SaveMenlo is currently conducting a public relations/political campaign to broaden its community support, ensure like-minded residents turnout in November if its Initiative is placed on a ballot, and influence upcoming elections for the Menlo Park Town Council. Political campaign messages always employ spin and SaveMenlo’s is no different. Therefore, residents should remain highly skeptical of sensational-sounding claims which often are misleading and lack factual support. Understanding the claims and reasoning behind the SaveMenlo Initiative is not easy. That is why I created this website and forum. Hopefully, more residents will become better informed, can separate fact from fiction, can identify different value judgments and motivations, and ultimately make decisions that best serve our entire community.

Initiative Purpose

“It is the intention to circulate the petition within the City of Menlo Park for the purpose of amending the City’s General Plan and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan to promote the revitalization of the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor and downtown by encouraging livable and walkable development of a vibrant mix of uses while improving safe connectivity for families on foot and on bikes, enhancing and ensuring adequate public space, and promoting healthy living and sustainability“ (Source: Patti Fry and Mike Lanza (SaveMenlo) – Initiative Petition)

I doubt that any Menlo Park resident or business owner would disagree with this general statement of purpose as all want Menlo Park to offer a high quality of life. In fact, this goal is shared by of our city government and the Menlo Park Specific Plan. However, supporters of the SaveMenlo initiative do not accept the current Specific Plan, do not trust the intensive 5 year community-based process that produced it, and do not trust our city government which both facilitated the planning process and approved the final Specific Plan.

Key Proposals

SaveMenlo has proposed:

• substantial new limitations on commercial development – in particular office space – on El Camino Real,

.

• to take away the power and authority of our local government to make changes to the Specific Plan, and

.

• to require that residents vote on any and all future changes to the Specific Plan.

.

• This is an “all or nothing” initiative. i.e. voters would be asked to either accept or reject all proposed ammendments.

SaveMenlo Motivations

An unknown and undisclosed number of residents opposes the Specific Plan because it does not reflect their ideas as to what kind of business district Menlo Park should have on El Camino Real.

More specifically, they remain staunchly opposed to Stanford’s plan to develop its six contiguous vacant parcels that lie roughly between Middle Avenue and the Stanford Park Hotel on the track side of ECR.

SaveMenlo maintains that the negative impacts of this development are unacceptable.

They believe that the majority of residents who would actually voted on the initiative would support their views and proposals and naturally SaveMenlo will encourage its members and supporters to actually turnout.

SaveMenlo Claims

What does SaveMenlo Claim to be factually true?

• That Menlo Park residents were generally misled by our city government during the planning process and would have opposed it if they had really understood what the final Specific Plan permitted.
• That the proposed Stanford project ( and others like the GreenHeart project) is out of character with Menlo Park in terms of scale and architectural design.
• That this development would generate unsafe and inconvenient levels of
  traffic

  on ECR, Middle Avenue and the adjacent Allied Arts neighborhood.

Campaign Slogans & Messages

Top 5 Reasons For The Walkable and Liveable Menlo Park Voter Initiative (savemenlo.org)

Reason #1: Traffic will be 15x greater than City originally estimated.

My Own Beliefs:

• The Stanford Project WOULD increase traffic on ECR as would any new economically feasible commercial development on the 6 vacant parcels regardless of the usage mix, e.g. residential, office, hotel, retail. There is no avoiding this reality since the existing vacant lots do not generate traffic. The City’s challenge remains one of balancing Stanford’s property rights with the benefits and negative impacts of any particular development project. This IS the purpose of the City’s Specific Plan.
• Since SaveMenlo submitted its petition to the City in February 2014 this group has never offerred any credible data or analysis upon to suuport its claims about future traffic impacts.
• It’s noteworthy that SaveMenlo cites an eye-catching “15X multiplier versus an original estimate” rather than the actual data in the recently published Menlo Park Consistency Report. The actual traffic amounts are what counts; not multipliers nor percentages. For example, if the ACTUAL daily traffic on a street increased 15x from 2 to 30 would that indicate there is a harmful problem?
• More detailed information about Menlo Park’s traffic impact analysis is available on MPCD.
• The completed reports that SaveMenlo references appears to indicate that the expected amount of traffic is NOT unreasonable and consistent with the Specific Plan. Anyone can check the consultant’s estimates by accessing these reports. Of course, individuals will naturally disagree on what is too much traffic.
• SaveMenlo has never acknowledged what amount of traffic increase on ECR and the Allied Arts neighborhood would be acceptable greating the impression that it has “zero tolearance” for any increase and would oppose any development that would add traffic of any amount.

Reason #2: High Density Offices Crowd Out Housing and Neighborhood Retail

The developments proposed on the two largest sites along El Camino (Stanford and Greenheart) include 50% more office than was estimated for the entire Specific Plan area – out of balance with other uses such as housing, neighborhood retail, and at the expense of a revenue-producing hotel.

My Observations:

• The building space usage allocations and limits in the Specific Plan were decided with extensive resident engagement not by any single residential group like SaveMenlo.
• While the two projects WILL consume about 50% of the office allotment in the Specific Plan, SaveMenlo omits key facts. First, 2 plus-story office buildings are only allowed on the track-side of El Camino Real – not on the opposite side and not in the downtown are (Santa Cruz Ave). Plus, the two projects would use 7 of the 8 vacant parcels on the track side of ECR. There simply are not many other parcels that could add lots more NET office space. So 50% seems reasonable and unsurprising.
• How did SaveMenlo decide that 100,000 square feet should be the dramatically lower limit on office space on each parcel? What was the proccess? What relevant expertise was involved? Why 100,000 square feet?

Reason #3: Providing Public Services To Offices Will Cost Menlo Park Money

Unlike retail and restaurants that add sales tax revenue, offices do not generate sales tax revenues. The original city plan called for a sales-tax generating hotel. However, there is no hotel now proposed by developers.

One developer, Stanford has a $19.7 billion endowment, and yet, refuses to assure Menlo Park that it will pay property taxes or fees in lieu of property taxes as a nonprofit. Public services required for the city to support offices – police, sewage, water – will be subsidized by Menlo Park taxpayers.

My Observations:

• Stanford owns property and is a non-profit; therefore, it is not obligated to pay Menlo Park fees or propery taxes
• Stanford will pay taxes on apartment rental income.
• Office workers will generate greater retail sales revenue opportunities for all Menlo Park businesses on El Camino Real and downtown.
• More housing would create more demands on our school district but SaveMenlo does not acknowledge these costs
• Menlo Park currently recieves NO revenue from Stanford’s vacant lots.
• The Specific Plan never required a hotel; Stanford never promised one; and the conversion of the former assisted living facility to an upscale Marriot Residence Inn on Gelenwood Avenue has already been approved.Is it essential that Menlo Park have more than five hotels/motels in its 2.4 mile ECR corridor?

Reason #4: Loss of Open Space

Upper level balconies, roof-tops and air space above “parking podiums” should not count as open space. Menlo Park stands to lose 22,000 square feet + of open space, roughly 1/2 acre, in the Stanford project alone unless the voter initiative is passed.

My Observations:

• I do not yet understand the problem SaveMenlo is trying to solve or if one really exists.
• One-half acre on a 8+-acre site does not seem to be a big deal; I am more interested in the overall design.
• If this really is a big problem, then SaveMenlo should persuade the community and our representatives to ammend the Specific Plan. This issue does not seem to merit an initiative.

Reason #5: Worsens the Housing Deficit

Menlo Park is required by California Law to plan for a balance of housing and jobs. Menlo Park’s current unbalanced ratio is 1.9 jobs per unit of housing. A jobs-housing balance would be 1.5 jobs per unit of housing. Office buildings, assuming 100 sq feet per employee, results in an unbalanced ratio of 15 jobs per unit of housing. Unless the EIR scenario of balanced development is enforced, this will increase the necessity of putting more housing than already planned in Menlo Park, straining our already crowded school systems.

My Observations:

• This is another example of using general arguments to create fear when realistic assessments are required. What does worsen really mean?
• Changing the mix of housing in the Stanford Project as proposed by SaveMenlo will not materially change Menlo Park’s housing stock. If it did SaveMenlo would provide actual numbers. How many more units would actually be built?
• This is not Stanford’s problem; it is Menlo Park’s problem and a tough one shared by many Peninsula communties.
• Menlo Park is already trying to increase residential housing as it is moving forward with plans to permit the building of granny units on residential lots.
• Building a large number of new residential units on El Camino Real is unrealistic. The Artisan 26-home development currently completing construction on El Camino Real between College Avenue and Partridge Avenue took X years to obtain neighborhood approval (Note: this is the same neighborhood where SaveMenlo is based). Finally, there are simply too few other places where a significant number of new housing units could be economically viable.