Martin,

The financial disclosure documents showed that they contributed $200K to a FPPC committee, but that committee has NOT spent the money. They have spent approximately $100K of it, mostly on consultants, printing etc.

Menlo Park Deserves Better is the grass roots citizen effort against Measure M. Our group has raised and spent less than $10,000. it's been used for printing, lawn signs and mailers. Save Menlo (yes on measure M) has raised and spent $58,000 over 35% of which came from Gary Lauder a resident of Atherton. So in a greass roots vs grass roots comparison, they have outspent Menlo Park Deserves Better 6 to 1.

All that money has gotten ZERO endorsements of consequence.

EVERY News Source (The Almanac, The Daily Post, San Jose Mercury News, and Daily News) has endorsed NO on Measure M. SJ Mercury news called Measure M a DISASTER. Every Member of the City Council (along with 8 former Mayors), Every Member Past and Present of the School Board, Every Past and Present Member of the Fire Board (save one); 10 current and former members of the Menlo Park Planning Commission, 14 current and former members of the Menlo Park Transportation and Bicycle Commissions. That is as near a unanimous list of endorsers as has EVER existed in this city......

That you dislike that a developer is spending money to spread the word that Measure M is BAD and a MISTAKE, regardless of whether they benefit or not is the issue, are you saying you now like measure m because you dislike a developer????

Measure M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Following the money is a poor substitute for understanding the issues.

Measure M is deeply flawed, written in secret without any public input and it is full of unintended consequences.

Simply to vote in opposition to or for which side has the most money is a terrible rationale. Analyze the facts, determine your objectives, think about what is best for the community and vote accordingly. I think you've unfairly underestimated your fellow citizens. We vote our knowledge, our interests and our passions, not which side had the fancier media campaign. While the sum contributed by the developer to their PAC seems big and impactful, I sure don't see it either in their media buys or their 'ground game'. As far as I can tell, all the folks working either for or against M are volunteers with differing views. I am sure they are spending their free time participating in the democratic process. Whether the developer had contributed $200 or $200,000, the 'ground game' is the same - persuade your friends and neighbors the merits of your position...

To say that the Almanac hasn't adequately let readers know about Greenheart's massive spending campaign is ridiculous. There's this news story from Oct. 8 detailing the campaign spending. Just because the editorial endorsement focuses on the substantive issues of Measure M doesn't mean this flood of outside money is a secret: Web Link

@Roy Thiele-Sardiña @ Peter Carpenter & @downtown property owner

If you look up and to the right of this column, you will see an add against Measure M with a photo depicting a Walmart Supercenter.

Is that what you consider the promotion of honest dialogue? Isn't that what they call deceitful campaigning?

It's not a matter of liking or disliking a developer, but rather the means by which that developer attempts to tip the balance in its favor.

You guys are pummeling the wrong person.
If our council members had not disregarded the multiple calls of citizens to build into the plan better guarantees against unbridled development, we would not find ourselves in the current position.

It's them you should be blaming for this mess.

In any case, thanks for reading my blog.

@ SaraMP

That is exactly the problem:

That it is not a secret that Greenheart is trying to buy this election, and some people still act as if that is just a fine part of doing business here.

The Almanac has done a fine job at presenting both arguments equally. But a neutral position with an editorial that equally presented both sides shortcomings, would have been more appropriate.

If you read the endorsement carefully, you must have noticed that it makes an effort to warn about the danger of councilmembers still not getting the message.

I think it should have made mention of the equal danger of having a developer financing the defeat of Measure M.

"If our council members had not disregarded the multiple calls of citizens to build into the plan better guarantees against unbridled development, we would not find ourselves in the current position."

Wow. What unsupported hyperbole!

Hundreds of residents participated in the creation of the Specific Plan, the product of a very public, multi-year process that included many public hearings and our city's planning department.

And, naturally, everyone did not get everything they wanted.

It's called compromise.

So why blame the city council members? Because it's easy?

Who were the "citizens who made multiple calls"?

Did they participate in the Specific Plan and simply represent a minority viewpoint?

Did they expect special treatment?

And I doubt that Greenheart spending has had much impact on voters.

You need to give our residents more credit. They do not fall for written, verbal and visual soundbites - from anyone.

So please do not fret about it.

So why blame a developer? Because its easy?

Following the money is a poor substitute for understanding the issues.

Here are my concerns regarding the Measure M issues:
PROCESS
1 - The Initiative was created in secret
2 - Without any opportunity for public review
3 - And hence without the opportunity to improve/clarify the initiative to reflect the concerns of those outside the small group that wrote it
4 - Once the first signatures were gathered the language could not be changed without starting the entire filing process again
5 - No effort has been or seems to be planned to ensure that voters understand the Initiative
6 - And fundamentally the Initiative is an attack on the good governance and transparent process that lead to the creation and adoption of the DSP

SUBSTANCE
1 - The initiative is lengthy and covers a number of different issues
2 - Therefore the opportunity for mistakes and conflict are significant
3 - The initiative is a 'forever' document which will, as intended, preclude some changes to the Specific Plan without another vote and will also, as an untended consequence, make it difficult to make any changes to the Specific Plan, particularly given the Priority Clause:
"PRIORITY: After this measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Menlo Park which are inferior to the Planning Policy Documents and in conflict with any provisions of this measure."
4 - Some of the language, as noted, does not and cannot accommodate changes in commerce such as banking and medical offices
5 - The initiative would force individuals with adjacent parcels to develop them separately thereby precluding integrated design and shared amenities
6 ? The Initiative eviscerates the City Council and Planning Commission, as it requires a city wide vote for ANY changes in the DSP, no matter how small, forever


IMPACT
1 - The initiative, even if not passed, has signaled to any interested party that Menlo Park's planning process and established rules cannot be relied upon and they will make their investments elsewhere.
2 - The initiative, even if not passed, has delayed moving forward with the Specific Plan.
3 - The initiative, even if not passed, has sent a chilling message to the Planning Commissioners, the City Council and the planning staff that their efforts to have an open and inclusive process can be thwarted by a small group of disgruntled citizens.

wait a minute!
The detailed rules of the specific plan were in no way subject to years of debate. Many of the rules were never discussed at all even by the reviewing bodies of the Planning Commission and City Council. For example, the change to the Open Space definition was not even in the Draft Plan and wasn't flagged or discussed.

All initiatives are created the way M was. It has been getting its public airing during the signature gathering process and since then. The city attorney reviewed it before signature gathering began, and the public also had a chance then for issues to be raised. It is lengthy, primarily because it incorporates the exact language from the Specific Plan, for clarity.
Mr. Carpenter continues to make claims that further his theories but it simply is false that all changes made to the Specific Plan require a vote. Measure M changes very little of the Plan, leaving Council to modify the rest. He cherry picks language that specifically refers to other parts of M to make claims that go much more broadly to parts of the Plan that are not in M.

Ms Hendrickson wants us to believe that the Plan was a compromise, but since most detailed rules weren't discussed at all, there was no compromise to be had. What she should focus on is that the Plan was supposed to implement that community's Vision, which was discussed in workshops. Never ever was the possibility of massive office buildings discussed, so there could not have been compromise. The city consultants and staff insisted there was no market for office, and that the plan's balance of uses was what would happen. When it became clear they were wrong and developers were proposing things never discussed, causing huge imbalances of uses, nothing got changed. In my book, that is not at all compromise. It's a council being lazy, incompetent or caring more about what developers want than what the residents want.

Projects continue to move forward under the Plan. That's the reality.

Where to start with some many false statements.

"It has been getting its public airing during the signature gathering process and since then" Once the first signature was obtained NO changes could be made in the proposed initiative so any input was ignored.

"The city attorney reviewed it before signature gathering began" The city attorney did NOT review it for content and accuracy but only for conformity with the rules governing initiatives.

"and the public also had a chance then for issues to be raised." That NEVER happened.

""Mr. Carpenter continues to make claims that further his theories but it simply is false that all changes made to the Specific Plan require a vote." Sec 3 contains TEN definitions and other standards which are each "hereby adopted by the voters" and per Section 4 "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."

Why doesn't anybody supporting Measure M EVER post language from the initiative that supports their position - because they are wrong.

Read which organizations and individuals have endorsed No on M:

Web Link

Read the many thoughtful letters and opinion pieces on No on M:

Web Link

Reality Check is right on target.

The No faction (many of whom believe, rightly or not, that they will get a chunk of the windfall profits) keep pointing to "years of process."

Yes, there were many meetings. I attended quite a few. I did the walking tours of El Camino as residents discussed what they did and did not like. Likes: Borrone/Keplers (serve residents, big broad plazas). Dislikes: big blocky office buildings.

No one in any of those sessions wanted office. People wanted shops, restaurants, open green space (not private balcony space).

The opponents to M are fabricating problems with it. There will not be a Walmart with or without M because the Specific Plan does not allow a big retail project! And if the council decided to amend the Plan to allow Walmart to build a store here, the citizen outcry would put a quick end to that.

Thank you for this brave piece, Martin. Can voters get past the glossy brochures? I believe they can. What's tougher for many voters is the fact that the No contingent is deliberately trying to confuse voters by borrowing the Yes on M arguments and using them as their own. Underhanded tactics backed by big money. Pathetic, but that's the reality when there's so much money at stake.

"No one in any of those sessions wanted office"

Check your facts - The Vision Plan mentions offices literally almost 100 times.

Such as "At the north end of the Plan Area, there was also interest in mixed-use development,
with the anticipation that housing and office uses would be most
successful"

"On the east side of El Camino, north of Oak Grove Avenue, new buildings
are up to 2 to 3 stories in height. Uses may include residential and,
potentially, office and retail."

"GROUP 1

-Encourage increased building height near railroad tracks and El Camino/Santa Cruz intersection
-Office and housing more appropriate in northern portion of El Camino"

"GROUP 9
-Attract mdical office uses"

etc., etc, etc.

Mr. Carpenter refers to the referudum being prepared in secret with no public input.

Isn't that why we how have a vote so as to get the public's input?

"we now have a vote so as to get the public's input?"

Exactly and Measure M is a take it all or leave it vote. And because Measure M has so many flaws, due to the lack of proper vetting and public input BEFORE it was finalized, you should LEAVE IT.

Vote No on M.

I am not drinking Patti Fry's and Mike Lanza's Kool Aid.

[Post removed.]

1,000 points and thumbs up to Martin Lamarque. VOTE YES ON M.

[portion removed.]

CONCLUSION: Vote YES on M.

Hey Martin Lamarque------ This council doesn't seem to want to help our city. It's not proper for a money hungry developer to sink money into deceptive advertising.

Yes on M is the only way to partially correct the menlo councils mistakes.

How low will the Measure M supporters go?

They will lie, cheat and steal - just as they have attempted to steal my name.

I did NOT make the posting above that claimed to be by P. Carpenter.

Their whole campaign is based on these kinds of lies.

Vote No on Measure M.

Lord asks - "How long as this Peter Carpenter been on Stanford and Greenheart's payroll?????"

The last time I received any income from Stanford was Aug 1976 - over 37 YEARS ago.

I have never received a penny from Greenheart.

My commitment to the community is based on service - I have even declined ANY income or benefits from my service as an elected Fire Board Director.

What about you, self appointed LORD? Who pays you, what have you done for our community?

If you read the actual Specific Plan you will see that multi-use zones exist in several places on El Camino and multi-use is residential, office and retail. Simply read Chapter E - Land Usage And Character. ( Web Link ) Also, offices are mentioned throughout the document.

I agree that there is no mention of "massive office buildings" but more importantly they are not permitted. I do not believe Greenheart has proposed any and Stanford has not submited a project redesign for over a year since the last one was rejected for architectural reasons. Instead, it has been waiting for MP to decide on Measure M.

Several years ago we were in a deep recession and absolutely no one predicted when the office market would rebound. So there likely was less concern about office buildings. Now that there is a boomin buildings and traffic, the city council is dealing with it. Examples: considering an amenment to limit medical office. Instructed Stanford to scale down its expectation due to traffic considerations. That shows our ability to adjust to changing circumastances.

Finally, the Specific Plan reflects a hugh amount of compromises. You simply do not like all the outcomes and that's fine. But to suggest that anyone was misled is in itself misleading, including yourself.

People resort to personal attacks when they lack the important facts and persuasive arguments needed to back their positions. It is a clear sign of personal weakness, and anonymity emboldens their incivility. Those who attack Peter rarely put a real name alongside their crude remarks. So they are not only boorish but also cowards. It's that simple.

Dear Readers.

Whether you are in favor of Measure M, or against it, I want to ask you to please keep the debate at a level of civility that respects everyone's opinions.

Insulting those who disagree with us has never been an intelligent way to gain people over to our camp.

This is not the first time that Mr. Carpenter and I disagree on the issues. But he has never been insulting towards me. He is always very well informed and willing to invest time in explaining things in a respectful manner. For these reasons, I have a lot of respect for him.

You might notice that I removed the allusion to an Atherton resident from this post.
One of the conditions to being a blogger is that one has to think very careful before expressing views, as not to be forced to remove material deemed inappropriate, and in the process embarrass oneself, or offend others. That reference I just removed seemed valid at the time, but given the attacks that have started to appear here, it now seems uncalled for.

I will appreciate it if those who visit my blog refrain from using it to launch personal attacks. Let's stick to the issues.

Thank you.

FACT: Measure M will be voted on by every registered voter in Menlo Park that chooses to vote.

FACT: the Specific Plan was passed by the City council. Many of whome are getting support from Greenheart in their campaign for reelection.

FACT: You can not read an atricle on the Almanac online or the printed paper without seeing huge ads against Measure M paid for by Greenheart. Hardly surprising that the Almanac supports a NO vote, they know which side their bread is buttered on.

You common sense and ignore all the scare tactics that the Measure M opponens are so full of. It has been shown again and again that they are willing to twist facts, make up facts and outright lie about Measure M.

Read Measure M yourself and make up your own mind based on what it says, not the fabrications being passed around by Greenheart, Peter Carpenter and the other opponents of Measure M who have a lot to lose if it passes.

I am afraid I lost any respect I might have had for Peter Carpenter when he chose to misquote me in his posts. He has made up facts in other posts that have been proven to be his "assumptions" or "worst case scenarios". He has proben again and again that he is willing to say anything to disparage Measure M whether it is the truth or not. You have only to read his comments above to see how he twists everything. The initiative is available for anyone to read. There have been multiple analysis of the initiative and it is going to be elected on by the voting population of Menlo Park. How can it get any more open than that?

Even his "Impact" areassumptions. Back them up with proof Peter? And clarify what Small Group you are referring to? Keep in mind that Save Menlo got a lot of signitures to get this on the ballot and in fact went over the minimum by several thousand. That does not seem small to me.

I am willing to admit that Measure M is not perfect. But it is better that having a couple monster developments on El Camino pumping rush hour traffic on to the neighborhood streets. And does anyone really think that after building our the maximum development allowed by the specific plan in the first couple years that development will stop? No, it is a safe assumption that more and more development will be allowed in the future by ammending the specific plan by the City Council.

Measure M makes sense and everyone should vote yes on m. It's foul play that the developer who profits from the massive project sinks money into advertising and pushing it onto citizens. Agree that the opponents of M use scare tactics instead of honesty and facts. When measure M passes, and everyone should hope that the vast majority of Menlo Parkians vote yes on M, then the city council has appropriate and reasonable latitude in their decisions. Measure M makes certain that if the city council stays reasonable.

No need to cry and whine about another possible election in the distant future, because if measure M fails to pass, we will all pay dearly in many ways, and pay more than the cost of any election. If measure M doesn't pass, it's because of ill-informed people and Greenheart buying votes.

Let's all be smart citizens and vote for measure M.

Thank you Martin for taking a stand. There is a deep ugliness in our country, and we are seeing that played out with the no on M campaign. I am one of those endorsements of "no consequence".

I don't know how much money Greenheart will have contributed to this campaign in the end, but I see relentless bullying here that should be telling people something about the reality of the situation.

I can certainly understand why people would not want to expose themselves to this kind of scorn, but I do hope than when they enter the voting booth, they do the right thing.

Bria sates -" when he chose to misquote me in his posts."

When I quote somebody I use their own words verbatim and in quotation marks.

Some people just don't like it when I am able to show that their words are not supported by the facts.

Bressler - " There is a deep ugliness in our country, and we are seeing that played out with the no on M campaign."

Elizabeth Houck from Allied Arts 28m ago
"Measure M fixes a couple of loopholes (open space,) and keeps the Specific Plan in check. There is no blight conspiracy, no obstructionist agenda, we just want to make sure the development is in keeping with the SP and the neighborhoods who will be impacted by it. It's just that simple, don't turn it into an evil conspiracy. Now the no on m group is simply evil. Who fights quality of life? Those who profit from it."

These people need to look in the mirror.

DH - maybe your definition of large offices is different than mine, but I think 60 ft tall, block-long buildings are large.

If you look at the Schwab building near BevMo on El Camino, consider that it is 40,000 sq ft. Stanford and Greenheart offices are 5 times that - each. That's not counting the other parts of their projects.

Reality Check:

1. I am not aware of any developer who is planning to build a a 60 foot block-long building on ERC- neither Stanford nor Greenheart.
2. Note The Specific Plan allows a 38 foot facade and additional stories must EACH be setback. Also, the building must have large setbacks from ECR.

Reality Check said the Schwab building near BevMo on El Camino is 40,000 sq ft., and Stanford and Greenheart offices are FIVE times that - each, not counting the other parts of their projects. Massively terrible! El Camino cannot handle this traffic.

OMG!! Everyone please vote YES ON M.

My friends in Sunnyvale and Redwood City really dislike the newer abusively large buildings. We need to vote a big YES on M. We cannot trust any city council member to represent the best interests of the neighborhood. They make too many mistakes and can be purchased. Yes on M please.

J Campbell:

our city council members can be "purchased?"

Your statement is a perfect example of the ugly LIES with which savemenlo and M supporters use to push their agenda.

They tell these lies because none of them can provide any facts to back up their assertions.

Measure M is a HUGE MISTAKE

Vote NO on M

Well Mr. Menlo Voter, you prove that the city council conduct and votes have not been purchased, directly or indirectly. You cannot and will not.

Measure M is Mandatory. Vote a big YES on M.

Let's do what the majority of Menlo citizens want to do, not just a small city council with conflicts of interest.

Vote yes on M.

"Let's do what the majority of Menlo citizens want to do'

That exactly what happened with the unanimous approval of the Specific Plan by the entire City Council after 6 years of work by Menlo Park citizens.

Now a small group wants a redo.

Their self centered redo is poorly written, unvetted and will have unfold and unknown negative consequences.

Measure M is a Mistake.

Vote NO on M

Carpenter posted a silly inane comment and conclusion. Just read this from Peter Carpenter: "That exactly what happened with the unanimous approval of the Specific Plan by the entire City Council after 6 years of work by Menlo Park citizens."

Absolutely ridiculous that Carpenter or anyone thinks that a very small city council can represent what the majority of citizens want ! Carpenter must be joking.

That's why it's imperative that everyone vote in the upcoming election. But do the right and proper thing, VOTE YES YES YES ON M.

You put this Peter Carpenter out of his Atherton home and plop him anywhere near El Camino Real in Menlo Park and he will plead and beg for everyone to vote YES on M.

"Absolutely ridiculous that Carpenter or anyone thinks that a very small city council can represent what the majority of citizens want ! Carpenter must be joking."

No, I believe in and participate in represented government both as a citizen and as an elected official.

The sad joke is that some people want to overthrown representative government without giving a thought to what they would replace it with. How many citizens are willing to spend hours every week deciding community wide issues? How many citizens are prepared to let a self selected and hand picked minority decide those issues for them?

Measure M is an attack on good governance without a thought of the damage it would do - and why should they care? Menlo Park residents did not write Measure M and none of then are prepared to accept personal accountability for its impacts.

Peter:

No one that I know of, or heard from, is trying to overthrow representative government.

Sounds like those you disagree with just felt City Council hasn't been responsive to their concerns. Wrong or not, drawing up this Measure was the only option they saw.

Living on the East Side, I can tell you I wish we had that level of participation. If we did, getting to and out of Belle Haven during rush hour would not be the trying expedition it has become.
I have nightmares about what traffic will be like if God forbid they allow them build that monster development at the corner of Marsh and Frontage Roads.

If voters think that Council has let them down, they also will have a chance to vote for some pretty intelligent candidates running this time.

Isn't it what democracy is supposed to be?

Martin L - This is exactly what Martin Goodfellow posted:

"Absolutely ridiculous that Carpenter or anyone thinks that a very small city council can represent what the majority of citizens want ! "

Martin L also states - "If voters think that Council has let them down, they also will have a chance to vote for some pretty intelligent candidates running this time.

Isn't it what democracy is supposed to be?"

Yes, but clearly Martin G does not agree with either you or me.

DH - the Stanford project is proposed to be 60' tall (not counting rooftop mechanicals), and look at these graphics from their plans.
Web Link
The buildings look like they are a block long to me.

Measure M helps ensure there won't be as many large buildings that are dead spaces in the evening and weekends and that are filled with office commuters who worsen rush hour gridlock.

Please -Reality is using the rejected Jan 2013 plans and he ignores the requirements in the Specific Plan for Building breaks:
E.3.4.1.06 In the ECR-SE zoning district, and consistent with
Table E4 the building breaks shall:
 Comply with Figure E9;
 Be a minimum of 60 feet in width, except where noted on
Figure E9;
 Be a minimum of 120 feet in width at Middle Avenue;
 Align with intersecting streets, except for the area
between Roble Avenue and Middle Avenue;
 Be provided at least every 350 feet in the area
between Roble Avenue and Middle Avenue; where
properties under different ownership coincide with this
measurement, the standard side setbacks (10 to 25 feet Extend through the entire building height and depth at Live
Oak Avenue, Roble Avenue, Middle Avenue, Partridge
Avenue and Harvard Avenue; and
 Include two publicly-accessible building breaks at Middle
Avenue and Roble Avenue.

Facts are important.

I hope that measure M passes and controls these projects. Our family never got even one notice of any specific plan. We never had the chance to give input on the train wreck of a project soon to explode on over crowded El Camino. We want our voices heard, so vote in favor of measure M.

RC:

1. The Stanford design you referred to was rejected by our city council for architectural reasons at least a year ago.
2. The total space/usage mix was rejected earlier this month because the worst case traffic impact was considered unacceptable.
3. Therefore, there is NO current Stanford design.
4. Stanford is expected to resubmit a new design after Measure M is settled.

So your reference to 60 ft block-long buildings is soley an abstarction apparently designed to scare voters.

Why make such a claim?

"Our family never got even one notice of any specific plan. We never had the chance to give input on the train wreck of a project soon to explode on over crowded El Camino."

Finally someone who admits that they slept through the well publicized and totally public Visioning and Specific Plan process and now want a Rip Von Winkle redo.

Citizenship is hard work and you can't sleep through the process.

J Campbell says: "Well Mr. Menlo Voter, you prove that the city council conduct and votes have not been purchased, directly or indirectly. You cannot and will not."


All I can say is that unless you're an idiot you know you can't prove a negative. If you choose to believe your elected representatives are corrupt then so be it. I suggest you vote them out of office and contact the District Attorney. I think we both know you won't do the latter. You're free to do the former.

J Lilienthal:

if you didn't receive notice either you don't live in the city of Menlo Park or you weren't paying attention. The DSP process was WELL publicized through frequent mailers.

What will be done to control the traffic overload on El Camino Real with or without the benefits of Measure M? From everything I read, yes on Measure M is better.

" From everything I read, yes on Measure M is better."

Then you have not read the independent Wise Report:
""Conclusion: Passage of the Ballot Measure potentially could impact traffic. However,
the Ballot Measure would not uniquely create more additional trips than the ECR/D
Specific Plan Baseline scenario. Although, in that the Ballot Measure would preclude
net new office build-out in excess of 240,820 square feet, the Ballot Measure would
8 See Table 2 in Appendix 4 for a break down of trip generation per use.
preclude some traffic scenarios that could entail fewer trips than the ECR/D Specific
Plan Base scenario (because office uses produce lower trip generation rates than other
uses such as retail, but more than uses such as hotels.)"

Tired of all the confusion - here are all the reports and all of the endorsements:

Web Link

Web Link

Be informed, think carefully and then you will Vote No on M.

That Wise Report is NOT independent because the city of Menlo Park paid for it. That office space could include medical, so the conclusion is unwarranted. Reports are often wrong and are guesses and vague. Let's do the wise thing and vote for M.

Thank you, Carpenter.

I'm informed, I think carefully and critically, and I'm voting "yes" on M.

Hopefully J. Hague, who lives in Atherton, will not vote on M as he is not eligible to vote on M.

Mr Steenbaugh:

The office space cannot contain medical offices, at least if M doesn't pass. The city negotiated medical office OUT of the Stanford plan. If measure M passes medical offices are likely. Medical offices are high traffic generators.

Measure M is a Mistake

Vote NO on M

"That Wise Report is NOT independent because the city of Menlo Park paid for it."

Amazing - after all the public effort to select a consultant who had ZERO connections to any of the actors now the Measure M proponents claim the Wise report was not independent because Wise actually got paid for her work!

Did Save Menlo pay to have its own independent analysis done - NO

Did Save Menlo do any analysis of the impact of Measure M - NO

How Menlo Park voters vote on Measure M - NO

Peter, I'm indeed eligible to vote on measures in Menlo Park, so you can bet I will vote yes on measure M. When I posted above I was in the Atherton neighborhood so that location was listed.

I'm delighted to vote yes on M. Agree with others above------ Peter should move to Menlo Park near El Camino Real, then his thoughts will have credibility.

"That it is not a secret that Greenheart is trying to buy this election, and some people still act as if that is just a fine part of doing business here."

Well-stated. Greenheart is not only trying to buy the election, they are buying it. Let's just hope that their purchase results in "Measure M" winning.

J Hague:

I live in Menlo Park near El Camino as it happens and I happen to agree with and echo Peter's concerns regarding Measure M. Measure M is a huge mistake. Don't believe me? Pass it and wait and see.

Vote NO on M

Hey Menlo Voter


I live in Menlo Park near El Camino and firmly disagree with Peter's untenable position regarding Measure M. Measure M is a great idea. Don't believe me? Let's see if Measure M does not pass, and you'll see the big mistake.

Vote YES on M.

If measure M doesn't pass, let's all pay for Peter Carpenter to move to El Camino Real.

Bob - it would help if you would just pick one specific issue and section of Measure M on which we disagree.

You have not made a single substantive comment in this entire thread.

Just saying NO, NO, NO is not very constructive.

Bob:

Measure M freezes planning forever. Do you think this is a good idea? Are you ok with the ongoing blight on ECR? OR given the constraints of M and the logical outcome, medical offices which generate tons of traffic, which would you prefer?

Menlo Voter, are you okay?

Freezing planning forever? You are kidding. You are joking.

Measure M does not freeze planning forever. Measure M eliminates blight on El Camino Real. Measure M controls the usage to minimize traffic impact. Measure M allows the appropriate latitude to the Menlo City Council. This November we can also hopefully improve the current defects in the Council so that better decisions are made in the future.

We all need to vote yes on M.

"Measure M eliminates blight on El Camino Real." Wrong

"Measure M controls the usage to minimize traffic impact". Wrong

"Measure M allows the appropriate latitude to the Menlo City Council." Wrong

"Measure M eliminates blight on El Camino Real." Correct! Right on!

"Measure M controls the usage to minimize traffic impact." Yes! Correct.

"Measure M allows the appropriate latitude to the Menlo City Council." Absolutely correct.

Three correct statements.

Vote yes yes yes on M.

"Measure M does not freeze planning forever."

You better start reading the actual language in Measure M:

"4.1.
NO AMENDMENTS OR REPEAL WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.
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. The entire text of the proposed definition or standard to be repealed, or the amendment proposed to any such definition or standard, shall be included in the sample ballot materials mailed to registered voters prior to any such election.
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. "

""Measure M controls the usage to minimize traffic impact."

You should start reading the Wise Report:
"Conclusion: Passage of the Ballot Measure potentially could impact traffic. However,
the Ballot Measure would not uniquely create more additional trips than the ECR/D
Specific Plan Baseline scenario. Although, in that the Ballot Measure would preclude
net new office build-out in excess of 240,820 square feet, the Ballot Measure would
preclude some traffic scenarios that could entail fewer trips than the ECR/D Specific
Plan Base scenario (because office uses produce lower trip generation rates than other
uses such as retail, but more than uses such as hotels.)"

""Measure M allows the appropriate latitude to the Menlo City Council."

You should read the language of Measure M:

"4.1.
NO AMENDMENTS OR REPEAL WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.
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. The entire text of the proposed definition or standard to be repealed, or the amendment proposed to any such definition or standard, shall be included in the sample ballot materials mailed to registered voters prior to any such election.
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. "

Thank you Peter Carpenter. All sounds good to vote yes on this measure M.

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?

"All sounds good to vote yes on this measure M."

I suggest an eye and ear exam.

Sure, Peter Carpenter. Go ahead and get those two exams done. I like the idea of voter representation input when we have problems. All sounds good to say yes on M.

Mary - It may 'sound good" but IF you actually read Measure M you will soon discovery that it is a horribly written proposed zoning ordinance for reasons described in detail above.

Please cite the specific language in Measure M which "sounds good".

Bob:

on what planet do you think Measure M will fix the blight on ECR?

Try reading the measure. All definitions and anything else related to the DSP require a vote to change. That pretty much freezes it forever. One only need look at the acrimony surrounding this measure to understand getting a zoning change passed by the voters will be a monumental task. A task that will place a huge burden on smaller property owners given the likely cost of $100,000 necessary to pay for said vote. What do you think that will mean in the future. Yep, no development or disconnected, disorganized developments on the Stanford property. All with separate entrances and medical offices. That will really cut down on traffic now won't it?

Measure M is a HUGE Mistake

Vote NO on M

Mary:

you do realize it costs about $100,000 to put a change to the DSP to a vote if measure M passes? Do you think that fair to the smaller property owners?

The LP Branch of the Sierra Club wholeheartedly supports Measure M and asks that everyone vote YES on Measure M. It's the right thing to do for Menlo Park and the environment.

Yes on Measure M.

"LP Branch of the Sierra Club wholeheartedly supports Measure M "

Well at last someone is being honest that this was only a chapter endorsement - thank you.

BTW - what was the recorded vote?

Yes, the important highly respected well regarded Sierra Club does want all to vote YES on M. Other chapters also endorse Measure M but there's no need to deal with more remote chapters.

Today in the mail I got a pathetic flyer from the no on m groupies. It states 'everyone" agrees m is a mistake. Total BS. Even the quotes are vague and ridiculous, such as the Post 'we don't see how masure m will improve things much'. Ha ha. Look at those qualifiers--- they don't see, and 'improve much'. So they are in essence stating it will improve things a little. Those a quote that M is 'flawed'. They forgot to state that there's a bigger flaw if m happens to not get a majority vote. Calling the ECR project a 'royal dump' is silly. With or without M it won't be a royal dump. But everything will be better (except Greenheart's wallet and Stanford's wallet) if M passes. So Vote a big YES on M.

This flyer from the developer supporters just made me more convinced that YES on measure M is essential.

"Other chapters also endorse Measure M but there's no need to deal with more remote chapters."

Please document that claim with endorsement letters from those chapters.

Peter Carpenter, you are welcome to write to each Sierra Club chapter yourself. Their addresses can be found on the Internet.

All smart people will trust the Sierra Club more than any newspaper worker who writes an editorial with or without a hidden agenda.

Yes, yes, yes - - - - vote YES on Measure M.

"Peter Carpenter, you are welcome to write to each Sierra Club chapter yourself. Their addresses can be found on the Internet."

Which translates to "No other chapter endorsed Measure M".

For example the SF Chapter did NOT endorse M:
Web Link


So typical of the Measure M supporters - ZERO documentation.

Ha ha. Carpenter you crack me up. Why would San Francisco care about Menlo Park? Note that S.F. did NOT indicate "no" on measure M. But S.F. does agree with the LP Sierra Club. LP Sierra Club only recommends YES on M, and that is unequivocal.

Sierra Club cares about our environment. Newspapers do not.

Now you can check the other Sierra Clubs for their recommendations.

So typical of the minority who will mistakingly vote no on M, you make false assertions and distort reality.

VOTE YES ON M.

@Mary de Campo

We will grant you the Sierra Club, with the tacit acknowledgement that Heyward being on it's board MIGHT have influenced the decision.....and will also note you have NO newspapers (professional journalists) endorsements. And of course one each of every commissioner (you know the Anti Development ones)......quite an interesting list of Curmudgeons if I say so myself......

In the meantime EVERY meaningful organization in the area is endorsing NO ON M, with quotes like "M is a disaster", etc.

I've listed them below my signature (it's a too LONG a list for above)

Measure M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

---------------NO ON M - Endorsements--------------

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

Hi Roy:

Your list is not impressive at all. Throughout history, many groups of people have been wrong. What's important is the great value that Measure M brings.

The Menlo City Council made a mistake, and they cannot back down. We need council members who represent the best interests of the city. The fact that M got on the ballot shows the city council is not in touch with Menlo's citizens.

Most of the people on your list are not qualified or are not adversely affected should Measure M unfortunately not prevail. Listing newspapers is a joke.

When are you and Peter moving to El Camino Real or Allied Arts ?

=============================================

Measure M is a Major Must

VOTE YES ON M

Roy T-S, here's a partial list of educated people who support and want Measure M to get a big YES (taken from the well-constructed website of savemenlo.org

These people want to save Menlo from a big disaster.




10 Formers mayors:

Gerry Andeen, Jack Morris, Gail Slocum, Steve Schmidt, Mary Jo Borak,Paul Collacchi, Chuck Kinney, Heyward Robinson, Kelly Fergusson, and Andy Cohen

Community leaders:
Vincent Bressler, Menlo Park Planning Commissioner

Lucy Calder, Housing Commission

Chirstina Smolke,Environmental Quality Commission

Bruce Ives, Former President, Menlo Park City School District Board

Patti Fry, Former Menlo Park Planning Commission Chair

Clark Kepler, President, Hometown Peninsula Independent Business Alliance

J. Michael Gullard ? Member, Downtown Specific Plan Oversight & Outreach Committee (2008-2012)

John Hickson ? Secretary, Menlo Park Live Oak Lions Club

Chuck Bernstein ? Director, Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board

Margaret Carney ? Co-founder, Menlo Park Farmers Market

Carrie Du Bois, Sequoia Union High School District BoardMenlo Park Farmers Market

Lennie Roberts, Environmetal Advocate

Stuart Soffer, Former Planning Commissioner

Rhoda Alexander, Former Transportation Commissioner

Charles Bourne, Former Transportation Commissioner

John D. Fox, Former Bicycle Commission

Megan Gutelius, Former Environmental Quality Commissioner

Brielle Johnck, Former Environmental Quality Commissioner

Mary Kenney, Former Environmental Quality Commissioner

Joanne Goldberg, Former Parks and Recreation Commission

Anne Moser, Former Housing Commissioner

Don Brawner, Former Housing Commissioner

SUPPORTERS
Marcy Abramowitz, Bruce Adornato, Carol Aebi, Verle Aebi,
Kate Ague, Donald Albers, Gerardine Albers, David Alfano, Anna Alioto,
Katharine Allison, Beverly Altschuler, Elizabeth Ambuhl, Christopher
Anderson, Todd Atkins, Erika Bailey, Carolo Bain, Christopher Baldwin,
Corazon Baliton, Lynore Banchoff, Lawrence Barasch, Nancy Barnby, Don
Barnby, Linda Barnes, Lauri Battista, Andrew Becker, Michelle Becker,
Jenny Beeler, Sarina Beges, Susan Benedick, Edith Besze, David Bingham,
Corissa Binns, Beverley Bird, Elias Blawie, Dave & Cherrie Bogart,
Pamela Bonino, Richard Bonino, Nancy Borgeson, Bo Boudart, Sharon Bozzo,
Mike Brady, Julianne Brawner, Patricia Bredehoft, Valerie Brooke- Wilke,
Chris Brosnan, Dennis Brown, Kay Brown, Morris Brown, Michael Buchanan,
Neilson Buchanan, Stephen Calder, Paul Caletti, Lynne Calvarese, Bobbie
& Joe Carcione, Sandra Carter, Nicol Chaput, Michael Christy, Christine
Clarke, Michael Closson, Marian Coffey, Peter Coffey, Susan Connelly, Ed
Connolly, Kathryn Connolly, Peter Cook, Natalie Coupe, Nancy Couperus,
Nancy Cox, Mayra Cramer, Tom Cramer, Kelly Crawford, Roger Crawley, Jack
Cronin, Sharyn Crosat, Gordon Cruikshank, Carol Cunningham, Cecile
Currier, Linh Dang, Susan Danzig, Jean Davidson Lindman, Dianne De Laet,
Steven De Laet, Russell Dember, Ann Diederich, Morgan Diolaiti, Anita
Dippery, Dan Dippery, Kathleen Djordjevich, Mark Drury, Jeanne Du Prau,
Tom Dubois, Cynthia Dusel-Bacon, Jim Eakin, Mali Einen, Philip Ekedahl,
Robert Ekedahl, Donald Ellis, Jacquelynne Ellis, Anna Enerio, Bob English,
Gregory/Greg Evans, Eric Fain, Sonali Fain, Alicia Falsetto, James
Fehrle, Sally Finkle, Daniel Finlay, George Fisher, Christina Fogel,
Arthur Folker, Christine Franco, Thomas Franklin, Valerie Frederickson,
Ruben Fuentez, Honor Fullerton Stone, Nancy Fulton, Kenneth Fuson, Nino
Gaetano, Mary Gage, Elisabetta Gaiani, Laura Gallagher, Scott Gamble,
Marisa Garcia, Gregory Garlock, Jane Garratt, Jeanne Gary, Jeannine
Gauthier, David Geraghty, Debra Gerow, Mark Gerow, Brian Gilmer, Triona
Gogarty, Laurie Goldman, Paul Goldman, Timothy Goode, Yonatan Goraly,
Barbara Gray, Bill Gray, Simonne Greene, Andrew Guevara, Pamela Gullard,
Tamara Gurbis, Michael Haberecht, Roxanne Hage, Elizabeth Hagman,
Jonathan Hahn, Robert Hamilton, Julie Harris, Kevin Harris, Diane Hart,
Peter Hart, Candace Hathaway, James Healy, Kathryn Henkens- Mayall,
Debra Heredia, Robert Heredia, Scott Herscher, Kristy Holch, Donald
Holmquest, Hilary Holmquest, Neil Holtzman, Janel Hopper, Elizabeth
Houck, Sandra Huang, Jarrod Huffman, Helen Ingwersen, Kempton Izuno,
Virginia Jacobsen, Ann James, Beth Jimison, Brian Johnson, Debbi
Jones-Thomas, Marion Joseph, Veneta Kanelakos, Theo Keet, Elza Keet,
Anthony Kelly, Anne Kirkbride, Amy Klein, Dail Koehler, Melissa Kong,
Kevin Kraemer, Brian Kruzic, Alexander Kugushev, Merry Kuo, Ken Lajoie,
Michelle Lamarre, Mike Lanza, Lloyd Leanse, Kristen Leep, Eileen
Lehmann, Stephne Lencioni, Roger Levin, Annette Lewis, Peter Li, Adele
Lieberman, Robert Lindemann, Amy Linnert, Eleni Linos, Brenda Lo, Susan
Lockwood, Osnat Loewewenthal, Linda Lorenzetti, Esther Louth, Gregory
Lucas, Anne Lumsdaine, Kristi Lutge, Robert Lutge, Lorraine Macchello,
Hugh Macdonald, Paul Machado, James Madison, Caterina Maestrini, James
Magats, Shalini Magats, Shaun Maguire, Manige Maleksalehi, Lisa Maloney,
Sally Mancini, Jennifer Marsh, Beth Martin, Joanna Martin, James
Masterson, Renee Masterson, Cathy Mathews, Paula Maurano, Nathan
Mazonson, Jennifer Mazzon, Mark McBirney, Mark Mcbrast, Heidi McCusker,
Martin McDonough, Stephen Mehl, Joseph Mell, Richard Meredith, Erna
Metzger, Lynn Mickleburgh, Anne Midler, Frederick Miller, Kathleen
Miller, Kayleen Miller, Farhad Mirkhani, Barrett Moore, Karen Moore,
Mike Moore, Harry Morey, Martha Morey, Katrina Morris, Laurel Morris
Wessler, Roger Morrison, David Morton, Kevyn Allard, Michael Moskowitz,
Robert Moss, Joanna Mountain, Gwyn Murray, Charlotte Muse, Elizabeth
Nash, Holly Nash, Horace Nash, Regine Nelson, Barbara Newton, James
Newton, Mary Ngai, Manthi Nguyen, Perla Ni, Catherine Norton, Jeffrey
Norton, Patrick Norton, Timothy Norton, Annabelle Nye, Blaine Nye,
Zachary Nye, Frank O?Neill, Joan O?Neill, Allen Odian, Martha Onasch,
Margaret Osborn, Paul Osborn, Adam Ottley, Jeffrey Pallin, Neel Patel,
Carmen Pekelsma, Nicholas Pekelsma, Elizabeth Peters, Stefan Petry,
Cynthia Podesta, Paul Podesta, Sally Porter, Janet Poses, William
Prainito, Janwillem Prak, Sandra Pursell, Stephen Pursell, Priyanka
Rajagopalan, Steve Rasmussen, Rene Revueltas, Rich Reynoso, Jean Rice,
David Roise, Janet Ronstadt, Karen Salty, Pam & Oscar Salviatierra, Rhea
Sampson, Nicole Scarborough, Patricia Schank, Cindy Schlaefer, Brian
Schmitz, Susan Schneider, Kathy Schoendorf, Susan Schoenung, Marjorie
Schulz, Lauren Schwartz, Edna Scott, Stanley Scott, Lynn Segal, Joe
Seidel, Lalit Shahani, Kevin Sheehan, Dana Shields, Wendy Shindler,
Bonnie Sickinger, Michael Sickinger, Sangheeta Singh, Ann Sison, Court
Skinner, Joan Skurnick, Joan Smithline, Peg Spak, Gail Sredanovic, Tina
Stanford, Adam Stern, John Stimson, David Stone, Herbert Stone, Marjorie
Stone, Timothy Straight, Douglas Strauss, Peggy Stretch, Paul
Studemeister, Jennifer Sullivan, Brian Sutphin, Janice Sutphin, Kristin
Swanson, Janice Sweeney, Rob Swigart, William Tandler, Maria Tapia,
Mahra Teikmanis, Nancy Terry, Sara Tevis, Vera Teyravsky Goupille,
Charles Thomas, Ana Thompson, John Todd, Thomas Tranfaglia, Paula
Travers, Carl Treadwell, Victoria Tregoning, Klara Turner, Jana
Tuschman, Mark Tuschman, Terri Vaccaro, Alex Vaewsorn, Paul Vais, Victor
Valdez Jr., Edward Wagner, Nancy Wagner, Ashley Wagstaff, Rebecca
Wallace, Tim & Clare Warner, Joanne Wells, Christine Wendin, Robert
Wendin, James Wiley, Janet Willbanks, Michael Williams, Catherine
Wilson, Ross Wilson, Teddy Wilson, Tyler Wilson, Georgia Windhorst, Bill
Wohler, Jackie Wood, Jennifer Yonemitsu, Elizabeth Youngblood, Anna Zara, Cheryl
Zaslawsky, Marjorie Zimmerman, Ronald Zolezzi, and many more

Measure M changes only four specific items in the 2012 specific plan. All else is left entirely under council control. A public vote is required only for those four changes, nothing else. For proof, voters need only read the impartial summary of M in the voters' handbook, which every voter has just received in the mail. Its author is the Menlo Park city attorney.

M's four changes are:

? No single office project may exceed 100,000 square feet.

? Total net new office space may not exceed 240,820 square feet.

? Total net new commercial space may not exceed the amount stated by the council itself in the specific plan (were they not truthful?).

? A commonsense definition of open space, which excludes upper floor balconies and rooftops.

The first three items can be increased if voters approve. That is it. Confirmed in the impartial summary by the city attorney. See the voters' handbook.

Palo Alto passed such an initiative in 1965 to protect its parks. For 49 years it has done the job, neither confusing nor too restrictive, with only one contested election.

Unable to win by defending their aggressive pro-development policies, anti-M spends obscene amounts of money to deceive the voters. Voters should not be deceived.

Traffic can get much worse. If we allow development that doesn?t respect our community, how can we protect and enhance the good things about Menlo Park. I have come to love our town, my town. Let?s develop it with some heart sense and common sense.

Support Measure M.

Here are some facts the developers and their followers don't want you to know: In approving the 2012 specific plan, the City Council more than doubled the amount of allowed development along El Camino. The council gave landowners a $744 million windfall while residents get stuck with rush-hour gridlock, neighborhood cut-through traffic and no public benefits.

Protect our neighborhoods and the city we love. Vote yes on M.

Measure M has no provision that allows a Walmart in town. Its very goal is to protect the small-town character of Menlo Park. Council candidates Drew Combs, Kris Duriseti and Kelly Fergusson are challenging the incumbents and are firmly against this absurd threat.

There is nothing new in Greenheart's attempt to buy a city council. What's different now is this is the first time in the history of Menlo Park that all five of our city council members have joined a developer allowing the use of their mug shots and quotes in material that is false.

Measure M is a classic David and Goliath contest: big developer Greenheart Land Co. and even bigger Stanford on one side, pitted against ordinary Menlo Park residents who want to preserve the livability and character of their suburban town on the other.

All Measure M essentially does is limit office?not retail or housing?yet the developers are foaming at the mouth over citizens daring to suggest this bit of moderation. Apparently, nothing less than virtually unlimited high-density office parks in the narrow strip of El Camino in our downtown can satisfy them.

But residents of our city have the power stop the onslaught of multi-story office parks in our suburban community by voting Yes on M.

The vision which was supposed to guide the Specific Plan allowed for higher density in exchange for more public open space. Instead, the council-approved Specific Plan allows developers to count private rooftops and balconies as open space. Yes-on-M closes this loophole and ensures that "open space" is public space. Vote YES on M for a walkable, livable Menlo Park.

The issue is simply: What do you want Menlo Park to be and look like in years to come? Will it retain its small-town character ? as in the specific plan's original vision ? with a balanced growth of offices, shops, housing, offices and services? Or will it become a massive office park, dark at night, but filling our streets with gridlock by day.

VOTE YES ON M FOR THE GOOD OF MENLO PARK AND OUR CHILDREN

Thank you for reading. Oh, did I say YES ON M !!

"All Measure M essentially does is limit office"

Clearly this poster has not even read Measure M.

Measure M defines and freezes forever TEN different definitions and THREE additional standards:

Section 4 ," 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."

Ignorance is a very poor way to decide how to use the precious right of voting.

THIS SOUNDS FINE !! Especially because the present city council is not adequate.


Measure M defines and freezes forever TEN different definitions and THREE additional standards:

Section 4 ," 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."



YES ON M.

Mary:

spoken like a true obstructionist. I hope you don't get your wish.

@mary de campo,

good luck with that.....

I have already voted. let's see how our fellow citizens feel about Measure M on wednesday morning?

Roy

It's not a matter of luck. It's just that winning with Measure M is the lesser of two evils.

If measure M doesn't not win, then all you Atherton people move your residences to El Camino Real, Central Menlo, and Allied Arts. Then you will put Measure M on the next election ballot.

"then all you Atherton people move your residences to El Camino Real, Central Menlo, and Allied Arts"

I will do exactly that when Morris Brown sells me his house at its appraised value.

To be very clear:

I will do exactly that when Morris Brown sells me his house at its TAX appraised value.

Move now to Allied Arts in Menlo, Mr. Carpenter, so you can enjoy and share in the traffic nightmare you are supporting by declining to vote yes on Measure M.

Better yet, let's have these four Greenheart/Stanford projects built near you in Lindenwood ? Then we'll hear you yelling for Measure M through Z!!!!

Mary - I am "not declining to vote Yes on Measure M" because I am not eligible to vote on Measure M.

I am however doing my best to ensure that Menlo Park voters are well informed about the shortcomings of Measure before they decide how to cast their vote.

Yes, Peter Carpenter. I've read your words and you have informed me, and that helps to understand why YES on M is important. Thank you.

Whatever happens, please do move to Allied Arts or El Camino Real so you enjoy the traffic jams, car accidents, pedestrian threats.

Mary - As long as you were fully informed before you cast your vote I respect your decision.

Fully informed? I've spent more time this year looking at the + and - of this M thing than with my family, so I better be fully informed. But being informed and around El Camino Real means yes yes yes yes on M.

Absolute worst case scenario, M gets modified by a future election. Today it took 18.5 minutes to go from Palo Alto to Atherton driving on El Camino!! Yes on M.

"Today it took 18.5 minutes to go from Palo Alto to Atherton driving on El Camino!!"

And just where do you think that traffic is coming from Mary? That's right development to the north and south. Combine that with the fact we stupidly reduce ECR from 6 to 4 lanes through our city and you have the perfect scenario for bad traffic. The traffic isn't going away and Measure M won't make it go away.

Measure M is a HUGE Mistake

Menlo Voter, you do have a problem with comprehension. Just because there is heavy traffic passing through Menlo Park is NOT a reason to produce four massive uncontrolled buildings to add excessively to the flow through traffic.

YES ON M is MANDATORY to help control the to and go traffic from these Greenheart and Stanford projects, and Measure M has other benefits.

VOTE YES YES YES ON MEASURE M. Without Measure M, we will have a huge mistake?. four or more huge mistakes.

From The Almanac - Web Link


From The Almanac - Web Link


Re Measure M: I am a retired land use attorney who has worked in this area since the 1960s. I have worked with several land use initiatives.

The anti-M claim that M is confusing and too restrictive is dishonest. It is neither.

In truth M changes only four specific items in the 2012 specific plan. All else is left entirely under council control. A public vote is required only for those four changes, nothing else. For proof, voters need only read the impartial summary of M in the voters' handbook, which every voter has just received in the mail. Its author is the Menlo Park city attorney.

M's four changes are:

? No single office project may exceed 100,000 square feet.
? Total net new office space may not exceed 240,820 square feet.
? Total net new commercial space may not exceed the amount stated by the council itself in the specific plan (were they not truthful?).
? A commonsense definition of open space, which excludes upper floor balconies and rooftops.

The first three items can be increased if voters approve.
That is it. Confirmed in the impartial summary by the city attorney. See the voters' handbook.

Palo Alto passed such an initiative in 1965 to protect its parks. For 49 years it has done the job, neither confusing nor too restrictive, with only one contested election.
Unable to win by defending their aggressive pro-development policies, anti-M spends obscene amounts of money to deceive the voters. Voters should not be deceived.

OMG! Peter Carpenter will be upset to learn the truth that Measure M is beneficial. Found this piece below on the Almanac's website. What part of this is not true?????

===========================


Re Measure M: I am a retired land use attorney who has worked in this area since the 1960s. I have worked with several land use initiatives.

The anti-M claim that M is confusing and too restrictive is dishonest. It is neither.

In truth M changes only four specific items in the 2012 specific plan. All else is left entirely under council control. A public vote is required only for those four changes, nothing else. For proof, voters need only read the impartial summary of M in the voters' handbook, which every voter has just received in the mail. Its author is the Menlo Park city attorney.

M's four changes are:

? No single office project may exceed 100,000 square feet.
? Total net new office space may not exceed 240,820 square feet.
? Total net new commercial space may not exceed the amount stated by the council itself in the specific plan (were they not truthful?).
? A commonsense definition of open space, which excludes upper floor balconies and rooftops.

The first three items can be increased if voters approve.
That is it. Confirmed in the impartial summary by the city attorney. See the voters' handbook.

Palo Alto passed such an initiative in 1965 to protect its parks. For 49 years it has done the job, neither confusing nor too restrictive, with only one contested election.
Unable to win by defending their aggressive pro-development policies, anti-M spends obscene amounts of money to deceive the voters. Voters should not be deceived.

Ooops. Sorry. It already was put here. Sorry for the boo-boo of repeating. Going out to party now. C U tomorrow.

Interested readers should note that the Impartial Analysis (which is legally limited to 500 words) OMITS any mention of the following sections of Measure M:

Sec 3.1 defines the Specific Plan Area as the 15 July 2008 Vision Plan Map which includes all of the parcels shown on that map and is "hereby adopted by the voters".

3.2 .1 amends the Specific Plan definition of open space map and the amended language is "hereby adopted by the voters".

3.2.2 adopts the Specific Plan definition of private open space and is "hereby adopted by the voters".

3.2.3 adopts the Specific Plan definition of common outdoor open space and is "hereby adopted by the voters".

3.2.4 adopts a Specific Plan standard regarding open space requirements and is "hereby adopted by the voters."

3.2.6 amends a revised Specific Plan standard re qualifying open space and the amended language is "hereby adopted by the voters".

3.3.1 A Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

Plus the four items listed above by"land lawyer"

and a priority clause:
PRIORITY.
After this measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Menlo Park which are inferior to the Planning Policy Documents and in conflict with any provisions of this measure.

To say Measure M only covers four things is simply false. And a false statement on a zoming ordinance by a "land lawyer" who knows better is a lie.

On that save menlo park website I found this disturbing news. Hope this web site link works

Web Link

This certainly makes my vote to yes on M.

Heyward has found some emails which raise questions about what Malcom Smith may have, or may not have, done for the City.

The definitive answer will come from seeing his contract, if there is one. There may be no contract. There may be a contract for perfectly legal and appropriate services. We don't yet know.

The Mayor has already asked the City Manager "to prepare a full accounting of the City's dealings with Mr. Smith."

Allegations are just that allegations.

In politics this is called the October Surprise Maneuver - this one came just one day late.

Should I believe that you committed a crime just because someone said that you did?

Let's get the facts first before naming the guilty parties.

?A fundamental precept of this nation?s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ?take sides? in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country?s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....?
California Supreme Court, Stanson v. Mott, 1976


Appears that Menlo Park didn't follow this ruling and Menlo took sides.


Recently released email records indicates that Menlo Park likely hired a consultant to coordinate a PR campaign against Measure M.

His scope of work includes


? Developing key messages against Measure M and countering positive messages that favor Measure M
? Ghostwriting letters to the editor and op-eds
? Fostering ?friendlies? to speak at Council meetings and post on Nextdoor and other social media sites
? Developing talking points for Council members and ?friendlies?
? Cultivating personal contacts at newspapers to achieve positive editorials
? Preparing Council members and staff for ?editorial board meetings, one-on-one reporter meetings, and Chamber/school district presentations
? Creation of an ?informational/educational? web page on the Initiative
? The campaign may have begun as early as March of this year
? The campaign has been secret from the public until now

The City has yet to respond to questions about the campaign

For More info go to Save Menlo:
Web Link

Consultants proposal is here at: Web Link
Excerpts from the proposal are on the reverse side

Bet the City Council is trying to cover up their mistakes and poor negotiating skills by encouraging measure m to not pass.

Now it's even more important to VOTE YES ON M

Lots of new info here.

Peter, that impartial analysis even with your small additions seems fine. Good, Peter, I like that 'Priority Clause'. That will make things clear and reduce conflicting rules and regulations. The voter's booklet sure seems to favor yes on M. That consultant thing puts our council in a bad light.

I really like the position the yes on M folks have at this website ------> Web Link

Off to play tennis.

"The voter's booklet sure seems to favor yes on M. "

Then that would make it a biased statement - why hasn't Save Menlo protested that?

land use attorney:

over here trying to spread your lies too huh?

Mary:

Measure M is ill advised, poorly written and will do nothing to decrease the traffic on ECR. Opening up two more lanes on ECR would do far more to reduce traffic than M will ever do. Read the Wise report, not the cliff notes version land use wants you to read. It's far more complicated than the cliff notes version.

Mary:

you like what's on yes on m's website. Have you looked at the NO on M website?

yes on M for sure:

if I see you speeding down the street that gives the appearance that you speed all of the time doesn't it. Appearances are just that, appearances. They're not evidence. Would you like to be convicted of something simply because you "appear" to be guilty?

The fact is we don't know if anyone has done anything wrong. Let's not convict them until we do. Let's especially not cut off our noses to spite our faces and pass a terrible measure just because of appearances.

Having read all the materials and all the messages above, the clear-cut conclusion is a big YES on Measure M.

The people of Menlo Park need to be heard, and Menlo Park City Council, as presently constituted, is not listening to the citizens. There is some behind the scenes suspicious activity. Good idea to set limits on those projects, and a good idea to have a vote in the event the council oversteps the set limits.

Everyone, get together and vote yes on Measure M. Measure M is mandatory for Menlo.

Vote YES on M.

Measure M re-adopts definitions in the plan so it's clear what M counts towards its limits. There have been good postings about why the definitions are used as guidelines by city staff when they administer the plan (and M). New types of development/businesses do not need to go to a vote; staff has a defined process about how to decide what category (office? non-residential?) new types fall within.

If the issue is about the boundary - it's also in M to define where M's provisions apply. M can still count within the defined boundary whether parcels get rezoned.

Initiatives enact only what they expressly enact. Some of the posters are conjuring up worst case scenarios that a wise council can manage if they give themselves the tools to do so (e.g., to negotiate a project the size of Stanford's, which they cannot now do with any significant leverage). M doesn't take away their ability to do that.

What Yes on M does is ensure that office space doesn't crowd out other types of space that the Specific Plan predicted for 30-year life of the plan. The plan's mix provides a healthy balance that provides a very healthy financial return to the city and supports the residential character of our small town. Findings in the city's consultant study of Measure M this summer confirmed that the financial returns from the plan's mix - not what is happening with these projects with far more office than predicted - is the most financially beneficial.

So it is Mandatory to Menlo Park to vote YES ON M.

Hope all of you are now aware of the Malcolm Smith issue and Menlo Park's big conflict of interest. There was a good front page article in the Daily Post. Five thousand dollars paid by Menlo Park, and it is believed it was constructed/published to dissuade you Menlo Park taxpayers from voting in favor of Measure M. The city and its hired contractors have an obligation to be neutral. If Measure M fails to pass, it is likely litigation will be initiated.

Upon review of the Measure M text, the Voter's Guide, and posts in these forums, my strong recommendation is Yes on Measure M.

"Menlo Voter" posts (erroneously) """"Measure M is ill advised, poorly written and will do nothing to decrease the traffic on ECR. Opening up two more lanes on ECR would do far more to reduce traffic than M will ever do"""""

Ah, Menlo Voter is so wrong. Measure M could be improved, but it is not poorly-written. As for reducing traffic, Measure M WILL indeed help reduce ECR traffic. As for opening two more lanes on ECR, that can also be done while Measure M is helping all of us.

Hi Mr. Menlo Voter------ you asked if I saw your website. Yep. Saw it many times. To be honest, I didn't like your website. I do web design in raw HTML and your website was not easy on the eyes. In addition, several things were in conflict with common sense and two experts I know in traffic.

Hope you're not offended but tomorrow I'm voting yes on Measure M.