A decision, but little clarity on 1300 El Camino

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

An 11th-hour letter and shifting political winds marked the latest — though perhaps not final — chapter in the history of a real estate development proposal that has seen its share of theatrics as it navigated the treacherous waters of Menlo Park’s political scene.

Initially proposed at twice its current size, with 134 apartment units and 80,000 feet of commercial space, the plan for a retail/office building at the site of the defunct Cadillac dealership on El Camino Real cleared the City Council in a 4-1 vote on Oct. 6. The parcel sits at 1300 El Camino Real, between Glenwood and Oak Grove avenues.

Council members could have required the developer to build 36 condominium units. Instead, they elected to approve the project with no housing included, but hold out hope that the developer will return with a new proposal to build housing on the site.

If the four-year struggle to plan for one of the four abandoned auto dealerships along El Camino Real didn’t feature quite as many twists and turns as a Raymond Chandler novel, it had at least as much confusion.

What do community members want? Where do council members stand? What is the developer willing to build?

Those questions have dogged the project from the start, and the latest council meeting on the project didn’t do much to answer any of them.

It did, however, raise a batch of new questions. Does the developer intend to build the project the council approved, or merely use the approval to secure retail tenants? Will the council’s vote mean shutters for Draeger’s market? (The owners of the market said they might close if the project is approved as is.)

And who sent the 29-page letter (plus hundreds of pages of other documents) that arrived at City Hall two hours before the council meeting began, urging the council to postpone a vote because the city’s environmental review of the project had underestimated its potential effect on the ozone and climate change?

New proposal

At the council’s Oct. 6 meeting, Jeff Warmoth of Sand Hill Property Co., which owns the site, offered to return to the council with a third proposal to develop the property — after previously telling The Almanac he would refuse any offer to make a new proposal, even if it meant a bigger building.

“That’s your own demise, in my opinion,” Councilman Rich Cline told Mr. Warmoth. “I wouldn’t do it.” Earlier in the meeting, Mr. Cline had called Mr. Warmoth a victim in the city’s process. “You’ve been ping-ponged around a little bit,” he said.

Sand Hill Property Co. pulled its original proposal in the fall of 2006 when residents led a successful referendum drive to repeal council approval of the adjoining Derry project, which would have changed density allowances for the Cadillac site as well.

When Sand Hill returned to the council in early 2007, the city was in the early stages of developing new zoning rules for parcels along El Camino Real. The council, wanting to keep the community together, indicated that it wasn’t willing to consider allowing anything beyond what the current general plan called for.

At last week’s council meeting, however, council members suggested that they might be willing to consider a new proposal more in line with the guidelines of the “emerging plan” for El Camino Real and the downtown area, scheduled to be completed in October 2010. Mayor Heyward Robinson repeated an offer he had made to Mr. Warmoth in private, asking if he would return with a new proposal that would include high-density housing.

Happily, Mr. Warmoth said — if the city could process his plans in time for a council vote in six months.

City staff members said it would be a struggle to get the plans completed within a year, unless it shifts attention away from other major projects. Without asking Mr. Warmoth if the new time frame would work, or offering guidance on the type of project they would be willing to accept, council members invited him to return with a new plan.

In an interview, Mr. Warmoth said he intends to begin discussions with the city “in the next few weeks” on coming up with an expedited review process for a new application.

“Now we have an opportunity for a win-win project,” Mr. Warmoth said. “Hopefully we’ll come out with a project that gets the community more of what they want.”

“I’d hate to give expectations we can’t live by,” said City Manager Glen Rojas.

Council discussion

Councilman John Boyle, who dissented in the council’s 4-1 vote approving the project without housing, said he believed Mr. Robinson and Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson were only paying “lip service” to the prospect of the council hashing out a new deal with Mr. Warmoth. “I can’t see that happening,” he said, though he noted that he would support a plan for greater density at the site, if it included housing.

When it came to the project proposal on the table, Mr. Boyle and Ms. Fergusson seemed to switch positions, based on earlier comments they had made.

After saying she would be reluctant to approve a project for the site that didn’t include housing, Ms. Fergusson voted for a proposal that included no housing.

After saying that it wouldn’t be fair to force the developer to add housing to the project while staying within the general plan, Mr. Boyle proposed that the council do just that.

“I think you caught me after I had talked to Warmoth, and I was feeling especially sympathetic for him,” he told this reporter. “But as I continued to think about it and talk to more people, I think I came around to the conclusion that fundamentally, this is a location that begs for transit-oriented development. That’s the real bottom line.”

Ms. Fergusson said she was confident that housing will be part of the plans when the dust finally settles. “I don’t think we had to condition that, it’s simply a matter of market forces,” she said. She was under the impression that Mr. Warmoth had been studying a dense housing proposal all along, she said, though that was not the case.

At the meeting, council members did not seriously weigh the possibility of approving the project with housing included. Asked why he didn’t support requiring Mr. Warmoth to build housing, Mr. Robinson said, noting that the proposal fits within the general plan: “I’m not comfortable telling a private property owner what to build. … It doesn’t make any sense to me” to approve a project the developer has said he is reluctant to carry out.

Nor did they spend much time discussing the potential impacts of the project on Draeger’s.

By the end of the meeting, council members were tired, and on to other concerns. Ms. Fergusson added a condition that the operation of the buildings emit no greenhouse gases. She later suggested that Mr. Warmoth consider renting space to a craft brew pub.

Mr. Robinson added a provision that the vacant dealership be torn down within 200 days, citing graffiti and feral cats. “They’re an eyesore, they’re graffiti magnets,” he said. “Generally nothing good happens on those sites.”

What’s next?

The haggling and confusion over how to proceed with developing the site has only served to underscore the city’s need for a long-term plan, council members said, so it can avoid similar debates over other vacant parcels.

The council has been criticized for not taking the “long-term” view and pushing for a higher-density housing project near the train station, as environmental advocates have urged it to do.

But those who want the council to change the city’s rules before the community-driven plan is complete haven’t learned the lessons of the city’s history, Councilman Cline said.

People “believe so much in the cause that they want you to jump the process,” he said. “I think that’s poor planning, it’s misdirected. People in Menlo Park are tired of that approach to government, and their trust in the council will be broken in one vote on a Tuesday night that way. … Abiding by the current policy is the right thing to do,” even if that policy is outdated.

Several council members offered a gentle reminder that this is only one of many sites for possible development, saying that each site doesn’t necessarily call for housing.

What’s next? Will Mr. Warmoth be able to steer a new development proposal through city bureaucracy in a reasonable amount of time? Will he wait for the city to come up with new zoning guidelines, lining up tenants and resolving various utility and right of way issues in the meantime? Will he simply proceed with the project he has already been cleared to build?

It would probably take a detective of Phillip Marlowe’s caliber to figure that one out.

Related stories:

■ Missed chance for housing?

■ Mysterious letter challenges El Camino project

■ Draeger’s raises questions about protecting local businesses