The County of Santa Clara
California

Report
93643

Under advisement from September 25, 2018 (Item No. 15): Receive report from the Office of the County Executive relating to a process for negotiating a Development Agreement with Stanford University. (Office of the County Executive)

Information

Department:Office of the County ExecutiveSponsors:
Category:Report

Body

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There is no impact to the General Fund.  Negotiation expenses are reimbursable pursuant to the terms of the Planning and Development Department’s Development Application Acknowledge and Agreement.

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Stanford University submitted a Development Agreement application to the County in response to the Board of Supervisors’ consideration of Housing Impact Mitigation Fee and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances (Housing Ordinances).  On September 25, 2018 (Item No. 15), the Board referred to the Administration the preparation of a report on how to structure a process for Development Agreement negotiations with Stanford University for discussion at the October 16, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting.

 

General Use Permit and Development Agreement Application

Stanford University applied for the 2018 General Use Permit (2018 GUP) in November 2016.  The proposed 2018 GUP would authorize future development within the Community Plan Area of Stanford University including up to 2,275,000 square feet of academic space and up to 3,150 housing units/beds, of which up to 550 units would be available for faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and medical residents.

 

On July 27, 2018, Stanford University submitted a Development Agreement application, and on September 14, 2018, provided a supplement to the application “…to provide reasonable assurance that the university will be able to proceed with development under its proposed 2018 General Use Permit in accordance with existing Santa Clara County policies, rules and regulations.” (see Attachment 1 – Application for Development Agreement for the 2018 General Use Permit and Attachment 2 – Stanford University Clarification Response Letter). In exchange for this contracted assurance, Stanford is offering “community benefits,” in the form of affordable housing commitments and investments.

 

Executive Summary

As currently offered, Stanford University’s housing proposal does not constitute community benefits in that the proposal does not offer affordable housing beyond a level that can be obtained through existing regulations and the exercise of the County’s police powers.  Furthermore, the Administration has concerns about certain proposed terms including Stanford’s proposal to hold all existing “Applicable Rules” constant during the life of the Development Agreement and to make the proposed community benefits contingent upon no changes in the 2018 GUP environmental mitigations beyond those proposed in the Draft Environment Impact Report.

 

If the Board of Supervisors elects to enter into development agreement negotiations, it is recommended that entering a negotiation process be contingent upon Stanford University’s willingness to first express in writing that it would:

 

·        Increase the proposed level of affordable housing funding and subsidy value to exceed the level of affordable housing resulting from the Housing Ordinances.

·        Express a willingness to include other benefits in response to interests expressed by community members and affected jurisdictions in the 2018 GUP process (for example, school site dedication and/or ongoing funding, and other benefits relating to transportation and traffic mitigation, sustainability, open space, drainage, and development that are not otherwise covered by the conditions of approval).

·        Express a willingness to reduce the scope of proposed Applicable Rules to be held constant during the life of the Development Agreement.

·        Accept an extension of the 2018 GUP application timeline to allow for negotiations, which would likely take many months, especially with a concurrent community engagement and communication process.

·        Express a willingness to modify the conditions by which Stanford would execute a development, including reconsidering its condition that its community benefits offer is contingent upon not making substantive modifications in the 2018 GUP environmental mitigations beyond those proposed in the Draft Environment Impact Report.

 

In addition, the Board should appoint a two-member ad hoc negotiation committee of the Board of Supervisors.  The role of an ad hoc development agreement negotiation committee is to provide negotiators with parameters on bargaining terms and to confer with the negotiating team outside of negotiations throughout the negotiation process.

 

The Administration is also seeking input and guidance with respect to the community/ jurisdictional communication and engagement process that is proposed in this report.

 

Analysis of Development Agreement Housing

In the Development Agreement application, Stanford is proposing the following:

 

1.     Provide two hundred affordable housing units on land owned or controlled by Stanford (one hundred for university staff and 100 for postdoctoral students) prior to occupying more than one million square feet of academic space authorized by the 2018 GUP.  Affordable units would be provided by rent restricting existing market-rate units or by building new rent restricted units.

 

a.      100 units would be identified before any new academic space square footage is occupied under the 2018 GUP.  These units would be set aside for Stanford staff (non-faculty) and would be the result of conversion of existing market rate units.

b.     A second set of 100 units would be identified prior to occupying more than one million square feet of development of academic space. 

c.      20% of the units (40 total) would serve Very Low Income Households and 80% of the units (160 total) would serve Low Income Households.

 

2.     Provide $14.3 million to the County for the purposes of fully subsidizing the construction of 38 Extremely Low Income Units, which is the number identified in the County’s Nexus Study, at the time in which the 2018 Stanford General Use Permit is approved.

 

3.     Provide $21.7 million to capitalize a revolving low-interest loan fund for affordable housing projects within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The fund would be managed by a Community Development Financial Institution. Eligible recipients of the loan funds or equity investment would be non-profit and for-profit entities constructing affordable housing, converting market rate housing to affordable units, or preserving affordability covenants on existing housing.  Stanford would guarantee the Fund would provide a minimum of 217 affordable housing units (44 Very Low-Income units and 173 Low-Income units) during the life of the 2018 GUP.

 

As discussed more fully in the Background section, a Development Agreement is a contract allowing a public agency to obtain community benefits from an applicant beyond a level that can be obtained through existing regulations and the exercise of its police powers.  In exchange for community benefits, an agency typically provides a legally binding commitment that the regulations applicable to the applicant’s project will remain unchanged through the life of the project subject to certain negotiated exceptions, such as, changes in building codes or state and federal laws, increased taxes or fees generally applicable to other developments or properties, and regulations serving public health, safety, or welfare purposes.

 

The Administration, with supporting analysis by housing and economic consultants, has evaluated the Stanford Development Agreement application to assess the community benefits proposed in relation to the Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Fee and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances adopted by the Board on September 25, 2018 (Item No. 9).  A summary of the comparison is set forth in Table 1.

 

200 Units

Stanford’s proposal to provide 200 affordable housing units for Very Low- and Low-Income staff and postdoctoral students on land owned or controlled by Stanford is a commitment to build units or provide rent restrictions on existing housing.  Under existing Stanford Community Plan Policies and the Housing Ordinances, Stanford University is required to pay an affordable housing impact fee or provide affordable housing in conjunction with development of academic space at the University. 

 

Under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 16% of any market rate housing developed by Stanford University must be affordable housing.  Of the affordable housing, 4% percent must be affordable to Extremely Low-Income, 11% to Very Low-Income, 45% to Low-Income, and 40% to moderate income households.  Based on the amount of residential development (550 units) proposed in the 2018 GUP, Stanford would be required to build at least 88 affordable housing units spanning these income categories or rent restrict 176 existing market rate units (for purposes of compliance with the Ordinance, placing rent restrictions on two existing units is equivalent to building one new unit).  The affordable housing payments and inclusionary housing units required by the Housing Ordinances would occur over the projected seventeen years of the 2018 GUP as development occurs.

 

Stanford is proposing to provide 100 affordable housing units prior to occupying any new academic space authorized under the proposed 2018 GUP and another 100 affordable housing units prior to occupying more than one million square feet of academic space authorized by the 2018 GUP.  However, Stanford is also proposing an “incentive multiplier” of 1.6, so that these 200 units would count as 320 units. The Administration would support only counting actual constructed or converted units as meeting the housing demand.

 

Thirty-Eight ELI Units

Stanford is also offering $14.3 million to the County to build 38 Extremely Low-Income units, or fund other high priority affordable housing projects. In financial terms, while Stanford University is proposing $14.3 million contribution to the County for Extremely Low Income and other housing investments, the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Ordinance will require Stanford University to pay the County $155.8 million (or be credited for the construction of affordable units) if all academic space applied for under the 2018 GUP is authorized and constructed, which will be used, in part, to develop Extremely Low-Income units.

 

“Evergreen Fund”

In addition to the $14.3 million contribution to the County, Stanford is proposing a $21.7 million contribution to capitalize a revolving low interest loan or equity investment fund (“Evergreen Fund”) for affordable housing projects within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Stanford University anticipates this fund would leverage other investors and revolve over time to provide significantly more affordable housing resources than the initial University contribution. There may be programmatic advantages of the Evergreen Fund managed by a Community Development Financial Institution over a County operated revolving loan program, but the County would have the flexibility to use its affordable housing funds in much the same manner as the proposed Evergreen fund, particularly the leveraging and revolving loan characteristics. 

 

The proposed “Evergreen” housing fund would provide 217 “guaranteed” units, 44 units of which are affordable to Very Low-Income and 173 to Low-Income households.  However, the Fund would only provide partial funding (i.e. "the missing slice") of up to $100,000 per unit.  The remainder of the required subsidy would be derived from other public or private sources, possibly including the Measure A Affordable Housing funds passed by the voters of Santa Clara County in November 2016.

 

The nexus study documents that the subsidy required at these income levels is approximately $300,000 per unit.  Based on this fact and the uncertainty associated with the availability of other funding sources, and to avoid providing a disproportionate amount of credit for these units, the unit count has been adjusted to 76 equivalent units based on the cost of $300,000 per unit. A range of units from 76 to 217 is shown in the comparison table (Table 1) due to the variables involved and to acknowledge Stanford’s guarantee of 217 units. 

 

In financial terms, the combined value of the $14.3 million contribution to the County, the $21.7 million Evergreen Fund, and the subsidy value of the 200 units ($57.8 million) is significantly less ($89 million less) than the $182.8 million that Stanford would be contributing to the County under the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Ordinance (if all academic space applied for under the 2018 GUP is authorized and constructed) and taking into account the subsidy value of the 88 affordable units under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that would result if Stanford built its proposed 550 residential units.

 

Analysis of the Timing of Benefits

A possible benefit of the Stanford University proposal is the timing of the proposed affordable housing and affordable housing payments.  The difference in the timing of benefits can be evaluated from an economic and a programmatic perspective:

 

From an economic perspective, funds paid immediately are worth more than funds paid in the future. Assuming affordable housing impact fees required by ordinance are paid on a uniform basis through the life of the project, the total amount of fees collected over the projected 17-year life of the 2018 GUP would be $202,214,621 (includes annual inflationary index adjustments).

 

The net present value of this future revenue stream in today’s dollars assuming an average interest rate of 3.9% is $143 million (see Attachment 3 – Estimated Net Present Value of Academic Space Fee Revenue).  The net present value of the subsidy payments needed to meet inclusionary housing ordinance requirements over the life of the 2018 GUP is $26 million (see Attachment 4 - Estimated Net Present Value of Inclusionary Housing Subsidy Payments).

 

The combined net present value of housing impact fees and inclusionary housing subsidy payments therefore is $169 million.  By comparison, Stanford is proposing a combined payment and subsidy with a net present value of $94 million; a shortfall of $75 million (see Attachment 5 – Estimated Net Present Value of Stanford DA Proposal).

 

From a programmatic perspective, the proposed $36 million total in Stanford affordable housing contributions could be invested in affordable housing projects within the first few years of the 2018 GUP ($21.7 million at time of project approval plus $14.3 million prior to occupancy of new development). This is an attractive benefit given the acute and immediate nature of the affordable housing crisis.  Under the proposed 2018 GUP, Stanford University has the flexibility to develop at any time within the 2018 GUP period, therefore the timing of the receipt of development-related affordable housing impact fees is uncertain.  For comparative purposes however, if proposed development occurred uniformly during the projected 17-year life of the 2018 GUP, Stanford University would be obligated to pay approximately $38.9 million in net present value terms by the end of the fourth year of development.

 

In summary, the Stanford University proposal provides significantly less funding and fewer affordable units over the life of the proposed 2018 GUP than what would be required by the Affordable Housing Impact Fee and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances.  Stanford University cites other benefits in its Development Agreement application, such as, the use of Stanford lands for affordable housing and the flexibility and long-term financial benefits of the proposed revolving low-interest loan or equity investment fund.

 

Stanford’s Housing Proposal does not, therefore, offer community benefits -- that is, anything above and beyond what an applicant would be required to provide under the conditions of approval and/or regulations.

 

A comparison of the Stanford Proposal with existing County ordinance requirements is provided in Table 1.


 

Table 1. Summary Comparison of Stanford Proposal with Combined Affordable Housing Impact Fees and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances

 

 

 

COMBINED COUNTY ORDINANCES

at $68.50 Fee1

 

 

STANFORD HOUSING

PROPOSAL - JULY 20182

 

Funds Available for NEW Afford. Units3

   PSF of Academic Space

$155,837,500

 

$68.50

$36,000,000

 

$15.82

Subsidy Value of EXISTING units converted to affordable4

N/A

$57,800,000

$25.41

Subsidy Value of Inclusionary Units5

$27,000,000

N/A

Funds + Subsidy Value

TOTAL

$182,837,500

$93,800,000

$41.23

Number of EXISTING units converted to Afford. Units6

N/A

200

NEW Afford. Units created based on full subsidy amount

663

(575 + 88)

114

(76 + 38)

NEW Afford. Units created based on guaranteed production

N/A

255

(217 + 38)

 

Mix of Affordable Units

 

  Extremely Low Income

  Very Low Income

  Low Income

  Moderate Income

 

 

% of Nexus Demand7

Inclusionary Units

Mitigation Fee Units

SUB-TOTALS

% of Stanford Proposal8

Units

4%

11%

45%

40%

 

6

7

40

35

23

64

256

232

29

71

296

267

 

Approx. 10%

Approx. 18%

Approx. 72%

 

 

38

54 to 84

222 to 333

0

 

 

SUB-TOTALS

88

575

 

TOTAL Number of NEW + CONVERTED Affordable Units based on full subsidy required9

663

(575 + 88)

314 to 455

(38 + 76 + 200) to (38 +217 + 200)

 

1 The combined county ordinances represent the 16% Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in combination with the Housing Mitigation Fee on academic space of $68.50/PSF under the 2018 GUP application. $68.50 x Expected Development = $155.8 million.  These calculations assume that the 2018 GUP applied for by Stanford is authorized by the County and the square footage constructed.

2 Stanford’s Housing Proposal includes: conversion of up to 200 existing units to affordable units; creation of a $21.7M housing fund and payment of $13.4M to the County for 38 Extremely Low-Income units. The housing fund would provide 217 guaranteed units, 44 VLI units and 173 LI. However, the fund would only provide partial funding (i.e. “missing slice”) of up to $100,000 per unit. Unit production has been adjusted using the subsidy gaps in the Stanford nexus study, which yields 76 equivalent units based on an average subsidy gap of approx. $300,000 for VLI and LI units.

3 Amounts based on Affordable Housing Ordinances applied to the 2018 GUP application and Stanford’s Housing Proposal.

4 Subsidy value of converted or new BMR units are based on affordable housing gaps in the Stanford nexus study based on the county-wide development costs.

5 Subsidy value of inclusionary units is based on the 16% affordable housing requirement assuming 550 new market-rate units.

6 Assumes nexus study values of $321,000 for Very Low Income units and $281,000 for 160 Low Income units.

7 Breakdown of units by the four affordability categories. Units are shown distributed by the percentages of need documented in the Nexus Study.

8 Breakdown of units by the four affordability categories distributed by Stanford Housing Proposal proposed percentages. The percentages vary because of how the units can be calculated; i.e.; by subsidy amount or guaranteed.

9 Number of affordable units in the Ordinances column is the 16% inclusionary units based on 550 new market rate units (88 inclusionary units) and the affordable unit demand from the academic space (575 units) based on 80% AMI and below. The units in the Housing Proposal column are: 200 converted units, the 76 to 217 units from the $21.7M housing fund and the 38 ELI units from the $14.3M payment to the County.

 

Administration’s Other Concerns

The Administration has additional concerns associated with the Development Agreement Application.  Stanford is proposing to hold all existing “Applicable Rules” constant during the life of the Development Agreement including “…those County of Santa Clara ordinances, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications that govern permitted uses of the Property; building locations, sizes, densities, intensities, design, and heights; site design, setbacks, lot coverage, improvements, and open space; construction standards and specifications; parking; and development impact fees and exactions.”

 

This overly broad description may represent an unacceptable freeze of the County’s police powers at a time when there are rapidly changing conditions of development in the region.  While Stanford University acknowledges in its application the need to more specifically determine the Applicable Rules prior to the effective date of the Agreement, the County should retain to the maximum extent possible the authority to regulate land use in the Stanford Community Plan Area.

 

Stanford University has also included conditions on the proposed community benefits that may not be acceptable. For example, Stanford’s position is that “any substantive modifications to those [GUP mitigation] measures or new requirements that diminish the value of the 2018 General Use Permit to Stanford or increase costs to Stanford would reduce Stanford’s ability and willingness to provide affordable housing benefits that the University has offered.” Stanford also takes the position that substantive modifications in the 2018 GUP environmental mitigations beyond those proposed in the Draft Environment Impact Report that reduces the value of the 2018 GUP approvals to Stanford or increases its costs would reduce Stanford’s ability and willingness to provide affordable housing benefits. Stanford also states that the Development Agreement is not intended to delay the 2018 GUP processing timeline, which is an unrealistic expectation.

 

The Board of Supervisors should consider if the Development Agreement Application and Community Benefits Proposal as proposed warrants further discussion and negotiation with Stanford University.  If the Board elects to proceed, the Administration is recommending a process that includes:

 

·        Initial clarification of expectations.

·        Integration with the 2018 GUP application process and public outreach and input.

·        Appointment of a two-member ad hoc negotiation committee of the Board.

 

Development Agreement Negotiation Process

If the Board elects to proceed with negotiation of a Development Agreement, the Administration recommends the following for consideration.

 

Clarification of Expectations

Given that Stanford’s Development Agreement application does not offer community benefits, the Administration recommends proceeding with negotiations only if Stanford first agrees in writing to incorporate all of the following elements:

 

·        Increase the proposed level of affordable housing funding and subsidy value to exceed the level of affordable housing resulting from the housing ordinances.

·        Express a willingness to include other benefits in response to interests expressed by community members and affected jurisdictions in the 2018 GUP process (for example, school site dedication and/or ongoing funding, and other benefits relating to transportation and traffic mitigation, sustainability, open space, drainage, and development that are not otherwise covered by the conditions of approval).

·        Express a willingness to reduce the scope of proposed Applicable Rules to be held constant during the life of the Development Agreement.

·        Accept an extension of the 2018 GUP application timeline to allow negotiations to proceed.

·        Express a willingness to modify the conditions by which Stanford would execute a development, including reconsidering its condition that its community benefits offer is contingent upon not making substantive modifications in the 2018 GUP environmental mitigations beyond those proposed in the Draft Environment Impact Report.

 

 

Integration with the 2018 GUP Application Process

If expectations are clarified successfully, the negotiating parties would enter discussions after the preparation of the staff recommended conditions of approval for the 2018 GUP and the finalization of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which is estimated to be completed by mid-December 2018.

 

This proposed timing would provide a stable regulatory baseline for the negotiations and ensure integration and consistency with the 2018 GUP permit application process.  If negotiations conclude successfully, the proposed Development Agreement would be included with the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and recommended Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission’s and, ultimately, the Board of Supervisors’ consideration in 2019.

 

Public Outreach and Input

Given that the purpose of the Development Agreement is to provide supplemental benefits to affected communities, the Administration recommends public outreach and input designed to inform the negotiation process and obtain input on the proposed Development Agreement terms and community benefits.  The following outreach activities are proposed for the Board’s input and guidance:

 

1.     Conduct a public workshop near Stanford University to obtain community input on the range of community interests that could be served through a development agreement.  Timing: Within the first few weeks of starting negotiations.

 

2.     Invite staff and elected officials representing public agencies and cities near Stanford University to attend a scoping meeting to discuss community benefits of mutual interest.  Timing: Within the first few weeks of starting negotiations.

 

3.     Conduct a second public workshop to advise public of updates concerning proposed community benefits and receive input on draft terms.  Timing:  At point in time in negotiations at which proposed community benefits are identified.

 

4.     Invite staff and elected officials representing public agencies and cities near Stanford University to a second meeting to discuss preliminary community benefits to receive input.  Timing:  At point in time in negotiations at which proposed community benefits are identified.

 

5.     Conduct a third public workshop near Stanford University to present and receive input on proposed Final Development Agreement terms and community benefits in conjunction with the proposed EIR mitigations and recommended conditions of approval.  Timing: At the conclusion of development agreement negotiations but prior to Planning Commission public hearings on the 2018 GUP in 2019.

 

6.     On a request basis, present proposed Development Agreement terms and community benefits in conjunction with the proposed EIR mitigations and recommended conditions of approval at city council meetings and Board meetings of public agencies.  Timing: At the conclusion of development agreement negotiations, but prior to Planning Commission public hearings on the 2018 GUP in 2019.

 

7.     Provide periodic Development Agreement process status reports to the Planning Commission and full Board at regularly scheduled hearings.  Timing: Throughout the Development Agreement negotiation and public input process.

 

These recommended activities would be in addition to required Development Agreement noticing and public hearings.  Staff would also send periodic update emails to the 2018 Stanford GUP opt-in group (and other stakeholders) and create a Development Agreement Negotiation website to post updates on the status of the negotiations and notice of upcoming meetings.

 

Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Negotiation Committee

The Administration recommends the appointment of a two-member negotiation committee. The role of a development agreement negotiation committee is to provide negotiators with parameters on bargaining terms and to confer with the negotiating team outside of negotiations throughout the negotiation process.  The Board of Supervisors should make appointments to the committee as it sees fit.

 

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

The County is currently processing Stanford University’s 2018 General Use Permit Application (2018 GUP).  A Draft EIR was circulated for comment, followed by a recirculation of portions of the Draft EIR. A Final EIR is now being prepared in anticipation of public hearings on the Final EIR and 2018 GUP application at the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors commencing in 2019.

 

On June 19, 2018 (Item No. 10), the Board approved a Zoning Ordinance authorizing development agreements and establishing procedural standards for their adoption and maintenance (see Attachment 6 – Ordinance No. NS-1200.367 - Development Agreements).

 

On July 27, 2018, Stanford University submitted a Development Agreement application including a Community Benefits Proposal describing proposed affordable housing commitments and investments Stanford was willing to provide in exchange for conducting proposed 2018 GUP development under existing Santa Clara County policies and regulations (see Attachment 1 – Application for Development Agreement for the 2018 General Use Permit). The Department of Planning and Development reviewed the application and determined it was incomplete.

 

On September 14, 2018, Stanford University submitted a clarification response to the Department’s incomplete determination (see Attachment 2 – Stanford University Clarification Response Letter). The clarification response is under review by the Department.

 

A development agreement, if ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors, would be a contract that sets forth the community benefits Stanford is prepared to offer in exchange for long-term regulatory stability for proposed 2018 GUP development. While the contract is subject to negotiation, the terms and allowable land uses must be consistent with County planning policies including the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and Zoning Ordinance.  Neither Stanford nor the County is required to enter into a development agreement and may unilaterally opt out of negotiations at any time. A Development Agreement with Stanford University would be considered in conjunction with the 2018 GUP application and EIR by the Planning Commission and ultimately by the Board of Supervisors in noticed public hearings.

 

Meeting History

Oct 16, 2018 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Sixteen individuals addressed the Board.

At the request of President Simitian, the Board directed Administration to form and lead a negotiation development agreement ad hoc committee, and appoint President Simitian and Vice President Chavez to serve on the ad hoc committee with clarification that the process shall not preclude any Board Committee from holding hearings relevant to jurisdiction in an open and public session consistent with legal requirements.

Supervisor Cortese requested that Administration provide monthly status reports to the Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee until the issue is resolved.

At the request of Supervisor Cortese, the Board directed Administration to publish any final negotiated agreements, environmental impact reports, and staff reports 14 days in advance of Board consideration for public review.

RESULT:RECEIVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:S. Joseph Simitian, President
SECONDER:Cindy Chavez, Vice President
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian

Transcript

Oct 16, 2018 9:30 AMVideo (Windows Media) MP4 VideoBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

 
10:12 AMComments or testimony to be received. I'm looking to our clerk who indicates there are no members of public who want to speak on this item. That being the case, we'll say last call for anyone wishing to speak on item number 8. Without objection we'll formerly close the public hearing on I number 8 and move on to possible action on that item.

10:13 AMThe double actions. Comments from any members of the board? That takes us to item number 9. Under advisement. Receive report from the office of county executive relating to a process for negotiating a development agreement with stanford university. If there are any questions, feel free, but I would like to get the staff report out there and then go to the members of t public.
10:14 AMGood morning, I have with me at the staff table jeff bradley, who is with n group and proje manager for the st stafford application. And then I have the lead o the government section and th from office and procedures. In the audience we have a couple of consultant, and our housing, real Saturday inning economics development. The counties did not pride for this use. On July 27th, stanford submitted an application and subsequently submitted a supplemental application on September 14th. Then on September 25th at our last board meeting, the board did approve a referral with the report back today on the perimeter on the negotiating process with an emphasis on a public engagement process to insure engagement of the public would be the ones who would b seeking these benefits. And ultimately accountability. The report that is before you attempts to address the questions and comments that were made at this last board meetin the summary from the staff report, the point I want to make, the proposal is $89 million short of what could be achieved through the housing services. From a housing units perspective, the proposal falls short between 208 to 349 units. The reason why there is a rae is in one of the r rows on e table we gave partial credit because they were providing 100,000 per unit, and our subsidy requirement released 300,000. We're giving partial credit. And then we're giving full credit. The proposal at this moment does not constitute community benefits. Some board members have expressed interest in agreement negotiation with the idea that we could, in fact, get affordable housing benefits that could exceed what we could get through regulation. We would have to put more on table if we were going to g community benefits. If the board decides to proceed with the development negotiation process, we think that these four items shown above are necessary to discuss, and i'm going to walk through these right now. Next slide. So we had indicated in the report that from our perspective it was important to get a commitment in writing from stanford that it would be willing to entertain the items that I discussed, first the willingness to increase the affordable housing benefits that were proposed in an initial application to include other benefits. Tipchy you're looking at a b spectrum of benefits that could include potential benefits, traffic mitigation. Sustainability, open space, and other types of benefits that might be unique to the project. These are, when I speak to other benefits setting aside schools, these are those that would not be covered by the conditions of approval, and would fall within the realm of actual benefits. Third, we would ask that they indicated that they would reduce the proposed application rules. So that is really in effect te purpose of the development agreement, which is a public agency agrees to hold applicable rules constant with certain exceptions that we would otherwise not receive. The unique circumstance in this case is that when you tipchy have a development agreement, the project is over, say, fi years. In this case, it's a 17-year application. And, in fact, in their development agreement application they said, however long it takes or 30 years. That's really not tenable. Particularly in a time when we are experiencing rapid change. I don't think 17 years ago we would have thought we would have ride hailing services. And we're impacted by ride hailing services or lunch delivery services. So we have concerns around th. Fourth, we need to have them accept and acknowledge that this would result if the board did proceed in this process with the extension of the timeline. The people before you hear who are working on that applicatn would now have to turn our attention to the development agreement negotiation. So frankly, it's not reasonable to think that we could stay w our current schedule particularly given the robust public engagement process the board sought. Last, we would expect and open that they would modify some of the conditions. For example. They want nod changes in the draft environmental measures. However, stanford submit adler that seems to indicate their willingness to agree to these terms. So with respect to integrating this process with the over all process. You know, it's our view that can't engage in the sensitive discussions until we complete the environment mitigation measures, and also finalize or have a working draft or conditions of approval. Why that's important is that that shows you what you can g with your police powers and th you can define those things that are outside of that, and truly fall within the realm of community benefits. You can't really engage in substantive discussion until you go through that process. We can meet before if it's t board's desire to do so on issues debating the size shape of the table, the schedule, those things that I describe a preliminary am terms for a negotiating process. Then in fact, we did proceed with this process and one was submitted to the board for approval, we would package it with the rest of the application. And in effect the intent then I to give the board the ability to compare the deal you would get with the development agreement versus what you would get with the conditions of approval, mitigation measures and then have the ability to compare them and see if on balance that s since, given the myriad concerns and impact you're trying to address with regard to this application. Next slide. So the board did ask, and w endeavor to create a proposed public engagement process for a process that is typically behind closed doors. This is a little bit of un uncharted territory. On page 10 you can see what we've outlined, and in effect we're indicating we would propose a public workshop with the community fairly early on in the process, and the intend would be to continue to obtain community input with respect to what benefits they would like t see. Secondly, invite the elected officials or subset and professional staff of the jurisdictions that serve that community to engage in a very similar discussion. And then our thought was to conduct a second workshop once we have what i'll describe as a community's benefits and what we would negotiate with our part of the negotiation. So that we could get public reaction to that, and also include elected officials and again the professional staff of public agencies in that same conversation. Then conduct a third public workshop when we have what we think are final development agreement terms and community benefits. We would do this in approved ir conditions and recommended can conditions of approval. The same way we would want to compare passage, we would put these up for the community so they could weigh the benefits each package. And then on the request basis we'wewould like to have thi conversation with them as well. We would have periodic updates to the planning commission as well as the board of supervisors on a time frame that makes sense when you meet certain milestones. We would hike to set up a develop, we would send out e-mails to whatever e-mail groups the board requests in addition to our existing opt-in project e-mail lust. That leads me to provide coverage that way. In this process at this point. Lastly, if the body remember we ask at a we have tomb to meet and toronto with them so we have the ability not to be negotiating in the dark. So lastly, to some it. Allall we're asking to the boa endorse and clarify what we ca expectation clarification. Their an am.
10:26 AMTwo, we're expecting guidance with respect to community engagement we set forth. Again, this is new and this respects our best thinking with respect to that. Lastly if at all possible we're asking the board to identify the two members of the board to serve on the ad hoc committee. With that we're available for questioning. Go right ahead.
10:27 AMTesting, testing, one two three. Good morning, everyone. We submitted a letter of comment, so we'll simply like t reiterate a couple of points. First, we appreciate the work. So we would look forward to participating in the work ahead. We certainly will be happy to harp in any level of involvemt in the follow up as has been described. We have a very keen interest I insuring that both the conditions of approval as well as community benefits are defined for the development be meaningful and address the regional issues.
10:28 AMThank you very much. welcome.
Good morning, supervisor. i'm a member of scope 135, it supports the approval of the ordinance which provides strong leverage of the development agreement. However, we're concerned with the timing of the process. We believe that the county is at disadvantage if it is negotiated before the final ir. The supervisors will be uninformed in the application process. We encourage the board to wait until after the final irs. Further, as bilateral, the it we reallythink it is impes the county moves forth there must be time for public comment. Next, July 25th provides little benefit to workers. First, it can be constructed otherwise provided. And given the areas of incredibly high, it likely would go to staff, faculty and students. Second, while the mechanism innovative, they're meager. For agenda nine between subsidies, offering $36 million up front, and below housing market you wants converted. $94 million in present value in santa clara valley. This is a $75 million disparity. We understand that houses is easier but if to promise housing.
10:30 AMThank you. hi, thanks for having me. I'm todd collins. I'm a trusty. I'm not speaking for the board today. I think I speak for many pool pal althoughal to.
Thank you.
I support the staff recommendation on the process. I support any development an. The process can include public be agency, and for the public o understand and weigh in on the. S, don't am we place high transparency on value and participation will the me are mind why it has such an exact o cools. Our pop to--schools. Unlike most districts we don't get ada money from the state. Housing which stanford is proposing would be a punch of the gut in our school budgets. Hundreds of kids with no additional funding. It is important for you to kn the school community, some of whom are here today, we're very happy it see or student. We in there could be thinner program offers, that is just the cold hard if map. This is number the funding will putter those school. It done is to be than it cove the cost of its growth and allows to offer more to new residents than it does today. Thank you.
10:32 AMThank you very much. welcome.
10:33 AMThank you, vermont simitian vice presidentsimitian. This is a cowritten letter. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and some of your staff in May 2018. Thank you. We met with you with regarding stanford's application for an updated guests. We thank you-for-the opportunity of sharing those with respect t public schools, the scenarios mstudents must have access to sustainable, robust educational program. This is required that a funding stream is insured to support students who will be require colorful plan are available to those students. I support the report from your staff. But we have a growings process that includes a clear plan, the development agreement that covers the issues that requires mitigation and the agreements that begins with the final ir issued. That's a little different from your report. There needs to be sufficient time for public discussion and open something. If we do have a process hike this, a. [ buzzer ]
10:34 AMI've submitted this letter to you. You can read it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. arthur, steve, steve, vickie. Nancy.
Thank you, Mr. President and vice president, board of supervisors, so first I would like to see how public the process was currently. I went on the website last n for the board of supervisors agendas. I downloaded several thousand pages of the agenda items for today. Eye timizeed, there was a li missing. This is no--there was information on the agenda, but the erupts weren't received on there. So it's hard to figure out t agenda item. We should fun the sun process and public. The use iar. I hope that the supervisor who ,mr. simitian, who is included the committee. Development agreement should allow impact fees based on updated nexus studies. Constitutional to lower income housing for low-income workers on campus. And network companies should be counted as trips in and out because right now if they're there for us for 15 minutes, they don't count. And the university should pay fees as described, b finally, study shows that there is need to build the academic road boundary. And keep that open space. [ buzzer ]
10:37 AMThank you very much. appreciate it. Stacey. Welcome.
Thank you. my name is stacey. I'm an advocate for inclusive and appropriate public education for all students in palo alto and throughout our county. The development is part of housing will have a direct impact on our local schools. We need to make sure that the money allocated to our students had macsure that this is property participation. Our student whether they're driving, walking or being driven to school, transparency and how funding is decided between stanford and the schools is critical for the education as wellforstudent and families I community. Thank you very much for your time.
10:38 AMGood morning chair simitian. i'm community director for san mateo county, and i'm here to express our concerns on stanford's growth on san mateo county. If a development agreement will be used as a tool to add these impacts, it will be essential for san mateo county to participate in these negotiations to be sure there are adequate provisions that will address our county with regard to stanford's initial proposal we share many of the same concerns that your staff has expressed. We concur that the housing contributions are inadequate and do not provide a benefit that could be achieved under a current wasalation. Negotiations it particularly those related to traffic. And it's important to prejudice the environmental review processly limiting your county's review of supplemental or mitigation measures. In fact, the plan to limit sa clarice with regard is no different than trying to lock in the second permit, we had to reiterate irety reiterate. Inviting our jurisdictions to participate in these negotiations should be an important component to this plan. Equally important is the need that the resulting public benefits will occur in locations where impacts are actually experienced. Accordingly we respectfully request that san mateo county invited to participate. [ buzzer ]
10:40 AMThank you.
Thank you. welcome.
Thank you. speaking as an individual. I would like speak to the proposal. Moving forward before the final agreement and ultimately the final decision regarding the scope of the general use is simply premature consideration of all of these things did occur,age tomb t the county including the housing commission has been planning public outreach workshop, receive the, use r and have thes were to remain specific been above on a before proposing the development agreement, would potentially. Randerleave some partsment agreemt meaningless. We need to get the process I order. If, however, it is agreed that this should be occurring I assume opportunously, you think it's really important that the development agreement ultimately needs to reflect what is finay decided in terms of the ultimate scope in met gas station and cannot. And that assumptions should not be made at this point to what should be the specific outcome. Thank you. [ buzzer ]
10:42 AMWelcome.
Thank you, good morning supervisors. I'm nancy, i'm here on behal the pta council which represen all 17 schools k to 12 in pa alto. And we advocate in our schools. We hope you'll take the timeo read obviously our top concern. We would like to p support the idea that negotiations for the development agreement should occur when we know what are final er numbers and then wh is impact on our community and student. We support the open process a participates as representative of all the families with students in our school district. We look forward to participating in that software. Thank you very much if I have two second left, and with a huge thank you to all of your work were serve our student housing. Testimony our students are thriving and our communities are thriving, thanks to you.
10:44 AMBefore you step away, but since you raised the issue, we're really strong supporters. It was in the view of some an unconventional role but that's exactly what a group of community residents could and should be doing. I wanted to be sure that are thank you.
Thank you.
Al number.
10:45 AMGood morning.
Good morning simitian, my name is alice could have map. We wanted to bring up, the timing issue, and making sure that we're not foreclosing on the processes, and you want. With witto modify the conditioy which it would execute development and reconsidering the condition and community benefits and not bring modifications to the draft eir. That's really important. I just want to express how I think it would just--it wod didwouldnegate all the drafts andr own ability to review the public comments and everything that has come in and potentially change your mind on what would be good mitigation. Don't foreclose your own ability to make changes that you May decide aren't necessary. Thanks.
10:46 AMThank you.
Ms. mcgown. welcome.
Good morning, supervisors. we very much look forward to entering into conversations with the county on its agreement, d we recognize and appreciate the public outreach process should form work together, and it is the. Am we've done this before. The city of stanford. They have 270 housing you wants, and many of theme artible, and count be personnel there would be dollars in community benefit indeterminate. [preliminary development agreement conversations can commence now and should not wait until the release of the fil iar. This would enhance public damage been tall n. That won't requ such as decision of affordable housing. Agreements will be reached only after th. Give we're in mid-october two years after our application was submitted we believe the schedule of the public review and hearing of the final air, the general youth development and doesn't amount can you you much until thank you very much.
10:48 AMThank you.
Good morning, supervisors. my name is grace. I'm on the santa clara county school board. I'm vice president advocacy. Today i'm speaking on behalf of myself, and I basically want to thank the staff for the recommendations to have an open process, and also for asking fr more than what staff has offered. Our third cut.
10:49 AMI don't have a lot more to add, but I do want to thank u for the work of supporting education and the teacher housing project. Thank you. [applause]
I'll ask folks to refrain from applause. That would be helpful. Thank you.
That would be a tough act to follow. I live in the neighborhood of college terrace. A 12-block piece of palo alto that is surrounded by stanford research park. We're in the hot seat of stanford's continued growth. We're suffering under 30-plus years in my experience of te most significant impact frommal the developments. So stanfords and anybody else's. We suffer dirt and noise from stanford's continuing construction. We're nervous about the upcoming. We're ple pleased to see that te county is involved in any development agreement that is considered. I would also like to raise another issue, however. Stanford has decided buying up property within our neighborhood. They only upwards of 28 pieces of property in our little neighborhood. Many of these houses are left empty for up to two years. Then they're demolished and relaced with larger homes that destroy the quirky quirky neighborhoods. There needs to be different jurisdiction. And the county needs to take this into consideration so our homes are not destroyed by this.
10:51 AMThank you. next speaker. Welcome.
Good morning. i'm very happy with what staff is presenting as a process, and I want to reiterate as representative for our union, it is important to have transparency in the meetings and provide trust in moving things forward. I second that. But I has want to say thatt this May be a fruitful place to raise up some issues that might not normally come up in the the work is done. So we think that the developme agreement I have a few questio hopefully we can discuss later, but regarding the community benefits, is that limited to the six-file radius. The second question is if the two-member ad hoc community is in place, what is the regular reporting and had there public meeting. Thank you.
10:53 AMThank you very much.
Peter.
Thank you. thank you for your excellent representation of your county, and thank you for your service, the people and institutions of santa clara county. My parents moved to palo alto and I listen there today. I served a term on the city council and currently serving on the resource group. There is a lot of concern in e community that this development agreement process could undermined community engagement. After all, we can't determine what is necessary negotiation until we know the full impact of the stanford development proposal. It's important that any discussion in the development agreement takes place following the completion of the fdir process. I want to recommend staff f clear report. An it goes on to point out th what stanford proposed with $89,000 going less to housing than if stanford were to contribute to the county under the impact house ordinance. I want to touch on an issue it meets the continue of protection. I give you here today an editorial that I wrote for the daily post. Also, I hope you'll consider an alternative that allows stanford the full oh development they're proposing, 3. 5 million square feet, but split it so that new person that comes to campus is housed on campus or close I hope you'll allow the procs to complete before making any decisions.
10:55 AMThank you very much. let me ask the clerk to take p a copy.
Gabriel. welcome.
Thank you, supervisor. thank you for serving. I'm here as a resident of palo alto. I serve on the palo alto pa council representing more than thousand students, and 20,000 residents and carr caring and en families. I ask that the school board b included in this process. They have so much knowledge and understand the process. I ask that the palo alto pta council be included in this process. I also acknowledge and also representing those families would be effected. Additionally, think about class size. As you know we're basically a school district and class size matters. All of you have had children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and you see the difference between 17, 20, 25, 30 in a classroom. You know how kids respond and how our teachers work so ha for our students. So class size for basic a district. We also need to think about those who would move the housing. Their kids need teachers who can pay attention to them. Chance size matters. Please let the school board be involved and please be transparent. I'm in palo alto. We sold everything we could to buy a house in palo alto so we could have the small class siz the community that is engaged. We drive a 31-year-old car that we can't afford to repair right now. We give to the school. We give our time to the classes. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. [ buzzer ]
10:57 AMThank you very much. let me confirm with the clerk that we have no other speaker cards. We do not. That is all the public comment on that item. Superviscortese. I'll expect that others will want to comment or weigh in certainly, but I want to turn you. We'll ask the clerk to display the voting panel on our screen so the motion and second is possible.
10:58 AMThank you, president simitian. I'm by and large pleased by stanford representatives. Three areas of concern I have, and I would like to get some response back before making a motion myself. Obviously someone else could make a motion on the item. One of them is I have conce about the ad hoc committee structure or recommendation or that piece of it for a couple reasons. One of them, though, is that w thus far the sounding board activity. I believe we've used two of or standing committees, if your are new to the boardroom, that have brown act committees, public agendas that are noticed and have an opportunity to be heard similar to today's meet. That's not that I want to say that i'm going to distinguishing that piece of work coming back to board members as a sounding board and a guiding light to some of the negotiation to community meetings, which I think has to be, you know, frequent, robust, all the things we've talked about last time. I don't think we need a. Meeting that sits as a meeting meeting-type of process and I don't think that accomplishes anything. I would prefer to see community meetings where board members can show up just like we would community meetings that evolve the county or even municipal affairs. Obviously that's our right to any of us can participate or send our staff to such meetings to sort of monitor what is on, but without formalizing that other than to formalize the regular standing meetings. The second pointed I wanted to make. I think the time something fine as submitted. I think there is a lot of confusion that should be clarified today about the difference between when negotiations start and when public input starts. And when negotiations end. I don't think anybody has advocated at any point during the process that we should try to finalize the negotiated development agreement prior to concluding any nir. I think we've discussed whether public input can start. But not to get in the weeds or confuse that too much. What i'm concerned with, even just today over and above the letters we've received and e-mails that cite three different types of possibilities. Some say we should not allow public comment to occur before there is an nir. And then hear about community benefits. We heard staff say that until after there is an nir. And yet we've heard a lot from folks from the education community saying we need this, we need that. Which I believe is good. I'm not criticizing that. I think it's good. It's great exercise of our fit amendment rights, and it's always good to put your stake in the ground early in these kind of processes and make sure that you're not overlooked or forgotten. That's my personal feeling. But I don't think we can--i think we need to be clear that if we say that the negotiate development agreement should. Negotiation should incur after the nir, that we're in no trying to trample people's first amendment rights, to show up I public comment week after week to say what they want to say. I think that process already started. Whatever we do in terms of ad hoc members of the board involved, I think it's important that they not only be frequt and robust, as I said before, but that the county as a whe needs to be involved. I say that for particularly reasons of the housing. Not necessarily--there would be people concerned about travel, impact and that are more finite to that area. But we have no adapted ordinances that have no requirement, have no limitation on the housing impact nexus as understand it. And the housing program is really how you push it arou. This needs to be some effort to bridge in community input from what we would probably describe ass the districts. I think the community input tt is sought around our stake holders, again, brought around the proximity of stanford needs to be more robust than anything outside of that area. But it doesn't mean that you c exclude any comments or' temp t to exclude comments from advocates, they've made themselves heard or take advantage of the opportunity during this process. So that was a long explanation of three items. I don't purport to know the one right way to do processes like this. But i've been involved in a couple processes. My concern, the most people w want to be heard and has the most variations on the team. I don't know what your thoughts are, president simitian, you have for good reason have taken a very active role on this whole thing, the process in your district. It seems the sooner we start hearing the kinder things outside of nexus requirement, outside of typical mitigation requirements that people are interested in, our staff will start not only assimilating that, but putting that information into some kind of inventory that can be assessed, and that they can get some feedback. That's my thought. Would I vote against it if we just said we don't want to hear anything about community benefits until after the eir? We don't want to hear anything at all until after the eir? I don't think I would vote against it. I think I would caution that it is possibly likely to create a lot more confusion, and misunderstanding and perhaps worse in terms of process. That's all I have to say. But I would like to hear from you, president simitian, if any of that makes sense to you, or if it strikes you as inappropriate.
11:07 AMThank you, supervisor, I appreciate that. I'm going to offer a motion in the way we facility the discussion. I'm going to ask for a second and take the invitation that yu kindly offered to go down th path. The motion is to approve the staff recommendation. And provide direction consistent with staff recommendation with a couple of clarifiers and caveats. I do think that it is importt that there be board representation in the negotiation of the development agreement. And I perhaps not surprisingly think it's important that include the district supervisor. In my case I have the benefitf having the benefit of severing on the palo alto city council from 1992 to 1996, so my wor goes back to that 25-year period. And of course I was here at same dais back in the year 20 when we did the last stanford. So my--it wasn't what I se to do when I got out of s, but my knowledge and history with these issues is relatively longstanding. But I think equally if not more important we have looked at some of these development agreement examples in places like palo alto, redwood city, and one i'm familiar with where there was direct involvement by the elected officials. I think that helped to make process one that was more effective and more closely tied to the will of the governing body and without second guess what the priorities would be without that kind of interaction. I suppose it would be possible for staff to come back and k as a full board in open public session, or through the committee process. But I think that that makes f a very extended process frankly. I think that they're hearing things third hand. They said one thing at a tae and then someone tries to represent what that thing is to somebody else. I'll move the staff recommendation, but I ask that we appoint an ad hoc community of supervisor chavez and myself to that committee to be part of the team. However directing that the team be staff led because I don't think that the process will wo as county-wide exercise if we don't have the staff leadership to actually lead the team but with two members of our board participating fully on the tea if I can get a second to that motion, I will speak a little further and thank you, super a chavez for the second. I do want to go to the timing issue that you raised, supervisor.
11:10 AMCan I weigh in on one issue before we go to timing?
Sure.
And dave, I want to get yr thoughts and mike's thoughts on this. The point that you raised about having report outs to the committee, to the board committee, I think that's a really important point. I wonder if the motion that supervisor simitian made could and would be inclusive to the report that is concurrent. In some ways you described it, dave, does that address--i'm more just saying does that--
11:11 AMThat would be part of my motion, which is I do think nothing about taking the approach that I have described should preclude the ability of any committee of the board from holding a hearing on any pie of this that is relevant to the jurisdiction.
President simitian?
Yes.
11:12 AMThere are some challenges with that structure. The simultaneous creation of t ad hoc committee plus reporting regarding the same subject matter to a standing board committee crates some brown act consideration.
I understand the concerns and they are concerns that can be resolved. Duly noted, but we've got work to do here, and at some pointe have to do the work. That being said, what I would e happy to incorporate in the motion is direction that notwithstanding the creation of an ad hoc committee and two members participating that that shall not pro included the committee at the board from if hearing the matter in open and public session. And i'll give a nod to the county council's wise admonition and I hope that gives the comfort and flexibility that the office needs to get it to ad place. Supervisor chavez, does that dress that piece before I move on to timing.
11:13 AMThat's what I wanted to hear, what dave thought about it.
I think that your direction is clear. Your last phrase through me for a little bit of a curve given that there are some issues. But I think--
Excuse the interpr interruption. the issue is that if we have constitute--and i'm sure the attorney will speak for himself in a moment--but it is coincidentally the two members identified as being part of the task force, that's part of wt inwhatconstitutes the challenge. Mr. Williams, am I understanding that correctly?
That's definitely one of the challenges.
That being said, if we have two members that does not participate on ad hockey committee, it does not preclude the hospital committee or hulet committee or public safety and justice committee from meeting on issues of concern that are properly in their jurisdiction. Or does it?
11:14 AMWe'll figure out the best play we can to make the board's motion work.
Well, and all hell's failing we could always meet in an o and public full meeting of the board in a study session or informational format.
The brown act noticed your ad hoc and we're exactly in the same place we are now because it would be my--to answer the question, it be my intention as chair of hulet, to just put staff on point now that we wou like the item a standing item o the hulet committee month after month until it's resolved. If there is nothing to report, let us know that. But we would expect a report. The idea would be just to ke us apprized to comment commen
11:15 AMI'm going to look to staff here. I appreciated and I could te the community did as well the fact that you've underscored the opportunities for community engagement, public engagement, with effective jurisdiction. That's a lot of jurisdictions. Supervis. Supervisor cortese, the six different jurisdictions that have stanford land. There are two or three others that are engageed already in the process beyond those six. I'm thinking of redwood city ad east palo alto most specifically even though they don't have stanford lands as we think of them there. But that opportunity for public engagement will require effort. I appreciate the fact that s has underscored that. I do think that we've had a w folks who have used the that at the table. And if you could say into the microphone, no, that's not what we're proposing if that's not what you're proposing. That's important because I don't want to raise faults expectations on the community.
11:17 AMThat is correct, we're not proposing that.
The expectation will be there are other means by folks who have had concerns who can weigh in and be heard during the public process.
Absolutely, yes.
Okay, on this issue of timing and sequencing, again, there is sort of a and it was mention maybe we could do some preliminary near conversations about the size and shape of the table, which i'll take as a metaphorical reference, and folks who have said that we've cut a deal before we've even looked at the final environmental impact report and members from congress, which we he don't want to do. I appreciate senator cort, e, thanks again for that, have you ever. To some extent it's a continuum. What I would suggest is that we acknowledge the. Desirability to begin conversationic, that is in some extent substantive. Including one of the topics we're going to talk about, because there are going for scores and scores and scores of items addressed in the conventional process through conditions of approval. There are at least a half does or so that weep coming up a high impact items. Sortel remember he goes beyond the says and shape of the table due bus not give us reach to conclusion prematurely or ill-advisedly. Supervisor cor it tese, I don't know if it's a cart before the horse or chicken before the e but to have a discussion ths substantial. And no conclusions on anything until we have a made though the full and final day boo process. You think you described when get to the end of the exer we should have all the possibilities with the full range of tools, that full array should be before us so we understand which tool is the most important tool for which particular challenge in the exercise. That's where I come down. It's not either end of the extremes, quote/unquote. But and I do think the conte issue is first and foremost and obviously very substantive. I do want to underscore whau said, and I think it bears repeating. We need to be clear about the fact that anything that is bei considered by our board is ful sunshined with the public, and then a venue and time and place that is convenient for most interested members of public which May entail presence either by the committee, the public hearings by the public service. The full meeting of our board. We've clearly got to make that happen. There was reference to a July 1st time frame. I can't remember if that was from ms. Mccown or not. I'm okay with that as a target. Understanding that if we get to that target date, and we just aren't there yet, that we're not going to let ourselves be ja into a bad deal by virtue of te fact that it is July 1st. I do think that if we take a summer break that works a hardship on a lot of people. That a shard ship on our own staff because there is a month and a half that you have to p it down and pick it up given that the board goes on recess for the month of july. I think the applicant presumably would like to see this participated up soon rather than later. Although having asked for an development agreement, I think there needs to be an understanding that that will take time from our own board standpoint. We have other pressing issues at the board level. The biggest concern that I have how long can we reason ply a the community to stay in plac part of this beingasm good am worried. I'm worried that some of the scope students will be finishing their ph. Ds by the time we get done with this thing. Getting it done on a timely basis consistent with the public input would be good. Finally I should say I appreciate the response from stand ford. --stanford. It might not have gone quite s far as staff in terms of the five bullet points. But I thought it created an understanding that's the county's expectation, that's an important acknowledgment, and to be able to discuss those issu and if those discussions are not fruitful we May be back for a more conventional process. That is the long-winded prefe on the motion.
11:22 AMPresident simitian?
Yes.
11:23 AMMay I ask for a friendly amendment, an decision addition toe sunshine. Being out month after month, involved with the community only to come back to chambers to people say they suspect there are negotiations going on out there that are not properly sunshined and so for. We all understand that caveat, and you two are equipped to handle that the best you can. But I think it would be great if we doubled down on our seven-day sunshine requirements final reports here, and ask, I would appreciate it if you added to the motion for any--for the I in this case. Not all eir before the county, but any final negotiated agreement that might come forward that there be two wee of sunshine meaning the staff would be required to public that report, what we call ledge file two weeks before with hear doctor. We heard some complaints about that today. I get that there might be so last minute supplementals and changes, but the basic idea that the world will be able to s what takes place two weeks before this talk now, six, eit nine hours ahead of time.
11:24 AMYes, i've always worked on the no surprises rule. It is not only good to am frankly, if you want community buy in on whatever it is thats understand consideration, that folks feel they have every opportunity and that there wasn't a rush or last minute this, that, or and if they anticipate th that that's somethi this that pk north carolina.
11:25 AMTo have the discussion and revisit our schedule, and understand how these requests for meetings would fit in with our deliverable.
I think is my expectation is the public outreach that you described in staff report, again, which I thought was well done, and thank you for that, but to appraise the floor, not the schooling as at. And make sure that everyone feels like they've had an opportunity to weigh in in a timely and full-throated fashion. It doesn't mean that any of us is going to get a final produ that we're happy for. People know that. I beam am. In the 303 year history in my recollection there has never been a project am at in cauti in the 168 year history this is the largest application we've seen, understanding that it's over a period of years. It's big. It's important, the going to physique a lot of am there will be legitimate competing interests that we have to. One inning that you would hike fox to cop if mooped financial whether it's open state, public education or behavior it is, when we go off to have in conversation, we have to find a way to make sure that we do right by everybody in thetic mc. I'm disagreeing going if not at the am assistance off, and then in supervisor wasserman, your lights are still on. I'm happy to incorporate that part of the motion. Supervisor wasserman?
11:27 AMThank you, president simitian. This is huge. As president simitian said. A lot of things going on here. 150 e-mails that i've received and i'm sure each of their supervisors received in the hast hast. Schools don't pay properment if the there is no property tax revenue coming with the knowledge that would. To cover the traditional cost of the traditional unity number my members on the board i've seen of border performed even though president simitian just said we're going to do right by everyone. Eye' throw out another expression that says, you can't please all the team all the time: birthday party number I know in my 16 years as an elected official this are going to be all cooped confident.
11:29 AMThin we have to decide what impacts, we can't hold one organization for the effects of everything and everybody. You can't do that. The county board of supervisors, fur first and fore for most, appropriate, legal and reasonable in my opinion and count council recommendation to require some action from the applicants to help mutt taughtment. On other individuals we have an individual talking about what is happening in her neighborhood, about the property being bought up. We have people concerned about traffic. We open space, a it of you' just speak for myself. I thigh to work collaboratively with individuals and organization. But at the end of the day i'm one ofify policymakers elected to. P. A. There is a turn of how agree we need more housing. We're all looking for ways to create more housing. The state has recent willed t if a kill tate the crass of more housing. With no with welcome.
11:31 AMOn run record it says i'd rather have houses and dollars. I don't kni agreewith supervisor was reading my staff report. I'm a big believer and we pay point over there, that's where most of county staff sits. I point over there. We all pay you very well to be experts, and to look at best practices, and to investigation and tell us what the law is. And bring back recommendations tomorrows am so if the mot great in ad hoc subcommittee, and they want to serve on that, god bless you. Good luck. I'm sure james will bring forward the most appropriate wy as far as guidelines as the appropriate way to do so. I was against the ad hoc committee, but if two others want to serve on it, go for. The last point I believe I have on my list here whatever time e think this will take, I can guarantee it that it will take longer. There will be so many individuals coming out just to--i have 150 letters in the last five days just from school board people. And as this particular issue becomes more and more well-known at the dues and, etc. More and more people will do so. And when they do, more quess will be brought forward. I don't know how I will handle this, this is truly an unlimited issue unless you start to dra line and box everything in, and then bring recommendations to us. If we can give help to give before y that. That concludes all of my comments. Thank you very much.
11:33 AMAny other comments. if not, then before I ask all members to vote on the board, and before I ask the clerk to display the results I do want express a note of optimism about the exercise. We've been down this path before. I remember it well 20 years , and frankly, we didn't have the benefit of everything we learned 20 years ago like we do today. So I am perhaps the eternal optimism, but I believe we can come up with a result that respects the right of the applicant. Allows the applicant to be the integral part of the vibrancy and prosperity of the region, which I think is an undenyia fact. But that still requires any other adverse in facts are f mitigated as we go through t exercise. Some of those will be determined. We have to keep an open I under when we get to the portion of the process that is judicial, I have to walk in and apply a lot of the facts. And the count has been very gd reminding all of us of that in the process. Which I appreciate. Some portion of it is legislaturetive, in some ways where we'll be a little bit freer to exercise our own po priorities and values. There is a way to get ther it will not be quick or easy, but before we ask for a show of the vote on the board, I want people to be able to walk out feeling optimistic about this. I think we have a reason to fl optimistic that the board will do the work. And what you're hearing from t board, the staff and the applicant is that we're both ready to do the work. If we could ask the clerk to display the results. The measure passes on the 5-0 vote. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking time for being here with us today. And now comes the hard part. Thank you all. That takes us to item number which is schedule for a time certain to be heard no earlier than 11:30 a. M. We're at that time on our agenda.

11:36 AMWe'll ask folks who are here f the prior item to exit as quickly and quietly as they ca we give our thanks. We will have staff come forwar
I'm just going to give you an introduction.
Again.
And folks, if we could ask you to take your conversations outside as quickly as you possibly can, and as quiet as you possibly can-you htake your. All right, time certain, proceed.