This document summarizes a proposed initiative measure that would amend the City of Menlo Park General Plan and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan by imposing more restrictive development standards in the Specific Plan area. Specifically, it would: 1) Modify open space requirements so that only ground-level open space up to 4 feet high counts toward minimum requirements. 2) Limit office space in individual developments to 100,000 square feet, cap total new office space approved after 2012 at 240,820 square feet, and retain the overall 474,000 square foot non-residential cap. 3) Require voter approval to amend the measure's definitions/standards or exceed its office/non-residential square

1. 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

2. 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:

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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: