News
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Sign up for Email Updates
CGF In the News
Press Inquiries
Past Articles
Calendar

Stanford Keeps on Developing While It Fights Trail Mitigations
 
by Brian Schmidt

Sensible environmental protection requires that mitigations for damage to the environment either precede or, at the very least, happen when those environmental impacts occur.

So why has Stanford been allowed to develop under the 2000 General Use Permit without constructing the required trail mitigations? Over 15% of the permitted office construction has occurred, and over one-third of the residential construction has been constructed or approved for construction, yet the trails have not been built.

Background on the Trail Mitigations
Stanford promised to build two trails to mitigate for these impacts. Still, years after the impacts began, Stanford refuses to construct the trails. The inaction on the southern trail near Page Mill Road constitutes a particularly egregious violation, since Stanford chose the alignment, and it is fully permitted. Yet Stanford refuses to proceed because Committee for Green Foothills filed a lawsuit against the attempt by Stanford and Santa Clara County to eliminate the northern trail by simply offering to expand the Alpine Road sidewalk.

Stanford’s proposal for the northern trail generated strong opposition by neighbors who were concerned about intrusion into their properties and safety issues, as well as the principle that they were being asked to mitigate for Stanford’s project. The environmental community had equally strong objections to the impacts on San Francisquito and Los Trancos Creeks, as well as the complete uselessness of expanding a little-traveled sidewalk.

The good news is that in San Mateo County, where the expanded sidewalk would have been located, the County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reject Stanford’s offer. The Board of Supervisors also called on Stanford to immediately transfer the money it promised for the sidewalk expansion to a program to provide real recreational improvements. Stanford has not complied with this request.

Update on CGF’s Lawsuit
On February 21, a court in San Jose finally heard CGF’s case against Stanford and Santa Clara County for making this environmental decision without any environmental review. The case has been held up on technicalities regarding proper procedures, and even if the hearing goes our way, it only clears away the procedural hurdles. Still, this is an important step in getting Stanford to comply with its responsibilities.

Published Spring 2008 in Green Footnotes.

Page last updated May 26, 2008.