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 ]


RE: Measure M chat

From: Mueller, Raymond <"Mueller,>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:29:52 -0700

Dear Ms. Wagner,

It's unfortunate you have decided to frame our conversation in the most inflammatory way possible. Below is the actual recitation of what I said to you.

You assert that I said: the "Specific Plan is "flawed" and that I agree with the Measure M goals. "

What I said to you is that I agree there were and are flaws in the Specific Plan. I also said I sympathized with the spirit of Measure M's goals, to make certain the Specific Plan is not implemented in a way that negatively affects residential neighborhoods. But I indicated that Council was working to correct those flaws through the public process. I cited, for example that Council is working to limit the amount of medical office that is allowed to be built. Another example is the Council's recent call for redesign of the Stanford Project, so that it matches the impacts set forth in the Specific Plan EIR. I also stated I believe the Council should work on refining how public benefit is achieved through the Specific Plan. But I stated that Measure M will make it more difficult to correct flaws in the Plan in the future. I told you, I believe Measure M is the result of certain members in our community wanting their way implemented immediately without patience for the public process. I told you the unfortunat
ely the political process is fast outpacing the public process in this instance.

You assert I stated, "that none of the buildings would be taller than 3 stories tall." I did not state that. I did state that present scoping of projects indicates the current projects are slated to have 3 story and 4 story buildings, but that Measure M may cause those buildings to rise because open space on the ground would increase, but the square footage of the buildings would remain the same. So the buildings may well in fact become taller under Measure M.

You assert I stated, " I was surprised to hear you speak of your opposition to a tunnel at all.". Again, I did not state that. I did state I was opposed to a bike/pedestrian tunnel that would accommodate any vehicles that could connect traffic to El Camino Real. I am concerned the argument will be made, that any such tunnel should be made large enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. I believe such a design is a slippery slope to a lawsuit that would open the tunnel up to through traffic. But I indicated I absolutely wanted the tunnel, and that I am working hard to ensure the tunnel is achieved through public benefit. But the details with regard to this matter are very important to protect Linfield Oaks neighborhoods.

Finally Ms. Wagner, I understand you have a personal friendship with Ms. Sutton, and I understand you are still angry. But mischaracterizing our discussion in that regards serves no end. You told me she now works as an afterschool gymnastics teacher, and I indicated I was happy to hear that. I indicated I worked hard to find a resolution to that matter, but my hands were tied as a councilmember. I also told you I was very pleased that the City held the memorial ceremony and put a plaque in the park remembering Ms. Sutton's daughter.

I hope this email corrects any misunderstandings you may have had regarding our conversation.

With kind regards,
Ray Mueller
Received on Sun Oct 12 2014 - 09:25:15 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)