Early reactions to Stanford's revised development plans for Menlo Park

"adding anything to the empty lots on the site would increase traffic to the already bottlenecked intersection at El Camino Real and Ravenswood Avenue. "
That is the key statement and describes a major Menlo Park traffic problem. Failure to have Sandhill Rd go through from 280 to 101, which was on the drawing board in the 1960s, is the main cause for traffic problem. Menlo Park sadly lacks an equivalent of Page Mill-Oregon Expressway and Woodside Road.

""The tenants of Stanford's housing should be able to access the city's park, library and Civic Center," he said. "Stanford should be willing to pay for the construction of the under crossing."

Interesting that Schmidt's solution to everything is to have Stanford pay for it.

There is no tunnel project on the City's drawing boards, there are no construction plans for such a tunnel,the cost is unknown and no one can even agree on where it should be BUT Schmidt still thinks that Stanford should pay for this pig in a poke.

With regard to the tunnel the Specific Plan states:
" a public benefit bonus could be considered for elements including but not limited to:

• Middle Avenue grade-separated rail crossing"

Since Stanford is NOT seeking any public benefit bonus there is no basis for requiring Stanford to contribute anything to a tunnel project.

re sandhill to 101

What's the cost of an expressway from Aboretum Rd to 101 on top of the San Francisquito Creek. No entry or egress except ECR, Middlefield and 101. That would also take stress off of Willow between Middlefield and 101. All the tech businesses who have greatly added to the area's traffic volume perhaps could be coerced into contributing to the project. STanford cold also make a major contribution as a substantial amount of the traffic is to and from the university and will increase with the expansion of he med center. At the same time major flood control and upcoming sea level rise problems could be addressed re the creek.

What happened to the earlier comments?

Earlier comments are still here but on another thread:

Web Link

Editor - what happened to yesterday's comments on this article?

The key is to add bicycle lanes on El Camino that will be inconsistent with cars and then outlaw the cars. Bus-only lanes on the left; bicycle lanes on the right. No room for cars. And that is the plan of the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Nice work Menlo Park.

On the traffic congestion, we need not just a pedestrian/cyclist tunnel, we need a full underpass for cars, bikes and pedestrians at Middle Avenue (or Cambridge to connect with Willow). This is the time to put it through, and the city will have to push for it and pay for it. I think it could be well worth the long term costs considering the alternative is a downtown intersection that will be horribly congested every day for decades.

@Aaron wrote: "On the traffic congestion, we need not just a pedestrian/cyclist tunnel, we need a full underpass for cars, bikes and pedestrians at Middle Avenue (or Cambridge to connect with Willow).... I think it could be well worth the long term costs considering the alternative is a downtown intersection that will be horribly congested every day for decades."

And how do you think those of us who live in Linfield Oaks will welcome this new expressway in our front yards, Aaron?! Your "long term costs" would include the small matter of the wholesale gutting of our neighborhood, after all. No, this idea lost its chance decades ago and were the city even willing to entertain the notion Stanford would be little interested in surrendering the property or incurring the scheduling delays needed to design, approve and build such an underpass.

People should focus on getting cars off the road -- the Bay Area has no higher transportation priority if we wish to maintain or improve our air quality and quality of life, especially with a burgeoning population.

Gern

The issue is not what one small neighborhood wants but rather what is best for the community.

Every neighborhood should share the load.

"The issue is not what one small neighborhood wants but rather what is best for the community."

The best thing for the community might be to build an expressway straight through Atherton, all the way from 280 to 101, thereby inconveniencing the least number of property owners. Seriously, the best thing for the community, now and in the future, is to get cars off our roads.

"Every neighborhood should share the load."

One wonders, as ever, how Lindenwood plans to share the load....

Gern

Are we really still fighting the "Willow Expressway" battle, 40 years later? Free tip: an easy way to tell if someone has no valid arguments, is how quickly they bring up the Willow Expressway. Give it a rest, folks.

Agree with gern. Lets build that expressway through Atherton. What about that idea Peter. It will be good for the community. Its about reducing traffic now. We need new bike paths not more expressways and more traffic. Menlo park needs to switch gears and start thinking about reducing traffic on El Camino and its surrounding east west corridors. No new road plans will change the heavy congestions on the roads in this city. Its awful driving the Menlo park roads at anytime during the day. Pity the poor school kids that have to go to our schools on their bikes each day. Use your bicycles and get out of your cars.

If you want a tunnel that has a legal nexus to this project then require Stanford, as a traffic mitigation effort, to provide a multi-purpose tunnel which has pedestrian and bicycle access from Alma to the plaza and automobile access from Alma to the project underground parking. This would do a great deal to mitigate any ECR and Ravenswood impact. It would not be a "freeway" through any neighborhood but would simply share the traffic from this project between ECR and Alma.

This is why these comment sections are so depressing. They spiral away from the original story and descend quickly into crazyland and personal attacks. Grow up people.

I wasn't here 40 years ago. I do understand that the people in Linfield Oaks would be upset with more traffic, as any resident would, and as they would in Allied Arts if University Drive was continued another 1/4 mile to Sand Hill Road. Nobody wants more traffic in their neighborhood. The answer may be fewer cars, but the only way to get there is to have much denser neighborhoods with a mixed residential/office/industrial mix, or massive increases in public transit. Times have changed...maybe this fight was fought 40 years ago, but the community has evolved from 40 years ago as well. You can't just wish the traffic congestion away...and decisions made 10 years ago might not be applicable to today's present state.

"Menlo park needs to switch gears and start thinking about reducing traffic on El Camino and its surrounding east west corridors."

ECR is a state highway that runs through the cities on the dense residential spine of the Peninsula. The portion of it running through MP is about 1.6 miles long. So MP has to figure out how to reduce traffic on this critical Peninsula corridor road? Where are the alternative "North-South" roads? Middlefield and then 101...Alameda and then 280. What are the MP "East-West" corridors? There are none that go from one side of town to the other. All of them end at Middlefield or at ECR, forcing traffic into a work-around to get to the next section. And this is not seen by many posters as a critical underlying problem...

How does MP reduce traffic on these corridors? By green-lighting more development with mixed residential and office space, encouraging local jobs and shorter commute times for residents. Bikes are not the answer for everybody...

Maybe a solution to ECR traffic is to put 1 lane of ECR underground in each direction, between south of Ravenswood and north of Oak Grove. This way all the traffic transiting the city can get through without stopping and un-noticed.

Peter,
The last sentence of your initial post to this thread (#2) is correct: Stanford is not seeking a public benefit bonus because the trigger for the bonus level of development was set too high by those who crafted the Downtown Specific Plan.
Unfortunately the Menlo Park Council has also been sitting on the pedestrian undercrossing concept near Middle since 2008, doing absolutely nothing to move it along. The bonus level could still be reduced by the City Council, putting Stanford in a position where they might be required to provide some significant public benefit, like an undercrossing. So far, as you observe, they have no reason to negotiate anything with the City.
And if the City is going to get stuck with buying the whole thing, a less expensive, safer and more functional location would be at Willow/Cambridge and Alma.

Stanford has always expressed their willingness to participate in a tunnel even though they are not seeking a public benefit bonus.

However, there is no tunnel project on the City's drawing boards, there are no construction plans for such a tunnel,the cost is unknown and no one can even agree on where such a tunnel should be located.

If you want a tunnel that has a legal nexus to this project then require Stanford, as a traffic mitigation effort, to contribute to a multi-purpose tunnel which has pedestrian and bicycle access from Alma to the project, the plaza and ECR and automobile access from Alma only to and from the project's underground parking.

Peter, You have a good case, including the Alma automobile access feature to the Arrillaga/500 El Camino project.
You should make it to the MP City Council.

Fantastic idea, Peter. Let's send thousands of cars a day buzzing by Burgess Park so that Stanford project employees can save some time getting to their parking spaces. Never mind that you'd endanger dozens of kids playing at the park or interfere with actual residents who are trying to get to the library, take their kids to basketball games or gymnastics, swim, or pick up a toddler at childcare. As long as it's not affecting Atherton, who cares what it costs the residents?

Actually a properly located vehicular access from Alma to the Stanford project parking area only would reduce traffic on ECR and at the ECR Ravenswood intersection and therefore on all of the streets abutting Burgess Park.

Be creative and constructive and you can make a difference.

Wrong, Peter. Maybe you want to take a field trip sometime to Burgess Park? A lot of Atherton children use those facilities too, playing soccer on our field and volleyball in our gym, even using our skateboarding facility which is a few feet from Alma. Right now, the traffic is almost exclusively local. I doubt our city leaders will act on your fine suggestion to turn the bordering streets into a feeder for the office complex, but nice try!

If there is a pedestrian and bicycle only tunnel connection to Alma then a significant number of cars that want to connect with the Stanford project will simply park in Linfield Oak and walk to the site in order to avoid the Ravenswood/ECR congestion.

Much of the traffic going East through the ECR/Ravenswood intersection now turns on Alma and goes go right by the Burgess Park. Remember the furor when that right turn was blocked off?

Please look at the map.

A tunnel connection further south would allow cars from the project to avoid Burgess Park altogether.

Her is the map:

Web Link


An Alma automobile connection at Waverly or Willow to the Stanford project PARKING would NOT increase the traffic on the three streets adjacent to Burgess Park but would instead reduce that traffic.

"An Alma automobile connection at Waverly or Willow to the Stanford project PARKING would NOT increase the traffic on the three streets adjacent to Burgess Park but would instead reduce that traffic."

This statement makes the erroneous assumption that 100% of the traffic using any such tunnel would originate from the south, or from 101 via Willow Road only. It is entirely possible that a good percentage of that traffic might travel via Middlefield and or Marsh Road to the north, perhaps passing over Ravenswood and Laurel enroute.

One logistical challenge raised by such a tunnel proposal is how traffic which enters the Stanford property from ECR is kept from exiting via a tunnel to Alma (there will be a driveway from ECR, regardless what is built from the Alma side). Are you proposing two distinct parking garages? If so, how many spaces are allocated to each garage? Some other mechanism which allows just building occupants and workers to exit via the tunnel?

Perhaps the larger fly in the vehicular tunnel "ointment" is that Stanford has invested a good deal of time and money in its current project, love it or hate it. Adding an automobile tunnel would set them back how many months or years, taking into account the inevitable design delays, approvals and lawsuit(s)?

And, yes, a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel will likely result in Linfield Oaks becoming a Stanford office complex parking lot, when we residents might then take up the ever-peaceful issue of permit- or time-restricted parking with our fair city, not something anyone wishes to do. Look, I'm all for serving the greater good save when the sole or chief beneficiary is Stanford -- if Stanford, with all its capital and brain power, is unable to mitigate the traffic impacts of its 500 ECR project then they, for the greater good, should build a smaller project. But I suppose that ship/t set sail with the DSP....

Gern

The car tunnel at Alma has come up before, during Planning Commission discussion. This is not in conformance with the specific plan according to staff, end of discussion.

I'm sure that in time Linfield Oaks will go the way of North Palo Alto, permit parking during the day for everyone.

However, there is no more certain way to bring the dead out of their slumber than by proposing a car tunnel of any sort under the tracks at Willow/Cambridge or Middle/Burgess.

This talk about every neighborhood having to take a hit for the "community", or for the benefit of Stanford etal. is a nasty business, especially coming from people who would not be affected.

Any rational person when confronted with that sort of overt nastiness will be inclined to look for the motive behind it.

Vince - you are not paying attention. What is being discussed is vehicle access from Alma to the Stanford project only.

That has never come up before.

And quit the personal attacks.

I have been reading the posts. I am aware of exactly what you are suggesting.

Please read my post again.

Also, please point out specifically where and explain how I am attacking you personally.

"The car tunnel at Alma has come up before, during Planning Commission discussion. This is not in conformance with the specific plan according to staff, end of discussion."

The concept of vehicular access from Alma ONLY to the parking of the Stanford project has NEVER come up before the Planning Commission. Please provide documentation to the contrary.

" please point out specifically where and explain how I am attacking you personally."

Your own words condemn you:
"This talk about every neighborhood having to take a hit for the "community", or for the benefit of Stanford etal. is a nasty business, especially coming from people who would not be affected.

Any rational person when confronted with that sort of overt nastiness will be inclined to look for the motive behind it."

Your comments in this Forum as well as the way that you treat citizens appearing before you at the Planning Commission are inappropriate.

Please deal with the issue and stop attacking other posters by innuendo are otherwise.

"One logistical challenge raised by such a tunnel proposal is how traffic which enters the Stanford property from ECR is kept from exiting via a tunnel to Alma (there will be a driveway from ECR, regardless what is built from the Alma side)."

Easy - upon entry each vehicle would be automatically issued a parking ticket that noted its point of entry and that vehicle would only be allowed to exit via the same entry point.

Next?

[Post removed; stick to the topic and don't attack other posters.]

The council gave away a large increase of allowable development in the DSP. Stanford was a recipient, not the only one. The council should lower the threshold for public benefit to gain leverage to negotiate for infrastructure the consultants used to sell the plan. There is no need to find a nexus. Just negotiate.

[Post removed because it refers to a post that has been removed for violating terms of use.]

Anything more than a bike/ped tunnel is a complete non-starter. A vehicle tunnel from Linfield Oaks to the Stanford property makes about as much sense as a skyscraper in downtown Menlo.

"Easy - upon entry each vehicle would be automatically issued a parking ticket that noted its point of entry and that vehicle would only be allowed to exit via the same entry point."

As much as declaring the "Alma-only" tunnel connected to El Camino Real, save for a ticketing gate. Among other practical issues, who would pay for the ticketing infrastructure, something which likely isn't in Stanford's current plan? Would a parking attendant be needed in the event of problems with the ticketing/gate equipment or to help deal with lost tickets or other "stupid user" mishaps? No, kindly keep this Trojan Horse in Lindenwood, Peter.

And, again, Stanford is well along with its current plan -- how receptive will the university be to the months or years of added delay an automobile tunnel might incur?

Gern

P.S. Vince's comments could only be construed a personal attack by someone overeager or conditioned to find insult.

As I recall, we discussed a car tunnel under the tracks, not whether it would go to ECR or the Stanford garage. Either way, it is a car tunnel and not in the Specific Plan.

Characterizing certain rhetorical techniques as nasty is not a personal insult. However, ad hominem attacks about how I behaved on the planning commission are personal.

I'm wondering why Peter Carpenter is allowed to attack other posters, especially someone like Vincent Bressler who has contributed so much to our city, and yet any negative comments about Peter are immediately deleted, just as this one will be.

Editor's Note: moderators try to keep posters on-topic, and make an effort to remove all personal attacks. There appears to be room for disagreement among posters about what constitutes an "attack," but we try to be fair and consistent.

"As I recall, we discussed a car tunnel under the tracks, not whether it would go to ECR or the Stanford garage"

Thank you.

In fact a car tunnel that connects Alma only to the Stanford project has not previously been considered.

And suggesting that the neighborhoods adjacent to the project which would share both the benefits and costs of a bicycle and pedestrian connection should also share the benefits and cost of a limited vehicle connection to the projects' parking area ONLY is certainly not "nasty" but rather rational.

Peter - you are quoting me out of context and declaring victory.

I seldom read this forum or post here because this sort of thing is permitted. And that is too bad, because development interests stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars in our area and this should be an important and counterbalancing voice for the residents, but it has been subverted.

When two acre commercial lots with a building sell for 50 M dollars, a few hundred thousand dollars to throw at local elections is nothing, so people who really want to look after the resident's interest have no voice.

I just came back from lovely walk on New York City's High Line:

Web Link

Wouldn't it be great if we could vertically separate pedestrians and bicycles from automobiles on ECR or from trains on the CalTrain right of way?

Oh yes, I know it would be expensive but cheap solutions don't seem to provide a long term answers.

Peter Carpenter, thanks for the forward thinking about putting the train underground.

If that will not be done tunnels for grade separation would do a lot for safety. Various things could be done to mitigate traffic for Linfield Oaks. One solution might be to close Willow (and other side streets) at Alma so that Linfield Oaks could only be entered from the Middlefield side.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Feb 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm
"One thought is the put the trains underground, use the surface rights above it for housing in the stretches between stations and use the surface above the stations for transit connections and parking. The surface area of the current right of way is very valuable land - particularly in Atherton - and could generate a lot of the needed capital.

Why not take this as an opportunity to design a multi-dimensional, multi-purpose system that uses the existing right-of-way that includes CalTrain, HSR, utility conduits for telephone and internet cables, surface housing with high density housing around each station. And add a pedestrian path and a separate bicycle path on the surface along the entire right of way. And include 3 or 4 12" conduits for the technology of the future.

We should think of this right of way as an integrated multi-modal communications spine for the peninsula."

Do it once and do it right.

In many cases, including this one, pulling the 'personal attack' card is simply a way for fellow commenters to stifle alternative or strong opinions,
or prevent bruising of their tender egos.

SFGate.com does a great job of encouraging vigorous discussion in their article comments sections. And posters are *required* to register, unlike the Almanac's website.

Maybe we could learn something from them.

A bicycle/pedestrian tunnel is needed. This will benefit the Menlo Park (east or the tracks) residents as well as the merchants along El Camino such as Big 5 and Safeway. It would provide easy access to Burgess Park for those living on Middle Ave or surrounding streets. It would also provide access to those living in the proposed Stanford project. A tunnel for cars is nonsense. Willow road will be backed up into the Linfield neighborhood all the way to 101 all afternoon. . The car tunnel provides NOTHING to the residents of Linfield Oaks, Seminary Oaks or the Willows but make a bad problem even worse. MP council and the transportation commission needs to do what is best for its residents and a car tunnel full of cars all day is not it.

Please understand that what I am proposing is an automobile connection between the PARKING at the Stanford project and Alma. This would NOT provide an automobile connection between Alma and ECR.

Absent such an automobile connection :
1 - many of the residents/tenants of the Stanford project will park in Linfield Oaks and use the pedestrian tunnels
2 -all of the automobiles that would use this connection would instead use Ravenswood and ECR.

Can anyone propose a better traffic mitigation measure?

Your clever plan misses one important detail, Peter. Because no automobile access from Alma was indicated in the plan, the EIR did not cover the ramifications of allowing cars to enter via Alma. Obviously, routing cars to Alma rather than El Camino would have major impacts on streets and intersections that have not been included in previous studies. Stanford and the city are not likely to be pleased at the idea of a multi-year delay, and to what benefit? As currently configured, the traffic will be carried on higher capacity streets. Why push it into adjacent neighborhoods?

In any case, Stanford project cars will not park in Linfield Oaks, as there will be permits issued only to residents, just as residents of streets near certain schools have managed to have street parking banned.

"The proposal also requires consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some or all of the project may have been adequately considered by the program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was completed as part of the Specific Plan, although this is subject to detailed review. "

I was just reading on PA Online that Palo Alto is thinking about trenching for high speed rail. I really hope that Menlo Park can be part of a comprehensive plan for this -- whether it will involve elevated tracks, a trench, putting the rails underground, or something else. This is going to impact everyone along the tracks.

The years of meetings and discussions leading to the Specific Plan of course covered all these issues. There was consensus that rejuvenating the empty car lots would create major traffic issues, and as such improvements to the capacity of El Camino were made integral to approval of the Plan. (And Yes, SAnd Hill to Alma is part of the problem, but outside the reach of Menlo Park zoning.) I said then that increased density would not work if the City did not commit to these improvements, and at the time we had that commitment. The City has to make those improvements or we will have grid lock.

But long term, we cannot rely on automobiles - and certainly not bicycles or buses, the numbers just don't add up. The peninsula has reached a point where we need another way. Peter Carpenter's post about a multi-dimensional CalTrain right of way is a good place to start.

This talking shop is getting nowhere. One group is talking about building a bike tunnel, the other about re-aligning the tracks for HSR. And some individuals are talking about both. Both are incompatible with eachother so as a community, we need to get out stories straight if anything is ever going to happen.

Or as a best case, we'll have a concrete bike tunnel dangling above an HSR trench.

We must deal with the realities of today. The Council is reviewing the Specific Plan, as well it should. Remember that the plan thought there would be a big hotel on the Stanford site? That's not gonna happen.
The tunnel and other improvements should happen, but the council needs to figure out how to pay for it, and changing the public benefit threshold is a start.

There is a reason to conduct the biennial review the DSP, not just point backwards to 5+ years in the past, but to look at here and now and do something about it.

The realities of today dictate that any sort of tunnel connecting willow rd to el Camino is idiotic. Traffic on willow rd currently moves at a snails pace from middle field to 101 or the expressway. Adding traffic from another source such as el Camino would create such a logjam of cars that it would not be until 9pm before it would clear. This is a two lane rd that was adequate back in 1980 but is way past its planned vehicle capacity in 2015. The pollution and noise from cars is awful for those living on the road because they sit backed up from 2pm to 7pm most week nights. To plan the same for those living on willow rd from alma to middlefield is unacceptable and would only make a bad problem worse, ask the fire dept if they would agree. Find another route other then in Menlo Parf because it does not have one that would work.