But there was little discussion that the Specific Plan authorized, in the case of Stanford, a potential eight acre build-out all at once, with no review of the mix of housing, retail and office space, as long as plan parameters were met. Allowing this to occur was great foolishness by all involved, except, of course, Stanford. That doesn't mean Stanford's current proposal is good or bad. Nor that Stanford should have to "pay to play" through a benefits package.
Only that an automatic green light for such a large project was a gross error of plan implementation. How could such a complex project be validated in advance with such broad developer discretion, and little chance of review beyond the Planning Commission's architectural control?
Mandating an additional review step for projects of several acres or more could have been easy. For comparison, the proposed downtown "paseo" and sidewalk extensions require pilot testing to see what works, and then adjust.
Why was no such safeguard enacted for the vastly more consequential El Camino Real?
One factor leading to Stanford's planning freedom was to avoid micromanaging the mix of retail (downtown an exception), office/medical space, and housing, beyond the Plan's broad parameters. That would streamline the development process and avoid second-guessing what proportions of uses are sensible at many different locations. Not every block on El Camino needs retail, for example. The hope was that flexible standards would lead "on average" to good outcomes. But if a developer chooses to skew the balance of uses on a large project, that assumption doesn't hold. It may be that the mix proposed by Stanford is appropriate for the site — I'm not judging the project, which may yet be revised. The point is that the City should have to be convinced that a big project is right, not to have that choice dictated with hands tied.
The lesson here is that Menlo Park needs to take a hard look at its control and the public benefit parameters now in the Specific Plan. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
This story contains 474 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.