Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, Staff,

I am writing because prior commitments make it impossible for me to speak in
person at either the study session or regular meeting this coming Tuesday
regarding the 101-155 Constitution Drive and 100-190 Independence Drive
proposed development and EIR scope.

Similar to my suggestions regarding the financial impact analysis for this
development proposal, I urge the Council to discuss explicitly the
information it may require in order to make informed decisions about the
many aspects of this project. A few examples:

EIR SCOPE REVISIONS
As the public and Council have discussed in the past, the proposed
development does not conform with existing M-2 zoning or the General Plan.
As a result, the applicant is requesting special rights to develop
non-contiguous properties as if these are part of one single project. I
believe in the past, the applicant has mentioned seeking such rights for an
extended period of years (I recall 15 years was mentioned). Whenever
nonconforming major projects are proposed, the city leadership should be
very clear about the precedents it may set if approvals are granted or
modifications required.

This whole scenario raises issues that the Council should address at this
time, in fairness to the applicant, other property owners, and to the
community such as:

   - WHAT CONSTITUTES A PROJECT - the applicant and his EIR consultant
   state that the proposed development of these two sites is a single project.
   Both the timing and the fact that other properties lie between the two
   sites should be discussed. From a lay perspective, it's hard to understand
   how non-contiguous sites that may be developed many years apart are a single
   project. Instead, this looks more like spot zoning.
   - HOW ARE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
   GOING TO BE STUDIED?
   What is being proposed for the scope of the EIR addresses the proposed
   development only, not the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) amendment or General Plan
   amendment that also are proposed by the applicant.
   As pointed out by the Planning Commission, the proposed Zoning
   Ordinance is broader than the proposed development at these sites, and it
   has implications for other properties.
   The Council must be assured it can understand the cumulative impacts
   of those broader changes, particularly because it is reasonable to expect
   additional applications to develop similarly other properties within the M-2
   area, even by the same applicant. This ripple effect could be quite
   extensive and major.
   An example - the proposed ZO allows - by right - the property owner to
   build to the maximum intensity of the development regulations and to modify
   fully the allowed uses. Unless prohibited by a Development Agreement, this
   development and any other project could be built with zero feet front
   setback, to 140' in height, fully pave the entire lot ("landscaping"
   includes paved space), with professional offices or personal services [no
   revenue-producing uses].
   I see nothing in the EIR scope that will allow the Council to
   contemplate approval of the applicant-proposed - or any city-generated -
   amendments to the Zoning Ordinance or General Plan.

   - HOW WILL THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NEGOTIATING TEAM BE INFORMED OF
   POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AN ALTERED SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT?
   Even if alternatives are studied, as proposed, it seems to me that
   past EIR studies for other projects have dismissed, with little discussion
   or detail, alternative scenarios even when these are environmentally
   superior.
   It is of greater importance for the Council to consider that, although
   CEQA may not allow reductions of EIR scope in order to minimize
   environmental impacts of this particular proposed development, the city may
   desire modifications for other reasons. If so, the Council and community
   reasonably should expect to understand the resulting related impacts.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NEGOTIATING SUBCOMMITTEE
I urge the Council to consider including a few community members (not
myself) as part of the negotiating team. As much as I respect Councilmembers
and staff, I believe within our community are skillful and knowledgeable
negotiators who could assist with the process. Contrast the results of
negotiations related to the Derry project as an example.

Sincerely,

Patti Fry
Menlo Park resident, former Planning Commissioner
Received on Sun Oct 21 18:51:08 2007