Congratulations to the state for sticking to its moral guns in the face of elite and moneyed opposition.

Day, Turcott and Eastman are pretty smart guys. Why not put them in charge of meeting the HCD requirements?

This is simply abusive behavior by deranged YIMBYs in the state government. Of course, large majorities of Portola Valley voted for this, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them.

My question is how and when does the state decide that a community is built out and no longer must completely redesign its structure?
When a community which has, over a long period of time, developed thoughtful planing regulations with the support of it’s residents, why is it the state’s authority to overrule that?

N. Berry asks "when does the state decide that a community is built out and no longer must completely redesign its structure?"

It's a good question but I would suggest that "the state," that is, politicians in Sacramento, never know. But you know who would know? It's local government. In fact, that's what local government is for!

For Sacramento politicians to usurp what is so clearly and obviously a local issue - with subtleties and nuances that they could never understand - is truly absurd. Local officials know what's best for their communities. That's why they are there!

@N. Berry "When ....."

The actual answer is probably never.

In cities like MP and RWC there is continual "infill" redevelopment of existing sites with more intense development. RWC and MP both have projects to scrape existing commercial sites, and replace them with new, larger ones. Similar rezoning and intensification can also happen with housing.

I was a seated on a "sustainable" platform 30 years ago. In my experience, the "growth" mentality never stops and the bureaucracy is habituated to perpetual growth.

When cities update general plans they almost always intensify the zoning.

Maybe you want to ask, "When would state rules stop shoe-horning housing into Portola Valley?

I don't know. I think its reasonable that the state require cities to build housing commensurate to their employment. But towns like PV don't really have job densities and probably run a housing surplus not a deficit.

So why is the State in your face? Honestly. Tech growth needs housing, and PV has lots of unused land. The state is pretending to address "equity", but, some amount of San Mateo housing quotas are "shared" among cities in that county.

The "equity" thing is really a bait-and-switch government snafu in which HCD rules use "affordability" as a pretext for forcing towns like PV to upzone for multi-family housing, which, when built will become luxury housing. It's not possible to zone for "affordability" or to force private developers to build it.

I don't know the RHNA "sharing" rules, but I fear that PV might always be on the hook to swallow some portion of San Mateo County housing obligation whether or not PV itself "grows".

So long as SMC jobs grow, PV might be on the hook to build more housing, and it will always be on the hook to build more "affordable" housing whether that is possible or not.

" It's not possible to zone for "affordability" or to force private developers to build it."

bingo

And yet, progressives continue to say you can.

PV's experience with the state (moving target, unrealistic rules, micromanaging, etc.) is akin to what homeowners go through with cities when trying to get a development approved.