City council, thank you for your time and dedication.
My request of the council is to decrease the size of the Parkline project, design a more thoughtful traffic flow, and put in more usable open space.
I want to be sure the city council continues to understand the concern our local community has regarding the sheer scope and size of the proposed SRI project. I have been following along closely with the housing element so I understand the pressures and housing needs at play and I absolutely acknowledge the need for housing. And I agree SRI is a wonderful opportunity site. But it does not mean we also have to be unsafe and unhealthy and shortsighted as we build it. I implore the city to be more thoughtful about its housing densification and distribution and its traffic, health, and climate change impacts. To be very clear, it is not the idea of new neighbors that we as a local community are reacting to (I personally think more neighbors would be great - anyone who knows me knows I value the chance to build more community) it is the traffic/cars/infrastructure issues that have not been clearly thought through in this project design that concern me.
Let me bring your attention to some key points from the established Menlo Park General Plan that are not yet reflected adequately in this proposed project:
- Any new project must be "compatible with the scale, look, and feel of the surrounding neighborhood and that respects the city’s residential character. (Policy LU-2.1)
- require accessible open space (LU 2.2).
- "Require new nonresidential, mixed use, and multiple dwelling development of a certain minimum scale to provide ample open space in the form of plazas, greens, community gardens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged" (LU 6.2)
- "Require new residential development to dedicate land, or pay fees in lieu thereof, for park and recreation purposes." (LU 6.4)
The 400 units of housing as currently designed is too large for the surrounding residential neighborhood, especially since the project is overbuilding above market rates that we do not actually need in Menlo Park (we are 600% above our target number already). Decrease the overall number of units but increase the below market percentage to achieve the housing we actually need You may say that the developers won’t do it, etc. Yes they can. They stand to make millions on the commercial aspect of this project and we should request what we as a community need in return. For those demanding even more housing, let us not get carried away by putting in an unrealistic density, let us actually think about what those numbers mean for the surrounding infrastructure.
This is Menlo Park's chance to be proactive, thoughtful, and forward thinking regarding traffic, walkability, climate change, and population health. Do not allow ANY VEHICULAR ENTRANCES to the housing development on Laurel. Create safe walking and biking lanes only. All traffic can be directed through Ravenswood or Middlefield. Yes it is possible. This project as currently designed would increase the cars that enter SRI property lots on Laurel St across from Burgess park from the current 6-8 cars total by a more than 100 fold increase. I think (or at least I hope) we can all agree that is an insane ask of a small neighborhood street - a neighborhood street that is a bike route, pedestrian walkway and park entrance. You can build much needed housing and still preserve and promote health in the midst of climate change through a more thoughtful design - promote walkability, bikeability, and decreased car dependence for those that are able. As a reminder, the Menlo Park General Plan clearly states that Laurel St is a "neighborhood collector" which is a "primarily residential street" for which we should "prioritize walking and biking" and maintaining "a high quality of life for residents". Conversely, Middlefield and Ravenswood are designated Avenues and are considered "main routes" for all forms of traffic (ie cars). Many of you on city council say you want safe bike routes to schools, you want to promote pedestrian and bike safety - this current design as it affects Laurel St does not achieve that goal.
Our city absolutely needs to demand more open space. Actual usable open space. More fields, more parks, picnic and outdoor play areas to accommodate the hundreds of people this project will infuse into this space. It needs more open space that isn't simply an office park walkway with a small bunch of grass. Where are the playgrounds and playing fields? Where are the exercise facilities? The community pool? Where is the space for a childcare facility? Where are the community amenities to support the influx of hundreds of people? It would be wonderful if this development increased the open space available to all of Menlo Park, but at the bare minimum it should be net neutral. Which this most certainly is not. And this is not some sort of off the wall request, reciprocal open space is clearly stated and required by the Menlo Park General Plan.
And let us not forget, this is actually predominantly a commercial development, yet we are distracted and being divided as a community over the housing aspect only. The commercial office park will have little/no true community amenities. And there is no real usable open space.
I understand and embrace the need for increased housing answers in our community, but we must demand that it is done thoughtfully. I spend my days solving problems and making tough decisions in a sea of ambiguity, so I get it. I really do. But I also spend my day very thoughtfully balancing out the whole picture and I am simply asking you all to do the same. For those that think we as a local community just don’t want something next door - that’s not it; perhaps shift your perspective and realize that it comes from our daily view of what the pitfalls could be, what the dangers to children on bikes will be, what the overcrowding of the park already looks like, the frustrations of local working parents that cannot find childcare or activities for their kids because everything is already filled; that we are simply trying to advocate for a balanced project for the overall benefit of Menlo Park, present and future - one that includes housing AND outdoor space AND community benefits. People are pitting neighborhoods against each other, jumping in last minute not understanding the nuances of the issue and promoting half truths. It’s absolutely disheartening, and disappointing.
So please hear me now. I am not saying do not build, I am saying build but be forward thinking about what we actually need as a community, not what is best for the developer.
Build housing, but decrease the overall size of the project while increasing the percentage of the below market housing we actually need.
Build, but promote safer traffic patterns.
Build, but demand more open, usable space
Build, but build better.
