Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest opinion: Ex-council member rejects specific plan petition

Original post made on May 15, 2014

A group calling themselves "Save Menlo" is promoting a petition that would dramatically alter the recently re-approved El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). As a former City Council member, I have had a number of people ask me about this issue.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 12:00 AM

Comments (55)

Posted by Splain this to Me, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 15, 2014 at 8:14 am

Hmmm. The vacant lots will remain vacant ... leading to ... school crowding and traffic.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 9:53 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Splain states "The vacant lots will remain vacant ... leading to ... school crowding and traffic."

You are not paying attention - Boyle stated "The petition could result in significantly more high-density housing being built on the two vacant El Camino lots, leading to more crowding in our over-burdened Menlo Park schools."


Posted by old timer, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 15, 2014 at 10:57 am

This is exactly the kind of non-sense one would expect from Boyle. When running for council in 2006, he was ever so lucky to win a seat, gathering only about 104 more votes than Vince Bressler. Boyle ran as a team with Winkler and DuBoc, who were both removed from council after only 1 term each, mainly due to their support of the O'Brien proposal for the Derry Properties. While in office, Boyle, consistently offered nothing but opposition and consumed endless hours talking, while accomplishing nothing. He well knew he wouldn't be re-elected, and declined to run for a second term.

The Initiative represents a last chance for Menlo Park voters to stop the unexpected "over the top", high-density office park structures on El Camino.

Boyle argues "somehow", that these large office buildings will not increase school population and will "somehow" prevent school crowding. This make no sense. More office, means more jobs to housing imbalance, resulting in the City having to build more housing to accommodate the hundreds of workers that will occupy these offices.

Bottom line is, do the Voters of Menlo Park want to transform their City into the model being used in Sunnyvale? Is this what we want? I don't want this. I don't think most Menlo Park residents want this either.

Finally quite frankly we should really be very upset with Stanford for even proposing such a project. Stanford certainly doesn't need to take the path of a "greedy developer" and shoot for the moon by proposing such a project. Stanford should have proposed building a hotel, which would have made the City plenty of revenue from the TOT, along with some modest amount of housing.

Why didn't Stanford take a much more reasonable approach to this El Camino development, like their approval of the Rosewood Hotel project near highway 280. There on a site of 21 acres, a 120 room low rise hotel with only 100,000 sq feet of office. You didn't seen any opposition to this kind of development.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 11:23 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Stanford should have proposed building a hotel, which would have made the City plenty of revenue from the TOT, along with some modest amount of housing. "

Guess what, the vast majority of Menlo Park's hotel tax revenue (TOT) comes from two hotels located on Stanford property.

Stanford has done far more than their fair share ( actually much more than ANY other property owner) to contribute to Menlo Park's hotel tax coffers.


Posted by Oh John, oh John!, a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on May 15, 2014 at 5:06 pm

Oh John, oh John: If every unit studied in the specific plan were built (680), the EIR states that the impact on the schools would be 84 more students. Stanford has agreed to build 170 units and Greenheart will build 216 units of housing units for a total of 386. Will 45 more students cause mayhem in the schools?

Oh John, oh John: The parcels will not remain empty unless Stanford gets testy and is a mood for revenge. The lots have been empty and blighted thanks to Stanford that was getting rent from the tenants and had no motivation to move until the specific plan was created. With the help of MP Staff, Stanford designed its project and lobbied the staff and council (and most likely the consultant) about the need for greater development rights or the project wouldn't pencil out. With free land and free construction costs, thanks to John Arrillaga, Stanford's pencil could have planned a more moderate and respectful development. Arrillaga can build beautiful buildings on campus but in Menlo Park, we will get stuck with a massive glass box that Stanford would never allow on Campus.

Oh John, oh John:I do not remember a public meeting where the Pension Initiative was discussed. Groups of people get together and write an initiative. Mr. Boyle knows this as does his people. Why is ballot box governing OK with Boyle's people but not OK for SaveMenlo people?

Oh John, oh John: of course the petition was vetted. The city hired an attorney who reviewed it and approved the title and language. Pay attention.

Development gridlock? After Stanford and Greenheart gobble up all the non-residential square footage, there's no more room for any landowner to develop anyway.

Proposals is all the City has. No formal submissions. No applications. It's all on paper and are just concepts. Developers know that their works is to make changes.

There will be no litigation if the Savemenlo Ballot Measure wins. Getting an initiative on the ballot is a democratic right. We, the people may govern. There could definitely be political chaos as a consequence of the council not modifying the specific plan's flaws in 2013. You, John should understand this better than anyone. When a ballot measure runs the same election cycle as a council race, there are always surprises. Just ask Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc, former council members.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The city hired an attorney who reviewed it and approved the title and language."

Wrong - the language in the initiative was NOT vetted by the city.

"There will be no litigation if the Savemenlo Ballot Measure wins."

And just how can some anonymous person make such a guarantee on behalf of all the other interested parties?


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 15, 2014 at 5:36 pm

Hmm seems not only is Savemenlo spreading false information and lies they now expect us to believe they are prescient. Please, oh john, oh john tell us how you "know" there will be no lawsuits.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" If every unit studied in the specific plan were built (680),"

The Lanza/Fry initiative clearly states:
"Voter approval shall not be required to
amend the Specific Plan to increase the number of net, new
residential units allowed beyond the limit stated in this measure."


Posted by Splain this to Me, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 15, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Oh. I think John got caught talking out of both sides of his mouth by trying to simultaneously conjure dual self-contradicting horror stories both of blighted, empty lots and of (those same) lots filled with school impacts. If there is some kind of worm hole that sucks traffic and school children and spits them out of blighted, vacant lots on El Camino Real, then it should have been reported in the EIR.

That idea of blight within hundreds of feet of the houses of millionaires and, now, billionaires is actually offensive, if you stop to think about what real blight is and what it is not.

So, I'm happy to whack John up-side-the-head for the blight BS. If he wants to have an intelligent conversation about to properly use the zoning code to tame market winds to fill the empty lots with what the city would most like, then lets have that conversation, but disingenuous euphemism isnt getting it done.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

splain - please provide proof that Stanford will not simply leave these parcels vacant if developing them is not in Stanford's interest.


Posted by Of John, oh John , a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on May 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm

Carpenter, what's your point?
680 residential units were studied and that number translates to 84 added students.
Boyle loves hyperbole. So do you.
Crowded schools, fire stations that cannot be rebuilt, blighted parcels left standing ( just as Stanford left them for 8 years)
This ballot measure is going to win despite your sitting at you computer spewing out misinformation hourly.
Period .


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 6:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Please read the initiative:
The Lanza/Fry initiative clearly states:
"Voter approval shall not be required to amend the Specific Plan to increase the number of net, new residential units allowed beyond the limit stated in this measure."

So there will be no 680 unit limit of new residential units if this initiative passes.

It helps to do your homework.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"sitting at you computer spewing out misinformation hourly."

Actually it is always very quick and easy to disprove the factless and undocumented claims being made by the proponents of the Lanza/Fry initiative. They haven't even read their own initiative and certainly have not read the Specific Plan.

The little time it takes to refute these unsubstantiated and uniformed claims is a very small personal price to pay for a better informed citizenry.


Posted by old timer, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 15, 2014 at 6:47 pm

Peter Carpenter:

You really shouldn't write such nonsense as:

"The little time it takes to refute these unsubstantiated and uniformed claims is a very small personal price to pay for a better informed citizenry. "

because the facts just belie you assertions. Instead of just penning such garbage, I suggest, for a start, you look at what ex-Mayor Paul Collacchi said at the Tuesday Council meeting (5/13/2014)

I'll make it easy for you:

Go to:

Web Link

and scroll into the video for 4 minutes: Paul presented plenty of facts, documented facts.

I'm quite sure this won't stop you from your continuing to write non-sense, but others reading this blog, can also view and learn the correct version of the reality of the situation.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 7:03 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Thanks old timer - I did watch the video and heard no facts which supported the initiative. Collacchi acknowledged that the Stanford proposal fell within the zoning ordinance but that he personally preferred residential and retail- interesting but just his opinion. Many others have expressed great concern about too much residential in terms of its impact on the schools. And Menlo Park retail is already struggling for lack of customers rather than lack of competition.

The Planning Commission and the City Council have spent literally years on this plan and then supported it unanimously. I fail to understand how the unvetted and fatally flawed Lanza/Fry initiative can be a substitute for these years of carefully deliberation.

" others reading this blog, can also view and learn the correct version of the reality of the situation."

Indeed, that is my exact intention and why I continue to call on the supporters of the Lanza/Fry initiative to answer these questions:

1 – They say it is wrong to use up most of the office capacity allowed by the Specifc Plan in the first two years and that instead it should be spread out over a 30-year period. If you owned a parcel and wanted to build a totally conforming ten-room home should you be forced to build it one room each year for the next ten years ?

2 – Save Menlo got everything they asked for in its original petition and Stanford agreed to almost all of their demands. So why are you now asking for even more and how much will be enough to satisfy you?

3 – Would Save Menlo Park members be willing to say who they really are? How many members they actually have?

4 – Do you really believe that definitions written today:

""Financial institutions providing retail banking services.This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on site circulation of money,including credit unions."The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters"

""Offices of firms or organizations providing professional,executive,management,or administrative services,such as accounting,advertising,architectural,computer software design,engineering,graphic design, insurance, interior design,investment,and legal offices. This classification excludes hospitals, banks,and savings and loan associations."The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

will still be appropriate even five years from now and if they are not that there should be an election to change even one word of such definitions? What about digital age banks that do not engage in the on site circulation of money? What about a firm that wants to design robots?

5 – Who is the lawyer who helped draft this initiative and what other interests does he represent?

6 – Who is funding this effort?

7 – Do Menlo Park citizens realize that under the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative small property owners on ECR will be restricted to 70% of their current footprint for any new/replacement construction and that the currently permitted construction to their the side lot lines would not be permitted?

8 – Do MP citizens realize that the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative will prevent the construction of a new fire station serving the downtown area?

9 – Do MP citizens know that signatures are being obtained using paid solicitors?

10 – Do MP citizens know that claims of 6 story buildings being either permitted or proposed under the Specific Plan are simply untrue and that the tallest building proposed by Stanford is only FOUR feet taller than the existing building at the corner of ECR and Live Oak Drive?

11 – Do MP citizens know that a major new hotel project decided not to locate in Menlo Park because of the uncertainties created by the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative?

12 – What are the other unknown and unintended (or perhaps deliberately intended) consequences of the totally unvetted Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative?

13 – Do MP citizens believe that Mike Lanza, Patti Fry and their anonymous lawyer, without any public comment, without multiple drafts, without a Draft and a Final EIR and without numerous public hearings, are really better able to define the future of your city than are your five elected city council members and your seven appointed planning commissioners and the superb city planning and transportation staff that have all worked diligently and totally in the open to produce the existing Specific Plan?

14 – Do MP citizens know that the traffic levels on ECR were significantly reduced from those permitted by the prior zoning when the Specific Plan was adopted?

15 – Do the MP citizens know that the original Stanford proposal would have produced less traffic than was was permitted by the Specific Plan?

16 – Do the MP citizens know that, as a consequence of the work of the Keith/Carlton subcommittee, that the traffic that would have been produced by the revised Stanford plan was even less than that of the original Stanford plan?

17 – What was the date and the time of the ECR traffic photo being used by Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative campaign?

18- What authority does the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative campaign have to use the City of Menlo Park's copyrighted logo?

19 – The Planning Commission and the City Council did a review of the Specific Plan last Fall so this raises the question: Which of the 20+ changes to the Specific Plan that are included in the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their public consideration during the 2013 review of the Specific Plan?

20 - Is this initiative process simply being used to gather names, support and name recognition for Lanza and/or Fry to run for the City Council this year? If it is, will Lanza and Fry reimburse the City for the cost of putting this issue on the ballot.?

I welcome answers to these questions from Lanza and Fry – or others.


Posted by College Try, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 15, 2014 at 7:26 pm

Here's an honest and good faith attempt to answer Mr. Carpenter's questions. Perhaps we can narrow them down to get a good back and forth discussion going?


1. This is not a good analogy. The zoning for the commercial district of a city is in no way the same as that required of a residential property owner. No one is suggesting that Stanford/Greenhart build "one room at a time". This cut and paste argument is grandstanding at best.

2. Negotiations are what they are … complaining about "moving the goalposts" is a tired argument. Private parties can negotiate how they see fit – surely Stanford/Greenhart are sophisticated enough to deal with the negotiation tactics that Save Menlo employs.

3. Save Menlo does not have to "say who they are" – this is a thinly veiled attempt to bully according to your rules – everyone is identified.

4. Whatever the definitions adopted – the affected entities need to follow.

5. Irrelevant and likely attorney client privilege

6. Get this information through the legal avenues available to you otherwise stop carping about it.

7. Presuming what MP voters know or do not know seems presumptuous.

8. Same as above. If you have different information make it known.

9. Par for the course and legally authorized by the State of California.

10. Again – don't know what MP voters know.

11. This is a disputed claim and in any event – MP voters know what they know.

12. Probably could use debate about this w/o the hyperbole about allegations about "hiding the ball."

13. Maybe, yes – that is the point of the initiative. Not everybody believes in government processes.

14. Don't know and presumptuous to assume about what MP voters know. Bring on the counter arguments.

15. Don't know and presumptuous to assume about what MP voters know. Bring on the counter arguments.

16. Don't know and presumptuous to assume about what MP voters know. Bring on the counter arguments.

17. I think that was established in a previous thread. When some traffic work was being done I think so not indicative of standard conditions. I do think MP residents will bring their own anecdotal experiences of traffic to the table.

18. This is a side issue distraction. Debated in previous thread.

19. Don't know – good question. I'm guessing none. Could use more info here.

20. I am not familiar with the machinations of MP politics.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 8:03 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Nice try, but:

"1. This is not a good analogy. The zoning for the commercial district of a city is in no way the same as that required of a residential property owner. No one is suggesting that Stanford/Greenhart build "one room at a time". This cut and paste argument is grandstanding at best."

I disagree and think it is a great analogy.

"2. Negotiations are what they are … complaining about "moving the goalposts" is a tired argument. Private parties can negotiate how they see fit"

Fine, if you want to keep moving the goal posts then this is your prerogative but certainly your partner in any negotiations will soon see, as Stanford has, that negotiating with you is pointless.

"3. Save Menlo does not have to "say who they are"
Wrong, if they advocate, as they are on behalf of an initiative they have a legal disclosure requirement which they have failed to meet.

"4. Whatever the definitions adopted – the affected entities need to follow."
Precisely, and each of those TWELVE definitions are set using today's terms and can ONLY be changed by a $85,000 vote of the citizens of Menlo Park - simply stupid.

"5. Irrelevant and likely attorney client privilege"
Totally relevant given that the Lanza/Fry supporters keep talking about secret discussion which THEY want exposed (of course there were no such secret discussions).

"6. Get this information through the legal avenues available to you otherwise stop carping about it."
I have but the public should also know. Why won't Save Menlo provide that information directly to the votes. PS - it is almost exclusively a small number of Allied Arts residents acting out of profound self interest.

"7. Presuming what MP voters know or do not know seems presumptuous."
I make no presumption but am simply asking a question.

"8. Same as above. If you have different information make it known.
I have already provided the facts but the Lanza/Fry supporters have no response to the fact that the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative will prevent the construction of a new fire station serving the downtown area.

"9. Par for the course and legally authorized by the State of California."
True it is legal but why did the Lanza/Fry supporters have to use paid signature gatherers- did they not care enough to do it themselves?

"10. Again – don't know what MP voters know.
I absolutely agree.

"11. This is a disputed claim and in any event"
No, the city staff have confirmed the fact that the Banyan Group was interested in the Roger Reynolds property and decided that the uncertainties involved were too great.


"12. Probably could use debate about this w/o the hyperbole about allegations about "hiding the ball."
Fine, show us where the ball is.

"13. Maybe, yes – that is the point of the initiative. Not everybody believes in government processes."

Well then perhaps those people would like to propose a new process. In the meantime this is the process which the voters have chosen and the council members whom they have elected to carry out that process.

"14,15 and 16 Don't know and presumptuous to assume about what MP voters know. Bring on the counter arguments."
Then you are not paying attention because the city staff have provided that information and I have posted it.

"18. This is a side issue distraction. Debated in previous thread."
And yet the Lanza/Fry initiative supporters have still not provided evidence of their right to use this logo.

"19. Don't know – good question. I'm guessing none. Could use more info here."
I agree.

"20. I am not familiar with the machinations of MP politics."
I agree.

Thanks.




Posted by College Try, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm

1. Why is it a great analogy - please explain beyond the soundbite.
2. I have no "partners" in negotiations and am not affiliated with the Save Menlo effort.
3. what legal disclosure requirement has not been met?
4. calling MP voters stupid is not advancing your cause.
5. This is not tit for tat - I was just responding to your question.
6. Ok.
7 or 8. I don't know.
9. This seems like mud slinging to those not in the trenches.
10. Agree.
11. This is too much inside gov info for me to know.
12. I don't hold the ball nor am i out to get anyone - just answering questions as you have asked.
13. The initiative is a legal process. You don't like it.
14. 15. and 16. I am paying attention but and don't agree or disagree but the broader population of voters is what is important isn't it?
18. Ok - you can press this issue ...
19. Agree
20. Agree


Posted by College Try, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 15, 2014 at 8:48 pm

14. 15 and 16. sorry for the garbled answer above. Yes-you have made your arguments, and city staff has conducted its analysis and recommendations. But posting on this forum does not get to the voters at large- all I am saying is that those in favor of defeating the initiative will have to make those arguments to the voters and that enterprise goes beyond this forum.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"1. Why is it a great analogy - please explain beyond the soundbite."
Because once the city decides on a certain plan for development it is in the city's interest to have that plan implemented sooner than later rather than let abandoned properties remain vacant for 20-25 years to meet some made up time table.

"2. I have no "partners" in negotiations and am not affiliated with the Save Menlo effort."
Good decision on your part.

"3. what legal disclosure requirement has not been met?"
They have failed to file the required committee financial disclosure agreements as an advocate of a particular initiative.

"4. calling MP voters stupid is not advancing your cause."
I did not, I stated that requiring a $85,000 vote to change a single word in a definition is stupid - which it clearly is.

"5. This is not tit for tat - I was just responding to your question.
6. Ok.
7 or 8. I don't know.
9. This seems like mud slinging to those not in the trenches."
Perhaps, but it is an indication of weakness on the part of the supporters.

"10. Agree.
11. This is too much inside gov info for me to know."
Just ask the Economic Development office.

"12. I don't hold the ball nor am i out to get anyone - just answering questions as you have asked."
Fine, so we still do not know the answer to the question.

"13. The initiative is a legal process. You don't like it."
I think the initiative process is a legal process but one which should be used with care - this sloppily crafted initiative shows no respect for that standard.

"14. 15. and 16. I am paying attention but and don't agree or disagree but the broader population of voters is what is important isn't it?"
Absolutely and that is why I keep asking these questions. Why won't the Lanza/Fry supporters even try? I commend you for taking a pass at them and to helping sharpen the debate.

"18. Ok - you can press this issue ...
19. Agree
20. Agree"


Again, I commend and thank you you for taking a pass at these questions and to helping sharpen the debate.


Posted by Mike Keenly, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 15, 2014 at 10:34 pm

@College Try, thank you for attempting to answer the questions, most of which are rhetorical anyway. I wish it was the end of this, but I don't think any 'answers' to these 'questions' will ever be sufficient. And you're right, the analogy in Q1 doesn't work. :)


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 16, 2014 at 12:38 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Mike - do you think that development which both conforms to the Specific Plan and is ready to commence should be spread over 30 years? Why?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 16, 2014 at 7:14 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This is the sole manner in which the Specific Plan regulates the timing of the development allowed under the plan:

"The Planning Division shall at all times maintain a publicly
available record of:
• The total amount of allowable residential units and
non-residential square footage under the Specific
Plan, as provided above;
• The total number of residential units and nonresidential
square footage for which entitlements
and building permits have been granted;
• The total number of residential units and nonresidential
square footage removed due to building
demolition; and
• The total allowable number of residential units and
non-residential square footage remaining available.
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."

There is NO mention to stretching the development of downtown and ECR out over a 30 year period. Clearly it was anticipated that infill projects would occur quickly and that replacement developments would occur as property owners felt existing structures should be replaced.


Posted by Mike Keenly, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 16, 2014 at 9:36 am

Peter, if the Specific Plan is properly crafted, we should expect development to occur reasonably evenly over the stated 20-30 year life. If all the development allowed in the Plan were to occur in the first 5 years, that would indicate the Plan was not well thought out. Why then include an expected build-out lifetime if it isn't close to realistic? That's ignorant, disingenuous, or dishonest.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 16, 2014 at 10:40 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Mike - thanks for stating your opinion so clearly. Your view of planning is fundamentally wrong. There is no reason for vacant properties that have bee zoned for development to lay fallow for 20 years.
If you had the plans and funds to build a ship that was to have a 30 year life would you wait until the 20th year to build it - if course not.
The Specific Plan is designed to develop unused properties not to stop growth and replacement.
Your timeline simply confirms your goal which is to delay any development as long as us possible and by any means possible. If the citizens and council had wanted a development time schedule that would have been raised in the multi year process - it never was so quit grasping fir straws. However your proposal to let vacant parcels stay vacant is actually a great theme upon which to show the shortcomings of initiative.


Posted by Mike Keenly, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 16, 2014 at 11:27 am

Peter, I didn't state that vacant properties should lay fallow. You may have inferred that from my statement, but that's not what I said and not what I believe.

My point is: Why include mention of development expected over 20-30 years in the Specific Plan if it is just a meaningless statement? And I still think your analogy doesn't work here. :)


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 16, 2014 at 11:40 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"include mention of development expected over 20-30 years in the Specific Plan if it is just a meaningless statement? "

Because development is intended to take place over that entire period - including the first two years. And some of the redevelopment of existing structures with 10-20 years if useful life will take place later.

If you sleep for 8 hours do you only really sleep for the last hour?


Posted by Been there, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 16, 2014 at 1:33 pm

The Save Menlo group are good at the political game. If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true. The public will believe anything, whether it is true or false, if told repeatedly. If you don't like what elected officials and organized groups agree to, claim that you were not heard. You were heard. Then begin distorting facts and run the the election polls. Public opinion are easily swayed by distorted rhetoric.
Morris Brown is experienced with this approach. Look at the Derry Project. Stand outside Safeway and Dreagers with a clipboard asking for signatures. Who would not sign when told by signing the petition, gridlock can be avoided? A little late I would say when driving down El Camino.
The no-growthers know the ropes. They appeal to emotion and not reason. Politically, this approach works.
We Menlo Park residents are suckers for this ploy. We are an intelligent group but gullible none the less.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 16, 2014 at 5:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The city has just posted some great information on the issues raised by the initiative including this comment:

"It's important to recognize that the 429,611 square foot number is not the "net impact" for purposes of calculating maximum allowable non-residential use. In keeping with standard practices of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine a project's net impact, the square footage of uses that were active on the site as of the start of the application, as well as the square footage of previous project approvals that were environmentally cleared, are deducted from the new project's proposed square footage.

After making such calculations, the net impact of non-residential uses for the two proposed projects is 291,614 square feet. Click here to see the calculation in more detail.

The two projects' total of 291,614 square feet of non-residential use represents 61.5% of the overall 474,000 square foot non-residential cap.
The 389 apartment units represent 57% of the overall 680-unit residential cap.
While the two proposed projects account for a substantial percentage of the Specific Plan's development caps (61.5% of non-residential; 57% of residential), it is understandable and reasonable, given that these two locations are the largest and most vacant opportunity sites within the Specific Plan area. A significant percentage of development capacity would remain for smaller sites within the area.

It should also be noted that the two projects achieve an appropriate balance of residential/non-residential components. This is a result of the Specific Plan requirement that limits non-medical office uses to no more than one-half of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for any individual development project (note: medical offices are limited further, to no more than one-third of the FAR). "

Interested citizens should read the entire web site:

Web Link


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 16, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"3. Save Menlo does not have to "say who they are"
Wrong, if they advocate, as they are on behalf of an initiative they have a legal disclosure requirement which they have failed to meet.

*******
I have today filed a formal complaint on this matter with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Mr. Gary Winuk
Chief, Enforcement Division
Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Request to Investigate Save Menlo for Violations
of the Political Reform Act

Dear Mr. Winuk:

I am writing to bring to your attention serious violations of the Act by Save Menlo, FPPC ID# 1357780, its current treasurer, Diane Patricia Hart, and its former treasurer, Stefan Petry.

Specifically, my complaint alleges that:

1. Save Menlo continues to state on its Statements of Organization, filed under penalty of perjury, that it is a General Purpose Committee, when in actuality it is promoting a single initiative ballot measure in the City of Menlo Park entitled the "El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area Liveable, Walkable Community Development Standards Act". Save Menlo should file as a Primarily Formed ballot measure committee.

2. While its Statements of Organization claims that it "advocates for smart policies in Menlo Park," it has been raising funds solely for the purpose of drafting, and circulating an initiative measure for the November 2014 Menlo Park City ballot.

3. Save Menlo submitted an initative petition to the City Clerk in February 2014 for title and summary by the City Attorney.

4. Save Menlo has circulated its initiative using both paid petition circulators and volunteers. Save Menlo submitted its petitions to the City Clerk on May 12, 2014.

5. Save Menlo should have registered as a Primarily Formed Committee. As such it should have filed quarterly public disclosure reports. Save Menlo qualified as a committee around July 23, 2013. As such, it should have filed a quarterly report as required by Government Code Section 84202.3:

a. On October 31, 2013 – for the third calendar quarter 2013, and
b. More importantly again by April 30, 2014 – for the first calendar quarter, 2014. Neither of these reports were timely filed.

The Political Reform Act's primary purpose is to provide the public with timely public disclosure so the citizenry and the voters can make informed decisions. The citizens for Menlo Park have been denied this important information.

Specifically, Menlo Park residents do not know who contributed to the committee since the committee's last report, ending December 31, 2013. The residents also do not know on whom funds were spent to print and circulate the petitions. If the April 30th quarterly filing had been made, much of this information would be public now.

I request that you take swift action to stop the Save Menlo Committee from hiding its financial transactions and force the committee into compliance.

Sincerely,




Peter F. Carpenter

****************************
The right to call for a vote of the citizens via petition does not include the right to ignore the laws which apply to fair political practices.



Posted by Time to Debate Substance, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 17, 2014 at 7:21 am

Peter, I do appreciate your rigid pedantic passion, and, its pretty clear to us that the substantive issue of a broken Specific Plan, if not fixed, becomes an issue of broken leadership, particularly when the Initiative takes place during the same election three council members who approved it, Ohtaki, Keith, and Cline are up for re-election.

Time and time again you have made allegation of knowing about people's INTENT, including the INTENT of Mike Lanza and the INTENT of Patty Fry in regard to what they WANT for development in Menlo Park, even when Patty Fry, a former Planning Commission with a long record of service to the community, including a long VOTING history including voting FOR residential and COMMERCIAL projects, and even when Patty Fry was a party to the Derry Settlement that ACCEPTED and AGREED to UPZONE housing densities to 40 units per acre on that site where they were previously zoned for 18.

Now you are suggesting that you know the INTENT Of the SaveMenlo organization, even, frankly when they may not know the scope of their own intent.

The people who alarmed at the first projects to emerge under the Specific Plan aren't evil, Peter, just because they disagree with you, and just because they don't fall over in awe at our being the one and only VOICE OF TRUTH on this issue.

Maybe everyone isnt as evil as you think, and you should just relax a little.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 17, 2014 at 7:43 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I don't think that anyone involved in this initiative is evil - andI have never said that I did.
Frankly I am offended that you attribute those words to me - please quote anytime that I have used them to describe the individuals involved in this initiative.

********************************************************
"Now you are suggesting that you know the INTENT Of the SaveMenlo organization, "
I have simply taken their stated intent from their submitted documents and noted that that stated intent differs from their web site and actions.


***********************************************************************
It IS long past the time to debate substance and I have done my best to ask a number of critical questions - unfortunately debate requires not only questions but answers.

Perhaps you would like to start answering the oft repeated, but unanswered, questions:

1 – They say it is wrong to use up most of the office capacity allowed by the Specifc Plan in the first two years and that instead it should be spread out over a 30-year period. The plan has no time schedule for individual projects but is does make a priority for the early development of the now vacant ECR parcels,

2 – Save Menlo got everything they asked for in its original petition and Stanford agreed to almost all of their demands. So why are you now asking for even more and how much will be enough to satisfy you?

3 – Would Save Menlo Park members be willing to say who they really are? How many members they actually have?

4 – Do you really believe that definitions written today:

""Financial institutions providing retail banking services.This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on site circulation of money,including credit unions."The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters"

""Offices of firms or organizations providing professional,executive,management,or administrative services,such as accounting,advertising,architectural,computer software design,engineering,graphic design, insurance, interior design,investment,and legal offices. This classification excludes hospitals, banks,and savings and loan associations."The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

will still be appropriate even five years from now and if they are not that there should be an election to change even one word of such definitions? What about digital age banks that do not engage in the on site circulation of money? What about a firm that wants to design robots?

5 – Who is the lawyer who helped draft this initiative and what other interests does he represent?

6 – Who is funding this effort?

7 – Do Menlo Park citizens realize that under the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative small property owners on ECR will be restricted to 70% of their current footprint for any new/replacement construction and that the currently permitted construction to their the side lot lines would not be permitted?

8 – Do MP citizens realize that the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative will prevent the construction of a new fire station serving the downtown area?

9 – Do MP citizens know that signatures are being obtained using paid solicitors?

10 – Do MP citizens know that claims of 6 story buildings being either permitted or proposed under the Specific Plan are simply untrue and that the tallest building proposed by Stanford is only FOUR feet taller than the existing building at the corner of ECR and Live Oak Drive?

11 – Do MP citizens know that a major new hotel project decided not to locate in Menlo Park because of the uncertainties created by the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative?

12 – What are the other unknown and unintended (or perhaps deliberately intended) consequences of the totally unvetted Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative?

13 – Do MP citizens believe that Mike Lanza, Patti Fry and their anonymous lawyer, without any public comment, without multiple drafts, without a Draft and a Final EIR and without numerous public hearings, are really better able to define the future of your city than are your five elected city council members and your seven appointed planning commissioners and the superb city planning and transportation staff that have all worked diligently and totally in the open to produce the existing Specific Plan?

14 – Do MP citizens know that the traffic levels on ECR were significantly reduced from those permitted by the prior zoning when the Specific Plan was adopted?

15 – Do the MP citizens know that the original Stanford proposal would have produced less traffic than was was permitted by the Specific Plan?

16 – Do the MP citizens know that, as a consequence of the work of the Keith/Carlton subcommittee, that the traffic that would have been produced by the revised Stanford plan was even less than that of the original Stanford plan?

17 – What was the date and the time of the ECR traffic photo being used by Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative campaign?

18- What authority does the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative campaign have to use the City of Menlo Park's copyrighted logo?

19 – The Planning Commission and the City Council did a review of the Specific Plan last Fall so this raises the question: Which of the 20+ changes to the Specific Plan that are included in the Mike Lanza/Patti Fry Initiative were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their public consideration during the 2013 review of the Specific Plan?

20 - Is this initiative process simply being used to gather names, support and name recognition for Lanza and/or Fry to run for the City Council this year? If it is, will Lanza and Fry reimburse the City for the cost of putting this issue on the ballot.?

I welcome answers to these questions from Lanza and Fry – or others.


Posted by Gern, a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 17, 2014 at 10:02 am

Peter petered: "I don't think that anyone involved in this initiative is evil - andI have never said that I did. Frankly I am offended that you attribute those words to me - please quote anytime that I have used them to describe the individuals involved in this initiative."

It's something of a relief to know Peter feels initiative supporters are merely the "dumb" and "lazy" enemies of representative government and the rule of law, but are not evil [Web Link].

Peter also petered: "I have today filed a formal complaint on this matter with the Fair Political Practices Commission…."

Riveting stuff, Peter, but your letter seeking truth and openness excluded your current title, "Facilitator of Clandestine Meetings Betwixt Initiative Opponents and Unnamed Sympathetic City Council Members". Honestly, despite your nascent career as a reporter/blogger I think you owe Menlo Park voters a full accounting of your recent, highly secretive, unvetted meetings with our city council members.

Specifically, your abject refusal to answer these simplest of questions about the privileged information you received from two unnamed Menlo Park City Council members regarding the rumored loss of a Banyan Tree Group-cum-Banyan Investment Group hotel project sited on the Greenheart-cum-Roger Reynolds property deserves further discussion:

1. Which two council members divulged this information and who or what was their source?
2. Who else attended this meeting besides Peter, Roy, and the two council members?
3. What was the context and substance of this meeting, apart from a discussion of the rumored hotel and the initiative before us?
4. Why are the initiative's two most vocal opponents (in this forum, at least) meeting with two council members and gleaning information which, by all indications, appears privileged?
5. Has this information been shared with other city personnel besides the two council members?
6. Were meeting minutes kept and was the public invited (fates help our council if three members were present)?
7. What was the actual status of this "major new hotel project" before it was abandoned, in light of the relatively recent demise of Roger Reynolds Nursery?
8. Has the rumored hotel developer corroborated this story?

Gern


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 17, 2014 at 10:12 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I have not received privileged information from any city council member.

As noted the information on the Banyan Group's interest in the Roger Reynolds site and decision not to pursue that site based on the current uncertainties has been confirmed by the city' Economic Development Director. Clearly Gern does not read what has already been posted.

Gern - are you not the least bit embarrassed that you never ANSWER questions?


Posted by Gern, a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 17, 2014 at 10:25 am

"School crowding and traffic. The petition could result in significantly more high-density housing being built on the two vacant El Camino lots, leading to more crowding in our over-burdened Menlo Park schools."

Perhaps conveniently, Mr. Boyle appears to have forgotten that if we build more office space rather than high-density housing on the indicated properties our jobs-housing imbalance will be further exacerbated, requiring yet more housing. Seems we'll get the housing either way, but with the denser office space already on El Camino we'll be left scratching our heads about where to build the needed housing, kindly ABAG looking over our shoulders all the while.

Gern


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 17, 2014 at 10:27 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.


Gern - are you not the least bit embarrassed that you never ANSWER questions?


Posted by fact checker, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 18, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Using data on the city website about the Specific Plan and the two large proposed projects at 500 El Camino and 1300 El Camino, I see a couple facts that might be useful so that there is discussion comparing apples with apples, not apples with papayas.

The residential limit of 680 residential units is established in the Specific Plan as its Maximum Builout. That can be exceeded only with "an amendment to the Specific Plan and complete the necessary environmental review." (see page G16 of the DTSP). This is not necessarily a full EIR as any former Planning Commissioner should know. The initiative doesn't change this limit or this process. Therefore, there would be no more school impacts from the initiative than are already in the DTSP that John supported and now defends.

The non-residential limit is indeed measured as net new SF from office, retail, nail salons, etc. The city website regarding the initiative (see www.menlopark.org/784/Net-Impact-Square-Footage) presents the city's calculation for the 500 ECR (Stanford) and 1300 ECR (Greenheart) projects. The proposed non-residential SF for Greenheart does not match what the 1300 ECR project part of the Community Development Projects tab shows, with proposed 210,000 SF to 217,000 SF of non-residential SF, depending whether there is a market for retail.(See last page at www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3553).

Is the city a liar to provide such contradictory information?
For conscientious seekers of truth, how about chasing that down? And while you're at it, why not ask why the 1300 ECR project information available to the public is an undated document that has no cover letter or city receipt date?

SaveMenlo is claiming that these two proposals exceed the 30 year amount of office that was in the Specific Plan EIR and financial analysis studies, which was 240,820 SF of office. They are not liars; they are correct, even when looking at net SF:
Stanford's project (see www.menlopark.org/172/500-El-Camino-Real-Project) shows 199,500 SF of office. Greenheart's project shows 210,000 SF of office, or a total of 409,500 SF. If you subtract the previously approved 1300 ECR office of 58.700 SF (for the long-totally-vacant lot) from that, you get a net new amount of office 350,800 SF. That's more than 45% above the total amount estimated for the entire specific plan area, for 30 years.

Community consensus can be measured several ways. One is through the number of participants in the vision workshops, each of which appears to have included fewer than 100 participants each (see DTSP Appendix H3), which included residents, non-residents and developers. Another way is to count the number of people who signed the Save Menlo petition, which is reportedly well over the minimum of 10% of the registered voters of Menlo Park. The city says there are 17,803 registered voters.

These are facts.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 18, 2014 at 3:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Therefore, there would be no more school impacts from the initiative than are already in the DTSP that John supported and now defends. "

If the current Stanford and Greenheart proposals are constrained by the initiative then any revised proposals could result in a total of 680 residential units instead of 389 units in the current proposals - that is a difference of almost 300 units which would be a big impact on the schools particularly if the units were 2 and 3 bedroom units.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 18, 2014 at 3:54 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"SaveMenlo is claiming that these two proposals exceed the 30 year amount of office that was in the Specific Plan EIR and financial analysis studies, which was 240,820 SF of office"

The proposed measure's desired cap on total square feet of all new office space (240,820) appears to be based on the Specific Plan's "Illustrative Plan" description (page C20), which describes only one potential development concept as an example, illustrated by that amount of square footage. Providing such an example – as an illustration only - is typical of a long-range planning document. To be clear, the Illustrative Plan description is not intended to put forth a fixed limit on square footage; rather it describes "how the plan area could potentially build out." This section of the Specific Plan states clearly and repeatedly that the actual build-out will likely vary from the initial projection over 20 to 30 years.

The two largest currently proposed developments (at 500 and 1300 El Camino Real) include approximately 429,611 square feet of non-residential uses (mostly office; some retail/restaurant/personal service areas), and 389 apartment units.

It's important to recognize that the 429,611 square foot number is not the "net impact" for purposes of calculating maximum allowable non-residential use. In keeping with standard practices of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine a project's net impact, the square footage of uses that were active on the site as of the start of the application, as well as the square footage of previous project approvals that were environmentally cleared, are deducted from the new project's proposed square footage.

After making such calculations, the net impact of non-residential uses for the two proposed projects is 291,614 square feet.


Posted by fact checker, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 18, 2014 at 4:54 pm

Peter is correct about non-residential SF IF one of the two city postings is correct. I would point out that the difference in the net total office and total non-residential is the loss of retail. The previously approved 1300 ECR project included a grocery store as part of that.

A real issue, though, is what caused the Council and community to support the DTSP? They were told it would be the balanced picture of development forecast in the "most reasonably foreseeable" 30-year scenario created by the consultants. Reasonable people would understand a minor deviation from
that, but not >45% more office than a 30-year projection in just 2 projects in less than 2 years.

The 680 residential unit buildout is not intended to be just for 2 sites. Neither was the non-residential buildout. If anyone is worried about how much of either type of buildout could be on these 2 sites, they should worry about the zoning code underlying the DTSP. I can't find any analysis of what the maximum allowable buildout is in the DTSP area's 130 acres. If anyone else can, please advise us all.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Reasonable people would understand a minor deviation from
that, but not >45% more office than a 30-year projection in just 2 projects in less than 2 years. "

There is NO timetable for development in the Specific Plan. It would be crazy to leave vacant parcels vacant for 20-25 years just so that development was "evenly spaced" over the 30 ear period.

While the two proposed projects account for a substantial percentage of the Specific Plan's development caps (61.5% of non-residential; 57% of residential), it is understandable and reasonable, given that these two locations are the largest and most vacant opportunity sites within the Specific Plan area. A significant percentage of development capacity would remain for smaller sites within the area.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 18, 2014 at 5:32 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Citizens need to realize that the Lanza/Fry initiative is fundamentally an attack on good government by a small group of people, mostly based in and financed by the Allied Arts neighborhood, who did not get their way.

Democracy is about careful deliberation, decisions by elected representatives and acting in the common good. Lanza/Fry want to support their "vision's" narrow self interest for that of the Planning Commission and the City Council - both of which, after lots of public input and careful deliberation, voted unanimously to support and adopt the Specific Plan because it was in the best interest of the entire community and did not just cater to the narrow self interest of a small group.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 18, 2014 at 5:47 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" I can't find any analysis of what the maximum allowable buildout is in the DTSP area's 130 acres. If anyone else can, please advise us all."

This has been widely reported and posted - why is it an unknown to you?

The Specific Plan divides the maximum allowable development between residential and non-residential uses as follows:

Residential uses: maximum of 680 units
Non-residential uses, including retail, office, and hotel: maximum of 474,000 square feet
The proposed measure's cap on total square feet of non-residential uses (474,000 square feet) already exists in the Specific Plan. For reference, that square footage is equivalent to about one-third of the overall Facebook campus project, or about one-half of the Menlo Gateway project.


Posted by fact checker, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 19, 2014 at 11:50 am

sorry but the Maximum Buildout is not the same as maximum allowable buildout, which is what the rules really would allow if all sites were to develop as they could. I have not seen that analysis and welcome its location if it's already available.

The DTSP was written for large and small sites on El Camino and downtown. If let's say that a council decided to change the amount of nonresidential allowed, without changing the zoning code in the plan, how high could the revised Maximum become?


Posted by The Hammer, a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on May 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm

It's really easy to find "facts" that support your argument when you invent them. Very creative, Peter! Since you also like to write (a lot!) have you ever thought of pursuing a career as a fantasy/scifi author? Or is your behind-the-scenes job as Stanford promoter too lucrative to consider a career shift?


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Hammer - please find ONE error in the facts that I have presented. None of my facts are invented and all are obtained from original sources.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this "thoughtful gathering place". I realize that this may be a reach for you but please try.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 19, 2014 at 2:51 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"the Maximum Buildout is not the same as maximum allowable buildout, which is what the rules really would allow if all sites were to develop as they could."

The maximum allowable buildout is irrelevant because the Specific Plan contains a maximum allowable development limit which is an overriding constraint and which cannot be changed except by council amendment of the Specific Plan.

Under the old C-4 zoning there was no cumulative cap; under the Specific Plan there IS a cumulative cap.

It is notable that the ECR traffic projections for what was allowed under the old, pre-Specific Plan zoning, (10,643 trips) is more than THREE TIMES what is projected for the traffic from the revised Stanford plan (3,284 trips).


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 19, 2014 at 4:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Note that Gern, Time to Debate Substance, and Hammer all disappear when they are challenged to answer questions and provide facts.

Save Menlo ignores the laws regarding both their initiative petition and the reporting of their campaign financing and also refuses to answer any questions.

Do the Lana/Fry Save Menlo really think that the voters won't demand both answers and conformance with the laws?


Posted by fact checker, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on May 20, 2014 at 11:35 am

so there is a cap that's an "overriding constraint" on residential units? Shouldn't that meant that Boyle is wrong to worry?

The DTSP EIR did not measure what was allowed under old zoning rules. It made assumptions about the future based on the past, including a flat 1% per year growth factor about traffic for what's happening around Menlo Park. This information is in EIR page 4.13-60. Please point to where it says otherwise.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 20, 2014 at 11:45 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"The DTSP EIR did not measure what was allowed under old zoning rules."

But the recently released traffic study does; that is where my traffic figures came from.

"so there is a cap that's an "overriding constraint" on residential units? Shouldn't that meant that Boyle is wrong to worry?"

I think Boyle is properly worried that initiative constrained proposals for the Stanford parcels could be all housing instead of the 170 units currently contemplated. Worse case would be all housing with 3 and 4 bedroom units and all with priority for Stanford faculty and students which would put a huge load on our schools and provide little income for the city.

Very little has been done to explore the unintended consequences of the Lanza/Fry initiative.


Posted by The Hammer, a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on May 20, 2014 at 6:02 pm

[Post removed. Please discuss the issue without engaging in personal attacks.]


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 20, 2014 at 8:10 pm

[Post removed. Please discuss the issue without attacks on other posters.]


Posted by The Hammer, a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on May 20, 2014 at 8:51 pm

[Post removed. Avoid personal attacks.]


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 21, 2014 at 6:59 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Hammer - please find ONE error in the facts that I have presented. None of my facts are invented and all are obtained from original sources."
**********************
Hammer is unable to provide a single error and instead engages in meaningless personal attacks (and yet the editors strangely allow his unfounded personal attacks to remain.)


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2014 at 7:06 am

Hammer:

I've read it. There's nothing disingenuous in what I said. You on the other hand....Please point out what facts that have been posted here by Peter that are in error. You've been asked to several times yet you just throw stones instead of provide some actual facts.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,492 views

College Freshmen: Avoiding the Pitfalls
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,292 views

Camp Glamp
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 1,153 views

Council election, and then some.
By Stuart Soffer | 6 comments | 490 views

Those Constantly Pulling the Race Card
By Martin Lamarque | 0 comments | 53 views