|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Described by more than one candidate as a “battle for the soul of downtown” Menlo Park, this year’s election will decide some issues that will shape the city’s future for decades, with Measure M, the specific plan initiative, looming the largest.
The three incumbents — Rich Cline, Kirsten Keith and Peter Ohtaki — stand opposed, with the rest of the council, to the initiative. One challenger, former council member Kelly Fergusson, champions Measure M; a second, Drew Combs, seems to like it; and the last, Kristin Duriseti, is attempting to withhold her opinion.
But the council does more than make development decisions, and there are more issues on the horizon for voters to pay attention to than Measure M.
Following are the views of the candidates, starting with the incumbents listed in alphabetical order by last name, followed by the challengers. (The issue of union support below relates to unions that represent city employees.)
Rich Cline
‘The real guts of the debate is what do we want to be as a community.’
■ Measure M
“I clearly am an opponent of the (specific plan) initiative — but not without understanding what they’re trying to accomplish,” Mr. Cline said. The difference is “they think the specific plan doesn’t have safe limits. I think we do” by way of negotiations with developers.
Describing it as a “medical metropolis,” he said the first iteration of Stanford Arrillaga’s mixed-use complex on El Camino Real didn’t fit the specific plan’s vision at all. But with the elimination of all medical office space as well as other changes, “the project today is not the project it was. And I think there’s still more work to be done.”
The initiative’s “fatal flaws” open the door to worse outcomes for Stanford’s parcels, according to Mr. Cline. Instead of one single project on merged parcels, the university could develop separate projects on each lot, each with its own entrance and exit, and with medical offices back on the table.
Measure M’s requirement that development caps could only be raised by a citywide vote rather than a council decision “feels extremely dangerous to me, a little reckless.”
■ Binding arbitration
Binding arbitration for employee disciplinary appeals came under fire with the revelation that the city had been forced to rehire a police officer after he was busted naked in a motel room with a prostitute.
“It’s embarrassing for the city, it’s embarrassing for the police department,” Mr. Cline said.
The city is now facing a second arbitration case involving an officer fired for allegedly lying to his supervisor.
The council, after battling with the city’s labor unions during contract negotiations, won agreement to allow either party to request a retired San Mateo County judge to serve as arbitrator, as opposed to a random out-of-town arbitrator.
Work remains to be done, according to Mr. Cline. “We didn’t get there in our last negotiations. We don’t have as much leverage with salaries. The (arbitration) process needs to change, but I think it needs to be a stepwise process.”
■ Union support
Mr. Cline, who has the endorsement of the San Mateo County Labor Council as well as the San Mateo County Democratic Party, said he hasn’t seen any union money yet. “In past years I haven’t said no, but I’m not chasing it … My (campaign) budget will probably be one of the lowest.”
■ Why re-elect?
“I was not planning to run,” Mr. Cline said. “But I’m running to complete something that was done as a fair process — to get the specific plan through this last mountain by sticking to the facts and not creating an illusion and a history that didn’t happen.”
He views his experience and commitment to being a team member on the council as benefits to the community. “Everyone hates me and likes me the same. I’m not identified with a single group.”
He’s proud that he suggested unifying the city’s school districts, even though the idea didn’t get a lot of support, and of the “public, transparent” specific plan process. Mr. Cline also highlighted his contributions on the high-speed rail issue and bringing Facebook’s headquarters to Menlo Park, and promoting a more “progressive viewpoint” on housing diversity.
That said, there are regrets, too. The community should have continued to be involved as the specific plan was implemented. The Belle Haven police substation took too long — “Chief (Bob) Jonsen really made that happen” — and there were also “some really dumb decisions I made.”
■ Other priorities
1) The M-2 general plan update provides an opportunity to manage traffic now rather than after the area expands, according to Mr. Cline. 2) Long-term budget planning and diversification of the city’s revenue streams. 3)”How we govern” — transparency, council demeanor, willingness to listen.
Kirsten Keith
‘I’m not second-guessing my decisions. I stand by my votes.’
■ Measure M
“We’re getting more and more people who oppose Measure M,” Ms. Keith said, including all the Menlo Park City School District board members and the Chamber of Commerce, in addition to the entire City Council.
Ms. Keith served on the council subcommittee that led to Stanford eliminating all medical office from its current proposal, an agreement that would be revoked should the initiative pass. Measure M isn’t going to solve traffic congestion, she said, but could make it worse. “Stanford could build 100,000 square feet with one-third medical office space on a parcel (if M passes), and medical office drives traffic.”
Is the specific plan perfect? No, but it has the benefit of years of community input and more than 90 public meetings, as well as flexibility. “The specific plan is a living document that can be modified. Measure M is not,” Ms. Keith said.
■ Binding arbitration
“My position is that I’m opposed to it. The process is broken when you can’t fire an officer who is clearly in the wrong,” Ms. Keith said, noting that she cast the sole dissenting vote when the first union contract that included the use of retired judges as arbitrators came up for approval, because the changes didn’t go far enough.
Still, using former local judges who know and live in the community, which Ms. Keith said she suggested, “might lead to some better outcomes.”
■ Union support
“I am supported by unions now; I wasn’t in 2010,” Ms. Keith said. Regardless, she works with them on a “fair, consistent basis.”
■ Why re-elect?
“I think that we have a really good working group,” Ms. Keith said of the current council. “We’ve done a really good job of running the city.” She listed Facebook’s arrival, the addition of affordable housing to the city’s inventory, the hiring of Police Chief Bob Jonsen, the Belle Haven visioning process and the opening of the police substation as among their accomplishments.
As for failures, she said she’s not second-guessing her decisions.
Ms. Keith raised a few eyebrows when, just two years after being elected to council, she ran for a seat on the county Board of Supervisors in 2012. She was unsuccessful, but it raised questions as to whether her sights are set on higher political positions at the expense of her commitment to the city.
Should another supervisory seat open up, would she run again? “At the time, people were asking me to run,” she said. Now, “I’m not interested,” adding that there’s no seat open to be interested in.
Her husband, John Woodell, raised more than a few eyebrows with his defamation lawsuit against two Menlo Park Fire Protection District board directors over whether the pair told people Mr. Woodell had vandalized a campaign sign that was found lying near his cellphone. A judge dismissed the suit on grounds that he deliberately destroyed evidence on the cellphone, but he has appealed.
How should voters regard the lawsuit in terms of Ms. Keith’s candidacy? “I think it’s totally irrelevant. I think voters should look at my record and what I’ve done.”
■ Other priorities
1) The M2 and general plan update. 2) Keeping the city’s budget balanced and diversifying revenue. 3) Improving business retention.
–
Peter Ohtaki
‘I tend to be kind of a numbers guy.’
■ Measure M
“I am, along with the rest of the council, opposed to Measure M,” Mr. Ohtaki said. “We have the opportunity to bring customers and jobs to downtown.”
The Stanford and Greenheart mixed-use proposals are a 50-50 mix of office and residential, “not monolithic office parks as (they’ve) been characterized.” Stanford’s would be built on car dealership lots on El Camino Real that have been vacant since 2005, leaving 15 acres sitting there unproductive within walking distance of the train station, Mr. Ohtaki said.
And given the amount of small business turnover in downtown due to lack of sufficient foot traffic, the mixed-use projects would add considerable vibrancy. Should Measure M pass, however, both projects go back to the drawing board and the city could then see new proposals weighted toward office space, he said. For example, the measure would not prevent Stanford from developing separate projects, dedicated to office or medical office space, on each of its parcels.
“I’m very concerned about ballot box zoning if Measure M passes,” he said, and noted that many zoning decisions are “very technically complex.” The council has the ability right now to review the specific plan and make changes.
■ Binding arbitration
“We have made several changes this year to take the first step,” Mr. Ohtaki said. “It’s not a process that happens overnight.”
He noted that the unions’ small bargaining units have said they wouldn’t be able to afford the cost if appeals went through the court system instead of binding arbitration.
The next step, he thinks, is to implement an expert review or mediation panel that could accept or reject a disciplinary compromise, with the council available to hear appeals of rejections. “It seems to me to be something to pursue for the next round (of negotiations). But there will have to be a counterbalance, some kind of trade-off.”
■ Union support
Mr. Ohtaki said he did not submit endorsement questionnaires to the unions. With salaries constituting 70 to 80 percent of the city’s expenses, contracts “are budget-breaking for us.” Endorsement would present a potential conflict, he said, although he considers himself to have a good relationship with the labor unions.
■ Why re-elect?
“There’s more work to be done,” he said. The current council has set a “collaborative, productive tone. We don’t always agree, but we’re professional and succinct!”
He’s proud to have worked on AB 1690 with Assemblyman Rich Gordon, which has now been signed into law and allows mixed-use projects with affordable housing to count toward the state-mandated housing requirement. Mr. Ohtaki also pointed to success with attracting the HelloStartups incubator to the city, and saving Menlo Park $3.6 million in interest by suggesting the city use reserve funds to pay down its obligation to CalPERS, the state’s public employee retirement plan.
“I’ve been able to get things done on a local and regional level.”
But not always: Mr. Ohtaki said he wished the council could have figured out how to avoid the current showdown with Measure M supporters over the Stanford project.
■ Other priorities
1) The M-2 update. 2) Economic vibrancy — “We still have an issue in our downtown with small business turnover.” 3) “And less glamorous — the budget.”
Drew Combs
‘I think the council needs a fresh voice that hasn’t been battered down by prior battles.’
■ Measure M
“It’s not the civil rights issue of our time. It’s square footage,” Mr. Combs said, but he does support Measure M, describing it as “quite moderate.”
So the specific plan was put together through years of public process. “‘(Say) ‘Oh, I’ve been driving in this direction for seven and a half years,'” Mr. Combs said. “That doesn’t mean you’re driving in the right direction.”
Still, should the measure pass, Mr. Combs said he wouldn’t continue the fight if elected to council, as the people would have made their will known. “I would push for the public benefit element (of the specific plan) to be more clear.”
■ Binding arbitration
“Coming from a legal background, I can appreciate the positives of binding arbitration.” That said, Mr. Combs would like to see a more transparent process, and to remove appeals involving criminal conduct from arbitration entirely.
Using retired county judges is “moving in the right direction,” although he’s “sat in a lot of courtrooms thinking, ‘I don’t ever want to have my freedom depend on that guy.'”
■ Union support
Mr. Combs said he would not accept donations from anyone with a financial interest in issues coming before the council.
■ Why elect?
Mr. Combs, a relative newcomer to Menlo Park as well as to the Planning Commission, having been appointed in May after a bit more than a year on the Bicycle Commission, said that he’s running now because he has the time to serve. “It’s possibly a really exciting time to be on the council,” he said, given the local and regional happenings. Plus, he said, “council members with a lot of commission experience hasn’t equaled a great return.”
When people say Menlo Park has “a great, get-along council,” Mr. Comb said, laughing, that he asks “if they’ve heard I’m a jerk or something.”
■ Other priorities
1) Business development. 2) Transparency, including disclosing the meeting calendars of public officials. 3) The M-2 and general plan update.
Kristin Duriseti
‘I would be advocating for something and I don’t feel that’s appropriate. I want voters to have accurate information on both sides.’
■ Measure M
“I find that the arguments made by Measure M reveal unresolved flaws of the specific plan,” Ms. Duriseti said. “It puzzles me that throughout this process we have very clear ideas on certain things about what we want in Menlo Park, and those are left to chance in the specific plan. If we clearly don’t want x, why is it allowed?”
Some of those things include not wanting big box retail, and wanting public benefits such as open space and a bike undercrossing. “How do we leave that to chance?”
She declined to share how she will vote on Measure M, saying that it’s important to hear from the voters with an open mind. “If I’ve already decided, I have subverted the democratic process.”
The question to ask, she suggested, is whether there’s an incumbent voicing the community’s vision of the specific plan.
How much of the vision Ms. Duriseti could voice is hard to answer — as both she and her husband work for Stanford University, she would be recused from discussing elements of the specific plan that affect the university’s property.
■ Binding arbitration
“I don’t think we have to go so far as to say we have to get rid of the process,” Ms. Duriseti said. There are “definitely things that are in support of binding arbitration,” but she wondered whether the problem may be one of execution, noting that it was not an area she was familiar with in terms of her own experience and expertise.
■ Union support
Of all the candidates who completed union endorsement questionnaires (Mr. Ohtaki and Mr. Combs did not), Ms. Duriseti was the only one to decline to share her answers, saying she would respect the San Mateo County Labor Council’s request for confidentiality.
“I did meet with people. I have not received endorsements from them,” she said. “I think it’s a conflict of interest to accept financial contributions.”
■ Why elect?
“When I first entered the race, it wasn’t a contested election. I thought there would be an open seat,” Ms. Duriseti said, and she thought she could be “a long-range voice” from an economic and environmental perspective. “Now it is contested, but I still bring that voice.”
■ Other priorities
1) The general plan update — “It’s an interesting opportunity to define ‘what is a village.'” 2) Helping business owners implement green business practices. 3) Water. “It’s a critical, critical thing we need to look at” and could entail small-scale solutions.
Kelly Fergusson
‘It trumps the Brown Act. Up and down the state, people advocate for positions of power. It’s a First Amendment right.’
■ Measure M
“I’m running for City Council because the council has failed the residents and community. I am fully in support of ‘Yes on M’,” Ms. Fergusson said. “It’s essential that Measure M pass if we are to maintain the character of Menlo Park. I feel like the council is dismantling the vision (of the specific plan process).”
Although she said she initiated the specific plan process, Ms. Fergusson’s recollection of the details was a bit hazy. For instance, she told the Almanac that a subcommittee composed of John Boyle and Rich Cline knowingly selected Perkins + Will while the consultant worked on a Stanford project in Redwood City “unbeknownst to me.”
However, the subcommittee also consisted of planning commissioners Henry Riggs and Vince Bressler, then-City Manager Glen Rojas, Community Development Director Arlinda Heineck, and then-Community Services Manager Cherise Brandell.
The city held a series of five public meetings to choose the consultant. And in the end, Mr. Cline did not support choosing Perkins + Will; the majority of the subcommittee did.
The recommendation then went to the City Council, which unanimously approved the selection of Perkins + Will on Dec. 16, 2008, with Ms. Fergusson making the motion and Heyward Robinson seconding.
She also did not remember that the consultants had disclosed their work for Stanford on the first page of the cover letter to their proposal:
“We are also currently engaged with Stanford University for the development of their campus in Redwood City. We have been closely working with the University, the city, community groups and the large consultant team through Specific Plan and Design Guidelines process for entitlement,” wrote SMWM (which shortly became Perkins + Will.)
Ms. Fergusson claimed she remained unaware of the Stanford connection until after the specific plan was approved.
She did argue strenuously, if unsuccessfully, to establish a lower floor-area ratio threshold for triggering public benefits as the specific plan headed for approval. She was recused from voting on portions of the plan related to the Stanford parcels as her husband works for the university.
“I wanted the ‘by right’ level to be the maximum level allowed under the previous zoning,” she said, which would have required Stanford to negotiate public benefits for its proposed mixed-use complex.
The council has had two and a half years to fix the specific plan, but according to Ms. Fergusson, “They did a cursory, perfunctory meeting. Residents came in and implored them to close the loopholes and they didn’t.”
■ Binding arbitration
“I expected the council to have dealt with that by now,” she said.
Asked how, Ms. Fergusson responded, “(By getting) an attorney to draft up a couple different ways to choose arbitrators.”
After the Almanac pointed out that the process is locked into the contract, she replied: “You can always open up a contract if you get the agreement of the union. … or you wait, and then it’s a major point of negotiation. They’ve had a couple of negotiations. I would have thought they would have dealt with that. I haven’t been tracking the council. I’ve been paying the mortgage, raising my kids.”
■ Union support
Ms. Fergusson is not accepting support or monetary donations from unions that the city has labor contracts with, she said.
■ Why re-elect?
Although Ms. Fergusson ran for re-election in 2012 and lost, she now says that she is only running again because the current council has failed.
Whereas the current council doesn’t seem “to share our neighborhood values, my council listened to the community! We listened to the concerns!” Ms. Fergusson said, citing as an example that council’s reduction of pension benefits.
And about that Brown Act violation that led to her resignation as mayor, after holding private, serial meetings with at least two council colleagues to promote her desire for the position: “I’ve had people come to me and say, Kelly, it is your First Amendment right to advocate for yourself! It trumps the Brown Act. Up and down the state, people advocate for positions of power. It’s a First Amendment right.”
She resigned because it was the honorable thing to do, not because of wrongdoing, Ms. Fergusson said, and the issue was a distraction. In the future, she said, she will not be talking to other council members to advocate for herself.
■ Other priorities
“The specific plan, the specific plan, the specific plan.” Pressed to identify a fourth priority, she said, “I think I can add a lot to the general plan discussion,” thanks to her background in land use planning.
Candidate biographical information
Rich Cline Age: 45. Occupation: Public relations Experience: Council since 2006; former Parks and Recreation commissioner; Peninsula Cities Consortium; high-speed rail subcommittee; Dumbarton Rail Policy committee; Caltrain modernization policy group; airport community roundtable; youth sports coach Education: B.A. in journalism, California State University, Hayward Website: clineforcouncil.com
Kirsten Keith Age: 47. Occupation: Attorney Experience: Council since 2010; Planning Commission; Legal Aid Society since 1997; former member of housing and mediation commissions; County Commission on Status of Women; former board member for League of Women Voters and Sor Juana Inez Battered Women’s Service Agency Education: B.A. in political science, University of California, Santa Barbara; J.D., Golden Gate University School of Law Website: kirstenforcouncil.org
Peter Ohtaki Age: 53 Occupation: Businessman Experience: Council since 2010; former board member, Menlo Park Fire Protection District; former board member of Mid-Peninsula Water District Education: B.A. in economics, Harvard; MBA, Stanford University Website:peterohtaki.com
Andrew Combs Age: 37 Occupation: Journalist Experience: Planning commissioner; former Bicycle commissioner; Boys & Girls club tutor Education: B.A. urban studies, Columbia University; J.D., Harvard Law School Website: drewcombs.com
Kristin Duriseti Age: 44 Occupation: Editor/author at Woods Institute, Stanford University Experience: Environmental Quality commissioner since 2008; general plan advisory, green ribbon committees; San Mateo County Green Business Program; intergovernmental climatic change working group; school volunteer; youth sports coach Education: B.A. political science, Stanford University; M.A. economics, Ph.D. political science, University of Michigan Website: kristinformenlopark.com
Kelly Fergusson Age: 52 Occupation: Clean energy projects executive at Siemens Experience: Council, 2004 to 2012; former Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency board member; former high-speed rail, business development subcommittees; former public safety, transportation, environmental quality and public works commissions member for League of California Cities; Peninsula Volunteers advisory council Education: B.S. in applied earth science, M.S. and Ph.D. in civil engineering, all from Stanford University Website: kellyfergusson.wordpress.com