I find the term "conservative" strange when it's applied to underestimates of annual traffic increase. "Wildly optimistic" would be more accurate. A conservative estimate would err on the safe side by overestimating the future volume of traffic. Of course, that's not what developers want, so it's not what most councilmembers want either.

Never mind. It's unlikely this juggernaut can be stopped. There's too much money at stake.

My goodness, Patti Fry just CAN NOT give it up. Most of the negative comments are from people who were part of the YES on M campaign. Measure M was SOUNDLY defeated by the citizens of Menlo Park.

Patti is beating a dead horse [portion removed; keep it respectful].
Enough already Patti, let them build the project.

This has been discussed to death. Measure M lost in a landslide. The new building is attractive and a balanced use between retail, office, and housing. It's much better than the vacant lot that's been there for years and it's frankly the best we are going to get.

City Council - just approve it already!

been to downtown Pali Alto lately? It's overrun with traffic. Why would you want more development in an increasingly crowded area?

I'd rather see this area empty than contributing to more sprawl and traffic.

How about a park?

Anon:

a park is a great idea. You going to buy the property and build the park? I think the property is worth about $5 million an acre.

So Anon, all that extra traffic is from Redwood City and Palo Alto (or those going to those places). So since they are building out, MP CANNOT? I just do not understand the logic anymore. All those vacant lots in MP,,, is MP supposed to turn into the shanty town in between.