Stanford's development potential | September 7, 2018 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - September 7, 2018

Stanford's development potential

Study shows no need for future expansion into the foothills

A new independent analysis aimed at determining how much more development is possible under a maximum "build-out" scenario of Stanford University's academic campus has concluded that the institution has space available to roughly triple its current square footage, to more than 44 million square feet.

Before panicking at that alarming conclusion, note that neither Stanford nor anyone else has proposed or envisions that much growth, a fact both Stanford and report authors are quick to emphasize. In a statement, Stanford dismissively called the study's conclusions "hypothetical" and the horizon "beyond a reasonable planning frame."

"It is not possible to know what the needs of the university and the community will be in the future," the statement cautioned.

The report, commissioned by the county, acknowledges its limitations in projecting future growth needs. But that wasn't the goal. Instead, the study was to assess how much more development could physically be accommodated over decades or longer within the core campus (between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard).

To do this, the consultants evaluated the density of development at 27 universities deemed comparable to Stanford, including UCLA, UC Berkeley, Northwestern and Michigan, and determined how much more could be built at Stanford if the density (as measured by floor-area ratios, the ratio of square footage in a building to the size of the land it sits on) was similar to the current density at the other schools.

Stanford's has more than 1,000 acres in its core campus (one of the largest campuses in the country) and the current floor-area ratio (FAR) is only 0.34. It will increase to 0.46 by the time the university fully uses up the development proposed under its new general-use permit (GUP) application by 2035. Based on the density of development at the other universities, the study considered an FAR of 1.0 as a reasonable cap, which would mean the campus could accommodate a total of 44 million square feet compared to its current 15 million.

The study was done by consultants to the Santa Clara County Planning Department, which has planning authority over all unincorporated Stanford lands within the county, to help the public and Board of Supervisors evaluate the university's current GUP application.

Stanford is seeking permission to build 2.3 million square feet and 3,150 housing units or student beds between 2020 and 2035. These numbers may change as the county's review proceeds, especially with regards to housing, and will include many terms, conditions and mitigation requirements, but is likely to be approved.

The report is labeled a "supplement" to a 2009 "Sustainable Development Study" prepared by Stanford as required after the county approved its current general use permit in 2000. The original report, while accepted by the Board of Supervisors on a 3-2 vote, did not fulfill the stated objective of articulating Stanford's view of what the ultimate build-out of the campus would entail. Instead, Stanford simply offered three different development scenarios through 2035.

The new county study's value is not as a roadmap for expansion of the campus over the next 100 or more years, nor does it have any direct usefulness to the amount of development expected to be approved in the new GUP, scheduled to be considered early next year.

The significance of the analysis is in establishing that there is no conceivable scenario under which any development in the Stanford foothills could or should be considered for many decades. This should lead the county and Stanford to extend the current restriction on such development, which expires in 2025, for a much longer period. We recommend at least 50 years. (Currently, a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors can lift the restriction.)

The other benefit of the study is to remind the public that unlike traditional zoning, which includes height, set-back and building size limitations, Stanford is granted unique autonomy in how it develops the campus so long as it stays within the approved total square footage set in the GUP process. That means that there are, for example, no height limits or siting requirements for new development.

Stanford has done an exceptional job at designing and building the campus without traditional zoning regulation, but as housing and transportation impacts and mitigation measures become more important and controversial, pressures will intensify on the county to be more assertive in imposing more regulation.

The new report provides useful data on how much densification could theoretically occur on Stanford's core campus, but it also warns of critical constraints such as the availability of adequate potable water and the transportation impacts affecting Palo Alto and Menlo Park should such a growth rate actually occur. For now, however, its main message for the public and policymakers is that very long-term protection of the foothills can be adopted without any negative consequences for the university.

Comments

4 people like this
Posted by pmarca
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 7, 2018 at 11:54 am

We should encourage Stanford to transform the campus that adds significant tall buildings (20+ stories), underground parking, transit innovations, mixed use (retail, dining) and become a truly smart city.

EVERY person who works or goes to school at Stanford could have housing, PLUS more for others.

Even NIMBY's of Palo Alto should encourage Stanford to build to the maximum. Alternatively, Stanford can stay small and we transform Palo Alto.

If we really doing things right, we would transform Stanford AND Palo Alto, but generally speaking, the leadership at Stanford is smarter [portion removed.]


7 people like this
Posted by Stanford GUP
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 8, 2018 at 8:35 am

Stanford GUP is a registered user.

This study should result in Santa Clara Board of Supervisors making Stanford Foothills permanently off limits for development.

Stanford committed to a maximum build out during the last GUP and the Board needs to hold their feet to the fire to not approve this GUP till they get it. The maximum build out should be the development in this GUP.

This GUP should include more housing and pay for its full PAUSD school increased enrollment.

Even for the proposed development, Stanford did not propose adequate transportation impact mitigation so traffic will still get significantly worse at key intersections.


1 person likes this
Posted by JR McDugan
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 8, 2018 at 12:37 pm

Stanford should be required to build roads on their own property to get people to and from their campus. They can start by adding their own exit on 280, then somehow acquire property to build a similar road all the way to 101. Palo Alto is already inundated with Stanford cut-through traffic, enough is enough.


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 8, 2018 at 11:10 pm

^ " ... a similar road all the way to 101." You want a tunnel or a viaduct?


2 people like this
Posted by macbaldy
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 9, 2018 at 12:08 am

Stanford is doing much more to mitigate external concerns than most outsiders seem to know. Anyone who's been on or around the campus over the decades since I-280 was finished up through peninsula has seen a profound transition within the continuing approved boundaries for development. A distinct lack of knowledge about how the academic core of the campus is now effectively streetless; former thoroughfares are now for foot and bicycle traffic only; not even golf carts are allowed. Parking for staff, faculty, and students is by permit only; there is no free parking available during business hours, and a parking permit is only a permit to hunt for an empty space for the respective permit category. Parking scarcity, on-campus residence, and the nominal distance to off-campus locations of any kind are intended inducements to not drive often. Stanford has been supporting use of mass transportation alternatives for off-campus faculty and staff for decades. The renown, and often imitated, free Marguerite shuttle bus service has been helping hundreds in the University community for decades.

Stanford's acknowledgement of its "good citizen" role is now represented in the recent opening of its North Campus in Redwood City, where many non-academic and administrative departments are relocating. This is a de facto reduction of traffic component for the main campus.

Housing has been salient issue since the Seventies as rents and home prices have persistently risen. This concern has been complicating Stanford recruiting and retention of faculty and staff. So, it's been an obvious need that had to be met by adding all categories of on-campus housing that's served by shuttle bus and mid-campus bike paths.


4 people like this
Posted by Parent Alliance
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 9, 2018 at 7:56 am

An unspoken factor in Stanford's decision making is social equality. Is Standard a haven for uber rich or for smart hardworking young adults from a diverse background. The infrastructure of the University either supports that tempo or it does not. Take for example the new Escondido housing towers. These are a for profit venture with tiered residential from bottom floor studios to top floor luxury flats. The sum of those rents from students is profit. That profit then pays million dollar executive salaries -- would then fight the County to protect their right to maximize their Campous profit.


6 people like this
Posted by Expand Stanford...Make It a City
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 9, 2018 at 3:55 pm

There's enough Stanford land to create an entire city. Why not do so?

Palo Alto is already overbuilt.


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