News

San Mateo County cities fume as Stanford rebuffs their funding requests

Coalition of cities call on Stanford to 'pay its fair share' to address the impacts of proposed campus growth on housing, traffic

In a stinging rebuke, a coalition of cities in San Mateo County has issued a public statement Friday criticizing Stanford for rejecting their requests for funding to address the impacts of its dramatic campus expansion on traffic and housing.

The letter from the Coalition for Stanford GUP Accountability — a group of elected representative and staff members from San Mateo County, Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood City and Woodside — was released just days before the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review Stanford's application for a new general use permit. If approved, the GUP would allow Stanford to build 3.5 million square feet of new development by 2035, including 2.275 million square feet of academic space and 2,600 student beds. County staff are also recommending that Stanford be required to build at least 2,172 housing units for staff (Stanford's application calls for 550 such units).

While Santa Clara County has the sole authority to approve or deny Stanford's request, city and county officials in San Mateo County have been persistently arguing that the approval should also take into account Stanford's impacts on the jurisdictions to its north. They point at the environmental analysis for Stanford's expansion, which concluded that about 27% of the new households associated with Stanford's growth would be located in San Mateo County, requiring about 655 new housing units. As such, they requested that Stanford contribute $196 million for an affordable-housing fund.

The cities had also requested $4.62 million for roadway and intersection improvements, $15 million for bike and pedestrian connections between Stanford and surrounding communities; $5 million for stormwater management and flood prevention; and $6.78 million in "in-lieu property taxes" to compensate communities where Stanford, which enjoys property-tax exemptions, owns properties.

In its Friday statement, the San Mateo County coalition reaffirms its concerns about the traffic and housing impacts of Stanford's proposed expansion, which is expected to add 9,600 people to the campus population. Despite these impacts, Stanford "flatly refuses" to negotiate with the cities when it comes to mitigations, the letter states. The message also states that Stanford has informed the coalition that it would only negotiate if the coalition lobbies Santa Clara County to enter into a "development agreement" with Stanford.

Such an agreement would upend the traditional relationship between the regulator (the county) and the project applicant (Stanford) and allow the two sides to negotiate a deal with additional benefits and exemptions. Earlier this month, the university suggested that it would not accept the county's approval of its application unless it comes with a development agreement.

Robert Reidy, Stanford's vice president for land, buildings and real estate, argued in an Oct. 7 letter to the Board of Supervisors that because Stanford is offering significant public benefits upfront, a development agreement is needed to assure the university that it would be able to proceed with its expansion.

"The university needs to be able to predict the costs associated with future regulations, and its ability to comply with those regulations, in order to commit land and financial resources toward housing, transportation, schools and other benefits," Reidy wrote.

Santa Clara County staff and the majority of the Board of Supervisors have thus far maintained that a development agreement is unnecessary. After agreeing last fall to consider a development agreement, the board appointed a subcommittee to explore a possible deal. The committee, composed of board President Joe Simitian and Supervisor Cindy Chavez, abruptly halted the negotiations in April, after Stanford entered into a side deal with the Palo Alto Unified School District — an agreement that was contingent on a development agreement with the county.

The San Mateo County coalition letter states that the cities have urged Stanford to address San Mateo County impacts as part of the standard development approval, but there has been no response from the university.

"Here's what every resident in San Mateo County needs to know: Stanford – with its $26.5 billion endowment — expects to reap all the rewards while leaving local taxpayers grappling with the resulting traffic gridlock, spiraling housing prices, impacted schools and environmental consequences," the coalition's statement reads.

The letter from the San Mateo County cities also emphasizes Stanford's tax-exempt status. Nearly 70% of Stanford's property in San Mateo County (an estimated $1.2 billion in holdings) is tax-free, according to the coalition. Even without Stanford's expansion, San Mateo County public agencies stand to lose $200 million in property taxes over the 18-year life of the proposed GUP.

Melissa Stevenson Diaz, city manager of Redwood City, told the Board of Supervisors earlier this month that property taxes are the top revenue source in her city. She said Stanford officials had informed her that the university intends to buy a newly built apartment building in Redwood City. Because of its property-tax exemption, Redwood City stands to lose about $100,000 in tax revenues from that building in the first year alone.

The letter from the coalition of cities calls it "a bit ironic that one of the top universities in the world cannot support our local schools that educate the children of Stanford employees."

"The roads, bridges and pathways Stanford employees use daily receive no funds for repairs or upgrades from Stanford. Likewise, nothing for parks, 9-1-1 dispatch and first responders. Nothing," the letter states. "The time has come for Stanford to pay its fair share. As representatives of local communities that would be impacted by Stanford's development, we call on the university to work on a deal that would fully compensate our communities for the impacts of Stanford's growth."

The letter from the coalition follows repeated calls from San Mateo County elected officials and staff members that Stanford provide "full mitigation" for its expansion, which includes commitments to cities for housing and transportation funding. Menlo Park Vice Mayor Cecelia Taylor and Councilwoman Betsy Nash both urged the county at the Oct. 8 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting to require Stanford to mitigate its impacts. Nash said the city already suffers from "inadequate housing availability, housing affordability and traffic congestion."

Stanford's obligations to address its impacts on surrounding communities are expected to be a key theme at the Oct. 22 meeting of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, which will be held in Palo Alto. The 6 p.m. hearing at City Hall will be preceded by two rallies, one spearheaded by the student group Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035 (SCoPE 2035) and another one by Palo Alto Unified School District advocates.

The meeting will be the third of four scheduled public hearings on Stanford's proposed expansion. The final meeting is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 5 in the Board of Supervisors' Chambers at the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

18 people like this
Posted by whatever
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 19, 2019 at 10:01 pm

Stanford is no longer a non-profit, it is an amazingly large corporation combined with the robber baron ethos of it's founder.
This years budget is $6.5 billion. It has a $28 billion endowment
it rides $1.1 billion in "donations" last year. It paid out $1.3 billion from endowment earnings last year.
Stanford pays property tax on land used for commercial enterprises but dies not pay property tax on its property used for faculty and staff housing.


2 people like this
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Oct 21, 2019 at 11:28 am

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

The housing needs of Stanford's development should be met by the private sector, NOT government. Government needs to get out of the way! This private sector housing would then pay the property taxes and impact fees necessary to mitigate the impact.
As far as faculty housing goes, the San Mateo County Community College District has tax exempt housing at Canada College. Solve that problem and then you can make a case against Stanford's exemption. None of that housing should be tax exemp!

Having said that, housing on the Stanford Campus, should be exempt from property taxes for services which the University provides.


Like this comment
Posted by West Menlo
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Oct 21, 2019 at 12:44 pm

This is similar to the on-going FaceBook/Menlo Park dispute in which MP expects Facebook to build housing for EVERY new employee they hire in MP. Ridiculous. It is NOT the job of a company to build housing for their employees. It's the job of local government to create an environment that either allows for the building of new housing and the expansion of business to take advantage of the housing, or shut down new housing and also shut down new businesses from moving in. Our local governments are completely misdirected (and incompetent) in believing they can sit back and hold local companies (or Stanford) hostage in this regard. Jack (above) is correct. Get government out of the way. Let's get the tax-paying private sector involved in the things they do best.


14 people like this
Posted by MPer
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 21, 2019 at 1:51 pm

I think Stanford has enough money and land to build adequate housing for it's students and faculty.


1 person likes this
Posted by West Menlo
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Oct 22, 2019 at 11:54 am

@MPer: Yes, and I think they ought to build a large development west of Junipero Serra on all that open land near the Dish. Great views, convenient to Page Mill and 280, and a short bike ride to campus. Great idea. Use up some of that open land they've been sitting on for years.....


10 people like this
Posted by No Easy Solutions
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Oct 22, 2019 at 3:47 pm

The fact that Stanford does not pay property tax for education related purposes, which includes housing, is the fundamental problem. Our community services (fire, police, roads, schools) are built on tax revenue if Stanford with their massive endowment is not contributing then that is not equitable. They are essentially leeching off the community.


12 people like this
Posted by Nearby Resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Oct 23, 2019 at 10:35 am

Wow, some of you are not paying attention.

1: It's STANFORD, not the neighboring communities, that are attempting to change the existing terms of Stanford's growth. There are already longstanding agreements in place; it's STANFORD that wants to change those terms, not the neighboring communities.

While philosophically I agree with the notion that businesses (like Facebook, HP, Google and including Stanford, which is unquestionably a big business) should not need or be mandated to be in the business of housing, PROVIDED they are not asking for special considerations.

HOWEVER, it's STANFORD that's opening the door to changing terms and asking for special considerations, and it is entirely appropriate for local governments to put topics of interest related to that 'change in terms' on the table. It would be a dereliction of duty to the taxpayers to not due so.

So KUDOS to San Mateo Co, Santa Clara Co, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc, for representing taxpayer and resident interests.



2: It's very clear that Stanford is stiff-arming northern communities simply because they believe the can, and they can because they don't have a seat at the table. I hope northern communities take this as an opportunity to review their own future growth needs and take any land necessary to achieve those needs from Stanford via eminent domain, which they are entirely empowered to do.

I think seizing Stanford Hills, bulldozing those homes and putting a community center and park there would be quite nice! And totally legal and appropriate.



3: "The fact that Stanford does not pay property tax for education related purposes, which includes housing, is the fundamental problem."

YES. In my opinion every non-profit, every church and every school should pay property taxes; they'd be able to deduct the taxes as an expense, but the pass-through of those dollars would solve this problem virtually instantly.


Like this comment
Posted by West Menlo
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Oct 23, 2019 at 3:40 pm

@nearby resident : It seems that one of the things that Stanford wants is to lock in the terms of the agreement which it has to do development. So that the local communities don't continue to add new requirements on top of all the requirements they already impose. Not an unreasonable request from Stanford, it seems. In the meantime, if Stanford and local communities don't agree on some kind of deal, the local schools will continue to get more students from Stanford without any compensation. So, the local communities holding tight with their agreement will likely not work out as well as they would like, as they get ZERO from Stanford instead of the $130M they had been talking about. It will be interesting to see who blinks fiorst, and to what extent!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Facing high kitchen turnover, Los Altos' The Post revamps majority of its menu
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,503 views

Disposing of Disposables
By Sherry Listgarten | 23 comments | 2,464 views

Couples Counseling, Al Pacino Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,864 views

Expect Years of Unprecedented Traffic Congestion and More Empty Storefronts
By Dana Hendrickson | 13 comments | 1,101 views

NICU Love
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 436 views