There are six candidates vying for three open seats on the Menlo Park City Council, but to many of the city’s voters, the decision doesn’t come down to six choices, it comes down to two: Stick with the current council majority, or support the majority’s three opponents.
The city’s political spectrum is centered on a rivalry that features two camps — groups that don’t have official titles, but essentially mobilize and act like political parties — in constant competition for a majority of seats on the five-person council.
Council members Lee Duboc and Mickie Winkler, part of the current council majority, are running for re-election. The incumbents have tapped political newcomer John Boyle, a recent appointee to the Transportation Commission, to run with them as a slate.
Mayor Nicholas Jellins, the third member of the current council majority, is not seeking another term.
Candidates Boyle, Duboc, and Winkler have similar political views, and all of their names appear on the same campaign signs and literature. The three candidates also share a Web site.
Members of the other camp say they are running independent campaigns, but they are united in their opposition to the majority. The “opponents” are Linfield Oaks resident Vincent Bressler and parks and recreation commissioners Richard Cline and Heyward Robinson.
The two sides see eye-to-eye on some issues, as all six candidates support Measure K, the utility tax measure that will go before voters Nov. 7; and the candidates also expressed initial support for General Motors’ plan to build an auto mall on Bayfront Expressway at Willow Road.
But when it comes to most major issues, the candidates and a bulk of the city’s residents are divided. Below are some examples of where the candidates stand on several hot-button issues.
Derry project
The three opponents supported what now looks to be a successful referendum campaign against the recently approved Derry condo-commercial project, arguing the city should have gotten more concessions from the developer for granting a high-density residential project in a traditionally commercial part of the city.The Derry project includes plans for 135 condominiums and 22,525 square feet of commercial space on a 3.4-acre site bounded by El Camino Real, Oak Grove Avenue and the train tracks. In approving the project 4-1, the council also approved increasing density at the site from 18.5 homes per acre to 40 homes per acre.
Referendum proponents say the project is too dense, and will have serious impacts on traffic and schools.
“Developers, rather than residents, are driving the vision of El Camino Real,” said Mr. Bressler. “This isn’t about killing the project, it’s about reviewing it, and seeing if people are really OK with this kind of density.”
“[The Derry project] is designed very nicely, but the city gave away a density bonus,” said Mr. Cline. “I want to keep the project alive, but step back and look at a comprehensive plan for the entire El Camino corridor.”
Members of Menlo Park Tomorrow, the residents’ group leading the referendum drive, say they acquired more than the required 1,850 signatures — 10 percent of the city’s registered voters — to force the council to rescind approval of the project or put it to voters in a special election.
The valid signature tally, estimated at about 2,400 by the residents’ group after it did an initial screening of the nearly 3,000 signatures gathered, has yet to be verified by the county elections office.
The majority candidates said the referendum campaign was politically motivated, as opposition to the project came at the last minute of a review process that spanned over two years.
“[Referendum proponents] put their own campaign and their political agenda ahead of the rest of the city,” said Mr. Boyle. “The same people who supported the referendum support our opponents.”
All three candidates said they are confident the project, if it goes before voters, will win approval.
Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler, who voted to approve the project when it came before the council, said that contrary to the referendum proponents’ arguments, the city got “substantial public benefits” from the project, including 21 below-market-rate homes, park-in-lieu funds, street improvements and transit-oriented homes.
“This project is what our community needs,” Ms. Duboc said. “It’s a project that makes El Camino Real more livable.”
Mr. Robinson said that aspects of the project that have been referred to as “benefits” are actually “baseline requirements.”
Bayfront Park
The two camps have drastically different takes on Measure J, the advisory measure that asks voters if the city should pursue building sports fields on no more than 17 acres of Bayfront Park, the 160-acre park off Marsh Road.The park is built atop a capped landfill, meaning constructing fields could be costly. Initial estimates total about $1 million an acre — about $15 to $17 million to build four fields. The estimate does not include the costs of maintaining the fields or the landfill.
All six council candidates say that, if elected, they will honor the results of the vote, but because Measure J is an advisory measure, the results are nonbinding.
Environmentalists and other community leaders — including the “opponent” candidates — say high costs and environmental issues will likely keep fields from ever being built at the park. The park is adjacent to a wildlife refuge and the Bay.
Supporters of the measure, including the three “majority” candidates, say the park is the city’s best option for building much-needed fields. They are backed by many local sports participants.
“There are challenges and negatives to BP, but it’s our only viable alternative,” Mr. Boyle said.
The three majority candidates have publicly championed support of the measure, and have made the measure a cornerstone of their campaign.
There is no committee in favor of Measure J, and the only literature mailed to voters that calls for support of the measure is funded and distributed by candidates Boyle, Duboc and Winkler.
“Voting against Measure J is a vote against having fields in this community,” Ms. Winkler said. “We’re just polling the community for permission to go forward.”
The opponent candidates say that the measure is misleading and its main purpose is to garner votes from local sports groups.
“There’s been no education about how likely it really is that fields could be built at the park,” said Mr. Bressler, an AYSO board member.
“Just because you have a severe need does not justify a bad project,” Mr. Robinson said. “Here we are with a budget deficit, and we’re talking about spending $17 million.”
As parks and recreation commissioners, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Cline helped author a report to the council recommending that existing fields at Burgess and Kelly parks be reconfigured as cheaper and faster alternatives for adding field space.
Ms. Duboc, who was presented the report as a member of the council, said the ideas put forward by the report would create “bigger fields, not additional fields.”
The measure’s opponents, including candidates Bressler and Robinson and members of the No on J committee, say that if fields are built at Bayfront Park, funding will be stripped from other recreation projects, including the impending remodel of the Burgess Gym.
The majority candidates say they have no plans to derail the Burgess Gym remodel.
The only major funding source identified by city staff is $6.5 million in park-in-lieu fees tied to upcoming development projects that could go toward building fields.
The majority candidates have floated using funds from Measure A — the countywide sales tax increase that will go before voters Nov. 7 — to fund building fields at the park.
The city is expected to collect about $330,000 annually if Measure A passes — funds they say could be used to pay off bonds.
Privatization
All six candidates say that, if elected, they wouldn’t rule out privatizing city services, but the two camps still have widely divergent views how to approach outsourcing city services.Candidates Boyle, Duboc and Winkler said there is still potential for privatizing the city’s child care programs, although a recent request for proposals ended prematurely after the one serious bidder withdrew her proposal, citing public opposition to taking the program out of the city’s hands.
The three majority candidates also defend the privatization of the city’s $6.8 million, publicly funded aquatics center. The council voted 3-2 to approve a no-bid, rent-free contract four weeks after the private operator came forward with his proposal. Council members Duboc, Winkler and Nicholas Jellins cast the “yes” votes.
“The way I see it is, you have your essential city services — law enforcement, building, infrastructure, maintenance, the Belle Haven programs, and the library — and everything else, if appropriate, can be considered [for privatization],” Ms. Duboc said. “It’s not that we’ve had a major shift toward privatization. We’ve always contracted out a lot of services.”
She pointed to some of the city’s recreation programs, and some senior services, which are run by outside firms.
Ms. Winkler said that if re-elected, she would urge the council to put the child care programs back out to bid.
Mr. Bressler, who in the past has supported calls by Ms. Winkler to privatize recreation programs, said he “is not against privatization,” but the council has pursued privatization without the financial motive to do so.
“In the case of the pool, that deal was done in a way that does not represent that the facility was built with public money,” he said. “Even with the child care [programs], the financials never revealed a good case for privatization.
Ms. Winkler maintains that the city saved $415,000 by privatizing the aquatics center, a figure that has come into question.
“What we have here are procedural breakdowns,” Mr. Cline said. “In the privatization debate, you have to increase quality or decrease costs. I’m not sure we got the best deal with the pool … and the financial argument for the child care programs was never convincing,” he said.
Mr. Robinson called the city’s solicitation of proposals from private firms to operate the child care programs “a colossal waste of time,” pointing to the fact that estimated cost savings of privatizing the programs dropped significantly after the effort had been launched.
Mr. Boyle acknowledged that the pool process “would have been better with a request for proposals, but given time constraints and other variables, it wasn’t a bad decision.” He said he is a proponent of “competitive bidding,” but the city should wait for the results of a “cost allocation study” — in which a consultant will determine how to cut costs by making city programs more efficient — before deciding what programs are worth privatizing.
Candidates Boyle and Cline were members of a city-sponsored committee that was set to make a recommendation to the council on which operator should run the city’s child care programs. After initially viewing the proposals, Mr. Boyle supported the lone private company that bid on the programs, and Mr. Cline favored the city’s existing programs.
Employee costs
The privatization debate is also a key component of how to address the rising costs associated with employee retirement and health benefits.Candidates agree that personnel costs, which have increased 27 percent over the last five years despite a 13 percent drop in the number of full-time-equivalent employees, are a big issue.
“These costs are the biggest challenge facing our city.” Mr. Cline said.
“We have a huge tsunami awaiting us in our retirement and pension costs,” Ms. Duboc said.
Of the $32.5 million the city plans to spend this fiscal year, some $2.8 million — about 9 percent — will go to cover pension costs for city employees.
The city also owes employees post-retirement health benefits that total about $860,000 a year.
Although the council candidates said restructuring the benefits of new hires and creating a “two-tier” system sound appealing, it may be hard to implement.
“I’d love to see a two-tiered system implemented, but it’s difficult to do,” Ms. Winkler said. “In some cases, like with our safety employees, we have to do everything we can to retain employees.”
She added that the city has “a little more leeway” with non-safety employees, as the city can privatize services and decrease the total number of employees.
“If you contain your employee costs, you contain your budget costs,” she said.
Mr. Bressler said in their push to privatize city services, Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler have “vilified” the Service Employees International Union Local 715 and the city employees they represent.
“We need to look at what we can offer employees today, rather than years from now,” he said. “Maybe we can pay more upfront through higher salaries rather than backload our expenses.”
Candidates Boyle and Robinson emphasized that the city can’t go at solving rising employee costs by itself.
“This is really a much bigger issue than just our city,” Mr. Boyle said. “In the long-term, this is a state and regional issue.”
Lee Duboc
Experience: Present: Menlo Park City Council member since 2002, served as mayor in 2004; San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority board member; San Mateo County Emergency Services Council board member, San Francisco Airport Noise Roundtable board member; South San Mateo County Healthcare Task Force board member. Former: parks and recreation commissioner, 1989-1998 and 2001-2002; steering committee member for the 2001 campaign to pass Measure T; Menlo Park-Atherton Foundation board member; Menlo Park Youth Commission liaison; Friends of Menlo Park Gymnastics, board and founding member.Profession: Incumbent, volunteer
Education: BA in political science, Stanford University
Age: 51
John Boyle
Experience: Present: transportation commissioner; Budget Advisory Committee member; Child Care RFP Committee member; Entrepreneurs’ Foundation Council member; Samaritan House board member; Menlo Park-Atherton Foundation board member; Oak Knoll Site Council member; sports coach.Profession: Venture capitalist, volunteer, father
Education: MBA, Stanford University. BS in engineering, Purdue University
Age: 48
Vincent Bressler
Experience: Present: AYSO board member, sports coach, Linfield Oaks neighborhood activist.Profession: Software systems consultant
Education: MS in electrical engineering, Stanford. BS in electrical engineering, University of Utah.
Age: 42
Richard Cline
Experience: Present: parks and recreation commissioner; Child Care RFP Committee member. Former: Playing Fields Task Force chair; Off-leash Dog Park Task Force chair; Bayfront Park Task Force member; Child Care RFP Committee member; sports coach.Profession: President, Palo Alto-based Voce Communications
Education: BA in journalism, California State University, Hayward.
Age: 37
Mickie Winkler
Experience: Present: Menlo Park City Council member since 2002, served as mayor in 2005; Dumbarton Rail Committee member; Gateway 2020 Committee member; San Mateo County Emergency Committee member; Grand Boulevard Committee member. Former: housing commissioner; Project Read volunteer; English in Action volunteer.Profession: Incumbent, retired marketing executive
Education: BA in political science, University of Rochester. National Defense Education Act fellow, University of Chicago
Age: 69
Heyward Robinson
Experience: Present: parks and recreation commissioner; contributed to Playing Fields Task Force report on status of playing fields; Oak Knoll School volunteer; Menlo Park environmental award recipient; Eagle Scout; sports coach.Profession: Senior research engineer, SRI International
Education: Ph.D. in materials science, Stanford University. BS in mechanical engineering, Duke University.
Age: 48
How council camps line up
Two camps are fighting for three open seats on the Menlo Park City Council. Here’s how the candidates line up.
MAJORITY CAMP: John Boyle, Lee Duboc, Mickie Winkler. (Duboc and Winkler are council incumbents. Councilman Nicholas Jellins is not seeking re-election, but Boyle backs this camp.
• Running as a slate of three candidates.
•Against Derry referendum campaign.
• Supports Measure J, and building fields at Bayfront Park.
• Supports privatization, including efforts to privatize aquatics center and child care programs.
• All endorsed by Silicon Valley Association of Realtors; the residents’ group Menlo Park Matters; Mayor Nicholas Jellins; former mayors Bob Burmeister, Robert McNamara, Robert Stephens and Raymond “Dee” Tolles.
OPPONENTS’ CAMP: Vincent Bressler, Richard Cline, Heyward Robinson:
• Say they are running individual campaigns, but united against majority camp.
• Supports Derry referendum campaign
•Against Measure J, and building fields at Bayfront Park.
•Open to privatization, but against majority’s privatization efforts.
•All endorsed by members of Menlo Park Tomorrow, the residents’ group that led the referendum campaign against the Derry project; and the Sierra Club. Candidates Cline and Robinson are endorsed by the Service Employees International Union Local 715; the San Mateo County Central Labor Council; and the San Mateo County Democratic Party.
Omakase World Market brings diverse array of dining options to South San Francisco campus June 16, 2026 12:42 pm