|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
One Atherton resident donated 65 percent of the funding during the first half of this year for grassroots coalition Save Menlo, the group backing an initiative to change Menlo Park’s downtown/El Camino Real specific plan, according to its most recent finance report.
The report, filed July 9 with the county elections office, covers the period from January through June. Venture capitalist Gary Lauder, who lives in Atherton, donated $20,000 of the total $30,736 in cash contributions received during the first six months of the year.
Mr. Lauder said the specific plan had already passed by the time he got involved. “I always thought that the government would look out for our interests and only allow incremental development that the system can handle,” Mr. Lauder said. “Having driven through downtown Sunnyvale a few years ago, I was shocked to see that the town had allowed tall office buildings to be built right to the property line, thereby creating urban canyons in the middle of this suburb…in some cases right across the street from single-family dwellings. This is proof that perhaps government does not always get it right and prevent inappropriate development … at least from this outsider’s perspective.”
He serves on the Atherton transportation committee and takes a regional view of the congestion he expects developments on vacant lots along El Camino Real — such as the Stanford-Arrillaga mixed-use project — to deliver. The initiative would cut the amount of office space allowed in that proposal by 50 percent, as well as impose other restrictions on overall nonresidential development within the specific plan’s boundaries.
Mr. Lauder said that “development isn’t the problem,” but “congestion, urban canyons and related unintended consequences of it are.”
He suggests upgrading the road capacity first, then build. Until the government increases road capacity and uses existing techniques to improve traffic flow, then all major development should be opposed, he said. “This is partly to prevent further erosion of quality of life due to traffic congestion, and partly to get real estate developers to advocate for the proper road upgrades to enable further development.”
Other donors, expenses
A “Committee for Referendum,” based out of a Mountain View apartment, came in second with a $2,000 donation. Menlo Park downtown property owner Nancy Couperus chipped in $1,000, as did attorney Chip Lutton.
Twenty-nine people are listed as money donors; another contributed an estimated $107 in non-cash services related to display supplies.
The largest expenditure went to environmental and initiative specialist attorney Keith Wagner, based in Davis, for $14,232 in legal fees related to the petition drive. An additional $1,840 was spent on hired signature gatherers. The remainder of Save Menlo’s $24,397 in expenses went for miscellaneous supplies such as signs and printing costs.
According to the city’s summary, Save Menlo’s initiative would restrict the amount of office space in any individual development to 100,000 square feet; limit total new office space to 240,820 square feet; and cap overall new, nonresidential development to 474,000 square feet within the specific plan’s boundaries.
It would also redefine open space to mean only areas no higher than 4 feet off the ground, thereby preventing balconies from counting as open space.
Voters would have to approve any revisions to the ordinance as well as any projects that would exceed the nonresidential development caps.
The Menlo Park City Council is expected to vote tomorrow (July 15) on whether to place the initiative on the ballot for the November election or adopt it, after reviewing a consultant’s analysis of how the proposed changes would affect development within the specific plan area.
Mr. Lauder, good thinking do infrastructure first then development, what a concept, why hasn’t anyone else thought
of this before ? So, here’s the $64 question: How does one improve/widen the roadways, when CAL-Trans owns the
roadways ? (ERC) and, where does the funding come from ?
I am shocked, just shocked, that Save Menlo (who spends so much time attacking me because I am an Atherton resident opposed to the poorly written and un-vetted Lanza/Fry initiative) would take money from an Atherton resident.
Similarly Save Menlo asks elected officials who are opposed to their efforts to recuse themselves from voting on initiative related matters while collecting signatures and support from an (non- Menlo Park) elected official who endorses their efforts.
“hypocrisy – the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.”
Peter
Perhaps Save Menlo prefer succinct constructive rather than verbose destructive input.
Upgrade the capacity and then build, what a tremendous idea. Plan for the bigger picture instead of pandering to the selfishness of a few deep pocketed propery owners.
whatever:
No, Savemenlo prefers getting money to support their position from an out of town resident all the while trashing anyone from out of town who disagrees with them. Sorry, that is the height of hypocrisy. Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me given their demonstrated lack of honesty and their disingenuousness.
Not everyone that is a stakeholder in this project is a resident of MP. I own a business in MP. I don’t live in the city. I pay taxes, support other businesses that pay taxes, and I work closely with many MP residents. Does it matter that I may live in Atherton, or Palo Alto, or Woodside? My business and the quality of life of my family and that of many of clients will be impacted by this dash to build.
Seriously, we’re all stakeholders. You can be a stakeholder in a company and not work for it. You can be a shareholder or a client of the company. Regardless, what the company does or doesn’t do would impact you.
MP’s plan, in my opinion, needs work. I agree with those that say upgrade the infrastructure before you build up the town. Developers usually must upgrade infrastructure before they’re allowed to build a new housing development or business park. Why doesn’t that logic work here?
Concerned:
you ask a good question, where will the funding come from to upgrade ECR? The one you don’t ask is more important – would Menlo Park and Savemenlo ALLOW upgrades to ECR? From past experience the answer is a resounding NO. In order to improve traffic flow on ECR parking needs to be removed where it chokes ECR down to two lanes in either direction. That’s been suggested numerous times before and is always shot down
So, taking things to their logical conclusion, nothing will be done to upgrade ECR capacity and in Mr. Lauder’s world that means nothing gets built. No wonder Savemenlo took his money even though he is from out of town. That’s exactly what they want. Nothing.
Enjoy the view.
“He suggests upgrading the road capacity first, then build. Until the government increases road capacity and uses existing techniques to improve traffic flow, then all major development should be opposed” I agree with this idea.
You need to be aware of the elected officials in support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, One Bay Area Plan they have other ideas for us, Traffic Calming less lanes on El Camino etc.
That might calm the cars, it will NOT calm those inside of the cars.
I am not personally in favor of the higher density development enabled by the Specific Plan, but it is neither fair nor ethical to convey official zoning, density and use standards to developers (as the Specific Plan did) and then change them after the developers have spent 100’s of thousands of dollars creating plans that conform to the Specific Plan’s requirements. This is no way to attract high quality development, and no way to run a city. This approach will lead to many more years of vacant lots with bare concrete slabs, weeds, and chain link fences.
Note that the town of Atherton is talking of narrowing El Camino to 2 lanes each direction, in order to improve pedestrian safety and “Calm Traffic” This is one of the few sections of El Camino that still works.
If we marrow it, there will simply be more cut=-through traffic in our residential areas. This is precisely what is happening already in Menlo, after all.
The specific Plan Environmental Impact Report found that the Specific Plan will add approximately 13,600 daily vehicle trips, primarily on or across El Camino Real, and that these added vehicle trips will cause “significant impacts to 15 intersections and 14 roadway segments. . . under cumulative plus project conditions” These impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Imagine adding this traffic with no infrastructure consideration or improvement to El Camino Real, which the menlo Park el camino corridor study admits “does not adequately serve the Menlo Park’s community’s need for safe and efficient multi modal transportation and access to local destinations” . If El Camino Real doesn’t now serve the community’s needs, why add 13,600 trips.
Clearly Infrastructure study should have been done first. Redwood city raves about its precise plan, which was done after $50M infrastructure improvements to handle. Seems smart to me.
I don’t think ECR is capable of handling all the needs to be imposed upon it. I think we should assess regional action including palo alto, Atherton, redwood city and other points north and south to consider and fix the problem Running a transportation thread up the peninsula, with calls from Grand Boulevard initiative for more density on it seems to make little sense, particularly given the lack of consideration by local governments.
Menlo City council waived the environmental impacts to the 15 interactions and 14 roadway segments stating the benefits [if any] outweighed the severe impacts. Hard to fathom! City council is considering the initiative to limit office space on El camino real Tuesday night, a good idea to support given lack of infrastructure.
City council probably doesn’t want to give up control over office space to the voters. Given the conduct of the City council in waiving impacts and disregarding neighborhood and community concerns , they should. Let’s hope they don’t become defensively entrenched.
Fisher should read the Wise report:
“However, in that the Ballot Measure would preclude net new
office build-out in excess of 240,820 square feet, the Ballot
Measure would preclude some traffic scenarios that could entail
fewer trips than the ECR/D Specific Plan Base scenario (because
office uses produce lower trip generation rates than other uses
such as retail, but more than uses such as hotels.) (See Section 6.2
in this Report for further discussion.)”
This poorly worded initiative has dozens of built in land mines – this is only one example.
Fisher should also read the March 7, 2014 Traffic Conformance study on the 500 ECR project:
Trip Generation (net
new trips)
Stanford proposal:
AM Peak Hour: 402
PM Peak Hour: 393
Daily: 3,115
VS what is permitted under the Specific Plan:
AM Peak Hour: 899
PM Peak Hour: 1,319
Daily: 13,385
**********
And under the initiative there is no limit on medical offices – another land mine.
And just so everyone understands what will happen if the initiative were to pass here is Stanford OFFICIAL response:
“However, in the event that the Initiative passes the City Council would not be able to approved Stanford’s proposed project.* If that occurs Stanford will thoroughly review its options and determine whether, and in what form it might prepare a new project proposal.”
* note that is the latest Stanford proposal without any medical offices and with other generous concessions.
So if the initiative passes- medical offices back on the table, no contribution to the underpass, possibility of no project or even multiple single parcel projects, etc.
I have to go along with the core focus of this article and some of the comments that point to the attacks on non-residents, only to find that savemenlo received/has taken money from a non-resident.
Classic.
This is exactly why I trust few, anymore.
Oh the hypocrisy of Save Menlo supporters. Attack non-MP residents, while gladly accepting money from non-MP residents. Hopefully, everyone reading these comments will understand that this important issue also impacts non-residents and that their opinions should be heard and not ridiculed.
As for infrastructure before development, It is a noble idea, but in reality that “dog ain’t gonna hunt” due to multiple factors, such as NIMBY-ism and funding. For example, electrification of Caltrain (whether HSR will use the same line or not) will increase capacity, service, and reduce number of cars on the road. However, there are a vocal minority opposing this infrastructure improvement. Transportation and infrastructure is a regional issue. Excepting developers to solely fund for infrastructure improvement for something as complex as ECR traffic is ludicrous. It has to be in a partnership with government and the community.
The article accurately summarized my position on this, but there’s more to it. Later today it will be posted to:
http://www.lauderpartners.com/MP
Peter Carpenter posted a comment that included the following:
Trip Generation (net new trips)
Stanford proposal: AM Peak Hour: 402
If you were to measure that many cars parked end-to-end, it would be over a mile. In traffic, it would be about double that. This represents a substantial addition to local traffic queues…and this is just the first of several potential new developments.
I don’t know much about the hypocrisy accusation, but if they did, it would be an Ad Hominem argument, which is the first one that one comes to when you look up informal fallacies. It would be equally fallacious to discount the logic I offered based on where I vote. As a member of the Atherton Transportation Committee, I have tried to serve the interests of all commuters passing through Atherton, so MP should do the same. This publication is based in Palo Alto, yet we trust it to accurately report on MP.
Here are the ECR traffic projections under the old zoning and under the Specific Plan and for the Stanford proposals:
Pre Specific Plan C-4 zoning
Retail Only 10,643
Medical Office & Retail (Mixed Use) 9,695
Specific Plan zoning
Residential Only (AHO max) 2,896
Residential Only (market‐rate) 1,807
Stanford proposals
Jan‐13 Mixed Use 5,835
April 13 Mixed use 5,624
Revised Stanford proposal Apr‐ Mixed‐Use (no medical) 13 April 3,284
Gary – the hypocrisy argument is the oft stated position by Save Menlo that I, as an Atherton resident, should not have or post an opinion on a “Menlo Park” issue.
I have always ignored that argument but wonder if Save Menlo was concerned about your very generous $20,000 contributions given that you are also an Atherton resident?
I was on El Camino this morning and the bumper to bumper back-up northbound at 9am was 4 blocks long.
This is a fundamental issue about our city council ignoring the basics of city planning – study traffic, do a comprehensive plan including traffic, fix the traffic, and then welcome more development.
This is a regional issue that affects us all just like education. We share the Los Lomitas school district, our kids go to school together and Atherton parents contributed significantly to the bond measure that just passed. We share the same Menlo-Atherton high school.
We are all concerned about traffic and being able to get to school, work, and home with our families.
The current congestion in MP on ECR is due solely to the current two lane constriction – which the Council plans to convert to three lanes soon. Having parked cars take up a usable lane on a State highway is crazy.
“Gary – the hypocrisy argument is the oft stated position by Save Menlo that I, as an Atherton resident, should not have or post an opinion on a “Menlo Park” issue.”
Please cite examples where Patti Fry, Mike Lanza, and SaveMenlo have suggested you or anyone else should not post opinions in this forum, Peter. Peter’s problem — his blind spot — is that he now considers everyone opposed to his narrow, inflexible point of view a SaveMenlo “member,” no matter how anonymous or ambiguous in affiliation those opponents may clearly be.
No, what we Menlo Park residents object to, Peter, is your railing ad nauseam against our “narrow self-interest” when we raise valid concerns about preserving the character of our town and, perhaps more importantly, about the increased traffic and cut-through traffic which will inevitably result from bookending Menlo Park with *eight hundred thousand square feet* of new development on El Camino Real, an issue for which no reasonable mitigation has thus far been advanced. Atherton residents should be every bit as concerned about these unknown traffic impacts as are a growing number of people in Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and I’m glad to see Gary Lauder take the position he has.
We also object to your labeling Menlo Park residents “dumb and lazy” for failing to foresee this mother of all unintended consequences in the otherwise commendable Downtown Specific Plan. Your arrogance in this forum, Peter, especially round this single development issue, appears to mar an otherwise admirable public service career, and quite simply leaves me scratching my head. You are certainly welcome to your position regarding 500 ECR East — a few others share it, to be sure — but the manner in which you express yourself at times is far more off-putting than helpful. I preemptively concede that you may disagree or do not care.
Gern
Gern states – ” bookending Menlo Park with *eight hundred thousand square feet* of new development on El Camino Real,” and then he complains when I call such gross overstatements as being ignorant of the facts.
Here are the facts:
“Net impact”
500 El Camino Real 181,568
1300 El Camino Real 110,046
TOTALS 291,614
http://www.menlopark.org/784/Net-Impact-Square-Footage
Playing with the truth (i.e. lying) is not helpful to the dialogue.
“Playing with the truth (i.e. lying) is not helpful to the dialogue.”
Just the sort of disingenuous salvo (some might say outright subterfuge) we’ve come to expect from Peter Carpenter. The farce that is the net impact figure excludes residential development, of course, so for our traffic impacts discussion we can add that ~400,000 square feet back into the mix. Then there is this little detail which Peter conveniently ignored, “in order to determine a project’s net impact square footage, that total proposed square footage must be reduced by the square footage of uses that were active on the site at the start of the application, as well as the square footage of previous project approvals that included environmental clearance.”
So by magic that only city planners understand we exclude the square footage of the previously-approved but never built Derry project from the impacts of the Greenheart project because … we can.
Honestly, who is lying here?
Gern
Gern – PLEASE learn how to read. “Then there is this little detail which Peter conveniently ignored, “in order to determine a project’s net impact square footage, that total proposed square footage must be reduced by the square footage of uses that were active on the site at the start of the application, as well as the square footage of previous project approvals that included environmental clearance.”
The figures I posted do EXACTLY that as noted on the source web site. Why do you think the figures I quoted were marked as Net impact” ?
PLEASE stop obfuscation and playing with the truth. You stated ” bookending Menlo Park with *eight hundred thousand square feet* of new development on El Camino Real,” and when I proved you wrong now you claim ” we can add that ~400,000 square feet back into the mix.” Where or where do you pull such figures from the air?????
And will you now retreat, as you always do after being caught out, for a week or so before attempting to present a new Gern persona?
Hello All,
I, too, place quality-of-life and ease-of-driving along El Camino as more important than new construction.
While I have not been in the loop on all the goings-ons at the City Council regarding the plans, updated plans, etc., I can affirmatively say that in the 10 years I’ve lived in Menlo Park and driven along El Camino Real, I have had to endure the bumper-to-bumper traffic. While I don’t appreciate seeing the empty buildings along El Camino Real, I’d much rather have empty buildings than the much worsening of traffic that is predicted. I just don’t think it will be good for those of us who live or drive through our neighborhood.
I look forward to getting the chance to vote on this issue in the next ballot measure so more modest plans emerge.
Frankly, I can’t imagine why the city of Menlo Park can’t encourage more modest, new tenants to move in along El Camino (given the greatness of our community, its location so central to everything, etc. — even with the economic downturn our community has a lot of strengths). But this is a different topic and likely not germane to this discussion. Regardless of who owns the land and/or who has rights to build on it, this is not a reason to allow new building of such magnitude that will obviously effect to a large extent the quality of life here for those of us who use El Camino Real. (If I as a homeowner wanted to do the same thing with my house, on my block, and create such an extreme problem affecting my neighbor’s ability to drive through the neighborhood, I am sure this would get struck down immediately by the planning department).
Just my two cents… and again, I look forward to being able to vote on this issue if I get a chance. It seems that voting will be the only way for the majority of us who live in Menlo Park to, on a practical basis, to get a say in this matter. If enough of us get out the vote we can have our voices heard.
Warm regards,
Alisa
Alisa states – “If I as a homeowner wanted to do the same thing with my house, on my block, and create such an extreme problem affecting my neighbor’s ability to drive through the neighborhood, I am sure this would get struck down immediately by the planning department).”
The C-4 zoning that existed before the new Specific Plan was adopted could have resulted in Retail Only 10,643 trips or Medical Office & Retail (Mixed Use) 9,695 trips.
The latest Stanford proposal (with no medical offices) under Specific Plan reduced that to 3,284.
Sure looks like a step in the right direction.
A good college friend used to quip, when handily winning an argument, that “there is no point to your pointlessness,” and I believe you and I have reached that point, Peter. My claim was quite clearly that the net impact figure is a planning farce, one perpetrated by and for planners and developers, it would seem. If you disagree with that assertion please explain to me why we should deduct the square footage of the never-built Derry project from the impacts discussion of the Greenheart proposal. Does that make sense in any sphere outside the rarified air of civic planning?
And I cannot make sense of your obfuscation claim, but you do realize the net impact figure excludes residential uses, while Stanford and Greenheart have every intention of building a combined ~400,000 square feet of residential in their projects?
http://www.menlopark.org/783/Overview-of-Proposed-Changes
“The two largest currently proposed developments (at 500 and 1300 El Camino Real) include approximately 429,611 square feet of non-residential uses …”
“It’s important to recognize that the 429,611 square foot number is not the “net impact” for purposes of calculating maximum allowable non-residential use.”
“… the net impact of non-residential uses for the two proposed projects is 291,614 square feet.”
Etc.
Gern
“The current congestion in MP on ECR is due solely to the current two lane constriction – which the Council plans to convert to three lanes soon. Having parked cars take up a usable lane on a State highway is crazy.”
I hear people say this all the time, but I’m not sure it’s true. I do know that every time I drive home from Redwood City, traffic volume is really light through Atherton, and once you hit Menlo Park, volumes increase significantly. This makes sense, because Menlo Park is more densely populated and has more destinations for people to visit. I think that traffic flows faster in Atherton because at many times of day, volumes are lower. Traffic is slower in Menlo Park because volume is higher. Adding a lane won’t fix that.
Adding lanes has been shown not to reduce congestion, but to make it the same: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
Downtown MP retailers & restaurants are hurt by the long, slowly creeping mass of cars on El Camino. Residents & daytime workers often find it easier to go elsewhere to shop or eat, simply due to traffic issues. We’ve all learned to take alternate routes to avoid the ECR jam.
I also wish Palo Alto would build a proper supermarket somewhere near its downtown area. WholeFood & TJ don’t provide sufficient variety to keep Palo Altan’s shopping in PA, so they migrate to MP for Safeway, adding to road congestion.
“traffic volume is really light through Atherton, and once you hit Menlo Park, volumes increase significantly.”
Of course, ECR is three lanes in Atherton and two in Menlo Park. Almost all of the net traffic on ECR goes through each city and is not destined for MP or Atherton or PA.
MP has a great responsibility for the current ECR traffic jam. It was an MP request to CalTrans to narrow ECR to two lanes. MP decided that CalTrans should not synchronize the ECR traffic signals.
Peter
what’s the fire dept read on ECR MP connection and its impact on fire and medical response times?