Menlo Park planning commission studies rebuild of Fire Station 1 as rezoning, FAR and tree removals draw scrutiny

The Menlo Park Planning Commission held a study session on Nov. 17 to review a proposed redevelopment of Menlo Park Fire Protection District Station 1 at 300 Middlefield Road and a temporary station at 114 Santa Margarita Avenue. The proposal would demolish the existing station and training tower and build three new structures: a two‑story fire station (Building A), a district administration/operations building (Building B) and a five‑story training tower (Building C).

Consultant Planner Jacob Garcia told commissioners the project site is about 1.96 acres and the proposed total gross floor area is roughly 64,120 square feet, yielding a stated floor‑area ratio of about 75.2 percent. Garcia summarized the requested entitlements: rezoning the parcel from R1S (single‑family suburban residential) to PF (public facilities); a general‑plan land‑use amendment to public/quasi‑public; zoning and general‑plan text amendments to allow FAR up to roughly 80 percent by use permit; a use permit for FAR above 30 percent and for hazardous‑materials storage for an emergency generator and training propane; sign review; architectural control; and heritage‑tree removals. Garcia said the city has selected a consultant to initiate CEQA review and that the environmental process will determine whether an initial study, a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report is required.

Applicants from PBK Architects described the campus layout and program. Austin Dunkley, the project architect, said the station is sited close to Middlefield for rapid response, the training tower is centralized to allow 360‑degree access, and the administration building is L‑shaped to act as a visual and sound buffer for adjacent residences. The team presented renderings, elevations and material palettes (fiber‑cement panels with a wood texture, metal panels and CMU) and noted features such as an on‑site public lobby with an antique fire truck display, 14 dorm rooms for firefighters on the second floor, and a proposed underground parking garage.

Chief Mark Lorenzen, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, said the district’s goals include reuniting administrative staff on a single campus, improving training capacity so staff do not need to travel off‑site for routine training, and providing community amenities such as a multipurpose meeting room. “We are your city fire department. We’re your community fire department,” Lorenzen said, explaining that a consolidated campus supports operations and community outreach. He and the design team said the station layout includes some built‑in capacity for future growth, and that the underground parking is intended to serve both staff and storage needs.

The project would remove a total of 23 trees at 300 Middlefield that meet the city’s heritage‑tree definition and one heritage tree at the temporary site. The applicant proposes on‑site planting of 23 new street trees along Middlefield and Santa Monica avenues and 18 Coast Live Oaks off‑site on adjacent St. Patrick’s Seminary property as partial mitigation. Jacob Garcia said the replacement plan is being coordinated with the seminary but that staff would seek written confirmation from the seminary before proceeding on off‑site plantings.

Public commenters and commissioners raised several recurring concerns. Menlo Park City Councilmember Jeff Schmidt encouraged the commission to consider cumulative impacts along the Middlefield corridor, noting multiple major projects (SRI, USGS, AD Willow and the fire station work) that could overlap in the next 3–10 years and stressing that transportation and public‑facility planning should account for projected growth. Dean Rubinson, director of development for a property adjacent to the temporary site, supported the project but asked the commission to require more detailed screening and mitigation at 114 Santa Margarita; he said the proposed 7‑foot wood fence “may not do the job to screen a 15‑foot apparatus tent” and urged retention of a large existing tree where feasible.

Commissioners asked technical and policy questions about the proposal. Key discussion points included:

• Floor‑area ratio and zoning: Commissioners noted that the city’s public‑facility zoning currently limits FAR in many cases to 30 percent (with some prior exceptions) and that the applicant seeks FAR substantially above that level (project team cited ~75.2%). Several commissioners urged staff to research whether the public‑facility standard should be updated citywide rather than amended project‑by‑project; others cautioned that a broad code rewrite could complicate or delay the current CEQA and entitlement schedule.

• Tree removal and mitigation: Commissioners sought clarity about whether off‑site replacement (18 Coast Live Oaks at the seminary) satisfies the Heritage Tree Ordinance’s intent and fairness to other property owners; staff said the city arborist has reviewed the application and noted that in‑lieu plantings or near‑site mitigation are common when on‑site replacement is not feasible.

• Temporary site impacts: Neighbors and a commissioner asked for more detailed plans for the temporary facility (screening, fence height, planting and timing), given that the temporary use could last for years during the construction period.

• Parking, public benefits and housing: Commissioners and staff discussed a significant increase in vehicle parking capacity shown in the project materials (applicant materials referenced roughly mid‑two‑digit counts for existing spots and a much larger underground parking total); several commissioners asked whether some of the additional building area could be used for transitional or staff housing to support emergency‑services staffing and to provide visible public benefits tied to a higher FAR.

• Signage and lighting: Commissioners expressed concern about the size and potential nighttime brightness of a proposed large illuminated “1” used for branding, noting the design intent to make it a community signal and to tie its color to alerts or events.

• Cumulative traffic and response times: Staff noted that CEQA documents can assess cumulative impacts for the corridor; the fire chief said the district plans for roughly 20 years ahead and that increased congestion could affect response times, which may require a mix of operational responses and, potentially, siting additional facilities.

No formal actions or votes were taken; the session was a request for feedback. The design team said it plans to revise plans and respond to comments, staff will begin environmental review, and the project will return to the Planning Commission for formal hearings and recommendations to City Council on legislative items (rezoning, general‑plan and text amendments). The team’s high‑level schedule shows construction documents in 2026, a mid‑2027 construction start and a projected completion in about 2030, pending environmental review and entitlement timing.

Next steps: staff said a selected CEQA consultant will prepare an initial study; the environmental review will determine whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or an EIR is required. The Planning Commission will later review formal legislative actions and may recommend a code change or one‑off amendments to the City Council depending on policy direction and timing.