Dear City Council,
If you approve Willow Village, I ask that you slow other developments in District 1. You could, for example, institute a phasing via yearly caps. Please see the attached tables with development projects in District 1 and in Districts 2-5. These have some missing pieces of information, which I need to obtain. The City keeps a website for development, but I rarely see the lot sizes.
On June 5, 2019, Council Members Taylor and Nash proposed a development moratorium via a memo. This led to a discussion at the June 11, 2019 Council meeting with the then City Attorney (Bill McClure) strongly advising against the idea of a moratorium. The staff report gives his reasons.
So, you can imagine my surprise to recently stumble across the Nov 30, 2016 Almanac article titled, “Menlo Park adopts big changes to general plan.” That article states that “City Attorney Bill McClure told the council that it can still impose phasing requirements, or even adopt a moratorium, after the general plan is approved.” Disclaimer: I have not had time to watch the video. McClure might have been misquoted and/or there may have been nuances to the meeting. However, taken at face value, McClure’s assurances seem to have helped to pass ConnectMenlo. Why did he have different advice later?
Some additional comments based on the Oct 11, 2022 Willow Village Fiscal Impact Report
The WV Fiscal Impact report should have included a financial evaluation of the health-related impacts. Ditto related Environmental Impact Reports. First, I believe that human life and safety is far more important than property. However, the detrimental impact to human health (and life) from development should also be evaluated when considering the pure economic benefits from development. Let’s make the tradeoffs visible so they can be discussed. For example, district 1 air quality is apparently significantly worse than in the rest of Menlo Park. The poor air quality is linked to increased rates of asthma. People living in District 1 have, on average, shorter lives too. The reason for the poor air quality, and shorter lives, needs more analysis. However, pollutants stemming from construction, and increased vehicle traffic, may be a major root cause.
Mitigation could include cash payments for additional doctor visits, relocation to an area with better air quality, life insurance (especially important for parents with young children) or even money to pay for funerals. Again, I think that human life is far more important than property.
The additional yearly $6,103,025 Revenue needs a District-1-led public discussion. As per the summary Table 18, Menlo Park will receive up to $6,103,025 annually in additional revenue if Council adopts Willow Village (increased residential density variant.) The report mentions the idea of adding staff. Instead, let’s get District 1 priorities for how to spend this money. The city would also receive a one-time payment totaling approximately $42.7 million should Council adopt Willow Village (the Increased Residential Density Variant). This large sum of money needs oversight, accountability, and annual reporting. The revenue should primarily benefit District 1 residents.
Outside Review of Planning Needed
The City’s planning process would benefit from an outside perspective. I suggest a resident-led Blue-Ribbon Commission tasked with a review and a report with their findings. I believe this type of Commission would be instrumental in giving the Council solid information for their policy-making deliberations and recommendations.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Lynne Bramlett
