Thank goodness our current council is able to have respectful meeting. I don't know if anyone will ever bother to look an any of these extra documents that have been requested, but the voters will remember council members that understand how to follow the rules of order.

The Council should have the city attorney include language related to the city's purchasing policy to include disclosing to the public the list of consultants, temps and interns that have been hired in the year leading up to the new policy. How much money has been spent already? and how many new staff are about to be hired in a hurry before the new policy is enacted?

It's long overdue that city staff be held to a higher level of accountability. I applaud the Council's position requiring more communication and visibility to both planned and unplanned spending. Good article.

It is very unfortunate to hear the council is finally starting to actual manage the city staff, but better late than never & I commend the council for doing its job.
I doubt however that the bigger job of changing the culture of the city staff is complete. Being transparent is not the culture, thinking twice about how they spend taxpayers $$ is not the culture. They have been called out before on retreats & other no transparent spending, but haven't changed. I remain skeptical that bring direct & changing the rules to be transparent will he enough.
The rules need to spell out the consequences of failing to follow them & the council must show they are willing to act decisively & swiftly when the city staff do not comply.
It is encouraging that we have people like Erin watching & reporting.

How about being transparent about why the traffic cameras? It's just the money, folks. Let's be transparent and admit that.

I know, I know. Well, if you don't break the law, then there's no issue, right? Think about how many times you go through those intersections. It is honestly a matter of time, if you go through them enough, till you get your $490 request to fund the city (even though the city only gets a portion, most goes elsewhere in the state).

The original idea was to stop "T-bone" tickets. But a lot of the $ comes from turns, not straight-ons as much. So much for that transparent safety angle. Web Link (you can check me on that)

The reality is that older, slower, more cautious drivers get more of the tickets. If the light is changing, just floor it. You won't get caught. Yep, that's transparently safe now isn't it?

So you want to keep going rather than risk the rear-ender? You have a split second to decide. Do you want to pay $490 now? Or live with the neck and back ache, and arthritis, for the rest of your days?

You think you can use logic to get off? No chance. The city has covered every angle. (Even though many, many other CA cities have seen the logical flaws and decided to get rid of the cameras.) The judges just go with the flow and get their share of the money (the courts are broke).

And finally, do realize that our city made it's decision to get the cameras in part based on the sales job of how great they were in Chicago. Have you read the Chicago Tribune lately? Check out this transparent story of the scandal: Web Link

Redflex does NOT sound like a company that I'd like to brag that my city was in business with!

(Sorry, slightly related to this council story but it's just a thorn that I can't get out of my side. Or pocketbook!)

When we have a city manager, a business development director and now an assistant to this fellow selling the city to developers, the people who live in Menlo Park better wake up to what's happening under their noses. If you moved here for the quiet neighborhoods, the tree-lined streets, the parks, the children's center, the safe bicycle routes, the downtown shops and restaurants, get involved and keep an eye on our council and city staff. In 5 years, Menlo Park will be very different.

There is no master plan to handle the increased traffic that will come from the hundreds of thousands of square feet of office development the council has approved. Will fire truck or ambulances get through the grid lock to reach you home if there's an emergency? It's all connected. Frustrated drivers will find your neighborhood and they will speed down your street from 4 pm to 6 pm every day, looking for a way to get to the Dumbarton Bridge or why 280.

Transparency? I don't think the council is even aware of what the city administration's true goals are. Serving on the council should be a paid job with a job description and there should be 2 more seats on our council. It's time to get serious or we will lose what our city has stood for. Pay attention. And ask why your Mayor needs to be in India when her responsibilities are right here at home.

@WakeUpCall, the city manager and business development director should be promoting the city. In five years, we hope the downtown shops and restaurants will not be struggling as they are now. Our neighborhoods will continue to be quiet, trees will continue to line the streets. The parks, children's center and safe bicycle routes aren't going away.There is a master plan (the Downtown Specific Plan) to handle the increased traffic, and the development proposed by Stanford fits within the approved traffic plan. The city's goals are formulated at a public "goal setting" meeting.

We are a general law city, so we're stuck with five council members (Web Link If Save Menlo can't get even one of their candidates elected, adding two more seats won't help.

To General Law, I am so relieved to hear that the "master plan" includes protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic that will come from the 2 million square feet of office development that the council has approved in the last 5 years but most of which has not been built. I certainly hope one of the solutions is not adding lanes to el camino real as that will create a Sunnyvale tone to the heart of our town and it doesn't touch the real traffic which is east/west as commuters seek ways to reach 101 and 280.

Are you sure about the limit of five council members under the General Law government we have?

Anyway, I will accept you assurances that I have nothing to worry about and that our city's specific plan will keep the best parts of Menlo Park just the way we as new property owners valued when we purchased our home. The cut through traffic in my neighborhood has shown me that commuters are tired of sitting on Willow Road and they are looking for alternatives. I wonder what council member Keith meant when she promised big solutions to the traffic on Willow. Perhaps you might talk to her.

Thank you for your positive outlook. Have you thought of running for council? It sounds like you are very knowledgable.

I would like to see the section of the Downtown Specific Plan where the plans to handle increased traffic are discussed. Good luck finding anything other than a few tiny mitigations.

Wake Up Call is correct.There's a lot of arm-waving vis a vis traffic. The general sentiment is that there are a lot of smart people around here, so that when traffic becomes unbearable, they will figure out solutions. Um, yeah, right, that is exactly how city planning is supposed to work!

Both the huge Stanford project and Greenheart project are undergoing their own environmental studies because the impacts from what they propose to build were NOT considered during the master plan process.
The "plan" had a great vision, and the staff and consultants stuffed in details that allow far more and far different development than any of us were led to believe. The Plan isn't working. Unfortunately, the same Council is in place -- almost none of them participated in the planning process, so they are applying their own personal values to what is happening rather than conform with the community's vision. Now they demand more transparency from staff but aren't holding anyone accountable for the egregious conduct over the past several years (the plan's details, and misuse of funds to fight M)

Both Stanford and Greenheart are both paying for comprehensive project-level environmental impact reports - that will be publicly scrutinized - because the Specific Plan requires them to do so NOT because of any type of failure. It's a common and sensible requirement cities use to evaluate and govern individual development projects. So what's the problem?

The problem is that both projects were proposed within the first two years of a 30 year plan. The potential impacts of each should easily have been anticipated, given the detailed rules. This is either incompetence or deliberate misleading.

The problem is that both projects were proposed within the first two years of a 30 year plan. The potential impacts of each should easily have been anticipated, given the detailed rules. This is either incompetence or deliberate misleading.

master:

so what? Would you build a house one room/one year at a time just fit some arbitrary timeline? Sorry, that is a tired old argument that doesn't fly. It doesn't matter whether it goes in in the first two years or the last. It's allowed by the plan. Both projects are getting EIR's and will be heavily scrutinized in a public process. Again.