By Lynn Stewart

In the ongoing public discussion of Stanford's development plans, certain arguments have been heard with particular frequency. Unfortunately, some of these arguments have been overly simplistic and hence misleading. Some examples follow, with commentary.

1) Stanford argument - Stanford has a right to do whatever it wishes with its land.

Rebuttal - Private property rights are important in our society, but they have never been unlimited. Community interests are important as well, and our various levels of community - local, statewide, and national - have evolved a complex web of rules and policies to balance public and private interests. Examples are zoning regulations, permit and mitigation requirements, and simple prohibitions of certain activities in certain locations.

Thus, private land - anyone's private land - may be used only in ways compatible with the rules and policies designed to benefit the community as a whole. The question then becomes whether Stanford's development plans comply with the relevant rules and policies, and if not, how they should be changed so that they do. It can be argued, for example, that Stanford should preserve publicly-accessible open space as partial mitigation for the negative impacts of its proposed 4 million square feet of development. This is a question on which reasonable people may differ, but it is not answered by the simple statement, "It's Stanford's land."

2) Stanford argument - Stanford has no plans to develop in the foothills.

Rebuttal - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., defines "foothill" as "a hill at the foot of higher hills" and "foothills" as "a hilly region at the base of a mountain range." According to these definitions, "the foothills" start where the land begins noticeably rising, which is approximately along Junipero Serra Boulevard.

However, Stanford has chosen to define the "Foothills District" to exclude 154 acres of foothill land located southwest of Junipero Serra and running from Alpine Road to approximately Campus Drive East. The University wishes to designate this newly named "Lathrop District" as part of the "core campus." It currently proposes to locate at least 41,000 square feet of additional development in this area: the 21,000-square-foot Carnegie Foundation building, plus a road extension and a 60-space parking lot, under the existing General Use Plan, and 20,000 more square feet for unspecified purposes under the new plan. This is "development in the foothills" under any logical definition. Moreover, once designated as "core campus," this entire area would be subject to the same intensive development that Stanford plans for its non-foothills land.

Furthermore, Stanford's repeated statements that it has no current plans to develop in the "Foothills District" obscure the fact that it reserves the option to do so in the future. Stanford has steadfastly refused to state that it will not develop the foothills in the long term, and its Draft Community Plan (DCP, p. 18) defines its open spaces as "reserved for future academic use." Furthermore, Stanford proposes that the Academic Growth Boundary that would theoretically protect the Foothills District from development be reviewed every five years and moved, as necessary, to accommodate the next ten years' worth of growth (DCP, pp. 13-14).

The University clearly views the foothills as space into which it may grow in the future, and it is therefore necessary to consider this possibility in assessing its current plans. If Stanford is allowed the intensive core-campus development that it seeks, if no long-term protection is established for the foothills, and if the University's present growth curve continues, it will not be many years before it is arguing that the core campus is built out and it "needs" to develop the foothills. Good long-term planning considers long-term needs - including open-space needs - rather than allowing intensive development based only on short-term projections.

Finally, even during the ten years covered by the Plan, Stanford may ask for permission to develop the foothills for "limited low-intensity academic . . . uses that . . . require a remote or natural setting" (DCP, p. 19). How does the University define terms such as "limited" and "require," and on what criteria will it determine that particular uses are important enough to justify being placed in the foothills? How many "low-intensity" think tanks will it take to transform the foothills into an extension of the core campus?

3) Stanford argument - Stanford has been a good steward of its land and has preserved much of its acreage as open space. It can therefore be trusted to continue doing so, whether or not it makes specific promises, or is constrained by specific legal requirements, to do so.

Rebuttal - The University has indeed preserved much of its open space resource (though it has allowed grazing on much of it, which has significantly disturbed the native ecosystem). However, it has often sought to develop its open spaces, and in many cases it has succeeded. For example:

• In 1959, Stanford expanded its Industrial Park into 254 acres of the foothills.
• In 1969, Stanford won permission from Palo Alto for industrial development on Coyote Hill. The Committee for Green Foothills sued and won conservation easements for the area.
• In the mid-1980s, Stanford proposed building the Reagan Library in the foothills. The University's own faculty rejected this proposal.
• Stanford has located the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the Center for Artificial Intelligence, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the golf course clubhouse, the Linear Accelerator, an artists' studio, and other buildings in the foothills, and it is currently proposing to add a building there for the Carnegie Foundation. All these are in addition to academic uses uniquely suited to open-space areas, such as the Dish itself, the student observatory, and the Jasper Ridge research projects.
• Stanford is currently building a substantial development on what was once the open space of Ohlone Field.

This record does not suggest that, if left to its own devices, Stanford will refrain from further development of its open spaces.

4) Stanford argument - Stanford has a beautiful campus and can be trusted to keep it that way; therefore, no constraints on its development are needed.

Rebuttal - Stanford does indeed have a beautiful campus. It is changing rapidly, however, with many central campus open spaces turning into new buildings. At some point along the growth curve, its character will be irrevocably changed, and whether its beauty will remain is an open question. It can be argued that only with growth limits will the campus have a chance of remaining beautiful.

More importantly, the fact that the campus is beautiful does not mean that Stanford's proposed growth will have no community impacts. It will, and those impacts need to be assessed, minimized, and/or mitigated, as would the impacts of any other development.

5) Stanford argument - Because Stanford's Founding Grant specifies that its lands are held in trust for its academic mission, the University is not legally able to designate any of them as permanent open space.

Rebuttal - This is a twofold argument: (1) that open space use is inherently outside the "academic mission," and (2) that no permanent designation for a "nonacademic" use is allowed.

(1) Both the language of the Founding Grant and Stanford's subsequent interpretation of that language suggest a liberal definition of the "academic mission." A number of University facilities are "academic" only in the broadest sense of the word. The University's extensive athletic facilities, for example, apparently qualify, perhaps because they further the development of "sound minds in sound bodies," because it is understood that scholars need opportunities for relaxation and renewal, or because they serve as attractions to many potential students and faculty. It can be argued that open spaces qualify as "academic" for the same reasons, and also because they are living ecology lessons and a resource for conservation studies.

(2) It is true that the University may not "sell or convey" the lands covered by the Founding Grant. However, long-term designation for a particular use is not "selling or conveying." The Founding Grant does not prohibit the Trustees from permanently dedicating land to an appropriate use. Moreover, various Stanford lands are currently dedicated to very long-term non-academic uses. Highway 280 is built on Stanford land, and many industrial leases of Stanford property are for 99 years. Even if Stanford does not consider open space an academic use, the Founding Grant does not preclude the Trustees from guaranteeing open space protection of the foothills for 99 years. It should also be noted that 1,900 of Stanford's foothill acres were acquired after the Founding Grant and thus are not subject to its limitations. The University is clearly free to dedicate these acres as permanent open space.

On a related point, it is legitimate to question the degree to which land use planning decisions should prioritize Stanford's "academic mission." As important as that mission may be, our community also has other values and goals. If Stanford's development for "academic" purposes makes the area more congested, more expensive, poorer in natural habitat, and less desirable as a place to raise children, is it worth it? If the community decides that it is not, it has the right to limit or preclude that development, regardless of the terms of the Founding Grant.

6) Stanford argument - Stanford needs to add 4 million square feet of development in the next ten years, and retain the option of adding unlimited amounts thereafter, in order to maintain its standards of academic excellence.

Rebuttal - There is no reason to assume that academic excellence demands unlimited growth in facilities. Many academic institutions have maintained their excellence for centuries without the enormous growth that Stanford seeks. Harvard and Oxford are unlikely to become second-rate institutions between now and 2010 because they will be unable to increase their physical size by one-third. The same is true of Stanford.

Moreover, academic excellence cannot be Stanford's only goal. It also has a goal of long-term survival, and this means living within the ecological limits to growth. In the end, if humans do not live sustainably, we will not survive as a species. And sustainability begins locally, with decisions to preserve watersheds and habitat, to avoid consuming long-term ecological capital for the sake of short-term gain. Accordingly, Stanford, like any other responsible institution, needs to think carefully about the overall value and impact of every one of its projects, however worthy. Does each project really need to consume more resources to be successful? If so, is it - in the larger ecological sense - worth it? (It can also be argued that learning to understand and work within natural limits, and teaching students to do the same, is itself a laudable academic enterprise.)

7) Stanford argument - Stanford must retain the option of unlimited future development, including development of its open spaces, because it cannot predict its future needs.

Rebuttal - Stanford predicts its future needs every time it plans a new building or leases out a portion of its property. If it can confidently enter into 99-year leases and erect structures designed to stand for decades or centuries, it is capable of protecting its core-campus and foothills open spaces for comparable periods. Moreover, all other developers are legally required to provide long-term mitigation - such as preservation of open space - for the impacts of their actions, and there is no reason to assume that their predictive capabilities are any greater than Stanford's.

8) Stanford argument - Stanford has been the engine of community prosperity and therefore should not be subject to community control.

Rebuttal - Stanford has indeed been important to the development of Silicon Valley. However, this has not been a one-way street. The high-tech boom has enriched Stanford tremendously in terms of both money and reputation. Moreover, the transformation of the region has not been an unalloyed good. It has resulted in substantial overcrowding, traffic congestion, habitat destruction, and pollution. Stanford has benefited enormously from the positive side of this transformation and should share equally in mitigating its harmful aspects.

In addition, even if we assume that the University's growth to date has been an overall regional benefit, at some point, if it is not limited, the negatives will clearly outweigh the positives. Good long-term planning will establish limitations before that point is reached. These limitations must logically include an ultimate carrying capacity and buildout limit for Stanford's lands.

9) Stanford argument - Stanford offers the community many advantages and therefore should not be subject to community control.

Rebuttal - It is true that the University benefits the community in many ways, making available everything from world-class health care to cultural events. Again, however, this is a two-way street. Every time Stanford's medical center saves a life, every time its music department presents a well-received concert, the University's reputation grows. Stanford's contributions to the community are not sacrifices but part of its very identity as a great university. They should be - and are - greatly appreciated, but they should not exempt the University from the requirements of responsible land use.

To the extent that Stanford's actions are relevant to these requirements, they should be weighed against the impacts of its existing and proposed development. For example, some Stanford lands are used for public schools and public-access open spaces. These community benefits can fairly be considered counterweights to the community detriments resulting from other Stanford land uses. However, the mere existence of these benefits does not mean that they automatically outweigh the detriments. This is especially true because some of the benefits - e.g., public access to open spaces - can currently be withdrawn any time Stanford chooses, which reduces their value to the community. Others - e.g., many of Stanford's transportation programs - only exist because the University has been legally required to implement them. Their existence is thus an argument in favor of community control, not against it.

10) Stanford argument - The community is unfairly asking Stanford to solve problems that it did not create, such as the regional housing and open-space shortages.

Rebuttal - Stanford has been a prime contributor to community growth, and hence to problems such as congestion and the jobs/housing imbalance. The University has been allowed to develop extensively without sufficiently mitigating the negative impacts of that development. Had Stanford controlled its growth so that it could house its own population and prevent adding commute trips to and from the campus, and had it devoted less of its land to industrial and retail uses, the regional jobs/housing imbalance and traffic congestion would be less severe than they are. Stanford has chosen to use its previous development allotments largely for growth rather than for addressing the consequences of that growth. Its requests for further growth must be considered in this context.

But even apart from Stanford's contributions to current regional problems, any landowner asking for development rights is constrained by the conditions that exist at the time. Stanford's proposed development must be assessed based on the impacts that it will have, given current conditions in the area.

11) Stanford argument - Stanford's proposal is a good one because it will help solve the regional housing shortage.

Rebuttal - Stanford is proposing to build a maximum of 3,037 units of housing. However, it is also proposing to increase its number of faculty, staff, and students by 2,201. Thus, assuming one University affiliate per new housing unit, its plan will increase net housing availability by a maximum of 836 units. Moreover, the University has not committed to building even this many units. If Stanford were serious about solving the housing problem, it would not be planning to increase its population. It would be adding housing instead of, not in addition to, its proposed 2 million square feet of additional academic space. And it would be considering replacing some of the nonacademic uses of its land with housing.

Lynn Stewart is SOSA's Alumni Outreach Coordinator.

Jane Lathrop Stanford