Menlo Park Council to ignore Specific Plan procedures and its Planning Commission

What is needed is a review of the SP itself. Other cities have found themselves facing unexpected situations early in their own SP implementation. So has Menlo Park.
The city has already ignored the Plan's parking requirements for 555 Glenwood. The city decided to undertake a negotiation for which the SP makes no provision in that same instance. The Council and Planning Commission were surprised with Stanford's initial project proposal (allowed by the SP) and the community concerned about what is possible with almost no check and balance on very large projects with very large impacts.
The right thing to do is to review the Plan itself in light of what is being learned.

This is what the Specific Plan states regarding implementation:
"Administration, Processing and
Review of Applications
The Specific Plan retains the existing Zoning Ordinance
procedures for administration, processing, and review of
applications, in particular the Architectural Control and Use
Permit approval processes.
Architectural Control
The Architectural Control procedures as codified in Zoning
Ordinance Section 16.68.020 would apply to all new
construction and additions of more than 100 square feet, as
well as exterior modifications (regardless of whether square
footage is affected) that would not be in conformance with
a previous design approval. The four existing Architectural
Control findings would be supplemented by an additional
finding:
(5) That the development is consistent with any
applicable Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission would continue to make
Architectural Control actions, which would be effective
unless appealed to the City Council under the procedures
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 16.86.
Use Permit
The Use Permit procedures as codified in Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 16.82, Section I and IV would apply
to some but not all uses, as outlined in Table E1 “Land
Use Designations and Allowable Uses”. The Use Permit
requirements would apply to new construction as well as
changes of use for the particular conditional uses listed
in Table E1. For new construction of conditional uses,
Architectural Control and Use Permit requests would be
reviewed and acted upon concurrently. The Planning
Commission would continue to make Use Permit actions,
which would be effective unless appealed to the City
Council under the procedures outlined in Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 16.86."


This is what the Specific Plan states regarding plan review and revisions:
"Ongoing Review of Specific Plan
The Specific Plan constitutes a significant and complex
revision of the existing regulations, and there may be
aspects of the plan that do not function precisely as
intended when applied to actual future development
proposals and public improvement projects. In order
to address such issues comprehensively, as well as to
consider the policy-related implications of various Plan
aspects, the Specific Plan recommends that the City
conduct an initial review of the Specific Plan one year
after adoption. In addition, the Specific Plan recommends
that the City conduct an ongoing review every two years
after the initial review. Such reviews should be conducted
with both the Planning Commission and City Council, and
should incorporate public input. Any modifications that
result from this review should be formally presented for
Planning Commission review and City Council action. Minor
technical modifications would generally be anticipated to
be covered by the current Program EIR analysis, while
substantive changes not covered by the Program EIR
would require additional review."

Excellent news, Peter -- thank you for sharing (I also received the city council memorandum update via email). I applaud Council Members Keith and Cline for heeding the will of hundreds of residents (Peter's "insignificant minority") by requesting that the Council review the Stanford project, and for noting in their memorandum that "there is sufficient controversy and concern about the proposed mass, scale, mix of uses and potential impacts of the project that we think that the Council should be brought up to date on the status of the application and the review and processing of the application" (the memorande may be read here: Web Link

Government "for the people," it would seem.

Gern

Gern - PLEASE take the time to read the Specific Plan. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to review this proposal, not the Council's.

"The Planning Commission would continue to make

Architectural Control actions, which would be effective

unless appealed to the City Council under the procedures

outlined in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 16.86."

Hopefully the full Council will realize the inappropriateness of the Keith/Kline proposal and continue to respect the procedures of the Specific Plan and the role of the Planning Commission.

Peter wrote: "Hopefully the full Council will realize the inappropriateness of the Keith/Kline proposal and continue to respect the procedures of the Specific Plan and the role of the Planning Commission."

To which the citizens of Menlo Park might respond, "Hopefully the full Council will respect the wishes and needs of its constituency over a blind obedience to procedure." Little may come of this review, Peter, even if it is placed on the Council agenda, but I'm happy that at least two Council members appear to be serving the interests of residents.

Gern

As has been explained IN DETAIL on other Forum topics the Stanford proposal is totally consistent with the Specific Plan and there is nothing that the Council can REQUIRE Stanford to change. The Specific Plan procedure calls for the Planning Commission to review the architectural details of the proposal. That process is underway including consultation by Stanford with concerned (and awake) residents. It would be inappropriate for the council to insert itself into this ongoing process.

IF the Council wishes to revisit the Specific Plan itself then the procedure for doing so is spelled out in the Specific Plan as noted above. Until and if the Specific Plan is changed it is the law and that law governs any proposed development submitted to the city. The Specific Plan, adopted unanimously by the council after a long, arduous process involving many opportunities for public input, is the will of the people.

The few people who are opposed to the Specific Plan and the Stanford project (and who evidently slept through the Specific Plan development) which the Specific plan permits are not the will of the people. If they believe that they represent a majority of the citizens of Menlo Park then they should demonstrate that with a ballot initiative to block the Specific Plan and the Stanford project - and that will not happen because they don't have the votes.

Some of the posts here remind me of that old lawyer's axiom: "when you can't pound on the facts, pound on the table." Doing a copy/paste on copious amounts of irrelevant text may look impressive, but Gern is right: our city should be planned in accordance with its residents' wishes. Our council would be remiss in allowing a developer -- any developer -- to try to exploit a loophole that doesn't serve the best interests of the community. Better to plug that loophole.

Thank you, council.

Actually, a lot of people oppose this project. And only two appear to support it, one of whom doesn't live in Menlo Park!

A ballot initiative is the wrong way to address this oversight. I'm surprised a self-proclaimed expert would suggest it.

" our city should be planned in accordance with its residents' wishes. "

That is EXACTLY how the Specific Plan was developed and adopted. Those who were too lazy to participate in the Specific Plan process have no one to blame but themselves and they do not get a redo unless they can demonstrate that they represent a MAJORITY of the citizens of Menlo Park - and that is not going to happen. Gern plus a handful are not a majority of anything.

As for facts - they are all presented above.

For crying out loud! I don't support the Stanford project. In fact it sucks as far as I'm concerned. What I DO support is the process that got us to this point. If the council and few loud mouths overturn that process they will do irreparable damage to any future development. Is that what you want? Do you want the old car lots to continue to sit vacant on El Camino? Because that's what you're going to get when developers have no confidence in the approvals of their projects. El Camino will continue to look like hell.

All you folks screaming about this project should have been doing so BEFORE the zoning was granted. And what's really amazing is that you folks all foaming at the mouth about the Stanford project are silent when the council gives away city street parking to a hotel. Are you all really that attention span challenged? Sure let's scream and yell about a project that the zoning has already been approved for, but we'll ignore the giving away of public land to a private entity. Are you people really that dense?

So sorry, Peter. Some of us have jobs and families and simply can't spend all our time addressing your concerns here.

I may be ridiculously lazy, but I attended quite a few of the public meetings. So do many of those who are opposed to the Stanford proposal The consultants listened to us and said that they understood the importance of "village character." They showed us drawings of sidewalk cafes and charming boutiques.

When the plan emerged last year, many people protested, but the council was under pressure to adopt the plan without having studied it in detail. There was indeed "public process" -- the problem was a major disconnect between what the public wanted (and the consultants professed to be providing) and the plan we have now. We gave them the ingredients for a chocolate mousse and they came back with a tv dinner.

And to MV's comment: I don't see silence about the land giveaway. Both the hotel and the Stanford projects are hugely problematic. Both reflect a breakdown in process.

Interesting that both PC and MV feel the need to insult the residents of Menlo Park repeatedly. Not really the best way to sell your perspective, but oh well!

Both Menlo Voter and I respect the citizens of Menlo Park - it is they who participated in the Specific Plan process and they would elected their City Council. If you feel insulted because you had better things to do than participate in the democratic process and "simply can't spend all our time addressing your concerns here" then that is your problem.

Gotcha:

Actually the Stanford project does not show a breakdown in the process. The process was followed and is being followed. There will be a breakdown in the process if a few loud mouths are able to have the council overturn zoning that has already been granted.

You are right about the hotel. THAT one reflects a clear breakdown in the process. The council isn't following the specific plan and they are breaking the law giving away public property to a private entity.

If the city continues on this path you can bet Stanford will sue and we'll lose. In the mean time those car lots will sit vacant for another five years at least. You can also count on other developers to do nothing further in this town knowing that they can't count on the decisions made regarding their property. The end result? Continued blight on El Camino and Santa Cruz Ave. still looking like it did in the 70's.

If you have "better things to do" than to participate in the process, then you get what you get and have no right to complain.

Please reread my post.

I did participate in the process, attending many meetings, writing emails, even taking a walking tour of El Camino. So did a lot of residents. We were told we were getting one plan, but that's not the plan the consultants wrote.

What I said was that I don't have time to debate the tag-team, who seem to be convinced that if you have the last word on this forum, the council will do as you demand. That's not how it works, but knock yourselves out.

Gotcha -1 - Did you read the Draft EIR?
2 - Did you submit written comments on the Draft EIR?
3 - Did you read the Final EIR?
4 - Did you read the proposed Specific Plan before the Council voted on it?
5 - Did you attend the council meetings at which the EIR was accepted and the Specific Plan was adopted?
6 - What, for example, don't you unterstand about the 45 degree setback for upper stories in the ECR-East zone?


Doing one's citizen's homework isn't just reading the Cliff Notes.

The Council can modify the Specific Plan whenever it chooses. That is the nature of Specific Plans. Related zoning rules would, of course, possibly need to be modified if the Plan is modified. An underlying premise of the Specific Plan process was to establish a process and rules that aren't modified for every project.

The Council already has acted in a way that undermines the Specific Plan, by approving the 555 Glenwood project the way they did. The project did not provide the required off-street parking.

If they need to retain flexibility to negotiate certain kinds of projects, they should modify the SP so everyone knows that is the process for every similar project.

"16.58.020 El Camino Real/Downtown specific plan.
Uses, development regulations, guidelines, definitions, off-street parking requirements, and other parameters for public and private development are established through the El Camino Real/Downtown specific plan. All modifications to this chapter or to the El Camino Real/Downtown specific plan require review and recommendation by the planning commission and review and approval by the city council through public hearings in accordance with Chapter 16.88 and applicable law. (Ord. 979 § 6 (part), 2012)."

Note - "require review and recommendation by the planning commission"

Gotcha:

so what you're saying is that once you were told you were getting one thing you never bothered to confirm it? You trusted that staff would do what they said they would. A reasonable assumption, but not in this town. Staff here has a history of saying one thing and doing another, unfortunately. You have to watch them like a hawk all the way through the process.

You could also write a letter or a email that states you are opposed to any project, plan or proposal within the city of MP.

@Peter Carpenter, in your most recent comment above, you quote the Specific Plan thusly: "require review and recommendation by the planning commission." Why you failed to complete that sentence as it is written in the Plan is a mystery to no one, of course, but I'll complete it for you here:

"... require review and recommendation by the planning commission and review and approval by the city council through public hearings in accordance with Chapter 16.88 and applicable law."

I read no stipulation requiring the Council to initiate review of the Plan based solely on the impetus of the Planning Commission. It would appear both bodies may review the Plan at their discretion and adding such a review to the City Council agenda conforms both to the language and the spirit of the Plan.

Yours, then, was an unusually succinct if unintentional statement of support for the actions of Councilmembers Keith and Cline, and I applaud you for that.

Gern

""... require review and recommendation by the planning commission and review and approval by the city council through public hearings in accordance with Chapter 16.88 and applicable law."" Clearly action by the Planning Commission is an antecedent condition of Council action.

"Clearly action by the Planning Commission is an antecedent condition of Council action."

Clearly your interpretation doesn't jibe with the literal, Peter. More to the point, you are factually incorrect -- please cite specific Plan text which spells out this antecedent relationship, because the quoted section of the Plan, above, neither dictates nor implies precedence in the review process.

Gern

Gern - Even simple words mean something and must be read for proper understanding:
"require review and recommendation by the planning commission AND review and approval by the city council through public hearings in accordance with Chapter 16.88 and applicable law."

AND means "an ADDED condition, stipulation, detail, or particular:" Had it been intended that either body could act alone the even simpler word OR would have been used. Had it been intended that the council act first then the sentence would have been reversed and then it would have made no logical sense for the council to take approval action before receiving recommendations from the planning commission.

Back on topic anyone?

Tha California Oath of office taken by those of us who been privileged to serve :

""I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AND the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...." uses AND in the same way as an ADDED condition, stipulation, detail, or particular. This Oath does not permit allegiance to only the Constitution of the United States OR the Constitution of the State of California.

@Peter, we agree that the Specific Plan requires the review and approval of both the Planning Commission and the Council, but I'm still awaiting the fruits of your research which make clear Council review should only be triggered by Planning Commission action. Absent specific language in the Plan to that effect, language you clearly failed to turn up, Councilmembers Keith and Cline followed process (and the will of residents) with their memorandum.

Gern

Gern -
"require review and recommendation by the planning commission AND review and approval by the city council through public hearings in accordance with Chapter 16.88 and applicable law."

How could the council obtain the REQUIRED planning commission recommendation If the council considered the matter before the planning commission made its recommendation?

"How could the council obtain the REQUIRED planning commission recommendation If the council considered the matter before the planning commission made its recommendation?"

That's actually the language you're looking for in the Plan, Peter, though perhaps you were just monologuing prior to citing this specific requirement. In the plan. That's what you're building toward, correct? Peter?

Funny thing is Councilmembers Keith and Cline have already answered your question for you with their memorandum. If you believe what they are doing is illegal or completely counter to the non-guidance found by you, and only you, in the Plan then you'd best alert the city attorney.

Gern

Gern - You have gotten distracted. The issue being addressed is the review of the Stanford Plan, not the review of the Specific Plan. Frankly, on the Stanford Plan review I think Keith and Kline are just seeking face time and not properly respecting the procedures established in the Specific Plan and clearly attempting to diminish the role of the Planning Commission.
important.

I have done all the homework for you on the issue of how the Specific Plan is revised so why don't you start a new thread on that topic?

Keith and Kline state "We think that this project site is unique and that the concerns regarding this project and site are not generally applicable to any other sites in the Specific Plan area."


And guess what, this project site already has its very own exclusive zone, ECR-East, in the Specific Plan - the express purpose of which was to address this zone UNIQUE features. ECR-East encompasses ONLY the Stanford land and the Stanford project is ONLY for a project within the borders of ECR-East.


Where were Keith and Kline when the Planning Commission and the Council adopted ECR-East?

From talking to members of both bodies at the time (May 2012), I know that the consultant and staff were pressuring the council and PC to approve the plan. It was voluminous, and they had no way to read through, absorb, and discuss everything. Even so, there were objections raised by many, and those were essentially ignored.

It's human nature to want to believe that others are being open and honest with you. Our representatives realize now that they were too trusting and made a mistake. Now they want to rectify it. Why would an Atherton resident want to block that?

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2013 at 10:44 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online

Gotcha -1 - Did you read the Draft EIR?

2 - Did you submit written comments on the Draft EIR?

3 - Did you read the Final EIR?

4 - Did you read the proposed Specific Plan before the Council voted on it?

5 - Did you attend the council meetings at which the EIR was accepted and the Specific Plan was adopted?

6 - What, for example, don't you unterstand about the 45 degree setback for upper stories in the ECR-East zone?

Doing one's citizen's homework isn't just reading the Cliff Notes.

" Our representatives realize now that they were too trusting and made a mistake. "

There is no evidence to support this assertion.

" they had no way to read through, absorb, and discuss everything"

That is their job, that is what they were elected to do.

"You have gotten distracted. The issue being addressed is the review of the Stanford Plan, not the review of the Specific Plan."

Why, then, did you create a Town Forum post with the title, "Menlo Park Council to ignore Specific Plan procedures ..." and begin that post by quoting the Keith/Cline memorandum? The Stanford Plan is an element of the Specific Plan, and I won't be distracted by your deflections, Peter: Show me the language in the Specific Plan which prohibits or discourages Council review of that plan per the Keith/Cline memorandum.

Gern

Gern - You are not paying attention. Let's take this in baby steps.
1 - The Keith/Cline memorandum call for a council review of the Stanford project; it does not call for a review of the Specific Plan.
2 - as noted in one of the first postings on this thread on Mar 29, 2013 at 5:38 pm:
"Gern - PLEASE take the time to read the Specific Plan. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to review this proposal, not the Council's."

"The Planning Commission would continue to make
Architectural Control actions, which would be effective
unless appealed to the City Council under the procedures
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 16.86."

Hopefully the full Council will realize the inappropriateness of the Keith/Kline proposal and continue to respect the procedures of the Specific Plan and the role of the Planning Commission.

PLEASE read the entire thread before asking the same answered question a third time.

Our planning process is dysfunctional and unfair everytime MP has an opportunity (Derry Project)the minority rejects it? how is it that the city spent millions on the specific plan laid down the rules for future development then go back on its word? how will this inspire any future development of our dilapatated buildings and empty lots? development dollars are cyclical and as of late those investments seem to be going to the north and south of us and the last I checked MP retail is not very healthy we need customers along with a plan that future developers can count on and of course responsible traffic mitigation.

Thank you Gern.

ding! ding! Ding! We have a winner! Bob gets it:

"how is it that the city spent millions on the specific plan laid down the rules for future development then go back on its word? HOW WILL THIS INSPIRE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS AND EMPTY LOTS?"

Short answer, it won't and in fact will discourage future devloper interst and investment. And that is exactly what will happen if the Council rezones the Stanford property. No developer is going to put money at risk when they can;t count on any planning decisions effecting their property.

Gotcha asks: "Why would an Atherton resident want to block that?"

He's not the only one.

To answer your other statement: "Our representatives realize now that they were too trusting and made a mistake. Now they want to rectify it."

It's too late. There are no do-overs in this situation.

Keith and Kline are injecting themselves into too many issues trying to pander to a vocal, anti development minorities. They are simply spread too thin to make educated decisions. Observing the meetings, it is painfully clear they are not familiar with all the material in their staff reports.

They are bordering on incompetent because of it.

They need to streamline the issues they tackle by not second guessing existing regulations and policies. Only when these 'leaders' have the character to tell neighborhood groups 'No, the law is clear' will the misinformation and whining stop.

The specific plan is the result of a thorough process and is the voice of the people. Our council members should have the guts to stand up to nimby threats and misinformation.

They have recently overturned staff and commission decisions on a Menalto housing project and on a simple driveway encroachment permit in West Menlo based on fraudulent neighborhood petitions and misinformation. Kline and Keith simply voted based on who was yelling the loudest in the council chamber.

Keep up the good work Mr. Carpenter and get our City Council to respect the law and property rights rather than respecting mob rule.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?