On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 3:16 PM Cal-Interiors
wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Cal-Interiors
> Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 3:08 PM
> Subject: 9212 report
> To: California Interiors & Design Inc.
>
>
> Dear Mayor Combs and Members of the Menlo Park City Council,
>
> I am writing to express serious concern regarding the recently released
> 9212 Report, "Evaluating the Community-Initiated Ballot Measure." While
> this report was intended to provide an objective, comprehensive analysis,
> its content reflects a clear pro-housing bias and fails to address critical
> areas essential for responsible city planning.
>
> Most notably, the report overlooks key issues related to:
>
> - Infrastructure capacity (water, sewer, and power)
> - Public safety, including fire and emergency response limitations and
> fire load
> - Traffic circulation, parking loss, and evacuation constraints
> - The broader operational impacts that significant redevelopment would
> impose on our civic systems.
>
> These omissions leave the public without a full understanding of the risks
> and realities associated with the proposed housing scenarios, which runs
> counter to the stated goals of the report. And contrary to what Jeff
> Schmidt said it would provide. This is a costly and possibly
> perceived biased report, as noted by Mayor Combs.
>
> A proper 9212 analysis should have included:
>
> - Current and projected strain on water, sewer, and power infrastructure.
> - Impacts on fire response times, emergency access routes, and
> evacuation bottlenecks.
> - Traffic and parking displacement effects on surrounding neighborhoods.
> -Proper traffic studies ( at appropriate times)
> Fiscal impacts
>
> - Analysis of cumulative impacts rather than selective, optimistic
> *assumptions* .
> - A balanced discussion of alternatives—including Civic Center-based
> solutions—for meeting state housing requirements without sacrificing the
> operational functionality of downtown retailers or community safety.
>
> In summary, placing housing in downtown parking lots is not a strategic
> solution. It compromises local commerce, imposes disproportionate costs,
> and results in substandard residential environments. These parking lots are
> critical economic infrastructure for downtown merchants, restaurants, and
> services, and their convenient availability is essential for citizens from
> nearby cities, including Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, Palo Alto, and
> Redwood City.
>
> Furthermore, the downtown lots were never planned for residential use and
> lack the space for adequate setbacks, open space, fire access, traffic
> circulation, and long-term housing.
>
> For these reasons, we urge reconsideration of the assumptions in the 9212
> Report. We recommend prioritizing the Civic Center—rather than the downtown
> parking lots—as the responsible, sustainable, and logical solution for
> meeting housing requirements in this cycle.
>
> Please note: For accountability and transparency, none of the information
> or assumptions used in the 9212 report from th M Group can be used for
> campaigning for or against housing (California Government Code 54964).
>
> Let’s have a serious discussion regarding all things Menlo excluding
> hopscotch, four square, dodgeball and tiddily winks.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mary Seaton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
