News

Menlo Park: Stanford mixed-use project to undergo environmental impact analysis

 

For such a contentious issue, there's agreement more often than not between Stanford University and the Menlo Park City Council over what needs to happen next regarding the university's proposed mixed-use complex at 500 El Camino Real.

During a discussion on Oct. 1 of a neighborhood cut-through traffic study by W-Trans, the council agreed that an environmental impact analysis of the complex was a logical step -- a step that Stanford said it supported in a letter to the city. The downtown/El Camino Real specific plan calls for such a project-level review whenever a proposed project may have impacts beyond those analyzed by the specific plan.

However, because of the amount of cut-through traffic projected by the W-Trans study, the council also thought there was an opportunity to refine the proposal further before determining the parameters of the EIR.

The analysis projects 528 more daily trips along Middle Avenue if Stanford builds the mixed-use complex. The specific plan anticipated an additional 222 daily trips from whatever was built within the entire plan area. According to the city's transportation staff, the street already accommodates about 10,717 trips a day.

"When it jumps up by 320, that's concerning to me," said Mayor Ray Mueller. Continuing with a comparison of traffic to water flowing through pipes made earlier by city staff, he said: "Like any set of pipes, we have a leak, right? And the leak is what's happening on Middle and University and in Allied Arts.... The specific plan is working perfectly. It's working perfectly, because it's identified where the leak is."

Now the question is how to fix the leak, he said, and to do so before the EIR is conducted. "Maybe the fix is, you reduce a little of the square footage you're putting in." A redesign of the project by Stanford University could get the traffic projections in line with those anticipated by the specific plan, according to Mr. Mueller.

The picture was better for the impact to El Camino Real: As a whole, the specific plan assumed 4,842 trips generated by 500 El Camino Real; the current mixed-use proposal is projected to create 3,115.

Like Transportation Commissioner Adina Levin, who spoke during public comment, Councilman Peter Ohtaki urged the city to look at traffic mitigation measures as rigorously as possible in the EIR. That may include project modification, but also should include an aggressive look at trip reduction policies that would encourage people to use nearby public transit. "So we can go back to the community and say we've got a solution here," he said.

Vice Mayor Cat Carlton agreed about refining the project further before the EIR and looking at traffic mitigation; she suggested considering how opening up a third lane on El Camino Real would affect the traffic impacts. An El Camino Real corridor study is currently underway, although it could take some time to complete.

Councilman Rich Cline was unable to attend Wednesday's meeting, but spoke to the Almanac the next day. He said that the traffic data needs to be considered in context -- it would add about 500 new daily trips on Middle Avenue over a span of 20 years or so.

Compared with that of other cities, Menlo Park's threshold for impact is so low as to be misleading, according to Mr. Cline. The city's transportation staff has said that Menlo Park regards an impact as an added 50 trips or more, whereas in Los Altos or Palo Alto, that trigger would be 2,100 new daily trips for a street similar to Middle Avenue.

Mr. Cline acknowledged the counterargument that Menlo Park isn't Los Altos or Palo Alto. "Right - why should Menlo Park be part of the region? If you ask other communities who have to deal with the impacts of housing and traffic and schools ... most people you ask will say yeah, Menlo Park has stood in a really weird place. Politically, they haven't been very collaborative."

That argument becomes "a poison pill for everything. And it is used for everything. It was used on the Derry project -- 'this is not what Menlo Park wants.' Menlo Gateway. ... 'this is not what Menlo Park wants.' It's been a constant 'this is not what Menlo Park wants'."

Rather than being based on data, he said, it becomes an emotional, subjective debate much like the one over what constitutes "village character."

"We have got to look at the bottom-line impacts over a 20-year period, look at it realistically with a broader view than 'I live a block from there'," Mr. Cline said. "The council has to represent 33,000 people. And I think a lot of good comes out of these projects and there are some impacts that will never be mitigated for people living near there."

Comments

1 person likes this
Posted by Skeptic
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Cline's comments make little sense. So how would Stanford project traffic get spread over 20 years? Won't it come when the project is done in just a few years???
The community asked loud and clear in visioning process to retain small town character. How do large office buildings fit that?? How does huge increase in traffic fit that? Community members just said same thing in the general plan update workshops. Cline is whining that residents keep saying this. He's the one out of line.

Cline and rest of council prefer their own personal vision to what we residents said and heard others say. The council just isn't listening. We need new members who will.


1 person likes this
Posted by dana Hendrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm

"He (KLine) said that the traffic data needs to be considered in context -- it would add about 500 new daily trips on Middle Avenue over a span of 20 years or so."

The number discussed in this column are projections of traffic growth by 2035, NOT when Stanford has completed its project. Read the report and listen to the minutes from the council review and this is obvious. If you are going to malign the current council members at least have your facts straight. Unlike you I have confidence in the council, Specific Plan, the consultants, Stanford and our entire community and could not be happier that we are moving forward with a Stanford EIR based on sound analysis, consideration of traffic congestion and growth management, e.g., policies, mitigation, and input from Stanford and our community reprsentatives.

By the way, I doubt that most residents feel the Menlo Park stretcth of El Camino has "small town character"; only the properties with office buildings and the new residential development are attractive. Otherwise, is a tired suburban commercial HIGHWAY. And the vacant parcels certainly are an eyesore.


Like this comment
Posted by Flush
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 1:01 pm

That's the sound that Rich Cline's campaign just made.
Someone should email this article to everyone living anywhere near El Camino.




1 person likes this
Posted by Skeptic
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm

The general traffic growth is over a number of years but the increment attributable to the Stanford project will occur when it is complete. That is in a few years if it is built.


1 person likes this
Posted by George C. Fisher
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm

"He (KLine) said that the traffic data needs to be considered in context -- it would add about 500 new daily trips on Middle Avenue over a span of 20 years or so."

The number discussed in this column are projections of traffic growth by 2035, NOT when Stanford has completed its project. Read the report and listen to the minutes from the council review and this is obvious."

THESE STATEMENTS ARE BLATANTLY FALSE, which is even worse when made to support false claims against others. The March 7, 2014 W- Trans report clearly stated on Table 7 page 10, that on a daily basis the proposed [Stanford] Project is expected to generate 528 trips on Middle compared to the 87 that were projected to be added on this street in the specific Plan EIR from development on this site" That is not over 30 years it is from the project when built. Figure 8 of the current September 25, 2014 report lists these same numbers as Daily projected added roadway segment volumes with no changes. Neither statement has anything to do with a future 20 years. The reports state what they state, whatever city council says.

The article in correctly states the increase is only 322 trips, it is 441 trips. The specific plan EIR on Middle was off by a factor of 6 times. The Am and Pm numbers are off by greater factors from seven to sixteen times.







Like this comment
Posted by Edward Syrett
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 2, 2014 at 1:52 pm

If you are willing to look as far ahead as 2035, consider this. Building all this office space in exactly the wrong place will revive the pressure to convert Willow Road into Willow Expressway, similar to Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto, and connecting through (eventually) to Sand Hill Road so that Willow Expwy./Sand Hill Rd. becomes a 101-to-280 connector just like Oregon Expwy./Page Mill Rd.

When my wife and I first moved to the Willows in the late 1960s, there was a push to create the Willow Expressway. We went door-to-door as part of the grass-roots campaign to stop that. We've held the line for nearly 50 years, but I see this Stanford mega-project as a battering ram to break down the opposition to the Willow Expressway.

I'm sure Measure M is flawed in ways that will require yet another referendum to fix it. It doesn't prohibit ALL office development in Central Menlo Park, and that's a shame. But what the current council has come up with is clearly a recipe for disaster. It's so well crafted that it needs to be broken so that we can fix it later. The momentum behind this Stanford project is so huge by now that only Measure M can stop it. And it must be stopped.


Like this comment
Posted by George C. Fisher
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 2:03 pm

"By the way, I doubt that most residents feel the Menlo Park stretcth of El Camino has "small town character"; only the properties with office buildings and the new residential development are attractive. Otherwise, is a tired suburban commercial HIGHWAY. And the vacant parcels certainly are an eyesore."

And neither the Specific Plan Vision nor the Specific plan realized the goals expressed, which were adapted by the community, and took many years and $1.5M were impossible because El Camino Real is a "tired . . . commercial highway." Why fiddle with making a balanced use vibrant village character community, when a "tired . . . commercial HIGHWAY divides our town. Why fiddle with Railway under crossing nobody will be able to access because they can't cross that HIGHWAY. I believe many, including Ohtaki and Riggs, support energizing that HIGHWAY by taking out median and trees and making a total 6 lane HIGHWAY making it and EXPRESSWAY.
Why did out school districts allow only one high school and one middle school on other sides of the HIGHWAY, with no reasonable crossing. The proposed bulbouts to help were abandoned in the Specific Plan. My grandson has to be driven to Menlo Atherton High school as high school and middle school kids because of this HIGHWAY, wanted by developers to become an EXPRESSWAY, as infrastructure to handle their massive new office developments.


Like this comment
Posted by Mike Keenly
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 2:12 pm

Something will be built along this section of El Camino, and it will increase traffic. Those are givens. What is not a given is whether Stanford decides to actively work with the neighborhoods and other stakeholders to craft a proposal that benefits both Stanford and the Menlo Park community. We already have a precedent for how this can work successfully: the Safeway shopping center at El Camino and Middle.


Like this comment
Posted by Time to go home
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Oct 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm

Rich Cline should be ashamed of himself. He ran in 2006 in opposition to the we-love-all-big-developments mindset of incuments Duboc and Winkler, who suffered resounding defeat in the election. (Note that the two still attempt to propagandize residents via a city email list that they allegedly purloined. Maybe the Almanac wants to investigate the provenance of that list some day?)

Cline was the open-minded, pro-resident candidate, but I guess eight years of being wined and dined by developers have left their mark on him. With the hubris that too often accompanies long tenure on the council, he now knows better than the residents what is best for them. Rich is a decent guy, but he needs at least four years of civilian existence to get back to his roots and lose the developers-rule mindset. He's beginning to sound way too shrill and self-anointed, sort of like Lee Duboc.


Like this comment
Posted by Time's Out
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 2, 2014 at 3:00 pm

Will the real Rich Cline, please stand up. It was none other than Rich Cline who evoked the threshold for increased traffic on Derry and the Acorn development sites. Neither development succeeded. The first development forced the developers to go back to their drawing board, add up the numbers and give up. The second development was delayed month after month while Rich Cline forced traffic study after traffic study. The window of opportunity for the very modest 10,000 sf medical office was lost and the developer lost the property to the bank.

And yet! And yet, Rich Cline jumped on the Bohannon 850,000 sq. ft. development placing the development on the ballot and supporting it to it's victory.

And yet, And yet, 3 weeks ago Rich Cline approved the Sobrato office Development of 260, 000 sq. ft. when he and his colleagues knew that about to begin was the community process to study the area where Sobrato's office would be built. Does anyone think Mr. Cline cared what the Community input might have been had Sobrato been told to wait until the study was complete?

Rich Cline used the draconian traffic threshold when it suited him and now he finds fault with it. This is just the kind of disingenuousness this city needs to avoid. With every change of guard on the council, there are different political pressures and the residents got pulled one way and then another.

The Specific Plan studied 240,820 sq. ft of office and 474,000 sq. ft. of non residential and 680 units of housing. Those projections for the life of the Specific Plan should be respected. Cline cannot come in now and champion 400,000 sf of office concentrated on one street in the heart of Menlo Park and claim that traffic counts are not important.

8 years is enough. If Cline couldn't deliver in 8 years, 4 more years are not going to help. Throw him and Keith and Ohtaki out and lets find council members who support the spirit of the Specific Plan. Yes on Measure M


1 person likes this
Posted by interested
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Oct 2, 2014 at 3:28 pm

Blood is on the hands of the professional objectors who will do everything and anything they can do get no growth council members elected and cut off progress of any kind.

Derry was referended under the assumption of more negotiations and better public benefit. Back door deals that were never public killed the project. Patti and Morris were in those deals. They continue to claim innocence.

Morris and Patti and the anti-growth gang killed Derry.

Morris and Patti and the anti-growth team took on Bohannon in the same way. Accusations against volunteers and petty insults. Putting out reports claiming destruction of the M2 district.

When the community voted for it by 65%, they went away for a moment.

Now they have a new tactic. Jump on the bandwagon with local residents who are right to ask tough questions, then trick them into thinking that they just want to make the project better. But in the end, they want to kill the entire project by delaying, creating legislation that is deeply flawed. They tricked lots of people in 2006. They tried in 2010 and failed.

It is time to send them packing.

I am grateful Cline wised up after Derry and realized who they are and what they are doing.

Re-elect Cline and the incumbents and keep this city moving in the right direction.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 2, 2014 at 3:31 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The Specific Plan studied 240,820 sq. ft of office and 474,000 sq. ft. of non residential and 680 units of housing."

Wrong - The Specific Plan establishes the maximum allowable NET NEW DEVELOPMENT as follows:
• Residential uses: 680 units; and
• Non-residential uses, including retail, office and
hotel: 474,000 Square Feet.

Why do the Measure M supporters not understand NET NEW?

The Specific Plan also states:
"The Planning Division shall provide the Planning
Commission and City Council with yearly informational
updates of this record. After the granting of entitlements
or building permits for 80 percent or more of either the
maximum residential units or maximum non-residential
square footage, the Community Development Director
will report to the City Council. The Council would then
consider whether it wished to consider amending the
Plan and completing the required environmental review,
or the Council could choose to make no changes in the
Plan. Any development proposal that would result in either
more residences or more commercial development than
permitted by the Specific Plan would be required to apply
for an amendment to the Specific Plan and complete the
necessary environmental review.
Ongoing Review of Specific Plan
The Specific Plan constitutes a significant and complex
revision of the existing regulations, and there may be
aspects of the plan that do not function precisely as
intended when applied to actual future development
proposals and public improvement projects. In order
to address such issues comprehensively, as well as to
consider the policy-related implications of various Plan
aspects, the Specific Plan recommends that the City
conduct an initial review of the Specific Plan one year
after adoption. In addition, the Specific Plan recommends
that the City conduct an ongoing review every two years
after the initial review. Such reviews should be conducted
with both the Planning Commission and City Council, and
should incorporate public input. Any modifications that
result from this review should be formally presented for
Planning Commission review and City Council action. Minor
technical modifications would generally be anticipated to
be covered by the current Program EIR analysis, while
substantive changes not covered by the Program EIR
would require additional review"

So what problem is Measure M trying to solve that the Specific Plan and the Council are not already doing?


1 person likes this
Posted by Allied
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm

I posted this in another thread, but reposting here as I'd like to get an answer from someone knowledgeable in M.

I've heard the arguments from the M supporters. Aside from claiming certain outcomes, I do not see how their plan achieves their objectives. Someone please tell me how, in the face of the fact that Stanford owns this property and intends to develop this property, that M will really prevent an increase in traffic.

The only thing that will prevent an increase in traffic is no development at all. And that's what I really think is behind M. It puts up so many roadblocks to development, so many layers of review, that it will be impossible to get anything done. Let me call it for what it is: M is meant to kill development.

I live in Allied Arts. I have gotten used to the empty car dealerships along ECR. It has not hurt my property values or impacted my commute or increased the number of kids going to our schools. I can see why some want the status quo-- you're getting a known quantity. But 10% of the time I drive down ECR I think to myself, this stretch of highway looks like some blight in Oakland. It needs to developed.


Like this comment
Posted by George C. Fisher
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Posted by Peter Carpenter
"The Specific Plan studied 240,820 sq. ft of office and 474,000 sq. ft. of non residential and 680 units of housing.

Wrong”

Page 3-11 of the Specific Plan Final EIR states:

“This EIR analyzes the maximum development arising from Plan Adaption and has reviewed the development that is the most reasonably foreseeable, as envisioned in the Illustrative Plan, based on studies of market demand, the location of opportunity sites, and assessment of the development potential of each property giving the Guiding Principles, Urban Design Framework, land uses, development regulations, and design guidelines. The Net new development analyzed includes:
Residences 680 dwelling units
Retail 91,800 square feet
Commercial Space 240,820 square feet
Hotel 380 Rooms
Parking spaces 3,670
Resident Population 1, 357
Employment 1, 357 jobs”


2 people like this
Posted by Allied
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:44 pm

I thought all the M supporters would pile onto me and tell me how M reduces traffic. Yet I have not received a single direct reply to my query and I have posted this in 3 different threads.

Does M really reduce traffic, or does M stand for meander?


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Allied:

measure M will NOT reduce traffic. The likely outcome of M is to INCREASE traffic. If M passes the negotiated removal of high traffic producing medical offices disappears. Stanford is free and will likely build medical offices as they are high rent generating uses. Unfortunately, they are also high traffic producing uses. Just another of many unintended consequences of M.

Vote NO on M.


2 people like this
Posted by Put development near transit
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 2, 2014 at 9:00 pm

If Stanford decides to scrap the project, and simply install soccer fields, there would be less traffic. That will never happen, if it did, then high density housing would need to go someplace else. We could tear up Santa Cruz Ave, but we'd then have even more traffic because that housing would be farther away from Caltrain. High-density mixed-use office and housing should be build near the train.


1 person likes this
Posted by Stefan P
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 9:40 pm

Why don't people who like office parks or five-story buildings move to Sunnyvale or SF and leave the boring suburbs to the rest of us. Why do they need to bring all that "growth" here? Personally, I like one- and two-story buildings along ECR - apart from the fact hat they generate a lot less traffic.
M may not be perfect but it will bring a lot less traffic and development than the Specific Plan while still allowing reasonable projects. Claims that it will bring about more traffic and development are both false and not plausible. If they were true Stanford and Greenheart should be in favor of M.


1 person likes this
Posted by Allied
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 2, 2014 at 11:08 pm

@Stefan

We've been told that M will bring less traffic, I want to know HOW it achieves this goal. That is, tell me what provisions lead to reducing traffic. I don't just buy the party line. Give me specifics.

My contention is that M just ties up Stanford and Greenheart's development plans in red tape. This is why they object to it.


1 person likes this
Posted by No red tape
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Oct 3, 2014 at 12:23 am

Which should get priority: Stanford and Greenhart profits or quality of life for residents?

Measure M will reduce traffic because those two will be unable to build such massive office buildings. Period. M does not change the ability for them to put in medical offices. Ray Mueller may claim he's negotiated an agreement for Stanford not to build medical, where is the agreement? Is it in writing? Or is it like Stanford's earlier assurances that it would build a hotel on its property: just false promises spouted by a profit-at-all-cost landowner?

If Stanford wants to use its property for medical offices, it will do so, and Ray Mueller is naive to believe otherwise.

Stanford and Greenheart aren't worried one iota about having their plans tied up. They can and will build to the limits allowed them by the city.It's all about money. If M passes, their profits will be modestly diminished, but with MP office rents among the highest in the world, I don't think they'll be standing in the corporate soup line too soon. The rest of us, however, will be spending more and more of our time in gridlock.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 3, 2014 at 5:25 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

George - use left out the KEY part of my posting:
"The Specific Plan studied 240,820 sq. ft of office and 474,000 sq. ft. of non residential and 680 units of housing."

Wrong - The Specific Plan establishes the maximum allowable NET NEW DEVELOPMENT as follows:
• Residential uses: 680 units; and
• Non-residential uses, including retail, office and
hotel: 474,000 Square Feet.

Why do the Measure M supporters not understand NET NEW?


Repeat after me - NET NEW, NET NEW, NET NEW......


Like this comment
Posted by retired teacher
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 3, 2014 at 6:53 am

Mr. Carpenter...what's your point about "net new"? I understand the total build out of non residential square footage studied in the EIR of the DSP was about 474,000 square feet. I understand that is a number that includes "office". What do I fail to understand?

Allied...Measure M supporters believe 100,000 square feet of office will cause less new traffic than will 200,000 square feet of office. Supporters I have spoken to acknowledge nothing developed on El Camino will result in an overall reduction of traffic.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 3, 2014 at 7:33 am

Net New means that if a 15,000 sq ft bldg is replaced by a 20,000 sq ft building that there is 5000 sq ft of net new space.


1 person likes this
Posted by Credit Due
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 3, 2014 at 7:49 am

@no red tape.

Credit should be given where credit is due.

Ray Mueller didn't negotiate no medical. Kirsten Keith and Cat Carlton negotiated no medical in the project. Stanford sent a written letter to the City confirming the agreement.

You are way off on the facts.


1 person likes this
Posted by Wondering
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 3, 2014 at 8:03 am

I don't get why a a whole EIR is needed. Does that mean CC can make a cost benefit finding and so judge that traffic impacts are allowed? I'm also wondering if Ray and Rich are in disagreement now. It's hard to tell what Rich means because of his confused comments about local traffic. Does he really think that Middle Avenue has an extra 500 trips/day capacity, especially at the Safeway driveway ? Call the street a 'collector' or whatever, it is stil a residential street. The new complete streets policy means setting priorities based on balancing uses too.


Like this comment
Posted by Improve the specific Plan
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Oct 3, 2014 at 9:30 am

If the specific plan provides so much flexibility in reviewing and modifying the plan, and both pro and con M AGREE that's medical offices are problematic, while retail and hotel are beneficial, why doesn't the city council :

- OFFICIALLY modify the plan to limit medical, decrease office and increase retail?

Also, why not specify that the residential needs to have a specific percentage of 1 bedroom units? (E. g. 90%). This would serve the needs of . childless workers and seniors while greatly diminishing the impact on schools.


1 person likes this
Posted by Flip this Shepard Cadillac land
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 3, 2014 at 9:43 pm

SM county assessor records show Arrillaga bought the Shepard Cadiilac site for $7mm in early 2000's, then sold to Developer Peter Pau's Sand Hill Development in 2006 for $20mm, A $14mm profit
Pau hit the wall with commercial re lending evaporating in 2008 after Wall Street implosion
Pau sold to Greenheart for $29mm after his front man couldn't get the project out of the ground even with cit y support
No financing....no development

So no wonder Greenheart is spending big bucks in its heavy handed campaign with yard signs stating
"No more traffic"
"no more blight"
"No on M"
Small print on signs per State Law FPPC rules ...paid for by Greenheart

Greenheart's investors are buried in their outlay to Pau's Sand Hill development for the Shepard Cadillac land and the additional former Derry Project land....maybe $50MM

As they say on Wall Street....tough luck...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time...but not all of the people all the time"

As an attorney with a an environmental planning background, and as a former MP Transportation Commissioner who was outspoken on the Stanford Med Ctr expansion substantial ECR traffic impact on MP that generated big mitigation payments by Stanford Med Ctr to MP, it's refreshing that Mueller finally understands that this Measure M and ECR overdevelopment will be long remembered as "On His Watch" as Mayor

Cline barely squeaked by Bressler for 2nd term 4 years ago, when Robinson Got voted out, and his platform mate Cline barely made it by under 200 votes

Now Cline Ohtaki and Keith are viewed as arrogant "we know what's best for Menlo Park on ECR development...we won't give up our power to approveed by massive ECR office developments regardless of impact on adjoining ECR residential neighborhoods ...How dare Yes on M presume to usurp our Land Use Decision making powers..."

Well incumbents Cline, Ohtaki, Keith....you just been outed by Mayor Mueller to show how your ignorance has only been exceed by your arrogance towards the voters..

What's your justification for MP residents taxpayers and voters to even think twice about voting you 3 incumbents out of office for giving away the city development intensity to your developer cronies Greenheart Arrillaga and Syptanfords development machine?

You should have paid attention to the groundswell backlash movement of Save Menlo after you conveniently ignored Specific Plan resident participating pleading to maintain MP Village Character....


Like this comment
Posted by Time's out
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 4, 2014 at 10:47 am

Holy Toledo!
Thank you Filp for explaining the depth of Greenheart's stupidity in paying the inflated cost for the Cadillac site. This also explains the motive behind the dishonest ads and lawn signs and mailers Greenheart has paid for.


What it doesn't explain is how our naive council could support this developer and turn their backs on the residents who voted for them, believing they "loved Menlo Park." Ohtaki, Keith and Cline were played like fools. Mueller and Carlton joined the chorus. Menlo Park residents need to replace this council. First get rid of Ohtaki, Keith and Cline. Two years from now, it's Mueller and Carlton who are both in love with Greenheart's 400K development.

We do not know who Greenheart is. What are there names? We know the name of their attorney Tim Tosta and their local real estate agent Steve Pierce but the investors are a mystery. Real estate investors are high risk gamblers. Menlo Park residents have no obligation to guarantee that they make a profit at the expense of our quality of life. And John Arriallga made $13 million for doing nothing more than having cash on hand when the time was right?

WAKE UP The 1% is knocking on our door and they are not bringing good news. Big office buildings, thousands of commuters racing through our neighborhoods, crowded schools.

Rope these greedy developers in; protect Menlo Park and VOTE YES FOR MEASURE M


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 4, 2014 at 11:29 am

Nothing has been approved for Greeheart and it is clear that the Council Will ensure that the project serves Menlo Park needs.

If Measure M passes Greenheart will have a huge incentive to develop its parcels as separate projects to avoid M's shortsighted 100,000 sq ft per project limit.
Such a multi project approach would, because of M, be uncoordinated and have separate ECR access for each parcel - really stupid.

Measure M is a huge Mistake - poorly written with many unknown and unintended consequences.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

San Francisco's Kristian Cosentino to open Mountain View wine bar
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 4,423 views

Couples: Engaged on Valentine’s Day! Topics to Discuss
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 4,036 views

Sharing A Column About a Brilliant Teacher Idea
By Steve Levy | 4 comments | 726 views

A fast approaching birthday
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 270 views