Dear Menlo Park City Council - Following are questions or issues for Downtown parking redevelopment. Please think about them along with the RFQ and the current project process. Overall the RFQ is worded broadly enough for a range of creative and even candid responses. Some exceptions are noted. 1. 2027 timeline. This seems quite unrealistic for a project(s) of this complexity and size. Ive heard different timelines from CCers. Where did 2027 come from? What if that goal cant be met? What options would CC consider for phasing partial to total development? What if the goal is, say, 2030? The project seems driven by a Housing Element threat. Thats a terrible way for a city to plan. The HE text says to seek to complete.... 345 housing units by 2027; does that mean complete, or show compelling progress toward.? 2. Potential retail/business impacts are considerable. On Oak Grove its easy to find very small businesses. I had a conversation with a Downtown property owner who said his tenants would not pay rent if they lost their parking. Would CC consider buying out businesses as part of the project? What about ownership of additional Oak Grove Avenue property? What can be said about places going out of business or having to move? Are these unfounded fears? The RFQ sidesteps this challenge. The text from the RFQ (J. Construction Phasing and Impact Management) mostly addresses nuisances, not existential or revenue issues for retail/offices. 3. The property owner I spoke with said, Why dont they treat us like adults? He explained that, of course, everyone supports affordable housing and he can accept the goal of transforming the lots. But, he continued, can you give any feasible path by which this happens which doesnt inflict significant damage on merchants or businesses? It appears that the RFQ is the mechanism for answering these questions, which means that the CC doesnt yet have a real idea of project feasability. If so, this disconnect may be responsible for miscommunication over the last several weeks. 4. Can the CC state that they are in a fact-finding and education mode, and that they cannot now answer many reasonable questions about how this project could be undertaken, what its outcomes are, who is affected in what ways and so on? Or is that incorrect? 5. From the RFQ, it seems possible to have, say, only ADA required parking for housing. Is that to be considered? 6. What is a market price for the parking lots as developable property if it were to be sold? 7. Would CC consider building a parking structure first to ensure Downtown retail parking is available, and build housing after? Mayor Combs suggested he was averse to parking-only structures. The RFQ appears to say this is an option. But building parking first, followed by 1-2 buildings, might not meet CC timing goals. Please clarify. 8. Given some version of the project, the interface to Downtown has to be considered. This proposal is well beyond Specific Plan concepts. What should be adjusted to reflect a major change in direction? The Staff report discussed SP paseos and walkways but these were not predicated on a major housing project possibly implying different land uses (open space) and pedestrian/bike/services circulation. 9. Mayor Combs brought up the issue of how many developers might be involved over the three lots. Its a legitimate concern to not be tied to a single developer, but it could also turn out that a single developer is needed for efficiency and sensible planning. A single developer might propose a mixed market rate and partial affordable mix. The RFQ appears to imply this is possible. Also compare MP to the Los Altos development supported by Brin (Google) family largesse. In MP, the late John Arrillaga built the Burgess gym and rec building. RFQ respondents should be asked to estimate project scenarios which do or do not pencil out, or can only be built given some new parking garage assessment, extended project timing, etc. 10. A more robust process is needed for engaging stakeholders and communicating CC goals before selecting a developer. CC discussion with zero visual aids and the constraints of the dais/CC meeting format is a considerable hinderance. Additional venues and communication approaches are needed. 11. What risks does MP face if we fail to make progress on low-income housing? Whats the metric? Who decides? What is the position of Berman and Becker from the State perspective? Are CC members letting State representatives know how difficult our planning process has become? Is it our fault? If so, how should we change? 12. If MP proceeds with a project like this, can that be used to get more housing on available land elsewhere, such as the SRI project or USGS? The Middle Avenue tunnel and the Ravenswood underpass are other projects to associate with parking lot development (e.g. aided by State or Federal government) assuming what will be a major contribution by MP to affordable housing (see Question 6 above). Its difficult to reconcile SRI planning additional office buildings and parking garages with HE directives. 13. The Staff report for Jan 14 makes it sound about impossible to extend the HE to include spaces like Burgess. Does CC have the wherewithal to create a work-around? Mayor Combs (with Schmidt following up) suggested prioritizing all public space available for building. Is there a robust and quick way to do that? Based on the staff report, consideration of Burgess appears virtually beyond scope. The staff report project also suggests limitations on project designs pending a surplus land designation. 14. Is there a CC subcommittee for this project? Who is championing the project and can speak as its civic leader? 15. Project scale may be the only way to make this project feasible.. Is there a project scale which is too big, say ten stories? What quality of architecture and design is acceptable, or is that not a consideration? Can a significant amount of public space be reserved to create an attractive new environment for retail and residences both? The Specific Plan allowed only modest paseos when the lots were to be kept as parking. But now a whole new neighborhood is created. If the SP is going to be changed so drastically, then quality of life outcomes, pedestrian circulation and retail/office usage, should be revisited. In general the city should not simply cherry-pick ideas from the SP. 16. Do some or all CC members have relationships with retailers, Downtown property owners or developers they can talk to for candid views? 17. What examples of the proposed changes (publically-owned parking in retail context > affordable housing) can CC point to as models for success? Palo Alto has recently decided to convert a small parking lot to affordable housing; how does the scale and alternative parking compare? 18. By Jan 14 it was clear that lots of residents were puzzled or upset about the project plan. I didnt hear much by way of recognizing and tempering public concerns, even assuming the project study will go ahead. 19.. What role is projected for the MP Planning Commission? They need not be decision-makers for developer selection but would likely provide useful perspectives and an additional public venue. Thanks very much, John Kadvany