|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
This November, Menlo Park voters face a critical question on housing and the longstanding ability of the City Council to make land use decisions, with Measure V proposing a significant power shift away from public officials on future development.
If passed, the citizen-sponsored ballot measure would restrict the Menlo Park City Council’s ability to rezone single-family lots to higher density. Any changes to so-called “R1” lots would instead have to be voted on by the general public at a regularly scheduled election.
At the heart of the debate is the Ravenswood City School District’s effort to build housing for school employees on a former school campus that is currently zoned for single-family uses. The ballot measure would prevent the project from moving forward at least as currently envisioned and could scuttle the plans entirely.
Proponents say Measure V is a necessary check on the council’s power, and that preventing the erosion of single-family uses is best controlled by a vote of the people rather than by their elected representatives.
Opponents of Measure V criticize the effort as a way to kill affordable housing for low-income families serving in public schools. Current City Council members have said the measure is the wrong choice, and that stripping the city of its power to directly make land use decisions would have far-reaching consequences beyond just Ravenswood’s teacher housing plans.
The debate encompasses numerous larger issues that face Menlo Park, including whether the city is capable of generating enough affordable housing to meet the needs of lower-income residents; whether it can meet state-mandated housing goals; sky-high teacher turnover rates; and whether the City Council can be trusted to make rezoning decisions in sensitive areas of Menlo Park.
Many of these issues were front and center at The Almanac’s recent Measure V forum, hosted on Oct. 6. Proponents of Measure V were represented by Nicole Chessari, a lawyer who is the co-founder of the initiative and Menlo Balance, and the opposition was represented by Margarita Méndez, a member of Menlo Park Neighbors for Affordable Homes (MPNAH) and a public school teacher who lives in Menlo Park. A recording of the forum is available on The Almanac’s YouTube channel, almanacnews.com/youtube.
Low-income housing
While both sides of the issue tout themselves as supportive of teachers and low-income housing, Chessari and Méndez made their cases for why their side is the best choice to support low-income housing. Chessari says that Measure V promotes quality housing, whereas Méndez says it deters high-density housing.
Chessari said that Measure V supports “quality over quantity” in housing, and that it would not bring down the quantity of housing that Menlo Park needs in order to fulfill housing element requirements, citing an independent report commissioned by the Menlo Park City Council.
However, the report commissioned by the council says the opposite: Measure V would “limit the city’s ability to efficiently provide housing at a variety of income levels,” as well as limiting high-density housing to certain areas of Menlo Park. The report found that the ballot measure is inconsistent with several elements of Menlo Park housing goals and policy.
Chessari said that Menlo Park needs housing to be in areas of the city where it makes the most sense.
“Measure V promotes quality housing in neighborhoods to prevent excess of traffic,” Chessari said. “And (it promotes) quality housing for affordable housing, multi-family housing in resource-rich areas where they’re supposed to be putting it anyways.”
Méndez disagreed, saying that Menlo Park needs a diversity of housing and Measure V would make Menlo Park struggle to reach the housing goals required by the state. Menlo Park was sued for failing to comply with state-mandated housing laws, and the city settled the case in 2012.
“If Measure V proponents were truly pro-teacher and pro-housing, they would’ve written a provision in their measure for affordable housing, and they didn’t,” Méndez said. “Measure V is not pro-teacher or pro-housing, it’s just making housing harder to build.”
The Measure would impact 53 lots in Menlo Park that currently have something other than single family homes, including the Menlo Park Fire Protection District’s headquarters on Middlefield Road. These lots range from 0.1 acres to 41 acres, according to Menlo Park’s report. R1 lots make up 44% of lots in Menlo Park, leaving 56% of the city unaffected.
Chessari said that the majority of the 53 lots are not developable anyway, as 30 of the affected lots are under half an acre, the minimum size to be considered by Menlo Park for inclusion in the housing element. Another nine are churches and an educational facility, which Chessari claims can build anyway under recently passed Assembly Bill 2295. However, churches are not included under AB 2295. The list also includes two lots of vacant land above 0.5 acres and multiple schools.
“If Measure V passes, (schools, churches and the fire district) won’t be able to do redevelopment of their land without an expensive citywide vote,” Méndez said.
Chessari instead said that the number of developable lots on the list of 53 parcels was minute in the grand scheme of Menlo Park’s developable land.
“Are we really going to put our single family home neighborhoods at risk of irresponsible zoning by City Council because it wants to control 1.1% of single family home parcels?” Chessari said.
Flood School housing plans
In Menlo Park, the Ravenswood City School District has been trying to redevelop a vacant 2.6-acre lot on the former site of the Flood Magnet School in Suburban Park. The school district owns the property and aims to build 90 units of low-income housing prioritized for staff. The proposal, which has not been formally submitted to the city, sparked a great deal of pushback from surrounding residents.
I think that NIMBY is a very vague term that gets applied to anybody that wants to protect their neighborhood.
Nicole Chessari, Menlo Balance
When asked to respond to allegations that Measure V was an effort by NIMBYs to block affordable housing at the Flood School site, Chessari said the proposal was how she became aware of the zoning issue. She said that residents of Suburban Park wanted a smaller project with 60 units, with 30 guaranteed for teachers and an existing access point to be reopened.
“I think that NIMBY is a very vague term that gets applied to anybody that wants to protect their neighborhood,” Chessari said. “… (Measure V) gives people a vote, it gives them a right, it gives them a voice when the City Council won’t listen.”
Méndez was asked to respond to worries about the problems a high-density housing project could bring to a neighborhood, particularly related to construction and traffic. She said that there needed to be support for the Ravenswood site when an owner wants to build affordable housing for staff.
“Where are the teachers going to go?” Méndez said. “…We know how important schools are and teachers are and we know Ravenswood is underfunded.”
She added that the revenue stream of the housing development would be vital for an underfunded school district, and that anything under 90 units would “kill the project.”
Measure V is not pro-teacher or pro-housing, it’s just making housing harder to build.
Margarita Méndez, public school teacher
Of more than 2,600 students in San Mateo County school districts who experienced housing instability over a recent three-year period, 58% of those students were attending Ravenswood City School District schools, according to a Stanford study. Ravenswood City School District has a budget of over $45 million in the 2022-23 fiscal year, while the adjacent Menlo Park City School District has a budget of about $65 million.
AB 2295
The passage of a new law, AB 2295, impacts the Flood School site and has changed the conversation surrounding Measure V. Under this new law, school districts can build 30 units per acre on their property for staff housing without getting a zoning change from the city. However, it’s not certain whether a project at that density is a viable option for the Flood School site. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28 and goes into effect on January 1, 2024.
Méndez said building through AB 2295 it is not a viable option for the Ravenswood City School District, saying that housing is expensive to build in the Bay Area, and the density offered by AB 2295 would not get a developer to sign on to the project.
“Affordable housing development is complicated and this bill is only a week old,” Méndez said. “We think it would be helpful in many parts of California, but here in the Bay Area not only is it expensive to live, it’s expensive to build.”
Méndez added that she had spoken to an affordable housing expert who said that the density allowed by AB 2295 was lower than many local low-income housing projects for teachers, including Jefferson Union High School District in Daly City at 41 units per acre, and that Palo Alto will build up to 80 units/acre.
Chessari objected, saying that under AB 2295 the Ravenswood City School District could build 78 units with no requirement to rezone the lot. The school district has previously said that a project of that size is not a viable option.
Chessari added that under AB 2295, Ravenswood City School District would be required to offer the housing first to its own staff, then to the staff of Menlo Park City School District. Chessari alleged that this would not be guaranteed if the housing on the Flood School site was built through traditional rezoning. Ravenswood officials have repeatedly said school district employees will get first dibs on available apartments, and any remaining units would be offered to the public.
“The part of AB (2295) that makes this even better for the community is it guarantees more teacher housing than the owner is willing to offer without Measure V,” Chessari said.
Méndez rebutted this, saying that Measure V was only designed to block teacher housing at the Flood School site. But even with the new state law, the city shouldn’t make Ravenswood wait a year or lower the density from the initial 90 units.
“It’s not about just the 76 houses, there’s not a builder who can do that,” Méndez said. “Funding for affordable housing is competitive.”
Possible compromise
Méndez and Chessari also addressed the talks of a possible compromise to win neighborhood support for the Flood School project.
If Measure V proponents were truly pro-teacher and pro-housing, they would’ve written a provision in their measure for affordable housing, and they didn’t.
Margarita Méndez, public school teacher
Méndez said that the school district doesn’t have an architectural plan yet to compromise on, since the project is still in its beginning stages. Once it’s formally submitted, the project would have several opportunities for public input throughout the approval process, citing opportunities with the planning department, Planning Commission and the City Council, where residents could have come to a compromise in the traditional planning process.
The ballot measure is the reason there isn’t a formal project to debate.
“We’re stalled,” Méndez said. “Because Measure V was put on the ballot this whole thing is stopped and we’re spending all of our time trying to explain that we need this affordable housing for teachers.”
Chessari countered that once zoning is changed for a project, citizens had little to no input. She claimed that new state laws allowed for approval through a ministerial process, where there would be no California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or environmental review processes.
Are we really going to put our single family home neighborhoods at risk of irresponsible zoning by City Council because it wants to control 1.1% of single family home parcels?
Nicole Chessari, Menlo Balance
However, since the city has not received a formal project application it has not yet determined the extent of environmental review for the project. And even under AB 2295, projects are still subject to the environmental review process.
Chessari said that there was a discussion about applying Measure V’s zoning regulations to all R1 parcels excluding the 53 listed in the report, which was rejected by the City Council. The compromise also included lower density for the Flood School site and a secondary access point to decrease traffic.
“People didn’t have a say (after zoning was changed). People have a say when the zoning gets changed, that’s what Measure V does,” Chessari said.
Endorsements
The Yes on V campaign is supported by Peter Ohtaki, who’s running for Menlo Park City Council. The campaign touts that entirely funded by residents, and taking no money from special interest groups. The Yes on V campaign website can be found at menlobalance.org.
The No on V campaign has been endorsed by the San Mateo County Democrats, the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and YIMBY Action. Endorsements have also come from 40 current and former public office holders, including state Sen. Josh Becker and state Assembly members Marc Berman and Kevin Mullin. Four out of five current Menlo Park City Council members, except Drew Combs, have said they will be voting no.
A full list of endorsements is available at protectteacherhousing.org.
I’ll be voting No on V for many reasons. I hear a lot of talk about family friendly neighborhoods. You know what’s family friendly? Having places for the people who grew up here to be able to return to their community to live if they want to. If you add in the generational wealth gap created by redlining and only giving FHA loans to houses in all white neighborhoods, it’s clear that reducing opportunities for lots of different income levels is going to fall most heavily on people of color. Also, long commutes are bad for the planet. Let’s do the right thing, Menlo Park and vote No on V.
So Dawn1234 why not pressure the RCSD to build less units and sell them to teachers? Renting to them just keeps them on the hamster wheel of life, never getting ahead in terms of generational wealth. The organizers of Measure V proposed a smaller development with half the units for teachers and it was quickly shot down. No, it’s not about teachers. It’s about the RCSD getting into rental housing business. And without Measure V, our wonderful city council is right on board.
Dawn, living in a country that promotes the American dream and that allows people success means that some people will have more means than others. It may be unfair, but it is what drives the economy and make us the most powerful country on the planet. Parts of Menlo Park has become very desirable because of its solitude and low density, and of course everyone wants to get in.
Just remember, the ones that benefits most from increasing density in these areas are developers, and only a fraction of the added housing will be available for teachers. These developers still need to recoup their investments.
“About that”, if the housing you’re referring to is the Flood School project, you’re misinformed – perhaps you’re confusing market-rate housing w/ inclusionary BMR units (which is how most developments in our city work) with the 100% BMR project that Alliant Strategic would develop at the Flood School site.
At Flood School, there would be 80-90 units of BMR housing, with the exact # of units per income level (and mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) still TBD. Everyone living there would have to qualify for below-market-rate housing (= less than $160K/year income for a family of four). Teachers and staff working in the Ravenswood district would get first priority for any available units, not just at the outset (as has been claimed) but throughout the 90-year terms of the lease. We haven’t yet had a discussion about whether any other group (other teachers in neighboring districts, public sector employees, etc.) would get second priority for units unused by Ravenswood employees. That usually gets worked out with the Housing Commission as the proposal works its way through the system.
Aside from this project, the only developers that I’ve seen trying to make money in R1 neighborhoods have been building big single-family homes. They’re not increasing density – just the average cost per home in Menlo Park.
@Katie
You and I agree we need housing for our ever-increasing workers, and especially for teachers. But the RSD project isn’t reserved for teachers, they were pressed on that and wouldn’t reserve even 50% for teachers, staff. They did however stress that Alliant is to give them the most REVENUE from this project possible. That’s not “BMR”, thats not “affordable”, its about district revenue off of their real estate asset. Which is fine. But.
I’ve done both student and teacher housing – locally, recently. Two important facts:
1. you can’t expect both revenue generation and affordability in the Bay Area, even on mortgage free land. its one or the other. I confirmed that with a local developer on Tuesday.
2. it doesn’t matter how many units you build on a given lot. you can make money on 12 units at Flood School site (just ask Thomas James Homes) or on 30, 45, 60, 78 or 90.
I mention 78 because Newsom just signed AB2295 allowing a school district to build teacher housing on R1 lots – works out to 78 at Flood School – with *no rezoning needed*. Measure V wouldn’t hold it up. But it has to be for teachers and staff. And RSD doesn’t want that, it wants INCOME. Their business manager made that clear in May.
They told their supporters its “teacher housing” so you all will go door to door for them, and all the school districts and the electeds jump on the wagon. It sucks, but the RSD project is not what it seems. And there can be other misrepresentations in other neighborhoods. Thats why residents need the right to confirm a neighborhood zoning change. Thats all Measure V is.
There’s more to what’s going on at city council, but thats for another thread.
Being both a school district and a landlord/ developer builds an internal conflicts of interest. A school district is not a property agent. They will need, like it or not, to also be in the eviction business. As I have seen with our prior City of Menlo Park Redevelopment Agency.
—
Please take the ‘messaging’ on lawn signs with a grain of salt. One must read the actual ordinances to understand the details. The ‘Protect Teacher Housing’ messaging on some signs is ambiguous and opaque; which doesn’t disclose the details, which teachers, which districts. It goes on.
Let me add some consequences that Henry Riggs would know as well.
We have many single story / single family houses. By adding a new house in an adjacent lot at two stories (or more), the new house could intrude the ‘daylight plane’ of the existing single story home. When I was on the planning commission daylight plane studies were part of the applications for two or more stories. These intrusions are called a ‘taking’ for which the city could find itself needing to compensate the owners of the single story first home. Enjoy.
We have a single story home, with a triplex next door with the 3 apartments on the second floor overlooking our bedroom. (They have carports on the ground level).
Henry, last week you wrote that two council members told you that this housing development was actually going to be market-rate. That got corrected. I think you are still missing some key details:
1) At present, RCSD seems committed to the high-density BMR housing path, not low-density market-rate housing. The zoning density (20 du/acre) that our entire city council (5/5) suggested for the Flood School site would only enable the district to build 90 units if every single unit on the site were deed-restricted below-market-rate housing. RCSD *can’t* build dense, tall housing there unless it is all BMR – regardless of their revenue goals. Council made sure of it.
2) The developer that RCSD has chosen from their RFP process specializes in below-market-rate housing development, including workforce housing projects on school district surplus land. Folks who are skeptical/curious about how this works can come to the HLC event next Friday and learn more. (tinyurl.com/5n6bm6fp)
3) AB 2295 does not require that any percentage of units be exclusively dedicated to teachers and staff, nor does it require that units be entirely occupied by teachers and staff. Rather, AB 2295 requires prioritizing teacher/staff access to housing built on school property – just as RCSD has guaranteed to do, for the lifetime of the ground lease. (tinyurl.com/ysmcjtbx)
And why would Ravenswood lie? They have teacher retention issues due to sky-high cost-of-living in this area. An overwhelming majority of their teachers and staff qualify for BMR housing and are interested. Teacher housing in nearby districts has been enormously successful.
I hear that you are skeptical, but in this case I think it’s safe to trust the overwhelming number of public servants, nonprofits, and community members who are saying Measure V is an unreasonable response to a reasonable project that would make excellent use of vacant surplus public land. (https://www.protectteacherhousing.org/endorsements)
“I think it’s safe to trust the overwhelming number of public servants, nonprofits, and community members who are saying Measure V is an unreasonable response to a reasonable project that would make excellent use of vacant surplus public land.”
See the No on Measure V supporters/endorsements here: https://www.protectteacherhousing.org/endorsements
@Katie
I believe council signaled it would support teacher housing at a higher density. But this isn’t. The business manager made clear that the property haas to produce income. Why? I’m told that in union negotiations this Summer, RSD committed to raises it actually cannot afford; the Foundation can bridge that only until revenue starts to flow.
The business manager offered that teachers would have first notice of available units, but they would not be reserved for teachers and staff – they need them rented and cash to flow. Its just business. So its “teacher housing” on opening day, then it goes to market. If you join the school a month or a year later, there’s no room at the inn. If I’m wrong I’d love to see a commitment made by RSD for that “100% affordable housing for teachers” that is thrown around in campaigning. (I hope you will ask for that at your Friday housing event.)
The new state law AB2295 at least requires *prioritizing* teachers and staff – what you and I want to see.
Yes I know its politically required to back anything with the word “teacher” in it, and the list of course is long.
Meanwhile, its been revealed that council will jump on a housing proposal before its even defined, such that the owner (RSD in this case) doesn’t need to work with the neighbors. In all my time on Planning Commission, no project has taken a pass from working with neighbors on basics like road access, not to mention environmental review.
Thats why residents need the right for a confirming vote for a zoning change within a single family home neighborhood. And thats all Measure V is.
Our city clearly supports teachers and teacher housing, voters here are not mean. I do hope you will let Menlo Park residents vote in the open to confirm any such bold change.
“The business manager offered that teachers would have first notice of available units, but they would not be reserved for teachers and staff – they need them rented and cash to flow.”
“The new state law AB2295 at least requires *prioritizing* teachers and staff.”
This is exactly the same process, Henry. That’s how BMR prioritization works: anytime there’s a unit available, there’s a window within which to apply, and people with priority status always get first dibs. But no unit should sit empty if a teacher doesn’t claim it. The state agrees. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/16/los-gatos-affordable-teacher-housing-development-move-in-ready/
“Meanwhile, it’s been revealed that council will jump on a housing proposal before its even defined, such that the owner (RSD in this case) doesn’t need to work with the neighbors. In all my time on Planning Commission, no project has taken a pass from working with neighbors on basics like road access, not to mention environmental review.”
Road access etc. are sorted in the individual project planning phase, not the housing element update, which is purely about zoning – and that is what the council was working on. Flood School is a rare 2.5-acre lot of undeveloped public land – the exact place where affordable housing can pencil out (not just a few units of inclusionary zoning.) Staff felt this was a such an important opportunity that they recommended upzoning to a higher density than where council eventually landed.
It’s true that, in deciding to upzone the land, the entire council signaled that they were amenable to developing it to some level of density. Our council was making a good-faith effort to comply with the state mandates. Soon we will hear from HCD about how likely we are to be in compliance by the deadline. Failing that test opens up major opportunities in our city for big commercial developers (cf. Santa Monica, where thousands of units and 15-story buildings are now proposed.) Careful what you wish for.
@ kbehroozi Have you even considered what 90 units of low-income housing is going to do to your property values in Suburban Park? You may not be able to sell your house for half of what it’s worth today. That project will have no money for maintenance and upkeep, and will quickly devolve into EPA West.
Thank you, Henry Rigg, for calmly articulating the realities of this project.
Private Citizen:
What project? Nothing has been submitted. Until something is, there is no project.