Urge County to ensure compliance with Stanford General Use Permit
Posted October 1, 2002 / Updated October 1, 2002

• What is the General Use Permit?
• Stanford not complying
• Development rights require accountability
• Speak up for GUP compliance!
• What you can do

Controversy continues to swirl around Stanford University's compliance -- or lack thereof -- with the General Use Permit (GUP) signed in 2000 by the University and Santa Clara County. It's time to let the County know that we want them to ensure that Stanford complies with these regulations!

What is the General Use Permit?
The permit entitles Stanford to add 5 million square feet to its campus over the coming decade. In exchange for this development, Stanford agreed to several GUP conditions, ranging from a requirement that it prepare a comprehensive management plan for the newly-designated Special Conservation Areas to a requirement that it build and dedicate two trails that will benefit the community in specific ways. [Learn more about the GUP.]

Creation of this permit took years of public and private negotiation, and resulted in an agreement that defines the development allowed on Stanford lands within Santa Clara County, and also defines the mitigations required as a condition of that right to develop. These conditions are wise land use policy, as they tie development entitlements to measures that balance institutional gain with the public's interests. The GUP's mitigation monitoring, timetables and accountability are crucial to insuring that the conditions and mitigation measures are actually implemented.

back to top

Stanford not complying

However, implementing the GUP conditions is proving to be challenging and controversial -- particularly the conditions for the Special Conservation Areas (designed to protect valuable natural resources on Stanford's lands) and trail placement.

Draft Special Conservation Area plan meaningless
The Special Conservation Areas (SCA) are those the GUP defines as "unsuitable (for development) due to natural resource constraints". The GUP requires Stanford to develop a SCA management plan that provides goals for habitat management over the next 25 years, control of non-native, invasive species, and other issues specific to management of the area.

The plan Stanford submitted was long on generalities but short on specifics and goals. A typical management guideline developed by Stanford reads: "Stanford may consider biological control of non-native species on a case-by-case basis."

County planning staff has asked Stanford to amend its draft plans so they include such basic parameters as "actions to be taken, timetables or triggers…[and] measurable benchmarks and results." In response, the University has insisted that its plans are more than adequate and the County had no authority to ask for more specifics.

Proposed trails do not serve the community as they should
Of all the GUP conditions, the requirement to build and dedicate two trails through Stanford's lands has received the most public attention. Stanford could have chosen to provide outstanding recreational trails that would be a tremendous benefit to the Stanford community and the area as a whole, as well as creating an asset in recruiting prospective students and faculty.

For more information on Stanford's lack of compliance on the trails issue, visit our trails action alert.

back to top

Development rights require accountability
The Committee for Green Foothills is working closely with Stanford Open Space Alliance and other environmental groups to monitor Stanford's compliance with these and other environmental conditions of the GUP. Unfortunately, the university's compliance to date has been poor.

During the GUP negotiation, Stanford management asked for "flexibility with accountability." Their actions suggest that they're quite interested in the flexibility -- but not the accountability. Although the GUP granted the university all the development entitlements they requested, Stanford's actions are in bad faith.

District 5 Supervisor Liz Kniss is working hard to protect the community's interest by seeing that Stanford keeps their promises and complies with the GUP conditions. In response, Stanford has mounted a PR campaign of myths and half-truths that has generated a barrage of criticism of Supervisor Kniss. She needs to hear from those of us who support her work to ensure that Stanford keeps its promises.

back to top

Speak up for GUP compliance!
It's important to let the County Supervisors, the public, and Stanford know that you support efforts to achieve full compliance with all conditions of the Stanford GUP. In particular, ask the Supervisors sto continue to work for specific commitments for protection of the Special Conservation Area, and to develop two safe, scenic, recreational trails to serve our community and generations to come.

back to top

What you can do

1. Tell the Board of Supervisors that we want full compliance with the GUP.

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Supervisors Liz Kniss, Don Gage
Blanca Alvarado, Jim Beall, and Pete McHugh
70 West Hedding, San Jose, CA 95110    
Phone (408)299-2323    Fax(408)298-8460

2. Write a Letter to the Editor.
Country Almanac - Fax (650) 854-0677 - editor@calmanac.com
Palo Alto Weekly - Fax (650) 326-3928 - letters@paweekly.com
Palo Alto Daily News - Fax (650) 327-0676 - editorial@paloaltodailynews.com
San Jose Mercury News - Fax (408) 271-3792 - letters@sjmercury.com

3. Become informed.
Read background on the trails and the latest news.

Sign up for CGF action alerts and we'll keep you updated and let you know how you can get involved.

For more information, visit the Stanford Open Space Alliance website.

You can also find out more about the trails issue from PATHS, People for Access to Trails in the Hills at Stanford.

4. Support Committee for Green Foothills.
Become a CGF member or make a donation.

back to top