densities without redesignating equivalent land for multi-family development. Policy H-4.12 directs the City to distribute higher density residential developments throughout the City, particularly near public transit and major transportation corridors in the City.
The SEIR determined that the HEU would support each of these policies, in that the HEU would not redesignate or rezone an existing residential area to a nonresidential use. In general, just the opposite would occur, since the HEU would generally upzone existing sites to accommodate more housing. Therefore, there would be no conversion of housing uses to non-housing uses and residential displacements would not occur. Ultimately, the number of housing units in the City would increase and would help to address the region’s housing needs. As such, the effect would generally be beneficial in nature, and the impact would be less than significant. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
In summary, each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The population and housing impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to population and housing impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR.
In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions.
For these reasons, impacts related to population and housing impacts from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Page C-1.180
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 24 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Public Services and Recreation
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR both found that the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection, police, school, recreational, or library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. While both EIRs acknowledged that both projects would introduce new residents and employees over the life of the projects, and that those increases would likely result in heightened demand for public service facilities, both EIRs concluded that compliance with existing regulations, payment of impact fees and taxes, incremental development of the new units over time across a wide area of the city, compliance with environmental requirements, and the likelihood that some developments would include open spaces and recreational facilities of their own, would ensure that the overall impact would be less than significant. These same findings would also apply to the revised HEU. The public services and recreation impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR.
Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to public services and recreation impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to public services and recreation impacts from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Transportation
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR found that the development potential under ConnectMenlo would generate new transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and that implementation of ConnectMenlo and other existing City standards and regulations would include goals, policies, and programs that provide for an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as for the needs of transit users. Further, the EIR found that future development would be concentrated on sites either already developed and/or in close proximity to existing development, and would be served by existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. However, since much of the anticipated development under the ConnectMenlo project would occur in the Bayfront Area, including properties located north of US-101 that are not adequately connected to the pedestrian and bicycle circulation network locally or south of US-101, and properties bordering existing streets such as Constitution Drive that lack continuous sidewalks, the ConnectMenlo EIR found that implementation of ConnectMenlo would not provide adequate pedestrian or bicycle facilities to connect to the area-wide circulation system. Mitigation Measure TRANS-6a was provided to update the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program to secure a funding mechanism for future pedestrian and bicycle improvements to mitigate impacts from future projects (based on the current standards at the time the ConnectMenlo EIR was certified) but did not reduce the impact to less than significant levels because the nexus study (pursuant to AB 1600) had not yet Page C-1.181
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 25 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 been prepared, the City could not guarantee improvements, and no additional mitigation measures were feasible and available. For these reasons, the EIR concluded that implementation of ConnectMenlo would not provide adequate pedestrian or bicycle facilities to connect to the areawide circulation system and the impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
Subsequently, the City’s TIF program was updated and approved by the City Council. The City’s Transportation Master Plan has also been updated, and the City Council approved the updated plan on November 17, 2020. However, the identified bicycle and pedestrian improvements would not be fully funded by the TIF. The SEIR therefore determined that the ConnectMenlo impact would remain. The SEIR determined that while most of the HEU’s units would be located south of US-101, the units included in the HEU north of US-101 (in the Bayfront area) would contribute to the identified impact that was caused by the proposed development in the Bayfront area.
Therefore, the SEIR determined that the HEU’s impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities would also be significant and unavoidable. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
With respect to transit impacts, the ConnectMenlo EIR found that implementation of ConnectMenlo would generate a substantial increase in transit riders that could not be adequately serviced by existing public transit services, and the implementation of ConnectMenlo would generate demand for transit services at sites more than one-quarter mile from existing public transit routes. Mitigation Measure TRANS-6b was provided to update the City’s existing Shuttle Fee program to guarantee funding for operations of City sponsored shuttle service that is necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then-current City standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-6b was found to reduce the impacts but not to a less than significant level. As the nexus study (pursuant to AB 1600) had not yet been prepared, the City could not guarantee improvements, and no additional mitigation measures were feasible and available. For these reasons, the impacts to transit were considered significant and unavoidable.
However, the State’s current guidance regarding implementation of SB 743 indicates that increased transit demand is no longer considered an adverse effect under CEQA. As such, a finding of a less than significant impact was determined for the HEU in the SEIR, and this same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
The ConnectMenlo EIR found that implementation of ConnectMenlo would result in increased peak hour traffic delay at intersections on Bayfront Expressway, University Avenue, and Willow Road that could decrease the performance of transit service and increase the cost of transit operations. Mitigation Measure TRANS-6c was provided to potentially result in the provision of transit service on the Dumbarton Corridor to mitigate the impact. However, because provision of Dumbarton transit service would require approval of other public agencies and would not be under the jurisdiction of the City of Menlo Park, implementation of this mitigation could not be guaranteed. No additional mitigation measures were found to be feasible and available. For these reasons, the impacts to transit were considered significant and unavoidable. However, with the transition to using VMT rather than LOS, vehicle delay is no longer considered an adverse effect under CEQA, which instead considers whether transit routes would be blocked, or whether there would be safety issues or conflicts with applicable plans. While the HEU proposed development potential above and beyond ConnectMenlo without any increase in transit service, the development would not physically block transit routes, create an obvious safety issue, or conflict with an Page C-1.182
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 26 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 applicable transit plan and therefore the SEIR found that the HEU’s impact on transit facilities would also be less than significant. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
With respect to impacts related to VMT, the 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR preceded implementation of SB 743 and therefore a finding relative to VMT was not made. The SEIR evaluated VMT within the context of current State guidelines and determined that higher densities proposed under the HEU and their general proximity to quality transit facilities would have a beneficial effect to VMT and that VMT could generally be expected to meet applicable targets. However, the SEIR determined that future individual development projects allowed by the HEU that are subject to additional review and do not screen out of a VMT analysis would require a separate, projectspecific VMT analysis. This analysis, which would be based on characteristics of the proposed project and its location, could result in exceedances of the VMT criteria of 15 percent below the regional average VMT per capita, particularly for housing sites that have limited access to transit.
For this reason, the impact of the HEU was conservatively considered Potentially Significant, requiring mitigation. The SEIR prescribed mitigation that requires individual multifamily housing development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis to provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods outlined by the City’s most recent VMT guidelines. Projects found to result in a significant impact would be required to implement travel demand management measures and/or physical measures (i.e., improving multimodal transportation network, improving street connectivity) to reduce VMT. The measure provided a list of potential VMT reduction measures. Ultimately, the SEIR determined that the prescribed VMT reduction measures would lessen an individual project’s VMT impacts, but that the effectiveness of the measures in reducing an individual project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level could not be determined until the specific characteristics of the project are known. As such, the SEIR concluded that the impact for projects that would not screen out from VMT impact analysis would conservatively remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
The SEIR also investigated the HEU’s impacts on circulation design standards and emergency access to development sites. For both impacts, the SEIR determined that subsequent projects under the HEU, including any new roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure improvements would be designed according to ConnectMenlo and other City standards and subject to existing regulations that are aimed at reducing hazardous conditions with respect to circulation. Additionally, future development would be concentrated on sites that are already developed where impacts related to incompatible traffic related land uses would not be likely to occur. Therefore, the SEIR determined that the HEU would result in a less than significant impact related to transportation hazards. A similar finding was found for emergency access. The SEIR determined that ConnectMenlo and other City standards and regulations include policies that would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access are provided in the City, which would help facilitate emergency response. Additionally, future development would be concentrated on sites that are already developed where impacts related to inadequate emergency access would not likely occur.
Additional vehicles associated with new development sites could increase delays for emergency response vehicles during peak commute hours. However, emergency responders maintain Page C-1.183
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 27 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 response plans that include use of alternate routes, sirens, and other methods to bypass congestion and minimize response times. In addition, California law requires drivers to yield the right-ofway to emergency vehicles and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle passes to ensure the safe and timely passage of emergency vehicles. Based on the above considerations, the SEIR determined that adequate emergency access would be provided to new development sites, and the impact would be less than significant. This same finding would also apply to the revised HEU.
In summary, each of the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The transportation impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to transportation impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to transportation impacts from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2026 ConnectMenlo EIR did not identify any archaeological resources within the City but did identify Native American remains in the study area. The ConnectMenlo EIR found that it was ‘highly improbable’ that archaeological deposits dating to the pre-contact or historic era exist on the locations that were identified for future development, which was focused on the Bayfront portion of the City. The ConnectMenlo EIR stated that General Plan goals and policies and compliance with federal, State, and local laws and regulations would protect recorded and unrecorded archaeological deposits in the study area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. However, the ConnectMenlo EIR did note that there was the potential for unrecorded archaeological resources to be significantly impacted.
For the SEIR’s analysis, a records search of the housing opportunity sites and land use strategy sites and the wider Menlo Park City boundary identified previously recorded archaeological resources within both of these areas. Given the long history of pre-contact and historic-age human occupation, the City is considered sensitive for the presence of subsurface pre-contact Native American cultural resources and human remains. Additionally, there may be previously unknown buried archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources that have not been recorded.
No tribal cultural resources have been identified during tribal consultation. However, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search had a positive result for sacred lands within the HEU housing opportunity sites and land use strategy sites.
Page C-1.184
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 28 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 The SEIR noted that recent revisions to the Public Resources Code and the Government Code by AB 52 and AB 168 (SB 35) require local governments to consult with tribes during the review process for CEQA and for housing development projects that would otherwise be exempt from CEQA under changes made to the Government Code by SB 35.
The ConnectMenlo EIR found that there was a potential for the project to significantly impact tribal cultural resources and determined that implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-2a, CULT-2b, and CULT-4 would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. As stated previously in this Addendum under the discussion for cultural resources, ConnectMenlo EIR Mitigation Measures CULT-2a and CULT-2b do not conform to current best practices with respect to inadvertent discovery. Therefore, the SEIR prescribed that the ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures CULT-2a and CULT-2b be replaced with Mitigation Measures CR-2a and CR-2b to address potential impacts to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CULT-4 from the ConnectMenlo EIR was determined to be sufficient to address potential impacts to human remains and was therefore adopted as part of the SEIR as Mitigation Measure CR-3.
While no tribal cultural resources were identified within the housing opportunity sites and land use strategy sites as a result of tribal consultation, the SEIR noted that there is the potential for previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains that are also tribal cultural resources to be impacted by the residential development and this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. These same mitigations and findings would apply to the revised HEU, and the impact of the revised HEU would therefore be the same as that found in the SEIR.
In summary, the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The tribal cultural resources impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to tribal cultural resources impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions.
For these reasons, impacts related to tribal cultural resources impacts from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Utilities and Service Systems
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR found that impacts related to the construction or relocation of utilities were less than significant as it was expected that the City would implement General Plan programs that require expansion of conservation programs and future development to employ green building best practices. The SEIR determined that these same findings would apply to implementation of the HEU, and the same findings would also apply to the revised HEU.
Page C-1.185
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 29 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the two water purveyors that would serve the HEU housing opportunity and land use strategy sites. The analysis determined that while water supply shortfalls are projected in single dry and multiple dry years with implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, these projected shortfalls could be overcome through the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s various projects, programs, and plans and further addressed through implementation of the water shortage contingency plans (WSCPs) by Menlo Park Municipal Water (MPMW) and Cal Water’s Bear Gulch District. In addition, development under the HEU would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations that promote water conservation and water use efficiencies. While results of the water supply projects, programs, and plans and demand reductions could not be quantified, the SEIR determined that it was reasonable to expect that many of the projects, programs, and plans would be successful and additional water supplies and demand reductions could be obtained. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that implementation of the HEU would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal years. In single dry and multiple dry years, demand management measures (DMMs) and implementation of the WSCPs by MPMW and Cal Water’s Bear Gulch District would further reduce demand to meet the water supply shortage. While the increase in potential new units could result in additional water demand, the incremental increase in demand would not materially change the impact conclusions or mitigations in the SEIR, and the impact would remain less than significant.
Wastewater impacts associated with the HEU were also evaluated in the SEIR. The analysis determined that more than adequate wastewater treatment capacity was available to service the HEU, and that wastewater flows associated with the HEU would represent a very small percentage of the total daily wastewater capacities of the local treatment facilities. A similar determination was made in relation to solid waste disposal, as it was found that adequate landfill capacity was available to serve the additional solid waste produced by the HEU’s new residential units. These same findings would also apply to the revised HEU; wastewater treatment and landfill disposal capacity is adequate to handle incremental increases from additional units.
In summary, the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The utilities and service systems impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to utilities and service systems impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions.
For these reasons, impacts related to utilities and service systems impacts from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Page C-1.186
Impact Analysis
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 30 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 Wildfire
The 2016 ConnectMenlo EIR found that the project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The EIR found that the project would not include potential land use changes that would impair or physically interfere with the ability to implement the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The EIR further found that the Land Use and Circulation Elements, which were adopted as part of the ConnectMenlo project, and the existing Open Space/Conservation, Noise and Safety Elements contained general goals, policies, and programs that would require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to the environment related to an adopted emergency response plan. The 2023 SEIR determined that these same findings would apply to implementation of the HEU. The same findings would also apply to the revised HEU.
Though utilizing criteria that have since been replaced by updates to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, the ConnectMenlo EIR found that the project would have a less-thansignificant impact with respect to exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The SEIR determined that these same findings would apply to implementation of the HEU.
The City is located in a highly urbanized area and is not surrounded by woodlands or vegetation that would provide fuel loads for wildfires. Menlo Park does not contain designated areas of moderate, high, or very high Fire Hazard Severity.
The SEIR found that future development under the HEU, as part of the City’s project approval process, would be required to comply with existing regulations as described in Section 4.17.3, Regulatory Framework. Specifically, all developments would be constructed pursuant to applicable building codes and the California Building Code and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) Fire Prevention Code. Per standard procedure, project applications for development in Menlo Park are plan‐checked by the MPFPD for compliance with the code, and those requirements would apply to any future development. In addition, MPFPD conducts a weed‐abatement program throughout its jurisdiction to minimize fire risk on empty or unmaintained parcels.
Also, the SEIR noted that General Plan policies have been adopted to minimize impacts from wildfire. Specifically, Policy S1.1 permits development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the community can be adequately mitigated. Policy S1.5 requires that all new habitable structures incorporate adequate hazard mitigation measures to reduce identified risks from natural and human-caused hazards. Policy S1.13 requires new residential structures to incorporate fire resistant design and strategies such as the use of fire-resistant materials and landscaping, and to create defensible space.
Based upon these considerations, the SEIR determined that implementation of the HEU would have a less than significant impact with respect to enhanced wildfire risk. The same findings would also apply to the revised HEU.
Page C-1.187
Conclusion
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 31 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 The SEIR also evaluated the effects of the installation or maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that could exacerbate fire risk or that could result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The SEIR determined that impacts in this regard would be less than significant since the installation of such facilities would not be required to implement the HEU. The same findings would also apply to the revised HEU.
In summary, the findings described above would also apply to the revised HEU. The same compliance with established policies and regulatory requirements would still apply. The wildfire related impacts associated with the revised HEU would not differ substantially from those that have already been disclosed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed HEU revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts related to wildfire than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the proposed HEU revisions would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than the significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed HEU revisions. For these reasons, impacts related to wildfire from the revised HEU would not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration.
Conclusion
The proposed revisions to the 2023 HEU would not result in any additional or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the SEIR. Consequently, the proposed revisions would not result in a new significant impact or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the SEIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance showing that the revised HEU would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that any previously examined significant effects would be substantially more severe than significant effects shown in the SEIR. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the revised HEU. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration or EIR.
Page C-1.188
Conclusion
City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update 32 ESA / D202100009 Addendum to the Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report November 2023 This page intentionally left blank
Page C-1.189
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map Amendments
C1-PRESENTATION
Implementation of Housing Element-related zoning
programs
Adopt resolutions and introduce and waive first reading of proposed ordinances– Resolutions become effective immediately– Ordinances require a second reading and adoption at a regular Council meeting (potentially Dec. 5) and become effective 30 days after adoption Adoption must occur by Jan. 31, 2024 to comply with
state law
MEETING PURPOSE
2 Housing Element adopted Jan. 31, 2023
– Plan for city’s housing needs from 2023 to 2031– Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 2,946 units • 1,490 affordable units
Housing Element programs commit City to implement zoning changes by Jan. 31, 2024
On Nov. 6, Planning Commission recommended adoption of proposed resolutions and ordinances by vote of 4-0
Minor “clean-up” changes were made following the recommendation for increased clarity and consistency
BACKGROUND
3 PROPOSED ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS
4 Action Housing Element Program Staff Report Attachment Action TypeModify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program H4.D A OrdinanceAmend General Plan to create new mixed use development opportunities Program H4.I B Resolution*
Amend Zoning Ordinance to create new mixed use development opportunities Program H4.I C Ordinance
Amend General Plan to increase residential density and maximize R-3 development Program H4.J D Resolution*
Amend Zoning Ordinance to increase residential density and maximize R-3, R-4 development Program H4.J E Ordinance
Amend Specific Plan Program H4.L F Resolution*Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow by-right development for certain reuse sites Program H4.Q G Ordinance
Amend Zoning Ordinance to create Residential Overlay
Program H4.T H Ordinance
Amend Zoning Ordinance to make day care homes permitted use in all residential districts Program H2.F I Ordinance
* - Effective immediately following approval
Designed to encourage development of affordable units for lower income households
Includes all Housing Element inventory sites and R-3 around downtown, in addition to the Specific Plan area and R-4-S(AHO) properties Modified to work in combination with state density bonus law on a site
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY (AHO) (H4.D)
5 Requirements to qualify for AHO
– 5+ units total– 20%+ of units affordable to lower incomes • 25%+ of units must be affordable to very low and/or extremely low income households, or
• 15%+ of units must be affordable to extremely low income households AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY (H4.D)
6 For AHO only, maximum density bonus would be:
– 60% density bonus for mixed income development– 80% density bonus for all affordable development AHO and state density bonus law combined:
– 65% combined maximum density bonus for mixed income development– 150 du/ac combined maximum for 100% affordable development AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY (H4.D)
7 8
NEW MIXED USE OPPORTUNITIES (H4.I)
9 NEW MIXED USE OPPORTUNITIES (H4.I)
10 NEW MIXED USE OPPORTUNITIES (H4.I)
11 MAXIMIZE R-3 DEVELOPMENT (H4.J)
12 MAXIMIZE R-3 DEVELOPMENT (H4.J)
13 MAXIMIZE R-3, R-4 DEVELOPMENT (H4.J)
Since publication of the staff report, staff has identified additional recommended changes:– Attachment E, page C-1.91:
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES
14 AMEND SPECIFIC PLAN (H4.L)
15 Specific Plan Existing and Proposed Subdistrict Residential Densities (in du/ac) Subdistrict
Existing
Base
Density
Base
Density
Increase
Option
Existing
Bonus
Density
Bonus
Density
Increase
Option
Downtown (D) 25 60 40 100Downtown Adjacent (DA) 18.5 40 25 50El Camino Real North-East (ECR NE) 25 40 40 50El Camino Real North-East Low Density (ECR NE-L) 20 40 30 50El Camino Real North-West (ECR NW) 25 40 40 50Station Area East (SA E) 50 60 60 100Station Area West (SA W) 50 60 60 100El Camino Real South-West (ECR SW) 25 40 40 50El Camino Real South-East (ECR SE) 32 60 50 80El Camino Real Northeast-Residential Emphasis (ECR NE-R) 32 50 50 70 16 The limit of 680 residential units in the Specific Plan area would be removed
A minimum density of 20 du/ac would be established to set a basic floor for residential development
Minimum parking requirements would comply with AB
2097– AB 2097 generally prohibits minimum parking requirements within ½-mile of transit stops or low VMT areas
AMEND SPECIFIC PLAN (H4.L)
17 18
AMEND SPECIFIC PLAN (H4.L)
Since publication of the staff report, staff has identified additional recommended changes:– Attachment F, Exhibit A, page C-1.117:
OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES
19 20
REUSE SITES (H4.Q)
21 RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (H4.T)
Child day care homes would be allowed by-right in
residential areas
CHILD DAY CARE HOMES (H2.F)
22 For Housing Element inventory sites needed to meet lower income RHNA, state law requires:– In mixed use developments, residential uses must be 50% or more of the total FAR
– 100 percent residential development is allowed for the amount of acreage identified in the Housing Element site inventory – Housing developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households must be ministeriallyreviewed
KEY PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
23 If resolutions are adopted and ordinances are introduced with a waived first reading:
– Resolutions would become effective immediately– Adoption of ordinances would be scheduled for the Dec. 5 Council consent calendar– Ordinances would become effective Jan. 4, 2024 if adopted Housing Element under review by HCD
– Response due by Jan. 5, 2024
Work on Environmental Justice and Safety Elements continuing into 2024
– Community meeting anticipated first quarter 2024
RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
24 PROPOSED ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS
25 Action Housing Element Program Staff Report Attachment Action TypeModify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program H4.D A OrdinanceAmend General Plan to create new mixed use development opportunities Program H4.I B Resolution*
Amend Zoning Ordinance to create new mixed use development opportunities Program H4.I C Ordinance
Amend General Plan to increase residential density and maximize R-3 development Program H4.J D Resolution*
Amend Zoning Ordinance to increase residential density and maximize R-3, R-4 development Program H4.J E Ordinance
Amend Specific Plan Program H4.L F Resolution*Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow by-right development for certain reuse sites Program H4.Q G Ordinance
Amend Zoning Ordinance to create Residential Overlay
Program H4.T H Ordinance
Amend Zoning Ordinance to make day care homes permitted use in all residential districts Program H2.F I Ordinance
* - Effective immediately following approval
THANK YOU