20090210_m

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

January 26, 2009

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 10, 2009

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None required

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:

Stanford University Sustainable Development Study

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the attached letter (Attachment A) regarding the Sustainable Development Study (Study) and transmit to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

PROPOSAL

Stanford University has completed and submitted for review and approval by Santa Clara County a Sustainable Development Study (Study). Although San Mateo County has no approval authority, the Study is being presented to San Mateo County for review and comment.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Partnerships – Leaders work together across boundaries to preserve and enhance our quality of life.

Goal 23 states: Leaders throughout the County provide the impetus for broader regional solutions in land use, housing, childcare, education, health and transportation.

The opportunity to comment to Santa Clara County on the Stanford Study is an example of government collaborating across boundaries to enhance quality of life and develop regional solutions to land use, housing, education, health and transportation.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Report Prepared By: Matt Seubert, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1829

Applicant: Stanford University (to Santa Clara County)

Parcel Size: About 2,700 acres of Stanford lands are located in unincorporated San Mateo County.¹

Existing Zoning: RE/S-11 (Rural Estates/S-11), with a smaller portion of RM (Resource Management)¹

General Plan Designation: I/OS/FS (Institutional/General Open Space/Future Study)¹

Spheres-of-Influence: Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Woodside¹

Existing Land Use: The portion of Stanford lands within San Mateo County includes the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and its environs, as well as Guernsey Field, Jasper Ridge, and the Webb Ranch.

Environmental Evaluation: Not required

Setting: Although the majority of Stanford-owned lands, including the Central Campus, are in Santa Clara County, about 2,700 acres are located in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Stanford lands within San Mateo County are surrounded by other unincorporated areas of the County (Ladera, Weekend Acres, and nearby West Menlo Park), as well as the incorporated cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and Woodside.

Policy 8.4.h of the San Mateo County General Plan states that, “For Stanford lands, plan for an arrangement of land uses which provides for the academic needs of the University, preserves important natural resources, and is compatible with the general plans of adjoining communities as determined in future land use studies.” This particular Study, however, is specifically focused on Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County, not in unincorporated San Mateo County.

Stanford University has agreements with the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County relating to land use policy for the Campus that date back to 1985. The original “Three-Party Agreement” (Attachment B) primarily addressed annexation procedures for and municipal services within Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. There is no similar agreement with San Mateo County.

SUMMARY

The Sustainable Development Study addresses how Stanford University will apply sustainable planning principles as it grows over the long term. The Executive Summary is included as Attachment C. As the complete Study and appendices is well over 100 pages and includes many color maps, it has not been attached to this report. The complete Study and related documents are available at the following website: http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning. Completion and submittal of the Study are requirements of the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) and Stanford University Community Plan, adopted in 2000 by Santa Clara County. Under the terms of these documents, Stanford University is required to complete and submit the Study prior to Santa Clara County accepting applications for the second half of academic development allowed under the GUP. This second half of development includes approximately one million square feet of academic facilities out of a projected overall growth of about two million square feet and approximately 3,000 housing units. The square footage of both the new academic facilities and housing units to be completed by 2018 would total approximately 3.5 million square feet.

The Study is a planning study undertaken by the University in cooperation with the Santa Clara County Planning Office, and is not a specific development proposal. The Study divides Stanford’s Santa Clara County lands into two areas: (1) Central Campus, which is within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) identified in the GUP, and (2) Foothills. Neither of these areas includes, and the Study does not specifically address, lands within San Mateo County.

The Study includes three general required components: (1) a description of long-term growth potential for Stanford lands, including how future development will avoid sprawl into the hillsides and instead follow a compact urban development outline, (2) protection of natural and scenic resources for the long term, and (3) identification of planning principles and areas of potential future development in the Foothills. The Study indicates that maximum planned buildout of the Central Campus through 2035 could likely be accomplished within the existing AGB. The planning horizon for the Study is 25 years (until 2035); however, resource protection is addressed with a view beyond this 25-year timeframe. The projected completion for development under the GUP is 2018, and the date for reviewing the AGB is 2025.

The 2035 horizon for the Study is a standard 25-year planning timeframe and addresses the condition in the GUP and Community Plan to look beyond the 2018 timeframe in those documents and the 2025 timeframe of the AGB. Forecasting beyond a 2035 timeframe can become less reliable as the horizon is extended. It becomes more difficult with longer timeframes to anticipate community needs and other technological improvements that could affect the need for additional square footage.

The Study modeled three growth scenarios for future development between 2018 and 2035: (1) minimal growth, which included two million square feet of development or about 115,000 square feet per year; (2) moderate growth, which included 3.5 million square feet or about 200,000 square feet per year; and (3) aggressive growth, which included five million square feet or 300,000 square feet per year.

Even under the “Aggressive Growth” scenario, all of the development could be accommodated within the AGB, according to the Study. The Sustainable Development Study also required Stanford to identify developable areas outside the AGB. Stanford has no stated plans for facilities outside the AGB, other than the 15,000 square feet in the foothills already allowed by the approved GUP. In the event development outside the AGB may be needed, Stanford developed a land sensitivity methodology to help evaluate constraints on that development. Lands that would be permanently protected were identified and a method for determining the sensitivity of remaining lands was developed. Should the need arise, this methodology could be refined and used to help determine where development outside the AGB might occur.

The proposed programs and measures identified in the Sustainability Study do not specifically address the potential impacts of the buildout allowed by the GUP – such as traffic, housing, views, habitats, stormwater runoff, and greenhouse gas emissions – on the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, nor was it expected to under the conditions of the GUP or the Community Plan. The Community Plan, however, does discuss some planning issues in relation to unincorporated San Mateo County, especially housing affordability and the jobs/housing imbalance in the area, and management of stormwater runoff and other issues related to the San Francisquito Creek Watershed through the Joint Powers Authority. The Community Plan also discusses habitat and biodiversity issues such as steelhead trout restoration projects in San Francisquito Creek and the establishment of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County. These documents also establish a goal of no net new commute trips for the unincorporated Santa Clara County portion of Stanford University, a goal that the Study says has been met during the first eight years of the GUP. The GUP and Community Plan are not under review at this time. San Mateo County will have an opportunity to review those documents when they are updated.

The Sustainability Study discusses the University’s environmental sustainability programs for which Sustainability Working Teams are developing new guidelines for institutional practices, including: (1) energy conservation and efficiency, including greenhouse gas reduction, (2) green building, (3) water conservation and sustainable use, (4) waste minimization, and (5) transportation. The energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction study should be completed this year. Stanford is also preparing updated guidelines for water use in new academic buildings and a Sustainable Water Management Plan.

On October 31, 2008, the Santa Clara County Planning Office deemed the Study adequate and prepared a schedule for further review by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Palo Alto Planning Commission reviewed the Study on January 14, 2009. Review by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is expected in February 2009.

PUBLIC COMMENT

At the January 14, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing, both Charles Carter, Director of Land Use and Environmental Planning, and Joseph Stagner, Executive Director of Sustainability and Energy Management, spoke on behalf of Stanford University. Mr. Carter provided further detail on the Sustainability Study, and Mr. Stagner explained how Stanford is undertaking sustainability planning toward 2050.

Brian Schmidt, Santa Clara County Legislative Advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills, and Lennie Roberts, San Mateo County Legislative Advocate of the Committee for Green Foothills, also addressed the Commission. Mr. Schmidt advocated a longer timeframe for the Study, with a less-detailed level of analysis beyond the 2035 timeframe in the Study. Ms. Roberts echoed Mr. Schmidt’s sentiments and provided some additional history on the Stanford lands within unincorporated San Mateo County.

Janet Davis, a resident of the unincorporated Weekend Acres area of San Mateo County, addressed the Commission regarding traffic concerns on Alpine Road, as well as impacts of runoff into San Francisquito Creek and the growth of rental housing in the area.

After the January 14 Planning Commission hearing, Janet Davis, Weekend Acres resident, telephoned and wished to add specific reference to traffic issues on Alpine Road to the letter itself. The staff report had discussed this, and draft letter was changed to mention it as well. Charles Carter from Stanford University also sent an e-mail with some clarifying remarks on the letter. These have been incorporated into the attached revised draft letter as well.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

At the January 14, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission asked how sustainability was defined in the Study. Mr. Carter replied that the first two chapters of the Study discuss this, but that there is no single agreed-upon definition. The Commission was also interested in any long-term plans Stanford might have for future development in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The Commission also encouraged looking at a longer timeframe beyond 2035. Mr. Carter replied that the GUP does not require a specific timeframe; however, both Stanford and Santa Clara County Planning staff are of the opinion that a longer timeframe, particularly one that tries to project ultimate buildout, becomes less useful as the timeframe becomes longer.

The Commission urged that Stanford keep San Mateo County apprised of future developments, plans or studies that might impact San Mateo County. The Commission also urged Stanford and San Mateo County Planning staff to deepen discussion and involvement on planning efforts, particularly as San Mateo County updates its General Plan. The Commission was also interested in San Mateo County developing an agreement with Stanford that would address land use planning on Stanford’s unincorporated San Mateo County lands, as well as possible impacts from development of its Santa Clara County lands upon San Mateo County, perhaps along the lines of the “Three Party Agreement” that Stanford has with Palo Alto and Santa Clara County (Attachment B). The Commission continued the item until January 28.

At the January 28 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission considered the revised draft letter and made a few editorial changes. The Commission also reiterated its interest in encouraging cooperation between Stanford and San Mateo County as the County works on the General Plan update. There were no speakers on this item at this hearing. The Commission approved sending the revised letter with changes to the Board for consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Because it is a study as called for in the GUP, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

B.

1985 “Three Party” Land Use Agreement Between Santa Clara County, Palo Alto, and Stanford University

C.

Stanford University Sustainable Development Study Executive Summary

February 10, 2009



Honorable Board Members Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110

Honorable Board Members:

SUBJECT: Stanford University Sustainable Development Study

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Stanford University Sustainable Development Study (SDS). The Board considers the SDS a very important planning study and thank you for providing additional time to review and comment on it. The Board understands that you will be reviewing our comments along with comments from other interested jurisdictions and agencies in February 2009.

The Board finds the SDS to be a very thorough document. It was written as a condition of the General Use Permit (GUP) and Community Plan approved and adopted by Santa Clara County in 2000. The Board understands that the Study must be approved prior to Stanford applying for the second half of the approximately two million square feet of academic development and 3,000 housing units allowed by the GUP within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB). The Board also understands that the SDS is not a development proposal but is a planning study that will be used to guide growth over the long-term.

San Mateo County supports the sustainable planning principles included in the document such as: compact urban development within the AGB; green building; water conservation; waste minimization; energy conservation and efficiency; and reducing the impacts on the environment from University-owned private and commercial vehicles. The Board supports the efforts of both Stanford and Santa Clara County to include these very important principles in all of their planning endeavors, and in fact, believes that San Mateo County can look to them as a model in our own planning efforts.

The SDS presents three possible long-term development scenarios between the years 2018, when development allowed by the existing GUP is expected to be complete, and 2035. Although the SDS concludes that even though the aggressive growth scenario can be accommodated by 2035 within the AGB, the Board notes that Stanford is looking beyond 2035 toward 2050 for various planning purposes, such as resource protection and energy management. The Board notes that if use of a longer time horizon revealed that growth could not be accommodated within the AGB, it could affect areas in or adjacent to the 2,700 acres of Stanford lands within unincorporated San Mateo County that are currently considered Academic Reserve by Stanford and designated as Institutional/Open Space/Future Study by our County’s General Plan. The Board is also curious to know whether this longer planning timeframe would reveal the potential for growth beyond the AGB. Stanford’s projections to a longer time horizon, for not only academic uses within unincorporated Santa Clara County but also hospital and other development in incorporated Palo Alto and Menlo Park, would be ultimately very useful to our General Plan update process which is now getting underway and will be complete before the 2018 GUP update. The Board would, therefore, support any reasonable effort by Stanford to look beyond the 2035 planning horizon.

Although the Board understands that the focus of the SDS was on Santa Clara County, rather than San Mateo County, and the Board understands that the SDS does not specifically require impact analysis, the Board recommends that future planning studies or efforts, as well as any revisions to the SDS, address the impacts of buildout and growth on unincorporated San Mateo County, as the 2000 Stanford University Community Plan did. The Board also understands that CEQA analysis of specific future development proposals will assess impacts wherever they may occur. For example, the Board requests that future planning efforts consider impacts on the Hospital/Sand Hill Road area that is directly adjacent to the County Line and already sees intensive use. The Board would also appreciate if consideration of possible future development outside of the AGB – such as in the foothills – either before or after 2035, would consider potential impacts on San Mateo County. In particular the Board would hope that such efforts would address community impacts, traffic impacts – much of which fall on roads in San Mateo County, such as Alpine Road – as well as possible impacts on San Francisquito Creek, one of the last creeks left largely in its natural state in the area.

In the interest of coordinating development standards and future plans for the significant portion of Stanford lands that fall within San Mateo County, the Board looks forward to the opportunity to work closely with Santa Clara County and Stanford as our General Plan update process progresses. To this end, the Board would like to explore the possibility of entering into some form of agreement with Stanford that would establish specific coordination measures, similar to the three-party agreement between Palo Alto, Santa Clara County and Stanford. The Board would also appreciate the opportunity to work with Stanford and other interested parties on these and other ongoing planning projects, so that we can all move forward collaboratively.

Should the SDS need to be revised or amended based on comments from interested parties, the Board would appreciate the opportunity to review the revised document. The Board looks forward to further collaboration with Stanford, Santa Clara County and Palo Alto regarding Stanford-related planning matters in the coming years, as the Board is convinced doing so will benefit all of our communities. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the Stanford Sustainability Study.

Sincerely,


Mark Church
President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

cc:	San Mateo County Board Members
	San Mateo County Planning Commissioners
	David Boesch, San Mateo County Manager
	Peggy Jensen, Deputy County Manager, San Mateo County
	Jody Hall Esser, Director, Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development
	Charles Carter, Director, Land Use and Environmental Planning, Stanford

¹ Information is only for lands within unincorporated San Mateo County.



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT


DATE:			January 26, 2009
BOARD MEETING DATE:			February 10, 2009
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:			None required
VOTE REQUIRED:			Majority

TO:		Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:		Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development

SUBJECT:		Stanford University Sustainable Development Study


RECOMMENDATION

Approve the attached letter (Attachment A) regarding the Sustainable Development Study (Study) and transmit to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

PROPOSAL

Stanford University has completed and submitted for review and approval by Santa Clara County a Sustainable Development Study (Study). Although San Mateo County has no approval authority, the Study is being presented to San Mateo County for review and comment.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Partnerships – Leaders work together across boundaries to preserve and enhance our quality of life.

Goal 23 states: Leaders throughout the County provide the impetus for broader regional solutions in land use, housing, childcare, education, health and transportation.

The opportunity to comment to Santa Clara County on the Stanford Study is an example of government collaborating across boundaries to enhance quality of life and develop regional solutions to land use, housing, education, health and transportation.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Report Prepared By: Matt Seubert, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1829

Applicant: Stanford University (to Santa Clara County)

Parcel Size: About 2,700 acres of Stanford lands are located in unincorporated San Mateo County.¹

Existing Zoning: RE/S-11 (Rural Estates/S-11), with a smaller portion of RM (Resource Management)¹

General Plan Designation: I/OS/FS (Institutional/General Open Space/Future Study)¹

Spheres-of-Influence: Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Woodside¹

Existing Land Use: The portion of Stanford lands within San Mateo County includes the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and its environs, as well as Guernsey Field, Jasper Ridge, and the Webb Ranch.

Environmental Evaluation: Not required

Setting: Although the majority of Stanford-owned lands, including the Central Campus, are in Santa Clara County, about 2,700 acres are located in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Stanford lands within San Mateo County are surrounded by other unincorporated areas of the County (Ladera, Weekend Acres, and nearby West Menlo Park), as well as the incorporated cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and Woodside.

Policy 8.4.h of the San Mateo County General Plan states that, “For Stanford lands, plan for an arrangement of land uses which provides for the academic needs of the University, preserves important natural resources, and is compatible with the general plans of adjoining communities as determined in future land use studies.” This particular Study, however, is specifically focused on Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County, not in unincorporated San Mateo County.

Stanford University has agreements with the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County relating to land use policy for the Campus that date back to 1985. The original “Three-Party Agreement” (Attachment B) primarily addressed annexation procedures for and municipal services within Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. There is no similar agreement with San Mateo County.

SUMMARY

The Sustainable Development Study addresses how Stanford University will apply sustainable planning principles as it grows over the long term. The Executive Summary is included as Attachment C. As the complete Study and appendices is well over 100 pages and includes many color maps, it has not been attached to this report. The complete Study and related documents are available at the following website: http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning. Completion and submittal of the Study are requirements of the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) and Stanford University Community Plan, adopted in 2000 by Santa Clara County. Under the terms of these documents, Stanford University is required to complete and submit the Study prior to Santa Clara County accepting applications for the second half of academic development allowed under the GUP. This second half of development includes approximately one million square feet of academic facilities out of a projected overall growth of about two million square feet and approximately 3,000 housing units. The square footage of both the new academic facilities and housing units to be completed by 2018 would total approximately 3.5 million square feet.

The Study is a planning study undertaken by the University in cooperation with the Santa Clara County Planning Office, and is not a specific development proposal. The Study divides Stanford’s Santa Clara County lands into two areas: (1) Central Campus, which is within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) identified in the GUP, and (2) Foothills. Neither of these areas includes, and the Study does not specifically address, lands within San Mateo County.

The Study includes three general required components: (1) a description of long-term growth potential for Stanford lands, including how future development will avoid sprawl into the hillsides and instead follow a compact urban development outline, (2) protection of natural and scenic resources for the long term, and (3) identification of planning principles and areas of potential future development in the Foothills. The Study indicates that maximum planned buildout of the Central Campus through 2035 could likely be accomplished within the existing AGB. The planning horizon for the Study is 25 years (until 2035); however, resource protection is addressed with a view beyond this 25-year timeframe. The projected completion for development under the GUP is 2018, and the date for reviewing the AGB is 2025.

The 2035 horizon for the Study is a standard 25-year planning timeframe and addresses the condition in the GUP and Community Plan to look beyond the 2018 timeframe in those documents and the 2025 timeframe of the AGB. Forecasting beyond a 2035 timeframe can become less reliable as the horizon is extended. It becomes more difficult with longer timeframes to anticipate community needs and other technological improvements that could affect the need for additional square footage.

The Study modeled three growth scenarios for future development between 2018 and 2035: (1) minimal growth, which included two million square feet of development or about 115,000 square feet per year; (2) moderate growth, which included 3.5 million square feet or about 200,000 square feet per year; and (3) aggressive growth, which included five million square feet or 300,000 square feet per year.

Even under the “Aggressive Growth” scenario, all of the development could be accommodated within the AGB, according to the Study. The Sustainable Development Study also required Stanford to identify developable areas outside the AGB. Stanford has no stated plans for facilities outside the AGB, other than the 15,000 square feet in the foothills already allowed by the approved GUP. In the event development outside the AGB may be needed, Stanford developed a land sensitivity methodology to help evaluate constraints on that development. Lands that would be permanently protected were identified and a method for determining the sensitivity of remaining lands was developed. Should the need arise, this methodology could be refined and used to help determine where development outside the AGB might occur.

The proposed programs and measures identified in the Sustainability Study do not specifically address the potential impacts of the buildout allowed by the GUP – such as traffic, housing, views, habitats, stormwater runoff, and greenhouse gas emissions – on the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, nor was it expected to under the conditions of the GUP or the Community Plan. The Community Plan, however, does discuss some planning issues in relation to unincorporated San Mateo County, especially housing affordability and the jobs/housing imbalance in the area, and management of stormwater runoff and other issues related to the San Francisquito Creek Watershed through the Joint Powers Authority. The Community Plan also discusses habitat and biodiversity issues such as steelhead trout restoration projects in San Francisquito Creek and the establishment of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County. These documents also establish a goal of no net new commute trips for the unincorporated Santa Clara County portion of Stanford University, a goal that the Study says has been met during the first eight years of the GUP. The GUP and Community Plan are not under review at this time. San Mateo County will have an opportunity to review those documents when they are updated.

The Sustainability Study discusses the University’s environmental sustainability programs for which Sustainability Working Teams are developing new guidelines for institutional practices, including: (1) energy conservation and efficiency, including greenhouse gas reduction, (2) green building, (3) water conservation and sustainable use, (4) waste minimization, and (5) transportation. The energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction study should be completed this year. Stanford is also preparing updated guidelines for water use in new academic buildings and a Sustainable Water Management Plan.

On October 31, 2008, the Santa Clara County Planning Office deemed the Study adequate and prepared a schedule for further review by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Palo Alto Planning Commission reviewed the Study on January 14, 2009. Review by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is expected in February 2009.

PUBLIC COMMENT

At the January 14, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing, both Charles Carter, Director of Land Use and Environmental Planning, and Joseph Stagner, Executive Director of Sustainability and Energy Management, spoke on behalf of Stanford University. Mr. Carter provided further detail on the Sustainability Study, and Mr. Stagner explained how Stanford is undertaking sustainability planning toward 2050.

Brian Schmidt, Santa Clara County Legislative Advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills, and Lennie Roberts, San Mateo County Legislative Advocate of the Committee for Green Foothills, also addressed the Commission. Mr. Schmidt advocated a longer timeframe for the Study, with a less-detailed level of analysis beyond the 2035 timeframe in the Study. Ms. Roberts echoed Mr. Schmidt’s sentiments and provided some additional history on the Stanford lands within unincorporated San Mateo County.

Janet Davis, a resident of the unincorporated Weekend Acres area of San Mateo County, addressed the Commission regarding traffic concerns on Alpine Road, as well as impacts of runoff into San Francisquito Creek and the growth of rental housing in the area.

After the January 14 Planning Commission hearing, Janet Davis, Weekend Acres resident, telephoned and wished to add specific reference to traffic issues on Alpine Road to the letter itself. The staff report had discussed this, and draft letter was changed to mention it as well. Charles Carter from Stanford University also sent an e-mail with some clarifying remarks on the letter. These have been incorporated into the attached revised draft letter as well.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

At the January 14, 2009, Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission asked how sustainability was defined in the Study. Mr. Carter replied that the first two chapters of the Study discuss this, but that there is no single agreed-upon definition. The Commission was also interested in any long-term plans Stanford might have for future development in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The Commission also encouraged looking at a longer timeframe beyond 2035. Mr. Carter replied that the GUP does not require a specific timeframe; however, both Stanford and Santa Clara County Planning staff are of the opinion that a longer timeframe, particularly one that tries to project ultimate buildout, becomes less useful as the timeframe becomes longer.

The Commission urged that Stanford keep San Mateo County apprised of future developments, plans or studies that might impact San Mateo County. The Commission also urged Stanford and San Mateo County Planning staff to deepen discussion and involvement on planning efforts, particularly as San Mateo County updates its General Plan. The Commission was also interested in San Mateo County developing an agreement with Stanford that would address land use planning on Stanford’s unincorporated San Mateo County lands, as well as possible impacts from development of its Santa Clara County lands upon San Mateo County, perhaps along the lines of the “Three Party Agreement” that Stanford has with Palo Alto and Santa Clara County (Attachment B). The Commission continued the item until January 28.

At the January 28 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission considered the revised draft letter and made a few editorial changes. The Commission also reiterated its interest in encouraging cooperation between Stanford and San Mateo County as the County works on the General Plan update. There were no speakers on this item at this hearing. The Commission approved sending the revised letter with changes to the Board for consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Because it is a study as called for in the GUP, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
B.	1985 “Three Party” Land Use Agreement Between Santa Clara County, Palo Alto, and Stanford University
C.	Stanford University Sustainable Development Study Executive Summary