Wow, pro-growth Mayor Scharff showing his true colors and working against his colleagues and the City Manager. And to think he ran on a pro-resident platform funded by loans from himself. Those loans have not been paid back and can repaid by campaign contributions from developers like Stanford after he leaves office.

Scharff is always first and foremost for himself rather than for his City or in his role as Mayor speaking for City or Council positions. What he did here is outrageous and has undermined our City Manager Jim Keene. Of course we want a 60 day extension - that is only to our benefit. Scharff may want to run for another political office after he is termed out of city council next year. Remember this if you ever get to vote for him again - vote no. He is a lousy leader.

Mayor Scharff has indeed shown his true colors this year as mayor. He doesn't demonstrate respect for his colleagues. He doesn't follow council protocol and often appears to find his disrespect for colleagues to be amusing.

I understand that our council is very divided about issues but there is no excuse for disrespecting his colleagues. When he disrespects his colleagues he disrespects the entire electorate.

He has not earned our respect and we should all think twice about placing trust in him should he runs for higher office in the future.

Very sad state of affairs.

Interesting -Stanford can "accept" comments after the deadline, but the city will not be able to challenge Stanford's GUP and EIR in Court if the comments are submitted past the deadline.
I am not suggesting that PA should litigate, but Scharff should not rob the City of that legal right.

I am in favor of the extension. The traffic impact on all roads outside of the small academic zone is severe and easily appears that traffic would have double digit increases on key roads like Alpine, Sand Hill, Santa Cruz, El Camino, Embarcadero, University, Willows, Middlefield, Marsh, Alameda de las Pulgas, Valapariso, Page Mill, Junipero... Plus all of the neighborhood streets connecting these, as cut thru traffic and increased parking demand would appear to greatly increase.

This is complicated and without more time to look at recent traffic studies in concert with Stanford's analysis we don't have time to inform our neighbors and communities outside of Stanford lands.

Our ability to recommend mitigation to counter the increased traffic is unduly limited by not having the needed time to weight the new traffic analysis and other inputs - again not enough time to inform the community and gather their concerns and input to form a competent response to the Use permit.

From the article:

"[Mayor Scharff] said he hadn't heard that much demand from his constituents for an extended period"

I guess that means the big money developers who backed his campaign. Well, they're not likely to be the ones complaining about massive over-development in our town. So of course he hadn't heard much demand.

Accuracy of the traffic studies has always been questionable since they're often conducted during the lightest possible times and/or designed to make us as miserable as possible so the city can achieve its traffic reduction goals.

Just look at the recent changes to Willow, Ross, Middlefield, etc etc. and the fact that PA's even considering making University -- one to the 3 connectors to 101 -- pedestrian only,

We can't sustain any more traffic, esp. with all the new road barriers / "furniture" PA's put in place, along with the bulbouts, narrowed roads that are not only hazardous but also back up ALL traffic behind stopped buses, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Just say NO to the expansion and/or just keep extending the study indefinitely.

Everyone, Palo Alto and Menlo Park, write to the following to request for the 60 day extension.

kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org
david.rader@pln.sccgov.org
BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org
supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org
supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org
supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org
supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org
City.council@cityofpaloalto.org
liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org
Karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org
lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org
tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org
eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org
greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org
cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org
Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org
greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org
city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org

This is a project that will have unavoidable and incredibly significant negative cumulative impacts for Palo Alto and Menlo Park.

Let's all write to ensure the County is not confused as to the city's position. You are the city.

Scharff's effort to undermine the interests of the city are just plain shocking and disturbing. He violated his responsibilities to the city, the council and the community.
The big question that needs to be answered is why did he do this? Although he has had the backing of developers, this issue is about Stanford's interests, not local developers. Stanford has written a letter opposing requests from Menlo Park, Palo Alto and local citizens for a 60 day extension for comments on the Draft EIR. Scharff's comments support Stanford's position rather than the city he is sworn to represent. Why?

Scharff should be recalled. This is outrageous.

Why? Why would he go against our cities interest?

Can we order an investigation? How can we hold him accountable for his actions?

If he tries to run for office again, we should all remember this article! Sheesh!

Anyone who has watched council meetings on Channel 26 has seen Scharff violate meeting procedures, call on his buddies to the exclusion of others, be rude when he wants to, make motions improperly before others get to speak, and on and on.

Now that he is termed out he doesn't need to pretend to care about residents, he can openly push his real estate lawyer interests.

Maybe he wants something personally from Stanford. Time will tell.

Perhaps Mr. Sharff is trying to earn his keep as the new VP of ABAG and their commitment to aggressive growth regardless of the costs to our quality of life and safety.

In response to Seriously,

You ask why Scharf would not act in the interest of his constituents and go agains the council? It's because he always acts in HIS best interests first and foremost. He has been funded by developers, sometimes trying to hide it, and has to repay them. Those are the same developers that will benefit from Stanford's overbuilding in the future. So it is no surprise that he would go against those that favor a longer period to think things over and to provide more input from the residents of Palo Alto and Menlo Park and other interested parties. Just being true to form.

It is not clear that Scharff's support from and for developers is the prime driver that caused him to lobby on behalf of Stanford's interests over those of the community. Throughout his terms in office, he has been exceptionally cozy with Stanford and supportive of their interests.
He has also been clear to many peopple that he intends to run for county supervisor once Joe Simitian is termed out in three years.
We should not underestimate the power and influence of Stanford locally and regionally. Scharff clearly appreciates it.
Nevertheless, this back door effort to undermine the city council, city staff and community sets a new low bar for audacity and underhandedness.

Stanford is asking the county for permission to expand with millions of square feet of new development that will bring thousands of new employees commuting into Palo Alto. In their draft Environmental Impact Report to the county Stanford is claiming their impact on Palo Alto's traffic will be mitigated because the trains will carry a large number of these additional employees. Their report assuming trains will be more frequent and longer during peak commute times.

A) Existing platforms are not long enough to add the number of carriages they claim will carry their employees. There is no plan or funding to extend the platforms.

B) The number and length of the trains they claim will bring in their employees during peak commute hours will effectively close the three at grade crossings (Charleston, E. Meadow, Churchill) during those hours.

As mitigation measures for this huge employment expansion Stanford must be required to:

A) Contribute funds so the platforms can hold the longer trains they claim are necessary to accommodate their additional employees.

B) Contribute to grade separation at Charleston, E. Meadow, and Charleston.

Or be required to revise their DEIR assumption for the number of employees who will travel by train and demonstrate how their additional employees, who will not be accommodated on the train, will be travelling to and from Stanford. What will be the impact of that on Palo Alto's roads.

Unfortunately, Stanford has a sweet deal by which if they exceed the number of cars driving onto campus during peak commute hours above what the county has allowed in their last expansion agreement, Stanford simply pays a fine and those additional vehicles are effectively removed from the data. The amount of the fine is negotiated with the county after each traffic count. Palo Alto residents are stuck with their additional traffic while Stanford can claim they did not exceed their numbers. This should be changed in their new GUP so that we can know how much more traffic is being generated by Stanford.