|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On January 14, 2025, more than 250 people attended the “standing room only” City Council Meeting, one hundred speakers told the City Council (“Council”) why they either support or oppose building affordable housing in Downtown Menlo Park, and many business owners and residents strongly encouraged the Council to evaluate sites at the Civic Cente as possible alternatives. The hour-long, City Council discussion which followed the public comments can be viewed here. (Note: It starts at the 4:45.) I encourage all residents and business owners to watch the discussion because it shows how the Council and city lead planner dismissed the Civic Center locations even though these potentially offer significantly more benefits for new households and definitely avoid the high risk of permanently harming downtown Menlo Park.
In my prior blog post, Will The Menlo Park Downtown Affordable Housing Project Become A Train Wreck?, I explained how the City has contributed to the intense and growing controversy surrounding this complex, large-scale project. In this one, I explain how it further fueled it.
City Council Discussion
The Council easily made decisions on the only two official items on the meeting agenda. It postponed a “surplus land” declaration for the three downtown parking lots and approved the request for qualifications (RFQ) document which will now be sent to developers. (Note: a few days before the meeting, the City received a legal challenge to the City’s rights to declare the land as surplus, but this was not mentioned.)
Since the Civic Center alternative was not on the meeting agenda, the Council was not required to discuss it. However, it did after a new council member (Jennifer Wise) asked the City lead planner (Tom Smith), ” whether it is possible for the City to study the Civic Center-Burgess Park sites while continuing to plan the housing for downtown.” His answer should not have gone unchallenged and set the stage for the Council to dismiss the idea.
“To study at this point with (the City’s) adopted and certified housing element, we would have to go back to the state and open conversations with them about how to address that… and we know that there would also be a series of actions that the City would need to look at with regard to exact placement. There could be general plan amendments in other elements besides the housing element (including) zoning actions, environmental review, and a myriad of things there.”
My Assessment:
- The Council should NOT have so readily accepted Tom’s opinion and instead required him to provide a sound analysis that BOTH the Council and community could understand and potentially accept.
. - Tom should have offered to prepare this analysis instead of expecting the Council to simply accept his remarks. I think the Council either was not comfortable challenging him or simply was not interested investigating the Civic Center alternative.
. - I believe the City’s objective of completing the housing project by 2027 is neither realistic nor necessary. The final design and construction will take at least 3 years, and longer if the project is done in several phases. And the state housing mandate does not require it. Therefore, the City has plenty of time to consider the Civic Center alternative. (Note: the City would need to justify a new date to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.)
.
Unlike Tom, Mayor Drew Combs outrightly opposed the idea of building affordable housing at the Civic Center because he thinks approving new building sites on the east side of El Camino is unfair, i.e., implied that residents on the west side – Districts 4 & 5 – have in the past not accepted a fair share of affordable housing. (Note: This means he would not support any new building sites between El Camino and Middlefield.)
My Assessment
- I do not understand why Drew believes El Camino divides Menlo Park into an east side and a west side when he considers new locations for affordable housing. Has the Council actually decided not to approve any new projects on the east side?
. - The Civic Center is close to downtown so there is no meaningful difference between the two locations.
Conclusion
- I believe the Council should now begin to evaluate the opportunity to build affordable housing at the Civic Center because this location (a) might be a better alternative than downtown, (b) could serve as a back-up option in the event the current City planning effort fails to develop a final plan that is broadly supported by Menlo Park residents, and (c) finally the Civic Center might be an additional future site for affordable housing.
. - The initial work does not need to be a comprehensive study.
(1) the planning team needs to develop a roadmap for the steps that must be completed in order to add this site to the Menlo Park Housing Element including a preliminary schedule for this work.
.
(2) a new community-based team should be created to identify, gauge and compare the potential benefits and drawbacks of the downtown and Civic Center locations. Without this critical information, neither the Council nor our community can confidently evaluate the two locations. I recommend a temporary advisory team include a small number of residents, business and property owners, and a council member who can serve as a proactive liaison between the team and Council. The lead city planner could either join or simply support the team. (Note: The City of Palo Alto relies on project-based, advisory teams whenever studying major civic projects like parking garages, grade separations, and affordable housing. I have attended their meetings and know the city council greatly appreciates their important contributions.)
. - The Council’s lack of interest in the Civic Center was striking and ironic as during its discussion, the Council acknowledged its failure to engage the community in its planning efforts and expressed the need to change. But the Council also quickly dismissed a valid community request with little justification and NO community engagement. This behavior further fuels distrust in Council leadership as its inaction spoke louder than words. So, the Council made two BIG mistakes. It ignored a promising opportunity for affordable housing AND further distanced itself from our community. (Important Note: my criticisms are not aimed at the two new council members, Jennifer Wise and Jeff Schmidt, who were participating in their first council meeting.)
.
“The core of our work is not community engagement and it’s something I believe that needs to change. So at our next priority meeting, it’s something we (need) to talk about, because it comes up in every project.” – Cecelia Taylor
- I also must acknowledge that the Council, city staff and our community have inherited a historical City planning process for major civic projects that poorly serves any of them. And sadly, no one is responsible for improving it.
. - I encourage all residents and downtown business owners to pressure the Council to fairly evaluate the Civic Center opportunity. (Note: I will soon publish a website that will keep our community informed about the downtown project and the Civic Center opportunity. Send me an email (danahendrickson2009@gmail.com) if you would like to receive a notification.)
My Prior Posts On This Subject
- Will The Menlo Park Downtown Affordable Housing Project Become A Train Wreck? (January 11, 2025)
.
Menlo Park Might Need More Downtown Parking In The Future – Not Less! (November 15, 2024)
. - Will Menlo Park use 3 downtown parking plazas for affordable housing? (September 24, 2024), 2024)
Your Comments
I hope your comments will be an important part of my blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines or your submitted comment may be edited or removed.
.
– Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
– Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.
– Stay on topic.
– In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for everyone who submits comments.
The council is doing again what they were doing back in the late 90’s early 2000’s, trying to shove this location down our throats. Not to mention placing what will amount to section 8 housing in a totally inappropriate location. They kept ignoring our demands to stop until finally giving up. They need to consider other more appropriate locations. I don’t want city property being used/given away. Or being leased at below market value. That property belongs to the citizens of MP. If they want to use it, give it away or lease it at bmr, they need to let us vote on it. They keep this up and many of us will remember during the next election.