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 ]


Changes needed to General Plan Guiding Principles, as well as reasonable time to consider on a non expedited basis during Holidays.

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:24:35 -0800

Council and Planning Commission Members, the draft guiding principles need
significant revisions.



1. With respect to the Corporate Contribution, the draft implies that
Belle Haven and the M-2 area will receive physical benefits in exchange for
added development. Unfortunately I understand that area believes it has
received less than its fair share of physical benefits to date, and has
more than its fair share of development and development potential already.
There is no reason to attempt to coerce more development to obtain its
share of benefits.

2. Moreover, there is no mechanism to provide additional physical
benefits for added development. Such a mechanism should be at least
identified or a process for that balancing benefits and development
identified in the Guiding Principles.

3. I understand from the last committee meeting, that Council has given
“directives” to the consultant and advisory committee to not only expedite
this process, but also to streamline permitting new development by
specified standards which if met, will not require any discretionary
approval, other than perhaps EIR if necessary, or architectural guidelines,
most of which are considered binding by the general plan amendments. Such
a directive should be included in the guiding principles and not hidden.

4. If the only way to add benefits to neighborhoods is corporate
contribution obtained by public benefit consideration, that process should
be defined and quantified.

5. Menlo Park does not have any complete neighborhoods as defined. In
fact the city is a blend of neighborhoods as well as development areas such
as the ECR corridor, which is not in any neighborhood. A guideline should
be included stating that Menlo Park is a residential community, consisting
of residential neighborhoods which should be maintained as part of any
development.

6. There should be a general guideline specifically dealing with
traffic, emphasizing the need to reduce traffic by innovative methods and
to refuse increases in present traffic impacts by reducing present
standards including impact definitions and roadway volumes, particularly in
residential neighborhoods.

7. I also understand from the last meeting that increases in the Floor
Area Ratio Zoning in M-2 as well as the other general plan areas are
contemplated. There should be a guideline on Zoning principles, which
should include office space.

8. I requested the committee at the last meeting to slow down and be
sure of accurate guidelines. A member of the committee even requested the
proposed workshop to be postponed until after the holidays. There is
absolutely no need to rush something this important through on an expedited
schedule during the Holidays.



Please give this sufficient due process and consideration. Thanks, George

-- 
George C. Fisher
​1121 Cotton Street
​Menlo Park, CA 94025​
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)http://www.gfisherlaw.com
Received on Tue Dec 09 2014 - 09:19:15 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)