[portion removed]

The council has negotiated medical offices OUT of the Stanford project. If measure M passes that goes away. the outcome being that, while there will be less office space it will include medical offices. Medical offices are high traffic generators. So instead of reducing traffic, Measure M will INCREASE traffic.

In addition, Stanford will build five separate projects each with their own entrance to ECR as opposed to the single entrance proposed by Stanford. Talk about a traffic nightmare!

[portion removed.]

... the rest of us would like to see the ECR blight gone and would like to see a vibrant downtown. Measure M will kill any chance of that.

[portion removed.]

Vote NO on M

Check your facts before you post here, sir.

Developers and their friends are posting on these forums to distract people from the main issue of this election. 400,000K square feet of office - as large as the new Facebook campus off the freeway - that will be built in downtown Menlo Park.

Other than developers who have shelled out outrageous amounts in this election with full page ads on this website and other papers, no resident wants the equivalent of the new Facebook campus on El Camino.

Your medical use argument is a distraction. City Council can prohibit medical use at anytime - and they have just recently reduced it down to 33%. They can reduce it down to 0%.

Check your facts before you post again.

Perla:

you are the one who needs to check your facts. Yet again. You say the city can prohibit medical use. That's a bald face lie. The city cannot change any of the definitions set in stone by Measure M without a vote. That's the facts. I notice, as usual, you don't quote the language of your own measure to back up your claim. You never do. [portion removed. disagree without attacking other posters.]

By the way Perla, I'm neither a developer nor a friend of a developer. Go ahead and keep trying to paint everyone that disagrees with you with same brush. Pretty soon half the town or more will be covered in your paint. There are many like me that disagree with you because what you post is not factual. You NEVER post the language of your own measure to back up any of your claims. Because you CAN'T. They don't support your claims.

Frankly, as I've said before, it's likely you either slept through the creation of the DSP or are throwing a tantrum because it didn't go your way.

Measure M is a HUGE MISTAKE.

Vote NO on M

Measure M does not prohibit the council from changing the AMOUNT of office allowed for a project, whether medical or not, as long as it or the cumulative amount from all projects does not exceed the limits in the Measure (240,820 SF of net new office -- exact same amount as 30-year buildout studied for the plan - or 100,000 SF per project).

fact checker:

care to post the language that backs up your assertion?

Dear Menlo Voter,

Initiatives only enact what is specified. If it is not specified, it is not enacted.

What you say is not in the initiative.

"Initiatives only enact what is specified. If it is not specified, it is not enacted."

If it IS specified then it is enacted.
\Sec 3.1 defines the Specific Plan Area as the 15 July 2008 Vision Plan Map which includes all of the parcels shown on that map and is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2 .1 amends the Specific Plan definition of open space map and the amended language is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2.2 adopts the Specific Plan definition of private open space and is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2.3 adopts the Specific Plan definition of common outdoor open space and is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.2.4 adopts a Specific Plan standard regarding open space requirements and is “hereby adopted by the voters.”

3.2.5 amends a revised Specific Plan standard re height of qualifying open space and the amended language is “hereby adopted by the voters.”

3.2.6 amends a revised Specific Plan standard re qualifying open space and the amended language is “hereby adopted by the voters”.

3.3.1 A Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

3.3.2 Another Commercial Use Classification is hereby adopted by the voters.

3.3.3 Another Commercial Use Classification which includes “Financial institutions providing retail banking services. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of money” is hereby adopted by the voters.

3.3.4 The foregoing, voter-adopted Commercial Use Classifications are hereby collectively referred to in this measure as “Office Space” and this language is “hereby adopted by the voters”

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

3.3.6. For purposes of this provision, all phases of a multi-phased project proposal shall be collectively considered an individual project.

3.4.3 establishes the maximum allowable net new development

4.1 “, 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.”

4.1 also states “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. “

And Measure M includes this clause:
“PRIORITY.
After this measure becomes effective, its provision shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Menlo Park which are inferior to the Planning Policy Documents and in conflict with any provisions of this measure. “

So do not believe anyone who tells you that Measure M is "simple" or "just covers four things" or "it does not conflict with the Specific Plan" or that it "does not tie the hands of the city council."

Know the facts before you decide how to vote.

Perla:

as you won't or can't post the language of your own initiative, Peter has been kind enough to do so for you. As anyone can see what you're saying is FALSE.

Regarding Stanford's voluntary elimination of medical offices: It was never clear if that is just a promise or a legally enforceable agreement. And, who is going to police that for years and decades to come? I was a neighborhood representative to the subcommittee and was part of the "negotiation" but did not come away with any confidence that Stanford was serious about minimizing adverse impacts of their project. Also, Greenheart has made no such commitments.

Regarding not merging their lots into one superlot: I'd argue that would be a good thing. We would end up with smaller buildings and less square footage since there won't be connected underground parking and all setbacks would have to be observed on all four sites of each lot. Smaller buildings means less traffic. You would certainly avoid that "Milpitas" office park look.

Again, dear Menlo Voter and Peter -

You are using the usual scare tactics to confuse and distract people from the real issue of traffic from 400,000K square feet of office that brings residents nothing in return but traffic gridlock.

We are all for limiting medical square footage. And there is *nothing* in the initiative that prohibits the city council from limiting square feet of medical. Show us exactly where in the initiative that it says that city council cannot limit or reduce the square feet of medical offices. Show us where in the city attorney's impartial analysis it says that. Show us where in the ballot summary it says that.

This initiative is about protecting Menlo Park from traffic and preserving our small town character.

Who wants massive office buildings - the equivalent of the new Facebook campus - right on El Camino?

Thousands of additional cars will be coming into/out of Menlo Park. Imagine Willow, Ravenswood, Middlefield, Sand Hill road, Santa Cruz and Middle at 6pm with more cars.

Enough!

Recent documents produced by the city show a several month delay in release of final installment of W-Trans traffic reports because Thomas Rogers, who was asked to review on behalf of the planning department, could not find time to comment because he was so busy examining the Greenheart EIR necessity, even though Greenheart has not even filed an application.

The last traffic installment did not examine cut through traffic caused by congestion on El Camino Real and other streets, even though traffic on El Camino Real along the Stanford project increased overall from 38,000 trips per day at the time of the EIR to over 47,000 trips per day per current counts. The final installment was released on Thursday September 25 to staff only, Ray Mueller issued a self serving press release on Friday September 26, and it was not publicly released on September 29th, with a short notice of council meeting to discuss on October 1. The report did not comply with the detail on methodology and trip routes through town inserted at our request and with agreement of city and W trans.

Yes purported Tesla trips were subtracted, even though no trips from Tesla are included in the current counts of over 47,000 trips per day. Ray Mueller has called for an EIR to which Stanford has agreed, which should include congestion cut through traffic and more detail. Since the office traffic has no exit other than Middle, Cambridge and El Camino Real, we know traffic problems will be substantial and our neighborhoods jeopardized.

We have asked, but don't know if the Greenheart EIR will include congestion cut through traffic as well as traffic directly from the Greenheart project. Together the two projects office space will add, per models customarily used, over 4,000 new car trips. The EIRs should disclose the routes taken through the city, by the over 3,600 trips not originating or destination in Menlo Park, per City Circulation System Assessment (CSA) document. Measure M is needed to cut the Stanford and Greenheart office trips in half. Thanks, George

"Who wants massive office buildings - the equivalent of the new Facebook campus - right on El Camino? "

More of your nonsense Perla. The Facebook campus will be 1 million square feet. The Stanford plan is hardly the "equivalent" of the new Facebook campus.

Please Perla, spare us your hyperbole and try quoting or posting something that is actually factual.

George:

Cut through traffic already exists and has for quite some time. There are methods besides killing development to deal with that issue. Much of that traffic comes from RESIDENTS that live outside the city that cut through when they return from work so they don't have to deal with the traffic on ECR. How does Measure M stop the already existing cut through traffic?

"Regarding not merging their lots into one superlot: I'd argue that would be a good thing. We would end up with smaller buildings and less square footage since there won't be connected underground parking and all setbacks would have to be observed on all four sites of each lot. Smaller buildings means less traffic."

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how FARs work. Four separate lots still have the same total FAR as one merged lot. But they have greater setbacks, no shared underground parking and separate ECR access - all of which result in forcing the four separate buildings to be higher and, thanks to Measure M, with no balconies and upper level open space.

Another attempt to post a provocative pro-M headline, without tying anything to the actual legally binding language of Measure M.

M is all about hamstringing progress of any kind... while pretending to do otherwise.

"Another attempt to post a provocative pro-M headline, without tying anything to the actual legally binding language of Measure M.

M is all about hamstringing progress of any kind... while pretending to do otherwise."

Bingo

Measure M does not prevent balconies or upper level decks. That is totally untrue.
The Stanford and Greenheart projects are already at their maximum heights from what little project information is available through the city website.

The Facebook West campus at "approximately 433,555 square feet" IS very similar to the size of each of the Stanford (459,013 SF) and Greenheart (420,000 SF) projects.

Regarding cut-through traffic - locals may be in the mix, but cut-through traffic occurs when the major arteries are clogged up. A lot more office workers who commute at rush hours will clog up major streets and intersections. Like water, commuters will find the most quick way to get and from to their jobs.

The Facebook campus is 1 million square feet.

Yes the entire Facebook campus is very large, with two parts across from each other on Bayfront Expressway. The new West Campus is a very good comparison of the size of each of the Stanford and Greenheart projects.
For that much development, and all the commotion as each project is built, we ought to really want what is in the buildings. Yes on M help ensure the mix is closer to what the community requested. The current projects have 50% more office than predicted for 30 years in the entire downtown plan area. Not at all the community vision.

Faceless states - "Measure M does not prevent balconies or upper level decks. That is totally untrue."

This is a PERFECT example of how the Measure M supporters do not understand either basic zoning laws or the impact of their deeply flawed initiative.

Zoning ordinances Permit, Allow and Incentivize but they cannot require a property owner to build anything. A property owner who is Allowed to build a 20,000 sq ft building may be Incentivized to add upper story balconies and decks if the sq ft of those upper story balconies and decks is NOT counted against his 20,000 sq ft Allowance. Thus the Specific Plan Incentivizes a property owner to add upper story balconies and decks because it is considered as and counted as open space.

On the other hand Section 3.2.1 of Measure M states "The foregoing definition is hereby amended, restated and adopted by the voters to instead read: “The portion of the building site that is open, unobstructed and unoccupied, and otherwise preserved from development, and used for public or private use, including plazas, parks, walkways, landscaping, patios, balconies, and roof decks. It is inclusive of Common Outdoor Open Space, Private Open Space and Public Open Space as defined in this glossary. Open space up to 4 feet in height associated with ground floor level development or atop a podium up to 4 feet high, if provided, shall count toward the minimum open space requirement for proposed development. Open space greater than 4 feet in height, whether associated with upper story balconies, patios or roof decks, or atop a podium, if provided, shall not count toward the minimum open space requirement for proposed development. Open space is also land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to the conservation of natural resources.” Thus Measure M removes the Incentive to add upper story balconies and decks.

The Davis. Ca environmental lawyer who wrote Measure M simply does not understand the manner in which zoning laws work and does not understand the many unintended consequences of his Measure. Nor does factless.

"The current projects have 50% more office than predicted for 30 years in the entire downtown plan area"

Wrong again. Here are the Specific Plan limits for net new offices:

"The Specific Plan establishes the maximum allowable net
new development as follows:
• Residential uses: 680 units; and
• Non-residential uses, including retail, office and
hotel: 474,000 Square Feet."

page G 16.

Factless - you need to get a new name.

Carpenter points us to a total non-residential amount, not the OFFICE predicted for the plan

See page C20 for the commercial space (office) at the same amount in Measure M
 Residential 680 Units
 Retail Space 91,800 Square Feet
 Commercial Space 240,820 Square Feet
 Hotel 380 Rooms

Faceless either cannot read or refuses to read the Specific plan which states:
"the Illustrative
Plan of Figure C6 depict how the plan area could potentially
build out over the next 20 to 30 years in conformance with
the Guiding Principles, Urban Design Framework and
the land use and development regulations and design
guidelines of the Specifi c Plan. It is important to emphasize
that the Illustrative Plan indicates only one potential
development concept and that the actual build-out will likely
vary from the initial projection over 20 to 30 years."

This Illustrative Plan does NOT establish the Specific Plan limits. The Specific Plan limits are exactly as I quoted above:
""The Specific Plan establishes the maximum allowable net
new development as follows:
• Residential uses: 680 units; and
• Non-residential uses, including retail, office and
hotel: 474,000 Square Feet."

page G 16."

When someone repeatedly presents knowingly false information what do you call that information? I call it a lie.

I said that this amount of office was what was predicted in the plan. And that is true. The EIR states page 3-11 this amount is the "most reasonably foreseeable" amount of office for the plan.
That amount of office is referenced throughout the EIR, and also is the basis for the Financial Impact Analysis. On page 4.13-35 of the EIR, it states "The potential maximum amount of land use changes within the Plan area are summarized below:" and it references the same amount of office (240,820 SF).

That is not a lie.

"I said that this amount of office was what was predicted in the plan"

Wrong. As noted the Specific Plan made no such prediction. The Specific Plan uses an illustrative example and clearly states " It is important to emphasize
that the Illustrative Plan indicates only one potential
development concept and that the actual build-out will likely
vary from the initial projection over 20 to 30 years."

To continue to assert otherwise is a lie.

This is what the EIR states:
"The Plan permits development of up to 474,000 square feet of non-residential development and up to 680 dwelling units.

The precise location of development and the precise types of non-residential development that
will result from the Specific Plan are necessarily uncertain. This EIR analyzes the maximum
development resulting from Plan adoption AND has reviewed the development that is the most
reasonably foreseeable, AS ENVISIONED IN THE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN, based on studies of market demand, the location of opportunity sites, and assessment of the development potential of each property given the Guiding Principles, Urban Design Framework, land uses, development regulations, and design guidelines. The net new development analyzed includes:
Residences 680 dwelling units
Retail Space 91,800 square feet
Commercial Space 240,820 square feet
Hotel 380 rooms
Parking Spaces 3,670 spaces (public and private)
Resident Population 1,537
Employment 1,357 jobs

Any proposal for development IN EXCESS of more than 680 residential units or more than 474,000 square feet of non-residential development after approval of the Specific Plan will require an amendment to the Specific Plan and concurrent environmental review."

fact:

Perla didn't say Facebook West now did she? She said Facebook. Facebook's campus is 1 million sf. Stanford's project and Facebook are not equivalent. It's also not an equivalency to combine Stanford and Greeenheart. They're too far apart.