I'm a bit mystified by the fact that so few of the units are "affordable," especially since previous M.P. City Councils for many years sold their souls to real estate interests and builders and neglected to insist on such; it's not profitable for builders/ builders push on city councils for further their interests. And I am even more flummoxed by the fact that many of these units will include "office space" (eg. Menlo Uptown). Don't we have enough empty office space in the region? Or will languishing units simply become more Oriental carpet stores? (If only carpets could successfully replace those thirsty lawns.)

Ispw:

They don't include "affordable" housing, because affordable housing in this area is a myth. A lie foisted upon us by "progressives" that think that simply by saying we should build "affordable" housing it will magically happen, never mind the actual economics make it impossible in this area. The land value is too high as is the cost of construction. Higher density won't do it either as the cost of constructing taller buildings is even more than one, two or three story buildings.

I agree with you on office space. The last thing we need is more of it. It brings in no sales tax revenue and is a net tax loser. It requires more service costs than it pays for in taxes.

As the above article states, Menlo Park's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2023-2031 is 2,946 or an 8% increase in the city's current population. The City Council's Housing Element targets 7,185 units WHICH IS ALMOST 2.5x MORE THAN THE REQUIREMENT. This amounts to a 20% increase in the population of Menlo Park. I don't believe these figures even account for the additional 1,512 units added through 2021.

The RHNA "affordable housing" requirement is 1,662 units (included in the 2,946 above). The Housing Element is targeting 3,518 units and aiming to place those units in the city's most valuable and expensive areas. The CITY COUNCIL'S CURRENT TARGET IS GREATER THAN 2x THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT.

NO FISCAL ANALYSIS was conducted for the Housing Element and no study to the impact to Police, Fire, traffic, or Schools.

Menlo Park's first submitted plan showed a plan of 2k units above the RHNA. The article above implies that the State rejected the submission as the number of units was too low. From previous Almanac articles, however, that does not appear to be the case. The Almanac's article from Oct 27, 2022 implies that the first submission was rejected because MP needed to show it could actually build the planned units and that the state was looking for policy changes - not that the number of units was too low. The article is link below:

Web Link

The Housing Element is fiscally irresponsible, does not properly consider the long-term impacts to the city, and has not been properly communicated to current homeowners. We should not be attempting to more than double the new housing requirement and increase the population by 20%.

@menlo voter We do not need "affordable" housing, we need public housing. I'll agree with you that "affordable" housing is a myth in this context but you are flat wrong about higher density not solving the issue; it will in combination with expanding that density into every area of the city. The actual market economics for housing have been artificially constrained by NIMBY policy for longer than I have been alive (52 years BTW). Your last statement is also true but for both r1 housing density and office space. Repeal article 34, overturn prop 13 and require everyone to pay their unsubsidized fair share of the cost of services will solve the housing issue.

Michael:

you keep on beating that overturning Article 34 and Prop 13 dead horse. We need to look for realistic ideas to deal with things like housing. Prop 13 definitely needs to be modified to eliminate the commercial property loophole, but any other modifications or elimination of prop 13 is a non-starter. Public housing? Forget it. Unless you want a repeat of the "projects" that have been built in the past. They turn into cesspools of drugs and violence. No thanks. That is one reason Article 34 was put in place. R1 zoning isn't going away any time soon either. So, that leaves what?

In full transparency, the City should create a map illustrating the change in densities the City Council approved and send it to every Menlo Park resident within a half mile of the upzoned areas. it would be great if the Almanac actually published such a map.

@menlo voter there are plenty of examples of public/social housing working in other places that were not targeted poverty islands setup to fail. Stop beating your dead horse of over 50 years of failed NIMBY policy. We are in this mess because current policy is a disaster. Time to try something new. Article 34 was put into place so that we could commodify housing into stores of value, this works great for the few to build wealth.

Michael:

public housing is a boondoggle. It turns into slums. Don't believe it? Go to areas where there is a lot of section 8 housing. Tell me you'd want to live in those neighborhoods.

I agree with Friendly Reader.

"In full transparency, the City should create a map illustrating the change in densities the City Council approved and send it to every Menlo Park resident within a half mile of the upzoned areas"

Affordable housing is a misnomer. All housing is affordable - to someone. And part of the solution is that housing is available in many areas - not just Menlo Park. Don't people tend to live where they can afford to?

"Affordable housing is a misnomer. All housing is affordable - to someone. And part of the solution is that housing is available in many areas - not just Menlo Park. Don't people tend to live where they can afford to?"

What a novel concept. We live where we can afford to live. I can't afford to live in Atherton, so I don't. Nobody is offering me housing or property in Atherton at a reduced price.

We need more housing. People need places to live. Build everywhere.

@Ronen,

“Build everywhere”. Now that’s a clear plan.

1. With SB9, building everywhere is pretty much solved, right?

2. Should current residents be required to densify to accommodate every new person who wants to live here? Why?

3. Who will build and fund affordable housing?

For those of you that are worried SB9 Is taking over the world,

Sorry guys there are so many restrictions assigned to it, it's not going to happen.

The entire city of Menlo Park has a total of 1 SB9 application in the first 12 months after it passed, So by 2033, there may be 10? Thats out of over 10,000 paecels of land.

My suggestion educate yourself about the regulations and report back
e.g. you're allowed to split your lot into 2 parcels, they can never be split
again,
You can then build one house on each lot plus an ADU, not 4 homes and a bunch of apartments. Or you can build a duplex, Not going to see many of those with our Menlo Park property values. You then have to be within the community's zoning, Only R1 lots can be split, If your lot would need an easement to get to the back lot be caredul a new set of rules comes into play, Stay within the FARs. If the existing home is a rental or was a rental in the last 3 years it doesn't qualify, You then have to live in one of the homes on the property for 3 years. if you decide to build new homes the 3-year requirement to live in one of the homes doesn't start until you move in, So if it takes 2 years from start to finish to get your certificate of occupancy. The 3 years doesn't start until after you move in. and on and on and on. I have not included anywhere near all of the regulations. FARs Daylight plains, Setbacks, Zoning......

I too agree with @FriendlyReader - The City Council should summarize what they submitted and publish for all residents. Few residents have the time nor inclination to wade through the 1,300+ pages of the Housing Element. It would be great if the Almanac could do this as I suspect the City Council is not eager to promote the highlights of the plan to current homeowners.

Also, my percentages above are off. Menlo Park's Required Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) represents a 21% increase in the number of housing units and the City Council's plan a whopping 50% increase. The Housing Element is irresponsible.

This reminds me of the adage I learned long ago:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S."


You're welcome.

I've previously remarked that candidates for City Council have a term or two on the Planning Commission and or Finance Committee. That way, they are trained in zoning and consequences; andlearn from public comments third-rail issues. It's up to Menlo Park residents to recruit, support and elect well-rounded and well-grounded council members.

If then elected to the city council they will be able understand the materials in the weekly packet, ask questions with authority, understand what's happening, and meaningfully comment (and have shorter meetings)

While I was impressed with a new council member's background, and said so, It was still a mistake not having relevant Menlo Park commission experience.

The only saving grace is that there isn’t a developer in Northern California who is going to take the haircut on building “affordable” housing in Menlo Park. First they’ll have to deal with an inept city taking years to approve a plan, with further delays mounted by challenges from resident legal and otherwise. By the time they actually do get to build something they’ll have to deal with more challenges and delays. Developers aren’t stupid. They’re not going to sink money into a decade long project where they can’t make any real money.

That’s not taking into account MP homeowners actually getting heads out of the sand and realizing what these cheap developments are going to do to their investments.

Satire warning! Solution to lack of affordable housing: Euthanasia comes to mind. If you can't afford to live in Menlo Park, maybe you shouldn't exist.

@Stuart -- obviously you are a long-time resident, and possibly even a NIMBY who only sees the merits of SFH and doesn't understand how magnificent it can be when hundreds of households are crammed into smallish buildings with limited green space, no easily accessible amenities, and such wretched traffic that residents never want to leave their doll-sized units.

Gone are the days when council members were selected by dint of experience, knowledge, or foresight. Now it's all about ideology. And anyone who isn't in favor of destroying SFH neighborhoods and replacing them with high density and lots more people is not just a NIMBY but a Luddite.

@Frozen

I was hoping to be a PoohBah when I grow up.

pooh-bah
/ˈpo͞obä/
noun
noun: poohbah
a person having much influence or holding many offices at the same time, especially one perceived as pompously self-important.

And instantiated at the County Level.

As taught by a Marx Brother's movie discussing Santa Claus: Ya canno foolah me. There's no sucha thing as a sanity clause.

Web Link

Frozen says:

"@Stuart -- obviously you are a long-time resident, and possibly even a NIMBY who only sees the merits of SFH and doesn't understand how magnificent it can be when hundreds of households are crammed into smallish buildings with limited green space, no easily accessible amenities, and such wretched traffic that residents never want to leave their doll-sized units. "

I grew up in a 1 bedroom apartment; my parents had the bedroom. I was afforded a pullout couch near the front door. At one point we moved up 3 flights and I had my own bedroom.

But this was urban life in the big city.

How about yourself?

Great story, Stuart, and thank you for affirming the character-building aspects of growing up in a small space. Menlo Park has too long prioritized the values of SFH, and as a result we have produced generations of lazy videogame-playing kids instead of aspiring PoohBahs.

The "density in every area of the city" that Michael describes will ensure that future MP kids are tough, resourceful, and resilient...even if their backs are aching from sleeping four in a bed (or on a pullout couch). But aspirin is cheap!

I concur: the city should publish a map showing where they plan to put all said affordable housing, indicating # of affordable units, # of market rate units, amount of office space and amenities space. That map should go to *every mp household *. Then we can all see where the council has decided to put the majority of this development…with minimal study.
Point taken: this time, it’s all about “ ideology.” Where residents have communicated their concerns and feelings, if we don’t communicate the ‘correct’ feelings, we’re vilified by ‘right thinking’ folks and automatically dismissed by the city council.
The irony, no matter who’s in charge, the end result is the same: large amounts of money to developers and owners, this time mostly east of Middlefield. If all goes well for this council, they will build so much ‘stuff’ on the east side of the city that they will never again be required to develop even one more unit of anything, anywhere.
As it was for the ConnectMenlo effort, the city continues to throw residents with lower property/land values under the bus to preserve the lifestyle of residents with higher property/land values. If I’m concerned about the decimation of my investment and quality of life, I’m a NIMBY. The end result is the same regardless of who occupies the city council. New day, same old b.s.
I would die of shock if a portion of my property taxes were used to clean up my area of the city, increasing our value, rather than being redirected to more affluent areas of the city.
And, the green light to overdevelop on city-owned properties around Bohanan? It inspired Bohanan to volunteer development of his properties in that area. Bonus. Rezoning- the gift that keeps.Thanks City Council. We can count on you to throw us under the bus under the banner of ‘right-minded’ thinking.
And when will you fulfill your stated goal of distributing “affordable “ housing across the city? Oh right…you won’t. You don’t have to. Different day, same b.s.