|
|
|
Uploaded: Monday, October 22, 2012, 9:48 AM
Council continues housing plan review tonight
Menlo Park must submit draft to state by Oct. 31
|
|
by Sandy Brundage
Almanac Staff
It's the sort of process likely to leave everyone unhappy in the end, aside from the three housing nonprofits that won a settlement from Menlo Park. The Planning Commission had much to say, as did the public, during the commission's recent consideration of the draft housing plan update.
Residents are not letting higher density zoning into their neighborhoods without a fight. Sharon Heights residents were able to get Sharon Park off the site list; now those living near Rural Lane and the Linfield Oaks neighborhood have filed petitions in protest, signed by hundreds. Even if the sites are rezoned, that may not be the end of the argument -- numerous public comments indicated that lawsuits were being considered.
Some residents spoke "to put a face on the emails you're getting" from those living in Stanford Weekend Acres and other areas near Rural Lane.
Janet Davis has been one of those leading the charge against rezoning Rural Lane. Her concerns include the potential burden on Las Lomitas School District, increased traffic hazards along Alpine Road, and the lack of any public transportation nearby.
School officials echoed the concerns for their own districts. "As a superintendent, I'm nervous. Every classroom is full," Menlo Park City School District Superintendent Maurice Ghysels told the Planning Commission. With facilities over capacity exacerbated by severe cutbacks in state funding, local schools may struggle to expand even without a greater influx of students.
Some speakers proposed answers rather than problems. One referred to secondary units as "the invisible solution." If granted amnesty, enough currently illegal granny units may already exist in Menlo Park to put a significant dent in the housing capacity the city must add, provided they meet safety standards.
Overcrowded schools and rural lanes aside, Menlo Park has no choice about adding enough high-density housing zones to accommodate space for 1,000 to 1,975 units as part of a lawsuit settlement over its non-compliance with state law. While the city is not required to actually build the units, it must provide incentives for developers to do so, according to the settlement approved on May 22.
State law requires cities to assess and plan to meet their fair share of regional housing needs, which includes affordable housing, every seven years. Menlo Park hasn't met the state requirements since 1992, but now has only until Oct. 31 to send a draft update to the state's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Planning Commission's suggestions in brief:
● Tie any future development on Rural Lane to physical improvements to Alpine Road and avoid minimum density requirements.
● Count as many second units as possible.
● Tie school capacity to types of residential units, such as senior versus workforce housing.
● Zone for mixed use where appropriate, including incorporating existing viable commercial development on housing sites.
● Re-evaluate the below-market-rate housing program to reduce the cost of providing affordable units and to encourage the building of new affordable units.
● Work with nonprofits to process development proposals to fit with the financing needs for affordable housing.
● Support the creation of the affordable housing overlay zoning district. The downtown/El Camino Real specific plan includes zoning for 680 units, but those aren't necessarily going to be below market rate. An overlay -- a special zoning district -- could increase the chance that some developer would find the incentives appealing enough to build below-market-rate units.
The City Council will begin its review of the draft update tonight (Monday, Oct. 22) at 6 p.m. and Tuesday, Oct. 23, at 7 p.m.; both meetings are in the council chambers at the Civic Center at 701 Laurel St.
Tentative future meeting, workshop schedule
According to Development Services Manager Justin Murphy, the update process will include an environmental assessment and fiscal impact analysis to evaluate how higher density zoning could affect service and school districts should units be built. To allow for some of that information to be available for public review, staff has recommended postponing a series of community workshops from November to January.
Several commissions would review the draft update in December:
● Housing Commission: Wednesday, Dec. 5, at 5:30 p.m.
● Environmental Quality Commission: Wednesday, Dec. 5, at 6:30 p.m. (to be heard later on the agenda to allow time for earlier Housing Commission meeting)
● Bicycle Commission: Monday, Dec. 10, at 7 p.m.
● Transportation Commission, Wednesday, Dec. 12, at 7 p.m.
● Planning Commission: Monday, Dec. 17, at 7 p.m.
● Parks & Recreation Commission: Wednesday, Dec. 19, at 6:30 p.m.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Janet, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 1:38 pm Rural Lane is part of Stanford's Habitat Conservation Zone. Rural Lane exits at a blind spot on Alpine Road (a truck route) carrying up to 32,000 vehicles/day; it fulfills NONE of the settlement criteria; it does not comply with the State Housing Element; Stanford does not want the proposed development; it abuts the creek; has no infrastructure;would require annexation, which will be contested; the site floods; the city zoning is in direct conflict with the immediately adjacent county zoning that has just been revised; the city has refused to take any in maintaining or providing services within this part of its jurisdiction; the only very limited bus service was removed by the CHP owing to the dangers of Alpine Road and the numerous accidents. Abutting neighbors were given no notice and the entire process has been politically motivated. In addition, the wife of Vince Bressler, Planning Commissioner has been leading the charge with respect to Linfield Oaks (a site that fulfills every criterion of the settlement agreement) and he refused to recuse himself from the protest. Alpine Road CANNOT be "improved" because of the topography. One ridiculous suggestion was to build a tunnel across it!! (perhaps slap on top of the 109 PGE gas line currently being replaced. This proposal would impact not only Stanford weekend Acres but Ladera and Portola Valley residents. Las Lomitas school district IS overburdened, the Menlo Park district has brand spanking new schools. Allocation by elementary school district is a ploy. In the proposal the City dumps most of the potential kids on E. Palo Alto, Redwood City and residents of unincorporated county residents. The city only proposed 10% of the kids be enrolled in Menlo Park Schools. This is a political ploy to appeal to MP voters at the expense of residents in other locations. Why build more OFFICES in MP along El Camino. The city and its attorneys have been flouting the legal requirements for 20 years. Second units ARE a good way to go, but affordable housing IS needed near transportation and amenities not out in the boonies.
|
|
Posted by marie, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm Building on Rural Lane has got to be the stupidest around. It physically can't be done without adding more cars and people to the
road. And think of the children. Alpine Road is already dangerous,put
housing on Rural Lane would just wind up causing more tragic accidents.As for bus's there are none except one bus stop near stowe lane which you can only catch at 7 in the morning Monday through Friday during the school year only. Coming back there is no bus stop where there used to be one near Rural Lane. I know because I used to ride sam trans when it had regular service and crossing alpine road ages ago was like a chicken trying to cross the road. Too many times I almost became road kill. Menlo Park should reconsider its dumbest idea yet. It's not going work without causing major headaches for all of us who call Stanford Weekend Acres home.
|
|
Posted by FYI, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 8:48 pm **** Why Linfield Oaks should not be on the list for new housing ****
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members,
This neighborhood has received many units of infill housing in the last few years. Many students have been added to the local schools from these new housing units, despite what we were told. Some of these students are already being sent across town to Oak Knoll because the school system on this side of El Camino is full up.
Traffic has become much worse since Facebook moved in, especially on Willow toward 101 and at the intersection of Middlefield and Willow.
The neighborhood also contains many community attractions, some recently expanded, such as the Burgess Pool, the new gym, the new gymnastics center, the newly renovated community center and the city library, not to mention Burgess Park.
The worst and most dangerous interchange in the city, Ravenswood/El Camino/Alma/Railroad Crossing is one gateway to this neighborhood and the previously mentioned Middlefield/Willow intersection is another.
This is a very busy, hard to get to area of the city. Making it harder to get into and out of this important area of the city will hurt everyone in Menlo Park.
Sincerly,
Vincent Bressler
|
|
Posted by Janet, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm Vince Bressler (unless he just moved) is a resident of Linfield Oaks, is listed as an "activist" for that community. His wife, JoAnne Goldberg started a petition to get Linfield Oaks off the Housing Element List and threatened to sue the city. Bressler is a member of the Planning Commission, part of the decision making process that decides which area gets the high density housing. He refused to recuse himself from the last hearing. By contrast, Kelly Fergusson has recused herself from the Council meeting just because her husband happens to work for Stanford. How is this NOT a huge ethical problem, and NOT a conflict of interest. Do you really want someone with these loose values on your Planning Commission? I think this is a disgrace.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
