County and Stanford at loggerheads over permit compliance
by Jeff Segall

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 after years of public and private negotiation. The GUP defines the development allowed on Stanford lands within Santa Clara County, and ties this development entitlement to specific mitigations that benefit the public interest. Monitoring, timetables, and accountability specified in the GUP ensure that these mitigations are actually implemented.

The GUP entitles Stanford to add a staggering 5 million square feet to its campus over the coming decade. But here's the rub - the GUP among many conditions requires Stanford to prepare a comprehensive management plan for the newly-designated Special Conservation Areas (designed to protect valuable natural resources on Stanford's lands), and to build and dedicate two trails on its land that will benefit the community. Stanford is in noncompliance with both of these conditions - the Special Conservation Areas plan lacks specifics, and the proposed trails do not serve the community.

Special Conservation Area plan lacks specifics and is unenforceable
Special Conservation Areas are sites the Stanford Community Plan deems "unsuitable (for development) due to natural resource constraints."

The GUP requires Stanford to develop a management plan that sets goals for habitat management for 25 years, control of non-native, invasive species, and other issues specific to management of these Special Conservation Areas. However, 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 asked Stanford to amend this and four other plans required by the GUP. County planners asked Stanford to include specifics, including such basic parameters as "actions to be taken, timetables or triggers...[and] measurable benchmarks and results." In its response, Stanford argued that the plans as originally submitted were more than adequate and claimed that the County had no authority to ask for more specifics. Without specifics, however, these plans are meaningless and unenforceable.

Proposed trails do not serve the community
Of all the GUP conditions, the requirement for Stanford to build and dedicate on its land two trails consistent with the Countywide Trails Master Plan has received the most public attention. Given the opportunity to provide outstanding recreational trails that would be a tremendous benefit to the Stanford community and the area as a whole, Stanford chose to propose trails that have little recreational value and may not be possible to build.

The proposed western trail is not in Santa Clara County, as opposed to what is shown on the Countywide Trails Master Plan, and it presents significant environmental and safety concerns. The western trail also crosses private, non-Stanford property that has been the subject of a long-standing legal dispute between area homeowners and San Mateo County. The proposed southern trail dead-ends in Los Altos Hills, instead of linking to Arastradero Preserve, as shown in the Countywide Trails Master Plan.

Santa Clara County had little choice but to ask Stanford to study alternative trail alignments. Stanford's response has been to resist, stall, and threaten litigation.

Stanford not acting in good faith
During the GUP negotiation, Stanford management asked for "flexibility with accountability." Now that the University has received all the development entitlements it requested, Stanford's actions suggest that they do not believe that they need to be accountable to Santa Clara County or the surrounding community.

District 5 Supervisor Liz Kniss is protecting the community's interest by insisting that Stanford adheres to its agreement and complies with the GUP conditions.

Show your support for wise land use policy
Stanford Open Space Alliance is working closely with the Committee for Green Foothills and other environmental groups to monitor Stanford's compliance with the environmental conditions specified in the GUP. We urge you to write Supervisor Kniss and the other County Supervisors and support their efforts to require Stanford to:
(1) Comply with all conditions of the GUP;
(2) Add specific commitments for protecting Special Conservation Areas; and
(3) Develop two safe, scenic, recreational trails to serve our community for generations to come.

Learn more about what you can do!

Jeff Segall is the Chairperson of the Stanford Open Space Alliance, a grassroots network dedicated to the permanent protection of Stanford's undeveloped lands in the foothills. SOSA believes it is in the University's long-term interest to enhance the quality of life on campus and in surrounding communities by protecting open space and wildlife habitat while slowing urban sprawl.