|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eye on the Environment
By Rachel Hooper Over the past several years, the firm has advised the Committee for Green Foothills in its ongoing efforts to protect valuable open space and sensitive habitat in the Stanford foothills. The
Committee's task has been challenging, as the Stanford University administration, with its formidable resources, has resisted Santa Clara County's land use authority at every turn. Nonetheless, thanks to the force and
tenacity of its leaders - and particularly Legislative Advocate Denice Dade - the Committee for Green Foothills has recently achieved impressive results, both with the enactment of the Stanford Community Plan and
with conditions imposed on a project proposed by the Carnegie Foundation. When the firm first became involved in this struggle, we learned that the General Plan for Santa Clara County contained no
standards for land use intensity applicable to Stanford lands within its jurisdiction. When Stanford needed approval for new development, it simply applied for an increase in the intensity allowed by its
"General Use Permit." Of course, state law requires that use permits, like zoning, be measured against quantitative standards in the community's general plan. Lacking such standards, the County's
regulatory authority over Stanford lands was illusory - and any issuance of permits to the University was subject to legal challenge. Backed by a coalition of environmentalists and a Stanford faculty
homeowner group, the Committee for Green Foothills made the case, politically and legally, that Stanford's lands are not exempt from state land use planning laws. Despite Stanford's reluctance to participate, the
County embarked on a lengthy process to amend its General Plan to add a "Stanford Community Plan." This Plan, complete with intensity standards, would serve as the land use policy framework for the
University's lands over the next 25 years. The Committee participated at each hearing throughout this process. As a result of the group's involvement and the leadership of then-Supervisor Joe Simitian, the County
ultimately adopted an Academic Growth Boundary for the Stanford campus. Like an urban growth boundary, the AGB serves as a dividing line between the core campus area, where urban development is concentrated, and
the foothills, which generally must remain in open space for a period of 25 years. With the enactment of the Stanford Community Plan in December 2000, the University's "sweetheart deal" with the
County came to an end, and government oversight of new development could begin. But the Committee for Green Foothills had no chance to celebrate its victory. In the same year that the County was deliberating over
the Community Plan, the Carnegie Foundation had proposed a large research/office complex in the Stanford foothills, which would pave over important open space serving as habitat for the California Tiger
Salamander. Carnegie and Stanford were adamant that this development could take place only in this sensitive location. Carnegie claimed: (1) that its research could not be conducted in Stanford's core campus area,
for its researchers needed the "quiet and serenity" of the foothills; and (2) because Stanford had offered a low-cost lease for only this site, all sites in the core campus were "infeasible."
For its part, Stanford, ignoring the Hoover Institute and other similar facilities, asserted that the core-campus was entirely inappropriate for a "think-tank" facility. Moreover, even though the
Community Plan was adopted prior to the Board of Supervisors' consideration of the Carnegie application, Carnegie claimed that the County should apply its old, standardless plan to the project (the amendment of
the County's General Plan occurred after the Planning Commission had acted on the project but before the appeal to the Board of Supervisors was heard). This argument was critical, as major components of the
Carnegie project would be located outside the Academic Growth Boundary established by the Community Plan. Once again, the Committee for Green Foothills' arguments concerning the project carried the day.
Fully recognizing the authority of the new Community Plan, the Board required Carnegie to redesign its project to ensure that all construction be located within the Academic Growth Boundary. Environmentalists
viewed this decision as essential, for the Carnegie proposal represented the first test of the Community Plan. The Board also accepted many of the suggestions of the Committee (and its biologist consultant)
concerning measures to protect the Tiger Salamander. While it had acknowledged that the project would impact the Tiger Salamander, Carnegie had refused to commit to meaningful mitigation measures. As a result of
the Committee's unrelenting pressure, the Board strengthened considerably the mitigation measures necessary to protect the Tiger Salamander. The Committee for Green Foothills' actions on these two
projects serve as textbook examples of effective environmental activism. The group stayed informed on all relevant County proceedings and activities, reviewing staff reports within hours of their publication, writing
timely comment letters, and using the Public Records Act when necessary. Committee leaders educated County planning staff and elected officials on the policy issues; they brought in the law firm to educate County
Counsel (and the Board) on the legal issues and to coordinate the key environmental consultants. The Committee prodded federal and state resource agencies to become more active in the area, and, perhaps most
importantly, organized a broad coalition of environmentalists and homeowners. Those who attended the climactic Board hearing at which the Academic Growth Boundary was adopted will not soon forget the excitement
and comradery generated by the Committee and its allies. The Committee for Green Foothills made a difference. Because of its hard work, one of the Bay Area's most beautiful resources, the Stanford
foothills, will remain largely unspoiled for at least the next 25 years. And, more generally, the Academic Growth Boundary will serve as a model of good land use planning for other large institutions and local
agencies throughout the state. |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
