Date: September 21, 2026
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Re: Parkline Phase 2 — Traffic, Safety, Cumulative Transportation Impacts, and Post-Occupancy Planning
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We are closely monitoring the progress of the Parkline/SRI development area along Ravenswood Avenue because the project will directly affect the surrounding residential community and the transportation network serving this area.
We are not opposed to affordable housing. We recognize that affordable housing serves an important community need, including for teachers, clerical workers, and other members of the local workforce.
Our principal concerns are transportation, traffic congestion, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and whether the City has an adequate and enforceable plan for addressing transportation impacts both before and after the proposed development is occupied.
The proposed Phase 2 revisions are substantial. The City describes the current proposal as increasing the overall residential program from 800 units approved in 2025 to 1,082 units, together with approximately 901,493 square feet of office/R&D uses and approximately 40,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail.
The scale of this development, considered together with other major developments in the surrounding transportation network, makes it important to evaluate transportation impacts at the corridor and network level rather than only on a project-by-project basis.
1. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION — A CONNECTED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Our primary concern is the existing and future operation of the connected transportation network serving Menlo Park.
Ravenswood Avenue is a relatively short east-west corridor, with one travel lane in each direction in the area of concern. The Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue intersection already experiences significant congestion during peak travel periods.
The issue is not simply how many trips are generated directly by Parkline Phase 2. It is how additional demand from Parkline, 80 Willow Road, and other developments interacts with traffic already moving through the surrounding network.
The September 14, 2026 Planning Commission discussion was particularly important in this regard. The Planning Commission Chair specifically asked whether the City has a comprehensive traffic-mitigation plan for the broader Ravenswood/Middlefield corridor that considers the cumulative effects of multiple developments and changing traffic patterns.
City staff acknowledged the concern and indicated that Transportation/Public Works was aware of the issues, but that staff would need to provide additional information regarding specific plans.
We respectfully ask the City to address this issue before the revised Parkline project proceeds.
1. PARKLINE, 80 WILLOW ROAD, AND TRAFFIC FLOW THROUGH MENLO PARK
We understand that Parkline Phase 2 and 80 Willow Road have different primary traffic-impact locations.
For 80 Willow Road, one important traffic approach is from U.S. 101 via Willow Road. However, not all traffic entering Menlo Park from U.S. 101 via Willow Road is destined for 80 Willow Road.
For traffic approaching Menlo Park from the South Bay on northbound U.S. 101, a large portion of the traffic exiting onto Willow Road continues west through Willow Road and Middlefield Road toward Ravenswood Avenue, crosses the railroad, and proceeds toward downtown Menlo Park and residential areas west of the railroad.
Traffic approaching Menlo Park from the north on southbound U.S. 101 can also enter the area through the Marsh Road–Middlefield Road–Ravenswood Avenue corridor before crossing the railroad toward downtown and other western Menlo Park destinations.
Accordingly, congestion at Willow Road/U.S. 101 and Willow Road/Middlefield Road can affect traffic farther west along Middlefield Road and Ravenswood Avenue, even when individual trips are not destined for 80 Willow Road.
The City has previously documented congestion and queueing at multiple locations along this connected network. The Parkline environmental documents, for example, identified observed queues on Willow Road between U.S. 101 and Middlefield Road and significant queuing farther west at Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue.
We therefore respectfully ask the City to evaluate the transportation network as a connected system, including:
• Willow Road/U.S. 101;
• Willow Road/Middlefield Road;
• Middlefield Road/Ringwood Avenue;
• Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue;
• Ravenswood Avenue and the surrounding pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and
• the railroad crossing and roadway network west of the railroad.
The City should evaluate not only project-generated trips, but also how additional demand at upstream intersections can affect downstream traffic flow, queueing, and intersection operations.
1. THE SCALE OF PARKLINE PHASE 2
The proposed Phase 2 is substantially larger than the 800-unit project previously approved.
The current proposal includes:
• 1,082 residential units;
• approximately 901,493 square feet of office/R&D uses;
• approximately 40,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail;
• approximately 14 acres of publicly accessible open space; and
• two parking structures.
The transportation effects of this development will therefore involve more than residential vehicle trips.
The completed project will involve residents, office employees, retail employees, customers and visitors, delivery vehicles, service vehicles, rideshare and pickup/drop-off activity, and other transportation movements.
We also note that during the September 14 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated that the amount of retail was still in flux and could potentially be higher than the approximately 40,000 square feet currently described, subject to the applicable project and environmental review framework.
We respectfully ask the City to ensure that the transportation analysis corresponds to the actual development program ultimately proposed and approved.
1. EXISTING CONGESTION AND STUDENT SAFETY
We are particularly concerned about the Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue intersection because of its proximity to Menlo-Atherton High School and the number of students who walk or bicycle through this area.
Traffic conditions during school arrival and dismissal periods may not be fully represented by conventional weekday AM and PM peak-hour analyses.
The City should specifically evaluate:
• school arrival and dismissal conditions;
• pedestrian crossing conditions;
• bicycle movements and conflicts;
• vehicle queues approaching Middlefield/Ravenswood;
• interactions between turning vehicles and students;
• the Ravenswood pedestrian/bicycle path; and
• the ability of emergency vehicles to move through the corridor when congestion is severe.
The September 14 Planning Commission discussion also raised concerns about whether the existing Ravenswood bicycle and pedestrian facilities are adequate for students and other bicycle commuters.
We respectfully ask the City to address these concerns as part of the Phase 2 review.
1. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT?
This is our most important question.
Before a project of this scale is approved, it is reasonable to ask not only what the City expects the transportation conditions to be, but also what happens if actual conditions after occupancy are materially worse than anticipated.
Accordingly, we respectfully ask:
If, after Parkline Phase 2 is substantially completed and occupied, actual traffic congestion, vehicle queuing, pedestrian safety, or bicycle safety is materially worse than anticipated, what specifically can the City do at that point?
Does the City have a post-occupancy monitoring and mitigation framework?
Will there be measurable thresholds or other objective criteria that would trigger additional traffic-control, circulation, pedestrian-safety, bicycle-safety, or other transportation improvements?
Which mitigation measures will be enforceable after project approval, rather than merely anticipated, recommended, or voluntary?
If future monitoring demonstrates that actual transportation impacts materially exceed the assumptions used in the Citys analysis, what legal, contractual, development-agreement, or other mechanisms would allow the City to require or implement additional mitigation?
We believe these questions should be answered before approval, rather than after the project has been constructed and occupied.
1. CUMULATIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
The September 14 Planning Commission discussion also raised a broader question: whether the City has a sufficiently comprehensive transportation strategy for the cumulative effects of multiple major developments coming online within the same connected network.
We respectfully ask the City to identify the projects included in its cumulative transportation analysis and explain how the City has evaluated their combined effects on:
• Willow Road;
• Middlefield Road;
• Ravenswood Avenue;
• the railroad crossing;
• downtown Menlo Park;
• pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and
• emergency access.
We recognize that the City has conducted project-specific transportation analyses and has existing transportation planning, traffic-control, Transportation Demand Management, and infrastructure programs.
Our concern is whether those measures, considered together, are sufficient for the scale and timing of the development now being proposed.
1. CONSTRUCTION-PERIOD TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
Construction impacts should be considered separately from the completed project.
A development of this scale will involve substantial construction activity, including construction workers, heavy equipment, concrete trucks, steel and rebar deliveries, dump trucks, material deliveries, and other large vehicles.
We respectfully ask the City to require an enforceable construction traffic-control plan that specifically addresses:
• designated construction truck routes;
• restrictions on truck staging and waiting on public streets;
• truck turning and backing movements;
• conflicts with school arrival and dismissal periods;
• trained flaggers or other qualified traffic-control personnel;
• protected pedestrian and bicycle routes;
• temporary barriers and signage where appropriate;
• emergency access; and
• measures to prevent construction traffic from being shifted onto adjacent Atherton residential streets.
Because of the proximity of Menlo-Atherton High School and the three Atherton residences along Ravenswood Avenue, these issues should be addressed before major construction begins.
1. PROTECTION OF THE THREE ATHERTON RESIDENCES
There are three long-established single-family residences along the Atherton portion of Ravenswood Avenue that are directly affected by the proposed development.
These homes are one-story residences on approximately one-acre lots and have been part of this residential neighborhood for many decades.
The scale and intensity of the proposed development are substantially different from the existing residential character immediately across Ravenswood Avenue.
We respectfully ask the City to consider the particular impacts on these residences, including:
• direct sightlines into private yards and homes;
• windows, balconies, terraces, and other elevated views;
• lighting and nighttime visibility;
• construction-related visibility and activity;
• pedestrian and vehicular activity immediately adjacent to the residences;
• construction-worker access and site security; and
• long-term privacy and neighborhood compatibility.
These concerns are not based on opposition to the future residents of Parkline or to affordable housing. They arise from the unusually close proximity and substantial difference in scale between the proposed development and these three long-established one-story residences.
1. R3 AND THE LOCATION OF THE 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
We also respectfully ask the City to evaluate whether the location of the proposed 100% affordable R3 building can be reconsidered.
The current Phase 2 proposal includes an approximately 1.6-acre parcel to be dedicated to an affordable housing developer for construction of up to 154 affordable units.
We support retaining the affordable-housing objective.
Our question is whether the affordable housing building must be located at the current Ravenswood/Middlefield corner.
We respectfully ask the City and applicant to evaluate whether an alternative R3 location along the Ravenswood frontage, in an area benefiting from substantial existing physical and visual separation associated with the Corpus Christi Monastery property, could provide a separately developable parcel while retaining the affordable-housing objective and reducing impacts on the three Atherton residences.
We are not suggesting that such an alternative is necessarily feasible.
Rather, we ask that the City and applicant evaluate it based on the applicable requirements, including:
• property ownership and boundaries;
• parcel configuration;
• zoning and setbacks;
• access;
• fire and life-safety requirements;
• utilities;
• open-space requirements;
• historic-resource considerations;
• construction feasibility; and
• the requirements applicable to the nonprofit affordable-housing developer.
If the current R3 location was selected because of a specific legal, ownership, financing, access, infrastructure, or development requirement, we respectfully ask the City to explain that basis.
1. OUR REQUEST
We respectfully ask the City Council to consider the following before approving the revised Parkline Phase 2 proposal:
1. Evaluate Parkline Phase 2 within the broader transportation network rather than considering the project in isolation.
2. Evaluate the combined effects of Parkline, 80 Willow Road, and other major developments on the connected Willow Road–Middlefield Road–Ravenswood Avenue corridor.
3. Specifically evaluate how congestion at Willow Road/U.S. 101 and Willow Road/Middlefield Road may affect downstream traffic flow toward Middlefield/Ravenswood and west of the railroad.
4. Specifically evaluate Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue during school arrival and dismissal periods, including pedestrian and bicycle safety.
5. Identify the transportation improvements, mitigation measures, and enforceable commitments that will accompany the increased development program.
6. Establish a post-occupancy transportation monitoring framework, including objective criteria or thresholds that would trigger additional mitigation if actual conditions materially exceed expectations.
7. Identify the Citys legal or contractual authority to require additional transportation or safety measures if post-occupancy conditions demonstrate that existing mitigation is insufficient.
8. Require a comprehensive construction traffic-control plan addressing heavy construction vehicles, school traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency access, and adjacent Atherton residential streets.
9. Establish appropriate construction-period security, screening, and privacy protections for the three Atherton residences.
10. Evaluate whether an alternative location for R3 could retain the 100% affordable-housing objective while reducing the direct visual, privacy, lighting, and neighborhood-compatibility impacts on the three Atherton residences.
We appreciate that the City is reviewing a complex project involving housing, employment, retail, transportation, environmental review, and public infrastructure.
Our purpose is not to oppose development or affordable housing. Our purpose is to ask that the City ensure that transportation and public-safety planning are adequate for the scale of development being proposed, and that there is a meaningful and enforceable mechanism for responding if actual conditions after completion are materially worse than anticipated.
We respectfully ask that these questions be addressed as part of the Citys review of Parkline Phase 2.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Cheng
bc_msc@hotmail.com
P.S. A copy of this letters word file is also attached herewith
