Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Re: panacea

From: domainremoved <chuck>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 20:35:28 -0700

Very interesting!

It would need to be more detailed and certain questions answered for me to
really understand it.

But it sounds pretty good!


[image: Mailtrack]
notified by
8:34:26 PM

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:16 PM Stephanie Munoz <stephanie_at_(domainremoved)

> Dear Karen
> On my way to the City Council meeting Monday evening my heart monitor went
> off; a kind passerby took me to the hospital and I spent several days
> without my computer or phone My. housing idea is original, but follows
> along the council's line of thinking, and PAHC's; it gives the developer
> everything he wants and costs him nothing; it aids the missing middle
> without taking away anything from the low low income, and it pays for
> itself, providing an income stream for PAHC.
> It started as a "for instance". I was admonishing Greg Scharff that
> wealthy hotel guests are not unlimited and every patron President could
> attract would be at the expense of the existing hostelries of Palo Alto,
> particularly tactless at the same time as Proposition E, that it was biting
> the hand that feeds you therefore it wouldn't be a good idea to add a
> another five star hotel, *even if the President Residents miraculously
> disappeared, **for instance if somebody built a brand new hotel for them,
> *which suddenly struck me as not all that far-fetched. How often do you
> get a cohort of a couple of dozen tenants ready and willing to pay $2,300
> a month for a 275 square foot suite?
> You could cut a deal with the San Antonio/Leghorn developers for a zoning
> change, and yes. it would be spot zoning,but isn't that what pc was?
> Anomalous use sweetened by a desirable public purpose? PC got its bad name
> only because developers were leading the council members down the garden
> path. The zoning change, which, unvarnished, will be hell to pay,
> 44 more million dollar condos, with a 8 measly low income sweeteners--,
> and in exchange for their adding a fourth floor,-the top floor could be
> stepped back a bit to vary the facade-- that entire ground floor would be a
> single multi-unit rental condominium, just like the rest of the building,
> allowing the investors to take their money and run, consisting of a couple
> of dozen 300 square foot bedroom/bathroom units, all giving out on the back
> facing a garden with a hot tub. and a lap pool and playground. to be
> shared with the neighborhood. The rentals would be for $1500/month, some
> 200 square foot units renting for $1000/month, exclusive of garage, extra
> storage space, that fitness center and the two University Avenue restaurants
> bus or van garage and some goodies for Greenmeadow, a childcare center and
> maybe a little ice rink or computer center , bakery or greengrocer facing
> the street, and then *sold the multi-unit condominium en bloc to the PAHC
> for **a pro rata share of he cost of construction. (The land being
> already 100% paid for by the market-rate housing. Isn't that what PAHC
> wanted with Maybell? No affordable housing or in lieu fees charged to the
> developer.. That's a pretty good deal all around.*
> *Stephanie Munoz*

Received on Sat Oct 27 2018 - 20:33:45 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)