So will the City let the residents know why they now consider private balconies or rooftops to be considered "Open Space"? There is absolutely no public benefit if the Open Spaces aren't accessible to the community and Menlo Park becomes a concrete jungle. One benefit of open space is to allow the earth to breathe - covering up all the open spaces with high rises and then calling the balconies and rooftops Open Space is not in keeping with the spirit of the law. Why has the City allowed developer to completely change the meaning of Open Space in our community?

The city's current definition of open space is the one commonly used in California cities. This definition encourages buildings with balconies and roof top open spaces that are both more attractive to the observer and more attractive to the occupants. Roof top gardens are also very energy efficient and serve as CO2 absorbers.

Note the definition in question is for "open space", not for "public open space". The above poster seems to have missed this distinction.

Since facts are important , here is the explanation of open space in the Wise report:

"As Adopted in the ECR/D Specific Plan
The ECR/D Specific Plan’s glossary defines open space generally as quoted below. For
purposes of this Report, the ECR/D Specific Plan’s definition of open space is composed
of three parts—(Part 1) what form open space may take, (Part 2) where open space
may be located, and (Part 3) other open space characteristics.
“Open Space (general): [Part 1:] The portion of the building site that is
open, unobstructed and unoccupied, and otherwise preserved from
development, and used for public or private use, including plazas, parks,
walkways, landscaping, patios and balconies. It is inclusive of Common
Outdoor Open Space, Private Open Space and Public Open Space . . .
[Part 2:] It is typically located at ground level, though it includes open
space atop a podium, if provided, and upper story balconies. [Part 3:]
Open space is also land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to the
conservation of natural resources” (p. H10).
Further, as stated in Part 1 of the definition above, the ECR/D Specific Plan identifies
three subtypes of open space—common outdoor open space, private open space,
and public open space. These definitions are stated in the ECR/D Specific Plan as:
• Common Outdoor Open Space: “Usable outdoor space commonly accessible
to all residents and users of the building for the purpose of passive or active
recreation” (p. H8).
• Private Open Space: “An area connected or immediately adjacent to a
dwelling unit. The space can be a balcony, porch, ground or above grade patio
or roof deck used exclusively by the occupants of the dwelling unit and their
guests” (p. H11).
• Public Open Space: “The open space, both green space and paved civic
space, to which there is public access on a constant or regular basis, or for
designated daily periods” (p. H11)."

What Measure M does is to remove ALL incentives for Common Outdoor Open Space and Private Open Space. The result will be more sterile and less vibrant buildings.

Measure M would not be necessary if the City Council has reigned in the developers and now allowed the definition of OPEN SPACE to change - most of the public was unaware of the fine print allowing such changes sneak though.

Yes, clearly the Specific Plan adopted the changes defining Open Space in Menlo because it's a huge benefit to the DEVELOPERS to do so. The Council seems more concerned with the DEVELOPERS profits than the citizens' concerns about Open Space and other issues surrounding the massive development projects proposed by Arrillaga/Stanford and others.

Relationships between Developers and the City of Menlo Park need be monitored more closely.
Web Link

"clearly the Specific Plan adopted the changes defining Open Space in Menlo because it's a huge benefit to the DEVELOPERS to do so."

That may be your opinion but it is not supported by the review process that lead up to the adoption of the Specific Plan. The current Specific Plan definition, as explicitly noted above, includes three different types of open space with each have a separate rationale:
"• Common Outdoor Open Space: "Usable outdoor space commonly accessible
to all residents and users of the building for the purpose of passive or active
recreation" (p. H8).
• Private Open Space: "An area connected or immediately adjacent to a
dwelling unit. The space can be a balcony, porch, ground or above grade patio
or roof deck used exclusively by the occupants of the dwelling unit and their
guests" (p. H11).
• Public Open Space: "The open space, both green space and paved civic
space, to which there is public access on a constant or regular basis, or for
designated daily periods" (p. H11)."

Measure M removes Private Open Space and Common Outdoor Open Space from the definition of open space - this will result in ugly buildings with few external amenities.

Measure M is a Mistake.

If you want to maximize the total amount of open space vote NO on M.

So, "Open Space", you learn that Menlo Park's definition of open space is IDENTICAL to other Bay Area cities and you STILL think our residents were fooled, misled, manipulated by evil developers. Did you also know that the Stanford project must set aside a minmum of 30% of its site for open space rather than the 20% that is standard for the rest of our city? Still believe in conspiracies? Fact-denial is a key part of Meaure M messaging. Please do not be misled; be well-informed.

call it whatever you want, but after reading about the secret meetings a certain developer had with Palo Alto City officials, yes I do believe that there were back room deals made that were kept from the public and included items that favor the same developer, and not the citizens. The excuse that the other cities are misleading their residents on the Open Space issue is no reason to allow the same to happen in my city, which is why I support measure M. When City council is representing the developers and not responsive to residents concerns, they should expect that these types of measures are going to appear on the ballot- at least until a new City Council is voted in.

"yes I do believe that there were back room deals made that were kept from the public and included items that favor the same developer, and not the citizens. "

Do you have ANY facts to support your conclusion?

ALL of the facts regarding the Specific Plan process are clearly documented including all correspondence to the city from anyone:

El Camino Real & Downtown Specific Plan

Current Schedule/Status
(Updated September 10, 2014) The Council approvals of the Specific Plan and related actions took place in June 2012, and became effective 1 month later. The final Specific Plan is available below, and the Final EIR is available on the EIR subpage. New development proposals in the Plan area are required to adhere to the Specific Plan regulations. In addition, the city is considering implementation of public space improvements on an ongoing basis through the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process.

In fall 2013, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted the required one-year review of the Specific Plan, taking place over five meetings in September through November. The City Council ultimately directed a number of changes, including a limit on the absolute square footage of medical offices for El Camino Real parcels, and several text edits to clarify policy intentions. For more information, please see the summary of the Council's November 2013 direction. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider a recommendation on the amendments on October 6, 2014. The Planning Commission's review will be informed by the following environmental review documents:

El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan - 2014 Amendments: Negative Declaration
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan - 2014 Amendments: Initial Study
El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan - 2014 Amendments: Negative Declaration and Initial Study (signed/scanned version)
In addition, the Transportation Division is conducting a related project, the El Camino Real Corridor Study. This project will review potential transportation and safety improvements to El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Encinal Avenue.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
The project FIAs were originally released on August 16, 2011 and have informed the Planning Commission and City Council's review. The FIAs supplement fiscal analysis conducted throughout the planning process.
FIA Release Memorandum
City General Fund FIA [updated September 15, 2011]
Peer Review Memo [September 20, 2011]
Special Districts FIA
Oversight & Outreach Committee
Phase II was aided by a task force, the Specific Plan Oversight and Outreach Committee ("the Committee"), which was charged with the following primary tasks:
Provide advisory input and recommendations to the consultant and staff regarding the outreach process and concept plans (i.e. alternatives) and programs; and
Reach out to other community members and help bring them into the broader planning process through participation in the Community Workshops and other planning activities.
Committee Members & Affiliations
The following are Outreach Committee members and their affiliations:
Bicycle Commission: Bud Kohn (formerly John Fox)
Environmental Quality Commission: Douglas Scott
Housing Commission: Patty Boyle (formerly Elizabeth Lazensky)
Parks and Recreation Commission: Kristi Breisch
Planning Commission: Henry Riggs
Transportation Commission: Charlie Bourne (formerly Reginald Rice)
El Camino Real/Downtown Area Resident: Elizabeth Weiss
El Camino Real/Downtown Area Resident: Vacant (formerly Todd Temple)
El Camino Real/Downtown Area Resident: Vacant (formerly Tom Hilligoss)
At-Large: Vincent Bressler
At-Large: Charles Catalano
At-Large: Ben Eiref
At-Large: J. Michael Gullard
At-Large: Clark Kepler
Chamber of Commerce - Business Owner: Rick Ciardella
Chamber of Commerce - Property Owner: Bill Frimel
Development Community: Jeff Warmoth
Stanford University: Steve Elliott
***
And you have WHAT contrary evidence??

Stanford tried to get the open space reduced from 40% to 20% but got stopped at 30% and then counted the private balconies as public open space. Ha! Why didn't the Council just give the keys to the city to developers?

We elected these people and they didn't remember that we were counting on them to look out for our interests and they didn't remember that they also live in Menlo Park.

I don't care what other cities do. SF has a bunch of roof top "parks" that are supposed to be open to the public but, in fact, are not advertised so they are private parks. Developers need to be put on short leashes and we need a council that makes decisions as though they care about the people who voted them into office.

We need three new council members.

The Stanford ECR-SE zone has the HIGHEST open space requirement in the entire Specific Plan area and somehow so-called "false open space" claims Stanford brokered a deal.

What are these people smoking?

"What are these people smoking?"

Measure M crack

"The Stanford ECR-SE zone has the HIGHEST open space requirement in the entire Specific Plan area and somehow so-called "false open space" claims Stanford brokered a deal."

Perhaps the Stanford parcels have the largest open space requirement simply because they form the largest property slated for redevelopment within the entire DSP area, Peter, something which didn't concern Stanford when they foisted their medical office proposal on Menlo Park because private balconies would largely have met this requirement (and still will unless voters pass Measure M).

Laurel asks, "What are these people smoking?" To which Hardy responds, "Measure M crack."

Yet another helpful contribution to Peter's "thoughtful gathering place" -- you two are nothin' but class.

Gern

"Perhaps the Stanford parcels have the largest open space requirement simply because they form the largest property slated for redevelopment within the entire DSP area,"

Note that the open space requirement for ECR-SE is 30 PER CENT.

For the Gerns who do not understand what per cent means, it means that the larger the parcel the larger the amount of total sq footage must be in open space.

And to keep the facts straight there are six separate parcels in the 500 ECR project - which Measure M would encourage to be developed separately, each with its own access to ECR and each with a different design to preclude being considered as a single project. Just brilliant.

But Gern DID get one things right:
Laurel asks, "What are these people smoking?" To which Hardy responds, "Measure M crack."

Measure M is a Mistake.

M NO

" Stanford when they foisted their medical office proposal on Menlo Park"

Measure M supporters lie again - there are NO medical offices in the latest Stanford proposal. And this is thanks to the Keith/Carlton subcommittee negotiations.

But if Measure M were to pass then up to 30% of the Stanford project could once again be high traffic medical offices - just brilliant.

[Personal attack removed.]