Jane Cho is a third-year student at Stanford University School of Law ( J.D. expected 2017) with a passion for inclusive and sensible city planning. She would like to thank Professor Michelle Anderson for cultivating my scholarship in environmental justice, and clinical supervisor Jeanne Merino for helping her to brainstorm this idea with her wealth of knowledge regarding housing in East Palo Alto.
Urban Lawyer
Second Units in the Silicon Valley
by Jane Cho
I. Introduction
The woefully inadequate supply of housing compared to the number of jobs in the Silicon Valley is old news. For some real estate investment firms and property owners, the situation is an exciting opportunity to make a huge profit. For most others, however, the situation is not so positive. For those who can afford to stay, the lack of affordable housing poses daily inconveniences in the form of traffic and pollution. For those with fewer resources, the lack of affordable housing means becoming homeless,1 enduring squalid conditions in a poorly maintained apartment, or relocating as far east as Stockton, about ninety miles away. Far from a prime capitalist opportunity, for many people the lack of housing constitutes a serious social crisis.
In San Mateo County, California, this housing crisis is well-documented. In the next decade, the county will experience significant job growth; 40% of those jobs will pay lower-income wages.2 The Department of Housing projects that by 2025 the county’s housing supply will meet only one-third to one-half of the demand. At the same time, renters and homeowners have been overpaying for housing, meaning that they have been spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing-related costs. Similarly, in Santa Clara County, nearly half of all renters and homeowners were cost-burdened, meaning they spent more than 30% of their income on housing.3
Rent control is a highly contested measure that only two South Bay cities, East Palo Alto and San Jose, have enacted. East Palo Alto is the only city with a “just-cause” eviction ordinance. In all other cities, landlords can evict tenants for any reason and raise the rent by any amount they desire. Annual rent increases of $700 a month have become commonplace. Despite persistent advocacy for rent control by local nonprofit organizations such as Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto and Peninsula Interfaith Action, local governments in Silicon Valley have been reluctant to consider it as a remedy. Under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, California cities can restrict rents only on apartment buildings occupied before 1995.4 Nonetheless, local homeowners associations and real estate associations have been strongly opposed to any form of rent control.5 As a consequence, local officials have been eager to promote other methods of providing affordable housing, such as increasing residential infill.
One promising type of residential infill is the construction of secondary-dwelling units. Urban planners have praised this method of residential infill because second units are discreet and yet can add a significant amount of affordable housing in a single-family residential zoning district.6 By nature, they are small, independent living facilities, so they are suitable for elderly family members, students, and low-income households. They are required to include “permanent pro- visions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.”7 As the proportions of elderly residents begin to rise across America — over the next decade and a half, the number of seniors in San Mateo County will increase by 76%8 — second units are an increasingly suitable option for elderly residents who wish to age in place, and live near family.9 Additionally, in metropolitan areas, second units are sensible options for single professionals.10 Last but not least, second units are a smart way to provide housing for people with disabilities.
Recognizing the benefits of second units, California first passed legislation on second units in 1982.11 This state-wide law enabled local jurisdictions to allow second units in order to meet housing needs. However, the law left substantial room for cities to impose onerous requirements for second unit building permits. Unsurprisingly, many cities did just that. In response, in 2002, the California legislature passed AB 186612 to amend existing second unit law in two significant ways. First, this law required that, as of July 1, 2003, all local governments switch from a discretionary to a ministerial application process, meaning that as long as the second unit plan met a list of requirements, the application for a second unit permit would automatically be approved. Rather than being subjective, these requirements must be “predictable, objective, fixed, quantifiable and clear.”13 Not only did this change to a ministerial approval process exempt second units from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),14 but second units in a residential zone are also categorically exempt under current CEQA Guidelines.15 Second, AB 1866 required that all local governments write their own second unit ordinances, adopt the state standards, or demonstrate why they could not conform.
In response to the state mandate, almost all California municipalities enacted local legislation authorizing second units.16 There were great hopes that this additional legislative action would alleviate the housing needs throughout the state. Indeed, certain cities saw a dramatic increase in second unit permits and subsequent construction. This largely occurred because those cities, such as Santa Cruz, proactively relaxed regulations and provided technical assistance to homeowners. The legislation, however, did not have the impact that people had hoped. In their 2013 article published in this journal, A Room of One’s Own? Accessory Dwelling Unit Reforms and Local Parochialism, Professors Margaret Brinig and Nicole Garnett analyzed the policy and practice of second units in all California cities with populations exceeding 50,000 people.17 They found that many cities were still entrenched in local parochialism and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitudes toward secondary units. These California cities had second unit ordinances with numerous restrictions that effectively foreclosed the construction of second units. The authors concluded that the 2002 state legislation did not go far enough to increase second units in California.
Brinig and Garnett listed six common types of restrictions in the second unit ordinances that had a particularly suppressive effect on their approval rate: rental restrictions, parking restrictions, large lot size restrictions, square foot limits, conditional use permits, and design reviews.18 In this Article, I apply their analytic framework to the second unit ordinances of eight cities in the Silicon Valley. I am primarily concerned with East Palo Alto as a case study; Palo Alto is a good neighboring city for comparison. I chose the remaining six cities by geographical proximity to East Palo Alto: three in south San Mateo County (Menlo Park, Redwood City, and Atherton) and three in north Santa Clara County (Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills). My goal is to see whether the observations that Brinig and Garnett made regarding the restrictiveness of major California cities’ second unit ordinances also apply to the Silicon Valley, and if not, how the Silicon Valley ordinances differ from the statewide trends that these authors observed.
The chart on pages 464 – 65 compares how these eight cities regulate their second units in light of the six common restrictions highlighted by Brinig and Garnett. The eight cities studied are listed in order of median household income, from low to high. The particularly restrictive regulations are indicated with gray boxes. I provide my general findings in the section immediately following the chart, then discuss each studied city in greater depth.
II. General Findings
The chart reveals mixed results in terms of fulfilling the intent of AB 1866 to provide affordable housing through secondary units. Two of the six most common restrictive regulations that Brinig and Garnett noted — conditional use permitting and design review — are not present in the ordinances of any of the eight Silicon Valley cities studied. Notably, Atherton charges an additional fee for design review, and Redwood City requires architectural review for second units that have a second story.19
The remaining four restrictive regulations are largely present in the eight Silicon Valley cities. Five of the cities (East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, Atherton, and Los Altos) have occupancy restrictions, requiring that the owner must occupy either the principal dwelling or the second unit. Redwood City is the most restrictive in this regard, requiring that the principal dwelling be occupied by the owner.
All eight cities have restrictive parking requirements of varying degrees. Most cities align with the recommended state requirement of one off-street parking space for the second unit, in addition to the spaces required for the principal dwelling. Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills, however, have exceptionally burdensome parking requirements. These cities’ ordinances require four and five total parking spaces, respectively. Only five of the eight cities explicitly allow tandem parking20 (one car parked behind another), and the ordinances of the other three cities do not explicitly address tandem parking.
As expected, all eight cities have restrictions concerning minimum sizes for lots and maximum sizes for second units; but the levels of restrictiveness vary widely. Unsurprisingly, given its high density, East Palo Alto has the smallest minimum lot size requirement for attached second units, at 5,500 square feet; in contrast, Los Altos Hills’ minimum lot size is one acre. Palo Alto has the most restrictive maximum second unit size, at 450 square feet for attached second units, while Los Altos Hills allows a maximum of 1,000 square feet for either attached or detached second units.
The ordinances of each of the eight cities contain an aesthetic requirement, meaning that the second units must resemble the principal dwellings in colors, materials, textures and architecture, so that the two dwellings appear as one. As this requirement is more discretionary than the others, cities should be careful not to impose burdensome aesthetic standards on applicants. Additionally, while all eight cities require fees for obtaining a second unit building permit; the cities did vary in other costs levied, such as transit impact fees, and fees from other city agencies.
III. East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto had a population of 28,155 in 2010, composed of 64.5% Hispanics or Latinos, 16.7% African Americans, 7.5% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, 6.2% whites, and 3.8% Asians.21 Within its small area of 2.50 square miles, the city had a population density of 11,239.5 per square mile. The number of persons per household was 3.96.22
The city became a majority-minority city as a result of decades of racial redlining, steering, and other forms of de facto segregation.23 While known for its self-determination and self-governance — becoming an incorporated city in the County of San Mateo in 198324 — East Palo Alto has not been as financially prosperous as the rest of the Silicon Valley. The local government has responded to this challenge by enacting responsive policies, such as the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.25 The city was comprised of 42.8% owner-occupied dwellings, with 57.2% rented.26 The median gross monthly rent between 2009 and 2013 was $1,154 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit was $525,600.27 The median household income in that same time period was $50,142. In 2015, 453 low-income households in East Palo Alto received Section 8 vouchers, a rental assistance program.28
Of the 16,418 new housing units expected of San Mateo County during the 2015 - 2023 period, East Palo Alto is responsible for producing 467.29 State law requires municipalities to demonstrate that an adequate amount of developable land is available to accommodate their share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). With the highest average percentage of vacant housing units (11.9%) among all eight cities from 2009 to 2013, the city anticipates that its inventory of vacant land designated for residential or mixed-use will accommodate 402 new housing units, which would fulfill most of its RHNA.30 This promising method of providing new housing units is noteworthy, as it can be utilized alongside the development of second units to provide affordable housing in this city.
A. Second Unit History
Pressure from above and from below has motivated the city to promote the development of second units. The city anticipates fulfilling its RHNA, particularly in the low income categories, by producing forty-two second units over the eight years of this Housing Element period, at an average of 5.25 a year.31
Grassroots organizations such as Peninsula Interfaith Action participated heavily in second unit advocacy during the eighteen months of public meetings leading up to the city’s adoption of a modified second units ordinance in May 2014.32 The city made significant modifications, such as allowing uncovered parking, shorter setbacks (the distance between second units and the property line), second units in all residential zones, and second units and guest houses on smaller lots.33
Consequently, the city has seen a growing increase in second units since 2010. Between 2010 and 2014, the city approved an average of 5.4 second units per year. Ten second unit permits were approved in 2013, and three were approved in 2014.34 In 2015, the city approved nine second unit permits. Of these, two were for converted garages and seven were for attached additions that ranged from new bedrooms/ bathrooms to extensions of existing rooms.35
B. Second Unit Regulations
The East Palo Alto City Council has endeavored to relax its second unit regulations while staying within the bounds of environmental impact and health and safety codes. Considering its already high density, the city’s efforts to maximize its land have been remarkable and effective. For detached second units, the minimum lot size is 5,500 square feet, and for attached second units, the minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet.36 This lot size requirement is the most typical exception requested and granted with a use permit.37 The maximum size of a second unit is 700 square feet of living space, not including the garage. For site areas larger than 6,500 square feet, the unit size may be increased by one square feet for each additional ten square feet of site area, up to a maximum size of 1,000 square feet of living space. The maximum height is fifteen feet.
There must be a minimum of one uncovered off-street parking spot for the second unit, in addition to the parking required for the principal dwelling. For second units with two to four bedrooms, two parking spaces are required. For those with five or six bedrooms, three spaces are required, and tandem parking is allowed. Access to the second unit must be from the same driveway as the principal dwelling.
Occupancy restrictions require that either the principal or second unit shall be the main residence of the record owner of lot; this requirement applies to corporate owners as well.38 Up to three people are allowed in the second unit, unless otherwise approved. A processing fee is charged to cover the staffing costs to review and process the applications.39 Most second unit applications are approved within two months, though complicated proposals can take up to four months.40 If the applicant desires to modify any of the standards for second units, a discretional permit review is required. A public hearing with the planning commission is required for all discretionary permits.41 The hearing must be advertised in a local newspaper with separate notices sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property subject to the permit.42
The city also has an amnesty program for preexisting, lawfully constructed second units that were built before January 8, 1990. Owners of these second units can legalize them through an administrative permit process that has fewer requirements than does the current process for new second units43.
IV. Palo Alto
Palo Alto had a population of 64,409 in 2010, composed of 64.2% whites, 27.1% Asians, 6.2% Hispanics or Latinos, and 1.9% African Americans.44 Within its 23.9 square miles, the city had a population density of 2,696 per square mile. The number of persons per household was 2.4.45 Between 2000 and 2013, Palo Alto was one of the fastest growing cities in Santa Clara County, with an overall 13% in- crease.46 By contrast, the county’s population increased by 9% during the same period. The two main reasons for Palo Alto’s growth were an increase in the number of dwelling units and an increase in household size. Another shift has been an increase in those sixty-five and over, who constituted 17% of the population in 2010.47 The increase in senior residents should make second units more appealing to those who want to age in place.
By virtue of its proximity to Stanford Hospital and Stanford University, in addition to major technology companies, Palo Alto has experienced a great demand for housing and a subsequent surge in property values. At the same time, the residents have maintained an anti-growth posture that has prevented the construction of adequate housing units to meet this demand. According to a recent housing questionnaire of local residents, “many expressed a desire to preserve the City’s character through limited growth.”48 The proportions of renters (44.6%) and owners (55.4%) were the converse of East Palo Alto’s.49 The median gross monthly rent between 2009 and 2013 was $1,654 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit was over $1 million.50 In 2013, the median sales price for a single family home was $1,720,000,51 three times that of East Palo Alto. The median household income in that same time period was $121,465.52 About 5.6% of the city’s housing units were vacant.
A. Second Unit History
The RHNA for Palo Alto requires that the city demonstrates how it can accommodate 1,988 housing units in the 2015 - 2023 planning period.53 Of these, 691 were designated for very low income units, 432 for low income, 278 moderate income, and 587 above moderate income. In its 2015 - 2023 Housing Element, an analysis of the Housing Sites shows that the city has capacity for 2,188 units and can thus meet its RHNA requirement without any rezoning. This analysis also shows that the city can exceed its very low income housing requirement, but falls short in all other income categories. The land use category to which the most space in Palo Alto is devoted is Parks/Preserve/Open Space, at 43.5%. Single-family residential land use ranks second, at 21.3%.54 Multi-family residential ranks sixth, at only 3.2%.
As an explicit policy, Palo Alto allows for second units in order to expand affordable housing opportunities.55 In 2007, Palo Alto amended its second unit ordinance to allow second units in all single-family residential (R-1) zoned parcels that meet minimum lot size requirements.56 The city also allows second units in the R-E (Residential Estate), R-2 (Two Family Residential) and RMD (Two-Unit Multiple Family Residential) districts.57
The city estimated that thirty-two second units would be built by the end of the planning period, based on its average of four permit approvals per year.58 According to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), second-unit affordability can be calculated by applying the market rates for comparable rental properties.59 In Palo Alto, the average cost of a studio apartment is $2,151, and the average cost of a one-bedroom apartment is $2,590, both of which classify as available to those of moderate income. Accordingly, Palo Alto counted these thirty-two second units toward its moderate income RHNA credits for the 2015 - 2023 planning period.
In total, the city has issued four permits for new second units per year from 2013 through 2015, which meets the rate that the city planned for during the 2015 - 2023 period.
B. Second Unit Regulations
The minimum lot size requirement to allow second units in Palo Alto is on the more restrictive side. To build a second unit, the lot must be 35% greater than otherwise established for the district and cannot be less than 8,100 square feet.60 Considering the minimum lot sizes for Palo Alto’s districts, the minimum lot sizes that second units can be built on range from 8,100 to 27,000 square feet. Only 22% of single family lots meet these requirements.61
The square-feet limitations in Palo Alto are more restrictive than the average statewide limits found by Brinig and Garnett. These authors reported that the most common limits restrict attached second units to 640 square feet and detached second units to 1,200 square feet, regardless of the size of the lot.62 In contrast, in Palo Alto the maximum size for attached second units is 450 square feet, and the maximum size for detached second units is 900 square feet.63 These figures include the area of the basement and covered parking (which cannot exceed 200 square feet). The detached second unit must have at least a twelve-foot separation from the primary dwelling. The maximum height for second units is one story and seventeen feet.
Palo Alto is one of three cities with more restrictive parking requirements. For second units less than 450 square feet, Palo Alto requires only one covered parking space; however, for second units greater than 450 square feet, one covered and one uncovered parking space are required, regardless of the number of bedrooms or occupants.64 Though the city allows tandem parking, both second unit parking spaces must be located out of the required front setbacks and not closer than ten feet from the street in a street side setback.65 Access to the second unit must be from the same driveway as the principal dwelling.66
The fees associated with each second unit permit application vary by proposal. But homeowners can count on having to pay a Community Facilities Fee and Citywide Traffic Fee.67 The Housing Element includes a section on legalizing existing illegal second units “where appropriate and consistent with maintaining the character and quality of life of the neighborhoods.”68 It also considers the possibility of adjusting the development standards to further encourage second unit development. But it is unclear what difference these efforts have actually made, as none of the permits issued in 2014 and 2015 are conversions.
V. Menlo Park
Menlo Park, in San Mateo County, exhibits similar demographics to those of Palo Alto. The city had a population of 32,026 in 2010, composed of 62% whites, 18.4% Hispanics or Latinos, 9.9% Asians, and 4.8% African Americans.69 Spanning a modest size of 9.79 square miles, the city had a population density of 3,271.3 per square mile.70 The number of persons per household was 2.52.71 The city was comprised of 56.2% owner-occupied dwellings, while 43.8% rented.72 The median gross rent between 2009 and 2013 was $1,710 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit was over $1 million.73 The median household income in that same time period was $112,262 and 5.3% of the city’s housing units were vacant.
A. Second Unit History
One of the four major goals articulated in Menlo Park’s 2015 - 2023 Housing Element is the efficient use of land to meet the housing needs of various income levels. It prioritized second units as a way to meet this goal. In the 2007 - 2014 Housing Element, Menlo Park had reduced the minimum lot size requirement to 6,000 square feet.74 Additional revisions included “increasing the maximum unit size for units that comply with accessibility requirements, establishing a new daylight plane requirement in lieu of the wall height requirement, and providing flexibility in the tenancy requirement.”75
When city staff recommended further reducing the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet, the Belle Haven Neighborhood Association, representing a historically lower-income neighborhood, advocated against it.76 The members feared that allowing more second units in their neighborhood would exacerbate the already high density they lived with. The organization Ask Belmont Citizens gathered nearly 2,200 signatures and filed a referendum to overturn the other recent changes to the second unit ordinance. Consequently, in July 2015, the city repealed the modifications it had made two months before, with a plan to continue receiving community input through 2016.77
In the current Housing Element, the city only changed one requirement: to allow second units on R-2 lots that are less than 7,000 square feet with the approval of a use permit.78 As for the other regulations, the Housing Element stated that the city would consider relaxing them during this planning period, with the goal of producing five per year from 2015 to 2023.79 Of the forty total units anticipated in this time period, the income distribution is eighteen for very low income, eighteen for low income, and four for moderate income second units.80 Though the city granted only three second unit permits in 2014,81 that number jumped to eight in 2015,82 indicating the effectiveness of these modifications.
Another policy in the Housing Element was to encourage the conversion of accessory structures into second units through a relaxed review process that would allow one or more exceptions from the second unit regulations.83 The 2014 Zoning Ordinance contained a temporary amnesty program that would allow legally permitted accessory buildings that do not meet the setback requirements for a secondary dwelling unit to be converted to a second unit through an administrative permit process.84 The detailed requirements and their effects are outlined below.
B. Second Unit Regulations
Menlo Park’s regulations are fairly standard. The minimum size that a lot must be for the construction of either an attached or detached second units is 6,000 square feet.85 The maximum size for both attached and detached second units is 640 square feet, though 700 is allowed for adjustments made for disability access.86 Second units cannot exceed more than one bedroom and one bathroom. All attached second units must comply with the minimum yard requirements for the principal dwelling.87 All detached second units must comply with these requirements, as well as a minimum rear yard requirement of ten feet.88
The maximum height for second units is seventeen feet, though that figure for detached second units may vary depending on the relevant zone.89 The parking requirement is typical: one off-street parking space, either covered or uncovered, is required for the second unit, and it must comply with the appropriate setback requirements.90 Tandem parking is allowed.91
Either the principal dwelling or the second unit must be occupied by the property owner when both are occupied as dwellings.92 However, property owners can apply for non-tenancy registration, which comes with a fee, or for a use permit in order to bypass this requirement.93 Just like in Palo Alto, one must pay a Transportation Impact Fee to build a second unit. In the 2014 - 2015 fiscal year, this fee was $680.5394 and was in addition to other fees imposed by the fire, sanitary, water, and school districts.
In line with the Housing Element, the 2014 Zoning Ordinance contained a temporary program allowing accessory buildings legally built before June 13, 2014 to be converted into second units, with the exception that the converted structure may retain the setbacks and footprint of the former accessory building.95 To qualify, owners must submit a complete administrative permit application, including all applicable fees and plans by the sunset date of June 13, 2016, though the City Council, by resolution, can extend the effective date.96 Owners can deviate from the second unit regulations if they obtain a use permit, but deviations related to density and subdivision are not allowed.97 As of February 2016, three applications for conversion were submitted, and one building permit was issued in 2015.98
VI. Redwood City
Redwood City had a population of 76,815 in 2010, composed of 44% whites, 38.8% Hispanics or Latinos, 10.7% Asians, and 2.4% African Americans.99 Spanning a modest size of 19.4 square miles, the city had a population density of 3,955.5 per square mile. The number of persons per household was 2.76.100 The city is half owner-occupied (50.6%) and half renter-occupied (49.4%).101 The median gross rent between 2009 and 2013 was $1,340 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit was $808,600.102 The median household income in that same time period was $79,419 and 4.9% of the city’s housing units were vacant. The city is somewhat less affluent than Menlo Park and Palo Alto, but recently its property values have been rapidly in- creasing. Property developers and real estate investment firms have been buying old multifamily housing complexes in order to renovate and rent out at a huge profit.103 If Redwood City does not take affirmative steps to address this housing crisis, the city is likely to succumb to the harmful effects of unchecked gentrification.
A. Second Unit History
Redwood City has had historically low records of second unit permits. While the average annual rate of production from 1999 to 2007 was six, the average rate during the last seven years was only two.104 From 2013 to 2015, the city granted two second unit permits.105
The city is anticipated to grow by approximately 20% between 2010 and 2030.106 Its RHNA is 2,789 housing units for the 2015 - 2023 planning period. Of those, 429 must qualify as low income and 706 must qualify as very low income. The city anticipates having twenty-four new second units to count toward its RHNA, half of those for very low income households.107 To that end, in December 2015, the city repealed its former second unit ordinance, which contained highly restrictive requirements, and adopted a new one that more closely resembled those of the surrounding cities.108 Specifically, the most dramatic changes were those concerning parking, design review, and occupancy. Additionally, the city began offering pre-application consultations for those interested in constructing a second unit.109 As a result, the city’s rate of approval has increased; so far in 2016, the city has granted five second unit permits.110
B. Second Unit Regulations
Redwood City’s large lot size restriction comes from the rule that the lot must conform to the size of the relevant zoning district.111 The maximum second unit size is 640 square feet,112 and no more than one bedroom is allowed.113 For disability accommodations, the maximum second unit size is 700 square feet.114 A further exception is made for very large lots. Those greater than or equal to 10,000 square feet in the RH and R-1 zones may have second units up to 800 square feet and up to two bedrooms.115
The height requirements are generally “subject to the maximum building height and minimum setback standards of the underlying zoning district.”116 Roughly, the maximum height of an attached second unit is twenty-eight feet, and the maximum height of a detached second unit is fourteen feet.117 An architectural permit is required if the second unit includes a second story.118
The new ordinance requires one covered or uncovered parking space in addition to the existing spaces constructed for the main dwelling.119 The parking space for the second unit may be in a driveway within a required setback area, and tandem parking is allowed.120
In accord with the other cities, Redwood City requires owners to occupy either the main dwelling or the second unit.121 The ordinance does, however, make exceptions for homeowners who have a medical condition that requires residency elsewhere or who accept a job offer outside of the San Francisco Bay Area.122
To obtain a second unit permit, one must pay a Traffic Impact Fee of $1501.59. If the second unit exceeds 500 square feet or more, one must also pay a school impact fee.123 The ordinance contains no provision for legalizing existing second units.
VII. Atherton
Atherton had a population of 6,914 in 2010, composed of 78.2% whites, 13.2% Asians, 3.9% Hispanics or Latinos, and 1.1% African Americans.124 Also a small town in terms of space (5.02 square miles), the town had a low population density of 1,378.1 per square mile. It is striking that, though Atherton covers twice the land area of East Palo Alto, its population density is only 12.3% of East Palo Alto’s. Community culture and economic differences of the two jurisdictions aside, the under-utilized amount of space that could provide affordable housing in Atherton is thought-provoking. The number of persons per household was 2.86.125
This affluent town was almost completely owner-occupied, at a rate of 90.8%, while the remaining 9.2% of occupied housing units were rented.126 The median gross rent between 2009 and 2013 exceeded $2,000.127 As of October 2013, the median sales price for a single- family home exceeded $3 million.128 The median household income in that same time period was $239,886.129 Underscoring the accelerated housing search in the area, the city’s housing vacancy rate nearly halved from 2010 (10.2%) to 2014 (5.8%).130
A. Second Unit History
Atherton has an incentive to promote second units so that its sizable senior population can age in place. Its 2014 - 2022 draft Housing Element noted that it has approximately 650 senior residents and a much higher median age (46 years) than the county as a whole (39 years).131 Of the 17% of Atherton’s population that is lower income, many were characterized as “house rich but cash poor seniors, or people living in second units.”132
Another incentive to increase second units is the problem of excessive housing costs for low-income residents. Atherton’s 2014 - 2022 draft Housing Element stated that most households earning less than $75,000 a year were overpaying for housing.133 And due to the anticipated growth of low-wage jobs in San Mateo County, Atherton faces pressure from the RHNA to provide sufficient housing to accommodate these low-to-moderate income workers.134 Specifically, the town must provide sixty-one lower income units. The city’s available sites allow for at least sixty-three lower income units, primarily faculty, student and staff housing for local schools, but the city has still made it a policy to increase its second unit supply.135
In 2010, Atherton relaxed its second unit regulations and the town produced an average of five to eight second units each year.136 At this rate, the town anticipates the production of forty second units in the 2014 - 2022 planning period, which would be equally divided between the moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income categories. The city approved eight second units in 2013, three in 2014, and twelve in 2015.137 At this rate, the city will meet its anticipated production of second units, and second units can continue to be a promising method of residential infill for this town.
B. Second Unit Regulations
One of the 2010 changes that Atherton made to its second unit ordinance was the elimination of the minimum lot size restriction. Another change was to double the maximum second unit size, from 600 square feet to 1200 square feet. The ordinance allows the first 1,200 square feet to be excluded from the maximum floor area calculations for the general property, except that this exclusion cannot exceed 10% of the al- lowed floor area for the lot. A detached second unit must be at least eight feet away from the principal dwelling.138 The maximum height is fifteen feet.139
Atherton requires one off-street parking space per bedroom in the second unit,140 and tandem parking is neither explicitly prohibited nor permitted. The space must be accessible from a public street, but screened from public view. The second unit must have a separate entrance facing the side or rear yard. The ordinance requires that either the principal dwelling, the second unit, or both, must be occupied by the property owner. Planning fees for second unit design review amount to $980.78,141 and building permit fees vary by project.142
VIII. Mountain View
Mountain View had a population of 74,066 in 2010, composed of 56% whites, 26% Asians, 21.7% Hispanics or Latinos, and 2.2% African Americans.143 Spanning a modest size of 12 square miles, the city had a population density of 6,174.7 per square mile.144 The number of persons per household was 2.34.145 The city’s population is expected to increase by roughly 33% between 2010 and 2040.146
The city, like East Palo Alto, has more renters than owners: 58.2% were occupied by renters, 41.8% of housing units were occupied by owners.147 The high percentage of renters and single-person households (36%) indicates that the city has a high proportion of younger workers.148 The median household income from 2009 to 2013 was $97,338.149 The notable presence of young professionals with high incomes, largely due to local technology companies, supports the policy of having more second units. The median gross rent between 2009 and 2013 was $1,427 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit was $779,500.150 The 2013 median housing rental rate was $2,239, a nearly $1,000 increase from 2005151 and 4.2% of the city’s housing units were vacant.152
In 2010, 38% of renters and 40% of homeowners were overpaying for housing in Mountain View, meaning that they spent more than 30% of their gross income on housing-related costs.153 Of these, 72% of extremely low-income renters, 81% of very low-income renters, and 64% of low-income renters were cost-burdened in this way.154 Even more concerning are the statistics on those who were paying more than 50% of their income on housing: 64% of extremely low-income renters, 40% of very low-income renters, and 11% of low- income renters.155 These residents are generally working in restaurants, groceries, retail, and other service industries, particularly for local technology companies and Stanford University.156
A. Second Unit History
Mountain View’s RHNA for 2014-2022 is 2,926 housing units, of which 407 are extremely low income, 407 are very low income, 492 are low income, 527 are moderate, and 1,093 are above moderate.157 Almost all of its lower income allocation requirements will be met through preservation of subsidized housing stock. Almost all of the total new construction anticipated to meet the RHNA is market-rate housing. As a result, Mountain View has not prioritized second units as an important infill strategy, and the second unit regulations have not changed in a substantial way. In 2013, the city merely addressed second units in a minor update to its Zoning Code.158 The Housing Element only states that the city will study the potential of removing constraints on second units.159
Still, the city’s Housing Element estimates the development of sixty second units in the 2015 - 2023 planning period, of which very low income, low income, and moderate income each comprise twenty second units.160 Though the city does not formally track the number of permits granted, a preliminary survey shows that, in the last fifteen years, the city has granted thirteen companion units, of which eleven have been built.161 The Housing Element estimates the construction of about ten new second units since 2007.162 This historical average of about one second unit per year is far behind the anticipated average rate of 7.5 second units per year during the 2015 - 2023 planning period. In order to meet the Housing Element’s estimate of sixty second units during this planning period, the city will have to relax its current regulations and provide technical and/ or financial assistance to homeowners.
B. Second Unit Regulations
The minimum lot size for second units in Mountain View is fairly restrictive. Like Palo Alto, Mountain View requires that lots be 35% larger than required for the applicable zoning district.163 The resulting range of minimum lot sizes among the five single-family zoning districts is 8,100 to 13,500 square feet. The most common single-family zone is the smallest (R-1),164 so most homeowners will be held to the 8,100 square feet minimum lot size to be eligible to build a second unit.
As in East Palo Alto, the maximum second unit size is 700 square feet.165 A covered parking space can be up to 200 square feet, as long as the total floor area does not exceed the maximums for the applicable zone.166 Single-story detached second units cannot exceed sixteen feet in height, with a maximum wall plate height of nine feet.167 Second-story units above a detached garage must not exceed twenty-eight feet in height.168 If above an attached garage, the second unit must comply with the height limits of the house.169
The ordinance requires one covered or uncovered off-street parking space per bedroom.170 It allows the driveway, garage or carport to be shared with the principal dwelling if the second unit has direct unobstructed access to the parking space(s).171 Tandem parking is allowed if one car is in the garage and one is in the driveway.172
The building permit and public works fees depend on the cost of the second unit project. In addition, the city requires parkland dedication fees, which range from $15,000 to $25,000.173 The city recognizes this is a constraint on second unit development and will reconsider it during the 2015 - 2023 planning period.
IX. Los Altos
Los Altos is a predominantly residential community situated next to job-rich cities like Mountain View. It had a population of 28,976 in 2010, composed of 67.8% whites, 23.5% Asians, 3.9% Hispanics or Latinos, and 0.5% African Americans.174 A small city of 6.49 square miles, it had a population density of 4,466.8 per square mile. The number of persons per household was 2.64.175 This affluent town, like Atherton, had a high ownership rate, with an owner-occupied rate of 83.8%, while the remaining 16.2% of occupied housing units were rented.176 The median gross rent between 2009 and 2013 exceeded $2,000 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit exceeded $1 million.177 The median household income in that same time period was $53,046.178 Only 3.6% of the city’s housing units were vacant.
A. Second Unit History
The city’s RHNA for the 2015 - 2023 planning period is 477 units, of which 84 are for extremely low income, 85 are for very low income, 99 are for low income, 112 are for moderate income, and 97 are for above moderate income households.179 The city’s current Housing Element states the value of having second units as a way to provide affordable housing. However, it has not made significant changes to its second unit regulations. Considering its second unit regulations are very strict, it is unsurprising that the city approved only two second unit permits in 2015, one in 2014, and three in 2013.180 Its current rate of permit approval falls short of its projected rate of four new second units per year during the current planning period. To meet its RHNA, the city plans to rely less on second units and more on the method of granting density bonuses to projects that contain a certain percentage of affordable housing.181
The Housing Element states that the city will consider reducing its minimum lot sizes for second units by January 2016;182 if it does so, the city will have removed one of its greatest impediments to the development of second units.
B. Second Unit Regulations
The minimum lot size requirements in Los Altos are extremely restrictive. The minimum lot size for detached second units must be the greater of the following two calculations: (1) 150% of the lot area of the zone or (2) 15,000 square feet.183 For attached second units, described as conversions of existing floor space in a single-family structure or as an “integral addition to a single-family structure,” the minimum lot size is 130%, or 13,000 square feet, in the R1-10 zones and 100% of the size in the R1-20, R1-H, and R1-40 zones.184
Considering the large lot sizes required to construct a second unit, the maximum square footage allowed for the second unit plan is very restrictive. The maximum second unit size is 800 square feet, not including the basement or covered parking.185 Second units exceeding 800 square feet may be considered within a structure that existed before March 1995, and are subject to required findings in the ordinance.186
Recognizing that the requirement of two parking spaces for a second unit is constricting, the city allows these spaces to also count toward the principal dwelling’s requirements.187 When the front of the property faces more than one street, access to the principal dwelling and the second unit must be combined so that the second unit parking is not noticeable.188 Lastly, the entrance must be screened from street view.189
Los Altos’ rental restriction was the most atypical of all the cities studied because it contained income restrictions. The required maximum of two tenants in a second unit was not unusual, nor was the requirement that either the principal dwelling or the second unit be the principal residence of at least 50% of the record owners.190 But in addition to these requirements, the ordinance required that the second unit remain affordable for lower or very low-income households.191 An exception is made if the tenant is an immediate family member,192 though the city has not requested such information from a property owner and does not have a list of properties that come in for income verification.193 Also, if the owner lives in the second unit, the principal dwelling can be rented at market rate.194
The city allows for the conversion of existing accessory structures into second units, as long as the structure conforms to the applicable setback regulations.
X. Los Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills had a population of 7,922 in 2010, composed of 66.1% whites, 26.6% Asians, 2.7% Hispanics or Latinos, and 0.5% African Americans.195 A small town of 8.8 square miles, the town had the lowest population density (900 per square mile) of the cities considered. Even more striking than Atherton, while Los Altos Hills covers more than three times the land area that East Palo Alto covers, its population density is only 8% of that of East Palo Alto. The under-utilized amount of space that could provide affordable housing, like Atherton, is thought- provoking. The number of persons per household was 2.77.196
Like Atherton, Los Altos Hills was almost completely owner- occupied, at a rate of 91.3%, while the remaining 8.7% of occupied housing units were rented.197 The rental market is mostly comprised of second units and rooms for rent.198 The median gross monthly rent between 2009 and 2013 exceeded $2,000 and the median value of an owner-occupied unit exceeded $1 million.199 The current estimated range is between $3 and $5 million.200 The median household income in that same time period was $205,694, making it among the highest in Santa Clara County and the state. 3.6% of the city’s housing units were vacant.
A. Second Unit History
Los Altos Hills was incorporated in the 1950’s as an idyllic, semirural group of residences surrounded by nature with the intention of curbing what the founders perceived as Santa Clara County’s excessive development and density.201 Because the town only permits residential development, it is not a job-generator in the region. However, by virtue of its location in the Silicon Valley, Los Altos Hills is still expected to provide for its share of housing units across all income levels. The 2014-2022 RHNA for Los Altos Hills is 121 housing units, of which 46 are for very low income, 28 are for low income, 32 are for moderate income, and 15 are for above moderate income.
In Los Altos Hills, 60.4% of renter occupied households spent less than 25% of their income on rent, while 15.1% spent between 25 - 34% of their income.202 The remaining 24.5% of renter occupied households spent 35% or more of their income on rent.203
Like Atherton, Los Altos Hills has a noticeably large proportion of seniors (nearly one in four) that is expected to increase. In 2010, the town’s median age was forty-nine,204 which is higher than that of Atherton, Santa Clara County, and the state. The significant presence of seniors is a compelling reason to develop more second units so that they can age in place, and their large homes can be more efficiently utilized while supporting growing housing needs in the region.
Because of the advantages presented by second units to this affluent and semirural community, Los Altos Hills has made intentional efforts to facilitate their construction. In 1989, the town changed its rental restriction on second units so that they could be rented out,205 whereas before they could only be occupied by relatives or employees. This action legalized an estimated 332 units.206 The town has also relaxed its regulations to allow for increased floor area through the use of basements and to allow for tandem parking.207
Based on its 2009 Second Unit Survey, Los Altos Hills estimates that 30% of the second units qualify as being in the extremely low in- come rental range, 31% are in the very low income range, and 26% are in the low income range. It conducted a Second Unit Survey in 2014 that indicated that at least 193 second units still exist in the town and that residents are strongly interested in developing more of them. The town’s goal for the current planning period is that one out of five new residential units will be a new or converted second unit.208
From 2007 - 2014, forty new second units were constructed, of which twenty-five were for very low income and ten were for low income.209 In 2014, nine second units were approved,210 and in 2015, five were approved.211 The town’s objective is to produce an average of seven new second units each year during the current planning period.212
B. Second Unit Regulations
The minimum lot size in Los Altos Hills is simple but daunting: one acre.213 This is equal to 43,560 square feet. Despite this huge lot size requirement, the maximum second unit size remains at 1,000 square feet, which is even smaller than the equivalent restriction in Atherton, which does not even have a minimum lot size requirement. This restriction may change as the city desires to increase its second units.
Parking requirements are also burdensome. In addition to the four off-street parking spaces required for each detached single family home,214 a second unit is required to have one space.215 The parking for the second unit must share a common driveway with the principal dwelling.216 There is a strong emphasis on preserving the “views of prominent scenic features by neighbors.”217
The estimated range of the total fees required for a second unit is $7,098 to $15,048.218 To encourage more second units, the Housing Element contains a program to develop criteria for reducing or waiving the two highest fees, which are for the sewer connection and building permit.219 The typical time frame for the permitting of a second unit is two weeks.
The city will also consider an amnesty program to legalize existing unpermitted secondary units by December 2016. This program would grant legalization to fifteen to twenty very low and low income units.220
XI. Conclusion
This analysis of the second unit ordinances of eight Silicon Valley cities affirms Brinig and Garnett’s finding of resistance by local governments to comply with the intention of AB 1866. Their finding of a proverbial death by a thousand cuts in large cities across the state applies also to cities in the housing-strapped Silicon Valley. While not all eight Silicon Valley cities had all six restrictive regulations identified by Brinig and Garnett, all of them contained at least three of the six restrictive regulations. Six cities had occupancy restrictions.
The ordinances of the eight cities varied in their levels of restrictive- ness around parking, minimum lot sizes, maximum second unit sizes, and fees. Cities with sufficiently low density — Mountain View and Palo Alto — should relax these regulations. Cities without a clear allowance of tandem parking — Atherton and Los Altos — should include that provision in their ordinances. Cities with extremely large minimum lot size requirements — Los Altos Hills — should reduce them, and those with restrictive maximum second unit sizes should increase them. Additionally, cities without an amnesty program to legalize pre- existing second units — Redwood City, Atherton, Mountain View, and Los Altos Hills — should enact one.
Lastly, the 2002 legislation mandated that the second unit permitting process switch from discretionary to ministerial, in order to expedite the process. While the aesthetic requirement contained in the ordinances of all eight cities is an understandable one, cities should respect the intent of the legislation and not allow fine aesthetic details to hold back new second units, especially in a region in great need of residential infill solutions. As suggested by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, cities should also make additional efforts to reduce their extensive fees associated with obtaining a second unit permit.221 Considering the median cost of a second unit is $200,000,222 cities should abide by the legislative suggestion to keep their fees as low as possible.
Given the potential for low-impact affordable housing presented by second units, particularly on already existing residential lots, cities in the Silicon Valley would do well to allow for more second units. Making thoughtful changes to their second unit ordinances which comply with health and safety codes while facilitating the growth of this practical and sensible solution to the Silicon Valley’s housing crisis is responsible public policy.
- See ENVTL. SCI. ASSOC., CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT 89 (2014) [hereinafter MOUNTAIN VIEW] (estimating that 19,000 people were homeless on an annual basis.)
- TOWN OF ATHERTON, TOWN OF ATHERTON HOUSING ELEMENT 4 (2015) [hereinafter ATHERTON].
- 3. 2009-2013 American Community Survey, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/20121203_acs5yr.html (last updated May 19, 2016).
- CAL. CIV. CODE § 1954.53 (West 2016).
- Mark Noack, City Drops Rent Control from Relief Package, MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE (Mar. 16, 2016, 1:59 PM), http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/03/16/city-drops-rent-control-from-relief-package.
- See, e.g., KAREN CHAPPLE ET AL., CTR. FOR CMTY. INNOVATION, YES IN MY BACKYARD: MOBILIZING THE MARKET FOR SECONDARY UNITS (Univ. Cal. Berkeley ed., 2012).
- CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65852.2(i)(4) (West 2016).
- See ATHERTON, supra note 2.
- See generally Margaret F. Brinig, Grandparents and Accessory Dwelling Units: Preserving Intimacy and Independence, 22 ELDER L.J. 381 (2015) (outlining all advantages secondary units offer to elderly).
- See generally John Infranca, Housing Changing Households: Regulatory Challenges for Micro-Units and Accessory Dwelling Units, 25 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 53 (2014) (discussing potential and current roles of secondary units in Austin, Denver, New York City, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.).
- CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65852 (West 1982) (amended 2002).
- § 65852 (West 2016).
- Id.
- CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 15300.1 (West 2016) (“[E]xempts from application of CEQA those projects over which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority.”).
- § 15303. There is one exception: “In urbanized areas, up to three single- family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.” Id.
- Margaret F. Brinig & Nicole Stelle Garnett, A Room of One’s Own? Accessory Dwelling Unit Reforms and Local Parochialism, 45 URB. LAW. 519, 523 (2013).
- See id.
- See id.
- REDWOOD, CAL. ORDINANCES § 37.4 (2016).
- Tandem parking is a parking arrangement that places vehicles in a single file arrangement, bumper-to-bumper.
- East Palo Alto QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “East Palo Alto, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- Kim Mai-Cutler, East of Palo Alto’s Eden: Race and the Formation of Silicon Valley, TECHCRUNCH ( Jan. 10, 2015), http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-paloaltos-eden.
- Id.
- BAIRD & DRISKELL CMTY. PLANNING, CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HOUSING ELEMENT 35 (2015) [hereinafter EAST PALO ALTO].
- See East Palo Alto QuickFacts, supra note 21.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- EAST PALO ALTO, supra note 25, at 67.
- Id. at 54.
- See id. at 67.
- Id. at 58.
- JOHN DOUGHTY, CMTY. DEV. DIR., CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, POLICY & ACTION ITEM: #9A, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FOR MAY 6, 2014, 1 (2014).
- EAST PALO ALTO, supra note 25, at 3-11.
- Id. at 4-3.
- Email from Terri Gillen, Deputy City Clerk, City of East Palo Alto, to author (Mar. 14, 2016) (on file with author).
- EAST PALO ALTO, CAL. ORDINANCES 22.5 § 6429(b) (2016).
- See EAST PALO ALTO, supra note 25, at 3-11.
- EAST PALO ALTO, CAL. ORDINANCES 22.5 § 6430(a) (2016) (“In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the main dwelling or the second unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization.”).
- See DOUGHTY, supra note 32, at 8.
- See EAST PALO ALTO, supra note 25, at 3-28.
- EAST PALO ALTO, CAL. ORDINANCES 22.5 § 6433 (2016).
- 30 § 6584.
- 22.5 § 6439 (“Preexisting units must comply with the Uniform Housing Code, rather than the Uniform Building Code. Furthermore, if a preexisting unit is served by a septic tank rather than a sanitary sewer system, the septic tank must be inspected and approved by the county health department.”).
- Palo Alto QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Palo Alto, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- DEP’T OF PLANNING & CMTY ENV’T., CITY OF PALO ALTO 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT 18 (2014) [hereinafter PALO ALTO].
- Id. at 9.
- See Palo Alto QuickFacts, supra note 44.
- PALO ALTO, supra note 45, at 6.
- See Palo Alto QuickFacts, supra note 44.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- PALO ALTO, supra note 45, at 2.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- See PALO ALTO, supra note 45, at 56.
- Id. at 98.
- Id. at 103.
- Id. at 58.
- Id. at 103-06.
- See id. at 58.
- See id.
- PALO ALTO, CAL. ORDINANCES § 18.12.070, tbl.5 (2016).
- Bryce Druzin, Second Units: Loved, Hated, and So Hard to Build in Silicon Valley, SILICON VALLEY BUS. J. (Oct. 9, 2015, 3:00 AM), http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2015/10/09/second-units-loved-hated-and-so-hard-to-build-in.html.
- See Brinig & Garnett, supra note 16, at 563.
- See PALO ALTO, CAL. ORDINANCES § 18.12.070 (2016).
- § 18.12.070(c)-(d).
- § 18.12.070(f ).
- § 18.12.070(e).
- See PALO ALTO, supra note 45, at 114.
- Id. at 103.
- Menlo Park QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Menlo Park, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- Id.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- Id.
- Id.
- MENLO PARK, CAL. ORDINANCES 1005 § 16.79.040 (2016).
- PLANNING COMM’N, CITY OF MENLO PARK, NO. 16-015-PC, 2015 MENLO PARK HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW 6 (2016) [hereinafter NO. 16-015-PC].
- Druzin, supra note 61.
- Id.
- CITY OF MENLO PARK, 2015-2023 CITY OF MENLO PARK HOUSING ELEMENT, 46 (2014) [hereinafter MENLO PARK].
- See id. at 48.
- See NO. 16-015-PC, supra note 75, at 9.
- Email from Thomas Rogers, Senior Planner, City of Menlo Park, to author ( July 13, 2015) (on file with author).
- See NO. 16-015-PC, supra note 75, at 8.
- MENLO PARK, supra note 78, at 14-15.
- See id.
- MENLO PARK, CAL. ORDINANCES 1005 § 16.79.040(1) (2016).
- § 16.79.040(5)(A).
- § 16.79.040(4)(B).
- Id.
- § 16.79.040(6).
- § 16.79.040(8).
- § 16.79.040(8)(A).
- § 16.79.040(11).
- Id.
- 964 § 13.26.064.
- 1005 § 16.79.045.
- NO. 16-015-PC, supra note 75, at 5.
- MENLO PARK, CAL. ORDINANCES 1005 § 16.79.030-40 (2016).
- See MENLO PARK, supra note 78, at 14.
- Redwood City QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Redwood City, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- See Redwood City QuickFacts, supra note 99.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- Bill Silverfarb, Every Tenant Must Go: New Owners Plan to Renovate Apartments, THE DAILY J. (May 18, 2015, 5:00 AM), http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2015-05-18/every-tenant-must-go-new-owners-plan-to-renovate-apartments/1776425143487.html.
- Druzin, supra note 61.
- Telephone Interview with Christopher Rogers, City Planner, Redwood City (April 7, 2016).
- See REDWOOD CITY, 2015-2023 REDWOOD CITY HOUSING ELEMENT 1-11 (2014) [hereinafter REDWOOD CITY].
- Id. at 109.
- See Redwood City, Cal. Ordinances art. 37 (2016).
- Id.
- See Rogers, supra note 105.
- Redwood City, Cal. Ordinances § 37.2 (2016).
- § 37.3.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- E-mail from Michelle Littlefield, Assoc. Planner, Redwood City, to author ( July 28, 2015) (on file with author).
- Redwood City, Cal. Ordinances § 37.4 (2016).
- § 37.3.
- Id.
- § 37.7.
- Id.
- REDWOOD CITY, supra note 106, at 86.
- Atherton QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Atherton, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- See Atherton QuickFacts, supra note 124.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- ATHERTON, supra note 2, at 5.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- Id.
- ATHERTON, supra note 2, at 4.
- Id. at 5.
- Id.
- Id. at 63.
- Id. at 22, 57.
- Id. at 18.
- Email from Haleigh King, Assistant Planner, City of Atherton, to author (Mar. 17, 2016) (on file with author).
- ATHERTON, CAL. CODE § 17.52 (2016).
- Email from Haleigh King, Assistant Planner, City of Atherton, to author (July 28, 2015) (on file with author).
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Mountain View QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Mountain View, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- Id.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 51.
- See Mountain View QuickFacts, supra note 143.
- See MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 52-54.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- Id.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 66.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 74.
- Id.
- Id.
- Telephone Interview with Alex Andrade, Econ. Dev. Manager, City of Mountain View (Mar. 8, 2016).
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 131.
- See MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 199.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 34.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 48.
- Email from Diana Pancholi, Assistant Planner, City of Mountain View, to author (Mar. 8, 2016) (on file with author).
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 99.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, CAL. CODE OF ORDINANCES § 36.12.70 (2016).
- Zoning Map, MOUNTAIN VIEW, http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/ filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10990 (last visited May 27, 2016).
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, CAL. CODE OF ORDINANCES § 36.12.70 (2016).
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- MOUNTAIN VIEW, supra note 1, at 109.
- Los Altos QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Los Altos, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id.
- PMC, CITY OF LOS ALTOS 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT 59 (2015) [hereinafter LOS ALTOS].
- Email from Sierra Davis, Assistant Planner, City of Los Altos, to author (April 5, 2016) (on file with author).
- See LOS ALTOS, supra note 179, at 16.
- Id. at 19-20.
- Id.
- Id. at 97.
- LOS ALTOS, CAL. CODE OF ORDINANCES § 14.14.040(A) (2016).
- Id.
- § 14.74.010.
- § 14.14.040.
- Id.
- § 14.14.070.
- § 14.14.030.
- § 14.14.040.
- Email from Sierra Davis, Assistant Planner, City of Los Altos, to author (April 5, 2016) (on file with author).
- LOS ALTOS, supra note 179, at 106.
- Los Altos Hills QuickFacts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (search “Los Altos Hills, CA”) (last visited May 26, 2016).
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- See Los Altos Hills QuickFacts, supra note 195.
- TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2015-2023 18 (2015) [hereinafter LOS ALTOS HILLS].
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- Id.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, surpa note 198, at 1.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, supra note 198, at 17.
- Id.
- See 2009-2013 American Community Survey, supra note 3.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, supra note 198, at 21.
- Id. at 2.
- Id. at 24.
- Id. at 58.
- Id. at 23.
- Email from Suzanne Avila, Planning Dir., Town of Los Altos Hills, to author (July 13, 2015) (on file with author).
- Id.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, supra note 198, at 59.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, CAL. CODE § 10-1.702(n) (2016).
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, supra note 198, at 34.
- Id.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, CAL. CODE § 10-1.702(n) (2016).
- Id.
- LOS ALTOS HILLS, supra note 198, at 1.
- Id.
- Id. at 60.
- CHAPPLE, supra note 6.
- Druzin, supra note 61.