Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bayfront Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves phased approach and temporary Paseo for 432‑unit Bayfront project
Summary
The Menlo Park Planning Commission approved revisions clarifying phasing and responsibilities for the Bayfront development at 123 Independence Drive and 138 Constitution Drive, allowing a temporary Paseo and assigning separate roles for the apartment and townhome components while preserving the previously approved unit counts.
The Menlo Park Planning Commission on July 27 approved revisions to a previously authorized Bayfront development to clarify phasing and the responsibilities of separate developers for the apartment and townhome components.
Associate Planner Matt Prueter summarized the request as a revision to conditions of approval for the project at 123 Independence Drive and 138 Constitution Drive, which was originally entitled in 2023 and remains configured as 432 dwelling units — 316 rental units in an apartment building and 116 for‑sale townhomes. Prueter told the commission the change would not alter unit counts or building details but would allow a temporary, publicly accessible Paseo to provide pedestrian and emergency access until the townhome portion is constructed.
The applicant said the revisions respond in part to market conditions. Caroline Laden, representing the Sobrato team, said the apartment portion is ready to move forward with building permits and that the townhome component is more sensitive to current market and financing conditions. "Based on current market conditions, we are prepared to move forward with the apartment project, as soon as we receive our permits," Laden said, adding that the modifications give townhome developers more clarity and confidence.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on oversight and mitigation. Prueter said building, planning and public‑works engineering have been involved in demolition, permitting and utility work, and that some heritage trees were removed during demolition under city arborist oversight. On construction impacts, staff noted that projects must comply with municipal noise and building codes and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; staff advised neighbors to file complaints via the city's ACT app or by contacting planning staff so code enforcement can follow up.
A nearby property owner who identified himself as Don asked the commission to limit “infinite phasing,” saying temporary fencing and contractor activity had already affected neighboring properties. He asked the commission to require enforceable timelines, completion measures and accountability so temporary conditions do not become permanent burdens.
Applicant representatives said they maintain an on‑site superintendent and will post contact information on project signage; they described a more finished temporary fence and temporary solar lighting for safety. Prueter noted the revisions include phase‑linked milestones and clarified that some transportation improvements (for example, a traffic signal at Chrysler Drive and Jefferson Drive) are tied to the townhome proponent based on which parcel’s traffic impact triggers the upgrade.
Commissioner Schindler moved to approve the staff‑recommended resolution; Commissioner Farrick seconded. The commission voted unanimously (7‑0) to approve the use permit and architectural control permit revisions. The action is subject to a 15‑day appeal period.
