Town Square

Post a New Topic

Report: How Stanford project may add to Menlo Park traffic woes

Original post made on Mar 6, 2017

A draft environmental impact report on Stanford University's proposed 459,000-square-foot mixed-use development on El Camino Real was released Feb. 28 and, not surprisingly, the complex is expected to make traffic worse in Menlo Park.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, March 6, 2017, 11:29 AM

Comments (18)

7 people like this
Posted by Neilson Buchanan
a resident of another community
on Mar 6, 2017 at 12:44 pm

As a Palo Alto resident, I am relieved to read that there is no impact on any adjacent city. Rules of government are certainly different than laws of physics.

Palo Alto city government is equally considerate to its neighboring towns when Palo Alto projects are approved.


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 6, 2017 at 1:12 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"there is no impact on any adjacent city. "

Menlo Park goes even further and routinely claims that projects on which it serves as the Lead Agency have NO IMPACT on other agencies.

Sophistry at best.


Like this comment
Posted by resident,
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Mar 6, 2017 at 1:42 pm


With what has already been approved for Stanford expansion and adding this project, I have a dumb question,

"What will all these new workers be doing?"

Apparently business is good at Stanford, Is there no limit to how many new employees they have positions for?


Like this comment
Posted by Stan
a resident of Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde
on Mar 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Ahhh! Leave it to Menlo Park to provide us with a true, living example of solipsism.


2 people like this
Posted by Joe Cullen
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 6, 2017 at 4:02 pm

The Willows is already a cut-thru nightmare. Cars stacked up trying to get on Willow to cross 101 mean retired people such as myself who live in the Willows cannot get to 101 without horrible waits (near 101) to get on Willow.

This project will have major further degradation impacts.


12 people like this
Posted by Dana Hendrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 6, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Finally, a commercial design that will enhance the overall quality of life in Menlo Park and beautify a stretch of El Camino that has remained a BIG eyesore of empty car lots and showrooms for way too many years. Any new development will add traffic but I anticipate that a MAJORITY of residents will welcome the benefits and trade-offs. 512 new residents and 500 new office workers will provide a BIG opportunity for Menlo Park businesses and enhance downtown vibrancy. I hope Stanford starts "digging" in 2017! Is there a work party schedule posted somewhere?


12 people like this
Posted by Brian
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 6, 2017 at 4:48 pm

"Palo Alto city government is equally considerate to its neighboring towns when Palo Alto projects are approved."

That is funny. Like how Palo Alto forces all traffic From Alma to turn right into Menlo Park instead of giving the option of going straight onto Sand Hill or Left into Palo Alto. How about what Palo Alto did with the Sand Hill bridge...

I would like Menlo Park to explore the option of forcing all cars leaving this new development to turn left onto El Camino. That will force the majority of users of this Stanford Development onto Sand Hill or University.


7 people like this
Posted by new guy
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 6, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Wow Brian, that is an amazing idea. One of which I will ask our representatives to follow. Left turn only onto ECR, until Alma has a left turn lane!

Did you think any dev. would add nothing to traffic. So we in MP somehow let RC and PA build tons of new stuff (housing and office) and now that we finally get to build, it is gridlock everywhere... how does that work? So somehow we don't get to build on empty lots?

So tired of this. Tired that there is no money for schools, no money for crumbling roads, etc.

Hello gov't! We are in the best times ever and there is no money do get anything done? So sick of this. Where does all my tax money go?


6 people like this
Posted by LL Pants on F
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 6, 2017 at 8:24 pm

We're now entering, what, year 10? of Peter Carpenter trying to use CEQA (California's environmental information/education law) to get more $$$$$ for the wasteful Fire District. CEQA is about development that paves over wetlands or annoys tiny owls, but he continues to use FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt) to say that the fact that the FD gets MORE MONEY THAN THE CITY DOES FROM PROPERTY TAX is somehow "not enough" for them to protect lives. How about the FD Board does its job, instead of trying to usurp land use authority?


2 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 6, 2017 at 8:37 pm

[Post removed. If you have specific evidence of corruption, let us know: editor@AlmanacNews.com]


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

David:

what a nice smear of your fellow Menlo Park residents that serve the city. For free. Nice. Do you have ANY evidence to back up your claim that our city council members are corrupt?


2 people like this
Posted by Nealon and Oak Knoll children at risk
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 7, 2017 at 9:23 pm

Wow, from the newly released EIR traffic analysis using conservative, city staff directed trip distribution data to downplay this massive projects impact on Allied Arts and West Menlo, and Oak Knoll School children ..

Only conservative estimated traffic increase, per the draft EIR traffic analysis,estimated at 500-1000 more cars on Middle. West of ECR to University....100 plus more on Cambridge...just from this project alone...their "best guess"....and then whet does that traffic go after impacting Middle and Cambridge residential streets?...

Likely continuing on Middle and Cambridge to seek "cut through" routes severely impacting our already heavily impacted West Menlo residential streets as commute traffic finds short cuts to Alameda and 280....

Yet , the traffic and EIR consultants, together with city staff direction, propose as mitigation, for congestion at Middle/ECR intersection a SECOND dedicated left turn lane from NB ECR onto Middle.....Seriously...a Mitigation?

A Double Barreled shotgun "mitigation" pointed at the direct peril of parents and children accessing Nealon Park on Middle, as well as the rest of West Menlo and Oak Knoll School neighborhood kids so city council can once again rollover to Stanford to not carry its project generated traffic on a deliberately undersized 2 lane Sand Hill road from Arboretum to ECR...plus no direct connection to Alma St in Palo Alto....typical of Stanford Development and Palo Alto steamrolling weak MP Councils, past and present, by dumping Stanford development generated traffic on Allied Arts and West Menlo residential streets.

Time to push back on Stanford and MP City Council....ENOUGH....make Stanford widen Sand Hill from ECR to Arboretum to 4 lanes....prohibit U Turns at Cambridge/ECR.....as Palo Alto prohibits any turning movements from outbound Alma St onto ECR other than right out to ECR...and no access from Sand Hill to Alma.....seriously impacting ECR in MP... place more stop signs on Middle...at Nealon Park,,San Mateo Dr...so Middle doesn't become even more of a bypass thru West Menlo by speeding commuters bypassing Sand Hill Rd congestion with its multitude of signals and 2 lane bottleneck approaching ECR.

Maybe former MP Transportation Commissioner and incumbent Council Member Ray Mueller deigns to protect the residents and children of Allied Arts and Oak Knoll School neighborhoods from this impending onslaught of Stanford generated traffic?
Don't expect the rest of MP Council to stand up for Allied Arts, West Menlo and Oak Knoll School neighborhood children...


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 7, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Nealon:

no, it is not time to "push back". This matter has been discussed ad nauseum for six years and decided. The "push back" came with Measure M which was SOUNDLY defeated. Perhaps you heard of it? Sorry if you don't like it but the DSP was approved. Its time to move forward and get rid of the blighted lots we've all been living with for 10 plus years.


8 people like this
Posted by Please handle your traffic Stanford!
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Mar 7, 2017 at 10:01 pm

Stanford....it's no mystery that you deliberately let the former car lots deteriorate into weed infested lots. then Tesla, for a while, then some Tech thing in the former Tesla building....as a deliberate effort to curry favor with MP City Council to allow this project to proceed.
Fine, no problem, good project, But take care of current and projected Stanford generated traffic that impacts Allied Arts and West Menlo residents (with notable exception of aforeposter "Menlo Voter") by widening Sand Hill to 4 lanes from ECR to Arboretum...time the SHR signals that are badly timed to encourage commuters to use SHR instead of cutting thru West Menlo residential streets...and let PA know that as long as they don't allow full turning movements and access from SHR to Alma, that Menlo will fight back by prohibiting NB ECR u turns at Cambridge as our "mitigation" for your capitulation to PA...


2 people like this
Posted by Dana Hendrickson
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Perhaps prohibiting U-Turns at both Cambridge AND Middle would greatly reduce the commute traffic that passes thru Menlo Park from Alma (evening) and Sand Hill (morning) as motorists would need to travel further and encounter stop lights at Roble and Ravenswood - an unpleasant experience, for sure. (*Motorists could still reach the gas station from Middle.)

Is it time for Stanford and Palo Alto to connect Quarry Road to Alma (near Everett)? That could make a HUGE difference.
Or, if Stanford prefers, add another vehicle lane to Palm between El Camino and Arboretum. It could expand capacity that changed by time of day.


5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 16, 2017 at 1:56 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Is it time for Stanford and Palo Alto to connect Quarry Road to Alma (near Everett)? That could make a HUGE difference."


Stanford has always supported such a connection - Palo Alto refuses to allow it to happen.


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Remember that the least traffic impact from this project according to the EIR would be all residential.

Just imagine if Stanford made it all graduate student housing and included very frequent Marguerite service.

And with such a use the project could even be taken off the property tax rolls.

No service impact on Menlo Park and no revenue impact on Menlo Park.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda

on Sep 25, 2017 at 10:59 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 848 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 604 views