I strongly disagree with Bob McGrews vision of downtown Menlo Park.

Yes Palo Alto has more nice restaurants, a coupe trendy movie theatres, and an Apple Store. It's also incredibly painful to get in and out of, expensive, and impossible to park.

I'd rather stick with an uncontested, peaceful, if somewhat sleepy downtown.

If you want density, move to San Francisco.

Hear hear! I couldn't agree more. We are not the rural outpost of fifty years ago, but a world economic center. More vibrancy, and more housing!

Nooooooo FB employee.

You're missing the special charm of Menlo Park, as embodied by Anne's coffee shop and our Swedish clogs shops to name but a few. Menlo Park is sleepy for good reasons. Go drink your fancy coffee somewhere else- we're just proud to have a Safeway and weak coffee at Borone's for $3 a mug.

The most feared (fake) person on this forum:
• 26 year-old living in SF making $300K+
• using Waze to cut through neighborhoods
• wants Four Barrel (hipster) coffee shop
• wants cool bars that stayed open late
• wants special Uber waiting lot

@peace lover
1) You live in Atherton, if you desire a quiet downtown with tons of parking, feel free to build one in your town.
2) I've never had an issue parking in downtown MP or PA. Sorry, you may need to take 5 min to find a spot and it might not be directly in front of your destination.
3) Want lots of parking and open space, stay in West Atherton on your acre plus property. Or may MAYBE you could MOVE to a less populated area. You could buy many hundreds of acres in a rural area for the price if your West Atherton spread.

Bob

Great post, I couldn't agree more. When I move back to MP in 2013, the recently passed DSP made the move exciting. Over the past 3 years, I have been dismayed at the citizenry who seem fine with a tired downtown filled with thrift stores, parking lots, little foot traffic and acres of empty lots on ECR.

Cheers!

re: Peace Lover

So basically yes Palo Alto has more things to do which people take advantage of, but I don't want it here? Isn't that the old Yogi Berra quote about how no one goes there anymore because it's too crowded? There is no reason downtown MP can't be at least like downtown Los Altos or even San Carlos. Those are great downtowns which aren't as crazy as Palo Alto but still actually have life.

Don't forget the crime that comes with the "Palo Alto " lifestyle.
PA is our SF, let it stay there. It's not exactly a long drive for all that you want. It's more like a short bike ride or a long walk.

Please walk University Ave at 8pm on a Friday with your children and decide if this is what you want for Santa Cruz Ave.
I have and it's a Circus with plenty of panhandlers greeting you on every corner.

Hey Bob, forget it. MP is an old mule with it's feet dug into the ground, not moving, who cares a lot about trees and hates "developers". Redwood City is more exciting, Palo Alto is more exciting. Sorry Bob!

And they both have plenty of crime.

Nice try Bob McGrew. As you live in the secluded, low-density, Vintage Oaks development you are protected from the traffic you desire to impose on all.

If we could strike a nice balance like family friendly Laurel St. San Carlos that could be nice.

what a vision - but that isn't what is happening. Greenheart is building a couple of huge office buildings that will be empty at night and weekends smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be vibrant. Filled with incubator workers who can't rub two nickels together until their startups get going. They will really help the local economy. Oh right, they can't live here so if they help anywhere it won't be Menlo Park.
The dearth of housing will bring more commuters, not people who care about and support our community. The immense amount of growth will overpower the school system, our parks and playing fields, our streets, our water supply. And the workers who support our great lifestyle will continue to be displaced and be unable to live nearby.

This is no plan for the fantasy Bob paints. The parts that would make it work, including housing and transit, more libraries and schools, sportsfields, etc. are missing in action with no plans. Just a heavy foot on the growth accelerator.

fantasyland:

isn't housing being built over or in conjunction with the office space? You also argue at cross purposes. These people won't live here, according to you, but they'll overwhelm our schools, parks, etc. How? If they can't afford to live here how are they going to overwhelm anything? Try again. You can't have it both ways.

So, the opinion piece by, cofounder of Imagine MenloPark,,yet only a 4 year resident, Who, according to county public records paid $4,000,000. For a Vintage Oaks home on a traffic free culdesac ....pontificates to the rest of us longtime ordinary residents plagued by cut through commute traffic in our family neighborhoods.. That we are should tolerate even more indignations of cut through traffic from new development ?

The ECR Downtown Specific Plan guiding principle of a Village Concept for the future of Menlo Park has been conveniently ignored by the likes of McGrew...

As if he was stuck in yesterday's gridlock on NB ECR at 5:30...only to be exacerbated by even more Stanford ECR and Greenheart overdevelopment plans...that will further increase cut through traffic through Menlo family neighborhoods as a result of continuing ECR gridlock

Typical...but not surprising of a guy like McGrew, Whose ignorance as a relative recent transplant..immune from the negative externalities of executive traffic and school overcrowding so .... appears to be only exceeded by his arrogance

Imagine Menlo? How about some vetting of so called Almanac contributors for their length of residency in our great Town to give readers a real perspective on their qualifications to pontificate to the rest of us ordinary long term residents who like the Village concept...

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

@Peace Lover and @Neighbor:

We can absolutely make Menlo Park more interesting without it becoming Palo Alto.

)Menlo Park is a great place, and we can make it better without being afraid it will turn into a carbon copy of our neighbor to the south. We should have some more confidence in our city and our neighbors. Borrone's definitely has the best atmosphere of any coffee place I can think of on the Peninsula. (I'm not going to vouch for their coffee though.) But we have a big downtown - there's lots of room for other places that are also great places to enjoy.

And, by the way, I frequently do bike to University Avenue with my children. In the evenings, my wife and I find that there's more places to take our children in downtown Palo Alto than in downtown Menlo Park - although our favorite weekend activity is brunch at Borrone's followed by a stop at Cheeky Monkey.

@Nice try and @1%er:

For the record, my home in Vintage Oaks didn't cost $4m, isn't on a cul de sac, and - even more sadly - is not free from speeding cars. We could all wish we were so lucky .:)

But it is across the street from the Coleman Place apartments and the home next door to mine is actually a duplex. Both are full of wonderful neighbors, and I'm happy that my neighbors have these housing options - just like I'm happy to have the option of a single-family home for my family. I think that Menlo Park needs more options like these.

We actually just moved from the Willows earlier this year, where my wife's parents still live. The cut-through traffic on my old street in the Willows is a real problem. It's why I signed up for the board of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association - it turns out that most of the traffic is from service workers who work in downtown Palo Alto. We've found that half would prefer to take the bus if it were cheaper - and so we are working with the City of Palo Alto and large downtown employers to make the bus cheaper than parking. In our first month, we've already found dozens of workers to switch. If we can scale up the effort, our survey shows that we can cut the number of drivers in downtown Palo Alto by a third - and fix the cut-through traffic, too.

@fantasyland:

Both Greenheart and Stanford are building a mix of offices and housing. Greenheart, at least, which is close to the Santa Cruz area, should drive both daytime and nighttime traffic to downtown, supporting our local merchants and making more restaurants and nightlife possible. Fortunately, Leland Stanford planned for the transit we need to make it work 150 years ago - it's right next to the Caltrain station.

If you are as concerned about the housing crisis as I am, I hope you join me in asking the City Council to tackle the barriers that make housing development in the Santa Cruz Avenue area infeasible. Some of the solutions, like a parking garage, are envisioned in the DSP. Others, like the absurd regulation that apartments in housing-only developments have to average 2200 sq ft seem to be mistakes. I've talked to several people who were part of the DSP committee who didn't realize that this was the rule, and feel that the consultants simply made a mistake in translating the desires of the committee into practice.

Menlo Park has no shortage of land for housing - we just need to set the rules to make it possible for people to develop apartments in the downtown area. We're 95% of the way there - we just need to finish the last 5% to make it actually work.

I have lived in menlo park 51 years so according to " not 1percent" I may be allowed to sit at the grown ups table. may I suggest that newcomers such as Bob may have some new ideas that we should consider. I would like to see Santa Cruz avenue rebuilt with mixed used buildings, parking garages, and no cars. I would like to see the vacant Loy's replaced with new development. I would like to get rid of that stupid train running through town and replace it with BART running underground. I would like to rerun bicycle paths in the old tracks. Let's imagine something better than status quo. Now get off my lawn

Bob you are conflating multiple issues.

If you want better restaurants, that pretty easy. If there's demand and more higher end places like Madamoiselle Colette thrive, more will come. The consequences of better places on traffic probably won't be too bad.

If you want more people, you're going to run into a buzz saw of opposition. Most people who live here want low density and hate the traffic that increased housing and development bring.

Tying that two issues together is confusing. It sure seems like you're trying to advance a "more development" agenda by promising fancier stores. And people see through that.

@peace lover
You don't live in Menlo Park, so please don't speak for those that do.

I am for a more vibrant downtown, as are many residents.

I am also not a new comer. I've lived here my entire life.

@Peace Lover:

It's well-known among retailers that if you want a more successful retail area, you need more foot traffic. In order to get more foot traffic, you need to have more people either working or living within walking distance. This is a commonplace observation, and it was part of the idea behind the Downtown Specific Plan, which envisions apartment buildings and offices replacing single-story buildings along Santa Cruz and El Camino Real.

When I talk to my friend and neighbors in Menlo Park, I've found the opposite of "a buzzsaw of opposition". I hear overwhelming support for a more vibrant downtown and for attractive buildings to replace the vacant lots on El Camino Real. The Downtown Specific Plan was passed with wide community feedback and support, and when voters had the option to keep it as is or amend it with Measure M, they chose to keep it as is by large margins.

In short, we've already seen the community support this vision of a more vibrant downtown. I just think we have more work to do in order to actually achieve it.

@Bob - The problem with the Greenheart and Stanford projects is that although mixed use, they worse the housing crisis even though those specific sites could help ease it. The DSP rules allow more than 400 more units than they propose. There are no barriers for Greenheart to add housing for the new workers in their offices. They could build more than 300 units but are only building about 120 fewer than that. They are not even offering to pay enough to build housing someplace else.
There are rules that would allow Stanford to build about 500 housing units instead of the 215 they propose.
These two are the biggest sites where a lot of housing could go and the rules are already there as a result of the DSP process. The problem is that the DSP rules allow so much office that developers choose to do that instead. If you are serious about improving the housing crisis, tackle this. The council is empowered to make those changes. They need your support.

@Menlo Voter - There is no contradiction. The Greenheart project adds a lot more jobs and demand for housing than the number of units it provides. Those new workers can't live here because there won't be enough housing. The General Plan update information shows that the entire city is projected to grow by 50% because of current and new zoning. It also shows that there will be even more jobs (70% increase) so the housing shortage will get worse. It shows that the schools are not prepared for the population growth, neither are the libraries, roadways and intersections, etc.

I believe everyone wants a vibrant downtown. There may be differences of opinion about what that means, but during the DSP visioning process it was discussed quite a bit that what it did NOT mean was big spaces that were empty at night. The examples at the time were the banks and offices on Santa Cruz Ave downtown that created dead space instead of vibrancy. IMHO two huge office buildings will do the same. There would be more vibrancy when more of the people who work here actually live here and patronize restaurants and stores every day of the week, and evenings, too. There must be a better housing and jobs balance for that to happen.

"the DSP rules allow so much office that developers choose to do that instead. "

Precisely - and those rules were adopted in a six year long deliberative process and withstood a challenge by a vote of the people.

Rules are rules - time to move on in accordance with those rules.

The DSP rules were adopted when the city's consultants said there was no market for office in the foreseeable future. The DSP rules were proposed when office business practices had about 300 sq ft for each job. They were proposed before Facebook came to town. Now, 6 years after the draft DSP came out, the market is very different and the business practices are very different.

Time to wake up and accept that the DSP has to be kept current. It is a fantasy to rely entirely on assumptions from community meetings and consultant input from 2009-2010.

fantasyland:

to save you going back and reading what I wrote I'll quote it again: ""These people won't live here, according to you, but they'll overwhelm our schools, parks, etc. How? If they can't afford to live here how are they going to overwhelm anything?"

There's your contradiction.

@Menlo Voter - thanks for clarifying what you thought I said. I was talking about the downtown workers (such as in Greenheart offices) who can't live here because there would not be enough housing for them. Not because they can't afford to live here. The problem would be lack of supply.

The city says the citywide population will grow by 50% but there are not plans for expanding parks, schools, etc. The city also says jobs growth would be 70%, so the shortage would get worse. So community facilities would be over-run AND workers couldn't live here. Both happen.

fantasyland:

how will the city population grow by 50% if "not enough" housing is built? That doesn't make sense. It takes housing to accommodate population growth. 50% of our current population is somewhere north of 15,000 people. Where are they going to live if we aren't building enough housing?

Given the wobbly commitment to the DSP perhaps Stanford should just build 100% housing and then dedicate that housing to faculty, staff and students. And then take the whole project off the property tax rolls.

@PC who says Stanford won't do that anyway with the offices and housing proposed now?

What's wrong with 100% Stanford housing? Most would bike/walk/Marguerite to campus.

Bob-

If you're so sure people like your vision, put it to a referendum.

1. Status Quo. Keep the amount of housing units and office square feet at 2016 levels.
2. Growth. Increase the number of people living and working in MP.

That's really what this discussion is about. You are spinning increased development as "more vibrancy."

I'm pretty sure 1 will win.

We had that election - it was called Measure M.

It lost by 24 points - 62% Against vs 38% for.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 5, 2014 at 8:21 am
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

As I posted yesterday before the results were known, here is what I hope happens and what I will work for:

1 - A collaborative effort with all of the concerned citizens to reaffirm their support for the deliberative process of the Specific Plan and the efforts of the Planning Commission and the City Council,

2 - An outreach to Stanford and Greenheart to submit revised proposals that reflect the outcome of the election,

3 - A commitment by both Save Menlo and Menlo Park Deserves Better to serve as a positive forces moving forward by encouraging dialogue and collaboration.
*******

@ PC and Less Spin - growth or no growth was not at all the issue in Measure M. It was not about whether to keep the DSP unchanged. It was about whether to moderate the amount of office growth, and about who should make that decision - voters or council.

No fantasyland, it was about should we stick with the outcome of a multi-year discussion and decision as to what we would do with this area. The decision was made. When the anti-anything crowd tried to fight it with Measure M they LOST. And lost BIG. Most of us are sick and tired of the empty lots and ridiculous downtown. Perhaps you and the other "no birds" would like to actually be involved in the REAL process of deciding how things go based on what the MAJORITY of citizens have said they want, instead of just being obstructionists. No growth is NOT what we wanted, unlike what the "no birds" want.

Measure M "Shall the Ordinance entitled “An Initiative Measure Proposing Amendments to the City of Menlo Park General Plan and Menlo Park 2012 El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Limiting Office Development, Modifying Open Space Requirements, and Requiring Voter Approval for New Non-residential Projects that Exceed Specified Development Limits” be adopted?"

This is not about "no growth", just less office growth. Still growth.

No one likes the empty lots.

"No one likes the empty lots."

Then stop fighting development that falls within the allowed parameters of the DSP.

@really? — yes I am a Facebook employee, but I wasn't when I moved to Allied Arts with my wife and two children. And I bike to work almost every day so I am doing my part on traffic. Also, the reason you know I'm a Facebook employee is that I post my views with my real name, which is more than I can say for you.

@Peace lover — as Bob says, the only way to get more restaurants and other amenities is to have more foot traffic. That means we need more people living and working downtown!

@ fantasyland — I would also like more housing, but to get more vibrancy we need not only people who live near downtown (who will go out to dinner after work), we also need more people *working* near downtown to support lunch hour. We need both!

The ad hominem attacks on this thread really sadden me. We all live here. My kids will grow up here. Can't we disagree like adults?

"This is an opportunity to do more to create new, naturally affordable apartments to bring young people and vibrancy into our downtown." Oh? What does "naturally affordable" mean? Even the older apartments in Menlo Park are getting so unaffordable for most; I live in one and bike less than a mile to work, and recently experienced a 25% increase. Anything new will be even more outrageous price-gouging by greedy owners and landlords. It's time for rent control, not new, ridiculously expensive apartments. The Bay Area is becoming one of the least-attractive places to move to and live in due to insane real estate values, and new, expensive apartments will only make things worse.

I live near downtown and would love to see more people enjoying downtown, walking from where they live or work nearby. It's true that the larger new developments will include more workers than residents, and I'd be happy to see more housing downtown, and for the rules to be changed to allow that to happen.

The goal of Measure M was to drastically limit the amount of offices that should be added near Caltrain, where people are most likely to take the train. It also would have required another ballot measure to change any of the rules in the specific plan - for example, to fix an omission that left out parking requirements for a Pilates studio. I am glad we don't have direct democracy to have new ballot measures for all the hundreds of decisions that city council makes.

To the person concerned about rents going up - in the last 5 years, San Mateo County has added 50,000 jobs and less than 3,000 housing units. With that sort of shortage, of course rents will go up. Our area has been underbuilding housing for 40 years. If we want to be a place where people can stay and the next generation can also find opportunity, we'll need more housing.

Adina, you know better. Had Measure M won, The only time the voters would be involved in any change to the Specific Plan would be if the council wanted to increase the 100,000 SF limit for office in any single project or change the definition of "open space" in a project. That was it. Why add anything now.
The open space requirement was 40%. Stanford asked and got it reduced to 30% and then was allowed to count every private balcony in the apartments as open space. Savemenlo thought was unreasonable.
I agree with mr carpenter that the council should adhere to the SP. Were it to do so, it would either encourage greenheart to make their project a residential heavy project or at least not ask to exceed the base line for office. After all greenheart is in the SP district called ECR-NE-R. The R stands for RESIDENTIAL.
Please revisit the Measure M Initiative so you can understand it and not misquote the elements of the ballot measure.

5+ years of talking, conversing, planning and now......it's time to act! Like your opinion piece Bob! Thanks
for putting your name out there. Let's hope there are plenty of others that agree! Those of you that have
the time, please come out Tuesday night for the discussion in front of council. The plan needs your support,
verbal support! Vibrancy, no weeds, and tax dollars remaining in Menlo Park versus PA, RWC etc.!

I had an email exchange with one of the main supporters of Measure M. He told the me real goal was to make sure that nothing was ever built on those car lots. That was the goal of Measure M.

Even 15 years ago I was at the farmers market and people were they protesting a plan to build nothing but housing on those car lots. No offices were in the plan, only apartments. I was told be guy with the petition that he had bought his place in 1974 and there was no more room for anyone else in MP.

Sickens me that we have so many selfish people in this town. I got mine, F'&%*& the rest of you.

MPer - "He told the me real goal was to make sure that nothing was ever built on those car lots."
Be careful generalizing. I know a lot of people who supported Measure M and never heard of that goal. Maybe the guy you know had that goal but that was not the case for the effort or for the rest of the supporters. Not one person I know wanted empty lots. Not one.
And I have never heard of a proposal for the car lots that had only apartments. Please provide facts.

@ Michael L - there would still be plenty of workers if there was more housing and less office. In fact, they might spend more money in Menlo Park because they would have a place to live.

The project would add housing but because it adds a lot more demand for housing, the project worsens the housing crisis. Balance is needed.

How likely is it that people working in office buildings that are part of mixed use projects will actually live in those buildings? Especially if the offices are populated with tech workers who we know in large numbers would rather live in San Francisco?

@menlovoter: It might be interesting to pose the question: "How might we develop Menlo Park so that tech workers and other millennials want to live AND work in Menlo Park?" You take it for granted they will not want to live here. You need not.

Making Menlo Park attractive for millenials could involve making it a more vibrant, dense, walkable community, possibly with lots of housing downtown, bike lanes, wider sidewalks.

Many millennials are perfectly aligned with Menlo Park residents who are concerned about traffic. Local residents don't want more cars in their streets and many millennials don't want to own or drive cars. Have you noticed that the large US auto manufacturers are investing huge bucks in various car services. They seem to be gaining an understanding that they are in the transportation business, not the car business, and they see a very different transportation landscape in the future.

Eventually current Menlo Park residents are going to have to sell their houses. Will buyers (those same tech workers as they form families) want to live in a community built around cars which rolls up by 8:00 PM, especially with more vibrant communities like Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Carlos and Mountain View nearby?

maximus:

I'm with you. The no birds don't want a more vibrant down town nor the development that brings it. If the developments involve office space it's "it will bring more traffic." If it's more housing it's "it will overwhelm our schools." You get the idea. they always have a reason to oppose any development. Especially, if it involves increased density in any way.

Can the Almanac help stop the labeling and denigration of fellow residents by some posters? When I read, i see gross generalizations, categorization together of people who probably don't even know each other, and unneccessary snd inaccurate labels. All probably being stated because the accused may have different views on some matters than the writer.
This rhetoric tears communities apart and prevents productive dialog and compromise.

Comments of Terry Shuchat in announcing closure of Keeble and Schuchat photography on California Avenue in Palo Alto are interesting, noteworthy, and may indicate where City Council may be taking Menlo Park:

"Shuchat also lamented the changing landscape of California Avenue, which has seen many longtime retailers close in recent years, including Avenue Florist, Bargain Box and Village Stationers. He said he's watched the street evolve over the years from a "genuine downtown shopping street" to "a street of restaurants, nail salons and hair salons."

"This will not remain a business area," he added. "It's going to become an office-and-housing area."

Office and Housing area, anyone? Vibrancy? More Livable? More affordable? more fun?

Has anyone seen this fascinating visualization of bay area traffic?

Web Link

Vibrancy is great. But with it comes more and more traffic, which ultimately makes the bay area a worse place for everyone.

Sadly, most attempts to "encourage public transportation" just don't work.

@ George Fisher

When was the last time that anyone bought camera equipment from a bricks-and mortar shop? When did anyone last buy an actual camera? They/you are confusing the quickly changing demographic of photography and image-making with normal high-street pressures and churn of businesses.

It seems like every business that moves, retires, or changes in this area is seen as a symptom of the sky falling, instead of normal market forces or people just moving on.

What I don't get is why so very cities in the Bay Area straddle their
railroad tracks with their downtown and keep residences away from
them?

They would be easier to monitor. It puts people who want to go to
that city right in the middle of most things and you can put parking
and parking structures around the train tracks and muffle some of
the noise and vibration.

For a long term vision, why don't they work towards something like
that over the next 50 years instead of pretending any of our towns
are going to keep their rural charm as this area had 100 years ago
when the houses were country houses for those who lives in the
city?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?