YES on Measure M

Jen:

you need to spend some time researching the common definition used by planning bodies of what open space is. Then spend some time contemplating what will happen if those common definitions are not used and contemplate what that will result in.

I see you've been living here a long time. So have I. whoopdeedoo. Our time as residents doesn't mean diddly. Facts are what matter and you should spend some time getting up to speed on those facts before you shoot yourself in the foot by voting for measure M.

Measure M is a HUGE MISTAKE

Vote NO on M

Jen - You are confusing PUBLIC open space with PRIVATE open space. The Specific Plan wisely supported both types of open space as being important to a lively and vital community.

The Specific Plan requirements for Public open space are huge.

Measure M will diminish private open space with no increase in public open space.

I'm not confused, and I've done my homework. Your presumption on both accounts is disrespectful and inappropriate. Would be great to keep the discourse civil!

Jen - Excuse me if I challenge your understanding. Please explain what you believe is the difference between PUBLIC open space and PRIVATE open space.

See Measure M -

3.2.1. As adopted on July 12, 2012, the ECR Specific Plan’s Appendix includes the following definition of “Open Space”: “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 as defined in this glossary. It is typically located at ground level, though it includes open space atop a podium, if provided, and upper story balconies. Open space is also land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to the conservation of natural resources.” The foregoing definition is hereby amended, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read: “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, balconies, and roof decks. It is inclusive of Common Outdoor Open Space, Private Open Space and Public Open Space as defined in this glossary. Open space up to 4 feet in height associated with ground floor level development or atop a podium up to 4 feet high, if provided, shall count toward the minimum open space requirement for proposed development. Open space greater than 4 feet in height, whether associated with upper story balconies, patios or roof decks, or atop a podium, if provided, shall not count toward the minimum open space requirement for proposed development. Open space is also land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to the conservation of natural resources.”

3.2.2. As adopted on July 12, 2012, the ECR Specific Plan’s Appendix includes the following definition of “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.” The foregoing definition is hereby adopted by the voters.

I would note that the proponents of Measure M NEVER quote the actual language of Measure M perhaps because they find it to be indefensible.

The cited text from Measure M will prevent developers (and the city council)) from counting balconies and rooftops towards the minimum open space requirement.

We certainly can't walk with our kids on balconies and rooftops ;-}

Jen, did a Measure M supporter tell you that it would make private property owners open their lots up to public access? That's pretty ridiculous. I'm trying to be nice, because you seem earnest, but what are you talking about with "walk with your kids on balconies and rooftops"? The requirements in the Specific Plan, like in every modern downtown plan on the peninsula, are for the open space for the development itself... If Measure M(istake) passes, balconies probably go away, but grade-level spots at the back of the property still count. You don't get to use them. Or your kids, unless they're truants!

Thank you for trying to be nice :-) I am indeed earnest, and I appreciate your courtesy.

In short, the answer to your question is no.

Stanford Shopping center is a great example of private space that I walk through with my kids. There are lots of open walkways, fountains and garden areas at Stanford Shopping Center. That development puts open space to great use that the community can enjoy.

Jen,

I understand what the proponents of Measure M say they intended to accomplish. But I have read Measure M, and what they say they intended (preventing balconies from counting towards open space, encouraging "smart growth" and preventing gridlock) is not at all what Measure M actually does. Yes, it does change the definition of open space so that balconies don't count. But it won't change the impact on traffic, and it does nothing to encourage 'smart growth' and worst of all, it makes any unforeseen problems a lot harder to fix. The parts of the Downtown Specific Plan that are incorporated into and/or re-defined in Measure M cannot be changed in the future without another citywide vote. Even if the city wanted to make further changes to tighten the requirements on developers, the city would be unable to do that without a vote. It takes a big chunk of our zoning regulations and forces Menlo Park to do zoning by ballot measure, which is very expensive and incredibly inefficient.

Like many residents of Menlo Park, I am concerned about how the city will grow and the impacts that growth will have on traffic and schools. I believe that Measure M is not the right way to address those concerns.

Jen,

I agree with you. Everyone says "common defination" but not one ever says "common sense". Counting balconies, rooftops, etc. as "Open Space" defies common sense.

You should be aware that these boards are populated by Anti Measure M folks. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the $200,000 that greenheart has paid for the anti Measure M is going toward people on these boards skewing the arguments and jumping on anyone who shares their opinion for Measure M.

This is not the place to have an open discussion of the merits of Measure M.

Dear Tunbridge Wells, I totally take your points to heart. Measure M does not overhaul the Specific Plan and does not provide 100% assurance that the developments will fully achieve the 12 goals of the Specific Plan. Measure M does require Menlo Park voter approval of subsequent changes to the Specific Plan.

I guess I'm at peace with those points because...

1) Measure M is an incremental improvement to the Specific Plan. The revised Specific Plan will take us a few steps closer to ensuring that the developments will fully achieve the 12 goals. I'm a fan of incremental improvements.

2) I want to have a vote in subsequent changes to the Specific Plan. These developments will change the face of Menlo Park. That can be positive or negative, and we all want positive. I'm a fan of voting on issues of this magnitude.

Again, I respect where you're coming from and appreciate your perspective.

It is my understanding that...

1. Open Space and Public Space are two very different standard concepts with different definitions
2. The ope space definition used by Menlo Park is common and identical to that used by all other Peninsula cities.
3. Open Space is designed to incent open visual areas - again, NOT open public space. The objective: more attractive architectural designs. Think balconies and low raised areas between buildings which do not have public access.
4. Therefore, it seems Menlo Park's use of its definition of open space is not a sneaky "loophole" as claimed by the Measure M authors and saying so is misleading and dishonest.
5. The Stanford property has a 30% open space requirement. This is 50% higher than any other property in the downtown/El Camino Real zoning district because our city wants to encourage an attractive design on this property.
6. Before the Specifc Plan, the open space requirement was much less, I THINK less than 10%
6. One, of course can take the position that none of these facts matter.
7. And perhaps, still feel good about themselves.

I definitely couldn't.

Dear Dana,

First of all, I admire your work on Rebuild Hope (http://rebuildhope.org) to help disabled veterans. Kudos!

I agree with you that the Specific Plan has improved the outlook for open space. In collaboration with the City Council, Menlo Park residents worked hard to craft the Specific Plan and ensure that the minimum requirement for open space is high.

That said, the folks who worked so hard on that effort did not foresee that the City Council would allow developers to count balconies and rooftops as meeting the minimum open space requirement. I don't think that a rooftop or a balcony on the 2nd floor creates visual open space for a Menlo Park resident who is walking on the ground or driving on El Camino. Whether or not it's a loophole, I think it isn't in keeping with the intention of the 12 goals set out in the Specific Plan.

Respectfully,

Jen.

Measure M does not go far enough at all. It should have been written to put an immediate stop to building any more office buildings here in Menlo Park. But Measure M is the only tool I have to try to do anything to slow down this rampant development -- so I will vote for it, even though it feels to me as though all I am allowed to do is to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Dear Louise,

I am very sympathetic to your perspective. This development effort is slippery slope. Here's a specific example that I'm really concerned about: there are ~10 trees in the median on El Camino between Roble and Ravenswood that are in danger of being removed by the city as a result of these big developments.

The Traffic study of the Stanford development showed "unacceptable" levels of traffic would result for El Camino at Ravenswood. Instead of requiring Stanford and Greenheart to substantially reduce their massive office buildings, city council members are advocating ripping out the median on El Camino (including the trees) so that they can widen El Camino to six through traffic lanes (in addition to the 2 dedicated turn lanes) between Roble and Ravenswood.

I mentioned in my original post that my parents helped get the trees on El Camino planted 15 years ago. The tree is the symbol for Menlo Park, and trees are emblematic of that small town feel that we all want to preserve.

I'm hopeful that the combination of passing Measure M and getting some new faces on city council will help us turn this ship around!

Sincerely,

Jen.

" city council members are advocating ripping out the median on El Camino (including the trees) so that they can widen El Camino to six through traffic lanes (in addition to the 2 dedicated turn lanes) between Roble and Ravenswood."

What? No. The city is *studying* a number of alternatives in the El Camino Real Corridor study. The study is ongoing, no decisions have been made yet. If you think a specific council member (who? please specify) has advocated removing the median to add travel lanes, that is one of many possibilities, but it is far from a done deal at this point, and it is something I have not heard from any of our council members, and I have been paying attention to this because I live near El Camino.

There is a city website about the study here: Web Link

It's frustrating to me to see this kind of incorrect information being distributed, because people then make decisions based out of fear and mistrust.

Jen is propogated a false rumor that is designed to reinforce her beliefs. This is a perfect example of how the proponents of Measure M have no real interest in the truth and will now scream bloody Murder because they have been, once again, called on for their deception.

Wow Peter, I am dismayed by your marked disrespect for my neighbors and friends.

Let us strive to keep this debate civil. The people on both sides of the issue are fundamentally good and truth loving. In our efforts to communicate our perspectives, we need not debase each other as fellow human beings.

Jen states - " city council members are advocating ripping out the median on El Camino (including the trees) so that they can widen El Camino to six through traffic lanes (in addition to the 2 dedicated turn lanes) between Roble and Ravenswood."

Jen is called on her untruth - "No. The city is *studying* a number of alternatives in the El Camino Real Corridor study. The study is ongoing, no decisions have been made yet." And a link is provided to a source document.

Jen's tactic of posting unfounded rumors is noted - "Jen is propogated a false rumor that is designed to reinforce her beliefs. Clearly this is a perfect example of how the proponents of Measure M have no real interest in the truth and will now scream bloody Murder because they have been, once again, called on for their deception."

Jen, as predicted, replies - "I am dismayed by your marked disrespect for my neighbors and friends" - without any regard for the proven fact that she is spreading false rumors.

Any questions?

But Jen, stating that city council is advocating ripping out trees on El Camino is a false statement, and it's a smear on city council. You may not agree with them, but making those kinds of statements isn't helpful either.

It is frustrating living in the epicenter of the Save Menlo movement. I've been told point-blank that I am "pro-developer" (I'm not, I am pro good governance.) Civility is a two way street.

Peter & Tunbridge Wells,

I do not intend to spread false rumors. I do see the city council's continuing consideration of removing the median trees as advocacy. If they had eliminated that option or flagged it as being counter to Menlo Park residents' interests, my perspective would be very different.

I completely agree with you that civility is a 2-way street. It makes me sad to see neighbors accuse each other of lying and being deceitful. When people really care about an issue, they sometimes behave badly in their excitement. I pledge not to do so!

Sincerely,

Jen.

Jen, let me be clear. I have been following the study for El Camino Real, and in the proposed reconfigurations there are discussions about removing street parking to add either an additional travel lane or a bike lane. There are discussions of sidewalk improvements, changes to crosswalks, improvements for transit users. None of the proposed reconfigurations have included removing a median and the trees planted in the median. That option is not being considered and the first I heard of it was your comment this morning. So that is not something that anyone, to my knowledge, has advocated. If you have proof that someone on council advocated that, please share details.

On a more general level, consultants frequently propose changes or courses of action that are not appropriate for the community. The fact that someone, somewhere, suggested it does not mean that council is advocating for it, and it is simply unfair to say that council is advocating something simply because it hasn't specifically shot it down. There are a lot of crazy ideas city council hasn't specifically shot down because no one has asked council about them.

Jen states - "I do not intend to spread false rumors."

However Jen previously stated - " " city council members are advocating ripping out the median on El Camino (including the trees) so that they can widen El Camino to six through traffic lanes (in addition to the 2 dedicated turn lanes) between Roble and Ravenswood."

And when that statement was proven to be wrong Jen neither acknowledged that she had mistakenly spoken in or intention told a lie but rather switched her story - "I do see the city council's continuing consideration of removing the median trees as advocacy."

Jen - We accountable for what we say and the record is clear. Did you state something in error because you been misinformed or were you intentionally telling a lie?

And, for the record, the Council is obligated to consider many alternatives on any issue and their doing so is in no way advocacy of any one alternative. Would you have them only consider one alternative of an issue?

I plan on voting NO on M, and here is why:

1) The Proponents of M: My view is that SaveMenlo and its leaders are against virtually all development. I've attended council meetings and seen them in action and, rather than making rational arguments, they focused on more typical protest-type comments for Council. If they had more thoughtful ideas, there was plenty of time for them to be expressed. Nothing against the folks personally, just a view on their goals. I think watchers of their website and approach to issues would agree.

2)The Process: When I was approached three times to sign the petition (three different people), the basic pitch was a mild scare tactic (don't let us "be like Sunnyvale") and suggestions that it was fine to sign the petition since, in their view, it did not really do anything -- "just gets it on the ballot". Easy to see how lots of people hoping to get on with their day might just sign. When I asked one of the lead proponents what happens if M is voted in, he indicated that "nothing" happens, implying just that the current project can't move forward, essentially. When I demonstrated some basic knowledge about the fact that, actually, new standards get imposed, he had no further interest in discussing. Again, if there was a crisp knowledge of the facts and a passion around the benefit of the new proposal, there was plenty of time for me to hear it. The fact that a 'proposal" without public input can put MP in this position is an undesirable precedent for the governance of our town's development standards. While one rarely agrees with all elements of developments on private land, having a lengthy process with time for comment or input is critical. This is an entirely unvetted proposal that is only on the ballot because of a signature process that seemed to me to be more sales than substance.

3) Progress: While positive steps build momentum in a town, negative steps and tone defeat momentum. While I am thankful for business owners staying in and moving to MP, I think many others with capital and ideas will look at the tone from these discussions and go elsewhere. One good business encourages another and another. Increasingly empty storefronts do not inspire new investment. I believe new entrants will be rewarded, but we have to show the way. The point here is that improvements along ECR will have positive impacts on the desirability of MP for new businesses, ones useful to all residents. This does not "make us Sunnyvale", just a better Menlo Park.

4) Picking a starting point: This is hard and detailed work for any town and should not be taken lightly. The lengthy process with opportunities for public comment is what is needed and necessary. Even if some do not like the full outcome or regret that they may not have participated enough, voting for a totally unvetted measure with no public comment at all is not the right path, in my view. When the vote is done, I'd rather have a set of standards developed the right way as our go-forward point, versus those pulled together hastily to no serious discussion or review.

So, I plan on voting NO on M because I believe it is time to take steps toward real progress in our town, to send the right message to businesses to consider Menlo Park, and because the initiative itself, in my view, was not intended to be a serious attempt at a better solution. The anti-development tone and the much wider array of unknown implications of an unvetted initiative do not set the right direction for our great town.

Peter, my perspective is that the city council members are advocating ripping out the median on El Camino (including the trees) so that they can widen El Camino to six through traffic lanes (in addition to the 2 dedicated turn lanes) between Roble and Ravenswood.

I acknowledge that you disagree with my perspective and think that my perspective is misguided. I have attempted to explain to the reason for my perspective, which you also do not agree with. I'm cool with you disagreeing with me and having a different perspective from my own.

Again, let's try to keep the discourse civil. Using words like "lying" and "deception" sows discord and upsets people.

It's a shame that people can't read and understand what is in a document. When it is pointed out to them, they refuse to believe that they are wrong. When asked to document their statements, no documentation is provided. Therefore, vote NO on M.

NO ON M

SteveC, I totally understand your point about documentation. I'll see if I can dig up some documentation of the city council's discussion around the removal of the median trees on El Camino.

Regarding my original post on this thread, Peter actually posted up the specific documentation (the passages from Measure M) that will prevent rooftops and upper story balconies from being counted towards the minimum required open space -- it's the 4th message in this thread.

Cheers,

Jen.

Jen - You refuse to accept your responsibility for posting a proven false statement:
" city council members are advocating ripping out the median on El Camino (including the trees) so that they can widen El Camino to six through traffic lanes (in addition to the 2 dedicated turn lanes) between Roble and Ravenswood."

[Portion removed; please keep this discussion respectful.]

It would be helpful if measure M proponents would stop posting false information. Although it's generally pretty easy to know it's false when they can't or won't post language from their own measure or other sources which supports their contentions.

There's no documentation that the council is considering tearing out median trees yet Jen continues to claim they are. No documentation however as usual.

It would be easier to have a rational discussion about the measure and its effects if people posted actual facts backed up by documentation. People are certainly entitled to their opinions, but without facts and documentation of same they are nothing more than that, opinions.

Neither Peter.

I acknowledge that you disagree with my perspective and think that my perspective is misguided. I have attempted to explain to the reason for my perspective, which you also do not agree with. I'm cool with you disagreeing with me and having a different perspective from my own.

Again, let's try to keep the discourse civil. Using words like "lying" and "deception" sows discord and upsets people.

[Post removed; let's keep this discussion civil and respectful]

At this point I feel totally trolled Web Link

Jen/Measure M Supporter: "I'll see if I can dig up some documentation of the city council's discussion around the removal of the median trees on El Camino."

It would seem more appropriate to first "dig up some documentation" and then, and only then, take a position based on the alleged documentation, if it actually exists and supports the position you are taking.

Dear Observer,

Your point is well taken! Thank you for your respectful admonition.

Jen.

Dear All,

Looks like the minutes from the council session haven't yet been posted (Web Link I'll update this thread with the documentation of that meeting once it is available.

Jen.

"Looks like the minutes from the council session haven't yet been posted"

Exactly which council meeting and which specific agenda topic are you referring to?

The videos of ALL the council meetings have already been posted.

I'm pretty sure it's October 1st. The minutes aren't posted for that one yet. I just tried watching the video but it stalled out at 5 minutes and 59 seconds.

Here are the only two items on the 1 Oct Council agenda:

B1. Staff presentation regarding the 500 El Camino Real Traffic Analysis and Council discussion of appropriate next steps which City Council may desire to take
(Staff report #14-180)
B2. Report from Stanford Parcel Negotiation Subcommittee and Council discussion of appropriate next steps which City Council may desire to take

Neither agenda item involved ECR lane reconfiguration and hence no Council action could have been taken on that subject.

The only documentation that I can find publicly posted right now is from an Almanac article a few months ago:

During the presentation, Councilman Peter Ohtaki noted the El Camino Real intersection at Ravenswood Avenue has a reputation as a bottleneck. "Three lanes going northbound coming into Menlo Park, and then it squeezes down to two lanes," he said. "...That's what causes the brake lights and congestion."

Ms. Nagaya said that the addition of a right-turn lane on northbound El Camino at Ravenswood Avenue and another northbound through-lane is expected to decrease congestion, but until the analysis is completed, the extent of the decrease remains unknown. She added that the right-turn lane is identified as a traffic mitigation measure in the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan.

There was a thread on this article that a lot of folks commented on a few months ago.

So for me the concerning piece here is that the option of adding another through lane, effectively hosing the tree-lined median, is squarely on the table for the city council. No objections from city council at the idea were noted in the article, which to me translates into tacit advocacy of the option. I guess only time will tell...

Jen.

I found one more publicly available reference: the draft of the 2014-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (Web Link page 23, includes a +$1mm allocation for a project to add another thru lane to El Camino.

Yes Jen, that project is part of what is being studied in the El Camino Real Corridor Study I linked to above. Specifically what is proposed there is to make the existing right turn lane into a through lane and add a right turn lane **on the right side** of El Camino for cars turning from northbound El Camino onto Ravenswood.

And to be abundantly, clear, that aspect of the El Camino Real reconfiguration is not a guaranteed thing yet, it is one of many possibilities being studied.

Jen states- "So for me the concerning piece here is that the option of adding another through lane, effectively hosing the tree-lined median, is squarely on the table for the city council. No objections from city council at the idea were noted in the article, which to me translates into tacit advocacy of the option"

The third lane comes from eliminating the existing PARKING not from eliminating the TREE MEDIAN.

This whole thread is built on ignorance. The council has never suggested removing the tree median. The Measure M proponents make up rumors to suit their cause and then steadfastly refuse the acknowledge their fabrications.

Peter, the original topic of the thread is 100% validated by the publicly available text of Measure M itself.

On the topic I raised in response to another post, various people asked me to provide documentation of the El Camino Real lane expansion and to justify my perspective on the city council's advocacy of the same. I replied subsequently with some publicly accessible links and an explanation of my perspective..

To confirm indisputably that median removal in order to make sufficient space for a 3rd northbound thru lane is in play, I have emailed Nikki (.Web Link and will post her reply. My understanding is that median removal would be absolutely required to make enough space for a 3rd thru lane between Roble and Ravenswood.

Jen.

Peter, one more thing:

I'm open to hearing what you have to say and having a discussion about it, and I have very mixed feelings about engaging when the discussion gets malicious. I feel that ypur assertions around Measure M supporters as a group often fall under this heading, and I'd really appreciate it if you would take a kinder approach.

Sincerely,

Jen.

Peter Ohtaki is the leader in this effort to expand El Camino. He thinks another right turn at Ravenswood will be wonderful; he fails completely to understand what happens to the increase in traffic that will then try to flow down Ravenswood, already the worst congested route, which then passes the hugely dangerous intersection at Alma / RR and then eventually tries to flow to Alma / Willow. Ohtaki never understood this and most other issues with development.

Now Ohtaki is accepting funds and posing with the Greenheart group advocating for their project.

His biggest booster is Atherton resident Peter Carpenter, which should really be reason enough for any MP voter to not vote for Ohtaki.

Ohtaki cares nothing about the quality of life in MP, and he will certainly push for the 6 lanes on El Camino, not worrying about the loss of parking for the small shops on the west side, or cutting down and removing the median (Trees for Menlo).

Vote Yes on M

Don't vote for Ohtaki

Jen, I accept that you have acted in good faith based on misinformation provided by others. This episode underscores the importance if using source documents.

And thank you for being willing to engage in an open dialogue.

Jen, adding a turn lane does not turn ECR into a six-lane road. It opens up the turn lane only.

[Portion removed. Please keep the discussion respectful.]

We have all heard this fall assertion over and over.

I respect the fact that Jen posts in her own name and that she is willing to engage in dialogue. I would certainly not characterize her as a troll.

We should all remember that there will be a number of issues that cannot be fully known, such as ultimate traffic flows. They all make for good fodder for discussion but I think they get used as a proxy on M, most often as reasons to vote Yes, unfortunately. The future Menlo Park is going to develop in stages and through a regular process involving Council, commissions, and residents. If you want to engage, there are myriad ways to do so. We then move forward, learn, and adjust. The starting point, in my view, can only be an initiative that has been open to significant debate for an extended period -- we have a good sense of what we have and what we don't have. M, on the other hand, is little more than a rushed attempt, developed by a small handful of people, to stall progress. That really is their goal, not the long term betterment of MP. Accepting M as a vetted and thoughtful solution is simply not realistic. They have pushed it through the signature process (read my note above), which is quite a low bar, and now force this dialogue to be about sound bytes rather than true, meaningful dialogue. If they felt it was rally substantive, they would have been more prepared at council meetings and would have organized sessions to invite comment and debate. It was totally a closed door process. What is critical here is the process that invites all constituents to work together over time to move the town forward. M is the exact opposite of that approach and is the wrong way forward. I am voting NO on M.

Dear All,

Here's an update on my mini investigation of the ancillary-to-the-Measure-M-debate question of whether the city council is advocating for the addition of another northbound thru lane on El Camino that would hose the beautiful tree-lined median.

• Per my previous post, the project itself seems to be pretty well advanced since there's a +$1mm budget item in the draft Capital Improvement plan (it's on page 23 -- check it out). I was a little surprised that the project had an official budget allocation, actually. I didn't know that at the time of my initial post about the issue.

• I heard back via email from Nikki (interim transportation manager) this morning. She said that they are evaluating alternatives to taking out the median, for example eating into the sidewalk to add a new right hand turn lane onto Ravenswood from northbound El Camino. Doing that would probably entail removing some of the trees along that sidewalk -- recall that parallel parking is only on the southbound side, not the northbound side.

So that's what I've found out. I'm gonna take a little break from the Town Hall now because, as a first timer, this experience has require more time and attention than I anticipated. That said, I appreciate being able to share my perspectives and being held accountable by community members to provide clear rationale and justifications for the same.

All the best,

Jen.

Jen - Thank you for your participation in this dialogue. You have been an excellent model for others in your pursuit of the facts.