|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Jose Mercury News After two
years of controversy and contentious public debate, Stanford University got the go-ahead Monday to expand its campus development by one-third over the next decade - allowing the university to build 3,000 housing units and several
academic and sports facilities. And Stanford, the largest landowner on the Peninsula, won a compromise solution from local officials, requiring that it protect its prized foothills from building for just 25 years instead of
the 99 years or longer that some had wanted. That compromise leaves open the possibility of future development west of Junipero Serra Boulevard, a prospect that dismays some environmentalists. But Stanford President John
Hennessy said he was happy with the plan, although it includes some extra hurdles for the university should it want more development. "I think we can live with this," Hennessy said after Monday's vote by the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors. "We don't have any intention to build in the foothills in the next 25 years." Stanford's plans for growth, which for the first time in the school's 115-year history required approval
from Santa Clara County, have pitted those concerned about shrinking open space in the growth-crazy region against those who support the university's pleas for more housing and academic facilities. In the end, the
supervisors struck a compromise that is at least acceptable, if not ideal, for all sides. The plan tentatively approved Monday - which permits the university to expand by almost 5 million square feet - says that Stanford may build
3,000 units of faculty, staff and graduate student housing, including about 100 affordable units for staffers. And the university will add 2 million square feet of facilities, including laboratories, academic buildings, a
basketball arena and a performing arts center. But the university must cluster new development in the core campus, and for 25 years, it cannot build beyond an academic growth boundary that runs along Junipero Serra
Boulevard and protects the foothills. Stanford originally proposed protecting the foothills for 10 years, but various community groups and the city of Palo Alto lobbied for permanent protection. Supervisors settled on 25
years, but they added additional restrictions. Supervisor Joe Simitian proposed - and the other supervisors agreed - to create a new zoning district for the foothills based on so-called "hillside zoning." Hillside zoning,
used to control development in other parts of Santa Clara County, requires that construction be clustered in 10 percent of the area in question, with the remaining 90 percent reserved as open space. Stanford also must come
up with a plan for sustainable future growth, which must include protection of sensitive areas in the foothills, such as steep slopes, vistas and environmentally fragile zones. This plan must also show the county that the
university has exhausted all of its usable space on the core campus before it can encroach into open space. The so-called "build-out plan" must be submitted and approved by the county after half the academic construction
is complete. Further, the university must abide by a county conservation plan for the 413 acres in the foothills designated as a special conservation area. That acreage would become a habitat management zone for 25 years.
Finally, supervisors voted to require a "super majority," or a four-fifths vote, to change any of these restrictions or the 25-year ban once they become part of the county's general plan. Normally, the general plan
can be amended with a simple majority, or the approval of three out of five supervisors. Most of these new restrictions, which had not been in earlier drafts of the plan, came out of recent discussions between Stanford
officials and the county planning staff. Some came from Simitian. Hennessy said the county and the university had reached a "good agreement for everybody." Hennessy was not happy with the supervisors'
refusal to classify postdoctoral students and medical residents as staff. By excluding them, the supervisors hope to reserve the 100 units of affordable housing for workers such as janitors and kitchen staff. "I'm somewhat
disappointed that postdocs and medical residents were discriminated against," Hennessy said. "Some of them have debts as high as $100,000, and there's no way they can afford housing in Palo Alto." Simitian,
who last month almost severed negotiations with Stanford when he suggested half the foothills should be protected for 99 years, said this plan was a good compromise. "I can't get to three on 99 years," he said, meaning
he was unable to gather the votes needed to pass his plan. Only Supervisor Blanca Alvarado was in favor of it. The other supervisors thought a 99-year ban on development would leave the county open to a lawsuit. Stanford was
outraged when Simitian proposed the 99-year ban, and several Stanford law school professors called the plan unconstitutional. "This is the product of substantial back and forth over the last year, year and a half,"
Simitian said. "The board members share a concern about clustering development and preventing sprawl above Junipero Serra Boulevard. If my tool for achieving that is unacceptable, then I am prepared to come up with new
tools." Denice Dade of the Committee for Green Foothills, a group that campaigned aggressively for permanent protection of the foothills, said although some progress was made toward open space protection, she is
disappointed. "It's not with a binding 25-year academic growth boundary, and that negates what the surrounding community has asked for," she said. Her group is considering legal action. One clear winner is the
city of Palo Alto. If Stanford accepts the county's approved plan, which Hennessy said was almost assured, then Stanford will lease a parcel of prime real estate to Palo Alto for $1 a year. The land, at the corner of El Camino Real
and Page Mill Road, will be used to build a home for the Jewish Community Center, which is being displaced by a new middle school. Stanford proposed the lease as a goodwill gesture to its neighbors, but said it was contingent upon
the county approving an acceptable growth plan. The county planning staff will write a final plan, complete with the new conditions, and it should be approved by the supervisors Dec. 12. |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
