CGF comments at today’s San Mateo County Planning Commission

(Not sure how useful this will be, but Lennie and I testified at today’s San Mateo Planning Commission about Stanford’s inadequate Sustainable Development Study. Attached below are my notes, improved somewhat so others might understand them. I think we had some success persuading the Commission and maybe staff. -Brian)

Primary disagreement with staff – 25 year limitation on analyzing sustainability

Question is whether this fully complies with what Stfd promised, and if not whether SM county should be interested in promoting compliance

Not just a check-off box – Stanford MUST submit an adequate plan to continue new development

Two problems with the non-compliance – nowhere in the permit plan or admin record was the study limited to a restricted time frame – a lot of info suggests otherwise

Second, that by definition you can’t do an adequate sustainability study while limiting it to a short time frame like 25 years

No definition was included – page 94

Here’s a def they could use:
“A sustainable process or condition is one that can be maintained indefinitely without progressive diminution of valued qualities inside or outside the system in which the process operates or the condition prevails.”

No criteria for measurement, analysis, or conclusions re sustainability

Just one example of effects on SM County – traffic impacts from development post-2035

Can you analyze beyond 2035 – yes, two examples

Not sure about your process – I suggest you recommend letter not go forward as written

Analogy – Alpine Road sidewalk expansion also failed to meet Stanford’s original promise

Encouraged by Joe Stagner’s reference to planning to 2050

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


You are leaving the Green Foothills website to go to our Protect Coyote Valley website.

Continue on to PCV Petition