By Denice Dade

The Spring 2000 publication of Stanford@Work News portrays Stanford as a long time, benevolent steward of its open space lands. A similar message is the focal point of presentations Stanford is offering to neighborhood groups. If we were to believe this message, along with much of the Stanford PR produced throughout this campaign, we might be lulled into a false sense of security. Trust Stanford and the foothills will be protected; trust Stanford and there will be no increased traffic congestion; trust Stanford and the jobs/housing imbalance will remarkably improve.

Let's look at the facts of Stanford's massive development plans and see why Committee for Green Foothills, Stanford Open Space Alliance, and so many other cities, organizations, and individuals have expressed serious concerns. (All "Stanford Claims" are from Stanford@Work News, Spring 2000)

STANFORD CLAIM: "It is clear we have done a good job of protecting open space and will continue to do so in the future."

FACT: If not for the constant vigilance of concerned community members and organizations, the foothills would be littered with development. The list of Stanford proposals for foothill development is extensive:

* The Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) was founded in 1962 to prevent the Stanford Industrial Park's development south of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra Blvd.
* In 1986, construction of a massive Reagan Library was proposed in the foothill area known as the Dish. Fortunately, intense opposition ended the proposal.
* More recently, construction of a 6 million-gallon steel and concrete water reservoir was completed in the Dish area, destroying tiger salamander habitat and creating visual impacts for visitors.
* At this very moment there is an application before the County for a 21,000 sq ft Carnegie Foundation facility, which will require carving out a twenty-one acre parcel of the beloved Dish area.
* Last but not least, Stanford's Community Plan and General Use Permit (CP/GUP) call for 154 acres of the foothills to be designated as "core campus," with 20,000 square feet of development proposed for the next ten years. This redesignation will inevitably lead to urban levels of development on those acres at some point in the future.

Stanford has been pressured to protect the scenic hillsides through constant monitoring of concerned citizens and groups like CGF that have and continue to protect the hills.

STANFORD CLAIM: "Our General Use Permit does not propose any development in the open space areas of the 2,090 acre Foothills District, which includes the Dish."

FACT: Given this statement, one would logically think that there will be no development in the foothills. Wrong. Stanford is proposing foothill development under its GUP. Stanford's claim manipulates language and confuses the public. Stanford intends to annex 154 acres of the foothills and redesignate the land as part of their urban core campus. The Foothills District is a new designation given to the remaining foothill area.

Stanford is proposing 20,000 square feet of development in the foothills for the area newly designated as core campus. Stanford also fails to mention the 21,000 square feet that would be developed in the foothills if the Carnegie Foundation is approved before the new GUP/CP is enacted.

In addition, Stanford fails to mention that they have done little in their application to change the zoning for the foothills, zoning which currently allows projects under 5,000 square feet with next to no public review. Even projects over 5,000 square feet require only a use permit from the County. So while Stanford's plan does not propose any development in the Foothills District at this time, it does not prohibit it. If, at any point in the next ten years, Stanford decides it wants a facility in the foothills, that development could occur.

STANFORD CLAIM: "…academic facilities will move forward at about the same clip as the past ten years..."

FACT: Stanford proposes to increase the pace of their development more than twofold. The 1989 GUP granted Stanford a total of two million square feet of development, including both academic facilities and housing units. Stanford's current GUP application asks for two million square feet of academic development alone. This does not include housing. When you look at total housing and academic facilities to be built over the next ten years, four to five million square feet is proposed. This would increase the size of the university by more than one-third in a single decade.

STANFORD CLAIM: "The university is addressing the housing shortage by proposing to build up to 3,000 new units..."

FACT: Stanford is proposing to increase the number of on campus jobs by 2,200 in the next 10 years. If all the proposed housing units are actually built, this leaves only 800 units to address the current housing shortfall. To make things even more unsettling, there is no guarantee in Stanford's plan that this many units will even be built. Notice the language: "up to" 3,000 units.

STANFORD CLAIM: "Our Founding Grant says that the Stanford land that was the Stanford Palo Alto Farm can't be sold and must be used to support the academic mission of the university. [Therefore]…we can't dedicate a portion of our land as permanent open space."

FACT: Stanford fails to mention the 1,900 acres acquired after the Founding Grant. These lands, located in the vicinity of Felt Lake, are not bound by the grant restrictions. The university can choose to sell them at any time. In addition, a conservation easement could be placed over any portion of Stanford's land. This would allow them to retain ownership of the land while protecting it. Maintaining the foothills as open space for recreation, watershed protection, ecological research, wildlife habitat, and viewshed, does support Stanford's academic mission. Land protection also helps to attract world class students and faculty.

Support a Better Plan for Stanford!

Stanford does not have the right to dictate to the community what will occur on Stanford lands. It is the County Board of Supervisors who must balance Stanford's needs and wants with the community's needs and wants.

When reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in January, Stanford's proposed plan was seen as inadequate at balancing these needs. Under the guidance of Supervisor Joe Simitian, the County is developing an alternative to Stanford's proposal.

In regards to the foothill protection, Supervisor Simitian wants "…the full range of possibilities available to our Board for protecting those 2,000 acres... In addition to the use of an academic growth boundary and/or general plan and zoning designations, I think it would be helpful to consider the potential for open space dedication, the granting of conservation easements, the transfer of development rights, the use of a development agreement, clustered development, or some combination of those tools, to protect the foothills."

Stanford's Draft Environmental Impact Report will be released on June 23, and the final EIR should be completed and presented to the Board of Supervisors in October.

You can help save the Stanford Foothills by writing to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; 70 W. Hedding St., 10th Floor; San Jose, CA 95110; fax: (408) 298-8460, joe.simitian@bos.co.scl.ca.us.

Denice Dade is the Santa Clara County Legislative Advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills. She can be reached at denice@greenfoothills.org or (650) 968-7243.

Jane Lathrop Stanford