City Response To Measure M

This is a summary of how the City Of Menlo Park has responded to Measure M.

  • On March 18, 2014 the City Council authorized staff to expend up to $150,000 for an objective analysis of the effects of a resident-proposed ballot measure intended to revise the approved El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan).The final report is available online.

  • Soon after the report was published Measure M supporters submitted their objections to its findings. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal from the consultant that prepared the report. General conclusion: the objections raised by Measure M representatives were a matter of differing opinion not based on evidence and fact.

Report Highlights – Limits on Total & Usage Square Footage

The Restrictions Existing in Current Specific Plan:

  • Limits total NET new non-residential to 454000 square feet.
  • Limits total residential units to 680.
  • Limits individual project total square footage = Floor Area Ratio (FAR) multiplied by site size.
  • Limits non-medical office to 50% of total square footage
  • Limits medical office limited to 33% of total square footage

Additional Measure M Restrictions

  • Note these are not Net new amounts.
  • Limits new office space to 100000 per site.
  • Limits total amount of new office to 240820 square feet.

Measure M has a major Impact on office space,

  • Both projects would have office space reduced by about 50%.
  • Both projects could convert up to 33% of the remaining office to medical office.
  • The “lost office space” could be used for any non-office purpose

NO impact on the total square footage, height or mass of buildings on a site,

and NO impact on non-residential space.

Untitled

“The two projects’ total of 291,614 square feet of non-residential use represents 61.5% of the overall 474,000 square foot non-residential cap. The 389 apartment units represent 57% of the overall 680-unit residential cap. While the two proposed projects account for a substantial percentage of the Specific Plan’s development caps (61.5% of non-residential; 57% of residential), it is understandable and reasonable, given that these two locations are the largest and most vacant opportunity sites within the Specific Plan area. A significant percentage of development capacity would remain for smaller sites within the area.

It should also be noted that the two projects achieve an appropriate balance of residential/non-residential components. This is a result of the Specific Plan requirement that limits non-medical office uses to no more than one-half of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for any individual development project (note: medical offices are limited further, to no more than one-third of the FAR).”