Platform for Equitable Stanford Development

Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035 (SCoPE 2035)

Spring 2018

Overview of the Platform

1. Workers deserve housing on campus.

● Stanford should provide 5,328 new housing units for faculty, staff, and workers to better match
the projected growth of its workforce over the lifespan of the 2018 GUP.
● 75% of those housing units should be allocated through a new and separate lottery dedicated
to workers as defined previously.

2. The treatment of workers at Stanford should be improved by

eliminating subcontracting and extending benefits to all workers.
● Stanford should directly hire all existing and new workers that would otherwise be contracted
during the 2018 GUP, exempting construction workers.
● Every benefit that full-time workers receive should be immediately extended to all workers
regardless of time worked or position as part-time or casual.
● The Affordability Task Force should meaningfully involve workers and appropriately prioritize
their needs.

3. Transportation and housing metrics should be updated.

● Santa Clara County should update the housing linkage ratio based on updated Santa Clara
County housing linkage data and the escalating magnitude of the housing crisis. The County
should require that Stanford to build enough housing to at least satisfy this updated minimum
and that Stanford build units in proportion to respective growth amongst faculty, student, staff,
and worker categories.
● Stanford should add Vehicle Miles Traveled as a transportation management metric and adopt
an ambitious reduction target for all trips at all hours of the day, measured in VMT.

4. Transportation benefits should be extended to all workers.

● Stanford should ensure that its annual Transportation Survey reaches all classes of workers --
specifically 3rd party and contracted workers. Based on survey results, Stanford should
expand its transportation demand management programs accordingly.
● Stanford should provide free parking permits for workers that live outside a 1-hour commute by
public transit from campus, who work past operational hours of Stanford’s TDM benefits or
public transit, or who face other extenuating circumstances that require the use of a car.
● Stanford should prioritize transportation benefits that will reduce VMT associated with
lower-wage workers on campus.

1
Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

5. Stanford should contribute more monetary resources to transit and

schools.
● Stanford should contribute monetary resources to Caltrain for grade separations, electrification
efforts, and long-term system maintenance.
● Stanford should expand its Marguerite system to include a line between Stanford campus and
East Palo Alto, down University Ave or Hamilton Ave.
● Stanford should increase their impact fee to fully mitigate impacts to Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) or reserve Stanford land to be used as a new school site for PAUSD.

6. Stanford should be responsible and transparent in its development.

● Stanford should make the Long Range Planning white papers accessible to people without a
SUnet ID, with translations to the most prevalent languages in the area. The existence of the
white papers should be publicized to neighboring communities.
● Stanford should issue a public statement acknowledging its own role in contributing to the
housing crisis in the Bay Area.
● Stanford should commit to actively encouraging relevant affiliates to find housing in the Bay
Area in a manner that minimizes displacement and gentrification impacts through education,
resources, and informational sessions.
● Stanford should not develop on protected or unprotected indigenous sacred sites.
● Stanford should cease off-campus developments of satellite campuses and worksites in the
Bay Area.
● The County should maintain the current Academic Growth Boundary that reigns in growth of
the academic campus to its current perimeter until the end of the GUP.
● Beginning after the GUP is approved, Stanford’s Parking & Transportation Services
department should produce annual, publicly accessible reports documenting the changes in
TDM programs (including parking fees and benefit programs) and the rationales for doing so.
Such a report should disaggregate by Stanford affiliation.

7. Stanford and its Affordable Housing Fund contributions should be

accountable to those most impacted by Stanford’s development and
the housing crisis.
● There should be more community oversight over the Stanford Affordable Housing Fund.
● Housing built with the Stanford Affordable Housing Fund should be built either within a 6-mile
radius of Stanford campus, or ½-mile away from a major transit stop or ¼-mile from a high
quality transit corridor in areas that have a high number of Stanford employees.
● Santa Clara County should annually transfer 9% of the in-lieu fees collected from Stanford
directly to the City of East Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
● Stanford should commit to providing contributions towards housing development in East Palo
Alto. Stanford should give a one-time $1 million payment to EPA CAN DO, a local housing
developer corporation, to further spur housing development in the city; Stanford should
annually provide $1 million to the City of East Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

2
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

About SCoPE 2035

The Stanford Coalition for an Equitable 2035, or SCoPE 2035, is a group of undergraduate and
graduate students with a vision for a more equitable Stanford University. We are currently work
with student groups, SEIU Local 2007, workers, and community groups to engage Stanford
administrators and Santa Clara County officials in Stanford’s 2018 General Use Permit process.

About the Platform Process

The release of this platform culminates two academic years of research and community
engagement by SCoPE 2035. In the last two months alone, we have discussed this platform
with 13 housing organizations based in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County and several
individuals who are community leaders and housing advocates in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and
Menlo Park. We partner closely with the union SEIU Local 2007 and we support all of their
demands during the Stanford General Use Permit process. The intended audience for this
platform is both the Stanford University administration and the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors, and we intend for this to influence their decision-making related to Stanford’s
development.

Definition of “Workers”
Unless otherwise noted, when referencing “workers”, we reference all workers that are:
● All directly-hired full time staff (unionized and non-unionized) working in groundskeeping,
food service, and custodial positions
● All contingent, casual, and temporary workers
● All third-party contract workers (in food service and childcare centers), including those
working for on-campus vendors, janitorial contract workers, and construction contract
workers.

According to the 2018 General Use Permit Draft EIR1:

● Casual employees ​are hourly workers less than 50 percent FTE and working no more
than 980 hours per year, including summer camp staff, summer grounds/ facilities work,
and special projects in academic units.
● Contingent employees​ are salaried workers with roles that are comparable to staff,
working less than 50 percent full-time equivalent (FTE) and/or working less than six
months.
● Temporary workers ​are hourly workers at 50 percent FTE or more working no longer
than six months, including summer camp staff, summer grounds/ facilities work, and
special projects in academic units.

1
https://gup.stanford.edu/the-project/deir
3
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

● Other non-employee academic affiliates include affiliated teaching staff, adjunct

professors, and visiting scholars. These are not typically full-time positions, with some
members of this population visiting the campus less than 20 percent of the time
● Third party contract workers​ include food service workers at on-campus cafeterias and
child care center workers.
● Janitorial contract workers​ are third party contractors working off-peak hour morning and
evening shifts.
● Construction contract workers ​are related to ongoing construction projects on the
campus.

Full Platform

1. Workers deserve housing on campus.

Proposal 1.1 ​Stanford should provide 5,328 new housing units for faculty, staff, and
workers to better match the projected growth of its workforce over the lifespan of the
2018 GUP.

Rationale:​ ​Per the Draft 2018 General Use Permit2, Stanford is planning on building 550 housing
units for faculty and staff. Over the next 17 years, Stanford plans to bring 789 new faculty, 2,438
new staff workers, and 2,101 new workers to campus— 5,328 new employees in total. In other
words, the University plans to build 0.103 units of housing for every new employee it hires.

Based on Condition F.1.6.c in the 2000 GUP Conditions of Approval, Stanford’s in-lieu
fee for affordable housing are supposed to provide “first priority to Stanford employees to the
extent allowed by law and/or financing restrictions.” However, the priority for Stanford employees
is not reflected in the procedure for distribution of the funds3. Thus, the in-lieu fees are not
guaranteed to provide housing off-campus for Stanford employees. Rather than resorting to the
in-lieu fee, Stanford should build 5,328 housing units for faculty, staff, and workers to match the
projected growth of its workforce during the 2018 GUP period. Though not every new incoming
affiliate may choose to live at Stanford, the remaining units can provide housing for current
affiliates who want to live at Stanford.

Proposal 1.2 ​75% of housing units should be allocated through a new and separate
lottery dedicated to workers as defined previously.

Rationale: ​Currently, Stanford-employed service workers can enter the Stanford housing lottery,
but receive lowest priority after faculty and staff. Given the high demand for faculty/staff housing,
service workers rarely end up housed by Stanford. Despite relying heavily on subcontracted
workers, Stanford University does not provide the same housing benefits to its sub-contracted
workers as it does to its staff or faculty. The current lottery system, which prioritizes faculty and
includes only limited rental options for staff, should be supplemented with a separate program
that prioritizes service workers, subcontracted workers, and other low- to moderate-income

2
https://gup.stanford.edu/the-project/deir
3
http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=40388&MeetingID=2396
4
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

employees. Of the incoming faculty, staff, and workers, 85% of them will be staff and other
workers. In order to ensure that low- to moderate-income employees have an opportunity to
receive University housing, 75% of housing units should be set aside in a worker only lottery. The
new lottery for workers should be administered in a fair, transparent manner. Finally, Stanford
should include renter protections for workers within housing contracts so that Stanford cannot use
the threat of eviction as leverage against workers.

2. The treatment of workers at Stanford should be improved

by eliminating subcontracting and extending benefits to all
workers.
Proposal 2.1 ​Stanford should directly hire all existing and new workers that would
otherwise be contracted during the 2018 GUP, exempting construction workers.

Rationale​: S
​ tanford consistently contracts out work to companies such as UG-2. Stanford does
not provide contracted workers with the same working benefits as Stanford-hired employees.
Moreover, it is difficult to hold contractors accountable for providing adequate benefits to
contracted workers, which have previously shifted their hours without input. Many contracted
workers work at Stanford for as long as directly hired workers and should be considered part of
the Stanford community. By 2035, Stanford anticipates having a total of 1,912 contracted workers
on campus, 1,200 of them being construction contract workers. Stanford should directly hire the
712 janitorial and third-party contract workers (Table 6, Appendix PHD, Volume 2 of the Draft
EIR).

Proposal 2.2 ​Every benefit that full-time workers receive should be immediately
extended to all workers regardless of time worked or position as part-time or casual.

Rationale​: C ​ urrently, only workers who work full time, or 40 hrs per week, qualify for full benefits
from their employment, such as pension plans, medical insurance, transportation benefits, and
eligibility to join SEIU 2007. Workers who work at 75% full time equivalent (FTE), or 30 hrs per
week, and workers who work less than 50% FTE, or less than 20 hrs per week, currently receive
these benefits on a sliding scale according to the length of time worked. It is regular practice of
R&DE to cut the hours of workers without notice or consent so that workers do not pass the 50%
FTE threshold and gain access to benefits. Stanford should remove the sliding scale system for
benefits and allow all workers to receive benefits.

Proposal 2.3 ​The Affordability Task Force should meaningfully involve workers and
appropriately prioritize their needs.

Rationale​: U
​ nder Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s new vision for the future of
Stanford, one of the Community Initiatives includes assembling an Affordability Task Force to
address issues such as housing and transportation. The task force will include “staff, faculty,
academic staff, graduate students, and postdocs” (Stanford Vision White Paper, p. 10). This list
ostensibly excludes casual, contingent, temporary, and contract workers. These excluded
Stanford affiliates and other workers are the most impacted by the affordability crisis, and in many
cases are not provided appropriate benefits if at all.

5
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

3. Transportation and housing metrics should be updated.

Proposal 3.1 ​Santa Clara County should update the housing linkage ratio used to
assess the adequacy of Stanford’s planned housing development based on updated
Santa Clara County housing linkage data and the escalating magnitude of the housing
crisis, and require Stanford to build enough housing to at least satisfy this updated
minimum. The County should require that Stanford build units in proportion to respective
growth amongst faculty, student, staff, and worker categories.

Rationale​: I​ n the 2000 GUP, Stanford was required to build 605 units of housing for every
500,000 square feet of development. This linkage ratio is based on data from 1993, with no
justification provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Report as to why it remains relevant
today. Given the escalation of the Bay Area housing crisis and new data concerning Santa Clara
County jobs/housing ratios, Santa Clara County should update this housing linkage ratio and
require Stanford to build enough housing to at least satisfy this updated minimum. The County
should require that Stanford build units in proportion to respective growth amongst faculty,
student, staff, and worker categories; Stanford cannot only build student housing first and then
build faculty/staff/worker housing later, but should build housing to match the growth of all
populations.

Proposal 3.2​ Stanford should add Vehicle Miles Traveled as a transportation

management metric and then adopt an ambitious reduction target for all trips at all
hours of the day, measured in VMT.

Rationale​: S​ tanford should adopt a more ambitious trip reduction target to combat regional traffic
and lengthening commutes. The 2018 GUP projects that workers (not including students) will
travel over 43,000 more vehicle miles in total per day by 2035 compared to 2018, an increase of
26%. In order to promote commute equity, the University should mitigate these impacts and
reduce travel distances. Stanford’s current standard of capping the number of commute trips is
insufficient. Instead of solely counting the number of commute trips, Stanford should add the
metric of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), or the total distance of those commute trips. Unlike a
simple trip count, VMT accounts for the distance that workers are commuting and the emissions
from those trips. This new target would be measured against a baseline set at the beginning of
the new GUP. Because it is more difficult to estimate than the number of trips, VMT requires
more intensive data collection, especially for workers who are not included in existing
transportation surveys.

A VMT goal will also help Stanford address its carbon footprint. The California Air
Resources Board (ARB) released an updated Mobile Source Strategy which identifies how the
state can meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. The analysis concluded that a 15%
reduction in VMT from light-duty vehicles by 2050 would be part of the strategy. Stanford should
adopt a 15% reduction in VMT by 2035 in order to lead the way for the rest of the state.

6
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

4. Transportation benefits should be extended to all workers.

Proposal 4.1 ​Stanford should ensure that its annual Transportation Survey4 reaches all
classes of workers -- specifically 3rd party and contracted workers -- not just full-time
University employees, students, and part time workers. Using the result of the survey,
Stanford should expand its transportation demand management programs accordingly.

Rationale​: Parking and Transportation Services’ annual Transportation Survey does not include
third-party contractors, janitorial shift workers, and construction workers, who make up about
1,740 of Stanford’s nearly 23,000 faculty, staff, and workers (GUP DEIR Vol 3, Appendix VMT).
This gap is particularly concerning given that low-income workers spend proportionally more of
their income5 on transportation and housing, especially when they must drive to work. Stanford
should expand the survey population in order to capture the transportation patterns of all workers.
The survey results should be anonymized, publicly released, and used to inform transportation
demand management (TDM) programs that specifically target low-income workers.

Additionally, Stanford provides an array of benefits to encourage alternative

transportation, mitigate traffic, and lower commute costs. However, the University restricts access
to these benefits to certain classes of workers, regardless of whether those workers have greater
need. For instance, the Caltrain Go Pass, VTA Eco Pass, and transportation tax deductions are
not available to temporary, casual, contracted, and part-time workers. In addition to being
unavailable for those categories of workers, Commute Club membership is also explicitly denied
to night-shift, evening-shift, and off-campus workers, and the Eco Pass is unavailable to
postdocs. Stanford manipulates its TDM program to comply with the “no net new trips”
requirement while excluding certain classes of workers. Stanford should revamp the TDM
program to allocate transportation benefits to workers effectively and equitably. Lower-income
workers, who often commute longer distances to work at Stanford, should receive the same or
better commute benefits than moderate to high income employees who commute during peak
hours.

Proposal 4.2 ​Stanford should provide free parking permits for workers that live outside
a 1-hour commute by public transit from campus, who work past operational hours of
Stanford’s TDM benefits or public transit, or who face other extenuating circumstances
that require the use of a car.

Rationale​: Currently workers who live significantly far from campus and workers whose hours run
past the operational hours of public transit cannot benefit from the existing public transit benefits
that Stanford offers to workers. For many of these workers, driving to work is their only viable
commute option. The purpose of parking permits is to incentivize commuting by other means; in
the case of these workers, the parking permits are not serving their purpose. Workers who
demonstrate an unviable commute alternative to driving, are ineligible for receiving transportation
benefits, and are unable to use alternative modes of transportation should be able to receive free
parking permits. Other workers with extenuating circumstances (e.g. low-wage, disabled, elderly,

4
​https://gup.stanford.edu/transportation-no-net-new-commute-trips
5
​https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0314_transportation_puentes.pdf
7
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

have children and/or a spouse who are dependent on the use of a car, etc.) should also be able
to receive free parking permits.

Proposal 4.3 ​Stanford should prioritize transportation benefits that will reduce VMT
associated with lower-wage workers on campus.

Rationale:​ ​When determining how to adhere to transportation benchmarks associated with the
2018 GUP, Stanford has a broad swath of pricing and benefits tools that it can use under its
TDM program. Instead of using need-blind benefits given on the basis of maximum cost
efficiency, Stanford should prioritize benefits for low-income workers, who spend a higher
proportion of their incomes on transportation and housing. To this end, Stanford should be
required to produce a public report analyzing opportunities to reduce VMT sorted by need of
workers (considering income, residence location, and commute conditions, among other
factors). Beyond analyzing how the transportation benefits can be adjusted, Stanford should also
analyze how workers’ shifts can be adjusted to allow evening- and night-shift workers to access
more benefits.

5. Stanford should contribute more monetary resources to

transit and schools.
Proposal 5.1 ​Stanford should contribute monetary resources to Caltrain for grade
separations, electrification efforts, and long-term system maintenance.

Rationale:​ ​As a heavy user of Caltrain, Stanford should consistently contribute funds and
expertise to sustain and improve this transit service, which is critical for reducing regional
congestion and air pollution. According to the 2015 Stanford Transportation Survey, 22% of
Stanford’s nearly 20,000 commuters travel by Caltrain, amounting to 12.6% of daily ridership on
the entire Caltrain corridor. Stanford is also the largest purchaser of GoPasses, which provide
free Caltrain use for tens of thousands of eligible Stanford employees, graduate students, and
postdocs. Despite facing budget gaps and a lack of dedicated funding, ridership on Caltrain
continues to soar at even higher rates than the modest growth projections used in the GUP Draft
EIR. Stanford’s planned expansion will contribute to that growth and further strain the system’s
capacity. While increased use of public transit is beneficial, the University should make
contributions of financial resources and expertise to projects like grade separation and
electrification to ensure the system is sustainable. Stanford is currently contributing expertise to
Caltrain’s Business Plan, which is a positive first step. As an institution with significant financial
and technical resources, Stanford should do more to fulfill its obligation to be a responsible
member of the Caltrain community.

Proposal 5.2 ​Stanford should expand its Marguerite system to include a line between
Stanford campus and East Palo Alto, down University Ave or Hamilton Ave.

Rationale:​ ​Considering the population of Stanford workers commuting from EPA, Stanford should
play a role in easing the commute between East Palo Alto and Stanford. A significant number of
Stanford affiliates live in East Palo Alto. Currently, there are no direct transit lines from East Palo
Alto to the Stanford Oval; SamTrans has routes 280 and 281, which stop at Stanford Shopping

8
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

Center. Stanford should expand its Marguerite system to include a direct line from East Palo Alto
to the Stanford Oval in order to provide commuters with viable commute options to campus.

Proposal 5.3 ​Stanford should increase their impact fee to fully mitigate impacts to Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) or reserve Stanford land to be used as a new
school site for PAUSD.

Rationale:​ ​Considering the number of students that increased Stanford housing will bring, the
payment of the current PAUSD school impact fee per square foot is insufficient. The PAUSD
school impact fee applies to all new construction in the district, in which Stanford is included.
However, the costs of yearly student education are typically covered by property taxes, to which
Stanford is exempt. With the current school impact fees, it is unlikely that Stanford will pay more
than $5 million over the 17 year duration of the GUP, although the cost to educate a student at
PAUSD is estimated to be $14,700/year.6 In the Draft EIR, it is projected that 550 units for faculty
and staff would produce 275 new students. This is according to a student generation rate of 0.5,
which some believe is conservative because it does not account for the fact that Stanford often
produces such units as a single family homes rather than multi-family apartments. The estimated
275 students would add a estimated cost of $34 million by the end of the GUP, for which there
are no property taxes to mitigate the burden. Furthermore, the amount of housing that Stanford is
proposing to build, while vital to solving the housing crisis, is likely to strain PAUSD elementary,
middle and high schools that are already facing capacity issues. Therefore, for greater and more
consistent funding, Stanford should increase their school impact fee so that it fully mitigates the
cost burden of additional students to PAUSD, or it should reserve a site for a new elementary
school.

6. Stanford should be responsible and transparent in its

development.
Proposal 6.1 ​Stanford should make the Long Range Planning white papers accessible
to people without a SUnet ID, with translations to the most prevalent languages in the
area, including but not limited to Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Tagalog. The
existence of the white papers should be publicized to neighboring communities.

Rationale:​ ​The President’s Long Range Planning Initiative developed a “high level vision for
Stanford’s future” that the University will work to implement over the next ten years. Key elements
of this vision are provided by white papers on specific topics such as affordability, public service,
and physical campus development. While University has released a public webpage entitled “A
Vision for Stanford” that lays out a general vision, entire sections of the website are closed to
people without a Stanford affiliation. The white papers are also restricted to those with a Stanford
affiliation. We believe that Stanford should be transparent and accountable when developing and
implementing its long-range plan. This begins with allowing neighboring communities the same
access to its long range planning documents as affiliates. Stanford should meet with community

6
​http://www.paloaltopulse.com/2014/10/16/palo-alto-pulse-asks-how-does-school-funding-work-in-palo-alto

9
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

partners and stakeholders to determine a meaningful, effective method of publicizing the white
papers to the wider community.

Proposal 6.2 ​Stanford should issue a public statement acknowledging its own role in
contributing to the housing crisis in the Bay Area.

Rationale:​ ​Recently, President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis Drell released “A Vision
for Stanford”7 which emerged from the Long-Range Planning8 process. Stanford acknowledges
that the “Bay Area affordability crisis has enveloped Stanford and poses a clear and present
danger to the future of our institution” (Vision Presentation9, SUNetID only, p. 32). This
demonstrates that Stanford has a clear understanding of the urgency of the crisis and the link
between the issues of housing and transportation.

However, Stanford should also publicly claim responsibility for its impacts on housing and
transportation in the area, particularly its role in gentrification and displacement in neighboring
low-income communities of color such as East Palo Alto, Belle Haven, and North Fair Oaks.
Beyond failing to fully mitigate the direct impacts of its campus development, Stanford does little
to address the impact of its alumni in the Bay Area. Our numbers suggest that every year over
half of graduating Stanford students choose to stay in the Bay Area, creating a significant annual
influx of new Bay Area residents. Stanford also provides little to no guidance on finding housing in
a manner that does not displace previous residents or add to local housing market pressure.
Moreover, Stanford willingly flaunts its contribution to the growth of Silicon Valley when it comes
to the benefits, but shirks responsibility when Silicon Valley companies are criticized for
exacerbating the affordability crisis. The Stanford administration should not declare that the
university is a victim of the affordability crisis without claiming responsibility for its contribution to
the situation that Stanford and outside communities must deal with.

Proposal 6.3 ​Stanford should commit to actively encouraging relevant affiliates to find
housing in the Bay Area in a manner that minimizes displacement and gentrification
impacts through education, resources, and informational sessions.

Rationale:​ ​As a prominent institution based in the Bay Area, Stanford attracts many people to the
region. Many Stanford alumni remain in the area after graduation, and affiliates that Stanford
does not directly house must find housing in communities throughout the Bay Area. Moreover,
many students staying in the area over the summer seek housing off-campus. Consequently,
Stanford is directly responsible for adding demand to the housing market in the Bay Area, which
in many cases contributes to displacement and gentrification in low-income communities.

Stanford should provide guidance to its community members on finding housing in an

equitable manner. The target audience would be off-campus graduate students, postdoctoral
scholars, alumni, and undergraduates living off-campus for the summer. Resources from groups
such as Anti-Eviction Mapping Project10 and Urban Displacement Project11 should be promoted to
encourage Stanford affiliates to check whether their landlords have previously evicted tenants

7
​https://ourvision.stanford.edu/
8
​https://planning.stanford.edu/
9
​https://ucomm.stanford.edu/ourvision/Stanford_Vision_Presentation.pdf
10
​https://www.antievictionmap.com/
11
​http://urbandisplacement.org/map/sf
10
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

without just cause or whether the neighborhood they hope to move to is rapidly gentrifying. If
affiliates choose to move somewhere that will cause displacement or gentrification impacts,
resources should also provide ways for affiliates to support existing local anti-displacement work
and limit gentrifying impact. At minimum, we ask for Stanford to institutionalize this responsibility
by dedicating staff capacity and/or hiring students to:
● curate and maintain these resources,
● send these resources via emails to affiliates during their housing search (in the month
before the start of the academic year, for example) on an annual basis,
● provide them on a public website that is prominently advertised and easily accessible
from other housing-related pages, and
● host well-publicized events to go over the resources and answer questions.
Resource curation and distribution method should ultimately determined through consultation with
local tenant advocacy groups.

Proposal 6.4 ​Stanford should not develop on protected or unprotected indigenous sacred sites.

Rationale:​ ​Sustainability should not be limited to environmental sustainability; it should also

include cultural and social sustainability. As indigenous peoples lived in the Bay Area for
thousands of years before Spanish colonization and settlement, it is the responsibility of all Bay
Area residents, governments, corporations, and non-profit institutions to honor remaining tribal
lineages and protected or unprotected sacred sites.

Possible Solutions:
● Permanent council or working group featuring members from the Muwekma Ohlone tribe
● The creation of a list of individuals of the Muwekma Ohlone tribe that wish to be
consulted collectively or independently any time Stanford proposes a major construction
project for site approval or if remains are found during construction on any site
● Consult Muwekma Ohlone representatives to amend the current map of cultural
resources to include sacred or sensitive sites

Proposal 6.5 ​Stanford should cease off-campus developments of satellite campuses

and worksites in the Bay Area.

Rationale:​ ​Stanford has been developing satellite campuses and off-campus worksites in the Bay
Area that threaten to exacerbate gentrification and displacement. For example, the Stanford in
Redwood City project has induced increased rents in Redwood City and North Fair Oaks and
increased commercial development nearby. Further, in “A Vision of Stanford” resulting from the
Long-Range Planning process, Stanford plans to expand satellite work centers such as the pilot
worksite in San Jose.12 These plans supporting coworking spaces can easily promote local
gentrification culture and cause displacement as they continue to proliferate across the Bay Area.

To address this, we ask that Stanford revoke the policy of expanded satellite campuses
in “A Vision of Stanford.” Instead over the lifetime of the 2018 GUP, Stanford should focus on
creating housing solutions on campus that can provide similar transportation benefits in the
long-term. Along with this, Stanford should commit to no further off-campus development projects

12
​https://cardinalatwork.stanford.edu/news/stanford-pilots-satellite-worksite-san-jose
11
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

during the 2018 GUP. Instead, if off-campus office space is desired, Stanford should only rely on
leased worksites where gentrification impact has been studied and minimized, as a temporary
solution. By 2035, however, Stanford should no longer require leased off-campus office space.

Proposal 6.6 ​The County should maintain the current Academic Growth Boundary that
reigns in growth of the academic campus to its current perimeter until the end of the
2018 GUP

Rationale:​ ​In 2000, the Stanford Community Plan established an “Academic Growth Boundary”
to direct future development of the university towards its campus core. However, this policy was
set to last only 25 years, leaving ten years of development under the 2018 GUP without any firm
limitations on campus sprawl and protection of the foothills. In order to encourage dense,
transit-oriented development, as well as to protect natural resources, the university should
commit to an extension of this policy until the end of the 2018 GUP’s lifespan.

Proposal 6.7 ​Beginning after the GUP is approved, Stanford’s Parking & Transportation
Services department should produce annual, publicly accessible reports documenting
the changes in TDM programs (including parking fees and benefit programs) and the
rationales for doing so. Such a report should disaggregate by Stanford affiliation.

Rationale:​ ​Stanford should be required to produce a public report analyzing opportunities to

reduce trip counts, sorted by need of workers (considering income, living location, commute
conditions, among other factors). As a condition of approval for the 2018 GUP, Stanford should
produce a public report identifying trip reduction policies, categorized by the authentic needs of
workers as determined by an anonymous survey. In the process of producing the report, Stanford
should consult with all classes of workers, including part-time, 3rd party, and contracted workers.
Upon completing the report, Stanford should solicit comments for a period of at least two months,
then implement the relevant policies.

This public report will provide transparency in how Stanford chooses its TDM programs.
As mentioned before, Stanford structures its TDM programs not by prioritizing its community
members based on need but in order to fulfill the NNNCT target. This change will hold Stanford
accountable to creating a TDM program that provides benefits that address community needs in
an effective, efficient and equitable manner.

7. Stanford and its Affordable Housing Fund contributions

should be accountable to those most impacted by Stanford’s
development and the housing crisis.
Proposal 7.1​ There should be more community oversight over the Stanford Affordable
Housing Fund, which should remain separate from other housing funding sources (such
as Measure A).

12
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

Rationale:​ ​Currently the funds paid by Stanford are placed into a Santa Clara County-managed
escrow account, which is then allocated via the Office of Affordable Housing to particular housing
projects (see Condition F6 of the 2000 GUP13). Through procedures adopted by the Board of
Supervisors in 200814, the Office decides funding parameters for and publicizes notice of funding
availability (such as this one15), evaluates applications, and makes recommendations through the
County Executive to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Public and private entities are
eligible to apply for projects.

Santa Clara County should allow the formation of a Community Advisory Board, which
will allow impacted community members and stakeholders to oversee the administration of the
Stanford Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund. For example, during the Application
Process for Available Funds, the Office of Affordable Housing (OAH) should consult the
Community Advisory Board in addition to the current review panel for a combined funding
recommendation (see IV.216). Community board should provide input during the NOFA/RFP
process and approve applications. The Community Advisory Board should be comprised of
elected representatives from various community and stakeholder groups. Long-standing
members of neighboring low-income communities such as East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks;
Stanford workers, including union representatives; students; staff; and faculty shouldreceive
representation on this board. The board should consist of a majority of tenants rather than
landowners.

Proposal 7.2​ Housing built with the Stanford Affordable Housing Fund should be built
either within a 6-mile radius of Stanford campus, or ½-mile away from a major transit
stop or ¼-mile from a high quality transit corridor in areas that have a high number of
Stanford employees.

Rationale:​ ​As of the 2000 GUP, in-lieu / BMR housing fees are paid by Stanford to a
County-managed escrow account to building affordable housing projects within 6 miles of the
boundary of the Stanford campus (see Condition F6 of the 2000 GUP17). This appears to be
broadly based on the theory that Stanford’s housing impacts are most acutely felt within this
radius from campus and that new housing should alleviate this demand. Under the procedures
set by the County in 2008 implementing this condition18, funding priority is also given to projects
located Santa Clara County and evaluated on the basis of how the projects address the County’s
housing needs established in the County’s Housing Element for Extremely Low Income
households.

In Stanford’s recent application for the 2018 GUP, it has proposed to change the
geographic range of housing development to one-half mile within any major transit stop or
high-quality transit corridor in Santa Clara County, in line with Senate Bill (SB) 375, as a
mechanism to encourage transit-oriented development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions

13
​https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BM4gZWP7M6Ym1kc3A3YnBWeHM/view
14
​http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=40388&MeetingID=2396
15
​http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=106617
16
​http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=40388&MeetingID=2396
17
​https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BM4gZWP7M6Ym1kc3A3YnBWeHM/view
18
​http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=40388&MeetingID=2396
13
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

(see 3.41 of the application’s Project Description19). In order to target the benefits of both criteria,
the Affordable Housing Fund should be available for developments that fulfill either one.

Proposal 7.3A ​Santa Clara County should annually transfer 9% of the in-lieu fees
collected from Stanford directly to the City of East Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust
Fund.

Rationale:​ ​Currently Stanford’s housing impact funds are spent with in a six-mile radius of
campus. This radius encompasses East Palo Alto, but East Palo Alto is in San Mateo County; the
lack of coordination between the two counties on housing poses as a barrier for the funds to be
used in East Palo Alto. To date, none of these funds have been used to build housing there, and
without funds intentionally directed to projects in the city, we find it unlikely that any of the funds
generated during the 2018 GUP will do so. Because EPA is prominently impacted by Stanford’s
expansion, we ask for a portion of the County’s funds be transferred directly to EPA.

Proposal 7.3B​ Stanford should commit to providing contributions towards housing

development in East Palo Alto. Stanford should give a one-time $1 million payment to
EPA CAN DO, a local housing developer corporation, to further spur housing
development in the city; Stanford should annually provide $1 million to the City of East
Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Rationale:​ U​ nder Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s new vision for the future of
Stanford, “Purposeful Engagement with Our Region, Nation & World” and “Community
Engagement” are highlighted as a priorities20. This is a critical opportunity for Stanford to act as a
good neighbor. Stanford uses East Palo Alto as an “enrichment zone” for students and faculty,
sending groups to study and experience East Palo Alto while providing limited benefits to
community members as research subjects and public service recipients. Simultaneously,
Stanford has played a large role in fueling the influx of wealth in Silicon Valley which has
displaced East Palo Alto community members21. If Stanford prioritizes meaningful engagement
with its neighbors, it should provide adequate mitigation of its current and historical impacts on
East Palo Alto.

Similar to Housing First policy22, providing direct funds for affordable housing keeps
community members in the community. When East Palo Alto residents are displaced, they no
longer have access to the benefits of other investments. East Palo Alto currently hosts over 200
non-profits, but only one of those is a community development corporation that builds and
maintains affordable housing: EPA CAN DO. Stanford should directly provide funds to EPA CAN
DO. The funds can help cover pre-development costs and hasten the process of planning,
approving, and constructing affordable housing that is urgently needed in the community. The
rest of the funds, in addition to the portion we are asking from Santa Clara County, should be
given to the City of East Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

19
​https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SU_2018GUP_App_Tab3_ProjectDesc.pdf
20
https://ourvision.stanford.edu/pdfs/Stanford_Vision_FactSheet.pdf
21
https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-altos-eden/
22
https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/
14
 Platform for Equitable Stanford Development
Stanford Coalition for Planning an Equitable 2035

Supplemental Figures
From ​2018 General Use Permit Draft EIR23:

23
https://gup.stanford.edu/the-project/deir
15