Menlo council approves new office project

Has any agency ever required the development pontifications of Fergusson be made "carbon-neutral". Gives us a break Kelly, the builder built it to meet LEED, why should they have to waste money on certification.
On the other hand I whole-heartedly agree with Kelly re wider sidewalk in front of the building, and a temporary sidewalk during construction- it's damn dangerous walking on the street there - what happended to our council caring about our pedestrians' safety. I guess if someone gets hit they have a good case against the city and hopefully the nay-saying council members.

The council did the right thing in approving the project given that the developer has followed all of the process and was not seeking any rezoning.

However, as the parcels are one-by-one getting converted to medical/office space we are missing out on the once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape the ECR with pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented residential, retail, dining and office mixed use developments. We are also losing the opportunity to grow our tax base and create a more vibrant downtown.

By not establishing a clear zoning plan and by shooting down projects like Derry and the original 1300 ECR projects that had substantial residential components, we are destined to end up with a string of office buildings and big retailers which are the only safe things for developers to propose.

If and when the Downtown Visioning consultants ever finish their process, there may be too few large parcels left on ECR to have any chance of creating a critical mass of downtown residences.

It is time for the council to exercise some leadership and stop hiding behind a multi-year planning process that seems to have very little buy-in from the downtown business owners.

I agree with Resident's comments.

Why is it that we need a lot of downtown residences?
Housing and medical offices (and most other types) do not generate sales tax revenue. Retail does, and this is our town's commercial district.
Vibrancy comes from stores and restaurants that are interesting and open.
Sure, we can use some senior housing but why displace retail?

Downtown business owners and wealthy rich property owners don't run this town or any town. We do. The residents. If those business owners keep pushing their own agenda, they will have a much bigger fight then just council members. I will not allow business owners define my city. They are a small minority of the population.

"truth"

if you think downtown land owners should not be key to defining their downtown land, you would be the reason we still have old quonset huts in Menlo Park, not to mention acres of vacancy on El Camino

if you think we can have acres of "retail" and no profitable space built with it, you should build it because there's no line of investors waiting to do that

the idea that all "we" (vocal minority) have to do is "insist" on certain development uses and it will happen is childish - and is the reason we suffer decreasing tax base, continuing cuts in services and a drab greater downtown only its mother can think is lovely.

head out of the sand please and lets try a little harder

B

I believe there will be plenty of upper space in the upper stories above retail for lots of housing downtown near transit. This is successfully done in small European cities and other cities in the US, and can be done here without harming - rather enhancing -- the vitality of a walkable and vibrant city center for Menlo Park. We do need more housing (including affordable housing), as well as a modest amount of additional office space and retail to round out what we have now. We can do that going forward, and the Gaylord site was never a place to do that.

I agree with Councilmember Fergusson about the wide sidewalks, as well as aiming for having the net increase in carbon from existing (including both from building energy use as wellas addtionalky ubdyced traffic) to be neutralized either on-site (LEED Silver is a good minimum being used by many Cities now), and/or through payments to make off site investments, ideally locally, that provide measurable, real and verifiable CO2 reductions. We need to reduce the City's carbon footprint by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 (State standards adopted by Arnold - bipartisan!), so this approach allows us to accommodate economic and growth and physical development while still moving us in the right direction on protecting against the worst economy-dampening effects of climate change.

This is both an economic and a moral imperative, and essential to the livability of this City for our kids and their children's children and beyond. We are innovators in our area -- and must model the solutions and technologies that can lead the world in the new green economy.

Oh right. There are just thousands of people who want to move to Menlo Park so they can live above a store next to the train tracks.

I am so tired of the "we need more housing" rant. For whom? Let's take care of our current residents first and develop an El Camino that serves the needs of people who already live here. We don't have enough room or services for current residents -- why bring in more? `

As for "affordable housing" -- another lemming-like bit of idiocy. Most of us aren't socialists, are we? Shouldn't people live where they can afford to live? Must we accommodate everyone who wants to live in Menlo Park and can't afford to do so? And if affordable housing is such a superb idea, why is it never discussed in Atherton and Hillsborough?!?

I surprised that Fergusson and Lasensky did not insist that a 3rd story be added to these building so that a few BMR units could be accommodated.

This project just like 1906 is a low grade development put together by quick buck flip the property partnership; the doctors and dentists wouldn't mimd tenants above and they could of course share the parking, since residents are never home during business hours, but rather they have taken their cars to work, thus freeing up the parking during business hours. This arrangement has worked so well before in Menlo Park, as we all know.

Kelly Fergusson is out of touch. She has been chanting the Slocum mantra so long that she doesn't seem to realize that you can be green without breaking the bank. I see no reason to pay for a costly LEED certification.

If the city wanted to be proactive, it should train one of its building inspectors to be a certificed LEED inspector. Then as an incentive it should offer free LEED certification to those who desire to design to the LEED standards. That is what Menlo Park should be doing rather than giving $20,000 to PG&E [portion removed].

The truth is, most of you property owners don't even live here. YOu profit off the town, you let your buildings get old, and then you cry when the town makes an effort to improve itself without letting you dictate the results.

If our town wants to reduce carbon footprint by 80%, then even making every new BIGGER project "neutral" is totally insufficient. Every building and every person must reduce GHG emissions below "neutral" or our town makes no progress in addressing climate change.
Use of cars is a big problem, and we don't have transit that helps reduce this in the areas most important and the most potentially controllable to our town - east-west. Development along north-south transit corridors only increases car traffic in all directions. Might it not make sense to concentrate on ways to reduce in-town traffic?

BTW - yes, the city can specify what uses are desired and in what quantities. Right now, with the credit slump, developers still can justify retail and offices, not housing. If the city doesn't like these projects, they can deny the requests. I think only retail uses are accepted without a special permit.

No More Housing: Actually, Atherton and Hillborough are discussing affordable housing, because there is a state mandate on every single city to provide affordable housing.

Whether or not you agree with the state requirements is one thing, but you can't fault the city for following the law.

Two comments.
1. To Bisinge - the most intelligent post I have ever seen on this
site.
2. To Truth - Sorry, the dumbest thing I ever seen stated on this
site. Commercial land owners, business owners and
landlords have no say in this town. or any town? OMG!

It sounds caring to say let's get low cost housing, but at what price? "Below market" isn't low cost at all. Housing projects proposed have contained costly housing with some token "below market" units. The only way to get low cost housing is a partnership with group like Habitat, and donated land (hello Bohannon and Stanford). The next best is to locate housing where land is least expensive (sorry Bell Haven)

Where did I say they have no say in town? Or any town? Go sell crazy somewhere else.

I implied that residents rule towns not prop owners and business proprietors. No business owner should feel they have more skin in the game than residents. That old-school mentality won't work today. Residents are more aware and more involved than ever.

Business owners should stop trying to manipulate local politics and focus on serving customers. If they can't, they should move on.

Housing = more kids for our overcrowded schools and more cars for our overcrowded streets. Neither of these is needed nor wanted.

Retail & Hotels = more income for our undercrowded coffers.

If you're into tracking carbon atoms, having more retail in Menlo Park would avoid car trips to other parts of the Peninsula for shopping.