Look next door at how Palo Alto made bad 'deal' after bad 'deal' with developers promising the so called 'public benefit', using the much maligned Planned Community regulation. Almost without exception, the developer was allowed to oversize, get odd variances, and other permits which allowed them to pocket many extra hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars than they would have otherwise. In exchange, the public got a park bench on High and Channing in one case, some malformed car designs on a doorway on Lytton in another, restaurants have essentially taken over the 'public benefit' space in at least two cases, a few out of the way parking spaces in others, and so on. The bottom line is: the developer ALWAYS benefits to the tune of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, the public gets stiffed with a over sized development, and maybe, if they are lucky, a bench to sit on and look at it. Don't be fooled.

In Menlo Park there was an opportunity to get real public benefits such as an under crossing of the caltrain tracks or a public garage downtown but when the council in 2011 tripled the development rights for the property owners in the specific plan area, they gave away any chance to get these kind of real benefits. Stanford will build right up to the edge of their allowable square footage and avoid any public benefit. Greenheart will go over a little bit and to date, their idea of public benefit consists of opening Garwood St. and including a bike lane. The fact that Greenheart needs this street opened up so that tenants can access the garage never seems to be mentioned.

Why bother identifying public benefits when the Council gave away millions and millions of dollars in development rights without getting anything back.

How many times do residents need to hear this? And no, there is no written agreement with Stanford for a "substantial contribution" to an under crossing of the caltrain tracks. The sub committee of council members Keith and Carlton make it sound like they did some serious negotiations but they're blowing smoke.

In response to "For The 10th Time"

I'm not aware that anyone has seen the most recent Stanford plans for their property. It's so nice that you have such an open mind as to what will or will not happen in the future. I, for one, will at least wait to see any new plans from Stanford before I comment.

Public benefits would be alleviating traffic issues that are growing worse by the minute. The developers need to provide something substantial, in terms of a bike tunnel, or better yet contribute $$ to grade separation so the traffic back up by the railroad tracks don't continue to claim lives. The City should be requiring that the buildings meet LEED gold standards and conserve energy and water resources wherever possible. And instead of 100% office space, provide the community with some retail and restaurants. Some affordable housing units would also help alleviate the housing crunch for local teachers and other workers who are finding themselves squeezed out of Menlo Park. A portion of the property should be reserved for public park space. Not parking, that needs to go underground. Playgrounds and open space - open to the PUBLIC are needed, and the City should require the developers to provide them.

Public benefits include a range of community improvements. At the end of the day, such benefits should be weighed as part of an overall approach to public benefits in the City rather than an ad-hoc basis. Determining the monetary value of a pubic benefit should be the role of the City, rather than that of the Developer who has an incentive to inflate the value of their proposal.

A needs analysis should be part of determining what sort of public benefits the City and residents might want in different neighborhoods:

open space and parks
access to transit, bike and pedestrian paths
childcare
recreation facilities
preservation of historic landmarks
workforce development
affordable housing
and so on.

Both quantitative and qualitative factors are part of the consideration, as well as environmental and financial sustainability.

All in all, with the price of land what it is on the Peninsula, we should be aggressive in requesting public benefits from developers. We will be living with our decisions for decades to come. Today's benefit could be a liability in a decade, so plan accordingly and wisely.

I find it fascinating that the City demands impact fees from developers but refuses to give any of those funds to the other public agencies which are impacted by the proposed developments.

Lead Agencies are required by law to evaluate the impact of any developments that they approve on other agencies - Menlo Park never does.

The entire Staff Report and attachment on the Lane Alma project never once even mention the impact of this project on any publlc agency except the City itself.

Selfish, unprofessional, unwise and illegal.