|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Second time’s the charm: Beverages & More (BevMo) scored a use permit from the Menlo Park Planning Commission to open an 8,900-square-foot store at the former site of the Chili’s restaurant on El Camino Real.
The Planning Commissioners voted 4-3 to grant the permit after listening to nearly two hours of public comment. They also agreed to review the permit after three years.
Seventeen people spoke against the permit, including Dan Beltramo Jr., whose voice roughened with emotion as he thanked everyone for supporting his family’s store, and other local wine sellers.
“They’re not going to put anyone out of business; they’re going to dilute the business,” said Janet Benson, a local sales representative for Richmond-based Wine Warehouse.
Five speakers asked the commissioners to allow BevMo into Menlo Park; three are company employees. Jeff Sealy, the chain’s vice president of real estate, said approximately 1,600 Menlo Park residents belong to the store’s rewards program, and the store would create 12 to 15 new jobs.
Commissioners Kirsten Keith and Katie Ferrick voted against the permit on grounds that Menlo Park didn’t need another liquor store, and the city should protect independent local businesses.
Vice Chair Vincent Bressler also opposed the action, suggesting that denying the use permit could force the building’s owner to remodel the strip mall.
“For heaven’s sake, what was in there was Chilis. If anything, BevMo is a step up,” responded Commissioner Henry Riggs, who described the vacant space as “a peculiar building in a peculiar situation.”
Local alcohol retailers such as Beltramos sent out anonymous mailers urging residents to oppose the permit, claiming that a large chain store would threaten homegrown businesses and damage the city’s character. The majority of the commissioners said they didn’t believe BevMo was a threat to local merchants.
Three years ago, BevMo shelved plans for a store on Santa Cruz Avenue in the face of protests from the same group of retailers using the same arguments about character and competition.
However, not everyone who lives in Menlo Park shared that sentiment, then or now. During the past month residents bombarded the Planning Commission with e-mails asking them to approve the store, suggesting that the empty space may as well be put to use generating an estimated $18,000 in sales tax revenue.
Bummer. I have no use for a liquor store on that site. A restaurant to replace Chili’s would have been my preference. Well, BevMo, brace yourself – you won’t be getting a single dollar from me.
Well, BevMo wouldn’t be my first choice. I, too, would have preferred a nice family restaurant there instead.
However, I’m so tired of all the ugly, empty, vacant properties along El Camino in Menlo Park that it will at least mean that there is “life” along that corridor and that the city will again earn revenue.
Now, how about fixing up the empty movie theater, car lots and the bathing suit store?
It is beyond ridiculous that in America, “the land of the free”, such a meeting would even need to be held.
Dear “tired of vacant store fronts.”
I too am glad to have that space filled–and I am one of those 1600 menlo park people who already have a bev mo card, so I like the Bev mo deal.
But just think, if a nice family restaurant had tried to locate there, all the other local restaurants might have opposed it. 🙁
There is real concern with Menlo Park Council members and RE property owners. Why aren’t family owned restaurants wanting that space?… probably can’t make enough money. RE Owner charges too much rent? It’s too bad to have another liquor store in the town. As if Beltromo’s is the only place in town. You’ve got Draeger’s, Safeway, Trader Joe’s, another on Oak Avenue by the Post Office and that is just downtown. We really don’t need another liquor store. The question is why are retailer’s and restaurants not coming to Menlo Park in certain places. Is it the RE owner? Is it the City Council planning? We need an expert from Menlo Park who loves our town and speaks for the people. Sort of a cooperative working relationship with businesses and RE Owner’s.
Just my thoughts.
I am happy to have BevMo there. At least the space is filled and I shop at BevMo so now don’t have to travel so far. Tax dollars go to Menlo Park instead of RWC. Hooray!
The one on Oak closed, Beltramo’s is another caliber (higher, and so is Trader Joes (lower I’d say). They only will compete with Draegers and Safeway, and it will at least use some decent property on El Camino.
BevMo is a pretty good store though and at least they let you return full capped bottles if you buy too much for a party (which have done). You can also order online ahead of time and have everything waiting for you (so I’ve heard from friends).
Is there a period we may be able to appeal the planning commissions decision?
Ginger: The best appeal is not shopping there.
Henry Fox got it right. If this application came from a “family restaurant,” then other restaurants would have opposed it. You can’t win…
Here’s a novel idea: when it comes to traditional free market choices, let consumers have the last word, not politicians.
I attended the Planning Commission meeting last night and heard a very different story from what this reporter writes and I feel compelled to tell it like it happened! First, I heard that over 1,550 letters, postcards, and emails were received by the City in opposition to the issuance of a permit to BevMo – basically over 95% of all the correspondence from the community was against another liquor store in MP. This is not a “bombardment” in favor of BevMo by a long shot as the writer states! Additionally, I heard the BevMo rep say that BevMo has approximately 1,600 card holders/customers from the Palo Alto, MP, and Atherton area….definitely not all MP residents. One of the Commissioners later in his discussion distored this fact by saying it was 1,600 MP residents and no one on the panel corrected him. It is obvious that this reporter wasn’t listening closely when the BevMo rep made his statement.
All in all, the hearing was a huge disappointment. A big turnout against BevMo both in attendance and via correspondence from residents was ignored. Further the Commissioners, except Ms. Keith and Ms. Ferrick, distorted or misunderstood the facts. To me their decisions were not based on sound fact or reasoning but rather on stretches of imagination and hypotheticals.
I’m happy to see the Bev Mo. As others have indicated, it will generate more tax revenue and shoppers to to the city. I still have to go elsewhere for general merchandise though. God forbid should be ever see something like a Target or a WalMart. That might draw too much traffic, and revenue to our poor city. Lets get real that we need a draw here in Menlo Park. Still too many empty lots and buildings through out the city.
I’ve been a Menlo Park resident for the past 3 years and as a hard working tax paying individual I’m happy to see that the free market still is in the lexicon of the average American. I’m looking forward to the BevMo! store coming to Menlo Park, this will be good for all of Menlo’s citizens even the whiny Draegers and Beltramos families will benefit from it. Let’s see here, more jobs, more tax revenues for the city, free market benefits and a whole host of other benefits that far out way the downside. On a side note why doesn’t anyone complain about Safeway which does Triple the amount of beer, wine & alcohol sales as Beltramo’s and Draeger’s combined!! In these economic times we should be supporting any business that brings jobs and choices to our community…Let Freedom Ring!
This is a victory for capitalism. Instead of watching Beltramo’s and Draeger’s attempt to limit their competition under the cloak of “protecting local businesses,” we can now let the consumers vote with their pocketbooks. The issue here is that WE are given the choice – not having Kirsten Keith and Katie Ferrick make the decision for us on “ideal” grounds. This has been a mountain made out of a molehill…
I’m with commisioner Vincent Bressler,the building needs a makeover badly. Not only it looks bad, it’s hard to get in and out.
I think all of us would have preferred a family restaurant, mens clothing store, baker, any number of other tenant applications. But 700 El Camino is half empty, and will still be 1/4 empty after BevMo moves in. And those nice uses probably want to be in one of the vacancies on or around Santa Cruz, once they get the money together or the economy can support them – hope I’m wrong, but that won’t be soon. Meanwhile 700 Santa Cruz is not a “charm” building, and is the worse vacant. Not an easy decision, as our split vote shows.
I get a little tired of the social engineering that some in power try to perpetrate. (Anyone thinking of voting for Keith for council?) The mall owner was willing to give BevMo a ten-year lease, which suggests to me that these are pretty scary times, yes, even for people who own/operate ugly strip malls. Katie mentioned that Deelish had closed — never went there so wouldn’t doubt it. Deelish is not the kind of business that thrives in a down economy.
I would love to have seen a family restaurant in that location, and I’m sure the owner would have preferred that. Fewer hoops to jump through, plus restaurant customers are more likely to stroll through the mall and patronize Staples and Big Five. Bottom line, the mall would be healthier. (Those of you who don’t like a liquor store: would you prefer an empty strip mall?) These economic times don’t allow any business owner the luxury of being so selective.
The reporter should note that Vincent Bressler’s comment was rhetorical and he was in fact in favor of granting the use permit, with the caveat that a review period be included. And that’s what happened. A good result all around, I think…at least for those of us who prefer free enterprise to bullying tactics, including those orchestrated by venerated local merchants.
Oh, I missed this one in the article above. You be the judge:
“Vice Chair Vincent Bressler also opposed the action, suggesting that denying the use permit could force the building’s owner to remodel the strip mall.”
Don’t you think the landlord would be less inclined to do that if he was already losing income from an empty tenant space?
I don’t doubt Mr. Bressler’s heart is in the right place, but this is unrealistic manifestation of city council authority.
Per his 2006 Political Philosphy: “We need to get our city back [with] an emphasis on building our sales tax base through attracting revenue-generating business to our city.”
Huh.
Mr. Bressler voted against the use permit.
Thanks, “I’ll Drink To That.” I stand corrected. Probably a point he should have kept to himself. Rhetorical or not, it raises an eyebrow to his line of thinking.
Good. More sales tax for the city. If the “majority” of Menlo Park citizens really don’t want to patronize the Bevmo it will go out of business. Let’s see what happens. My money says Bevmo will be around for quite some time.
Menlo Voter wrote: “Good. Moe sales tax for the city.”
While that would be a good idea in general, we have a waste issue going on in Menlo Park. With our city management making over $400,000 a year, we have to address wasteful spending.
On another note… welcome to Menlo Park BevMo!
I’m happy at the outcome of the vote. Had it gone the other way I would have been disappointed. To think local merchants can now buy there way through the planning commission to limit competition, or should I say, protect their profits, is a little mind boggling.
Almost lost faith in the free market system. Phew!
Beltramo’s and Dreagers have been around for a long time for good reason.
There were a total of 8 items voted on for BevMo last night.
I was uncomfortable supporting this use permit until and unless we established a review for the use permit. I introduced that review in item 7 and I voted in favor of items 7 and 8. If the review had been established in item 1, I likely would have voted in favor of all items.
The issue of whether or not the strip mall should be remodeled was not a factor in any of my votes.
The El Camino specific plan will provide positive incentives for land owners to remodel. I don’t believe that the planning commission should try to force property owners’ hands. I think that the planning commission agrees with that sentiment as well.
Also, please keep in mind that most retail uses in that location would not have required a use permit at all. BevMo is a special case because it is a liquor store.
Boring! Time to put in a Hooters.
There are reasons why conditional user permit is needed for liquor use but not other retail or resturant use.
I would like to correct the statement in the article about the reason for my vote and clarify my position on this issue:
The commissioners were required to make certain findings in order to grant a use permit, and these are more stringent than other retail types due to state ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) rules for issuance of a liquor license for a store such as BevMo. We were required to determine if this store would serve a “public convenience or necessity” in an area of “undue concentration.” (According to the staff report, “undue concentration” basically means there is already too many liquor stores in the subject area and that the site is located within a crime reporting district that has a 20% or greater number of crimes than the average reported crimes from the jurisdiction.)
I could not make the finding that this store is a necessity or convenience due to the availability of like products in such close proximity in Menlo Park. Additionally, there is a BevMo 3 miles away along the same transit corridor.
Regarding potential city revenues of approximately $18,000 from this store: The liquor business was designated by the state licensing board to be over saturated in this area, so with this information, I tend to give more credibility to those who believe that the income to the city won’t be net new income, but rather mostly shifted from other existing business. A business that is not over saturated in the area could provide net new income to the city and the realization of $18,000 or more could happen.
Additionally, a local business/restaurant/smaller chain has far greater potential for more than $18,000 annually in community benefits, ie. with their use of local banking services, insurance providers, their donations and sponsorships of community groups and programs. This is not just me stating studies–this has occurred many times over in my own experience as a fundraiser for various community and non-profit projects in the past. I was very disappointed to hear the property owner’s representative state he only contacted national chain restaurants and retailers when trying to rent this site.
However, I could not agree more that empty store fronts and lots on El Camino are terrible and that we want to encourage business development in the city. This space has been filled by a national chain in the past and has chains for neighbors, and I agree that it will likely help this center get more activity going for itself. I really can agree with many sides to this issue and had to rely on the standards that needed to met for permit issuance. That is why this particular vote was so difficult for me.
What tripped up the some commissioners in making the ‘findings’ was that the language said there would be no impact within the ‘census tract’. No one asked staff to define the bounds of the census tract. For all we know, it was so small that it could have been only the strip mall itself.
Read the fine print, and ask questions.
It blows me away that the PC spent hours nitpicking this project to pieces and overlooked some of the most significant issues.
“…the site is located within a crime reporting district that has a 20% or greater number of crimes than the average reported crimes from the jurisdiction…”
What crime reporting district? What crimes? What defines the jurisdiction? I asked a commissioner who had no idea but speculated that perhaps the crime in question involved the Safeway employee who was dealing drugs. It’s ludicrous that a crime of that nature should have had any bearing on this decision, yet we don’t know because no one asked!
Similarly, I wonder what “oversaturated in this area” means. I’d guess that BevMo didn’t pick this site randomly. Presumably they have market research indicating that the area is underserved, because if it weren’t, they couldn’t make money by locating in that mall!
So often when we get a new business in town, the established businesses start the fearmongering campaign. Wasn’t Draeger’s sure they’d go out of business because of the Sunday farmers’ market? I’m glad that ultimately the right decision was made, but frustrated at the inept, roundabout process that led to it.
Gee, just what we need in Menlo park, another Bank!
Prior to the meeting, I asked staff to define the terms “undue concentration” and “public convenience”; these were also clarified in the second half of the hearing. As I understood them:
Undue Concentration means more liquor stores per capita than in the neighborhood overall; in other words, most any downtown.
Public convenience is not defined and staff leaves it as anything the commissioners deem it to be. (This is not helpful to the commissioners, is apparently subjective by design.)
Thus we had different determinations; one commissioner proposed that, since there are 1,600 (reportedly) Menlo zip code Club BevMo members, the location would be more convenient for many of them than driving to RC. Again, more than one way to judge this.
I have lived in Menlo for over ten years and know the stripe mall very well. There have been homeless people stayed around the mail and train track near to the center’s garbage area for years. Some teens have also hang around the mall. Will Bevmo attract more homeless people to the area or the teens to buy liquor?
Oh ya, teens buying liquor at Bevmo. Get real. Homeless and teens in the mall are the result of empy sote fronts on the El Camino.
i would support beltramo’s if they actually had good wine like the now defunct gc tasting cafe and nearby k&l, but everytime i purchased wine at beltramo’s it has been a disappointment.
i hope they can use this opportunity to improve their standards and stock better wine.
Why do so many of you, like POGO, think we are so grand and above the average citizens? This ain’t Paris.
Realist –
What did I say that suggests we are “so grand and above average citizens?”
If it is because I prefer to see consumers making buying decisions instead of politicians, then I proudly plead guilty on all counts.
Getting past the Bevmo issue how about opening an all you can eat buffet in one of those empty car dealerships. The closest one is in Mt. View and look at all those hungry Stanford students and techies it would attract.
We are NOT above average?
Damn, I’m moving to Lake Wobegon.
Hmm, Big Appetite, I see your point, but aren’t voracious students exactly the reason an all-you-can-eat buffet couldn’t survive? ;o)
How about recruiting a lasertag/arcade/restaurant business? That could attract area families, teens, and students. The nearest similar entity is on Shoreline in Mountain View. Palo Alto teens have been clamoring for a place nearby to “hang out.”
And lastly, I’m with anonymous from Atherton.
Movie Theater.
Currently many of us go to RWC or Mountain View for a nice theater with surrounding eateries.
The theater in RWC is the center piece of the downtown revival in RWC. It’s very nice and right off of Caltrain.
All you detractors…. cry yourselves a river and float away! Jobs, tax revenue and revitalizing a center that desperately needs it…. “Gee that is terrible, I don’t want that in my town” Really people, really???? You buffoons need get over yourselves.
My official position on this very complicated issue is that I can get a discount on bourbon without driving to Costco.
Member Name,
Why would Menlo Park ever OK a Hooters? You can see all the “Boobs” you want by just attending a M.P. Council Meeting!
Let’s all look at the bright side of the council approving BevMo — now we have one more place in MP to have improperly discarded shopping carts slam into your car (because you know damn well, no council person brought up the fact that numerous of the less-than-adequate number of parking stalls will need to be converted to shopping cart corrals).
Having lived in Menlo for 50 years, I’ve witnessed it steadily go down hill. At only 70 feet above sea level, we’ll all be drowning soon — or maybe drowning our sorrows (at a discount) with a little help from BevMo.
I go with letting the market decide. Isn’t it a bit more efficient than asking our city council or commissions, or the public, for their opinion? Yes, there’s a place for government to facilitate the plan and a hospitable business environment to collect & spend taxes, etc. But hshouldn’t rent-paying, tax-generating businesses have a chance to make their choice, and investment, without all the fuss?
Of course, an alternative is to ask all the big city stores to leave our quaint little town. Safeway, Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, Mattress Discounters, McDonalds, Peets, Shell, Union 76, Chevron, Union Bank, Chase, and BoA. Did I miss any? Throw them all out. While we’re at it, let’s add some rent-control to attract nice businesses (never mind if we disenfranchise the landlords). I remember a time when we enjoyed too may opticians, a boatload of downtown pharmacy’s, and one or two Chinese restuarants. Can’t we go back to the good ol’ days?
I am so glad that BevMo got the OK to open a store in Menlo Park. I am so tired of competing rich merchants trying to anonymously scare residents in our city by sending out costly anonymous mailers in opposition to a new tax-paying business coming to Menlo.
I am also scared by and sick of rich political candidates trying to buy their way into statewide political office (Hello, Queen Meg!).
It’s nice to know that,sometimes, money can’t buy everything.
Nice try, Beltramos.
If you want to mail out letters in opposition to a BevMo coming to our city, why do you have to hide your identity, Beltramo’s? Looks like it backfired, eh?
Beltramo’s may have been involved, but I understand that Mr. Kepler was a key part in organizing the group that sent the postcards.
Thank you for including the postage – like many others, I took the opportunity to “rewrite” the message in support of business choice, before returning the card. I dilike empty buildings and appreciate the tax revenue. So this was tax-neutral (on the idea that BevMo will divide, not increase liquor sales)?, well this is a fine chance to build traffic at that site – in support of Big5, Staples, Dee-Lish, LensCrafters and the others.
ps, to ‘$ can’t buy everything’ – I have no real complaint with rich candidates & politicians, or being rich. The complaint with voters for not making choices based on principals and good judgement. I’ll have to agree that this time, Meg isn’t the better choice (although I respect that she is running). In the same way, we can’t allow ourselves to choose local businesses, based on who spends the most, or sends the most postcards. Let the market decide which businesses stay, by letting consumers “vote” with their dollars as they shop.
Really Chic,
These monied candidates (or anonymous “anti” individuals) annoy the heck out of me. The Beltramos get involved in local politics only when it effects their business and, even then, they cowardly do it anonymously. Meg and Carly both decide to get involved in statewide politics at a time when their careers have waned and when it furthers their need for attention. Where were those ladies for all those years when they dd not have the time to even vote?
Meg’s voting record pales in comparison to the damage that Jerry Brown has inflcited on the State of California. At the time the Federal Government realize that defined benefit plans were too costly, Jerry Brown gave the state employees the right to unionize and then enter into defined benefit plans that are bankrupting the State.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) said:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
FDR further stated:
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
Appreciate the Planning Commissioners who’ve written in to provide additional context. Don’t necessarily agree with all your points, but it’s helpful to see some of the thoughts that went into this decision, which wasn’t an easy one for anyone.
This is off track, sorry, however I had to comment on the posters above reasoning for not supporting someone like Meg Whitman……because she is rich?? Great reasoning. I think you need to dial down a bit more and see that Ms. Whitman is the only candidate that has a real plan to increase private business, and cut out wasteful government spending. The last time I checked, the state of California wasn’t doing too well on those two fronts. Please “check behind the curtain” before you nix her for being rich. The ironic thing about these type statements is that you need a huge number of dollars these days to get elected! aka Obama’s repealing his pledge to accept federal campaign dollars.
Ms. Whitman has a plan, she has proven to be very successful in business, and has a strong ability to tackle big issues, Jerry Brown accomplished……….dating Linda Ronstadt.
Off Track,
You’re a bit off topic in you reply
Read again, this was a suggestion that we should look for substance in our politicians – and not rely on their richness or spending as the reason for voting. It’s not a perfect analogy, but we should let the market decide which stores should be built..and not on whoever happens to spend the most to try influence decisions. Let the customers decide which businesses will succeed.
I have no problem with rich candidates. Actually, I’m a bit biased by thinking many are rich because they’re smart and successful. I’ll look closer, but the candidate you support seems to have more ads than substance, but maybe I missed something. I’m not so fond of postcard campaigns, negative ads, character bashing, or that politicians feel the need to deride their opponents.
And I like Linda Ronstadt. Class act, but I’m lost why that has anything to do with BevMo. Or Meg Whitman. Are you suggesting Mr. Brown used good jugement to date her, poor judgement to stop, or the other way around.
BTW – despite the postcard campaign, I’ll still shop at Beltramo’s. they have a fine selection, great sales people and fine advice, all in one store.
Well, it has been one the news that drinking in America is now, along with the ingesting of antipsychotic drugs is on the rise and faster than the rise of unemployment.
Luckily, all of the GRANDCHIC people on the Peninsula are above that.
BUT did I hear someone mention they drank bourbon?
How gauche and middle class.
I am all about maintaining the the feel of Menlo Park after living in the community for almost 14 years, but feel a little conflicted over this. But, as I think about it, when I purchase wine, I almost always go to Beltramo’s. I used to go there to purchase beer and kegs as well, but some time ago, Beltramo’s decided to no longer carry kegs, and frankly, their beer selection is spotty at best.
That all being said, kind of sounds like we have a new store that will make the beer drinking population happy. I assume, those looking for friendly, courteous and knowledgeable advice regarding wine will still go to Beltramo’s.
Conflicted –
You’re not conflicted, you’re a consumer. Shop where you like.