|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Rob Silano, a resident of the Suburban Park neighborhood in Menlo Park, is leading a recall effort against Mayor Drew Combs following the Planning Commission’s final approval of an educator housing development on the site of the former Flood School at 320 Sheridan Drive. Silano also serves as a director of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, but says he is working to recall Combs as a private citizen.
Combs announced the recall effort in his monthly email newsletter to his constituents, saying that Silano had sent him an email about the recall. Combs told this news organization that the recall attempt against him is “beyond absurd.”
Silano and other residents of the Suburban Park neighborhood have opposed the development since it was first proposed on the grounds of public safety due to there only being one exit for the property. The educator housing project was granted entitlements at the Menlo Park Planning Commission’s Jan. 13 meeting.
The approximately 2.5-acre site, owned by the Ravenswood City School District, has sat vacant since 2011. District educators and other employees have first dibs on the development’s 88 units, according to a staff report for the meeting. In November, the council committed $1 million of the city’s BMR Housing Fund to help in the project’s construction.
Silano and other recall supporters have not yet filed any official recall paperwork with the city of Menlo Park, according to City Clerk Judi Herren.
Combs wrote in his newsletter that he is open to exploring a second access point, but that he is “skeptical of the option in part because it would require the creation of a new street.”
According to a staff report prepared for the Jan. 13 Planning Commission meeting where the project was given final approval, the developer has “negotiated with Haven Family House to allow an emergency vehicle access easement through their property” to allow for a second emergency exit. The property at 320 Sheridan Drive is bordered on one side by Interstate Highway 101, and the other side by Flood Park, so the only access point other than Sheridan Drive is through Haven Family House’s property.
Plans published by the developer show that the second emergency access point would be blocked off by a chain link fence, and not accessible by the residents of the development.
“To be frank, a full second access seems to be a disingenuous effort to have the future residents of this project mostly access it through the Flood Triangle neighborhood instead of the Suburban Park neighborhood,” Combs wrote in his newsletter.
Silano said that his involvement in the effort to recall Combs isn’t about wanting less traffic in his neighborhood, but rather about the safety of the access points.
“Mr. Combs is providing lip service to the community, his biggest gripe about providing a second entrance is the city would have to build a road but mentions a random emergency second entrance,” Silano wrote in an email to this news organization. “Wouldn’t that emergency entrance require a road or does Mr. Combs plan to use a muddy grass patch in the winter with a 50,000 pound fire emergency vehicle[?]”
According to Combs, the project design complies with all applicable fire and building codes, and has been reviewed by the fire marshal and approved. Silano said he does not believe this is enough, and that he believes the city will be exposed to millions of dollars in liability.
“Is a minimum requirement of the fire code good enough when considering the safe construction and when the community could be in greater jeopardy(?)” Silano said in an email to this news organization.
Though other City Council members have also supported the development, Silano said that he is only seeking to recall Combs as he represents District 2, where the educator housing project is located and where Silano lives. Silano says he and other supporters of the recall understand the need for affordable housing, but that this particular project is “extremely poorly managed, putting lives and property at risk and future taxpayers in extreme liability exposure.”
According to the state Elections Code, to initiate a recall, Silano and other interested parties will have to obtain signatures from three times the number of people that were required to sign to get Combs on the ballot originally. According to Herren, candidates are required to obtain at least 20 signatures to run in Menlo Park, so Silano will have to obtain 60 signatures to officially initiate the recall. According to Silano, there was already a petition circulated in the Suburban Park neighborhood asking the City Council to consider a second access point that has amassed over 300 signatures, and he believes it will be easy to obtain the necessary signatures to initiate the recall.
“I look forward to the discussion of my record as a member of the City Council that will occur in the weeks and months ahead,” Combs wrote. “I also look forward to demonstrating to my two children that leadership, at its best, has to be about being grounded in core values such as inclusion, empathy and fairness.”
The educator housing development at 320 Sheridan was the subject of a citywide ballot measure — Measure V — in 2023 that sought to block it. Over 60% of Menlo Park residents voted against the measure, which would have put any rezoning of single-family lots to a citywide vote at a regularly scheduled election. The measure failed in nearly all city voting precincts, with only three precincts winning majority support. Two of those precincts are directly next to the Flood School site.
East Palo Alto councilman rejects calls to resign over writing letter for child sex abuse defendant5 hours ago
San Mateo County health officials warn of measles exposure at Burlingame restaurantFebruary 27, 2026 5:37 pm
Charged with child sex abuse, East Palo Alto employee gets character reference from council memberFebruary 23, 2026 2:08 pm
Simplest way for Silano to block this project is to have MPFPD refuse to approve the project without another access point. And he knows it. It’s multi-family. The fire department has a lot of input into what can be built and how it needs to be built. And they have to approve it if it is to be built. If they don’t, it doesn’t.
It seems to me that Silano is the person not doing their job. He sits on the Menlo Park Fire District board and is responsible for safety in regards to fire related issues. If there is a serious issue and he and the rest of the board are not raising it and making it a requirement then he’s failing to do his job would protecting current and future residents in his district. Maybe he should be the person facing recall. If there is a real Issue regarding access, which is likely just a red herring, then it’s within the fire districts ability to require that as part of the development. If the Fire Marshal has signed off on the project and specifically the access in case of emergencies, then I would guess this is not an issue and it’s just Silano trying to push traffic from his neighborhood into flood triangle.
It’s also interesting to note that this article talks about the Planning Commission approving the development but the Planning Commission is separate from City Council. Combs is the Mayor and does not sit on the Planning Commission. Maybe somebody can help me understand why there would be a recall attempt of a city council member when the person is not upset with what the city council did but with what one of the commissions that advises the city council has done? Frankly that doesn’t make sense to me.
It was an agenda item at the December 2024 Fire Board Meeting. The vote failed 3/2 to recommend a second Ingress/ Egress. Myself and Director Bernstein voted for and the 3 fire board members that voted againsr do not reside in Menlo Park as I and Bernstein. One lives in Atherton, one in EPA, and one in SMC Unc. Area.
Rob,
So 3 of the board members as well as the person in the department who approved to project disagree with you and yet you think recalling Combs is the right thing to do? Honestly all this does is make you like like a sore loser.
Brian:
I hope all your concerns will be answered.
1) As to the fire board, answer
on this thread.
“Maybe somebody can help me understand why there would be a recall attempt of a city council member when the person is not upset with what the city council did but with what one of the commissions that advises the city council has done? Frankly that doesn’t make sense to me.”
2) Combs represents our district. Combs voted to provide the developer with $1,000,000 dollars of our tax money without requiring them to provide an another one ( ingress/ egress). The council vote was 3/2. Nash and Taylor voted against and Combs voted for with 2 other lame duck council members.
The board vote was 3/2 against a second access and the council vote was also 3/2 against, last I checked the majority carries the vote. I guess if the other two yes votes were reelected you would start a recall against them? Maybe just accept that this project is going through as it is with possibly a second non-public fire department access through private property. Honestly the visual on this is not good for you. It looks like you want to push any problems to Flood Triangle and you can’t get the rest of the Fire board or the department to back you up.
Informative and objective. This was also sent to the Almanac regarding their article.
1) The Fire Chief has stated a second built ingress/ egress is safer, than just an emergency locked, narrow, gate access. Is a minimum requirement of the Fire code good enough when considering the safe construction and when the community could be in greater jeopardy.
2) AN ADDED BURDEN placed on MP by Atherton, placing a High Density project within a few blocks from this Sheridan Dr Project, without taking into consideration the added traffic on emergency response routes for our critical services. ( Bay Rd and Ringwood).
3) I and many suburban park residents have written to the Housing, Planning, and council in favor of the project, if it included a second/ egress/ ingress.
4) There were over 50 emails to the fire district and a 300 plus petition to the city requesting a second ingress/egress.
5) The Developer in November 2024 Council meeting agreed to build a second one, since an emergency one was already in the plans.
6) If the city is providing 1 million dollars for the project, why not include the 2nd ingress/ egress, at a small additional cost. Residents obtained a union contractor to estimate a cost of under $125,000. A small investment for the safety of all ( surrounding community, future residents, and public safety responders).
I have lived in Menlo Park since 1988 and raised my family here, I have over 40 years of public safety experience the project is not a bad idea it is just extremely poorly managed putting lives and property at risk and future tax payers in extreme liability exposure.
Bob:
You keep ignoring the fact that if the MPFPD wanted it they could mandate it. You’re unhappy because they didn’t. And its not about safety for you, its about traffic. It always has been. One only need to go back into the archives of the Almanac Town Square to find your comments made at the time this project was first proposed. It was about traffic. If it was really about safety the Fire Marshall would be demanding it. From the Fire Marshall, “we have zero concerns about our ability to defend this project and they went above and beyond what we asked of them to make it safe.”
So, please cut the BS, just acknowledge its about traffic and move on. I really get irritated when someone pees on my leg and tries to tell me its raining. And I’ll keep this in mind when you’re up for reelection. Your even voting on this project is an abuse of your office. You should have recused yourself due to your personal interests.
From the Fire Marshall, “we have zero concerns about our ability to defend this project and they went above and beyond what we asked of them to make it safe.”
False.
A second ingress/ egress would make it safer, a minimum requirement in play there. I bet you never saw the project site? Where did you find that quote?
“Your even voting on this project is an abuse of your office. You should have recused yourself due to your personal interests.”
False:
Not in conflict according to our fire board legal council. Far enough away. Just want to make it safe. Developer does not want to use ” union workers”, saying they are not devise enough???? Developer assessment about union workers? False too.
Mr. Silano, just to clarify: the Fire Chief has confirmed that Menlo Fire has no concerns about the project’s safety or their ability to respond if needed. The Fire Marshal has also approved the project. Yet somehow, you — who are neither a Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, nor a professional firefighter in any capacity, but rather a concerned neighbor living adjacent to the project and along its main access road — have concluded that it’s unsafe.
If you do go ahead and file recall paperwork against Mr. Combs, I’d imagine he has absolutely nothing to worry about.
That is how I read it. Likely just a waste of taxpayer money
Rob: Really? The Fire Marshall didn’t say that? I think he did and he approved the project which he wouldn’t have done if the project would not be safe and they couldn’t properly protect it. If he did approved an unsafe project then perhaps you and the board should be looking into replacing the Fire Marshal, not recalling Combs who is not the one approving the project.
Again, this safety thing is BS. When it was first proposed your complaints were about traffic, then morphed into safety being the issue. Traffic is your issue, just admit it. You’re not a fire fighter nor a fire marshal what makes you think you know better than them? Oh, that’s right you don’t and your issue is actually traffic.
Go ahead and file your recall. I and other voters will remember what you cost us for this BS and not reelect you. Maybe we should recall you?
Brian, Metro Voter, Concerned but realistic:
Let’s all meet and have coffee? We can discuss in person, go to the site, and see first hand. I’m for open transparency , no magic tricks….
People are going to Appeal the planning commission’s ruling. When scheduled at MP, come-by, voice your opinion. We live in a great country.
Rob,
Thank you for the invitation. I have visited the site and will be going back to see where the proposed second access for fist responders would be located.
I think you should realize that your arguments are more of an indictment of the Fire District board, who voted 3-2 against requiring a second access as well as the Fire Marshal and department who have said a second access is not necessary.
You are quoted in the article as saying “Is a minimum requirement of the fire code good enough when considering the safe construction and when the community could be in greater jeopardy(?)”. As the department that you are a member of the board overseeing are you saying that their requirements are insufficient for protecting the community? If so, which you seem to be saying, isn’t it your job to fix that?
As for the liability exposure that seems like a paper tiger argument. The Fire Department has approved the project as is, the board voted to not require a second access and the project will meet all building and safety codes, I am not sure how the city will have liability. Please clarify, or maybe someone with the legal knowledge can explain.
Mayor Combs, who is not on the Planning Commission nor to my knowledge does he have any control on how they vote, has stepped in to help alleviate your concerns by working with Haven House to get a second Emergency vehicle access point. That seems commendable are responsive to your concerns.
So I am afraid your comments in the article and in the comments are not helping your case for a recall, at least not a recall of Combs.
Brian, funny thing about that 3-2 vote at the Dec. 17th MPFPD Board meeting: What happened there, which you can confirm from the records, was that Rob suddenly introduced a 1-page “Draft Resolution” that he had NOT provided for the meeting packet, instead passing around a single paper copy his colleagues hadn’t seen, nor (I think) heard of, and thus hadn’t had a chance to consider at all. The resolution would have stated that the Board had determined that one ingress/egress point wasn’t as safe, and a second must be required.
MPFPD Board rules allow blindsiding one’s colleagues, but I doubt that’s the way to get votes. More problematically, the resolution’s claim directly contradicted Fire Marshal Jon Johnston’s professional opinion — also stated at the Dec. 17 meeting — which Menlo Voter has accurately quoted upthread.
The estimable Ms. Raab’s article says a second ingress/egress would be through (nonprofit NGO) Haven House’s property, which is certainly true, but (a) their agreeing in principle to an emergency-access easement is very much not the same as agreeing to a public traffic one, and (b) my understanding is that impinging on property owned by CalTrans would also be necessary.
Can you imagine a special district attempting to exercise the power of eminent domain against not merely a meritorious social-service nonprofit but also the State of California? Maybe I skipped that day’s class materials in my law classes, but I’m pretty sure special districts doing the latter is Not A Thing.
Is Rob pushing for that? Hold your popcorn, folks.
So, let’s sum up: MP’s Planning Commission, seemingly following the law, signed off on Ravenswood School District’s plan. Drew Combs has never been on that commission, and had no involvement in that action other than to be a member of the City Council that appoints commissioners. To my knowledge, the Council has otherwise had zero involvement, nor has Mayor Combs during his 55 days so far in office. In fact, if I recall correctly, Mr. Combs has been notably neutral on the project’s merits, expressing skepticism (as a qualified expert in planning) about whether it will “pencil out” in the RFQ process, and in no wise being a partisan for it.
Meanwhile, over at MPFPD, the actual expert on fire safety, the Fire Marshal, stated what Menlo Voter has quoted. Rob, the non-expert on fire safety (but probable expert on DEA, policing, and antiterrorism matters), disagrees, which of course is his right, and for that reason tried on Dec. 17 to blindside his colleagues with a resolution overriding the expert’s view, getting Chuck B. to vote with him, but the other three voted “no”. (Watch the posted Dec. 17 meeting video. It’s in there.)
Having not prevailed in that attempt, Rob is now attempting to unseat a Menlo Park Council Member who does not seem to have been a project backer, who is not a member of the Planning Commision, and who’s an elected official of a city that isn’t even the property owner. Because, hey, Rob didn’t like the Commission’s Jan. 13 vote, so someone must pay.
— Rick Moen, who’s happy to be a resident of unincorporated West Menlo
(Web-search my name if contact is needed)
Rick,
Nice summation, much better than my previous comment but definately in agreement.
Rick,
The meeting and discussion were interesting. For anyone interested the topic begins at 28:10. What I didn’t realize but found it quite interesting was the developer has already agreed to add a second emergency access to the project. It will go across private property and the owner of the private property has agreed to allow it to happen but once a gate in place so it is only accessible to emergency vehicles. As noted in the discussion should there be an emergency there is no doubt that the Menlo Park police will Direct private Vehicles out of that access. That sounds like it meets the request for additional safety measures. Those senses across private property and will not be available for public daily use it does not satisfy the concerns around traffic but that is not the reason Rob wants to start a recall of Mayor Combs.
Another tidbit that I picked up is it a second access is required on developments of over 200 units. This development will be 88 units or less than half of the unit that would force that requirement.
Rick:
The same offer as the others.
Oh,
Did you read why many people are disappointed in Drew:
2) Combs represents our district. Combs voted to provide the developer with $1,000,000 dollars of our tax money without requiring them to provide an another one ( ingress/ egress). The council vote was 3/2. Nash and Taylor voted against and Combs voted for with 2 other lame duck council members. Enough.
Rob,
You’re pretty much repeating the same argument and at least to me it makes no sense. The fire department signed off on the project with one access and your own board wouldn’t support your resolution. But I guess if you want to blame somebody you’ll find someone.
Rick:
5) The Developer in November 2024 Council meeting agreed to build a second one, since an emergency one was already in the plans.
Your comment:
Can you imagine a special district attempting to exercise the power of eminent domain against not merely a meritorious social-service nonprofit but also the State of California? Maybe I skipped that day’s class materials in my law classes, but I’m pretty sure special districts doing the latter is Not A Thing.
Wrong:
Only a Recommendation to add for safety. Look at the Agenda’s Staff report and the attachment of the recommendation. The Document I prepared was without more of the specific details that the residents provided. Items have been prepared using posted documents for review and editing in the past.
I stand by my Fire Board’s majority decision.
All my actions are as a private citizen, which is our right as residents of District 2.
I’m glad you follow are fire Board meetings so closely.
Offer to meet still stands,
Best,
Rob: I don’t need to meet with you so you can try to feed me the same BS you’re trying to here. I’ve lived in MP for over 30 years and I am familiar with your neighborhood. I am also familiar with what you first said when this project first was proposed and it wasn’t about safety, it was about traffic through your neighborhood. Then it morphed into “safety”. I said at the time that if the fire marshal didn’t think it was safe they could kill the project. The problem you have is that the fire marshal doesn’t have a problem with it, so he approved it. He’s the expert, not you. You keep saying other posters and I are “wrong”, yet my quoting of the fire marshal’s statement has been confirmed, in fact, to be right. So, please, why should I waste my valuable time to meet with you and let you attempt to blow smoke up my skirt? I assure you, you won’t convince me safety is an issue when an actual expert says it’s not.
Ok, Brian, Rich, Metro Voter, Concerned but realistic: sad you won’t meet, coffee or drinks on me!
Sent to Almanac: Eleanor
Morning:
I just posted on the thread. Would the Almanac want to sponsor some type of form for all these projects? I would love to participate. I can get you some public safety experts, as myself, to participate. It’s a hot topic, it’s not going away. Huge question: how do we build them, safety, and the entire community welcomes them.
Best,
Rob
Rob,
It looks like you’re really getting off topic here. According to all the experts this development is safe and meets all requirements and even goes beyond that by having the second access point your requesting for emergency vehicles. So safety does not seem to be an issue, it’s just a red herring.
The main topic, and the one the article is about, is a recall of Mayor Combs and nothing that you have said has indicated why he deserves to be recalled. The only example you put forward is that he voted to approve the project which was deemed safe by the fire department, meets and exceeds the required code, and even the fire board on which you sit would not endorse your request to require a second Public Access. Furthermore you seem upset that the Planning Commission approved this project but Mayor Combs does not sit on the planning commission anymore, and to my knowledge has no control over how any member on the planning Commission votes. If you have any proof for the contrary I would love to hear it. In the meantime I ask again for a legitimate reason to start a recall? Personally I would assume that that would need to be something that he has done wrong, not something he has done correctly that you just don’t agree with.
It’s my opinion that the Almanac does not need to host a forum on this topic because based on past comments and this article as well as the comment in this article, the only thing that can be done to satisfy your concerns is to open up a second Public Access into a different neighborhood at a huge cost so that Suburban Park does not have to deal with the additional traffic. And while I can understand how this would be something that you and other residents of Suburban Park would want I don’t think it should be done at a cost to taxpayers. I actually voted for the initiative put forth by Suburban Park residents and that failed in the city wide vote, as you are aware. Getting the fire department to attempt to require a second Public Access also failed as a single access for a development that size is well within the code. Attempting to get the fire board to force a second Public Access also failed primarily because they do not have the authority to make that requirement but also because three of the members of the fire board disagreed with you. Now you’re threatening to recall a person who really doesn’t have anything to do with the project and who could not require what you want. Frankly it doesn’t make any sense to me.
As for meeting for coffee I agree with the other people who posted that there hasn’t been an argument put forward that would benefit from discussion. Everything from the fire code to the fire marshal to the fire department board has agreed that safety is not an issue on this project so what would be worth discussing?
Thanks Eleanor,
——-
Hi Rob,
Just saw your comment about the possibility of a forum.
I sent your request to my editor but have not yet gotten a response! I will let you know when I hear back.
Cheers,
Eleanor Raab
Staff Writer, Almanac News
2345 Yale Ave, Fl. 1
Palo Alto, CA 94306
You may be disappointed but I doubt if anybody is surprised. It seems that only people pushing this topic are the same ones that raise the issue of traffic before switching over to the issue of safety. As I stated above, which you did not reply to, the second access seems to have already been included in the plans and it will be going across private property so it will not be a public access. However as was stated in your own Fire District board meeting the Menlo Park police would allow public use of that in an emergency. So it seems that your issue of a second access in an emergency has already been addressed in the developer has agreed to provide it. So I will ask again what is it that Drew Combs has done that warrant a recall effort?
Almanac response to Forum on these projects in Menlo Park
———
Thank you for your consideration, evaluation, and review. People are preparing the appeal to the city of Menlo Park on the Planning Commission’s decision. Very disappointing that the Almanac has taken this stand.
Best,
Rob
Robert J. Silano
140 Hedge Rd
Menlo Park,
CA.
94025
Cellular: 650-576-3481
—————————————————————————————————–
On Jan 27, 2025, at 1:00 PM, Clay Lambert wrote:

Greetings from The Almanac. Eleanor and I have discussed your kind offer to help with some forum about the development of the Flood School site and perhaps other housing projects in the city. We appreciate the offer.
At this time, we can’t put together such a forum but will continue to watch the issue carefully. It is clearly an important part of the city and an interesting plan.
Thanks again for your interest in The Almanac and for your obvious interest in your community.
Clay
Clay Lambert
Peninsula Editorial Director
Palo Alto Weekly, Menlo Park Almanac,
Mountain View Voice, RWCPulse
2345 Yale St. Fl. 1
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Rob: Read the room. You’re wrong. Everyone knows you’re wrong but you. You persist in trying to flog the “safety” issue when it is clear, it’s not an issue. The fire marshal has approved it, there will be secondary access in the event of emergency and it meets or exceeds all building and fire codes. So, it’s clear to everyone that the real issue is you don’t want the added traffic in your neighborhood, which is what you said when this project was first proposed. You’re being disingenuous trying to claim its about safety. By the way, you may be an expert in some aspects of public safety, namely law enforcement, but you’re not when it comes to fire safety. The Fire Marshal is.
Couldn’t agree more. But more to the point, Silano really hasn’t given any information that would support a recall. Everything so far just looks like he is just upset because traffic will go through his community.
Morning:
While gathering documents, I found 2 that additionally add to the my safety concerns;
1) Fire Inspection Report:
Fire Prevention has identified 9 areas of concern for this project. The Fire District has not approved this project. Whoever wants a copy, I’ll mail it to you.
2) Copy of Email from City Manager to Mayor Combs:
DISAPPOINTING:
I WAS JUST GIVEN THIS EMAIL YESTERDAY…..
There is an email involving the Caltrans Green belt for the city to identify properties surrounding the project, for construction of a second egress. Mayor Combs instructed the city manager to look into it, ( I have a copy) provided to me for the appeal documentation.
It was not Mayor Combs fault that the city did not follow up on the research, it was city staff that dropped the ball, not fully exploring the other option, and not contacting Sen. Becker’s Office for follow up. Many of my concerns and his should rest with his ( Comb’s) confidence in city staff that let him down, causing a sloppy review of this project. If I was Combs, heads would roll. Lives are in the balance here, and a sloppy work product is pure gross negligence on the city staff’s part.
.
What other waivers or ” side deals” has city staff provided the developer here without ” open transparency ” to the council and community.
Many reasons for residents to be upset here and public safety professionals are alarmed.
These items will be presented during the appeal presentation to the city council because of the ruling of the Planning Commission.
Stay tuned.
Rob:
What is the date of the fire inspection report you reference?
Metro voter go get it
It’s Menlo Voter, Rob. I don’t need to get anything. You need to prove your claim. I asked a question about it. You want people to believe your claim you need to provide important facts. One being when was the inspection report written in relation to the submission and approval by the fire marshal. If it was before, one would think that it was addressed prior to the fire marshal’s approval. If those things weren’t, then see my previous statement about maybe you need a new fire marshal and we voters should think about the board that appointed him when they are up for reelection.
Menlo Voter:
Menlo Park Fire did their job with the report and recommendations. DONE
PGE analysis of the overhead power lines over Sheridan Dr. DONE violation of CFC. D105.
Menlo Fire has not approved the project. Ref: MPFPD Report#
MPRC24-0106
Have a good day. Sent an email to the Palo Alto Daily Post with this information too. Good Day.
Rob,
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the fire marshal approve this project? You cite a report, with no link to that report, but it contradicts all the other information. I find it hard to believe without reading it myself and understanding the context which includes when this report was written what was done to address the Fire Marshal’s concerns and why they ultimately approved the project. If they approved it without project updates to address the concerns then I think you have a problem with your Fire Marshall and need to address that within the fire department. The more information you post the more it looks like an indictment on the fire department, not mayor Combs.
Go there, I provided the report number; go get it or identify yourself, I’ll mail to you. Stop hiding, come out, be part of ” open transparency “. It appears you won’t. The Plan Checking Group at the fire district does a great job.
I guess you don’t want to answer questions, not that you are required to. It just strikes me as strange that you do it so much.
Plenty of people know who I am, why is that so important for you? Will it change you position or your comments?
Maybe if I knew you, you would get more credibility. That’s fine too. Go by and get the report. You have all the information you need to make it easy.
Rob,
That’s fine I’m not really concerned about my credibility in your eyes. People who know me know that my questions and my points speak for themselves. I don’t ask anybody to trust what I say just because it’s me saying it, I base my arguments on facts and I try to ask relevant questions giving people an opportunity to clarify what they’re saying. Some people choose to do that and some people choose not to.
I’m curious if you were part of the appeal of the planning commissions decision to the city council? If not do you plan on submitting your own appeal?
As for the document you referenced, if you’re not willing to share it and any follow-on documents related to the project I’m not really sure if it’s worth my time to go get it. I say that because the end result was the Menlo Park City Fire Marshal approving the project and that tells me that any concerns that s/he had were either alleviated or changes were made to rectify them. If they weren’t then please explain how the project was signed off on by both the city fire marshal and the fire board who chose not to require your second public access point?
I look forward to hearing your response.
Rob,
Sorry I don’t understand your post, though it does come across as a threat to me. What I do understand is that you fail to answer questions and that shows me you are unable or unwilling to do so. If you can’t support your own claims so be it, I am sure that reflects on someones credibility…
It looks like the post I was referring to has been removed.