Martin Lamarque's comments about the dangers of fast-tracking growth are right to the point. As he points out, we are ALL prisoners of our geography and it is difficult, if not impossible, to restore balance once excessive growth occurs.

Thank you Martin for your alert to the need for our community to look hard at what is being proposed, in the context of the current housing crisis and traffic mess and inability of schools etc to accommodate this much growth right now.
The worst impacts are hurting those with the least clout.

the time for a reality check is that we come to an understanding that growth is coming whether we like it or not. We can either understand that and deal with the impacts or we can continue to stuff our heads in the sand and try to pretend we can stop it. It's NOT going to stop, so let's find intelligent ways to deal with it. Pretending we can stop it only puts off the inevitable and makes it WORSE.

So someone please articulate the problem with growth around Belle Haven. It seems to me that the traffic is there regardless, most of which is not from Facebook. If you own a home in Belle Haven, you've seen it's value double but your property tax stay at a very low level. If you rent, well then i guess you're under pressure as rents go up. But is the answer just Rent Control like they're fighting for in Mountain View? What are the specific problems that are the direct results of the planned growth (regardless of what the blah blah blah of an EIR is).

@really? - Your estimate of property value doubling is likely a gross underestimate. Let's take a random BH prop on Carlton Ave. [Portion removed]. Zillow reports it was last sold in May 1997 for $150,000, but is now worth $870,000! Pretty sweet to have an asset appreciate 480%, while also giving you almost two decades of lodging. What's more, the owner is only assessed at $261,549. What a subsidy!

[Portion removed; stick to the issues.]

I'm re-posting the essence of a comment I left in an earlier, related article because I'm concerned that city officials do not fully appreciate the magnitude of what is before them...

The Facebook proposal to add 4,500 new housing units represents a *** major change to Menlo Park ****. To put this into perspective, let's look at the recent growth of the town. The U.S. Census Bureau lists 33,449 residences in Menlo Park for 2015 (their most current recording). Going back to 2010 they report: 32,100 (2010); 32,521 (2011); 32,910 (2012); 33,105 (2013); 33,441 (2014); and 33,449 (2015). This represents a year-over-year growth rate of less than 1.01%. I think we’ve seen a slight uptick in the last year or two, but the point is, **we are not a growth city**. Never have been.

The 4,500 new units of housing may represent an additional 11,500 people (@ 2.4 people per unit), making for a new population of 44,540; an increase of 32%. If we assume the generous position that recent growth has been 300% of normal (3% per year vs. 1%), and that it will continue at this non-historic rate indefinitely, then you can see that, on this trajectory, we won’t reach 44,540 until 2039.

In other words, Menlo Park city officials are proposing to incur, encourage even, 23 years of growth essentially overnight. If you think that our roads are busy already, our schools are already full, our city pool and parks too full on busy days, imagine how things will be when we add 32% more people to the population essentially overnight. Infrastructure (schools, parks, roads, utilities) are slow to implement. Housing is not.

Let me offer another perspective for consideration... the new housing proposal is equivalent to adding the entire population of Atherton (p. 7,159) and Woodside (p. 5,481) *combined* to the current population of Menlo Park.

This is the perspective that all of the city planners and Facebook need to have as they consider the proposal before them. Wide eyed and clear-headed as they weigh the massive impacts on traffic, and policing, on business and on schools, and the deleterious effects this will have on all of us.

The impacts are too significant to move fast. These changes are permanent and can never be undone.

In response to "really?"

> So someone please articulate the problem with growth around Belle Haven. It
> seems to me that the traffic is there regardless, most of which is not from
> Facebook.

The EIR has clearly articulated how the increase in number of employees at Facebook would directly result in "significant and unavoidable" impact on traffic delays, even *with* some mitigation methods. "Seems to me" is not a precise measure of reality, especially if you do not live there. Yes, the majority of the traffic is across the bridge, but local traffic tends to have a disproportionate impact on delays, due to people making turns. The neighborhood has long had traffic problems; they do not need to be exacerbated more. The thing to understand is that the number of employees at Facebook significantly exceeds the number of people who worked at Sun Microsystems and Tyco. Facebook has far less space set aside per employee than comparable firms; and had extremely rosy estimates for the number of people who would not drive themselves to work.


It is my belief that worsened traffic delays are not "unavoidable", but rather "unavoidable with modest infrastructure improvements". If they develop a clear plan for how to address the traffic, get Facebook to pay for a fair portion of the necessary improvements through taxes, by all means, let them develop.

As far as housing goes, low income renters are having a terrible time of it, but I personally do not hold Facebook responsible for this. Building extra housing is the most effective way of dealing with it (but it would worsen traffic).

Until there is some traffic relief to this area adding additional people ,houses, and apartments just is going to make for more frustration. Marsh, Willow, and arteries to 280 need improvement. It is not very wise to just keep adding people withought a viable plan in place for traffic to move about successfully. If you are caught in this traffic mess you will immediately know what I am talking about!

The no growth argument is so stale.

Too much traffic - Traffic has been an issue here for 40 years and nothing has been done about it. NOTHING. Congrats people, you complain an do nothing.

Too dense - Menlo Park is 1/2 as dense as Palo Alto and is littered with empty lots. Downtown has many lots that were turned into multi unit properties. I am sure the owners of those properties are against growth. How else could you charge more to live in a run down apt on Roble than Manhattan!

Things are moving too fast - time to make up for 50 years of failed planning for growth.

This is a village - so was San Francisco once, those days are long gone. MP ceased to be a "village" many many decades ago, if it ever was one. Most "Villages" don't give 1/2 of their downtown to parking lots and empty lots.

Of course, I do have doubts about the city council's abilities considering they can't even get a sidewalk built.

MPer: Please take into account that Belle Haven is far more dense than the rest of Menlo Park, and has to bear the brunt of the traffic burden, along with East Palo Alto. I'm not against growth, we just need proper infrastructure to move people.

No one is making a "no growth" argument. That's a straw man that the development-at-any-cost profiteers like to throw up and then attack. In reality, residents want development and growth that serves the community as well as developers.

The problem is that we've got a council that green lights huge projects without much thought as to the impacts on the city and surrounding areas, much less whether the projects provide anything that current residents need. Many residents don't shop in Menlo Park, don't buy groceries in Menlo Park, don't go out to eat in Menlo Park. More office space, even more housing, won't address the needs of current residents.

Worst of all, no one is making any accommodations for open space. Go ahead, compare us to Palo Alto -- they've got way more public recreational space than we do. And what are we getting out of the new development? A few square yards of public courtyard amidst various office buildings? This is short-sided and will backfire on our community.

It is convenient to overlook the fact that years of public process proved that village character was the #1 concern of residents. If we're pretending to care about residents and quality of life, then we shouldn't be making snarky comments about village character. Fact is that parts of Manhattan have village character. Doesn't mean that you have a tiny population, but rather than you build to a human scale. Many plans produced by the city over the last ten years show people pushing strollers down the sidewalk and hanging out in cafes. But the current development scenario has all but obliterated those images. When the landscape is owned by office buildings and traffic, the result is a community that no one wants to live in.

Alan

Totally agree. I am sure that we can figure traffic flow out. My point is that the threat of more traffic, is not a reason not to move forward. Belle Haven at least, is close to 101, the Bayfront Exp and the Dumbarton. We also need to remember that regardless of what we do in MP the region is growing and that means more traffic on the Dumbarton and 101 as people commute to jobs on the Peninsula, yet can afford or can't find a place to live on this side of the Bay.

@One-way ticket to nowhere

"The problem is that we've got a council that green lights huge projects without much thought as to the impacts on the city and surrounding areas, much less whether the projects provide anything that current residents need."

What projects have been approved? Please demonstrate lack public benefit for each. So far, I see mostly empty lots.

"Many residents don't shop in Menlo Park, don't buy groceries in Menlo Park, don't go out to eat in Menlo Park."
This based on what? Any facts to back up this assertion? And if true, why don't they?

It is convenient to overlook the fact that years of public process proved that village character was the #1 concern of residents. Once again, anything to back this up?

"If we're pretending to care about residents and quality of life, then we shouldn't be making snarky comments about village character."
Why not? MP does not have a "village" character in any way shape or form. Their is no town square or gathering place. Our Farmers market takes place in a parking lot. There is no nightlife. 1/2 of downtown id a parking lot (that isn't snark, it is fact). ECR is lined by dilapidated building and empty lots and another huge parking lot for the Safeway.

"Many plans produced by the city over the last ten years show people pushing strollers down the sidewalk and hanging out in cafes. But the current development scenario has all but obliterated those images."

The city is trying to build outdoor seating for more restaurants on SC and the Stanford plan includes a public plaza. So once again, what projects are you referring to? The FB project and housing back right up to Bayfront park and their will be a public plaza there as well.

There is no shortage of people pushing strollers in MP. It is hard though because the sidewalks (where we have them) are mostly obstructed and in disrepair. ERC is a Freeway and not ped friendly at all. The city is supposed to address that as well. (so I guess we are a "village" with a freeway running through it).

The DSP calls for some of these issues to be addressed and ACTUALLY create somewhat of a village atmosphere, yet none of that has been implemented thanks to the Measure M folks and others.

A big problem is that there are NOT plans to provide an infrastructure that lessens the gridlock that would occur in Belle Haven and most of Menlo Park. Where are the plans for new sports fields? A bike network that is connected and safe? Places for new schools to support 50% growth in population? More water?

It is simply prudent to identify these plans - real plans - and funding for them BEFORE pushing the green light to major projects. Saying this is not at all "no-growth". It is about common sense.

Here's the zoning for the area in question. Did anyone including Mr. Lamarque bother to even read a thing about the connectMenlo project that has been planning the development of this area for 3 years. Here's how it is zoned, complete with new roads, a park, housing, retail and public space.

Web Link

The sky is not falling chicken little. This project is not being decided overnight, it has been years in the making.

It is a good thing that this post is labeled Opinion, because that is all it is, opinion. However to say that this hasn't been studied or reviewed is simply disingenuous.

So the ConnectMenlo process is all well and good, but it does nothing about Willow Road. The question is can anything be done to it? It's under Caltrans jurisdiction, so we just can go changing it as we want.

But what would the solutions to the bad traffic be? Emminant Domain for adding more lanes- definitely not. Better signalling: ineffective in the larger scheme. Our best bet would be to actually do the desperate and crazy thing of reducing traffic volume on Willow by cutting it down to one lane or making it even slower so that it looses its status as an artery to 101 and the bridge.

@really?

So your "best' solution is to create more gridlock. Willow is an artery to 101 and the bridge. That is not going to change.

Here's an idea, let's build a wall and not let anyone who doesn't live or work in Menlo Park in. Then those 'others' can't use our streets to get from the East Bay to their jobs in other west bay cities. Let's also not build anything else and tear down anything we don't like, we can build roads or park in there place.

Utopia!

@really?

Here's another idea, Demolish the Dumbarton Bridge! Traffic problem solved.

To eliminate the possibility of sorely needed investment -both in infrastructure and community facilities- simply because there is too much on the table is extremely shortsighted. We are in this predicament BECAUSE Menlo Park has said NO to most proposed development over the last several decades. Let's get out of our own way and start a productive conversation. Don't just shut the process down and take your ball and go home.

That's the point MPer. There is no direct solution to traffic on Willow. So perhaps we can all stop carping on with 'when will MP do something about traffic?'

Reducing traffic capacity on purpose isn't as crazy as it seems. Look at London with the Congestion Charge. Maybe then Belle Haven can share in our famous Village Character.

@really
So your "solution" is to force traffic onto Univetistv and Marsh Road vs. Willow? Why can't Willow remain what it is, a vital link to 101 and the east bay, just as it was designed?

Belle Haven isn't central London and Menlo Park does not have a "village" atmosphere. It is a small city in a large metro area, mostly built after WWII, hence the lack of good transit and focus on cars.

"A village is a clustered human settlement or community, larger than a hamlet but smaller than a town, with a population ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand. Though often located in rural areas, the term urban village is also applied to certain urban neighborhoods. An urban village is an urban development typically characterized by medium-density housing, mixed use zoning, good public transit and an emphasis on pedestrianization and public space."

Neither of these are Menlo Park.

Incidentally, if you want a real 'village' atmosphere there are many, many small towns in the USA that actually are 'villages', no stop lights and little traffic. No jobs of course, but if you sell your house here, you can move there and never need to work again.

This is the time to plan for growth. Not to approve massive growth with no plans to support it with identified inrastucture changes that are funded. That ia the problem facing us now.

Seems like Facebook building housing close to where their people work will minimize the traffic impact due to all those high paying jobs. Seems like all those wealthy young hipsters can skateboard to work Oh, and won't they be payin property taxes and sales taxes and such. Wonder why they'd want to live in Fremont and commute when they could just zip on home for a quick vape whenever they want. Smokeless is the new way by the way

@MPer - "Here's the zoning for the area in question."
It is highly misleading to refer only to the new zoning near Facebook. I highly advise Martin and others to look at the Draft environmental impact report for the General Plan update.
Much as the commenters here want to focus only on the rezoning near Facebook, that revised zoning is only a portion of the growth ahead. The General Plan update draft environmental impact report shows "yuge" impacts from proposed projects that could be approved soon, including the Facebook proposal, from continuation of zoning rules citywide, and from the revised zoning that some want us to believe is all that is about to happen. See Web Link to look at what makes up growth.
About 40% more workers would come from projects in the approval pipeline but only 10% more homes. That does not count citywide buildout of current zoning and the rezoning near Facebook. All told, the growth proposed is 72% more workers and 52% more homes. It is obvious where the workers would be housed, but not obvious where the housing would be. It is time for a reality check.
The point of no return IS rapidly approaching. Common sense planning is essential.

Based on the report attached by @time for reality check there is zoning and space for high density housing in M2. Not sure what other rezoning you are referring to. please elaborate I believe a lot of the new housing would be built on ECR cars lots and roger reynolds. These seem like appropriate places for new housing

The point of no return. Sounds dramatic doesn't it. Kind of like global warming Be
Frightened everyone, very frightened. Oh we'll at least we have the village gadfly reading the 10,000 page EIR for us, providing all that amateur expertise. Sounds like he should have been a village planner in real life. Hey what happens if sea level rises by 4 feet. Won't Facebook be under water by 2025. We will all have beachfront village property

The proposed projects for the empty car lots on El Camino are already included in the cumulative projects, so is the most likely buildout of the bayfront area. Folks, this is the picture the city thinks is ahead with all the proposals, the new zoning in bayfront area and build out in rest of city using current zoning there.

Where will the housing be? Where will the children go to school if there is 50% population growth? Where will their sports teams play? How will anyone get around when there is gridlock? These are the issues and there is no plan.

@time for reality check - We've all red the EIR and General Plan. It is all in there. You say it isn't but it is. How much planning do we to do to make you happy? This has been in the works since 2013.

@ MPer "It is all in there."
So point to the pages where there is enough housing for the cumulative projects (after all, this is a general plan update for the first time since 1994). And where is the housing for the remaining citywide buildout of the current general plan? In other words, where is the housing when local employment increases by 70% and housing only by 50%? Please point to the pages if it's in there.

@time for reality check


Since when have ever built housing for every worker in town. Since when is that a requirement? Not every worker who works in MP will live here, just as not every MP resident can work in Menlo Park? I work in San Mateo.

So are you saying the city should require one housing unit for every worker? We'd also need to ensure that housing goes to a MP office worker and jobs in Menlo Park go to MP residents.

Is that what you are saying?

"Major Changes" from Atherton has it right.
The Menlo Park City Council is green-lighting way too much at one time--seemingly huge project any big developer (or Facebook) proposes.

Who is this City Council representing?
If they'd been hired to represent the big developers, would they be doing anything differently?

It would be disastrous for any built-out city to add another 32% to its population virtually overnight.
This is the issue. Never mind the rancorous debates about no growth vs. the sky's the limit growth.
Our city simply can't sustain this increase in population without drastically lowering the quality of our lives, by negatively impacting our schools, our infrastructure, our water needs, our traffic, our parks, and our small town character.

Crowding increases crime, traffic gridlock, noise levels and stress.
This is what happens in urban centers, and it is the opposite of what suburban communities offer to their residents.
Menlo Park would need to gain 32% more land to accommodate all this building without crowding residents and depriving us of the tranquil, family-friendly environment and small-town character that residents cherish.
We might as well not have a City Council at all, as have this group that refuses to represent residents, but can't do enough for Facebook, Stanford and Greenheart.

enuff:

just more sky is falling nonsense. We better get on the growth train before it runs us down. Growth is not going to stop in the Bay Area simply because we wish it so.

@ Menlo Voter and MPer
The PLAN is for Menlo Park to grow 50% in population and housing. Is that OK with you? Where do you think the housing will be? The classrooms?
The PLAN is for 70% more workers to commute to Menlo Park. How will they get here? How will the emergency responders find their way through gridlock?

@Enuff
Thank you for speaking the obvious. There is no PLAN for anything but saying yes to big developers who will change our town forever.

@time for reality check

Your questions have been answered several times. 1500 of the housing units would be on Facebook property. High density housing is zoned for M2 as well as new roads, public spaces, parks etc... the remainder of the housing will be on ECR.

M2 is slated to be a new neighborhood. Cities developing new neighborhoods is hardly unprecedented for anyone alive in the 1950 when most of the neighborhoods on the peninsula were built out. In Fact, Menlo Park's population Doubled from 1950 -1960.

Why was this type of growth OK when needed for one generation but not another?

"Why was this type of growth OK when needed for one generation but not another?"

Excellent question. It's because " I've got mine and I don't want you "ruining" what I've got." NIMBYism at its finest.

"Why was this type of growth OK when needed for one generation but not another?"

I am not sure this is the issue. Simply concepts here. There was space available then. There is no space left. Our town looks sad enough as it is as the 2 small parks near downtown the town does not water. (why host music in the dirt on wednesdays, I used to love going to those, but now come home covered in dirt/dust).

@menlo home owner

There is space here now. Empty cars lots on ECR, that is space. M2 area, also space. Also the land you say was 'empty' was in fact not. It was opened to development after the estates of the Robber Barons were sold off.

Palo Alto, is 2x a dense and has more open space. it is right next door. So room to grow and have space, yes!

The way the town looks have nothing to do with proposed growth. Just the opposite, our downtown looks sad because nothing has been done to spruce it up since the 1980s. The buildings need a refresh as does the street art, parking lots etc..

The town is not watering the grass at those park due to it's desire to be poster child for water conservation. Could that be watering those parks with reclaimed water, yes. There are actually 5 parks near downtown, not 2. It really isn't that bad.

Too bad a little dust keeps you away from the Music. Everyone there seems to be having a great time, my family included.

I think Menlo Voter's comment above sums up your comments

In response:

> So someone please articulate the problem with growth around Belle Haven. It
> seems to me that the traffic is there regardless, most of which is not from
> Facebook.

Answer: Increase through traffic from workers using Highway 280 to get to Facebook

I still haven't seen any proof that the El Camino projects couldn't be built wit as much as 1/2 the density. Does anyone think the owners will continue to let their land sit indefinitely.

@MPer - "Your questions have been answered several times."
No. The general Plan shows that another 1,000 housing units will be somewhere in Menlo Park. The downtown plan has a limit that would not allow even half of these beyond what stanford and greenhart have proposed. So where will these be?

"Menlo Park's population Doubled from 1950 -1960." A number of Menlo Park neighborhood tracts were built during that time, and there were annexations. The city had space to build a support structure. Now it does not, at least not without planning that is not being done.

Studies show that the more aligned the number of jobs with the number of homes, the less traffic there is. Many workers could still commute, but living close to work is very attractive. The great disparity of jobs and housing means traffic, long commutes, displacement of those who support most of us and local business. Menlo Park has a choice about this disparity. Balanced growth makes abundant sense but there is no discussion about this. Who is running the show?

Didn't the council agree to hold some workshops? Why aren't these scheduled?