Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

RE: Are flawed Staff Reports being used to hasten Commissioner deliberation or to fuel false talking points about Measure M

From: domainremoved <Paul>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:51:13 -0700

Hi Peter,


Is Measure M section 4.2 the sole basis for this opinion? Because the staff
report fails to include any written justification for the opinion, and it
fails to say who made it.


If only a "judge" can decide that then why did a Planner assert it as a
matter of fact via hearsay on behalf of an unnamed contract attorney,
without qualifying the opinion, and without citing which section of Measure
M applied to which of the three amendments, and why?


Is the "medical office" amendment the only one of the three proposed
amendments that might be "frustrating" enough to a judge to require voter
approval? That would make the Staff Report claim 33% accurate, at best.

* How does a 33,333 sf limit on "medical and dental" uses conflicts
with a 100,000 sf per project cap on office? Isn't 100,000 unambiguously
greater than 33,000? I haven't been following the new math part of the
core curriculum.
* How does eliminating "Leed Silver" as a Bonus Benefit "frustrate"
the definition of "Open Space" or limits on "Office Space?"
* How does adding text clarifying that the Burgess Plaza linkage is
not dependent on High Speed Rail effect any of these items?


To me, the claim seems clearly false on its face, and only the Medical
Office amendment could even seem credible, until you think about it a
little, and only because it uses the term "office" not because it attempts
to alter Specific Plan text readopted in Measure M.


Are you, Katherine Strehl, and consultants_at_(domainremoved)
ones fueled by the flaw, Peter? No other Planning Commissioners are
explicitly called out in your subject line. In the future, Bcc those


Paul Collacchi


"Any scientist who can't explain to an eight-year old what he is doing is a
charlatan." Felix Hoenikker, Cat's Cradle


From: PETER CARPENTER [mailto:peterfcarpenter_at_(domainremoved)
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 8:00 PM
To: Katherine Strehl; menlo park city council; pjcoll_at_(domainremoved)
Cc: steering_at_(domainremoved)
Subject: Re: Are flawed Staff Reports being used to hasten Commissioner
deliberation or to fuel false talking points about Measure M



From: Paul Collacchi < <mailto:pjcoll_at_(domainremoved)



The proposed limit on Medical Offices does not "frustrate" Measure M office
limits, and is therefore (Section 4.2) not subject to voter control.



Only a judge will be able to decide if something "frustrates" Measure M -
the staff or Council would certainly not be able to make such a decision.



Received on Sun Oct 05 2014 - 20:46:50 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)