Suggested follow-up article

Ask our brave defender of local control, Senator Becker, to explain his votes on the legislation that has enabled the proposed skyscraper "builders
remedy"
AND has gutted Menlo Park's control over its own zoning laws

Wow, it's almost like should have a measure on the ballot for community approval before parcels get re-zoned.

Chickens coming home to roost.

"AND has gutted Menlo Park's control over its own zoning laws"

Menlo Park gutted its own control by failing for years to update its Housing Element and then failing to do so in a manner which permitted more affordable housing.

Don't blame the judge for a sentence that resulted from the failure of the defendant to obey the law.

@Peter "Menlo Park gutted its own control by failing ..."

Not quite. The Sunset project is not enabled by the dereliction of any past council; it is enabled by the dereliction of the present council.

Yes, Menlo Park went without a conforming Housing Element for many years. But circa 2012, in response to a lawsuit brought by housing groups, MP entered into a settlement agreement with two conditions among others:

1.) Adopt a conforming Housing Element ASAP, and
2.) Eliminate the outstanding housing deficit by upzoning for about 900+ units of which about 40% or so would be "affordable" units concentrated in the downtown area.

It did both, and has been law-abiding ever since, nearly a decade.

Until now. The current council had a duty of care to deliver a conforming Housing Element on time. They failed. The Sunset project happened on their watch, because of that failure. No-one else is to blame for it.

Paul, tell us about the housing element update that you oversaw during your eight years on council. Did you faithfully discharge your duty to the city? Did the state certify your efforts? Or did you kick the can down the road for other folks to deal with?

I thought the builders' remedy was intended to censure or deter communities that attempt to ignore or avoid the state mandate for affordable housing. There's no way that that describes what's happening in Menlo Park.

I was blown away to learn that, after all this time, the council had failed to deliver an acceptable Housing Element to the state. And then I read this:

"Combs was the only council member to vote against the current iteration of the housing element, which he says concentrated too much future development east of El Camino, specifically near Highway 101, something the city has done in the past. The city has discussed the need to move potential housing away from Menlo Park's underserved communities located in that area, and put housing throughout the city in order for a housing element to be approved by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)."

Thank you, Council Member Combs, for being the only council member with the integrity to say "no" to an unreasonably biased Housing Element that overwhelmingly concentrates future development in small residential neighborhoods east of El Camino Real, particularly in underserved and UNserved neighborhoods near 101 - as MP councils have done in the past.

Menlo Park is not alone in struggling to meet the state mandate, but they have been working on it seemingly with the intent to deliver. This developer's proposal seems ridiculous on so many levels.The Housing Element should not be considered 'ready for prime time' until the city successfully identifies space for affordable housing throughout the city. Menlo Park is not there yet. Neither are they trying to side-step the mandate.

Please, participate in Tuesday evening's City Council meeting (8/22), online or in person, when they will discuss proposed changes they are considering for the Housing Element, the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element.

@kbehroozi

Touche.

I did act in good faith, but failed nevertheless to discharge my duties regarding the Housing Element. So, yes, "my" council kicked the can down the road. There's a bit more to it than that, but I'll let you have your moment.

I am more sympathetic to council than you think. Peter was just incorrect to attribute this consequence to some past update failure.

I think the HCD process is onerous. I agree that council wants to comply, and is acting in good faith to certify. The fact that they cannot do so speaks more about HCD and state law than council.

It's nice to know that Jen and Mark and Josh (and Gavin) have their limits. Its unfortunate that it took a 30-story mistake to bring them to zoning sobriety. Let's hope we can all do something about this project.

Katie, Web Link

Doesn't tell much other than Menlo Park did submit a Notice of Preparation for an HE update in 2002 and then again in 2004.

I do remember visiting and reviewing sites in the list proposed by staff ca 2001 with CK. I remember the process was non-controversial and it seemed easy enough to meet the number using sites downtown (that later became offices) and by slightly increasing densities in existing medium density apartment zones. I thought the ball got dropped after "we" lost majority control and hence control of the agenda in 2002.

It's news to my 20+ yr memory that we twice began HE EIRs in my term II. I have no clue whether or not the 2004 effort got certified. So maybe we did right thing after all.

Be careful of presentism. The community was not specifically resistant to housing in those days, despite today's revisionism. Nor did housing or housing projects dominate. We approved all the housing projects brought to us which were few in number.

Then was the first generation of "monster homes." 2nd story remodels and use permit reviews. That along with commercial development was the big deal.

The root cause of this problem is that our current elected officials owe their loyalty to their political party & NOT to the residents. They have all voted for the many laws that got us here.

To fix the problem we must have newly elected representatives that actually do what the residents want! Please vote for change in Nov 2024!

Cybervoter:

Our politicians don't owe their allegiance to their party, they owe it to the monied interests that give them money, and because of that, those interests call the shots.

@kbehroozi "tell us about the housing element update that you oversaw during your eight years on council...."

For the record, here's an official recounting of Menlo Park Housing Element updates that covers the period in question:Web Link

Should the link get broken, the source is the City of Menlo Park Community Development Department staff report to council dated March 6, 2007, #07-026 Item H-1.


Of relevance:

"In the planning period from 1999 to 2006, Menlo Park was required to plan for 982 units. (Note: In the time frame between 1996 and 1999, updates to the Housing Element were not required since no funding for the implementation of Housing Element law was provided by the state.)

...

Using the 1999 through 2006 numbers, staff began work on an update of the Housing Element in 2001. The City Council directed that an EIR be prepared in association with the Housing Element update. Preparation of an EIR extended the timeframe and cost of the update process and work was eventually put on hold pending the release of a new housing needs allocation for the next planning period of 2007 through 2014."


PH: The CEQA net link I provide several posts above shows that our council issued an EIR NOP in 2004 for the Housing Element, the year I left, and, as I suspected, the update came so late in the housing cycle that the next council decided to forego the cost for (our) 1999 - 2006 cycle in favor of (not) doing an update for the 2007-2014 cycle, which I will guess got de-prioritized by the public DSP planning process.

Build it, then build some more. Build so much that it drops all of our home values. Housing should not be a commodity. While we're at it let's take some roadways and make them multi-modal centric throughways. If London, Paris and NYC can do it we surely can. #waroncars #carsruincities #buildhousing

Yes, Menlo Park is just like London, Paris and New York City.

And to the extent it isn't like those cities, how many residents would ever want to make it that way?

@Pogo no, Menlo Park would be even easier than those place to implement better multi-modal centric networks, that's the point. Places with arguably more whiners than here, more people, more cars can get it done then so can we.

Michael:

by all means lets turn MP into a socialist mecca. We know how well that works and how much those of us that actually make a middle class income get to pay for it.

A lot of us moved AWAY from those big cities to places like Menlo Park precisely to escape that kind of "hamster-wheel" congestion and riding dirty, dangerous subways.