Note: This page is largely a historical record and will seldom change.
Measure M was defeated in November 2014
SaveMenlo* strongly opposes both the Specific Plan and the Stanford Project. In general, this residential group believes these WILL produce unacceptable negative impacts on the entire city and few benefits. More specifically, it claims…
- the amount and distribution of future traffic will be unsafe and inconvenient
- the ratio of offices to residential is too high = less city revenue; more housing is needed, not offices
- the scale and architectural design is inconsistent with character of Menlo Park
- the development opportunities for other ECR property owners will be substantially reduced
Supporters of the Specific Plan and Stanford proposal strongly disagree with each of the above assertions.
The Initiative
SaveMenlo obtained the neccessary singnatures to place Measure M on the November ballot. Stated Purpose: amending the City’s General Plan and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan to promote the revitalization of the El Camino Real 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. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
-
Achieving the vision of the original public vision for the El Camino Real/Downtown area, which was developed through a 6 year community engagement process costing approximately $1.7 million.
-
Promoting projects in the El Camino Real corridor and Downtown that emphasize mixed-use development at a human scale and neighborhood retail, while protecting residents from harmful effects of excessive development.
-
Changing the Plan’s definition of open space so that only spaces at ground floor level (e.g., not upper level balconies or decks) count toward a development project’s minimum open space requirements. This will help to encourage ground level public plazas, gardens and walkways and distinguish, separate and provide greater visual relief from the mass of adjacent structures.
-
Defining and limiting uses constituting “Office Space” in the El Camino Real/Downtown area to no more than 100,000 square feet per individual proposed development project, or 240,820 square feet in total (the maximum amount conceptually disclosed and analyzed in the 2012 Specific Plan EIR), to ensure that such uses are not approved to the exclusion of a healthy balance of neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants, hotels, businesses, and housing near transit.
-
Adopting controls requiring voter approval of any proposal to allow new Office Space in the Specific Plan area to exceed 240,820 square feet, or to allow all combined new non-residential development in the Specific Plan area to exceed 474,000 square feet.**
Political Campaign
Measure M proponents have openly declared their distrust of Menlo Park’s building regulations, the community process that produced the Specific Plan, and all the current city council members, and they claim their initiative is needed to avoid “rush hour gridlock, massive office complexes, and the loss of “REAL open space”. Their opponents have accused supporters of steadily misleading residents with far-fetched messages and inaccurate information.
A copy of a “Yes on M” mailer distributed in mid-October 2014
A copy of a post-election mailer distributed by Kelly Fergusson, a Measure M supporter and candidate for the city council. Like many SaveMenlo communications it contains many unreliable claims designed to rally its base and attack its opponents.
Examples:
- “Plus Yes on M faced the gargantuan spending by big developers on a “No” campaign explicitly designed to deceive and confuse residents.”
- “The residents want to see that they are getting something for the nearly billion dollars in upzoning the incumbents (Ohtaki, Cline, Keith) granted the developers. “
- ‘The spectres of worsening the rush hour traffic nightmare, and sterile office buildings that will be with us for the next 100 years or more.
City’s Own Assessment Of The Impact Of Measure M
My Perspectives on Measure M
Five Great Reasons To Defeat Measure M
What To Make of The Recent Yes On Measure M Mailer (October)
** Consistent with the Planning and Zoning Law and applicable case law, the City shall not adopt any other new provisions or amendments to the Policy Planning Documents that would be inconsistent with or frustrate the implementation of the voter-adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, absent voter approval of a conforming amendment to those voter-adopted provisions. Section 3 defines ALL of the initiative including everything from open space definition to even a reference to the boundaries of the Specific Area zone.