I was unable to find the latest letter. Hopefully this will be posted by MP or available at on the HCD site soon.

The way the rules were written (and further interpreted along the way by HCD), there is probably little to no way for MP or towns that are similar in size and build-out, to be able to get HCD's sign-off. This I suspect is by design.

Only upside I can see is that our city planners, and elected officials get a good dose of the pain that MP citizens go through with our MP planning and building department such as: shifting requirements, multiple review letters with feedback that contains "generic language", review letters that add additional issues after the original issues were addressed, etc. Perhaps going through this pain will get them to review the policies towards its citizens and make changes for the better.

I'm perplexed why Menlo Park city leaders can't figure this out. Other towns and cities have. And please don't tell me it's because our city is "unique." That's just an excuse for not willing to make difficult - but necessary - changes.

From Atherton Town Manager's Monthly report:

"Of the 539 California jurisdictions (County, City and Town), 472 of them are in the current 6th Cycle of Housing Element Compliance process. The remainder are still within the 5th Cycle. Of the 472 jurisdictions, 276(58.47%) have been deemed IN compliance by the State. The
remaining 195 are at some stage of adoption or initial/subsequent draft and review by HCD. Some jurisdictional areas entered the process earlier and have had earlier compliance deadlines. The
State provides a Housing Element Review and Compliance Report on the HCD website."

Web Link

In San Mateo county only Brisband and RWC are in compliance. Santa Clara county is also largely out of compliance.

It might be worth looking at the RWC HE to deconstruct the magic.

There is no "magic." It's very difficult for smaller cities and towns, especially those that are largely built out and have little available vacant land, to comply with the HCD and RHNA allocations. Making it even more difficult are cities and towns with expensive land costs which make development of lower income residences very difficult.

As Peter Carpenter noted above, less than 60% of California cities and towns have approved Housing Elements. And we are now two years into the eight year cycle.

It is inaccurate to simply blame the City Council. Former councils have been doing just what Menlo Park citizens wanted them to do: blow off state housing mandates, for the last 33 years. Now the chickens have come home to roost. I hope we can get something approved, and use it to ward off the development proposed under the builders remedy, for the Sunset Magazine property, a project that would basically destroy Menlo Park.

The way to fix the housing issue is to stop voting for Blue fascists. The traffic congestion is already absurdly awful and our electrical/water grid is at the breaking point. How will the Peninsula look in ten years? Oh yeah, pretty much like downtown SF now. More people, mandated electric cars and appliances will definitely improve our quality of life and infrastructure. Please stop with the group think and end this madness!

Could it be that the HCD wanted "Builders Remedy" to apply all along?

Or was their set purpose to cause foment in nearly every small community in the state?

A no-compromise approach will crush some, and embolden others. Either way, it's not the California that anyone wants.

Amusingly, the housing allocations were based on pre-pandemic projections of continued significant growth in California's population (I think another ten million over a decade). Of course, California is now losing population.

@pogo "There is no "magic." It's difficult for smaller cities and towns, especially those that are largely built out and have little available vacant land, to comply with the HCD and RHNA allocations"

I don't think so.

I googled some of the boilerplate policy jargon that appears in the HCD response letter. "access to opportunity" and "promote housing mobility", etc.

Here is an one site: Web Link

It includes this account from the HCD's interaction with Lafayette.

"The second HCD comment referred to the city's "concentrated area of affluence" and proportion of households with high median income; both of which present mobility barriers to accessible housing choices and affordability. ... the comment means that even if they meet RHNA requirements, HCD is requiring jurisdictions - not just in Lafayette but in other areas with similar demographics - to provide more housing opportunities in single-family home neighborhoods."

It's the HUD/HCD policy euphemism that declares defines R1 neighborhoods as "presenting mobility barriers" and enables HCD to force higher zoning options in those neighborhoods.

I've shown elsewhere that 1.) HCD stated policy will recognize 30du/acre zoning in MP and 20du/acre zoning in PV as "suitable for low-income" families "without question" even though 2.) market rate housing prices at any density in those two communities preclude any but the most affluent.

To sum up. Even if you meet RHNA allocations in other sites, HCD has the discretionary power to force upzoning of expensive R1 neighborhoods.

Effectively this policy creates the legal pretext to dismantle R1 neighborhoods, pretends to house low-income families in "high opportunity" neighborhoods, but really creates housing opportunities for the highest paid tech workers.

"... but really creates housing opportunities for the highest paid tech workers."

And big money in developers' pockets. Think maybe our officials in Sacto may be in developers' pockets?

California's budget is largely funded by quite high capital gains taxes paid by people in the state's wealthy suburbs who enjoy the nicenesses that such suburbs offer. It is conceivable that, by legislating increasing homogeneity between cities, the state will encourage the current high-tax paying residents to gradually leave the state and few new ones to move in. That might reduce the benefits that the state can provide to all its citizens in the long run.

Seems HCD is moving the goal posts, perhaps by design for high income areas as others in the thread suggest. Was this last requirement present in the other HCD letters?

Let's please, together, stop the reckless damage and vote out the progressives (starting with Newsom) who are driving companies and high tax paying individuals from the state and seem hell-bent on creating urban sprawl statewide and eliminating suburbs.

I sincerely hope this stupid neighborhood destroying will get people to wake up and stop reflexively pulling that D lever. I've voted Democrat for decades and no more. I won't vote Republican for national office but we need a change here in California when the YIMBY coalition from SF has more influence on Menlo Park than our own homeowners.

@MenloLifestyle well said, I concur.

If Sacramento officials are going to control OUR local neighborhood zoning, why even have local government?

California legislators know as much about our local neighborhood issues like traffic, commercial needs and school issues and we do about those same issues in Redding and Modesto and Sherman Oaks.

You can bet that HCD got back channel communication from those in Menlo Park who disagreed with the submission, perhaps from city council members.

The wacky comments that some of them made as if a rezone of Sharon Heights shopping center could lure 8 story development to the site are an illustration of being naive as to what development is likely. They said for example that it should have the same height limits as Willow Village. But Willow Village has decaying low value developments and so is ripe for development, and it is about 10 times as large as the Sharon Heights site is. If they can't tell the difference in the 2 situations, then that's the problem coming up with a Housing Element as well.

Here is an interesting alternative to our gridlock on housing:
"Gianforte said that the answer was obvious to him: Montana had a supply crisis. It needed a supply solution. His task force soon figured out how to get Montana more housing: Make it possible for folks to build housing units by right, rather than having every development go through a miserable, expensive process of negotiation. Encourage dense development in already dense areas. Cut red tape. Indeed, Montana already had pretty loose building regulations, and legislators loosened them even further—functionally banning single-family zoning and preventing towns and cities from adding onerous zoning policies, among many other changes and investments."

Web Link

HCD's letter seems to nit pick and come to conclusions that are not warranted. For example, they do not seem to want to understand that the area where Willow Village is surrounded by commercial buildings. The impact of taller, bigger buildings is very different there than at the Sharon Heights shopping center that is surrounded by residential housing (already multi-family, by the way). Instead, they attribute proposed zoning differences to racism.

It is astonishing that Menlo Park has paid consultants to help with the Housing Element, and they have spoken with HCD even before the first submission. Our council needs to dig into whether the consultants have failed to communicate well or whether HCD is essentially playing games by forcing cities like ours to guess how they would react to yet another submission while running out the clock so the Builders Remedy could kick in.

The Builders Remedy should be fought vigorously locally and at the state level. It allows projects that will greatly worsen the housing shortage and could truly harm the environment without the ability for cities to require mitigation measures. The proposed skyscraper on the site of Sunset Magazine is a case in point. Although proposing to provide 800 housing units, it also would add office, retail, and hotel space. The offices - alone - could bring nearly 1,900 workers, more than double the number of housing units. And the retail and hotel would bring even more workers without new housing for them either. The vast majority of the new workers would be commuters.

The Builders' Remedy is a cynical gift to developers who can side step accountability for the impacts of construction and habitation of their highly profitable buildings, both increasing the need for even more housing and harming the environment and quality of life for all.

@Iris " Instead, they attribute proposed zoning differences to racism."

I thought I read both HCD response letters somewhat carefully, but don't see any specific references to this point. Can you provide the link, and point me to the right area? I'd like to read the dialogue. I suspect that comment letters contain much disinformation relating to this. I have PRA'd them.

You're right about HCD making the city guess its standards.

HCD April: "The element should also analyze the land use controls including landscaping, parking, and floor area ration (FAR) requirements in the R-3 zone ..."

HCD August: The [revised] element ... discussed ...landscaping, parking, and FAR requirements .... However, the element must also include actions addressing LOT COVERAGE [my emphasis] in R-3 ... HCD finds that lot coverage for multifamily housing less than 50 percent is generally considered a constraint. The element must include or modify programs(s) committing to increasing lot coverage requirements in these zones.

Either HCD is moving the goal post and/or the consultant is not very helpful or the city is not meeting directly with the HCD reviewer to clarify requirements.

The (April) dialogue on fees and process and how they may impact affordability is troubling. As you know CEQA is already under attack. I wonder if we are heading to pure libertarian development policies where dense unplanned development is allowed to externalize its costs without any recourse whatsoever.

BTW, the Stanford office on ECR is asking $138sf/yr keeping MP at the 2nd highest office rent market in the US behind a single area of Manhattan. Downtown MP is now essentially the VC capital of the West, waiting to expand to SRI.

Will density really making MP "affordable"?

"Will density really making MP "affordable"?"

NO. It will have exactly the opposite effect. Typical government bungling trying to push a progressive agenda without considering the actual likely outcomes.

Even if you believe that increasing the supply will lower prices - and it might - one of the biggest factors impacting the limited supply of homes is high interest rates. A lot of homeowners, especially those who might move by choice (to upgrade, downsize, be closer to family, or just want change) don't want or cannot afford to give up their 2% or 3% mortgage and move to a different place.

You can't build enough homes to overcome today's 7% and 8% mortgage rates.

Even if you believe that increasing the supply of homes will lower prices - and it might - one of the biggest factors impacting the limited supply of homes is high interest rates.

A lot of homeowners, especially those who might move by choice (to upgrade, downsize, be closer to family, or just want change) don't want or cannot afford to give up their 2% or 3% mortgage and move to a different place.

You can't build enough homes to overcome today's 7% and 8% mortgage rates.