|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposed new commercial building and its twin, a five-story parking structure, from Menlo Park’s most prolific biotech building developer John Tarlton was subjected to considerable scrutiny July 16 when the Menlo Park Planning Commission discussed the proposal at length during a preliminary study session, in advance of making any decisions about whether or not to approve it.
The building proposed at 1105 to 1165 O’Brien Drive would replace two warehouse buildings with a 120,000-square-foot, five-story edifice reaching heights of 99 feet. The proposal also includes an adjacent five-story parking garage, a fitness center, and a small commercial space intended to operate as a grab-and-go cafe, plus a separate area in the back to store hazardous chemicals. An outdoor area would have a badminton court, bocce courts and seating areas for use by employees. About 200 employees would be expected to work in the building, Tarlton said, given his other tenants’ typical ratio of two employees per 1,000 square feet of research and development space.
Tarlton will be expected to provide amenities to the community in exchange for permission to construct such a large building, but he hasn’t yet proposed what those amenities might be.
Parking and transportation
Chief among commissioners’ concerns is a proposed parking garage to accompany the building. Commissioners expressed concern that it would create more parking spaces than needed, thereby encouraging too many people to drive to work, and that it wouldn’t be up to snuff aesthetically.
“This is a project that really is a parking garage with a building next to it,” said Commissioner John Onken. “Parking garages are notorious for bullying a site because they have to be a certain size and shape to work.”
Commissioner Katherine Strehl stated, as she has in the past, that she was concerned first and foremost about the traffic the new building could generate, acutely in eastern Menlo Park and indirectly throughout the city. When the city in late 2016 was rezoned to allow more intense development in that area, “I really felt we needed to have a plan for infrastructure,” she said. “But I’m just standing on my soapbox.”
Tarlton argued that the parking garage could be used by other building tenants, and said he expected demand to decrease in the years to come, as further transportation options beyond driving solo take firmer root. He said he supports efforts to rebuild the Dumbarton rail line – currently being led by a partnership between Facebook, SamTrans and the Plenary Group – but also favors more immediate traffic relief.
“We’re working on a nearer-term solution: the adaptation of the Dumbarton Bridge for bus rapid transit,” he said, noting he is having talks with consultants from Kimley-Horn on how Caltrans could adapt the current Dumbarton bridge.
In addition, Tarlton, an avid cyclist, told the commission he’ll encourage people to use modes other than driving to get to work, and to take the stairs – the elevators are in different areas of the proposed building, Onken pointed out, which means people could be liable to getting stuck waiting for a lift up.
—
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
The idea that creating enough parking spaces for an office is a bad thing because it encourages people to drive to work tells you all you need to know about the Menlo Park city council.
The big reason these tall wide buildings should bot be allowed on the east side of the city is that they impact the cooling breezes from the bay impacting the weather and temperature in the rest of the city. Environmental impact requirements should require that impacts on weather be a critical review point.
We’re operating under a planning model that says growing a city means building big office blocks with a ton of parking away from town centers, which has become a problem rather than a solution when you look at Willow road, housing displacement, loss of infrastructure, loss of community, etc.. Limiting parking means less cars everywhere, and if the developer sees this as feasible for his mirror-glass beast, then it’s a step in the right direction for Willow Road
Yet another big building in Menlo Park. Is this needed? I currently work on O’Brien and traffic on this road is already very heavy. I feel for the residents in the EPA neighborhood adjacent. Yes, city of Menlo Park would not allow a parking space for the number of people who work in my building. City discourages driving but does not provide alternate transportation. So, if you want yet another building, I propose the developer must create housing equivalent for the workers nearby so they can bike and walk to work. How ’bout that idea? That would be a community “amenity”.
There is no mention of showers, changing areas, bike parking and other features that encourage biking and walking. Amazon and Facebook put in 5-8 people per 1000 square feet. Assuming this building will always have 2 people per 1000 square feet is foolish given a large garage. It will be a traffic magnet. A smaller paid parking garage and shuttle service is best way to reduce traffic. I fully support the large buildings, but more needs to be done to reduce traffic. Housing in the development should also be considered to reduce traffic and allow workers to walk.
This new building has a fitness center, which means it must have showers and changing rooms.
Part of the large garage can always be turned into a bike parking area. It is not hard to do. You put up a tall fence on the first floor of the garage. Install cameras. And only allow access with a badge key. It’s more cost effective than indoor bike parking.
Parking fears will not exist if enough parking is built into the plan. This is easy to do.