Planning Commission Chair Ehrich and Commissioners:
I am hoping that the following questions and observations will be helpful
to the Commission as you tackle the daunting number of pages for tomorrow’s
Commission meeting regarding the Parkline project. These comments are in
addition to earlier ones on the FEIR and project.
As a former Planning Commissioner, I highly recommend you take more than
one meeting to review the material, which is critical in light of the
astonishing amount of new information available in the past few days,
affecting virtually every document in the packet.
1. EIR – How can the city approve the EIR when key new information shows
that it didn’t study all aspects of the latest version of the project?
a. Various documents now refer to 45,000 sf of “retail sales establishments
and eating establishments”, so why wasn’t retail studied in the EIR as it
should be? The total exceeds the commercial retail in the Middle Plaza and
Springline projects, combined.
b.What public review process has the new C-1-S base zoning undergone? Don’t
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments need their own EIR? They
apply to multiple sites.
2. PROJECT – What IS the project now? What might it be in the future? It
seems to be a moving target.
a. Is SRI still a party to the property and agreements? They will still
operate buildings PS&T.
b. Why are there still 5 new nonresidential office/R&D buildings? Previously
there was nearly 1.1 million SF new nonresidential across 5 buildings (
average 220ksf/ building). Now there would be 668ksf of new nonresidential
buildings, not counting the “commercial amenity” and remaining SRI
buildings. Thus there could be just 3 new buildings, allowing a lot more
room for open space for this project and potential redevelopment of SRI’s
buildings PS&T.
c. Why are bike and pedestrian trails and adjacent landscaping counted as
publicly available open space? Aren’t they needed and desired by the
tenants? How much of that is non-trail?
d. What are the longer-term plans? Might Lane want to increase the
available housing and/or reduce further the non- residential? The housing
density is only 12.5 du/ acre; at 30 du/acre, there could be 2,000 units
instead of 800.
3. PHASING – what comprises the phases now that there is less
nonresidential space?
a. Phase 1 – would residential actually be built or would there just be
prep, as described in staff report pp 10? It does not say any housing would
be built, but Phase 2 says the nonresidential buildings would be
constructed.
b. Why are there still references to 1 million SF of new nonresidential?
c. How would a 1-time exception work? Why couldn’t the wording be such that
nonresidential could begin but cannot be occupied until residential
buildings are able to be occupied? The community needs certainty that
housing will be built.
4.BUILDING HEIGHTS
Why would the CDP list different heights than were discussed with the
public? Garage 3 has been publicized at 44.5’ but the CDP allows 70’ (90’
with mechanicals).
5. ZONING – why is there a new C-1-S zoning? Why not further revise C-1-X for
this project?
a. Why does the C-1-S allow 50% FAR for nonresidential? This project fits
within current 40% C-1 FAR. Why not reduce the FAR in the new zoning rather
than increase nonresidential FAR if Menlo Park is trying to support housing?
b. Why would the project be allowed to have more parking than C-1-S?
6. RESPONSIBILITIES What happens if various parcels have new owners before
the 20 years is up? After 20 years?
a. Who is supposed to pick up responsibility for maintaining garages, the
restroom in garage 1 and the public park if Lane drops responsibility after
20 years? How would that happen?
b. Who is supposed to enforce TDM effectiveness?
7. TRAFFIC How will the public be informed that this project will greatly
worsen traffic congestion (TIA says at least 19 intersections with 9
“oversaturated” and not clearing within an hour)? The staff report and
Overriding Considerations are silent about this grim prospect.
8. TDM – Why wait 2 years before there are any penalties if the trip
targets are exceeded?
a. Would R&D trip rates/ksf be used for all nonresidential?
b. The TIA did not assume any Retail. How would those trips be managed?
c. If the longstanding SRI CDP (amended 2004) no longer applies to SRI
buildings PS&T, couldn’t those buildings be filled with commuters
generating trips far in excess of the 518 trips/day assumed to be
associated with them in the EIR?
d. Why does the TDM Monitoring Plan assume that SRI buildings P,S&T would
be “limited” to 3,177 trips/day when it currently produces 518 trips/day at
a rate of 0.74 trips/employee? This would be a huge increase in trips not
considered in the EIR.
9. CDP and DA – More time is needed to review these documents closely for
consistency and common sense. For example:
a. The Phasing plans make no sense in light of less nonresidential.
b. Lane seeks a streamlined approval process if they want to replace PS&T
with housing. Why not include similar streamlining provisions for further
reducing the nonresidential space and increasing housing, whether or not PS&T
are being replaced at the same time?
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Fry
