Making Way for the New An in-depth look at Stanford’s 10-year development plan
By Greg Brazeal

No two documents are more likely to determine the future shape, size and stature of Stanford than the General Use Permit (GUP) and Community Plan currently under review by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. Together the documents make up Stanford's proposed 10-year development plan. If they are accepted, the next decade will bring more new development to the campus than it has ever seen, even during the University's foundation.

Few would deny Stanford's need for housing. In an area where $1,900 pays the average apartment's monthly rent and graduates receive yearly stipends as low as $17,000, the housing crisis is a daily fact of life. Likewise, no one denies that a university needs some degree of development to remain competitive.

The controversial plan, released in November of last year, proposes upward of 2 million square feet of academic development and roughly 3,000 units of new housing for students, faculty, staff and hospital residents. In his resignation announcement, University President Gerhard Casper focused on approval of the 10-year plan as a priority for his last months in office. Casper steps down on Aug. 31, and Santa Clara County will deliver a decision on the plan Oct. 31.

Environmentalists read the plan as a first step toward the defoliation of the Foothills. To them, it proposes the construction of a new city the size of three Stanford Shopping Centers. Golf fans find in the proposal the unnecessary disfigurement of a historical golf course, an architectural marvel where Tiger Woods and Tom Watson polished their swings. Supporters of the plan see it as a reasonable, moderate, balanced request from a university doing publicly beneficial work and striving to become the best of its kind in the world.

Oddly enough, these points of view may not be as far apart as they seem. There are primarily two issues at stake: the future of Stanford's open spaces and the fate of the golf course. Both pivot on the question of "infill."

The limits of infill

The development plan's critics, a varied group including environmental organizations, golf fans and area residents with traffic concerns, insist that the University can meet its academic and housing needs entirely through higher density infilling on the core campus, especially by replacing surface parking lots with parking structures.

"What Stanford is trying to do is build out to the corners and then come back with infill," the Stanford Open Space Alliance's (SOSA) Peter Drekmeier told the Santa Clara County Planning Commission at a packed public hearing last week.

"Patently untrue," Larry Horton responds. Horton is the director of the University's government and community relations. "Patently untrue, and in fact it's demonstrably untrue. You can go around the campus right now, and what do you see taking place: infill development."

Horton maintains that calls for greater infill miss the point. "The truth of the matter is that we don't do anything but infill development . . . . What is sort of distressing at these hearings is that people with great anger urge us to do precisely what we are doing and have been doing for some time."

But Palo Alto City Council Member Nancy Lytle says that Stanford has yet to demonstrate the necessity of building on the golf course or expanding into open spaces. She points to the 1,600 acres of surface parking lots on Stanford's lands, many if not all of which could be converted to space-saving parking structures.

"I'm not convinced that they've exhausted all possibilities on the surface lots," Lytle said.

Some golfing fans take a more combative stance. "Stanford developers do not know the difference between their shrines and their parking lots," golfer Richard Harris told the planning commission. Former Stanford Chinese History Prof. Lyman P. Van Slyke said that the proposed construction would reduce the golf course to "a shell of its former self."

Palo Alto resident Eddie Keating echoed Lytle's suggestion, putting a positive spin on preservationists' demands by comparing Stanford development to a sonnet: "Constraints encourage creativity." Many critics of the plan cite the University's recent completion of the Science and Engineering Quad as an example of creative, high density development.

Horton cites the new quadrangle as evidence that Stanford is already using infill strategies and will continue to do so. Indeed, he refers to the golf course construction as infill, as well as the construction planned for the Lathrop District, described below. "While we're planning on 2 million square feet of development and 3,000 housing units, it's all infill development," Horton said. "All of it. Every bit of it. The whole thing is infill development."

Neuman argues that the question of infill is tied to the question of communities for families, singles and partners, which require child care and recreation centers, as well as separation from labs, offices and other "generally noncompatible activities."

"The Stable Site, with hole number one included, is really our only site that meets these criteria at a reasonable density level," Neuman said, referring to the planning area that contains the first fairway of the Stanford Golf Course. "Most surface parking lots are slated already for academic buildings or graduate and hospital resident housing and are being replaced by expensive parking structures, some above and some below ground."

"It's not realistically feasible, any more than it's feasible to say that all the area's housing needs could be met in the town of Woodside if they didn't have acre-and-a-half lot minimums, and they were willing to put up high-rise apartments," said Bob Rosenzweig, a longtime Palo Alto resident.

"The reality is," Horton said, "that people like housing in the abstract, but they dislike almost any and all specific proposals."

But if the plan is not feasible through infill alone, some critics question whether the University needs as much academic development as it proposes. At last week's hearing, the Committee for Green Foothills' (CFG) Tom Jordan suggested that the county investigate allowing all of Stanford's proposed 3,000 housing units but only half of the 2.1 million square feet of academic development. He criticized the draft version of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for overlooking this possibility. "It wasn't even an alternative," he told the planning commission.

Setting aside the question of whether Stanford really needs as much academic development as it has proposed, the public debate currently in progress hinges on a point that virtually no one involved is qualified to judge: whether or not it would be possible for Stanford to achieve through infill the sort of community it plans to create through restructuring the golf course.

Even if Stanford proves that it has no room outside the golf course to build the housing it needs, there may be a way to avoid choosing between golf course and community.

Area B until 2020

Some critics have proposed remedies that might cause more harm to open spaces than the plan itself. Several speakers at last week's hearing proposed initiating development in the 126-acre Arboretum, Stanford's historically protected open space and green belt between the Oval and El Camino Real. One called the land an "Aussie wheat patch," another a "fire hazard."

Another hypothetical area of development that has only recently come to light is the 139-acre Area B (see graphic), a stretch of land along Sand Hill Road which is restricted from development until 2020 by a three-party agreement between Stanford, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County.

"The ironic stuff is all that talk about the golf course and the lower holes," Horton said, "and we can't do anything [in Area B] until 2020."

The original restrictions on the area were established in the '80s but were reinforced during negotiations over the Sand Hill Road project to guarantee that Sand Hill would remain a scenic highway.

Horton suggested that Stanford may be talking to the city of Palo Alto about loosening the restrictions governing Area B, but he hastened to add, "It's a signed contract, and I can tell you, we're not going to go back on it lightly. We won't do it unless we sort of trade space, I think."

Lytle said that Area B might be a better candidate for development than the first fairway of the golf course but points out that if Stanford can accommodate all of its development through infill, neither Area B nor the golf course will require alteration. "What I would certainly be open to is looking for a different place for Stanford to do that housing. But my first place to look would be the 1,600 acres of surface parking lot that are now on Stanford lands," Lytle said.

The Lathrop District

Another contentious question about Stanford's plan is whether it sufficiently protects the open spaces in the Foothills. The plan guarantees no development in the Foothills District for the next 10 years, the life span of the proposal. But environmental groups like SOSA argue that what people mean when they say "the foothills" - the grassy area southwest of Junipero Serra Blvd. - includes both the Foothills District and the 154-acre Lathrop District. Stanford's proposal does include some slight development in Lathrop: 20,000 square feet, or 0.5 percent of the area's total acreage.

"Anything we do would be low intensity and academic. We're putting a few things in already developed areas," Horton said. "Housing can't go in Lathrop."

Horton also said that the Lathrop District is "fundamentally" already 85 percent developed. He pointed out that 11 holes of the golf course, the golf course clubhouse, the Center for the Advanced Study of Behavioral Sciences, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Lathrop House and several artists studios are already situated in the area.

The planned 21,000 square foot Carnegie institution planned for Lathrop, Horton said, "has been foolishly made a cause celebre by our opponents. But it is not a Stanford project, and it is not part of the 2 million square feet." Stanford leased the land to the Carnegie institution under the University's last General Use Permit.

Far more disconcerting to environmental groups than the 41,000 square feet that might be developed in Lathrop during the next decade is Stanford planned redesignation of the Lathrop District as "Academic Campus." The district currently shares the designation of the Foothills District as "Open Space and Academic Reserve."

The draft Environmental Impact Report for Stanford's 10-year plan, prepared for the county by an independent consultant with Stanford funding, states, "It is reasonably foreseeable that the change in designation has been requested to allow for a greater degree of future development in the area."

A pamphlet produced by SOSA adds, "After 10 years, the land could be developed as densely as the rest of the campus." Stanford's proposal lends credence to this theory by suggesting an "Academic Growth Boundary" that makes no distinction between Lathrop and the rest of campus (see graphic).

"Stanford hasn't showed that they've used up all the development on the campus area," Jordan told the commissioners last week. "Why move the line?"

The Academic Growth Boundary would be part of Stanford's special section in Santa Clara County's Community Plan, rather than a part of the University's General Use Permit (GUP) from the county. While the GUP will have a 10-year duration and will entitle Stanford to build specific developments, the Community Plan serves as a framework for county decisions regarding Stanford development proposals. The distinction is essential for the University because it suggests a commitment to the permanent preservation of the Foothills District.

Horton says that Stanford redesignated the land in order to make the plan more accurate. "This is a distinctly different area from the rest of the open spaces," he said, arguing that because both sides of the street have golf courses, both sides of the street should have the same designation. As far as development of Lathrop goes, Horton said, "We certainly wouldn't come in with anything, even any suggestion, for 10 years, and it may be that even after that we wouldn't."

At last week's hearing, Palo Alto resident Kathleen Much said that further Lathrop development would not be a loss of open space. "It has been developed for over 100 years," she said, referring to the construction of the Lathrop House in 1890. Much pointed out that the district is far from being a pristine wilderness (see photos).

The city councils of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District and environmental groups such as SOSA have all called upon Stanford to guarantee permanent open space dedication for the Foothills District.

County land rights

Jordan emphasized that it is within Santa Clara County's power to make permanent open space dedication a condition of allowing Stanford to proceed with the rest of its plan. He also noted that the county is not even required to consult Stanford regarding its Community Plan, so Stanford's proposed academic growth boundary is entirely optional.

"The county can say 'no,' or it can say 'yes' with conditions, and the conditions might be dedication of the land," Jordan said. He hastened to add that dedication does not imply public access to the Foothills, though he suggested another condition of acceptance could be limited public access on a few trails.

When asked how Stanford would respond if Santa Clara County made permanent open space dedication a condition of accepting the development plan, Horton said, "We would certainly resist anything that would be a taking of our lands."

Jordan argued that open space dedication would not be "taking" because the decision would be Stanford's. "If it doesn't want to develop further," Jordan said, "then it doesn't, and then the land stays as it is. Or it does develop further, and it has to comply with the conditions."

The University's last General Use Permit, in 1989, provided for 2 million square feet of development, including both academic and housing construction. Jordan said at a July 20 teach-in on the development plan, "The county has never said 'no' to Stanford." He pointed out that throughout the 1989 plan the county proposed alternatives to Stanford's proposals, but "throughout the alternative section, all the alternatives were rejected because 'the applicant would not agree.' That is not a good reason."

The layout

Stanford owns 8,180 acres of land, only half of which lies within Santa Clara County unincorporated land (see graphic). The proposed 10-year development plan does not apply to the University's lands in Palo Alto, Woodside, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and unincorporated San Mateo County.

The argument has been made that many universities situated in urban centers, without Stanford's land reserves, manage to stay competitive without expanding. At the July 20 teach-in, Denice Dade of CFG said, "Most other top-ranking universities don't have a fraction of this land." Palo Alto resident Stan Christensen extended her claim at last week's hearing, saying, "Stanford has more square feet developed than any of the top 10 universities."

While it may be true that Stanford owns more land than its competitors, University Architect David Neuman says that the Farm does not, in fact, have more developed land than similarly esteemed universities, for example, Harvard. He points out that while Harvard's total population is only 35 percent larger than Stanford's, their academic space is 54 percent larger, including 2,300 units of graduate housing to the Farm's 4,000. "They also have significant projects in their pipeline totaling nearly 1 million square feet," he added.

But Jordan makes the case that a development project in a built-out urban center, such as Columbia's or Harvard's or Yale's, will involve the removal of less effective buildings every step of the way. Stanford's plan, on the other hand, occasionally proposes building new facilities in new places while leaving more outdated structures standing.

Horton argues that the severity of the regional housing crisis around Stanford makes the University's position unique. "The reason Stanford is building the housing is because of the regional housing shortage," he said. "I'm not aware of any university in America that provides as much housing now as we do for our students, faculty and staff."

"It's not as though we have any lust for growth," Horton added. "At all."

Bio-X and beyond

One of the most important and frequently overlooked aspects of Stanford's plan is the specific developments it proposes: a 12,000 seat basketball arena, information technology facilities, possibly even a joint Palo Alto-Stanford performing arts center to help relieve the current rehearsal and performance space crunch on campus. Central among the University's proposals are the buildings that will help bring to fruition the interdisciplinary Bio-X program, which will operate at the intersection of biology, physics, chemistry and engineering.

Provost and President-elect John Hennessy, who drew attention to the program last October by attracting a $150 million donation from Netscape co-founder James Clark, calls the proposed Clark Center "the most interdisciplinary new endeavor we have undertaken in the roughly 20 years I have been at Stanford."

A University-produced booklet summarizing and explaining the 10-year plan states that "the federal government is expected to invest heavily in interdisciplinary, biologically based research in the coming decade." Bio-X facilities are a tangible example of the link between a University's ability to develop and its comparative stature.

In Hennessy's words, "Stanford is in an almost unique position to take advantage of this type of opportunity because of the strength and close proximity of the medical school, engineering and the science departments."

Public hearings over the development plan continue Sept. 7 at 6:30 p.m. in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Ave. The Santa Clara Board of Supervisors will make final decisions regarding the plan on Oct. 31.