Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, September 3, 2009, 11:50 AM
https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2009/09/03/el-camino-development-clears-commission
Town Square
El Camino development clears commission
Original post made on Sep 3, 2009
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, September 3, 2009, 11:50 AM
Comments
Posted by Diappointed
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Sep 3, 2009 at 2:33 pm
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Sep 3, 2009 at 2:33 pm
The reason this project does not have any transportation friendly housing is our very restrictive zoning ordinaces. We need to enter the 21 st century and allow higher density, green development.
Posted by KJI
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It should raise much need taxes, and should add to property value to homes nearby. BUT....we must widen El Camino Real to 3 lanes.
Posted by David Roise
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Sep 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Sep 3, 2009 at 7:25 pm
It's clear that MP should consider higher-density, transit-friendly, green housing.
But... that certainly has nothing to do with widening El Camino Real to three lanes, which is probably the most stupid idea floated to "solve" traffic problems on the Peninsula since 1970. Just try to walk across El Camino Real at Sand Hill Road and see what it would be like having wall-to-wall cars through our downtown. Of course people like Reg Rice don't seem to care about anyone who isn't in a car.
(By the way, why don't people have the guts to use their own names in these posts? Just wondering...)
Posted by T.O.D.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 4, 2009 at 3:12 pm
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 4, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Does this development REALLY fail to include ANY residential units at all? If so, this is a horrible lost opportunity for real mixed use.
We certainly DO need greater numbers of houseing units within walking distance of the train station and along the ECR bus routes.
The El Camino visioning process clearly pointed to a desire to see that, in the form of buildings east of ECR that could range from 3 - 4 stories (some folks might even go for 5, but don't holld your breath).
Letting something get in WITHOUT adequate housing as part of mixed use, and before the ECR visioning process is complete, seems like a horrible shame of a lost opportunity to address more fully the range of needs in our community (including the need to address climate change in our land use decisions, which means more transit oriented development)
And what are the public benefits the City is otherwise getting from this significant cash cow for its developer?
Posted by cONFUSED
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Sep 4, 2009 at 3:18 pm
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Sep 4, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dear "Disappointed":
If this already requires rezoning, I am confused as to why the Council can't insist there be housing included and grant a density bonus or otherwise include that in the rezoning's terms (e.g. can't this be done as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with special zoning for that site).
These are important questions to raise to our Council Members.
Planning Commissioner O'Malley had it right. We should vote no until there is housing included. The last thing we need is a lot more offices which bring the City no revenue but generate a lot of traffic. Retail and housing!!! There's greater synergy there, and it's good for the vibrancy of our City both economically and in terms of foot traffic and transit use etc.
Posted by enough
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Sep 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Sep 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm
How on earth is it feasible to want more people crowded onto the busiest and most backed up street in town? TOD is a joke -- our public transit systems are pathetic. How about surveying the people in the newer developments on El Camino, the ones in South Palo Alto and Redwood City, and find out how many of them use public transit? Housing makes no sense, and kudos to the six planning commissioners who got it right.
Instead of bringing in more people to live in this already-crowded town, how about focusing on providing resources for those of us who already live here? Too, tens of thousands of people drive down El Camino every day as they travel between Redwood City and Palo Alto. Let's find a reason for them to stop and spend their money in Menlo Park, not crowd more residents into a town that has run out of room.
Posted by Please!
a resident of Hillview Middle School
on Sep 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm
a resident of Hillview Middle School
on Sep 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Editor,
I wish you would move this to the more visible Town Square.
Thanks!
Posted by observer
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 7, 2009 at 5:42 am
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Sep 7, 2009 at 5:42 am
The project did not require re-zoning --- only a Planned Development agreement. (PDA do not allow for density increases.)
Whether this will ever get built is another question.
The developer is also the developer of the Sunnyvale, huge downtown center, which has completely stopped construction, due to financial issues. The office market is in the tank big time. Maybe the project could be sold to a very deep pockets developer and that is the reason they are carrying it forward.
In any event, it is much less dense than what was originally planned, with 60 foot high buildings a couple of years ago, under the," give them everything council" of Jellins, DuBoc and Winkler. What a gang they were. DuBoc continues to weep and strikes out in every direction with her ranting e-mails.
