PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE
 
This correspondence concerns item F1 on the Menlo Park City Council agenda for May 8, 2007 relating to floor area limit definitions. I write you to urge strongly that you uphold existing law here in Menlo Park, and immediately stop the recently revealed practice of stretching the rules in ways uncodified and undisclosed to the citizens of Menlo Park generally. More specifically, I urge you to adopt staff recommendation 2, and particularly to reject both recommendations 3 and 4.
 
Recommendations 3 and 4 seem to be suggestions in search of a problem that hasn't even been demonstrated. Nor does the staff report contain any information that would substantiate this. The staff report talks only in generalities about providing incentives for desirable construction. But, the best incentives are those of the free market. Nothing about the free market has been shown to be materially faulty here--tenants demand attractive and comfortable buildings. And, we are an upscale community to begin with. Property owners and developers build to those markets. This means in practice attractive patios get built, overhangs get placed where sensible, pleasing architectural features get added, and the like. Thus, if it isn't broken, why are we even looking at this, frankly other than to try to legitimize an illegitimate history and practice. AND by the way, if you were to delve into public policy issues here, again the staff report fails to serve those up adequately either. In particular, where the impact results in greater apparent bulk or mass to the public or an effective intensification of land use, those are real issues--negative externalities hurting the community but benefiting the developer. I submit that is exactly what these kind of FAL handouts do, and that is also exactly why this should indeed be subject to environmental impact review, if it goes anywhere.
 
Staff has recognized in discussions and reports to council this term that most Menlo Park construction these days pushes right to the maximum permitted. Thus, let's call any FAL exceptions what they really are: liberalization of the rules in favor of developers. I oppose that, and think the rules are plenty liberal as they are. In fact, I would say that some zoning provisions such as the R4 designation should be reviewed with a view toward outright repeal. The majority of Menlo Park residents do not support densities at that level. Meanwhile to add insult to injury, stretching FAL calculations needs to stop cold.
 
Please ask your staff the practical effects of these provisions. As one example, you can see it in the 1906 El Camino context. I believe you will find these various tweaks staff and prior council have quietly condoned have led to 5 10 and perhaps even greater effective increases in square footage when every loophole is exploited. Kind of like nautical miles compared to statute miles. I thought we used statute miles and regular feet here on land in the United States, not nautical feet that don't follow the statutes and codes!
 
Further, ask your staff what surrounding cities do. As I understand, neither Redwood City nor Palo Alto in general go in the direction being suggested of liberalization, nor is what staff is suggesting more generally the norm. Again, why are we then doing so, and what's is the demonstrated problem even to begin with?
 
Let me also suggest you ask the tougher questions too--how and why did this happen, and do you need to adopt safeguards, process or ethical reforms to prevent them in the future? A system in which staff either voluntarily or not so voluntarily bent the rules, perhaps with endorsement or pressure from councils at times, is not acceptable. The zoning ordinance is the ordinance, unless and until amended, and you need to ensure the city's approach supports this basic and obvious principle. If staff was pressured politically, we need to put in safeguards to prevent this.
 
Finally, in terms of dealing with projects in process: Actually this is pretty darn easy to me. The law is the law. There is nothing in the zoning code to suggest the way people may have tried to count FAL is legitimate. Thus, they proceeded at their own peril. If staff coached them in this direction, that's an issue to take up with staff. What you should absolutely not do is make the public bear the price through effective increased density and use intensification from these failures to follow the law. And, I would even question the legality of doing so, let alone it's the wrong policy and approach.
 
Again, I support staff alternative recommendation 2, and strongly oppose numbers 3 and 4.
 
Regards, Elias Blawie
 
 

================================================

This email is sent by a law firm and contains information that may
be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete the email and notify us immediately.

================================================
Received on Tue May 8 12:35:14 2007