LAND USE: Stanford protests building linkage University reacts to county staff recommendations

by Don Kazak

A proposal by county planning staff to force Stanford to build its new student housing before or at the time it builds new academic facilities would unfairly restrict the university, Stanford officials say. Stanford is also protesting the county staff's proposal to place an academic growth boundary differently in the foothills than what the university proposed.

Those were the key elements of Stanford's long-awaited reactions to the Aug. 14 draft community plan for the university prepared by the Santa Clara County planning staff, aimed at defining the university's growth over the next 10 years.

Larry Horton, Stanford's director of government and community relations, gave the university response at a packed county Planning Commission hearing last week in Palo Alto.

"We strongly object to a potential Catch-22 element," said Horton, who has maintained that opposition to Stanford's housing efforts could have an adverse effect on the university's other plans. "Stanford could be unfairly punished."

Horton also urged the county commission to restore a planned site for graduate student housing that the county staff deleted because of concerns for the California tiger salamander habitat. The amphibian is protected as a "species of special concern" by the state.

Horton then went to show the commission, step by step, how almost every area of its core campus is being used and how it doesn't have any more possible housing sites if the Lower Knoll site near Lake Lagunita is removed.

The county staff has proposed that the 200 housing units Stanford planned to build at the Lower Knoll be transferred to the Escondido Village area, which is already seeing significant redevelopment.

Stanford is proposing to build almost 2,000 additional graduate student housing units to help ease the difficulties its students have in finding affordable housing in what has become a very expensive rent market.

The housing plans have been generally applauded by others, with the main criticism focusing on how growth is limited in the Stanford foothills. The county staff has proposed a more restrictive growth boundary than Stanford wants, largely along Junipero Serra Boulevard. The university prefers that an area west of Junipero Serra Boulevard where Campus Drive West ends - which now includes two think tanks and much of its golf course - be excluded from the growth boundary.

"Stanford is not proposing to change the character of these lands," Horton said.

But any foothills development is a red-flag issue for many in the surrounding communities. Both the Palo Alto and Menlo Park city councils have requested 25-year protection from development for the foothills, while environmental groups have pressed for permanent protection.

"This issue evokes a lot of passion in the community," said Peter Drekmeier of the Stanford Open Space Alliance. He also suggested that the county set a maximum build-out limit for the campus. "We just can't assume that Stanford will grow by 200,000 square feet every year," Drekmeier said.

Stanford's plans call for 3.8 million square feet of buildings over the next 10 years, while the campus currently has 12.3 million square feet.

Drekmeier and Denice Dade of the Committee for Green Foothills have both noted that the county staff's proposal means that the academic growth boundary proposed for the foothills could be moved once the campus hits 17.3 million square feet, and they suggested the boundary remain in place for at least 25 years.

Stanford's development plans have also united green groups and golfers in opposition. More than a dozen people at last week's meeting wore white and red baseball caps with the inscription "Save the Stanford Golf Course." The development proposal includes housing on the first hole of the course, forcing a redesign that could significantly change the highly-regarded course.

Horton and Stanford are protesting the linkage between new housing and new academic buildings, but its own students say the linkage is a good idea. Mary Lee Kimber of the Graduate Student Council and Seth Newton, president of the student government, both endorsed the linkage. "Stanford currently has little incentive to build new graduate student housing," Kimber said. "We don't care where you build it, just build it."

While the university's 10-year development plan has gone under intense community scrutiny and now has been modified by the county planning staff, there are also people who object to restrictions being placed on Stanford.

Andy Doty, former longtime director of community relations for the university, urged the county commission "to have the courage to resist the Joe Simitian, Palo Alto, environmentalists, cost-free take-over of thousands of acres of unincorporated Stanford land well beyond the Palo Alto city limits."

Simitian is the Santa Clara County supervisor representing North County, including Palo Alto and Stanford.

After the public comments at last week's public hearing, the county planning staff will now finalize its recommendations on Stanford's 10-year development plan and present them to the county Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 18 in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers.

The county commission is scheduled to take final action on the recommendations at 6:30p.m. Oct. 19 in San Jose, forwarding them to the Board of Supervisors. The county board has scheduled meetings at 7 p.m. Oct. 30 and 2 p.m. Oct. 31 for final action. Both of those meetings will be at 70 W. Hedding St. in San Jose.