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 ]


INCREDULOUS AND UNFAIR!!

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:03:21 -0700

Your refusal to acknowledge the facts stated in the City of Menlo Park
documents enclosed with my October 6, 2014 letter to you, attached with
documents referenced herein, and page 2-12 of the 1300 ECR Infill
Environmental Checklist is not only incredulous, but unfair Menlo Park use
of misleading statements and material concealments to improperly influence
the Measure M election. Please remediate ASAP.



*I. The City documents prove without any possible doubt the following,
dispelling false statements and concealments in your Measure M Web site
that the Illustrative Plan is a mere example and not significant in the
Specific Plan EIR analysis and no bearing upon Measure M*:



1. The Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis (EIR) only analyzed
the development envisioned in the Illustrative Plan (Exh. B-1)

2. The EIR found the Illustrative Plan development “the most reasonably
foreseeable, . . .,based upon studies of market demand, the location of
opportunity sites, and assessment of the development potential of each
property given the Guiding Principles, Urban design Framework, land uses,
development regulations and design guidelines. (Exh. B-1).

3. The EIR Transportation Impact Analysis found the potential maximum
amount of land use changes within the Specific Plan Area are presented in
table 1 by sub area and summarized below: . . . 240,820 square feet of
commercial (office space) (Exhs. B-2, B-3).

4. The reasons stated in the Notice of Intent to circulate Petition
filed with the City for what became Measure M included in its statement of
reasons: “ Defining and limiting uses constituting “Office space” in the
Specific Plan area to no more than 240,820 square feet. . . . the maximum
amount conceptually disclosed and analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, to
ensure that such uses are not approved to the exclusion of a healthy
balance of neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants, hotels, business, and
housing near transit”.





*II. The City documents prove without any possible doubt the following,
dispelling*

*false statements and concealments in the your Measure M Website that
potential impacts do not vary between non residential uses of office,
retail or hotel: *



1. Impacts studied in the Specific Plan EIR varied by the specific
non-residential use, such as office, residential, or hotel (Exhibit A-1,
B-3, C, D-1 AND D-2)

2. Only 8% of office space trips have origin/destination in Menlo Park,
leaving 92% to travel in/out of Menlo Park to reach office space ( Exh. A-2)

3. 76% of office space trips travel east or west to reach 280, 101 or
84, and 14% travel n/s in and out of town on El Camino Real, while only 20%
of retail trips leave Menlo Park E/W and 21% use El Camino Real (Exh.
A-1,A-2)





*III. The City documents prove without any possible doubt the following,
dispelling the your Measure M website stating that only 291,614 square feet
of Stanford and Greenheart are applied against the 474,000 square feet
maximum allowable development “in keeping with standard practices of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)” to examine only net new
impacts. However, the actual new net impact under CEQA standards is
429,611 square feet, which when added to the 75,418 square feet of other
projects means the entire maximum net new development 0f 474,000 square
feet under the Specific plan is exhausted by the Stanford and Greenheart
projects, unless Measure M is adopted: *



1. Only 81,481 square feet were included in background for the prior
1300 El Camino Real Sand Hill project, which had been approved by the city
(Exh. C) and that 81,481 square feet was studied as retail (commercial) not
Office space (Exh. C, Exh. D-1 and D-2).

2. The 1300 ECR Greenheart Environmental checklist states “ the
proposed [Greenheart] project is substantially different from the [previous
1300 ECR Sand Hill] project, this CEQA document considers the whole of the
current [Greenheart] project and does not rely upon previous approvals [of
the 1300 ECR Sand Hill project] for purposes of this [CEQA EIR] analysis.
(P. 2-12, attached)



If the prior project cannot be considered in the EIR for CEQA impact
purposes, the prior project can’t be considered in any reduction of “net
impact” maximum for CEQA purposes. Staff is talking out of both sides of
its mouth to maximize office space development.





*CONCLUSION: THE STANFORD AND GREENHEART PROJECTS USE UP ALL REMAINING NEW
NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND YOUR
MISLEADING WEBSITE UNFAIRLY AND FALSLY MISREPRESENTS AND CONCEALS POTENTIAL
OFFICE SPACE IMPACTS AND THAT EXHAUSTION OF AVAILABLE NON RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE BENEFICIAL RESULT OF MEASURE M LIMITING OFFICE
SPACE TO THE 240,820 SQUARE FEET TOTAL ANALYZED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR. *






-- 
George C. Fisher
​1121 Cotton Street
​Menlo Park, CA ​
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)

Received on Mon Oct 27 2014 - 17:59:26 PDT

[ 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)