|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Palo Alto Weekly Stanford says the site works because it is next to two existing think tanks. Palo Alto, Menlo Park and the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District all believe the think tank would be better situated somewhere less environmentally sensitive. And the open space district, along with the state Department of Fish and Game, is
concerned because the site is within the California tiger salamander habitat. The public agencies all commented in writing on the draft environmental impact report for the Carnegie application, which is pending before the
Santa Clara County Planning Commission. Part of the great attraction of the site for the foundation is that Stanford will lease it for $1 a year. Other sites on Stanford lands would be leased at market rate because of
their value. "It's not that we didn't look (for alternative sites)," said Carnegie spokeswoman Gay Clyburn. "There's no alternative site that the foundation could afford." "There will be no other site
on the core campus," said Larry Horton, Stanford's director of government and community relations. "It's next to two other think tanks. It's appropriately sited." The Carnegie site is near the Center for the
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, which is across Junipero Serra Boulevard near where Campus Drive West ends. But Junipero Serra Boulevard is also important because it is Palo Alto's "urban growth
boundary," a policy designed to counter sprawl. The road is also where many have suggested the county establish an academic growth boundary for the university in a separate, 10-year development application also currently
pending before Santa Clara County. That application, for a community plan and general use permit (GUP), should also be considered when the impacts of the Carnegie application are considered, both Palo Alto and Menlo Park
say. It's a coincidence that the Carnegie Foundation application and Stanford's GUP are being considered at the same time, since the foundation application began earlier. The Carnegie application was delayed
twice, said county planner Sylvia Donati. The first time was when the county realized a subdivision application was also necessary, and the second time when the foundation revised its plans. But since the two applications
are being considered more or less concurrently, both Palo Alto and Menlo Park suggest the impacts of the two projects be considered together. Because of the general use permit application, "the Carnegie project should
not be treated independently," wrote Ed Gawf, Palo Alto planning director, in his letter to the county. Gawf also noted in his letter that the GUP application "repeatedly mentions the university's intent to focus
development on the core campus in order to preserve undeveloped open space areas, such as a proposed site of the Carnegie facility. The concurrent timing of these two proposals heightens the inconsistency between them."
The Menlo Park letter, from chief planner Arlinda Heineck, echoes Palo Alto's in questioning why alternative sites were not pursued, and requests the impacts from the GUP and Carnegie applications be considered together.
The environmental impact report for the Carnegie application notes that the foothills site is desired because it is available for $1 a year, while sites at Page Mill Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard and at Deer Creek Road
would be available only at market rates. "Please explain the reason for this," Heineck wrote. The open space district also wants to have alternative sites more carefully considered. A letter from Craig
Britton, general manager of the district, noted that "the proposed project site is in an area with more potential impacts on biological resources than other alternatives in the core campus area." The
"biological resources" include California tiger salamanders, classified as a "species of special concern" by the state, and a candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The
environmental impact report for the Carnegie project proposes setting aside 4.5 acres of land near the project site in a permanent conservation easement. That's an area where Stanford has already installed ponds as a potential new
breeding habitat for the amphibians, which now breed in Lake Lagunita. The Carnegie site is also within the management zone for the salamanders that was created by a 1998 agreement between Stanford, Santa Clara County, the
state Department of Fish and Game and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service. In response to the Carnegie EIR, the state agency sent a letter to the county noting that it "would prefer any alternative site that is not
habitat for (the California tiger salamander)." For now, the agency isn't satisfied with the proposed mitigations. "We would have to see where the easement is that they're proposing," said the agency's
Margaret Roper. The EIR leaves the location vague. Neither Stanford nor the Carnegie Foundation seems overly concerned with questions about the impacts on salamander habitat, though. Horton said the foundation has come up
with a plan that goes beyond the mitigations proposed in the EIR. "We think that program is better than what the EIR is proposing," Clyburn said. In addition to creating new salamander habitat nearby, the foundation is
proposing to construct a breeding pond on its own property after construction is complete, and restore its 18.5 acre property "to its original undisturbed condition."
"There will no net loss" of salamander habitat, Horton said. Donati, the county planner, said the responses to the Carnegie project EIR will now be analyzed and responses prepared. After that, the final EIR will
be issued and the county Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, on a date to be determined. |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
