Dear Mayor Nash, Vice Mayor Wolosin, and Councilmembers,
Thank you for all of the work you have put into our Housing Element update process. We’re very excited by this opportunity to shape a bright future for our city!
Menlo Together is a group of Menlo Park and Peninsula residents who envision an integrated and diverse, multi-generational, and environmentally sustainable city. We advocate for an accessible and inviting downtown Menlo Park with housing at all affordability levels, and with pedestrian and bike-friendly spaces, developed to be carbon-free. We value equity, sustainability, inclusion, health, and racial and economic justice.
The Housing Element is an important opportunity to further these goals. Our priorities are a fully compliant Housing Element with required homes at all income levels, including:
* Robust policies and plans to produce extremely low-income and very low-income affordable housing for people of all abilities
* Greater density at all levels of affordability near transit (El Camino/Downtown)
* Robust tenant protections to avoid displacement
We’re writing to bring to your attention recent updates from the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which has been evaluating Housing Element submissions from parts of the state that are further ahead in the timeline than our region.
HCD has recently rejected Housing Element drafts for a few suburban cities near universities (similar to Menlo Park) due to questions about site viability, insufficient policies and programs to enable required housing, and insufficient steps to further fair housing. Below are three examples (including links to the letters).
1. Davis: Rejected on 12/8/21. Some of the reasons cited by HCD included:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/yoldavisdraftoutadopted120821.pdf
* Did not demonstrate that existing uses will be discontinued during the element period/cycle
* Lack of analysis of current programs and processes for building housing and how they will be changed to build more housing
* Did not demonstrate that sites chosen will affirmatively further fair housing
1. Beverly Hills: Rejected on 1/14/22
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1plkkz_Pd9Vxc1RmQMZJQJeX7SKQSGJ0Y/view
* Did not demonstrate that existing uses will be discontinued during the element period/cycle
* Did not commit to specific programs that would mitigate housing constraints, only to “study” and “evaluate”
* Did not show how plan will further fair housing or how the entire community was involved in the plan
1. Santa Monica: Rejected on 2/8/22
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P5C5dCa0NY7lxKD9MMssnAQwrUzhxqaZ/view?usp=sharing
* Inadequate analysis and overly optimistic assumptions about the realistic development capacity of properties in the sites inventory
* Inadequate analysis of governmental constraints to housing and lack of specific commitments to remove constraints
* Inadequate analysis and programs to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH)
In addition to creating extra work and increasing costs, needing to revise Housing Element drafts may also expose cities to risks and penalties.
Based on these recent examples, it seems that HCD has a different review process than in previous cycles. HCD has also stated that penalties for non-compliance are higher this cycle. Based on HCD’s documentation and other recent state actions, risk and penalties may include:
* Loss of the ability to approve local projects and enforce local zoning laws
* Loss of access to affordable housing and transit funding programs
* Lawsuits from the state (recently, Huntington Beach was sued by the AG’s office, and Woodside and Pasadena were sent stern letters by AG Bonta over bad-faith housing decisions)
* Fines from the state, up to $600k/month
With HCD’s new approach and recent precedent in mind, we strongly recommend that Menlo Park take action now to enhance its Housing Element. Our recommendations are:
1. Demonstrating that existing uses will be discontinued: The City’s site strategy heavily relies on sites with non-residential uses, including offices occupied by wealthy VC firms on Sand Hill Road, or multi-billion dollar companies like Robinhood’s headquarters on Willow Road.
* Proposed solution: add more feasible sites, or provide stronger incentives for owners of identified sites to build housing. Based on comments from local developers of both affordable and market-rate housing, density is a large limiting factor in whether redevelopment is feasible at a specific site.
2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Participants in public forums related to the Housing Element have been predominantly English-language speakers, homeowners, and stably housed residents.
* Proposed solution: It’s not too late. The perspectives of others must be gathered using alternate strategies, and incorporated into the strategy.
3. Enhancing programs and policies to incentivize housing: Consider how the City’s policies play out in today’s high-cost development environment. Analyze government constraints and specific commitments to remove them.
* Proposed solution: Enact policies that encourage partnership between for-profit and non-profit developers in order to produce deeply affordable and special needs housing on donated land (in addition to inclusionary BMR housing), which is the most common and successful strategy for producing such housing.
* Proposed solution: Zone and regulate publicly owned land to attract residential development that is the most challenging for market forces to build: deeply affordable housing and housing for people with special needs.
* Proposed solution: Significantly increase the pace of policy and program implementation relative to the last cycle - including robust tenant protections - in order to achieve these goals. HCD requirements state that specific metrics must be put in place and tracked in order to measure success.
* Proposed solution: Prioritize housing people over cars, and set parking requirements to reflect those priorities, especially near transit. Data shows that many communities have regulations that require more parking than residents use in transit-rich areas. Consider parking maximums and eliminate parking minimums.
* Proposed solution: Include robust plans to raise the funds necessary to facilitate new affordable homes, at targeted levels of affordability, including extremely low and no-income households.
Thank you for considering these suggestions. We are excited about this opportunity to shape a wonderful and vibrant future for our City that’s equitable, sustainable, and inclusive for all.
Respectfully,
The Menlo Together Team
info@menlotogether.org
