Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs Meta East Campus changes to allow 62‑foot atrium
Summary
The Menlo Park Planning Commission voted to recommend updates to the Meta East Campus Conditional Development Permit to allow a 62‑foot atrium linking buildings 12 and 14, remove completed CDP conditions, and authorize exterior modifications; Commissioner Farrick recused and the recommendation was unanimous among voting members.
The Menlo Park Planning Commission on April 13 recommended that City Council approve amendments to the East Campus Conditional Development Permit at One Hacker Way that would permit a new three‑story, 62‑foot atrium connecting buildings 12 and 14 on Meta’s campus, remove conditions of approval that have already been completed, and authorize exterior modifications including a visitor canopy at Building 10.
The recommendation to the City Manager and City Council followed a staff presentation describing the proposal and a brief applicant design presentation by Studios Architecture. Vice Chair Ross Silverstein opened the item by outlining the request and confirming that the Commission’s action would be a recommendation to City Council for the CDP amendment and to the City Manager for the major modification; the action was proposed as categorically exempt under CEQA Class 1 for existing facilities.
Why it matters: the amendment would correct existing CDP inaccuracies about building heights (staff said two buildings had been listed at 35 feet in the CDP though they are 48 feet), permit a taller enclosed atrium to improve circulation and visitor arrival, and formally remove conditions tied to construction tasks that have been completed since Meta first occupied the East Campus. Staff emphasized the project would result in a net reduction in interior square footage and remain in compliance with the site’s floor‑area controls.
During clarifying questions, commissioners asked why the city removes completed CDP conditions and how the major‑modification streamlining works. Staff explained removing completed conditions is typically applicant‑driven and done when other CDP changes are proposed; the major modification process permits certain exterior changes to be acted on administratively by the city manager after a Planning Commission recommendation, which can shorten review compared with routing every amendment through City Council.
The applicant’s design team described goals to modernize aging buildings, open the campus entry sequences, and emphasize biophilic materials and a consistent yellow accent color. Commissioners also pressed the applicant and staff on bird‑safe glazing; staff said the project plans were updated to require BirdSafe glazing to the first level beneath the bus canopy and to meet the zoning district’s façade limits for non‑bird‑safe glazing.
Motion and vote: Commissioner Schindler moved to recommend the CDP amendment and the major modification as presented; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously among voting members. Commissioner Farrick recused herself from the Item F1 decision due to a family employment relationship with a contractor at Meta.
What happens next: the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the revised staff report will be forwarded to the City Manager and City Council for final action on the CDP amendment and the associated major modification.
