I like Stu, the perennial almost-ran, and hope to keep hearing his views. But his sympathy for the no-growth faction has not helped Menlo Park. The Specific Plan process was much bigger than any council member - certainly bigger than the legal guidance of a city attorney - for it involved anyone who would spend an afternoon at charrette or seminar or round table across a five year span. I know, I was there for the whole darn thing. I often saw Stu there - and heard his disappointment that a no-growth view was not the dominant view of our town.

As for Measure M, its been sold as protection from excessive traffic, but it likely will lead to more; its been sold as creating open space - a joke confusing balconies with "parks"; its been sold as "balanced" when it seeks to remove the revenue producing part of the project, which will kill the underground parking, bike underpass and low-traffic tenants currently committed to. Measure M will at a minimum send El Camino back to the drawing boards for 2-3 years; it's really just a no-growth wolf pretending to "improve" the Specific Plan. Stu, you're usually more frank than imply support for that.

Stu dismisses the long, community wide, open and deliberative process that led to the Specific Plan and suggests that every project should simply be evaluated on an ad hoc process without the framework of a broad balanced plan. That is the antithesis of good planning.

Measure M resulted from neither a deliberative process nor the acknowledged and wise "issue rudder" of Bill McClure.

Under the Specific Plan the Council has been able to negotiate a revised Stanford proposal which includes no medical offices. If Measure M passes that agreement disappears.

Measure M is a Mistake.

M NO

Amid the ramblings of Stu Soffer, there is brought up the issue of the City Attorney, Bill McClure, and his being recused from the whole Specific Plan process.

McClure is an extremely competent Attorney, whose private practice is in Land Use. He would have been the perfect man for legal and other advice during the Specific Plan process. He is also a resident of Menlo Park.

However, he is part owner in an office building on Alma Street, from where he works, thus the need to recuse himself.

This has been going on for over 6 years now. McClure not only was recused from the Specific Plan but from all involvement in High Speed Rail discussions.

The point here is, Council needs a City Attorney and just bringing in replacements for McClure for these important issues is hardly satisfactory.

Council long ago, should have insisted McClure either sell his interest in the Office Building or else replace him with a City Attorney who can be fully involved in all City issues. I would hate to lose him, but in my estimation he has been personally selfish by insisting that he not divested himself of the conflict. The current situation is just not satisfactory.

In reply to A Council Watcher -- please be advised that I have no ownership or financial interest in the office building in which my office is located. Our law firm is a tenant, we pay fair market rent and I receive no financial benefit from this building. Unfortunately, the FPPC rules provide that a leasehold interest is comparable to ownership because the rent we pay, the term of our lease, or even our ability to remain in the building as a tenant could be affected by land use decisions in the immediate proximity of this building. Therefore, I am required to recuse myself in any such matters. Any attorney who has offices in MP would have similar conflict. That being said, it is the prerogative of the City Council to continue my employment/contract or not -- I serve at the will of the Council. I am happy to continue to serve as the City Attorney so long as I can add value to the City and enjoy doing so, and as long as the Council wants me to do so. Thx to Stu for his kind words about me. Regards, Bill

The City of Menlo Park has been well served by McClure and I hope that they retains his services and wisdom for a very long time.

Bill McClure has provided outstanding legal representation to Menlo Park, his integrity is above reproach.

As you know Ray Mueller also had to recused himself from the specific plan conversation up until March of 2013. the FPPC is very specific with regard to the requirement.

Again, Menlo Park is best served by Bill McClure and his vast historical perspective of Menlo Park.

Vote NO on M
M is a Mistake

Roy Thiele-Sardina

I actually had a conversation with Stu before he decided not to run. I told him that him where he stood on Measure M would probably decide his fate.

Quite frankly the momentum behind NO on M is pointing to a strong position against Council Candidates that are for Measure M. This is always helped by the likes of Kelly Fergusson being for Measure M, the number of voters who find her candidacy an issue due to her ethical issues in 2010 with regard to the Brown Act, and her No on L stance (which cost Heyward the election and Kelly two years later).

These voter referendums are MAJOR issues in a city like Menlo Park, and there are MANY people working AGAINST anyone (candidate or not) that differs with their opinion.

When we did Measure L (and Stu worked shoulder to shoulder with us) we target ALL the opponents, Kelly, Heyward, etc. This would have unfortunately put all the citizens against Measure M against Stu.

He did the right thing by sitting this out.

Vote NO on Measure M
Measure M is a Mistake

Roy Thiele-Sardina