The higher density is ideal for this location given its proximity to transit and downtown.

If we don't put more housing here then where else could it go?

No mention in the article about the increase in office (over 50 acres) at this site. That increase drives even more demands for housing. We are adding thousands of potential residents with this project, but we will still have a housing deficit.

At a resident meeting with Jen, I asked her if she knew that the increase in office from this project would INCREASE the housing allocation for Menlo Park. She refused to answer.

Zoning decisions are worth enormous sums of money. It's a game where the residents take the impacts and people receiving the zoning changes take the benefits. Our city council does not discuss this with the public. I did bring this issue up when I was on the planning commission and the Menlo Gateway project came before us. I voted against that project and explained why. It did not go over well with the developer and no one else dared to speak of it.

I don't know whether the city council is ignorant, corrupt or complicit.

Why not allow no net new office space for this site and then have everything else be housing?

New office space brings very little value to the city compared to new housing.

I'm actually supportive of this project in general for several reasons:

1) As well all know, more housing here in Menlo Park is needed. In the last decade we added enough office space for around 15 thousand employees (yes, for real. I don't have data on how many ACTUALLY came but looking at the square footage divided by the average sq/ft per office worker that's what is suggested) and perhaps housing for a few hundred.

2) This is a great location for more density. Actual walking distance to downtown Menlo Park retail, bus and train transit hub. Easy, non-car access to even more of the same in Palo Alto.

It's unfortunate that we have traffic bottlenecks on all of the ways out of town from there (Willow, Marsh, Ravenswood and the maze toward 280. But that applies to nearly all of Menlo Park not adjacent to freeways. At least this location is on our main thoroughfares. And if they go forward with the non-car connectivity there, it should have lower car trip impact than other locations.

3) The developers came in with an opening plan to increase usage of the land in a way that is sensitive to its surroundings. Look at the layouts and renderings. The appearance will be compatible with the mid-density suburban area around city hall and downtown. (Bigger yes, but that's what is happening by necessity. See El Camino two blocks away)

How make this come out well:

1) Make sure the final plans continue to step back into the property from the neighbors. It is not ok to burden owners of residential 1-2 story houses with 8 story towers right next door. Townhouses etc on the perimeter and bigger buildings in the core. (BTW, is anybody ever going to be troubled by the 13 story complex planned across the street from the Willows? crickets)

2) Make sure the plan includes GOOD flow for pedestrians and cyclists through and to/from the complex. This means open plans with good layout on property. But also partnering with the City for through paths to MAHS and downtown for example

There needs to be no net additional office space in this project. MP has far too much office space already. A great deal of it sits vacant. All office space does is create demand for more housing, already in short supply and traffic. Not to mention most of it doesn't produce sales tax for the city, so ends up costing more than it's worth to the city. Since the council doesn't have the stones to stand up to the state, there should be ZERO added office space approved in MP until the housing issue is resolved. I personally don't care how long that is.

As long as loans can be collateralized by new office space, then zoning decisions which increase office will be equivalent to printing money.

The city planning staff and city council serve the the interests of people who want to receive that money much more than they serve the interests of the residents or even of the general public.

We will need a majority on the city council who stand strongly against this or we need a true market to market (crash) for commercial real estate, such a financial event would also bring down rents.

My aunt and sister used to work at SRI while living in Menlo Park. I have former Stanford Health Care colleagues who currently work on the SRI campus now (the University will continue to shunt further SHC development off campus) Since the SRI location is next to a Middlefield office district (Including a new SHC clinic) and Laurel Road city offices (including a Blood Bank), it's natural to expect some (not none) continuing office presence there. Last revision I saw to the developer's original plans were for a reduction in planned future office space. Indeed, Parkline's site now states "no increase in commercial space." Albeit largely empty now, SRI was much busier before without many City complaints (I suspect SRI's commercial activity predates many current complainers).

So, the net expansion on the SRI site is really 800 units of housing that are sorely needed. Any further City negotiations should not be about reducing both housing and office but increasing the former at the expense of the latter.

"More housing everywhere" is the City's mantra and I agree with that. Build in my neighborhood too, please. I welcome more neighbors.

@Paul Roberts "...the net expansion on the SRI site is really 800 units of housing ..."

Careful. Lane is creatively using the word "commercial." "Lab" is not "office." The project converts lab to office at twice the office density otherwise permitted by the existing C1 zoning. Lane is exploiting MP's good will for SRI LAB, to acquire lucrative OFFICE entitlements at twice the allowed density.

The housing is a "bolt-on" used as a sop and to distract dialogue from the fact that SRI is effectively cashing out and being replaced by an office park the size of FB Willow Village.

SRI currently employs 1100. The 1.1M sf of new office will increase total site employment up to 5000, a net increase of about 3800 (non-SRI) employees.

The housing demand created by the 3800 new employees will far, far exceed the proposed 800 unit supply , increasing MP's housing deficit by >~2000 units. It will displace >~1000 low income families in San Mateo County. The orders of magnitude are correct. They use MP counting rules. RHNA and HCD will jam these new deficits down MP's throat in the future.

Increased displacement means increased homelessness. MP will become more exclusive as lower income residents are crowded out by higher income residents.

SRI was allowed so much "commercial" space as long as it was low intensity "lab". In 2000, when SRI began divesting land (and renting its "admin" space), MP renegotiated the permit to limit non-SRI site employment to levels consistent with the underlying office zoning and similar to other SRI office divestiture projects (i.e. McAndless). McAndless is built on divested SRI land at half the proposed office density.

If the office conversion were built at C-1 densities there would be fewer office buildings and parking structures. The available footprint could be used instead to build more housing on the site. The project would then approach full housing mitigation of the new employees.

Public debate should focus on the office not the housing.

I suggest that no net new office space be allowed and this would mean no conversion of lab space to office space unless other office space is removed.

Everything else would be limited to residential - in many different forms.