County Responds to Comments in Response to Stanford General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
San Jose – When the February 2nd deadline passed for submitting comments on the Stanford General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Santa Clara County found itself with a big job on its hands – responding to more than 1,900 separate comments made by almost 300 commenters.
County Supervisor Joe Simitian (in whose district the University is located) observed, “While it’s unclear if that’s a record for the County, it’s clearly a lot of comments and reflects a deep level of interest in the community.” Nineteen public agencies commented (see below); thirteen non-governmental organizations (see below), and 250 individuals commented, including 90 people who spoke at one or more of five public hearings.
The job that County staff and EIR consultants ESA now face is sorting through the comments, grouping those together as appropriate, determining which apply to the EIR and which apply to the overall approval process, and then actually responding to all of the comments.
The County of Santa Clara is in the midst of processing Stanford University’s request for an updated General Use Permit which will govern development at Stanford for the next two decades.
The University has asked for approval of 2,275,000 net new square feet of facilities and up to 3,150 units of housing, which is estimated to generate an additional 9,610 people on campus. It is the largest development application ever submitted to Santa Clara County in the County’s 168-year history.
After comments are responded to and the EIR is final, the project will go before the Santa Clara County Planning Commission for its consideration and then to the Board of Supervisors for a vote. In the meantime, Simitian has asked County staff to post the public comments online at the earliest opportunity.
“With a project as large and complicated at the Stanford General Use Permit, it’s difficult to predict exactly when it will come before the Board of Supervisors,” noted Simitian, “but the public should know we’re doing all we can to ensure a quality process, where their concerns are heard and addressed.” The previous General Use Permit was approved in December 2000.
Public agencies submitting comments include:
Cities: City of East Palo Alto, City of Menlo Park, City of Palo Alto, City of Mountain View, Town of Portola Valley, and the Town of Woodside.
School Districts: Menlo Park City School District, Las Lomitas School District, and Palo Alto Unified School District.
Other Governmental Agencies: Menlo Park Fire Protection District, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Non-governmental agencies submitting comments include: Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, Friends of CalTrain, Menlo Spark, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors, Redwood City Forward Steering Committee, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society & Sierra Club (jointly), SCoPE 2035, SEIU Local 2007, Silicon Valley @ Home, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Stanford Graduate Student Council, and Stanford Student-Parent Alliance.
###