News

Menlo Park council approves specific plan changes

Menlo Park now allows less medical office space within the boundaries of the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan, following a unanimous vote by the city council on Wednesday, Oct. 29.

With Mayor Ray Mueller calling in from China, the council voted 5-0 to limit medical office space per project within the specific plan area to 33,333 square feet for projects of 100,000 square feet or more; smaller developments may include up to one-third of their total size as medical offices. The mayor was out of town on work-related business.

The Planning Commission had also unanimously supported the changes, which were first proposed in 2013 during the first specific plan review. The amendments then underwent analysis as required by state law, and were brought back for approval this fall.

Not everyone was pleased. Former council member Steve Schmidt, who supports Measure M, the specific plan ballot initiative, described the council's action as "political silly season theater."

Referencing the analysis done by the attorney who drafted Measure M, Mr. Schmidt said the changes could have been made in the future if the measure passes, contrary to the analysis by the city's contracted attorney. He decried the city's "commitment to misinformation."

His comments sparked the ire of Vice Mayor Cat Carlton and Mayor Mueller, who asked for politeness.

"I am so tired of the inflammatory rhetoric and innuendo," Mr. Mueller said. "The public is tired of the inflammatory rhetoric and innuendo. For months as mayor I sat quietly while people said terrible things about my colleagues and myself. And that kindness has been met with nothing but further rebuke and character attacks."

The night's vote had nothing to do with Measure M, he said. "The world does not revolve around Measure M. This is just action that needs to be taken." He urged everyone to consider how to work together in the future regardless of the election's outcome.

Comments

6 people like this
Posted by Scott Lohmann
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 12:06 pm

Nice Job Ray, and council. And kudos to you Ray, for being a leader and speaking out about the over the top negative rhetoric displayed over the Downtown Plan, and our elected officials. Many of our citizens cannot wait until this election is over!


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 30, 2014 at 12:25 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

"The Planning Commission had also unanimously supported the changes, which were FIRST PROPOSED IN 2013 DURING THE FIRST SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW. The amendments then underwent analysis as required by state law, and were brought back for approval this fall."

Exactly as it was supposed to be handled. Unlike what Morris Brown, Steve Schmidt and savemenlo would have you believe. This wasn't done to take the air out of measure m. There is NO need for measure M. The process is working. Let's not derail it by enacting a poorly written, unvetted law with many unforeseen consequences which we will be unable to deal with without a vote.

Vote NO on M


2 people like this
Posted by frugal
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 30, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Mayor Mueller..." He urged everyone to consider how to work together in the future regardless of the election's outcome."

That's exactly what the council refused to do two years ago and as a result here we are.

Although I don't often agree with Ex-Mayor Schmidt, he's right on this time.


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"That's exactly what the council refused to do two years ago"

Someone has not being paying attention. The Council has been constantly listening, negotiating for better projects, revising the Specific Plan, etc.

Some people just want it THEIR WAY or NO WAY.

Frugal - How many times did you speak at Council Meetings?
How many emails did you send to the Council?
How many Planning Commission and Council meetings did you attend?


3 people like this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 5:43 pm

This move by the City Council should have been made a long time ago. The timing of this is just a diversionary tactic by a council that is too influenced by developers, i.e., Greenheart and its self-serving financing of the "No on M" campaign.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 5:52 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" The timing of this is just a diversionary tactic by a council "

But Measure M self appointed spokesperson Schmidt told the council "These three issues have nothing to do with Measure M".

So why are the Measure M supporters so upset that the council is performing its role of continuing to refine and improve the Specific Plan?

Because the Measure M supporters would rather be able to say that the council, in Schmidt's words, was "home watching the baseball game" rather than doing its job.

Too bad Measure M supporters , the council WAS doing its job and not "home watching the baseball game".


2 people like this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Why did it take the City council so long to address the concerns over the Specific Plan? The timing of its finally dealing with the flaws in the Specific Plan a week before an election that has a Measure M on the ballot is a smokescreen. Greenheart's huge donations, with its influx of over $200,00.00 into the defeat of Measure M and large monetary support to the campaigns of Ohtaki, Cline, and Keith, are a HUGE red flag. FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL! Don't allow an outside developer to control the future of our Menlo Park. Greenheart will overbuild, create traffic, congest our neighborhoods with cut-thru commuters. Don't let this happen YES ON M!


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:15 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Why did it take the City council so long to address the concerns over the Specific Plan?"

False premise - the Council has been continually working to refine the Specific Plan including a total review of the Plan as required by the Plan:

"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."


1 person likes this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:22 pm

Follow the money ...
Greenheart gives over $200,000.00 to "No on M" campaign
Greenheart donates heavily to campaigns of Ohtaki, Cline, and Keith

Why?
Financial gain, of course.

Don't be duped.
YES ON M!


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Suspect:

Greenheart donated "heavily"? $900 is "heavily?" Do you really think so poorly of your fellow citizens serving at your behest that they could be bought for $900? Really?


1 person likes this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:46 pm

Yes, donating $900.00 qualifies as "heavily" donated in my world.

While this financial support may not influence the 3 council members in the future, it is a red flag that Greenheart is trying to develop a cozy relationship with them. Other candidates in other races have refused such help, deeming the appearance of influence to outweigh the support. So far, Ohtaki, Cline, and Keith have not refused these questionable donations. Perhaps they should ???

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

YES on M


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" The timing of this is just a diversionary tactic "

How true -Complaint against the City of Menlo Park
Heyward Robinson
October 30,2014

To whom it may concern:

Attached is a .pdf version of a complaint against the City of Menlo Park that was mailed to the Grand Jury earlier today. The issues concern the City's impartiality and fairness related to Menlo Park's Measure M, potential misuse of public funds, and failure to comply with Public Records requests. I trust that the Grand Jury will fully and seriously investigate these illegal and inappropriate actions by the City.

I look forward to your response.

Heyward Robinson


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 30, 2014 at 6:59 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

suspect:

you really think that poorly of your fellow citizens? Remember your fellow citizens are who represent you on the council. You honestly think they can be bought for $900? Really? In Menlo Park? $900? Really?


3 people like this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 8:43 pm

Heyward's letter to the Grand Jury is quite appropriate. The Civil Grand Jury is the correct governmental body to address his concerns. He is not the only citizen worried about the goings on behind the scenes in this election. Hopefully the Grand Jury will do their due diligence and come up with a impartial but accurate conclusion. It's just too bad that their investigation and decision will be reached after the upcoming election. Perhaps that is what the powers that be in City of Menlo Park was counting on???


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 8:51 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Heyward's letter to the Grand Jury is quite appropriate."

But why today rather than Nov.6 ?

Perhaps to influence the voters?

Perhaps "Suspect Timing"?


3 people like this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 8:52 pm

The financial support that Greenheart has given the 3 candidates for the City Council (Ohtaki, Cline, and Keith) will hopefully not be influenced by the monetary support. However, accepting financial backing from a developer who is currently doing business with the City is a conflict of interest for these candidates in any action that comes before them that concerns Greenheart. How will they vote? Will they recuse themselves? We might get the answer to your question in the near future.

Appearance is the key to this question. If it appears as if the council members are compromised, it would be wise if they did not vote on anything that concerns Greenheart. Mayor Meuller, an attorney, knew of the appearance of being compromised when he previously hasrecused himself on voting on several issues. Will his fellow council members be as transparent? Only time will tell. I am watching ... and I vote.

Yes on M


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 8:55 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Heyward's letter to the Grand Jury is quite appropriate."

But why today rather than Nov.6 ?

"Appearance is the key to this question."

Perhaps to influence the voters?

Perhaps "Suspect Timing"?


2 people like this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 8:56 pm

Ex-Mayor Hayward Robinson could only address his concerns to the Grand Jury AFTER he became aware of suspicious actions by the City. That governed his timing. He could not do it BEFORE he was aware of these actions, could he?


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:02 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" He could not do it BEFORE he was aware of these actions, could he?"

But why today rather than Nov.6 ?

"Appearance is the key to this question."

Perhaps to influence the voters?

Perhaps "Suspect Timing"?


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

He could not do it BEFORE he was aware of these actions, could he?"

These are his claimed "actions":
Potential Legal Questions
1. Does the “Ballot Impact Report” by Lisa Wise Consulting meet the fairness,
neutrality, and completeness standards set forth in California Codes §§ 9212,
8314, and 54964 and in Stanson v. Mott?
2. Was the City of Menlo Park authorized, per California code §9212 and §54964, to
publish informational/background materials related to the Initiative/Measure M
(on both its “Initiative” website and in the Menlo Focus newsletter)?
3. Does the City of Menlo Park’s information related to the Initiative/Measure M
meet the fairness, neutrality, and completeness standards set forth in California
Codes §§ 9212, 8314, and 54964 and in Stanson v. Mott?
4. Is the City of Menlo Park, by publishing information that advocates against
Measure M, in violation of FPPC rules governing campaign finance?
5. Do public comments by City staff and Council Members constitute partisan
advocacy against the Initiative?
6. Has the City of Menlo Park fully complied with public records requests related
these issues as required by California code §6250?

All of these occurred weeks ago.

So why today rather than Nov.6 ?

"Appearance is the key to this question."

Perhaps to influence the voters?

Perhaps "Suspect Timing"?


1 person likes this
Posted by Suspect Timing
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:14 pm

I am looking forward to hearing from the Civil Grand Jury. It's in their lap now. That is the process. We'll have to wait and see, won't we? Justice may be blind, but it is usually slow. Let's hope it is quicker in this instance.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:40 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" Justice may be blind, but it is usually slow."

So why today rather than Nov.6 ?

"Appearance is the key to this question."

Perhaps to influence the voters?

Perhaps "Suspect Timing"?


1 person likes this
Posted by old timer
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:47 pm

In Brundage's article she writes:

"Referencing the analysis done by the attorney who drafted Measure M, Mr. Schmidt said the changes could have been made in the future if the measure passes, contrary to the analysis by the city's contracted attorney. He decried the city's "commitment to misinformation."

His comments sparked the ire of Vice Mayor Cat Carlton and Mayor Mueller, who asked for politeness. "

Here Brundage just glosses over the how Carlton responded. View and listen for yourself:

Web Link

"Carleton to Steve --- Do not come to the City Council and speak irreverently"

(my interpretation -- If Carlton doesn't like what your saying, she will try to silence you )




1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 30, 2014 at 9:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Schmidt continued to speak - and said nothing. Watch it and see for yourself.


4 people like this
Posted by Go Cat. Go Ray.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 31, 2014 at 3:00 am

Thank you Ray Mueller for speaking out against the rebukes and personal attacks. I give you and the other council members much credit for your hours and hours of public service and for sitting politely and not responding in kind. But enough is enough.

And good job Cat Carleton for refusing to let Steve Schmidt use public comment as his bully pulpit to accuse the council and the city of spreading misinformation and misleading the public. Everyone should watch the video link in the post above to see his incoherent and rambling rant about Measure M - which was not even a topic at council that night! I hope everybody sees this so they understand who is behind Measure M and just how crazy and desperate and self absorbed the core group is.

Why do you suppose Drew Combs and Kristin Duriseti have not taken a position on Measure M? Because while they agree with the principles, they are concerned about being cast with the crazies and malcontents that want to use ballot box zoning to lock Menlo Park in the 1950s. Only Kelly Ferguson would come out in favor of Mesaure M. Enough said.


2 people like this
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 7:05 am

More than 50% of the contributions to Cline, Keith, Ohtaki re-election campaigns have come from developers who either have or can reasonably be expected to have projects in front of the City Council, both downtown and east of 101. The fact that they accepted Greenheart support with an ACTIVE project is particularly unseemly. And it is revealing that less than half the incumbents' support comes from non-developer residents.

As the Almanac pointed out in its editorial this week "It's not a good idea for candidates who, if elected, will be making consequential decisions about the Greenheart complex to be receiving the developer's campaign contributions, no matter how small". Why not add other major developers (and contributors to the incumbents) to the list (Bohannon whose project is under annual review, Tarlton, Spieker, Matteson...)? The City has started its General Plan update with a focus on the M-2 district east of 101, and the next Council will be making decisions about allowable development there. Several of the Council incumbents' contributors can benefit handsomely from new rules there, too, not just downtown.


1 person likes this
Posted by No Easy Solutions
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 8:56 am

Political contribution is free speech. Companies and individuals are exercising their free speech by contributing to candidates and issues that support their causes.

The whole argument over who contributes to whom is a red herring. Unless the contribution leads to a quid pro quo, it is not illegal. What is more beneficial to the debate is to discuss the merits of the issue and the candidates, which some participants on this forum seem to forget.


1 person likes this
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 9:37 am

I agree that even our supreme court has determined that campaign contributions constitute "free speech". But the point is that sitting and prospective council members who will be making decisions that benefit some of those contributors appear to be serving them and not the residents whom they are supposed to serve. I repeat. This is unseemly in light of a pending project (Greenheart) and pending update to zoning rules in the business area east of 101.


2 people like this
Posted by Mike Keenly
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 10:34 am

This is how the process is supposed to work... in an alternate reality world.

A forward-thinking council would have done this a long time ago and avoided the whole Measure M issue in the first place.


2 people like this
Posted by Tunbridge Wells
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 10:51 am

Tunbridge Wells is a registered user.

The people who are complaining about council not acting faster need to keep in mind that they are five individuals, one of whom, Ray Mueller, was unable to participate in any discussions about this until fairly recently. He had a conflict of interest that required him to leave the council chambers whenever the Downtown Specific Plan came up. Now that his conflict of interest has ended and he is able to speak and vote on matters related to it, he is doing his best to make up for lost time.

Having seen how impossible to please the Save Menlo folks are, however, I'm not sure that would have changed anything. What a group of people absolutely determined to be angry.


2 people like this
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 11:41 am

I am glad the council made the changes. What I don't understand is why it took so long. There was unnecessary drama about the timing, and it does seem eerily related to the election.

Even with his need to recuse himself from some aspects of the DSP, Mueller did not have to do so for these changes. So the story that he's making up for lost time doesn't cut it.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 31, 2014 at 11:52 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"So the story that he's making up for lost time doesn't cut it. "

He no longer has to recuse himself and he is now participating.:

"With Mayor Ray Mueller calling in from China, the council voted 5-0 to limit medical office space per project within the specific plan area to 33,333 square feet for projects of 100,000 square feet or more; smaller developments may include up to one-third of their total size as medical offices. The mayor was out of town on work-related business."

So what exactly is fact.. referring to?


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 31, 2014 at 11:54 am

"Unnecessary drama?" A time-consuming distraction which slows down productivity?

That's Measure M.


1 person likes this
Posted by interested
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 1:53 pm

Anyone saying all of the incumbents have 50% if funds from developers is outright lying. The documents for each candidate are public.

Stop lying M supporters. Stop putting signs in unapproved or public places. Stop using fake names on your literature and in your ads of people who do not support you. Stop accusing all of the local papers of being on the take because they all are against you. Stop trashing local business leaders because they are against you. Stop accusing everyone of malfeasance because they disagree with you.

You are desperate. You are angry. You are way out of line.

[Portion removed; stop attacking people and stick to the issue.]


2 people like this
Posted by Steve Schmidt
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 31, 2014 at 2:44 pm

Mayor Ray Mueller and Council member Cat Carleton congratulate themselves on behaving with politeness and kindness, while allowing their names to be used on developers’ campaign material that is laden with misinformation and malicious speculation. I may have offended their sensitivities, but that doesn’t change the fact that the three Specific Plan amendments specifically scheduled for approval on Wednesday to precede the potential passage of Measure M, had nothing to do with Measure M as Mr. Mueller admitted in the Almanac, “The night’s vote had nothing to do with Measure M, he said.” (article by Sandy Brundage, Almanac, October 30, 2014)

Face it guys, the special meeting on Wednesday was political theater designed to bolster the dishonest campaign against measure M.

If the Council had been interested in correcting the flaws of the Specific Plan, they had three appropriate chances: June of 2012, when it was approved despite the warnings of Council Member Kelly Fergusson; November of 2013 for the one-year review; and July 2014 after the 2500 initiative signatures amending the SP were submitted. Each time they ignored ample evidence of flaws in the plan, such as excessive Floor Area Ratios and undefined public benefits. They made no changes. They must have been thinking that if Stanford and Greenheart weren’t complaining, then everything was A-OK. Until, of course, the time for maximum political benefit presented itself.


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 31, 2014 at 2:50 pm

Can any supporter of Measure M substantiate Ms. Fry's assertion that: "Yes on M leaves nearly all the [specific] plan's rules in council hands."

And confirm -- in writing -- that Measure M's supporters are willing to abide by this "interpretation" in the event that Measure M passes?


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 31, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Scmidt states - " the fact that the three Specific Plan amendments specifically scheduled for approval on Wednesday to precede the potential passage of Measure M, had nothing to do with Measure M "

So why are the Measure M supporters so upset that the council is performing its role of continuing to refine and improve the Specific Plan?

Because the Measure M supporters would rather be able to say that the council, in Schmidt's words, was "home watching the baseball game" rather than doing its job.

Too bad, the council was doing its job and not "home watching the baseball game".


3 people like this
Posted by Political Theatre
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 1, 2014 at 9:28 am

Steve, city staff explained the reason the three amendments weren't done was because they hadn't finished them. They said it at the Planning Commission. They said it at the Council meeting. You're blaming the council of lying. Your are blaming the City of lying. What is malicious speculation? Is that when you make accusations without a basis in the hopes of slandering someone's character? Your conduct this election season has been deplorable.


3 people like this
Posted by Political Theatre
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 1, 2014 at 9:49 am

Steve:

Former Mayor Chuck Kinney is on record now, saying that he never gave his endorsement to Yes on M.
Yet for months the Yes campaign has used his name. Others are saying the same thing.

What's your explanation?

Should we start calling you names? Should we hold you accountable for that literature?






Like this comment
Posted by old timer
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Nov 1, 2014 at 10:17 am

@Political Theater

Chuck Kinny certainly did endorse the Initiative which became Measure M on the ballot. Regardless of what he now says or what others say, he signed the endorsement letter.

See for yourself:

Web Link

Obviously Chuck's memory has failed him here.

But of real interest is his statement to the Daily Post that he had gotten all these questions about his support for the Initiative, and these parties couldn't understand his position. Most likely one such party was David Bohannon, who paid Chuck as a consultant back in 2010 to help get the Gateway project of Bohannon's passed.






Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Nov 1, 2014 at 11:57 am

"old timer" - Would Mr. Kinney not be entitled to change his mind? Perhaps after reading M carefully and reflecting upon its implications?

Who is actually authorized to speak/take action on behalf of "Yes on M?" What is the process for one to retract a previous endorsement?


3 people like this
Posted by Political Theatre
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 1, 2014 at 2:17 pm

Old Timer:

Thank you for the link. It shows Steve Schmidt posted the letter to the press with Chuck Kinney's name on it. But the letter posted doesn't have Chuck's signature on it! Do you a have a copy of the letter with his actual signature? Steve do you? If you don't, why did you post this letter indicating Chuck signed it?

Also, this letter supports signature gathering, not Measure M.

Should we hold Steve accountable for the statement Chuck Kinney supports Measure M in campaign materials, when Chuck says he never gave his endorsement of the measure?







1 person likes this
Posted by formerly undecided on M
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 1, 2014 at 2:54 pm

Old Timer

These are signifiers on the petition to put M on the ballot.

I signed that as well at the Farmer's Matket.

But now after really thinking and reading a lot - I plan to vote no on M.

Putting something on the ballot is not the same as actually voting for it.

Details matter. It's not simple.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tokyo ramen shop to open first U.S. outpost in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 22 comments | 4,112 views

It’s Not Someone Else’s Responsibility to Honor My Marriage . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 782 views

Babywearing
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 764 views

 

Meet the winners!

The results are in. Check out The Almanac readers' favorite foods, services and fun stuff in the area.

View Winners