CGF Comments on the draft Stanford HCP and EIS

(We submitted the comments below on the draft Stanford HCP.  -Brian) 

August 30, 2010

Sheila Larsen

Gary Stern

Fish and Wildlife Service and

National Marine Fisheries Service

            Re:  Comments on the Draft EIS and HCP/ITP for Stanford University

Dear Sheila and Gary:

Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) submits the following comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) and HCP/ITP (HCP) for Stanford University:

I. Relationship to Searsville Dam and operations

The EIS, on pages 3-24 and 3-25, discusses an alternative that covers modifications to Searsville Dam and Reservoir for Flood Control, and concludes that this alternative was rejected from further consideration because no specific modifications have been evaluated for feasibility, and there is a large array of flood control measures that the Army Corps and the JPA will be analyzing and considering in the future.  The EIS does not discuss an alternative that covers modifications to Searsville Dam and Reservoir for the purpose of benefitting steelhead.  The HCP (Section 1.3, page 11) states that future structural changes to the dam could be covered by an addendum to the HCP.

Potential removal or modifications of Searsville dam to allow fish passage, while potentially beneficial for fish, could also have potentially adverse impacts to steelhead downstream of the dam due to increased sedimentation of the main stem of San Francisquito Creek. The large sediment load that originates in the Corte Madera Creek sub-watershed currently accumulates in large part behind the dam.  Searsville Lake and associated marshes and riparian areas provide habitat for species that would be greatly altered if the dam were removed.  These unknown impacts, particularly to aquatic avian species and bats, could outweigh the benefits of increased spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead upstream of the dam.   Downstream sedimentation associated with removal or modification of Searsville and potential increases in flood hazards in East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park is another complex issue that must be carefully studied and thoroughly evaluated.

CGF supports a comprehensive study of options for Searsville Dam and Lake in collaboration with Stanford and other stakeholders.  Such a study should include analysis of beneficial and adverse impacts to species as well as downstream flood hazards.  CGF does not oppose inclusion of a sufficiently-comprehensive study in this HCP, even recognizing that such a study would necessarily delay the HCP.  CGF further believes, however, that a comprehensive study could also be done as an amendment to the HCP/ITP.

II. The HCP and DEIS fail to address the Stanford Sustainable Development Study

The wholesale failure to include discussion or analysis of the Stanford Sustainable Development Study (Sustainability Study) constitutes a significant oversight in the HCP and environmental review.  Stanford authored both the Sustainability Study and the Draft HCP, making the oversight particularly jarring.  Correcting this oversight will require significant rewriting of the HCP and EIS to reflect the Sustainable Development Study's conclusions about the amount of campus development that will be needed to occur beyond the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB).

The land outside the AGB and subject to the Sustainability Study analysis is likely to contain the majority of habitat potentially affected by the HCP, so conclusions in the Sustainability Study about level of anticipated development should weigh heavily on the assessment of anticipated impacts from the HCP.  Historically, the level of development of Stanford land in San Mateo County has been quite small – most development occurred in Santa Clara County.  The vast majority of habitat in Santa Clara County is outside the AGB.  Important exceptions occur in the vicinity of San Francisquito Creek and Lake Lagunita, but both of those areas will be subject to special restrictions in the HCP. 

The Sustainability Study analysis covers approximately half the time period of the proposed HCP, also making it highly determinative of projections for the second half of the HCP time period.  There is no reason for assuming a sudden explosion of development after the current General Use Permit and Sustainability Study analysis end, so the best practice would be to rely on these existing analyses to project outward for an additional 25 years.

III. The HCP and DEIS overestimate the amount of habitat that Stanford may want to impact

HCP and DEIS should examine actual habitat development rates under the GUP for purposes of projecting future needs.  The DEIS states that under the existing GUP, Stanford "could" develop up to 30 acres of potential habitat.  DEIS at 3-2.  No citation is given for this statement, and the GUP in any event is not the final word on new development at Stanford.  To assess future habitat development rates based on the GUP, the HCP should instead examine what acreage of habitat has been developed in the nearly 10 years that the GUP has been in place.

The 180-acre estimate double-counts the 30 acres for the GUP.  As discussed below, the projection of 50-150 acres of anticipated development overstates the existing trends and contradicts Stanford's own analysis.  Even if the trend of 1-3 acres annually were correct, however, that would cover the time period and geographic area of the GUP.  There is no analysis supporting the conclusion that Stanford would damage habitat at its pre-GUP rate, and then in addition to that impact, would destroy another 30 acres through the GUP.  The already-inflated and incorrect 150 acre estimate of habitat impact forms a ceiling.

The Sustainability Analysis estimates significant constraints on future development that need to be included the HCP analysis.  To our knowledge, the Sustainability Study is left unmentioned in the HCP and DEIS, especially its conclusion that essentially no development need occur beyond the AGB in Santa Clara County.  While it is not binding, the Sustainability Study is Stanford's own analysis of future impacts that it should not ignore simply because it is not currently discussing the sustainability of development patterns.

The Sustainability Study indicates the level of impact on acreage beyond the AGB should be near zero for the 25 years covered by the Study, and the HCP impact levels should be adjusted to the reflect that fact.  The Sustainability Study further indicates a likely constrained level of development in other habitat areas and constrained development in the area beyond the AGB after 2035.  No evidence has been provided for a different trend in the future than the trend anticipated by Stanford itself in its own study.  That trend should be extended forward to cover the period of the HCP.

Simply put, the HCP and DEIS provided an incorrect trend line for anticipating future habitat development that would require a permit.  It has not provided a habitat development rate for recent years under the GUP, nor has it included the constraints on development that Stanford itself acknowledged in the Sustainability Study.  Reduced impact figures should therefore be included as constraints on the terms of the HCP.

IV. Stanford's authority over the land trust significantly reduces the trust's ability to do its job and avoid conflicts of interest.

The land trust that is to be the recipient of conservation easements from Stanford needs to be completely independent of Stanford and ready (if needed) to even bring legal action against Stanford to enforce the easements, yet Stanford is given authority to set up the trust with no details on how that will happen.   Establishment of a trust directed in whole or even in part by persons receiving paychecks from Stanford would create irreconcilable conflicts of interest, as Stanford's ability to exercise control over its employees could influence whether the trust could exercise its legal obligation to protect the conservation easements.  Disclaimers that "Stanford would never do such a thing, even 50 years from now" are wholly irrelevant, whether such disclaimers are accurate or not.  The conflict of interest exists regardless of good intentions.

The trust also needs sufficient resources to monitor and defend the easements that it owns.  This could include litigation both litigation and ability to call on independent scientific expertise.  The land trust needs to be adequately funded by Stanford[1], and run by worthy people nominated by Stanford in advance of approval, who are not Stanford employees, and who appoint their own replacements so that Stanford has no subsequent appointment power.

V. Additional issues

            CGF provides the following short-but-important comments:

The HCP needs to integrate and work with downstream impacts of San Fracisquito Creek on endangered species.  The San Francisquito Creek flood control project in particular should be discussed in the HCP as an opportunity for potential cooperation.

The HCP needs further specificity in describing areas that are to be preserved away from the riparian zones.

            Undevelopable areas placed under conservation easements should not be credited to Stanford as mitigation for development elsewhere.  In particular, streambeds are essentially undevelopable.  Stanford will never have an opportunity to develop those areas and creation of conservation easements therefore does nothing to mitigate impacts elsewhere.  The conservation easements should have to extend an additional distance away beyond streambeds to include areas that have some potential for development in order to act as real mitigation.

            As the red-sided garter snake habitat is unprotected and increasingly likely to be destroyed south of Stanford, it is also likely that intergrade garter snakes at Stanford will increasingly belong to the San Francisco garter snake gene pool and should be treated as a listed species.

Conclusion.

            We urge the HCP and DEIS be revised to reflect the comments in this letter.

            Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt                                                                                    Lennie Roberts

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County                                                 Legislative Advocate, San Mateo County

---

[1] One possibility is a funding agreement with Stanford that allows the trust to obtain funding from Stanford for consultants and even to oppose the university, such as in an enforcement action.  This agreement would have to be clear in that there could be no possibility for Stanford to evade its responsibilities, and also requires a truly independent trust to function.

Committee for Green Foothills comments on potential City Council instructions for a Development Agreement with Stanford

(We sent the following to the Palo Alto City Council as it prepares to give instructions to staff on how staff should negotiate with Stanford.

-Brian)

November 26, 2007

Palo Alto City Council

Dear Mayor Kishimoto and City Council Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills appreciates the opportunity to help provide input to City staff regarding the Stanford University Medical Center and Shopping Center expansion proposal. As an organization dedicated to open space and natural resource protection with a history of Stanford involvement that dates back to our founding, we hope to see the best possible environmental mitigations in the forthcoming EIR and the best environmental benefits as part of the development agreement.

City staff are entirely correct in saying “community benefits and mitigations negotiated by the City as consideration for the Development Agreement are not limited to the mitigations required under CEQA. Mitigation required under CEQA should not be confused with the community benefits and mitigations negotiated by the City in exchange for the Development Agreement.” (CMR: 427:07, page 2.) Stanford has requested significant deviations from current zoning standards and requested the City relinquish its right to apply more stringent standards in the future. The City, in return, can request environmental benefits that the City needs. Technical requirements such as “proportionality” and “nexus” are immaterial to the Development Agreement. Instead, the issue for the City Council is to how to negotiate an agreement that is the best one for the community.

The best agreement embodies a symbiotic relationship between Stanford and the broader community: Stanford gets the facilities it needs without harming the environment, and Palo Alto supports a high quality of life and a wonderful environment that attracts people to come use Stanford’s facilities. The worst agreement from Palo Alto’s perspective would have Stanford simply taking what it wants in terms of massive development while requiring the broader community to shoulder the impacts.

To obtain the best agreement rather than the worst agreement, we urge the City to start with Mayor Kishimoto’s November 7^th Op-Ed in the Palo Alto Weekly. Everyone, including Stanford, has an obligation not to make climate change worse, and requiring a no-net increase in emissions and car trips is essential to this. The housing problem pointed out by the Mayor is both an open space and a greenhouse gas issue, as well as a social justice issue – if no increase in local housing is provided, open space will be consumed elsewhere, and the workers will have to commute in on Palo Alto’s roads and nearby highways. Creation of sufficient housing, including low-income housing commensurate with the demand created for that housing, should be part of the overall package.

Mayor Kishimoto also properly acknowledges the need to protect open space. What Stanford proposes is essentially a trade-off: the university wants a significant increase in the density and height of development in places that benefit Stanford’s plans. The community, in return, should get a benefit of a reduction of unwanted development in places that should be open spaces – the foothills, creeks, and nearby areas. It would be entirely appropriate for this to be in the form of conservation easements on Stanford lands, but purchasing easement on other nearby lands could also serve the same purpose.

The Committee for Green Foothills has no opinion on whether the basic permissions sought by Stanford are appropriate and necessary, as these medical issues go beyond our expertise. What is within our expertise and clearly needed, however, is protection of the environmental values held by our community and at special risk from massive development. If an agreement should go forward, these values – protecting against climate change, providing a full amount of housing, and protecting open space – are essential components to a good agreement.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Come on Stanford! YouTube tells you to do what you promised

A CGF advertisement that aired during the Stanford-USC football game several weeks ago is now on YouTube.

See it right here.

-Brian

CGF scoping comments on the proposed Stanford Shopping/Medical Center Expansion

(CGF submitted the following comments on the scoping (preparation) of the environmental review for the Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center expansions. We'll also review the actual environmental documents when the drafts are available. -Brian)

October 1, 2007

Steven Turner
City of Palo Alto

Re: Scoping comments for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center Expansion EIR

Dear Steven;

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments for scoping the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center:

· The purpose of the approval for this project must be defined by the City, not by the applicant. If the purpose that the permissions the applicants seeks (such as improving medical care) can be done in a way that the applicant does not seek, that option remains within the purpose of the City. Legally, the applicant cannot define the purpose in a way that artificially narrows the scope of the project and its alternatives. Because the City is deciding whether to approve the agreement, it has to define the purpose.

· The EIR must consider a “no expansion/seismic only upgrade” alternative for the Medical Center.

· A “no increase in medical office space” alternative should be included. Conditions should be placed defining what type of activity or organization may use “medical office space.”

· Any relaxing of existing zoning standards will violate thresholds for environmental significance that the standards are meant to protect, unless compensatory environmental mitigation is required. This is especially true given the large size of the project. For example, easing density restrictions should be compensated with open space protection.)

· Increased building height and density should be compensated with open space protection. Decreasing views of hillsides and of natural areas are visual impacts that can be appropriately compensated for by open space protection.

· Increase utilization of recreational resources must be analyzed in the EIR for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The City should compare the analysis used for the Stanford GUP in Santa Clara Clount’s EIR for comparison. Increased utilization is a significant impact unless mitigated.

· The EIR process should analyze the phasing and mitigation monitoring used in the Stanford GUP EIR to avoid similar problems. For the Stanford GUP, six years after the impacts have occurred, the promised trails have not yet been constructed. Mitigations should not just be begun before the impacts have occurred, they should be completed, or at least a schedule established with clear stop dates.

· The hospital opening should be in phases, with none the medical office space opening until all environmental mitigations have been complied with. This will make mitigation monitoring and enforcement more credible if it stops use of medical office space until environmental conditions are complied with as opposed to stopping use of the hospital.

· Any net increases in greenhouse gas emissions are cumulatively significant.

· “Green building” standards should be required.

· The impact on housing will be significant unless mitigated and must be analyzed. The impact will also affect open space and traffic, because if new housing is not constructed by Stanford, it will be constructed mostly in Central Valley and elsewhere, with workers commuting in on area highways. The City must do its own calculations about the number of jobs generated by the amount of space created. Secondary (off-site) economic impacts must also be considered in determining the net demand for housing created by this project.

· All newly-created housing demand should be fully mitigated with housing creation that matches the income level of housing demand generated.

· Any analysis that concludes a “no net increase” mitigation standard for transportation is not feasible, must also determine why it is feasible for the much larger Stanford GUP expansion but not for this project.

· Significant and unavoidable impacts must be compensated for in a comparable manner. For example, the visual impact of Medical Center skyscraper will be unavoidable, but rather than simply accept that as the cost the community must bear, it should be compensated for with open space protection where buildings do not predominate views.

· Eliminate Stanford’s “plateau bargaining” through the use of binding promises in the process. For example, Stanford has made promises on where it would agree to place the S1 Trail on its property, and then after much work had been done by the County so it could accept the offer, Stanford reneged on the promises unless dramatic new concessions were added. This problem can be stopped by spelling out in advance when and which parts of a promise are binding.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County