| You are here: | Stanford Open Space Alliance Home > Newspaper Articles > October 25, 2000 Palo Alto Weekly |
| October 25, 2000 Palo Alto Weekly |
|
|
| EDITORIAL
– Stanford plans face final county vote Supervisor
Simitian proposes solid improvements to Stanford use permit in preparation
for vote next week On
the eve of final county consideration of Stanford's quest to build up
to 3,000 housing units and almost 2 million square feet of new academic
development over the next 10 years, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe
Simitian has weighed in with a package of proposals that reflect extraordinary
effort and skill at balancing the needs of the university with the needs
of the community. Simitian's
views should and will count for a lot when the Board of Supervisors
holds its final deliberations next Tuesday, and not only because the
board tends to defer to the local supervisor on matters of land-use
policy. Simitian
has made the Stanford use permit application a major priority and has
devoted countless hours to both understanding Stanford's position and
to nudging the university to accept the inevitability of greater scrutiny
and control in the future. Now,
as things begin to fall into place at the 11th hour, Simitian has put
forth solutions to the remaining lingering issues that we believe shows
great understanding and respect for Stanford's needs while at the same
time constitute a sound, fair and defensible approach to regulating
its development. In
a nutshell, here are his proposals: As
a condition for approving all of the development asked for by Stanford
for the next 10 years, the university must complete a "build-out
study" that addresses the question of what the ultimate capacity
is of Stanford lands. Milestones for completing the study would be set
to coincide with the timing of the new academic development. Stanford
should be required to construct the housing that is necessary to mitigate
the new academic development in a "loose" lock-step with that
development, with some flexibility for changes in the local housing
market. 15
percent of the housing needed to accommodate the employees related to
academic development should be set aside for lower-income wage-earners
so that these individuals are not forced to commute long distances,
or, in the alternative, a fund be established to provide affordable
housing within six miles of the university. Stanford
should be required to commit one acre of its unincorporated land to
open space for 99 years for every 2,000 square feet of academic development
it undertakes, under a concept Simitian calls "Compact Urban Development
(CUD) Commitment Credits." The
so-called CUD Credits are based on the notion that development on Stanford
lands is being approved contingent on it being clustered intensely within
the core campus area in order to avoid sprawl on outlying lands. In
effect, we are evaluating Stanford's development needs for its entire
4,000 acres, but situating it in a compact manner desired both by the
university and the community. Should
Stanford fully complete the proposed 2 million square feet of academic
development over the next 10 years, it would be obligated to designate
1,000 acres, as determined in the next few weeks through negotiations
between the county and Stanford, to set aside for 99 years. We
believe each of Simitian's proposals accomplishes key objectives for
the surrounding community while at the same time allowing Stanford to
fulfill its needs without unreasonable constraints. Stanford
will undoubtedly and understandably argue for as much flexibility as
possible in how it develops over the next 10 years, and it deserves
great credit for the steps taken in the plan and in recent agreements
to respond to the regional housing crisis and the needs of the local
schools. But
in the final analysis it is fair and appropriate for the county to insist
upon the guidelines and limitations being proposed by Supervisor Simitian.
We have every confidence that Stanford, consistent with its stated goal of forging a stronger partnership with the community, will not only find that it can accept the plan as amended by Simitian's proposals, but can do so with the understanding that it is in the long-term best interests of both the university and the local community. |
|
|
|
||||
| Last Modified: | ||||