News Subscribe  to Our Newsletter Sign  up for Email Updates CGF  In the News Press  Inquiries Past  Articles Calendar			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. Published October 2002 in Green  Footnotes. Page last updated November 4, 2002 .