Editorial endorsement: No on Measure M | October 15, 2014 | Almanac | Almanac Online |

Almanac

Viewpoint - October 15, 2014

Editorial endorsement: No on Measure M

When they vote on Measure M this fall, Menlo Park residents will be participating in what may be the most consequential ballot-box decision ever made regarding the future character of their community. One of the most complicated as well.

The ballot measure sprouted from the frustration of some residents — many of whom have been active in city governance and community service for years — over the City Council's decision last year not to adjust several provisions of the new downtown specific plan. The residents say those provisions have created loopholes for developers, allowing them to build projects that don't live up to the community's vision for the downtown — a vision that was forged during years of public meetings and workshops.

Of primary concern to those residents was a provision that set the project-size threshold for triggering public benefit requirements far higher than it had been before the new specific plan was approved the previous year. The unhappy residents pushed hard to change that rule, calling it a give-away to developers planning projects along El Camino Real. Although the council made a few changes to the plan, including reducing the amount of allowable medical office space, it didn't budge on the public-benefit trigger and other provisions of concern.

Citing new proposals that many residents believe have too much office space — one by Stanford for its 8-acre property on the southern end of El Camino and another by Greenheart for a 7-acre project near the northern end — the dissatisfied residents launched a successful signature-gathering campaign to put a measure on the ballot. The measure, among other things, sets a conservative cap on office space in the specific plan area — a move they say is needed to stem peak-hour traffic gridlock and ensure balanced development along the El Camino.

Voters who generally favor the Stanford and Greenheart proposals, which are works in progress as the plans go through the normal approval process and the city negotiates for non-mandatory public benefits, have a clear choice on Measure M. They will vote no.

But the key question for residents opposed to the developments as proposed is this: Will Measure M address your concerns over increased traffic and building mass along the El Camino corridor? The answer, in our opinion, is no. Measure M's provisions fall short of achieving the intended goals — goals that we and many other of the measure's opponents are sympathetic to. A curious omission in the measure pertains to the up-zoning in the specific plan that raised the public-benefit threshold. Measure M doesn't address that at all, even though that issue, and the council's unwillingness to deal with it, provided much fuel for the citizen action that led to the ballot measure.

The measure requires a vote of the people to change any of its provisions, which include key definitions and the problematically worded ban on the adoption by the city of "any new provisions or amendments to the Policy Planning Documents that would be inconsistent with or frustrate the implementation" of the measure's rules. Such ambiguous language is a recipe for litigation. It also could discourage other developers of potentially desirable projects from even trying to navigate the process of getting a plan approved in Menlo Park.

Opponents call Measure M "ballot-box zoning," but that's a reach. If most residents agree that office space shouldn't squeeze out other uses on El Camino Real but believe the council is going to thwart that vision by approving massive office projects under consideration, a ballot measure can be a reasonable, democratic strategy. But Measure M is flawed, and is not the right tool to fix what proponents want fixed.

If the measure fails at the ballot box, however, city officials would be wrong to interpret its defeat as an endorsement of the more than 800,000 square feet of development that has been proposed. Even Measure M opponents have publicly criticized aspects of the specific plan that don't give the city the muscle it needs to effectively negotiate public benefits when major projects are proposed. These include Planning Commission chair Ben Eiref, who in a guest opinion in last week's Almanac noted that a lower public-benefit trigger in the specific plan would be "the ultimate source of control" over large projects.

Planning Commissioner John Kadvany, who says he is critical of Measure M but hasn't publicly taken a position on it, said at last week's commission meeting that the decision not to lower the trigger threshold was "the biggest mistake the council has made in the last couple of years."

We agree with those comments, and hope that, should Measure M fail, proponents — and those who opposed it because they believe it's the wrong tool to address legitimate concerns — will turn their energy toward pushing the council to do the right thing. The council needs to lower the public-benefit threshold on projects, and soon, while there's still time for such a change to affect what gets built in the Stanford and Greenheart projects.

Comments

1 person likes this
Posted by Thank you
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 14, 2014 at 8:12 pm

The you Almanac, for the thoughtful endorsement against Measure M.


1 person likes this
Posted by Frederick Ray
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm

Great piece! If you know anyone who hasn't made up their mind, please forward it to them.


Like this comment
Posted by endorsement check
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 14, 2014 at 8:47 pm

So from the paper side, it's all NO ON M, with both the Almanac and the Daily Post (no fan of government, even) coming down clearly on that side. So... to sum up--

NO ON M (Web Link)
* The Entire Menlo City Council
* The Entire Menlo City School District Board
* Most of the Menlo Fire District Board
* Most of the Menlo Planning Commission
* Menlo Chamber of Commerce
* Assembly Member Rich Gordon
* SMC Supes Horsley, Pine, and Slocum
* Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)
* San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA)

YES ON M (Web Link)
* Patti Fry
* Mike Lanza
* Elizabeth "Houk" (aka Houck)
* Chuck Bernstein
* Vince Bressler


Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Oct 14, 2014 at 9:13 pm

I'm amused that Ms./Mr. Endorsement Check has such faith in local politicians, a number of whom are receiving donations from developers. She/he neglected to list on the Yes side the over 2000 residents who signed petitions to place M on the ballot. Their endorsement is worth at least as much as the politicians.


2 people like this
Posted by Allied
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 12:05 am

Tim

I was a signer of that petition, but I have since switched my vote. In my opinion, the Measure M supporters were using scare tactics and misleading information to persuade people to support M. After all, who wouldn't want to end gridlock? I realize now that Measure M does no such thing-- in fact is rather weak and vague in doing anything about traffic. Sure it reduces office space, but what are we getting instead?

Measure M supporters continue to mislead the public. On their website they have very outdated development plans by Stanford but claim this is what they are going to build. There are no plans, they literally had to go back to the drawing board.


2 people like this
Posted by Julia O
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33 am

Measure M will have little to no effect on traffic either way.

NO on M = allowing Menlo Park to bring in more innovative start-ups (whose employees mostly take Caltrain)

Yes on M = needing an alternative for that land instead of office space. Most likely a Walmart or the like based on the zoning that will happen after this.

I'm sorry, I don't want a giant Walmart there.

Young tech start ups tend to promote greener living and are respectful of their surroundings. Biking, commuting via train - will all happen. Local restaurants will be patronized more often :)


1 person likes this
Posted by undecided on M
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 15, 2014 at 10:40 am

All successful negotiations have a win-win component for all parties concerned.

I understand the desire of many for a "project-sized trigger for public benefit" - and wonder why the city council and the project M authors <b> both </b> chose to ignore this. I hope that both the city council and the authors of M will take this opportunity to explain their thinking behind this omission.

Stanford - as I understand it - has included funding for an underpass between Alma and ECR. Would this be a suitable sized public benefit? It would help to understand exactly what public benefits Greenheart may be offering as well.


Like this comment
Posted by Michelle, Mother of Six
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 15, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Thank you for this thoughtful review of the truly complex issue. It has indeed helped inform me--and I've been on the fence for awhile now.


Like this comment
Posted by Gern
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:10 pm

Gern is a registered user.

This "endorsement" might carry a few ounces of political weight were it not for the fact that Greenheart is lavishing hundreds or thousands of dollars on the Almanac to foist its ridiculous Walmart-themed No on M ads on readers. Why, there's one of those ads now, right under the title of this article -- Web Link -- the juxtaposition would be humorous were there not some pretense to objectivity in the text above.

Gern

Editor's note: That Greenheart ad rotates with other ads in that position and appears on all "story" pages on the site, including the numerous letters to the editor in favor of Measure M, such as this week's "​Developer spending big to influence election"; the many guest opinions in favor of Measure M, such as this week's Dan Dippery "yes on M" piece; Town Square posts such as this: "Greenheart obnoxious billboard sized sign at 1300 El Camino"; and our story, "Developer contributes $200K to defeat Measure M; Some of the funds are going to re-elect council incumbents."



1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm

Gern as usual attacking the messenger rather than offering up anything factual. Thanks for noting Gern.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2014 at 5:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Measure M supporters NEVER quote the actual language of their initiative and always attack the messenger - that is there modus operandi.


Like this comment
Posted by Too much density (pun intended)
a resident of Hillview Middle School
on Oct 15, 2014 at 8:58 pm

Why would anyone possibly think that the council will decrease the project-size threshhold for triggering public benefit requirements?

1) The council increased the allowable size/density just over a year ago.
2) When the council was strongly urged to bring it back down just months ago, they refused.

Wouldn't they have fixed this massive flaw by now if they were intending to? What's stopping them from making this fix BEFORE the election?

More importantly, why not just decrease the allowable floor area ratio (the allowable mass/density) regardless of public benefit. What benefit could these developers possibly provide that is great enough to compensate for the thousands of hours that will be stolen from our lives while sitting in unnecessary traffic jams for the rest of our lives. This town is certainly wealthy enough to fund a bike bridge without making this kind of sacrifice.

It's now clear that the vast majority who realize what the Specific Plan allows, know it's seriously flawed! It's also clear that this council can't be counted on to do the right thing. So, Vote YES on Measure M, buy some time, encourage the initiators of M to take out the ambiguity, put in place stronger limits on density, and then bring a new improved M back to the voters in a year. Let's get this right! We've had empty lots for years now, isn't one more year worth the quality of our lives for decades to come?


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:08 pm

too much:

if measure M passes it won't be "one more year" of vacant lots. Likely it will be a minimum 2, but maybe FIVE. If you want that then all I can say is ENJOY THE VIEW.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"What's stopping them from making this fix BEFORE the election? "

Actually Measure M itself is stopping a lot of things before this election.

See:
Web Link

The uncertainty resulting from Measure M has also brought plans to replace the downtown fire station to a halt because the City is unable to process a lot merger for this project pending the outcome of the election.

And if Measure M were to pass ANY proposed development could and probably will be challenged using the frustrate clause in Measure M:

"Consistent with the Planning and Zoning Law and applicable case law, the City shall not adopt any other new provisions or amendments to the Policy Planning Documents that would be inconsistent with or FRUSTRATE the implementation of the voter-adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, above, absent voter approval of a conforming amendment to those voter-adopted provisions. "

The true intention of Measure M is to STOP all development in the Specific Plan area.


2 people like this
Posted by stop me if you've heard this joke before
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2014 at 9:41 pm

Save Menlo is just the latest incarnation of the loud, angry minority that voted against the Cafe Borrone building (Jack Morris), sued to stop the lovely building at El Camino and Encinal (Morris Brown), voted against the Rosewood Hotel (Andy Cohen - this is seriously the most ridiculous action in this list), campaigned against the Menlo Gateway Measure T that passed with 64.52% of the vote in 2010 (Paul Collacchi), got rejected from the Planning Commission after one term (Patti Fry, Stu Soffer), and lost Council races in the last decade (Vince Bressler, Chuck Bernstein, Heyward Robinson, Kelly Fergusson).

With that track record, why does the Almanac even give you the time of day?


Like this comment
Posted by Nastiness is disgusting
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 7:51 am

"Stop me"could rail against leaders of the No on M campaign who were one term also. But you are just being mean. You and others are trying to make this about individuals instead of about the giveaway of development rights that will be accompanied by severe negative impacts, Loss of expected revenue, worse rush hour traffic, loss of community vision of development that supports a small town

Startups can only afford old garages. What a romanticized myth that brand new buildings will house young Startup workers who will be able to afford the rent and expensive lunches and who want to spend their off-hours in a sleepy suburb. This is a vision promoted by developers who want to divert attention from the fact that their projects defy the community vision and that provide almost nothing of value to a residential community.


Like this comment
Posted by Wish I Could Vote on This
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Oct 16, 2014 at 9:25 am

This is a well thought out, well written assessment of Measure M. But it is clear that their endorsement of No on M is not an endorsement of the current City Council's actions with respect to development of the El Camino Real corridor. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I was surprised that it came with an endorsement of the incumbent council candidates, for if those individuals had been listening better Measure M might have been avoided.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 11:24 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" for if those individuals had been listening better Measure M might have been avoided."

The problem with listening to Save Menlo is that Save Menlo is constantly moving the goal posts.

Here is what Save Menlo originally asked for:

Web Link

All of the things Save Menlo asked for have been accomplished but Save Menlo long ago removed this petition from their web site and started a more demanding initiative which became Measure M. And Measure M supporters have made clear that even if Measure M passes they will use another initiative to block whatever Stanford proposes.

The fact is the Council does listen to the community but it is impossible for the Council to respond to constantly changing demands from a vocal minority that is not accountable for its actions.


Like this comment
Posted by Dana Hendrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 12:15 pm

Open Letter to All Menlo Park Residents

Subject: Five Great Reasons To Defeat Measure M

On November 4 Menlo Park residents will vote on Measure M, a ballot initiative designed primarily to limit the future traffic impact of new commercial developments on eight vacant El Camino Real lots. While I agree traffic congestion and neighborhood “cut-thru” traffic are serious problems our city needs to rigorously address – especially due to the already large amount of nearby new construction in Palo Alto, Stanford and Redwood City, Measure M is a poor alternative to our current planning, evaluation and approval processes which are working well. Measure M proponents have declared their distrust of our city’s building regulations and council members, and claimed their initiative is needed to avoid “paralyzing and unsafe traffic, massive office complexes, and the loss of beautiful open space”. I do not share their sentiments or beliefs and feel confident our representatives will guard against these negative outcomes, fairly and openly evaluate developer proposals, and negotiate the most favorable possible public benefits for our entire community.

Expect ALL supporters of Measure M to vote. Will you? If others don’t vote against it, Measure M will surely win by default and all of us must live with the consequences. Please learn the facts about Measure M, understand its likely consequences, and help defeat Measure M.

Measure M is an unnecessary, arbitrary and unvetted initiative that would have unavoidable harmful effects on our entire community.

It would force major redesigns of two multi-use developments already stalled by this initiative and likely delay construction another two years.

The Menlo Park planning process that governs new commercial development is clearly working well.

Menlo Park already loses more than $5 million in city, fire district and school revenues EVERY YEAR the Stanford and Greenheart properties remain vacant.

An initiative campaign is a poor substitute for an open citywide planning process that actively seeks community input and feedback and includes multiple public hearings.

While many significant flaws and risks in Measure M have already been identified, the initiative ensures no changes can be made that “frustrate” its effects without additional ballot measures – for the next 30 years. It is unreasonable to restrict our city’s flexibility to more easily and quickly make appropriate adjustments as no one can reliably predict future needs.

I encourage readers to visit www.mpcdforum.com to learn more about the Specific Plan, Measure M, the status of the Stanford and Greenheart projects, and a more indepth version of this letter.

Dana Hendrickson
30 year Menlo Park resident
www.mpcdforum.com


Like this comment
Posted by No Easy Solutions
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Quick question for experts out there. I recalled that during the initial Stanford proposal, some people expressed concern that Stanford could declare property tax-exemption as they are a non-profit, especially if the development is designated as medical. In the current negotiation, I believe (not sure) that Stanford will not use this tax-exemption on their development.

Does Measure M address this issue or not?


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 16, 2014 at 12:43 pm

It is worth noting that even if Measure M proponents recognized and openly acknowledged a flaw or inaccuracy in their initiative, they are not able to make any changes.

If M passes, none of its terms could be changed or corrected -- even with the MP Council, Planning Commission, Measure M proponents and all other stakeholders in unanimous agreement -- without another city-wide vote (which passes).


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Does Measure M address this issue or not?" re Stanford exercising its right to use its property for tax exempt purposes.

No.

In general Measure M fails to consider the possible consequences of the constraints that it places on Stanford and other property owners. Specifically if you constrain how Stanford can use its property what then might Stanford do - Measure M never asks that question and therefore never answers that question.

Measure M is full of unanswered questions and unanticipated consequences.


Like this comment
Posted by morris brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 16, 2014 at 1:08 pm

To: No Easy Solutions:

Stanford has promised that any development will not be used for academic purposes. Thus any development that is approved, would be not be exempt from property tax.

However, as I have written in the past, the Stanford parcels (that is the land, as opposed to buildings and other improvements), has not been re-assessed since Prop 13. The current land value of these parcels is assessed at $260,000 per acre. Current value would be in the area of $7,500,000 per acre.

Measure M does not address this issue. The specific plan does not address this issue. Under any new development by Stanford, reassessment of the land should be made mandatory. Over a 40 year period of time, the lost in property tax, if the land is not reassessed, would be around $37,000,000.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Morris - Under Prop 13 nobody's land can be reassessed unless it changes hands.

IF Stanford builds on its 8+ acres the current value of those improvements will be added to the assessed value of the land - this will be a HUGE increase in valuation and hence a HUGE increase in property taxes paid.

Leaving the land vacant will yield NO INCREASE in the property taxes.


1 person likes this
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 16, 2014 at 1:48 pm

Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

@Morris Brown,

I am sure Stanford would be more than happy to have a reassessment as soon as YOU and every resident of Menlo Park do the same.

Prop 13 (which YOU passed I was just a kid) has had a devastating effect on government funding throughout California because as a Referendum (think like Measure M) it lasts FOREVER. Kind of like you want Measure M to do......last FOREVER.

Just as an improvements you make to your home increase the taxes. Any improvements Stanford makes will increase it's taxes too.....

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina


Like this comment
Posted by morris brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 16, 2014 at 4:15 pm

To Peter Carpenter:

Who wrote:

Morris - Under Prop 13 nobody's land can be reassessed unless it changes hands.

The land won't be reassessed unless any project approval demands that it be reassessed.

This can be enforced by approving a project through a development agreement; in this agreement, as part of getting approval for the project, the developer agrees to a reassessment of the land (as well as the new improvements). If you don't believe me (as I have written before), then contact the MP planning department.

With your experience on a Planning commission, you surely must know this. Such reassessments (of the land) are common place in redevelopment of parcels,




Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 5:04 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"With your experience on a Planning commission, you surely must know this."

With my experience on the Palo Alto Planning Commission I surely know this to be not true.

It might be true in Russia but not in California.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the law on property reappraisals (for those who believe in a nation of laws rather than a Morris' system of coercion):

"Reassessment of a property is required any time new construction occurs (section 71). Thus, new construction, when not considered normal maintenance or repair, is assessable if it adds value to the property. The market value (not necessarily the cost) of the addition or other "new construction" is determined by the assessor and added to the existing property assessment. The value of the existing property is not affected.

New construction that adds value to the property represents the incremental value added to the existing property and will generate a supplemental assessment. The existing property, however, is not reappraised; its assessed value will not change except for the annual inflation adjustment of up to two percent."


Like this comment
Posted by morris brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm

to: Peter Carpenter

Quit talking in circles Mr. Carpenter. Under Prop 13 indeed the land will not be reassessed unless it changes hands.

However, if as part of a project being approved, the approval is conditioned through a development agreement in which the developer agrees to the reappraisal, then reappraisal of the land will be achieved. In this case, surely Council should insist this land be reappraised as part of any project approval.

I'm quite tired of repeating this message to you and others. As I have written on several occasions, this can and should be achieved.

see my letter:

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 16, 2014 at 6:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" in which the developer agrees to the reappraisal, then reappraisal of the land will be achieved. In this case, surely Council should insist this land be reappraised as part of any project approval"

Welcome to the Socialist World of Morris - coerce a property owner into something that the law does not permit.

"I'm quite tired of repeating this message to you and others."

You should be tired because no one agrees with you and you have provided ZERO legal basis for your proposed theft of property rights.

How would YOU feel if the City demanded that you agree to a reappraisal of your land value as a condition for allowing you to build a new home?


Like this comment
Posted by a_bit_of_history
a resident of Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on Oct 16, 2014 at 11:44 pm

Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, keeps posting and posting and keeps making no sense.

Here above he accuses Morris Brown of "coercion", when Brown advocates the land for the Stanford parcels be reappraised as part of any project approval for Stanford. It is an excellent idea, and has been used time and time again on redevelopment projects in California.

Let me remind Carpenter, that he advocated strongly against Measure T in 2010, the Bohannon Gateway project, because Bohannon's project as agreed upon, did not provide new Fire Equipment which the Fire District dearly wanted.

Here was Carpenter trying to coerce, Bohannon to provide funds for this equipment; when he failed, he advocated against Measure T.




Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 17, 2014 at 7:53 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It is an excellent idea, and has been used time and time again on redevelopment projects in California. "

Please cite the law and specific examples where a property owner was forced to have his land reappraised as a condition of a project approval.


Like this comment
Posted by Hughie
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 18, 2014 at 7:42 pm

Amazing all the fighting! I was there at the Council meetings. Where is the public benefit and solution to the extra traffic? Council seems to say that development is worth the pain of extra traffic. If Stanford cared about we residents they would put in a park, or car sales, or a hotel. Low traffic, good revenue. All other uses will exceed the traffic threshold (City's study.) To me YES on M is a grassroots complaint that the City Council is not listening or addressing the real problems. No on M probably wont fix the real problems and Yes on M will put in a "wait" and force a reconsideration...maybe. If you believe in politics.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 18, 2014 at 8:43 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Morris - How would YOU feel if the City demanded that you agree to a reappraisal of your land value as a condition for allowing you to build a new home?

Still waiting for your answer.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 18, 2014 at 8:45 pm

Hughie:

"wait" means continuing blight on ECR. Is that OK with you?

Enjoy the view.

M is a HUGE Mistake

Vote NO on M


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 18, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I welcome and urge an open debate on the issues of Measure M.

Pick any one of the following issues:
1 - What is the wisdom of Measure M's section 3.3.5 imposition of a 100,000 sq ft cap per project on two property owners that have multiple parcels whereby they can easily avoid that cap?
2 - Compare the public review and vetting of the Specific Plan compared to the pubic review and vetting of Measure M.
3 - Will section 3 of Measure M freeze 10 definitions forever unless they are changed by a city wide vote?
4 - Will section 3.2.1 of Measure M's definition of open space result in slab sided large buildings and economically unviable setbacks for smaller buildings?
5 - Does section 4.1 of Measure M allow anyone to challenge any project in the Specific Plan area if they feel that the project "frustrates" the implementation of Measure M?
6 - Does Measure M preclude the building of a new fire station at the corner of Oak Grove and Hoover utilizing two adjacent parcels - one of which is inside the Measure M section 3.1 defined Specific Plan area and one of which is outside the Measure M section 3.1 defined Specific Plan area?
7 - The specific section of Measure M of your choice.

Take your choice and present your opinion and the facts to support that opinion.


Like this comment
Posted by Positive Reinforcement
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

This endorsement strikes me as balanced and carefully thought out. It's pretty impressive that the Almanac, Daily Post, and Mercury News have all independently determined Measure M to be something to oppose. As an individual, I also appreciated that John King, the SF Chronicle's design critic, called Measure M "convoluted at best" and basically being about changing "the rules to allow a procession of buildings resembling nothing so much as a row of gap teeth". Read for yourself:

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

positive:

excellent article. Thanks for posting the link. Pretty much nails it.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 29, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Morris - How would YOU feel if the City demanded that you agree to a reappraisal of your land value as a condition for allowing you to build a new home?

Still waiting for your answer.


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 29, 2014 at 5:02 pm

I've said this before, but it seems worth mentioning again.

Supporters of Measure M: Please take a deep breath and try to envision all of the things which could be on MP's border besides a world-class university with an open campus. And money to invest in MP.

Stanford is not perfect. But you seem to think that Stanford should do nothing more than build parks and effectively subsidize your particular "vision" of MP. Would you, perhaps, accomplish more by negotiating in good faith (or supporting those who do) instead of opting for "no growth" and obstruction?


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

 

Meet the winners!

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

View Winners