Palo Alto Weekly
December 11, 2002
 
Ridge top protection becomes foothills issue
Stanford, county and city wrangle over foothill development limits

By Don Kazak

The focus of future development in the Stanford hills, although not much will be allowed over the next decade, is centering on protecting ridge tops and view sheds from development.

That's being translated into what, if anything, Stanford should be allowed to build at the 200-foot elevation level or higher in the hills. Both the city of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, along with environmental groups, don't want anything built above the 200-foot level.

The Santa Clara County Planning Commission is now wrestling with that issue, which it will revisit in February after having a first discussion last week.

About 10 percent of Stanford's 1,843 acres of foothills in Santa Clara County are below 200 feet, and that may not leave the university and the county enough options for the 15,000 square feet of foothills buildings Stanford is allowed under its general use permit.

"I'm a little uncomfortable saying nothing should be built above 200 feet," said Planning Commissioner Lydia Tan, who lives in Palo Alto. "It's the crux of the issue that's been going on between Stanford and the environmental community, and we need to get it right."

The county's planning staff has been directed to come back to the commission with some options on several issues, including the 200-foot elevation requirement. For Tan, that means finding a way to "encourage" Stanford to stay below that elevation with its development, or possibly have a higher level of scrutiny for any project proposed above that elevation.

Tan said the commission needs more detailed analysis of the ability to develop in the Stanford hills. For instance, any area with a slope of greater than 60 percent would not be developable, but the commission doesn't know how many of the 1,843 acres fall into that category.

The decision to take more time was applauded by Denice Dade of the Committee for Green Foothills.

"It's a positive sign," Dade said. "They want to look at protections for the foothills. They'll take more time and do it right."

Another issue raised by Palo Alto officials, among others, is the review of individual Stanford projects under the GUP. As it stands now, any foothills development will be reviewed by the county's Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) committee, which consists of four planning staff members and one commission member. Some think any foothills development should be reviewed by the Planning Commission itself, although ASA decisions can be appealed to the commission.

Stanford officials accepted the delay.

"Zoning matters are always complicated," said Larry Horton, Stanford's director of community and government relations. Horton added the 200-foot elevation issue is "very important" to Stanford, so there would be likely resistance to any attempt by the county to limit development to below that level.

Added scrutiny is what several others want, including the Committee for Green Foothills, the Stanford Open Space Alliance, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and the city of Palo Alto.

"We remained quite concerned about several aspects" of the proposed zoning, said Nonette Hanko, a open-space district board member and Palo Alto resident. "The (Stanford) Community Plan recognizes the Stanford foothills are vitally important." The open space district wants development to be limited to below the 200-foot elevation level. Hanko also said the county should follow the city of Palo Alto open space zoning and regulation as a model for the Stanford hills.

But communication between the county planning staff and city officials has been frustrating -- at least for the city. Officials say the county hasn't responded to several city concerns to their satisfaction.

"The proposed zoning is important to the city because it is within the city's sphere of influence," Councilman Jim Burch told the commission last week. The city is also recommending that foothills development be limited to below the 200-foot elevation level.

The county Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss the issue at its meeting at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 6 in San Jose. After the commission makes its recommendations, they will go to the county Board of Supervisors for final action.

Don Kazak can be e-mailed at dkazak@paweekly.com