|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Click on picture to enlarge image and view caption.
CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this article, we cited Henry Riggs of the Menlo Park planning commission as saying that parking spaces at the site could be shared between users of the office and retail facilities, justifying the developer’s request to create fewer spaces than the city requires. In fact, Mr. Riggs had said that it would be easier to justify creating fewer spaces if the project included housing, because residents and office users could share spots.
The developer of the site of an abandoned car dealership on El Camino Real laid out the details of a proposed office/retail complex at an April 6 meeting of the Menlo Park Planning Commission, to generally favorable reviews.
The proposal, at the site of the former Cadillac dealership at 1300 El Camino, calls for 58,700 square feet of office space and 51,365 square feet of retail/restaurant, along with 37,400 square feet of landscaped space, including a patio. The project would be designed in the Spanish style, according to the architect, with a mixture of stucco, stone veneer, tile roofs, and iron details.
To accommodate the project, the City Council would have to approve a rezoning of the site. The changes would allow for an increase in building height from 30 to 40 feet, but would also require a greater setback from the curb and more open space than current zoning laws.
The proposal falls within current density allowances. Though the city is currently engaged in a planning process for El Camino Real that won’t wrap up until the fall of 2010, the council has indicated it would consider projects for El Camino Real that don’t exceed density restrictions currently in place.
Though plans for Whole Foods to occupy the site appear to be dead, a grocery store is still a possibility, according to Jeff Warmoth of Sand Hill Property Co. The site could also allow for a restaurant, a health club, or other retail operations.
Housing option
During the study session, commissioners weighed an alternative project, put forward by the developer at the behest of the City Council, that would replace some of the retail space with 36 residential units. Commissioner Jack O’Malley said he would support the project only if it included housing. Elizabeth Lasensky, a member of the Housing Commission, said in public comment that the site was one of the last available spots in the city to add high-density housing.
But Commissioner Katie Ferrick said she was concerned that requiring housing might be too onerous.
“I just don’t want to see us force something on them that becomes a project not built,” she said.
Mr. Warmoth said it would be difficult to obtain financing for housing, and that a mixed-use project with condominium units would be tricky to pull off for other reasons. “Adding housing complicates things quite a bit,” he said.
Sand Hill previously proposed constructing 135 apartments and 81,000 square feet of commercial space in buildings up to 60 feet tall — a project praised by past council members, but not the current council. At the meeting, he said apartments would be easier to incorporate into the design than condominiums.
Parking, traffic
Sand Hill’s proposal calls for 422 parking spaces, less than two-thirds of the 661 required by current zoning laws. Henry Riggs, the commission’s chair, said the request for fewer spots might be justified if the project included housing, because some of the spots could be shared between people who use the offices during the day, and those who use the housing units at night.
Mr. Warmoth called the city’s requirement of six parking spots per 1,000 developed square feet excessive, saying he was confident that a parking study by a city-hired consultant would conclude that fewer parking spaces are sufficient.
A ground-level lot would contain 98 of those spaces, with 324 in an underground structure.
Traffic would increase significantly on several nearby streets, according to an environmental review by a city-hired consultant.
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
I view this as a real test for the “new” council members I supported. Cline and Robinson both said to me they were supportive of development, but needed better processes and planning behind the developments.
Well, you got both here guys. Lots of meetings and lots of public input. I expect you to support this project and stay true to you word.