So reducing the square footage of the fitness center will reduce the demand for the fitness center and therefore traffic will be reduced? Demand won't change, the fitness machines will just be packed in tighter and traffic will actually increase.

What a shame that our City Council is choosing to be just rubber stamps for billionaire developers. What a shame. Yes, I know -- our city will get some property tax out of this silly hotel, but -- setting aside 10% of our water for THIS? What gall! And we, the little people (peasants?), are required to conserve water? When this completely unnecessary hotel is going to get water we simply cannot afford to share? Ridiculous!

And this darned thing will be ugly, and all that glass will make very dangerous reflections during sunrise and sunset onto vehicles on the freeway, thus contributing to even more accidents.

I'm sure there are many residents who could come up with far more sensible ways to increase our city's tax revenues than this ugly hotel.

Louise68:

Measure M lost. Get over it.

The Gateway project was Measure T which won.

Menlo Voter --- and all who Liked Menlo Voter's comment --

What? No civilized, reasonable, and thoughtful reply to my legitimate objections to this hotel being built? Just an arrogant order that I should stop objecting to what I see as a big wrong? Sheesh.....

Would any of you be kind enough to tell me which of of my objections are not supported by those facts? (As far as "ugly" goes, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)

Louise:

your comment that our city council "continues to be a rubber stamp for billionaire developers" is objectionable. You've made this claim in a variety of places here and it's wrong. Time is moving on. Progress is being made. Time for people in this town to either get involved in the development process or get out of the way. If Measure M's defeat didn't tell you that then I suppose nothing will.

Where will the water come from to support the development in Menlo Park? It is irrelevant to me at this point what measures passed or didn't pass. We have no water in our foreseeable future and our council had better wake up to that fact. Perhaps reading "California has about one year of water left. Will you ration now?" from the LA Times will get the council's attention. The author is the senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech.

Web Link

Urban areas use about 25% of the water. 75% goes to agriculture. That is where the adjustments can be made. Of course some allocations are preset by old water contracts BUT there is plenty of room to adjust and provide water for all new development. Most of the new development is very green - making good, efficient use of the resources.

The water usage argument is just the same old irrational fear and opposition to change that has plagued our area for years from the Measure M people and their ilk.

As Menlo Voter says - Get Out of the Way!

Long Time Resident...thanks for the condescending and rude response. I should have known that to voice any concern regarding development on this forum would not lead to meaningful dialogue.

Would someone please confirm what schools Mayor Carlton is referring to referencing losing $300,000.00 every month this project is delayed. The last school district boundary map I looked at show it in the Redwood City School District. How is this money going to be allocated?

Supporters of Measure T wrote in 2010 that the Gateway Development would contribute $600,000 a year to the Sequoia Union High School District. The mayor needs to explain her figure of $300,000 a month or 3.6 million a year.

Web Link

In regards to water, yes indeed, 75% goes to agriculture in CA, of which a substantial portion is for cereal crops destined to feed animals in China for meat production.

So if the new hotel wants to save water, customers should be restricted to vegetarians who don't shower.