Thanks for the free publicity

What a shock that Sue Kayton is on board with the antis.

I wonder how Council Cline feels about being immersed again with the DuBoc, Winker, Jellins, Riggs community.

Back in 2006, he at first was running with them, but then (his quote) "became so disgusted" he departed. He then first got elected to council riding the coattails of the Derry Referendum and certainly was no longer welcome in their midst. That group "the residentialists", forms the core of the Yes on M campaign.

I guess his support of Measure T in 2010 (Bohannon's gateway project) has led to his return to being accepted by that group.

Now he seeks a 3rd term as councilman, [portion removed; stick to facts and avoid hearsay.]

Those of us who supported you in the past certainly will no longer cast our votes your way.

BTW, Rich, a question. We understood you had sometime ago sold your company. Yet you on your registration statement state your occupation as "business owner". Are you still an owner?

Almanac editor:

I strongly object to your editing my post above with the comment

[portion removed; stick to facts and avoid hearsay.]

I most certainly have stated only facts. The statement again written here about Councilman Cline, is printed in the interview he gave to the Daily Post last week and there he clearly stated.

"I'm running because I found out Kelly Fergusson was going to run again"
thus as I originally posted:

Now he seeks a 3rd term as councilman, with the reason being "I'm running because I found out Kelly Fergusson was going to run again"

is certainly not hearsay, but a solid fact.

Thank you...

Will developer Arrillaga be present as well? I would like to personally thank him for his plans to develop here in Menlo park. We are so indebted to Arrillaga for donating all the $$$ to renovate our City recreation facilities, such a selfless and generous businessman and kudos to our Business minded City council for working with him to promote development and an office park along El Camino in Menlo. If I wanted to walk to restaurants and shops or enjoy some nice open space, I'd move to Palo Alto where they put the kibosh on Arrillaga's plans at El Camino/Univerity. Thank you No On measure M backers for keeping the Arrillaga development dream alive here in Menlo Park.

Old Timer, everything you read in the Post is hearsay, even when they quote people. Price likes to make everyone look petty, and has a reputation for creative editing. Cline was the first to pull papers, and Fergusson was the last. You may have even read about this in the Post.

Cline pulls papers for another run Web Link

"Menlo Park City Councilman Rich Cline has pulled paperwork to run for re-election this November, City Clerk Pam Aguilar told the Post yesterday. Cline is the only person to have pulled papers so far. However, Councilwoman Kirsten Keith indicated that she is running for re-election. Yesterday was the first day candidates could collect the necessary paperwork. Cline is currently on his second term on council. Menlo Park does not have term limits."

The Cline story (above) was on July 15, and the related story (below) was on August 8.

Fergusson aiming to return to City Council Web Link

"Today's the last day to file paperwork for a city council run this November unless an incumbent decides not to run and Save Menlo, the grassroots group that hopes to limit new office space development in downtown Menlo Park, has come up short on candidates.
But two-term Menlo Park councilwoman Kelly Fergusson, who lost her re-election bid in 2012 after being stripped of her mayor title over an open-meeting violation, has jumped into the council race as the deadline nears..."

A question for the meeting: Stanford's project is well below the public benefit trigger level
, yet city council is, to their credit, involved with slow-moving but real negotiations over a hoped-for Middle Ave bike/pedestrian tunnel. How can the Specific Plan not be judged a partial failure given the reality of these negotiations outside the Plan process? The ad hoc Stanford process is far from transparent. One wonders also why the council has failed to simply modify the Plan, as they can, to bring all such large projects under planning commission and council control.This has nothing to do with Measure M except that it may be a reason for some residents' frustration with council leadership.

I emailed Sue to reserve two seats on Friday just after hearing about this meeting, but didn't hear back from her. I would like to attend but I'm not sure if there is room.

@old timer: I don't know much about Rich Cline's past history but I liked what he had to say last week at Cafe Zoe's. He has my vote.

" city council is, to their credit, involved with slow-moving but real negotiations over a hoped-for Middle Ave bike/pedestrian tunnel. How can the Specific Plan not be judged a partial failure given the reality of these negotiations outside the Plan process?"

That is EXACTLY what the Specific Plan calls for - negotiating with applicants to produce better projects that have greater public benefits. And NOTHING can be approved by the Council EXCEPT in a public meeting.

And IF Measure M were to pass there is NO incentive for Stanford to work with the Council. Stanford could either submit multiple projects which individually stay under the Measure M's foolish and poorly crafted 100,000 sq ft per PROJECT limit thereby creating MORE traffic by multiple ECR access for each parcel and adding back medical office that the Council negotiated with Stanford to remove. OR Stanford sould submit a multiparcel project that, because of Measure M, the Council must then place as a referendum to the voters. If Stanford goes the referendum route and submits a complete project plan at the beginning and that is voted Yes by the voters then that becomes an irrevocable, no negotiations entitlement.

Keeping the Council in charge is the ONLY way to create a better project.

Measure M will create a much worse Stanford project.

Measure M will modify the plan which the Council has already decided, along with Arrillaga, is fine as is. No need to respond to the concerns raised by those YES on M campaign folks, the Council knows best, let them do their jobs and give the developer what he wants without interference. Lord knows that if we don't give this developer free reign he may just pick up and take his business elsewhere. And then there would be no one else to develop here. Peter is right, Measure M would create something worse. Way way worse. Mr Arrillaga donated millions to the City of Menlo Park, the Council owes him.

@Arrillaga? states "Mr Arrillaga donated millions to the City of Menlo Park, the Council owes him." Are you seriously suggesting quid pro quo?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Arrillaga met in secrecy with Menlo park city officials and agreed that he would donate millions to the City in return for City Council advocating for his development plans and misleading residents. The City council is transparent and honest about their dealings with this developer and there's is absolutely no reason for anyone to question City officials about their dealings or any private meetings. Just because Palo Alto City officials were exposed for meeting in secret with Arrillaga after they put the kibosh on his development plans that does mean that our City Officials have anything to hide or fear. They are 100 percent united in supporting Arrillaga's plans to develop an office park on El Camino and have been campaigning against Measure M because Menlo Park needs more office space. simple as that, and who better than Arrillaga to provide that?!

This information is from the City of Menlo Park Building Dept. website specific to city office projects.

Web Link

Approved Projects (total of 1,223,952 square feet of office)

•Gateway 694,669 square ft. office/R and D
•Facebook West 433,555 square ft. (not defined as office but assumed most is)
•1706 El Camino 10,148 medical office
•1460 El Camino 26,880 office
•1300 El Camino 58,700 office

Proposed (total of 123,011 square feet of office)

•2550 Sand Hill Road 23,011 square ft. office (convert current convalescent hospital)
•2825 Sand Hill Road 100,000 square ft. office

Pending (676,420 total square feet of office)

•500 El Camino 199,500 non medical office (Stanford/Arrillaga)
•1300 El Camino 217,000 commercial use (Greenheart- sources designate most is office)
•Commonwealth Corporate Center 259,920 office/R and D (Sobrato)

Grand Total of all three categories of office - 2,023,383 square feet

Can we have a brief discussion over what is "secret"? If I own a home in Menlo Park, and I wish to add a bedroom or modify my garage, I would schedule a meeting with City staff to understand what the rules and regulations are. Is that a "secret" meeting? If I want to discuss my plans with a Planning Commissioner or City Council member, is that a "secret" meeting? Is that not my right as a property owner?

To the best of my understanding, that was what Arrilliga did. If the Menlo Park City Council creates a subcommittee to negotiate with Stanford, how is that a "secret" meeting? By the way, how can it be a "secret" meeting if we all know about it?

This whole "secret" meeting thing is just another ploy by Save Menlo to dislead our community.

The traffic report released yesterday shows rush hour loads tripling over the next 20 years. The good news is that individual projects (ie Stanford) will have very little incremental impact because traffic will already be gridlocked. That's how we define vitality here in Menlo Park!

I was in Rio rush hour traffic a few years ago, where a 15-minute trip took two hours. There were vendors standing in the middle and sides of the road, and our cabbie bought corn and several bottles of water along the way. No need to slow down to complete the transactions since cars weren't moving. We can anticipate similar entrepreneurial efforts in Menlo Park, as development leads to a whole new industry. Isn't it grand?

Nice spin, Sam! Presumably your garage remodel doesn't affect hundreds of thousands of people or have a major impact on city financial health. Presumably you're not offering any kind of quid pro quo in which you and city staffers line your pockets and the residents are left out in the cold.

Basically, what you're saying is that corruption is ok, am I intepreting correctly? Because any time a meeting that should be public is held in secret, the potential for corruption is immense.

Arrillaga is free to request private meetings with City officials. However the Brown Act would guarantee the public's right to attend and participate in such meetings, so of course our City Council wouldn't be so foolish at to violate the law and public trust and jeopardize their own political careers by meeting privately with the developer. Sam Tyler misspoke. Unless he has proof of these secret meeting between the council and the developer?