Guest opinion: Measure M not needed to address large-scale El Camino development

This is a welcome and clearly written exposition of the roots of the problem that led to Measure M. I had been leaning toward supporting the measure, but I think Ben Eiref has hit on an important point. Measure M doesn't change the biggest problem with the specific plan, which is that the council set the threshold for public benefit way too high. At this point, I'm leaning against the measure.

Does anyone know if councilmembers are talking about lowering the threshold for public benefit requirements?

Ben, thank you for a well-written and thoughtful opinion piece.

As indicated, the Council had the opportunity in 2013 to re-evaluate the zoning levels, but chose not to. How can we possibly believe the Council will "continue to negotiate hard", when there is no indication they have the fortitude to do so based on their past (and relatively recent) decisions?

I made up my mind on Measure M after seeing "who" was involved in the process to create Measure M.
Very simply, I have driven down ECR for many, many years and have looked at the vacant old Park Theatre site, the large vacant car dealership sites and the Derry Project site. Again, all vacant, all blighted space, and NO tax dollars generated on any of these sites. If you look at "who" has drafted Measure M, it is the exact same people that have created these other messes.(yes, I know a few others have climbed on board the "Blight Train") Oh, and one of them is running for Council and has no qualms about putting herself out there, saying she supports the measure. She supports Measure M, but at one time supported the original plan. Hypocrisy at it's finest. As citizens we need to wakeup and finally put to rest this ridiculous NIMBY type rhetoric and do what's best for ALL of Menlo Park. I'm very sorry "college avenues" that you think it will create more traffic. I believe you are being sold a bill of goods, this measure would not prevent that, in fact many believe it would INCREASE traffic thru your neighborhood. Lastly, I would bet my home that if this Measure passes, we will have at LEAST 5+ more years of blight. History is the best predictor of our future, plain and simple. NO on Measure M.

Ben et al, the folks like me who are voting YES on M want to see a full achievement of the Specific Plan's 12 goals, without exception. We feel that the City Council's (and perhaps also the Planning Commission's) efforts have resulted in developments that failed to achieve the Specific Plan's 12 goals.

If the system/process as it stands results in a poor outcome (in this case, developments that don't meet our goals), we need to take action and change some aspect of the system or process to create a better result. If we don't make a change, we cannot reasonably expect better results. That's really what Measure M is about, at least for me.

Concise and well made points Ben. Thanks for writing the article. It all points to the fact we need more control at Commission level on the big projects rather than all our efforts being put into non-conforming house lots.

Great article. I have been on the fence on Measure M because the rhetoric mostly consists of sound bites and and predictions. The truth is, traffic will increase with development. Will the increase be worse with passage of M or without passage of M? No one can actually say until the final plans are approved. And then, both sides will find support for their argument. So let's stop talking about that and instead talk about how we want our government to work. I think everyone agrees that passage of M will restrict the ability of the City Council to negotiate with developers. Do we want that? In our representative democracy, the way we usually deal with elected officials not doing what we want them to do is to vote them out and others in. So instead of passing measures that restrict what a Council can and and can't do, let's concentrate on electing a council that will act our best interests. If you think an incumbent has done a good job and will do a better one than a challenger, vote for the incumbent.. If you think the council has not acted in our best interests, vote for challengers that you think will do better. With respect to Eiref's article, I agree that the next Council be one that figures out how to give itself the tools to be able to negotiate for the public benefits we want for our city.

The council has no leverage with the two large projects that have been proven by city traffic studies to worsen traffic more than calculated for the specific plan. The impacts are worse at rush hour, when traffic congestion is the worst. This is a fact, not something hypothetical. Yes on m cuts the office of these projects and cuts their rush hour traffic.

Current council members seem to like turning el Camino into an office park, contrary to residents' stated goals. The only way to reduce the rush hour traffic impacts is to reduce the amount of office. Measure M does that. The current council has shown no respect for residents' goals, instead putting their own and developers' forward.

Sorry Ben but there is no reason to trust this council and even less to trust developers who only care about their profit. Yes on M is the only tool we have to protect our towns future. This council has shown no backbone, creativity, or business sense. They don't know how to negotiate and worse, failed to give themselves true negotiating leverage and true public benefit by not lowering the bonus threshold

Vacant lots have been with us because of the recession and , drum roll, because of the long specific plan process. Developers could see that they were about to be granted double the allowable development with nothing asked in return. Consultants falsely contended that there would be zero office demand for the near and intermediate term. Stanford had leases in effect through 2013 and greenheart site has had approved projects that could be built. the recent city consultant report said there will even be a rush for development with Yes on M. . Development will happen. Don't fear.

We should not forsake our town's character and livability for massive offices that worsen traffic and provide no financial benefits to our city. We can do better with more balanced growth, and that will be possible with limits on office space. Vote Yes on M.

Same old rhetoric "town character" = vacant stores, empty lots, boarded up movie theater, commercial sites continually hanging in limbo for YEARS at a time. No one, I repeat no one, on the No on Measure M Campaign wants an "office park", "massive office" atmosphere. "no respect for residents goals" = I guess several years of resident input, thousands of tax dollars spent on building a downtown plan, means that the council has "no respect"? Same ol', same ol' - much of these sound bites were stolen from the Derry Project campaign, look where that got us today.
This again is all a tactic to delay, delay and delay some more. Guaranteed 5+ years of vacant lots if Measure M passes.

Hi Sandy, Our council had complete authority to negotiate with developers before the Specific Plan was adopted. Unfortunately when the council doubled the developers right to build larger buildings, they gave away their negotiating power. Stanford's project at 400,000 sq. ft is right under the trigger where the university would have to negotiate for public benefits, such as the undercrossing of the train tracks. Now we are in a weak position, begging and hoping Stanford will pay for what should have been their responsibility. Before the Specific Plan was adopted, Stanford could have built less than half of what they are proposing.

So, when you worry that Measure M will rob the council of its power, worry not. It's too late. Allowing the residents to decide if the town needs more office development is a good thing. We should be the ones who make that decision.

One of the developers, greenheart has a war chest with $200,000 to spend on slick mailers that frighten residents with photos of blight or Walmart stores. Developers now have the power and our council has joined them supporting the misinformation in the mailers.

The council members who want to be re-elected have taken money from greenheart and other local developers which tells us where their loyalty lies. Half of Kirsten Keith's donations have come from developers.

Trust the residents. It is they who live her, pay property taxes here, cherish their children here and live in neighborhoods where more and more commuter traffic is driving through morning and afternoons 4 to 6 PM.

" It is they who live her, pay property taxes here, cherish their children here and live in neighborhoods where more and more commuter traffic is driving through morning and afternoons 4 to 6 PM."

And our elected council members don't?

M supporter,

It became evident last year that the council currently has leverage with developers, witness two reductions in medical office use (down to zero) and two increases in housing count at Stanfords project. Built in to the plan is review of the promised plaza at Middle - which is why Planning Commission sent it back for major redesign. Surprise, the system is working.

But the leverage goes away with Measure M because the two major sites will return at base approval levels and include medical office. Nothing personal, just math: if general office (the lowest traffic generated use category in real life) is reduced and income falls, the numbers are restored by adding medical office - it brings in 50% more per s.f. And oddly, not only Whole Foods but Target now seeks downtown space (check out the new Mountain View store), and they are big traffic generators - no-one takes Caltrain to shop.

The Specific Plan allowed uses were chosen to discourage traffic and balance commercial w housing. And thats what came in. The Measure M restrictions backfire - they didn't have the professional reviews they needed - let alone public input.

Thank you for the excellent Guest Opinion.

Every time I go by the vacant lots and blight on ECR, I wonder if Measure M's supporters could articulate a practical, positive solution? Rather than Measure M.

And I think about how many of Measure M's supporters seem to have the same mind set as those who spent lots and lots of MP taxpayer money to sue Stanford in a multi-year, unsuccessful effort to stop widening Sand Hill Road at its single-lane choke point near Santa Cruz/Junipero Serra not so many years ago.