|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Picture this: Life-size sculptures of 13 historic innovators – such as Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing and Marie Curie – varnished to look like white marble and set parallel to O’Brien Drive and Adams Drive, adjacent to a new life sciences building. The sculptures would be interspersed with landscaping, a walking path and seating areas.
That’s how developer John Tarlton and the sculptor he’s commissioned, Gordon Huether, pitched their idea for an “Innovation Science Art Walk” to the Menlo Park Planning Commission on Jan. 14.
Tarlton has proposed a new 260,000-square-foot building at 1350 Adams Court that would reach a height of 92 feet. The site of the proposed new building is an undeveloped area of an 11.2-acre site that has one other building – currently occupied by Pacific Biosciences – on it. It’s also near the site of Facebook’s proposed Willow Village development and is “relatively close to the city of East Palo Alto,” according to a staff report.
Parking would be provided in a partially underground garage on a raised podium that would meet the city’s zoning requirements to accommodate sea level rise.
The next step for the project is the completion of an environmental impact review, or EIR.
Under normal circumstances, the proposed project would most likely not need further environmental analysis beyond the big-picture “programmatic” EIR completed in 2016 as part of the city’s “ConnectMenlo” general plan update, according to Kirsten Chapman of the consulting firm ICF, which the city has contracted with to complete the environmental analysis for this project. However, because of a lawsuit settlement reached in December 2017 between the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, a full EIR must be completed whenever a developer plans more than 250,000 square feet of new development or seeks a bonus agreement within the territory of Menlo Park recently rezoned in the “ConnectMenlo” process – roughly bordered by the San Francisco Bay, University Avenue, U.S. 101 and Marsh Road.
The four planning commissioners present, Camille Kennedy, Henry Riggs, John Onken and Andrew Barnes, raised no complaints about the proposed innovation walk.
Inspiring science
Tarlton said he hoped that the landscape and sculpture program would “inspire the kids of Belle Haven to engage more actively in science.” The walk could be coupled with tours of the companies inside the Menlo Labs O’Brien campus, he added.
The Ravenswood City School District, where children who live in Belle Haven are zoned to go to school, has struggled in the past to provide programs that prepare students for high school science, as other, more affluent school districts are able to do. Teachers in that district as of May 2018 have a goal to provide 20 science lab activities a year, compared with 100 lab days a year offered to students in more affluent districts, according to the Ravenswood Education Foundation.
Ravenswood’s science program is almost entirely funded by the Ravenswood Education Foundation, which has spent nearly $1 million over the last six years on science materials and a new middle school science lab coordinator position. Volunteers also spend time in classrooms supporting science education.
How to provide input
Through Thursday, Jan. 24, members of the public can raise topics they want to be analyzed during the environmental impact review. Among the topics already flagged for further analysis are air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, transportation and traffic, and utilities.
To weigh in on what topics should be analyzed further for the environmental impact review, people should submit written comments to the Community Development Department no later than 5:30 p.m. Jan. 24. Comments may be submitted by email to Tom Smith, senior planner, at tasmith@menlopark.org, or by letter to Tom Smith, Community Development Department, 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025.
Correction: A previous version indicated that the “Innovation Science Art Walk” was proposed as a “public amenity,” defined as an offering the developer would give to the public in exchange for being able to build a larger building. The proposed sculpture series would not count toward this requirement, which is set to be determined at a later date.
• Sign up for Almanac Express to get news updates. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
The art will benefit the business park more than the rest of the public. Menlo Park has huge needs that should be addressed (housing, traffic, Belle Haven library) and a comparable contribution would be of more benefit to the public.
The DSP will be reviewed by the Council this year and changing the rules regarding the public benefit is essential.
Developers should not be allowed to “bribe” the city with cash payments rather than providing something of real value to the community.
It is time for the citizens to demand that the public benefit bonus be restricted to creating physical spaces to which the public has free and unrestricted access. There is no such public benefit from underground parking or from Transient Occupancy Taxes which would have to be paid anyway.
Great idea. Bringing historical perspective to the tech industry will inspire passers-by.
A total BS shenanigan to convince the city to let them build an uncalled for too tall building.
Hopefully the EIR looks into the impacts of tall and wide buildings near the baylands which block or change the flow of breezes off the bay towards and into Menlo Park. We used to get nice breezes from the bay – with the new Bohannon buildings, Facebook and now this new high-rise say goodbye to refreshing breezes and hello to hot, stale polluted air.
Come on planning comm and city council stand up for the city and its residents. Enough handing the city over on a silver platter to developers and big businesses. Hopefully the new council has the guts to say no.
Accessible, well-designed public space could be great. The investment could be commensurate with something like 50% of the estimated additional value created by the bonus addition, similar to the Specific Plan.
Real estate finance types can come up with a range for the $ number. The statuary is nice but should be funded by a donor or fundraising group.
Looks like targets for graffiti and vandalism to me. How long will they stay looking like white marble? Mustaches will come right away. Gang-colored coats and hats? This is an area that is deserted after about 8 pm. It’s noisy and windy. No one wants to ‘promenade’ there.
Here is an example of a well managed Public Benefit Bonus program with very specific design principles:
“The POPS (Privately Owned Public Spaces )Program dates to 1961, when New York City’s Zoning Resolution was last overhauled. Then an innovative program, POPS have stood the test of time, and today there are more than 550 POPS, mostly in Manhattan’s dense urban core. When first introduced as a zoning tool, the program allowed developers to build more usable space (also known as floor area) or receive special waivers for a building if they also created plazas or arcades that are open to the public.
Since 1961, other types of outdoor and indoor spaces have been introduced in the Zoning Resolution as the Department of City Planning expanded the program and refined amenities and operational standards to meet public needs, changing tastes and technological advances. Learn about how POPS and their associated zoning regulations have evolved by clicking the “History” tab above. Today, two specific types of POPS, public plazas and arcades, can be built in exchange for bonus floor area.
POPS are required to be provided and maintained by the property owner in perpetuity according to the regulations they were built pursuant to and any City approvals.
The Department is committed to ensuring that all POPS serve the public, and continually enhances design standards so that POPS are of the highest quality, useful and inviting for the public. Our current public plaza standards can be found in Zoning Resolution Section 37-70.
Public Plaza Design Principles
Our current design standards are informed by decades of experience and are guided by the following principles:
Open and inviting at the sidewalk
Easily seen and understood as open to the public
Conveys openness and maintains clear sightlines through low design elements and generous paths leading into the plaza
Provides seating and amenities adjacent to the public sidewalk
Accessible
Located at the same elevation as the sidewalk
Enhances pedestrian circulation
Safe and secure ”
Contains easily accessible paths for ingress and egress
Oriented and visually connected to the street
Well lit
Comfortable and engaging
Promotes use and comfort by providing essential amenities
Accommodates both small groups and individuals with a variety of well-designed, comfortable seating
Balances open areas with greenery and trees”
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops.page
Here is a great resource on Public Benefit Bonus programs in a number of cities and the specifics of such a program in Oakland:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak037036.pdf
Note what is required by Oakland to qualify as a Public Benefit:
“Applicability of Incentive Program for Desired
Community Benefits
In general, amenities that can be incorporated
directly into a development are more easily
obtainable, and should be prioritized in an
Oakland Incentive Program. On the other
hand, off-site improvements to area parks,
apprenticeship training, or assistance to small
businesses is more readily achieved through
other means like specific grants, special funding
districts, and in-lieu or impact fees. It could focus
on the most important amenities that cannot be
otherwise achieved.
Affordable Housing is one of the central concerns
in the Planning Area, but it is also one of the
most expensive public amenities. A subsidy for
one rental unit ranges from $101,000 to $141,000;
each owner occupied unit requires from $74,000
to $234,000 in subsidies. The ratio of incentive
benefit to amenity cost might show that relatively
few affordable housing units may be achieved
through this incentive program alone. State,
Federal and other local support for affordable
housing needs to be used along side this incentive
program.
Family Housing typically includes larger units with
multiple bedrooms. In order to accommodate
families in the Planning Area, a developer could
receive incentives in exchange for provision of
these larger, more family-appropriate units.
Youth/Recreation Center is another high-priority
community amenity. Since the construction,
operation and maintenance of such a facility is
a very expensive undertaking, one development
project alone is unlikely to provide a sufficient
facility, but combining the incentive program
with various grants and collaborating with nonprofit organizations may make this community
benefit obtainable.
On-site Public Open Space might be achievable
through an Incentive Program. A developer is
likely to consider the creation of attractive plazas
and gardens as not only a community benefit,
but also as a boost to the marketability of their
own development.
Cultural Preservation and Public Art would also
be a good fit for an Incentive Program and
could focus on providing public art that reflects
the cultural identity of the local community.
Pavement patterns, building embellishments,
historical markers and signs, can provide meaning
and tell a story of the place and communities.”
Note that absence of cash “bribes” to the city or credits for taxes that would already be required to be paid.
“There is no such public benefit from underground parking or from Transient Occupancy Taxes which would have to be paid anyway.” I totally agree with this statement. Underground parking is a zoning requirement for a project, and TOT is actually paid by the hotel guests, so the developers who are getting more profit from building at the Bonus level, while also adding to traffic and housing demand in most cases, should provide benefits to our community.
I am just fine with developers contributing tangible items of public value towards housing, recreational facilities, schools, alleviating traffic. I believe open space should be created through the zoning rules.
While I’m all for more public art, I’m honestly not sure who will really benefit from beautiful, accessible public space in the middle of an office park.
We need housing and infrastructure. A meaningful contribution to the Dumbarton Rail project would be more useful.
Here’s the list of proposed amenities (see attachment A) from the ConnectMenlo process:
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/15009/6360—Community-Amenities?bidId=
There are a lot of great options there that would contribute to quality of life for nearby residents and employees alike. Dog park, community garden space, infrastructure and transit improvements, etc. are on the list. Sculpture garden is not.