That deal hinged, however, on the county's approval of a broader development agreement with Stanford — a condition that Simitian and Chavez saw as Stanford's attempt to get leverage over the county. Once news of the school deal broke, the two supervisors abruptly halted the negotiations over development agreement. Since then, the county has continued to review Stanford's application through its typical process, which involves certifying the Environmental Impact Report, imposing conditions of approval and going through public hearings in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

One major sticking point between Stanford and the county was whether or not the two sides should move ahead with talks of a development agreement — a negotiated contract that would allow both sides to propose requirements and community benefits that go beyond the county's regulatory requirements. The county agreed last year to authorize two of its supervisors — Joe Simitian and Cindy Chavez — to enter into negotiations with Stanford over such an agreement. The negotiations fell apart last April , however, when Stanford reached a separate agreement with the Palo Alto Unified School District on a package of benefits worth an estimated $138 million.

If approved, the permit would allow Stanford to construct 2.25 million square feet of new academic development along with facilities for 2,600 student beds, 550 housing units for staff and faculty, and 40,000 square feet for child care centers and trip-reducing facilities. In June, the Planning Commission recommended approving the growth plan but with one key and controversial provision: a requirement for Stanford to build at least 2,172 new housing units, which roughly quadruples the number the university outlined in its proposal.

Stanford made the bold announcement during Tuesday's meeting of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to review Stanford's proposed general use permit over a series of three hearings between October and early November. The Tuesday workshop on the permit gave the supervisors and the community a chance to gather some background about Stanford's growth proposal before the formal public hearing begins on Oct. 8.

With Stanford University's bid to dramatically expand its campus entering a critical phase, the university doubled down Tuesday on its demand for a development agreement with Santa Clara County and suggested that it would not accept the county's approval of its growth plan without such a deal.

On Sept. 24, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors began its review of Stanford University's general use permit application that seeks to build 2.25 million square feet of new academic development in addition to child care centers, trip-reducing facilities and housing units. Photo by Sinead Chang.

County staff, for its part, has consistently held the position that while it is authorized to negotiate a development agreement, it is not required to do so. Stanford's prior general use permit, which the county approved in 2000, did not require a development agreement and neither has any other development that the county has ever reviewed.

Cortese said he was frustrated by the fact that the board hasn't been updated about the negotiations with Stanford since it appointed the committee to negotiate with the university.

"That's about as derelict as anything I've ever heard from anyone in government that I've ever been in a governance position to supervise ... or keep on my payroll," Cortese said.

But while the Board of Supervisors wasn't planning to discuss the aborted negotiations over the development agreement Tuesday, the topic returned to the board with a vengeance when Supervisor Dave Cortese attacked county staff for failing to negotiate with Stanford in good faith. After learning that the development-agreement negotiations were led by the ad hoc committee of Simitian and Chavez with little participation from county staff, Cortese accused County Executive Jeff Smith of "running a rogue operation."

Stanford has also consistently pressed the county to negotiate an agreement, which university officials argue is the best way to provide the community with "front-loaded benefits" and provide Stanford with long-term certainty that it will be able to grow. On Tuesday, Catherine Palter, Stanford's associate vice president for land use and environmental planning, suggested that such an agreement would be a necessary component of whatever gets approved.

After hearing Smith's response, Cortese said he thinks it's "absolutely absurd," given the Board of Supervisors' direction from a year ago, for staff not to take a more proactive approach on the development agreement and by not making a counterproposal to Stanford.

"In this situation, we have a complex and very complete planning document with lots of conditions of approval. It already went through the Planning Commission and is coming to the board for action. Trying to superimpose the development agreement on top of that is a formula for confusion and not a good approach, in my opinion," Smith said.

Smith said Tuesday that he believes development agreements are "only useful and good where it's fairly clear exactly what other requests are being made outside the normal process going through planning."

The development agreement, which Stanford strongly hopes to achieve, would dramatically change the dynamic in the tense negotiations between the university and the county, shifting the county's role from that of a regulator to that of a partner. County staff has been loath to make that shift, arguing that it would be important to first determine the requirements that Stanford would have to meet before deciding what other benefits and concessions the county should consider in a development agreement negotiation.

The topic of school impacts is expected to take center stage at the Oct. 22 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, which will take place in Palo Alto. In preparation for that meeting, Simitian and Chavez issued a memo asking staff to determine the expected enrollment increase in the Palo Alto Unified School District associated with Stanford's expansion, the impact of the expansion on per-pupil funding in the school district and other information.

"We need to make sure the expansion of one great educational institution doesn't drag down another," Collins told the board. "Please, please insist on an agreement that protects Palo Alto schools."

School impacts are also an area of concern in Palo Alto. School board President Jennifer DiBrienza and Vice President Todd Collins both stressed the importance of having Stanford contribute to local education, given the number of new students that the university's expansion would bring to the district.

The letter argues that to fully mitigate its impacts, Stanford needs to provide "fair share" payments toward separating the Caltrain corridor from streets at intersections (the city estimates that Stanford's share in the project should be $159 million), improving the downtown transit center ($99 million) and performing roadway maintenance on city streets that serve the campus ($1.2 million).

"There is no dispute that the City of Palo Alto will be significantly burdened by the addition of nearly 3.5 million square feet of new development," the letter signed by Mayor Eric Filseth states. "Most acutely, the City will experience an increase in commuter congestion on its roadways and multi-modal networks that will extend travel times and exacerbate commuter frustrations."

"If new housing is not constructed on campus, then there would be greater housing and transportation impacts to the City of Mountain View and other nearby cities," Matichak's letter states. The City appreciates Stanford providing all of its housing on-campus to fully mitigate the significant residential impacts from its proposed academic facility expansion."

Mountain View Mayor Lisa Matichak lauded the proposal in her letter to the Board of Supervisors. Providing on-campus housing, she wrote, "would be a leading step by Stanford to help address our region's housing crisis and reduce potential transportation impacts by allowing faculty, staff and students to walk or bike to work.

"Menlo Park residents, like others in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, are fed up with the situation, and they elected us to do something about it," Nash said.

Menlo Park City Councilwoman Betsy Nash said her city, like others, "struggles every day with two large and growing issues: One is inadequate housing availability and housing affordability, and the other is traffic congestion that chokes our streets.

"As we delved into the plan for housing, a lot of the workers, some of which are part time, some of which are faculty, are not accounted for in the housing. And many of those housing units are sought in the city of East Palo Alto."

East Palo Alto Vice Mayor Regina Wallace-Jones lauded Stanford as an educational institution but warned about the traffic and housing challenges her city is already experiencing. She said her city would like to see Stanford contribute $20 million for construction of affordable housing in her city and another $15.5 million to help fund necessary transportation projects.

The board's discussion followed comments from a few dozen public officials and residents, most of whom urged the board to make sure Stanford's expansion doesn't aggravate the area's already considerable housing and traffic problems.

"It seems to me there's a pretty good track record and a case to be made for pretty responsive if not generous spirit by folks here at the county with respect to the mission of the organization and the development requests," Simitian said, referring to Stanford.

Stanford has always been able to get the approvals it's been seeking from the board. The county, he said, has a "128-year history where every single application (from Stanford) has gotten a yes."

While some residents touted Stanford's academic reputation and argued that the university shouldn't be treated like other developers, Simitian pointed out that Stanford already gets special treatment. The general use permit process, which effectively allows the university to build any project it wants within a 10- to 20-year period without getting the county's approval (provided the project is consistent with the permit), is a tool that exists only for Stanford, he noted.

"Since many of these community benefits will need to be provided upfront, we have concluded that it will not be possible to accept a new general use permit without a corresponding development agreement," Palter said. "Such an agreement will enable us to satisfy the county's requests and provide the kinds of significant benefits our neighbors seek.

Tempers flare as Stanford's growth plan hits critical phase

Supervisors at odds over proposed development agreement, which university claims is necessary for its application to proceed