Addendum with Attachment
PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS AND JOCELYN SHOOPMAN
Associate Planner and Associate Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 10/21/2021
ITEM: 4
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
DATE: October 20, 2021
TO: Housing Element Advisory Board
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: First Meeting of the Housing Element Advisory Board
REMARKS:
Attachment 2 contains public comments received after the completion of the Staff Report.
Attachment previously received with the October 21, 2021 Staff Report:
1. Draft HEAB Meeting Schedule (one page)
Attachment received with this Addendum Report:
2. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 15, 2021 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Phil Koen <pkoen@monteropartners.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Shelley Neis <sneis@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Jocelyn Shoopman
<jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; jvannada@gmail.com; Rick Van Hoesen
(rick.vanhoesen@gmail.com) <rick.vanhoesen@gmail.com>; Robert Schultz <RSchultz@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: City of Beverly Hills comment letter from HCD - please include in the HEAB October 21, 2021
meeting package
Dear Members of the Housing Element Advisory Board,
Please find attached a recently published letter from the HCD which comments on the City of Beverly
Hills’s 6th Cycle draft housing element update. The comments are extremely informative and provide
valuable insight as to the key issues the HCD is reviewing to determine compliance with Government
Code.
We would like to specifically point out the requirement for public participation, including among other
actions, the requirement to include a “diligent effort” to achieve public participation of “all economic
segments of the community in the development of the housing element”. The requirements include
describing how comments were incorporated into the housing element and making the housing element
available to the public prior to submittal to HCD. The requirement for public review prior to submittal to
the HCD must be taken into consideration in the development timeline to meet the statutory due date
of January 31, 2023.
The Los Gatos Community Alliance takes the requirement of public participation of “all economic
segments of the community” very seriously. We are very supportive of an inclusive and transparent
public development process. We look forward to the diligent efforts the advisory board makes to
encourage broad public participation in the development of the element, including ensuring all public
comments are transparent to the community and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Thank you.
Los Gatos Community Alliance
ATTACHMENT 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 30, 2021
Ryan Gohlich, Director
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Ryan Gohlich:
RE: Review of City of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Beverly Hills’s (City) draft housing element
received for review on June 2, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585,
subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments
from Abundant Housing LA and Josh Albrektson pursuant to Government Code
section 65585, subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be
necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing
Element Law.
To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element
within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of October 15, 2021 for Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) localities. If adopted after this date,
Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4), requires the housing element be
revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the
statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements,
please visit HCD’s website at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-
element/housing-element-memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly
available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Ryan Gohlich, Director
Page 2
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing
element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding
sources.
HCD is committed to assisting the City of Beverly Hills in addressing all statutory
requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need
additional technical assistance, please contact Chelsea Lee at
Chelsea.Lee@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
Enclosure
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 1
July 30, 2021
APPENDIX
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-
memos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest
technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks),
available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and
includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and
progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element.
(Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle (Appendix D), the element must
provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in
meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with
disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons
experiencing homelessness).
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing
with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair
housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
The element generally does not address this requirement. The element, among
other things, must include outreach, an assessment of fair housing, identification,
and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and goals and actions
sufficient to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free
from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. For more information, please contact
HCD and visit https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.
2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of
projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all
income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (a)(1).)
The element includes analysis regarding extremely low-income (ELI) households such
as the number of households and overpayment but must also identify projected
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 2
July 30, 2021
housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by
using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households
that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need
allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households. For
additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housing-
needs.shtml.
3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including
vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment
during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated
income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and
services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Parcel Listing: The element lists parcels by acreage, general plan and zoning but
must also identify the anticipated affordability levels of all the units on identified sites.
In addition, the parcel listing includes a column for existing uses. However, in many
cases, the column is blank and should be completed. Finally, the parcel listing in
some cases does describe existing uses, but the description is generic, such as office
building or store building. Instead, the description of existing uses should be
sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional
development in the planning period.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element describes the mixed-use overlay, it
generally does not address this requirement. The element must include an analysis to
demonstrate the potential for additional development. The methodology shall consider
factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to
additional residential development, the City’s past experience with converting existing
uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the
existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would
perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional
residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or
other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these
sites.
In addition, relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the
housing needs for lower-income households triggers requirements to make findings
based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely
discontinue in the planning period.
Realistic Capacity: While the element includes an estimate of the number of units that
can be accommodated on each site in the inventory, the estimate should rely on
minimum density standards or include analysis demonstrating how the number of units
for each site was determined. The estimate of the number of units for each site must
account for land-use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or
approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in the City and on the
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 3
July 30, 2021
current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry
utilities.
In addition, the element appears to assume residential development on sites zoned
for nonresidential uses, but to support this assumption, the element must analyze the
likelihood of residential in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed.
The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including
nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant
factors such as enhanced policies and programs.
Small Sites: Many identified sites are smaller than half an acre. Sites smaller than a
half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income
households unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully
developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income
housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other
evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing. As
a result, if utilizing these sites toward the housing need for lower-income households,
the element must include analysis and programs as appropriate. For additional
information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-
zoning.shtml.
Availability of Infrastructure: The element includes information on water capacity but
must also address total sewer capacity sufficient to accommodate the RHNA. For
additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-
zoning.shtml#environmental.
Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few
environmental conditions within the City (page B-49), it must also describe any known
environmental constraints or other conditions on identified sites that could impact
housing development in the planning period. For additional information and sample
analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-
zoning.shtml#environmental.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The element must demonstrate the sites
inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing. For more information, see HCD’s
guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-
element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Replacement Requirements: If utilizing sites with residential uses, the element must include
a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower-income
level as a condition of any development on the site pursuant to Government Code section
65583.2, subdivision (g), paragraph (3). Replacement requirements shall be consistent with
those set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 4
July 30, 2021
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element projects 150 ADUs over the
planning period or approximately 18 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning
period. The element also notes permitting 7 ADUs in 2018, 6 in 2019 and 9 in
2020. These trends are inconsistent with HCD records (nothing reported in 2018,
6 in 2019 and 4 in 2020) and do not support an assumption of 18 ADUs per year.
To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should
reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD
records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and
inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies
and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional
incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific
commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the
element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if ADU assumptions for the
number of units and affordability are not met.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section
65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing
element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.
Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and
instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical
assistance.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: The element must demonstrate zoning to
encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types, as follows:
x Emergency Shelters: Zoning may impose development standards on
emergency shelters including sufficient parking to accommodate all staff
working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not
require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or
commercial uses within the same zone. The element describes parking
requirements are based on need which appears inconsistent with statute.
As a result, the element should add or modify programs as appropriate.
x Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right
in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including
nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government
Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this
requirement and include programs as appropriate.
x Transitional and Supportive Housing: Definitions for transitional and
supportive housing and target population (page B-37) appear inconsistent in
Government Code section 65582, and the element should be revised,
including with programs, as appropriate.
x Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent
with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.)
or add or modify programs. Specifically, section 17021.5 requires employee
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 5
July 30, 2021
housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure
and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in
the same zone.
4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities
as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land-use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: The element lists several potential constraints, particularly unit
sizes, setbacks, parking, modulation requirements and heights and then appears
to conclude these standards are not constraints because projects have been built
near maximum densities. This analysis does not demonstrate these land use
controls are not constraints. For example, none of the listed projects are less than
a decade old and most did not achieve maximum densities under the general plan.
The analysis should at least address a newer and more complete list of projects,
whether exceptions or deviations to developments standards were utilized, the lack
of regularly achieving general plan densities, why assemblage appears necessary
to achieve higher densities, which zones were used and any other factors that
impact the cost, supply and feasibility of development. Based on the outcomes of
the analysis, the element must include programs to address identified constraints.
Fees: The element indicates that fees are approximately $100,000 per multifamily
unit and concludes the fees are nominal based on sales prices. However, regardless
of proportion of sales prices, cumulative fees of $100,000 per unit have a significant
impact on development costs. The element should include a closer evaluation of
these fees and add programs to address the constraint as appropriate.
Processing and Permit Procedures: The element describes planning and architectural
commission reviews as well as decision making standards such as “…promote
harmonious development…”, “…conformity with good taste….”, and “…contributes to
the image of Beverly Hills as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness,
broad vistas and high quality.” The City’s processing approach to these potentially
roving standards is to provide technical assistance and examples of past projects.
While this approach could be effective in facilitating approval certainty, the analysis
should also consider impacts on costs, supply and built density. Also, given the
significant ambiguity implied in these decision-making standards, the element should
include programs to monitor their impacts and should consider more fixed and
objective standards.
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an
analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit
procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, as follows:
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 6
July 30, 2021
x Family Definition: The element discusses definitions of family, bona fide
housekeeping unit and single-family housekeeping unit that appear to constrain
housing, including for persons with disabilities. For example, the definitions require
households to be the “functional equivalent of a traditional family” with members
that are “non-transient”, “interactive” and several other provisions. The element
should add or modify programs to address these constraints.
x Group Homes: Group homes for seven or more persons appear to be excluded
from most residential zones and the element does not otherwise address this
important housing type. The element should identify what zones permit this housing
and evaluate approval requirements for impacts on objectivity and approval
certainty. For example, excluding this housing from residential zones or imposing
standards such as compatibility with surrounding uses without clarity would be
considered a constraint. The element must include programs as appropriate to
address identified constraints based on the outcomes of this analysis.
SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must identify and
analyze written procedures for the SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
Zoning, Development Standards and Fees: The element must clarify its compliance
with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards
and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website.
5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels,
including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the
requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis
required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of
time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an
application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the
construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with
Government Code section 65584. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Identified Densities and Approval Times: The element did not address these
requirements. The element must address requests to develop housing at densities
below those anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between
receiving approval for housing development and submittal of application for building
permits. The analysis must address any hinderances on housing development and
programs should be added as appropriate.
6. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-
low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 7
July 30, 2021
While the element identifies the Beverly Hills Senior Housing project is at risk of
converting from affordable to market-rate during the next ten years, the element must
also estimate the total cost of preserving these units and include a list of entities with
the capacity to acquire multifamily developments that are at risk. The analysis should
guide policies and programs necessary to address the critical activity of preserving
at-risk units. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks
at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-
needs/assisted-housing-developments.shtml and for more information on identifying
units at-risk, see the California Housing Partnership Corporation at
http://www.chpc.net.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs
are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the
planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element
through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of
regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and
state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an
identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the
various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the
housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines, including
Programs 9.3 (Home Repair and Improvement), 10.3 (Housing Trust Fund), 10.4
(ADUs), 10.6 (Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers), 11.5 (Housing
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities) and 12.1 (Development Standards).
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period
with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need
for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the
inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning,
and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites
shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety
of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-
built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing,
single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not contain a complete sites inventory and
analysis. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis,
the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning
available to encourage a variety of housing types.
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 8
July 30, 2021
3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and
moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in
the development of housing for extremely low-income households and individuals
and households with special needs (beyond seniors). The program(s) could commit
the City to adopting priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying
development standards, granting concessions and incentives for housing
developments that include units affordable to lower and moderate-income
households; assisting, supporting or pursuing funding applications; and outreach and
coordination with affordable housing developers. For additional information, see the
Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-
blocks/program-requirements/assist-in-development-housing.shtml.
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with
disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable
accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with
supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may
need to revise or add programs to address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints. In addition, Program 12.1 must be revised with specific commitment to
complete actions early in the planning period. While the program commits to “explore”
and “evaluating”, these actions must be coupled with specific actions to amend and
complete the appropriate zoning changes. Finally, as noted on page B-15, this
program should be revised to evaluate and revise parking requirements.
5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion,
sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and
other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008,
and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair
housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify
programs. For additional guidance on program requirements to affirmatively further
fair housing, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 9
July 30, 2021
6. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for
preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent
necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other
urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program
may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
As noted in Finding B6, the element must complete an analysis of units at risk of
conversion to market rate during the planning period. The element must add or
modify programs based on the outcomes of that analysis. In addition, Program 9.7
should be revised to comply with noticing requirements, provide education and
assistance to tenants, assist with funding, and promptly reach out to qualified entities
to preserve at-risk housing units.
7. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can be
offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code,
for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(c)(7).)
The element is required to include a program that incentivizes or promotes ADU
development for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. To address this
requirement, the element includes Program 10.4, but many actions only “explore” or
“consider” and the program should be revised with specific commitment to complete,
adopt, amend or begin implementation of actions that will have an actual and
beneficial impact on housing.
D. Public Participation
Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and
the program shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).)
While the element describes a survey, public meetings and a webpage; the element
should include additional efforts to include a broad spectrum of individuals and
representative organizations; consider language access barriers and describe how
comments were incorporated into the housing element. In addition, other public
participation requirements may be triggered if the City did not make the element
available to the public prior to submittal to HCD. By not providing an opportunity for
the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission
to HCD, the City will have not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent
effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it
reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in the course of its review. The
availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to
submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. The City must
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 10
July 30, 2021
proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters,
prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address
comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate. HCD’s
future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents were
circulated and how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in
the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by
HCD’s findings in this review letter.
From: Phil Koen <pkoen@monteropartners.com>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:32 PM
To: Shelley Neis <sneis@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>;
jvannada@gmail.com; Rick Van Hoesen <rick.vanhoesen@gmail.com>; Melanie Hanssen
<melaniehanssen@yahoo.com>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame
<MBadame@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Staff memo - RHNA - oct 4 2021.pdf
Shelley,
Could you please include in the Housing Element Advisory Committee’s agenda package the attached
staff report from the City of Menlo Park which discusses their process for updating the HE of the general
plan. I think the HEAC will find the information very useful.
Thank you.
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Sent from my iPhone
Community Development
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission and Housing Commission
Meeting Date: 10/4/2021
Staff Report Number: 21-048-PC
Regular Business: Housing Element Update/City of Menlo Park: Review
and discuss land use and site strategy options to meet
the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
as part of the state-mandated Housing Element for the
planning period 2023-2031, and make a
recommendation to the City Council on a preferred land
use strategy to be further evaluated as part of the
Housing Element Update process
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Housing Commission review and discuss land use
and site strategy options to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation as part of the state-
mandated Housing Element, and make a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred land use
strategy to be further evaluated as part of the Housing Element Update process. The City Council will then
provide guidance for the preferred land use strategy that will serve as the basis for the Project Description
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Fiscal
Impact Analysis.
Policy Issues
State Housing Law requires that jurisdictions throughout California adequately plan to meet the housing
needs of everyone within their community, as well as future residents, by regularly updating their General
Plan’s Housing Element. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA, pronounced “ree-nah”) identifies
the specific number of housing units at each income level category required of a jurisdiction to comply with
State mandates. Additionally, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Act requires that all local
public agencies facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting
from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities.
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City is also updating its Safety Element and preparing its first
Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan. The components of the Housing Element Update will
consider land use, housing, and environmental policies. The City will prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to comply with the project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The
purpose of an EIR is to provide the public and decision-makers with information about the potential effects a
proposed project could have on the environment. Although not required by State law, the City also will
prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) to provide information about potential financial effects on City, school
districts, and special districts.
Background
The Housing Element Update is a City Council priority and includes efforts to update its Housing Element
and Safety Element and prepare a new Environmental Justice Element. Under California law, every
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 2
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
jurisdiction in the State is required to update the housing element every eight years and have it certified by
the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD.) The Housing Element is one of
seven State-mandated components of the City’s General Plan, and requires local governments to
adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. The City Council
last adopted the Housing Element in April 2014 and covers the planning period from 2015-2023. The next
cycle’s deadline for jurisdictions in the Bay Area, which is set by HCD, is January 2023, and covers the
planning period for 2023-2031. This is also known as the 6th housing element cycle.
RHNA Overview
The RHNA process consists of two major outcomes: (1) determining the total number of housing units each
jurisdiction has a responsibility to plan for in each housing cycle; and (2) identifying how many of those units
the jurisdiction must plan for at each income level. The RHNA numbers are provided by the State at the
regional scale and then allocated to each jurisdiction (e.g., city, town) by the appropriate regional authority
(i.e., Association of Bay Area Governments).
Table 1 shows Menlo Park’s progress towards meetings its RHNA from the 5th Housing Element cycle
(2015-2023). Since the beginning of this cycle, building permits were issued for 1,416 new housing units.
While this figure is more than double the total amount of required housing (655 units), only the requirement
for the “Above Moderate” income level has been met so far.
Table 1: 5th Cycle RHNA (2015-2023) – Progress (Units)
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total New
Housing Units
5th Cycle RHNA Allocation 233 129 143 150 655
Total Through 2020 148 80 11 1,177 1,416
Percent Complete 64% 62% 8% 785% N/A
On May 20, 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) approved the final RHNA
methodology and draft allocations for jurisdictions within the nine-county Bay Area. Table 2 identifies the
draft number of housing units at each income level specifically required in Menlo Park during the 6th cycle
update to the Housing Element. For comparison, the 5th cycle requirements are also provided. When
planning for how to meet the RHNA, HCD recommends an additional “buffer” of the housing allocation
between 15-30 percent. Table 2 also includes an estimate of the total number of housing units with a 30
percent buffer added to the draft RHNA numbers. This buffer is an important component of housing
planning in that it allows for case-by-case decision-making on individual projects in certain circumstances
and ensures that an adequate supply of sites is provided throughout the entire planning period (2023-2031),
especially for lower-income RHNA. The buffer is essential to ensure compliance with the “No Net Loss Law”
(Government Code 65863). The City can also create a buffer by projecting site capacity at less than the
maximum density for some reductions in density at the project level.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 3
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 2: Draft 6th Cycle RHNA (2023-2031) Required New Housing Units
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total New
Housing
Units
5th Cycle RHNA 233 129 143 150 655
6th Cycle RHNA 740 426 496 1,284 2,946
6th Cycle RHNA with 30% Recommended
Buffer
962
(740+222)
554
(426+128)
645
(496+149)
1,669
(1,284+385)
3,830
(2,946+884)
Note: The California Department of Housing and Community Development recommends a 15-30% buffer of additional housing
units above the RHNA. With the recommended buffer, Menlo Park’s 6th Cycle RHNA is 3,388 to 3,830 total new housing units.
Local jurisdictions and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) had until
July 2021 to submit appeals to ABAG’s draft RHNA and identify any concerns. No jurisdiction in San Mateo
County appealed their “fair share” allocation; however, if other appeals are successful in other counties and
ABAG adjusts the allocation, it is possible that the current number of units required in Menlo Park could be
modified. ABAG’s RHNA and appeal process will conclude in late 2021, at which point Menlo Park will have
final numbers for its Housing Element update. The 6th cycle Housing Element must then be approved by
each jurisdiction and submitted to HCD by January 2023.
Fair Housing Overview
To achieve compliance with the Housing Element’s requirement for AFFH, the City must acknowledge the
existing level of segregation that has been created from past practices and patterns of segregation. This
history includes racial covenants in neighborhoods as early as the 1920s, the expansion of Highway 101 in
the 1950s, and the subsequent disenfranchisement of northern neighborhoods (particularly Belle Haven)
through predatory real estate practices like blockbusting. These past practices have resulted in segregation
based on race, income-level, property value, access to high performing schools, and proximity to services.
Therefore, each potential housing strategy identified in this report must be considered in the context of
these disparities and with the goal of improving equity. Local jurisdictions must evaluate and address how
particular sites available for development of housing will meet the needs of households at all income levels.
The goal is to end segregated living patterns and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty into areas of opportunity.
Community Engagement and Outreach
From the outset of this effort, the City Council has stressed the importance of community engagement,
especially with underrepresented populations, and creating a process that is inclusive and intentional. To
assist in achieving this goal, the City Council formed the Community Engagement and Outreach Committee
(CEOC) who has helped guide the project team in its outreach efforts. The project team has conducted a
number of events and activities over the past four months, including a survey, several community meetings,
multiple pop-up events, and focus group meetings with targeted groups in the community.
During the aforementioned outreach events, the project team presented various land use strategies that
Menlo Park could pursue in meeting its RHNA targets and complying with affirmatively furthering fair
housing (AFFH). The project team is working with the survey vendor to review the online survey data. It
O
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 4
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
appears there were cases of IP spoofing in the survey results and the vendor is working to systematically
remove those entries. In general, initial public feedback has indicated that the Housing Element strategy
should achieve the following:
• Evenly distribute housing, including affordable and multi-family housing, throughout Menlo Park
• Prioritize housing sites close to transit, businesses, and public services
• Pursue Downtown as an ideal location for more housing; increase density along El Camino Real in the
Downtown area and enable mixed-use development at this location
• Enable non-residential to residential land use conversions that promote affordable housing and/or mixed-
use development
• Allow duplexes and triplexes in single-family areas, proportional to lot size
• Encourage affordable housing at religious sites
• Support for multi-family development under six stories
Based on this feedback and initial analysis, the project team has prepared three land use scenarios and a
comparative overview. The project team presented this information at a community meeting on September
23, 2021, and the feedback received is summarized below. Additional information about highlighted project
events and activities can be viewed on the Project Timeline subpage of the Housing Element Update
website (Attachment A) as well as in an August 31, 2021 City Council information report (Attachment B).
Summary of Land Use Strategies and Opportunity Sites/Areas Community Meeting
At this community meeting, the project team asked participants to provide feedback on various land use
strategies. The team provided background information, asked specific poll questions and provided
questions for open-ended responses. There were 75 attendees at the meeting. For the respondents who
gave demographic information, 71 percent were homeowners, 78 percent identified as white, and 48
percent of people who answered were 55 years old or older.
Of particular interest, the majority of respondents stated that their preferred affordable housing strategies
were to place additional housing in the El Camino Real/Downtown Areas or on City-owned parking lots.
When asked in which commercial area of Menlo Park they would prioritize housing development; Willow,
Middlefield, or Sharon Heights, respondents were split relatively evenly, with a slight plurality (42 percent)
prioritizing Sharon Heights.
In the El Camino/Real Downtown area, nearly half (47 percent) of respondents would prioritize housing
development along El Camino Real. Substantially fewer respondents (17 percent) would prioritize housing
in Downtown. Approximately one third (36 percent) of respondents would prioritize housing in City-owned
parking lots.
Respondents were also asked open-ended questions about any particular strategies they would support for
the creation of more affordable housing and what specific sites/areas they believed would be most suitable
for new housing.
Some respondents expressed interest in mixed-use residential and commercial developments, as well as
considerations for walkability, vibrancy, and green infrastructure. Other respondents voiced concern over
tenant protection measures and ability of the city’s infrastructure and school districts to accommodate new
residents.
Other ideas that drew attention in the community discussion include:
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 5
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
• Connecting sites in Sharon Heights to transportation and transit services,
• Incentivizing developers for supportive housing,
• Consider zoning changes to support different housing options such as dormitory-style housing or safe
sleep sites, and
• Consider zoning changes to promote 100% affordable development (such as lowering parking
requirements or increasing density).
Full responses to the poll questions and all responses to the open-ended discussion prompts can be found
in Attachment C. The presentation and video from the meeting are included as Attachments D and E,
respectively.
Analysis
For the 2023-2031 planning period, the City must plan for between 3,400 and 3,800 housing units as shown
in Table 2 above. The Housing Element must demonstrate that there are sufficient sites and adequate
capacity to accommodate the housing. One of the primary components of a Housing Element is the site
inventory and analysis, which identifies suitable land for residential development and an analysis of the
relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. As part of the available site analysis, a
local jurisdiction is required to demonstrate the projected residential development capacity of the sites that
can be realistically achieved, and whether the site can accommodate a portion of its RHNA by income level
during the planning period. When evaluating potential sites, a number of parameters must also be
considered, including:
• Demonstration that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the 2023-2031 planning period
• Sites for lower-income households are not concentrated in lower resource areas and segregated areas
of poverty
• Sites must be at least .5 acre but no larger than 10 acres, unless justified
• Proximity to transit, high performing schools, jobs, parks, and services
• Access to health care facilities and grocery stores
• Proximity to available infrastructure and utilities
Overview of Potential Land Use Strategies
The project team has identified seven initial strategies to achieve the 6th cycle RHNA requirements, while
adhering to the intent of fair housing requirements. These strategies were shared at a high level with the
City Council at their May 25, 2021 Housing Element Update kick-off meeting and at a Housing Commission
study session on August 4, 2021. The Housing Commission identified an eighth strategy to evaluate city
and publicly-owned land, which was discussed at the September 23, 2021 community meeting. The staff
report for the City Council meeting and Housing Commission study session are included as Attachments F
and G, respectively, and the presentation for the September 23, 2021 community meeting is included as
Attachment D (referenced above). The land use strategies are intended to be broad and can be achieved
throughout the City, and further refined throughout the process. The project team has taken the various land
use strategies and prepared three land use scenarios for consideration. The purpose of the joint meeting
with the Planning Commission and Housing Commission is to provide feedback and a recommendation on
a preferred land use scenario, which is further discussed later in this report. For context, the eight land use
strategies are summarized below and include an estimated housing unit yield.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 6
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
5th Cycle Housing Element Sites (Reuse Sites)
Per State law each housing element cycle must identify opportunity sites where housing development could
be appropriate, taking into consideration factors such as site conditions, existing uses and development
potential under existing zoning. Appendix A, Available Land Inventory, of the City’s current Housing Element
(2015-2023) identifies potential housing opportunity sites throughout the City (Attachment H). During the
planning period, not all locations were redeveloped with housing. As a result, Menlo Park can re-use some
sites; however, some sites may need upzoning to achieve minimum densities set by the State. For
metropolitan counties, such as, San Mateo County, the State sets the minimum density at 30 dwelling units
per acre (du/ac). Therefore, to be eligible to reuse former opportunity sites, a site would need to have a
minimum density of 30 du/ac and have the potential for by-right development (i.e. ministerial approval with
no discretionary decision making) if 20 percent of the units are made affordable.
Major Pipeline Projects
The 2016 adoption of the ConnectMenlo plan enabled opportunities for development of up to 4,500 new
housing units in the Bayfront area. Table 3, below, identifies the major residential projects that are currently
in the pipeline as either pending or approved projects. Approximately 3,200 units are currently in the
pipeline as either pending or approved projects. These units, as well as smaller projects in the City, could
potentially count towards Menlo Park’s RHNA net new unit requirement if the residential units are not
completed before June 30, 2022.
Table 3: Major Pipeline Projects
Project Status Units
111 Independence Dr. Approved 105
115 Independence Dr. (Menlo Portal) Approved 336
141 Jefferson Dr. (Menlo Uptown) Approved 483
123 Independence Dr. Pending 432
165 Jefferson Dr. (Menlo Flats) Pending 158
Willow Village Pending 1,729
Total 3,243
El Camino Real/Downtown
The El Camino Real and Downtown neighborhood in Menlo Park provides another opportunity to explore for
additional housing beyond the 2012 Specific Plan’s residential cap that what was previously studied in the
2015-2023 Housing Element. Due to the proximity to Caltrain and the services downtown, higher residential
densities could be considered within the Downtown/El Camino Real Specific Plan area. The estimated yield
for housing units is between 250 and 750 units.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 7
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Publicly-owned Land
Portions of city-owned parking lots in Downtown potentially could be developed for affordable housing. In
order to determine the feasibility of these sites for affordable housing, a number of factors need to be taken
into account including the acquisition and financing of the improvements of these lots through Assessment
District financing. The use of City parkland was previously considered as part of this strategy, but the City
Council subsequently expressed no interest in using parkland for housing purposes at its meeting on
September 21, 2021. The estimated yield for housing on the Downtown parking plazas is between 50 and
250 units.
Commercial Sites
Existing vacant or non-vacant commercial sites are potential housing sites because they can either be
converted to housing or develop as mixed-use buildings. There are a number of zoning districts within the
City that currently do not allow for mixed-use residential/commercial developments. Examples include areas
along the Middlefield Road, Willow Road, and Sand Hill Road. The housing unit range on commercial sites
is estimated to be between 750 and 1,250 units.
Religious Facilities
New state laws encourage the streamlined development of affordable housing in the existing parking lots of
religious facilities. The low land acquisition cost and potential “mission-driven” goals of religious
organizations can encourage affordable housing. There are several religious facilities with parking lots
suitable for development of affordable housing, and the estimated yield is up to 50 units.
Accessory Dwelling Units
HCD provides two different methodologies the City can use when applying ADUs as a strategy for achieving
RHNA numbers. The first methodology allows the City to determine an annual ADU production rate based
on outcomes from 2018-2020. During this time Menlo Park produced an average of 10.6 units per year.
Therefore, 85 units could be assumed during the planning period covered by the 6th cycle element. The
second methodology allows a weighted average based on the ADU production between 2015-2017. The
average is weighted (5 times actual) as it assumes a higher rate of production attributed to more recent
State legislation. This results in a total of 376 units assumed during the planning period covered by the 6th
cycle element. Depending on the methodology applied, this solution could account for approximately 85 -
376 net new units. While this is considered a “safe harbor” methodology, the City would likely need to
consider ADU incentives to substantially increase current production levels.
Single Family Areas
The Governor signed SB 9 on September 16, 2021. SB9 allows all single family lots to subdivide into two
lots and a duplex is allowed on each of the two lots. SB9 would now allow 3 additional units on all single
family parcels above 2,400 square feet. The City will continue to learn more about SB 9 and how it could
affect actual housing production in the City. With the passage of SB 9, the project team will no longer
consider additional housing options in single family areas above and beyond State law unless directed by
the City Council.
Meeting the City’s RHNA
In summary, these land use strategies could potentially yield upwards of 5,600 dwelling units as shown in
Table 4 below and represent sites throughout the City as shown in Attachment I. The quantity of units alone
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 8
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
is not adequate for meeting the requirements of the Housing Element. Consideration must also be given to
varying affordability levels, site location, and potential feasibility as a housing site. While all 5,600 units do
not need to be studied as housing opportunity sites, there should be a buffer to allow flexibility as the sites
are refined through the process.
Table 4: Land Use Strategies Overview
Potential Strategy Magnitude of potential
new housing units
Pipeline Projects 3,243
5th Cycle Sites 100 - 300
Religious Facilities 0 - 50
Commercial Sites 600 - 1,200
El Camino Real/Downtown 250 - 750
Accessory Dwelling Units 85
Single-Family Areas Variable based on SB9
Net RHNA Targets
The City’s RHNA can be met through a combination of strategies such as pipeline projects noted above,
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on building permit trends, and sites zoned for housing. The latter
can be through existing sites or sites that are rezoned to allow for residential uses or higher density
housing. After subtracting both the pipeline projects and approved ADUs and applying these as a credit
towards the City’s RHNA, it results in a net RHNA. The net RHNA number is what the City will need to plan
for and is the focus of the following land use scenarios described later in this report. Table 5 below shows a
comparison of the total RHNA and the net RHNA, including a breakdown of the remaining number of
housing units in each income category. Although the project team is still refining numbers, it is anticipated
that the City will need to identify sites for a total of 1,597 affordable units (very low, low, and moderate
income categories) and zero above moderate income, or “market rate” units.
ceasefire
mÉ
A D U
sites zoned for housing
existing
up zoning
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 9
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 5: Net New RHNA Needed
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total New
Housing Units
0-50% AMI 51-80%
AMI
81-120%
AMI
>120%
AMI
6th Cycle RHNA 740 426 496 1,284 2,946
30% Buffer 222 128 149 385 884
6th Cycle RHNA with 30% Buffer 962 554 645 1,669 3,830
6th Cycle RHNA Credit
Pipeline Projects 37 349 101 2,756 3,243
Accessory Dwelling Units 26 25 26 8 85
Credit Subtotal 63 374 127 2,764 3,328
Total Net New Units Needed 899 180 518 1,597
Note: AMI = Area Median Income
State law (AB 686) requires Housing Elements to identify opportunity sites where new housing development
would be appropriately distributed throughout the community with a focus on high opportunity areas. This
includes areas with access to good schools, parks, jobs and needed services. Due to the very high level of
pending and approved housing in the Bayfront area, the focus of the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites
strategies is to provide housing opportunities in other areas of the city in order to plan for a more equitable
distribution of new housing. While the City may retain and reuse some sites scattered throughout the City in
the current Housing Element that have not been built-upon, Menlo Park will also need to identify and rezone
new sites not previously identified to meet the state mandates. Therefore, the major pipeline projects in
District 1 and reuse sites alone cannot satisfy the RHNA requirement.
Land Use Scenarios
The project team has developed three land use scenario options that strive to comply with State
requirements and consider the public comments received over the past five months. When crafting these
strategies, the project team identified various sites that could facilitate housing development, evaluated the
potential for added density, and estimated each site’s capacity for both affordable and market rate units.
The project team also assigned development ratios to consider the likelihood of any one site within broad
development areas to develop with affordable housing. Criteria for this analysis also included lot size,
property ownership, age of existing buildings, proximity to transit and city services, displacement of existing
affordable housing units and clustering of affordable units.
Menlo Park must also take a citywide approach to meet the RHNA requirements, including by income level,
and comply with AFFH objectives. No single area or City Council District can absorb all the required new
housing. In order to promote fair housing, new housing should be dispersed across the entire city. Given the
number of pipeline projects, no additional housing is proposed to be planned in City Council District 1, with
the exception of a potential affordable for-sale project by MidPen Housing at 335 Pierce Road. The
0
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 10
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
proposed land use scenarios take advantage of sites in City Council Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5. The range of
sites under consideration are generally outlined with three main characteristics:
1. Sites that can accommodate lower incomes which are limited to 0.5 acres and 10 acres
2. Access to resources including jobs, transit, parks, and schools. These sites are generally, 15-minute
walking distances to these resources. Some sites were slightly further than 15 minutes from schools,
notably the Sand Hill Road commercial sites and some religious facilities. However, in order to
encourage more housing throughout the City and because these sites were still less than 20 minutes
from the nearest school, they were included in the list of potential sites.
3. Have some realistic feasibility of development. Sites with newer buildings were excluded from the
proposed range of sites.
Each scenario includes various densities and locations, with broad development patterns in the following
four areas: Downtown/El Camino Real corridor, Middlefield Road corridor, Willow Road corridor, and in
Sharon Heights. These areas are characterized as follows and shown in Attachment J.
1. Downtown/El Camino Real:
• Santa Cruz Corridor: This 10.9-acre area consists mostly of one and two-story buildings, particularly
along Santa Cruz Avenue. Development would be at the default density of 30 du/ac except for
parcels within the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area that currently allow densities higher
than 30 du/ac.
• Downtown Parking Lots: Most of the parking lots in Downtown are owned by the City of Menlo Park
and consist of 9.1 acres that potentially could be used for housing development.
• El Camino Real: Underdeveloped lots within the El Camino Real commercial corridor account for
27.4 acres within the City. The project would include policy changes to allow housing within this area
at the default density of 30 du/ac.
2. Middlefield:
• Middlefield Corridor: Underdeveloped lots within the Middlefield Road commercial corridor from
Ravenswood Avenue to Willow Road account for 39 acres within the City. The Housing Element
Update would include policy changes to allow housing within this area at the default density of 30
du/ac while retaining the ability for retail uses.
• USGS Site: There is a 12-acre and a 5-acre parcel that is planned for auction as the USGS moves to
Moffett Field. These are federally owned properties that would need to be rezoned to allow
residential uses.
3. Willow:
• Willow Corridor: Underdeveloped lots within the Willow Road commercial corridor near US-101 and
the VA campus account for 9.4 acres within the City. The project would include policy changes to
allow housing within this area at the default density of 30 du/ac.
• VA Site: The VA is considering developing a 2-acre portion of the site for housing along Willow Road
in conjunction with MidPen Housing. Preliminary plans show approximately 61 new affordable units.
4. Sharon Heights:
• Sand Hill Road: Underdeveloped lots within the Sharon Heights neighborhood, near Sand Hill Road,
account for 28.8 acres within the City. The project would include policy changes to allow housing
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 11
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
within this area at the default density of 30 du/ac.
• Sharon Heights Shopping Center: The Sharon Heights Shopping Center is a 7-acre property within
the City. The project would include policy changes to allow housing at this site at the default density
of 30 du/ac while maintaining the ability for retail uses.
Table 6 provides a summary of the assumptions described above that are consistent amongst the three
scenarios. In addition to the geographic areas and the acreage within that geographic area, the level of
affordability and the densities are constant among the three scenarios. For reference, the estimated
maximum number of units has been provided in the table. This number is more than twice the net RHNA
that needs to be met, which provides some flexibility for how and where to meet the remaining RHNA.
Table 6: Net New RHNA Needed
Areas Acres Affordability Density
Estimated
Maximum
Units
Downtown/El Camino Real 47 100% 30-60** 1,263
Santa Cruz Corridor 10.9 100% 30-60** 328
Parking Lots 9.1 100% 30 274
El Camino Real 27.4 100% 30-60** 661
Middlefield 42 100% 30 1,250
Middlefield Corridor 24.6 100% 30 739
USGS Site 17 100% 30 510
Willow 11 100% 30 342
Willow Corridor 9.4 100% 30 282
VA Site 2 100% 30 61
Sharon Heights 36 100% 30 1,073
Sand Hill Road 28.8 100% 30 864
Sharon Heights Safeway 7 100% 30 209
Other Sites 32 100% 30 573
SRI Site 10 15% 40 400
Ravenswood School District Site at Sheridan Dr. 1.6 100% 30 78
Religious Facilities 20.8 100% 30 126
Total 4500
Default Density
As shown in the table, most of the sites/areas have been evaluated at 30 du/ac. State law allows cities to
assume lower-income affordable housing for sites that meet or exceed certain “default densities” (30
dwelling units/acre (du/ac)) for Menlo Park to address affordability targets established by RHNA for very low
and low-income households. Using the State’s “default” density approach, units at 30 du/ac can be
anticipated to be 100 percent affordable. Of these units, 50 percent are at the very low-income level and 50
percent are at the low-income level. HCD allows for units to be carried over into a higher affordability level
(i.e., very low to low, low to moderate, and moderate to above moderate). While use of the default density
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 12
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
meets HCD’s requirements, the project team understands that the default density must also be
accompanied by strong housing policies that help promote the production of affordable housing. The City
can further encourage and facilitate production of affordable units on these sites through development
standards and regulatory incentives. For example, the City currently has an affordable housing overlay
which allows for density bonuses, development incentives, and fee waivers to encourage the development
of affordable housing. The City could consider expanding its existing Affordable Housing Overlay which
currently only applies to the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan Area and specific parcels zoned R-4 (AHO)
and/or include additional incentives or deeper subsidies for affordable housing projects. Different
alternatives could suggest different policy guidance. Further conversation on housing policies with the
Housing Commission is targeted for November 2021.
“Other Sites”
All of the proposed scenarios include an “other sites” category. This category is not geographic based, but
includes specific sites and a land use strategy that the project team believes should be included, regardless
of the scenario selected given interest expressed by the property owners and recent changes in State law.
However, the Planning Commission and Housing Commission may wish to provide feedback on the
densities for the sites, which can be adjusted.
• SRI (333 Ravenswood Avenue): The property owner has indicated a desire to develop housing on a
portion of the SRI campus as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the site. The strategies all
consider the potential for a 10-acre portion at the southwest corner of the current SRI site to be
developed with housing at 40 du/ac, based on initial plans. At a minimum, the project is expected to be
developed according to the City’s existing below market rate ordinance, requiring 15% of a 400-unit
development – or 60 units – to be reserved for low-income housing.
• Former Flood School (321 Sheridan Drive): The strategies all consider the 2.6-acre site owned by the
Ravenswood School District in the Suburban Park neighborhood, to be redeveloped for housing. This
site could support 78 affordable units at the default density of 30 du/ac.
• Religious Facilities: The City includes an area of 20.8 acres on sites with religious facilities that are
eligible to develop affordable housing on their surface parking lots, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1851
(Wicks). Assuming that approximately two of the city’s seven faith-based organizations pursue their
option to construct housing through this program, 32 affordable units can be developed in these lots
throughout the city. The number of units and affordability levels are based on use of the default density.
The proposed three scenarios consider different development ratios in the various geographic areas as
follows:
Option A – Moderate Upzoning Throughout the City
This option pursues a moderate increase in density citywide to gain 1,883 affordable units and 2,221 total
units. This option utilizes many of the land use strategies and distributes development throughout the City in
relatively equal amounts in the four geographic areas. Table 7 provides a summary of the anticipated
number of units within each geographic area, at each income level.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 13
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 7: Option A – Moderate Upzoning Throughout the City
Affordability Level
Areas Dev
Ratio
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Units
Downtown/El Camino Real 42% 247 247 0 0 494
Santa Cruz Corridor 33% 51 51 0 0 102
Parking Lots 33% 46 46 0 0 92
El Camino Real 50% 150 150 0 0 300
Middlefield 43% 269 269 0 0 538
Middlefield Corridor 50% 185 185 0 0 370
USGS Site 33% 84 84 0 0 168
Willow 66% 91 31 1 0 123
Willow Corridor 50% 31 31 0 0 62
VA Site 100% 60 0 1 0 61
Sharon Heights 55% 294 294 0 0 588
Sand Hill Road 50% 216 216 0 0 432
Sharon Heights Safeway 75% 78 78 0 0 156
Other Sites 83% 39 99 0 340 478
SRI Site 100% 0 60 0 340 400
Ravenswood School District Site and Sheridan Dr 100% 23 23 0 0 46
Religious Facilities 25% 16 16 0 0 32
Total 940 940 1 340 2,221
Net New RHNA Needed 899 180 518 0 1,597
Note: HCD allows carryover into higher affordability level (Very Low to Low, Low to Moderate, and Moderate to Above
Moderate). Due to rounding, totals may not summate as shown.
Option B – Mixed Use Development Focused on Middlefield/Willow
Option B focuses on adding residential use along Middlefield Road, particularly at the Middlefield and
Willow intersection, while pursing more modest increases in density Downtown and at Sharon Heights. This
would add 1,901 affordable units and 2,241 units overall. This option focuses development on the
commercial sites land use strategy. Table 8 provides a summary of the anticipated number of units provided
in each geographic area, at each income level.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 14
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 8: Option B – Mixed Use Development Focused on Middlefield/Willow
Affordability Level
Areas Dev
Ratio
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Units
Downtown/El Camino Real 19% 114 114 0 0 228
Santa Cruz Corridor 25% 39 39 0 0 78
Parking Lots 0% 0 0 0 0 0
El Camino Real 25% 75 75 0 0 150
Middlefield 75% 469 469 0 0 938
Middlefield Corridor 75% 277 277 0 0 554
USGS Site 75% 192 192 0 0 384
Willow 83% 107 47 1 0 155
Willow Corridor 75% 47 47 0 0 94
VA Site 100% 60 0 1 0 61
Sharon Heights 41% 221 221 0 0 442
Sand Hill Road 33% 143 143 0 0 286
Sharon Heights Safeway 75% 78 78 0 0 156
Other Sites 83% 39 99 0 340 478
SRI Site 100% 0 60 0 340 400
Ravenswood School District Site and Sheridan Dr 100% 23 23 0 0 47
Religious Facilities 25% 16 16 0 0 32
Total 950 950 1 340 2,241
Net New RHNA Needed 899 180 518 0 1,597
Note: HCD allows carryover into higher affordability level (Very Low to Low, Low to Moderate, and Moderate to Above Moderate).
Due to rounding, totals may not summate as shown.
Option C – Mixed Use Development Focused in Downtown/El Camino Real
Option C focuses greater density in the Downtown and along the El Camino Real corridor, while pursuing
more modest increases in density at Middlefield, Willow, and in the Sharon Heights neighborhood near
Sand Hill Road to gain approximately 1,917 affordable units and 2,257 units overall. This option uses the
land use strategies focusing on the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan and in multifamily areas. Table
9 provides a summary of the anticipated number of units provided in each geographic area, at each income
level.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 15
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 9: Option C – Mixed Use Development Focused in Downtown/El Camino Real
Affordability Level
Areas Dev
Ratio
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Units
Downtown/El Camino Real 65% 387 387 0 0 774
Santa Cruz Corridor 75% 116 116 0 0 232
Parking Lots 33% 45 45 0 0 90
El Camino Real 75% 226 226 0 0 452
Middlefield 35% 220 220 0 0 440
Middlefield Corridor 25% 92 92 0 0 184
USGS Site 50% 128 128 0 0 256
Willow 66% 91 31 1 0 123
Willow Corridor 50% 31 31 0 0 62
VA Site 100% 60 0 1 0 61
Sharon Heights 41% 221 221 0 0 442
Sand Hill Road 33% 143 143 0 0 286
Sharon Heights Safeway 75% 78 78 0 0 156
Other Sites 83% 39 99 0 340 478
SRI Site 100% 0 60 0 340 400
Ravenswood School District Site and Sheridan Dr 100% 23 23 0 0 46
Religious Facilities 25% 16 16 0 0 32
Total 958 958 1 340 2,256
Net New RHNA Needed 899 180 518 0 1,597
Note: HCD allows carryover into higher affordability level (Very Low to Low, Low to Moderate, and Moderate to Above Moderate).
Due to rounding, totals may not summate as shown.
Table 10 below provides a comparison of the anticipated number of units provided in each geographic area
by each scenario.
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 16
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 10: Net New Units by Development Area
Option Summary
Downtown/
El Camino
Real
Middlefield Willow Sharon
Heights
Other
Sites Total
A Moderate Upzoning
Throughout the City 494 538 123 588 478 2,221
B
Mixed Use
Development Focused
on Middlefield/Willow
228 938 155 422 478 2,241
C
Mixed Use
Development Focused
in Downtown/ El
Camino Real
772 440 123 442 478 2,257
Throughout this process, the team has heard from decision-makers and the community an interest in how
the potential units would be divided by Council Districts as well as Elementary School Districts. (All units
would be served by Sequoia Union High School District). Table 11 and 12 show the three scenarios by
those Districts, respectively. District 1 does not include additional sites given the number of approved and
pending projects in the pipeline.
Table 11: Net New Units by Council District
Option Summary 1 2 3 4 5 Total
A Moderate Upzoning
Throughout the City 0 164 1,064 394 600 2,221
B
Mixed Use Development
Focused on
Middlefield/Willow
0 192 1,399 197 453 2,241
C
Mixed Use Development
Focused in Downtown/ El
Camino Real
0 164 908 732 453 2,257
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 17
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
Table 12: Net New Units by School District
Option Summary Las
Lomitas SD
Ravenswood
City SD
Redwood
City SD
Menlo
Park City
SD
Total
A Moderate Upzoning
Throughout the City 600 63 0 1,558 2,221
B
Mixed Use Development
Focused on
Middlefield/Willow
453 85 0 1,703 2,241
C
Mixed Use Development
Focused in Downtown/ El
Camino Real
459 63 0 1,735 2,257
As shown in the table, each scenario is estimated to accommodate 2,200 new housing units. The changes
in the development ratios are the primary driver for the differences between the scenarios. The
development ratio is just one variable to consider. By increasing the density above the default density of 30
du/ac at one or more parcels, fewer sites may be needed to meet the City’s RHNA. However, lowering
densities below 30 du/ac would impact the affordability levels and the City’s ability to meet its RHNA
requirement for lower income units.
The project team believes distributing the residential units throughout the City is fundamental goal. Based
on community feedback, staff believes Option A best reflects input and interest to see development spread
throughout the City, particularly in Sharon Heights and along the El Camino Real/Downtown corridor. While
the three scenarios have been provided for consideration, the Planning Commission and Housing
Commission could adjust the lever on the development ratio and/or density of a site/area. In providing
feedback and a recommendation, the Commissions should keep in mind distribution amongst the general
geographic areas for fair housing and that maximizing a site or area to 100% development ratio is not
realistic for planning purposes. To meet the new RHNA, sites for approximately 2,200 housing units should
be identified, which provides flexibility for further refinement while providing a reasonable number to be
studied in the environmental impact report (EIR) and fiscal impact analysis (FIA) without potentially
overstating impacts as well as a buffer in case projects are not developed at the anticipated density. The
project team is seeking a recommendation on a preferred land use scenario from the Planning Commission
and Housing Commission to provide to the City Council.
Next Steps
Following this meeting, the project team will present the three land use strategies and any recommendation
from the Planning Commission and Housing Commission to the City Council for further direction. This
meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 26, 2021. While the sites can continue to be refined through
the process, the general amount and locations will need to be defined as part of the City Council’s review
and direction. The preferred strategy will then serve as the basis for the Project Description analyzed in the
Program EIR. At the beginning of the EIR process, the City will release a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
indicating the start of a public comment period during which time the public may provide feedback on the
scope of analysis to be conducted during the EIR. This process is anticipated to begin shortly after the City
Council meeting on strategy direction. Concurrently with the preparation of the EIR, the project team will be
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 18
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
working with its consultant to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA), which would evaluate the fiscal
impacts to the City’s General Fund as well as impacts to special districts that provides services to residents
and businesses in Menlo Park. In addition, the consultant will prepare a separate high level estimate of the
costs to construct potentially new public facilities that would be needed to serve public school students
generated by the land use scenario.
Depending on the desired intensity and location of development, the project team would also begin to focus
on developing regulations and policies that would help support these outcomes. The project team
recognizes that the identification of sites needs to be supported by strong housing policies that help
encourage the production of housing, particularly affordable housing. The project team is targeting a
Housing Commission in November to discuss housing policies, which would help craft the housing goals,
policies and programs in the Housing Element.
Impact on City Resources
On November 10, 2020, the City Council authorized up to $1.69 million for the preparation of the housing
element, including consultant services and partial funding for two full-time equivalent staff positions for the
fiscal year 2020-21. On March 23, 2021, the City Council authorized the city manager to negotiate a scope
of work and fee and execute an agreement with the M-Group for a fee, not to exceed $982,000.
Environmental Review
This agenda item is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the
environment. As part of the Housing Element Update process, an environmental impact report will be
prepared.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72
hours prior to the meeting. A notice was also published in the local newspaper 10 days before the meeting.
A citywide newsletter was mailed to all Menlo Park addresses with information about the Housing Element
and mention of an upcoming joint Planning Commission and Housing Commission meeting.
Attachments
A. Hyperlink – Housing Element webpage: https://www.menlopark.org/housingelement
B. Hyperlink – August 31, 2021 City Council staff report:
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/29505/J3-20210831-CC-Housing-element-update
C. September 23, 2021 Community Meeting Polling and Open-Ended Discussion Responses
D. Hyperlink – September 23, 2021 Community Meeting Presentation (English):
https://menlopark.app.box.com/file/863781482381?s=5u67x1uogujje2mae56f7bziby09ymkn
E. Hyperlink – September 23, 2021 Community Meeting Video (English Audio):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI-jcZ3U_LA&t=65s
F. Hyperlink – May 25, 2021 City Council staff report:
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/28164/N1-20210525-CC-Housing-element-update
Staff Report #: 21-048-PC
Page 19
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org
G. Hyperlink – August 4, 2021 Housing Commission staff report:
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/29271/D2-20220804_Housing-Element-update-
review?bidId
H. Hyperlink – 2015-2023 Housing Element (Appendix A, Available Land Inventory, begins on page 145):
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/4329/Adopted-Housing-Element-2015-2023?bidId
I. Potential Housing Opportunity Sites Map
J. Potential Development Areas Map
Report prepared by:
Geoff Bradley, AICP, Principal, M-Group
Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Report reviewed by:
Justin Murphy, Deputy City Manager
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank