SUBJECT: Modifying Downtown Main Street Ground Floor Zoning
Council:
This is not the time – nor the way - to consider a major re-do of Downtown
zoning. Within a few years, our town center could be undergoing massive
construction. There is great uncertainty about the availability and
location of parking, both short- and long-term. No wonder tenants are
reluctant to sign leases.
It is unprecedented that the wishes of one property owner would launch
such significant zoning changes affecting the entire downtown area,
ostensibly to fill empty storefronts and/or to increase vibrancy.
There is a better approach. But first, some history and discussion of
ground floor zoning:
*CURRENT ZONING IS THE RESULT OF A COMMUNITY VISIONING PROCESS *The current
zoning resulted from a comprehensive Vision Plan outreach process that
encompassed multiple surveys and meetings with property owners, businesses,
tenants, developers, and residents. You are being asked to approve major
amendments based on a request from a single project applicant, Windy Hill,
and a Planning Commission meeting.
*Restaurants and Retail Provide Vibrancy* The Downtown Vision Plan process
identified ground floor uses that bring vibrancy and other uses that cause
“dead” sections of our main street. It was determined that retail and
restaurants brought the most vibrancy.
*Has that changed?* There is no such evidence provided in the 5/18/26
Planning Commission staff report. With hundreds of new homes
approved/proposed in and near downtown (e.g., Parkline/SRI project), won’t
there be a lot more demand for these vibrant uses?
*The Proposed New Ground Level Uses Are Low Vibrancy* The proposed new uses
were determined to be “dead” because they do not have doors open to the
general public, nor do they have colorful window displays to attract
customers inside or to linger even when the store is closed.
Banks, with large blank walls and late afternoon closures, were identified
as prime examples of being uninviting during the day and causing lifeless
zones in the evening. Yet, you are being asked to allow more of them and
numerous other uses that are similarly “private” and “dead”.
The services businesses listed in the staff report are currently allowed on
the side streets and upper floors of our main street. *Have they run out of
opportunities for space, likely at a lower rent, in those locations? *
*DOWNTOWN VACANCIES IS LIKELY DUE TO OTHER REASONS *A prominent local
developer long ago pointed out that vacancies can be filled if landlords
lowered their rent; leaving them vacant is probably due to other reasons
than the uses allowed. There is considerable uncertainty about the future
of Menlo Parks downtown, particularly related to the availability and
location of parking. Council has proposed construction of housing and
replacement parking on downtown parking lots and is considering several
developer proposals. A November ballot measure, if approved, puts such
plans in doubt, potentially delaying certainty to an even later ballot
measure asking voters if they want housing on those parking lots.
It is reasonable to think that these considerations have been giving
landlords and potential tenants significant reasons to pause before
consummating a lease at this time.
Changes in state laws that would allow considerably taller structures
within ½ mile of transit also may have had a major impact on renovation and
redevelopment plans by property owners and developers. That, in turn, could
be affecting decisions regarding leases until the laws go into effect and
potential redevelopment planning begins.
*FUTURE VIBRANCY WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY GROUND FLOOR OFFICE USES *Windy
Hill desires to increase their revenue by converting a large portion of the
total maximum allowed square footage to office. Offices could consume up to
half of the ground floor space of his relatively large property if this
proposal is approved.
Office uses provide significantly higher rents to landlords, thus
displacing other uses that cannot afford those higher rents. Once converted
to office uses, these spaces are highly unlikely to ever be converted back
to the very uses that make downtown vibrant because those uses would
provide substantially less rent. Allowing such uses, regardless of public
benefit, would* permanently* take the affected spaces out of the already
small supply available for retail and restaurants at ground floor in our
small downtown. The future vibrancy of downtown, and the ability to meet
the needs of a growing population depend on continuing to prohibit
ground-floor main street office uses (yes, prohibiting office all the way
to the back).
*RECOMMENDATION *
It would be wise to reject these proposed zoning changes and turn your
attention to providing more clarity about a downtown parking plan. Menlo
Park’s growth will necessitate some painful changes but a plan for parking
will help gain the confidence of property owners, landlords, and business
owners to make plans.
Sincerely,
Patti Fry
Former Menlo Park Planning Commissioner
