Town Square

Post a New Topic

Stanford asks county to halt GUP hearings

Original post made on May 10, 2019

Stanford University has asked the county Planning Commission to delay hearings on the university's expansion application, citing concerns the county's proposed conditions of approval are "unworkable and infeasible."

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 10, 2019, 9:55 AM

Comments (9)

8 people like this
Posted by conditions for all new development
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 10, 2019 at 3:31 pm

conditions for all new development is a registered user.

Clearly, the County staff should be overseeing ALL applications for development across the County. Based on the preliminary conditions of approval for Stanford's development released in April, we would not be having the housing crisis we are now, if the County had been in charge. 1600+ housing units? wow. What were the conditions on Apple in Cupertino for their "shapeship?" Was any housing built as part of that development? Any transportation benefits? Google's expansion? Seems like it's bad luck for Stanford to be under County jurisdiction instead of say, Cupertino's.


3 people like this
Posted by jh
a resident of College Terrace
on May 10, 2019 at 5:57 pm

"Stanford's letter criticized the alternative housing plan proposed by the county for the general use permit as counterproductive and creating "more significant, adverse environmental impacts" than the university's application."

Could it be that "2,275 million square feet of academic space, 3,150 housing units, 40,000 square feet of child care facilities and other support space" won't have a significant, adverse environmental impact, or is this statement somewhat hypocritical?


4 people like this
Posted by Mary O
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 10, 2019 at 7:22 pm

Mary O is a registered user.

@jh. The impacts from the Stanford GUP were analyzed in great detail and mitigation strategies, where needed, were recommended. As part of the CEQA process, two additional scenarios that provided for additional housing for employees to be built were analyzed. These alternatives were not put forth by Stanford but were included because of the number of public comments that stated that Stanford should build more housing on their campus for employees. The analysis showed that both of those scenarios would result in greater impacts - including some that couldn’t be mitigated - than what Stanford’s proposal did. All documents are available online.

I agree with the first comment that the County should be looking at all commercial development in the County and dictating the conditions of approval. Cities couldn’t make deals then with large companies that build within their limits yet impact adjacent areas.


11 people like this
Posted by News or advertising?
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 10, 2019 at 8:20 pm

Must be nice for Joe Simitian to own his own paper, which basically prints whatever he tells them and doesn't bother to collect comment from the other side! Not even a "Stanford did not immediately return requests for comments." [Portion removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by News or advertising?
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 10, 2019 at 10:36 pm

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 11, 2019 at 12:01 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

I was reading an article that stated that Palo Alto had to add housing to support Google and FB. There was no mention of the fact that both of those organizations are in different cities. Somehow we have become the name recognition point for housing for organizations that are in different cities. SU is a city within itself. They own the land - so when people buy a house there it is the house only - not the land. And they are in their own tax base, as are the cities where Google and FB are located - corporate location for tax purposes. At this point in time I don't think that Palo Alto would benefit from growth at SU in any material way. They have the land available for their own housing and need to use it. It is also leveraging space in Redwood City so they are moving out into other locations. The idea that the city of Palo Alto has to add housing to support the business objectives of large business entities in other cities needs a lot of caution. Also to cut back on advertising ourselves as being the answer to and example - calling attention to ourselves - is having the reverse effect. Do not get trapped into our own publicity.


4 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on May 11, 2019 at 11:53 am

Resident,

The jobs already in Palo Alto are way in excess of workers living in Palo Alto, regardless of the new jobs in other jurisdictions.

The mantra of Palo Alto opponents of SB50 is local control. They don’t want the county meddling in PA affairs, only Stanford’s.


8 people like this
Posted by County insider
a resident of another community
on May 11, 2019 at 12:08 pm

Joe Simitian has royally screwed up the Stanford GUP. He could have just run a reasonable process but instead has tried to figure out how to use this as a political launching pad for his 2022 bid for Anna Eshoo's seat. He has destroyed the ability of the schools to receive fair compensation -- unhappy that he won't get credit. He has now broken faith with PAUSD, the residents of the County, and Stanford. He is incompetent in the truest sense of the word. While in Palo Alto Joe is treated (inaccurately) like some kind of national treasure, in the rest of the county he is viewed quite differently [portion removed.]

I suggest that the Weekly venture to Hedding Street and talk to some non-Palo Altans about how Joe is seen. Or just venture below San Antonio. Good luck Palo Alto.


5 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on May 11, 2019 at 12:42 pm

" two additional scenarios that provided for additional housing for employees to be built were analyzed. These alternatives were not put forth by Stanford but were included because of the number of public comments that stated that Stanford should build more housing on their campus for employees. The analysis showed that both of those scenarios would result in greater impacts - including some that couldn’t be mitigated - than what Stanford’s proposal did."

Face it. Stanford does not want hoi polloi dwelling on campus. That impact is too unthinkable to be mitigatable.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

A new home in Redwood City for Mademoiselle Colette's croissants
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 8,360 views

Lights Out! Foods to Snuggle With in the Dark
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,745 views

What to do with all those cardboard boxes
By Cheryl Bac | 7 comments | 1,611 views

Some answers, please, PG&E
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 918 views

Premarital and Couples: The "Right" Way to Eat an Artichoke
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 913 views

 

Race Results Are In

Thank you for joining us at the 35th annual Moonlight Run & Walk! All proceeds benefit the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday fund, supporting local nonprofits serving children and families.

Click for Race Results