|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When dozens of residents of Menlo Park’s Belle Haven neighborhood showed up to protest the Menlo Park Fire Protection District’s plans for a new fire station in their neighborhood on March 21, the fire district’s board and chief quickly put a hold on the plans — and promised a public meeting to talk about the station’s future.
That meeting will be at 10 a.m. Saturday, April 29, at the district’s station at 1467 Chilco St.
The future of fire and emergency services in the Belle Haven and the M-2 (industrial) areas of Menlo Park is the focus of the meeting, the fire district says.
Fire Chief Harold Schapelhouman said he will talk about how the fire district currently supplies emergency services in Belle Haven and the importance of the existing location of the Chilco Street station.
He will also discuss the impacts of current and future development in the industrial area on fire district services, and why fire station location options are limited.
Attendees will learn how to get involved and give feedback to the district about the future of local emergency and fire services delivery, the district says.
More than 50 people attended the March 21 fire board meeting, which had on its agenda a hearing on an environmental impact report on plans to expand the district’s Chilco Street fire station.
Many speakers were upset that one of the area’s most beloved families, the Hoermanns, could be displaced by the expansion. The plans for the new station showed the Hoermann’s 3,000-square-foot home and a rear cottage on Terminal Avenue, built with lots of sweat equity over the past 10 years and occupied by two teachers, four children and an engineer, were to be replaced with a driveway.
Several speakers suggested instead of enlarging the fire station, the district build a new station in the industrial area, where most of the additional need for services is originating.
Speakers also protested plans to access the rebuilt station via Terminal Avenue, a street with a 25 mph speed limit and speed bumps, and the main access to the neighborhood’s community center and a school.
The fire district was considering using eminent domain to acquire at least two of the residential properties identified in the fire station plans. After the outcry, the board voted to drop the idea of using Terminal Avenue to access the expanded station.
However, the district is still considering acquiring a residential property on Chilco Street and the station’s current site, which the district is leasing from the city of Menlo Park. Chief Schapelhouman has said the district has not ruled out using eminent domain to acquire both properties.
Residents were also upset about the way they, and the property owners who could be displaced, had learned about the project. The first notice of the environmental report, and the plans for the station, came on Feb. 17.
The owners of the affected properties also first heard from the fire district around that date, receiving notices that the “project may require the acquisition of your real property” along with a brochure about the eminent domain process, which allows a public agency to force a landowner to sell his or her property.
The chief’s report on the project for the March 21 meeting said it would “require the acquisition of residential properties to allow for the station expansion, parking, and site access.”
__
-
This photo shows the Menlo Park Fire Protection district’s Chilco Street fire station. On the left is a residential property the district has been considering acquiring. (Photo by Michelle Le/The Almanac) -
This drawing shows the site plan for expanding the Menlo Park Fire Protection District’s Chilco Street fire station in Menlo Park. The district has dropped the plans for the driveways connecting with Terminal Avenue. (Courtesy Menlo Park Fire Protection District)
Will the Manhattan Plan be touched upon, that Director Kiraly inquired about?
Looks like ED is not off the table. Move this station away from the neighborhood and place it in the industrial area. Enough is enough! We don’t want the station in its current location, besides, the fire district does not own the property. The board looks like they’re dealing with a chief that has no idea what reality is….Why is the chief the only one dealing with the public at this meeting, where are the Fire Board Members? Are they cowards? I hope the Menlo Park City Council puts the district in their place!
Board President Carpenter and Board Vice President Ianson will both participate in the meeting.
Why aren’t the other board members going to participate then. Is ED still on the table? What about moving the station in the industrial area?
False Hope – show up and ask.
Sir, all due respect to you and your position, I would not waist my time and sit through a one sided presentation by your chief, you and another board member. It appears your minds are made up! The city of Menlo Park will save us from your district. I hope the city’s action will force you to leave the property and build the new station in the industrial area…..leave our residential area. The current buildings there are run down and look like a garbage dump. Menlo Park’s code enforcement should do their job and write up some violations….
How wonderful to have posters with such an open mind.
“The city of Menlo Park will save us ”
And when exactly was the last time that the city did anything for Belle Haven?
False Hope, residents can email city.council@menlopark.org and request this parcel never be sold to the fire district.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This was a good, well attended meeting with lots of thoughtful input from the community.
Bottom line – Belle Haven residents feel strongly that they should not have to suffer either a loss of services or the loss of any residences because the City of Menlo Park approved the huge expansions of Gateway and M2 without adding a single square inch of public facility land for schools, libraries police stations and fire stations.
I totally agree.
Carpenter writes, “residents feel strongly that they should not have to suffer… because the City of Menlo Park approved the huge expansions of Gateway…”
Oh Peter, the voters, not city council, approved the Gateway project (Measure T in 2010) by 65% https://shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2010/nov2010/results.asp#c-830
Wrong.
“In June 2010, the City Council voted to approve the Menlo Gateway project, subject to voter approval of a
ballot measure for the November 2, 2010 general election. The voters approved Measure T, and the
project approvals became effective with the certification of the election results on December 7, 2010.
During a March 10, 2015 City Council study session, the applicant presented an update on the Menlo
Gateway project including an introduction of the new hotel brand, Marriott Autograph Collection, and the
new hotel operator, Ensemble Partners. During the study session, the City Council expressed support for
the modified project and urged staff to expedite the approval process to permit construction.
In May 2015, the Planning Commission recommended the modified project for approval by the City
Manager. In June 2015 the City Manager issued a letter with the determination that the modifications to
the project are substantially consistent with the existing project approvals and do not result in any new or
increased environmental impacts”
The approved modification could have, but did not address, the establishment of additional PF zoned sites.