|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In this post, I refute the major false (and misleading) assumption that cancelling proposed Downtown affordable housing would jeopardize the Menlo Park Housing Element and expose our city to “builder’s remedy” projects. My argument rests on State laws, how the State Department of Housing And Development (HCD) treated eight Peninsula cities that grossly missed their “low income” housing allocations in the prior Housing Element cycle, and the city’s own July 2026 RHNA report.
By failing to acknowledge this project is NOT necessary, our city has greatly harmed our community.
- Wasted city resources on a project voters likely would not fund.
- Created the intense political controversy that now divides our city.
- Distracted the city from developing widely supported affordable housing plans.
- Generated one legal suit against the city and invited new ones.
- Undermined fundamental community trust in our city government
I will soon examine how individual members of city staff and council members contributed to this city failure and the harm to our community.
Key State Affordable Housing Requirements
- The 6th RHNA cycle began February 1, 2023 and will run through January 31, 2031 when the official counting of housing production ends.
. - The State generally distinguishes between a city’s obligation to plan and zone for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units and the number of actual units produced. RHNA is principally a planning requirement; cities have not been punished for failing to issue enough permits to meet an affordable income category allocation. State law says jurisdictions must take actions to accommodate their RHNA, but it does not make the jurisdiction a guarantor that the units would be constructed.
. - The State does NOT legally require cities meet their housing allocations in EVERY household income category. However, the State does require cities meet their TOTAL allocations. (Note: A California city that fails to produce its total Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) at the end of a planning cycle may face penalties, including loss of jurisdiction over planning decisions and increased scrutiny from state regulators.)
. - The State requires cities to include and implement specific “programs ” in their Housing Elements that support their achievement of all housing allocations in all income categories.
. - In mid-cycle, the State performs an audit to determine whether a city has produced at least 50% of its allocations in EVERY income category. If not, it is subjected to SB 423, a law that streamlines the approval process for qualifying multifamily residential developments. These projects must meet very selective and objective criteria.
. - SB 423 extended SB 25 provisions to 2036. It applies to developers who propose housing projects in cities that have failed to produce housing units at rates that would meet their state-mandated, housing unit requirements. SB 423 exempts construction from Environmental Quality Act reviews and applies to projects that meet ALL the following criteria:
- Be multi-unit housing; not single-family homes.
- Follow all local objective zoning and design standards
- Be on land zoned for residential use.
- Designate some units to be priced below market rate for people making certain incomes:
=> If the locality did not meet its above-moderate income RHNA goal, at least 10% of units must be below market rate housing.
=> If the locality did not meet its low -income RHNA goal, at least 50% of units must be below market rate housing - Not be constructed in an ecologically protected area.
- Pay construction workers union-level wages.
If a developer proposal meets all criteria, localities must approve the project in either (1) 60 days if the development contains less than 150 housing units; or (2) 90 days if the development contains more than 150 units of housing.
6. Independent of housing production, cities must demonstrate their Housing Elements are compliant with the following requirements:
- Maintain a sufficient inventory i.e., “capacity”, of appropriately zoned sites to accommodate its remaining RHNA by income category.
- Comply with “No Net Loss” requirements.
- Complete required Housing Element programs and rezonings
- Submit Annual Progress Reports for yearly and cumulative housing production.
- Comply with other applicable state housing laws.
- Maintain a Housing Element HCD finds is in substantial compliance.
Peninsula Cities RHNA Production
5th Cycle 2015-2023
In the 2015-2023 Housing Element cycle, eight out of nine Peninsula cities did NOT ACHIEVE their state-mandated, unit allocations for very low and low income, affordable housing, and most also missed their moderate-income allocations.(Note: Menlo Park was the one exception.)
None of the eight other city’s Housing Elements were decertified so none paid financial penalties, and none were subjected to the “builder’s remedy”. Once again, the State allowed a city to miss its housing production benchmarks for affordable housing income when (a) they met their Above-Moderate RHNA benchmarks and maintained a legally compliant Housing Element.
.
However, all eight cities were subjected to SB 35 (now SB 423)
Menlo Park RHNA & Housing Element
6th Cycle 2023-2031
Like the eight other Peninsula cities, Menlo Park experienced a huge increase in its RHNA allocations in the 6th cycle (2023-2031).
As of December 2025, the unit production of either very low or low-income housing was falling well short of requirements in 2 out of 9 Peninsula cities.
Menlo Park will be subjected to SB 423 in 2027 when HCD performs its standard mid-cycle audits of actual city RHNA production.
.
In July 2026, Menlo Park claimed it has enough “capacity” to meet its unit housing allocations in all income categories by 2031. This is an important compliance requirement for a city Housing Element.
The Menlo Park Housing Element includes a city commitment to develop affordable housing on the three parking lots. Therefore, if Menlo Park would need HCD to approve an update to its Housing Element that eliminated this commitment before it cancelled the Downtown project. I expect HCD would accept this request, And the city’s case would be greatly strengthened by a city commitment to develop either (a) a similar amount of affordable housing on other public land or (b) a more modest amount of low-income housing on a single downtown lot.
Closing Thoughts
- Menlo Park does not NEED to develop affordable housing on three Downtown parking lots. It’s a discretionary political choice proposed by a Council that poorly represents voters.
. - I believe a majority of well-informed voters would support Measure P and elect new council members who support it as well. So, initiative supporters should focus on accurate voter education and turn-out. I will continue my efforts in this series of posts.
. - I believe HCD would accept the elimination of its existing commitment to develop affordable housing on three parking lots because the city cannot demonstrate its feasibility. This is evident by its failure to disclose any assessment of three developer proposals it received over eight months ago. None meet the city’s requirements for this project.
. - The city received three developer proposals for the Downtown project more than EIGHT months ago, and our city has still not disclosed any assessments of them including required city (voter) funding and total subsidies.
