I recommended to the Council that the horizontal and vertical dimensions of this project be staked out for public review and comment BEFORE the Council approved this construction.

I predict that there will be widespread disappointment with the Council's decision to approve this huge structure when the actual magnitude of this project becomes obvious - and then it will be too late to remedy the situation.

You predict Athertonians will complain about a construction project? Why not really go out on a limb and try and predict whether the sun will rise tomorrow.....

This Atherton little League project has the smell of two other deceptively planned projects in recent years which also were pushed through by deceiving the public as to what they really entailed. To wit: High Speed Rail and Obamacare. Since so much of the truth was hidden before the vote that allowed them, all three should be replaced with new votes after providing more complete information. Anything less is unfair if not illegal.

Hours and noise??? Limits on number and time of games? For Atherton teams only?

I disagree with "sniffer." This project has been discussed and reviewed at a number of Council meetings. It was approved by the voters. Full Disclosure: I was on the board of the M-A Little League when my son played in the league 24 years ago. At that time fifty percent of the participants in the league lived in Atherton and there was no facility in Atherton available for the players. I do not know what the percentage is today, but I can't imagine it being much different.
At that time a good friend of mineand resident of Atherton paid for the previous small field in one corner of the park. An adequate ballpark to meet the needs of the baseball and softball players is long overdue and I applaud the actions of the league in getting this project approved.

All of this commotion -- OVER A LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD???

Excuse me, but it's not like a full-size replica of AT&T Park is being built in Atherton. It's a Little League field.

Crimeney.

Peter Carpenter is complaining about a voter approved construction project?

Ahahahaha.

It was discussed at council. Didn't he participate in democracy?
The voters approved it. Didn't they bother to read what they approved?
He's complaining about the Council. Don't we elect them to do this hard work?

"I predict that there will be widespread disappointment with the Council's decision to approve this huge structure when the actual magnitude of this project becomes obvious - and then it will be too late to remedy the situation."

Sounds familiar...

"It was discussed at council. Didn't he participate in democracy?"

I did participate and it was at that point that I recommended "to the Council that the horizontal and vertical dimensions of this project be staked out for public review and comment BEFORE the Council approved this construction."

"The voters approved it."

The voters approved the concept, not the plans. The plans were to be subject to Planning Commission Approval - the Planning Commission did NOT approve the Plans.

"He's complaining about the Council." Yes

"Don't we elect them to do this hard work?" Yes and I think that the Council's action on this issue will cause some of them to not be reelected.

[Post removed. Please post about the topic, not about other posters.]

Can't imagine anybody not wanting a free baseball field. Can't be any worse then that eyesore modular setup they had before. In talking to people at the park seems their biggest concern is who is going to maintain it and who is going to pay for it. Funny nobody worries about whose going to pay for the soon to be proposed event garden in the park. If people didn't know what they were voting on then why vote yes.

"If people didn't know what they were voting on then why vote yes."

The voters approved the concept, not the plans. The plans were to be subject to Planning Commission Approval - and the Planning Commission did NOT approve the Plans.

I am thankful for all of the hard work that has gone into the lengthy and meticulous approval process for this project over the past 5 years. I am thankful for the Little League, for those who have donated time and money to upgrade our park, and for a forward-thinking City Council that sees the bright future of Atherton through the bit of vacuous noise created by a tiny and angry minority of folks pursuing their own selfish agendas. Indeed, this project is not "controversial"; it was approved overwhelmingly by our citizens and thoroughly vetted by Town leadership with access to details which have been consistent all along. I am thankful that this beautiful gift is being provided by generous people who want to give back to the children and families of our community. I am thankful for the positive impact it will have on their lives. Happy Thanksgiving!

@Grateful: Thank you for summing up what is so positive about this Little League park proposal.

And think of what message those who oppose this are actually sending. I guess when it comes right down to it, the interests of children actually do NOT matter to them...

I am neither opposing the concept of a stadium nor dismissing the importance of children but rather urging respect for the Measure M that was passed by the voters regarding the concept of a structure at the baseball field. Measure M stated that the structure -"should be allowed to be constructed after appropriate planning review".

The Ballot statement included this language :"Voter approval of the measure will not automatically grant the Little League improvement proposal which will still have to go through the normal Town land use review process."

The Planning Commission refused to approve the current design. Atherton's Planning Commission stated that "the physical improvements are too monumental, too large in scale and counter to maintaining the rustic nature of the park," commission chair Herman Christensen".

The comments of the Planning Commission were considered carefully by the City Council. Some of the PC's recommendations (such as removable fences) were accepted by our able elected leadership, and others were not. The size of the seating area, for example, was kept consistent with what the voters approved (capacity of "100 people seated comfortably using 36" per seat"). It is actually quite modest and nothing close to a "stadium". Despite any noise created by those pursuing their own personal agendas at the expense of the children and families of our community, this process went exactly as it should have and Atherton will be better because of it. This is a significant improvement that is not costing the Town a dime. The small, insignificant minority complaining about this project needs to give up the negativity and be grateful for the generosity of our fellow citizens.

Grateful seems to feel that the end justifies the means - I simply disagree.

In a democracy process is much more important than a particular outcome.

The Council knew that this was a controversial process and they still choose to ignore the input of the Planning Commission and the concerns of some citizens.

When the project is built it will be a permanent monument to that short sighted decision and the voters will get to decide if those council members who ignored the planning commission's oversight and recommendations deserve the continued support of those whom they were elected to serve.

Mr. Carpenter seems to believe that the Council is bound to follow all recommendations of the Planning Commission, all the time. Not so. The PC is a valuable advisor, but the elected Council ultimately decides whether or not to follow PC recommendations. In this case, the Council did not ignore the PC. The recommendations were heard. Many were followed; some were not. The process worked exactly as designed. The principles of democracy were well served. We all should be grateful for that too.

Peter Carpenter -- "When the project is built it will be a permanent monument to that short sighted decision and the voters will get to decide if those council members who ignored the planning commission's oversight and recommendations deserve the continued support of those whom they were elected to serve."

That is a matter of OPINION, sir. And that presumes that the citizenry of Atherton is in lockstep with that particular point of view.

The term "presumptuous" comes to mind, doesn't it?

"That is a matter of OPINION, sir." Uh, am I just missing something or isn't this forum a place for people to express their OPINIONs? As someone who observed the development of this issue, start to finish, I think Mr. Carpenter's assessment is clear and accurate. And yes, that's my OPINION.

I voted FOR Measure M but feel strongly that the Council has failed to properly implement that citizen decision.

This is from the official minutes of the Council's 15 Jan meeting:

"Phil Lively spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission indicating that the Commission the project plans are too large and that they counter the intended character of the park."

And a number of residents voiced similar concerns.

Then a divided Council voted 3-2 to approve the project.
"MOTION by Lewis, second by DeGolia to approve staff recommendation, with the caveat that there be a “post-season” check-in on how things worked and what needs to change each year and that the facility be constructed in a manner that is consistent with the historic character of facilities in the Park. The motion passed 3-2 with Dobbie and Widmer opposed because of the size of the facility."


In my opinion wise elected officials operating under a citizen approved initiative should continue reworking the proposed solution until there is unanimous agreement. The 3-2 split vote and the decision to override the Planning Commission's recommendations ensure continued controversy on this project.

I voted FOR Measure M but feel strongly that the Council has failed to properly implement that citizen decision.

Gawd, I can't stand the selfishness of some of the little league parents and their fauning sycophants.

What voters approved clearly stated that the plans were to go though the normal review process. But no, that wasn't good enough for little league and their self-obsessed supporters. They wanted special treatment and were stubbornly unwilling to work with the town on changes in design.

Everyone I know and everyone who has posted on almanacnews has supported improvement to the baseball field and stands, so it is the height of hypocrisy that little league and their sycophants imply others have a personal agenda.

The only agenda is to ensure all children have equal enjoyment of the park, unlike little league, which views the park as their exclusive venue, and couldn't care less obout other uses of the park.

In the minds of little league and their sycophants, the only children that matter are male little league children.

That organization has been a poor partner and has taken advantage of the goodwill of the town, and for that I have nothing but contempt for them and their supporters.

The facts is that the real Little League players don't care about this edifice. They play (like I did when I was their age) wherever their is an open field and four bases.

This whole thing is an ego trip by a small group of parents.

As a mother of a daughter who adores little league, I take issue with any suggestion that this is all about boys. That is way out of touch, but I'll chalk it up to a symptom of anger and hate.

'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play...
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate...
But I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake...
Shake it off, shake it off!

My prediction is that everyone will LOVE this new field. And how cool is it that they are naming it after our very own Willie Mays! Yay!!!

swift - The only "anger and hate" on this Forum is that which you have attempted to inject; the rest of us are engaged in rational dialogue. You are invited to rise to the opportunity.

what a wonderful opportunity for the kids to have - a baseball park in their own area !! Not too worried about construction & noise etc. Just check out Atherton Ave & its surrounding neighborhoods. - Lots of cars, construction, noise ets. !!! Don't see any evening concerts on the calendar for this venue.
Embrace to fact that the kids have a place to go, parents who are willing to give their time to coach, & parents who are supportive. What fun it was when our boys were growing up to go sit & watch games at Ford Field in Portola Valley. Some of our very best friendships came out of parents enjoying each other's company.
Sounds like a "Win Win"

PLAY BALL !!!!

Peter you state the language from the ballot. "I am neither opposing the concept of a stadium nor dismissing the importance of children but rather urging respect for the Measure M that was passed by the voters regarding the concept of a structure at the baseball field. Measure M stated that the structure -"should be allowed to be constructed after appropriate planning review".

The Planning Commission was to review the plan and they did. Nowhere did it state they had to approve them. This is not hairsplitting, but the way I see it. They contributed their 2 cents, now its moving on.

Planning Commissions don't approve plans on city property. Great wisdom from somebody.

Yes, another absolutely AMAZING prediction from Nostradamus above!

Can we safely say that this thread has run its course? It's becoming obvious that a majority of the posters here are in favor of the Little League park proposal. If Mr. Carpenter wishes to have the project put to a vote, it should be considered. And if the majority of Atherton residents come out in favor of it, the matter should be allowed to die a natural death. As it should.

[part removed.] The project has been approved and is currently being built as approved.

The issue is did the Council exercise wise judgement in disregarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission that "the project plans are too large and that they counter the intended character of the park."?

"the project plans are too large and that they counter the intended character of the park."

Character according to who?

Can you imagine the standstill this town would be under if part of the planning process was design review (like they are trying to exercise on the MALL)? Atherton unlike most places does not have this requirement. Nothing would ever get built, and the property values would reflect the inability of this group to come to a consensus (of their beliefs).

Looks to me like, if the hold up or petition is based on pleasing the planning commission, nothing moves forward. Ever. But the pc did get their review as promised and I'm sure there was some give and take. Just not everything they wanted. Right?

Build it and they will come. You'll see.

I agree with Mr. Carpenter's views as many residents also do; see the Petition at: Web Link
Hopefully, the Almanac article and comments will attract others to see what is being done, and proceed to sign the Petition.

What has been missed in all this is the fact that over the past year the Town has had in place a process for completing a Master Plan for Holbrook Palmer Park. Because of the lack of transparency and, I believe, political back channeling, the construction of the ball park has been able to avoid this prudent process. The Master Planning has been ongoing over the past several years and has been considered very important to assure a balanced development of HP Park.

I am not against the Little league or young men playing baseball; I played LL as a young man and value what it taught me. However, in voting yes on Measure M, as I'm sure others did, I believed that a prudent review would discover that the Little League had other stadiums/bleachers in surrounding communities and that the children already had a very adequate place to play in HP Park. Also the plans to have up to 200 spectators on Saturdays and Sundays would clearly crowd out other uses of the Park on those days. The noise to the surrounding residential neighborhoods is a whole other issue, which a Master Planning process would weigh. This Little League 'franchise' attracts children from both Menlo Park and Atherton; it is ironic that if this Stadium is built it will be a considerably larger and a permanent structure while the one at Burgess Park in Menlo Park is smaller and not permanent. The one in Menlo Park could be easily moved, unlike what is being done in HP Park. Is it surprising if many of us believe this effort on Little League's part signals a move to hold big games in HP Park rather than at Burgess Park? Menlo Park has the majority of children in Little League.

A large part of the Council's willingness to look away from the many negatives is the money. Something that is free must be OK. It is amusing that Mr Gardner 'batted' away the question of how much it will cost and that the Little league has already reneged on the part of the deal to donate $50,000 for Park beautification, substituting $100,000 for 'improvements to the Park', obviously wanting to keep control of where the moneys might be used.

Residents should recognize that the Council has bowed to a pro-development force; our community is being changed with little or no transparency or any real democratic process. The Council has allowed the Staff of the Town too much leeway. The comment of Mr. Tyler that "the construction should have minimal impact on the Park", while his opinion, is clearly in 'foul ball' territory and once built there is no question he will be proved wrong. This issue is not as simple as some commentators express as being just in the interests of children. The issue involves a failure of democratic processes. It is important enough to halt what is going on and place it on the the Agenda of the Master Planning group. The issue is in line with other Master Plan impacts.

I am a board member of a near by Little League. I am thrilled for Atherton to be getting a remodeled field. Sadly, I am not surprised it is coming under fire. It is comical how residents are so willing to fight a group of volunteers trying to improve the community.

I have been to HP park numerous times, a new field with permanent structures for baseball/softball will be a welcome addition. It will be a point of pride for the community, similar to the way Middlefield ball park is for Palo Alto.

I had a laugh when I saw people were worried about noise from the games. You really think this will be louder than the train tracks next to your house?

Good luck Atherton Little League!

da wrote:
> I am a board member of a near by Little League.
> I am thrilled for Atherton to be getting a
> remodeled field. Sadly, I am not surprised
> it is coming under fire.

Nobody that has commented on this article so far is arguing against "getting a remodeled field." You and the others are dabbling in STRAWMAN territory.

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

The opponents of goodwill and compromise (da, George M, etc) have been misrepresenting the points made by others. Classic strawman. The park is multi-purpose and it is in the best interest of the community at large that it be kept multi-functional and be useful for a broad spectrum of the community, not just Little League.

Compromise is in the best interest of the community, but Little League and the parent have made it clear that compromise is not a part of their vocabulary, which ironically makes them terrible role models for the very children they're suppose to be raising and helping to grow into adults.

Hopefully this isn't over your heads. I'd love to see an intelligent, informed discussion on this, but considering how the anti-compromise parents have behaved in this discussion, I'm not going to hold my breath.

"The park is multi-purpose and it is in the best interest of the community at large that it be kept multi-functional and be useful for a broad spectrum of the community, not just Little League. "

Well stated. It will be interesting to see what happens when other people try use this facility - will the Little league claims that it is "theirs" and that no one else may use it?

The Park is a scarce public open space and dedicating a significant portion of it to a special interest group is a bad idea.

And what will the Town say when some other wealthy group wants to build a large "community" green house or another group wants to build a riding ring or another group wants to build a lawn bowling green, etc.?

Wow Peter,

You should consider assembling a group of concerned citizens - you could call it: Save Atherton.

Wow Peter,

You should consider assembling a group of concerned citizens - you could call it: Save Atherton.

Mp resident:

didn't work in Menlo Park what makes you think it would work in Atherton?

"The park is multi-purpose and it is in the best interest of the community at large that it be kept multi-functional and be useful for a broad spectrum of the community, not just Little League."

Okay.

So I googled the park, just to make sure my walks there didn't leave me with a mis-representation of actual sizes, and looked at a satellite view.

Talk about STRAWMEN!!!!! Baseball uses a corner of the park. Tennis uses a not dissimilar amount of space. It's empty, mostly unused grass away from the rest of the park. On the tracks.

Baseball IS part of the broad spectrum.

Its a huge park. A baseball field is part of a good multi-use park, as are tennis courts, etc..

Unless pc thinks we should stripe a football field across the outfield.

This stadium is a perfect example of mission creep. What started out as a modest structure has become an edifice. The permissions have been given and the deed is done.

But when it is finished and people realize that a significant portion of the park will be off limits to everyone else for 5 months of every year ("Use of the field area shall not be granted by the Town to any other group for organized events during the season. The season is defined as February, March, April, May and June.") I think there will be a lot of recriminations.

Time will tell - and the LL'ers will certainly have a superb facility.

Doesn't the park have a deed restriction? Won't the land revert to a charity when the field is used -- and oh yes it will be-- by non Atherton teams.

Go check out how a field like this will be at another location. Noise. Cheering. Parents who park wherever they want.

These games are far from benign .

"and oh yes it will be-- by non Atherton teams." and yet it's TOTALLY OKAY for Athertonian type tykes to play on Menlo and Woodside fields? Get a grip. Either Atherton is part of the Menlo community, or it's not - if not, build a wall around the town, for heaven's sake!

"Go check out how a field like this will be at another location. Noise. Cheering." As mentioned earlier... yes, it will loud.

Get the police to do sound measurements. But, of course, in order to get accurate readings, make sure the measurements aren't done when the...

TRAIN IS BARRELING THROUGH right next to the park, with horns, bells from the gate, etc..!

"Cheering." Omigosh! Not the horrid sound of parents occasionally clapping for children! Oh, the horror! What on earth is this town coming to?!?!?

@absolutely AMAZING!!!!: I hope, somewhere out there, there is someone reading this story and discussion thread, and furiously typing away at a script for a satirical story/play about this very subject.

I really hope for that.