Whether you agree or not that there is a big parking problem in downtown Menlo Park today, it should be clear that one WILL exist once the Greenheart and Stanford projects are completed, and an even bigger one, if the city is successful in attracting more residents to downtown with appealing civic improvements. It’s important to keep in mind that any big solution like a parking structure (s) will take several years to build IF we decide its a good idea. The Specific Plan identified three likely locations for parking structures. So what should Menlo Park do in 2015?

I recommend that our city council:

• Determine whether Menlo Park can afford a parking structure. Develop a funding strategy and identify potential private and public partners.

• Evaluate above ground, underground and hybrid structures. Evaluate different architectural designs and landscaping.

• Assess the trade-offs of building one or more at a time, e.g., cost, impact on downtown during construction.

• Develop short term solutions to current parking problems which appear most troublesome around lunch time mid-week. There are hundreds of unused parking spaces within a short 5-minute shuttle ride to downtown. That could be used for daily permit parking and would free up downtown parking spaces for shoppers.

Downtown Parking Today

A look at existing downtown parking and recommendations in the Specific Plan. View now.

Parking Structure Building Cost Estimates

RSMeans is a leading provider of construction cost data for hundreds of cities in North America. I have consulted the online information they provide for building parking structures in Palo Alto in order to estimate the cost of building similar ones in Menlo Park. Please note RSMeans provides 2013 data so the numbers are lower than costs in 2015 or the future. My goal is to simply “ball park” estimate different options. For my analysis I assumed that 2015 costs were 30% higher than 2013. This may still be low given the strong local economy.

If Menlo Park were to build Parking Structure #3 as identified in the Specific Plan 438 NET new parking spaces would be created (650 new minus 212 lost).

Option 1 – Build surface and above ground parking structure

• The estimated cost per space: $31,700.

Total cost: 650 x $31,700 = $20.6M

• Cost per NET ADDED parking space = $20.6M /438 = $47,000

Option 2 – Build surface and an underground parking structure.

• The estimated cost per space of underground parking is $37,300.

• Total cost = 650 x $37,300 = $24.2M

• Cost per NET ADDED parking space = $24.2/438 = $55,250

View the assumptions and calculations for Option 1 and Option 2 options.

Community Discussions

Menlo Park survey: Most residents want above-ground parking facility (The Almanac – January 14, 2016)

Download a copy of this post

What will it take to transform downtown Menlo Park into a vibrant and beautiful hub for shopping and social activities? And is it even possible? Most residents would say provide “a more appealing mix of shops and restaurants and make parking more convenient”, but actually accomplishing such a big transformation has remained a huge challenge even now when the regional economy has performed well.  I believe that it IS possible and there has never been a better time to try.  It will take a modified vision for downtown, well-coordinated bold steps by our city government, businesses and residents, and strong city leadership and community support. In this document I propose converting a three-block section of Santa Cruz Avenue into special pedestrian-friendly main street that rebalances the mix of pedestrian and vehicle usages. This would NOT be a pedestrian-only mall as most in the U.S. have failed for good reasons.

 Current Situation

Downtown Menlo Park is neither a prosperous nor struggling business district. Businesses generally do well and the amount of vacancies and business turnover is not unusual. There have been few property sales, major structure renovations, and new construction because family property owners have generally placed properties in private trusts rather than sell them. Therefore, there have been no dramatic changes in the mix of businesses in Menlo Park unlike what has occurred in neighboring Palo Alto and Redwood downtowns. There the trend has been to add more restaurants, cafes, pubs and specialized niche businesses. The Stanford Shopping Center dominates the local market for high-end products – especially household and fashion items – and for the more general products sold in department stores. Menlo Park and Atherton residents mostly shop and dine in places other than downtown Menlo Park and say it offers too few appealing options.

 Making Downtown Menlo Park Special

Menlo Park should create a downtown that serves Menlo Park and Atherton residents, guests and workers rather than attempt to directly compete with the nearby Stanford Shopping Center and downtown Palo Alto. These consumer alternatives have unique attributes that make them regional destination spots for thousands of daily visitors. Instead, Menlo Park should leverage its own set of strengths and advantages. It’s traffic and parking problems are much less severe.  It’s older downtown structures and extensive parking plazas offer tremendous opportunities for re-vitalization. And within the next 4-5 years, multi-use developments planned for 500 and 1300 El Camino Real will together attract about 700 new residents and 1500 new workers with easy access to the Santa Cruz shopping district. These changes could have a huge positive impact on downtown Menlo Park.

Argument For A Pedestrian Promenade

 A pedestrian-friendly street would be the catalyst that triggers a positive dynamic process:

• Menlo Park and Atherton residents will be attracted to downtown by new amenities, activities and regular entertainment, and more attractive setting for existing cafes and restaurants, and Menlo Park can leverage its commitment to a pedestrian-friendly street to attract a few anchor businesses that generate significant foot-traffic. A microbrewery, pub-style restaurant, and “Café Barrone-like” café would be ideal. 
• An increase in downtown usage will boost the profitability of downtown businesses and attract new ones.
• An increasingly appealing mix of businesses and greater downtown vitality will in turn generate even greater usage by “residents” and workers.
• As word spreads of a “new Menlo Park” consumers who either live in the area or visit Palo Alto, Redwood City and the Stanford Shopping Center will ALSO visit Menlo Park’s downtown. Then Menlo Park will become an attractive secondary destination.

Not A Pedestrian Mall

More than 200 American cities have build pedestrian malls in order to compete with suburban malls, and 89% have failed for good reasons. I encourage reading of The American Experience With Pedestrian Malls downloadable from http://bit.ly/pedestrian-malls

Primary causes of pedestrian mall failures.

• Prohibited cars
• Tried to replicate the suburban shopping center experience
• Provide inadequate parking

A small number of small cities (less than 100,000 residents) have built successful pedestrian malls. Church Street Marketplace (Burlington Vermont), Pearl Street Mall (Boulder Colorado), Main Street Downtown Mall (Charlottesville Virginia) are a few good examples.

 Pedestrian mall success factors:

• Small number of blocks ( four or less)
• Variety of activities and active uses
• Many nearby residents and workers
• Attractive design for walkers, shoppers, reading, people-watching
• Beautiful aesthetics
• Strong anchor businesses
• Convenient parking
• Strong central management
• Heavy schedule of regular events, activities, entertainment
• Local college nearby
• Near a popular tourist destination
• Convenient public transit

A Pedestrian-Friendly Main Street Success Factors

Would be the same as  successful pedestrian mall but allow vehicles and some on-street parking.

Would take advantage of Menlo Parks…

• Proximity to affluent Menlo Park and Atherton nearby neighborhoods.
• Proximity to Menlo College, Stanford University and high schools.
• Proximity to downtown Palo Alto, Redwood City and the Stanford Shopping center.
• New nearby residents, workers and guests generated by the Greenheart and Stanford developments.

Anchor Business Model

Café Barrone in Menlo Park is an excellent example of the kind of anchor business and setting that contributes to the success of a pedestrian street.

• Food, menu and service are excellent and prices are reasonable.
• There is ample outdoor seating set a great distance from traffic.
• The site enjoys sun mid-day thru late afternoon and it’s rarely windy; there are umbrellas if one prefers shade.
• There is a fountain, an architectural arch, and the building that formerly housed the British Bankers Club.
• It is located next to Kepler’s another Menlo Park favorite.
• There is lots of parking nearby (on-site).
• Never rushed customers can stay as long as they wish.
• This is a good place to read, work, talk or simply “people watch”.

 Pedestrian-Friendly Street Proposal For Santa Cruz Avenue

I propose that Menlo Park build a three-block pedestrian street on Santa Cruz Avenue that runs between Doyle Street and Crane Street. This would entail: 

• Eliminating the traffic lane and parking on the south side of Santa Cruz Avenue. 
• Allow one-way traffic on the north side routed from the direction of El Camino Real. This traffic could turn right at Curtis, Chestnut and Crane or continue on Santa Cruz towards University Avenue.
• Cross-traffic allowed only at Crane Street intersection and between Doyle and Murphy Streets.
• The sidewalks on the traffic side of the pedestrian-friendly street would be widened where there is no street parking and this parking would be limited to 30 minutes or less.
• The three short sections of sides streets running from Santa Cruz Avenue to the parking plazas on Curtis and Chestnut could be included as pedestrian-only extensions of the Pedestrian-friendly street. 

Menlo Park should undertake a multi-stage implementation of the pedestrian-friendly street starting with a full-scale design; establish evaluation criteria, solicit resident and business feedback on a regular basis; and implement high value changes and improvements. As individual blocks are added, help businesses on Santa Cruz create inviting back entrances from parking plazas.

Possible Road Map

• Step 1: Expand “sidewalk” dining areas like what is being done at the Left Bank
• Step 2: Close off one side of one block between Doyle Street and Curtis, create walking and dining space, and add public benches and additional amenities. Provide suitable live music and other entertainment on a regular and predictable basis. Persuade a pub or micro-brewery and a “Barrone 2″ to open somewhere on or near Santa Cruz between Doyle and Crane.
• Step 3: Add the block between Curtis Street to Chestnut Street.
• Step 4: Add the block from Chestnut to Crane.

View the pedestrian-friendly street layout and one potential implementation road map.

A Less Attractive Alternative: Regular Temporary Street Closures

A few residents have asked the reasonable question: why build a promenade downtown on a section of Santa Cruz Avenue when the option of temporary street closure already exists whenever its needed? In the past Menlo Park has closed Santa Cruz Avenue for art fairs and block parties. So instead of permanently closing blocks why not simply close it on a regular basis when there are no events?

• A temporary street closure would neither be as attractive nor have the variety of appealing amenities as a permanent closure – think mature trees, fountains, and sculpture

• The more temporary amenities provided, the more work it takes to install and remove them

• Restaurants and cafes would be expected to purchase and manage tables and chairs that would only be used when the street was closed.

• Residents would need to grow accustomed to the temporary closure schedule.

There remains a great deal of confusion

about what the Menlo Park Specific Plan is, and is not.

I was reminded of this when some residents responded negatively to my recent post “Should Menlo Park Make Santa Cruz Avenue A Pedestrian Street”. They believe I am advocating a change to the Specific Plan and said they felt this would cause big delays in its implementation. They did NOT offer any facts to support their opinions but nevertheless felt strongly about them, one even suggested I needed to read it. I agree that IS the best way to understand the Specific Plan; however, during the past nine months, I have found few people who have. I recommend that every resident who has a strong interest in the future public and private development of downtown and El Camino Real invest the time to read it. At more than a hundred pages the Specific Plan looks a bit intimidating at first but it is well-written. Just read it a section or two at a time. You can view it at the City website. I will provide a few relevant points in this post.

The Official Statement of Purpose in The Specific Plan

“The El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan establishes a framework for private and public improvements on El Camino Real, in the Caltrain station area and in downtown Menlo Park for the next several decades. The plan’s focus is on the character and extent of enhanced public spaces, the character and intensity of private infill development and circulation and connectivity improvements. It includes a strategy for implementation of public space improvements, such as wider sidewalks and plazas, and other infrastructure improvements. The overall intent of the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan is to preserve and enhance community life, character and vitality through public space improvements, mixed use infill projects sensitive to the small-town character of Menlo Park and improved connectivity. As discussed later in more detail, the Specific Plan reflects the outcome of an extensive community outreach and engagement process.

• Encourages infill development of vacant and under-utilized lots along El Camino Real through increased intensities, coupled with strict building modulation and ground-floor setback and building profile requirements that both attenuate the mass and scale of larger buildings and create wider public sidewalks;

• Retains the existing “village” character downtown by keeping buildings low and requiring varied building massing, including through building profile and façade modulation requirements;

• Increases downtown activity, foot traffic and transit use through enhanced public spaces, mixed-use infill projects (including residential uses) and higher intensities of development near the commuter rail station;

• Enhances community life through an integrated network of widened sidewalks, promenades, pocket parks and public gathering spaces; and

• Enhances east-west connectivity across El Camino Real through crosswalk and sidewalk improvements, while accommodating north-south vehicular through-traffic, and across the railroad tracks through grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle connections.

The illustrative plan, as shown in Figure A1, depicts how the plan area could potentially build out over the next several decades in conformance with the overall planning principles and within the land use and development regulations and design guidelines contained in subsequent chapters. It is important to emphasize that the illustrative plan indicates only one potential development concept and that the actual build-out will likely vary from the initial projection.”

The Brief Definition Of The Specific Plan On The City Website

“A specific plan is a comprehensive, action-oriented set of rules for a specific geographic area. For Menlo Park, the El Camino Real / Downtown Specific Plan sets the direction for the heart of the city over the coming decades. It builds on the successful 2007-2008 Vision Plan process, which established twelve key goals. The Specific Plan defines what our community desires for its future by regulating land use and defining other aspects of possible future public and private development.

What The Specific Plan Does Not Provide

While the Specific Plan analyzes possible opportunities like more downtown parking and possible options that would conform to the comprehensive zoning regulations in the Specific Plan, it did NOT decide which public projects would be implemented.

• So there is no public development roadmap or timetable.

• There is no prioritization of public infrastructure improvements.

• There is no capital or expense budget that estimates costs and potential sources of funding.

• There is no published timetable for creating the above items. All were assumed would be addressed after the Specific Plan was finally approved (end of 2013).

Some Implications

• The city still needs to decide which specific big ideas, e.g., parking structures merit additional evaluations so residents can buy-into them, or not.

• Any public improvement idea that conforms to the Specific Plan can be considered worthy of evaluation by our City Council, it will decide which ones and when.

• Our City Council welcomes resident input and has invited residents to submit their ideas by January 26 so the City Council can consider them when it set its 2015 priorities.

• There remains a lot of hard work ahead and I hope you will support our City Council as they lead the way.