Editorial: Revamp or relocate Carnegie proposal

he relationship between Palo Alto and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching goes back to the time the foundation was still a glint in Andrew Carnegie's eye, if not before.

In 1903, Palo Alto Mayor John F. Parkinson took a winter journey back East to visit the railroad baron and philanthropist to seek support for a grant to build the city's first library. Parkinson got $10,000, and the city got its library--a modest structure located on the block where City Hall now stands.

The Carnegie Foundation was created in 1905.

Now, four years shy of a century later, foundation officials are feeling seriously rebuffed by Santa Clara County's lack of enthusiasm for the foundation's proposed new home in the Stanford foothills. The county Board of Supervisors last week delayed action on the proposal to May 8 after several members indicated they did not favor the plan in its present configuration.

Carnegie officials are proposing a 21,000-square-foot building, a parking lot and a new roadway for a site west of Junipero Serra Boulevard, uphill from the intersection with Campus Drive West.

At first glance, the site seems logical. Two other "think tanks"--the Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences and the National Bureau of Economic Research--are next door. The Carnegie site is a former dairy, and old buildings and building foundations still dot the site. The site has fine views of rolling hills and trees.

And Stanford has made a generous offer: a 51-year lease at $1 a year.

Carnegie leaders clearly have made an emotional commitment to the location and to their plans for the building.

Sadly, there are complicating factors that make the site highly problematic--not the least of which is that it lies within the California Tiger Salamander Management Zone, to which Stanford agreed in a 1998 pact with the county, the California Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Both the federal and state agencies have objected to proposed mitigations by Carnegie and Stanford as "inadequate" to protect the long-term survival of the salamander, listed as a "species of special concern" by the state and a candidate for federal protection as a "threatened" species (one step below "endangered").

But the salamander is not the only problem. The county in mid-December completed a lengthy and hard-fought process leading to approval of a 10-year community plan and general use permit for Stanford--a literal outline of Stanford's near-term future. The county granted nearly all of what Stanford requested, including 2 million square feet for academic campus expansion plus 3,000 units of badly needed housing.

Part of the new plan designates an "academic growth boundary" for Stanford, to complement Palo Alto's "urban services boundary" (where utility services end).

But the Carnegie plan spills beyond the academic growth boundary, and violates height and building-size guidelines under the new county plan for Stanford lands, which supervisors were advised now regulate the area--raising questions of legality in approval of the plan if the supervisors were to do so.

SRI in Menlo Park. Where Carnegie now occupies temporary quarters, also has indicated to city officials that it might be able to find permanent space there for Carnegie.

Supervisor Liz Kniss has taken the initiative to seek a compromise that would work for Carnegie and Stanford while addressing some of the key concerns of environmentalists and legalists concerned about the habitat and spillover issues. Some redesign and relocation moves might make the hills site acceptable, she has indicated.

Or she said the supervisors might consider adding 21,000 square feet to Stanford's approved 2 million for its core campus expansion--a minor freebie density increase that might prod Stanford to reconsider its "no place else will work" position. Even without that, Stanford has the option of finding another site.

If Carnegie is as valuable an addition as Carnegie and Stanford officials--and others, including us--feel it would be, it's time for everyone to cool off a bit and either bring the proposal into compliance with the law or find a new location that stays out of the foothills and salamander habitat.