Guest opinion: Specific Plan flawed; needs to be revised
Original post made on Aug 20, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, August 21, 2013, 12:00 AM
on Aug 20, 2013 at 6:55 pm
Well said Steve. I wonder what the intention is of the Mayor and the Sub-Committee is.
Appointing a subcommittee rather than addressing the real issues of the Downtown Specific Plan is akin to thumbing your noses at residents of Menlo Park while kissing the hand of the developer who put his name on the gym.
I'd be happy to underwrite a building in exchange for being able to put an apartment complex on my single-family-home-zoned lot. Neighbors would not be able to do a thing because you eliminated public process in the Specific Plan. Oh, wait, they could have a say in the "architectural review" of the massive apartment building I'm building next to their homes.
Again, I ask you to do better for the residents of Menlo Park. Fix the plan
on Aug 20, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
The Specific Plan rationale for the current FARs is stated as follows:
"The Specific Plan places the highest intensity of
development around the train station, consistent with goals
mentioned in the paragraph above. It also focuses higher
development intensities on the parcels on the east side
of El Camino Real south of Ravenswood Avenue. These
larger parcels can accommodate more development, and
they are isolated from adjacent residential neighborhoods
by El Camino Real to the west and the railroad tracks
and Alma Street to the east."
Note that the FAR in ECR-NE is 1.10 and in 2.00 in Downtown - it is hard to see how an FAR of 0.75 for ECR-SE could be logically justified except as a selective downzoning of Stanford properties.
on Aug 21, 2013 at 8:46 am
Since when did a year become more than 12 months? The Council decided to revisit key elements of the Specific Plan in 12 months. Among those is the trigger point for a negotiated public benefit. Thanks to Steve's research, we know there are other reasons to revisit the Plan.
When they set the trigger point, the council relied on market information that is no longer valid. To lower the trigger point isn't downzoning at all; the maximum remains. This should be done along El Camino, not just the southeast area to be fair. It would be totally unfair to other property owners to conduct the review after approving the Stanford project.