Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2013 at 9:30 am
I hope the City is listening; over 400 people signed a petition against this project, 80 or more attended the Planning Commission Meeting 100% Residential opposition. Let's kick the Specific Plan back to the City Council or repeal it.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
The proposed project fully conforms with the existing zoning established by the council after the opportunity for full input by the citizens.To deny Stanford the right to build in conformance withe the current zoning would be a very expensive 'Taking'.
All of the alternatives proposed by the opponents involve adding cars to ECR. So obviously the only answer for the opponents is to leave these parcels empty. The only way to do that would be to pay Stanford market rate rents for the property - how much would that cost each MP resident?
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2013 at 11:31 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
"We have a right to dictate the kind of city we want to have, "
Absolutely and to that end you elected city council members to represent your interests and you participated, or choose not to participate, in the public meetings that led up to the current adopted zoning.
400 people signing a petition, a very small percentage of MP residents, does not and cannot change either the council membership or the approved zoning ordinance.
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 pm
To Our City, and the others whom have signed the petition. This won't be a popular post, and I have purposely abstained from commenting up til now because I, like Peter C. am not a resident of MP. However, I work(which means I spend a majority of my waking hours) here in MP and I, too, endure the MESS that ECR is during peak hours. I get it! However, at this point I am compelled to state some opinions-solely in the spirit of offering what I think is sound advice. First, both of Peter's posts above are spot on, and those wanting to affect some modification to this project, short of thinking they can deny it, should really take his comments as being constructive advice. To deny approval of this project for reasons beyond VALID architectural control,is inviting litigation that would be expensive to defend and highly likely fruitless. Second, separate the issue of "shoulda, coulda, woulda" in terms of how the zoning got approved; it is now the legal parameters that the property owner has to follow, and this project, like it or not, conforms. Notice I said property owner; so third, forget that its Stanford, or that the developer is a big time player, ALL property owners have legal rights, please remember that-a court would. Fourth, and finally, and echoing Peter's last point, 400 people is roughly 0.0112% of the population of MP-0.0112% of the population does not, in my opinion anyway, "have the right to dictate the kind of city" any community wants to have.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Peter and WhoR are absolutely correct. It's very unfortunate that the city got nothing in writing from Stanford instead relying on pie in the sky promisses. Yes, it's bait and switch, but our city set it up so it could happen and Stanford is famous for shoving their problems into our city.
We're stuck with this abomination and all its attendent problems. If the city allows a few hundred people to get this project stoped you can forget having any other developers come in and develop the vacant car lots on El Camino. Or anywhere else for that matter. Why would they? So they can spends hundreds of thousands of dollars developing plans and jumping though city hoops just to have the rules get changed on them after the fact? Next life. Developers are not that stupid. You can't change the rules after you've agreed to them.
We can only hope to mitigate this mess not prevent it. Planning should pay close attention to the look of the architecture (it's the only thing they can look at) and make sure it is in keeping with the rest of the city.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2013 at 4:13 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Why not, as WhoRUpeople and Menlo Voter suggest, devote energy into making this a great project. Lot's of creative win-win things could be done such as encouraging people who work in the new complex to live there, ensuring the the free Stanford provide Marguerite Web Link shuttle serves the complex, good pedestrian and bike access etc.
Beating Stanford over the head won't accomplish anything - they HAVE the development rights.
Posted by not so fast, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm
We are NOT stuck with this project! Stanford has no vested rights at this time. The project has not been approved.
The project has to pass both Architectural Control and an environmental review. The environmental review cannot possibly conclude that the Specific Plan EIR adequately studied and mitigated the negative impacts of this project. Thus, those with discretionary review in Menlo Park (Planning Commission, and Council on appeal) can reject it.
It will take courage for the Council and Commission to do the right thing, but it is quite telling that a number of those in both of those bodies did not expect the Specific Plan to result in a project like this. They should fix the rules so projects will come forward that the community wants and expects. This project isn't it!
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2013 at 7:13 am Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
"Stanford has no vested rights at this time"
Wrong. Every property owner has the vested right to develop their property in accordance with the existing zoning of that property. To refuse them this right is called 'down-zoning' and the courts have consistently held that that is an illegal 'taking' of property.
The architectural review can request changes in the external visual appearance of the project but they cannot require that the size of the project be reduced.
An EIR 'requires' nothing; it is simply a statement regarding the impacts of any proposed project. If any of those impacts are deemed as significant then the city and the property owner will negotiate appropriate mitigation - which cannot, by law, require that the scope of the project be reduced below that which is permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Stomping your feet trying to stop this project will only hurt your feet - start focussing on developing win-win improvements and mitigations.