The Stanford Daily
June 2, 2006

Univ. faces fierce trail opposition

By Niraj Sheth

Last week, San Mateo County Supervisors held a public meeting with members of the community to discuss an offer by Stanford to build a recreational trail along Alpine Road. Public testimony given at that meeting overwhelmingly opposed the University’s proposal, punctuating what is just the latest spat in a five-year-old struggle between Stanford and its neighbors.

An agreement reached with Santa Clara County last December regarding a condition set out in Stanford’s 2000 General Use Permit requires the University to offer up to $8.4 million to San Mateo County and up to $2.8 million to Portola Valley to expand and improve the path that currently runs along Alpine Road.

However, several members of these communities oppose such an expansion, claiming that the new Alpine Road Trail would be overly dangerous for use and environmentally unsound. Instead, they have pushed for alternative trails that would run somewhere on Stanford’s lands east of Alpine Road and further into its interior. If either, or both, the County or Portola Valley rejects Stanford’s offer, the funds will instead go to Santa Clara County for recreational purposes.

According to San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon, who was one of two County Supervisors at the meeting, of the 39 members of the community who gave their opinion, about 34 opposed any improvements to the existing trail. Opponents mostly cited traffic, safety and environmental concerns.

In an interview with The Daily, Lennie Roberts, a representative for the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), said that in her 28 years of working with the public, she has rarely seen such one-sided meeting.

“It did clarify for Supervisors [Jerry] Hill and Gordon that there is a very strong sentiment within the community to say no,” she said.

Larry Horton, director of government and community relations at Stanford, gave a presentation at the hearing and agreed that most of the attended public clearly opposed the trail. However, the reasoning behind such opposition was misinformed, he said.

“What I was concerned about were the many statements that were not factually correct,” Horton said.

Roberts disagreed that the community misunderstood the University’s offer. However, she did note that the meeting was successful in clarifying an important point about Stanford’s funding — that only the amount needed for whatever construction the County decides to do, costing up to $8.4 million, would be paid for by the University. If the County makes only a minor improvement costing $100,000, for example, the County would receive only that amount from Stanford and the University would keep the rest.

Gordon explained that this hearing was only the first step before the County Board of Supervisors decides whether to accept Stanford’s offer. While Gordon’s subcommittee still needs to make a recommendation to the full Board, he is “hopeful that by early summer we can craft some initial response for the Board to consider.”

The controversy surrounding the construction of this trail dates back to 2000, when Stanford negotiated a General Use Permit (GUP) with Santa Clara County allow for the construction of more residential, academic and recreational buildings on campus. In return, the University agreed to a set of 107 conditions, including one that “Stanford shall dedicate easements for, develop and maintain the portions of the two trail alignments which cross Stanford lands.”

One of these two trails, which are determined by Santa Clara’s Trails Master Plan, runs along Alpine Road on the west side of campus. While Stanford and Santa Clara were supposed to reach an agreement on implementing this trail by 2001, unexpected controversy over its exact location stalled the process until late last year.

In December, Santa Clara’s Board of Supervisors finally approved an agreement, in which Stanford would construct one trail on its lands in Santa Clara and offer to pay San Mateo County and Portola Valley for the expansion and improvement of the path along Alpine Road.

Sources from both the University and the surrounding communities agreed that while relations between the two are usually friendly, land use has always been a flash point. According to Horton, polling conducted by Stanford in Palo Alto and Menlo Park showed that “Stanford has an extraordinarily high, positive opinion in the County.”

Horton estimated that 95 percent of the University’s conflicts with its neighbors concern land use. Roberts concurred.

“Land use is always controversial,” she said.

While Gordon explained that “the town and gown tension happens,” he also emphasized the importance of good communication between the University and surrounding communities, which he said is normally the case.

“As an elected official,” he said, “I have sufficient access to Stanford and I think they have access to me.”

Horton agreed about the importance of good relations.

“It’s very important to have good community relations,” he said. “But Stanford must also act in an ethical manner.” In this case, he explained, “Stanford should have the right to control its destiny.”

Page last updated September 13, 2010.