Town Square

Post a New Topic

Menlo Park council starts specific plan review

Original post made on Nov 19, 2013

Judging by the flurry of emails to the city's public log, interest in tonight's Menlo Park City Council meeting is running high, thanks to one item on the agenda -- a review of the downtown/El Camino Real specific plan.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 11:15 AM

Comments (2)

Posted by Overbuilt Menlo Park, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 19, 2013 at 1:18 pm

Stanford/Arrillaga's plan for the new development is 7 times the size/density of the Safeway across the street per Daily Post newspaper 11/19/13.

How do you like them apples Menlo Park citizens? Got traffic/congestion? Think the terrible traffic will get ANY better after it is done?

Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community
on Nov 19, 2013 at 1:29 pm

First, I am encouraged by and impressed with the process and the outcome of the Planning Commission review of the DSP. While I wouldn't support all of their recommendations, I certainly see merit in several; and appreciate the ones I don't support were well intended and thoughtfully crafted. The City is fortunate to have 7 dedicated andtalented people serving on that body. I am discouraged, however, by one comment credited to Katie, "we'll be reviewing this again in 14 months...." One of the primary, and in my view most important objectives of developing a DSP was to provide clear and reliable rules/direction that potential investors could rely upon when considering whether to invest resources in developing a project in Menlo Park. I was hoping the DSP would finally offer some level of stability in terms of what investors could expect and would thus attract those who now shun the city as "not worth the brain damage or the wasted design dollars" to invest here. IF it is truly intended, after this re-review due to a few not liking the first project, to keep re-re-re-reviewing the DSP every 12-143 months, this primary objective will have been totally missed. In fact, my guess would be that it would make the problem of investors going elsewhere even worse. My advice to the CC, take the time now to get it as right as you can, and then put it in place in such a way that investors can be assured that it won't be changed for at least 5 years (projects take 2-3 to plan, fund, design and build).

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,887 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,062 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,228 views

Getting High in Menlo Park
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 778 views

As They Head Back To School, Arm Them With This
By Erin Glanville | 0 comments | 55 views