.
Feedback

Stanford Moves One Step Closer to Redwood City

Stanford University will take the approved draft environmental impact report and submit a final plan. Do you think the project will provide an overall benefit to the community?

The Redwood City Planning Commission is looking forward to a final environmental impact report of the proposed 1.5 million square foot Stanford University extension at the former mid-point technology park. Commissioners Tuesday night reviewed the draft report and requested mitigation on traffic and air quality impacts on the project.

Stanford University approached the city in 2008 with a proposal that would expand the University, the Stanford Medical Outpatient Center and Genentech into the 48-acre area bound by US 101, Douglas Avenue, Broadway Street and Rolison Road. The proposal includes 4,500 parking stalls, an additional 5,200 employees and more publically accessible open space. The construction would include street extensions on Barron, Warrington and Hurlingame Streets plus more pedestrian crossings.

“We’re excited to join the Redwood City community,” said Steve Elliott, Stanford’s Managing Director of Development Projects. “We want to weave ourselves into the fabric of the community with street extensions, help solve neighborhood’s flooding problems, and provide worldclass business and education programs.”

Elliott added that many smart growth advocates had supported the proposed development.

Mitigating Significant Impacts

As with many new developments, the report found that the development would have a significant impact on traffic conditions at six intersections surrounding the development and traffic on US 101 in the project vicinity.

“Some of these intersections already have terrible traffic,” said environmental consultant Ray Pendro of MIG. “This project would add to that.”

Caltrans determined additional intersections under its jurisdiction would also have significant impacts.

Pendro said all these intersections have engineering solutions such as restriping and signal changes and partaking in the city’s traffic impact fee, but the developer would have to get approval from Caltrans. The fee requires Stanford and any other traffic contributor to pay for a percentage of traffic mitigation based on the percent of vehicle trips they contribute.

Caltrans is currently in discussions with the city to mitigate traffic on the Woodside Road entrance to US 101.

“Traffic is going to be horrendous, but we are studying the plan,” said Bonnie Miller, co-chair of the neighboring Friendly Acres Neighborhood Association.

Though the Association hadn’t voted to support the project yet, Miller spoke of the positive relationship Stanford has had with the Association.

“Stanford has been listening to us and has been caring,” Miller said. “And I expect them to continue that.”

Friendly Acres resident, Lisa Riedell, echoed Stanford’s outreach and applauded the project for its proposed neighborhood street enhancement system and energy efficiency.

The report also found significant impacts to air quality during construction and emissions from vehicle trips while the project is being built. An on-site child care center during construction would also have to be 700 feet from the freeway and insulated from noise that currently exceeds the city’s standards in the proposal.

If the city’s Historic Resources Advisory Committee deems the neighboring 425 Broadway, the plaza with the Warnecke fountains or the Ampex sign as a historic resource, the project cannot be built.

 

Moving Forward

As required by law, the report included alternatives to the proposed project: 

  1. No project – full occupancy of existing buildings. There are 600 employees currently, which only occupy one-third of the space
  2. No project – existing zoning; there’s still possibility to build square footage of up to 1 million square feet
  3. Reduced development/historic resources preservation
  4. R&D, hotel and restaurant
  5. Housing; 228 housing units

The public has until March 12 to make comments on the project.

After the developer submits a final environmental impact report, the Planning Commission will decide whether or not to recommend the project certification to the city council in the spring.

For more news about Redwood City and surrounding areas, including unincorporated San Mateo County, follow us on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook.

Get Patched in daily by signing up for our newsletter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Redwood City-Woodside Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vanessa Castañeda (Editor) May 16, 2013 at 11:35 am
Pamela, are you following a conversation that's taking place on Patch?
Bret Baird May 18, 2013 at 09:05 am
Thank you for posting this. As a teacher who represents 500 teachers, we routinely pay out of ourRead More own pockets to support our students.
Linda Allen April 10, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jennifer, thank you for all your wonderful work on Patch. Life is a journey and you're on yours.Read More It will be an amazing change for you and family. Real estate will definately be cheaper, which is my bigest gripe with rentals in the bay area. I wish you all the happiness you deserve. Linda Allen
Kate Ashley April 5, 2013 at 06:18 pm
Tot ziens en veel geluk Jennifer!
Jacqueline Whittier Kubicka April 5, 2013 at 04:03 pm
Jennifer: I really enjoyed working with you on the story about the Barnes family and Ballet AmericaRead More back in December. Also liked "following you around town" on the other stories you covered. There will be lots of great people and exciting news back east -- not to worry. Best of luck.
Buck Shaw March 31, 2013 at 01:15 pm
So why do you keep voting for bigger Government? Seems the consumers have solved the problemRead More without "It's" help.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive March 31, 2013 at 12:43 pm
This is a much more effective means for dealing with the issue. Legislation is not.
roberta peters March 31, 2013 at 12:26 am
I agree, the public has the right to know what they are eating. It is absurd to be purchasing foodRead More that contains GMOs and not be able to know it is in the food.... why the secret if it is so safe??? I will not shop at any food stores that refuse to provide the public with information on what I am eating or serving to the people I care about. Trader Joes and Whole Foods have my loyalty for having the courage to stand up against the big guys and set an example by doing what is right for the consumer and not folding to pressure from Monsanto, Dupont and the other corporate giants that could care less about our safety and only care about how much money they can rake in.
Pat Barajas May 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I just saw your post about your missing dog and then the follow-up that you found him. I am so happyRead More for you. Thank goodness he was found. Best Pat
ana g May 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm
We found him! Thanks