Town Square

Post a New Topic

A Summary of what is actually in Measure M - hint it is not "simple"

Original post made by Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood, on Oct 31, 2014

Sec 3.1 defines the Specific Plan Area as the 15 July 2008 Vision Plan Map which includes all of the parcels shown on that map and is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2 .1 amends the Specific Plan definition of open space map and the amended language is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2.2 adopts the Specific Plan definition of private open space and is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2.3 adopts the Specific Plan definition of common outdoor open space and is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2.4 adopts a Specific Plan standard regarding open space requirements and is “hereby adopted by the voters.”

3.2.5 amends a revised Specific Plan standard re height of qualifying open space and the amended language is “hereby adopted by the voters.”


3.2.6 amends a revised Specific Plan standard re qualifying open space and the amended language is “hereby adopted by the voters”.


3.3.1 A Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

3.3.2 Another Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

3.3.3 Another Commercial Use Classification which includes “Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money” is hereby adopted by the voters.

3.3.4 The foregoing, voter-adopted Commercial Use Classifications are hereby collectively referred to in this measure as “Office Space” and this language is “hereby adopted by the voters”

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

3.3.6. For purposes of this provision, all phases of a multi-phased project proposal shall be collectively considered an individual project.

3.4.3 establishes the maximum allowable net new development

4.1 “, the voter- adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, above, may be repealed or amended only by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Menlo Park voting “YES” on a ballot measure proposing such repeal or amendment at a regular or special election.”

4.1 also states “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, above, absent voter approval of a conforming amendment to those voter-adopted provisions. “

And Measure M includes this clause:
“PRIORITY.
After this measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Menlo Park which are inferior to the Planning Policy Documents and in conflict with any provisions of this measure. “


So do not believe anyone who tells you that Measure M is "simple" or "just covers four things" or "it does not conflict with the Specific Plan" or that it "does not tie the hands of the city council.

Measure M is a Huge Mistake.

Comments (4)

Posted by mickie winkler
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Oct 31, 2014 at 12:54 pm

Peter, thank you
I bet SaveMenlo wishes it could rewrite their Initiative without the voter approval requirement. Think of having another election like this--and we will need one, at least to fix Measure M's mistakes.


Posted by fact checker
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Oct 31, 2014 at 1:52 pm

EVERY initiative - including the pension reform initiative that Winkler promoted - can be overturned by voters only.

Peter keeps insisting (should I even say "lying"?) that the definitions are "forever". He knows they can be modified with a vote of the people, if that's ever necessary.
New uses do not need to go to a vote for the plan - or measure M - to work. Staff is charged in the plan already, in order to count square feet towards development limits and to administer other provisions of the plan, to make decisions about uses and what category they belong in. When encountering a "new" use, such as a cashless bank (example provided by Carpenter), they need to decide yes/no whether this should count as non-residential or office space.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 31, 2014 at 1:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Peter keeps insisting (should I even say "lying"?) that the definitions are "forever". He knows they can be modified with a vote of the people, "

Wrong - I explicitly included section 4.1 ", the voter- adopted development standards and definitions set forth in Section 3, above, may be repealed or amended only by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Menlo Park voting "YES" on a ballot measure proposing such repeal or amendment at a regular or special election."

It is helpful to read an entire posting before dashing off an erroneous reply.

**************
"When encountering a "new" use, such as a cashless bank (example provided by Carpenter), they need to decide yes/no whether this should count as non-residential or office space."
No, that would be in violation of 4.1 also states "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, above, absent voter approval of a conforming amendment to those voter-adopted provisions. "

******
But thanks for a fact based discussion.


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Oct 31, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

fact:

you are the one lying here. Changes to the plan require a vote. Staff CANNOT make changes to the plan without one.

You're sort of right when you claim it's not "forever." Except without a vote it is forever. Given all the garbage that's gone on around this measure how easy do you think it will be to get changes voted on in the future? I'll help you with the answer; it will be virtually impossible. And if someone decides even after a vote that it "frustrates" the intent of the law you can bet there will be a lawsuit. For all intents and purposes that means it is forever.

Measure is a DISASTER.

Vote NO on M


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition..

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.