The County of Santa Clara
California

Resolution
BOS-2019-131

Held from September 24, 2019 (Item No. 15): Adopt Resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishing that money is not speech, campaign contributions and expenditures may be limited and regulated by Congress and the States, and only natural persons have constitutional rights. (Roll Call Vote) (Cortese)

Information

Department:Supervisor Dave Cortese (Supervisorial District Three)Sponsors:
Category:Resolution

Body

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no fiscal impacts stemming from the adoption of this resolution.
 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of human beings, not corporations. While corporations can and do make important contributions to society, it is important to clarify that they are not entitled to the same constitutional rights and protections as natural persons. The traditional and necessary rights and powers of corporations, such as ownership of property, ability to enter into legal transactions, ability of many persons to act as one, limited liability, perpetual life, and many others, are provided for by State law and do not require the creation of corporate rights in the United States Constitution.
 

The right to free speech is a fundamental freedom and unalienable right. Free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance. But our form of governance has become increasingly entangled with corporations influencing public discourse and elections.
 

Efforts toward building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, and not corporate interests, are widespread. One leading example is the Move to Amend coalition, which is a non-partisan group of organizations and individuals that are working together to end corporate personhood and demand real democracy, including by encouraging State and local governments to press for a constitutional fix.
 

This referral is asking the Board to consider adoption of a resolution that demonstrates the County of Santa Clara’s support for an amendment to the United States Constitution establishing that money is not speech, campaign contributions and expenditures may be reasonably limited and regulated by Congress and the States without violating the Constitution, and only natural persons have constitutional rights.
 

BACKGROUND

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that real or perceived corruption justified limits on contributions to political candidates, but rejected other fundamental interests that the County of Santa Clara finds compelling, such as creating a level playing field for political candidates and ensuring that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their political views heard. The Buckley case overturned limits on independent expenditures in part because it found that the corruption or perception of corruption rationale was only applicable to direct contributions to candidates.


In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), the United States Supreme Court recognized the threat to a republican form of government posed by “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas” and upheld limits on independent expenditures by corporations.


The United States Supreme Court overturned the Austin decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), which recognized and protected the First Amendment political speech rights of corporations, and effectively allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, policy decisions, and public debate.


Since then, approximately 20 States and hundreds of local governments throughout the country have passed resolutions or ballot initiatives that call for overturning the Citizens United decision, a constitutional amendment establishing that money is not speech and/or that corporations do not have constitutional rights or similar reforms.


Various district, appellate, and United States Supreme Court cases also highlight that the will of the People has been frustrated by the granting of constitutional rights to corporations: 

In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that corporations have the same First Amendment free speech rights as individuals and struck down a State ban on corporations spending money to influence referendums.


In International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996), an appellate court held that a Vermont statute requiring all dairy products from cows given the synthetic growth hormone rBST carry a certain warning label infringed on corporations First Amendment free speech right not to speak.


In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), the United States Supreme Court held, among other things, that Massachusetts State regulations prohibiting outdoor advertising of smokeless tobacco or cigars within 1,000 feet of a school or playground violated corporations First Amendment commercial free speech rights.


In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), the United Supreme Court held that, because a corporation is a person under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, corporations generally can opt out of laws they determine are incompatible with their religious beliefs, such as those requiring the provision of contraceptive services as part of employer health care plans.
 


Attachments:

DRAFT RESOLUTION – Constitutional Amendment to Address Campaign Spending, Corporate Personhood              (DOCX)

 

Meeting History

Oct 8, 2019 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
draft Draft

Taken out of order after Item No. 15.

Nine individuals addressed the Board.

RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Dave Cortese, Supervisor
SECONDER:Cindy Chavez, Vice President
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian

Transcript

Oct 8, 2019 9:30 AMBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

 

12:11 PMGreat. then i'm looking at item number 19, which would be the next of those two items and then items 24 through 27. Without objection, colleagues, i'd like to suggest that those be our next two items so we can take those up. Supervisor ellenburg, not a perfect world, but is that acceptable to ou? Ok, thanks. Madam clerk, sorry to throw you a curveball in the middle of the meeting, but I wanted to make sure we get folks squared away. That takes us to item 19, and who's going to be presenting on that one? Supervisor cortese.
Yeah, I think that's me, thank you very much. I'll just open it up and I guess we can get right to the speakers and try to keep things moving. The board, I think is very well versed on this issue. Each and every one of us. The referral for me is really attached to a resolution prepared or o prepared by our county council once we had a request from activists in the community some of whom are here to speak today. As you know, this kind of effort has been going on across the country in terms of trying to mobilize public and private support for the notion of an amendment to the united states constitution establish I can that money is not speech. I'm going to stop there and let the speakers speak to that if that's ok with you and then we can come back.
12:12 PMThank you. and apropos of our earlier conversation, i'm going to suggest that for both these next two items to see if we can't get them done by close to 1230 that we ask speakers to limit their remarks to one minute each. I'll just say going in, i'm sympathetic and supported. I voted for joint resolution 22 back in 2012 when I was in the state senate. This is familiar territory to me and I think you've got a sympathetic audience.
12:13 PMThank you. i'm resident of district five, representing the move to amend organization, which is a nationwide organization with hundreds of volunteers working forever a constitutional amendment that would allow the regulation of money in politics. I think there are 10 of us here to speak. I first want to talk about corporate rights. We've had a bill of rights for 230 years, which means that rights should be permanent and I am mutable. Corporations certified under state law which means they can be dessertified under state laws, so these rights are not permanent. Therefore, I am requesting a yes vote on this resolution. Thank you.
12:14 PMThank you. Mr. Enstrom. thank you for respecting the time limit.
Greetings, supervisors, and thank you each individually for some of your past support of our efforts. My name is craig dunker lee for clean money campaign. We are of course asking you to support the wording of this particular resolution today but as you May know, there have been several states and many our municipalities and local governments that have passed similar resolutions. While we are asking you to support this particular one, we don't know what the exact wording of a 28th amendment might end of being, and so wanted to just point out that really our overamping purpose today is to encourage you to support, to brick this to the attention of the country to add santa clara's voice to the growing chorus of the voices across the nation that we eed to do something about money in politics.
12:15 PMThank you very much. that takes us to georgia plats.
Hello. as you know, our community has an affordable housing crisis, and I volunteer with an anti poverty group that works on issues like affordable housing. Every year we go to washington, d. C. And meet face-to-face with the staff up in washington, and right now, we are focused on affordable housing. When I was talking to one of the aids, he said he's increasingly worried about the success of big money in politics to shrink government down to basically nothing. He says constituents come with pressing needs and he's worried that eventually we will not be able to get any legislation for the people. They say money is speech and speech can't be limited but right now big money in politics is putting a mute button on constituents. I hope you will pass this resolution. We need to level the playing field.
12:16 PMI'm brian carr, a member of the move to amend and the sierra club. I hope you have an opportunity to look at the op ed that was published in the mercury news. Your action is important because progress must begin at the local level. Money is so dominant enacting common sense gun control, background checks and addressing climate change, almost nothing has been accomplished and I think we know why. The koch brothers spent $19 million in the 2016 election and were able to target and defeat opponents in the primary. Thank you for bring, inc. This action.
12:17 PMGood morning my ame is jerry hunt. Health care in the united states is 50% more expensive than anywhere in the world. That excess cost relates to the influence of the private health industry. Because the supreme court has equated money as equivalent to free speech, the health insurance industry has millions of premium dollars to influence legislative activity. We need to regulate campaign financing. Your resolution will help create a wave of support for federal action. The best least costly solution is a single ublic transparent nonprofit such as medicare for all rather than private health insurance. Thank you.
12:18 PMMr. Means.
Too often when corporation assert their rights, real people suffer. Gun control, when people were advocating an otherwise I can to address the epidemic of gun violence in the united states and super majorities of americans want more regulation of guns, many observers point to the political influence of the nra as the main cause of inaction. We're finding out it's costing us $18 billion here in california, and the cdc was also banned from giving statistics all because of the nra that acts like a big multi-million dollar bully with a bullhorn. Nra never backs down from its hard line positions. They go on the offensive, and demand that lawmakers make it easier for more people to carry guns in public and frequently attack the integrity of those who want to crack down on loose gun laws, all because they could lose money.
12:19 PMGood afternoon, thank you, first, I want to say for taking the burden and willingness to be elected representatives. I'm district four, 've been a santa clara citizen for 44 years and i'm with the move to amend effort. You are in the business of decisions. Decisions, deposition exhibit is the decisions we make. We strengthen our weaken from the start we were given a republic where supreme power rests in the citizens who are entitled to vote. Decisions have eroded and are eroding the fundamental principles of our democracy. Power now is heavily invested in money. Corporations, special it interests, lobbyist serving themselves and overwhelming us. Citizens united made it legal for corporations and unions to take funds and spend them from their general treasuries. How do they compete with big money? Please vote for this resolution. Thank you.
12:20 PMThank you. i'm going to ask the clerk to display the voting panel.
I live in district two. I support the resolution. First I want to thank you supervisor chavez and supervisor cortese and their staffs and in particular supervisor cortese for introducing t. Significant support exists for this resolution throughout the country. Public opinion polls showed overwhelming support. Nationally move to amend has collected 470,000 signatures in support of his a similar resolution. Nearly 20 states and hundreds of local governments have passed measures supporting similar constitutional amended. Locally five cities have done so including san jesus. Recently, the south bay labor council specifically endorsed this. If you pass this, you will be the largest local government to in fact support this so thank you for consideration.
12:21 PMThank you. next speaker, please, come on up.
12:22 PMI'm from district four, bob lord. Quoting from the declaration of independence, we hold these truths to be self evident, that people are created equal, that they were endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights. Rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted mong people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter it. It's time for alteration. The resolution before you today supporting the 28th amendment to the constitution of the united states that money is not speech and corporations are not people is a step toward democracy. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I believe that's our last speaker, madam clerk. The clerk confirms that it is. That would be time for a motion, if you'd like to make such a motion, supervisor cortese has done so. Seconded. All five members vote, that's been done. Display the results. The motion carries 5-pez. Thanks very much. While we don't want to stifle anybody's speech, we tried to limit outbursts here in the chambers. Thank you. That takes us then to items 24-27 and colleagues.
12:23 PMJust wanted to thank you them all for coming, president simidian. Thank you for coming down to testify and for your prior work today.
24 through 27, would you like to provide some incident drugry comments, sir?
12:24 PMGood afternoon, in March 2019, the board approved $10 million for the developmental of affordable housing for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Today would allocate $10 million for three projects, one each in the cities of palo alto, santa clara and sunny veil. They would produce 214 new amounts, 60 of which are set aside for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities. If everything moves forward as planned, all of the developments would be completed and fully leased up by the end of 2022. Thank you.
Thank you. the total number of apartments of how many again, please?
214 total apartments, 60 set aside for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
Got it. thank you. I have cards from jan stokely, cheryl cline, scott fall cone, david grady, jeff darling and francisco venezuela and we'll ask you all to limit yourselves to a minute.
12:25 PMThank you for your support and I hope you'll vote to fund the three projects in un view veil, santa clara and palo alto. The projects have been the result of several years are otherwising and and advocacy by adults with disabilities and each cities with significant city support and eveloper commitment. The count funding is what it's going to take to move he projects ahead to apply for state and federal funding. I'd like to ask you to also signal your support for the next $10 million installment on the promised $40 million. Affordable housing projects require self years lead time and it would be very helpful for our advocacy efforts on behalf of people with developmental disabilities, if you would signal your support or that next installment. Thank you.
12:26 PMThank you very much. next speaker, please, come on up. Good afternoon, my name is david grady with the county on developmental spots for the central coast region. I just would like to share a quick personal story. Yesterday I was t a meeting of self advocates, men and women with developmental disabilities and they were talking about all the good work we are doing in the you the community. Group goes to a local community college nd talks to students about eliminating the r. Word. Another group was working with the municipal department of a city to repair sidewalks so that people in wheelchairs could make it to their program without risking safety. Finally a group talks the volunteer work they do at parks to clean up the mess left on weekends. These are good community efforts our folks are doing but the most important story was erika, who gave a quick announcement that she had moved from her family's home. She's a middle aged woman, from her family home into her own apartment. She has hree roommates and she has her own room. I encourage you to support these three projects, as well as the $10 million for next go around. Thank you very much.
12:27 PMThat you can. next speaker, please. Sheryl cline.
I'm the board chair of palo alto housing and involved in the development of wilton court. Thank you for your leadership and decision to set aside $40 million to help build affordable housing for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Measure a has and will continue to help our most vulnerable residents. Putting together an affordable housing development is a puzzle. So many pieces that need to fit together, all of the projects before you today have challenges, finding land, getting community buy-in, moving through he be titlements and securing funding. One of our challenges at wilton court is the size of our land. Our half acre parcel will be densely built to maximize our impact. On just 20,000 square feet, e will give 59 households stability to thrive. We are building underground parking so that we can maximize community space and the number of apartments. All of this drives up the cost so your support today means that much more and brings us closers to solving the wilton court puzzle. Thank you.
12:28 PMJeff darling, an andriese regional center, got director of community services. Here to ask for your support and thank you for your leadership in making this funding available. We will certainly be there with the usual services and supports people need to be successful in the housing as is always the case on sites such as these and I look forward to showing the 57 other ounties and the 20 other regional centers how we did it here.
Thank you very much. next speaker, please, come on up.
12:29 PMHi, scott falco, affordable housing development consultant working on wilton court. I want to thank you the county for your support for this project. I'm in cho of jan's request about moving the next funding up soon so we can use that for other projects, as well. Thank you.
Thank you. next speaker.
Hi there, thank you, supervisors for this opportunity to speak. Everybody already said what needs to be said, thank you. I'm not sure of the plan but the one thing I hope is included is the outreach to the community on the inclusion and sensitivity to people with developmental disabilities. We're experiencing right now some issues with certain residents in areas that we're developing residential homes and what's happening is there's residents who because they don't know our opulation are against someone moving into their community. The best quality of life that these individuals have is the opportunity to be in the community, to be included and accepted, but when you come up against residents and against neighbors who really don't want you there, it makes it harder for someone to transition and especially for the parent, for their loved one to transition into a neighborhood. I hope that the project includes a inclusion plan to educate the other residents who are going to be living there. Individuals with developmental disabilities have behaviors that some people don't understand and hopefully that will happen.
12:30 PMThank you very much. I believe our final speaker today.
Thanks to all of you, I appreciate being here. I want to thank you for the $2. 8 million that hope you will vote for. I think you all know how difficult it is to do affordable housing, especially difficult from palo alto at the oment. I realize that our reputation May suffer from that lack thereof. I realize that I am the last speaker between you and lunch, and that is always a 10ous place to be. Let me say thanks. This particular population is so grateful to have housing. We frequently have seen people at the mic about needing housing especially for this particular group that we're addressing today. Thank you for this. I realize this was a special set aside. We recognize that, and want to thank you all. Have a great lunch.
12:31 PMThank you, and colleagues, just a little background on these items, if you can bear with me before we go to recent, and work with volunteers down stairs. Let me turn to key lee again. My understanding is that the wilton court project is the one project that we were not fully able to fund the gap. Is that essentially where we are.
That is correct. colleagues, so you know, that is in palo alto in my district. I've heard from people who expressed concern about that and a desire to see if we couldn't do more somehow. I've indicated that that wasn't possible, because with $10 million, it really is a zero sum game and that would mean going to one of the other projects and ssentially shorting them on the recommended funding, so i'm supporting the staff recommendation today. However, I did appreciate and want to call out the fact that on item number 27, page three of the report, packet page 2758, that the staff indicates that they will -- that while the definitely on thatters request for that project and this is a different project, the sun view veil block 15 from this for county funding is a maximum of $4 million, the developer would strife to reduce the county loan amount by applying for additional financing opportunities as they become available. That's under leverage. The reason i'm highlighting that is because there is the potential, however minimal it May be, that the cquisition of additional funds would then free up some funding that might be reallocated. Am I getting that right?
12:33 PMThat is correct. what i'd like to do is ask the correct to please display the voting panel and I will move the staff recommendation, but with two and thank you supervisor chavez for the second but with two addenda, staff recommendation plus a direction to staff if additional funds are fort coming because the other 22 projects do not fully draw down the funds that have been allocated, that they be reallocated to wilton court so that we aren't going through this again, the project that is the one of the three that came up short. The econd direction would be that we direct staff to identify potential sources of funding in the next budget for the second trunch that we fund. Unless we adopt a budget with those funds in it, the money's not real. What I did here today however was a equest to express our continued support for the program. We have previously said $40 million, we have previously said let's try and do $10 million a year so that as projects come up and the process there's funding available, so i'm trying to do two things here, three things, move the staff recommendation, indicate the use for undrawn funds if they end up existing, which they May or May not and also to direct the staff to specifically address the second trunch of funding in the process. I see supervisor cortese is waiting. He wants me to stop talking. Thank you. Before we display the votes, supervisor chavez do you ever anything.
12:35 PMI just wanted to guess I support all three of those. I want to add, I mean both of those. I want to add two additional considerations. One is I wanted to ask staff if we could do a formal meeting with sark to better understand how we get other idd clients that are part of -- that May not be part of sark becoming patients or having a sark relationship and i'd like those discussions to be formal, a formal letter saying we'd like to talk to you about how e deal with the other 10% of the folks that we have on our lists to determine whether or not services could be available to them, so that's one request. Then the other is that I appreciate very much the point that supervisor simidian raised about moneys that May become available. I'm interested in if any of the projects don't fully get their funding, at what period of time do those funds get reconsidered for distribution. For example, is it two years, is it three years? I don't know if we have a timeline already set for that.
12:36 PMUsually, it's about 24 months.
Ok.
After served with the commitment. It can vary depending on the project but usually if a project were deemed in feasible 24 months after the board allocated funding, we'll sort of bring back recommendation.
So one request I would like to make is if you could do a 12 month check-in so we don't get to the 24th month and surprise a supervisor that something's not being built in their district I think would be ideal. Thank you.
12:37 PMThank you. all right. All five members have voted. We'll ask the clerk to display the results. And the motion carries 5-0. Thank you all to those of you who came and who have been part of this effort for years and years and years. Colleagues, that means that it is 12:36, so without objection, we will recess, and reminder to all that we will head down to the basement to express our thanks to the volunteers who are having lunch even as we speak. We're going to basically barge in on lunch, and then we'll be back in these chambers at 1:30. Thank you again.
1:31 PMWe are at 1:30, our recess is over. We are back in session. We have one item that is a not to be heard before item and that is of course the stanford gupp item, number 12. There are a couple of items it might make sense to take up if board members are agreeable particularly as I indicated this morning and I want to reference it again, we do have one colleague who needs to leave at 4:00 hard stop today, supervisor ellenburg for recognition of the holiday. So session will go forward if we have nresolved issues, but we'd like to take care of as many issues as we can prior to that time obviously and we think that we have a few that we can manage relatively expeditiously. Colleagues without objection, i'd like to suggest we take up supervisor ellenburgs referral, item 18. Then item 22, department of corrections monitoring eport and provide direction to staff there. I think that can be done relatively expeditiously. I'm informed that the issues raised in connection with item number 79 May have been addressed in the intervening hours so that one might be a possibility to simply take objection on expeditiously, as well and they be head into the stanford gupp issue at that time.
1:32 PMThank you very much. second half vest of silicon valley estimate that is one unin three children in santa clara county are food insecure. We know that many kids and families rely on free and reduced priced school meals during the academic year but only 13 percent of those children also take advantage of the summer meal program to receive federally funded meals. One arrier to expanding the reach of the summer program has been the lack of resources to provide meals for he adult caregivers that bring children to sites such as libraries or park to say receive those meals. This past summer, through an inventory item funded by our board, more than 6,000 caregiver meals were provided to more than 20 -- in support of more than 27,000 children's meals. They brought in nearly $100,000 in federal reimbursement to our county, providing caregiver meals reflects our values as a county to take a whole family approach, leverage as federal funding and helps families stretch family food assistance programs like wick and cal fresh beyond summer months. I ask to leap in and vote on the screen. That item May be displayed so we can nnounce a 5-0 vote. Thank you very much. That takes us to item 22. Office of correction of law enforcement and monitoring report.
1:35 PMWe heard that they are ready to make a recommendation n which finalists who go forward with negotiations, so we're here to seek direction from the board.
Thank you. I want to remind everybody who the ad hoc committee is.
The ad hoc committee is president simidian and vice president chavez.
Thank you very much. anything from county council before I call the speaker?
Nothing o add. we're available to answer questions.
1:36 PMWhy don't we ask your staff member to introduce herself or those who do not know her.
Laura -- we have a card from ron hansen. If you'd like to come up.
1:37 PMGood afternoon, supervisors. more than three years of county and community efforts. Efforts already underway by the sheriff in this county. We anticipate the acceleration of the jails climate transition from corrective to a restorative environment. Thank you for your work.
Thank you for your comments. colleagues, this is item number 22. The recommended action as you can see is both to receive the report and then also to approve the selection of one or more of the finalists and authorize the clerk of the board to commence contract negotiations. At this time issued indicate that there were five, we'll call them finalists, who were screened at the staff elf level by both the county council's office, I believe as well as the clerk of the board's office. They preved commentary on what they saw as the strengths, weak insists, attributes, all five of the proposal submitters who were finalists with that they be supervisor chavez and I as your subcommittee had an opportunity to review all of those comments to read all five sets of submissions, and then we had a preliminary choice in mind which we wanted to confirm by having a face-to-face interview with principals from firm. Based on all of that, I believe supervisor chavez and I are both prepared today to recommend to our board the selection of oir group, one of the applicants, oir group and I would ask the clerk to display the voting panel on the screen. I'm happy to make that motion so it's the recommended action contained in item 22 pact page 2061 with oir group as the designate finalist and that would be the group. Comments or questions from members of the board? Supervisor wasserman.
1:39 PMEs, please. just a little 20,000-foot view an why that selection.
Sure. I think and I will turn to supervisor chavez in a moment for her take, as well, I think oir group had both -- well, very important from the hearings we conducted about what oversight and monitoring should look like was the fact that while we wanted the office to provide oversight and monitoring for both law enforcement out in the community but also obviously for our jails, so we wanted somebody who could deal with both acknowledging that they required different kinds of expertise, that they are different experiences, so we wanted someone who either had those, that dual capacity, if you will, either onboard or through relationships with other partners who would be part of the exercise. Oir group brought that to the exercise. Wanted somebody who had a range of experiences that was relevant to the work we would be asking them to do here in the county, and they had a deep wealth of experience specifically here in california, elsewhere, as well, but specifically here in california in communities large and small and concluding playing a long time roll in the monitor's office in l. A. County, which is sort of a big one to get your arms around, so we know they've been down this path before under challenging circumstances. While they are based in southern california, I don't mean to be flip when we say we do not hold that against them but the fact that they had substantial experience, number of clients here in northern california gave us some reassurance that they would have familiarity with issues here in northern california also a presence here in northern california. To tease that out a little bit more and again supervisor chavez will speak for herself but I think it's fair to say we were both concerned about the fact that there would be a real presence here in the county. What that means and where that might be physically located to be determined, but in the county so that we weren't constantly talking about can we get so and so to come up from southern california and they committed to that going forward, as well. So department of experience, range of experience, familiarity with california law and the distinctions between a sheriff's office for example and a police chief's office, which are significant and relevant here, willingness to make the commitment to actually have folks at their desks here in northern california in the county, all of that's things. The last thing I had say, I think they had some clarity about -- they demonstrated real clarity about understanding what the roles and responsibilities of such be a office might be in a way that I thought was crisper and more well defined than the other applicants.
1:42 PMThank you, sir. if I May hear from supervisor chavez, too.
The only other two things I would like to add is that you May recall that when and I know susan, this is, I think you might have even watched some of this as you were campaigning, but as you might recall, we were asking for very big envelope of skill sets, one that they couldn't handle overseeing enforcement and the other was the jails and within the jails in particular, the complication that we have with medical and the real complicated relationship we have between the sheriffs department and he county itself in terms of whose responsibility what is and I felt like they were going to bring a lot more experience to that debate or discussion and frankly help us think a little bit about that in the future. Then the other thing i'll just add is that I did see earlier the sheriff and the undersheriff, because I think they thought we were hearing this earlier this morning, so i'm sorry, we kind of, we moved this kind of quickly, but i'm glad to see so many members of the sheriff's department here. I think that the other thing we felt like is that they had a very strong understanding of all of the partners, both those that were our employees but also how to work with the community and integrate those two together better.
1:43 PMThank you, both.
Other comments or questions? then the motion stands. I think Mr. Williams and miss doyle and miss tries, the one thing I would add is we understand the negotiations will take time but would like to ask that if possible, that this be wrapped up before the end of this calendar year.
1:44 PMWe will try.
Got it. ok. All right. Let's ask all five members to please vote on the screen. We need a couple more members to cast their votes. All votes have been cast. The motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much. Supervisor chavez that's going to take us to item number 79. This is an item that was removed from consent earlier in the day at your request, I believe.
Yes, thank you. I want to move that we approve item 79 with the direction that the prevailing wage for glazers be contained to the scope of work. This added language allows for the company and union to resolve a subcontractor issue.
Staff, that works for you?
All right. let's get the voting panel up on the screen, and got a motion by supervisor ellenberg and a second by supervisor chavez. We'll ask all five members please vote on their screens. Waiting on a couple. Supervisors, when you're ready. Supervisor cortese, you good to go on this one. I don't want to rush you if you're still reading materials. I understand. All five have cast their votes and we'll ask the clerk to display the results and announce the motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much. Ok. That takes us then in the odd math of the day back to item number 12, which is the stanford gupp and why don't we ask the clerk if you could bring up the cards we have on this, we'll get a ough sense for how many people we have to speak. And please bear with me for a moment. Colleagues, I think we're pushing 40 speakers. How much time would you like to allocate under those set of circumstances? Bear with me, please.
1:47 PMWe are at item number 12. ford, I know that ounty council wants me to establish a good record. Ford, item number 12 is a public hearing rewarding the stanford university general use permit. We have a number of items contained that they are in, so what i'm going to do is ask the department staff to first present a report. We'll hear that report, colleagues, going to ask board members to hold off on comments or questions except for brief clarifying questions if any after the report. All of us, myself included will have to try to exercise some discipline i'm sure because there is a lot to unpack here. After the staff report, we can to the applicant for university. We'll take all of the speakers who turned cards in. The pplicant understands those who are participating in the application are not then to repeat as speakers subsequently. Let me just confirm with miss gallegos and ms. Williams, do the sequence right?
1:49 PMThat's correct. we ask department staff to provide us with a verbal report to supplement the terse contained in our agenda and packet.
Good afternoon, deputy county executive. I'm going to introduce staff and consultants who worked on this project. The planning director jacqueline on shadow and rob eastwood, our planning manager. In the audience, greg stefan ich. To my far right is maryian mictus, our unsung hero, a planner with the m group and to my immediate right, jeff bradley, the principle with m group and also the project manager for this particular application. I wanted to also note ford that all the 28 attachments n this packet are -- have been submitted, and they're there in the pocket available for everybody. And then lastly, before I turn it over to Mr. Bradley, I wanted to note that this is noticed as a hearing because we have the permit application before you, but as alluded to by the board president, it's a little it like a steady session insofar as we have a really steady presentation. With that, i'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bradley.
1:51 PMIssued just indicate at the last workshop that we had colleagues, we got organized to hear from public agency representatives first in the convince of speakers, hat was the practice that seemed to work well at the planning commission, have had had the opportunity to do that today. We're going to take the cards in the order that the clerk has handed them to me. We're going to try to get organized if we can do so at the next meeting, which is on the 22nd, the city of palo alto. I wanted everyone to know today when the cards came in, they came in and we are going to take them in the order they were handed to me. Thank you for letting me insert that.
1:52 PMThank you. so today, we will review stanford's general permit use application. The environmental impact report for this roject,ed administration's recommendations on the general use permit, changes to the stanford community plan and overview of items elated to public school facilities, the water supply assessment that has been prepared for the project as well as the development agreement application. We'll begin with the general se permit application that stanford submitted back in late 2016. The application is for the development of 2. 275 million square feet, net new square feet with academic and academic support space on the campus. In addition, there would be up to 2600 student beds, which would comprise 1. 225 million square feet of development. That amount of development would be anticipated to last until approximately 2035, or approximately 17 years from gup approval. This is a total of 25 million square feet of new space. In addition, the application includes several other items, 550 faculty and staff housing units, 40,000 square feet of child care or trip reduction space and 50,000 square feet of temporary construction serve space. This rate of growth is consistent with the recent historical growth rate of 1. 2% per year. This also represents approximately 20% increase in building for the ampus. Existing academic and student housing development in the stanford community plan area kansass of approximately 16. 9 million square feet currently. With the addition of 25 million square feet proposed, the total development would be 20. 4 million square feet of both academic space and student housing. Stanford proposes changes to the land use designations for two sites as shown on this map in the black circles. As you can see, the golf driving range on the left has changed from orange to purple. Stanford proposes to change the land use designation of this 20-acre site currently with a golf driving range from campus residential medium residential to the academic campus designation. Moving over to the circle on the right, stanford proposes to change the land used designation of approximately four acres consisting of parcels currently developed with faculty and staff residences and a student housing facility from academic campus to campus residential low density to reflect proposed land uses. The proposed amendments driving site would change from campus residential to a1 general use. The faculty housing sites from a1 general use low density campus residential. The administration is supportive of these changes. Moving now on to an overview of the e.
1:55 PMR prepared for this project, it was prepared as what's known as a program eir because this approach is appropriate for a series of actions that can e characterized as one large project. A program eir -- the eir evaluates potential environmental impacts from projects proposed by the university, including those specified in the general permit use application, proposed amends to the zoning map and to the community plan. The eir in addition to evaluating the proposed project evaluates six additional project alternatives, listed here on this slide. The house in alternative is in response to substantial public comments on the acute shortage-of a immediate area. It should be noted that the no project individual se permit alternative would require an amendment to the community plan because policy gd states hat development May only be permitted through a general use permit approved by the county. The proposed project and the two housing alternatives have significant and unavoidable impacts through the cultural noise and vibration and off campus housing consequences categories. Alternative a also known as the full housing alternative has significant and unavoidable impacts in the air quality category. The final eir concludes that alternative a in addition to the significant and other avoidable impacts would result in three significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The administration recommends that the oard adopt and certify the stanford university 2018 final environmental impact report as completed and in conformance with seek wa requiring 2,172 housing units maximum of 2,892 units and maximum of 2,807 student beds. Alternative a total number of housing units and student beds as identified is needed to meet 100% of the housing demand generated by stanford says proposed project. State law listen an analysis of long term water supplies for large projects. Based on public comments received, the water supply assessment has been update since the planning meeting. Changes in response to severe drought in the future to the water quality control plan necessitated this update. The onclusion is that sufficient water supplies will be available to serve the campus under the proposed project and housing alternatives a and b. The approval of the general use permit is a quasi judicial action with findings for use permit as required by the county said ordinance code. This should look amiliar from our previous meeting where the zoning ordinance requires four major findings to be made in the affirmative before approval.
2:05 PMLast sect the board took legislative action with resulted in adjustable affordable housing, up to 8% of variable medium income. The ie from 80% to 120% ami at full market rate housing supported y the study. The basis for this includes the police power to protect public health, safety welfare.
2:06 PMHousing policy equires that new development. Transportation standards contained n the recommended commission of approval.
2:08 PMWell, average daily trips, 4 hours traffic count that captures of the traffic associated with the campus throughout the entire 4 hour day. The two hour and three hour peak hours that will give data prior to phase one commencing. For reverse strips, the peak hour and baseline set prior to phase two to allow for all the development authorized to the permitted and constructed and occupied. And at the end of the phase one before phase two commences the requirement to prepare a commute management plan to allow the opportunity to document how they would meet or exceed these requirements. Average daily trips follows the similar pattern where the baseline is set prior to set two. And there is a requirement to prepare an average daily trips management plan. In terms of what does it mean to be out of compliance? For commute trips the standard is 1% above the baseline. The baseline includes the 0% confidence interval. Starting in phase one for one year only. For reverse commute trips, the trigger amount is 2% above the baseline, also included the conference interval starting at phase two. Violations of that would occur if the traffic was over the baseline and the trigger amount and the conference interval for two out of three years. That would trigger the requirement for the deficiency plan. Once it is in place, one additional year only would be considered. Finally, tier three, average daily trips the baseline is 3% of the baseline. And 90% interval has been added and starting the phase two based on the traffic management plan. If there is two out of three, that would be the consequence, but only when linked to he consequence from a commute trip or reverse commute trip standard as well. The if it exceeds the baseline, when the requirement is achieved. At the reverse trips at the end of phase one there is a reverse trip management plan. If it violates two out of three years, that would trigger the reverse efficiency plan. Going through parking adjustments were made for all three metrics in exchange and in response for both input from the planning commission regarding feasibility. Number two, allow the trip adjustments to be used. Modified consequences to allow for the intermediate steps to encourage improvement over time. Finding the non-compliance development at a public hearing rather than the planning commission. With an approved deficiency plan in place, while an approve deficiency plan is in place would only occur in the reverse trips standards and triggers. Over all this provides an approach that has been re recalibrateed and input at appropriate times and provide more opportunities and time to engage with solutions. Moving on to other conditions. That are not housing or traffic. In terms of the academic growth boundary, all development under the general use permit is distributed within the agb. The updated academy policy that increases the requirement from 25 years from year 2,000 to when this is approved. This is rotected by open space and zone destination that and increases the requirement from 25 years from the year 2000 to when this is approved. I would like to point ut that there is a plan that has not been identified for this process that reads. If stanford is not providing appropriate level of services to its residents. This study would determine the appropriate service levels for each service. Language has been added to indicate that the studies should be based on comparable municipal services provided in cities in santa clara county, and reviewed by the board of supervisors. Two conditions have been recommended for deletion as child care. Is covered by the study. Moving now to the child care plan. The community plan guides all development within the plan area. There are three categories of changes to the community plan, background text to update background information. Accommodate changes proposed by stanford and updates necessary stated by stanford's general use permit placing. The department is recommending the county update and amend several areas including evising and updating key strategies, policies and placing measures chapter one discusses growth and development. The department proposes the following changes. Development proposed by the the gup application for a new development cap to 20. 4 million scare feet of academy/academy support student housing. It will move from 25 years to 99 years and require specific factors to be considered. We'll provide now a brief overview of the school issues as related to the general use permit and the community plan. School facility impact ees of 4. 2 million would accrue to the school district under build out of the general use permit based on the current fees and effect for residential development. The fees are $3. 79 per-square-foot. Per commercial development is $0. 61. In this case it includes acted development, academy support space including student house housing/beds. The future public school site designation, the administration is recommending the relocation of the school site on the community land use map here outside of the agp near page mill road on the east side of campus there, the light blue star to a location near page mill road on the west side of campus within what is known as the west campus district on the west side of the campus on the agb near sand hill road. Relocation is designationtied potential future public school site. More centrally ocated to where students will live and where there is currently housing development. Along sand hill road. The relocation does not mean any change of policy recommended by the planning commission on the school site. That brings us to the recommends on the application itself.
2:20 PMAt this time I wanted to make some preparatory remarks as we enter this portion of the presentation. As the board is aware, the way we are processing this development proposal is as the standard practice. It involves staff conducting environmental analyses and preparing conditions of approval and other analyses in order to help you make the findings that we're not going to have development that is detriment to health and safety welfare. And some of the findings that Mr. Bradley defined as above. the review in processing development applications, it's a regulatory process. It's not an negotiation. And I make this comment because during the planning commission and in many of the comments the public has made, they have conflated the usual regulatory land application process, and I wanted to have that clearly set forth in the public record. As you know, though, last year the board did approve amending the zone, that is used as a tool. We did receive a referral last year in September to authorize us to possibly explore this with respect to this application. We did, in fact, on October 16th of back and did present a proposed process we were asked to identify what a negotiation process would have as some of its features. What I want to communicate to the board is, in fact, we did endeavor to adhere to what was set forth, including the board having established the ad hoc committee. We have presented monthly sports to hulett on the discussions. I just submitted yesterday my tenth report. We have endeavored to have a public process so in fact, back in November 29th, we had what we described as a community listening meeting to entertain from the public what they thought would be community benefits that they thought would be worthwhile. We did conduct a meeting on November 30th with stanford to establish the ground rules for negotiation. Then later in march, March 14th, ther hall meeting that was attended by both supervisors simitian and chavez, where again we tried to update the community with respect to the status of these conversations. I did try to add appropriate milestones and provide some updates. Let me pivot to what I think is more important in this conversation, which is the substance. Stanford university did provide two offer letters, one in January of this year, and one on June 24th, right before the planning commission took it's last action. And i'm going to turn over the presentation in a moment back to Mr. Bradley, where he'll provide staff analysis of their offer letter, both in terms of the benefits that they are offering in the letter, and also the concessions that would be required in exchange for those benefits. I think the take away is that frankly the county negotiation team in stanford were very far apart. And this will be eliminated by the presentation.
2:23 PMBefore we go to the presentation, let me just ask the applicant to perhaps huddle. We do have a card from catherine palter that says applicant presentation. We've also got cards from other parts of the applicants team including jean mccown, whitney mcnair, and ellen from one of the consultants. As I indicated earlier we would like to ask you use your ten minutes to bundle those up. That's the plan if you want to put your heads together to make sure that your presentation is organized within that ten minutes. I want to give you that reminder at this time. Again, anyone who is a stanford affiliate of any other sort, whether you're faculty, staff, student, alum, whatever, perfectly welcome to speak for the minute and a half that we've got set aside. But the applicant team we ask that you coordinate and be in that ten-minute period. As is the custom of our board. Let me go back to staff and the consultants. Mr. Bradley, you're up.
2:24 PMThank you. the next slide. Looking at the development agreement offer letter summary table, that you see here prepared by the university, it's clear that nearly all the items described are, in fact, part of three different things. Part of ngoing efforts to address housing needs. That would include middle plaza projects. The first one listing 2600 beds for $1. 41 billion is part of the proposed gup. We're already required by the recommendations of approval, which would be the 1,307 workforce unit. The benefit listed as the tdm program that need to comply with the existing trips standard. This leaves about $30 million for transportation, and $138 million for schools, which reduces the total from $4. 7 billion with a 'b' to $268 million with an 'm. ' rezenneding the affordable house housing ordinance, the proposed changes and conditions and community plan would result in loss of approval that would under cut the findings needed to be made as well as eliminate important community protections. As discussed in your last attachment in your package, the public record for he escondido village is clear for student housing demand. The documented needs is for net new work houses. Moving on to middle plaza, staff addresses existing demand going back to the development occurring under the existing existing 2002 use permit. The housing and recommended for future demand from net new development. Stanford is proposing to provide 100% of the documented needs from 2172 units. Which good news. However, count staff ound that half credit, and build to adjust existing demand. The middle plazas along with smaller projects is accounted for as existing housing to serve existing housing needs. For these reasons staff believes the true number of net units offered by stanford is 1307 and will be used for comparison purposes. The proposal is 39% less than the amount as documented in the April 2018 nexus study in terms of affordable and market-rate units. The proposal provides 60% of the amount needed in the nexus study under the da offer the traffic conditions would be rolled back to the standard set in the 2000 general use permit, which focused solely on peak hour, peak direction traffic. In conclusion, under the development agreement, there is no government agreement, and recommend denial of the agreement.
2:29 PMLet me expand on this component. There were an oh couple of planning commissioners who were interested in seeing the development agreement as part of this packet. But not with standing that desire we don't have one. Our recommendation is as well as now to the board is that we approve this permit with the conditions and mitigations and other other recommended actions that are before you today and treat this as a--as our typical land use application.
Looking forward to the next steps, we have two more meetings meetings.
Can we hold questions? I know you said at the beginning there were a couple of times they asked for questions.
2:30 PMYes, thank you. I think we only have a few more page or two at most. One page. Why don't we wait a moment and i'll literally come down the row in order. And again ask that they be relatively brief so we can get to the public. I want to make sure that the applicant gets heard while all five members of the board are here and the members of the public get heard as well. Back to you, and then.
Scheduled for October 22nd. the city hall building. After that, we have the plans the third of three public hearings. Today is the first public hearing. October 22nd will be the second public hearing. November 5th will be the third and final public here, here at board chambers at 11:30.
2:31 PMAll right. questions from the board. And again if we can keep them relatively brief in clarifying and then go to the applicant, go to the public, and then come back for more questions and comments and discussion by the board. Time permitting. Ms. Ellenberg. Questions?
Yes, a couple of questions, thank you, about the process. How many times did the ad hoc committee meet with the stanford application team? You mentioned the November meeting. Was there another meeting after that?
That's correct. there was a meeting in November to establish ground rules. And then there as a meeting scheduled for, I believe April 30th, that was subsequently canceled.
Nothing between November and april, though?
2:32 PMThat's correct.
Let me--
Forgive the interruption. that is the case because there was no longer a process after the initial meeting while we were waiting or the conditions of approval. By the time the conditions of approval were produced, we ran into the circumstances that were described. Excuse the interruption, but we were all waiting for the conditions of approval during that period of time.
Got it, thank you.
That was my comment as well. was that staff, it took us awhile to finalize the conditions of approval. Those were necessary in order to establish the regulatory baseline, and therefore, understand what truly fell between the community benefits. That's why it was so important to have it down first.
I only want to sk one other question now, and i'm sure i'll have more later after hearing the public and applicant. The letter received on the 24th, did hoc committee perceive that as an opening salvo to begin negotiations, or a final afternoon.
2:33 PMI don't believe that the county team construed that as a final offer to the last question. It was one of two letters that were offered to us and then we convened as a team and analyzed and concluded that it was not much different than the letter offered in january. It was offered just as we were about to finalize actions at the planning commission. So at that time we presented the analysis that we presented to you today. To show them our respect to that, and then yet again made the point that we don't have an agreement.
2:34 PMThere were no beginning negotiations.
At that time, correct.
A slight clarification if I may. Supervisor chavez and i, and times we're formerly the at I wouldn't want people to think that supervisor chavez and I had not been contacted by the universe or in touch with them. As some of you know, as recently as September 11th, the two of us met in this building with five representatives from fanned ford university specifically at their request. Even though that was not technically a meeting of the.
2:35 PMIf.
Supervisor.
Looping those same lines. I appreciate the questions from the I went back fter the last discussion that we had here where the county executive indicated in oh many words, if you want to protect the cards, that's fine. That staff was not charged with negotiating. The he sort of just he writ rated you and fanned ford instituted negotiations.
I didn't say that constituted negotiations.
Why don't you character what you just said again.
I just want to--
We can bring out the video.
I want to be clear about what I did or didn't say.
Supervisor ellenberg asked if there were any negotiations with stanford. Then she said after the responsibilities, therefore there were none. I thought you corrected the record and said there were some because you and supervisor chavez met with the stanford folks. I'm trying to clarify before I move on to what I say here.
2:36 PMAs I said a few minutes ago, I was clarifying there were occasions when subsequent to the cancellation--the expiration of the ground rules. The ground rules expired. There was no more ability absent new ground rules to continue to have the meetings, as you heard from staff the meetings with the ad hoc community and the university were suspended. Ms. Gallegos. I'm looking to you to confirm that that is right. I was trying to make sure that we had in the record full disclosure. I didn't want people to think that supervisors chavez and I had not been in touch with the university. They reached out and asked to to meet with us and in some instances talked to us by hone. I don't want to speak for supervisor chavez. We certainly did meet with them but not as ad hockey community. But I think it's important about people not to be confused in our conversations. Just trying to provide full disclosure, supervisor. Back to you.
2:37 PMI appreciate that clarification. I'm trying to set the record straight because I didn't expect the response from the county executive last time. I wasn't prepared with the minutes and the actual motion that set this process into motion by the board of supervisors on a unanimous vote, as I recall. In any case, the minutes, according to the clerks, say that the recommendation was approved, and the october--i'm sorry, at the October 16th board meeting, according to the report to the hulett committee there after, by this same staff, it says at the October 16th board meeting the board authorized county staff to enter into a negotiation process and appoint two members of the board to serve as an ad hoc can committee providing guidance to county staff. One was direction from the administration report monthly to hulett and transportation committee in negotiations with stanford. That's this report. I didn't see anywhere in there or in the actual motion or the staff recommendation that e approved any authorization for the ad hoc committee to negotiate directly, or to seize and desist negotiations without coming back to the board. That's my take on it. And much like last time we discussed this item, i'm still in search of how did negotiation negotiations southeast and desist without a report back to the board? I went back to the staff recommendation,. Am with the clarification that you wanted a two-person ad hoc committee. If you and supervisor chavez was part but you moved the recommendation. I agree, to that particular time, October 16th, was a good one. I don't regret my vote at all. But it says that this is what this was supposed to happen. Am am if the board elected to prose there are a series of negotiating point. It's called clayfication of expectation. Housing and su and--express willingnes to include other benefits and response to and effect the jurisdiction in the gup process. Am.
2:40 PMDevelopment not covered by the conditions of the approval. Express willingness to am am am the timeline to allow negotiations to proceed and express a willingness to modify the conditions by hich stanford would bring in number. The offer is cop tin gents off beyond the environmental impact report. My question is were any of those negotiating points tendered to stanford, and did they respond by letters received in he negotiation? I'm hearing that they didn't offer the i'm hearing that there were other items by pi is there writing that date back to them? With the board of supervisors. At a point in time that I missed? I'm trying to find out how you counter offered, or if you counter offered based on the direction that the board gave originally on October 16th.
2:41 PMSo the board did form an ad hoc committee, and the county team looked to that ad hoc committee for direction. That was the way that we understood it. It was structured that we would get our guidance from that ad hoc committee. We met regularly. In fact, i'm grateful for the time of the supervisors. We regularly met weekly in response officers were provided, we did convene as a group to analyze those. Prior to that second letter, the count had communicated to stanford that if it wanted to reenter into egotiations, that there were two conditions that we felt that were important that they meet. One is to if it would be transferred we found from our perspective, the comments made in private meetings didn't necessarily match comments made in public meetings. To eliminate that, whether true or not because people have different perceptions, whether it's true or not, we felt the pest way is to if if secondly, we would a lot the physical. And to be equal to or better than that deal, and that not be contingent on a da but be contingent on something else. So we didn't get a response back. If a expressing its willingness to accept those two conditions and so am the negotiation and canceled this April April 23rd meeting. But there were many communications ouring between the county and stanford.
2:43 PMOkay. I haven't seen any document in my packet that is a response to the documents they summited. So i'm concerned about that. As to their willingness, and i'm assuming what you're alluding to or implying is that there needed to be an open pans parent public process, and stanford was unwilling to participate. As part of the motion that supervisor sum s simitian made, the public workshop near stanford university. It doesn't say contingent upon them showing up. Invites staff and elected official representatives for cities of tanford to attend nd does public, and to receive input n draft terms. Which I don't think happen based on istening to. At the point in time thement invite staff and elected officials from cities near stanford in a second meeting to receive input at a point in time in the negotiations at which proposed benefits can be identified. Five, conduct a third final agreement in conjunction with the emr mitigations which are just coming on, and recommend--i added that--and recommend addition of approval. The conclusion, prior to the planning mission public hearing on the 2018. Did the third public workshop happen before the planning commission meeting with opposed final development agreement terms and community benefits? That did not happen, did it? I'm just reading what the board ordered up. To my nowledge the board has not voided this direction. I just want to know if it happened or not. That's what i'm asking.
2:46 PMYou are correct. that's the process we outlined in the October 16th report. We did adhere to that process up to the point where we no longer had the ability to proceed. By that I mean we did have the initial meeting November 29th, where we had a community listening meeting. Then in lieu of having a meeting that is difficult to get all of the cities together in one meeting, we instead asked Mr. Mr. Brawlly to meet with all of the very well haven't just dictions, which he ask. And then we moved to the point where we didn't have the benefit development to showcase. That's where the process stopped.
2:47 PMOkay, my concern is, and i'm going to skip over paragraph six, which talks more about community benefits being done in conjunction and appropriate timing to the eir, which I tend to remember was a major provide periodic reports to the planning commission, which you said you've done. And full board. Full board. A regular-scheduled hearings. Your words. Throughout the development public input process. When did you say the process terminated? When did you say the process terminated? I'm looking for a date. It started in October when we adopted this recommendation that I just read. When did it stop?
2:48 PMTwo comments.
I'm just asking for a date so I can continue. What date?
So May I make the other comment.
I'm happy to make whatever comments you want. I just want to know what date this process, after October October 16, 2016.
The process didn't determinate, it was suspended April 15th. And then my second comment simply is that you're right, staff report said report to the board. But we saw that as being preferred at that meeting no, report to hulett. That's what we were trying to adhere to.
It says report to hulet as well. But it says to report to the full board. And you're telling me that after we ordered this work up, that in October 2018, in April of 2019 you crease and desist on negotiations. It is now October 2019. To my knowledge this is the first report to the full board a year later. But more troubling, six months after you cease and desist the negotiations, today you're coming and asking for us to reject a proposal from stanford despite the fact that it followed he direction of the board, you certainly have not apprised this board member because this is my only opportunity to convene on this subject. I'm not on the hulet committee or the ad hoc committee. I don't want to mischaracterize what ms. Ellenberberg said, but what she said it doesn't feel like there was a board of response to stanford's negotiated attempts to negotiate a proposal with us, to their offer. And i'm troubled by that. And maybe it's because I am biased in some way. In all of my professional career public and private, when someone when someone offers, it is the responsibility of the agents and principals to communicate that offer, to allow them to approve it, reject it, or counter offer. You're doing that today, a year after, for the first time. A year after negotiations were supposed to commence. That troubles me. I don't think it's okay, and i'll include here, I don't think it's okay for staff, for the administration to make a unilateral decision, dispense with the direction of the board without coming back to the board and at least letting us know that it is your preface to do so. Had you come back in April and explained whatever was going on, I don't know how I would have voted on that day or how I would have I don't know. Please continue, please discontinue, I don't know. But I was denied that opportunity. Now we're in the biggest land-use decision making process since i've been here. And I don't know how to make up I mit not be able to make up the lost opportunity cost, the I don't know what that opportunity cost is, but it feels like a lost opportunity to weigh in on a timely basis. I nii apologize. I will keep my remaining comments today to a minimum, if I make any at all. We'll leave it that that. I do preach your I hope that if nothing else it explains my concerns and my frustration with the position that I feel like i've been put in you want in in terms of the inability to re--respondto the constituents or an else.
2:53 PMSupervisor wasserman, clarifying questions at this point? Supervisor chavez?
Thank you.
I want to start where supervisor co cortese eft off, and let me say to my colleagues. In this instance i'm truly troubled by, supervisor cortese, I for one, and I think this is true for supervisor simitian, fully intended to conduct negotiations on behalf of the board. I never want to be in position where i'm extending one of you because we didn't get our work done. And in this instance I wanted to draw the attention away from the staff and mostly to myself, and mostly to joe--just kidding, but to both of us. I'm totally kidding. [laughing] but to your point, you raise a series of important points. I just want to give you my perspective on them. One is that it is true that one of the challenges waiting for the conditions of approval to come from staff so that we were better able to understand what would be benefit. I will say personally that we, like all of you, received a number of letters from stanford that asked to discuss community benefits in a--that started far below what the conditions of approval were. So what that meant was that for us to open up negotiations, we would essentially begin by negotiating the way I perceived it, by negotiating against ourselves. And in particular in the area of while we did have problems with the ground rules, and really being able to work together in the final, the most recent meeting with staff, I apologize. I meant to copy you and write to stanford, but I had trouble putting in words that we met with them. They said there were only four things that they were concerned about, but the most important thing they wanted to do was create an element of consistency.
2:55 PMCertainty.
Certainty. i'm sure that bob was writing a big note to me. Was of certainty. The challenge was what came back to us was not elements solely of certainty, but really asking us to take--i thought--taking giant steps below the conditions of approval. I feel in hat exchange where we extend one more opportunity for us to have a--i think the point that you raised, dave, about what someone starting position is a critical point. At the time we were having this discussion, not only was the offer relative to affordable housing so far below what we were looking for, but the discussions we had with he school had not been completed. I was worried about trading off the interest of children with the interest of affordable housing. I didn't think that was an appropriate place for us to start. That all being said I will say to you and to you the board in general and to you in particular, it was always our intention, and I can speak to mine personally, if possible, was to have a development agreement because of my comfort level from he city of san jose and see if that is something that we could use to get much done. The other was when the board, all of us agreed that this was a path that we should take and I believe we did our very best to live up to the spirit of what we tried to accomplish. I feel very badly with the communication with the full board. I wanted to say that before we went on. I have a question for staff, though, if I could. I'm interested in the 1985 agreement that we currently have. And i'm wondering what are the implications of that agreement being dissolved or not used any more as a basis for our partnership, relationship with stanford? I ask that because most recent letter had a part in it about I think a lack of need for services. Do we need it any more? Is it something that we should be evaluating as part of this process?
2:58 PMI think he 19 # 5 agreement is probably a separate conversation in a lot of ways. It provides a baseline framework for why they were incorporated into the city of palo alto. Back several decades ago. But I don't think that it's really directly a part of the conversation of what should happen here.
Well, the reason why i'm commenting on it is that after the stanford provision of municipal services, under a letter that I think May have come last night, there is a section of it that says that it doesn't appear that they have to provide services. My point is that if they're raising this relative to the approval, should we impact take a look at the agreement. It seems to have some precedence to at least one part of what they're sking for.
2:59 PMWe could certainly look.
Thank you. that comes to me. I'm going to try to keep my comments relatively brief and limited.
3:00 PMI'm going to ask this question, in the end. Just because i--ms. Gallegos, Mr. Bradley, the applicant for 3. 5 million square feet of development, it is the staff's recommendation before us today and the planning commission's recommendation on the 7-0 vote to give them all 3. 5 million square feet. Yes?
That's correct.
So that is your recommendation. Give the applicant everything that the applicant has asked for in the way could we go to page 15, please, of the power point. Thanks. This is the zoning ordinance of the county, yes?
3:01 PMCorrect.
Which means that it's the law we have to follow, yes?
Correct.
And I thought I heard you say earlier, Mr. Bradley, that we could not approve the project unless we can make all of these findings, is that correct?
Correct, yes.
So that means that we, in order to approve the project, we have to make a finding that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, correct?
3:02 PMCorrect.
Looking down at item number 5, the finding there is that the use will not substantially worsen traffic congestion affecting the surrounding area. So we cannot not approve the project unless we can make that finding.
That's correct.
One more time, you're requesting that the approval of the applicant.
It is the approval of 3. 5 million square feet subject to architecture approval, yes.
Okay. let's go to the applicant, colleagues. I want to make sure that we hear from them. I'll have more by way the comments and questions. Ms. Palter, have you figured out how to present? It's your ten minutes. You can use it for any permit permittation of your presentation.
3:03 PMJust to clarify, jean mccown was here speaking at the request of a faculty member who couldn't be here. He wanted it read into the record.
With the consent of my board colleagues, i'm going to mc mc mcgown has been a regular part of your application team, and has been part of the advocacy efforts for the last couple of years. We don't let folks speak on behalf of others. You've been through this process. You know how it works. I want to be flexible, but I want to follow the rules of the board. In future she'll be considered one of the development team as will you, as will m ms. Mcgown and Mr. Pierce, your paid traffic consultant.
3:04 PMShe just really wanted to offer her ability to answer questions.
Great.
Would it be okay if omeone else reads this letter if they susubmit a card.
As long as they're not double dipping on time, but a member of this team should really be part of this ten minutes.
Thank you. good afternoon resident simitian and members of the board. My name is ms. Palter. I would like to thank the committee for the time spent on our application over the past three years. We're building on a regulatory framework that allows stanford to add teaching facilities over time and comprehensively addressing environmental affects on our neighbors. Stanford addressing research as well as entrance. This will allow stand ford to invest in state state of the art in research fields such as alzheimer's disease, cancer, cyber security and climate change. I would like to talk about three sets of issues that we believe need to be resolved before achieving the path forward. One, the fewed proposed,--the housing that can only be provided through mechanism of development agreement. And ommunity benefits that can only be addressed through community developments. First the conditions of approval. Over the course of this process, we have heard that stanford is seeking a development agreement in order to limit mitigation. This is simply not true. We have committed to fully comply with all mitigation and the county's final environmental impact report. Out of more than 100 conditions of approval proposed by the county we have concerns with only three that we believe are infeasible, open ended or discourage housing development in an open campus. We believe that there are constructive ways to work together to modify these three conditions to achieve the county's policy objecttive while insuring that stanford is able to build it's new academic facilities and provide the housing we all want to see come to fruition. In the brief time that we've had to review staffs agreement, we believe we need to work this out. We have heard that stanford objects to providing more housing. This is also incorrect. As I believe you're aware stanford is proactively and voltairely constructed more than 1500 housing units as we speak. With these units combined with the number we have committed to under our development agreement proposal stanford will be dressing 130% of the housing demand. Including below-market units on stanford's campus and extending the below market rate housing. We would like to discuss our development agreement housing proposal to discuss if there are alternative ways to address the critical housing needs in the county. However, I would like to be clear on one important point. We believe that the proposed housing conditions extend beyond the legal authority of the county. That is why additional housing can and should be discussed within the construct of the development agreement. We want to provide the housing. We simply want to do it through a mechanism that resolves conflict. Third, there is an issue of benefits provided to our neighboring communities. We have heard that stanford's $4. 7 billion proposal package including our proposal of $168 million for schools and transportation improvements does not represent community benefit. No one has refuted that stanford is committed to spending this money down housing, transportation, schools, and benefit above and beyond the cost of building the academic facilities that form the occur of our project. The only disagreement is how to characterize these investments. Are they provided through existing programs as part of the project or additional benefits on top of the project? The bottom line is that regardless of how you characterize these investments, stanford is committeed to invest $4. 7 million as part of the permit and development agreement. As you know the development agreement is the tool routinely used in local land use entitlement that allows the investment. It is regularly used for large, long-term projects some local examples netflix, and gateway crossing project in santa clara. The approval of usc's plan in los angeles included a development agreement. Over the years tanford has entered ent into five agreements. That agreement is part of the approval package that has been evaluated by elected officials. That way when the decision makers are deliberating whether to approve a project or not, they have full under understanding of the benefits that can be realized in the community. We know of no applicant anywhere who would invest hundreds of millions, let aloe billions of dollars in the items the committee has requested, much of them front loaded ithout receiving assurances that will be able to construct the full amount of the facility it seeks to build. Without such predictability, the applicant would invest, and then future city councils could pass additional fees that would make the remaining facilities prohibitively expensive or impossible to build. The community is certain what benefits they will receive, and the applicant has assurances to completing their development. It is important to emphasize this is the only legislative tool that can provide such predictability. There is no other. We have heard concerns that development agreements are not transparent. That is incorrect. The first government has exactly the same transparency as the conditions of approval since both are resented to the public and evaluated in the same way by elected officials in open public hearings. There are multiple ways to structure the transparency. Stanford would be willing to use what are negotiation mechanism the county thinks best. We have heard concerns that development agreements remove all flexibility for the county to evolve future regulations. That is also incorrect. The state's development g. E. Statute recogzes there is a balance between maintaining flexibility and key areas for legislators while providing certainty to the applicant. Our letters to supervisors simitian and chavez describe this in detail. We believe we can address these concerns during negotiations. Some wonder why the agreement is needed today? The answer is that stanford did not seek a government agreement in 2000 because we were not asked at that time to provide benefits outside our academic mission anywhere near the magnitude that we're eing asked to provide today. So I think you can appreciate an appropriate need for assurances given this scale. That is why stanford use the permit and development agreement for housing and benefits for the community as well as land use predictability for stanford as a packet. We have an opportunity to support a thriving county community and stanford for the next two decades. To do that we seek to work together to create feasible conditions that stanford can implement and identify the passage of community benefits to be provided. This allows us to provide housing, transportation, schools and other benefits now while evolving our research and teaching over time to serve an ever changing world. Because of the reasons I have just laid out to you we respectfully request that after hearing from the public the county continue the hearings on the project and development hearing to a later date to allow stanford and county staff to great a development agreement to be considered at the same time for this project. We do not take this lightly. We believe if we can sit down and talk with the county we can reach a package that works for the county, the community, and stanford.
3:13 PMThank you. if you'll stay foot. Questions? Ms. Ellenberg.
Thank you for that report. you described that stanford is willing to do everything that falls within the general--with the conditions of approval, but want it to be outside of--i'm just repeating from my own education as well, but are interested in doing it in a separate agreement so that you will have assurity about your ability to fully develop the space over the terms of the development agreement, is that correct?
3:14 PMThere are two aspects of the conditions of approval. There are three that we believe that are infeasible, and then two that are having to do with housing that we're in disagreement where they belong in the conditions or development agreement. We believe that they belong in the development agreement. But yes to your over all question, that development agreement allow us to front load a lot of these benefits and still have certainty that we can abobuild our academic facilities.
And the loss to stanford is having to comply with a list of conditions without assurance that each of your subsequent projects during the length of the gup will be approved.
3:15 PMOkay. I think that's all for now. But i'm still thinking.
Supervisor wasserman.
Thank you. this is obviously on my radar. Every single day. In one way or another. Where I go back and forth, depending on who I happen to meet with r talk with is what can be accomplished in the da that can't be accomplished under the gup? I'm certainly one looking for benefits to the palo alto unified school district. I have to tell you, every time I speak with someone different, i'm less and less convinced that we can't accomplish all we want under the gup itself. And not needed n the da. I wonder you could restate--because I now you just said in your nine minutes now--your perspective on why a da is needed? I'm still confused. I'm still not convinced.
3:16 PMWell, I can give you a couple of reasons. One, as I said, we still have a disagreement that all of those--that housing could be required under the conditions of approval. The other aspect of the conditions and ordinance is that housing benefits would be provided over time. And what we've offered in our development agreement proposal, which is again, a starting point for discussion, we would provide 100% of the bmr units required by the ordinance passed by the board last fall, and 75% of all of the housing during the time when 25% of our academic facilities would be built. That something that we would feel comfortable doing because we know the remaining 75% f our academic facilities could proceed the way we all agreed to at the end of this process.
Thank you. on those two items if I may, for the chair. Thank you. The first item as far as front loading the housing. We have a housing crisis now. Building housing sooner than later, i'm all for it. What i'm not yet convinced, why can't that be just about a condition of approval, and not in a da. That's number one. Number two, you referred to the amount of housing. From the power point slide, from the staff reports and all that I heard and -mails and our meetings, and everything else, I think it's not so much a disagreement about the housing being resolved in the gup or in the da. I think there is a fundamental question on the number of houses to be built. And I orget which age it was in here, but the delta between what i'm hearing from staff here and what i'm hearing from stanford bankly is stanford is asking for credit of housing they have built and are building, and us saying, the mitigation for this new proposed project is like i'm off, but 2,000 new units. You get to the same 2,000 by allowing for 1400 or 1500 that have been built or recently built. And I believe staff is saying proper mitigation for the highs of the development is 2,000 new units. Rudies agreeing ith the number of units or if they're equired in the gup verse the--versus the da. Or both.
3:18 PMFirst I would say we haven't had a chance to talk about this to see where it is. What we've done in ur first application was recognize the incredible investment stanford is making right now. Stanford is building 1300 apartments for our existing graduate students who will move out of the community, freeing up housing there, and we have under construction 1500 faculty staff unities. Stanford has been pro active to bring housing supply that will open up in the next year. This is a credit towards market rate housing of 865 units. That's the disagreement there. But again, this is something we want to talk about. But it seemed reasonable to us that if we're going to spend $1 billion on 1300 apartments, it should be recognized in this calculous some how.
3:19 PMOkay. i'm going to stop there.
Supervisor--coming this way, please. Well, i'm going to stay on this point before I go to supervisor cortese. Ms. Palter, on the housing issue that supervisor wasserman asked about, my understanding from staff is that staff after looking at the nexus study concluded that in order to mitigate the housing demand associated with 9,610 new folks on campus, we needed to see 2172 new units of housing. Misdemeanomr. bradley and ms. gallegos that correct?
3:20 PMThat is from the nexus study.
I'm told that you're challenging the 2172 because you don't agree with the methodology. Is that the basis that you don't think that we can require the 2172 units, or is there another basis.
We've never seen a requirement where an applicant has been asked to build market housing.
3:21 PMThen you asked for a credit for half of the units that are being built at escondido village. In both the application submitted three or four years ago, and in not once but twice your comments to the planning commission, you acknowledged that those housing units are to meet existing demand from students. Am I remembering that correctly.
That's correct.
Okay so your position is that housing you chose to build to meet existing demand from students should be used to mitigate future demand from workforce folks who have not yet arrived, s that your position?
That's correct.
Okay. that's all I need. That's why I was taken aback by the fact that you said that you were committed to invest $4. 7 billion in the future because $1 billion of that is development that you already have already done to mitigate impacts from prior development opposed to money you will be spending in the future to mitigate future impacts of workforce development. So that's the--
3:22 PMThat student housing was not required s a mitigation. That's something that we proactively decided to do to bring those students on campus that frees up the places where they're living now which is where the workforce have move into.
Dually noted. for the record you're saying that housing you chose to build to meet existing student demand should count as mitigation for development not yet authorized, and workforce participants who have not yet arrived on campus going forward. Okay. That part is clear.
The other thing I would like to add with these questions, what i'm explaining is what we put forward in june, and what we really are looking forward to is to have a chance to talk about these issues. In a vacuum we're trying to put forward what we think meets the needs of the county in the best way possible. There could be another way to shift these resources and do it a different way. What we want is a chance to talk about it.
3:23 PMMs. palter, i'm going to ask you a question, and normally I couldn't get this person. Have I ever denied request from the university to meet with you all? Ever?
No.
How about supervisor cha degrees as the second member of the ad hoc team.
No.
Have you been able to meet with staff.
Less frequently than we could before.
And you had five members of your team who met with supervisor chavez and me just last month, es?
And she asked for a letter, which letter you provided, yes?
3:24 PMMm-hmm.
I just don't want folks to think that there are no communication when I think people have been working pretty hard on all sides to make sure that we got quality time together. All right. I'm going to see if there are any other questions. Supervisor cortese, you've been waiting patiently. Your light is on.
One question, ms. palter, earlier when I was talking about the process and so forth, and asking some questions about that, I read the clarification and motions made by supervisor simitian. The first bullet point says increase the proposed level of affordable housing funding, let me back up. It says given that stanford's administration recommends proceeding with negotiations only if stanford first agrees in writing to incorporate all the following elements. First bullet, increase the proposed level of affordable housing funding to exceed the level of affordable housing resulting from the housing ordinances. It doesn't appear to me that you did that. I would have asked the same question had has been brought to the board last april. And to my colleagues' credit on the ad hoc committee who have attempted to negotiate, and to supervisor chavez's comment not wanting to negotiate against ourselves, this being the direction of the board, can you explain, and I release it's a similar question to supervisor ssupervisor--simitians, why your opener wouldn't satisfy bullet point number one.
3:25 PMA little bit of history on the impact fee ordinance passed last year. The nexus study brought forward a maximum fee that could be charged of $143 a square foot. That would result in 900 units. After some discussion of the board it went back to staff. Staff came back with a recommendation of a fee of 575 units. That's what was approved by the board last fall. At that time there was a clause very important to the board that if stanford came forward with a proposal of below market rate units, that met or exceeded the requirements of the ordinance, the ordinance could be rescinded. That was part of he whole package. When stanford made its proposals both in January and in june, we showed with math how we were able to do that. How we were able to not just pay the fee over time, but front load it, build the you wants, and show that it was more of higher value than the ordinance passed in the fall.
3:27 PMWhatever it's worth, it doesn't appear to me, and gain, i'm not part of an negotiation be team, but I would have said this to you had I been, it doesn't appear to me that you opened up the negotiations at any point by expressing a willingness--this is what this is all asked for, not the number of units--but he willingness to provide housing to exceed the housing ordinances. I just have to say irrespective of all my concerns about process and as you heard earlier, it's problematic for me to, or it would be, to go forward even today with ood faith negotiations as a board member unless these five bullet points are expressed in writing by stanford essentially verbatim. We said in this is what we want. You can't start any negotiation without both sides at least agreeing to what the expectations are. If it's already been said by or implied by some of my colleagues, I think by putting specific housing numbers out that are different and don't appear to exceed the level of affordable housing in the ordinance, it is very difficult to proceed to step two of the negotiation or to talk about all these other things in these other paragraphs like school impact transportation, sustainability open space and so forth. So I think it's a big obstacle, and I want to express that because this is probably my only chance to do that in a public setting. Thank you, Mr. Simitian.
3:28 PMI should go back and check. I think we May have responded by letter saying that we were willing to engage on all of those points. We can go back and verify that. But thank you for your comment.
3:29 PMI'm just going by what we have before us today.
I will have comments later about the da process, but I want to hold off on those. Mispalter, however, I noted that even if it wasn't apparent to you, you did have a minute or so left at the end of your remarks before, you said you would take questions. If you want to bring some other member of your team up, whether that's ms. Mcnair,, I want to make sure you get your full ten minutes. I'll let you look beseechingly at your colleagues.
Did you say that ms. Mcnair.
I see her standing. and if she wants to come forward and offer a thought or offer herself up as a resource, that's fine. After those questions she may. Or May not. She's moving this way. Thank you. That's good.
3:30 PMMy name is whitney mcnair. i'm the direct of stanford housing. I manage the housing once it's built. My role requires me to have a pulse on the needs, wants and desires of faculty and staff on all housing related matters. I do this by meeting with many faculty and starve, learning about them and through surveys to under their needs. While there is public discussion about what and wear stanford's housing should be built, there seems to be a disconnect about what the potential residents of the housing want or need when looking for a home. Not everyone wants to live in employer-pr-provided housing. We have workforce make choices about where to live on a whole host of reasons. They want to live close to their caregiver, where their spouse can live close to work site, because of schools they want to attend or a large yard. Market rents around the campus are the highest in the bay area. The requirement to build 70% of the market rate housing on campus is only exacerbateing the problem for our workforce. When it omes to housing, stanford's opulation I urge you to pause and really learn what will appeal to stanford's workforce. Housing is much more than a number of you wants to satisfy a condition of approval.