The Almanac
December 5, 2007

Editorial:
A dirty question for Stanford

Other than looking out for its own best interests, we wonder whether Stanford seriously considered all the downsides of trucking up to 300,000 cubic yards of excess dirt from campus construction projects to its former Christmas tree farm south and west of Sand Hill Road and Interstate 280?

The university is asking the San Mateo County Planning Commission for permission to spread this huge amount of fill over the 143-acre site, formerly known as the Christmas Tree Farm. The 10-year plan would enable Stanford to avoid preparing an environmental impact report, a more complex analysis than the negative declaration process under way now, which requires the applicant to address all concerns raised by the public and official agencies.

And just last week, the county said it had sent Stanford another batch of comments that need to be addressed, which will likely delay consideration of the plan well into next year. The Sand Hill property is in San Mateo County and is not covered by the general use permit issued to Stanford by Santa Clara County to build up to 5 million square feet of space on the campus.

Concerns raised by the Department of Fish and Game, the town of Portola Valley and the Committee for Green Foothills raise very pertinent questions in the following areas:

• Truck traffic. Convoys of 20-yard gravel trucks would become a fixture on Sand Hill Road if the permit were approved. The slow-moving inbound trucks would be turning across a busy road with a 55 mph speed limit that is also one of the most popular bicycle routes in the county.
   
  Mitigations suggested so far include limiting hours of truck operation; covering all truck loads to alleviate dust; requiring flagmen where trucks enter and leave the site; and perhaps requiring installation of left-turn and acceleration lanes on Sand Hill Road.
   
• Grading at the site. After removing a topsoil cap, Stanford proposes to spread a layer of dirt 5 to 7 feet thick over a significant portion of the site, raising concerns about runoff damaging streams, wetlands and native vegetation, as well as spreading non-native invasive plants like the star thistle. Much of the site drains across the Stanford Linear Accelerator property into the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve and San Francisquito Creek. If not carefully managed, runoff loaded with dirt could threaten the integrity of the preserve and the creek. Dust control is also an issue that must be closely monitored to protect air quality around the site.
   
• Early last month, the Department of Fish and Game raised questions about findings in Stanford's initial study, including whether the San Francisco garter snake is present; expanded examination of all potential bird nesting habitats within 200 feet of the impact areas for nests; and a cautionary note about requiring a Fish and Game permit for working around a stream or streambed.

Additional questions have been raised about the need to dispose of such a high amount of fill, and whether the university examined alternative disposal sites. Committee for Green Foothills spokesperson Lennie Roberts suggested in a recent Almanac guest opinion that the fill be trucked to Bair Island, where it could be used to restore wetlands reclaimed from the former Cargill salt ponds.

There are numerous other concerns, including issuing a permit for 10 years without being able to gauge the total impact of the project. A far better approach would be to issue a one- or two-year permit that would include specific goals and renew the permits only if Stanford were to meet the targets.

Even though it owns far more land than any other institution in the area, Stanford is not entitled to avoid the basic rules of land use that apply to all property owners. In this case, the sheer size of the request, and the 10-year permit period, stretch the envelope. The county owes it to area residents to carefully oversee the treatment of this very visible and environmentally sensitive site. Other alternatives should be thoroughly investigated before Stanford is given approval to use it as a long-term dumping ground to facilitate its expansion agenda.

Page last updated December 12, 2007.