The council's recommendation to cap medical office space for an individual project within the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan area at 33,333 square feet will make its way back to the Menlo Park Planning Commission tonight (Oct. 6). It's one of the last steps remaining before the cap becomes official.
In November 2013 during a review of the specific plan, the council voted 4-0, with Ray Mueller recused at the time from specific plan discussions, to limit the amount of medical office for projects with at least 100,000 square feet of buildings along the El Camino Real corridor. Smaller projects may include up to one-third medical office space, as originally allowed by the specific plan.
Councilman Rich Cline said that Stanford University's original mixed-use proposal, which included 96,000 square feet of medical offices, indicated the need for a cap. The university later agreed to eliminate medical offices from the project after negotiations with a council subcommittee and neighborhood representatives.
According to the staff report for Monday night's meeting, the attorney contracted to represent Menlo Park on specific plan issues has concluded that if the cap is not implemented before the Nov. 4 election and if Measure M -- the specific plan initiative -- passes, the cap would have to go for a city-wide vote for approval.
Measure M supporters challenged that interpretation of the measure's language and have asked for evidence to support that conclusion.
In a letter sent to the city today, contract attorney Greg Stepanicich said that while Measure M wouldn't require voter approval for all changes to the specific plan, it would in this case because the measure doesn't distinguish between different types of office space; and, Section 3.3.5 of the initiative sets the maximum amount of office space of any individual project at 100,000 square feet.
"Further, Section 4.1 of Measure M states that any amendments to the voter adopted development standards and definitions require voter approval, not just amendments that impose less stringent development standards," Mr. Stepanicich wrote.
The full text of Measure M is available on the city's election website.
The council is expected to take a final vote on the medical office cap on Oct. 28.
Click here to review the complete agenda and associated staff reports. The meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the council chambers in the Civic Center at 701 Laurel St., and will be streamed live online.
Comments
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:25 pm
" not just amendments that impose less stringent development standards," Mr. Stepanicich wrote.”
This is a critical point because it makes clear than NONE of the ten definitions in Measure M or any of the Measure M limits can be changed in ANY way without a city wide vote - even changes to make the Specific plan MORE stringent.
This is just one more example of the many unintended consequences of this poorly written initiative.
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Section 3.3.3 of Measure M states;"“Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money, including credit unions.” The foregoing Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters."
So when a financial institutions stops providing on-site circulation of money they will no longer be considered a financial institution - and to change a SINGLE word of this voter adopted definition would require a city wide election.
CRAZY.
Section 3.2.6 states :
"adopted by the voters to instead read at the places where the foregoing statement appears: “only ground floor level residential open space in common or private areas up to 4 feet high and accessible open space above parking podiums up to 4 feet high shall count toward the minimum open space requirement for the development; residential open space in common or private areas exceeding 4 feet in height and open space above parking podiums exceeding 4 feet in height shall not.”
So if the Council wanted to change 4 feet to 4 feet and ONE inch there would have to be a city wide election.
CRAZY
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 6, 2014 at 2:48 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Gee. Now why do you supposed this is coming up now just a month before the election?
Come on council. Who do you think yo'rer kidding?
Registered user
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 6, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2014 at 2:54 pm
"Measure M supporters challenged that interpretation of the measure's language and have asked for evidence to support that conclusion."
It is not hard to understand. Read Section 4.1. Making changes without a city wide election would be asking for litigation, and no developer is interested in buying a lawsuit. It may well be that the drafters did not *intend* for this to be the outcome, but nevertheless the language of that section is pretty plain.
Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm
Frugal: I have the answer to your question. If the council approved these three changes to the Specific Plan in November 2013 and sat on it for over 10 months, it appears staff is both incompetent and devious. What better time to raise this unfinished task. This will excite Measure M opponents and they will create a new email to their mysterious 12,000 database. This new email will contain but another dishonest cain.
It's campaign season.
The 10 month delay is similar to the delay caused by staff, council, the Fire District and the city attorney when the new parcel purchased for the rebuilding of fire station #6 was not included in the Specific Plan area. The parcel was purchased in 2008 and nothing was done to make sure the parcel was included in the Plan area. It's now 2014 and Mr. Riggs and his ilk want to blame savemenlo and the Measure M proponents, claiming the Fire Station cannot be built. This is an absolute lie. Peter Ohtaki was on the Fire District Board in 2008. In 2010 he was elected to council. One would think Ohtaki would have begun his term making sure the Fire Station's new parcel was included in the Specific Plan area. He did nothing.
It's campaign season.
Do not expect the truth or reasonable thinking from opponents of Measure M. We have all been bombarded with emails from Rigss, Srrehl, Boyle and there is little truth in any of their claims.
Menlo Park: other
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:57 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Why so angry and mean?
It's pretty obvious the Council and City staff are taking action now before the election, because it has to be done prior to the election. If Measure M passes,
then the Council can't make the changes without the issue going to City wide vote.
It's weird how Measure M supporters cry foul at every move the Council makes - even at moves they agree with. You think they would be happy with the Council fixing a big deficiency in Measure M - that medical office use could come back.
Why so angry and mean?
Menlo Park: other
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:16 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:16 pm
"Why so angry and mean?"
Because their true motivation is to shut down any development of the Stanford and Greenheart properties. Especially, the Stanford properties because the self centered souls of Allied Arts think if the Stanford project gets built their neighborhoods will be over run with cut through traffic. And rather than address the specific problem with traffic controls they seek to stop the Stanford project with the consequence they will likely stop all development should measure M pass.
The "frustrate" language in M is just ripe for lawsuits any time someone doesn't like what a developer may propose.
Savemenlo is NO growth never mind the fact it is inevitable and necessary to the financial health of our CITY (not village).
Measure M is a MESS
Vote NO on M
Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:57 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:57 pm
No anger and not mean.
just the facts.
Don't get them confused.
These delays in Staff doing their job are suspicious. 2008 to 2014 is in the neighborhood of 6 years and Ohtaki could not take care of this minor issue.
and yes, the council waited 10 months to put its revisions to the specific plan through the steps required to amend the plan.
shocking.
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:48 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:48 pm
The claim that enacting Measure M will lead to more traffic is false and implausible. The opponents of M claim that, should M pass, Stanford would actually build more medical office (one of the most traffic-intensive and lucrative uses). The Specific Plan limits medical office to 1/3 of the total office space of a project. Measure M keeps that cap in place! What Measure M does is limit the total office space to 100,000 sqft thereby reducing the actual medical office space allowed (Stanford's current proposal has 200,000 sqft of office).
To win approval of their flawed project Stanford offered a highly conditional verbal "carrot" not to rent to medical tenants. However, their Sunnyvale-style five-story buildings will be around for 30+ years. Who is going to police that such a promise year after year. Furthermore, the equally large Greenheart project has made no such concession.
Lastly, the new scare tactic that Walmart is going to open up on that site is just desperate and ridiculous.
Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:28 pm
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:28 pm
So the city paid a hired gun a few hundred dollars to write a letter critical of Measure M. It's one person's legal opinion, emphasis on opinion.
The Specific Plan is riddled with loopholes and offers many opportunities for lawsuits. As many of our fine citizens have demonstrated, people can and do sue over everything. So taking preemptive action against possible lawsuits is a losing strategy.
Meanwhile, the timing of this particular letter is pretty interesting. Is Menlo Park becoming the Chicago of the Bay Area? Maybe former investigative reporter Rich Cline can get to the bottom of this.
Menlo Park: other
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:25 am
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:25 am
If Measure M passes it could certainly lead to more traffic. Here are just 2 of many possible scenarios:
1. Stanford decides NOT to merge its 6 parcels and instead treat as 3 separate parcels, builds three separate 80,000 square foot buildings with 1/3 medical each. This is allowable under Measure M, and equates to 240,000 square feet of office, including 80,000 square feet of medical office. That is 40k more office space than the current council has negotiated with Stanford on their recent proposal, and 80k more medical! Not to mention 3 separate entrances on el Camino to further snarl traffic.
2. Stanford decides to develop the six parcels with 75,000 square feet of retail on each. That still falls under the Measure M cap for non-residential, and would create more traffic than the currently proposed office and residential combined. The current proposal only contains 10k of retail because retail is the highest traffic driver and Stanford is trying to mitigate the traffic impact!
And what do we lose if either of these these happen? A great mixed use development with housing located near Caltrain, a public plaza bigger than Keplers/Cafe Barrone, a bike underpass connecting Middle Ave with Burgess Park, and stepped back, architecturally appealing buildings.
Let the city council and the specific plan do the job they are supposed to do. Like the kind of negotiating that the current council members have already done with Stanford on their proposal - which by the way was heavily influenced by input and requests from allied arts neighborhood representatives. This negotiation has already: increased housing balance, reduced retail, reduced overall office space, and eliminated medical office ALTOGETHER.
Lastly - I have not asked him, but I am pretty sure that council member Ohtaki did not change the boundary of the specific plan to include the downtown fire station adjacent property all these years because it was not an issue UNTIL measure M created the problem. Now if Measure M passes it will require a citywide vote at a cost of $90k+ Just to change the boundary. Without M, the city council could just make this logical change as part of normal business.
M is a huge Mistake. Please vote no on M.
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 7, 2014 at 6:21 am
on Oct 7, 2014 at 6:21 am
The risk of preserving the status quo is great: Today El Camino right in front of the Stanford project site already has 6,500 more car trips per day than when the Specific Plan was passed (April 2014 traffic counts). This explains the frequent congestion on El Camino. The Stanford project alone will put 138% more cars on Middle Ave. than the Specific Plan had envisioned for its entire 25+ year time horizon. Over 70% of office workers don't live in Menlo Park and need to get to 280 or 101. Traffic is like water: When El Camino, Middle, Sand Hill, Santa Cruz, Ravenswood and Willow are congested, cars will be cutting through everybody's street.
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 am
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 am
Measure M is riddled with loopholes and offers many opportunities for lawsuits. As many of our fine citizens have demonstrated, people can and do sue over everything.
Measure M is Mistake.
Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:50 am
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:50 am
Peter, you live in bucolic Atherton. Why do you refer to Menlo Park's citizens as "our fine citizens"? By the way, if you enjoy living next to office parks or tall buildings I recommend you take a look at Milpitas or San Francisco real estate.
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 11:52 am
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2014 at 11:52 am
"Why do you refer to Menlo Park's citizens as "our fine citizens"? "
Because these fine citizens have elected me three times to represent them as a Director of their Fire District.
Because I do not define my community in narrow terms but rather as the larger community in which I live and serve.
And who exactly are you Menlo Non-Voter and why are you so proud that you do not exercise your sacred right to vote?
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm
So, "our fine citizens" that "can and do sue over everything." have elected you? Does sound like you don't hold the folks that vote for you in particularly high regard.
I, like you, vote outside of Menlo Park which makes both of us -- as well as Arrillaga, the Greenheart principals, and the Stanford real estate development people -- all Menlo Non-Voters.
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:45 pm
"So, "our fine citizens" that "can and do sue over everything." have elected you? Does sound like you don't hold the folks that vote for you in particularly high regard."
Not all of these fine citizens voted for me - just more than any other candidates all three times I ran.
The Measure M folks have already publicly stated that M is "just a down payment" and that if Stanford proposes anything they don't like even if it complies with M that they will "start another initiative to stop the project". These views are deeply damaging to a democratic society.
Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Peter,
You are a great and fearless political leader crushing opponents vying for the coveted Fire Board seats.
It's a tremendous vote of confidence ...
... there is no other possible interpretation ...
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Registered user
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Attack me all you want; the Editors have determined that I am the only Forum poster who is not protected by their Terms of Service from such personal attacks.
But remember that the real issue is the future of Menlo Park and Measure M is a commitment to the past.
Democracy demands dialogue and informed voters but Measure M supporters prefer silence and ignorance.
Menlo Park: other
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm
Let's please avoid yet another conspiracy theory.
Last night's approval of the three changes to the Specific plan items put forward 11 months ago was fairly straightforward. 11 months happens because we went through the CEQA process while losing half our planning staff. These policy changes were put on the back burner not out of some malicious voter manipulation but by the normal pace of life in the civil service.
If you all have more changes to the Specific plan that are constructive, we're all ears. We've been promised that after this round of tweaks, the next should be faster and smoother given that CEQA was done for the last.