Town Square

Post a New Topic

County looks to shield foothills from Stanford's growth for the next century

Original post made on May 28, 2019

As Santa Clara County prepares to ramp up its demands for housing on Stanford University's campus, county planners are proposing new measures that would curtail Stanford's ability to build in the foothills.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, May 28, 2019, 2:15 PM

Comments (17)

Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2019 at 5:29 pm

If I were Stanford I'd pack up my campus and move to Elko, NV.


Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on May 28, 2019 at 10:01 pm

This issue is red herring. Joe Simitian is just trying to flex his muscle for show. It has nothing to do with the GUP under consideration. Focus on the next 20 years.


Posted by We will see about that
a resident of Stanford
on May 29, 2019 at 12:18 am

Merced had a nice campus that could be for sale. Stanford really could take their excellent administration and their logo, pack up, and move their shop to Merced. They could really show the County and just leave the current Stanford campus a bunch of vacant buildings. See how these County people like that. Ha!


Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on May 29, 2019 at 1:26 am

^ Would open a bidding war among Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Palantir. But I'd put my money on a pharmaceutical consortium. County would love sudden taxable real estate.


Posted by John
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 29, 2019 at 7:17 am

Joe torpedoes a massive deal to fund PA Schools bc they dared to negotiate without him.

Joe "takes a stand" over farmland use 100 years from now, which Stanford has shown zero desire to develop.

Joe is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess.

Joe must go.


Posted by Good Job Planning Staff
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 29, 2019 at 7:32 am

Good Job Planning Staff is a registered user.

The Conditions of Approval are written by the County planning staff - not by Joe Simitian or Cindy Chavez, or any of the other supervisors.

The Planning Staff clearly recognizes that the Academic Growth Boundary still allows Stanford plenty of room to expand.

For reference, Stanford is asking for adding 2.275 million sq ft. For those who know NYC - that is approximately equivalent of adding the sq. footage of the entire Empire State Building.

For a more local reference, that's roughly equivalent to adding the sq. footage of the new Apple spaceship building.

That means in the next 100 years, Stanford could add 16 Empire State Buildings or 15 Apple Spaceship buildings on campus and still have a density similar to other institutions...

I'd say the Planning Staff clearly understands what they are doing.


Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on May 29, 2019 at 7:52 am

This is ridiculous and about as meaningful as negotiating with Stanford to not build a coal power plant on campus. Of course Stanford isn't going to develop the foothills.


Posted by JR’s right
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 29, 2019 at 9:08 am

JR’s right is a registered user.

JR’s right. This isn’t news. This is a big distraction from everything the County isn’t doing... like even speaking with Stanford regarding a development agreement that the Board voted to start discussions on last fall.


Posted by long view
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 29, 2019 at 11:25 am

long view is a registered user.

The new development Stanford will build is permanent. Even if a building is torn down, the right to that square footage has been granted and the building will be replaced. 99 year foothill protection is not permanent. But it is a step in the right direction.

As soon as the first academic growth boundary was established, Stanford proposed, and then Supervisor Kniss supported, a development sited on and across the academic growth boundary. Look up the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
51 Vista Lane, just above Junipero Serra. It is a beautiful building. Why wouldn't Stanford want more trophy buildings? Unfortunately, it is a private use for a few, while protecting the actual open space protects a public benefit. The County is right to seek stronger protection for the foothills.


Posted by Paul
a resident of Barron Park
on May 29, 2019 at 11:38 am

Simitian can't get basic things done like providing decent roads throughout the county. He is just another 'look for a cause' politician. As others point out, the story is much more about his career that what's best for everyone else.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 29, 2019 at 12:53 pm

>> County looks to shield foothills from Stanford's growth for the next century

BUILD A WALL!!! ;-)


Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2019 at 1:29 pm

Some people are wondering why this issue is being raised now. I guess they never saw the map, drawn up back in the auto era, of all the proposed buildings on the Dish property. Ultra sprawling. Let's keep those ideas in the dust bin.

Simitian is mostly right about density. (I do think we have to give Stanford credit for keeping most of the semi-open-space along El Camino.) There are plenty of areas where Stanford can 4-story 50-foot buildings to keep the campus compact and walkable. "4-story 50-foot" is the future: human-scaled energy-efficient buildings in a walkable area, whether a campus, downtown, or residential area.


Posted by Alice Kaufman
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2019 at 2:05 pm

Alice Kaufman is a registered user.

Thank you to Palo Alto Weekly for highlighting this issue!

Although County staff has recommended the 99-year protection for the foothills, this has not yet been approved.

If you support protecting open space in the Stanford foothills, please come to the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow night Thursday May 30 from 6:00 to 8:00 in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers (250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto). Tell the County to protect the foothills!

Alice Kaufman
Committee for Green Foothills


Posted by No Growth for Stanford
a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2019 at 11:37 pm

Stanford has plenty of environmentalists on staff who can point out why continued growth in this area, the state, the country and the world is a very BAD idea. Humans need to stop with the growth mentality and learn to live a sustainable lifestyle.

That means replacement and improvement but no growth. We need to limit our population, our use of resources and return to a balance with our surroundings.

Stanford is now run by a bunch of developers who just want to make more money. They are not a university but a research and development operation that wants to continue to get rich. We don't need to support that or give them the right to continue to overcrowd and destroy the area.

Palo Alto has worked hard to limit development and growth because our citizens realize that there are limits to growth and we want to have a good quality of life in a place worth living. Letting Stanford continue to grow and develop and spew their pollution and crowds into the surrounding area works against a sustainable population and living environment.

I hope Santa Clara county makes the GUP requirements so onerous that Stanford will decide to stay the size that it currently is - which is already too big!


Posted by Sky
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 30, 2019 at 10:59 pm

RE: No Growth for Stanford

I can't disagree with you more. Growth is unavoidable and also growth is beneficial. It brings a lot of value and also make it possible(with revenue) to 'solve' the traffic problems. Without growth, it's just going to outdated forever, and the problems just not going to get resolved. The infrastructure in Palo Alto is already so out-dated and we need to plan for the unavoidable growth and use the growth to plan smartly and improve the infrastructure and resolve the traffics problems, the end result should be better than what we have now.

For Stanford, it's even true that the benefit of Stanford's growth is a lot bigger than the downside. We need to look into the future, not stay at what we have now and have all the problems stay forever.


Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 30, 2019 at 11:45 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

SU is busy with a campus extension in Redwood City on the 101 side of the city. There is already a hospital/medical center. They are taking over a group of commercial buildings that will be reconstructed to match the SU type architecture. There is also a large development project which will include housing.


Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 31, 2019 at 12:38 pm

Posted by Sky, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> I can't disagree with you more. Growth is unavoidable and also growth is beneficial.

In context, you are saying that growth is -always- unavoidable and -always- beneficial. And, that broad generalization is absurd.

"Cancer" is an uncontrolled growth of unhealthy cells. Growth is not always beneficial. Neither is urban growth. Sometimes growth is good. Sometimes shrinkage is good. People, for example, have an optimal range of body fat. Too little is unhealthy. Too much is unhealthy.

>> It brings a lot of value and also make it possible(with revenue) to 'solve' the traffic problems. Without growth, it's just going to outdated forever, and the problems just not going to get resolved.

Taxes pay for replacement of infrastructure without growth. Private facilities often need upgrading or replacement. Stanford doesn't necessarily need growth in hospital beds, but, it certainly needs to replace outdated earthquake-vulnerable buildings. Don't confuse the two.


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

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Mountain View's Castro Street opens up for an eat-and-greet to rally support for businesses
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,773 views

Fidelity, Infidelity, Loyalty, Luck
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,984 views

Is this the kind of America we want to live in?
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 762 views

 

Register today to support local nonprofits

The 38th annual Moonlight Run and Walk is Friday evening, September 9. Proceeds go to the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund, benefiting local nonprofits that serve families and children in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Join us under the light of the full Harvest Moon on a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon. Complete your race in person or virtually to support local nonprofits.

Register Now!