Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Consultant proposal

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:38:47 -0700

I am attaching the opposition to subcommittee recommendation by the
neighborhood representatives sent to council on August 26, 2013. As stated
at the time, the neighborhood representatives have a much different
understanding of the process than presented in the Staff Report # 14-048
presented in connection with the request to spend yet another $150,000 on
yet another consultant report in the March 117, 2014 Council Meeting.

For example, out of the claimed 19 meetings of the subcommittee, prior to
their meeting privately with Stanford and agreeing on a deal, the
subcommittee only met with the neighborhood representatives 2 times, and
only 1 time had any discussion of negotiations with Stanford. Neighborhood
representatives were not included in, or informed afterwards about, any of
the negotiations that occurred between Stanford and the Council
subcommittee. They were only informed of the fait accompli.

As stated in the opposition letter, the subcommittee process regarding
Stanford negotiations failed; "The Subcommittee did not listen to the
Neighborhood Representatives and denied them meaningful participation in
the Subcommittee process. The resident's concerns need a meaningful forum
in which they can be fairly dealt with, such as a process to amend the
Specific Plan. The Subcommittee failed its express purpose to
"facilitate conversations between neighborhood representatives and the
applicant . . .to ensure the final project balances the needs of Stanford
and the greater Menlo park community," or to even follow its own rules
providing for "consistent review of relevant factual material".
 Subsequently the Neighborhood representatives have been and are
participating drafting scopes of work and commenting on drafts in the
Traffic studies.

I do not believe there is any reason to think another set of consultants
hired by the city will fairly deal with the concerns attempted to be
remedied by the initiative's proposal to limit office space and increase
open space, which are the same type of concerns expressed to the
subcommittee by the appointed neighborhood representatives and ignored.
 Similarly the one year review process for the Specific Plan disregarded
neighborhood concerns , and the traffic work order scopes of work had not
even been completed.

What should be done is to complete the traffic studies of the Stanford
project proposal in accordance with the approved scopes of work. See
complete traffic study work orders attached. Although draft memoranda were
to be submitted for all three phases within two to eight weeks of August,
2013, (see staff report presented in connection with August 27, 2013
council meeting), only one phase has been submitted and that on March 7,
2014. That phase reported an increase on traffic on Middle and through the
Allied Arts neighborhood of 6 to 15 times the increased traffic projected
in the EIR resulting from the Specific Plan. This seems significant and

Nevertheless the full meaning of the project's new traffic through the
neighborhoods and throughout town will not be understood until El Camino
Real analysis and the cut through portion of the complete analysis is
completed. The cut-through work order requires thorough and complete
analysis with : "the intent of the written and graphical presentation will
to make the analysis assumptions, methodology, trip distribution gateways,
trip assignment routes, and potential peak hour and daily effects of the
proposed project as well as overall congestion on El Camino Real clear to
residents, city staff and decision makers.". . . We will also present a
future volume scenario based on traffic growth prior to full build out of
the Downtown Specific Plan."

These figures will provide a comparison of future traffic levels and q
qualitative way to assess induced cut-through traffic that is associated
with traffic congestion but not necessarily related to the El Camino Real

The piecemeal approach with only one phase of one work order submitted so
far, with all work scopes being integrally interrelated is harmful, along
with the delay past the time of the one-year review of the specific Plan.
No conclusions related to traffic can be made until all work is completed.
The first phase report specifically states any findings in it related to
vehicular traffic consistency could possibly be reevaluated based upon the
remaining scopes of work. Also, the comment letter accompanying the first
phase specifically on page 2 states: "[I]t is acknowledged that the [first
phase] memorandum only addressed the areas of trip generation and trip
distribution. Other aspects of the proposed project were not reviewed."
  The work orders also require development of measures to alleviate
potential cut through traffic, which, under the Menlo Park Transportation
impact guidelines include "changes in the [proposed] project. Guideline
VI. A.

The outstanding existing consultant work orders which have been outstanding
since last August should be competed, before any additional funds are spent
on new consultants.

George C. Fisher
1121 Cotton
Menlo Park, Ca 94025
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849

Received on Mon Mar 17 2014 - 14:38:30 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)