It'll be interesting to see where this goes, since the leadership failed.

I think other, future businesses in the 1300 block of El Camino which awaits development might have an interest in Garwood remaining public parking. What will the developers of other properties persuade MP to throw in as freebies?

MP spent time & money (for consultants) to develop the Specific Plan. Now, developer Moulds & senior planner Rogers seek to ignore that. Does MP pay Rogers a salary? His disregard for of regulations adopted specifically to benefit & protect MP & its residents is both arrogant & cavalier.

Dear Editor:

How many residents could be accommodated in the Casa Peninsula?

I know if it still does, but the Holiday Inn on ECR in RWC closest to MP was used by the county to house people released from jail. Are other hotels in MP already doing this?

Will the Marriott Residence Inn be doing that as well? Is permission from the City Council needed for that?

Thank you Mr. Hashian for pursuing this. I will gladly join you as a plaintiff.
What the council did us either an illegal gift of public property and/or an illegal discount on the voter approved transient occupant tax rate. In addition it ignores the current zoning ordinance as embodied in the Specific Plan. Treating the Specific Plan as a sandbox is a dangerous public policy.

I expect that Thomas Rogers will soon depart for a job with a developer or Stanford. It will be a great day for Menlo Park.

When we were involved in negotiations with the O'Brien group on the Derry project a few years ago, as part of the Derry Referendum, O'Brien was asking for the use of a few "on street" parking spots to meet the development's parking requirements.

City Attorney McClure was present and he was asked if the the City had ever allowed the use of "on street" parking to meet a development's parking requirements.

His answer was NO, this had never been done. That killed off O'Brien's request.

Clearly what has happened here is a new "give away" and will without a doubt be requested by other developers.

The City has almost unlimited power with issues involving land use decisions and I seriously doubt this action, disgusting as it is, is illegal.

What the citizens of Menlo Park should be concerned about is, why this Council is going along with this action. To my way of thinking, what we have here is a council being a "puppet" of the development community at the expense of its citizens.

Morris Brown
Stone Pine Lane
MP

Simple solutions.

The city should require the hotel to purchase the Garwood portion land at market price and build a 138 space parking structure on that portion, large enough to cover their 99 additionally required off street parking spaces plus 39 public spaces to replace the lost public street parking.

Or they could always excavate under the current building for the additionally need 99 spaces. Very costly, but not impossible.

What about the parking on Garwood that runs all along the Caltrain line from Glendale to Encinal? Are those spots deeded to the apartment complexes across the street? If not, why are they not subject to the same parking restrictions as the rest of the city? Those spots are always filled overnight. Does anyone know?

Garwood:

areas around apartment complexes allow overnight parking with a permit. Nothing new there.