|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A neighbor of the Flood School teacher housing development has submitted an appeal, asking the Menlo Park City Council to revisit the Planning Commission’s entitlement of the project.
The appeal was submitted by Skip Hilton, a resident of the Suburban Park neighborhood where the project is located. Hilton’s appeal of the project argues that there are “significant deficiencies and inaccuracies” in the traffic studies commissioned by the developer and the city, and that the Planning Commission did not have “the full picture” when it approved the project.
The Planning Commission voted 5-1 on Jan. 13, with Commissioner Katie Ferrick dissenting, to approve use and architectural-control permits, as well as a below-market-rate housing agreement, for developer Alliant Communities to construct three multifamily buildings at the site of the former James Flood Magnet School. A total of 88 units are planned for the site, and all but the building manager’s unit would be offered at below-market rates and targeted specifically at educators.
The site is owned by the Ravenswood City School District, and has sat empty since the school closed in 2011.
Hilton’s appeal is only for the commission’s determination on the use permit, not the below-market-rate housing agreement or architectural-control permit. Hilton also told The Almanac that this appeal is not linked to the recent recall that was initiated against Mayor Drew Combs over the same project.
In his appeal of the project, Hilton wrote that he is not opposed to building low-income housing for teachers and other city residents at the site, and that he is not trying to stop the project from moving forward. He is appealing this specific plan because it is “lacking key elements that would dramatically improve the project for residents.” He says it is inconsistent with several elements of the city’s general plan and he believes that there are inaccuracies in the traffic and environmental assessments of the project.
“This is an opportunity to advance the city’s general plan in harmony: housing, environmental justice, and circulation elements, and to approve this project after amendment to ensure it progresses the city’s goals and policies,” wrote Hilton.
He specifically cites the transportation impact analysis of the project conducted by city consultants, and says that the study did not include analysis of the traffic patterns at the intersection of Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue.
During the Jan. 13 Planning Commission meeting, Menlo Park Senior Planner Chris Turner said that the intersections that were analyzed in the city’s transportation study were selected and vetted by the city’s Transportation Division.
“The missing intersection is a major artery for all southbound/eastbound traffic on Bay Road, the main access point to downtown Menlo Park for area residents, and a safe route to school for Laurel Lower School, Menlo-Atherton High School, Encinal Elementary and Hillview Middle School,” wrote Hilton. He calls the omission of this intersection “gross negligence, a glaring oversight, or both.”
At the Jan. 13 meeting, Ferrick, who ultimately voted against the project, said that it was “unfortunate” that the intersection was not included in the transportation impact analysis of the project, as it is a very highly used intersection that often backs up with traffic.
Hilton said he is also concerned that the Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue intersection will become even more congested, as Atherton recently approved new multifamily zoning overlays for four properties bordering the intersection as part of its housing element update process. According to the city’s environmental justice element, Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Triangle are the neighborhoods with the highest traffic burden in the city, and Hilton says he is not in favor of increasing that burden.
Hilton recommends that the council consider adding a second public access point to the property, located at the end of Van Buren Road — a feature which Suburban Park residents have been fighting for since the project’s inception. A second full access would allow residents to drive to the development through the Flood Triangle neighborhood in addition to Suburban Park. However, the city would have to make use of a Caltrans right of way to build a full second access.
“A second access would absolutely help with congestion management, particularly at Bay Road and Ringwood Avenue,” he wrote. He also said that a second access point would allow the teachers living at the Flood School site to access the pedestrian bridge over Interstate Highway 101 more easily.
The developer has already agreed to place a second emergency access point on the property, but some neighbors of the project see this as not enough to ensure the flow of traffic and fire safety. Currently, the emergency access point backs up to private property owned by LifeMoves, Inc., and was established by mutual agreement between Alliant Communities and LiveMoves — it is not a public right of way and cannot be used as a road.
At the meeting, Lance Crannell, principal for Brentwood-based SDG Architects, Inc., said that the developer is open to continuing to try to create a second public access point, but that their immediate goal is getting the project financed and built. He said that Caltrans, who owns the right of way between the Flood School property and Highway 101, has not been responsive to their inquiries, and that requiring Alliant Communities to develop agreements with Caltrans for a full second access point could jeopardize the project’s funding timeline and overall feasibility.
“It’s not something we want to give up,” said Crannell. “But on the other hand, we have a schedule that we would love to keep meeting so that we can provide this affordable housing to your city.”
In his appeal, Hilton also asks the city and Alliant Communities to develop an agreement with San Mateo County Parks to provide access directly to the park from the development so that residents can use the park to shorten their cycling and walking commutes.
This teacher housing project has previously found itself at the center of controversy. It sparked the citizen-sponsored Measure V in 2022, which would have restricted the Menlo Park City Council’s ability to rezone single-family lots to higher density without putting the rezoning to a citywide vote.
According to the city’s municipal code, the council must take action on the appeal within 75 days of it being filed. As the appeal was filed on Jan. 28, the council must address it before April 13.
Enough with the nonsense NIMBY. We need to build housing.
I find it very interesting that Rob Silano wants to recall Mayor Combs because Rob claims the project is not safe because it does not have a second public access (a claim not supported by the fire marshal, fire code or the Fire District Board of which Rob is a member) and Combs voted in favor of helping fund the project. However the appeal does not site safety, it only discusses traffic. Maybe a second appeal is in the works but I would guess that if safety was an actual concern it would have at least been mentioned, did I miss something?
Brian: you didn’t miss anything. If one goes back to when this project was first proposed Silano’s complaint was traffic. Then it morphed into safety. He was told at the time he played that card that if it was really unsafe the fire department wouldn’t approve the project. The fire department approved the project and found not to be a safety issue. Silano keeps hammering safety because he doesn’t want to be seen as pushing a NIMBY issue which is what a traffic complaint is.
“Silano keeps hammering safety because he doesn’t want to be seen as pushing a NIMBY issue which is what a traffic complaint is.”
Well I guess that failed. He won’t even answer questions about safety. He seems to think posting a reference to an old document and then telling people that they have to go get it themselves is sufficient to support his argument even when the fire marshal has completely undermined that argument and he can’t get support from this fellow board members.