It was a wonderful surprise to attend a meeting, speak up, and find our concerns promptly and effectively addressed. Some other public organizations could learn a lot from the Menlo Park Fire Protection District board.

Oh please, spare me the fake post from a board member.

This was a mess from the start. At no time should any government body, led astray from the agency or not, hold a first meeting proposing taking homes away from residents. This should have been avoided.

I'm surprised the fire board thought it was a good idea to start the process of acquiring these homes by mailing them a notice. The fire board should have had some widely publicized community meetings to flesh out their plans, and then make the homeowners an offer absent eminent domain. Do some negotiating and come up with a generous price. This was poorly done by the fire board.

The Fire Board blew this one!!

"An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it"
- John F. Kennedy

"It was a wonderful surprise to attend a meeting, speak up, and find our concerns promptly and effectively addressed."

The mistake isn't corrected until you repay that family the $5K the "mistake" cost them.

Inspiring to see so many Belle Haven residents speak up and protect their homes and neighborhood from completely misguided proposal by fire district. Such little regard or insight on their part for the impact of their decisions on people's lives and homes. Did they really not expect pushback? How would they like to have their homes bulldozed? Truly outrageous.

"It was a wonderful surprise to attend a meeting, speak up, and find our concerns promptly and effectively addressed."

Comments by Belle Haven residents are right. This would have never even been proposed in other Menlo Park neighborhoods.

Sorry, the Fire District was completely tone deaf with this proposal.

It is the Fire Protection District, particularly the administration office and upper management team to blame. Perhaps with one or two big evil corporates behind the scene. The Fire District Board, who draw near zero salary and are largely independent, corrected the error in the making and saved the District from a potential big mess of being involved in litigation and PR crisis.

It was a bad idea from start to finish, but unlike most bad ideas that affect our neighborhood it was withdrawn when we raised our voices. Blocking a bad idea, or advancing a good one, over here usually takes months or years of effort. This includes things that ought to be no-brainers, like having the swimming pool open for kids in the summer, or putting sidewalks on Chilco so people won't get run over. We never got sidewalks on Chilco until Facebook needed them. The bad ideas that we have to fight off can be VERY bad: About 20 years ago the city nearly succeeded in cramming about 80 high-density housing units into a cul-de-sac beside the railroad tracks, where people couldn't escape in an emergency nor could a fire engine or ambulance get in. (BTW the fire department was with us on that.) I was geared up for another fight like that. Nobody should be treated as disrespectfully as we are by the local government, which often acts like the people who live here are just in the way. I expect more bad and disrespectful plans from the city and other governing bodies because that's the culture around here. I expect more meetings that are called to 'get our input' which is then ignored. What I didn't expect was to to have a bad idea quickly stopped by people with the power to stop it. As we were leaving, one of my neighbors said, 'I don't believe it.' The plan was a cause for anger but the responsiveness of the Fire Protection District board is cause for amazement.

Kudos the residents of Belle Haven for holding their elected officials accountable, and kudos to the Fire Board for being accountable.

Just another unfortunate example of the Fire District brass being completely out of touch with the community (with the exception of the employees at Safeway's meat department).

This has to be a lie. "I had no idea the notice felt so threatening." A notice to seize your house by E.D. feels threatening. If Carpenter and Schapelhouman couldn't figure this out, they need to be fired.

These letters were sent in error because the responsibility for doing so was unwisely delegated to an outside individual.

As Board President I accept full responsibility for that inappropriate delegation of authority and for the subsequent letters.

I think one of the lessons to learn from this is not to give your consultants too much latitude unless you know them VERY well and think you can actually trust them to represent you. Another is to talk with the people most affected by any planning BEFORE picking a consulting firm - or deciding whether one is even needed. Maybe if something is beyond the capabilities of staff there is a real need. It depends on the capabilities of staff.

Unfortunate situation but glad to see the board respond to input and change course for the better.

In my opinion, the assumption was if they offered enough money to the homeowner this would be a non-issue. Remember where we are. They must have forgotten there are people still left on this earth who care about more than money. People who truly love Menlo Park. On the other side,(my side) neighbors don't care about each other. Nothing like the support the Hermann's received. They must be great people! Fishy:
There must be a reason that they want to keep the fire station in and around belle haven, making facebook accountable for part of the funding. Similar to the police staffing being paid in part by facebook. Facebook is building homes for their employees on the other side of willow from belle haven. Let them man a fire department for their townspeople. Could it also in part have something to do with the upside down managed finance department? I think Mark Z should have his own city within the city and call it "MenloFace."

"There must be a reason that they want to keep the fire station in and around belle haven"

Absolutely - the Mission of the Fire District is to SERVE and the Fire District will not abandon BelleHaven. Unfortunately the City of Menlo Park approved the massive M2 rezoning without designating a single new Public Facility (PF) site for an expanded Fire District (or for a library or a police station or a community center) presence to serve that huge new development. That huge new development is already being constructed but the Fire District efforts to expand in this area have been ignored by the City - thus every day the service from Station 77 that serves BelleHaven is being further diluted by new M2 demands.

And now the Mayor proudly states "Any expansion of Station 77 onto residential lots would require an amendment to the City’s General Plan, rezoning the properties from residential R-1-U to public facility P-F, a conditional use permit, architectural control, and possibly acquisition of the parcel owned by the City that is currently leased to the District. “

All of those things should have been done at the same time that the new M2 zoning was put in place - not years later.

The replacement of Station 6 was delayed more than 3 YEARS because the city took that long to rezone a single parcel owned by the Fire District to PF that was essential to the replacement project.

@Peter please stop pointing fingers at others.

So far you have pointed fingers at the consultant, the district staff, and now the City.

The only fault you claim is your mistake was delegating. That isn't taking fault at all. It is like the apologizing that you were just following the process.

"The only fault you claim is your mistake was delegating."

Wrong - as i posted "As Board President I accept full responsibility for that inappropriate delegation of authority and for the subsequent letters."

Peter, the Mayor simply stated the laws that bind the fire district and protect residents of Menlo Park. The fire district is free to approach the city with zoning changes as would any other developer.

@Peter

How did this happen?

Did you delegate the decision to consider expanding the station and the decision to consider using eminent domain to a consultant and staff?

or

Did you pick the site, and then delegate the decision to consider using eminent domain to a consultant and staff?

or

Did you pick the site and make the decision to exercise eminent domain if sales agreements weren't reached and then delegate the decision how to communicate that to a consultant and staff?

"The fire district is free to approach the city with zoning changes as would any other developer."

Sure - the city took three years to rezone the Hoover parcel to PF while in the same time a new 3 story commercial building on the other side of the existing Station 6 parcel was reviewed and approved and built. Hardly encouraging for either the Fire District or the residents of Belle Haven.

@Peter

"How did this happen?"

1 - By law we had to complete the CEQA process before beginning the property acquisition process

2 - By law we had to begin the property acquisition process with the Notices of Decision to Appraise

3 - All the letters did was to advise the recipients of a planned appraisal - as the law requires. The letters make very clear that no decision has been made BUT I appreciate that the recipients could easily read the letters as more threatening.

4 - I should have reviewed the letters before they were signed.

5 - My responsibility, my failure - PERIOD.

6 - By law we could not initiate a purchase discussion with an owner until the Appraisal process was completed

7 - However, if an owner approached us then we could discuss the issue with that owner

8 - The Hoermanns and one other property owner did not contact us after receiving the Feb 17 letter

9 - Another owner did contact us after receiving the Feb 17 letter

10 - At no point has the Fire Board voted to use Eminent Domain but we did take all of the steps that were required should we need to do so in the future.

@Peter

you didn't answer the questions, but you did write:

"1 - By law we had to complete the CEQA process before beginning the property acquisition process

2 - By law we had to begin the property acquisition process with the Notices of Decision to Appraise"

So who made the decision to start the CEQA process before beginning the property acquisition process?

and who made the decision to start the property acquisition process with the Notices of Decision to Appraise?

"So who made the decision to start the CEQA process "

The Board made that decision since the law requires an EIR before we could proceed with building a new station.
The contract for this EIR was on the Board agenda for 19 July 2016.

"The City of Menlo Park ground leases the land upon which Station 77 is situated to the District. To serve
the growing needs of the District, staff is exploring options for station reconstruction which may include
the potential purchase/acquisition of various properties. Over the past few years, the District made multiple
offers to buy the leased land, but the City of Menlo Park did not accept any of these offers. For the last
several months, staff has been diligently trying to obtain a new 55 year ground lease with the same rent
payment of one dollar ($1.00) per year. However, given the delay in the City’s response to our good faith
efforts to negotiate, staff is also taking all reasonable steps to fulfill all pre-requisites for exercising its
various options of acquiring any properties deemed necessary for station reconstruction.
DISCUSSION
In preparation for Station 77 reconstruction, Staff has hired an architect and completed conceptual design
for the project, which includes identification of all potential properties that may be required for the station
reconstruction. Administrative staff is currently in the process of hiring a CEQA consultant to analyze the
proposed project. Compliance with CEQA, including the preparation of a Negative Declaration or
Environmental Impact Report, is a critical step in this process. Once the CEQA document is complete and
the Board approves the preferred Project option, the District can send notices of intent to appraise to all
affected property owners, including the City if a new lease has not been executed. "

"who made the decision to start the property acquisition process with the Notices of Decision to Appraise?"

That was done as is required by State law.

@Peter

So the Fire Board made the decision to start the "property acquisition process", including beginning the steps necessary to take Eminent Domain.

Good thing the City didn't sell the land. The community obviously feels pretty strongly the site is inappropriate for eminent domain and expansion.

I appreciate the Fire Board is looking at other locations now. It's too bad you didn't do so to begin with.

"The community obviously feels pretty strongly the site is inappropriate for eminent domain and expansion. "

I believe the community greatly values Station 77 and now understands how the M2 expansion will dilute the ability of that station to respond to their needs.

The community spoke out against expansion using Terminal Ave access and the Board directed that the project be revised to remove Terminal Ave access.

Council Member Rick DeGolia mentioned how he and Chang Kiraly had established a “framework for good communication,” and that Chief Schapelhouman had expressed gratitude for it. But, “the relationship has dramatically deteriorated.” Chang Kiraly said she did not disagree with DeGolia. “When you were mayor and I was president (of the fire board), we worked together well. … [Web Link - Daily News, March 21, 2017]

This zoning should have been completed when Kiraly was president of the fire board?

One Director urged multiple times the Board consider the Manhattan fire station model. Will the Board, with all due respect, put this on the agenda for discussion and consideration? If it has merit in New York, maybe it is a credible option, given impossible traffic congestion- that is only going from bad to worse.

"One Director urged multiple times the Board consider the Manhattan fire station model. Will the Board, with all due respect, put this on the agenda for discussion and consideration?"

Actually I made that request at our Feb Board meeting and this item will be on the April Board agenda.

IF the Board elects to pursue the Manhattan fire station model we will then have to find suitable sites throughout the District for the placement of more and smaller stations. That will not be an easy task.

"This zoning should have been completed when Kiraly was president of the fire board"

She tried VERY hard but was ignored by the city.

And before that President Ianson tried very hard in 2015.

And then President Solano tried very hard in 2016.

And I will try very hard in 2017.

The City tells me they once offered to SELL the land at Station 77 to the Fire District and never got to first base. I don't know the details or the date. Is this true?

" Is this true?"

NO but I would welcome evidence to the contrary and welcome even more such an offer. The Fire District has made formal offers to the city every year for the last three years and yet the Mayor recently restated the Council's opposition to the sale of property.

Here is the Mayor's statement "]“The tradition that the council has had is that we are not interested in selling the land and we have not had a conversation since then to have a different recommendation,” Keith said Wednesday.

"I believe the community greatly values Station 77 and now understands how the M2 expansion will dilute the ability of that station to respond to their needs."

We value each fire station's value in general, but don't have emotional ties with any particular one, including Station 77. We didn't just become to understand the dilution now, sudenly so after a hearing night. We understood. We just don't want us to bear the consequence of dilution, by happily accepting a 14000 sqft in our backyards. This simply isn't true. We would be happier if the Station moved closer to the sources of dilution, out of its current site. After all, it is them who came to dilute us, and in the first place prompted the 3x expansion, not us. Why didn't they have to pay a dime for the dilution so to speak? Why must it be us to offer our homes, not just the Terminal homes but also the Chilco home, to meet others' needs?

"Why didn't they have to pay a dime for the dilution so to speak"

Because the City in its greed for revenue decreed that the M2 zoning would have no impact on the Fire District - and on the library and the police department.

Hard to believe but true.

I want to be very clear that Facebook is being totally supportive of the Fire District's efforts to expands its east side capability but unfortunately Facebook does not control all the things that the Mayor has stated will be used to delay the needed expansion.

The real issue is the disconnect between the Menlo Park City County, Menlo Park Fire District and the Belle Haven neighborhood. Until our elected officials choose to engage in honest dialogue in the best interest of their voters, we will continue to suffer from arbitrary decisions that fails to serve the neighborhoods most affected.

Pontification serves only the pontificator.

If you did not attend the meeting, here is the You Tube link: Web Link

Was FaceBook's support in cash for residential home takeover, or in their willingness to host PU on their own land pending city's approval?

Pam - You personally saw how responsive the Fire Board is to neighborhood input.

I urge you to put the same pressure on the Menlo Park City Council to put a very high priority on increasing the Fire District's capacity East of 101.

Sadly the residents of Belle Haven will see the continued and increased dilution of the services that they receive from the existing Station 77 as now the City Attorney has opined on all the ways that the City can impede the expansion of this station to meet the needs of the huge M2 development approved by the city:

"AGENDA ITEM K-5 PAGE 241
Specifically, the project as proposed would require City Council approval for a
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning from
residential R-1-U to public facility P-F. These are legislative acts that require a
significant public process, including noticed public hearings and a recommendation
by the Planning Commission prior to any decision by the City Council. The proposed
project also requires a conditional use permit which is a quasi-judicial proceeding in
which the Planning Commission must give due regard to the nature and condition of
all adjacent uses, establish necessary conditions, and make findings based on the
potential impacts on neighboring properties. The proposed project would also require
the City Council to agree to the sale to the Fire District of the City owned property
currently leased to the Fire District, which is in the discretion of the City Council to
approve or deny. Finally, the proposed project would require architectural review, a
lot merger to merge the City owned parcel with one or more of the other parcels that
would comprise the proposed project, and heritage tree removal permit. Thus, there
is no action to be taken by Menlo Park at this time, but there will be significant public
process prior to approval of any project and there is no certainty that the project as
conceived by the Fire District will be approved by the City. "

Any responsible city would have done everything possible to make sure that there was an expanded fire service capability IN PLACE before rezoning and even permitting new construction to proceed. Instead both the Mayor and the City Attorney are proudly showing all the ways that the City can impede this crucial public service.

Here is how a responsible local agency proactively plans for fire services for new developments:

"Identify additional station sites and seek commitments from applicants for rezoning and
from member departments of the Fire and Rescue Association for the construction of
facilities and the provision of additional equipment, where the projected increase in
demand, because of past development and future planned development consistent with
the development density guidelines within the Comprehensive Plan, warrants the
additional capacity "

The Prince William County Comprehensive Plan

Hope springs eternal. Chances are the right choices will be made when the time comes. Have faith - G-_d will see it through. Where man fails, the higher power will point us in the right direction.

Just looking at the area, I would rather have Station 77 in a different area closer to much of the M2 development. The current location will eventually impact the ability to grade separate Chilco from the Dumbarton rail line. Maybe we could do a little long term planning instead of knee-jerk planning.

" Maybe we could do a little long term planning instead of knee-jerk planning."

Great idea - that is exactly what the City was required by law to do when its updated its Comprehensive Plan.

The problem was that the left out fire services.

For example here is how San Diego does Public Facilities planning:

"Under the 1979 General Plan, the City was divided into three “tiers” of growth: “urbanized,” “planned urbanizing,” and “future urbanizing.” The “future urbanizing” areas were largely vacant and ultimately required voter approval to shift to “planned urbanizing” in order to develop. The “planned urbanizing” areas consisted of newly planned and developing communities. The “urbanized” areas were the established and developed neighborhoods and the Downtown core. The planned urbanizing areas required development to “pay its own way,” in terms of public facilities and services, through the use of Facilities Benefit Assessments (FBA), or other financing mechanisms such as Mello-Roos Districts. Since their establishment in 1980, FBAs have been effective in assuring adequate and timely development of public facilities, such as police, fire, parks, recreation, library, and transportation. To a limited extent, FBA revenues have also funded water and sewer facilities, although adopted user rate fees have served as the secured revenue source for these capital improvements and operations. Funds collected through FBAs, however, represent a one-time fee for capital expenditures.”

" Include in financing plans a variety of facilities to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of diverse communities. 1. Identify in financing plans those public facility needs that are eligible for DIF funding, including but not limited to: police, fire-rescue, library, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities.”

"Public Facilities and Services Prioritization Goals:
 Public facilities and services that are equitably and effectively provided through application of prioritization guidelines.
 Adequate public facilities available at the time of need.”

"Policies PF-C.1. Require development proposals to fully address impacts to public facilities and services. a. Identify the demand for public facilities and services resulting from discretionary projects. b. Identify specific improvements and financing which would be provided by the project, including but not limited to sewer, water, storm drain, solid waste, fire, police, libraries, parks, open space, and transportation projects. c. Subject projects, as a condition of approval, to exactions that are reasonably related and in rough proportionality to the impacts resulting from the proposed development. d. Provide public facilities and services to assure that current levels of service are maintained or improved by new development within a reasonable time period.”
"PF-D.1. Locate, staff, and equip fire stations to meet established response times as follows: a) To treat medical patients and control small fires, the first-due unit should arrive within 7.5 minutes, 90 percent of the time from the receipt of the 911 call in fire dispatch. This equates to 1-minute dispatch time, 1.5 minutes company turnout time and 5 minutes drive time in the most populated areas. b) To provide an effective response force for serious emergencies, a multiple-unit response of at least 17 personnel should arrive within 10.5 minutes from the time of 911-call receipt in fire dispatch, 90 percent of the time.  This response is designed to confine fires near the room of origin, to stop wildland fires to under 3 acres when noticed promptly, and to treat up to 5 medical patients at once.  This equates to 1-minnute dispatch time, 1.5 minutes company turnout time and 8 minutes drive time spacing for multiple units in the most populated areas.”
"PF-D.2. Determine fire station needs, location, crew size and timing of implementation as the community grows. a) Use the fire unit development performance measures (based on population density per square mile) shown in Table PF-D.1 to plan for needed facilities. Where more than one square mile is not populated at similar densities, and/or a contiguous area with different density types aggregates into a population cluster area, use the measures provided in Table PF-D.2. b) Reflected needed fire-rescue facilities in community plans and associated facilities financing plans as a part of community plan updates and amendments.”
****************

This is not rocket science but rather simply doing a professional job of comprehensive planning.

Here is a summary of the chronology of events on this matter and the legal requirement why certain steps were taken:

1 - By law we had to complete the CEQA process before beginning the property acquisition process



The District needed to comply with CEQA before considering the Station 77 expansion project, including any potential acquisition of property needed for the project. If a public entity attempts to acquire property for a project action without satisfying CEQA, and the owner objects on this basis, a court will likely dismiss the action. (City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1017; Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 596.) Until the CEQA process is finalized, and all potential challenges are put to rest, it would be imprudent for a public entity to begin appraising and acquiring property for a project that may be modified or not materialize.



2 - By law we had to begin the property acquisition process with the Notices of Decision to Appraise



Government Code section 7267.1(b) provides in pertinent part: “Real property shall be appraised before the initiation of negotiations, and the owner, or the owner’s designated representative, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during his or her inspection of the property.” A Notice of Decision to Appraise is the means by which the owner is afforded the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the property inspection. So, the Notice is the first step in effort to acquire property where the public entity initiates negotiations, which may or may not lead to eminent domain.



3 - All the letters did was to advise the recipients of a planned appraisal - as the law requires. The letters make very clear that no decision has been made BUT I appreciate that the recipients could easily read the letters as more threatening.



The Notice of Decision to Appraise Property letters were sent to the property owners on February 15, 2017, in compliance with Government Code section 7267.1(b). In addition, the letters stated, in part: “This is a public project which may require the acquisition of your real property identified above which is located within the project area. No decision has yet been made by the District to acquire your property. Before that decision can be made, the law provides that the property first be appraised. Without authority from the District’s Board of Directors, staff has no authority to commit the District to the acquisition of your property. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the decision to appraise and shall serve as advance written notice of your opportunity to accompany the appraiser during his inspection of the property. This is a preliminary notice only and does not constitute a request or demand that you vacate your property.” This language is clear and unambiguous statement that no decision has been made. In addition, the foregoing language is consistent with Government Code section 7267.2 and the Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.220 and 230

4 - I should have reviewed the letters before they were signed.

5 - My responsibility, my failure - PERIOD.



6 - By law we could not initiate a purchase discussion with an owner until the Appraisal process was completed



Government Code section 7267.2(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: “Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity . . . and initiating negotiations for the acquisition of real property, the public entity shall establish an amount that it believes to be just compensation therefor . . .” The statute further states: “The amount shall not be less than the public entity's approved appraisal of the fair market value of the property.” (City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1012.) An offer and negotiations need to take place before the Board can consider whether to initiate eminent domain proceedings (see Item 10 below.)



7 - However, if an owner approached us then we could discuss the issue with that owner



Government Code section 7267.2(a)(1), cited in response to point 6 above, applies where a public entity initiates negotiations. It does not apply where an owner offers the property for sale to a public entity. Section 7267.2(e)(1) allows for a negotiated sale where the property is “[d]irectly offered by the landowner to the public entity for a specified price in advance of negotiations by the public entity.” Eminent domain procedures do not apply when an owner offers the property for sale to a public entity.



8 - The Hoermanns and one other property owner did not contact us after receiving the Feb 17 letter



9 - Another owner did contact us after receiving the Feb 17 letter



10 - At no point has the Fire Board voted to use Eminent Domain but we did take all of the steps that were required should we need to do so in the future.



The District Board has never been asked to initiate eminent domain proceedings and never took any actions to that effect. The District only began the preliminary process of an appraisal which is needed to be completed before negotiations could begin with the property owners. The only preliminary steps taken were the sending of the Notice of Decision to Appraise and completion of the MND under CEQA for Board review.



There are many other steps that would have to be taken before the Board could consider initiating eminent domain including, but not limited to: completion and approval of the appraisal; sending a purchase offer letter based on the appraisal (Gov. Code section 7267.2.); and reasonable attempts by the District to negotiate and reach an agreement with the property owner. Only if negotiations failed, could the Board consider whether or not to initiate eminent domain which would require additional specific steps, including Board authorization of the filing of an eminent domain action by adopting a resolution of necessity. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Sec. 1245.220; 1245.235.).

The fire district was able to purchase land and redevelop a station in downtown Menlo Park (Web Link without sending postcards threatening eminent domain. If the decision to send these postcards to Belle Haven never came before the fire board, this was simply poor judgement of the fire chief in this specific instance.

"without sending postcards threatening eminent domain."

That was never done in the case of Station 77 or any other station.


The Notice of Decision to Appraise Property letters were sent to the property owners on February 15, 2017, in compliance with Government Code section 7267.1(b). In addition, the letters stated, in part: “This is a public project which may require the acquisition of your real property identified above which is located within the project area. No decision has yet been made by the District to acquire your property. Before that decision can be made, the law provides that the property first be appraised. Without authority from the District’s Board of Directors, staff has no authority to commit the District to the acquisition of your property. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the decision to appraise and shall serve as advance written notice of your opportunity to accompany the appraiser during his inspection of the property. This is a preliminary notice only and does not constitute a request or demand that you vacate your property.” This language is clear and unambiguous statement that no decision has been made. In addition, the foregoing language is consistent with Government Code section 7267.2 and the Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.220 and 230 .

Quit buying into the fake news created about this action - the real facts are posted above and are in the public record.