|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Menlo Park Planning Commission wants to see more housing in the proposed Parkline development plans at the SRI campus, saying at its Jan. 23 meeting that the project could match the more than 1,700 units in Meta’s recent Willow Village megaproject.
Plans for the Parkline project, located on the research campus at Ravenswood Avenue between Laurel Street and Middlefield Road, call for up to 550 new rental housing units, at least 15% of which would be offered at below market rate. The project will include new bicycle and pedestrian paths and about 25 acres of publicly accessible open space.
The Parkline development at SRI’s campus is also 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.
Parkline developer Lane Partners plans to demolish all but three of the existing buildings currently on the SRI research campus. The development will be split between a 10-acre residential district and a 53-acre office district. The residential district in its plans would have 450 units, plus a separately zoned area to be leased to an affordable housing developer for a project of up to 100 units.
The biggest questions at the meeting, which was continued from a Dec. 12 meeting, centered on the size and accessibility of the site, as many residents and commissioners said that the location is ideal for more housing than the developer is currently proposing.
The site was compared several times to Meta’s recently approved Willow Village development, located on Willow Road between Hamilton Avenue and Ivy Drive, near the social media giant’s headquarters on Bayfront Expressway. They are comparable in size, as Willow Village encompasses a 59-acre lot while Parkline is proposed for a 63-acre lot. However, Parkline is proposing 550 housing units as opposed to Willow Village’s 1,730 units.
The difference in proposed homes and housing density raised equity questions among commissioners, as Willow Village is situated in the underserved Belle Haven neighborhood, where a majority of Menlo Park’s new and affordable units are built. The Parkline development is in the resource-rich Linfield Oaks neighborhood, close to downtown Menlo Park and an array of amenities, from public parks to public transit.
“If we provide less than one-third of the units in District 3 that we allow in District 1 on the same amount of acreage, it just doesn’t feel equitable,” Vice Chair Cynthia Harris said. “If we aren’t equitable, we do put ourselves at risk. We put ourselves at risk of lawsuits, and we put ourselves at risk of the state coming in and making some decisions for us.”
One suggestion commissioners and residents alike made was to decrease parking while increasing housing. Theoretically, this move would decrease the traffic impact as the property is close access to the Menlo Park Caltrain station and other public transit, which would draw in residents without cars or who prefer not to drive.
“It is the opportunity of a generation, perhaps multiple generations,” Commissioner Jennifer Schindler said. “This is a completely unique location, completely collaborative and invested landowner, so we really do have an opportunity to make a big impact on the community here.”
While the meeting had a heavy focus on increased housing, some neighbors had concerns about the proposed growth. Many of these worries were expressed through emails to the Planning Commission, including one from Linfield Oaks resident Nancy Hosay that lays out several recommendations, such as fewer housing units and redirecting traffic flow by relocating a proposed driveway on Laurel Street.
“At 400 units, the density of this development far outstrips anything in the adjoining neighborhoods, and jeopardizes basic quality of life issues including resultant lack of parking, crowding, school and infrastructure impacts and traffic in this area,” Hosay wrote to the Planning Commission.
Others pushed for higher density in public comments, suggesting that the project approach or match the density of Willow Village.
“We can go a long way towards achieving climate goals and affirmatively furthering fair housing in an equitable manner by increasing the density of Parkline,” resident Catherine Dumont said. “Doubling (it) would be good.”
The Planning Commission members had less than an hour to discuss the proposal after hearing public comments, so the meeting was continued a second time to Feb. 6. At the first hearing at a Dec. 12 meeting, commission members only had 30 minutes to discuss the proposal.
Why preserve Menlo Park’s character, prioritize current homeowners, maintain the safety and quality of our schools, preserve trees and open spaces, not crowd our streets, and protect sewers and other infrastructure?
The Menlo Park Planning Commission and City Council are overwhelmingly unbalanced and are prioritizing increased density, changing the character of the city west of 101, and driving city-funded affordable housing at the expense of the city’s current homeowners and taxpayers.
Menlo Park’s State/ABAG new housing requirement is 2,946 or an 8% increase in the city’s current population. The City Council’s current Housing Element draft is targeting 7,185 units WHICH IS ALMOST 2.5x MORE THAN THE STATE AND ABAG REQUIREMENT. This amounts to a 20% increase in the population of Menlo Park. I don’t believe these figures even account for the additional 1,512 units added through 2021.
The State/ABAG “affordable housing” requirement is 1,662 units (included in the 2,946 above). The Housing Element is targeting 3,518 units and aiming to place those units in the city’s most valuable and expensive areas. The CITY COUNCIL’S CURRENT TARGET IS GREATER THAN 2x THE STATE/ABAG REQUIREMENT.
Moreover, NO FISCAL ANALYSIS was conducted for the Housing Element and no study to the impact to Police, Fire, traffic, or Schools.
Lastly, only moderate and above-moderate units are being considered for District 1, east of 101. Has the Planning Commission and City Council given any thought to how this will drive gentrification in District 1 that will eventually price out more low-income residents?
The Housing Element is fiscally irresponsible, does not properly consider the long-term impacts to the city, and has not been properly communicated to current homeowners. We should not be attempting to more than double the new housing requirement and increase the population by 20%.
We need to build, then build some more and then build some more. Increase density, remove R1 and require mixed use for all projects. We have 50 years of NIMBY to reverse. I applaud the Planning Commission. Let’s dedicate some roads for multimodal use and remove autos while we’re at it.
Michael:
if you like what you describe, I suggest you move to San Francisco. Plenty of dense housing and you don’t need a car. Of course, its a crap hole, but hey that’s the price you pay for your kind of density right? I for one, don’t want that kind of density. If I did, I’d live in SF. Increasing the housing stock is not going to do anything for lower income people. The land values are too high and the cost of construction is too high to build any kind of lower income housing in MP, which is what is supposedly needed and the idea behind the increased density. It will NEVER happen without government subsidies. I pay enough taxes already thank you. We’re already the highest taxed state in the nation.
@menlo voter I don’t need any advice on where to live thanks. The density is coming whether you want it or not, NIMBYism is over. You most definitely don’t pay enough taxes already as our density does not cover its costs without massive subsidy. Pretty simple math really.
Michael:
Really? Care to back that up with some actual facts? Or are you just going to go on believing everything you think?
Michael is absolutely right. The days of single family neighborhoods are over in Menlo Park. Our city council has said and is moving forward with up-zoning R1 wherever they can. They’re going to fill in parks and parking lots downtown with “affordable” housing. Menlo Park will be indistinguishable from South San Francisco in short order if the people currently in power get their way. And it’s our own fault. In the last election we could have protected single family home re-zoning but very, very few homeowners took the time to vote. So to all the current homeowners, when this city you invested your life in is trashed you know who to thank. They’re right there in the mirror.
Michael
And how do you propose to pay for this housing? Simply increasing density isn’t going to do it as the land and construction costs are too high. Redwood City has hugely increased density around the transit corridor has it brought rents down and made it more “affordable”? Nope. So, instead of spouting “progressive” rhetoric how about coming up with some ideas that might actually achieve the goal you profess?
@Menlo Voter I’ll be your Huckleberry 😉 Not that anything I can write will convince you, but here is my plan: Repeal Article 34 of the CA constitution. Then acquire and build like our lives and economy depends on it (spoiler: they do). For anyone wishing to preserve their “village character” and “hard earned” R1 density, remove all subsidy for said wishes and make them pay their equitable share of all services at market rates based on density.
Here are some great explanations of density planning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
Michael:
Since we both know Article 34 isn’t going to be repealed, what do you suggest that can ACTUALLY be done?
@menlo voter we absolutely do not know that. You underestimate that Gen Z is coming for the boomer policies, as a Gen X homeowner I’m joining them. It is in fact up for vote in 2024 and we will see. Like I have stated, repeatedly, R1 urban planning is over. watch the videos I linked above.
Michael:
I’ll believe it when I see it. When it doesn’t happen then what?
Ten years ago we kept hearing that the millennials would insist on living in tiny boxes over stores. Guess what? They hit age 30, got married, had kids, and wanted the same kind of housing situation that families have preferred for generations, with enough space to run around, a patch of yard, and no shared walls. GenZ, no different from prior generations going back as far as recorded history, are likely to follow that same pattern.
Meanwhile, people are leaving California, and moving out of Menlo Park. Not because there’s no place to live around here — there are plenty of options — but because they can find better, more affordable housing elsewhere. You think that offering them a $5,000/month studio in a high-rise building — no parking space included — will entice them to stay? Pure fantasy.
Frozen:
You don’t “get it”. They won’t be living in $5000 a month apartments. Well, actually they will, but the “government” will be paying most of the bill. If people like Michael have their way. And we know who the government is. US. The state will need to raise taxes even higher than they already are to pay for it and more of us will leave the state. At some point there won’t be any “wealthy” people left to pay for it and the whole house of cards will come crashing down.