Although there’s excitement that redevelopment of the SRI International site in Menlo Park could bring more housing and bike and pedestrian access, residents and planning commissioners alike are troubled by the potential for increased traffic and noise from construction, based on a recently released environmental impact report.
The Menlo Park Planning Commission reviewed the 900-page document for the proposed Parkline development during a Monday, July 22.
The project proposes to redevelop parts of the SRI campus to create a mixed-use development consisting of up to 550 residential units, office and laboratory space, publicly accessible open space and retail and restaurant facilities. The city is also reviewing a variant of the project that would include the property at 201 Ravenswood Ave., and would create up to 800 new units of housing, in addition to the other amenities.
One of the primary concerns discussed throughout the four-hour long public hearing and study session was the impact of increased traffic and car trips throughout the city, especially in neighborhoods surrounding the project site.
“I read that the number of parking spaces was going to be 3,319, and I’m extremely concerned,” said Kevin Rennie, a resident of the Willows. He noted his neighborhood would see increased traffic in cut through streets like Woodland Avenue during commuter times.
Resident Adina Levin asked that the commission and city staff look at traffic calming measures on nearby streets to improve safety and prevent neighborhood streets from being used as cut throughs.
It’s our mission to inform the community through fact-based journalism, hold government accountable, and build deeper relationships through coverage that makes a difference in people's daily lives. We rely on community support to continue our mission. Support local news today.
Commissioners asked the project team and city staff to consider any additional means by which vehicle miles traveled and trips to and from the project could be lessened.
Despite resident and commissioner concerns, the draft EIR states that transportation impacts from the project are not considered to be significant, according to the state criteria used to prepare the EIR.
“It always surprises me how a project so large can say transportation impacts will be less than significant,” said Planning Commissioner Linh Do. “I always have to remind myself that it doesn’t say we are not going to see changes in our community. But it’s more that it says that by certain criteria, as stated in the EIR, it does not exceed the defined threshold.”
Planning commissioners asked the Parkline project team and city staff whether they considered a reduced parking alternative in order to further disincentivize car trips to and from the development.
“We’re proposing two spaces for every 1,000 square feet,” said Mark Murray, a representative for Lane Partners, the real estate firm working with SRI to design Parkline. “We feel that the financeability of the project in today’s environment will require that minimum.”
Murray also said that nearby residents have expressed concern about the possibility of overflow parking from the development impacting nearby neighborhoods.
The draft EIR states that the project or project variant (an alternative plan which adds 250 additional units of housing to the original plan) would create several significant and unavoidable impacts to the community throughout the construction process due to construction noise and ground vibration. The report also found that the project would create significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources on the site, as several of the buildings that the project team proposes to demolish are technically considered historic resources.
Though none of the structures on the site none of the existing structures are currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or the California Register of Historic Resources, the report’s analysis found that three buildings are eligible for listing due to their association with SRI’s advancements in computing, business, medicine and physical sciences.
There are several mitigation strategies proposed by the report to lessen the impact of these unavoidable impacts, such as documentation and interpretation of historical sites. The report also suggests mitigation measures for construction noise, including equipping construction equipment with sound control devices, using electric motors when possible, installing sound walls and providing impacted residents with a construction schedule and onsite construction liaison.
Despite concerns about traffic and construction noise, the Planning Commission and public ultimately expressed excitement about the direction that the project is headed, and the potential benefits it could bring to the city.
Commissioners and commenters were particularly excited about the project variant, the increased pedestrian and bike circulation through the 62-acre SRI site and the community amenities that could be added to the site.
“I wanted to address a question that was asked in the applicant’s initial presentation, which is, are we headed in the right direction? And I think my answer is absolutely,” said Planning Commission Chair Jennifer Schindler. “This is a once in a lifetime, once in a generation opportunity to create infill and change the fundamental dynamics of the city: The flow of traffic, the flow of people and the interactions between the two sides of town.”
The public comment period for the draft EIR is open until 5:30 p.m. on Aug. 5. can review paper copies of the draft EIR at the Menlo Park Library at 800 Alma St., and the Belle Haven Library at 100 Terminal Ave., or access the report at menlopark.gov/parkline.
Written comments can be emailed to Principal Planner Corinna Sandmeier at csandmeier@menlopark.gov, or mailed by letter to Corinna Sandmeier, Community Development, 701 Laurel St. Menlo Park, CA 94025.
After the public comment period closes, city staff will review and respond to all substantive comments made on the draft EIR, and prepare a final EIR document. The Planning Commission is scheduled to make a final recommendation on the EIR in October.
Eleanor Raab joined The Almanac in 2024 as the Menlo Park and Atherton reporter. She previously worked in public affairs for a local government agency. Eleanor holds a bachelor’s degree in Government. More by Eleanor Raab
As a former Planning commissioner, I believe the real problem with this project is that it adds thousands of new workers (think commuters), increasing both traffic and the demand for new housing. It is not a housing project; it is an office park project as proposed.
The Draft EIR is highly misleading. It says the traffic impacts are Less Than Significant even though the amount of daily traffic is estimated at 28 times the number of current trips! Even with a rigorous – and enforced – Transportation Demand Management program and “internal capture” (no double counting of trips) the new total daily trips might be “only” 19 times the current trips in this already hectic area in the heart of town. Hardly “Less Than Significant”!
The DEIR states that this project would INCREASE the housing shortage by 1,656 homes but also calls this a “Less Than Significant” impact. Really?
Menlo Park just scrambled to find ways to supply 3,000 new homes by 2031and now is entertaining this project that – because of the enormous increase in number of workers – would singlehandedly worsen the shortage by 50%.
Since 1975, SRI has operated with a worker cap that has been lowered 3 times when land has been used for other purposes (e.g., Burgess Classics). It is essential that this requirement continue so that this project does not worsen the traffic or the housing shortage.
Totally agree with @Iris! Please, send concerns and comments to cdsandmeier@menlopark.gov due by Aug 5th 5:30pm to let your voice be heard.
PH says:Iris is correct. The project would increase the housing deficit by 1656 units. This, on the heels of the Willow Village project which increased the deficit by 850. Together the two projects increase the housing deficit by 2500 units of all income groups. These translate into real displacements for low income families. The analysis tries to downplay the displacement by suggesting most won’t take place in Menlo Park proper, but “somewhere in the region.” Menlo Park does unto the region as the region does back unto Menlo Park. Specifically, the project displaces more low-income families than it houses. As far as traffic is concerned, SB743 changed CEQA traffic analysis. Traffic congestion is no longer considered a potentially significant environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Of course the nearly 4000 new employees will commute and crush the local street system, but CEQA is not allowed to talk about it. Menlo Park still conducts traditional LOS (Los of Service/wait times at intersections) to show impacts on streets and intersections, but it has no legal force, and reporters don’t read it and report it. They report the enforced SB743 happy talk. And yes, congestion is worsened beyond previously acceptable levels in many locations on both sides of ECR. One example, traffic volume on Ringwood increases so much at Bay that it might require a signal light there. No attempt was made to assess cut-through traffic or examine increases on local cut-through streets. Cut-through is worsened during commute hours when traffic on routes, Marsh and Willow, become parking lots, and local drivers cut-through local streets to get around, or when commute driver find alternative routes to cut-the line — Ringwood to Bay to either Marsh or Willow.
