Facts regarding Stanford's compliance with the GUP trails condition
Posted October 9, 2002 / Updated September 12, 2010

Stanford says: "We reached an agreement with the County on trail routes that are acceptable to Stanford and County staff, and we are living up to the agreements," Stanford spokesman Gordon Earle said. (Stanford Report, September 11, 2002)

The truth: The County and Stanford have not reached agreement. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 in December 2001 not to accept the trail routes as proposed by Stanford and to continue to work for trails that had greater value for the community. In addition, Stanford withdrew their own proposal, through a letter from their attorney, immediately before the board met. Clearly, no agreement was reached.

Stanford says: "When Stanford accepted the General Use Permit, it did so based on diagrams showing trails along the edges of its property" (August 29, 2002 Bingham McCutchen letter on Stanford's behalf, Page 1)

The truth: The trail alignments required in the GUP are taken from the Countywide Trails Master Plan. These trail alignments are not intended to be exact alignments, but are meant to be a guide to an appropriate location based on criteria that include:

 Safety
 Agreement of the property owner
 Environmental impact
 Connectivity
 Recreational value

There is no mandate that these trails have to be on the periphery of Stanford's lands and there is no explicit agreement regarding their location. Stanford must propose reasonable and appropriate trails that meet all five of these conditions. To date this has not occurred.

The Countywide Trails Master Plan map shows trail C-1 as a "trail across private property" in Santa Clara County on the south side of San Francisquito Creek, heading towards Arastradero Preserve.
Stanford's proposed trail does not meet the conditions of the GUP because portions of the trail would be on private property that does not belong to Stanford; it is not within Santa Clara County, as it is almost entirely in San Mateo County; it is very near Alpine Road, and thus a poor recreational trail; it is unsafe -- it would put two-way bike traffic across many private driveways and access roads on Alpine Road; and it would cause significant environmental impacts to San Francisquito Creek.

Learn more about why Stanford's S-1 trail alignment is inappropriate.

Stanford says: "There is no reason to evaluate nine alternative trail routes." (August 29, 2002 Bingham McCutchen letter on Stanford's behalf, Page 4)

The truth: The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors ordered that evaluation on June 25, 2002. As the elected body that governs Santa Clara County, they have the discretion to order such a study. The County has the obligation to avoid agreeing to a trail route that is likely to prove infeasible. One of Stanford's proposed routes is right through the middle of the Stanford Golf Course. The Countywide Trails Master Plan states that trails should not conflict with existing recreational uses. Stanford actually offered easements for this route, which would destroy portions of the Stanford golf course. Several other of Stanford's proposed trail routes have similarly serious flaws. Because of these flaws, the County has proposed studying alternate routes that will not have the legal and logistical problems as those proposed by Stanford. Among the alternatives, County staff has identified "optimal" trail routes that are acceptable to the environmental and trail-using community.

Stanford says: "Under the GUP condition, the trails must be located in areas of Stanford land that Stanford identifies and agrees to dedicate." (August 29, 2002 Bingham McCutchen letter on Stanford's behalf, Page 4)

The truth: It is an important condition of the Countywide Trails Master Plan to have landowner agreement. However, until the landowner offers trails that are safe, recreational, connected and feasible, the County has every right to demand alternative trail alignments that fulfill the goals of the Countywide Trails Master Plan.

Speak up for the enforcement of the General Use Permit.
To find out more or to get involved, read our Action Alert.