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.

"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?

@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.

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.]

[Post removed.]

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.

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.

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.

" 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.