Noel is right on with her posting. I'd like to add that these seating bump-outs and their walls, plants etc into the street make Santa Cruz much more dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. It has become a somewhat confusing street to access with minimal visibility and misplaced stop signs. Curious as to whether there has been any increase in accidents and traffic tickets. Also has there been any decrease in retail store patronage.

I'm happy that seating is taking over parking so sad to say I'm in the other camp. But the tall planters and screens around seating areas such as Left Bank are a serious traffic hazard! They obstruct the 'visibility triangle' needed for cars to see each other and pedestrians across corners, normally designed into all intersections. This is a serious safety unintended consequence that needs to be addressed.

I'm sympathetic to people's parking frustrations but not sure that removing restaurant seating will have the result you're looking for (it might free up parking, but quite possibly at the expense of the vibrancy you prize). Moreover, the addition of downtown residences and offices will logically result in proportionately more foot and bike traffic, not more drivers (unless we make it so scary to walk/bike downtown that people feel they *have* to drive a couple of blocks to get to dinner).

A far better solution would be to (finally) build a real garage on one of those surface parking lots. We'd then be able to use our streets more efficiently for their most important purpose: moving people and vehicles from place to place.

If you bike, you don't need an expensive parking place, and you don't pollute the air.

The solution is to build ample parking structures as envisioned in our downtown and El Camino specific plan. We are behind on this critical need.

I look forward to a time when we have a better solution for downtown parking in the form of parking structures and traffic and parking on Santa Cruz are eliminated. Stores will need to have attractive "front" and "rear" entrances, and small kiosks or pop-up stores may dot the street. Pedestrians and cyclists safely mingle with one another, and the downtown area holds as much attraction for patrons as Cafe Barrone and Keplers do in their little corner of MP.

steve taffee

Recovering the twelve or so parking places that the outdoor seating occupies would do nothing to alleviate the supposed parking problem in MP, but it would remove a really nice downtown feature. I personally don’t find the parking situation that difficult. But I’m also willing to walk a couple blocks if necessary.

I disagree completely with the original post. I have long thought that Santa Cruz Ave. should be closed entirely to traffic, from El Camino, perhaps as far as University. Make it a pedestrian mall, build some parking garages. Or at least make traffic one way, like Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz. I think all that additional restaurant seating in former parking spots is a great addition, and contributes so much to making it "a vibrant, bustling city center".

like the pop up park this is another bad idea. I park wherever I can find a spot regardless of destination and like to walk. I'm more thinking about elderly people who may have a tougher time. I can't imagine either, how cool it is to dine a few feet away from all the exhaust. Come on Menlo Park, sorry but it is not that cool.

Build/provide more parking, stop taking it away.

I just took a screen shot of downtown Menlo Park from Google Earth and spent five minutes coloring in all of the off-street surface parking in blue (see link here: Web Link (apologies for my poor coloring skills--never was very good at that...)

What I think should be obvious from this exercise is the HUGE amount of land we are currently wasting for the sole purpose of temporarily warehousing private automobiles, in most cases FOR FREE. Wouldn't it be great if all of this land could be put to a more productive use: e.g. providing affordable housing (for residents who would also be much-needed customers for our downtown businesses), generating tax revenue for the city, or even providing much-needed open park space.

Given the above illustration, it is hard for me to understand how anyone could possibly think we don't have enough parking in Menlo Park, especially since most of the parking spaces are empty for many, if not most, hours every day. The problem isn't that we don't have enough parking, it is that we aren't charging an appropriate price for the parking that we do have. (If MacDonald's gave away hamburgers for free, I suspect we would also have a shortage of hamburgers.) With parking appropriately priced, perhaps folks would choose to walk, bike, take a ride-share, or even a shuttle bus, to get downtown instead of driving their own car.

It should also be clear from this analysis that the city shouldn't spend a penny building a new parking garage to provide even more free parking downtown. If the city wants to get creative in providing appropriate amounts of parking, the Strong Towns organization has some great ideas for doing that here: Web Link

Charge for parking like Redwood City. $1 per hour. Pays for their NUMEROUS parking garages and lots.

David Roise, thank you for that illustration! I'm always baffled when people say there isn't sufficient parking in downtown Menlo Park, when it's been my experience that there's a ton of parking, provided you're willing to walk a few steps.

I'm downtown multiple days per week, and I always park once, then walk to my various errands. I know that isn't an option for people who are older and/or less mobile, but for most of us it seems like it shouldn't be a problem.

I think the outdoor dining areas are a much more valuable amenity that a few parking spots, but I'm also in the apparent minority of those who don't want a downtown parking structure and didn't mind the pop-up park. ;)

I don't understand the fuss. I am in Menlo all the time, weekdays and weekends, and I never have problem finding a spot. You might need to walk a block or so to your destination but c'mon, the sun is shining 320 days a year!

That said, the "parking cafes" are silly eyesores. Who wants to enjoy their mediocre food with auto exhaust marinade? We do!

David Roise's graphic helps to show the resources dedicated to parking. Those who want to spnd more resources on a parking structure may want to think of the costs in these investments - and what you might get investing some of that money in alternatives to parking. The costs for a dedicated underground, or multi-story parking structure work out to be in the $20,000 to $45,000 range per parking space ( some designs are even more expensive).
Suppose we invested in better bike parking, improved pedestrian features like the recent sidewalks on Santa Cruz Ave and streetscapes that encouraged walking and biking. If investing $20,000 encourages 1 person to walk or bike rather than drive- the cost is exactly the same, and there is just as much parking available for those who choose to drive. But it might encourage more than 1 person. Investing $500,000 might take 50 cars off the road downtown for less than parking them.

It may be that it is better all around to invest in livable streetscapes, bike and pedestrian mobility, and with these alternatives it costs less in total to park fewer cars downtown. More importantly, it frees up all sorts of valuable land for new uses that really add to the vibracy and enjoymeent of downtown.
I think we have been underinvesting in approaches to encourage alternatives to driving, and we have been undervaluing the land that is being dedicated to the existing paved parking lots downtown. Let's have a better balance moving forward.

I'm fine with investing in garages as long as we a) charge a reasonable fee for parking and b) free up some of current parking for bike lanes, sidewalks, markets, and even housing/retail. If a multi-level (underground) garage is the price for getting a car-free Santa Cruz Ave retail zone, I'm down with that. The current situation, in which vast quantities of extremely valuable real estate are dedicated to mostly-free surface parking and our streets are too narrow for bike lanes (because parking), needs to change.

The only way to free our streets of the chaotic parking is to build AMPLE parking structures and charge a nominal fee for their use. Bicycles are fine and should be encouraged but automobiles are the dominant form of transportation and will be in the foreseeable future. Please support efforts to build the structures when the municipal bonds come to a vote.

During the past 30 years I have never spent more than 3 minutes looking for a parking space downtown during the daytime and usually less than a minute\, and I go there at least seven times a week. I love the outdoor dining and new stop signs on Santa Cruz. Now more friendly for all users including bicyclists.

I wish I could ride a bike, or walk a few blocks; unfortunately, due to age and a nasty auto accident, I can no longer do so. The loss of four parking spaces next to Walgreen's is a big deal for me since I can't now readily find a parking space near the pharmacy. Just my tough luck! I've switched to the Sharon Height's pharmacy since it has a drive through. To all you agile bike riders and to those who enjoy walking for a few blocks, I'm happy for you. I once could enjoy those activities, but now they are painful for me. So please, when you consider downtown parking, consider others' needs.

Sam Sinnott: Sure, automobiles are the dominant transportation mode at the moment, but shouldn't a mode that causes so many problems be discouraged, rather than encouraged by building more parking?
Liz: I certainly sympathize for your disability, and I don't assume that everybody can travel or shop using a bicycle, but the bicycle mode share is around 5% in Menlo Park. Does that mean that 95% of the population is physically unable to pedal a bike?

Sam and Kb are absolutely correct. Of course downtown MP needs one or more multi level parking garages. To not build them is a costly detriment to our town and its development.

1) As to Santa Cruz and the restaurant pop-outs -- those are the best thing to happen to our downtown in the decade we've lived here. Shows signs of life in the evening and brings people out. We should continue to test new ways to enliven downtown.

2) Bikes -- biking is a great option and choice for MP, as it is for every town on the peninsula. Still, it is not the preferred choice for most and many folks simply are not capable of riding a bike over a reasonable distance -- think of the elderly for a moment please. Supporting continued enhancements for bikes is an imperative but not building a garage because we think biking for most is possible is just not practical at all.

3) parking today. For many folks who park regularly, know all the options and are used to the very tight squeeze, I applaud your use of our lots. But, for visitors and residents who don't park regularly, these lots are totally insufficient and a detriment for attracting visitor from out of town. Modern, well lit, convenient garages are the answer and its time to get going!

Want to increase the availability of downtown short-term parking? Solution 1: Simply increase the price of the daily parking permits that allow users to consume a space between 8 am and 5 PM every weekday. 57% of the 1200 plaza spaces are now provided to permit holders a cost of less than $500/year. This equates to twenty-five CENTS an hour ($500/2000 hrs). Solution 2: Reduce the number of permits. Solution 3: Incent permit holders to park in a satellite lot that provides a shuttle service.

No one has DEMONSTRATED that a costly parking garage is actually needed and is the best solution. All of these other solutions car less costly more flexible and easier to implement. A 95%+ solution should be good enough.

Stopped for the sign on Santa Cruz @ Doyle, I can't see emerging cars or pedestrians in the Doyle crosswalk because Left Bank's bump-out is too close to the corner. A couple of days ago I had a near-collision there with
a car turning onto Santa Cruz from Doyle. That driver probably couldn't see me either until both of us were further into the intersection than safety allowed.
Cyclists, inline skaters & boarders have too little space between cars & the restaurant street annexes.
I like walking on sidewalks without having to dodge waiters.
I heartily dislike eating where I can smell exhaust fumes or hear engine noise & car radios. To eat outside, I like Borrone's & restaurants in Palo Alto & Redwood City with patios & no passing vehicles within at least 20 feet. San Carlos has outdoor seating at some restaurants too but it's next to the buildings, on the sidewalks - not out in the street. The diagonally parked cars on Laurel provide a helpful buffer from traffic.
Sadly, downtown Menlo Park has lost most of its appeal, to me. I prefer a downtown with more active retail & without makeshift restaurant expansions which impede safe use of the street by bikes & cars. It would help to ban skating & boarding on Santa Cruz, especially as the in-liners need a wide path.

I've never understood these "either or" arguments.

You can enjoy cafe-style outdoor seating and still think that parking, traffic and pedestrian safety are problems.

Like the frog in the frying pan, MP is slowing taking away parking spaces downtown and making driving more complicated. Not only have the restaurants started to take away spaces, but spaces have been removed on Oak Grove to install a bike lane. If one is not overly attentive to the striping, one could hit oncoming cars because the lane lines don't align. Add to that, for all the efforts and expense that went into re-striping, I rarely, if ever, see bikes using this lane. (don't get me wrong, I ride my bike enough and never had problems going down Oak Grove in the past).

MP seems to have a history of trying ideas then realizing -- oops, guess that wasn't such a good idea. Take for example the bump outs on Santa Cruz Ave years ago, closing of Doyle Ave. -- now add to that the parking issue.

If there's a plan then, let's make it work, otherwise stop these piece meal ideas that don't really work and cost us plenty.

@Liz

The parking spaces in front on Walgreens are still there. In addition to that, there is a entire parking lot in the back of the store with easy access to the pharmacy. There are also special handicap spaces for people who need.

The real issue is you want to park in right front of the store and feel those spaces should be open to you anytime you need.

There really is no parking problem in downtown MP. Just parked right in front of the Walgeeens @ 2pm this afternoon. There were additional open spots across the street and up the block, even more in the enormous parking lot in the rear.

In this day in age, even if parking were such an issue, you can have your meds delivered.

Please stop already.

@ MPer - Actually, the parking lot behind Walgreens is difficult to navigate. Striping is too narrow for oversize vehicles to park there (but they do anyway) & the situation is exacerbated because people don't pull their cars far enough forward. One must usually cautiously weave a crooked path between extruding rear bumpers.

There are often dirty puddles in the lane closest to Left Bank, Bistro Vida, Una Mas & Starbucks from restaurants dumping waste water or hosing equipment.

Build a parking structure and charge accordingly for the space and time.

I cannot ride a bike/unable.
I do not want to park 3 blocks away to run into a store and grab something I need. It could take longer to walk to and fro than in the store.

Build a lot already.

Not walking three blocks in a downtown area is unrealistic, even if there is a parking structure - that doesn't magically give you spaces in front of the Walgreens. If anything, since you're vertically efficiently stacking parking, it gives you an average of a longer walk.

Charging an appropriate price for parking will spark turnover, ensure a reasonable percentage of empty spaces, and likely get you a closer space to where you want to go. Many downtowns charge for parking (RWC, Burlingame, etc) and are quite successful with it (perhaps more successful because of turnover).

If Trader Joe's gave away free bananas instead of charging 19c/banana, they would have more demand than supply too. This is not rocket science.

If you want parking for mobility challenged people or for quick errands, you ought to campaign for more blue ADA spaces and for the rest of parking on Santa Cruz Avenue to be limited to 60 minutes or less. There are still way more parking spaces than there are street cafes- the problem is that there are other cars parked in them!1 Those spaces used to be limited to an hour, facilitating convenient "pop-in" visits, but this Council decided that our main shopping street should be for longer term parking. Changing the time limits and charging the right price for a valuable resource are definitely the right way to go!