Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members,

First, I want to apologize for writing about an item the afternoon of
your meeting. Unfortunately, I have just returned from a trip and was
unable to read the staff report and share thoughts earlier regarding the
1300 El Camino Real study session.

I commend you for making the effort to understand issues related to this
project because these will help guide the planning process for the El
Camino corridor and other commercial districts. However, I think there
are a number of major policy and process issues that are not addressed
at all in the staff report. For example:

a) PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT
To conserve and optimize the scarce time you and the staff have, why not
take advantage of the experience and time of the Planning Commission by
asking them to provide you with an analysis of potential issues,
alternatives, and ideas? Setting policy direction without their input
seems out of sequence to me.

As a former Planning Commissioner who has had limited time to review the
material, I am attaching some thoughts for your consideration but
believe that multiple perspectives would be even more valuable.

b) GOALS FOR EL CAMINO CORRIDOR
Policy direction best arises within the context of defined goals,
including those regarding economic impacts. What are these for El
Camino?

The current land use section of the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance embody a balance of sometimes conflicting goals. Unless and
until those documents are changed through a planning effort, it makes a
lot of sense to honor the public process that developed them, by
expecting projects to respect those rules. Given the serious and broad
discord resulting from a less intense project than 1300 El Camino (the
Derry project), it is clear the community expects this.

Acknowledging pressures to modify the "jobs/housing imbalance," the
Council might indeed have a modified goal related to this. This should
be done only in the context of additional city goals related to its
financial health and quality of life considerations such as impacts on
schools, recreational facilities, safety, infrastructure.

c) PLAN FOR EL CAMINO CORRIDOR
The pre-existing Zoning Ordinance and General Plan provide guidance for
development. Projects that conform, but still require discretionary
approval, such as the Beltramo project and 1906 El Camino, should be
considered for approval with appropriate modification/mitigation...even
while an updated plan is developed.

A question before you is to what degree projects that do not conform
should be encouraged. I highly recommend that the city keep informed
frequently the proponents of nonconforming projects so they can modify
their projects accordingly. Additionally, the city should advise such
projects that there is risk they will not be approved unless conforming
to the new, as-yet-undefined plan.

d) POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR A NEW PLAN
The policy direction requested by staff should be made in the larger
context of the El Camino planning process, not relative to a single
project. The staff report doesn't provide details to inform the Council
or public on the relative pluses and minuses of what is proposed
relative to other options. Examples are listed in the Attachment to this
note.

e) COUNCIL PRIORITIES
It seems to me that every minute staff spends on preparing reports,
working with the developer, notifying public, etc. is a minute that
could be spent on creating the real solution -- a plan for ECR corridor
that would guide developers' plans and the city's decisions on projects
like this.

Every minute the Council and community have to spend at this time
diverts focus from other higher order issues such as economic
development, green initiatives, recreational facilities, and open
government, too.

Continuing to approve nonconforming projects without a larger plan is a
recipe for a nightmare. Each decision removes the possibility of other
decisions, and sets precedents that may haunt the city for a very long
time. With your leadership and an updated plan that the community
supports, every project that conforms can sail through!

 It is very appropriate to educate oneself on issues in a study session,
but in my book it is inappropriate to set policy or standards in a study
session like this - especially when the session regards a single
project. There is no way to evaluate the overall and cumulative effects
of the policy. Please do the right thing and expedite the planning
process.

Thanks for your consideration,

Patti Fry

Menlo Park resident

ATTACHMENT

SAMPLE CONSIDERATIONS (listed by question posed by staff)
1. Is the Council willing to consider a General Plan Amendment and
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow the density for residential uses to
exceed the base density of 18.5 du/ac and to allow the intensity to
exceed 75 percent FAR on this property, or should the project be
designed to comply with the existing density and intensity?

The right answer should be something like - Yes, the Council is willing
to consider such changes, but does not believe in spot zoning or
piece-meal planning. The Council is willing to modify both the GP and ZO
as part of the planning process. Projects that conform to the base ZO or
the new plan are much more likely to be approved.

2 (and 3). If the Council is willing to consider a General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow increased density (and
intensity, is 40 du/ac an appropriate density (and 165% FAR an
appropriate intensity)? If not, what number of dwelling units per acre,
between 18.5 and 40, (and FAR, between 75 percent and 165 percent) would
be appropriate?
Again, an appropriate answer should be something like - Yes, the Council
is willing to allow increased density and intensity. At this time, there
is insufficient information and analysis available to determine how much
and where along the El Camino corridor. During the El Camino planning
process, the Council will evaluate factors such as financial impacts,
gross and net effect on "jobs/housing imbalance," impacts on
infrastructure such as schools, playing fields, roads, safety.

Note that none of this information is available to you tonight. You
might as well pick a number of a hat if you feel a new number is needed.
To do otherwise is a disservice to the community and may inappropriately
set expectations of the developer.

4. Are three stories along El Camino Real and four stories along Garwood
Way appropriate for this site?
The answer should be the same as above (i.e., no spot zoning).

Note that a frequently mentioned concern during the Derry referendum
petition effort was the overall height. The 1300 ECR project is even
higher.

5. When considering that the height of top of plate height is 46 feet,
the height of the roof ridge providing screening of the mechanical
equipment is 52 feet, and only eight gable roof elements reach a height
of 56 feet, is a maximum building height of 56 feet appropriate?

The answer should be the same as above (i.e., no spot zoning).

Sample considerations:
What would an extra vertical 8' look like on top of a building? Can you
see an example, such as a mock up above the top plate of an existing
commercial building? [this will look like nearly an extra floor taller]
What architectural techniques are available to minimize the visual
appearance of bulk and still conform with existing definition of height?
What happens to all other projects' calculation of height if the top
plate becomes the standard? What would be the practical limits to height
when it's no longer calculated as the "topmost element"? Why wouldn't
this become the new way to define "Height"?
Staff's admission about their interpretation related to parapets is a
big slippery slope already!

6. Based on the mix of uses and the potential for shared parking, does
the Council consider the approach of using the R-4 zoning district
parking standards, the administrative parking guidelines for commercial
uses, and an assumed 10 percent sharing reduction to assist with
calculating the proposed number of parking spaces to be appropriate? If
not, what calculation method would be preferred?

Since parking is a major concern for the greater downtown area, and
there is a parking study underway, I fail to see why the Council would
sanction at this time an approach that would result in nearly 200 fewer
parking than required by the base zoning district (C-4 El Camino).

The El Camino corridor plan should help make clear to all what the
parking requirements should be, whether the current base requirement,
less, or possibly even more.

 7. Do the proposed building setbacks that result in fifteen- to
eighteen-foot wide sidewalks provide sufficient room for outdoor seating
and pedestrians, and are they therefore appropriate for this stretch of
El Camino Real?

The answer should be the same as above (i.e., no spot zoning).

What alternatives are there? How about some comparisons and evaluation
of pros and cons? Without more information, you might as well pull a
number out of the hat.

 8. Are there any specific public benefit items that should be
considered for this project?

The staff report suggests that Public Benefit is a way to gain
substantial enough benefit from a project for the city to proceed with
approval despite significant adverse impacts that can't be mitigated.
Fair enough. Providing additional parking beyond what is required could
be considered a public benefit if the El Camino plan and parking study
show there is a need for more.

But there is another critical type of Public Benefit in situations where
the project exceeds the limits of the ZO. This sort of benefit enables
the city to share in the windfall profits from the "gift" of additional
intensity/density. In the case of 1300 ECR, they are proposing a project
that far exceeds the bounds of what the city allows. One way developers
look at it is how much more land would they have to buy in order to
build the comparable sized project. For example, if they want to build
double the square footage allowed by the ZO (this project wants even
more than that) they would need double the land, at $6 million/acre in
this instance. Essentially, the city is "giving" away this value. Note
that THIS sort of Public Benefit should be IN ADDITION to any sort of
Public Benefit intended to outweigh unmitigated adverse impacts.

I submit that a meaningful discussion of these types of public benefit
could consume, appropriately, an entire meeting. The discussion should
relate to the entire corridor, not just one project.

 9. Does the Council wish to establish a process for defining public
benefit for any project requesting an increase in density and intensity
as part of project review?

 As part of every commercial and mixed use project, the city should
evaluate its impact on such things as the city's and citizens' economics
(the latter includes schools for which the city itself does not pay),
the gross and net effect on "jobs/housing imbalance," infrastructure
requirements. With an updated plan, it should be clear what
density/intensity and uses would be easily approved, and what types of
public benefit are expected as a shared benefit for windfall profits and
for unmitigated significant adverse impacts.

10. Is the current noticing area bounded by the northern city limits on
El Camino Real, Laurel Street, Ravenswood/Menlo Avenues, University
Drive, and Valparaiso Avenue adequate, or does the City Council believe
additional community outreach is warranted?
The entire community should be notified of all General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance amendments. For major projects or changes affecting major
parts of town, the community will be affected and deserves to be
notified. If such amendments are done for plans such as for the El
Camino corridor, rather than piece-meal for individual projects, this
type of extended noticing would not be required often.

11. Is there any other information that the Council needs
to fully consider the application as it comes forward?

The Council should take quite seriously the grounds for granting a
development agreement. A big consideration is the fact that only one has
been approved, for a massive project that brought an unusually large
amount of revenue and vitality to Menlo Park (SUN campus).

With the El Camino corridor planning process starting, there is ample
opportunity for projects to be part of that process rather than approved
outside of it. Frequent communication, such as about the vision, should
help developers considerably to craft projects that will fit the plan.
Received on Thu Mar 15 08:56:04 2007