|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Representatives of SRI said they are willing to consider building up to 800 units of housing at its Parkline development as the Menlo Park Planning Commission wraps up a third round of reviewing the project’s master plan.
The commission has stretched review of the SRI project over three meetings starting on Jan. 12. Parkline developer Lane Partners unveiled its plans for building a massive mixed-use project with office, residential and recreational space on SRI’s 63-acre research campus. Lane Partners plans to demolish all but three of the existing buildings currently on the site.
Under the original plans, the development would have been split between a 53-acre office district and a 10-acre residential district containing 450 units and a separately zoned area designated to be leased to an affordable housing developer for up to 100 units. Lane Partners also planned to exceed the 25% minimum required amount of open space by making 38% of the site publicly accessible open space.
At the continuation of its Jan. 22 meeting, the Planning Commission and several residents asked Lane Partners to look into developing much more than the proposed total of 550 housing units, comparing the project to the similarly immense Willow Village development in the Bayfront neighborhood. Meta, formerly known as Facebook, plans to build 1,730 units of housing on a mixed-use development four acres smaller than SRI.
Some people who spoke at the meeting asked Lane Partners to consider doubling the amount of housing offered at the Parkline development or even increasing the units to match Willow Village’s.
At the Planning Commission’s final continuation of the meeting on Feb. 6, SRI responded to the feedback on its master plan. A representative from Lane Partners compared the proposed projects for Parkline and Willow Village, saying that Parkline may be providing less housing, but that the project is also bringing fewer new employees to Menlo Park and a higher percentage of the units being built are affordable.
The representative from Lane Partners said that they could agree to study a maximum of 800 units at the site and move the designated land for affordable housing to be in the same area as the other residential units.
“Transit-rich spaces like this reduce the need for driving and allow for better employment opportunities for your community members who rely on public transit,” said Ken Chan, senior organizer with the Housing Leadership Council.
Commissioner Henry Riggs requested an aggressive traffic demand management (TDM) plan for the project, asking for up to a 50% traffic reduction requirement.
“My neighbor doesn’t bother to say anything because he feels it would fall on deaf ears after 20 years,” Commissioner Riggs said. “But his cross-town effort in the morning simply to cross Menlo Park … takes him 10 minutes longer than if he simply drove to San Francisco.”
The number of units was also called into question, as planning commissioners said they believe SRI’s campus is located in a good spot for high-density development. The campus is across the street from the city’s Burgess Park complex, which includes Menlo Park’s recreation center, pool, gyms, police station, city hall and city council chambers, library, tennis courts and fields. There are several bus stops adjacent to the site along Middlefield Road and Ravenswood Avenue.
Riggs asked that Lane Partners consider looking at a density closer to 1,700 units when analyzing the EIR, even though that density is likely not possible, but the alternative could not be requested until impacts are known. Alternatives are often used to study issues presented in an original project.
“We also want Parkline to be innovative in its approach to helping to solve some of the community’s challenges,” SRI CEO David E. Parekh wrote in a letter to the Planning Commission. “…It will preserve heritage trees and transform an urban heat island into a park-like setting for the community and our employees to enjoy together.”
Commissioners asked if Lane Partners would consider including less parking, at a ratio of 1 to 1.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The project is currently planning for a ratio of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Lane Partners were receptive to several requests from the commissioners, such as including pickleball courts and a regulation sports field.
The project will return to the Menlo Park City Council in late February or early March.
Too bad Parkline isn’t also willing to discuss reducing the size of the offices or the number of people who would work in the offices they want to build. Menlo Park doesn’t need more office space.
If the project does not supply more residences built than workers arriving, our town will be faced with ever more demands (dictates?) to build a lot more housing than the town council is already struggling to locate.
The challenge is that Parkline only cares about office space, and doesn’t care about the impact on the city because they’re here for the short-term. Their job is to distract the city by (grudgingly) accommodating the requests for housing, which is all the council cares about at the moment.
@Iris — in 2023, we try to avoid thinking about the consequences of our actions. In the past, the council often rejected some otherwise terrific projects because those projects might be disastrous for the city over the longer term. Our current council does not want to repeat those mistakes, and thus they refuse to do any big picture strategizing or long-term planning. This year’s mantra is “more housing, the denser the better” and if all hell breaks loose in 2030 because of decisions made today, well, que sera sera.
Have to agree with @Frozen. The current City Council, with the exception of Council Member Combs, is aggressively working to maximizing the city’s population and promulgate their vision of social and economic justice, all at the expense of current families, schools, traffic, property values and open spaces etc.
As I understand it, Menlo’s requirement for additional housing from 2023 to 2031 represents a 20% increase in the housing supply. Our City Council, however, is targeting to surpass the requirement by 2.5 times and increase the number of housing units by 50% during the eight-year period!
Can you imagine driving or biking down El Camino, Ravenswood, Willow, Santa Cruz, Valpraiso, Middle, Olive, Oak, and Oakdell etc once the City Council, Planning Commission, Menlo Together, and developers all have their way and increase the number of households by 50%?
The more housing the better. Californians need places to live. Here and everywhere else.
I only wish that the number of offices was smaller, and that the new development contained meaningful amount of retail to make some of the neighborhoods east of Middlefield more walkable. Would be great, for example, to have a small grocery store and cafe or two.
Since the development is right across from MA, some retail options for the students would be great as well.
How will traffic be able to accommodate this? Before Covid, Facebook traffic was so bad during peak hours that Willows residents could not get out of their driveways. Facebook will eventually return to campus, and there will be a huge new development there. Add in the opening of all of the buildings on El Camino near Safeway, and Menlo Park traffic could be an absolute disaster. Why are we not considering the very real impacts to these developments? All housing additions seem to happen east of El Camino with no concern about projects already in the pipeline. This is really concerning. What is the city doing to mitigate traffic armageddon like we saw pre-Covid in the Willows?
Well, I was sitting this one out.
The logic of the Menlo Park Council’s approach to housing reminds me of a slogan offered during the ‘1970’s anti-Viet Nam war era. That is, “fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.”
Stop approving office space. That just increases housing demand. Approve sales-tax generating projects with services in Menlo Park.
(To the editor: Sorry. Re-edit as you wish.)
@local teacher A lot of people are missing the point. Our city council desperately wants us to get rid of our cars, with no regard to practicality of it. They want you to be miserable every time you have to commute to and from your single family home. Every little thing they can do to make it painful to use a vehicle in Menlo Park they have done and will do. You can bet the bank if Peter Ohtaki would have been elected in District 3 he would have had nothing to do with this nonsense. But the renters and bike commuters elected Nash and now we’re stuck with the continued degradation of family life. I wish homeowners would wake up before their investments go to dirt.
@StuartSoffer, perhaps members of the Planning Commission and City Council are intentionally promoting additional office space in an attempt to maximize Menlo Park’s required new housing units?
What I don’t understand is why these people choose to live in Menlo Park if it is congested cities they so desire (think Sunnyvale, Redwood City, San Mateo)?
@StuartSoffer, perhaps members of the Planning Commission and City Council are intentionally promoting additional office space in an attempt to maximize Menlo Park’s required new housing units?
What I don’t understand is why these people choose to live in Menlo Park if it is congested cities they so desire (think Sunnyvale, Redwood City, San Mateo)?
Not mentioned is the domino effect:
Office space -> housing -> schools -> increased taxes.
We need a new city council.
We need a council with planning experience.
Stuart:
We need a council without a “save the world” agenda.