" No one likes more traffic, which is one of the main reasons behind Measure M - but the
real result of Measure M means more traffic, not less."

Measure M places this overall limit on office development:
"• Non-residential uses, including retail, office and hotel: 474,000 Square Feet, with uses qualifying as Office Space under Section 3.3, above, constituting no more than 240,820 Square Feet. "

Under Measure M whoever uses this 240,820 Square Feet first gets it - leaving the small property owners at a great disadvantage because they would have to finance a city wide election get the limit raised.

Either Stanford or Greenheart could easily use the 240,820 Square Feet without violating the 100,000 sq ft limit by doing it on a parcel by parcel basis.

And Measure M places NO limits beyond the existing Specific Plan limits on the size and height of buildings on the Greenheart and Stanford properties.

Readers need to understand that zoning laws are permissive, not directive. Zoning laws create the rules for development but zoning laws cannot require that anything be built - only property owners can make that decision. So zoning laws need to provide a balance between all the competing desires for a property and if the incentives to build are not there then nothing will happen. If you restrict offices and nothing else then the everything else becomes attractive - both Stanford and GreenHeart could build 100% residential under Measure M and given the only limit is the FARs and NUMBER of residences they would simply build 3 and 4 bedroom units. Think about the impact of that on our schools.

Measure M was not carefully or wisely written.

Peter Carpenter, the Atherton resident, keeps posting non-sense.

The Council has presumably decided that medical office and big-box (and perhaps other options), which were not prohibited in the Specific Plan (but should have been), are not desirable. Council can simply say not to such developments. Measure M doesn't stop Council from taking such action.

Carpenter, keeps proposing scenarios that are hypothetical at best, and which Council can deny.

The Specific Plan itself is what is the disaster, not Measure M, which represents a rebellion by MP Voters to what Council approved.

What is so silly is, all this over building of Office, will result in MP being put further in the hole on the jobs / housing ratio, and will result in MP having to approve even more housing, to satisfy a new mandate in this area.

What is so outrageous is, City Council and City Staff induced the public to get involved and had the extensive Visioning process. The results of that process, are not reflected in what the final version of the Specific Plan has initiated. It is all one big fraud on the voters of Menlo Park.

Measure M is simply a rather minor adjustment to the plan. Don't be fooled:

Vote Yes on Measure M

"Carpenter, keeps proposing scenarios that are hypothetical at best, and which Council can deny."

No, what I am posting are the worst case analysis of what could happen under Measure M.

This is the analysis that Save Menlo should have done before they started this initiative.

No responsible person pursues a course of action without FIRST considering the consequences.

Morris is certainly welcome to cite specific language which prevents the outcomes that I have presented. If his answer remains "which Council can deny" then why does Measure M want to restrict the Council from exercising exactly that kind of responsible oversight?

"Now none of the studies for the Specific Plan, say "Measure M means more traffic, not less." Indeed this is just another lie from the No on M proponents."

The lie is Walser's.

Here is what the independent Wise Report concluded:
"Conclusion: Passage of the Ballot Measure potentially could impact traffic. However,
the Ballot Measure would not uniquely create more additional trips than the ECR/D
Specific Plan Baseline scenario. Although, in that the Ballot Measure would preclude
net new office build-out in excess of 240,820 square feet, the Ballot Measure would
8 See Table 2 in Appendix 4 for a break down of trip generation per use.
preclude some traffic scenarios that could entail fewer trips than the ECR/D Specific
Plan Base scenario (because office uses produce lower trip generation rates than other
uses such as retail, but more than uses such as hotels.)"