Town Square

Post a New Topic

Why I Oppose Measure M

Original post made by Rob Gould, Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park, on Oct 8, 2014

October 8, 2014

Dear Editor,

As a long standing resident of Allied Arts and a Menlo Park business owner, I feel compelled to speak out against Measure M. Over 25 years ago my firm, Menlo Management Company, submitted plans to the city to build Menlo Center - home to Cafe Borrone and Kepler's Bookstore. This award winning complex of restaurants, shops and offices transformed an ugly strip of blight into a beloved and vibrant gathering place for residents of Menlo Park and beyond.

It almost didn't get built! "No growth" advocates launched a misleading and dishonest campaign against the project alleging that we were planning a ten story Los Angeles style mega-office complex, citing traffic gridlock and loss of Menlo Park's small town character. Sound familiar? History has a way of repeating itself if we aren't informed.

Today we are faced with a contentious ballot initiative which has polarized the city, and, if passed, will halt the progress of future developments in our City. Measure M proponents claim that they are saving Menlo Park from traffic and massive office developments, but the truth is that the initiative does neither. It is a poorly written document which does nothing to limit growth or traffic but instead adds confusing limitations to the Downtown Specific Plan.

I urge you to take the time to understand the facts and join me in voting No on Measure M.




Rob Gould
Princeton Road
Menlo Park

Comments (34)

Posted by History Repeats
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm

Great reminder! Take any building you like from the last few decades- odds are pro-M'ers like Jack Morris, Patti Fry, Morris Brown, and Chuck Bernstein submitted an angry letter of opposition before it was approved. It's like Mad Libs for them- just substitute 'Stanford' for 'Bohannon' and yesterday's old views are fresh again! Let's move on, finally.


Posted by know_a_bit
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:02 pm

Golly, I always thought Menlo Management was Russ Collier's firm -- am I miss-informed. I think not.

Your characterization of Yes on M advocates as "No Growthers", is just more of the same coming mainly from the development community, which always is greedy, whats to stretch the rules, and certainly doesn't want anyone looking over their shoulders.

Measure M when it passes will certainly will not "halt the progress of future development"... That is just pure BS.

Menlo Park Voters --- be smart --

Vote Yes on Measure M.


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm

"Measure M when it passes will certainly will not "halt the progress of future development".."

You're right it probably won't. It will just make a huge uncontrolled, unintended mess of it with zero control by our elected officials. Brilliant!

Measure M is a MISTAKE

Vote NO on M


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 8, 2014 at 8:05 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Measure M when it passes will certainly will not "halt the progress of future development"."

Note that the TEN definitions and the limits established by Measure M last FOREVER.

Measure M is a crude attempt to lock Menlo Park into the past. Section 3.1 defines FOREVER the Specific Plan area based on a 2008 map:

"ECR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEFINED. When referring to the “ECR Specific Plan Area,” this initiative measure is referring to the bounded area within the Vision Plan Area Map located at Page 2, Figure I, of the El Camino Real/Downtown Vision Plan, accepted by the Menlo Park city Council on July 15, 2008, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this measure and hereby adopted by the voters as an integral part of this initiative measure. "

Measure M defines FOREVER a bank as"
"3. 3.3.3. As adopted on July 12, 2012, the ECR Specific Plan’s Appendix includes the following Commercial Use Classification for “Banks and Other Financial Institutions”: “Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money, including credit unions.” The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters. "

Measure M is a throwback to the last century.


Posted by Patti Fry
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:27 pm

History repeats --- I never opposed the Menlo Center. In fact I wasn't even living in Menlo park 25 years ago. Apparently this same misinformation is being told by Measure M opponents to people at the Farmers Market.

While I did oppose the original Derry project, I worked very hard and closely with the developer and property owner to craft an improved project that fit with Menlo parks zoning rules and provided public benefit. That negotiation resulted in a project approved by the planning commission. Unfortunately it was never taken by the applicant to the council for final approval.

There is no need to disparage individuals who care for our community.

I like a lot about the Specific Plan. And that's exactly why I support Yes on M. The two large proposed projects, by Stanford and greenheart, do not fit the balanced growth vision created by our community. They bring more negative impacts than the Specific Plan, and bring fewer positive benefits (e,g, retail sales and hotel tax revenues or senior housing). Measure M restricts office development in alignment with the Plan. That allows for balanced growth of other uses that aren't crowded out by offices that bring out if town commuters at rush hour,

Yes on M leaves nearly all the plan's rules in council hands. As others have explained, the city staff already is responsible to make determinations about whether a use is "office" or non-residential. They can continue this process with passage of Measure M.


Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 22, 2014 at 1:05 pm

@ Ms. Fry: Regarding your statement: "Yes on M leaves nearly all the plan's rules in council hands."

Most respectfully, your use of "NEARLY ALL" in this context is misleading to anyone who has not actually read Measure M and reflected on its sweeping implications.

If "nearly all" "the [Specific] plan's rules" were truly left in council hands, Measure M would not be 12 pages long. By its own legally binding language -- which is all that really matters at this point -- Measure M would not empower the council, but dramatically restrict and constrain it.

NO AMENDMENTS OR REPEAL WITHOUT VOTER
APPROVAL.
4.1. Except for as provided at Section 3.4.4 above regarding the City's
ability to approve without voter ratification an amendment to the
Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals that would call
for an increase in the allowable number of residential units under the
Specific Plan, the voter-adopted development standards and
definitions set forth in Section 3, above, may be repealed or
amended only by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of
Menlo Park voting ''YES" on a ballot measure proposing such repeal
or amendment at a regular or special election.

MP's voters -- especially those still undecided -- should be wary of Measure M supporters who proffer implications of Measure M without actually quoting its legally binding language.


Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm

Ms. Fry - With respect: In my comment above four days ago, I called into question your assertion that:

"Yes on M leaves nearly all the plan's rules in council hands."

I strongly disagree. I supported my position with specific reference to the language of Measure.

Please do post a response and support your position with specific reference to the actual language of Measure M. The actual language, not your opinion, is what would be binding on MP -- and all of us in this larger community -- if Measure M were to pass.

Please be honest about the actual implications.


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Oct 26, 2014 at 8:54 pm

pogo is a registered user.

What a great perspective from Rob Gould. I didn't know those things and they certainly have a ring of truth.

Thank you for posting, Rob.


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 27, 2014 at 7:04 am

Observer:

don't hold your breath waiting for anything factual coming from measure m supporters. they never quote from the language of their own measure as it runs counter to just about everything they try to say it does or doesn't do. As you have pointed out above and others have done elsewhere, the language of the measure is quite clear. It changes a great deal, not leaving nearly everything in council's hands as they try to claim.

It really would be funny if the passage of measure m won't be tragic. They claim measure m saves us from giant building and traffic and yet at the same time it doesn't really do much at all. They can't have it both ways.

Measure M is a Mistake


Posted by It__is_so_simple
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Oct 27, 2014 at 8:49 am

Here is how to make this discussion simple to understand and for a voter to make the right decision. The KEY --- look at who is urging a No on M vote.

Who are they? The No on M people are developers, realtors and and others looking to personally profit from bigger and denser development in Menlo Park.

The Greenheart Co., doesn't want any change to the Specific Plan, that might keep it from going forward with its ridiculous plan for the Derry properties and the old Cadillac site. Talk about being greedy. Their proposal comes very close to being 3 times the density of the revised Derry Project combined with the Sand Hill Development project for the Derry site.

Yet Greenheart has the outrageous "motto" of No to more Traffic". Greenheart must think MP voters are idiots to believe a project with 3 times the density will not produce more traffic than what was previously envisioned for those sites.

The big boosters of No on M, reflect the views of the DuBoc, Winkler, and Jellins, council back in the era around 2005. Well MP voters got rid of DuBoc and Winker and Jellins in the election of 2006, which centered around the O'Brien proposal to develop the Derry parcels. Are MP votes going to revert to having DuBoc with her "Menlo Future" email list sway the voters of MP to vote no on Measure M. Surely one would hope not.

It is all so simple. Pass Measure M and keep developers from dictating our life stye in Menlo Park. Do MP voters really want MP turned into a Redwood City or Sunnyvale? I sure hope no.

Vote Yes on Measure M.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 27, 2014 at 8:57 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" look at who is urging a No on M vote.

Who are they?"
Newspapers:

The Almanac
San Jose Mercury News/ San Mateo County Times
The Daily Post

State & County Elected Officials

State Assemblyman Rich Gordon
Warren Slocum, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Don Horsley, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and former County Sheriff
Dave Pine, San Mateo County Board of Supervisor

Menlo Park City Mayors, City Council Members

Ray Mueller, Menlo Park Mayor
Catherine Carlton, Menlo Park Vice Mayor
Rich Cline, Menlo Park City Council Member and twice former Mayor
Kirsten Keith, Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
Peter Ohtaki, Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
Lee Duboc, former Menlo Park City Council Member
Mickie Winkler, former Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
Nicholas Jellins, former Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
John Boyle, former Menlo Park City Council Member and Vice Mayor
Dee Tolles, Former Mayor
Bob McNamara, Former Mayor
Bob Stephens, Former Mayor

Local Elected Officials and Ex-Officio

Rex Ianson, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board President
Virginia Chang Kiraly, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board Vice President
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board Director and Past President
Rob Silano, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board Director
Joan Lambert, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees President
Terry Thygesen, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Maria Hilton, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Jeff Child, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Scott Hinshaw, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Laura Rich, Former Menlo Park City School District Trustee
Mark Box, Former Menlo Park City School District Trustee
Deborah Fitz, Former Menlo Park City School District Trustee
Ollie Brown, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Del Krause, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Stephen Nachtscheim, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Jack Nelson, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past Vice President
Bart Spencer, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Del Krause, former Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board
Roy Thiele-Sardina, West Bay Sanitary District Director

Organizations:

Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA)
San Mateo County Labor Council
San Mateo County Building Trades

Menlo Park Commissioners *

Ben Eiref, Planning Commissioner Chair
John Onken, Planning Commissioner Vice Chair
Katie Ferrick, Planning Commissioner
Katherine Strehl, Planning Commissioner
Harry Bims, Former Planning Commissioner
John O'Malley, Former Planning Commissioner
Henry Riggs, Former Planning Commissioner
Lou Deziel, Former Planning Commissioner
Lori Sinnott, Former Planning Commissioner
Pei Pei Yu, Former Planning Commissioner
Adina Levin, Transportation Commissioner
Penelope Huang, Transportation Commissioner
Bianca Walser, Transportation Commissioner
Maurice Shiu, Transportation Commissioner
Josh Wetzel, Transportation Commissioner
William Kirsch, Bicycle Commission Chair
Cindy Welton, Bicycle Commission Vice Chair
Scott Lohman, Former Bicycle Commissioner
Matthew Zumstein, Bicycle Commissioner
Rich Ferrick, Former Bicycle Commissioner
Sally Cadigan, Former Housing Commissioner
Ann Moser, Former Housing Commissioner
Mary Gilles, Former Transportation Commissioner
Hank Lawrence, Former Transportation Commissioner
Patricia Watkins, Former Parks & Recreation Commissioner
Kelly Blythe, Former Parks & Recreation Commissioner

No on Measure M


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 27, 2014 at 9:04 am

It is:

I am not a developer and have nothing to gain from the defeat of M beyond the prevention of the major damage M will do to our town.

It is very simple; vote for a poorly worded measure with tons of unintended consequences or vote to keep the DSP in place and allow the council to continue to make modifications to it as necessary as they have been doing. A plan that took years to put together and was thoroughly vetted through a public process.

Yes, it is so simple, Vote NO on M. Allow our town to become more vibrant. Don't allow a few people that didn't get their way in the DSP process or slept through the process to hijack that process for their own selfish desires.


Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 27, 2014 at 10:43 am

@ "It is so simple"

I am definitely not a "developer," "realtor" or "other looking to personally profit from bigger and denser development in Menlo Park."

You are making an unfounded assumption.

I am opposed to Measure M because it is not well-conceived and would be very damaging to MP and the rest of our larger community. I lived in MP when the Measure M proponents governed with their overarching strategy of no growth (which contributed to creating the blight we now have along ECR); they spent MP's money filing lawsuits rather than engaging in sensible negotiation for better results in terms of traffic management, etc.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 27, 2014 at 11:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Patti Fry states - "Measure M restricts office development in alignment with the Plan. "

Perhaps She can explain why Measure M includes this language (which in NOT in the Specific Plan):
"3.3.5. After this measure becomes effective, the maximum amount of Office Space that any individual development PROJECT proposal within the ECR Specific Plan area may contain is 100,000 square ft."

As Fry well knows there is not a single existing PARCEL in the Specific Plan Area that would permit 100,000 sq ft of anything.

Both Stanford and Greenheart have multiple PARCELS and if Measure M were to pass they would be incentivized the develop those parcels as separate PROJECTS. While this would avoid the Measure M 100,000 sq ft per PROJECT limit it would also mean separate structures with no integrating design, larger setbacks and hence higher buildings, separate ECR access for each parcel and no incentive for providing public benefits like a plaza or a pedestrian/bicycle.

In fact, the language in Measure M's Section "3.3.6. For purposes of this provision, all phases of a multi-phased project proposal shall be collectively considered an individual project." would REQUIRE that these projects NOT have an integrated design or appearance or share any amenities.

The Davis Ca lawyer who wrote this language is clearly not skilled in writing zoning ordinance language nor in understanding the second and third order effects of these sections.

Regardless of its good intentions Measure M is so poorly written that it would create a crippling zoning ordinance.


Posted by Resident, not Developer
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 2:07 am

@ It-is-so-simple

Is it really that simple? I am also NOT a developer, realtor, downtown landowner or lender to any of the above. This tactic of accusing anyone who disagrees with the No Growth faction as being a developer is really just sad and ineffective. I work in tech, like many people in Silicon Valley. I am a longtime MPresident that is tired of the No-Growth minority showing up in the 11th hour whenever our City is about to make real progress. The better question is: who are you? What is your vested interest? Do you live near downtown and prefer that nothing is built on the vacant lots? Maybe you did participate but did not get your way during the DSP Planning process? Or maybe you never bothered to show up to participate at all.

@Patty. You said "While I did oppose the original Derry project, I worked very hard and closely with the developer and property owner to craft an improved project that fit with Menlo parks zoning rules and provided public benefit. That negotiation resulted in a project approved by the planning commission. Unfortunately it was never taken by the applicant to the council for final approval." Why was that? Was it that the Public Benefits you required were unreasonable and made the project not feasible? Or was it the referendum that you and Morris Brown led to kill the Derry project after it was approved by Council?

If anyone wants a good read on the history of Menlo Park and the No-Growth vs. Progress battles, the Almanac published a good article during the DSP Planning process. The year? 2009. See how far we have come. Sad.

Web Link


Posted by fact checker
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 28, 2014 at 9:08 am

Measure M is long because it adopts verbatim language from the Specific Plan so its meaning is clear. Measure M adopts the non-residential and office limits of the plan. It does limit further the amount per project; that affects only the largest sites, leaving some of the office development for smaller property owners.

The revised Derry project was created at the request of the developer and property owner after the referendum on the original project. They agreed with the project changes and the public benefit contribution.
A big reason it did not proceed was the recession. I have heard rumors that there were issues within the Derry family and with the developer that may have contributed. Other projects approved in the same timeframe were not built until after the recession. And oh by the way, at least 3 approved using old rules have just recently been completed, demonstrating that development at half the current rules can be viable.
I don't think it's fair at all to characterize Yes on M supporters as no growth. They didn't change the amount allowed, just modify what can be built.


Posted by Morris Brown
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Oct 28, 2014 at 9:34 am

I thank "fact checker" for his post above. What he writes is indeed a true reflection of the history of the Derry project.

Final approval of the "revised" Derry project was set to go before Council in less than 2 weeks, at which time the O'Brien group walked away. As leader of the Menlo Park Tomorrow sponsored Derry referendum, we were given no notice their unilateral action either before or after they pulled out.

So I don't know why O'Brien left, but almost for sure the deterioration of the economy, in particular the local housing market was most likely the reason.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:19 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Morris - For historical clarity would you please describe your role in the private agreement with Derry and also post a copy of that agreement.

Thank you.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

fc states - "Measure M is long because it adopts verbatim language from the Specific Plan so its meaning is clear."

Well, not quite. Measure M supporters cannot claim that Measure M makes changes and then also claim that is doesn't make changes.

A number of the definitions and language from the Specific Plan ARE changed as well as frozen:
3.2.1 and 3.2.5 "The foregoing definition is hereby amended, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read: "
3.2.6 ” are each hereby amended, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read"
3.4.3 "The foregoing passage of the Specific Plan is hereby amended, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read as follows: "

Another big problem is that the TEN definitions "adopted by the voters" in Measure M would be frozen forever and can only be changed by a city wide vote.

For example, how long do you think banks will be places "engaged in the on-site circulation of money," per Section 3.3.3 ?

Why did the Davis, California environmental lawyer who wrote Measure M include the phrase "or frustrate" in Section 4:

"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."

This is unprecedented language in a zoning ordinance.

Is this simply a Trojan Horse to allow anybody, anytime to challenge any project or change to the DSP and thereby force the City to obtain a judicial ruling on every such case?


Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:53 am

Ms. Fry - Still waiting for you to substantiate your assertion (in your 10/22 comment above) that:

"Yes on M leaves nearly all the plan's rules in council hands."

A citation to Measure M's language is essential.

If Measure M passes will you and the rest of Measure M's supporters agree to be bound by this assertion/interpretation and, as such, concede that:

"Yes on M leaves nearly all the plan's rules in council hands." ??


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:56 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Fry has upped her statement - 51 min ago on Nextdoor Patti Fry states - "Virtually all of the Specific Plan remains in Council control."


Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 12:11 pm

Mr. Carpenter's update is disturbing in that it suggests that Ms. Fry/one of Measure M's primary instigators/supporters is:

(a) either ignoring the sweeping, legally binding implications of Measure's M's language in an effort to get it passed; OR

(b) does not understand Measure M's sweeping, legally binding implications.


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 1:19 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

Observer:

you missed one other possibility, Patty is flat out lying.


Posted by fact checker
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 28, 2014 at 1:42 pm

You missed another possibility - she's telling the truth.

By my count, the DSP has about 350 PAGES.
Measure M modifies 4 things in the Plan (overall limits of nonresidential and office, amount of office per project, and what counts towards project open space requirments. The open space change affects a line in 10 tables, and it adopts 6 definitions without change.

Assuming all of M's provisions take up 2 pages worth of text, then there are 348 pages of the Plan that M does not affect.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 28, 2014 at 1:53 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Measure M supporters keep trying to sell M as a little Mouse when it is a big Monster.

"Assuming all of M's provisions take up 2 pages worth of text" - that is a difficult assumption when Measure M itself is 12 pages long.

"it adopts 6 definitions without change. " and that "adoption" requires ANY change in the "voter- adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, above, may be repealed or amended only by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Menlo Park voting “YES” on a ballot measure proposing such repeal or amendment at a regular or special election." To change even one word or a comma in those definition requires a $100k vote.

And one of those definitions is "ECR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEFINED. When referring to the “ECR Specific Plan Area,” this initiative measure is referring to the bounded area within the Vision Plan Area Map located at Page 2, Figure I, of the El Camino Real/Downtown Vision Plan, accepted by the Menlo Park city Council on July 15, 2008, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this measure and hereby adopted by the voters as an integral part of this initiative measure. " This includes the exact boundaries of the Specific Plan area and probably every single parcel in the DSP area because each of those parcels is shown on the voter adopted map.

Measure M is not little mouse it is a huge Monster whose creators do not even understand it and who refuse to quote from it to support their mouse contention.


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

fact checker:

I didn't miss that possibility because Patty's NOT telling the truth.


Posted by It__is_so_simple
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Oct 28, 2014 at 2:17 pm

MP Voters: (poor Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton doesn't have a vote)

A decision on voting Yes on Measure M should really be taken in the context of who do you trust?

When you look at the No on M propaganda, it is so painfully obvious that it is developers who are funding this effort to defeat Measure M.

Do the voters of Menlo Park want developers to define the future of Menlo Park? I should surely hope not.

Don't believe the developers non-sense. Measure M affects really only a small change in Specific Plan. It will prevent this outrageous overbuilding of offices, which will cause so much harm to our fair City. Don't let these developers turn our fair City into a "cookie cutter" like image of Sunnyvale or Redwood City. We deserve so much better.

It is so simple.

Vote Yes on M


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

It is so simple:

if planning and zoning were "so simple" why did it take six years to come up with a DSP? It's because it's not simple, it's COMPLICATED. Measure M is a stupid, simplistic response to a very complicated issue.

The smart thing to do is vote NO on M.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 28, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"A decision on voting Yes on Measure M should really be taken in the context of who do you trust?"

Like this group who endorse NO on M:

Newspapers:

The Almanac
San Jose Mercury News/ San Mateo County Times
The Daily Post

State & County Elected Officials

State Assemblyman Rich Gordon
Warren Slocum, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Don Horsley, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and former County Sheriff
Dave Pine, San Mateo County Board of Supervisor

Menlo Park City Mayors, City Council Members

Ray Mueller, Menlo Park Mayor
Catherine Carlton, Menlo Park Vice Mayor
Rich Cline, Menlo Park City Council Member and twice former Mayor
Kirsten Keith, Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
Peter Ohtaki, Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
Lee Duboc, former Menlo Park City Council Member
Mickie Winkler, former Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
Nicholas Jellins, former Menlo Park City Council Member and former Mayor
John Boyle, former Menlo Park City Council Member and Vice Mayor
Dee Tolles, Former Mayor
Bob McNamara, Former Mayor
Bob Stephens, Former Mayor

Local Elected Officials and Ex-Officio

Rex Ianson, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board President
Virginia Chang Kiraly, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board Vice President
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board Director and Past President
Rob Silano, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board Director
Joan Lambert, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees President
Terry Thygesen, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Maria Hilton, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Jeff Child, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Scott Hinshaw, Menlo Park City School District Board of Trustees
Laura Rich, Former Menlo Park City School District Trustee
Mark Box, Former Menlo Park City School District Trustee
Deborah Fitz, Former Menlo Park City School District Trustee
Ollie Brown, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Del Krause, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Stephen Nachtscheim, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Jack Nelson, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past Vice President
Bart Spencer, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Past President
Del Krause, former Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board
Roy Thiele-Sardina, West Bay Sanitary District Director

Organizations:

Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA)
San Mateo County Labor Council
San Mateo County Building Trades

Menlo Park Commissioners *

Ben Eiref, Planning Commissioner Chair
John Onken, Planning Commissioner Vice Chair
Katie Ferrick, Planning Commissioner
Katherine Strehl, Planning Commissioner
Harry Bims, Former Planning Commissioner
John O'Malley, Former Planning Commissioner
Henry Riggs, Former Planning Commissioner
Lou Deziel, Former Planning Commissioner
Lori Sinnott, Former Planning Commissioner
Pei Pei Yu, Former Planning Commissioner
Adina Levin, Transportation Commissioner
Penelope Huang, Transportation Commissioner
Bianca Walser, Transportation Commissioner
Maurice Shiu, Transportation Commissioner
Josh Wetzel, Transportation Commissioner
William Kirsch, Bicycle Commission Chair
Cindy Welton, Bicycle Commission Vice Chair
Scott Lohman, Former Bicycle Commissioner
Matthew Zumstein, Bicycle Commissioner
Rich Ferrick, Former Bicycle Commissioner
Sally Cadigan, Former Housing Commissioner
Ann Moser, Former Housing Commissioner
Mary Gilles, Former Transportation Commissioner
Hank Lawrence, Former Transportation Commissioner
Patricia Watkins, Former Parks & Recreation Commissioner
Kelly Blythe, Former Parks & Recreation Commissioner

Menlo Park Residents

Eric Alburger
Bob Anderson
Nathan Anderson
Andrew Arata
Jason Auerbach
Alex Badduke
Andrew Baker
Ryan Baker
Michael Barclay
Scott Barnum
Christina Barratt
Raymond Basso
Tucker Beim
Paul Bendix
Matt Bennitt
Rose Bickerstaff
Sharon Bickford
Brian Blackford
Jeffrey Bloom
Bruce Bower
Jeff Brunello
Ronda Bucklin
Corrine Burke
Mike Burke
Robert Burlinson
Marc Bryman
Sally Cadigan
Sanford Carnahan
Ashley Carroll
Ralph Castro
Charles Catalano
Celeste Chapman
Allison Chao
Clint Chao
Mari Chazen
Sherwin Chen
Shirley Chiu
Anna Chow
Ryan Collins
Eva Cuffy
Elaine Cummings
Howard Crittenden
Niki Davis
Jamie D'Alesandro
Michelle DeHaaff
Fran Dehn
William Dempsy
Les Denend
Pam Deziel
Marcelo Dorio
John Dumalac
Noah Eisner
Teresa Epidendio
Joe Fantuzzi
Victoria Fantuzzi
Bruce Felt
Lynn Felt
Mark Flegel
Leigh Flesher
Bill Frimel


Heather Frauenhofer
Joanne Frimel
Aaron Fukuhara
Jennifer Gafke
Erica Galles
Mike Gardner
Dave Gildea Mary Gilles
Mark Gilles
Dick Givens
Kim Glenn
Robert Grant
Barry Gray
David Gregg
Paul Goehner
Mickey Griffen
Stasia Grose
Russ Hall
Frank Han
Christine Hansen
Steve Harrick
Robert Hasslen
Tom Hayse
Dana Hendrickson
Margaret Hilberman
Joel Hopman
Patricia Hopman
Jeremy Huddleston
Stephen Hicks
Susannah Hill
Tom Hilligoss
Skip Hilton
Joel Hopman
Patricia Hopman
Lindy Hopman
Lorri Holzberg
Patrick Jabal
Tom Jackson
Stuart Johnson
Chuck Jones
Sarah Jones
Stacey Jones
Randall Joss
Dennis Karle
Sue Kayton
Cynthia Klustner
Daniel Kocher
Maria Kourakina
Roger Knopf
Elliot KraneMeg Lacy
John Kremer
Michael Lambert
Nicole Lance
Nick Landolfi
Thomas Lascher
Hank Lawrence
Kathryn Lewark
Kim LeMieux
Tom LeMieux
Josh Leslie
Sara Leslie
Karen Lines
Emily Lopez
Doug Marks
Terry Martin
Betsy Matteson
Matt Matteson
Sandy McNamara
Joe Merkert
Clem Molony
Jane Molony
Martin Mazner
John McDonnell
Robert McNamara
Robert Melcher
John Meletis
Martin Mazner
Ashley Montulli
Edward Moritz
Jerry McCreary
Betty Meissner
Anita Mo
John Moeller
Tara Moeller
Ashley Montulli
Betsy Muhlner
Yvonne Murray
Thom Neuhausen
Bonnie Neylan
Rich Nieva
Stephanie Nisbet
Anita Ochieano
Craig Olson
Sue Olson
Meredith O'Malley
Brian O'Malley
Bruce Ochieano
Anita Ochieano
Ken Ogrey
Nicole Ogrey
Julia Onken
Peter Palm
Chris Parker
Jenna Parker
William Patterson
Ben Paul
Russ Peterson
Jason Pfannenstiel
Darren Phelan
Jeff Phillips
Jeff Pollock
Carla Posthauer
Neal Potischman
Chase Rapp
Amy Reardon
David Reeves
Katie Reeves
Leslie Rehlaender
Jean Rigg
Gloria Robles
Glen Rojas
Nate Rooks
Rico Rosales
Shawn Sasse
Ted Schlein
Mike Schoenben
Lori Sinnott
Sam Sinnott
Maya Sewald
Dan Skehan
Krista Skehan
E. Gary Smith
Fred Smith
Kristin Smith
Bart Spencer
Diana Spieker
Tod Spieker
Nanhi Singh
Suzanne Saunders Shaw
Susan Stimson
Katherine Strehl
Greg Stroud
Robin Severns
Robert Stosz
Mary Beth Suhr
Peter Suhr
Mark Swarner
Poroshat Tabar
Bob Taggart
Carol Taggart
Mary Teruel
Roy Thiele-Sardina
Bridget Thrasher
Astor Toyos
Kirt Thomson
Theanne Thomson
Alan Thygesen
Frank Tucker
Jim Turner
Thomas Vocker
Alexander Walker
Gloria Walker
Heather Wall
Tyler Wall
John Wallace
Ron Wardrop
Martin Wegenstein
Erin Wetzel
Jane Williams
Matt Winters
Bryan Wise
John Woodell
Jon Woodruff
Tiffany Woodruff
Sam Wright
Janet Yelland
Lynn Young
Kate Zablocki
*In all cases, individuals endorsements do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization with which the individual is associated


Posted by Positive Reinforcement
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 6:47 pm

I appreciated Rob Gould's perspective and historical context! It's helpful for us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.


Posted by Observer
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Oct 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm

Ms. Fry: Once again... will you please substantiate your assertion that: "Yes on M leaves nearly all the plan's rules in council hands."

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

Again, respectfully, refusing to confirm your position suggests that you are well aware of Measure M's core effort of hamstringing MP's duly elected Council, but wish to deceive voters on the fence into thinking that Measure M is just an "itty bitty little change" or somehow "sends a message" rather than memorializing an inflexible obstruction which creates a landscape of unpredictability and would preclude reasonable opportunities for negotiation and compromise which optimize the long term greater good for MP and our larger community.


Posted by Aaron
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 29, 2014 at 11:38 am

Aaron is a registered user.

I've already voted in this election, but wanted to just state for both the Yes on M and No on M factions, why I am annoyed with both of you.

The roots of this initiative were sold as a problem of blight and traffic. On the one had, we have blight of empty lots. On the other, the blight of ugly office architecture. This is clearly a value judgement, but it seems that the architechture can be changed and not much is uglier than what we currently have on these properties.

The traffic issue really gets to me. It should be obvious to everybody that with only two major roadways going roughly North-South near downtown (Middlefield and ECR), no matter what is built, we will face more traffic. The idyllic photo of children walking on a leafy green street (note, the children are not using the sidewalk because there are so few in MP) is only possible BECAUSE we don't have more cut-through traffic.

If people are really concerned about traffic congestion on ECR, then what we really need are more traffic throughways. Perhaps University Drive should be extended to Sand Hill Road. Make Middle Ave cross ECR, pass under Caltrain, and intersect with Alma St. at Burgess Drive, or have Cambridge Ave. cross ECR and Caltrain to link up with Willow. Either of these might help the congestion from Middle to Ravenswood for commuters tryign to cut over to the 101. Connect Alma in MP with Alma in Palo Alto to allow people to avoid ECR. Make the ECR/Alma/Sand Hill Road intersection a true four-way intersection so people don't have to make a U-turn at Cambridge Ave to go from Sand Hill to Alma.

But nobody talks about these options because either they are too expensive or they would so clearly increase traffic flow in our beloved back streets. I would suggest that if you are unwilling to actually do something about alleviating the traffic on ECR by advocating better transit corridors between Menlo Park and Palo Alto, then stop complaining about the massive congestion on ECR that results from loads of cars being forced onto ECR because there are no other convenience options for traffic flow. If you like your low-traffic neighborhoods, then accept that the price paid is high traffic congestion on ECR and Middlefield.

The scare mongering around which side will create more traffic is just a ruse. Our traffic will increase with any development of those properties, and neither "Yes on M" nor "No on M" do much to solve that issue.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 29, 2014 at 11:57 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"If you like your low-traffic neighborhoods, then accept that the price paid is high traffic congestion on ECR and Middlefield."

Bravo, someone who finally has the courage to state the truth.

Thank you


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 29, 2014 at 4:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Morris - For historical clarity would you please describe your role in the private agreement with Derry and also post a copy of that agreement.

Still waiting.

Thank you.


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

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Vietnamese restaurant that may offer special menu for canine customers coming to former Wahlburgers site in Palo Alto
By The Peninsula Foodist | 1 comment | 3,268 views

Our First Anniversary in my Husband’s Retirement
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,563 views

I Was At The Stanford Shooting. Let’s Do Better
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 2,183 views

The clothes we wear: Cool, chic, casual -- or just plain sloppy?
By Diana Diamond | 18 comments | 1,916 views