Menlo Park Planning Commission faces two huge reviews on same night

Two major Menlo Park development plans will be reviewed in one single night Monday June 20 by the MP Planning Commission. This is unprecedented. One is the City's General Plan that guides the City for the next 24 years. How will the city grow? How will population increase? How many office buildings will be allowed? How many housing units will be built and where? What will the number of residents be? How will the schools be impacted? How will people move from one point to another, in their cars, on bikes or by walking? Will there be enough water for the new employees and the new residents? Are we not already under a water restriction plan? Our General Plan was last updated in 1994 and it is way out of date.

The second development plan being reviewed at the same meeting, June 20 is Facebook's 1,100,000 sq ft expansion. This addition of two more office buildings and a hotel will add 6,400 new employees. This phase of Facebook's expansion does not include housing, which leaves employees commuting from other towns. WIll commuters stay on Willow Rd. and University Ave. or will they cut through the Willows?

Changes in Menlo Park have been occurring rapidly since 2012. Population is expected to increase from 32,000 to 52,000 by 2040. How this will affect the schools, traffic and housing needs is being studied by the City now. What is shocking is that both the Facebook expansion and the General Plan are being rushed through in one night. The two documents total more than 9,000 pages of complicated information. To have both these issues on the same night when the Chair of the Planning Commission is apparently on vacation is wrong. They should be given individual attention and time. The issues in the General Plan should be decided before the Facebook expansion is decided. They are not of equal importance. The General Plan leads; Facebook follows.

Our decisions in Menlo Park affect not only our town but East Palo Alto and Redwood City. We are all in this soup together.

Here's the agenda for the meeting.
Web Link

If this interests you and you want to send an email to the Planning Commission, here's how
planning.commission@menlopark.org

What changes have occurred rapidly since 2012?

Facebook moved to MP. MP adopted the Specific Plan. The city was sued because the Housing Element in the General Plan was seriously out of date. Stanford added housing and reduced office in its 400,000 sf development. Greenheart development has asked to go into the bonus level for more office. A boutique hotel is proposed for El Camino Real. A 25,000 office building has been approved across from the train station. A 245,000 sf office development by the Sobrato company was approved. Dave Bohannon's 1 million sf office and hotel is finally moving forward. Stanford Hospital is rebuilding and expanding. Willow Rd. now has 40,000 cars every day. the Google app WAZE is sending drivers into neighborhoods to avoid Willow Rd. The economy has improved. There's more but this is enough to think about for now.

More than half those things happened prior to 2012 or haven't resulted in much change. Facebook moved to Menlo Park in 2011. It officially finished the move in December, but had employees in place prior. Menlo Park did adopt the Specifc Plan in June 2012, but neither the Stanford or Greenheart projects have been approved yet. Not sure much has changed there yet. Although since 2012, in 2014, voters did defeat Measure M which tried to undo the Specifc Plan. That boutique hotel project you mentioned hasn't been built yet either. The Bohannon Project was also approved by voters in 2010. The Stanford hospital expansion was approved by Palo Alto in 2011.

However, the City was sued and settled in May 2012 because the City had not updated the Housing Element in many years and since 2012 Sobrato did build a 245,000 square foot building east of 101. Also a 25,000 square foot building was approved by train tracks.

Not sure that's enormous change since 2012, but everyone has a different tolerance for any change. It scares some more than others.

So what if there are 10,000 pages and a short-handed commission? No need to read anything because all change is good and should be automatically approved, and anyone suggests taking a closer look (and has facts to back up their concerns) is just a fearful wuss.

Really, though, we should just send everyone over the age of 40 to a senior facility, somewhere far away from Menlo Park, and expel everyone else with half a brain because they are impeding progress.

Don't ask questions! Just do it!

i understand that i had no voice in the decision that menlo park made...to continue adding housing....i understand that the parking and traffic problems will increase. i can put up with that. what i cannot and should not be expected to endure is the lack of water. how many more apartments? how many hotel rooms? where is the water supposed to come from. i have been asked to curtail the use of water and i have dutifully obeyed. however, part of that agreement should be that housing and hotel rooms not be added with uncontrolled growth when water is a problem. the latest reports indicate that we may very well be in line for another multi-year drought. please consider this. please ask the menlo park town council and planning commission to consider this. i do not have a voice in what menlo park does. i simply get to enjoy the result.

So are there any actual ideas/positions/solutions you all have regarding the two EIRs or is this just the same old carping on about the process and the downfall of Menlo Park?

How about approving growth that happens only when the infrastructure, water supply, road capacity, schools, playing fields etc will be in place to support it? That is not anti- growth, just for sensible growth. The general plan update is THE right time to do it

Instead the revised general plan proposes commercial growth of more than 70% and population and housing growth of more tham 50%. I bet most of the commercial growth happens pretty quickly and the housing growth never does. Well, not unless menlo park gets sued again.
All that growrth without enough housing means tons more commuters using waze to,get thorugh our neighborhoods

What the general plan uldate could do but does not not is propose imorovements to the transportation capacity, to our playing fields, to the watwr supply, to ensure there's enough housing and school capacity. The comsequences of huge growth need to be planned for. Since the eirs dont show those plans, there should be time to create them.

This is just common sense.

The EIRs for the City of Menlo Park's expansion have been presented in isolation of one another, making it impossible to analysis the full impact. The City of Menlo Park has not provided a comprehensive traffic plan to mitigate the increased residential traffic except to divert Bayfront traffic through Belle Haven. The traffic challenges for East Palo Alto and Belle Haven began long before the current approved and pending projects. It is unfortunate that the southern access route to Dumbarton Bridge was litigated into extinction. There is no reason to allow the EIRs to be approved in July when we can request an extension. It is time for a shared solution.

Now that Facebook employs over 20% of the workforce in Menlo Park, the city should avoid appointing or reappointing Facebook employees to the planning commission.

"the city should avoid appointing or reappointing Facebook employees to the planning commission."

Any individual who is employed by or has a financial interest in an applicant before a commission must by law recuse themselves from participating in any way in that applicant's case before the commission on which such a person serves.

There are two issues here. The first of which is addressed by recusing oneself if there is a conflict. The second issue is the need for a quorum. If any of the remaining commissioners fails to show up tomorrow night, the meeting cannot be convened. Thus, IMHO we should not appoint planning commissioners knowing they will have a conflict when major EIRs come through. We need the value of every commissioner giving their perspective during EIR review.