|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Portola Valley had a bumpy road to passing its housing element in May, a moment met with relief but also uncertainty about whether the plan would measure up to state standards. The town got its answer last week: Not quite.
In a July 25 letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), state officials said that while Portola Valley’s housing element addresses many of the requirements, “revisions will be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.”
In other words, it’s back to the drawing board for the town’s planning department.
Every eight years per state law, every city and town in California must update its housing element documents to prove how they’ll meet housing standards set by Sacramento. Each jurisdiction must create a sites inventory, or a list of properties that could reasonably be developed into housing in the next eight years, in order to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the number of net new housing units required.
But fulfilling the RHNA is only half the battle: As part of the housing element process, cities and towns must also create programs that incentivize the development of affordable housing, or as the state dubs it, “affirmatively further fair housing.” This is where HCD says Portola Valley continues to fall short.
While the state acknowledged ways the town’s housing element has improved since the last round of feedback, HCD said Portola Valley “must include a commitment to adjusting projected assumptions if the number of units and affordability do not actualize during the planning period.”
HCD noted that the town relies on accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, to meet its affordable housing requirements. ADUs are a type of housing that can be added to a home’s backyard without having to rezone the lot, making them a more realistic option for housing growth in a small town like Portola Valley, where the majority of land is zoned for single-family dwellings.
But HCD said that if the town’s projected ADU growth doesn’t pan out, it needs to have a stronger back-up plan.
“If actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then the element must commit to amending the housing element, identifying additional sites, and rezoning within a timely manner,” the July 25 letter stated.
Portola Valley’s housing element includes The Sequoias retirement community and Christ Church on its sites inventory to fulfill its housing quota. While HCD said the latest draft successfully committed to establishing development standards for these sites, “the element still needs to include programs committing to monitoring the effectiveness of these efforts and stronger incentives to promote affordability.”
The town also relies on the future development of the Dorothy Ford Park and Open Space site to meet its lower-income housing quotas: The town-owned land is expected to accommodate about half of the affordable units that Portola Valley is required get built in the next eight years.
“The element needs to include significant actions to facilitate and encourage development on this site,” HCD’s letter stated, including a schedule to facilitate its development.
“Actions should include outreach with developers, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance,” HCD added.
Portola Valley is among the highest resourced jurisdictions in the area, the state concluded, “a stark contrast to the rest of the region.” In order to comply with state law, the town will need to take “significant and robust actions” to promote fair housing in the next draft of its element.
“The element must be revised to include quantified metrics (beyond the RHNA), programs focused on housing mobility and increased housing opportunities and affordability.”
The town is slated to discuss HCD’s feedback at its next Town Council meeting on Aug. 9.
Tell Sacramento to stick it!
Let the communities decide their futures.
Time to take the state back!
Enjoy the skyscraper next door, courtesy of the builder’s remedy and our wise legislators!
This is simply a massive policy failure by Sacramento. Original guidance allowed for ADUs to count towards required numbers. HCD and their YIMBY law friends somehow have been allowed to provide feedback to this town and other local towns that is not in their documentation. “Significant and robust actions” – what does that mean? Menlo Park in their first rejection was asked to analyze why a section of town had a high % of single Mothers?
Menlo Park hired consultants ($1+ million so far) to get us in the same situation. Any builders remedy project will end up in court, and judges will be left to interpret “compliance”.