Dear City Council,
I am a fan of the proposed housing development at Flood School for multiple reasons, but I do share neighborhood concerns about site access and I am deeply worried about the divisive impact (and unintended consequences) of the proposed ballot measure, which apparently now has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
I have a handful of requests to make of the city leadership:
1) Voter education is sorely needed.
A lot of residents don't know enough about how the city does zoning and general plan updates. I know some of the people who signed the Menlo Balance petition were confused about what it might actually do.
Here's some of what I've heard:
–I've heard residents express hope that by voting for this ballot measure, they could block developments on non-R1 sites (e.g. Willow Village or SRI). This is not the case.
–I've heard residents express concern that if they *don't* vote for this ballot measure, developers could buy up R1 lots and convert them to apartments with the council's blessing. My understanding is that this would be "spot zoning"–effectively illegal and highly undesirable.
–I think there are residents who imagine that you, council, have apartments and big box stores planned for every neighborhood. In fact, there are only five R1 sites listed in the draft Housing Element, none of which was ever a single family home, and you are certainly not planning to convert any residential properties into mixed use or commercial usage.
–New Finance and Audit commissioner Mike DeMoss just wrote in implying that you, council, were using the Housing Element to somehow eliminate single-family zoning in neighborhoods across the city. It sounds as though he's been sharing that message with other residents.
There is an urgent need for clear, concise facts about how this stuff works. The voters need to understand what this measure would actually do, and they need to be able to ask questions (even anonymously) in a way that puts their fears to rest.
**Please work with staff to put together an information session about how these things actually work–and ideally also an FAQ, or an article in the Almanac.••
2) Consider a better/unique zoning designation for the Flood School site
I've never been able to find out why the Flood School parcel is zoned R1 instead of Public Facility (like the rest of the public schools in our community). Regardless, there are mixed messages about the amount of housing that could theoretically be developed there. Ravenswood is asking for up to 90 units and up to 4 stories, which would be no more than 40 du/acre. This is very similar in scale to the Gateway Rising project in Belle Haven, as well as other workforce housing projects in communities on the Peninsula. The hypothetical bonus density max of 260 units that is listed in the Housing Element is generating a lot of understandable confusion and opposition from people who might otherwise be more supportive of this project. Do we need to do that for this site?
••Please work with staff and the consultants to come up with a zoning designation for this site that will match what Ravenswood wants to do, and dispel concerns about something that is nearly 3x the scale of what is proposed.••
3) Please work with the county staff and Board of Supervisors to facilitate access through Flood Park
I think a lot of residents in this area are actually on the same page–generally supportive of the idea of creating affordable housing in a way that helps the Ravenswood district; concerned about how people who eventually live there can safely and conveniently access our shared roads and amenities. Flood Park access is key. I hope you will join me in encouraging our county leaders to make it happen–sooner rather than later. (see my email below)
4) Clarify how BMR rental housing would work for the hypothetical Ravenswood project
Finally, there seems to be a lack of clarity about how BMR rental housing in this sort of case would be administered. I have heard concerns expressed that it will only be "affordable" housing in the near-term. My understanding is that we have a standard program for managing BMR rentals to qualified individuals. Explaining how this works–deed restrictions, income categories, etc.–would be helpful. (This might not need to happen quite so quickly, but considering the level of community confusion and distrust, it couldn't hurt.)
Thank you for your service.
Katie
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Katie Behroozi >
Date: Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:40 PM
Subject: Flood Park access feels imperative for Flood School housing–and we need your help
To: >, >, >, >
Dear Supervisor Slocum, County Manager Callagy, and Director Calderon,
I am a resident and Complete Streets commissioner (*insert standard "speaking for myself" disclaimer) in Menlo Park. I applaud the county's progress in making our county parks more equitable and accessible–e.g. doing away with parking fees–and am thrilled with the plans for the redesign of Flood Park. I'm also excited to be part of the task force considering ways to improve safety along Ringwood and Coleman. Thank you!
As a Flood Triangle resident who supports the addition of affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the city, I cheered when I read that the Ravenswood District was thinking of developing the Flood School property into 90 below-market-rate apartments. We sure do need that housing in our community–for teachers, yes, but also for bus drivers, Trader Joe's employees, medical assistants, childcare workers, grant writers, etc.
Despite the proximity to the freeway noise and pollution (which of course existing residents also contend with), there are some real bonuses to this location:
–Children living at the Flood School site could leave their houses on Halloween and WALK to a great trick-or-treating neighborhood.
–They could easily bike down Van Buren and over the bike bridge to get to Belle Haven Elementary School, as well as the new Menlo Park Community Campus swimming pool.
–The supermarket and restaurants at Marsh Manor are a sketchy 10-minute bike ride (we should probably fix this!) or a straightforward 5-minute drive away.
–Most importantly, apartments at Flood School would offer (in theory) access to a beautiful county park that is about to be redeveloped to serve more community members, with ball fields, a playground, a pump track, etc.
There's one thorny challenge that we need to work together to solve: site access.
Flood School was originally designed as a neighborhood school and was therefore probably optimized for pedestrians, not cars and buses. Suburban Park streets are winding and narrow and the route to the Flood School site on Sheridan is circuitous. Van Buren dead-ends into a narrow cul-de-sac at Haven House, and due to the sensitive nature of that community, it would be nice not to disturb their tranquillity by creating a through street there (although from a safety perspective it's probably better than nothing).
But it feels irresponsible not to at least TRY to come up with a second access point for future residents of this proposed development–for their safety and convenience, if not for ours.
This is where you come in.
We need to secure access to and through Flood Park for that site–at least during hours when the park is open. I have heard from longer-term residents of Suburban Park that there *used* to be some form of informal park access for the Flood School community, so there's some precedent here. I'm aware that things get complicated with the water pipeline and so maybe Iris isn't a viable solution for drivers (although kids and adults on bikes should definitely be able to enter and exit that way, as it is the most direct route to the Ringwood bike route). Bay Road access, however, should be fairly straightforward for cars. It's a straight shot down an existing hardscape to a neighborhood collector street.
What do we need to do to make this happen? I know dozens of citizens who share this perspective–and believe there are a number of Suburban Park residents who think the rhetoric around the ballot initiative has gotten out of hand and could support up to 90 units of affordable housing if they felt some reassurance that it wouldn't all be funneled out through their narrow, winding streets.
As county leaders, you surely have the authority to help us solve this challenge.
In conclusion:
I deplore the economic and racial segregation that are an unintentional byproduct of putting all dense/affordable housing along busy streets like El Camino and Willow Road. Please help our neighborhoods to gracefully stretch and accommodate some more families.
I have also spent enough time squinting at our zoning map and reading our draft housing element update to know what a rare opportunity this site is. Menlo Park is supposed to come up with ~1000 units of affordable housing in the next decade; this could get us close to 10% of the way there.
Finally, the Menlo Balance ballot initiative–borne of the frustration of a neighborhood who didn't always feel seen or heard by county and city and district officials–threatens to poison and divide our community at the worst possible time. These 2022 midterm elections are going to be a fight for our Democracy. We locals need to pull together, not fracture.
Please, please, please step in and help us get this sorted out.
Thank you for reading–and thank you for your service!
Katie Behroozi
407 Bay Rd.
--
Katie Behroozi
650.804.1812 (cell)
