I align with previous Commenters who expressed concerned about the potential of back yard dwelling units to significantly increase in the population density of their Menlo Park neighborhoods. It is reasonable to assume that when a person decided to purchase their Menlo Park home, one of the decision factors which weighed into the final purchasing decision, was that the perspective home offered a sense of peace and quiet and tranquility, features that was not, arguably, found in homes from other area cities and neighborhoods. In essence, people have valued these qualities and paid a premium for them with the expectation that they would not change significantly.

I think all us understand that at any point, the quaint 1950's vintage single story home next door might be sold and razed with a lot-maximizing new home put into its place. That would be unfortunate, but not unforeseen.

What we are talking about here is different. We are now in the situation where back yard dwelling units are being encouraged by the city of Menlo Park. Others have written to express their frustration when neighbors have build back yard dwelling units and how the noise, lights, coming and going, has substantially and dramatically impacted their use and enjoyment of their property.

It's not that I don't empathize with those seeking affordable housing. I honestly feel terrible for the state of housing the Bay Area. But the blanked decision to promote the adoption of back yard units is an overreach by the City. It is being done without broad discussion or a vote. While it may be just fine for some people, this de facto change residential zoning density, is not right. I believe it constitutes a taking.

If Menlo Park wants to do something about housing, then (1) address the Demand side. Stop promoting/encouraging/approving new projects to add new business here, and (2) walk the neighborhoods of Menlo Park. Knock on our door. Ask us what we want. Poll us. Talk with us. Don't make structural and permanent changes to our City without discussion and consent.

Relax. Nobody is forcing anyone to build secondary units and rent them out. As I understand it, the city is merely considering taking steps to make the process slightly less onerous.

Just because people can build units in their backyards doesn't mean they will, at least not in numbers significant enough to dramatically change the character of a town or neighborhood. There's a self-limiting factor here: it's a safe bet that most people will prioritize their privacy and space over the opportunity to generate additional revenue by adding a housing unit, especially given the hurdles. Suggesting otherwise is like fretting about the possibility of foreign exchange students taking over Menlo Atherton High, despite the eternal scarcity of host families (preservation of space/privacy).

And while I hear the arguments about the inherent downsides, I have even more sympathy for the people who keep getting priced out of the rental market here. What do you think causes more traffic on Willow Rd––a teacher or nurse renting 1 mile from downtown, or that same invaluable contributor commuting in from Livermore?

PS: for what it's worth, showing up at Planning Commission and City Council meetings is probably a more efficient way to be heard than waiting for someone to knock on your door.

There is a big reason the state changed the laws to encourage more secondary units. Towns everywhere are behaving like Menlo Park and putting so many barriers to entry that nothing can be done.

Now Menlo Park (and other towns) must pay the piper and do their fair share to actually permit and build new housing.

One or two secondary units in a neighborhood doesn't change the character or the traffic. That's just ridiculous.

I'd encourage MP and local towns to eliminate the stupid, costly steps that are barriers to building and have little value.

An arborist?
A historical assessment?
Fees and timelines way out of the scale of the project?

Bureaucracy at it's worst.

The building department is self funding. In other words, they charge as much in fees as it takes them to inspect the construction of a building. It might seem out of proportion, but 1000sf house takes just as many inspections as a 3500sf house. So, on a per square foot basis, yes, they seem out of proportion. When you consider the number of inspections for each building (they're the same) the cost is in line with what you would expect from a self funding building department. I'm a builder and I see this all the time. Most cities in this area are going to this type of funding model for their building departments.

If you want to reduce fees for these smaller structures then the taxpayers will have to agree to subsidize the building permit fees.

There is already a solution to the housing problem... Portland, Denver, San Antonio, Minneapolis, St. Louis. Nobody is forcing you to live here. If the price is too high, look to areas with lower prices.

It's like there are a bunch of people who only have means for a Camry complaining that they really want a Bentley. Oh I know, we'll just wait by the stop light and then one one comes buy, we'll just help our selves and hop in the back seat of the next Bentley. I mean no one is using the back seat, right?

I don't know where to start responding to the above comments by Invisible Hand. The issue is housing for our teachers and first responders and people who work in many of the local businesses which are necessary for a healthy, thriving community. These folks are generally not paid the high salaries required to live in Menlo Park and other nearby communities and yet are strong contributors to our communities. We need to get real and either pay these folks their real worth so they can afford to live in/nearby the communities where they work or provide more affordable housing.

Invisible Hand––yep, the solution for the housing problem is and will always be to move farther away. But here's the thing: we can't have all the things:
-downtown vitality, which means restaurants, movie theaters, gourmet groceries, etc...
-fire fighters, teachers, and city clerks who make what you and your cronies consider to be a "fiscally responsible" wage...
-no cut-through traffic and congestion on our arteries in and out of town...

when we have such limited housing that only the very rich can afford to live here.

This, too, is a matter of basic economics. And it will come back to bite us. I suppose you can build your own movie theater, hire a personal chef and physician, maybe a tutor for your kids, etc. Take it back to the good old days when people had castles and live-in servants, Downton Abbey-style. Another alternative would be to go Pa Ingalls and chop your own wood.

A more sensible solution is probably some combo of pay people what the market will bear, build more housing (of different sizes), to re-right the supply/demand curve so that someone making less than $150K/year can afford a 2 BR apartment (because that's what we're talking about here––not a mansion on a secluded acre!), and build adequate public transportation and complete streets so that people have options for getting around.

Nobody is asking you to start driving people around in your Bentley. Just...some people with Bentleys might want to become Uber drivers. And that's their right. Doesn't diminish your quality of life whatsoever.

Also, here's a brand new example of a backyard living unit in Menlo Park: Web Link

It's going for $3500/month, which is pretty standard these days. Landlords typically want to see that your annual income is at least 40x the monthly rent, so by those standards, this 1 BR unit would be rented by someone making at least $140K/year.

Good news: some of our city management staff could probably afford to live there. Our teachers probably can't.

Everyone needs a place to live, but not everyone needs to live in the same place, and there are plenty of regions that could use more jobs, more people, more investment, more life, and particularly, great schools. The effort to pile everyone into this place is wrong for many reasons but here are a few:

the infrastructural changes needed to make it possible for a bursting population to enjoy living and efficiently get from place to place has been and still is impossible to achieve.

Car-centric development does not align with efficient transport, and building denser just means plugging it up and making life more miserable, expensive, polluted and less efficient for everyone.

Building high density is expensive (see the link from kbehroozi, above) displaces existing affordable housing, has resulted in more EXPENSIVE housing occupied by wealthier people or not occupied but owned by foreign investors, driving out the very people who supposedly are going to benefit. The increasing cost of building UP makes labor more expensive for everyone (driving those with trucks ever farther away), and creates housing less attractive to families with children (although those who are single and desperate for housing close to work don't seem to care about that..... yet....).

And what about creating wealth? The two predictors of success in this country are owning property and education. High rise expensive rentals are not the ticket to a secure future.

My hope is that those who are frustrated (me included) will turn attention to the promised, necessary, important advances in architecture, sustainability, communications, transportation, civic life, education, that could be better achieved by taking a frontier/settler attitude rather than an insurgent/conqueror attitude: Decentralize wealth.. Establish frontiers in inexpensive locations, and start by building renewable energy and great schools. Create the political pressure on Apple, Facebook, and Google to make this happen. Press these amazingly creative and wealthy entities to solve the problems they have created. Follow the routes established by past innovators: Build cities of the future where "no one wants to be" and turn your attention to making the life you want.

If it weren't greedy longtime homeowners of the 'ME' generation the mid peninsula might be affordable for all. Unfortunately years of courting tech companies and not building housing not infrastructure are why your kinds and grandkids can't live here. Now these same folks are complaining that it costs too much to build an income property in their back yard.

Honestly, this is more about creating income properties vs. creating affordable housing.

I'd be in favor of allowing more of these units and reducing fee's only if these landlords are required to charge rent that matches the year in which their property tax is based. Bought your house in 1984, well you are capped charging an avg. 1984 rent for the area. Seems fair to me.

" Bought your house in 1984, well you are capped charging an avg. 1984 rent for the area. Seems fair to me."

Sounds like a good idea except for the construction costs are nowhere close to what they were in 1984. So what we end up with is nothing being built. The property taxes are going to be assessed based on current cost of construction.