Menlo Park: Councilwoman asks council to reconsider approval of Stanford project

The Menlo Park City Council voted 3-2 Oct. 17, with Mayor Keith and Councilman Mueller opposed, to give final approval to Stanford's proposed development at 2131 Sand Hill Road and annex about 16 acres of Stanford land, including the site of the Hewlett Foundation offices and the former Buck Estate, now the residence of Stanford's provost.

Property owners in Menlo Park should realize that the city's zoning laws and project approvals simply cannot be relied upon.

There is a wonderful factual trail here for when Stanford wants to finally sue the city.

I would encourage Stanford to sue Menlo Park. It would expose them as the selfish neighbors who want others to absorb the traffic from their massive development projects.

I hope Stanford pulls the annexation and builds the project in the County and the tax revenues of a new office building goes into the County's coffers. This is just another ploy for the City Council to extract more from Stanford.

So glad I don’t live in MP. The City Council has been of questionable competence for years. This statement by councilperson Carlton is yet another example of amateurish leadership. If you make a decision you don’t go back and change it. OMG

Stanford's land development team are making Stanford a bad neighbor. Without disclosing the full impact on Menlo Park of projects in the works at the same time, Stanford is playing games. Carlton was right to force full disclosure.

I don't believe Stanford could build an office building on county land.

@Sam - I believe the tax benefit to Menlo Park was only $6,500 per year.
On a 16 acre property that could be housing? Could be sports fields?

The land should be zoned for something that HELPS Menlo Park. That revenue isn't worth the extra traffic when it adds nothing else to our community. The project's approval was a mistake. Now is a good time to make a better decision by either rejecting the project or approving a rezoning that allow uses that actually help Menlo Park.

Carlton did not force disclosure of this development. But she is trying to change her vote on prior development she voted for as a result of the disclosure.

So I guess if I sold my home to someone for a mutually agreed upon price and then I found out that that person had also bought another home in an adjacent community then I should be able to unilaterally demand a higher price?

We have laws, ordinances and FINAL agreements for a reason - to provide certainty and stability.

The first time this project came up, the City Council asked for another hearing.

The second time this project came up, the City Council voted 4-1 to approve the project, with only Mueller dissenting.

The third time the project came up for a vote, this time for a second reading, Cat Carlton was absent from the meeting. Keith changed her vote, making it 2-2 and the item had to come back for Cat Carlton to cast the deciding vote.

The fourth time this project came up, Cat Carlton cast the deciding vote 3-2, joining Rich Cline and Peter Ohtaki in approving the project.

This is the fifth time the City Council will review this project. If the motion for reconsideration is granted it will come back to the City Council a sixth time.

Like it or not, Carlton's request to reconsider is entirely legal and part of approved land use policy and procedures.
Any developer with experience understands, even though they may not like it. that such a rezoning/annexation/use permit/environmental review waiver request is not final until after the second reading approval.

Just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise.

@Peter - I was just explaining that the Council's decisions are not yet final. Your prior comment implied that the decisions were final already. They are not.

To "Huh?"

With regard to your comment most recent comment, "Which way is the wind blowing?" is correct. The City Council actually did vote on the second reading back in October. This is a reconsideration after the City Council voted to approve the project at it's first and second readings.

With regard to building in the County? Stanford did build the Hewlett Foundation office building on County land right next door. Nothing says they couldn't do it again. But urban development belongs in cities not unincorporated county lands.

@Which_way_is_the_wind_blowing? writes, "The first time this project came up, the City Council asked for another hearing. The second time this project came up, the City Council voted 4-1 to approve the project, with only Mueller dissenting."

This first vote was only to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), not to approve the project.

Mueller made the perfect argument against the MND (he said nothing): Web Link

This is what the Staff Report in the 17 Oct Council packet stated:
". The City Council voted 4-1 to introduce the above mentioned ordinances at the
September 26, 2017 meeting with no changes. Since an ordinance requires both a first and second reading,
the proposed ordinances are before the City Council again for the second reading and adoption."

The Council voted 3-2 to approve the ordinance change - that was the required second and final reading and adoption.

Here is what the Staff Report on this item states:

"Analysis
City staff reviewed the traffic and circulation analyses performed by Stanford and peer reviews performed
by Santa Clara County and found that the project traffic impacts are included within the 2000 GUP EIR
analysis, and therefore there are no additional impacts from the CAM project. More particularly,
intersections within Menlo Park and movements into Menlo Park are experiencing less peak hour traffic than the 2000 GUP EIR projected. Additional details about this analysis are provided on the City Council’s
regular business agenda for November 14, 2017, as part of staff report #17-284-CC.
For the 2111-2121 Sand Hill Road project, the approved mitigated negative declaration (MND) estimated 47
peak AM trips and 36 peak PM hour trips associated with the new development, meaning that transportation
and traffic impacts to the existing Sand Hill Road corridor would be less than significant. "
***********
No justification for a reversal of the final approval.