ECR SP Initiative Petition - Self-executing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

ECR SP Initiative Petition - Self-executing

on

  • 107 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
107
Views on SlideShare
107
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    ECR SP Initiative Petition - Self-executing ECR SP Initiative Petition - Self-executing Document Transcript

    • Page 1 of 5 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF MENLO PARK GENERAL PLAN AND MENLO PARK 2012 EL CAMINO REAL/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LIMITING OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, MODIFYING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT EXCEED SPECIFIED DEVELOPMENT LIMITS The initiative measure proposed by this petition (“measure”) would amend the City of Menlo Park General Plan and Menlo Park El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (“ECR/Downtown Specific Plan”) adopted by the Menlo Park City Council on July 12, 2012 by imposing more restrictive development standards in the area of the City governed by the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan than currently imposed. The measure includes revised definitions and standards for open space requiring that only open space areas that do not exceed four (4) feet in height shall be calculated for meeting the minimum open space requirements. The measure mandates that office space in any individual development not exceed 100,000 square feet, caps the total net, new office space approved after July 12, 2012 at 240,820 square feet and retains the overall cap of 474,000 square feet for all net, new non-residential development in the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan area. The measure also would adopt specified definitions and standards in the current ECR/Downtown Specific Plan relating to open space and office space. Under the measure, the City Council cannot amend the definitions and development standards set forth in the measure as these provisions can be amended only with voter approval. In addition, voter approval is required to exceed the office space and nonresidential square footage limits. Voter approval would not be required to exceed the 680 residential unit limit. The measure exempts projects with vested rights to build that were obtained before the effective date of the measure from any conflicting definitions or standards set forth in the measure, but such projects would count against the square footage limits imposed by the measure if such projects received a building permit after the adoption of the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan on July 12, 2012. The proposed measure includes a severability clause so that if portions of the measure are deemed invalid, the remaining portions would remain in effect. A priority clause states that this measure would prevail over all conflicting City ordinances, resolutions and administrative policies. A conflicts provision provides that any competing measures on the same ballot as this measure are null and void if this measure receives more votes. The proposed measure requires approval by a majority of the voters in Menlo Park voting on the measure to become effective. TEXTOFINITIATIVEMEASURE THEPEOPLEOFTHECITYOFMENLOPARKDO ORDAINASFOLLOWS: Section1. TITLE. 1.1. Thisinitiativemeasureshallbeknownand citedasthe“ElCaminoReal/DowntownSpecificPlan AreaLivable,WalkableCommunityDevelopment StandardsAct.” Section2. PLANNINGPOLICYDOCUMENTS COVERED. 2.1. Thisinitiativemeasureenactscertain developmentdefinitionsandstandardswithintheCityof MenloParkGeneralPlanandtheMenloParkElCamino Real/DowntownSpecificPlan(“ECRSpecificPlan”). 2.2. Inthisinitiativemeasuretheabovetwo documentsarereferredtocollectivelyasthe“PlanningPolicy Documents.” 2.3. Within30daysofthismeasure’seffectivedate, theCityshallcausetheentiretextofthismeasuretobe incorporatedintotheelectronicversionofeachofthe PlanningPolicyDocumentspostedattheCity’swebsite,and allsubsequentlydistributedelectronicorprintedcopiesofthe PlanningPolicyDocuments,whichincorporationshall appearimmediatelyfollowingthetableofcontentsof eachsuchdocument. Section3. ECRSPECIFICPLANAREAVOTER- ADOPTEDDEVELOPMENTDEFINITIONSAND STANDARDS. 3.1. ECRSPECIFICPLANAREADEFINED. Whenreferringtothe“ECRSpecificPlanArea,”this initiativemeasureisreferringtotheboundedareawithin theVisionPlanAreaMaplocatedatPage2,FigureI,of theElCaminoReal/DowntownVisionPlan,acceptedby theMenloParkcityCouncilonJuly15,2008,whichis
    • Page 2 of 5 attachedasExhibit1tothismeasureandherebyadopted bythevotersasanintegralpartofthisinitiativemeasure. 3.2. OPENSPACEDEFINITIONSAND STANDARDS;ABOVEGROUNDLEVELOPEN SPACEEXCLUDEDFROMCALCULATIONSOF MINIMUMOPENSPACEREQUIREMENTSFOR DEVELOPMENTPROJECTSWITHINTHEECR SPECIFICPLANAREA. 3.2.1. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECR SpecificPlan’sAppendixincludesthefollowing definitionof“OpenSpace”:“Theportionofthebuilding sitethatisopen,unobstructedandunoccupied,and otherwisepreservedfromdevelopment,andusedfor publicorprivateuse,includingplazas,parks,walkways, landscaping,patiosandbalconies.Itisinclusiveof CommonOutdoorOpenSpace,PrivateOpenSpaceand PublicOpenSpaceasdefinedinthisglossary.Itis typicallylocatedatgroundlevel,thoughitincludesopen spaceatopapodium,ifprovided,andupperstory balconies.Openspaceisalsolandthatisessentially unimprovedanddevotedtotheconservationofnatural resources.” Theforegoingdefinitionisherebyamended, restatedandadoptedbythevoterstoinsteadread:“The portionofthebuildingsitethatisopen,unobstructedand unoccupied,andotherwisepreservedfromdevelopment, andusedforpublicorprivateuse,includingplazas,parks, walkways,landscaping,patios,balconies,androofdecks. ItisinclusiveofCommonOutdoorOpenSpace,Private OpenSpaceandPublicOpenSpaceasdefinedinthis glossary.Openspaceupto4feetinheightassociatedwith groundfloorleveldevelopmentoratopapodiumupto4 feethigh,ifprovided,shallcounttowardtheminimum openspacerequirementforproposeddevelopment. Open spacegreaterthan4feetinheight,whetherassociatedwith upperstorybalconies,patiosorroofdecks,oratopa podium,ifprovided,shallnotcounttowardtheminimum openspacerequirementforproposeddevelopment.Open spaceisalsolandthatisessentiallyunimprovedand devotedtotheconservationofnaturalresources.” 3.2.2. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECR SpecificPlan’sAppendixincludesthefollowing definitionof“PrivateOpenSpace”:“Anareaconnected orimmediatelyadjacenttoadwellingunit.Thespacecan beabalcony,porch,groundorabovegradepatioorroof deckusedexclusivelybytheoccupantsofthedwelling unitandtheirguests.”Theforegoingdefinitionishereby adoptedbythevoters. 3.2.3. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECR SpecificPlan’sAppendixincludesthefollowing definitionof“CommonOutdoorOpenSpace”:“Usable outdoorspacecommonlyaccessibletoallresidentsand usersofthebuildingforthepurposeofpassiveoractive recreation.” Theforegoingdefinitionisherebyadoptedby thevoters. 3.2.4. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,ECRSpecific PlanStandardE.3.6.01states:“Residentialdevelopments orMixedUsedevelopmentswithresidentialuseshall haveaminimumof100squarefeetofopenspaceperunit createdascommonopenspaceoraminimumof80 squarefeetofopenspaceperunitcreatedasprivateopen space,whereprivateopenspaceshallhaveaminimum dimensionof6feetby6feet.Incaseofamixofprivate andcommonopenspace,suchcommonopenspaceshall beprovidedataratioequalto1.25squarefeetforeach onesquarefootofprivateopenspacethatisnotprovided.” Theforegoingstandardisherebyadoptedbythevoters. 3.2.5. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,ECRSpecific PlanStandardE.3.6.02states:“Residentialopenspace (whetherincommonorprivateareas)andaccessibleopen spaceaboveparkingpodiumsupto16feethighshallcount towardstheminimumopenspacerequirementforthe development.”TheforegoingStandardisherebyamended, restatedandadoptedbythevoterstoinsteadread:“Ground flooropenspaceupto4feethigh(whetherincommonor privateareas)andaccessibleopenspaceaboveparking podiumsupto4feethighshallcounttowardstheminimum openspacerequirementforthedevelopment. Openspace exceeding4feetinheight(regardlessofwhetherincommon orprivateareasorassociatedwithpodiums)shallnotcount towardstheminimumopenspacerequirementforthe development.” 3.2.6. Afterthismeasurebecomeseffective,TablesE6, E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15,intheECR SpecificPlan,which,asadoptedonJuly12,2012,statethat “residentialopenspace,whetherincommonorprivateareas, shallcounttowardtheminimumopenspacerequirementfor thedevelopment”areeachherebyamended,restatedand adoptedbythevoterstoinsteadreadattheplaceswherethe foregoingstatementappears:“onlygroundfloorlevel residentialopenspaceincommonorprivateareasupto4feet highandaccessibleopenspaceaboveparkingpodiumsupto 4feethighshallcounttowardtheminimumopenspace requirementforthedevelopment;residentialopenspacein commonorprivateareasexceeding4feetinheightandopen spaceaboveparkingpodiumsexceeding4feetinheightshall not.” 3.3. OFFICESPACEDEFINED;MAXIMUM OFFICESPACEALLOWEDFORINDIVIDUALOR PHASEDDEVELOPMENTPROJECTSWITHINTHE ECRSPECIFICPLANAREA. 3.3.1. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECRSpecific Plan’sAppendixincludesthefollowingCommercialUse Classificationfor“Offices,BusinessandProfessional”: “Officesoffirmsororganizationsprovidingprofessional, executive,management,oradministrativeservices,suchas accounting,advertising,architectural,computersoftware design,engineering,graphicdesign,insurance,interior design,investment,andlegaloffices.Thisclassification excludeshospitals,banks,andsavingsandloanassociations.” TheforegoingCommercialUseClassificationishereby adoptedbythevoters. 3.3.2. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECRSpecific Plan’sAppendixincludesthefollowingCommercialUse Classificationfor“Offices,MedicalandDental”:“Officesfor aphysician,dentist,orchiropractor,includingmedical/dental laboratoriesincidentaltothemedicalofficeuse.This classificationexcludesmedicalmarijuanadispensing facilities,asdefinedintheCaliforniaHealthandSafety Code.”TheforegoingCommercialUseClassificationis herebyadoptedbythevoters. 3.3.3. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECRSpecific Plan’sAppendixincludesthefollowingCommercialUse Classificationfor“BanksandOtherFinancialInstitutions”: “Financialinstitutionsprovidingretailbankingservices.This classificationincludesonlythoseinstitutionsengagedinthe on-sitecirculationofmoney,includingcreditunions.”The foregoingCommercialUseClassificationisherebyadopted bythevoters. 3.3.4. Theforegoing,voter-adoptedCommercialUse Classificationsareherebycollectivelyreferredtointhis measureas“OfficeSpace.” 3.3.5. Afterthismeasurebecomeseffective,the maximumamountofOfficeSpacethatanyindividual developmentprojectproposalwithintheECRSpecificPlan areamaycontainis100,000squarefeet. NoCityelectedor appointedofficialorbody,agency,staffmemberorofficer maytake,orpermittobetaken,anyactiontopermitany individualdevelopmentprojectproposallocatedwithin theECRSpecificPlanareathatwouldexceedthe foregoinglimit. 3.3.6. Forpurposesofthisprovision,allphasesofa multi-phasedprojectproposalshallbecollectively consideredanindividualproject. 3.3.7. Theforegoinglimitationisinadditionto applicableFloorAreaRatio(FAR)limitations,including PublicBenefitBonuses,thatmayapplytoaproposed developmentproject. 3.3.8. Anyauthorization,permit,entitlementor otherapprovalissuedforaproposeddevelopmentproject bytheCityaftertheeffectivedateofthismeasureis limitedbytheforegoingprovisions,andanyclaimed “vestedright”todevelopunderanysuchauthorization, permit,entitlementorotherapprovalshallbeandis conditionedontheforegoing100,000squarefoot limitationonOfficeSpace,whetherornotsuchcondition isexpresslycalledoutorstatedintheauthorization, permit,entitlementorotherapproval. 3.4. ECRSPECIFICPLANAREA MAXIMUMTOTALNON-RESIDENTIALAND OFFICESPACEDEVELOPMENTALLOWED. 3.4.1. ThisSection3.4ofthismeasurehereby incorporatesthevoteradoptedCommercialUse Classificationsanddefinitionof“OfficeSpace”stated withinSection3.3above. 3.4.2. TheFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport (EIR)fortheECRSpecificPlan,ascertifiedbytheCity onJune5,2012,atpage3-11,statesthatitconceptually analyzesnet,newdevelopmentof240,820squarefeetof CommercialSpace. Afterthismeasurebecomes effective,themaximumsquarefootageofallnet,new OfficeSpacethatmaybeapproved,entitled,permittedor otherwiseauthorizedbytheCityintheaggregatewithin theECRSpecificPlanAreaaftertheECRSpecificPlan’s adoptiononJuly12,2012shallnotexceedthe240,820 squarefeetofCommercialSpacedisclosedandanalyzed intheECRSpecificPlanEIR. 3.4.3. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,theECR SpecificPlanatpageG16,statesasfollows: “TheSpecificPlanestablishesthemaximumallowable netnewdevelopmentasfollows: •Residentialuses:680units;and •Non-residentialuses,includingretail,officeandhotel: 474,000SquareFeet. TheSpecificPlandividesthemaximumallowable developmentbetweenresidentialandnon-residentialuses asshown,recognizingtheparticularimpactsfrom residentialdevelopment(e.g.,onschoolsandparks)while otherwiseallowingmarketforcestodeterminethefinal combinationofdevelopmenttypesovertime. ThePlanningDivisionshallatalltimesmaintaina publiclyavailablerecordof: •Thetotalamountofallowableresidentialunitsandnon- residentialsquarefootageundertheSpecificPlan,as providedabove; •Thetotalnumberofresidentialunitsandnonresidential squarefootageforwhichentitlementsandbuilding permitshavebeengranted; •Thetotalnumberofresidentialunitsandnonresidential squarefootageremovedduetobuildingdemolition;and •Thetotalallowablenumberofresidentialunitsandnon- residentialsquarefootageremainingavailable.” TheforegoingpassageoftheSpecificPlanishereby amended,restatedandadoptedbythevoterstoinstead readasfollows:
    • Page 3 of 5 “TheSpecificPlanestablishesthemaximumallowable netnewdevelopmentasfollows: •Residentialuses:680units;and •Non-residentialuses,includingretail,officeandhotel: 474,000SquareFeet,withusesqualifyingasOfficeSpace underSection3.3,above,constitutingnomorethan 240,820SquareFeet. TheSpecificPlandividesthemaximumallowable developmentbetweenresidentialandnon-residentialuses asshown,recognizingtheparticularimpactsfrom residentialdevelopment(e.g.,onschoolsandparks)while otherwiseallowingmarketforcestodeterminethefinal combinationofdevelopmenttypesovertime,subjectto theSquareFootagelimitationsstatedabove. ThePlanningDivisionshallatalltimesmaintaina publiclyavailablerecordof: •Thetotalamountofallowableresidentialunits,non- residentialsquarefootage,andOfficeSpacesquare footageallowedundertheSpecificPlan,asprovided above; •Thetotalnumberofresidentialunitsforwhichany vestingentitlementorbuildingpermithasbeengranted aftertheECRSpecificPlan’sadoptiononJuly12,2012; •Thetotalnonresidentialsquarefootageforwhichany vestingentitlementorbuildingpermithasbeengranted aftertheECRSpecificPlan’sadoptiononJuly12,2012; •ThetotalOfficeSpacesquarefootageforwhichany vestingentitlementorbuildingpermithasbeengranted aftertheECRSpecificPlan’sadoptiononJuly12,2012; •Thetotalnumberofunconstructedresidentialunits, nonresidentialsquarefootage,orOfficeSpacesquare footageforwhichanyvestingentitlementorbuilding permithasbeenissuedaftertheECRSpecificPlan’s adoptiononJuly12,2012,butthathavesubsequently beencreditedbacktowardthecalculationduetothe irrevocableexpiration,abandonment,rescissionor invalidationofsuchvestingentitlementorbuildingpermit priortoconstruction; •Thetotalnumberofresidentialunits,nonresidential squarefootage,orOfficeSpacesquarefootagethathave beencreditedbacktowardthenetcalculationdueto buildingdemolitioncompletedaftertheECRSpecific Plan’sadoptiononJuly12,2012;and •Thetotalallowablenumberofresidentialunits,non- residentialsquarefootage,andOfficeSpacesquare footageremainingavailable. Forpurposesoftheforegoingprovisions‘vesting entitlement’meansanyministerialordiscretionaryaction, decision,agreement,approvalorotheraffirmativeaction ofanyCityelectedorappointedofficialorbody,agency, staffmemberorofficer(including,butnotlimitedto,the adoptionofadevelopmentagreementorapprovalofa vestingtentativemap),thatconfersavestedrightuponthe developertoproceedwiththedevelopmentproject.” 3.4.4. AsadoptedonJuly12,2012,TheECR SpecificPlan,atpageG16,states:“Anydevelopment proposalthatwouldresultineithermoreresidencesor morecommercialdevelopmentthanpermittedbythe SpecificPlanwouldberequiredtoapplyforan amendmenttotheSpecificPlanandcompletethe necessaryenvironmentalreview.”Theforegoingpassage oftheSpecificPlanisherebyamended,restatedand adoptedbythevoterstoinsteadreadasfollows: “Any developmentproposalthatwouldresultinmorenet,new residentialunits,non-residentialsquarefootage(474,000 squarefeetmaximum)orOfficeSpacesquarefootage (240,820squarefeetmaximum)thanpermittedbythe SpecificPlanasrestatedandamendedatSection3.4.3, above,wouldberequiredtoapplyforanamendmenttothe SpecificPlanandcompletethenecessaryenvironmental review. Voterapprovalshallnotberequiredtoamendthe SpecificPlantoincreasethenumberofnet,newresidential unitsallowedbeyondthelimitstatedinthismeasure.Voter approvalshallberequiredtoincreasetheamountofnet,new non-residentialorOfficeSpacesquarefootageallowed beyondthelimitsstatedinthismeasure.” 3.4.5. Theforegoinglimitationsareinadditionto applicableFloorAreaRatio(FAR)limitations,including PublicBenefitBonuses,thatmayapplytoaproposed developmentproject. 3.4.6. Anyauthorization,permit,entitlementorother approvalissuedforaproposeddevelopmentprojectbythe Cityaftertheeffectivedateofthismeasureislimitedbythe foregoingprovisions,andanyclaimed“vestedright”to developunderanysuchauthorization,permit,entitlementor otherapprovalshallbeandisconditionedontheforegoing aggregatelimitsonnet,newresidential,non-residentialand OfficeSpacedevelopment,whetherornotsuchconditionis expresslycalledoutorstatedintheauthorization,permit, entitlementorotherapproval. Section4. NOAMENDMENTSORREPEAL WITHOUTVOTERAPPROVAL. 4.1. ExceptforasprovidedatSection3.4.4above regardingtheCity’sabilitytoapprovewithoutvoter ratificationanamendmenttotheSpecificPlanto accommodatedevelopmentproposalsthatwouldcallforan increaseintheallowablenumberofresidentialunitsunder theSpecificPlan,thevoter-adopteddevelopmentstandards anddefinitionssetforthinSection3,above,mayberepealed oramendedonlybyamajorityvoteoftheelectorateofthe CityofMenloParkvoting“YES”onaballotmeasure proposingsuchrepealoramendmentataregularorspecial election.Theentiretextoftheproposeddefinitionorstandard toberepealed,ortheamendmentproposedtoanysuch definitionorstandard,shallbeincludedinthesampleballot materialsmailedtoregisteredvoterspriortoanysuch election. 4.2. ConsistentwiththePlanningandZoningLaw andapplicablecaselaw,theCityshallnotadoptanyother newprovisionsoramendmentstothePolicyPlanning Documentsthatwouldbeinconsistentwithorfrustratethe implementationofthevoter-adopteddevelopmentstandards anddefinitionssetforthinSection3,above,absentvoter approvalofaconformingamendmenttothosevoter-adopted provisions. Section5. PRIORITY. 5.1. Afterthismeasurebecomeseffective,its provisionshallprevailoverandsupersedeallprovisionsof themunicipalcode,ordinances,resolutions,and administrativepoliciesoftheCityofMenloParkwhichare inferiortothePlanningPolicyDocumentsandinconflict withanyprovisionsofthismeasure. Section6. SEVERABILITY. 6.1. Intheeventafinaljudgmentofacourtofproper jurisdictiondeterminesthatanyprovision,phraseorwordof thisinitiativemeasure,oraparticularapplicationofanysuch provision,phraseorword,isinvalidorunenforceable pursuanttostateorfederallaw,theinvalidorunenforceable provision,phrase,wordorparticularapplicationshallbe severedfromtheremainderofthismeasure,andthe remainingportionsofthismeasureshallremaininfull forceandeffectwithouttheinvalidorunenforceable provision,phrase,wordorparticularapplication. Section7. CONFLICTWITHOTHERBALLOT MEASURES. 7.1. Intheeventthatanyotherballotmeasureis proposedforvoterapprovalonthesameelectionballotas thisinitiativemeasure,andthatothermeasurecontains provisionswhichdealwiththesameorsimilarsubjects,it istheintentofthevotersinadoptingthismeasurethatthis measureshallprevailoveranysuchotherballotmeasure initsentiretytotheextentthatthismeasureisapproved andreceivesagreaternumberofvotesforapprovalthan theothermeasure. Insuchcase,theothermeasureisnull andvoidandnoprovisionoftheothermeasureshall becomeeffective. Section8. EXEMPTIONFORCERTAIN PROJECTS. 8.1. Totheextentanyparticulardevelopment projectorotherongoingactivityhas,priortotheeffective dateofthismeasure,obtainedalegallyvalid,vestedright understateorlocallawtoproceedinamanner inconsistentwithoneormoreofthevoter-adopted developmentdefinitionsandstandardsatSection3ofthis measure,thespecific,inconsistentdefinitionsand standardsshallnotbeinterpretedasapplyingtoor affectingtheprojectoractivity. Ifotherdefinitionsor standardsinSection3arenotinconsistentwithsuch vestedrights,thoseotherdefinitionsorstandardsshall continuetoapplytotheprojectoractivity. Projectsor activitiesthatmay,themselves,beexemptfromSection 3.4ofthismeasurebyvirtueoftheforegoingprovision, shall,totheextentthebuildingpermitfortheprojectpost- datestheECRSpecificPlan’sadoptiononJuly12,2012, stillbecountedtowardthecalculationofnet,newamount ofpre-existingapprovedresidentialunits,non-residential squarefootageorOfficeSpacesquarefootagewithinthe ECRSpecificPlanareacalledforbySection3.4.3,above, whenassessingwhethertheCitymayapprove,entitle, permitorotherwiseauthorizeadifferentprojector proposaltoproceedunderSection3.4ofthismeasure. 8.2. Totheextentthatoneormoreofthe developmentdefinitionsandstandardsinSection3ofthis measure,ifappliedtoanyparticularlanduseor developmentprojectorproposalwould,understateor federallaw,bebeyondtheinitiativepowersoftheCity’s votersundertheCaliforniaConstitution,thespecific, inconsistentdefinitionsandstandardsshallnotbe interpretedasapplyingtothatparticularprojector proposal. IfotherdefinitionsorstandardsinSection3,as appliedtoanysuchprojectorproposal,wouldnotbe beyondtheinitiativepowersoftheCity’svotersunderthe CaliforniaConstitution,thosedefinitionsorstandardsshall continuetoapplytotheprojectorproposal. Projectsor activitiesthatmay,themselves,beexemptfromSection 3.4ofthismeasurebyvirtueoftheforegoingprovision, shall,totheextentthebuildingpermitfortheprojectpost- datestheECRSpecificPlan’sadoptiononJuly12,2012, stillbecountedtowardthecalculationofnet,newamount ofpre-existingapprovedresidentialunits,non-residential squarefootageorOfficeSpacesquarefootagewithinthe ECRSpecificPlanareacalledforbySection3.4.3,above, whenassessingwhethertheCitymayapprove,entitle, permitorotherwiseauthorizeadifferentprojector proposaltoproceedunderSection3.4ofthismeasure.
    • Page 4 of 5 NOTICEOFINTENTTOCIRCULATEPETITION Noticeisherebygivenbythepersonswhosenamesappearhereonoftheirintentionto circulatethepetitionwithintheCityofMenloParkforthepurposeofamendingthe City’sGeneralPlanandElCaminoReal/DowntownSpecificPlantopromotethe revitalizationoftheElCaminoRealcorridoranddowntownbyencouraginglivable andwalkabledevelopmentofavibrantmixofuseswhileimprovingsafeconnectivity forfamiliesonfootandonbikes,enhancingandensuringadequatepublicspace,and promotinghealthylivingandsustainability.Astatementofthereasonsofthe proposedactionascontemplatedinthepetitionisasfollows:  Achieving the vision of the original public vision for the El Camino Real/Downtown area, which was developed through a 6 year community engagement process costing approximately $1.7 million.  Promoting projects in the El Camino Real corridor and Downtown that emphasize mixed-use development at a human scale and neighborhood retail, while protecting residents from harmful effects of excessive development.  Changing the Plan’s definition of open space so that only spaces at ground floor level (e.g., not upper level balconies or decks) count toward a development project’s minimum open space requirements. This will help to encourage ground level public plazas, gardens and walkways and distinguish, separate and provide greater visual relief from the mass of adjacent structures.  Defining and limiting uses constituting “Office Space” in the El Camino Real/Downtown area to no more than 100,000 square feet per individual proposed development project, or 240,820 square feet in total (the maximum amount conceptually disclosed and analyzed in the 2012 Specific Plan EIR), to ensure that such uses are not approved to the exclusion of a healthy balance of neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants, hotels, businesses, and housing near transit.  Adopting controls requiring voter approval of any proposal to allow new Office Space in the Specific Plan area to exceed 240,820 square feet, or to allow all combined new non-residential development in the Specific Plan area to exceed 474,000 square feet. /s/ MikeLanza 226YaleRoad MenloPark,CA94025 /s/ PattiFry 1045WalleaDrive MenloPark,CA94025
    • Page 5 of 5 AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF MENLO PARK GENERAL PLAN AND MENLO PARK 2012 EL CAMINO REAL/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LIMITING OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, MODIFYING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT EXCEED SPECIFIED DEVELOPMENT LIMITS The initiative measure proposed by this petition (“measure”) would amend the City of Menlo Park General Plan and Menlo Park El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (“ECR/Downtown Specific Plan”) adopted by the Menlo Park City Council on July 12, 2012 by imposing more restrictive development standards in the area of the City governed by the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan than currently imposed. The measure includes revised definitions and standards for open space requiring that only open space areas that do not exceed four (4) feet in height shall be calculated for meeting the minimum open space requirements. The measure mandates that office space in any individual development not exceed 100,000 square feet, caps the total net, new office space approved after July 12, 2012 at 240,820 square feet and retains the overall cap of 474,000 square feet for all net, new non-residential development in the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan area. The measure also would adopt specified definitions and standards in the current ECR/Downtown Specific Plan relating to open space and office space. Under the measure, the City Council cannot amend the definitions and development standards set forth in the measure as these provisions can be amended only with voter approval. In addition, voter approval is required to exceed the office space and nonresidential square footage limits. Voter approval would not be required to exceed the 680 residential unit limit. The measure exempts projects with vested rights to build that were obtained before the effective date of the measure from any conflicting definitions or standards set forth in the measure, but such projects would count against the square footage limits imposed by the measure if such projects received a building permit after the adoption of the ECR/Downtown Specific Plan on July 12, 2012. The proposed measure includes a severability clause so that if portions of the measure are deemed invalid, the remaining portions would remain in effect. A priority clause states that this measure would prevail over all conflicting City ordinances, resolutions and administrative policies. A conflicts provision provides that any competing measures on the same ballot as this measure are null and void if this measure receives more votes. The proposed measure requires approval by a majority of the voters in Menlo Park voting on the measure to become effective. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California as follows: I am 18 years of age or older. I wrote the above information in my own hand. The signature above is mine. My residence address is as stated above. I circulated this petition to myself on the date stated below. Executed on ___/___/2014, in the City of Menlo Park, California. Signature:__________________________. PRINT, STAPLE ALL FIVE (5) PAGES SECURELY TOGETHER, FILL OUT BY HAND IN INK ONLY. RETURN BY MAIL TO: Save Menlo, 1045 Wallea Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025 www.savemenlo.org For Questions, Call: 415-606-4046 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. Official Use Only 1. Print Name: Signature: Residence Address: City/State./Zip: