Dear Planning Commissioners:
Following are comments on the land use policies implied by the Parkline/SRI redevelopment proposal, followed by recommendations.
– This project presents as a large office park with some housing included. The parking including three multi-story parking garages is significantly out of scale for a transit-oriented proposal. There is a commercial-to-housing ratio of about 2:1 or 3:1 (including old buildings) by square footage. Given that the Specific Plan major developments (Stanford, 1300 ECR) are about 50:50 residential compared to office + retail, for square footage, that amount of commercial space is out of step with recent transit-oriented development.
– Given the scarcity of housing in the Bay Area, this proposed office-residential ratio should not be encouraged by the PC or the city. A better use of this site would be to include more housing and less commercial and parking space. I do not know of city policy or resident preferences for this projected level of commercial space, especially given over-built office capacity today.
– The current proposal is not that of a neighborhood or mixed-use as stated in the Master Plan. This is principally an office park. While pedestrian and bicycle circulation through the project is good, the site space is dominated by the commercial and parking buildings. The two amenity buildings do not create a mixed-use plan. (That’s not to suggest significant retail should be included, so the ‘mixed-use’ goal needs clarification. Certainly the office + residential design is not mixed-use.) The open space is numerically generous, and the designated use areas are good, but the overall layout is not that of an inviting public space. The plan does provide desirable benefits including the planned affordable housing area and the playing field.
- The current configuration of commercial buildings and parking garages, while apparently (and gratefully) not designed as ‘secure’ areas, are not oriented to encourage interaction with the community, or even the planned residences. The busy scenes full of pedestrians or office workers shown enjoying walkways in the project slides will not likely materialize.
– The rezoning and General Plan amendments options are open-ended. I do not agree with changes which would allow the development as proposed. It’s a poor use of this site, more appropriate to urban planning now several decades past. I would not want amendments or zoning allowing new or existing buildings to be sold off to others, at least for significant periods of time. Plans for existing buildings including ‘P’, T and S, and options for the affordable housing plan area, should be clarified.
- I understand the applicant is assuming that existing commercial entitlements, based on square footage, justify the proposed commercial space and parking. Instead, the applicant should acknowledge the very low intensity uses SRI has enjoyed in Menlo Park for decades. The applicant, PC and CC should use past site use intensities as a point of comparison for overall benefit-cost comparisons. A smaller total commercial use target should be considered.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- The plan needs a different balance of residential-commercial use of the site, and reduction of multi-story parking. For that, the site perimeter and large site size are sufficient to accommodate higher buildings for the site interior, keeping in mind existing streets and neighborhoods. For comparison, San Mateo and Palo Alto have several higher and older residential buildings mixed in smaller scale neighborhoods or downtowns. Consideration should be given where relevant to additional height for residential and commercial buildings to add floor area. Affordable housing plans could be integrated with these changes.
- Given fewer and possibly taller buildings, the remaining open space can be consolidated into a larger space shared by commercial and residence buildings. Such an approach could create a genuine shared open space, and a distinctive neighborhood less isolated from the adjoining residences, streets and neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
John Kadvany / College Avenue
