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: [ParkForestPlus] Public comments to Planning Commission on ECR 1704

From: domainremoved <Frederick>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:06:31 -0800


Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Peter Carpenter via Groups.Io <peterfcarpenter=me.com_at_(domainremoved)
> The following public comments were made to the Planning Commission this evening:
> November 5, 2018
> The 1704 ECR Project
> The Park Forest neighbors worked hard for many months to find a compromise with Mr. Sagar Patel and we agreed to support his design that included underground parking. A letter to that effect was filed with the Commission on March 12. I have provided you with a timeline of the neighborhood’s interactions with Mr. Patel.
> After your March meeting, at which the design with underground parking was presented, developer Patel walked away from his agreement with the community and instead proposed a much larger facility with on-grade parking. This design was reviewed at your October study session.
> Given the history of the neighborhood’s compromises it was shocking that the Planning Commission Chair, after Mr. Patel moved the goal posts with a totally new design, said that the neighbors now need to compromise – again! What is to stop a developer from constantly moving the goal posts if the Planning Commission just expects the neighbors to compromise again and again?
> We are completely opposed to the new, above ground parking design, regardless of any cosmetic changes that might be made to it.
> We are certainly opposed to the bizarre concept of granting a public benefit bonus to a developer because he has reduced his costs by not providing underground parking rather than granting a public benefit bonus for increasing his costs by doing something to provide an actual public benefit.
> We would continue to support the original underground parking design if Mr. Patel reverses his abrogation of his agreement with the Park Forest community.
> Peter Carpenter
> 140 Forest Lane
> Menlo Park, Ca.
> October 12, 2016 Petition letter opposing the development circulated to Park Forest and
> surrounding communities, garnering widespread support. Exhibit A
> November 8, 2016 First meeting between Neighborhood representatives and Corinna
> Sandmeier (Associate Planner, Menlo Park).
> December 5, 2016 Neighborhood meeting at Pacific Union. Sagar Patel (Developer) was
> invited to answer residents’ many concerns. 35 neighbors attended. Many
> letters sent to City Planning following the meeting.
> December 14, 2016 Summary of issues raised at 12/5 meeting circulated to residents. Exhibit B
> February 4, 2017 First meeting of Neighborhood Committee (Susan Neville, Mike Brady,
> Dave Forter, Margaret Race, Carol Diamond, Glenna Patton).
> February 6, 2017 Updated petition letter submitted to Corinna Sandmeier to reflect
> additional signatures (final total of 80). Exhibit C
> March 13, 2017 Neighborhood Committee meeting (same participants as noted above).
> March 27, 2017 Neighborhood Committee pre-°©‐meeting for Sagar Patel meeting.
> April 3, 2017 First meeting with Sagar Patel (Developer) to view the site from 190 Forest
> Lane (closest to 1704 ECR property) and discuss neighborhood concerns.
> Verbal agreement from Sagar Patel to move 3rd story rooms from rear-°©‐
> facing side of hotel (facing Forest Lane).
> May 3, 2017 Second meeting with Sagar Patel to discuss additional modifications to the
> plans. Initial agreements summarized in letter to Menlo Park. Exhibit D
> May 8, 2017 Susan Neville sends Sagar Patel a recap of the outstanding issues, as well
> as a draft letter to neighbors summarizing Patel’s agreed changes. Patel
> had the opportunity to weigh in on letter prior to circulation.
> May 9, 2017 Updated letter on agreed changes by Sagar Patel circulated to
> neighborhood residents. Exhibit E
> June 11, 2017 Sagar Patel sends renderings of new exterior design, which reflects a shift
> to a “Mediterranean” look in line with other buildings along ECR, as
> requested by Neighborhood Committee.
> July 28, 2017 Sagar Patel circulates updated renderings of the exterior design, reflecting
> a shift to a “taupe” color to better blend into the surrounding nature, as
> requested by Neighborhood Committee.
> September 19, 2017 Susan Neville submits a letter of support for the development on behalf of
> the Neighborhood Committee, based on extended negotiations to reflect
> the issues raised by residents. Exhibit F
> November 17, 2017 Neighborhood Committee meets with Corinna Sandmeier to inform her of
> agreements with Sagar Patel. She informs us that the City has issues with
> the design and a public Study Session will take place in January.
> November 21, 2017 Glenna Patton submits letter to Corinna Sandmeier on behalf of the
> Neighborhood Committee requesting that the new designs are previewed
> with the Committee prior to the January Study Session.
> December 4, 2017 Sagar Patel provides preview of updated exterior design, which he
> characterizes as a “more authentic, classic Spanish design”.
> February 26, 2018 Neighborhood receives notice of Menlo Park Planning Committee Study
> Session, scheduled for March 12th, at 7pm.
> March 7, 2018 Neighborhood Committee meets to prep for Study Session, agrees to send
> a letter to the City stating its formal position prior to the Study Session.
> March 12, 2018
> (12pm)
> Susan Neville submits letter to Planning Commissioners saying the
> Neighborhood’s preference is for the development not to move forward
> but if it does, residents won’t oppose it as long as our agreed changes are
> approved. Exhibit G
> March 12, 2018
> (7pm)
> Neighborhood Committee attends Study Session, where the City requests
> a number of design changes to the hotel – none of which affect
> agreements with the Neighborhood.
> May 29, 2018 Sagar Patel sends Neighborhood Committee an email backtracking on all
> prior agreements due to moving parking from underground to street level
> (driven by “skyrocketing costs” of underground garage).
> June 5, 2018 Neighborhood Committee meets with Sagar Patel to review the new plans,
> confirming that no prior agreements have been honored (beyond design).
> June 18, 2018 Susan Neville emails Sagar Patel the Neighborhood’s opposition to the
> plans and lays out its top requirements. Email forwarded to Corinna
> Sandmeier to inform her of the Neighborhood’s position. Exhibit H
> August 18, 2018 Petition to declare neighborhood petition against the new plans is
> launched via Change.org, securing 70 signatures (online and hard copy).
> September 16, 2018 Neighborhood coffee event to update residents attended by 30 neighbors.
> Neighborhood Committee is expanded due to residents’ urgent concerns.
> September 19, 2018
> (4:30pm)
> Neighborhood reps meet with Corinna Sandmeier to communicate
> opposition to the City’s process. Sandmeier indicates a Formal Review by
> the Planning Commission will be held October 8th. Neighborhood requests
> a Study Session instead given the dramatic changes in the plans.
> September 20, 2018 Sagar Patel informs Neighborhood that the request for a Study Session on
> October 8th is accepted, replacing the previously planned Formal Review.
> Glenna Patton emails Corinna Sandmeier to acknowledge Study Session
> and voice continued opposition by the residents.
> September 24, 2018 Resident Eric Easom meets with Sagar Patel to discuss the Neighborhood’s
> issues with the development. Patel indicates an openness to explore
> further changes – although the details appear to be fluid.
> September 24-°©‐28,
> 2018
> Various residents submit letters of opposition to the City Planning
> Commissioners.
> September 26, 2018 Neighborhood Committee meeting to discuss updates and further actions
> prior to the October 8 Study Session.
> October 1, 2018 Neighborhood Committee submits to Planning Commission a formal letter
> of opposition with changes required to gain residents’ support. Exhibit I
> October 8, 2018 Sagar Patel presents a further evolution of the plans at a Planning
> Commission Study Session attended by 25 neighbors, who oppose the
> plans and advocate for what was agreed prior to the March Study Session.
> _._,_._,_
> Groups.io Links:
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#46) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
> Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [fred_rose_at_(domainremoved)
> _._,_._,_
Received on Mon Nov 05 2018 - 21:04:35 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)