Hi - the below is a comment regarding the city's NOP for our next housing element cycle.
My name is Mikhail Silin, I'm a resident of Menlo Park and I live in the allied arts neighborhood (D4).
Since the housing element is asking us to plan ahead for eight years, this is an opportunity to plan for the Menlo Park that many of us envision. Residents imagine our city as inclusive, vibrant, with opportunities for folks of all income levels and backgrounds to be housed in a dignified manner. We want local families and workers to be able to be housed such that they can live, work, and enjoy all that Menlo Park and our surroundings have to offer.
I have been digging into the proposed sites in the NOP and I am extremely concerned that this list is unrealistic and is not going to produce the housing we are claiming it will. Not even close. Specifically, I am concerned that our current plan is going to continue the status quo. Very little housing will get built, neighbors and families will continue to get priced out of the area, which will lead to more inequality, congestion due to local workers not being able to live here, and homelessness.
In addition to analyzing the sites listed in the NOP (my comment on that was submitted to the Planning Commission last week, I've taken some time to meet with numerous housing developers, who have ongoing or already-built projects in Menlo Park.
These are my conclusions:
1. The draft list of sites is unlikely to lead to us hitting our RHNA goals and/or building a significant amount of housing in Menlo Park
2. This will continue to perpetuate housing un-affordability in Menlo Park
3. It will also likely be rejected by HCD, as other cities like Beverly Hills and Davis have, due to a lack of evidence that these sites will be redeveloped.
Evidence/backing for my conclusions:
A. A majority of the larger sites in the element are mixed use/office. All of the developers I spoke with wouldn't get out of bed for a (potential) 30du/ac housing project on those office sites unless it's an old building that has low vacancy. Most of the sites clearly do not seem to be in that bucket, they are occupied by wealthy VC firms and startups/companies with deep pockets (ex: RobinHood). Staff has not produced evidence indicating those occupants plan to vacate or that the building owners are considering selling.
If we want to really incentivize those properties to be sold, we should increase the density significantly such that it becomes lucrative for a developer to buy the property and renovate the office space + add housing. 30du/ac is nowhere close to that number - those are essentially townhomes at best.
B. For 100% affordable projects, putting one in the parking lot of our Safeway sites or a large office site also seems unrealistic. No evidence has been presented how this would actually happen. Do the current owners of the sites plan to add affordable housing in the parking lot? Who? Or are they planning on selling? And if so, do we have evidence that the parking lot could turn into affordable housing? We have no history to go off of, since this was not something that happened in the previous element.
C. For our parking lots downtown, that are city owned -- this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to use our valuable land to create affordable housing for the community. Based on what I heard from affordable housing developers, we should be increasing the density to the max level that affordable develeopers can get funding for. My understanding is that that is 150-200du/ac.
Suggestions for next steps to fix the above issues, get our element approved by HCD, and actually build housing
1. Support 100% affordable housing development to the fullest extent
* Get in the weeds on any city owned sites to maximize 100% affordable housing.
* Work very closely with developers and community to come up with good uses for those sites.
* Don't squander it with low density or unrealistic requirements.
* Push staff to find more sites that can realistically support 100% affordable housing
* Add clarity / certainty
* Remove as much discretionary approval as we can stomach for 100% affordable projects
* Lower parking requirements. This has been mentioned in just about every community meeting and yet still isn't on the incentive list in the NOP.
* Get funding to help buy land and/or help subsidize 100% affordable housing
* Given the large amount of wealth in Menlo Park, can we not get more funding from local large businesses who I'm sure also want to support the community?
* Add density / height for 100% affordable projects
* Waive fees for 100% affordable projects
2. Support more BMR development by incentivizing market rate projects that will come with a required % of BMR, as is already required in Menlo Park
* Get more serious about assessing feasibility of current sites / find more sites
* My understanding is that so far staff has only sent out mailers to the property owners. At least for the larger sites, we can do better.
* Increase density significantly such that buying a site with an existing use and adding housing pencils out. My impression from speaking with developers is that it should be at least 100-150du/ac but admittedly I think more research should/could be done here.
* Add density / height in exchange for higher BMR rate.
* Add clarity / certainty in exchange for higher BMR rate
* Remove as much discretionary approval as we can stomach. Especially for smaller sites, to attract more mom & pop landlords.
* Lower parking requirements. This has been mentioned in just about every community meeting and yet still isn't on the incentive list in the NOP.
Thank you for taking the time to read my long comment. I hope you understand that continuing to proceed with the EIR and keeping the list of sites and incentives as currently written in the NOP is extremely likely to result in a rejection from HCD, which will allow a lot more freedom on what can be built in Menlo Park. By taking the planning process seriously, we can get our element approved and maintain community control over the growth of our city, which I'm sure is what we all want.
Thank you
Mikhail Silin
--
Misha Silin
M: (925) 323-7727
[https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fcdn3.iconfinder.com%2fdata%2ficons%2ffree-social-icons%2f67%2flinkedin_square_color-24.png&c=E,1,F16Y7EcPCQOVon8SQGMqcm5IzVNd2etOdIWflbfkvncL_u1D10-tc5lT6e1hRHa17gBKZ_Lo6YMl33xSOmUnePn3lATLI0oXQts-Kuat&typo=1][https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fcdn3.iconfinder.com%2fdata%2ficons%2ffree-social-icons%2f67%2ffacebook_square-24.png&c=E,1,EGr-n24OxszfsFqQzGj1R6sFDID8HdROfOh02k5FOlujDOEDiSu63WAtOICy9sY-JN8XDuYr71s_LJG7fslPlNyDzuMyVvXAlmjk1ObJvc5kENJDAnMJdfI0E7A,&typo=1]
