Dear Planning Commissioners,

Thank you for listening carefully to the concerns of the neighbors regarding this project and for your thoughtful and continuing deliberations.

Clearly the issue of what should be the standards for granting a Public Benefit Bonus and which body should make such a decision is a critical issue. The continuance of your deliberations to your July 22 meeting should provide the opportunity for clarification on this matter.


Peter Carpenter
140 Forest Ln

Most telling line:

"...the matter will have to be brought back to the commission because city staffers weren't prepared for that decision and must draft new "findings" for why the project shouldn't be approved."

Staff members need to realize that they work for all of us who live here, and that they don't just function as a rubberstamp for developers.

Thank you, Planning Commission.

Transient Occupancy Taxes provide NO benefit to the public. No park, no greenbelt, no enhanced mobility for people or cargo, no community garden, no recreation or fitness facility, etc.
To the contrary, a larger hotel in this location is a disadvantage to entire community. It physically imposes not only on the residential neighbors but will bring additional vehicular traffic to MP's already inadequate & outdated "thoroughfares." Until MP coordinates with SamTrans and VTA to design more routes in which smaller buses provide better access within (& across) the community, no more large commercial or multi-residential buildings should be allowed in the downtown area.
The Patels are replacing the 17 room Garden Motel in downtown Redwood City with a new ~100 room Holiday Inn Express & Suites, having convinced Redwood City that increased transient occupancy tax is enough of a benefit to justify an under-parked 5 story behemoth in an already congested area. Please, let's not have MP succumb to the same lure.

Watched it online- ridiculous waffling around. Maybe the outcome we want but maybe not the government we want.

The Specific Plan is now on life support.

It is false to assume the city staff rubber stamps for developers. Has anyone talked with them or walked in their shoes? In my dealings with them on remodeling our home, they were very helpful in pointing out how our design conforms or not to current ordinance, what correction is needed for the application, etc to get approved by the PC. I viewed them as helping the property owner get their project approved and not rubber stamp any plan. If you were the property owner, you would want that assistance vs getting stonewalled by the city staff.

With all the input from the public, both here and in the City's email log, it is incredible that staff was not prepared with findings needed to turn down the project. Those responsible should be fired.

Has Henry Riggs ever turned down a project?

A balanced staff report would have included the option of denying the project and suggested language for doing so such as " Project exceeds the base level FAR and fails to justify the granting of a Public Benefit FAR".

The staff report did not contain such an option because the staff perceives their role as getting projects approved - an unfortunate bias.

Here is why there should not be a Public Benefit Bonus for the Hampton Inn:

"Menlo Park tops San Mateo County cities with highest percentage growth in assessed property value
by LINDA HUBBARD GULKER on JUNE 28, 2019



Menlo Park — with a 10.5% increase in assessed property value — edged out Foster City (10.2%) to lead the list of San Mateo County cities.

“It’s hard to celebrate tax assessment increases. But the flip side is that they are a reflection of the desirability of our community and the value people find in living and working in this special place,” said Menlo Park Mayor Ray Mueller. “And we at City Hall plan to keep working hard to preserve all the things we love about Menlo Park, that make it such a desirable place to live.”

Keep up that good work Mr. Mayor and city staff!!

According to the staff report the incremental TOT for the proposed Public Benefit Bonus level hotel, after subtracting the TOT currently being paid for by the Red Cottage Inn, is a net of $390,000/yr.

If a hotel were built that conforms with the Base Level FAR of .75 it would have about fifty rooms and would generate about $225,000/yr.

If the developer is gifted the Public Benefit Bonus FAR of 1.1 then an additional 20 rooms could be added. Those additional rooms would generate $165,000 of TOT.

Therefore the value to the city of granting the Public Benefit Bonus is only $165,000/year or $463/day.

Is that how little the City will take to screw up a neighborhood in this town?

Peter. If the 10% occupancy tax is increased by $165,000 per year, how much would property owner get per year from increased number of rooms? Is tax paid by owner?, or added to occupant’s bill?

If the 10% occupancy tax is $165,000 per year, how much would property owner get? $1.650.00

Is tax paid by owner? Yes

or added to occupant’s bill? Yes

The property owners net 90% or $1,485,000

The neighbors get zero plus all the negatives of a huge motel on a .8 acre site that does not even own the access to ECR.

As I stated previously the granting of a Public Benefit Bonus for this project is a cash cow for the city which gets the milk while the neighbors get the manure.

I really appreciate the Park Forest neighborhood (and the Almanac) for elevating the visibility of a key problem in Menlo Park: bonus-level development without an adequate public benefit policy.

I also recently wrote Council with ideas related to our current problems: Web Link

Please attend the July 15 (at 6 p.m.) City Council meeting as the agenda includes E5: which will include an update from the Council subcommittees working on most moratorium ideas related to development, planning, zoning, etc. Web Link

The July 16 Council meeting also includes I1: Willows Village EIR. In short major developments are moving along and anyone concerned is invited and encouraged to come and make public comments. It will take ample public opinion to help bring about needed change. Web Link

I doubt if most of the neighbors really noticed that the Red Cottage property, which is tucked into a primarily residential area, was part of the original Specific Plan. It doesn't even have frontage on ECL. It is connected to ECL via an easement where all exiting traffic must turn right on ECL. What happens to travelers who want to go south on ECL? They must find a U turn and add to our traffic woes.

Even if we didn't notice this "mistake" on the Specific Plan, we were comforted to know that this portion of the plan is labeled LOW DENSITY. I am not sure what low density means to the Planning Commission or the City Council, but it doesn't mean a massive hotel that is eligible for a Public Benefit Bonus that makes it even more dense. How in the world can low density possibly mean approving the maximum FAR? Maybe I don't understand the term low density. Or, maybe the Planning Commission doesn't understand that this portion of the Specific calls for low density.

What a minute. Most of the commissioners at the last meeting did understand it, because they voted against the project for granting a PBB. Why then did Chairman Barnes not accept the majority vote? Why is he so pro development on this project? Perhaps, he could recuse himself from the next vote and see what the will of the other commissioners and the neighbors really is.

Under Robert's Rules of Order the Chair could (but is not required) withhold his vote until the other members have voted:

".. if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, the chair can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail."

There have been more than a few voices raised here in the Almanac on various occasions and in direct communication with the Planning Commissioners, City Council Members and Staff on this project. There are real and valid concerns here on this project that are representative of similar development questions in multiple neighborhoods throughout Menlo Park. And these concerns, whether they be Facebook or a hotel are only just starting to be listened to by our City’s leaders and administration.

Menlo Park needs to take a very considered and balanced hand in creating - codifying new regulations and modifying existing ones. The granting of the Public Benefit Bonus should only be considered and approved in very cogent and well defined situations that go well beyond a few incremental tax dollars to the City. And there should be clear and specific qualifications and considerations for the application of the PBB in a low density zoned neighborhood.

Let’s hold off granting the PBB on this project until a thorough review of the existing ECR Downtown Specific Plan and the application of the PBB application has been completed. And the City should also consider the many reasonable suggestions that Lynne Bramlett has made at the same time. While the developer here on this project is certainly seeking an immediate ruling, the vast majority of the many neighbors (150+) bordering the hotel have legitimate concerns about the new hotel’s impact on property values and quality of life. A large imposing hotel is something that we didn’t foresee or signed up for when we moved to this neighborhood.

If this lightening rod project is a catalyst to affect better codification of development direction and regulations for the betterment of the community, so be it! There is no better time than now...

Almanac -"Commissioners Michele Tate, Camille Kennedy and Katherine Strehl voted against approving the project at all. As a result, the matter will have to be brought back to the commission because city staff wasn't prepared for that decision and must now draft new "findings" for why the project shouldn't be approved."

Draft minutes: ""ACTION: Motion and second (Strehl/Kennedy) to continue the item to the July 22, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting with direction to staff to bring back findings for denial with public hearing and
public comment; passes 3-1 with Commissioners Kennedy, Strehl and Tate supporting,
Commissioner Barnes opposed, Commissioner Riggs abstaining, and Commissioners DeCardy
and Doran absent.”

And yet the staff report for the 22 July meeting does NOT include "findings for denial with public hearing and
public comment.

Why has the PC's direction been ignored? Who is in charge - the Planning Commission or the staff?

Here is what I sent to the PC weeks ago:
""The size of the Hampton Inn 1704 ECR project, with an 46% increase in size with FAR of 1.1, greatly exceeds the 0.75 Base Level FAR for ECR-NE Low Density zoning. While the added size provides substantial economic gain to the developer, we find that prospective revenues from the Transient Occupancy Tax--proposed to offset the developer's economic gain--are an inappropriate and insufficient public benefit to justify the neighborhood impact of the project's size. The project is rejected on this basis."

Note - if the hotel has 70 rooms under a 1.1 FAR vs 50 rooms with the Base Level .75 FAR then the increased TOT contribution to the city coffers from granting a Public Benefit Bonus is in fact only $156,000 a year.

The staff has informed me that " prior to the publication of the July 22nd Planning Commission agenda, the applicant for the Hampton Inn project (1704 El Camino Real) pulled the item and requested to continue it from the July 22nd meeting. The item is listed on page 2, Item G1 of the agenda as continued but no staff report was published since the Planning Commission will not be reviewing the project at the meeting."

Mr. Sagar is doing an excellent job of listening to the community.

Hopefully his next submission will be one that has strong community support and offers real value to the neighbors if it seeks a Public Benefit Bonus.

Correction:

Mr. Sagar Patel is doing an excellent job of listening to the community.

Hopefully his next submission will be one that has strong community support and offers real value to the neighbors if it seeks a Public Benefit Bonus.