PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE I write concerning your pending discussion of El Camino and downtown. I have been out of town so this correspondence picks up from the PC's last discussion of the subject.

I appreciate the work that has been done to date. However, I think there is still more to do. In particular, I do not think residents' input has been sufficiently factored in. From having attended a coiuple of sessions, I think the working sessions to date have been too compreseed and focused on driving to a supposed consensus or desired outcome, yet I do not think that consensus has been built in reality. I suugest that either the oversight group previously appointed or a successor body to it on which residents are well represented be tasked with trying to develop further several alternatives that help draw out the possible major options, as well as likely costs and benefits.

Relative to the consultant's last proposal and discussion items at the PC working session, most importantly I do not believe really at all that any consensus has been developed for substantial mixed use development along ECR, nor at the densities or heights prososed on either side of ECR. In fact, as that session progressed, the attentive listener could pick up a shift in the consultant's characterization as being actually a supposed "compromise" rather than their initial attempt to descibe it as a "consensus" supported by some broad group. I believe no such consensus exists, that it is too early to try to force or drive to one, and that the process will not succeed if you attempt to do so. I also found just under the surface, there was no real detail on the specific elements of mixed use. In particular, I submit residents are not generally in favor of expansive, dense or high residential mixed use, particularly in areas not very close to the train station, and that they prefer substantially more retail and similar uses that serve the community, including relative to office commercial. Similarly, I do not expect much broad support for three story construction on Santa Cruz, for material non-retail uses, and certainly not where parking is further impacted.

Importantly too, as was noted by several at the PC meeting, the broadest surveys taken of the community as part of this project do not support the emphasies and conclusions previously suggested by the consultants, again around subjects like the lack of much interest in substantial housing and greater interest in community serving retail commercial. To me, that's a basic and obvious disconnect.

I remain intesrested in bold and innovative exploration of alternatives, together with their costs and benefits. I think we have more work to do though. And, I am not satisfied and do not think the broad community of residents will be satisfied with things that just distill toi more bulk, height and density, more upzoning with no material benefits to the community but with a variety of meaningful costs and impacts, and by the tired platitudes about mixed use and transit oriented and neighboring development. I think we can do better, and we need to work toward more real consensus rather than an artificially declared one.

Regards, Elias Blawie
Long time Menlo Park resident                                                              

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.