Mr. Hilton,
Thanks for your email. While I can't, on my own, require that the information you've detailed in your email be added to the scope of the report, I fully support your request.
I also share your concerns that, without any vetting by council or city staff, the scope of this report was expanded/altered to fit the demands of one resident.
- Drew
[cid:CMP_Email_Logo_100dpi_05d92d5b-e8e3-498f-93a6-d0da509bd602111111111.png]
Drew Combs
Councilmember
City Hall - 2nd Floor
701 Laurel St.
tel 650-924-1890
menlopark.org
________________________________
From: Skip Hilton
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 11:57 AM
To: _CCIN
Cc: Skip Hilton
Subject: Fwd: MP City Council meeting June 28, 2022 - Item F-3
Dear Councilmembers.
Thank you for your service.
I am writing tonight after watching the City Council meeting on June 29, 2022. My specific interest was agenda items F-2 and F-3, specifically “A Citizen-Sponsored Initiative Measure to Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to Prohibit the City Council of the City of Menlo Park from Re-Designating or Re-Zoning Certain Properties Designated and Zoned for Single Family Detached Homes”
I noted that Councilmemer Ray Mueller was not present for the meeting.
At the City Council Meeting the City Council considered 3 options:
1. adopt the Measure as written
2. put the Measure on the ballot for MP citizens to decide
3. order a report on the Measure to be delivered within 30 days, after which the Council must decide between #1 and #2 above.
As I understand the city council chose option 3.
According to Staff Report Number 22-129-CC the details on the report are as follows:
A. During the circulation of the petition,or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9215 (i.e., options 1 and 2 above), the legislative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
1. Its fiscal impact.
2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs
4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
5. Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment.
6. Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.
8. Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.
Prior to the City Council meeting, an email was sent to City Council by Ms. Karen Groves in which she proposed a number of additional items to include in the report under #8 above. Mayor Nash made a motion to include all of the items in Ms. Groves email, which was subsequently adopted by City Council. I do not have the full list of items that were added to the Report and adopted by the CIty Council here, as Ms. Grove's email was not included in the meeting agenda or minutes, presumably as it came to council just prior to the meeting on Tuesday June 28.
Frankly, I was not aware that MP residents had the ability to offer additional items to be studied in such a report. As I have just now learned of this, and without any prior call for public input to the report, I would also like to submit a list of additional items to be researched to give a full picture of the impact that rezoning single-family-residential zoned parcels within Menlo Park could have on adjoining neighborhoods, and specifically to the Flood School site (Site #38) given its unique configuration. (I also noted that Council Member Drew Combs requested that the authors of the Report be as unbiased and factual as possible, which I appreciate. But even an unbiased report can exhibit bias based on the questions that are asked and the areas studied or not studied).
Here are the additional items I would like to include in the report,
* Study the traffic impact of high-density housing on adjacent neighborhoods. Specific to Site #38, understand the impact of a single entrance on Sheridan Avenue in the Suburban Park neighborhood vs. alternative scenarios with multiple points of access.
* Study the Impact on commute hours and VMT between high density housing sites located near transit centers vs areas where public transportation is not walkable nor accessible.
* Evaluate options to distribute affordable and livable housing in lower density developments across the breadth of our city, so we can still still address the housing need for our area without dramatic impacts to traffic and quality of life in any one location.
Please confirm that these items will be able to be added to the report, or addressed in a future City Council to be amended to the report. If they are not able to be added after the fact, I only request a rationale as to why Ms. Groves items were added, while a resident like me who lives in a neighborhood that is adjacent to one of the development sites was not allowed to contribute items to the report.
On a personal note, I am a resident of the Suburban Park neighborhood, and I also signed the petition to put this Measure on the ballot. I am not against building affordable housing in Menlo Park or on the Flood School parcel (site #38) for which our neighborhood currently provides the only single point of road access. But I signed the petition because I felt the current plan for site #38 (90+ units) and current process (fasttrack the project without EIR) will lead to a bad outcome for MP residents here, and this is one way to ensure that alternatives will be considered by MP City Council, the Planning Commission, the landowner and land developers.
I welcome the addition and inclusion of new and diverse neighbors to our delightfully small, open, and welcoming neighborhood where I have lived for 25 years. I also look forward to teachers and staff of Ravenswood school district joining our community and parttake in all our neighborhood amenities. But a development of 90+ units on the Flood School site is oversize, overly dense for this area, and will have impacts to traffic and safety given the current configuration of the parcel and lack of public transit optiosn.
Instead, I would like to see a development that is similar to the density and style of the LIveMoves - Haven Family House homeless shelter which already exists in our community. This property is located at 260 Van Buren Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025 and (1) abuts the Flood School site (so the new development would fit in well with the existing neighborhood character), (2) could provide additional road access to the site via Van Buren Road, and (3) would still be able to accomodate at least 40-50 families including teachers and staff from Ravenswood School District. I believe that a development of this size and scope and with the additional road access would be welcome by most if not all of my neighbors, just as we have welcomed the Haven Family House into our community.
Thanks for your consideration.
--
Skip Hilton
148 Dunsmuir Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
skiphilton@gmail.com
