Menlo Park council reviews cut-through traffic study for Stanford complex

The report looks very well done, but is not easy to digest at the level of detail given. It would be useful to sum up AM/PM peak trips across all directions for each intersection studied to give an intermediate measure of intersection intensity. It would also be useful to have AM/PM volumes subtracted from daily totals so that there is an idea of the number of trips spread over the day but outside of the commute peaks. Then, even averaging down to an estimate of the number of added trips per minute, for different segments, might be another understandable metric. The alternatives suggested by the consultants appear to be mostly boilerplate, which is probably a good strategy: let residents or city leaders and staff make stronger suggestions about what might be done to mitigate the impacts shown -- if indeed that is desired. That could include proposing limits on in/out volumes for the Stanford site, independent of what is built. The report makes it easy to estimate what may happen if housing is substituted for office, simply by changing the ITE rate multipliers. Of course, any new traffic from housing has to be added back in after office traffic is subtracted. The consultants note that street volume 'thresholds' reflect a policy judgment reflecting both what the street can handle and consideration of quality of life for residents along the segment; so exceeding thresholds is a combined engineering and public values judgment. Finally, while there is data for critical 'hot spots', such as the Safeway driveway on Middle, it's unclear just how bad those can be today and how to interpret the effect of added traffic at random times that congestion can occur with a relatively few extra autos. Other challenging locations include ECR/Sand Hill/Alma and the ECR/Cambridge u-turn.

The report appears to look primarily at areas west of El Camino. Although those will be affected, the neighborhoods east of El Camino will bear the brunt of the traffic. Most people will be traveling to El Camino via 101 and will start cutting through neighborhoods when the Willow->Middlefield->Ravenswood route starts to get even worse than it already is.

Office workers will be parking in Linfield Oaks to avoid El Camino, just as downtown Palo Alto workers occupy most of the streets in downtown north during the day. I trust that the city will be issuing parking permits for residents.

With traffic tripling on El Camino over the next twenty years, the quality of life for all of us will decline. The only upside is that the developers who are profiting from this giveaway will be staying away from our city.

Let's all be honest and recognize that (1) something will be built on those vacant lots on ECR. Once we agree that human activity will replace those vacant lots, then we have to conclude that (2) there will be more traffic. Currently, there is ZERO traffic generated by those vacant lots. Anything that is built will make things "worse" from a traffic standpoint if the goal of "better" is no additional traffic. You just can't have it both ways. Putting things (offices, homes, retail, etc.) on vacant lots will mean more cars - period. Remember that when the "no-on-M" people and the equally vocal "yes-on-M" people are putting each other down!

Indeed the volume of detail is overwhelming, and is unnecessary, unless you're cynical enough (as I'm getting to be) that the purpose of such studies, besides enriching the consultants, is to befuddle the public and cloud the issue.

Common sense says that while retail generates traffic throughout the day, office space generates huge spikes of traffic during the morning and evening rush hours. Hence any rational development plan would put mega-office projects right next to either US 280, on Sand Hill Road across from SLAC, or in East Menlo Park close to US 101 and CA 84. Facebook doesn't create cut-through traffic, and I don't need a consultant to tell me that. Just look at a map!

This isn't the only reason I'm inclining to vote Yes on M. The very notion that balconies count as "open space" is an insult to my intelligence, and to that of all Menlo Park residents. It reminds me of the GOP claim that ketchup (in school lunches) is a vegetable. Yeah, and the moon is made out of green cheese.

Like Cassandra, I am concerned that little seems to have been considered as far as the east side of El Camino. It appears that the traffic report is aware that the intersection at Ravenswood would be unacceptable, but has any plan been made to correct that? Also, the traffic patterns being compared seem to be future and those of nearly 10 years ago. It seemed that they felt there would be no difference in traffic north or south on Middlefield, but I find it highly unlikely that people trying to get to the new development wouldn't realize that Willow is a parking lot from 101( as it currently is at many time of the day), so they would take Marsh and contribute to a parking lot on Middlefield. Traffic amelioration is necessary on both sides of El Camino, no matter which plan is accepted.

@Edward Syrett,

I think we all agree that increased traffic is going to happen, especially if there is new development. If Measure M passes, Stanford will build medical offices, thus generating lots of to/fro traffic during office hours. And you're right, with "regular" office spaces, we'll get the morning and evening commutes. And here in the Willows we also have to contend with cut-through traffic, which we don't want either. Something needs to be done. My understanding is that this is being addressed, starting with making some adjustments to ECR at Ravenswood to eliminate the 3-lane to 2-lane constriction. It's a start and only a start, but it's something.

Regarding, "The very notion that balconies count as "open space" is an insult to my intelligence," I disagree. My understanding is that this is a common practice in other Peninsula cities, as it encourages developers to a) have balconies (which enhances the apartment for the tenants, b) tends to "soften" (if you will) the building's outer walls, making them less like a "canyon" which they'd be without this. Additionally, I was told that the building floors may be stepped, so they don't just have a sheer vertical rise. From the artist conceptions I saw, it's very attractive.

But you should also note another consideration for open space. Stanford has 6 parcels along ECR, and the Downtown Specific Plan allows them to be combined, such that a smaller number of driveways are necessary for access, and a below-ground parking structure is economically practical. Additionally, they have plans to have Cafe Borrone/Kepler's (like) plaza(s). Now, if Measure M passes, Stanford is precluded from combining the parcels, thus forcing a driveway for each parcel, making the underground parking uneconomical, and not allowing for having a larger plaza.

It is complicated and I was very skeptical at first, so keep investigating to convince yourself one way or the other. Don't vote on your get feeling! I agree it involves some research and diligence but it's well worth our time. We're going to have to live with this decision for many years down the road.

In 1964 when I moved to Menlo Park I found a very suitable home on Creek drive. However, on inspecting a map I saw that a Willow Expressway was planned, so we looked elsewhere (Menlo Oaks). If the Willow Expressway had been built, the major traffic problems like the Willows-Middlefield-Ravenswood to El Camino would never have become such a problem. But a long term sensible, forward looking planning is usually absent from city planning, as I experienced in Walnut Creek in the 1956-65 period.
Growth is a wish of merchants and city fathers, while largely preserving a city culture is usually against the interests of developers.
The California planning for another 5-10 million people in a state that is woefully short of water and roads to accommodate commuters is another example of poor foresight. Just stop the developments because there is not enough water supply. If we keep building up, more and more people will abandon the state for quieter surroundings. Bend Oregon anyone?

@Carol Schultz,

I certainly agree that the East of ECR traffic is a problem. I too live in the Willows and have to deal with people racing through, and I don't like it one bit. My understanding is that discussions are under way internally and with adjacent communities (Palo Alto, mostly) about mitigation strategies. It's complicated for sure, and there are trade-offs. (Aren't there always?) A plan and its implementation will take time. The Measure M supporters will have us believe that we should stymie the Downtown Specific Plan (which took six years and $2M to create) to wait for a more comprehensive traffic plan to be added (as well as a number of other changes they want). For me, I trust that the city government is going to address the traffic issues or we'll vote them the heck out of office the next election. And, it's been nine years since the auto dealerships vacated their ECR properties. If Measure M passes it will require another round of review, editing, and adjustment (with the added burden of requiring voter approvals instead of City Council) so I'd imagine we'll be looking at another 5-6 year delay until the blight can be addressed. I don't want to wait that long!

Thanks,

Barry

The "special meeting" of the MP council set for tonight (9/30/2014) has been cancelled.

A "special meeting" (with the same agenda), will be help tomorrow (10/01/2014) at 5:30 PM.

See notice from the City at:

http://ccin.menlopark.org:81/8391.html


excerpt:

The City Council Special Meeting originally scheduled for September 30, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. is rescheduled to Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.The following is a link to the agenda: Web Link

Mr. Gray...please provide a source for your comment that if Measure M passes Stanford is precluded from combining the parcels it owns on El Camino (500 El Camino Project).

Also I am always amused that "the blight" referred to on El Camino (auto dealers) is a direct result of Stanford not developing its property for nine or so years. The ultimate business people, they didn't care about the eye sore they left their Menlo neighbors, but continued to collect rents from dealers until the leases recently expired and until the local economy was booming. They know how to work it!

The City requires the buildings to have the balconies, totally unrelated to OPEN SPACE requirement that are - regardless what developers have swindled the public out of in other cities - still on the books here in Menlo Park.
The City CAN actually dictate what the buildings look like, including the requirement that they include balconies. Counting the balconies as OPEN SPACE is absurd. The developer is required to create OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC SPACE. The City Council and Planning Commission are so very wrong in skirting the rules here. It's NOT that complicated, unless you get caught up in the double speak.

@retired teacher,

Regarding: "please provide a source for your comment that if Measure M passes Stanford is precluded from combining the parcels it owns on El Camino..." I'm working on it, thanks for asking!

"If Measure M passes, Stanford will build medical offices, thus generating lots of to/fro traffic during office hours."

While you're at it, Barry, please provide a source for the statement above, as well. At this time we have no idea what Stanford will or will not build should Measure M pass, but your statement is what measure opponents would have everyone believe because it serves their agenda (is one of the least attractive options in terms of traffic and thus serves to scare voters). Stanford may decide to add some retail and some medical office, and both uses, while generating traffic, would do so throughout the day with less concentration during peak commute hours. Stanford could regroup with additional housing in their plan, which would help to alleviate our city's current jobs/housing imbalance.

The point is we have no idea how Stanford and Greenheart will respond if Measure M passes, despite the "facts" being bandied about by a few self-serving individuals in this forum who purport to know otherwise.

Gern

Please note that the Specific Plan INCREASED the open space requirement for 500 ECR to 30% - from less than 10% and this is the most required of ANY property on El Camino. (it's 20% for Greenheart) Also, the fact that ALL other cities on the Peninsula use the exact same definition for open space as Menlo Park is not the result of they either being hoodwinked or bullied by developers. Is there good reason to ignore established best practices? Believe we are that exceptional???

I think it is great that the MP planning process is working so well. Stanford now has options: 1. Do nothing. 2. Submit an acceptable project. Better outcome?

Also, if Stanford wants to move forward it will be required to fund an EIR that includes ALL the neighborhoods that would likely be effected. The analysis that was just completed was only intended to determine whether a project-specific EIR should be a requirement. And it did!

Actually Measure M does NOT prohibit Stanford from merging parcels.

Measure M's 100,000 max footage of General Office makes it financially impractical to build the proposal stanford had planned. They can maximize the projects footage by building somewhere between 3 and 5 projects and use the Measure M DSP maximum 240,000 across multiple projects.

The other option for them is to RENT out the current buildings there (the Ford and GM dealerships) to start-ups whilst re-planning, and they would get credit for all the footage used (remember it's NET footage) so instead of the 40,000 credit they currently get for the Tesla Dealership being occupied. They could get 120,000+ square foot credit.

All these scenarios are just work around to Measure M should it pass. The tragic issue will be the probable loss of underground parking. the smaller footprint projects would preclude them (due to cost) and make a surface garages behind the buildings inevitable. They have enough allowable footage to build them.

Roy Thiele-Sardina

Please explain how Stanford would be able to use the entire amount of office space, 240,820 square feet, specified in Measure M. This amount of office space was the anticipated 30 year build out, used by all land owners, in the official city EIR done on the DSP.

Also find it hard to believe Stanford will "suffer financially" should Measure M pass. They can still build their 400,000 square foot project just with less office. Will they make less money with less office? Probably they will. Will their complex make more for them than their former tenants? Probably it will.

The recently produced Neighborhood Cut-Through Traffic Analysis Related to the Stanford 500 El Camino Real Project indicates that the current Stanford proposal will generate more than double the car trips per day on Middle Avenue than originally was anticipated as being generated by the entire Specific Plan.

The Specific Plan assumed 222 trips per day would be generated on Middle Ave by the entire Specific Plan. The Stanford 500 El Camino proposal alone is now calculated to produce 528 trips per day on Middle Ave.

As a result, I strongly believe Stanford should go back to the drawing board to create a proposal that falls in line with the impacts anticipated by the Specific Plan, to protect the quality of life of Menlo Park residents. The proposal is not yet a project, so I can't vote yet on the issue. But I believe the public has right to know my views on the matter.

All that being said, I oppose Measure M as I believe Measure M is poorly drafted and creates numerous unintended consequences that, should Measure M pass, will not be able to be cured by the City Council.

What are the "unintended consequences", Ray? And if our City Council won't take action to "cure" the problems with the Specific Plan now, what difference does it make later?

Have you had any private meetings with Arrillaga concerning the development in Menlo Park?

To my knowledge, I have never met Mr. Arrillaga in my life. If I have, he has my apologies for not remembering him.
I certainly have not spoke to him about any development project in Menlo Park.

The unintended consequences of Measure M are well documented and include adverse impacts on small property owners as documented in the Independent Consultant's report. Feel free to contact me in person, and I can meet you at City Hall to go through them.

Finally, to set expectations. I don't anticipate posting on this thread again.

With best regards,
Ray Mueller

@retired teacher:

Regarding: "please provide a source for your comment that if Measure M passes Stanford is precluded from combining the parcels it owns on El Camino..." I think that question has since been addressed by others. I stand corrected that Measure M doesn't explicitly preclude the combining of the parcels. This result is deduced from other aspects of Measure M. Let's hope this wasn't intended by Measure M's authors. But, should Measure M pass, it seems that another voter review/approval would be needed to correct the language.

@Gern:

Regarding: ""If Measure M passes, Stanford will build medical offices, thus generating lots of to/fro traffic during office hours." I don't recall exactly who I heard this from; one or more of the City Council candidates I'm sure. But it does make sense, doesn't it? Patients/clients coming and leaving from their appointments, throughout the day?

@all: I also don't anticipate further posting - although no promises. :-)

@ Gern -
The likelihood of medical office is in the math - med office rents for more than high tech office space. Council asked Stanford not to build for med office because of the traffic impacts - during the day of course but also, everyone at the doctors office - docs, staff and first batch of patients - fill the building at 8:00 opening hour; general office workers no longer show up at 8 and leave at 5. See traffic impact chart. Of course, no-one (probably even Stanford) knows under Measure M if they will build for med office, Whole Foods, 4 bedroom apartments, or some mix.
The issue has always been traffic, and council required a project specific study for Stanford proposal. Now - per the current zoning rules - that traffic has to be addressed or the proposed project revised. Whats happening is what should happen. Can't wait to see the response - keeping the current Stanford commitments for no med office, paying towards bike underpass, etc. - at least if M is defeated

Thank you for that reply, Ray. I sure would like to know why the City Council doesn't require developers to actually provide OPEN SPACE and appear to have changed the definition of OPEN Space with out any public hearings.
How anyone can argue that private balconies or roof tops are of public benefit and Open Space as the law was intended is just mind boggling. Makes no difference that a few other cities have cozied up to developers and allowed them to get away with redefining Open Space.

of course it's not too late to address this issue instead of dancing around it.

arrillaga?

no one has changed the definition of open space. It is the commonly accepted and commonly used definition by most cities in the bay area.

Oh, the definition has most definitely changed. When seminary oaks was developed they were required by the City to include a PUBLIC park. The Lane Woods development off Willow rd was required to include a PUBLIC park. Only thing that changed is the City Council - and the current ones have changed the definition - or allowed the developers to do so. Simple as that. and so very wrong. The question is why. And because other communities have been hood winked is no excuse.

arrillaga?:

"public" space is not "open" space. Look it up. The DSP addresses open space.

Open Space is by it's original definition and intent is something the public can access. A public benefit. The citizens of Menlo Park do no benefit unless the public can put their feet on it. Yes, developers are required to set aside OPEN SPACE for the PUBLIC.

The City of Menlo Park has changed the definition because the developers make more money if they don't have to create actual OPEN SPACE. As in OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Balconies are required regardless and do NOT fulfill the OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, no matter how much double speak is being spread.

Balconies are not required. If you remove them from the definition of open space you end up with slab sided buildings because developers can make more money that way.

"Balconies are not required. If you remove them from the definition of open space you end up with slab sided buildings because developers can make more money that way."

And how do you suppose these slab-sided buildings would fare during a Planning Commission architectural review, Menlo Builder-cum-Voter? Greed aside, neither Stanford nor Greenheart would be so foolish as to forego balconies or upper-story setbacks in their proposals with reviews and approvals still pending, with or without Measure M. If you have received *specific* information to the contrary from either Stanford or Greenheart please do share it.

Gern

Disagree with you, Gern. If it's not mandated, then there will be a work around by Stanford.

Unless there is a specific set aside for a playing field or a public park, I also think it is extremely unrealistic that any developer will create space that the general public would wish to use. Perhaps by apartment residents, sure, but not generally useful public space.

I find this whole discussion about balconies vs. open space vs. public space to be a red herring. It is not going to change anything regarding traffic, it will not make any development more appealing. It's not a reason to vote for or against M.

Gern:

I think they would probably fare pretty well. I'm sure some modifications would get made to make the look more appealing, but the outcome would essentially be the same. If you remove balconies as open space it becomes difficult to force developers to include them. If they are open space and open space is required its simple to force them to put them in.

Do you have specific knowledge that Stanford and Greenheart would be "so foolish" as to not include them? Didn't think so. Please do share any specific information you have.

I posted this in another thread, but reposting here as I'd like to get an answer from someone knowledgeable in M.

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. It needs to developed.

Allied, I also live in Allied Arts. But to say that "the only thing that will prevent an increase in traffic is no development at all" isn't really true. Decisions made in communities to the north and south of us are going to have a huge impact on traffic on El Camino, and Menlo Park will have zero input into those decisions. I am opposed to Measure M because it takes chunks of our zoning regulations and effectively casts them in stone- any changes to those regulations would require a subsequent citywide election. That is such a wasteful and expensive manner of governance, and it handcuffs City Council, the very people we elect to do that work for us. This is a representative democracy. Too many voter initiatives have turned out to be so expensive for California, haven't we learned our lesson by now?

Menlo Voter-No, slab sided buildings would not fare well in planning commission meetings.

Both building facade modulation (E.3.4.2) and a 45 degree building profile above the facade height (E.3.4.3) are required for ECR-SE in the DSP zoning. As with the vast majority of the DSP, these are left untouched by Measure M.

@Tunbridge

I agree. By mandating that key decisions need to be put up to a citywide election is expensive and time consuming. It is the ultimate stall tactic. Our forefathers realized that you could not put everything to a popular vote. It is too cumbersome and the average voter is not sufficiently informed. They realized that having elected officials who represented the population was a better way to do things. And if you didn't like the job they did, then you can vote them out.

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?

Menlo Voter-BS!?!?

Are you claiming facade modulation and building profile aren't in the DSP for the Stanford site?
Look at Page E.65
There is a whole section on Massing and Modulation: E.3.4
Look at page E.25. It shows a picture of a slab building with a big red X underneath in the caption "No:Monolithic character of building."

Do you want to explain how slab buildings will get approved?

Let's see, which will generate more traffic? A 100,000 square foot office building or a 200,000 square foot office building? Pretty clear how M will reduce traffic.

The problems occur when the antis start fantasizing about what property owners might choose to build if they can't erect their oversized office complexes. "Maybe they'll put in an amusement park that will draw 10,000 extra cars a day!" Um, unlikely, with or without M, though it's always fun to fantasize. Just don't present your wild imaginings as fact.

What will happen if M doesn't pass and the council doesn't take action to stop overdevelopment? Well, next to go will be the Big5 complex, to be replaced by -- you guessed it -- more massive office buildings. The less retail we have, the less the city will collect in sales tax, the farther residents will need to drive to shop. Net result: even more traffic.

The antis, including Ray Mueller, haven't even considered the "unintended consequences" of not amending the plan! Traffic will be the biggest problem created by the plan, but not the only one. They will figure it out, eventually, too late for the residents though.