Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Stanford's requested development agreement

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 10:37:43 -0700

City Council intends to appoint a subcommittee to assist with negotiation
of a Development Agreement for the Stanford project on March 28th, Item J
1. A march 20, 2017 letter from Stanford’s Steve Elliot to Mcintyre, city
manager states that city representatives have asked Stanford to consider a
financial contribution toward a "potential future bicycle crossing between
the Middle plaza portion of the project site and Burgess park." and
 "Stanford has expressed willingness to consider such a payment in exchange
for "certain benefits to be provided by the city" and requests a
development Agreement to negotiate and detail.



 In the accompanying staff report a brief history of a prior subcommittee
of Keith and Carleton is deceptively described. The report omits the
intentional exclusion of subcommittee neighborhood representatives. It
also omits the agreement of the prior subcommittee to gratuitously allow
Stanford 190,000 square feet of office space. It does make brief brief
mention of eliminating medical offices and reports:



"Stanford will make a substantial contribution to the cost of design and
construction of a pedestrian/ bicycle crossing at Middle Avenue . . . to be
negotiated/determined through the project approval process with the goal of
ensuring there will be sufficient funding to construct the under crossing
in an timely manner."



The 3 neighborhood representatives (George Fisher, Kevin-Sheehan, and
Stefan Petry) were originally added to "facilitate conversations between
neighborhood representatives and applicant . . . to ensure that the final
project balanced the needs of Stanford and greater Menlo Park community”.
Keith and Carlton torpedoed the neighborhood representatives, refused to
let them know of their secret meeting, and privately concluded an agreement
without their participation to allow Stanford to proceed with its project
including 199,000 square feet of office space in exchange for a
“substantial contribution” as stated.



Ray Mueller backed neighborhood demands for traffic studies. Those traffic
studies showed substantial traffic problems in allied arts. All of this
led to Measure M attempting to limit office space rejected by the voters.
However, Stanford subsequently reduced its demands for office space to the
present 150,000 sf.



Balancing Stanford's present demands for additional "certain benefits" in
exchange for Stanford willingness to consider a “contribution toward a
future bicycle crossing between the middle Plaza portion of the project
site and Burgess park” mandates a new transparent review of Stanford’s then
agreement to make a “substantial contribution . . . to ensure sufficient
funding to construct the under crossing in a timely manner” and
considerations given therefor.



This new subcommittee should not include either Keith or Carlton. As a
former neighborhood representative, I do not trust them. They would also
be conflicted comparing what they then gave away for Stanford’s then
contribution agreement, and how that agreement compares to any present
Stanford offers. Any development agreement now must be completely
transparent, and fairly and aggressively negotiated to "ensure the final
project balances the needs of Stanford and the greater Menlo Park
community." This balancing must include the needs of the neighborhoods.



Thank You,

George C. Fisher
Received on Sat Mar 25 2017 - 10:40:10 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)