Logo


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 ]


RE: Agenda Item G6 - Independence Relocation - Errors & Context

From: domainremoved <Philip>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:32:52 -0800

We fully support and endorse what Sateez Kadivar of SP Menlo LLC proposes below.

 

Philip and Anne Bourgeois

115 Independence Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 326 0528 x 219

studiored <http://www.studiored.com/>

 

 

From: Sateez Kadivar [mailto:sateez_at_(domainremoved).com]
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 2:27 PM
To: city.council_at_(domainremoved)
Cc: Philip Bourgeois; patrickc_at_(domainremoved)
Subject: Agenda Item G6 - Independence Relocation - Errors & Context

 

Menlo Park City Council & City Manager,

 

In reviewing the Staff report associated with agenda item G6 of the City Council meeting schedule for Tuesday February 13, 2018, I found several inaccuracies that I wanted to bring to your attention. I have included below proposed modified language. In addition, much of the context of this overall situation is lost in the staff report, 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, it only illustrates a “Proposed New Street” and does not say anything about abandoning part of Independence. The blue callout box in Attachment E of the Staff report is something Staff is inserting now, while referencing the attachment as if it were the original document. When I formally objected to the “Proposed New Street” before Council approved the Ordinance in 2016, I was told by Staff that this New Public Street would only occur if all 4 property owners wanted it and came forward at the same time.

 

Suggested Modifications:

 

"Potential Future Modifications

The 2016 Bayfront Area Zoning Map, which was developed in conjunction with ConnectMenlo, proposes a New Public Street through four separately-owned properties realigned Independence Drive (Attachment E). Three of these property owners have communicated very strongly their objection to the “Independence Relocation” concept (Staff has not heard from the fourth). Staff did not proactively inform any of these property owners about the “Independence Relocation,” two of whom just learned about it this month. The zoning map, along with the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements, was approved by the City Council on November 29, 2016. One of the property owners whose property the New Public Street would run through formally objected prior to City Council approval. The relocation of Independence Drive could occur with the redevelopment of the adjacent properties, provided the City is comfortable invoking eminent domain and/or being the subject of a lawsuit, either of which would likely delay significantly much needed housing development on these properties. If the existing Independence Drive right-of-way were to be vacated, a land swap with the adjacent property owners may be possible, with the intent to maintain the existing square footage of the adjacent parcels as much as possible. Staff has begun preliminary discussions with some of the affected property owners regarding the possible relocation of Independence Drive, and is currently researching the feasibility of a land swap. Although the final placement is still to be determined, relocating Independence Drive further away from Marsh Road would eliminate the sight distance issues described above that necessitate the one-way only traffic for a portion of Constitution Drive. The relocation of Independence Drive would also effectively restore Constitution Drive to a full two-way street. The City Council will have future opportunities to consider these potential future modifications. The decision on the Marsh Road T intersection design should be reviewed independent of the potential future relocation of Independence Drive."

 

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

 

“Portion of Independence Drive to be relocated”

 

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

 

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.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sateez Kadivar

SP Menlo LLC

111 Independence Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

 

Received on Sat Feb 10 2018 - 09:42:32 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)