"The analysis, performed by W-Trans, projects 528 daily trips along Middle Avenue if Stanford builds the mixed-use complex. The specific plan anticipated 222 daily trips from whatever was built on the site ..."

Per the actual traffic study (Web Link I believe you mean 528 and 222 *added* daily trips, or "project-added volume," to use the study's language.

Gern

Correction and Clarification:

The Specific Plan EIR Table 4.13-14, page 4.13-80, stated that the entire specific plan area traffic of over 13,000 additional trips would only add 222 trips per day on Middle Ave.

The March 7 W-trans report , page 10 reported that the Stanford project by itself would add 528 trips per day.

I have always maintained that the 222 trips on middle finding in the EIR couldn't pass the straight face test. Nobody, other than possibly Measure M opponents, could make that statement without breaking into a grin. It was that unbelievable. W trans has confirmed its ridiculousness, without even considering the additional traffic that will use middle resulting from ECR congestion caused by the already Impacted intersections at both Sand Hill and Ravenswood, which will send additional traffic.

Hard to build such a large project on land locked parcels with no access on three sides, leaving only El Camino Real for access with no infrastructure to handle. Removing the trees and medians to widen into an expressway will cut off E/W cross town access, a primary goal of the Specific Plan.

Stanford has owned the property since Jane Stanford had a cabin at the Menlo Train Station, and now wants to add office parks, with no access, on its former driveway for Mrs. Stanford. Stanford and Menlo Park need to be way more reasonable than either has been to date.

The increased traffic congestion will affect not just Menlo Park. All of us in the surrounding areas will be negatively impacted by this plan. Stanford is very good at acting unilaterally; therefore, it is important that the rest of the area work together to curb Stanford.

Copied-Pasted from Another Forum Thread:


And BTW, that cut through traffic on Middle referred to by Ray Mueller and the recent traffic analysis report will also come along Oak Avenue, Olive, Valparaiso, Stanford Avenue, Oakdell, and, of course, Santa Cruz.

I love the highly paid consultants who performed the analysis for the SP, the staff who listened and passed on the decision ("nobody has ever been fired for hiring IBM"), and the city council that uncritically swallowed the offering.

Fail.

Great job y'all !!!

In every other city on the Peninsula, they are putting high-density mixed use development in the transit corridor, where the people in those apartments and offices can easily take the train. Any other location will generate far more car trips. The transit corridor is the place to put the density, dumping more density in Belle Haven is not the answer.

This seems so complicated. With all the intelligent people living in Menlo Park, why can't someone in power figure out how to lessen the parking impact BEFORE we give the green light to new construction?

How about just putting a big park there, then it will be beautiful without a huge amount of additional traffic!

A challenge for Stanford to be sure -- but they might propose a hard monitored trip cap with partial project redesign. With such good proximity to the Stanford campus and hospitals, plus help from a ped/bike tunnel, it could be an option for some mix of uses. The city still needs to make the tunnel happen as part of this project.

Pretty much what myself and others have been saying all along, the traffic study was bad and common sense says that there will be a lot more traffic that the opponents of Measure M keep saying.

I am a little surprised that Peter and MV are not here calling the new traffic study a conspiracy...

The Specific Plan process is working and the City Council is in control and in charge of negotiating a Stanford proposal which best serves Menlo Park.

Measure M's poorly considered 100,000 sq ft cap would simply incentivize Stanford to submit four separate, uncoordinated projects each with its own separate ECR access and none providing public benefits. And they could do this one project at a time while repopulating the existing empty buildings with traffic generating uses to generate a higher baseline traffic level. No one of the projects would generate the requirement for an EIR.

Vote NO on M and let the elected City Council continue to do its job.

The reason that Measure M went to the ballot is that many residents believe the City Council wasn't (and isn't) doing their job.

I appreciate Mayor Mueller recommending that Stanford go back to the drawing board based on the traffic study, but the City Council should have been working with Stanford to come up with a more appropriate design in the first place.

"the City Council should have been working with Stanford to come up with a more appropriate design in the first place."

That is exactly what they have been doing - they cannot meet in "secret" with Stanford and they cannot evaluate a plan before it is submitted. They have now received two plans from Stanford and will undoubtedly get a third. The plans will keep getting better BECAUSE the Council is doing its job. NOTHING has been approved. The system and process works.

No conspiracy here. I'm not a member of savenenlo. They're the conspiracy nuts.

As Peter has pointed out the DSP is working as intended. They have new data and are going back to the table with Stanford. If measure m passes they lose that ability

Let's see
We're talking about Middle Ave traffic increasing by an astounding 0.55 cars per minute or about 1 additional car every 2 minutes over a 16 hour period of the day (compared to 22 cars per minute now). My golly gee! With that additional volume of traffic kids will certainly be late for school and we'll all be choking and coughing from the exhaust pollution while we drive to the ER (conveniently hosed for MPers by another community) for treatment of emphysema.

Come on mayor get a life! You've got your own little a piece of Detroit right here in CA and when some one comes along with a proposal to cure the blight that's been the east side on ECR in Menlo Park for years now you keep on dragging your feet making the shameful "Palo Alto Process" seem positively jet propelled.

After driving through MP on ECR this afternoon it looks as though the blight is catching on the west side now too.

@Stan,

Sarcasm appreciated and fitting -- if you believe the numbers. There is no reason for us to believe the 5% increase projected in the new numbers either.

Let me explain. Most of these "experts" rely on simulations that are painfully simplistic. All of these estimates are probabilistic, but they almost never provide a confidence interval. Why? Because you use deterministic analysis and not stochastic analysis. The latter requires one not to use some off the shelf crap software. It actually requires a deep understanding of computational methods and the probabilistic inter-dependencies between the active variables. They don't do this Stan despite their high fees. The net result is the all to familiar "crap in, crap out".

Ultimately, common sense, independent of any quantitative analysis, dictates that the development you put in an area with no easy access to major transit arteries (101 and 280) except cut through traffic in neighborhoods, has to be geared to minimizing boluses of traffic. Doing the latter may mean leaving suboptimal economic outcomes for developers, but there's more at stake here than just their interests.

This is why Ray Mueller is so loved in this city. Politics be damned; this guy just tells it like it is.

I don't think there would even be a Measure M if Mayor Mueller had been allowed to participate and make decisions about this project sooner. Stanford needs to redesign, but we also need reasonable development.

Now the cat is out of the bag. There would be severe impacts of just the Stanford project based on its own traffic analysis. Ray is right to push back. And it also shows that the traffic numbers for the whole Specific Plan have several underestimated the impact of full buildout under that Plan.

The problem is that Ray is only ONE member of the council. Of the three who are up for re-election, they seem to have been strongly defending the Specific Plan and saying stay the course. The only one of them that in the past has raised concerns about the Stanford project was Rich Cline. It seems like if Ray were to make a motion, Rich would second it. But they don't have a third vote, with two republicans on the Council, and one "honorary" republican (Kirsten Keith).

So Peter Carpenter's point that the Council system is working has yet to be proven. We would need at least 3, and ideally 5 people on council with the kind of cajones that Ray has in order for that to work.

All the evidence so far is that the Council has been going along to get along and kowtowing to the developers. Doing back-room negotiations has gotten Palo Alto Council in big trouble - but that seems to be the M.O. of this current council too, other than Ray.

Those who want to see common sense prevail in the future need to recognize that change is needed in who is on the Council. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

I disagree. The plan in place has worked. One councilman objected and Stanford now has to redesign. Isn't that what should happen?

I've heard the arguments from the M supporters. Aside from claiming certain outcomes, I do not see how their plan achieves their objectives. Someone please tell me how, in the face of the fact that Stanford owns this property and intends to develop this property, that M will really prevent an increase in traffic.

The only thing that will prevent an increase in traffic is no development at all. And that's what I really think is behind M. It puts up so many roadblocks to development, so many layers of review, that it will be impossible to get anything done. Let me call it for what it is: M is meant to kill development.

I live in Allied Arts. I have gotten used to the empty car dealerships along ECR. It has not hurt my property values or impacted my commute or increased the number of kids going to our schools. I can see why some want the status quo-- you're getting a known quantity. But 10% of the time I drive down ECR I think to myself, this stretch of highway looks like some blight in Oakland. As the poster from Portola Valley notes, something needs to be done.

Incidentally, I see that by law it is mandated that there will be a public space of 120 ft across at the intersection of Middle and ECR. That will look much nicer than that burnt out ex-car dealership (that used to have the fire truck in the window).

It is always best to review exactly what is said at a meeting and form your own conclusions. You can see the 5 minutes from Ray Mueller from the Oct 1 meeting at:

see:

Web Link

I personally was disappointed that Mayor Mueller says,the Specific Plan is fine, we just need to make small adjustments to what Stanford has proposed.

The Specific Plan is not fine. The faults of the Specific Plan are the whole reason why a group has gone out and secured the needed signatures to place Measure M on the ballot.

Having a public meeting before a DEIR goes out to drafted is a great move. I fully applaud this position. It is a move that then Mayor Cline, refused to do, before the DEIR for the Specific Plan went out to be drafted.

The results of the Visioning process fail in so many ways to match the final results the Specific Plan EIR produced.

This is what happens, when the City changes consultants after the Visioning was completed, and hires a new consultant, a consultant who was working for Stanford at the same time.

(note should be taken of the $150,000 Wise report, which justifies the results of the Specific Plan, did not take at all into consideration what the Visioning process had produced. For some reason, the scope of the work that Wise was assigned to analyze, did not include looking at the Visioning.


Vote Yes on Measure M

"For some reason, the scope of the work that Wise was assigned to analyze, did not include looking at the Visioning."

Of course not - by law the Council was doing what it was supposed to do, have an independent analysis done of a proposed ballot measure. The Council hired Wise to do exactly that and having received the report voted NOT to adopt the proposed initiative but to place it on the ballot for the voters to decide and also voted 5-0 AGAINST support of Measure M.

It is all very clearly laid out in the July Council meeting staff report and minutes for Item F1:

Web Link

Web Link

@Morris Brown

Please tell me how M cures the problems that you noted.

@ morris brown: Thank you for posting the links. That was awesome to watch! Mueller is a breath of fresh air.

Really? This much huffing and puffing over adding ~2.5% more cars to the road than expected? In our neighborhood we cant even get sidewalks next to the schools nor get the EPA parking lot from FILLING our street on weekends and many evenings. Stop your whining

@really.

There's lies, damn lies, then statistics.

Your 2.5% number obfuscates the facts.

The Stanford Project is producing 328 MORE cars on Middle than what was expected for what the ENTIRE Specific Plan would produce.

Details details.

I thought all the M supporters would pile onto me and tell me how M reduces traffic. Yet I have not received a single direct reply to my query and I have posted this in 3 different threads.

Does M really reduce traffic, or does M stand for meander?

Allied:

measure M will NOT reduce traffic. The likely outcome of M is to INCREASE traffic. If M passes the negotiated removal of high traffic producing medical offices disappears. Stanford is free and will likely build medical offices as they are high rent generating uses. Unfortunately, they are also high traffic producing uses. Just another of many unintended consequences of M.

Vote NO on M.

Sarcasm aside, the quality of the planning going on regionally with respect to our transportation corridors is below shoddy, it is, for all intents and purposes non-existent. And even what is done is piecemeal and fails to take into account the reality of the absolutely huge amount of infill housing and office space being constructed up and down the entire peninsula. My disagreement with Menlo Park is that rather than confront the problems of constricted traffic flow the only focus seems to be on using inconsistent and constantly changing land use controls that prevent land owners from making a reasonable use of their properties. The years of delays from the city of MP in allowing Stanford to complete the expansion of Sand Hill Road across the creek is a clear example of this parochialism. The delays caused thousands upon thousands of hours of delays for people who had to travel near or through your community. All for what cause - to delay a project that everybody knew was going to be constructed eventually anyway. Menlo Park has for years had the most constricted portion of El Camino Real and neither Menlo Park nor Atherton provide for cross peninsula travel corridors as all of your neighbors north and south do.
Yes some rationale land use controls are critical but set some rules and stick to them. And then confront the issue of traffic problems in the city and fix those too. The problem is NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. In fact it is only going to get worse regardless of what sort of limitations are imposed on Stanford and other property owners along ECR between Glennwood and San Francisquito Creek.

Fix it now or fix it later but the pain will only get worse and worse.

Stan:

well said.

My blood just boils when I read a post like Stan has written above.

Stanford has always looked out for Stanford as their first priority.
Stanford's second priority has always been getting along with Palo Alto and that often has met throwing their garbage into Menlo Park.

The traffic problems are primarily generated by Stanford, yet solutions to these problems always seem to move the traffic away from Palo Alto elsewhere.

1. Not allowing Sand Hill to cross El Camino and dump onto Alma, a first class example. No indeed, just make the traffic dump onto El Camino, and find it s way through Menlo Park.

2. The Willow road expressway would have been built 50 years ago, if its planned path had been through Palo Alto. But no, the route chosen was through Menlo Park. Why should Menlo Park neighborhoods be destroyed to accommodate the traffic generated by Stanford?

3. And then more recently, the vast majority of funds to try and mitigate the traffic from the Stanford Hospital expansion, were given mostly to Palo Alto, whereas most of the traffic problems were going to occur in Menlo Park.

So it is easy for a person like Stan to say Menlo Park is the problem. The problem is Stanford generates the traffic, and Palo Alto gets the relief at the expense of Menlo Park.

If the specific plan provides so much flexibility in reviewing and modifying the plan, and both pro and con M AGREE that medical offices are problematic, while retail and hotel are beneficial, why doesn't the city council :

- OFFICIALLY modify the plan to limit medical, decrease office and increase retail?

- Also, why not specify that the residential potion needs to have a specific percentage of 1 bedroom units (E. g. 90%)?

These changes would benefit the majority of residents who live in or near Menlo Park, reducing traffic, and providing options for singles. couples without children, and seniors while greatly diminishing the impact on schools.

@Stan, you should listen to old timer. He's got this right.

Menlo Park has never blocked the cut through of Sand Hill onto Alma. That's Palo Alto's doing. It should be obvious that it's Palo Alto's doing because their residents and downtown PA would be negatively impacted by such a cut through.

Measure M only limits office space. Any other uses, such as big box retail or medical offices, are intended consequences of the Specific Plan itself, not unintended consequences of Measure M.

Such other uses are also intended consequences of City Council’s sitting on their hands refusing to modify the Specific Plan. Measure M does not prevent council from doing so.

Measure M is not responsible for City Council’s ineptitude.

Can someone please explain :

why council negotiated with Stanford to eliminate medical rather than just limiting it in the Specific Plan ?

Why council doesn't just make balconies a requirement rather than "encouraging" by counting as open space?

Why council doesn't limit size of individual units in residential so over enrolled schools aren't further impacted by hundreds of families w kids moving in.

Why council doesn't alter specific plan to dictate a reasonable ratio of retail and/or hotel to office space?

If measure M passes nothing can be done to modify the DSP without a vote.

Good reason to vote no on M

Please let me know if I have missed something in all this traffic discussion. Save Menlo/Yes on M is using existing traffic levels as the reason to stop new development in Menlo Park. The city (as shown in a variety of traffic reports) forecasts that traffic along the El Camino Real will increase in volume by 1% a year, regardless of whether Menlo Park adopted new projects or not.

Absence of new development, who will be funding traffic improvements in the area? Like it or not, all cities rely on new development to fund for traffic improvements. It is very naive to think that the city has alternative sources of funding ready to make improvements in our community. The original Specific Plan EIR has a host of traffic-related mitigation measures that are required of new development. (Does Save Menlo/Yes on M tell anyone about that?) Even if both Stanford and Greenheart choose to proceed if Measure M passes, the reduction of office space adversely affects their bottom lines, and cutting office space provides them with less revenue to fund those traffic mitigation measures. Yes, I know Save Menlo/Yes on M folks say that Stanford has no land cost, so they can afford to paid more. Conversely, Stanford has no land cost, so they can also afford to withdraw their application and lease their land without reinvesting in the property. (Greenheart does not that the luxury of waiting, but their investors must see that the project still pencils if they are to proceed.)

Does Save Menlo/Yes on M have a back-up to fund the very traffic problems they are concerned about if developer dollars are not there? I didn't think so.

Is Save Menlo/Yes on M seriously trying to tell us that if you stop development, the existing problems they cite will magically go away?

Is Save Menlo/Yes on M proposing a citywide tax to replace the dollars set aside from new development to fund traffic improvements? What is their next step to fund the problems they complain about? Anyone?

"If measure M passes nothing can be done to modify the DSP without a vote."

Patently false, and likely the most ridiculous statement yet made (from a whole host or worthy candidates) about Measure M. If yours was a serious assertion, Menlo Builder/Voter, please highlight for us the specific language in the measure which so binds *any* change to the *entire* DSP.

Gern

Gern - you are not paying attention:

"Further, Section 4.1 of Measure M states that any amendments to the voter adopted development standards and definitions require voter approval, not just amendments that impose less stringent development standards," Mr. Stepanicich wrote."

"Measure M states that any amendments to the voter adopted development standards and definitions require voter approval"

"Adopted" is the key word, Peter -- those standards and definitions found specifically in Measure M, which are but a small subset of the standards and definitions found in the entire DSP. Put another way, do you agree with Menlo Builder/Voter that *any* change to the DSP will require a vote if Measure M passes? Yes or no is all that's needed here.

Gern

Gern - I have made it VERY CLEAR, as has Menlo Park's lawyer, that ANY change to the TEN definitions and standards and other limits adopted by the voters in Measure M would require a city wide vote at the next general election to change. Is that clear enough for you?

In addition, the bizarre "or frustrate" language in Sec 4 opens the door to a challenge of ANY change in the DSP and that challenge could only be resolved by a judge.

Measure M is a Mistake.