If M passes, Stanford and Greenheart won't be able to merge those lots, and we could end up with several separate projects with even greater height. We could end up with more office overall than the two proposed projects, and we could end up with all medical offices, which generate the most cat trips. Current proposals have no medical offices.

Residents with children that bike to Hillview over the train tracks, want their children and grandchildren to be able to get to school using the proposed bike tunnel.

Schmidt states "Ms. Winkler is either confused or intentionally confusing the facts."

Winkler's facts are exactly correct.

Remember that it was Schmidt who declared "The Stanford parcels were merged for reasons that suited the university" when in fact the SIX Stanford parcels on ECR have NOT been merged.

Unreality it is Schmidt who is either confused or intentionally confusing the facts.

There is not one thing keeping Stanford or Greenheart from merging parcels, now or after Measure M passes. The Specific Plan has height limits, and the council controls what those are - now and after Measure M passes.
The council controls how much medical - or even big box - there is, both now or after Measure M passes. Mickie and fgm's speculation are just scare tactics.

"There is not one thing keeping Stanford or Greenheart from merging parcels, now or after Measure M passes. "

WRONG - Please read Measure M:
"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 "

If a property owner has multiple adjacent parcels this section of Measure M positively encourages the development of separate, distinctly different projects (3.3.6. For purposes of this provision, all phases of a multi-phased project proposal shall be collectively considered an individual project) each with its own separate ECR access.
*************
"The council controls how much medical - or even big box - there is, both now or after Measure M passes."

WRONG. The Council has negotiated a modified Stanford proposal that includes ZERO medical offices. If Measure M passes that agreement disappears and Stanford is free to build medical offices.
***********
Note that the Measure M supporters NEVER quote from their own initiative -why? Because the facts are against them and they are hoping for an uninformed electorate . That is not going to happen.

Measure M is a Mistake.

M NO

The reason we don't quote from Measure M is because other posters are making up things that aren't in it.
The latest post by Carpenter is full of conjecture about potential behavior by Stanford. He fails to acknowledge the truth about council controls and about what the Measure requires. Measure M is about 4 things - how open space is counted, and how much total office and non-residential space is allowed.

@fact checker

see my other post about the possibility of what Measure M would "force" Stanford to do.

to stay under their "magical" 100,000 foot per project number they would/could develop their 8.43 acres in 5 99,000 foot projects. that would allow 33% medical PER PROJECT for a total of 150,000 of HIGH TRAFFIC office space.

They will maximize their financial benefit, just like any builder/landlord would. Measure M will FORCE them to move in this direction or just leave large portions of their buildings empty.

So you tell me a scenario that could come out of Measure M that IMPROVES traffic.....go for it, show ONE single scenario that does that.

Vote NO on M
M is a Mistake

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Factlless checker states -"Measure M is about 4 things - how open space is counted, and how much total office and non-residential space is allowed."

One, factless can't even count , that is three things.

Two, Measure M freezes 9 definitions plus the three things listed by factless and to change any of them requires a city wide vote:

"4.1.
NO AMENDMENTS OR REPEAL WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.
Except for as provided at Section 3.4.4 above regarding the City’s ability to approve without voter ratification an amendment to the Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals that would call for an increase in the allowable number of residential units under the Specific Plan, 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. The entire text of the proposed definition or standard to be repealed, or the amendment proposed to any such definition or standard, shall be included in the sample ballot materials mailed to registered voters prior to any such election.
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. "

Faceless states - "The reason we don't quote from Measure M is because other posters are making up things that aren't in it. " That would seem to be the perfect reason FOR quoting from Measure M as I always do.

The reason Measure M supporters do not quote Measure M is because many of them have never actually read it and few of them understand it and those who do understand it realize that quoting from it will simply prove how faulty it is.

In the Menlo Park pipeline is 2 million square feet of office development.
850,000 SF Bohannon Approved by MP voters
260,000 SF Sobrato Approved by current council 2 weeks ago.
400 000 SF Stanford & Greenheart on ECR proposed and current council wants to approve them
027 000 SF Hunter/Beltramo on ECR Approved and built.
430 000 SF Facebook Approved and under construction
1,967,000 SF TOTAL
60 acres just purchased by Facebook for how many SF of office? We do not know.

State and Regional Housing mandates (ABAG) will force us to find 5,000 housing sites in Menlo Park or we lose all transportation money for our roads, shuttle busses, possible undercrossing at Middle Ave.

We do not need all this office. We need retail. Stanford only has to provide 10,000 SF of retail in its 400,000 SF development, thanks to the three incumbents running for another term. Greenheart talks of 23,000 retail but has told the City, it may not work so they will have bank or real estate offices on the ground floor of their development. The General Plan calls for retail on ECR.

Peter Carpenter has no dog in this fight. He lives in a gated community in Atherton, a town that allows no offices or retail. Ignore him.

We do not want Menlo Park to turn into an Office Park, like Sunnyvale. VOTE YES ON MEASURE M

@wake up

Voting yes on measure M will simply create more traffic, measure M does NOT legislate any additional retail. if you are looking for Retail this is NOT the way to get it.

M is a Mistake
Vote NO on Measure M

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Wake up - Feel free to attack me (as the Editors have determined that I am the only poster on this Forum who is not protected from such attacks by their Terms Of Use) but such attacks do nothing to further the dialogue on Measure M.

I encourage to explain how Menlo Park can support more retail when it cannot support the retail that it already has.

And as for having a dog in the fight I have something more important than a dog in the fight - I actually support our current retailers as they are my downtown.