Sorry, one more note on this:

5. We should make sure that we are enforcing the requirement that SB9 projects are proposed for units that have had renters living in them. Im curious how staff is treating this today and/or what they have in mind, given that we dont have a rental registry.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:03 PM Misha Silin > wrote:
Hello city council and staff

I am a resident of Allied Arts and would like to comment on the item H2, the SB9 ordinance.

I live on a street that has a lot of lots that have 2 units on them (some attached, some detatched), subdivided as condos and sold to separate owners. In fact, I own such a home. I think its great and people on our street seem to like it - we have block parties, kids play on the sidewalks, and everyone is friendly. Our street is zoned R2.

SB9 creates the opportunity to create more streets like mine, without having to change the zoning from R1 to R2. I think this is a great opportunity to add "missing middle" density to Menlo Park - simply allowing 1 home to become 2 or 3 or 4. I believe that not only would this contribute positively to neighborhood character, but it would provide more housing options for folks looking to move to our city or perhaps even downsize from their current home.

As it stands, I believe the incentive is still to take smaller homes and replace them with bigger single family McMansions with giant basements. For example, take 836 Harvard Ave. This lot is zoned R1 even though there are R2 lots just a block away. The home was sold for $3.6m in 2021, torn down, rebuilt as a giant home with a basement, and listed for $8.5m in the fall. Its an 8,400 sft lot. Is this a good use of our land? Wouldnt we have rather this home become 2 or 4 moderate sized homes?

To that end, I recommend we embrace SB9 and encourage folks to take advantage of it, whether they be existing homeowners or developers.

1. I fully support allowing ministerial condo subdivision. Building brand new for-rent duplexes or 4plexes does not economically pencil out in Menlo Park given our high land costs. Giving owners the potential to sell is a must. Without this provision, I believe we would get little to no SB9 applications.

2. I support the creation of objective design standards that would apply to R1 lots, regardless of whether its an SB 9 project or not. This would help move projects along rather than slowing each project down with a lengthy design review.

3. I encourage council to provide an incentive for folks to use SB9 to add density to R1 lots. It could be a small bonus in FAR, lot coverage, or something else. Or perhaps reducing fees.

4. To that end, I recommend we remove the more restrictive daylight plane restriction for SB9 units. This doesnt make sense. It should be the same as it is for R2 lots at the least. The staff proposal may not be in compliance with state law. HCD has issued guidance here saying "HCD recommends that local agencies rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its single family residential zone(s) to the extent possible." Making SB9 more restrictive may be treated as an effective downzoning which is illegal under SB 330.

In summary, I recommend we take this opportunity embrace SB9 and use it to meet our citys housing and neighborhood goals. I think we would look back on doing so very positively compared to some of the tougher decisions around the housing element etc.

Thank you
Misha Silin


--
Misha Silin
M: (925) 323-7727

[http://cdn3.iconfinder.com/data/icons/free-social-icons/67/linkedin_square_color-24.png][http://cdn3.iconfinder.com/data/icons/free-social-icons/67/facebook_square-24.png]