Hello,
I came to the meeting tonight, but because I have young children and a sitter who could only stay until 8:30pm, I was not able to
stay long enough to make comments. I wanted to!
I sat shaking my head at some of the things the Hayes architect said in his presentation. Oh, the building looks very nice. If
they wanted to build that very building with the big impressive glass windows, and there was 20 feet or so from the property line
in every direction, I think all of us would agree it looks very attractive--really better than the dirt lot and the chain link
fence.
But the fact that they are requesting an exemption to your parking requirements is just ridiculous. First, when the architect
spoke of the acronym I can't remember that essentially said if you make less parking spaces, fewer people will drive to work, I
would have spit my coffee out if I'd been drinking any. Really? I would love to, I don't know, just stop coloring over my greys
and believe that doing so would make them stop growing in, but I don't see how in the world this kind of magical thinking does
anyone any good. Those greys are coming.
Guess what else? Venture Capital types......and the other business types the Hayes architect mentioned.....they are not "public
transport" carpooling types of people. I know a handful - maybe 6. Two of them drive Maseratis, two drive Teslas, one has a make I
don't even know what it is, something English and totally obscure, and one lives in San Francisco and doesn't have a car, because
he flies to Asia all the time. He is 29. I think that a HUGE issue with the assumptions in the acronym I can't recall is the age
and type of businessperson who would be working here in Menlo Park. If we were in SOMA, and the employees were mostly Millennials,
then, yes, maybe they'd happily take alternative means of transportation. But look at the "About Us" section of Sequoia or any of
the other VCs up and down Middlefield he referenced in his presentation. If you have been around any of them, I hate to say it,
but there's a type. It's a hyper-masculine industry and having a car and coming and going when one pleases--and not feeling the
least bit like it falls upon their successful rear-ends to save Mother Earth--is the culture of that and other high flying
industries. I don't believe for a second that they will manage with the parking spots laid out in Hayes' plan. Mention carpooling
to them, and I think they would laugh. ("Us? You can't be serious, Elon.") They don't wait around ten extra minutes for their
colleague to finish up work; they're too important.
I also have to be petty here, I suppose, and comment that as a resident of the Willows who is about to embark on a large
residential construction project, I can only imagine what would happen if we applied to you without 1 of our 2 required parking
spaces accounted for (which is close to 50%, close to Hayes' 12 of 20). I'd be laughed right back to the drawing board. And I have
to tell you: my lot is set up with a weird geometry. It's only 50 feet of street frontage and 130' deep. We back to an alley. What
we are probably going to do, so as not to have a garage take up 2/3 of what faces the street (We find that to lack curb appeal),
is to have an uncovered spot coming into our back yard from the alley. Will we ever use that spot? I mean, it would be weird,
wouldn't it? Hosting a BBQ in our back yard and there's our car there?? We will probably park one car in the driveway, just like
everybody else in this area does. But, you know what, if we have overnight guests, or if when our kids grow up they still use cars
not just all the time self-driving ubers, then we might be really glad we have that back spot.
And that's kind of the point, isn't it? Contrast that with our next door neighbor, who has lived here for 30 years. When they
moved in, they had very small kids. They had a jam-packed garage and room for baaaaaarely two cars out front (parking slightly in
our property, which we gave them permission to do). Then, guess what, their two kids got to be in their teens and started driving.
They REALLY didn't have room for a teen's car.
It reminds me a lot of 40 Middlefield, and why the city requirements must have been written the way they were in the first
plae...for a reason. For protection and enjoyment of all the surrounding neighbors and businesses. What happens when the VCs get a
college age intern or two for the summer? What happens when the VC tenant gets too successful for such a small space, and a new
tenant comes in with more employees?
The city creates regulations to plan for longer-term realities and contingencies. Why in the world are you guys considering being
so lax on this builder?
I thought that Cindy Hamilton's point about the tree planted at the upper left corner in the drawing as it was shown on screen not
allowing for delivery trucks to turn around was excellent, as was another commenter's point about angling the parking spaces so
the hot shot VC's don't "cheat" and turn the wrong way onto the alley--yes, even though there's a sign. People do it all the time
even now.
But even more feasible, in my opinion, would be to use AltSchool (930 Emerson in Palo Alto) as a model. AltSchool sought the use
of a disused building to start a school. That building was in no way suitable for the traffic a school would bring. And the lot
itself was SMALL for that purpose (school for 80 kids). The lot at 40 Middlefield is even smaller (a lot smaller) but for a
lower-use type client. But you know how they got around it? A lifted parking solution. The architect tonight made some flippant
comment about how "UNSIGHTLY" these are and how they didn't want to have to "build around it." That sounds super whiny and
irrelevant to me. First off, the one at 930 Emerson isn't unsightly at all. It's kind of cool. It looks modern industrial, and
they totally fit it in with their architectural theme overall. The kids were fascinated to see it in action. And those teachers
tolerated the slight inconvenience of the 5 minutes extra it took them to get their cars in position when it was time to leave.
Then again, they were driving Toyota Corollas, not Maseratis.
If you wanted to see an example of this solution in action, I'd recommend you go to the High Street side of the school (it covers
the city block narrowly between High and Emerson) and look in their parking lot.
Finally--I had a serious concern about this building's footprint coming too close to Middlefield and blocking the visibility for
cars turning out from Woodland. I use Woodland all the time, as Willow is such a nightmare especially around commuter hours. I
regularly take Menalto (my street) onto Woodland and take a right and then cross both Middlefield lanes to go left on Willow to
get to Burgess. It's already challenging enough. I really, strongly ask that you make them adhere to the setback from Middlefield
and keep their landscaping very low there as well, as a major safety concern.
I thank you for taking the time to read this. I believe that my fellow Willows residents and I are not categorically opposed to a
building going on this site, but please. It's tiny and odd-shaped enough, and placed in an area that's already oversubscribed for
parking (the excellent Willows Market, with amazing sandwiches and 100's of wine and beers!). If anything, make them put in MORE
than the required number of spots. Certainly not less. It's just ridiculous.
SincerelyLou Selchau-Hansen1971 Menalto Ave
