|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Menlo Park considers an expanded redevelopment plan for SRI International’s former campus that would add nearly 300 more housing units, Councilmember Jeff Schmidt is urging the city to conduct a broader review before approving it or other major projects in the area.
The redevelopment of SRI International’s 64-acre Menlo Park campus on Burgess Drive has changed significantly since Menlo Park-based developer Lane Partners began work on the project, called Parkline, in 2018.
The revised Parkline plan would reduce office and research space by 25,000 square feet to 900,000 square feet and add 282 homes, bringing the total to 1,082 units. The housing would include 754 rental apartments, 108 townhouses and 220 single-family homes for sale, including 98 small-lot homes.
Fifteen percent of the homes would be designated below market rate. Lane Partners would also reserve 1.6 acres for an affordable housing developer, which could build an estimated 154 additional affordable homes.
The revised proposal would replace an office-oriented amenity building with a retail village of more than 40,000 square feet for neighborhood-serving businesses, including restaurants, fitness providers and other services. The project would provide nearly 27 acres of open space, including more than 13 acres open to the public, and dedicate a 2.7-acre city-owned recreation parcel that could accommodate a regulation-size soccer or lacrosse field.
To accommodate the denser development, office buildings could rise as high as 10 stories, or 150 feet, which is 40 feet more than the previous 110-foot maximum.
While the city had approved the previous Parkline proposal, the revision went before the Menlo Park City Council for the first time at a study session on Sept. 22. Councilmembers expressed concern about how the project would impact the Lindfield Oaks neighborhood (the area between Middlefield Road, Ravenswood Avenue, the Palo Alto border and the train tracks) and the city as a whole, especially with the pending redevelopment of the former U.S. Geological Survey campus on Middlefield Road and the controversial skyscraper proposal at the former Sunset Magazine headquarters on Willow Road at Middlefield.
Councilmember Jeff Schmidt, who represents Lindfield Oaks, said the city needs to take a broader look at how proposed developments would affect the city collectively rather than individually. He said he would not vote to approve any project until the city completes a more comprehensive study.
“I’m not inclined to vote to approve any project, including SRI and USGS, until we figure out a comprehensive transportation and circulation plan,” Schmidt said at the Sept. 22 council study session. “We’re looking at these things in isolation, project by project, and it is the wrong way to do it.”
Schmidt said the city should prioritize a broader transportation study, even if doing so slows work on other projects. Schmidt added that his concerns are not a reflection on Lane Partners or the Parkline project, but about how Menlo Park handles development projects.
“I see the SRI project as part of a whole group because we are surrounded by three projects in our small neighborhood,” said Lindfield Oaks resident Nancy Hosay. “It’s SRI, the former USGS site, and the big one on the Sunset Magazine site. Parkline has a huge amount of housing.”
While she supports more housing, Hosay said nearby streets could not absorb the combined growth.
“Great to have more housing, but we in this small neighborhood do not have the infrastructure to be able to handle that,” she said. “I really fear that it’s going to be gridlocked for most of the time.”
“These streets are already major thoroughfares,” Hosay added. “Do we want an Oregon Expressway going through our neighborhood? That’s not appealing.”
Peter Lezak, who represents the owners of a Middlefield Road office building near the SRI campus, said they generally support the updated Parkline proposal, particularly the townhouses, but worry that the new housing and office space would make their property harder to access.
“Traffic is already bad and now with all of the additional housing and office space, it’s going to be a big problem to access our offices,” Lezak told The Almanac.
Lezak said the city should consider alternatives, such as extending Willow Road through the area.
“We feel like the individual single-family neighborhoods have done a very good job of expressing their concerns, and as a result, have stopped those kinds of things,” Lezak said. “But therefore we’re going to end up with very significant traffic on Middlefield.”
Council members also questioned how the evolving project could affect nearby homes, particularly those in the Burgess Classics subdivision across from Burgess Park.
Councilmember Drew Combs said changes to the proposal and unresolved setback questions had left residents uncertain about how close the planned buildings could be to their properties.
“It has been a bit of a moving target: What exactly are the setbacks?” Combs said. “I appreciate that the project has changed … but they’ve gotten different figures for setbacks and also some statements that, ‘Well, that’s going to be finalized at a later stage.’”
Lane Partners is preparing to submit a revised Parkline proposal that incorporates feedback from residents and the council. City staff said that once the revision is complete, it will undergo review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Most Popular
Congressman calls for feds to investigate, sanction Russian owner of Menlo Park development siteSeptember 24, 2026 11:32 am
I appreciate that a city-wide traffic study should be done, and also as the city is currently preparing to fight a builder’s remedy development, perhaps it shouldn’t feed into the state’s argument that we are just looking for ways to slow housing in our town after decades of ignoring the issue. We need housing. Perhaps we could also make that study include our bike infrastructure, since we need to make improvements to that if we are getting more residents and as has been noted, there are still significant safety gaps in a cyclist’s journey across our little town.
I hope the city will include Marsh Road and Willow Road access to 101 in their study. Marsh Road is bumper to bumper starting around 3:30 every weekday. If you add in the traffic from the 80 Willow Road project, there could be a serious backup. It’s important to keep in mind the fire trucks and police also use Marsh and Willow Road to access the freeway.
Amen!
Thanks for this story! Clearly wasn’t on my bingo card that Jeff Schmidt is coming out against housing. The look on my rep’s face (Mayor Nash) was priceless… he’s taking a stand and representing his district, which is what he swore to do, and then he gets a lecture about not doing this by Nash, for “reasons, based on her FEELINGS.”
Schmidt was seemingly all for housing when it was the three downtown parking lots, and the traffic impact on the small streets on the other side of El Camino, most of which don’t even have room for bike lanes. I guess because it was someone else’s district (Nash’s). Now that it’s his own neighborhood, and his own voter base (we are a district based city representation now), suddenly he’s the guy stating flatly he will NOT vote for ANY proposal unless a citywide study is done first. I guess that standard applies in district 3 now, though he didn’t say so (clearly) if that applies for the other districts. He’s now worried about traffic, sorry, “circulation”. Simply pull up Google Maps and show me where thousands of additional bike, car, delivery, and additional truck trips are supposed to go. No study government can produce is going to show how that much added load will fit into an already built-out area without massive impacts to traffic, school crowding, park space, and playing field availability, etc. “Circulation” has a ceiling: we’re already at gridlock at certain hours (nice of Council member Combs to admit it takes him 30 minutes to cross town sometimes.) Now imagine that most of the day. There is a hard physical limit on cross-town (district 3-4 and 4-3) traffic simply based on how much time the train gates are up and how the El Camino signals can cycle, full stop. Maybe Schmidt (and all of our elected council) can come see how far traffic currently already backs up downtown at some point.
Thoroughly enjoyed Combs’ calm suggestion about already-funded “circulation” plans and the “options” that included running buses up the middle of Willow Road. NOTE: Willow is already down to one lane each direction. What other amazing suggestions did “we” taxpayers already fund. (hint: going to look this up next)…
This entire article, worrying about cumulative impact from SRI, USGS, and Sunset Magazine, however never once mentions the downtown parking lots. Not raised by Schmidt, not raised by the reporter. Strange thing to leave out.
In Lindfield Oaks (district 3), Schmidt won’t vote for anything until the city produces a comprehensive study. That’s the bar. Does it apply downtown, or to any project outside his district? I hope so, and if not, maybe District 4 can elect someone with the conviction to represent the people whom they actually represent, no matter the cost.
Amen!
Apologies for saying Amen to this comment, when I meant the previous one.
We may be overdue for another Oregon Expressway. Traffic is often terrible in many neighborhoods. We need more housing and the infrastructure to support it. Menlo Park hasn’t been a small town for a long time now.