Re: Proposed SB 79 Exemption Ordinance (Staff Report 26-078-CC)
________________________________
Mayor Nash and Members of the City Council,
My wife, Kathryn, and I appreciate the diligence of planning staff in preparing this ordinance and fully recognize the time pressure created by SB 79s July 1, 2026 effective date. The instinct to protect some local planning authority before that deadline is understandable. However, after careful review of the staff reports from both the April 27 Planning Commission hearing and tonights City Council packet, plus the Planning Commissions feedback, we urge the Council to pause before adopting the proposed exemption ordinance - at least not without accompanying direction that commits the City to a substantive, vision-driven planning process for the Caltrain station area.
Our concern is not with the mechanism of a temporary exemption. SB 79 expressly allows it, and staff has correctly identified which subdistricts qualify under the 50% density and FAR threshold. Our concern is with what follows — or more precisely, what does not.
________________________________
The Ordinance Functions as a Placeholder, Not a Plan
Tonights staff report is candid about what the exemption ordinance does and does not accomplish. It preserves the existing land use regulations of the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan subdistricts — D, SA-W, SA-E, ECR-SE, and ECR-NE-R — through as late as January 31, 2032. It does not establish any commitment to what comes next. Staff acknowledges that a TOD Alternative Plan "could be prepared most efficiently in conjunction with the next housing element update" — a process that is itself years away and uncertain in scope.
In other words, the proposed ordinance buys time. That is not inherently wrong. But time bought without a clear mandate to use it productively is simply delay. The Planning Commission recognized this when it voted 5-1 on April 27 to recommend the Council not adopt the ordinance — a significant signal from the body that reviewed the matter most closely.
________________________________
"Retain Local Plan and Character" Is Not a Long-Term Vision
The staff report repeatedly frames the exemption as consistent with General Plan goals LU-1, LU-2, and LU-5, which emphasize orderly development, neighborhood stability, and a vital downtown corridor. These are worthy goals. But they describe what Menlo Park has historically valued, not where it needs to go.
The area within a quarter mile of a Tier 1 Caltrain station — one of the most frequent and heavily used commuter rail corridors in California - represents some of the highest-value, transit-accessible land in the entire Bay Area. SB 79 reflects a statewide consensus that land of this kind should carry more housing, more density, and more walkable urbanism than legacy suburban zoning typically allows. The states baseline - 75 feet, 120 dwelling units per acre, FAR 3.5 within a quarter mile; and 95 feet, 160 du/ac, and FAR 4.5 immediately adjacent to the station - is not arbitrary. It reflects what comparable transit corridors in peer cities are already absorbing.
The existing bonus-level capacity of the five proposed exempt subdistricts totals approximately 3,849 dwelling units across 43.3 acres — only about 66% of what SB 79s default standards would allow (5,834 units). That gap represents thousands of homes that could serve Menlo Park residents, workers, and the region, near an electrified rail system running 104 trains per weekday. Accepting that gap as the ceiling for the next six years, without a committed plan to revisit it, is a consequential choice - and one the exemption ordinance invites the Council to make without fully acknowledging.
________________________________
The Assumptions Embedded in the Exemption Merit Scrutiny
Several assumptions underlying the staff recommendation deserve explicit examination:
Population stability. The exemption as written applies only within 0.25 miles of the Menlo Park Caltrain Station, because Menlo Parks population is currently below 35,000. State Department of Finance estimates show the city at 33,326 in 2025, but already rising to 33,785 as of January 1, 2026 — a 1.4% annual increase. If Menlo Park crosses 35,000 before January 31, 2032, the SB 79 zone expands to 0.5 miles, and parcels near the Palo Alto Caltrain Station on the Menlo Park side also become eligible. The exemption ordinance would need to be amended at that point. The Council should ask: does the city have a plan for that scenario, and does the current exemption approach accommodate it?
The "temporary" nature of exclusion. The exemption can remain in effect until one year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element — potentially through 2031. Six years is not a short pause. It is most of a planning cycle. Development decisions made on the assumption that the existing Specific Plan governs will shape the physical environment for decades. A temporary ordinance adopted without a clearly articulated endpoint and successor plan will face enormous inertia when the time comes to revisit it.
The absence of a TOD vision. Staff notes that a TOD Alternative Plan — which could allocate density strategically across the station area rather than applying SB 79s parcel-by-parcel defaults — would require "substantial sums in consultant fees and significant staff resources, both of which are currently not accounted for." That is precisely the issue. The exemption ordinance is being proposed in lieu of that investment, not as a bridge to it. The Council should ask whether the right response to resource constraints is to delay visioning entirely, or to authorize the resources needed to do it properly.
________________________________
A Constructive Path Forward
This community has made meaningful investments in planning — the Downtown Specific Plan, the 6th Cycle Housing Element update, and most recently, the draft Anti-displacement Plan. Each of these efforts reflects real work and real community engagement. The intent is not to dismiss those efforts, but to suggest that the area immediately surrounding Menlo Parks only Caltrain station deserves an equally deliberate, forward-looking planning process — one that asks bigger questions about what this district could become.
To that end, the Council is respectfully asked to consider the following:
1. Decline to adopt the exemption ordinance tonight without conditions. The Planning Commissions 5-1 vote against adoption was not a technicality. It reflected a substantive concern that the ordinance, as presented, is insufficiently connected to a long-term plan. The Council should take that recommendation seriously.
2. If the ordinance is adopted, attach a firm commitment to launch a TOD Alternative Plan process. The staff report acknowledges this option (Option 3) and notes it is best undertaken alongside the 7th Cycle Housing Element update. If the Council adopts the exemption, it should simultaneously direct staff to develop a TOD planning work plan with a defined timeline, dedicated budget, and community engagement process — not defer those decisions to a later, unspecified date.
3. Define what "success" looks like for the station area by 2032. The exemptions sunset date creates a natural planning horizon. The Council should take advantage of that horizon by establishing, even at a high level, what kind of district Menlo Park wants near its Caltrain station — in terms of housing production, affordability mix, ground-floor activation, urban form, public space, and fiscal return to the city. Without that vision, the exemption period will pass without meaningful progress, and the city will face the same decision again in six years under even greater state pressure.
4. Account for the Willow Village uncertainty. The recent news that Meta has paused the Willow Village project — one of the largest planned developments in Menlo Parks history - significantly changes the development outlook for the station area. The Council should ensure that any near-term zoning decisions account for that changed context, and do not inadvertently foreclose options that a comprehensive TOD vision might otherwise pursue.
________________________________
Conclusion
Menlo Park is fortunate to have a Tier 1 Caltrain station at the heart of its downtown. Very few Bay Area cities can say the same. The question before the Council tonight is not whether to protect local planning authority - that instinct is sound - but whether the proposed ordinance reflects adequate ambition for what this district could achieve. Freezing the status quo for six years without a committed plan to do better is not consistent with the level of foresight this community deserves.
The Council is urged to either decline the ordinance or adopt it only with binding direction to undertake a genuine, resourced, and time-bound TOD visioning process — one that treats the Caltrain station area as the strategic civic asset it is.
Thank you for your time and your service to our community.
Kevin and Kathryn Kranen
227 Santa Margarita Ave
Menlo Park, CA 94025
