Menlo Park council OKs significant changes in city's general plan for development

Once again the council is a rubber stamp for the developers to the detriment of the community's residents.

Cline wants a "check in" in two years?

Hey Rich you won't be on Council in two years. Carlton was just re-elected but she recieved less than 50 percent of the vote. Shouldn't be too hard to recall her.

Congrats to the city on making a huge step forward to modernizing Menlo Park! No plan is perfect, but this is a terrific start to unblocking many of our cities problems and recognizing the need for more urbanization. It's a shame that (presumably) older residents see the city changing in ways they might not be comfortable with, but for the good of the future of Menlo Park, this plan lets future generations have more confidence in the city.

It is not too late to stop this insanity.

After the 2nd reading, residents have 30 days to collect 10% of registered voters' signatures to put referendums on the ballot to overturn the ordinances at the next regular election in 2018.

For example, in 2005 Cupertino voters overturned one rezoning ordinance by 65%-35% and one by 64%-36%.

Do Menlo Park residents have the will to put a stop to this? Going door to door isn't easy, and the council will cleverly put this through in December.

"Such development is expected to add 11,570 new residents and 5,500 employees to Menlo Park."
Menlo Residents, if you didn't think traffic throughout Menlo Park is horrendous now, just wait!

Since the current population is probably 33,000 or more (33K in 2013 count, that was several years ago!),
adding 15,000 more residents is sheer insanity. Not to mention 5,500 more employees.
Hey, how many homeless are getting added? Is Menlo Park taking in its "fair share"? No? Perhaps the
concept of "fair share" is, I dunno, a stupid idea?

The popluation of Menlo Park in 1950 was 13,587.

The population in 1960 was 26,957 - almost double that just ten years earlier.

Web Link

I suspect that some residents in 1950 predicted that there would be a disaster if the population were to double in the next ten years.

Peter Carpenter, How about a state law prohibiting lots of greater the 1/4 acre? Any permit application for any work would require large lots be subdivided?

This is an obscene amount of growth. Unlike the 1950's, our city is built out and tge roads are clogged up already.

The plan allows 50% growth of our town (where???) and 70% more jobs (new commuters!) over next 25 years.

Bravo to Mueller and shame on the rest of the council that cares more about corporations and developers than about residents, safety and wuality of life.

Oh my god the sky is falling! You same folks complaining about this were probably also complaining about the housing shortage. You can't have it both ways.

@Residents_lose writes, "Bravo to Mueller and shame on the rest of the council"

Things are bad when your only supporters are anonymous posters on town square. With a 4-1 vote, Mr Mueller was ineffective at accomplishing anything. Voting against the plan after spending two years as the co-chair of the GPAC that created the plan is nonsensical at best.

Why attack Ray for having a different opinion than the rest of the City Council? How does having a different opinion make him a narcissist? The Almanac editorial board supported Ray's position in an editorial that was published yesterday. So did the Chair of the Planning Commission - and the General Plan wasn't approved by the Planning Commission. Ray thought the Plan had flaws and wasn't finished. He explained his reasoning with two Planning Commissioners in an editorial. What's wrong with that? What's the point in disparaging the guy?

As co-chair of GPAC Mr Mueller would know first hand that the added development offered in the General Plan depends on MAJOR transportation infrastructure that is left for "somebody else" to provide. The GP did not even pass the Planning Commission. How could he support a plan that was left just one (big) step unfinished? He asked for 60 days to address that, but the train was rolling, he got no response. Thank you Mr Mueller for trying. The other four: see you in two years when the Gateway project and new Facebook building are occupied.

Belle Haven resident, and former Planning Commissioner, Harry Bims made a compelling argument for moving forward.

Narcissists do things in their own self interest. They think the world revolves around their own selfish desires and should conform to their beliefs. Let's review C. Mueller's actions and the other Councilmembers actions on Tuesday night.

C. Mueller voted against the wishes of Facebook and every major developer in the region. His vote is the first time any Menlo Park City Councilmember has voted against the wishes of Facebook. Some of us at home our keeping track. That's hardly in the self interest of a politician. He fought for a phased-in plan emphasizing the needs of the residents - housing, retail and transportation improvements. These are reasonable requests to protect residents quality of life. He made this vote without fear of retribution from voters. He was just reelected in first place.

Now let's review the actions of the other Councilmembers. They voted to approve the General Plan in early December, the most difficult time of year for those who disagree with it to collect signatures for a referendum. They passed a General Plan the Planning Commission did not approve. They did not pass a phased-in development plan emphasizing the needs of the residents. As politicians they agreed with the wishes of the people with the biggest pockets in the room. Two of the them have already made failed runs for higher office.

Narcissists do things in their own self interest. They think the world revolves around their own selfish desires and should conform to their beliefs.

Who exactly were the narcissists Tuesday night?

They keep making these buildings larger and larger but the roads stay the same. Besides the coming redesign of the Willow Road/101 overpass are there any plans to address the increased traffic?

The city attorney has suggested that pigs will fly before CalTrans surrenders control of these state highways in Belle Haven.

If you want your questions to be taken seriously, you should participate in public comment at a council meeting.

It's about time we moved forward!

We're in the middle of what's essentially a huge metropolitan area spanning the triangle between San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland. Having no development right at the center of that metro area (which is where we are) is downright insane.

Kudos to the council for pushing past the NIMBYs and allowing some actual modernization.

4-1 is significant. The PC vote was 2-2. Go read the reports for crying out loud.

Three people were unable to vote due to perceived conflicts - either work or property ownership within a territory near the m2. To say the PC did not approve the plan is dishonest. They did not disapprove it either. They praised the plan and expressed concern for the infrastructure solution going forward.

Ray jumped into this and asked for a two week extension at first, then a six week extension and finally a two month extension. This is the same game played over and over again in our city. The SP was the first modern-day major community outreach planning process in city history. When it was complete after five years and thousands of residents and stakeholders providing feedback, the same small group of people wanted it delayed for fear of over development and traffic. Add two years to it and more studies and the same group was still unhappy. So they raised signatures and put it on the ballot. Seven years. Thousands of people. Hundreds of public meetings. Four or five different consultants and studies. Still. No. Satisfaction. Fear. Fear. Fear. Ballot measure was crushed after more cost to the city.

I volunteered as a property owner in the SP work. I attended many of the M2 meetings as well. I don't have every fact right, but as a 30+ year resident, I have seen much. And I have watched populist politics drive a wedge in our city's ability to progress.

Ray wants popularity more than most. He likes meetings with citizens and putting together groups of stakeholders with empty promises for some "answer" to all these fears. He likes to have these meetings publicly announced as if they are saving the residents. The residents of FEAR write letters adoring his courage. Kelly Fergusson used to call these types of meetings. Gail Slocum before that.

Don't get me wrong, they aren't all set up for votes, they are important. But often mislead residents like myself as they are just conversations with no action. But the press don't write follow ups.

The reason Ray can't get more than his vote on this council on these populist campaigns I think is because he throws so many colleagues on commissions, council and even staff and consultants under the bus in the process. He may not even see it that way.

Often times taking a minority position is a strategy for populism and it works in MP and PA all the time. I don't want to assume this is Ray's sole motivation.

However, this is the quote to listen for when you suspect populism gaming. I have heard it from Jellins to Sorenson to Cohen to Boyle to Mueller.

"I want to say that I don't reject this XYZ thing. It has great elements. Thanks to all the great people for their work. This is great. But I FEAR we may not have all the answers yet. I FEAR for people who may be impacted. I will vote against this because I think with a few more meetings we can find those answers. And save those people. But I am not against this XYZ thing in principle."

In some cases, I think these folks are confident the vote is there so they can take the stand without undermining or threatening approval of the plan.

To be specific, when a council member leads a 2+ year community outreach planning process as a subcommittee for council and they have seen the reports, the resident feedback, the budgets, the rewrites, the FEAR, the ideas and they approve the plan to go to the PC, is that not an endorsement?

Remember the Smart Growth initiative in the 1990s. After all this collection of data and the consultant work with a subcommittee of council, the Mayor at that time lambasted the report and the consultant and questioned the ethics of it all. No moving ahead. Just an end to it all.

If a leader does not express grave reservations at the outset before sending it to the PC or council, how does rejecting with all the lights and media around not come off as either spineless or populist?

Perhaps that is unfair. But there is a truth to it.

What about your subcommittee partner? Did he or she know you were jumping ship and writing letters to the editor?

These are actions that have tripped up our councils many times in the past. I am glad this council did not fall into the same behavior.

I think courage is accepting the reality and driving the city toward a solution without pausing to count votes. It is rare in small peninsula towns.

The problems Ray outlined with Riggs and Strehl are problems our city has seen grow for four decades. These are not new. No planning process was needed to see home prices balloon and parking lots on Willow. To say after all the planning that you suddenly need specific solutions to traffic before approval of a plan not a development project, is hardly honest.

Two months does not solve four decades of municipal stretch marks.

Rail, bridges, freeways and ABAG policies are massive undertakings.

Should have been undertaken in the 1980s, 90s, 2000s but wasn't in any major way. Every person on council, past councils, commissions, staff, residents and property/business owners like me have to own our shortcomings in this.

So I say let's go do it now and do it right.

But don't play to the community like two months is the answer.

Populism kills small towns. Conviction and courage to vote or to stay the course in a storm is what we need. Idling in a storm is exactly how we got here. See Sand Hill Rd and our council's ignorance keeping it narrowed to the point of congestion forever. See the referendum of a 100 or so unit project at the Derry property in 2006 for FEAR of three and four stories and too much housing. See Santa Cruz Avenue street furniture plans to make driving impossible only to be ripped out at a cost of $1M. See no parking garage or housing downtown because FEAR residents caused council members to back off of it during the SP process.

All of this was done with FEAR of growth.

Don't FEAR it. Attack it boldly and do it with as many partners as you can. To bury your head Menlo Park is to go back in time.

Stop playing to residents and start acting with conviction. Or you will become yet another group of popular council members with nothing to show for your service but a few breadcrumbs.

I like Ray by the way. I think he has potential if he can get over his knee jerk reaction to that panicked group of voices at the last hour of a major issue. He works hard and cares, but needs to start winning his colleagues over more and it seems he has lost their ear.

I like this council as much as any I have seen.

I think Peter brings an analytic approach to decisions that Boyle once did and he is graceful.

I think Catherine listens well to residents and brings an authenticity that is needed.

Kirsten has a great mind for the details from her planning commission days and she is tough.

And Cline has been so much more than I thought when he was first elected. His leadership has been absolutely critical to get our city moving ahead. He carries the senior council member position well. I wish he would reconsider stepping down in two years.

I don't want to get into fights with other anonymous posters. I am sure what I have said is hurtful. But I have lots of years and dollars invested here in town and I think we need to be honest about these issues and fair to readers even if we are angry. We all have blood on our hands in some way.

Please listen to what council members said during the vote and don't rely on second-hand information.

I won't be responding to nastiness in here. I know this is too long. But I felt compelled to say something. Sorry to be anonymous. I have economic interests in town that I don't want attached to opinions.

That post is so awful, so disgusting. I feel so bad for Ray. It's pretty clear the political consultants and attorneys hired by the developers are going to attack Ray now to protect their projects. Really, an essay attacking his character? Those who have worked with him know that essay is just a pure political hatchet job. They have to character assasinate Ray to explain his vote. This makes me sick.
Ray we care about you. Thank you for giving so many of us a voice.

@30+ years of MP - thanks for your nasty "thoughtful" attempt to distract and avert attention from the actual issue.

The issue isn't about what you think of Ray Mueller. The issue for us is the amount of development the Council just approved in an area where traffic is already deadlocked most of the day. Try actually driving near Willow or Marsh between 3pm and 7pm. Glad you have money invested in Menlo Park - so do we homeowners.

But on the topic of Ray, I remember his endorsement list in the last election. It was quite long for someone who
"throws so many colleagues on commissions, council and even staff and consultants under the bus".

Ugly.

In reality, the general plan is great because of all the hard work Mueller put into it. We appreciate that Ray is a great council member because he is so willing to be critical. Getting thrown under the bus is part of the package.

Dear all,

If you are patting yourselves on the back for approving the general plan, if you are trying to silence dissenters with name-calling like 'Nimby', if you are accusing desenters of irrational fears or lack of participation in the process...you don't live on or near Willow rd or Bay rd, and you don't mind hurting others as long as your personal investments pan out.
FYI:
I participated, AGAIN. (And, unlike some of you, I don't even make my living by participating.) Was completely ignored. AGAIN.

It would be simpler if those who have helped this plan along would just say the looming words: "Let them eat cake". Because that's the message that's sent time and again. Your decisions will harm a lot of residents, and nonresidents on this side of ElCamino, and clearly that's not your concern.

You have given a whole new meaning to the word: entitlement.

The City is now on course to see a massive increase in density and population along a transportation corridor that is already so packed it's virtually non-functional for large parts of the day. Traffic is already oppressive in the Willows, Suburban Park, and Belle Haven. The plan to mitigate the impacts of that density is to do what? - to create a plan to mitigate that density. I think it's fair to say we have moved passed a time period in Menlo Park where we were stuck in analysis paralysis. Now we do analysis after approval.

If the communte-time traffic is so bad, nobody will be interested in renting the new apartments... other than Facebook employees whom can walk, bike or shuttle to work... which is the whole point.

Anyone who is concerned about the amount of traffic should speak up about the Greenheart project on El Camino that also is about to be approved. Nobody wants the trashy lot the developer has not maintained, but who really wants all the additional traffic in the worst section of El Camino?

In total, this council is approving 50% growth and 70% more workers without doing squat to improve the infrastructure or transit. Mueller makes the right noises but demonstrates his political ineffectiveness. His protests are too late in the game, he is unable to persuade even one colleague. Maybe that is part of his longer term game because he knows the #$()& is going to hit the fan once these large projects get underway. The election in 2 years will be very interesting. He and his colleagues care more about developers than residential quality of life. Residents lose.

@residentslose your post demonstrates why residentialists will continue to always lose in Menlo Park. I hope Mueller reads it and learns from it. No support offered for his vote. Rather just criticism and insult while his back is turned to you. Hard to build a base when no one trusts their backside.

State and Federal funding for transit infrastructure is more likely when the council members have a good working relationship with State and Federal leaders. The current council really shines in this area.