Dear Council,
During your recent Goal Setting meetings, you heard from many members of the BH Committee with concerns and actionable suggestions
that pertain to the Connect Menlo process. It’s clear that the effort has led to many unintended (or perhaps known, but not fully
realized) consequences.Belle Haven residents have suggested the idea of a community-led Belle Haven Neighborhood Master Plan. I
hope that tonight’s study session will lead to such an effort. Models online include the 2016 Westwood Neighborhood plan
[https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/646/documents/planning/Plans/Westwood_Neighborhood_Plan.pdf] in Denver.
Evaluation of Connect Menlo Effort
The staff report refers to the Guiding Principles and asks how well the Connect Menlo effort has achieved these. Based on
reviewing results of an early survey [https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/5838/Survey_Combined_10_15_14?bidId=] related
to establishing these Guidelines, it appears that Staff supplied the initial short list of possible Guiding Principles. Thus Staff
set the initial parameters instead of using a more open and resident-driven process. Right there, that skewed the process towards
what Staff thought the Guiding Principles should be.
I think we also need an actual scorecard so that we can assess just how well the Connect Menlo effort has achieved the Guiding
Principles. I've looked at the list in the General Plan
[https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/15013/Land-Use-and-Circulation-Element_adopted-112916_final_figures?bidId=]and my
score would be low for most.
Robust Community Outreach?
The staff report asserts that the Connect Menlo (CM) effort included a “robust community outreach process” (Background section).
An advisory committee and many public meetings does not necessary translate into inclusive or effective public engagement.
The CM Advisory Committee included David Bohannon as an “at large” representative. One can find the minutes of these meetings by
googling Menlo Park General Plan and M-2 Zoning Update General Plan Advisor Committee. I will link to the Meeting #1 Summary.
[https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/5746/1-GPAC1_Summary?bidId=]I consider Bohonnon's presence to represent a major
conflict of interest because he stood to benefit materially from higher density zoning changes in Belle Haven. His presence was
equivalent to putting a fox on a committee charged with improving the hen house. Bohonnon’s presence took up committee space that
more rightly belonged to a Belle Haven community leader or stakeholder. Why give a developer prominence over BH community
stakeholders and residents? Instead, he could have joined the masses limited to trying to influence the process via attending
meetings and using their 3 minutes of public comment at the microphone.
(It’s time to consider the outsized influence of private industry in MP and to consider new staffing and other models that reduce
this influence. Bohonnon currently sits on the MP Chamber of Commerce’s Board of directors
[http://menloparkchamber.com/about/staff-board-members/] along with Facebook'sVP of Development, John Tenanes. In what other ways
might developers collectively be in positions where their influence is magnified via the whole?)
How many actual BH residents did the CM Advisory Committee include? When reviewing the names, I suspect few. One represented the
gentrification element in Belle Haven. Then, some Committee members missed multiple meetings and who knows how well those present
actually represented the interests of the BH residents.
Another omission was the lack of representation from the Library Commission. By then, staff should have known how important a new
Branch Library was to BH Residents. Although I was a relatively new Library Commission at the time, I already knew about this
priority. Despite this, the CM Advisory Committee did not include a representative from the Library Commission.
When I learned about the omission, I assumed this was a mistake. So I wrote Ms. Chow to ask if the CM Committee could include
someone from the LC. I pointed out that the Bicycle Commission had two slots! Her response was basically “No.” Library Management
also appeared unconcerned and told me that I could “attend meetings.” Well I attended what I could and many BH Residents were
visibly upset as they expressed their concerns over the Connect Menlo process and the impact of displacement on their community.
The General Plan (Nov 29, 2016) document lists the Library Commission in its Acknowledgements page. Given the LC’s non-role as
part of the official process, adding us is misleading.
I suspect that there were other questionable or problematic aspects to the public outreach. For example, I’ve seen the “dot
voting” method used to prioritize feedback at other City meetings that were packed with vested interests. If the Connect Menlo
process used a dot voting method, the presence of developers and their employees would skew the results.
It’s time for a new approach to planning in Menlo Park and to reconsider Belle Haven’s role as the financial bread basket for
Menlo Park. I’d like to see a breakout of all districts in terms of the total sales and property tax revenue that flows from them
to the City’s coffers. I’d like to see the development (and its negative consequences) more evenly distributed throughout Menlo
Park.
Lynne Bramlett
