|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Menlo Park’s City Council continues to grapple with the challenges of unequal growth in different areas, recently passed state laws are complicating matters in new ways, as became evident at the council’s Oct. 15 meeting.
In June, the council considered passing a moratorium on some kinds of development in the city. However, council members ultimately decided to proceed by breaking into two subcommittees, with Mayor Ray Mueller and Vice Mayor Cecilia Taylor coming up with suggestions for potential zoning changes for District 1, which includes the Belle Haven neighborhood, and council members Betsy Nash and Drew Combs doing the same for Districts 2 through 5.
At the June discussion, the rough conclusions were that the ConnectMenlo Plan, which updated the city’s general plan, had overwhelmed District 1 with new commercial and housing growth potential, while the area in the El Camino Real/Downtown specific plan near the Caltrain station – as well as the rest of the city more broadly – could better handle more housing density because that area is near transit.
But, as Assistant City Attorney Cara Silver explained to the council in a study session to explore the subcommittees’ recommendations, starting on Jan. 1, it will be illegal to downzone any area designated for housing unless the city rezones another area to allow the exact same number of housing units. That’s according to the Housing Crisis Bill of 2019, or SB 330, which Gov. Gavin Newsom approved on Oct. 9.
The law bans cities from backtracking on already approved zoning for housing, so would prohibit moratoriums on housing projects.
According to Silver, the law will also ban cities from conducting more than five hearings on a proposed housing project, so long as it complies with the city’s general plan and zoning standards.
Silver and Mueller also talked about the expected new Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle, which will have major implications for how the city proceeds with its plan for housing growth.
Those numbers haven’t been made public yet: The City Council is expected to take up the matter at its next meeting, scheduled for Nov. 5.
However, Mueller and Councilwoman Catherine Carlton said they expect that the number of housing units the assessment will require Menlo Park to plan for in the new cycle will be substantially higher than in previous cycles.
“We are going to have to embark on a new housing element very shortly,” Mueller said.
With that question mark of just how many housing units the city will be expected to plan for under the state mandate, the council decided to wait on the numbers before deciding whether District 1 should simply be excluded from the next cycle, or whether the area should be actively downzoned with zoning moved elsewhere in the city.
(Menlo Park last updated that element in 2013 as part of a lawsuit settlement after failing to update it since 1992.)
The District 1 subcommittee recommended identifying immediate infrastructure improvements to alleviate traffic; updating the city’s general plan elements for housing, land use and environmental justice; updating its “community amenities list,” laying out what big-project developers should provide to the community; teaching people in the community about how the development process works; holding a meeting with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District to evaluate and plan for emergency vehicle access to the district; and monitoring air quality.
The subcommittee for Districts 2 through 5 recommended that the city stimulate the construction of new multifamily housing units by streamlining the permitting process for the remaining 180 housing units permitted under the downtown specific plan, and change the zoning code to allow more multifamily units and permit residential mixed-use development in new areas near basic services and transit. It also suggested that the city identify city-owned land for affordable housing and partners to help build it; revise its accessory dwelling unit ordinance to encourage more secondary units at single-family properties, and update the general plan to meet new numbers set forth by the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
“There’s been so much development and not enough infrastructure and transit,” Taylor said, stressing that the city needs to provide what’s needed, and to do something, even if it’s temporary, to provide relief in District 1.
“I’m thinking about what people experience every day,” she said.
Cap-and-trade, but for jobs and housing?
During the council’s study session to talk about the subcommittees’ recommendations, Mueller presented an idea to the council about the concept of a type of cap-and-trade system, but for jobs and housing, as one way to force business developers to match the job growth expected from their building projects with new housing units in the region.
Under such a system, a developer or employer would have to identify how many jobs the proposed project is expected to generate, then would be expected to identify the same number of housing units being created in the area, and claim those units as “housing credits” that couldn’t be claimed by other commercial developers.
“I think if we did it in Menlo Park, other jurisdictions would be forced to do it.” Mueller said. If you had a system like that, other cities (would have to) keep track of their jobs-housing balance. That’s been the difficulty as we do this in a vacuum. You never know (the) jobs-housing (balance) of other cities. Everyone points at each other.”
In theory, he argued, a city could prevent occupancy of a new office building until the developer comes up with the needed housing “credits.” Just what a credit would count for and how much it would be worth would be up to further discussion, as well as market forces, he added.
He said wants to hear from academics first before moving forward with the idea.
Appeal process
The council also voted Tuesday on the conditions under which it can appeal Planning Commission decisions. Over the last few months, there have been several long discussions about whether the council should automatically be expected to take on certain Planning Commission decisions, or if it should just be notified by staff when the Planning Commission makes decisions about significant projects. Ultimately, council members voted 4-1, with Combs opposed, to allow the Planning Commission to make decisions for projects of a certain size.
The council defined those projects triggering notification as: any commercial bonus level development in the Bayfront area or in the El Camino Real/Downtown specific plan area; any commercial project exceeding 10,000 net new square feet; or any mixed-use project meeting one of the first two criteria and that has less than two-thirds of the project’s square footage dedicated to housing.
In addition, at Councilwoman Nash’s request, the council will also be notified when the Planning Commission approves a “statement of overriding considerations” for an environmental impact review – a document indicating that the commission accepts the claim that a project has environmental effects that can’t be mitigated. It would also be alerted when a notice of preparation is released for any development project, indicating the start of the environmental review process, through the council’s public email inbox.
Combs, a former planning commissioner, said he favors more direct involvement of the City Council in taking on decisions delegated to the Planning Commission. Even a discussion about the possibility of a moratorium, he argued, indicates “things have gone wrong.”
“More than two dozen people spoke in favor of a moratorium,” he said. “They were speaking about something … a sense that the city had gone in the wrong direction. … It became clear that one way to respond to that concern … was to make sure the City Council was having the final say.”
local journalism] by subscribing.
This story shows just how out of control Californian governance has become, and I don’t just mean at the state level. The state’s ban on downzoning cascades to cause Menlo Park to propose an even more laughably complex, unworkable, top-down system that will do nothing to make housing more affordable while continuing to erode property rights. What a colossal waste of time and effort.
Give it up, California. Your socialist experiment isn’t working.
The City Council should make all decisions when Overriding Considerations are determined. They have a broader view of the city and are accountable to voters, unlike commissioners who are appointees.
It would be new for the commission to make such decisions. So what if there is more work for staff? Projects that require a decision of Overriding Considerations will have been determined to have significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. Elected officials should be held accountable to ensure that any proposed project really would provide sufficient benefits that its negative impacts can be overlooked. Commissioners have been charged with providing analysis and recommendations and should continue in that important capacity. It has been done this way for decades, and a change to avoid Council accountability is very sad.
The largest project in Menlo Park history, Willow Village, just had its Notice of Preparation due date (today 18 Oct) and the Council isn’t weighing in on it. That is alarming.
Good for Combs for standing up. Too bad he couldn’t persuade his colleagues
Thank you Kate for your excellent reporting. As to the Staff, the MP Council needs more mechanisms to ensure accountability from the Department Managers and City Manager. Unfortunately, the Staff report on the topic that “Council Accountability” refers to was confusingly written, and the presentation by the Assistant City Attorney also confusing. No wonder Council Member Taylor voted against her own recommendation. More clearly and concisely written Staff reports are needed to reduce Council’s confusion as to just what they are voting for.
As to the Council subcommittee post moratorium recommendations, these should be given the highest Staff urgency and the results tracked and reported every month. What’s missing in Menlo Park is the post-meeting accountability. Unfortunately, too many Study Sessions have resulted in no follow-on outcome. The Study Sessions need some kind of next step for what Council/Staff will actually do with the information shared. Residents need to continue to press for action.
As the only Council member to have rented at three addresses in less than two years, we were shocked and surprised that Combs tossed Nash and Taylor under the bus by voting against their proposed building moratorium.
California’s accessory dwelling unit law has effectively eliminated R1 zoned residential district in the State (one single family home per parcel). This is an egregious and completely improper overreach by the State and the State should be sued and/or cities should actively defy its implementation.
“Give it up, California. Your socialist experiment isn’t working.”
5th largest Economy in the world. Perhaps you would be happier in a slower paced environment like Kansas? It sounds to be just your speed.