Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Stanford GUP draft EIR: SAN MATEO COUNTY (Unincorporated West Menlo) IMPACTS MUST BE CONSIDERED

From: domainremoved <davidappel_at_>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:22:49 -0800

> County of Santa Clara
> Department of Planning and Development
> Attention: David Rader
> County Government Center
> 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110
> Phone: (408) 299-5779
>
> Dear Mr. Rader,
>
> I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the area of West Menlo Park that falls under the jurisdiction of Unincorporated San Mateo County.
>
> Upon review of the EIR for the 2018 Stanford GUP, it appears that while Santa Clara County, the City of Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park are all considered key affected jurisdictions, San Mateo County has not been given the same level of importance. The planned growth at Stanford will have an extremely significant impact on the already terrible traffic along the Alpine/Santa Cruz/Alameda de las Pulgas Corridor of unincorporated Menlo Park not just during the single am and pm peak traffic hour which currently defines the No New Net Commute Trip standard. Traffic could worsen for 22 other hours of the day and no mitigation funds would be paid.
>
> The No New Net Commute Trip standard disproportionately disadvantages residents of West Menlo Park.
>
> 1) It is unlikely that trip reductions will actually be occurring within West Menlo Park as there are no significant efforts demonstrated by Stanford to reduce traffic congestion along the Alpine/Santa Cruz/Alameda Corridor. Trip reductions that occur in other areas may allow enough trip credits for Stanford to meet its No New Net Commute Trip standard thus allowing negative impacts to West Menlo Park to be ignored.
>
> 2) Funding of off-campus circulation infrastructure improvements may qualify for trip credits as long as the improvements would enhance safety or increase mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists or transit users within the local impact area. While at face value, it seems like this could benefit West Menlo Park, a requirement for such credits is evidence demonstrating how the infrastructure project would remove vehicular trips from the local impact area. Without a commitment from Stanford to redirect vehicles away from or off our congested Corridor, this will not be possible.
>
> It does not include additional traffic related to other Stanford developments that disproportionately affect our Corridor. Specifically, it does not include hospital trips (for employees and visitors) for which many are initiated from West Menlo Park roadways feeding into West Sand Hill Rd nor trips to other Stanford development projects along Sand Hill Road.
>
> The EIR should guarantee that funds for transportation mitigation not be given to distant transit hubs, rather funds should be directed to projects that benefit the affected neighborhoods/geographic area.
>
> In summary, it is incumbent that the EIR acknowledge the traffic congestion that will impact nearby main roadways in San Mateo County specifically Alpine Road, Santa Cruz Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas. Simply painting bike lanes on Santa Cruz Avenue is not significant enough. Rather, the funding of pedestrian infrastructure (new sidewalks, crosswalk signage and striping, re-engineering the Y intersection and other more costly improvements) and increased Marguerite shuttles are examples of real mitigations that would make a difference in the lives of those in our part of town.
>
> The draft EIR does not adequately represent the interests of those of us in San Mateo County. Even though Stanford is located in Santa Clara County, much of the traffic will be felt elsewhere.
>
> Sincerely,
> David Appel
>
> ----------------------
>
> BACKGROUND INFO/RESOURCES:
> Introduction news release about GUP from Stanford https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/15/planning-future-stanfords-physical-campus/
> SUPER SHORT: Stanford Brochure of 2018 General Use Plan (GUP) draft Environmental Impact Review (EIR) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BM4gZWP7M6U3JDNHRCWnAzcUU/view
> SHORT: Stanford Summary of draft EIR https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BM4gZWP7M6eFF3eWdvSVQ1LTg/view
> Nov 15 Community Meeting Regarding the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report
> Who: Hosted by Santa Clara County Planning Department
> When: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:30 PM-8:30 PM
> Where: Menlo Park City Council Chambers
> Why: The purpose of the meeting is receive comments, questions, and opinions from the public regarding the Draft EIR for Stanford University’s 2018 General Use Permit.
> Nov 30 Santa Clara County Planning Commission Meeting Announcement https://gup.stanford.edu/the-project/schedule
> For folks who want to read through more detailed info: https://gup.stanford.edu OR from the Santa Clara County website: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/Stanford.aspx
> For info about the draft EIR prepared by Santa Clara County https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/GUP2018_CEQA.aspx
> Check out p. 30 of the "Agency Comments" where SMC Planning and Building Dept. provided feedback in Feb 2017 to a portion of the GUP. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SU_GUP2018_ScopingMeeting_AgencyComments.pdf.
> Stanford presented to San Mateo Board of Supervisors Tuesday, Nov 7, 2017 - http://sanmateocounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=137&meta_id=31270. The discussion is quite revealing as to how San Mateo County has missed out on 2000 GUP mitigation funds and will continue with the proposed 2018 GUP as it stands. Dave Pine asks some probing questions.
> Here is a link to the video of the April 25, 2017 BOS GUP presentation by Stanford with Santa Clara Planning to the BOS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKz6RJvdrRg&index=106&list=PLvrcFuwLyzqO9lwr8kicJTSAYAIAUaQ1T&t=6119s
> Stanford's presentation starts at 1:15.
> A key part to watch is after the presentation at 1:36 when Sup. Horsley states that SMC is disproportionately affected, especially Alpine Rd.
> At 1:50 Dave Pine asks Stanford (Catherine Walther and Santa Clara County (Kirk Girard, Director of Planning and Development) to comment on the lack of mitigation for SMC. Mr. Girard says,“we don’t have the social infrastructure" to share. Sup. Pine said that the document should acknowledge that the County should "be a recipient of traffic mitigation funds” yet this was not written into the draft EIR prepared by Santa Clara County
Received on Sat Dec 02 2017 - 08:27:17 PST

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)