Dear Council
I would like to offer the following abbreviated comments regarding the presentation in the above-reference meeting as I missed the opportunity to provide written comments:
1. The review of the study conducted by the UCLA Lewis Center For Regional Policy Studies publication “What Gets Built on Sites That Cities "Make Available" for Housing?” provides some key points, including that the probability of ‘officially’ selected sites in most cities, including Menlo Park, is not high. Therefore, the HCD’s new Site Inventory Guidebook (June 2020) and Housing Element Completeness Checklist (Jan. 2021) prompt cities to apply a “likelihood of development” discount factor when gauging the capacity of sites, including nonvacant sites (Checklist, p. 9; Guidebook, pp. 19-22). For a detailed discussion of buffer size and likelihood of development and the need to identify more sites, please refer to this study, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6786z5j9
2. September 23rd polls are not very reliable:
a. Preferences as to where to build. It is important to keep in mind, that the polls, at least during the meeting, did not provide a correlation between the preferences and the respondents’ locations. That is, it is not clear from the poll alone whether residents in particular neighborhood favored development in their own or other neighborhoods.
b. Answers are driven by questions. The poll was very limited as to potential sites. For example, it basically excluded other locations west of Alameda, except for the Safeway lot which we still don’t know if it is available and what is the probability that it will be built. Furthermore, certain types of potential sites, were repeated in all the questions (parking lots) which drove answers toward those answers.
c. While Sharon Heights was the first choice when it came to the prioritization of housing development in Commercial Areas, other than the Safeway property, no other sites have been identified which most likely will lead to none built in that area. SO, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT IN SHARON HEIGHTS?
3. The number of moderate housing units have been very low. It is still not clear, at least to me, why that is and what is the City’s plan to fix this issue for the remaining part of the 5th and the upcoming 6th cycle RHNA.
4. The construction has been lump-side mostly east of El Camino and close to Bay Front, with hardly anything on the West side. This only leads to continuous segregation of the City. All types of housing must be proportionally built throughout the City.
5. Proportional units
a. When it comes to size of BMR units to accommodate families, the numbers are not proportional to the numbers for the market and above market numbers. This is primarily because of the City’s “creativity” which allows this to happen.
b. How do you plan to provide proportional units of similar size/family size moving forward so as to not discriminate against families?
6. Continuous building of offices, expansion of the Facebook footprint, and hotels to support them:
a. Only leads to more housing demand which the City has been struggling to meet.
b. We need to curb the creeping footprint of the businesses.
7. El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan
a. Reviewing it again, one notes the use of the phrase “guidelines that work together to establish a district’s unique character and identity.”
b. Looking at this 2012 document, much of what was ‘imagined’ is still lacking.
c. Furthermore, looking at much of the area around City-owned Oak Grove area, there is really nothing that speaks of “small village character,” rather some conclusory statements to prevent from higher density housing in what is of higher affluency. We must take care not to repeat this bias as we designate sites for higher density.
d. The Plan also provides that the downtown plan provides opportunity for local businesses: Many of the businesses are not local businesses rather chains.
8. Non-profit agencies.
a. Non-profit status is an “accounting practice.” Non-profits make a lot of money and profits, directly and indirectly.
b. Property, in particular those owned by the City, can be developed by a developer and maintained by a management firm, but with the title retained by the City.
9. Proximity to public transit.
a. There is no evidence to support the notion that “prioritizing housing sites close to transit, businesses, and public services” is critical, at least not in Menlo Park.
b. While I wish we did have a robust public transportation, that is not the case. Caltrain is very limited, and people still have to drive to it in order to use it. Most people have access to cars, buses can be re-routed, and highways are equally distanced from both 101 and 280. This criterion seems more like another unspoken reason to minimize high density housing in the more affluent areas.
10. Parks
a. I don’t think there is anyone who does not like parks. That said, the same standards regarding parks should be applicable to all districts and areas within the City and not the more affluent areas which have traditionally benefited from more green space.
11. Surveys/Focus Groups
a. I am not sure what the numbers of unique respondents have been but I highly doubt that it is close to the desired 5000.
Regards
/Soody Tronson/
