Morris:

should measure m pass Stanford will develop each of their parcels separately up to 99,000 sf each. Each with separate entrances. Each likely to have medical offices. Each likely to have maximum residential. The things negotiated for will be gone. Traffic impacts that would have been mitigated by a single large project with no medical and a single entrance will be gone to be replaced by much worse traffic impacts.

I find it astounding that you think that's a good idea Morris. I really do. You're so anti-growth you can't see the forest for the trees. If measure m passes the voters will have collectively shot themselves in the foot. Brilliant!

@Menlo Voter

Sir or Ms:

You don't know what Stanford will do, and neither do I (and neither does Peter Carpenter). Whatever, Stanford would propose would still have to pass approval by Council.

That's is why we need a new Council, and a Council different from the present which has just "rubber stamped", everything Staff advocates.

Again Yes on Measure M protect the quality of life in Menlo Park

@Morris,

The COUNCIL would not have to approve the project if it falls within the Specific Plan guidelines and passes Architectural Review. 99,000 square foot projects would also fall within the Yes on M modification.

Again, you and your cohorts on M have NOT thought through the issues. In the meantime talk me through what COULD be build based on you assessment of Measure M's impacts.

While we all know that your preferred stance is that NO building at all happen in Menlo Park, since you've tried to thwart EVERY instance including the now heavily used 1010 El Camino Project (Cafe Borrone and Keplers). What is it you'd like them to build?

Patti et al. want retail (saying it will bring income to Menlo Park) not mentioning that it is the WORST traffic creator. They also neglect to mention that Retail brings less that 15% of our taxes. Hotels bring in MOST of the rest. So are you saying you want a big box retailer in there?

Speak up Morris, tell us want you WANT, not why you hate our democratically elected council members.

Stanford is stating they will delay their development if this passes. Says so in the email. So the city will lose the tax revenue for YEARS. Just like they did when you stopped the Derry Lane Project. It is estimated that YOUR stopping the Derry Lane project cost the city over $10,000,000 in revenue. Money we could have used to improve Menlo Park for the other 32,865 (that's everyone in menlo park minus your 5 friends) that want Menlo Park to be a vibrant city, as opposed to the current (and long term) blight we have now.

Your posts are completely devoid of useful information or any suggestion of how to improve menlo park.....

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

"Stanford will have to change the nature of their project, but Stanford will still have to develop their parcels."

Why would "Stanford still have to develop their parcels"?

The City cannot force a property owner to develop their property, If the rules and process for developing that property are onerous enough then a property owner may just decide to do nothing - and pay only a fraction of the property taxes that they would pay if the property was developed to its highest and best use. And given the current uses of the Stanford parcels they could, without any City approval, just use them as automobile storage lots or even as remote parking lots for the Stanford campus.

In fact, there is probably a case for Stanford to make saying that Masure M reduces the "value" of their property and requesting Property Tax Relief.....the worst of both worlds.

Roy

Gee thanks very much Roy.
We hadn't considered that option. We'll contact the San Mateo County Assessor first thing Friday morning.
Once again Roy, our sincere thanks.

@ Thiele-Sardina:

Your post above about Stanford possible tax relief really illustrates brilliantly just how little you know about development in Menlo Park and land values.

The Stanford lots were under 50 year leases which just expired in the last year or so. They were therefore under Prop 30 restrictions as to assessed land values, for most of this period. (still are)

If you search the public available database, you will find that the current assessed land values on these parcels is around $260,000 /per acre.

Your writing that they could possibly get a lower land valuation, on land in the heart of the commercial area of Menlo Park is without any substance at all.

[Portion removed.]

"If you search the public available database, you will find that the current assessed land values on these parcels is around $260,000 /per acre."

And that is where they will stay unless these parcels are developed.

Morris
It's Prop 13.
The land vale for assessment purposes will only go up 2% per year under 13, however improvement value will skyrocket if they're ever allowed to build anything significant.

FYI to all the FMV of the SU land on ECR is likely $7 to $10 million per acres. The 20,000 sq ft lot of Redwood City Nursery on ECR just sold for $3.2 million.

Morris:

it's sir.

You're right, none of us knows for sure what Stanford will do with their property, but the application of business, finance and economic principals will tell us what Stanford is likely to do. They are going to do what makes the most financial sense for Stanford. If that means letting those properties sit, they will do so. More blight thank you Measure M.

If that means fully developing those properties to the level measure M allows, they will do so. And what that will mean is 99,000 sf, uncoordinated projects (can't coordinate them, measure M doesn't allow it) with separate entrances on to ECR. More traffic problems. That's brilliant! It will also likely mean medical office uses such as those they first proposed and Menlo Park was able to negotiate away. That negotiation disappears with Measure M as does the possibility of same. Medical uses are high traffic generators. More traffic problems. Brilliant!

It also likely means maximum build out of residential uses. Another high traffic generator. More traffic problems. Even more brilliant!

So, using some basic business, financial and economic principals we can conclude that if measure M passes we face more blight. Oh goody. The Allied Arts folks will be happy as this will not increase cut through traffic in their precious neighborhood right next to a major roadway. Of course that can be prevented by other means, but I digress. The other alternative is the same amount of square footage of growth, but done in an uncoordinated manner and with uses that greatly increase traffic impacts and removes any possibility of public benefit.

That's just a brilliant outcome Morris. I'm sure you will be happy with the first possibility as it means nothing gets built, but most of the rest of us think it's stupid.

VOTE NO ON M

"If that means letting those properties sit, they will do so."

Stanford has only recently been weaned off their 50-year ECR leases, so doing nothing with those properties will be far less palatable from here forward. Have you any idea, [portion deleted], what the opportunity cost would be of sitting on those vacant lots for another 3-5 years? It's not likely a cost which Stanford financial planners will bear. Any wild speculation by you, Peter, Roy, or the rest of the Apple Dumpling Gang about dire possibilities such as soulless office towers, massive residential buildout, increased traffic, and locusts or the like is just that: speculation, sadly and weakly couched as fact.

And were Stanford or Greenheart to return with such awful proposals -- they won't -- imagine how long a determined Planning Commission could extend an architectural review, or how quickly angry residents could muster a referendum. No one wishes for this to happen, of course, least of all Stanford or Greenheart. It's my *opinion" that Measure M gives us the best chance to keep development on the two properties at a scale commensurate with the DSP visioning process, something the DSP and the current council have thus far failed to do. I would have far more respect for your opinion were you to share it as such, and not as fact.

Gern

Gern:

[portion deleted] ... if you don't think Stanford and Greenheart aren't going to make the most of their investments. They will build the maximum the measure allows, should it pass. And that means all of the things we have projected. Brilliant!

What do you think they will do with their properties should measure m pass? Please spare us the "more commensurate with the DSP" platitudes. Be specific. Oh and out of curiosity IF you owned the property what would you do to maximize your ROI?

The headline is "Letter from Stanford development to delay postphone meeting with Menlo Park" ... What does "postphone" mean? Maybe it applies to a time in the future when we no longer use cellphones, a period historicans would describe as the "Postphone Era".

Gern opines -"or how quickly angry residents could muster a referendum.

He makes it very clear that these folks WILL NOT STOP. Measure M is only their first volley in a never ending attempt to bring any change or development or renewal to Menlo Park to a halt. The only way to discourage this self centered behavior is to soundly defeat Measure M and to reassert the community's faith in the officials that the community has elected.