Menlo Park City Council explores new design for proposed Parkline development

The Menlo Park City Council heard from city staff, Menlo Park residents, housing advocates,  and more at a Tuesday, May 21, study session on a new design for the proposed Parkline development, which would be located on the SRI campus at 333 Ravenswood Ave. The new design has increased the number of proposed residential units that would be available on the site from 550 to 800 units.

The study session was well attended, with 31 commenters voicing their support and concerns about the proposed development. Discussion of the project lasted for nearly three hours. Questions about traffic impacts of the development, building heights, the need for more office space when major tech companies are getting rid of real estate, and even bio safety hazards from research labs at the development, swirled during the meeting.

The council and public commenters were very enthusiastic about adding new housing, especially affordable housing, to the site, with some commenters requesting that the developer and council consider adding even more housing to the design. However, many were concerned about the heritage tree removal and potential traffic, congestion and parking impacts that would come with the addition of 800 or more housing units to the area. 

“Seeing the uptick number of housing units and the increase in the land dedication for affordable housing. That is great to see,” said council member Maria Doerr. 

Attendees and the council heard a presentation from developers Lane Partners LLC, who is working with SRI International to reimagine the site. The developers are proposing to redevelop the SRI campus into a mixed-use neighborhood consisting of apartment buildings, town homes, office space and research and development labs. In addition, the proposed project would include 25 acres of publicly accessible open space, pedestrian and bicycle paths, a recreation area and a “community amenity building,” which may include public restrooms, bicycle repair and some retail.  

The plan for the site has gone through several iterations since it was first presented to the city in 2021. The initial plan, which was presented to the council in 2021, would have added only 400 units of housing to the SRI site. Subsequently, the developer was directed by the planning commission to fit additional units in the development.

The next iteration of the plan increased base housing to 550 units. Following further discussions with the community and council, the developer was able to account for 800 units in this most recent plan after acquiring 201 Ravenswood Ave., which currently houses the First Church of Christ, Scientist and Alpha Kids Academy. 

The 1.6 acres of the newly acquired church site would be dedicated to a nonprofit housing developer, who would be able to develop that site with 100% affordable housing. Up to 154 units of affordable housing may be constructed at the church site. 

Twenty-one residents and housing advocates spoke in favor of the project, with nearly all citing the town’s dire need for housing as a reason to move forward with the project. Many residents were also excited about the possibility of increased community space offered by the proposed community amenities building. 

“I really appreciate the proposal coming before you today in terms of what was done to use the land that the church is willing to sell to provide more homes, including more affordable homes to enable a more diverse and welcoming community,” said Menlo Park resident Adina Levin. 

Council members agreed that the increased housing, especially affordable housing would be a boon to the city.

“I appreciate the changes that have been made since the first time this came to the City Council. And then also the increase in housing,” said Mayor Cecilia Taylor. 

Multiple residents requested that the project include even more housing, and fewer office buildings. 

“There’s no housing supply for families expanding or contracting,” said Jenny Michelle, a resident of the Willows neighborhood. “We are failing to meet our city mission. In the eyes of environmental justice. This project should include 3,000 housing units.” 

Resident Morgan Ames asked why the plan includes building more office space when companies like Google and Meta are pulling away from millions of square feet of office space.

“SRI itself has been largely vacant for such a long time,” Ames said. “So we really need to seize this once in a generation opportunity to build as much housing as we can on this site. So I’d advocate for doubling, maybe tripling the amount of housing.”

A representative from Lane Partners responded, saying that demand for office and lab space has been slowly increasing. 

Traffic concerns

Though commenters and council alike were excited by the prospect of more housing for Menlo Park, many were worried about how traffic might impact the city as over 800 new residents and many new office workers would occupy the development. 

“Before long you’re going to be asked to consider new projects for the USGS property and or what used to be Sunset Magazine,” said Alison Elliott, who lives near Middlefield Road. “All of those homes and all those office buildings are going to have to rely on one public good, Middlefield Road, which both Menlo Park and Palo Alto have recently reduced to one single lane each direction. Please think ahead and think that there are limits to our infrastructure.”

Resident Pat Kelly said: “What I need you to hear is what traffic is already like here now. You are already blocking quick access to every single hospital in the area with traffic, whether it’s Stanford (University), whether it’s Kaiser (Permanente). So I think we need to be really careful about what we’re doing and cannot imagine how we will handle traffic.”

Many council members echoed residents’ traffic concerns. 

“What opportunities does the council even have to regulate (traffic)?” asked Council member Jen Wolosin.

City staff and council members explored how the city could put a cap on the number of car trips to and from the development in order to lessen traffic congestion. A similar trip cap has already been applied to the Willow Village development. 

Council directed Menlo Park staff to explore options for limiting the number of car trips taken to and from the proposed development, as well as how to regulate parking on the site.

Other residents implored city council to think outside the box to improve traffic conditions near the proposed project site.

“I feel like we have an opportunity to dream really big,” said Ames. “We could move Menlo Park away from car-centric designs, we could put light rail along arterials, we could put protected bike lanes that don’t feel as terrifying to us.”

Jenny Michelle said neighbors are concerned “about all things cars” when the city talks about adding housing, but should instead focus on how they themselves can reduce car congestion in the city. 

“These are excellent examples of ‘car brain,’ or your brain on cars,” she said. “The best way forward is like sobering up. Get off the car man! Push yourself to abstain from using at least 40% each week.”

Wolosin noted that “everyone’s gonna be happy at the end, but I appreciate the efforts that have been made. “I think you’d still have some details to work out. But we’ll get there.”

Biosafety levels

Several commenters and council members were concerned about the possibility that the research labs within the Parkline development may be allowed to operate biosafety level three research facilities. Biosafety level three is the second-highest biosafety designation.

These types of facilities typically involve “study (of) infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infections,” according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Microbes such as West Nile virus, Yersinia pestis (the Plague), malaria and retroviruses including HIV are restricted to study under biosafety level three conditions. 

“I ask the City Council to consider carefully whether research use of the nonresidential buildings is appropriate for mixed-use development,” said Menlo Park resident Naomi Goodman. “SRI has a long history of research into infectious diseases, developing drugs for organisms such as HIV, Ebola, drug resistant bacteria, anthrax and Hepatitis-C. … A biosafety level three or four biocontainment facility should not be located in 1,000 feet of housing.”

The Sierra Club has previously advocated for biosafety level three facilities to be banned from Menlo Park. 

Several other cities in the Bay Area have moved to regulate these higher-risk research facilities. Biosafety level three facilities were banned from the city of San Carlos, for example, entirely in June 2023. 

The council directed staff to look further into issues surrounding biosafety levels within the development. 

Since this was a study session, the council took no action on this development during the meeting. 

The draft environmental impact report for the project will be released in late June, and will be subject to a 45-day public review period. The Planning Commission will hold a study session reviewing the draft EIR in July.