Regarding Stanford Land Use Application
Tuesday, January 25, 2000

Let me begin by saying how pleased I am at the progress we've made to date – how well I think the process has worked thus far, and how appreciative I am of the effort made by my colleagues, our County staff, the applicant (Stanford University), and most significantly, the public who have participated in bringing us this far.

On November 15th of this past year, Stanford submitted its application for a Community Plan and General Use Permit. As of that date, the process entered a new phase. Prior to that time, the primary responsibility was that of Stanford University – to prepare and submit an application for a new Community Plan and General Use Permit.

Now that that application has been submitted, the primary responsibility is that of our County – to review the application and adopt a Community Plan, which becomes a part of our County General Plan, and approve a General Use Permit with appropriate limitations and conditions. In the interest of time, I am going to dispense with substantial introductory remarks, except to reiterate a few observations I've offered previously:

First, I believe that it is possible for the University to maintain its tradition of excellence without compromising the quality of life for surrounding communities. I also believe that our County Planning staff got it right when they suggested that the key to our success in achieving those twin goals would be a Community Plan and a General Use Permit which married “flexibility with accountability.”

To that end I want to offer the following observations to help guide our staff as they move through the environmental assessment process and prepare their recommendations for consideration by the County Planning Commission, and an ultimate decision by our Board of Supervisors. In doing that, I want to offer two important caveats: First, the list of issues I raise tonight is by no means a complete one. To the extent that staff has already identified various issues for consideration in the environmental assessment process, or has already suggested revisions or conditions to the Community Plan and GUP, I have for the most part opted not to cover the same ground. I do, however, want to highlight some issues, make sure that other issues have not been overlooked, and make suggestions for approaches which might otherwise not be fully considered.

Which leads me to the second observation I want to make: The fact that I suggest an issue or an approach for consideration during the environmental assessment process should not be construed as a determination on my part that a particular course of action or approach is the right one. To the contrary, the environmental assessment process is by its nature designed to provide some understanding of the environmental impact a range of approaches might involve; and I'm anxious that our options not be limited at this early date. My hope and expectation is that when this matter is finally before our Board, we will not only have a thorough environmental assessment and a thoughtful set of recommendations from our Staff, but also a range of choices – both as to policy and as to the particular tools we might want to use to implement those policies.

All that having been said, let me now offer some specific comments.

Housing

On the issue of housing, I think the University's plans to build as many as 3,000 units for students and staff have generally been well-received by the community, and I am generally enthusiastic about the University's determination to help address the significant jobs/housing imbalance we face in the North County. The Notice of Preparation and various Staff reports which we've received to date already reference the need to consider not only the number of units involved but also the affordability of those units. I would, however, like to offer two refinements for consideration during the process.

The first is the potential use of some “linkage” between the level of new academic development allowed under the GUP and the number of units of new housing which are provided as a mitigation – that is, as a mitigation for the increased housing demand associated with that new academic development. I'd like our EIR consultants and our Staff to consider and comment on the feasibility and desirability of requiring incremental housing development as a precondition for additional development of academic facilities.

Second, I'd like to see a range of strategies identified which could ensure some measure of affordability for the non-student housing developed by Stanford University, and I would ask that that range of possibilities specifically include a look at the inclusionary zoning ordinance the City of Palo Alto has employed for quite some time which requires an affordable “set aside” or payment of “fees in lieu.”

Open Space

As to the issue of open space, I think the alternative suggested by Staff is a good one, and worthy of serious consideration, both as to the redrawing of the line and the redesignation of lands southwest of Junipero Serra as Open Space/Field Research as opposed to Open Space/Academic Reserve. I think, however, that there may well be other options which it would also be helpful to consider.

Clearly, the foothill lands southwest of Junipero Serra represent a particular and important challenge as view shed, as habitat, as open space and as buffer. Entirely apart from its use as a recreational asset, these lands require special attention. I would specifically ask our EIR consultants and our planning staff to consider the full range of possibilities available to our Board for protecting those 2,000 acres – consistent, of course, with the University's legal rights as a property owner. 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.

I would observe, with respect to the staff recommendation, that amendments to our County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance have some obvious appeal as a tool for protection, in that they are legislative actions wholly within the purview of this Board which are not inherently time-limited. An Open Space/Field Research designation, while it may not survive in perpetuity, would, if approved, last until and unless this Board concluded that a different designation and use was appropriate.

I also think that before this process is over we're going to have to come to grips with the question of access, that is, whether or not Stanford University intends to provide continued access to various parts of the campus, open space in particular. I acknowledge and respect the University's rights as a private property owner, but until and unless we know with some certainty what we can plan on in the way of levels of use, it will be difficult if not impossible to determine appropriate mitigation measures.

Transportation

Necessarily and appropriately the Environmental Impact Report will deal at great length with issues of transportation and traffic, and it's appropriate that mitigation measures be identified after the potential impacts of the project are identified. I do think, however, it is appropriate to be clear at this time that we expect to see a package of mitigations which will ensure, at a minimum, “no net new commute trips.”

I believe there is far more concern about the potential traffic impacts of four million square feet of development than there is about the four million square feet of development on the Stanford campus per se. A mitigation program which ensures that there are no net new commute trips will, I think, be an essential element of an approval which marries flexibility with accountability.

I also think that the impact of various special events on traffic on the surrounding communities needs a careful look, with an eye towards identifying mitigations that are tangible, specific and enforceable.

Flooding

I was pleased to see that the University's Draft Community Plan specifically requires, “Stanford to accommodate runoff from future Stanford development so as not to increase peak flows” (page 92, SCP-HS6). I look forward to seeing a package of mitigation measures which ensures that there will be no net new increase in peak flow in either Matadero or San Francisquito Creek.

The memory of the 1998 flood is still quite fresh in the minds of many in my community, not to mention the reminder we've had in the last few days, and I believe Stanford was well-advised to incorporate this specific provision in its Draft Community Plan. I look forward to hearing about it in more detail as the final plan and GUP make their way through the process.

Context and Regional Cooperation

I think it's unnecessary tonight to reiterate the interests and concerns that have been articulated by neighboring jurisdictions, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, Portola Valley and unincorporated San Mateo County as well as the Palo Alto Unified School District, the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District; but to the extent that they have articulated legitimate interests and concerns, my expectation is that we will continue to incorporate and respond to them, as I think we've done quite successfully in the process to date.

I also think that the EIR we commissioned for Stanford's 4,017 acres in unincorporated Santa Clara County must look beyond the boundaries of the unincorporated County and fairly evaluate the impacts of this proposed development on adjacent jurisdictions.

We must also ensure that our EIR consider the University's plans and proposals within the larger context of the University's total acreage, including the 4,163 acres not within our direct jurisdiction.

The Plan, The Permit and their Implementation

As to the Plan itself, I'd like to offer a couple of general observations that I think are important in ensuring the long-term success of whatever action our Board takes next Fall.

As currently written, the University's proposed Draft Community Plan is largely written in the University's voice and from the University's perspective. This is entirely understandable since the University is in fact the applicant.

In the final analysis, however, the Community Plan, as a package of amendments to our County's General Plan, must be a County plan reflecting the County's perspective and interests. As it is presently written, the Community Plan is predicated on the primacy of the University's mission, rather than the public interest. Because this is a public document designed to protect and enhance the lives of the public, the goals and strategies set forth must be rooted in the public interest. Clearly, we have to respect the rights of the property owner, acknowledge the obvious and substantial public benefits of this private use and value it for the tremendous asset that it is; but we still have to remember that our responsibilities, as a public agency, are first and foremost to the broader public interest. Community Plan and General Plan strategies, policies and implementation measures must all be driven by our determination about what is in the public interest. As the draft document is edited, amended and revised by our staff, this important distinction must be considered and addressed throughout.

Additionally, the language of the Plan needs to be strengthened throughout the document. As presently written, for example, the Community Plan calls for the County to “encourage” certain behaviors, when in fact it really will be necessary to “require” certain behaviors if the Plan's success is to be ensured. Again, a careful review, edit and revision should suffice to address this concern.

As to the implementation of the Plan and the conditions attached to the GUP, some sort of step-by-step program of implementation needs to be prepared with additional clarity and detail to ensure the actual implementation of the various strategies and policies contained in the Plan. In the final analysis, a Community Plan or a General Plan is only as good as its implementation. A Plan which is unimplemented or poorly implemented cannot be countenanced; and the same is true for the conditions of approval attached to the GUP. I'd like to ask that our staff, as a part of this process, develop an implementation program which can ensure that the strategies and policies contained in the Plan and the GUP conditions of approval are more than academic (no pun intended).

While I'm open on the specifics of an implementation program, I'm inclined to think that it will have to provide for monitoring, measurement and reporting by a genuinely independent third party whose objectivity and credibility cannot reasonably be questioned.

I think there may also be some benefit in providing some sort of ongoing forum to hear from the public regarding Stanford planning matters, and to share information. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Stanford Community Resource Group we've created, reduced somewhat in size. Meeting no more than 3 or 4 times a year, the Resource Group, working with County staff, could provide a useful venue for local concerns, opinions and points of view during the life of the GUP.

Existing Neighborhoods

During the course of the past year, we have struggled to identify and address issues of concern to the 845 staff and faculty households who are residents and homeowners on the Stanford campus. Historically, unincorporated urban pockets throughout the County have been subject to a policy which might best be described as benign neglect (a policy which, I think, has had both a mixed reception and mixed results). Stanford is unique, of course, among our unincorporated pockets, because the University itself serves in a quasi-governmental function in many respects, and has not been subject to traditional land use regulation in its residential neighborhoods.

Unusual though it is, this policy has worked well enough when Stanford campus residents were largely inclined to look favorably on the University's decisionmaking. In recent times, however, significant numbers of campus leaseholders have expressed some dissatisfaction with the decisions of the University's administration, and have called on the County to play a more activist role, particularly in terms of land use governance.

Essentially what we have is an unresolved tension between two somewhat different views of the world. On the one hand, the County's historic view has been that what Stanford University wants to do as an individual property owner within the confines of its own property boundaries should largely be left to the University to determine – as long as there are no adverse impacts on the surrounding community. On the other hand, we have been hearing from significant numbers of Stanford campus residential leaseholders who are advancing the notion that simply because they are campus residents, they ought not be obliged to surrender the benefits of the County's protection – that is, the careful use of our police power, exercised through land use and zoning regulations designed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.

Frankly, I've not yet come to any conclusion about how these two competing views should be reconciled, or even if they can be reconciled. I have, however, concluded that we can no longer finesse the issue, and that some discussion of the County and University's respective roles and responsibilities with respect to campus residents should be forthcoming. Consideration, for example, of an R1 zoning designation for campus neighborhoods may well be appropriate during this process. I would welcome Stanford, Staff and community thinking on this whole set of governance issues.

Conclusion

I think that just about wraps it up. I do, however, want to end on a positive note. We're concentrating tonight on how the process, the Plan, and the Permit might be further improved, but I think it's important to focus for a moment on the inherent strengths of the Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit application.

For the first time ever Stanford land use will be governed by a Community Plan, with a whole new level of clarity and specificity. As a part of that Plan, Stanford has already proposed, on its own initiative, something on the order of 3,000 housing units to address a critical shortage in the North County. And while I think the open space provisions need strengthening, it should not go unrecognized that the University has indicated it has no intention or desire to engage in significant development on the 2,000 acres of foothill acreage southwest of Junipero Serra. All of that is to the good. It's a substantial accomplishment in and of itself and ought not to be overlooked.

I believe we are capable of crafting a Community Plan and a General Use Permit which provides both flexibility and accountability, which allows a great university to stay great, without compromising the quality of life for residents in the surrounding communities. It's a challenge, but I think it's one we can meet and master.

Thanks very much.