758 / 46.2% Yes votes ...... 881 / 53.8% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Measure H, if approved by a simple majority of voters, will adopt Ordinance 2003-350. This Ordinance, intended to reduce office development and help ensure the availability of residences smaller and less expensive than typical residences in Town, is consistent with General Plan policies for three parcels in the Nathhorst Triangle Area.

If adopted, this Ordinance would amend the Portola Valley Zoning Code by adding a Special Residential [S-R] District and making other minor amendments to the Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments, Parcel Area, Open Space and Bulk Requirements to consistent with the S-R District.

Specifically, the S-R District contains following regulations:

• The total floor area ratio of development may not exceed 0.13 for single parcel of at least one acre, or 0.19 for a coordinated development on three adjoining parcels of at least one acre each.

• No more than 25% of the total approved floor area may dedicated for office and/or commercial use; the balance of the floor area, 75% or more, shall be for residential use, at least 15% which must be affordable housing.

• The maximum number of dwelling units on a parcel shall be more than a density of 5.8 dwelling units per gross acre of parcel devoted to residential use.

• Dwelling units shall be no more than 2000 sq.ft. and no less than 800 sq.ft.

"The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure H. If you desire a copy of Ordinance 2003 - 350 or Measure H, please call elections official's office at (650) 851-1700 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you."

/s/ Margaret A. Sloan
Town Attorney for Town of Portola Valley

For

• Yes on Measure H

• No on Measure H

The old zoning allowed nearly 23,000 square feet of commercial construction and one acre of parking lots to accommodate 126 cars on three parcels behind and adjacent to John's Market.

The new zoning allows mixed-use, emphasizing smaller homes ranging from 800 to 2000 square feet with an estimated market value of $700,000 to $900,000. Three of the residences could be reserved at below market cost for employees of the Town, Portola Valley School District, and Woodside Fire Protection District. Any development is subject to the Town's rigorous design standards and thorough public review.

The new zoning allows a basic density approximately half of that permitted in the nearby, attractive Brookside Park neighborhood. It additionally provides a square footage bonus to encourage the three property owners to submit a coordinated proposal providing superior design, better traffic circulation and reduced environmental impacts.

In either case, the new zoning results in substantially less traffic, building mass and paving, and preserves more open space than the old zoning.

The new zoning applies only to the three parcels in the Nathhorst Triangle and, according to a legal opinion issued by the Town Attorney, does not establish any precedent for other parcels in town.

If the new ordinance is rejected, it will likely lead to major commercial development, as the old zoning will be locked in place for one year. Two property owners have already submitted applications for office buildings, and the third has recently unveiled plans for an oversized clinic project.

The new zoning ordinance was enacted after three years of study by the Town Council and Planning Commission--with public input at over forty public hearings. The ordinance was adopted unanimously by the Town Council and deserves your "Yes" vote.

/s/ L.W. "Bill" Lane, Jr. August 11, 2003
Town Founder and Member, first Portola Valley Town Council

/s/ Nancy Lund August 10, 2003
Portola Valley Town Historian

/s/ Barbara G. Seipp August 10, 2003
President, Portola Valley School District Board of Trustees

/s/ Jon Silver August 10, 2003
Former Three-Term Portola Valley Mayor, 2003 Open Space Honoree

/s/ Onnolee Trapp August 10, 2003
for the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County

Why is the Council creating a new "rural-urban" zoning designation? They apparently believe high-density construction is appropriate for Portola Valley. The Council is ignoring the opinions of its citizens. Consider the following:

• The Town was incorporated in 1964 to control density to 1 house per acre.

• In 1996 the Sausal Creek development was approved with 5.8 houses per acre (with little awareness by town residents).

• In 1998 a provision was slipped into the general plan to allow 5.8 houses per acre.

• Now the Council wants to create a new "rural-urban" zone for up 20 houses and 40 carports. (Interestingly, carports are not counted as "structures.")

• The Council is forcing its new zoning on the property owners neighbors, who are strongly opposed.

• The actual structural density of "attractive Brookside Park," which the Town Council points to as comparable, is actually built at structural density of 1 house per acre (12%).

• The town already has more than 450 homes on small lots in price range the Council is promoting. Furthermore, 8 Blue BMRs can provide houses for teachers and town employees.

/s/ Robert V. Brown
Councilman / Mayor, 16 years

/s/ John B. Mumford
Venture Capitalist

/s/ Stephen Dunne
Portola Valley Resident

/s/ Ellen Vernazza
Rural Advocate

/s/ Edwin A. Wells
Town Treasurer - 13 years

Many Town citizens oppose density of 5.8 houses/acre. This ordinance permits 20 houses on 3.6 acres, part of which is wetlands. Town staff and elected officials consistently downplay the large number of two-story houses and high percentage of structures per acre.

A simple reading of the ordinance might lead you to believe it is a positive change. Consider:

• The town plan specifying one house per acre was the reason for the Town's incorporation in 1964.

• The Council is increasing density and also not counting carports! The result is 5.8 houses/acre and many carports - is this what you want?

• Currently, one-acre property owners can cover no more than 12% of the land with structures. This ordinance increases coverage to 23% when carports are counted - A 92% INCREASE!

• Council members argue they are saving the Town from excessive office development, yet they propose 5.8 houses/acre and up to 7400 feet of new offices. This ordinance destroys our rural Town in order to save it!

• The ordinance does not help the Town meet the State BMR requirement or eliminate office construction.

Furthermore, claims that the subject property is the only place in Town where this high density would be allowed are false. The Council has already approved Sausal Creek -- a development with 5.8 houses/acre!

Do we want to cement 5.8 houses/acre in Town planning with its increased traffic? Vote NO to high-density housing.

Keep Portola Valley rural.

/s/ Robert V. Brown
Councilman / Mayor 16 years

/s/ Stephen M. Dunne
Portola Valley Resident

/s/ John Mumford
Venture Capitalist

/s/ Ellen Vernazza
Rural Advocate

/s/ Edwin A. Wells
Town Treasurer 13 Years

Since our Town incorporated in 1964, these 3.57 acres at the Nathhorst Triangle have been zoned for the most intensive development the Town allows: office and commercial.

The mixed-use rezoning adopted by our Town Council reduces development potential--and density--compared to the office/commercial development allowed by the old zoning. The argument against measure H is misleading, comparing the rezoning to one-acre housing, rather than to the office/commercial development we will get if measure H is rejected.

The new zoning:

Reduces unneeded office/commercial development by more than 2/3.

Reduces coverage by buildings, roads, and parking lots from roughly 50% under the old zoning to 27-40% under the new zoning.

Reduces building height and bulk by imposing a presumptive 18-foot height limit--10 feet lower than old zoning.

Reduces traffic drawn into town by office/commercial development that would be allowed if "H" were defeated.

Does not threaten any wetlands.

Allows smaller homes appropriate for Town and school employees, young professionals and current residents whose needs have changed.

The Council adopted verbatim the objective ballot wording prepared by the Town Attorney; they omitted nothing.

The rezoning is the product of an open public process, with much public input. Numerous refinements were made--in response to community concerns--to reduce development intensity. It's essential to safeguard Portola Valley's rural ambiance.

Vote "Yes" on Measure H for less intense development.

For more information: http://www.PVyesonH.com, 851-7519.

/s/ L.W. "Bill" Lane, Jr.
a Town Founder and Member, first Portola Valley Town Council

/s/ Onnolee Trapp
for the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County

/s/ Nancy Lund
Portola Valley Town Historian

/s/ Jon Silver
Former Three-Term Portola Valley Mayor, 2003 Open Space Honoree

/s/ Barbara G. Seipp
President, Portola Valley School District Board of Trustees