Council -
Due to a prior commitment, I am unable to participate in public comment tonight. Here is roughly what I would have said:
First, I share Councilmember Nashs concerns about unintended consequences, and urge you to keep the increased densities and other "make-it-bigger" changes in the General Plan - only. In the Zoning Ordinance, start with smaller increases where the change would otherwise be major. Once increased, you may not be allowed to lower any of these changes in zoning EVEN IF there are adverse unintended, unforeseen consequences..Experience and monitoring can guide timely next steps with appropriate ratcheting up.
Second, I ask for a stronger commitment to balanced growth. Both the Specific Plan and ConnectMenlo General Plan assumed development scenarios that simply have not happened. There was plenty of height and residential density allowed in some areas but that wasnt what developers wanted to build. As pointed out before, although the Middle Plaza and Springlines projects provide nearly 400 units, combined, they could have provided more than double that number! With current zoning.
So do not assume developers appetites will change just because the density and height has increased. Other changes are necessary. Office growth continues to displace revenue-producing uses and community serving uses. Menlo Parks non-residential growth and the prevailing worker densities crammed into offices has been a major factor in the housing shortage. Yet, the proposed zoning changes ignore the causal factors.
There is a saying: "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"
There is an apt addendum "You can make it thirsty, though."
You can make developers thirsty by limiting Office and protecting/promoting Restaurants and Retail. Make a commitment to that with dates certain. Our residential quality of life depends on it, and so do your commitments regarding housing.
Patti Fry
Former Planning Commissioner
