Dear City Council,
I am writing to you today as a concerned resident having only recently learned about a large potential housing project being discussed at this evening’s meeting. I am sure you are inundated with lots of comments from other residents so I will try to be brief with predominantly questions that come to mind vs. citing concerns. I am focused on the questions as a way to highlight that I, like most residents I am afraid, only just learned about this potential project a week or so ago. Given the paucity of information on the project, it is hard for me to object or support but rather to implore the City Council to not vote on the project this evening and rather take a more measured approach that should entail more analysis and community and stakeholder involvement.
Questions:
-Why does the city need to seek an exemption to the Surplus Land Act which then requires a project to be 100% affordable?
-Who determined that the exemption would be the optimal route to developing these parcels?
-Are these parcels really “surplus land” given that the parking lots serve the community as shoppers, diners, retailers and other business owners and, I believe, that downtown property owners paid into a parking assessment district for decades?
-Why wouldn’t the city seek a declaration of surplus land which only requires the city to “prioritize” entities that provide the greatest number of affordable housing units?
-Wouldn’t a declaration of surplus land provide the city with the broadest latitude in soliciting RFPs from a broader range of developers? This could allow for more competitive and creative proposals, likely with a mix of uses and of market rate and affordable housing.
-By doing the declaration of surplus land could the city end up with more qualified developers and higher values for the land and ultimately the highest and best use?
-Why would the city want to limit the process and shoe-horn the potential project as one with 1 vary narrow use?
-The staff report cites that the state designated disposition process of declaring the property surplus land has “potential risks”. What are these? I only see a more competitive and creative RFP process with broader and likely better outcomes to consider.
-The 2022 Menlo Park Downtown Market Study the city commissioned recommended developing the parking lots with “mixed use housing and retail”. I don’t believe it mentioned all affordable housing. Why is the city commissioned market study seemingly being disregarded?
-It looks like the city engaged UC Berkeley students as volunteers to come up with several plans. I believe these studies recommended a “mix of market rate and affordable housing”. Why are these studies seemingly being disregarded?
-Why are we relying on college students to drive what is deemed the best use for the parking lots anyways?
-Has the city conducted a traffic and parking study?
-Has the city surveyed local retailers? Downtown Menlo retail seems to struggle a lot more than neighboring jurisdictions and eliminating parking (not to mention the years of construction) won’t make it easier on the local businesses.
-The city did lots of community engagement years ago as part of its Specific Plan. State laws have changed much of the densities allowed in our Specific Plan since then of course. Would it not be wise to re-engage the community as city staff did with the SP?
-Is a 100% low and very low income housing project of close to 500 units the best thing for these downtown sites (as compared to a mixed use project with retail, market rate and affordable housing)?
-When will "replacement" parking be provided? In what locations?
-Has the city analyzed the likely significant overflow of parking that will occur if a developer builds all affordable housing and utilizes state law to allow them to provide very little or no onsite parking?
I really think the city needs to walk before they run with these key downtown parking lots. The future of our downtown depends on it and a staff report and hearing in August followed by a small community meeting last week and now a hearing this evening whereby the City Council could vote to move to an RFP process feels like olympic sprinting.
Again, I strongly encourage the City Council to not hold a vote this evening and, rather, spend more time analyzing the options and outcomes, engaging the community and addressing concerns and questions to ensure the best outcomes for these critical city parcels.
Best regards,
Jamie DAlessandro
