Dear City Council,
As a local resident since early childhood, and a homeowner for 17 years, I’ve been deeply concerned by the negative impact on the quality of life on virtually every resident in Menlo Park due to the rapid rate of development of recent years.
The sheer number of tall office buildings -- with the much higher office worker density per square foot with open office seating – has created this housing mandate crisis.
This resulting crisis is now pushing very short-sighted “emergency” use decisions that have a permanent negative impact on our city.
It appears that residents who actually pay the city employee’s salaries are at the mercy of city planning and city managers who do not live here. Chiefly, they are pushing for development to enhance their resumes and to forge strong relationships with the big developers – which they then leverage to land a new job to further their career path. You as the City Council has the power to counteract these actions.
The unchecked development is at the expense of those who live and work in Menlo Park with higher taxes, traffic gridlock, unsafe biking for children and adults, packed schools, and turning a suburban town into an urban city. Menlo Park’s size, strong schools and quality of life are precisely why so many have moved from other urban areas to have a better quality of life in a safer environment for their families and themselves.
In your selection of housing site locations in tonight’s meeting, please consider the following:
1. Please select the Downtown Area and Sharon Heights Area for housing
* We need to deliver on the promise of a revitalized downtown from the Downtown Plan presented many years ago.
* The long-time problem of out-of-state property owners is continuing the stagnation of the heart of our city.
* The downtown area needs more residents and a greater variety of businesses. There’s the cost and planning benefit that the city owns the parking lot land.
* The downtown area can bear the higher densities proposed by new housing projects, and will provide patrons and residents that are within walking distance, not requiring car traffic.
* In recent meetings, I’ve seen representatives from St. Bede’s offer their parking lot as an excellent place for affordable housing for the low- and very-low income residents. Since the Sharon Heights area has not had any development whatsoever, it’s important that this area shares the higher-density housing needs more equitably. The underutilized Sharon Heights Shopping Center is another strong site.
* Belle Haven, District 3 are already contending with more than their fair share of development. It needs to be equitably distributed throughout Menlo Park.
1. Hit the “Pause Button” on new office building development since that is precisely what has creating the housing shortage and high RHSA numbers the city is struggling to meet.
*
* Stop further office building development in Menlo Gateway/Bohannon Industrial Park. One developer has profited inordinately, while creating a tremendous burden on local and displaced residents in Belle Haven, and also on Linfield Oaks and District 3 with the large Stanford/Middle Plaza and SpringLine developments. The severity of the impact has yet to be felt until they open up.
1. Reduce the density and height of the SRI project
* With the proposed new office buildings (at much higher office worker densities that are 10x – 15x the current employee number), the massive scope of the SRI project will further exacerbate an already serious problem with RHSA mandates, traffic, school impacting, soaring infrastructure costs (we already have Measure B pending!), the requisite police and fire increases – MOST of which is being unduly borne by the taxpaying residents! The developers are paying little or no funds to offset the infrastructure costs their highly profitable (for them) developments create for everyone else.
2. Idea on how to mitigate the severity of the SRI Project:
* Reduce the height and density of the 400 housing units proposed in the small area and congested area at Laurel and Ravenswood. Spread out the housing, at lower building heights and with more greenspace, by reducing the number of office buildings in the proposed project. This will still provide the housing needed, yet reduce the number of NEW mandated housing units that will be required in the next cycle based on the many new office buildings in the plan.
3. Get credit in Cycle 6 for the excess number of housing units built in Cycle 5.
* There were 761 extra units created beyond the 655 unit requirement. Can this be applied to our Cycle 6 number to reduce the required new units?
Thank you for using your very important roles to represent the residents – and to temper the over-development zeal of city staff and profiteering by developers at the cost of those who live and pay the taxes here.
You have the authority and power as our City Council to make the decisions that are best for our community now and for the future.
Thank you for your care and commitment,
Sue Connelly
