Keith sure has collected alot of Developer and Construction related cash!

Takes money to run for office!!

My mail-in ballot did not include a voting card for the local city council election. Did anyone else experience this?

@Mrs_B, you may live in a district with no election this year, or the county may be mixed up.

@Keiths_Cash, Keith seems to have lot of support from developers that are building housing.

Keith needs to go.

The Post and Almanac both endorsed Combs.

Keith’s fundraising from development interests has been obscene.

The Post loves candidates that try to pick fights, so Combs had that locked in. The Almanac endorsement is surprising because they cast Keith as pro-development when Combs has a worse voting record than Keith when it comes of office development. Keith has been a strong advocate for building housing. CORE Affordable housing, for example, gave Keith money; they built the housing at the VA. Anyone who describes workforce housing or housing for veterans as "obscene" is out of touch.

Almanac’s Endorsement of Combs:

“Much has changed in Menlo Park since 2010, when two incumbents who are now running for re-election to the City Council were elected to their first council terms. And though change is inevitable and some of the changes in the last eight years have been positive, too many have adversely affected the quality of life for residents — or threaten to do so in the future. Many of those residents are calling for change, citing transportation and housing crises stemming from the jobs-to-housing imbalance exacerbated by shortsighted approvals of big developments.
Incumbents Kirsten Keith of District 2 and Peter Ohtaki of District 4 are asking voters to return them to the council for third terms. Their challengers point to what they see as the current council's record of accommodating developers at the expense of residents' needs, and to a lack of transparency in how the city governs.

Voters can look at the records of Keith and Ohtaki to determine for themselves whether the changes the incumbents have supported argue for their return to office come December. But it would be difficult to consider changes that have resulted in roadway gridlock, a burgeoning of office space where housing and retail might have been built, and the severe housing-to-jobs imbalance as positive.

Both incumbents can rightfully boast of accomplishments that served the community well. They have also been part of majority votes supporting, for example, the adoption of a general plan update that greatly increased allowable development on the city's Bay side before working out a plan for needed infrastructure to support that growth. They were part of a four-member council majority that ignored Councilman Ray Mueller's request to discuss a proposal aimed at increasing transparency by requiring council members to make their calendars of council-related meetings with others — developers, businesses, residents and others — available to the public. And they tacitly supported the city manager's opaque strategy of working directly with billionaire developer John Arrillaga in pursuing Arrillaga's offer of millions of dollars to rebuild the main library in a process marred by secrecy and a "public" process that amounted to a charade.

The city faces many difficult challenges that have grown in scale over the last eight years and that stem from rapid development, traffic gridlock and a housing crisis. Three non-incumbents can offer fresh thinking and approaches to confronting those challenges....

We support Drew Combs for the District 2 council seat. Yes, he's a Facebook employee who would have to recuse himself when matters involving his employer were before the council. But that's not as problematic as it might appear to be at first glance. With a four-member decision-making body, any project approval would still need three votes. One could argue that such a requirement might make greenlighting a project even more difficult.

Combs forcefully argues for a stronger commitment by the city and the council to addressing residents' needs and concerns, giving them just as high a priority as the needs of developers. He also is an advocate for more transparency, which we agree has been lacking in City Hall.

We acknowledge and appreciate Kirsten Keith's commitment to the community, and her investment of time and effort on behalf of the city. But after eight years, we believe change is in order.”

Post Endorsement of Combs:

“Drew Combs in District 2

In District 2, the incumbent is Kirsten Keith. When you ask her about traffic, she’ll respond by pointing to the city’s Transportation Master Plan, which has yet to be completed. Maybe a consultant-driven plan will be a panacea? Assuming it will be, why wasn’t she working on this eight years ago, before the problem got out of hand? Offering this Master Plan in her eighth year in office strikes us as too little, too late.

Keith, who is collecting campaign contributions from developers, voted for the Facebook expansion, Greenheart and Stanford’s El Camino development. She has a hard time saying no to development. She even went to the groundbreaking of the California High-Speed Rail project and took a selfie with Gov. Jerry Brown.

Her ethics have also become a problem. Earlier this summer, she was caught violating the state open meetings law, the Brown Act, for lobbying another council member over the downtown library development — a violation that caused City Attorney Bill McClure to postpone consideration of the project until a new council could be seated. That delay may have been the reason why billionaire John Arrillaga decided to withdraw his offer of $35 million for the library project.

The China trips

Another ethical problem are the repeated trips she’s made to China, paid for by a nonprofit that appears to be funded by Chinese businesses. At one of these meetings, she wore a pin saying she was mayor when she wasn’t the mayor. The Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating a complaint about whether the nonprofit that paid for her travel was eligible to make such a contribution to an elected official. Regardless of how that investigation turns out, council members shouldn’t be accepting free gifts like this. The only reason they’re being offered these trips is because they’re elected officials. They shouldn’t be profiting from your public office.

When Keith is asked about her opponent Drew Combs, who works for Facebook, she points out that he won’t be able to vote on Facebook’s “village” proposal for Willow Road. Of course she doesn’t point out that when a crucial study session on the village project happened in March, she was missing — taking another trip to China.

Combs, who ran for council in 2014 and is serving his fifth year on the Planning Commission, said one of the reasons he’s running is to promote ethics on council.

He favors a proposal to have council members disclose when they meet with people who have business before the city. Keith has opposed that idea.

Combs has down-to-earth ideas to benefit residents. For instance, many residents want to expand their homes. But some can’t because they live on “substandard lots,” meaning they are shaped differently than conventional lots. That means those residents, when they propose plans to expand their homes, go through a confusing process that often puts them before the Planning Commission. He wants to make it easier for residents on substandard lots to make home modifications.

Combs is thoroughly knowledgeable about city issues and the process at city hall, and if elected, will be able to hit the ground running. We enthusiastically endorse him for District 2.”

In 2012, Carolyn Clarke had the Almanac, the Daily Post and the Daily News all endorsing her city council campaign. She still only got about 15% of the vote and came in forth place for two seats. Combs is putting on a good show, but he has a few blind spots.

Before moving to Menlo Park six years ago, Combs never registered to vote while living in Santa Clara County. During this election season, Combs has been criticizing council decisions for the past eight years, but he wasn't even registered to vote for several elections in the past eight years.

From the Post Endorsement of Combs:

“Keith...
Her ethics have also become a problem. Earlier this summer, she was caught violating the state open meetings law, the Brown Act, for lobbying another council member over the downtown library development — a violation that caused City Attorney Bill McClure to postpone consideration of the project until a new council could be seated. That delay may have been the reason why billionaire John Arrillaga decided to withdraw his offer of $35 million for the library project.

The China trips

Another ethical problem are the repeated trips she’s made to China, paid for by a nonprofit that appears to be funded by Chinese businesses. At one of these meetings, she wore a pin saying she was mayor when she wasn’t the mayor. The Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating a complaint about whether the nonprofit that paid for her travel was eligible to make such a contribution to an elected official. Regardless of how that investigation turns out, council members shouldn’t be accepting free gifts like this. The only reason they’re being offered these trips is because they’re elected officials. They shouldn’t be profiting from your public office.”

Editorial: Questions surround councilwoman's trip to China



Menlo Park City Councilwoman Kirsten Keith's chair at the dais in the local council chambers was empty on March 27, when she was on vacation and the City Council was examining details of the largest proposed development in the city of Menlo Park's history. Facebook's proposed Willow Village, if built, will dramatically affect the future of Menlo Park, which is already heavily burdened by traffic and housing problems that have worsened the quality of life for many residents.

It's no small irony, then, that while three of her council colleagues (Councilwoman Cat Carlton is recused from Facebook matters) and concerned members of the community were engaged in the arduous effort of studying details and possible consequences of this massive proposed development, Ms. Keith was instead mingling with the people of Chengdu, China, reportedly addressing future business possibilities in Silicon Valley for Chengdu businesses.

We emphasize the word "reportedly" here, not only in fairness to Ms. Keith but to underscore the murkiness that hangs over the March 27 event she attended in Chengdu along with Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel and Dublin Mayor David Haubert. The Chinese press reported that the event was a signing ceremony that involved former Mountain View councilman Mike Kasperzak, Chengdu business representatives and the three Bay Area elected officials.

Many questions surround this event, as detailed by an article by Kate Bradshaw in this week's Almanac. It is clear that Ms. Keith, whose term as mayor ended last year, was not authorized by her council colleagues to represent the city in China. But beyond that, questions include:

● What exactly was in the document, called an "agreement" and a "memorandum" by the Chinese press, that appears to have been signed by the Dublin mayor, as Ms. Keith and Mr. Siegel stood by? The Chinese press reports, according to certified translations, that the agreement was signed on behalf of the three Bay Area representatives there, including Ms. Keith.

● In at least one photo published by the Chinese press, Ms. Keith appears to be wearing the city of Menlo Park's "Mayor" pin. Why would she represent herself as the city's mayor when she doesn't serve in that capacity?

● What was the purpose of Ms. Keith's participation, wearing a city of Menlo Park pin, at a ceremony that, according to the Chinese press, benefited a private firm whose CEO is the former Mountain View council member, Mr. Kasperzak?

● Why would Ms. Keith, Menlo Park city pin affixed to her blazer, attend a function in another country representing the city when she was not authorized by her council colleagues to do so?

These are questions the public has a right to ask, and to have answered.

Members of the community have been asking them, including resident and attorney George Fisher, who paid hundreds of dollars to obtain certified translations of articles in the Chinese press in his quest to pin down details of the event.

Menlo Park resident files ethics complaints against two council members
Alleges Keith and Carlton accepted travel reimbursements in excess of allowed gift levels

by Kate Bradshaw / Almanac



The California Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed July 26 that it will investigate ethics complaints made by Menlo Park resident George Fisher against City Council members Kirsten Keith and Catherine Carlton.

In his complaint against Keith, Fisher alleges that she violated political ethics law when, during two trips to China in 2016, she accepted gifts in the form of airfare, lodging, food and other transportation reimbursements of more than the state's maximum permitted $470 gift-value limit. He also alleges that she did not disclose the funding source of another trip to China that she took in September 2015, and didn't say whether she paid for it herself or was reimbursed.

According to California law, only governments and 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations may fund politicians' travel in excess of that gift limit. But two organizations Keith reported receiving gifts from do not appear in directory searches of 501(c)(3)s and appear to be trade organizations. Trade organizations are typically 501(c)(6) organizations and are subject to the gift limits, says Fisher, who is an attorney.

In her 2016 annual report to the FPPC, Keith reports accepting a gift of $1,608 from the Beijing Digital Content Industries Association for boarding, food and transportation between May 27 and 31. During that trip, she participated in a panel, she noted in the report.

That year, Keith also reported receiving gifts of $3,462 from the Chongqing Municipal Government, $4,011 from the Zhengzhou Municipal Government, and $5,365 from the Zhangjiang management committee for airfare, other transportation costs, food and boarding.

In an amendment to that report, Keith disclosed receiving a gift of $2,000 from the China-USA CEO Association to cover travel expenses, lodging and food in Shenzen, China, as part of a "2016 China Economic and Trade Exchanges Trip" that took place between November 20 and 27, 2016. She noted that she made a speech or participated in a panel on that trip too.

Fisher alleges that neither the Beijing Digital Content Industries Association nor the China-USA CEO Association appears to be a 501(c)(3), after searching the IRS databases of tax-exempt organizations and finding no matches.

In response to questions from The Almanac, however, Keith provided a May 2016 letter from the FPPC stating that the Beijing Digital Content Industries Association is a nonprofit organization that is supervised by local Chinese government agencies, and noting that if the organization met the U.S. standards for a 501(c)(3), then the funding sources for that trip would be permitted to exceed the gift limit.

She also provided a formal letter from the FPPC in November 2016, which stated that the commission had received verification that the China-USA CEO Association organization is a 501(c)(3) organization.

Fisher further alleges that Keith informed the City Council before and after traveling to China on a separate trip with a group called China Silicon Valley in September 2015, but did not disclose who paid for it.

In March 2018, Keith traveled to China on another trip, which was described by Chinese media as being sponsored by the Palo Alto-based US-Asia Innovation Gateway, which is a registered 501(c)(6) organization, or a trade association, and therefore, Fisher maintains, is not eligible to provide elected officials with gifts in excess of the state gift limit.

In a written statement, Keith said, "Although the FPPC will investigate concerns raised by Mr. Fisher, the FPPC has not made any determination about the validity of his concerns. I'm grateful that Mr. Fisher has initiated this process because it allowed me to work with the FPPC to have confidence that my financial disclosure documents are accurate and complete."

Carlton

Fisher has also filed a complaint alleging that Carlton reported receiving travel and lodging reimbursements from organizations that do not appear to be 501(c)(3) nonprofits: $4,649 in value from the U.S.-Asia Friendship Association for travel in China between July 6 and 17, 2015; $8,816 in value from U.S.-Asia Friendship and Networking for travel in China between December 13 and 17, 2015; and $8,500 in value from U.S. Asia Innovation Gateway for travel in China and Korea between November 12 and 21, 2016.

Carlton informed The Almanac that she made an error in listing U.S. Asia Innovation Gateway. The organization's proper name is US-China Innovation Gateway, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and subject to the gift exemptions under state law, she said.

"A name correction is being sent to the FPPC," she added. "I was on exactly the same legal trips as nine other Bay Area council members."

In addition, she reported receiving a $5,080 gift from the government of Dalian, Yunnan, which likely would be permissible.

The FPPC informed Fisher that since it already has an investigation of Carlton in progress, a new case would not be opened, but his allegations would be added to the existing case.

Carlton reported an incident in which her husband's retirement portfolio manager had purchased and held Facebook shares for the portfolio while she voted on matters pertaining to land use and development on Facebook property.

According to the FPPC, no further notification will be provided until the case's final disposition. In a letter addressed to Fisher, Galena West, chief of the commission's enforcement division, noted that the FPPC has not made any determination about the validity of the allegations or the culpability of those the complaint is about.

Menlo Future Newsletter Endorsement:

“I am endorsing Drew Combs, Cecilia Taylor and Betsy Nash for the Menlo Park City Council.

Preface
I think 2 terms on City Council is enough and both Peter Ohtaki and Kirsten Keith are going for 3rd terms. Both Keith and Ohtaki have already run for higher office while on City Council, Keith for County Supervisor in 2012, just two months after becoming Menlo Park mayor, and Ohtaki, for the California Assembly in 2016. We need representatives that are focused on Menlo Park, and we thank both these incumbents for their years of service on Council.

What have we wrought?
Traffic is our number one problem and we attribute the huge escalation of this problem in large part to Ohtaki and Keith. They approved bringing in as many as 35,000 office workers to Menlo Park without traffic mitigations, as Menlo Future and members of the Planning Commission proposed. That damage is done. They approved the 101 interchange at Willow despite credible warnings that the traffic problem will extend beyond construction. That highly disruptive—and ongoing--damage is also done.

On the positive side:
District 2: Combs v Keith
I enthusiastically support Drew Combs in District 2, who is challenging Kirsten. He has spent 5 years on the Planning Commission; he is a Harvard law grad and he is thoughtful, open and ethical. Keith has claimed in an Anti-Drew flier, that Drew will be ineffective because he is currently working for Facebook, but in fact that claim is mythical, because as the Almanac points out, even with Combs recused, "with a four-member decision-making body, any project approval would still need three votes. One could argue that such a requirement might make greenlighting a project even more difficult."
The Daily Post and the Almanac both support Combs.”

Ok @jobs/housing I'll bite. Just exactly how many "workforce" or "affordable" units were built and approved under Keith's tenure on council? Now, how many jobs?

Notice that none of Keith's top priorities in her 2010 election included updating the non-conforming housing element. Web Link

THEN ..... in 2012, two years after "housing advocate" Keith was elected, the City got sued and lost for having a legally non-conforming Housing Element!!! The suit took place in the year in which Keith ran for Supervisor. Was she distracted by her future career, simply not a housing advocate, or a passive rubberstamp for development? All of the above?

Recall that during her 2010 election Keith ran on the back of support for David Bohannon's office/hotel project, the ten-story mass across the freeway that includes no housing whatsoever. That project was before the voters and Keith hugged Bohannon's campaign as tightly as possible. Her support curried the favor of a power local developer, who might later help her obtain higher office. *THAT* is the Kirsten Keith that I know.

On the night of her failed supervisor bid, she approved a downtown Special Plan that was zoned for a favorable jobs/housing balance, but, later, she oversaw a build-out that worsened the imbalance with less housing and more (regional) office than planned for.

Her Facebook approvals have been documented elsewhere.

In truth, "housing advocate" Keith attempted to use none of the City's many land-use regulatory powers to wage a pro-housing policy agenda while in office. Kirsten Keith doesnt have a pro-housing vision or policy for Menlo Park. She never did. She has a vision for Kirsten Keith.

For the record, I do not advocate more housing (or office), its an overly simplistic solution to a much more complicated problem. I'm simply pointing out the political theater of council members who says they are "for" housing and don't then exercise their regulatory authority to favor housing and dis-favor non-housing, particularly in a legal climate where the city has been formally sanctioned by the courts to build housing.

Your point about Combs is well taken. But Keith never saw a developer, whose future campaign contribution she wasn't willing to take.

"jobs/housing"

Nice to see you posting the same tired information under yet a new anonymous name. I know you want to talk about anything possible to get away from Keith's record but let's take a minute to talk about that record:

She votes pro development for the last 8 years, now she is trying to tell people "listen to what I say not what I do", well my 5 year old sees through that and so do the residents of District 2. She is pro development without worrying about the impact on the residents of Menlo Park. That is evident in her record. Great that she is on the Transportation Master Plan committee, but what have they done? Certainly nothing for the Willows. When the cut through traffic problems were raised where was she? She likes to say she responded to an email but so did the other council members, that does not take any effort. When we came to the city council she left in the middle of the discussion and was not there to vote in favor of adding "No Through Traffic" signs. For those that remember she came to Cafe Zoe about 2 years ago and talked about taking action on traffic in the Willows, after she left that meeting we heard nothing and saw no effort to make any improvements. All talk no action.

Now let's talk about Facebook. Keith has been a proponent of Facebook Expansion from day one. voting to approve the massing amounts of new business development in East Menlo. She even voted to approve the master plan update that rezoned the area to allow for Facebook Village. Yet that area still does not have a descent library, no Supermarket, no full service bank. These are basic things the residents of been asking for for many years and all they got was clogged streets. Then she talks about representing Menlo Park on Facebook, yet when there was an important session on Facebook Development where was Keith? She was in China on a boondoggle misrepresenting her position in City government. Not representing the interests of the residents of District 2.

Now let's talk about ethics. Fist off I would hope to believe that a practicing attorney and City Council member for many years would understand the brown act. It is pretty straight forward, if you have a majority of the council together (that would be 3 out of the 5 in Menlo Park) you can not discuss city business, yet she went ahead and did just that and got reported by another member of the council. She also is opposed to the Sunshine proposal which would allow the people she is supposed to be representing to know who she is meeting with, having drinks with, dining with that have business before the city of Menlo Park. For example I personally I think it would be good to know if a VP at Facebook is taking her out to the French Laundry for a 4 hour meeting.

So while you want to distract people from her record I think it is time to focus it and her other issues and let people decide for themselves.

This was a good article but it did not cover some information that I personally found interesting. Looking at the contributions it is easy to see that the majority of the contributions to Keith come from outside of Menlo Park. In Fact over 78% of the money that Keith raised in the latest report comes from outside of Menlo Park (not to mention from developers and from PAC's like the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local #467 who have a vested interest in seeing office development continue at the current pace). Then you take a look at Combs, he actually turned down a donations from organizations and companies. His campaign is being financed by the people in Menlo Park.

If you look at the forms Keith has filed since January 1st and the forms Combs has filed since deciding to run there is a very interesting story there. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and while Keith has raised a lot more that Combs, 69% of the total money Keith raised this year came from outside of Menlo Park (Not to mention from big developers with projects in our city). Combs on the other hand has raised most of his money within Menlo Park with only 16% coming from outside of Menlo Park.

Taking a look at these numbers, who is more likely to represent the residents of Menlo Park and District 2, the candidate that has raised the majority of her money from out side the city (and from developers and groups like the Association of Realtors and "Plumbers & Steamfitters Local #467 State & Political Action Fund") or from the candidate who has kept it local and raised his money from within the city and not taken donations from companies or organizations.

If anyone wants to check these numbers feel free. I used the links from the Almanac articles to look at the two form 460's (Recipient Committee Campaign Statement) filed by both Keith and Combs. I just added up the money and if it was from people listing their address as Menlo Park or not.

And if you want to discuss integrity there was a good article about Drew asking his supporters to not run a campaign flyer critical of Keith and her voting record, trips to China, Brown Act violations etc. in the DailyPost on October 27th.

Link to the Article:
Web Link

I think I have made it clear in the past; I want someone who will represent the issues of District 2 and the city of Menlo Park. For the last 8 years Keith has voted pro-development without a concern for the impact that would have on the residents. When we brought up the problems we did not get any action from her (she didn't even vote to approve the "No Through Traffic" signs). It took many of us getting together, collecting signatures and going as a large group to the Council before they took any real action. Is that the kind of city government you want to have?

If you have not already done so, please make sure you vote and I hope you will make an informed decision on all the candidates and measures.