December 21, 2005

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to The Almanac Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Editorial: Stanford gets its way on trails

The final curtain on what is already a five-year battle by Stanford to avoid building two recreational trails across the interior of its lands west of Junipero Serra Boulevard came tumbling down last week. That is when the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved a deal that accepts Stanford's offer to pay for a trail near Page Mill Road, and sets out a timeline and specifications for a similar trail along the university's north and western border, in San Mateo County.

The arrangement has been cleverly constructed with an offer of $8.4 million to San Mateo County and $2.8 million to Portola Valley, but only if they agree to Stanford's plan to run the trail along busy Alpine Road in San Mateo County. This route is environmentally unsound and despised by residents who live near it. Stanford says the offer is good for five years, or possibly seven if necessary, or else the funds will revert back to Santa Clara County for recreational use, and Stanford is off the hook to provide a recreational trail.

Residents of Stanford Weekend Acres, an enclave of homes that would be hemmed in between the proposed trail (they call it a sidewalk) and San Francisquito Creek, say they may sue to stop such an Alpine Road trail, which could delay resolution of the issue another five years or more.

The origins of this battle date back to 2000, when Santa Clara County exercised control over Stanford development, forcing the university to negotiate for the amount of space it intended to build for the next 25 years and mitigate its impacts. In return for the rights to 5 million square feet of residential and other space, Stanford agreed in its general use permit (GUP) to build the two recreational trails along its northern and southern borders. Here is the pertinent phrase of the permit: "GUP condition I.2 requires Stanford to dedicate easements for, develop, and maintain the portions of two trail alignments which cross Stanford lands shown in the 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan (Routes S1 and C1)."

Environmentalists and trail supporters believe the language promising to develop the trails "which cross Stanford lands" means interior lands. But Stanford leaders have steadfastly disputed any interpretation of the agreement that might require them to build trails across the interior of their lands.

And now, with the blessing of four Santa Clara County supervisors (north county supervisor Liz Kniss voted no), Stanford now has designed a take-it-or-leave-it offer to build a totally unacceptable trail alignment in San Mateo County along Alpine Road. San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon last week called the Alpine Road route a "very problematic area for a trail."

This endgame shows once again that Stanford has no interest in sharing undeveloped lands with its neighbors for anything other than projects with a direct benefit to the university, which is private property. Unfortunately, Santa Clara County failed to write a general use permit that clearly stated Stanford's obligations to build trails over its interior lands.

And Santa Clara County supervisors failed to meet their public responsibility by signing off on the plan before Stanford got approval from San Mateo County and Portola Valley.

As a result, Stanford has no reason to negotiate with San Mateo County or Portola Valley, which have the option of receiving $11.2 million for an unacceptable trail or having no trail at all, leaving Stanford with its right to build 5 million square feet intact and no obligation whatsoever to build both recreational trails required by the signers five years ago.

The next move is up to the San Mateo County supervisors, who will take the first step in what is likely to be another drawn-out legal and political battle over a trail that may never be built. Stay tuned.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.