|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
If the 183 downtown Menlo Park apartments at 1300 El Camino Real are approved and built, who will live there?
According to Bob Burke, principal developer at Greenheart Land Co., it is expected that the tenants at the new rental apartments will be “single professionals, young dual-income couples, and possibly young families who are remodeling or building their home in Menlo Park and need a short-term place to live.”
Between when Greenheart first proposed the project in 2013 and the current iteration of the plans, there was an increase in the percentage of larger apartments.
In the 2013 proposal, 67 percent of the apartments were one-bedroom units, 30 percent were two-bedroom, and 2 percent were three-bedroom.
In the current proposal, the percentages are 54 percent one-bedroom, 42 percent two-bedroom, and 4 percent three-bedroom.
The total number of units decreased to 183 from 215. The size of the units increased, and more two-bedroom apartments were added.
However, Mr. Burke said he didn’t think that would change the expected type of renters at the new apartments. Millennials are willing to share two-bedroom apartments, he said, in order to reduce individual rent costs. He said he didn’t expect the shift to larger units and more bedrooms to substantially increase the number of students going to local public schools.
The property taxes and impact fees the development will pay provides a significant contribution to local school districts, he said. According to Greenheart’s estimates, the company will pay the Menlo Park School District $580,000 per year in property taxes, while generating a maximum of 33 students, or roughly $17,575 per student per year. In the Sequoia Union High School District, the company would pay $500,000 per year and generate an estimated 16 students, yielding about $31,250 per student year.
—
What – no affordable housing? Where’s our city council again? Ah, sleeping on the job.
Instead of publishing Greenheart’s PR as if it were fact, how about doing some real reporting? Millennials aren’t going to want to live on El Camino across from a downtown where the sidewalks roll up at 5 pm every day. The location will be a draw for families who want to get access to the school system, and who will deal with the inconveniences of living there in exchange for the education.
Developers always spout these fallacious statistics, and our city council falls for them. Time after time. The impact on schools will be significant and deserves more consideration.
20 apartments will be dedicated to below “market rate” housing: 14 will be for “low-income” renters (people who make up to 80 percent of the median income) and 6 will be considered “workforce housing,” for renters who make 100 to 120 percent of the median income.
@ Beth: I do not necessarily disagree with your statement, but I do disagree with your assumption. Devil is in the details – in this case, Kudo’s almanac for bringing them front and center:
Menlo Park School District $580,000 per year in property taxes, while generating a maximum of 33 students, or roughly $17,575 per student per year. In the Sequoia Union High School District, the company would pay $500,000 per year and generate an estimated 16 students, yielding about $31,250 per student year.
It has been and will always be about the money. In this case, pretty good money since that assumes this many kids and largely could be wrong and far less yielding extra per student $ (albeit same total $). Lower income does not do that.
In no way do I suggest I support that, but it is the ‘reason” (or a primary one) it is approved
@Get Real
The Greenheart project will attract millennials because there is a dearth of housing with the high amenity levels they desire. Just look at the Elan and St. Anton apartments going up on Haven Avenue. Those apartment complexes are in the middle of an INDUSTRIAL area. Yet, they have some really fancy amenities. The Elan is charging over $3300 for the cheapest one bedroom. And I bet they are charging below market rate because they are just opening (during winter of all times) and want to get all their apartments occupied ASAP.
Families aren’t going to want to live in Greenheart because of the high prices associated with its amenity level. If they are moving to Menlo Park for the school district, they would choose one of the many existing older apartments which will charge at least $1000/month less than Greenheart.
One requirement the city council should add for the below market rate housing is give municipal workers, teachers, or other local government employees first dibs on those apartments. More and more, local government employees have to live farther away due to the rising housing cost. Putting them first in line for any new housing would be a great way to allow those workers to join the community they work in.
Greenheart pays the property tax to the county tax collector. Only about 43 percent of the amount finds its way into the school districts.
Really? Could you please define “low income luxury housing.” That seems to be a contradiction. Thanks.
JBCHAM:
If it’s what people want, then we’ll make it possible. People on the Peninsula believe themselves to be of modest means (even though we’re all in the 1% globally), and deserving of affordable housing. But we’re folks with taste, so let’s not get all hair-shirt. I’m sure there’s a version that will keep everyone happy while satisfying our housing commitments.
Lest we forget our incoming Royal Family, who by paying no taxes are defined as ‘low income,’ but enjoy gilded bathrooms and high living. I think that ‘low income luxury housing’ will be the new norm.
@ Get real
“Millennials aren’t going to want to live on El Camino across from a downtown where the sidewalks roll up at 5 pm every day.”
Au contraire mon ami. I would love to. It would make for a short drive to Tesla. Not that I work there. That’s a dream for another day…
Taxpayer – The property tax numbers reported in the story apply to the expected property taxes that will go to the respective school districts. It is not the total amount of expected property tax.