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 ]

Agenda Item G6 - Independence Relocation - Errors & Context

From: domainremoved <Sateez>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 22:26:36 +0000 (UTC)

MenloPark City Council & City Manager,


Inreviewing the Staff report associated with agenda item G6 of the City Councilmeeting schedule for Tuesday February 13, 2018, I found several inaccuracies that Iwanted to bring to your attention.  I have included below proposed modified language.  Inaddition, much of the context of this overall situation is lost in the staffreport, for which you will also see suggested modifications.


The 2016 Bayfront Area Zoning Map does not propose a “realigned Independence Drive”as the Staff report states.  Instead, itonly illustrates a “Proposed New Street”and does not say anything about abandoning part of Independence.  The blue callout box in Attachment E of the Staffreport is something Staff is inserting now, while referencing the attachment as if it were the original document.   When I formally objected to the “ProposedNew Street” before Council approved the Ordinance in 2016, I was told byStaff that this New Public Street would only occur if all 4 property ownerswanted it and came forward at the same time.


Suggested Modifications:

"Potential Future Modifications

The2016 Bayfront Area Zoning Map, which was developed in conjunction withConnectMenlo, proposes a New Public Street through fourseparately-owned properties realigned IndependenceDrive (Attachment E).  Three of these property owners have communicated verystrongly their objection to the “Independence Relocation” concept (Staff hasnot heard from the fourth).  Staff didnot proactively inform any of these property owners about the “IndependenceRelocation,” two of whom just learned about it this month.  The zoning map,along with the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, was approved bythe City Council on November 29, 2016. One of theproperty owners whose property the New Public Street would run through formallyobjected prior to City Council approval. The relocation of IndependenceDrive could occur with the redevelopment of the adjacent properties, provided the City is comfortable invoking eminent domain and/orbeing the subject of a lawsuit, either of which would likely delaysignificantly much needed housing development on these properties. Ifthe existing Independence Drive right-of-way were to be vacated, a land swap withthe adjacent property owners may be possible, with the intent to maintain theexisting square footage of the adjacent parcels as much as possible.  Staff has begun preliminary discussions withsome of the affected property owners regarding the possible relocation ofIndependence Drive, and is currently researching the feasibility of a landswap. Although the final placement is still to be determined, relocatingIndependence Drive further away from Marsh Road would eliminate the sightdistance issues described above that necessitate the one-way only traffic for aportion of Constitution Drive. The relocation of Independence Drive would alsoeffectively restore Constitution Drive to a full two-way street. The CityCouncil will have future opportunities to consider these potential futuremodifications. The decision on the Marsh Road T intersection design should bereviewed independent of the potential future relocation of Independence Drive."


Attachment A – Please delete or modifythe following language as it contradicts the staff report that it will be afuture consideration as opposed to a definitive statement.


“Portionof Independence Drive to be relocated”


Attachment E – Please remove the blue callout box to accurately reflect what was in the ConnectMenlodocuments.


To be clear about our overall position, the T intersection design is fine and upon its completion should be the permanent solution without any Independence relocation. 





111Independence Drive

MenloPark, CA 94025
Received on Fri Feb 09 2018 - 14:30:59 PST

[ 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)