The County of Santa Clara
California

Report
63824

Under advisement from June 19, 2012 (Item No. 21): Consider recommendations relating to projects to fulfill alternative mitigation for Impact OS-3 identified in the Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit.

Information

Department:Office of the County ExecutiveSponsors:
Category:Report

Multiple Recommendations

Possible action:
a. Accept report.
b. Approve recommendations relating to proposed process and timeline.
c. Direct the Administration to proceed with a Board-approved process.

Body

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

This report back responds to requests for information as well as proposes a process and a timeline to consider potential projects to address alternative mitigation for Impact OS-3.  This transmittal provides a proposed process and timeline as well as information about the square footage associated with new recreational facilities that have been constructed on the Stanford campus since approval of the 2000 General Use Permit.

 

The attached County Counsel memorandum (Attachment A) provides the legal parameters for the use of the Stanford funds, provides clarification of the terms “Stanford residents” and “Facility Users,” discusses compliance of the two previously proposed projects with CEQA, and a description of the target population that would benefit from the alternative mitigation measures.

 

Proposed Process for Projects to Address Alternative Mitigation for Impact OS-3

The proposed process endeavors to provide local public agencies, 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations, and Stanford University the opportunity to submit proposals during a four-week application window.  This process would thus enable the Board to consider the universe of potential projects that could provide adequate substitute mitigation for Impact OS-3.

 

Guidelines (Attachment B), an application (Attachment C), and a draft project agreement (Attachment D) are attached.  The purpose of the application would be to obtain pertinent information about the proposed projects so that the Administration and County Counsel can review the projects for conformance with the legal parameters and to provide the Board with sufficient information by which to evaluate the projects.  The application guidelines would provide guidance to prospective applicants on the parameters of the use of the funds.

 

Timeline

It is recommended that the Board consider this proposed timeline:

 

August 7, 2012 - Approve Process and Timeline

August 9, 2012 - Issue Request for Proposals and Public Notification

September 6, 2012 - Submit Applications by 5pm (4-week Application Window)

September 10, 2012 - Post Applications to County Website and Provide to Board Offices

October 9, 2012 - Hold Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Projects to Address Alternative Mitigation for Impact OS-3

 

Square Footage of New Recreational Facilities on the Stanford Campus

The Board requested information about the square footage associated with new recreational facilities that have been constructed on the Stanford campus since approval of the 2000 General Use Permit.  Attachment E provides this information.

 

In summary, Stanford University has constructed 267,755 square feet of additional recreation facilities.  From this list, three projects - the West Campus Recreation Center, the Arrillaga Family Recreation Center Addition, and the Cagan Bleachers - are currently under construction.  The recreational facilities include swimming pools, a rugby pavilion, exercise and weight rooms, a trail, a gymnasium, etc.

 

CHILD IMPACT

The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on children and youth.

 

SENIOR IMPACT

The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on seniors.

 

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications.

 

BACKGROUND

At the January 24, 2012 Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Administration and County Counsel a request to provide information that sets forth the legal parameters for the expenditure of funds in the amount of approximately $10.4 million and that describes internal mechanisms to earmark and administer the funds that were paid to the County by Stanford University on February 29, 2012 pursuant to the Trails Agreement.

 

A legal opinion and a staff report were distributed to the Board on April 10, 2012.

 

At the May 22, 2012 Board meeting, the Board considered a proposal by Supervisor Kniss to declare its intent to fund two projects that would provide adequate substitute mitigation for Impact OS-3.  The Board postponed action on the two projects, and directed the Administration and County Counsel to undertake the following:

 

·              Develop a public process and timeline for consideration of projects.

·              Provide the square footage of new recreational facilities constructed since approval of the Stanford University General Use Permit.

·              Provide clarification of the terms “Stanford residents” and “facilities users.”

·              Determine compliance of the two projects proposed by Supervisor Kniss at the May 22, 2012 Board meeting with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

·              Provide a description of the target population that would benefit from alternative mitigation measures.

 

The Administration and County Counsel submitted the requested information at the June 19 Board meeting, at which time the Board deferred the matter to the August 7 Board meeting.

Meeting History

Aug 7, 2012 9:00 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Ken Yeager, Vice President
SECONDER:Liz Kniss, Supervisor
AYES:George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss
ABSENT:Mike Wasserman

Transcript

Aug 7, 2012 9:00 AMVideo (Windows Media) MP4 VideoBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

 
10:07 AMSplit with supervisor kniss supporting it and supervisor wasserman not supporting it. Brief ri, the measure provides by increasing income tax for upper income tax and raising state sales tax by a quarter percent. The governor is assuming the measure would raise 8. 5 billion dollars. Because of proposition 98, almost three billion of the funding would go to proposition 98 funding k-14. And five and a half billion dollars would go into the state general fund.

10:08 AMSeparate measure which deals with corporate taxation. There are two major ways that the measure impacts the county. Biggest is with regard to realignment. Measure would amend the constitution to local government for the programs realigned in 2012. That is one of our legislative priorities for our county as well as c sack. After September of this year when the legislative session ends, the legislature can't add additional programs. It says counties can't go back and asked for more money. It is giving the state protection as well. The measure says the brown act would no longer be a state reversal date.
10:09 AMIt makes the brown act, no longer a state reversible mandate, but that local governments would be obliged to follow the rules of the brown act, 72 hours and posting. In reality the state hasn't been reimbursing for the brown act, we didn't think this was a significant reason to not support the measure. Of course the legislature doesn't have to follow the brown act. The legislature has approved a set of trigger cut that is would go into effect. Those are primarily in the areas of education and higher education.

10:10 AMThat would not effect the county at all. As supervisor kniss could speak to the c sack board of directors, they are voting on this specific measure in september. At the c sack conference in may, they each voteed to support it. Urban counties caucus is supported by a number of groups who believe it is appropriate to stay off more dramatic cuts.