Please require Stanford to fund periodic [not less than every 3 years] peer review of its TDM assertions and programs. Peer review consultant should be jointly selected by SC County and Palo Alto City Council, if possible. For example, See peer review programs provided by firms such as www.altrans.net Peer Review Commonly outlined in a site's EIR, a peer review process is required by the permitting authority (city, county, etc.) to verify whether or not EIR mandated goals have been achieved. The results of a peer review can mean the difference between construction being completed or completely shutting down. ALTRANS has undertaken peer reviews of site-wide TDM plans, as well as reviews of specific components and goals of TDM plans. ALTRANS' experience as a TDM organization lends the advantage of knowing what a successful TDM plan looks like on paper and in practice. Altrans - Alternative Transportation Solutions: Services | | | | Altrans - Alternative Transportation Solutions: Services Altrans, Transportation Management Association specializes in traffic demand services for businesses, schools an... | | | Neilson Buchanan155 Bryant StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484650 537-9611 cellcnsbuchanan_at_(domainremoved) On Thursday, February 1, 2018, 9:18:52 AM PST, Neilson Buchanan Please consider the following issues in your evaluation of Stanford expansion plans 1. The term, or period of approval, is too long. Nobody can accurately or crudely anticipate work, transit, academic and housing parameters during the years stated in the GUP. The best solution would be mutually reasonably terms to reopen approval every 8-10 years. 2. Stanford is making wild transportation assumptions, especially about improved Caltrain capacity to service to its students, faculty and employees. Development incentives have created a massive wave of housing/commercial development throughout the rail corridor. Caltrain service is almost guaranteed to disappoint the employers and employees assuming live/work benefits along the corridor. There is no data addressing the obvious surge in demand that will chase "boarding" as these projects move toward completion. Planning scenarios are not rocket science and are being willfully avoided by agency and city official whom we blindly trust. 3. Stanford is making questionable demographic assumptions, especially impact upon PAUSD. I fully support the comments submitted by the PAUSD Board 4. Let's keep perspective. Stanford planning process is better than any other private or public process in the entire Bay Area. Let's acknowledge a 90/10 rule. 90% of Stanford planning has proven to have real merit. 10% of its planning is obscure and out of public view. This 10% is not in the interest of citizens impacted by plans presented by Stanford. Stanford questionable claims and short-comings can be addressed by an open audit process involving outside experts to professionally fact-check performance goals in the GUP. 5. Trust; but verify. Neilson Buchanan155 Bryant StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484650 537-9611 cellcnsbuchanan_at_(domainremoved) Received on Fri Feb 02 2018 - 23:41:11 PST
