Council Recommends Changes To Downtown Plan

Menlo Park residents, business owners and others concerned about the future of the city voiced their concerns about the to City Council members last night.

More than 20 public speakers addressed the council, after which council members peppered city staff with a variety of questions. This led to a meeting that lasted more than six and a half hours and was going until the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Ultimately, the Council recommended that the height of parking garages built downtown should be consistent with the height of the surrounding buildings. They also said parking on the street should be reserved for customers, while permit parking would be encouraged in the garages. These echoed what by numerous that evaluated the plan  during the proposed.

Council opposed attaching any housing units to parking garages.

They also said should be financed with some sort of sustainable funding model. It was suggested that businesses could contribute to the building of the structures, but that was not a requirement placed into the plan.  The City Council has the final say on the land use guidelines that are finalized in the El Camino Real/ Downtown Specific Plan, which is a plan that will encompass how the city can be developed in the next 30 years.

Council also agreed that it was a good idea to phase in the widening of downtown, rather than do it all at once, because of the negative impact of parking it would have throughout the city during construction.

Council members agreed that it was in the best interest to work with local merchants when developing downtown.

One of the most common concerns put forth by the faction of who oppose the plan is that they felt the city planning staff ignored their concerns while drafting a vision of Menlo Park's future.

"We were not heard," said Mark who spoke to the council on behalf of the Downtown Business Alliance, which is a group of more than 120 business owners in downtown Menlo Park.

According to Flegel, the business community opposed the plan's proposal to increase the allowable building height, as well as the proposed that are being planned to replace much of the street level parking in the downtown area.

He said the council should move forward with a plan that maintains the small of Menlo Park, and that it should not strive to look like Palo Alto or Redwood City.

"Menlo Park is unique and must maintain its own identity. We don't want the cookie cutter Peninsula city," said Flagel.

Richard Draeger, owner of on University Drive, reiterated many of the concerns addressed by Flagel. Draeger expressed frustration with the parking plan downtown, especially because he feared street level parking would be taken from near his business and relocated farther away in a parking garage.

He said that his customers would not be willing to carry their heavy groceries from his store the distance to their cars in the parking garage, and would rather patronize a different business that has more accessible parking.

"We depend on our parking being very proximate on being close to our store. Please don't take the parking from us," Draeger said.

Ultimately Mayor said he agreed with Draeger's concerns regarding the removal of parking from the market's lot. Council agreed with Cline and said the lot should be preserved for transportation purposes.

Draeger said he and many of his fellow businesses would be willing to compromise on the parking plan by allowing one garage to be built near the middle of the city in one of the existing street parking lots. He also suggested that the city build a parking structure near the station, rather than construct one in a location that would result in the existing street parking being removed.

But city planning staff said building a parking garage near may be difficult because the transit agency owns the property, not the city.

They did say they would examine the fiscal feasibility of the project though; Councilman said he would spearhead the effort to gather more information on the issue.

In response to allegations that city planning staff did not respond to the will of the downtown merchants, Community Development Director Arlinda Heineck said many business owners did not participate in the workshops sessions that took place while the plan was being formulated. Heineck also said that though the plan now may not represent the will of some local business owners and residents, there are still time to make changes. Tuesday's meeting was the second of three sessions scheduled for the council to address certain elements of the plan.

Next week council is slated to address the fiscal impact analysis report that inspects the monetary effects caused by the changes in this plan. And though council is near voting on whether to approve the plan or not after nearly 7 years of process, there are still advocates who feel it is best to slow down the process.

Some residents and business owners questioned whether the current economic conditions were ideal for making decisions that will likely shape the future of Menlo Park over the course of the next 30 years. Those sentiments seemed to be shared by Cohen, who repeatedly advocated that the city should "lay in the weeds" on the project until the downturn in the economy rebounds.

But Heineck countered that history proves some of the best times to begin planning for a financial future is when the economy is slow. And though about two-thirds of the speakers who addressed the council seemed to be against the project, some felt that a plan for redoing downtown Menlo Park had its merits.

, who called herself a local entrepreneur, said she was in favor of bringing some exciting amenities to Menlo Park that would increase the nightlife and culture in the city.

"We want life here. The life is dead now. We want a food and wine capital. We want culture and style. Not in a dead and dated way," she said.

A version of the plan reflecting changes recommended by council members will return to the council in November.