Dear City Council and Planning Commissioners I share Patti's concerns that she has outlined in her letter to you (see below). I live on Cambridge Avenue and am very worried that the only clear and perceptible outcome of this project will be a lot more traffic on El Camino and neighboring streets. The project's envisioned benefits on the other hand seem uncertain or dubious. I am also worried that there do not seem to be any effective protection measures against neighborhood cut-through traffic during the many years of construction and after project completion. Those should become part of any project approval. Best regards, Stefan Petry Menlo Park resident ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patti L Fry Date: Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:18 PM Subject: 500 El Camino Project Review To: "planning.commission_at_(domainremoved) City Council Dear City Council and Planning Commissioners It is premature for approvals of the Stanford project, its Final EIR or its Development Agreement. Changes are necessary to make the project as good for Menlo Park as it is for Stanford. An economic impact analysis is needed to ensure that happens. This project addresses Stanford's own needs for housing its own people and for offices that will either be rent-producing or for academic uses. The project clearly brings significant adverse traffic impacts to Menlo Park; the final EIR concludes that. Now, because it is clear that some or all of the site is intended to be "academic" and exempt from property taxes, it is clear that it does not address Menlo Park's housing shortage, and the project's economic benefits to Menlo Park appear to be minimal - if at all. Remember, when the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan and its economic impacts were evaluated, it was generally assumed that some hotel rooms would be added on this site and it was hotel room Transient Occupancy Taxes ("TOT") that made the Specific Plan financially positive. [At present, 2/3 of the hotel rooms forecast are in the works, and 138 of those are at the Marriott Residence Inn where long-term stays (likely) would not pay TOT. Where would the remaining 131 rooms be located?] Stanford was aware of this economic assumption during the entire planning process. Please consider the attached set of comments, and address them before moving forward with approvals. Respectfully submitted, Patti Fry former Planning Commissioner -- Best regards, Stefan application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document attachment: Comments_Stanford_RE_project_PFry_20170828.docx
