The Menlo Park City Council and community members shared their opinions about Lane Partners’ revisions to the Parkline Master Plan at the City Council meeting on Sept. 22.
The council held a study session about the project to be built on the current SRI campus, starting with Principal Planner Corinna Sandmeier giving a presentation discussing changes that Lane Partners has made to its development.
This proposal was originally approved in 2025, including 800 housing units and 251 below market rate. Additionally, it included up to 1 million square feet of nonresidential infrastructure, public open space, and roads for bicycles and pedestrians.
The revised plan increases the number of housing units to 1,082, with 294 below market rate. “Phase two would increase the number of housing units, consolidate office and R&D, add community-serving retail and restaurant space, increase office building heights, modify various project development regulations, revise the approved CDP BMR housing agreement, heritage tree removal permits, and vesting tentative map,” Sandmeier said.
Mark Murray with Lane Partners and Mark Schwettmann at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill also gave presentations discussing the specifics of this project.
During public comment, community members shared a wide range of perspectives on the proposal.
Kristen Gracia, the superintendent of the Menlo Park City School District, or MPCSD, shared that the project is going to be within MPCSD’s district boundaries. She mentioned that it could cause a 10% increase in total enrollment, and that she felt like the city hadn’t adequately addressed the impacts on the district.
Gracia urged them to bring the district in as the project continues to develop, consider students’ commutes when studying traffic patterns, and give MPCSD staff priority to below market rate housing.
“We value our partnership with the city, with Lane Partners, as well as other developers, and we’re ready to do our share. But a partnership means that school impact is on the table; it’s not in the margins, and school impacts are community impacts,” she said.
Nicole Gordillo and Oscar, members of a carpenters’ union, advocated for the city to consider the impacts of the development on workers. They emphasized the importance of choosing a responsible contractor that will care for its workers.
“Wage theft, misclassification, underpaid workforce are all too real. We can’t forget about the men and women who will be out there building these projects,” Oscar said.
They also stressed the benefits of an apprenticeship program and Gordillo shared her own experience attending one. “With opportunities like this, it helped me build a career and create a better future for my family and myself,” she said.
Another community member shared his concerns about the project’s planning, stating that it could cause Menlo Park’s population to increase by over 50%.
He was appalled by the lack of foresight and urged the city to mandate impact studies on the development. “Once that damage is done, it is irreversible. You carry a historic responsibility to act now and preserve 170 years of legacy for future generations. The dramatic growth being proposed demands rigorous strategic planning,” he said.
John McKenna, an environmental commissioner, expressed his support for the project but asked the city to consider its impacts on traffic and the destruction of heritage trees on the site. “I really appreciate that this project aligns with the city’s climate action plan in that it will be 100% all-electric construction,” he said. “I do feel like we might want to look at a way to ensure that that is the end result.”
Other community members praised the revised plans and how Parkline listened to community feedback. “The other thing I really admire about the way Parkline has been working on this project is the collaboration, the iterative response to community input,” Karen Grove said.
Others mentioned the necessity for more affordable housing in the area. “One sad constant thing for me has been that basically all of my friends who don’t work in big tech companies have had to move out of the area,” Brittany Baxter said. “I just keep thinking of how something like the townhomes or the smaller homes at SRI would be such a great fit for their situation.”
Council members expressed support for the updated proposal and echoed many of the same concerns as the community members.
Councilmember Jeff Schmidt stated that he wouldn’t be inclined to vote to approve any projects until a comprehensive transportation and circulation plan was created. “I’m asking to move away from the project by project view, and look at the reality on the ground of four or five major projects happening within a very short distance in the city. And a practical plan that we can bring to residents, as opposed to a master plan which is just a bunch of options and choices and guidelines,” he said.
Mayor Betsy Nash disagreed with his point. “I think it would be an incredible mistake to have anyone believe that future councils will not be approving projects until we get this information. To me, it is a very bad message to send and absolutely opposite to what we want to be doing,” she said.
