https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2011/04/05/menlo-park-stanford-hospital-eir-defective


Town Square

Menlo Park: Stanford hospital EIR 'defective'

Original post made on Apr 5, 2011

After examining the potential traffic snarls presented by the planned Stanford hospital expansion, staff is asking the City Council to send a letter to Palo Alto stating that if Stanford agrees to pay more for mitigations, then the city will not try to delay the project -- even though the draft letter calls the project's final environmental impact report (EIR) defective due to underestimating the traffic impact.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 10:32 AM

Comments

Posted by G. Steinberg
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Apr 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm

Menlo Park is not troubled by the bigger traffic snarl that will be the result of Stanford's expansion, all they want is more money. For what?
That will precious little to help with traffic. Proves again that anybody can be bought off when politics are involved.
One solution will be a new entrance from 280 directly to the Stanford campus, through the hills and golf course, with a bridge over Junipera Serra. That would help a lot in West Menlo and Portola Valley


Posted by Sheila Starr
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Apr 5, 2011 at 1:10 pm

If the ridiculous necessity to only turn left or right at the intersection of Alma, El Camino Real, and Sand Hill Road were eliminated, a whole load of traffic that subsequently ends up in Menlo Park would end forthwith.

A long line of cars turns LEFT onto El Camino and then left onto Cambridge Avenue. Once on Cambridge they either a) make a U-Turn or b)turn left onto Alto Lane. They then return to ECR and cross three lanes of traffic to get into the left turn lane for Alma.

This supposed "mitigation" was to prevent traffic going straight down Sand Hill and onto Alma.

When are Palo Alto and Menlo Park going to GROW UP and realise that we have a world-class university and medical center here? When are they going to put their small minded, petty, early 19th century thinking into THIS century.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm

This makes good comedy.

Menlo Park - "What do you think I am....?

Stanford - " We know what you are and now we are just talking about your price..."


Posted by Ladera Resident
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Apr 5, 2011 at 9:48 pm

I don't personally know who did the traffic study, but if I were them, I would not be happy to have someone playing politics just announce that the traffic study was deficient. I wish whoever is calling the traffic study deficient would give their qualifications for making such a professional determination and what they find deficient. I can't think of one thing that Menlo Park or Palo Alto has done to help with traffic - ever.

If I was Stanford I would block Palm Drive and put a guard shack there and just let people on campus that had business there. Let's see how Menlo Park and Palo Alto would like it if all the people that cut through Stanford on Campus Drive (East and West) had to commute through other roads.


Posted by peter principle
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 5, 2011 at 11:45 pm

Stanford and Palo Alto just got taken to task by MP City Council and staff.
Bill Phillips and his coven from Stanford and PA were made to look like fools.
BTW, Stanford and Palo Alto staff, we don't suffer fools gladly
Dig deeper now or you will pay in addition to legal costs to defend this travesty of an FEIR.


Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Apr 6, 2011 at 11:44 am

{Post removed. Personal attack violates terms of use.]


Posted by The MP Standard
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Apr 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

If only Menlo park staff would review Menlo Park projects and EIRs, such as the Bohannon projects, with the same set of standards with which the criticize those in other cities.