FIVE LEVELS? I wonder how many residents know this?


■ Parking garage in Plaza 2. The memo says a parking structure on Parking Plaza 2 could provide between 250 and 310 parking spaces, depending on whether part of the parcel is left as a small park. The five-level structure would replace 95 existing spaces, with one level underground.

Do we want a vital downtown like Palo Alto or not? If we don't, then leave things as they are. If we want a vital downtown with a lot of business IT REQUIRES PARKING. Palo Alto realized this long ago and has built numerous parking garages. Do we want a vital downtown (like Palo Alto)? If the answer is "yes," we need to take the steps necessary to accomplish that. If not, then we can remain an antiquated little village that looks like it is still in the 60's. Menlo Park, you have a choice.

The question is not do we want a "vital downtown like Palo Alto" but do we want to LOOK LIKE downtown Palo Alto. I for one like our downtown pretty much as is. (Except for El Camino where we can all agree that as soon as financing once again becomes available responsible development should follow.)

Is it just me, or do other people have trouble remembering which parking lot has which number? In the interest of really making sure everyone affected, really does understand everything about these plans, it might be nice to see pictures, diagrams, examples, etc. Something people can quickly identify. My own store's parking lot is one that got assigned to be available for extra time, for pay, but I didn't even know where the dumb meter was, to show people where to buy a ticket! If you are like me, we really do care, but we don't have a lot of time to devote to all this, so please make it really clear and simply. Thanks!

Frugal:

Santa Cruz Ave. storefronts are desperately in need of updating. Like I said, it's like stepping back inot the 60's along much of the street.

As far as ECR is concerned, most of the vacant land is owned by Stanford. I don't think financing is an issue with them. The economy perhaps.

Stanford has ground leases that haven't expired yet. And they are waiting to see how big they can build under the new rules.

Is anyone else concerned that the consultants who just concluded that mixed-use buildings (unless residential) on Stanford couldn't provide any public benefit are the same consultants who are also employed by Stanford?