You are seriously asking us to feel bad for the $40+ billion institution who disburses that money to themselves tax free?

I strongly disagree with Diamond.

Mayor Burt’s impact list on behalf of our City mostly echos the County’s, with a dollop of other items thoughtfully added.

In what crazy world does one think millions of square feet of development can be proposed and then not be ready and WILLING to pay and provide for the full impacts to the immediate community? This is why the word “responsibility” was invented.

That Stanford offers some benefit to our community is irrelevant. This is about its impact not its benefits. It’s not a balancing act.

The City of Palo Alto & the PACC are trying to scapegoat Stanford University for the local housing shortage via the 'Blame Game' despite the fact that Palo Alto & its Planning Commission have done a poor job directing & earmarking its remaining available land and office space for additional housing.

Perhaps it's best for Stanford University to simply ignore Mayor Burt's proposed mandates.

“I think these proposals are overwhelming and that the city is using Stanford for its own financial purposes.”

It’s the other way around, Stanford brings overwhelming traffic, housing construction demands, motel like turnover from startup tourism to neighborhoods, the Hospital apparently also has short term housing needs to the tune of hundreds of units on Airbnb and VRBO. Stanford’s growth causes the worst impacts to any city - traffic.

Everything on the list is reasonable for the size of the problems that are directly related to Stanford’s growth. It happens, when something grows that much. I think your take is emotional about Stanford, but the City has already been too nice with the puny business tax.

Where did the rest of the comments go? It was interesting to read all the demands that Stanford start finally paying its fair share and start housing its community instead of removing more housing from the city and its tax rolls.

@online name,

“Where did the rest of the comments go?”

There’s comments on Diana’s blog post and this is an Opinion so it’s a different thread.

The "list" of "demands" are essentially two requirements for mitigation that Diamond apparently doesn't fully understand. She simply re-lists similar asks numerous times not understanding this. Some bullets simply close loopholes that Stanford is otherwise allowed to exploit. All of the points are grounded in the economic doctrine that Stanford re-imburse its externalized costs on the community. The failure to do so is a subsidy.

-Stanford should (net) housing mitigate its internal demand (jobs and students), and
-Stanford should pay for (mitigate) its off-campus housing on city service costs

Stanford once proudly boasted of its superior jobs/housing ratios to those of nearby communities. But a close look at the data revealed that Stanford was allowed to count student dorms as housing units, but did not have to count students as "jobs" or "housing demand."

The gimmick fooled many, perhaps Ms. Diamond. Clearly you and I cannot live in Stanford dorms. Then, Stanford was employing nearly 30,000 in the Research Park and on campus while owning only about 3000 non-dorm housing units. Adding dorms as housing without adding students as demand hid the huge ratio.

Stanford owned off-campus housing, whether it in Downtown Menlo or RWC, is not be available to you and me. Worse, those properties enjoys tax-free status.

Put succinctly , Stanford off-campus housing crowds out property tax.

For anyone conversant in city economics, housing is a net loser to the city because per-capita city service costs are rarely fully offset by Prop 13 limited property taxes. Stanford houses get the same city services while paying no property taxes.

The bullet asking for in-lieu property tax and the bullet asking for payment of city services are the same bullet . Diamond confuses payment for on-campus services with those for off-campus services.

Stanford is about Stanford Land Management. This is not the university focussed institution of yester year but a corporation. Palo Alto is treated as a subsidary of Stanford by the largest developer in Santa Clara County. Why does Stanford keep buying Palo Alto housing in Evergreen Park and College Terrace which decreases Palo Alto’s housing stock? The other impacts include tax avoidance as Stanford is a nonprofit. Palo Alto absorbs traffic, increased student population and more.

Remember the GUP negotiation with Stanford when Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian caught Stanford
in Stanford’s deal with the PAUSD. Stanford violated the process and having been exposed abruptly cut off further negotiation with the county. I witnessed the exchange in the city’s council chambers where Joe Simitian exposed Stanford’s going behind closed doors. The Stanford representative was stunned and could not answer Simitian.

Stanford needs to build housing in research park to house their employees.
Stanford needs to be transparent and provide lease data to do their part.

I remember well the College Terrace Residents’ Association with superfund expert and former mayor of Mountain View, Lenny Siegel, speaking to council concerning TCE in the soil at the University Terrace tract being developed for Stanford employees. TAB, ALZA and the HP sites were demolished to make way for housing. Lenny Siegel informed the city council including Mayor Pat Burt that mitigation would be necessary in new homes where TCE had been detected. Stanford had at least three rows of personnel attending. Jean McCowan and other Stanford speakers said mitigating technology would NOT be necessary. When asked why was it the cost? Stanford answered we do not want to bother the junior faculty with this. The city council voted to REQUIRE
Stanford to install mitigating technology to remove vapors.

I was nonplussed then and am still stunned that Stanford would not step up
and do the right thing.

I am so tired of this story. I do live in a house on Stanford campus. I do not own the land under my house. I pay ground rent. I PAY Property Taxes to Santa Clara County. I am allowed to vote for Palo Alto school board members. That is my only voice in the mess of Palo Alto politics.

This is getting old. Where are the reasonable adults in the room? Where is the cooperative attitude between the university and the city? All of this harsh language and these increased "demands" from city officials is counterproductive. We need a collaborative council, not an antagonistic council. It is in the best interests of all of us located on or near the university (that includes Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and Woodside as well as Palo Alto and East Palo Alto) to work together.

@Annie,

“We need a collaborative council”

With Stanford? That means all the emotions that are going into this discussion already. The list from Palo Alto is completely reasonable, and realistic. If you have something to say about the substance of anything on the list say so.

Please give one example of Stanford cooperating with / contributing to PA and/or the surrounding communities.

"...contributing to PA"

Stanford University adds a certain degree of academic prestige to Palo Alto, similar to what Harvard does for Cambridge and Yale for New Haven.

Palo Alto adds minimal prestige to Stanford University if any.

No other employer provides as much employee housing as does Stanford.

No other institution provides as much housing for its customers(students) as does Stanford.

No other employer provides an area wide free shuttle as does Stanford.

No other institution provides a Level One Trauma Center as does Stanford.

No other institution provides free access to its private lands as does Stanford.

No other institution provides such a broad range of cultural offerings as does Stanford.

No other entity's properties generate more taxes for Palo Alto than does Stanford.

No other institution or local government has preserved as much of its land as open space as has Stanford.

Perhaps someday the city council will realize that Palo Alto without Stanford would simply be Gilroy - without the garlic.

@Peter Carpenter,

“No other institution provides such a broad range of cultural offerings as does Stanford.”

Another line of emotional comments, it’s not a lifetime awards ceremony. If Stanford didn’t offer anything, it wouldn’t attract students, faculty, people needing houses, hotels, short term housing, grade schools which the City has serviced in a decent way but now - when costs to service Stanford go up, because of Stanford’s outsize growth and demands outside their bubble, how about “no other institution” is as arrogant as Stanford.

Not having been to any “cultural” offerings at Stanford, I also bet it serves mostly it’s own. Does it serve more people than the Junior Museum or PA Libraries?

You misunderstood my question "Please give one example of Stanford cooperating with / contributing to PA and/or the surrounding communities." I guess I need to stress that I meant what has Stanford done FOR Palo Alto, not for itself, its community, its students but for US, the PA residents.

@Paige,

“Put succinctly , Stanford off-campus housing crowds out property tax. “

I don’t understand how the Real Estate people and this publication with many realtor advertisers don’t also see the problems with the temporary nature of the Stanford and tech population- temporary dwellers don’t remodel, upgrade, support local services, or maybe even read about local news. Neither do absentee landlords. That half of the Palo Alto population is “temp” and growing is net cost to the City and brought from Stanford’s and tech needs.

Sounds like a reasonable list of demands to me to offset Stanford’s negative impacts on the surrounding off campus community.

" I guess I need to stress that I meant what has Stanford done FOR Palo Alto, not for itself, its community, its students but for US, the PA residents."

One example - easy, the free shuttle.
Another - almost half of all Palo Alto sales taxes come from Stanford tenants.
Access to much of its open space.


Enough?

Since about half of PAPD's calls re theft come from Stanford Shopping Center, is there a net gain or loss?

How many routes does the Marguerite shuttle take and how many neighborhoods are served by it?

Why is Stanford fighting so hard against paying for the PAUSD resources its growing population uses and sticking us with the bill?

Since it's a transit stakeholder, has it finally gotten around to meeting with PA about the mess at the Embarcadero/El Camino light that Jaime Rodriquez promised about a decade ago?

And how about those scenic RVs that only disappear when there's a big game on?

Has it ever offered free or discounted access to its cultural events or Adult Ed classes as a thank you for our having to cope with its never-ending expansion that miraculously never adds a single car trip?

"Since about half of PAPD's calls re theft come from Stanford Shopping Center, is there a net gain or loss?"

$13 million in sales tax revenues is far more than the cost of police response to thefts.

Web Link



"How many routes does the Marguerite shuttle take and how many neighborhoods are served by it?
"
Web Link

"
Has it ever offered free or discounted access to its cultural events or Adult Ed classes"

Stanford welcomed a combined 275,000 visitors to its four free campus art galleries and museums in 2019, and an additional 115,000 people attended performances presented by Stanford Live and the Department of Music.
Web Link


Do you ever do your own research?

Do you ever post documented facts?

@Peter Carpenter,

“Do you ever do your own research?
Do you ever post documented facts?”

Your research and facts only tell part of the story. The City’s list is still reasonable given Stanford’s growth and expected growth, to manage traffic and housing, nobody is asking for concerts or museums.

"Your research and facts only tell part of the story."

You asked for one example " "Please give one example of Stanford cooperating with / contributing to PA and/or the surrounding communities."

I gave you three examples and all were documented.

Your turn to present documented facts.

@Peter Carpenter - Stanford didn't develop the Shopping Center or the Research Park for the benefit of the local residents; they did it to take financial advantage of their huge land holdings. So the sales and property tax revenue generated by those properties aren't something they do "for" Palo Alto; they are a by-product of self-interested commercial projects (which have generated hundreds of millions of profit for Stanford itself).

That's all good - we like it when people pay taxes. But Stanford doesn't deserve any special credit or thanks for generosity or local spirit, any more than someone who builds a downtown office building. They are just paying taxes like everyone else.

@Peter Carpenter,

“Your turn to present documented facts.”

It’s a fact that criminal activity can have more consequences than the cost of a police run. Ask the young workers who were left traumatized at the recent shooting, reprehensible that Stanford or Apple should see the sales tax dollars and crime as only their cost of doing business.

I’m going to trust that the City has done it’s research to come up with the list, looks right and serious.

" reprehensible that Stanford or Apple should see the sales tax dollars as only their cost of doing business."

Interesting allegation - can you provide any proof that "Stanford or Apple should see the sales tax dollars as only their cost of doing business."

Salaries?
Rent?
Cost of goods"

Please avoid undocumented hyperbole.

If you really want to understand the impacts of Stanford's growth on neighboring cities, I recommend checking out the Environmental Impact Report from the last General Use Permit proposal. You can find it here: Web Link There's plenty of damage to surrounding cities from the traffic increases alone, not even considering the housing and transit issues.

By the way, it's important to understand what "No Net New Trips" really means. It applies to *one* peak hour in *one* direction in the morning, and *one* peak hour in *one* direction in the afternoon. The overall amount of Stanford traffic can still increase dramatically, and it can still do so every hour of the day. See the EIR for an explanation of this.

As I said before, I think it's both reasonable and fair to require that Stanford mitigate the impacts from its growth. For example, it could contribute more to housing (through construction and changing land use) and to transportation (through transit programs and helping fund grade separation). The specifics are negotiable.

The EIR addresses only environmental impacts but not the benefits of Stanford's activities.

This report makes clear what the substantial benefits of Stanford based business are to the city:

Web Link

In addition the students and staff are significant sources of income for Palo Alto businesses and property owners.

@Peter Carpenter,

“can you provide any proof that "Stanford or Apple should see the sales tax dollars as only their cost of doing business."

In reference to your suggestion that sales taxes cover police services. If that’s the way Stanford looks at their growing share of police needs, reprehensible. Not neighborly.

"In reference to your suggestion that sales taxes cover police services. If that’s the way Stanford looks at their growing share of police needs, reprehensible. Not neighborly."

I never suggested that - it was an allegation by another poster made without any facts to support it.

It is difficult to have a responsible dialogue when one side refuses to provide any facts.

@Peter Carpenter,

“It is difficult to have a responsible dialogue when one side refuses to provide any facts.”

Dialogue is the best that can happen, but the pressure from the state with unfunded mandates doesn’t help.

@Peter Carpenter: The Palo Alto electeds are pointing out that growth by Stanford for Stanford's sake is causing more damage than benefit to Palo Alto, so to be fair Stanford should mitigate that. Similar deals have been struck many times in the past.

You missed the point about the EIR. From the comments here and on Diana's blog it seems a lot of people aren't aware that Stanford expansion has negative effects on the cities around it. The EIR helps explain some of the ways that happens. It's worth reading if you honestly want to understand why reasonable people can object to unbalanced growth at Stanford.

"It's worth reading if you honestly want to understand why reasonable people can object to unbalanced growth at Stanford."

A balance view requires that you look at the benefits as well as the costs.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the benefits?

Palo Alto without Stanford would be Gilroy but without the garlic.

@Peter Carpenter: You're making two mistakes.

First, you're refusing to acknowledge that Palo Alto provides benefits to Stanford as well. Housing and transportation infrastructure are huge, but there are others. Over the years the two entities have negotiated a balance that both find acceptable.

Two, you're confusing the current state of affairs with changes to that state of affairs. The two entities may have an acceptable balance now, but Stanford pushing for its own advantage at the expense of Palo Alto will break that. The Palo Alto electeds are simply pointing out that risk and asking for accommodations to maintain a balance.

My house is what most buyers would consider a tear down. f I decide to sell my Palo Alto property, I have two choice: sell to Stanford or sell to a speculator/developer. If I sell to the speculator, they will max out the value of the property by building as big and ostentatious a house as possible, a house that will most likely be sold to a foreign investor. The contractor associated with the speculator would be a torment for the neighbors.

If I sell to Stanford, a modestly sized, super energy efficient, ecologically conscientious house would be built by considerate and responsible contractors. The buyers of the house would be a family who will invest in the social capital of Palo Alto and be an asset the the community.

This is not conjecture. This is what has happened in my neighborhood in the last four years. As far as I'm concerned, Stanford can own the whole, damn town if they want to.

@Deborah, I suggest you talk to the College Terrace residents who've dealt with Stanford buying up nearby and adjacent properties. I was shocked to visit one friend there and see that all the trees backing up to her yard had been cut down because Stanford -- which refused to deal with complaints about the diseased trees for way too long -- finally figured out it was cheaper to just cut them all down.

I have another friend in Stanford Weekend Acres in Menlo Park, another Stanford alum, who's had similar experiences, who had to bring in attorneys and has long been boycotting reunions. Her comments every time she gets a fund-raising email are priceless.

@Peter Carpenter "The EIR addresses only environmental impacts but not the benefits of Stanford's activities. ... A balance view requires that you look at the benefits as well as the costs."

Under CEQA logic and due process there is a time and place for both.

The EIR objectively audits all externalized costs of any applicant's development and identifies lawful mitigations.

Cities cannot extort arbitrarily. Under California law "exactions" must have "nexus" and be "proportionate" to externalized costs as determined by legally required linkage studies.

Where there are impacts and no feasible mitigations ("significant unavoidable impacts") CEQA allows lead agencies to approve projects by making Statements of Overriding Considerations. These find that BENEFITS outweigh impacts.

The definition of "benefit" in a SOC is not nearly as rigorous as the definition of impact in an EIR. A benefit is anything the city attorney can claim with a straight face.

There is no lawful requirement that cities insure the market price of a benefit is proportionate to the cost of the unmitigated impacts. Thus Developers ALWAYS change the subject away from externalized costs onto alleged benefits, and councils and the public get distracted into playing "zoning for benefits."

And ... you know all this. Stanford, with its army of lawyers also knows it, better than you, me, and Palo Alto.

You don't have to pity any project applicant in California, including Stanford. There is at time and a place in the project review where benefits can be cited to override unmitigated project impacts for each new project.