The proposed Stanford and Greenheart projects are clearly above the current threshold. What is the issue here?

The Allied Arts people will never be happy with anything other that a park on those Stanford parcels.

The Mayor and the rest of the City Council are doing exactly what needs to be done - continue to refine the Specific Plan to ensure that it creates the proper balance between public benefits and private development. This process will proceed in full public view with lots of opportunity for public input and for continued refinements.

Measure M would destroy the City Council's ability to make meaningful changes in the Specific Plan.

Quoting Peter: "Measure M would destroy the City Council's ability to make meaningful changes in the Specific Plan."
Peter, you surely know that that is not true.
Case in point: using your current example: the council could most certainly modify the public benefits threshold under Measure M.
Wanna try coming up with proof that this isn't so?
I didn't think so.
In fact, passage of the measure should encourage the next council to do more to restore the balance between public benefit and private development you refer to in your comment.

@EasyDoesIt

Having a discussion is one thing. THe council act tonight or near term, and have all that be for naught if M passes, depending on what they do. M would roll back all their changes to 3 years ago.....

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

I applaud this effort to revisit the public benefit thresholds for individual developments but also strongly encourage the City Council to create an urgently needed comprehensive "traffic management" plan for the Specific Plan areas of Menlo Park. There are many related efforts already underway. For example, I believe the city is evaluating traffic on the entire El Camino corridor and loking closely at the Ravenswood intersection. It is also studying projects from Stanford and Greenheart. It is important that traffic management not be piecemeal. What are our policies? How do we measure our results? There is a huge amount of traffic generating construction going on at our side of Stanford which should be considered in the negotation of public benefits for Stanford developments in Menlo Park. For example, we could require Stanford to set "public transit" goals, meet them, or pay substantial penalties. This would encourage property owners to mitigate their traffic impact. Stanford could run free shuttles between its new buildings and the Menlo Park train station. Also, how about free lunchtime shuttles to Santa Cruz Avenue? Let's take a holistic view of our traffic problems and solutions before it's too late to make a significant difference.

Measure M would certainly prohibit the Council from providing any public benefit for large office projects because Measure M prohibits large office projects:

"3.3.5. After this measure becomes effective, the maximum amount of Office Space that any individual development project proposal within the ECR Specific Plan area may contain is 100,000 square
feet. No City elected or appointed official or body, agency, staff member or officer may take, or permit to be taken, any action to permit any individual development project proposal located within the ECR Specific Plan area that would exceed the foregoing limit."

How can the Council place a public benefit trigger on large office projects if those projects are prohibited by Measure M?

The logic of the Specific Plan is to achieve a balance between public benefits and private developments but that can only be achieved if there remains incentives for private development.

GREAT comment by Dana Hendrickson! Traffic is THE issue in any discussion of zoning or development in Menlo Park. It's our unique geography that forces this issue. San Carlos, whose downtown (though thin) is west of ECR like ours, was lucky enough not to have lots of expensive infrastructure near the Caltrain tracks, so within this century they've elevated those tracks and put several large underpasses through, connecting the eastern half of their city to its downtown. ECR isn't as much of a barrier up there as it is in MP, because traffic isn't being disrupted by train passages, especially at rush hours.

@Peter Carpenter and @Dana Hendrickson,

I really appreciate the detailed discussion you have both provided in comments section for the Measure M articles. Dana - great website. Thanks for putting the links together.

This weekend I took a fair amount of time and read through the Downtown and ECR Vision Plan - as well as the Downtown specific plan trying to come up to speed. The process seems very comprehensive and good (with one caveat I'll bring up later.) A tremendous amount of work is represented in these documents. I found it interesting that even as far back as 2008 - the Stanford buildings were slated to be 4 stories tall. I don't understand when the 5 story (60') height limit was enacted - but I also see that height (in the most recent drawings) is contained to the residential units. Maybe this was to include more residential units? I don't know for sure

As a result of my reading, I've decided to vote against measure M with a couple of serious caveats. While I believe the supporters of measure M really mean well - and we'd probably agree on many things - measure M really seems to step outside the process in a way that does seem potentially fraught with unintended consequences. After rebooking at the Downtown and ECR Vision -- I really want to see the modernization of Menlo Park and fear that if M passes we will be set back another 6 years or so (the Downtown and ECR Vision dates to 2008).

To the caveats....

My first caveat is with area traffic - and the lack of infrastructure to support the growth. Access to ECR in Menlo Park from 101 is really problematic now. Willow Road is pretty clogged during rush hour --- same as University in PA. Similarly 280 access from Sand Hill is pretty clogged. I've seen John Boyle saying that 40% of workers use public transportation - but now Caltrain is pretty much at capacity as well. (Caltrain has to buy 18 more cars - but longer trains require longer train stations. I've been a Caltrain commuter for 9 years - and don't see how this expansion will work. With only one set of train tracks in each direction, Caltrain is already having problems working out how the Baby Bullets can co-exist with the slower local and express trains.)

I'm heartened to see Ray Mueller saying Stanford has to take another look at traffic on ECR (due the EIR). Seriously - almost 200,000 sq ft of office space --- what 2-3,000 workers. That's a big impact - at the peak commuting time. The statistics on this must be considered carefully (i.e. not the average load on the system - but the peak traffic increases.) The traffic I see in the Willows is really mainly from Palo Alto - on ECR Palo Alto and Stanford need to be considered along with Menlo Park. This is a big interconnected system and I agree with Dana Hendrickson - we need a holistic solution.

My second caveat is with the lack of public benefit triggers in the Downtown Specific. Again I'm glad to see the MP council reconsidering this. Why has it taken so long?

" M would roll back all their changes to 3 years ago....."

Actually Measure M rolls the Specific Plan Area back to July 15, 2008 - that is SIX years.

"ECR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEFINED. When referring to the “ECR Specific Plan Area,” this initiative measure is referring to the bounded area within the Vision Plan Area Map located at Page 2, Figure I, of the El Camino Real/Downtown Vision Plan, accepted by the Menlo Park city Council on July 15, 2008, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this measure and hereby adopted by the voters as an integral part of this initiative measure."

Agree or disagree, I don't know about the rest of your readers but I think I've read EVERYTHING Mr. Carpenter has to write.

I (an early signer for the measure) have now waffled back and forth on Measure M, not the least because it is now backed by people who've done great damage to MP in my opinion and have overridden the popular vote in years pst and still see all issues as a "bloc.". The flaw that Measure M hints at but may not address, seems to be in the free give-away the Council handed out to commercial developers when the city was thirsting for revenues. (Sorry if I'm using the wrong words - still echoing the sentiments of many).

I've advocated for public benefits towards schools, traffic mitigation, public housing, public art or even green space, etc.... and it appears that there is always a constituency that advocates against everything (usually developers/realtors, but sometimes the other side). I applaud Mayor Mueller for doing what the Council -- all Councils -- should have done for years, i.e. negotiated benefits for Menlo Park. MP residents are asked over and over to approve bond measures for bigger/better schools, but our own city has abdicated its negotiating leverage with commercial builders?

I don't know how I'm going to vote yet but I'm encouraged by Mayor Mueller's efforts: I disagree with him on a bunch of issues, but I respect that he cares and studies the issues. He is now working on negotiating public benefits. My big question is, If Measure M doesn't pass, is it too late to negotiate? The sad reality in this town is that all on the "winning side" will read results as an "endorsement" or "referendum" on what the people in MP "really" want and write policy with that very skewed view. And none of it will be true.

" My big question is, If Measure M doesn't pass, is it too late to negotiate?"

No, that is exactly what the Council is doing and what the Specific Plan provides:

"Public Benefit Bonus Negotiated Agreement
As described in more detail in Chapter E, density and
intensity standards have both Base and Public Benefit
Bonus categories for all districts, and the ECR NE and
ECR NE-R zoning districts also have Base and Public
Benefit Bonus height standards. In order to achieve
any Public Benefit Bonus standard, an applicant
would need to propose public benefit(s) for the City’s
consideration. If deemed appropriate, the benefit(s) would
be memorialized through conditions of approval or a
Development Agreement. Specifically for development
agreements, the process as outlined in Resolution No. 4159
(Regulations Establishing Procedures and Requirements
for Development Agreements) or any successor resolution
would be followed."

@Catherine McMillan,

I too was leaning toward voting for M - because the proposed Stanford development seems to be too big for the ECR site. After re-reading the Downtown and ECR Vision - I realized that the Stanford building was envisioned to be 4 stories tall since July 2008. Currently the 5 story sections (60') are proposed to be only for the residential units. I'm guessing this occurred when Kirsten Keith negotiated 170 units up from 150 - but I don't know for sure.

Regarding your concerns about tax revenues - I had those concerns as well. In a previous article Roy Thiele-Sardiña stated that the Stanford land hotels (Stanford Park and Rosewood) currently contribute about 70% of Menlo Park tax revenue - and retail sales tax contributes about 10%. So it seems that hotels would be a great adder - but if you look at the Stanford Park and Rosewood websites - you find only about 3 days in the next two months are full occupancy. I'm guessing that Stanford doesn't feel more hotel space would be a good investment. (I don't know the details of the hotel businesses - just surmising.) So long term office leases - and some medical is potentially a good diversification for the Stanford land.

Also consider that there will be increased property tax revenues (not collected by Menlo Park - but by the county and redistributed). Also indirect sales taxes from the residents - and the office workers (200,000 sq ft - must be 2-3000 workers who will be dining and potentially shopping in Menlo Park.) I look at University Ave in Palo Alto on weekdays as an example of this kind of foot traffic.

I also consider ECR in Menlo Park to be problematic for retail --- look at Menlo Hub still up for lease after all this time. I believe the retail center will be Santa Cruz Ave.

All that said, I'm concerned about the traffic increases - and look at Willow Rd to 101 as being very problematic. This is already problematic due to Palo Alto spill over traffic down Middlefield. IMO the Downtown Specific plan does not address area traffic - this requires a bigger more holistic plan.

I like much of what there is in the Downtown and ECR vision plan and want to see Menlo Park modernized and made more "vibrant".

I will vote against M - to me it's a Hobson's choice. The Downtown Specific plan with the Stanford and Greenheart build outs are a real choice - part of a 6 year long process - I'm estimating $2M worth of time and serious thought. At this time, I don't consider M to be a "real" choice of action - more of a stalling maneuver. Show me a measure M plan for Downtown and ECR ----show me drawings with 100,000 sq ft buildings that developers have committed to.

The height of the building was never reported as being part of any agreement.
The Keith/Carlton subcommittee added housing, reduced office, and got rid of medical.

Under the DSP, the building can only be three stories at the street. The fourth and fifth story each need to be set back.

The existing Specific Plan already does require that developers and the city negotiate for "Public Benefit" in certain cases. Basically, we have a "threshold" model that says a developer who builds a relatively modest project (in terms of square footage per acre) doesn't need to add in any special Public Benefit beyond the normal impact and other required fees and possible "below market housing" contributions. But if the developer wants to build closer to the maximum cap, then they do need to negotiate additional Public Benefits. Stanford's project is just below that threshold, so technically, their current proposal doesn't require them to add additional Public Benefits. Note though, that they have already agreed as part of the original Specific Plan to build an open public plaza on one of their parcels (if it is developed at all). That plaza is not considered "Public Benefit" because it's already part of the Specific Plan and was a concession they made as part of the upzoning that their land received. Stanford has also already committed to significant funding toward a bicycle/pedestrian underpass on that same parcel, basically connecting that new plaza (at Middle and El Camino) to Burgess Park. THAT is a true Public Benefit as it is not required in the Specific Plan. So even though they were not obligated to negotiate Public Benefits, our City Council has already brought them to the table and won some early concessions.

Greenheart's project is about the same total size as Stanford's, but it is on a slightly smaller parcel and in fact their proposal is OVER the Public Benefit threshold (more square footage per acre). So they WILL be required to negotiate additional Public Benefits before their project can be approved. No formal negotiations have been completed yet.

So although Stanford has voluntarily already agreed to some Public Benefit provision and the fact that Greenheart will be required to do so, there are several people who have suggested that we should review exactly where those thresholds are set. But it's worth noting: the triggers are already there, and they were set at levels discussed and debated when the Specific Plan was created. It's just a question of whether or not, in today's economy, we should change them.

There is also some discussion about whether or not we should provide more quantified, formulaic defined Public Benefit requirements. Right now, there are some guidelines provided, but the current plan intentionally leaves some room for negotiation. This reflects the fact that Public Benefits sometimes are a pure "cost" for a developer, but if done right, could also be created in a win-win way that benefits the developer's project, and thus we might convince a developer to provide more investment than the formulaic minimum.

As a living document, though, it is reasonable to periodically review the whole plan, including these threshold levels and Public Benefit definitions. In fact, the Specific Plan already requires that it be reviewed every two years. Council is certainly within its rights to do so more often. Hopefully they will solicit inputs from as wide an audience with as much open discussion as possible every time such a review is done to fully consider the pros and cons of such changes.

By the way, I keep referring to Public Benefit with a capital P and B. That's because any significant commercial project also arguably provides "standard" public benefits (lower case). For example, projects like Stanford's and Greenheart's will impact our existing infrastructures, so they are required to pay significant impact fees (housing, traffic, road, school, parks & rec, etc) to help offset those impacts and to facilitate our community in upgrading those infrastructures (e.g. improving roads to improve traffic flow). In the case of Stanford and Greenheart, the latest estimates are that they'd pay over $8M in these one-time fees. These one-time fees are on top of the recurring incremental property, sales, and other taxes that they will help generate (estimated to exceed $6M per year).

And of course, there are qualitative and indirect public benefits (again, lower case) like downtown vibrancy leading to more business for our existing downtown merchants, new restaurants for all of us to enjoy and of course more employment opportunities during development and for the long term.

John, Do you truly believe that 200,000 sq ft of development on each Stanford and Greenheart sites is modest or "relatively modest"? I understand the theory of Public Benefits but you are missing the point. The F.A.R. (Floor Area Ration) that was given to developers by the city staff and approved by the council in the time you were not on the council was not only too generous but it made sure there would be few developments that would ever have to go into the Public benefit zone. Greenheart pokes into this threshold a bit and the public benefit it is considering is not a benefit to the city but an actual benefit to Greenheart and necessary for the function of its project. Opening a street and laying down striping for a bike lane on a street that intersects with a busy and complicated street near the railroad tracks is a plan that should be rejected.

The conversation should not be about whether the city is getting a public benefit but whether the city has allowed an F.A.R. that is inappropriate for ECR both due to the canyon effect these massive buildings will create and the traffic 400,000 sq ft of office will produce.

Look, you were not on the council when many of these mistakes were made. You do not have to carry the water for Keith Cline and Ohtaki. Stanford and Greenheart could build their developments for a total of 200,000 sq ft of office and that would be plenty big for these sites. A reduction of each developer's office sizes by half is reasonable and the words "relatively modest" would still not apply. In addition, the open plaza on the Stanford site, of which you speak is dominated by three lanes from ECR and a fourth lane in the era of the property parallel to the train tracks. It's a driveway, not a plaza.

You make it sound like you truly know this stuff but either you don't or you do and you are in election year mode and you are throwing out marketing language, just like the Walmart scare Greenheart throws around.

The problem is the F.A.R. and just because the Ohtaki, Keith and Cline allowed it, does not mean the residents should now accept it and work around it as though the game is over. If you ares still angry about Derry and Cadillac being killed, well join the party. Many of us are but, don't continue putting lipstick on the pig we call the Specific Plan.

To put things in perspective the Stanford site at ground level covers 361,548 sq ft..

200,000 sq ft of offices is less than 60% of the ground level sq ft.