|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In an unusual second round of public scrutiny, Stanford’s expansion plans are getting another look.
The plans and the draft environmental review of two alternative housing options were discussed Wednesday night during a two-hour session in the Menlo Park City Council Chambers
The university’s plans are being evaluated for what the environmental impacts might be if it were to build all of the housing needed to accommodate the new workers, students and faculty its expansion would generate.
Santa Clara County recently released what’s called a “recirculated draft Environmental Impact Report” — a document that shows the potential environmental impacts of two alternatives to a big-picture development plan Stanford University is working to win approval for from Santa Clara County; it lays out how the university should grow between now and 2035.
This second round of environmental analysis evaluates, in theory, what would happen under two development scenarios. “Alternative A” lays out what would happen if the university were to build all the units needed to house the additional workforce created by its development, calculated to be 2,549 new units on top of the 3,150 units it already planned, for a total of 5,699 units. “Alternative B” halves those new additional units to 1,275 added to the 3,150 already planned, for a total of 4,425 units.
These would be on top of the 2.275 million square feet of academic and academic support space the university has asked permission to build over the coming years, alongside parking and child care space.
Representatives from both the county and the university at the June 27 meeting were quick to point out that the idea to build extra housing didn’t come from either party.
As Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian explained to attendees, the first round of environmental impact analysis made clear that the amount of housing Stanford initially proposed to build would be inadequate to meet the housing demand that its planned expansion would bring.
The first round of environmental analysis indicated that the university’s development plans would draw in about 7,500 new students, postdoctoral students, faculty staff, and about 1,074 new temporary and contract workers — far more than could be housed in the 3,150 new residential units initially proposed.
“That then generated questions and concerns … about whether or not additional housing might be called for,” Simitian said.
David Rader, senior planner for Santa Clara County, said that it is unusual to demand that employers house all of the workers their businesses generate, but that with the state of the regional shortage of housing that people can afford, people are asking new questions. And some big companies, like Google and Facebook, are planning housing too, along with office space expansion.
“The old way of doing things doesn’t seem to be working anymore,” he said.
Early responses
A number of attendees of the meeting commented on the proposal. While some favored the addition of housing, particularly affordable housing, to reduce the burden on, among other parties, the university’s lower-income “supercommuters” who travel from the Central Valley to get to work, others raised concerns about the study’s finding that traffic would worsen if even more people were housed on campus.
Menlo Park Housing Commissioner Karen Grove said she favored Alternative A. Stanford, she said, has played a role in the region’s skewed jobs-housing balance. Those impacts, she said, will go somewhere if they are not addressed on-campus.
Other commenters, one a graduate student and one an alumna of Stanford, also said they supported Alternative A, in which the university fully balances the demand its growth creates with new housing units. And if adding new residents to the university’s campus will create demand for outbound car trips, they suggested, perhaps alternatives can be developed to give people improved public transit options, or resources such as schools in walking distance.
Stephanie Munoz pointed out that the most necessary trip of most people’s day is to get to work or class — delivery services can make a lot of others unnecessary. “What we want Stanford to do is make it possible for people to be adjacent to work or study,” she said.
Another local resident said he believes the university is the best judge of what density should be permitted on its property, pointing to its history of land management.
A Los Altos Hills resident urged the county to take Stanford’s cumulative traffic impacts more fully into account, and weigh the impacts of the university’s hospital expansion on traffic. “We need more roads to deal with traffic,” he said, and requested that the roads go through Stanford land.
Jennifer Wolosin, founder of Parents for Safe Routes in Menlo Park, said: “I know Stanford would probably prefer to live in a bubble. I think it’s incumbent on Stanford to do their part to be responsible community members.”
More information
Access the recirculated draft environmental impact report here.
Additional reporting:
● Study highlights impacts of adding Stanford housing.
There will be another public meeting held from 6 to 8 p.m. Tuesday, July 10, at the Palo Alto Arts Center Auditorium, 1313 Newell Road in Palo Alto. People can also submit written comments in writing to: David Rader, Santa Clara County Planning Office, County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, 7th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA 95110, or by email to: david.rader@pln.sccgov.org.
The deadline for submitting comments is July 26.
Can someone please explain how is it that Stanford pays zero in property taxes on land (the parcels in Menlo Park come to kind) they own??? They negotiated a payment to the MPCSD for the impact in enrollment for the upcoming development- but it sounded like a one off and 1.mil doesn’t go as far as annual taxes.
@Taxes, Stanford is a non-profit and therefore doesn’t pay taxes.