News Subscribe  to Our Newsletter Sign  up for Email Updates CGF  In the News Press  Inquiries Past  Articles Calendar Read CGF's Nov. 11, 2004 Press  release Stanford: No negotiating on trails; University refuses to consider  compromise on mitigation for development Read CGF's Nov. 12, 2004 comment  letter on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report for the  S1 trail			Stanford's mitigation  efforts lag; County conducting illegal negotiations by Brian Schmidt  In 2001, after years of negotiation with Santa Clara  County and the community, Stanford received a permit to develop an enormous  area on campus, approximately five million square feet of total development.  As part of that permit, the university  committed to a number of actions, including recreational trail access  for hikers, designed to reduce or mitigate the impact of that development  on the environment and the community. As recommended by Santa Clara County's flawed  environmental report, the route ofor the S1 trail would follow existing  trails and roads, including Old Page Mill Road (above) - and add no recreational  value for the community. Stanford promised to produce two trail plans for dedication within the  first year of the ten-year permit. The S1 trail would run near the southern  edge of the Stanford foothills, and the C1 trail would run near the northern  edge.  As an alternative to adding any new trails, Stanford  now advocates widening existing trails and sidewalks, and claims that  this constitutes fulfillment of its promise to provide new, alternative  hiking routes on the northern C1 trail. County staff appears to be saying  the same thing regarding the southern S1 trail.  To complicate matters about which CGF is already  concerned, the county has conducted secret negotiations with Stanford,  the permit-holder, without allowing others to review the same documents. Public trails delayed and endangered While the exact alignment of the S1 trail was not detailed in the permit,  the approved Community Plan expressly stated that some flexibility would  be needed in aligning the trail. No one (including Stanford) stated during  the approval process that the trail would be restricted to the very edges  of Stanford land.  Accordingly, CGF and others proposed trail alignments  that were towards the southern edge of campus, but were also flexible  enough to move away in some areas and provide real recreational opportunities  for hikers. In response, Stanford threatened Santa Clara County with a  possible lawsuit if it even studied these alternatives in the EIR, and  the county gave in to Stanford's threats. Environmental report fails to analyze recreational  value The county just released its draft  Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the S1 trail. Unfortunately,  the report examined only the trails' negative impacts, while ignoring  the trails' beneficial role in reducing the impacts from Stanford's development.  Given this perspective, it's not surprising that  the DEIR concluded that the best trail is a glorified sidewalk known as  the S1-A route - a modification of an existing trail rather than a new  trail. It logically follows that a modified trail would have a smaller  impact than a new trail.  "Overall [the S1-A route] would result in fewer  mitigation measures, primarily because it is a short alignment that would  extend for approximately 0.84 miles . . . and because it would be constructed  in an existing paved area without steep slopes . . . . Therefore the S1-A  alignment [when modified to never leave existing roads] is identified  as the Environmentally Superior Alternative."  The S1-A alignment has little value as mitigation  because it does not provide a connection to other trails or parks. The  county should not choose this alignment as the best option.  The report also failed to include alternative trails  that would provide the best recreation and that would reduce Stanford's  environmental impacts. After all, the whole point of the trail mitigation  is to reduce impacts on existing trails from new development and the resulting  population pressures from the people Stanford is bringing to the area.  Of course, based on the criteria established in  the report, the county might have selected the "no-trail construction  alternative" as environmentally superior, because it would be even shorter  and require no mitigation. CGF  has asked the county to fix these significant flaws in the report  and analyze trail alignments for their mitigation value. We hope that  the county will avoid repeating this obvious mistake on the C1 Trail planned  for the north side of the foothills. County conducting illegal secret negotiations An especially disturbing aspect of the environmental review process is  that the county shared prior drafts of this environmental report with  Stanford, and apparently spent significant amounts of time negotiating  with Stanford over the content. However, the county refused to show those  drafts to anyone else. Our requests to evaluate the draft documents (even  as university officials were reviewing them) were denied.  Besides the unsavory "feel" of this type of secret  discussion, even the most ethical governmental officials (such as those  at the county) will find their conclusions influenced by biased discussion.  Moreover, this behavior is illegal. The Public Records  Act allows agencies to withhold drafts of documents from the public under  restricted circumstances. The law does not allow the government to share  drafts with favored members of the public while denying them to others.  If the aim is to improve accuracy by giving applicants a chance to see  working drafts, then accuracy could be improved still more by giving all  parties the chance to review them.  County officials argue that they are just following  standard practice. While this practice seems to be widespread, that does  not make it legal. The City of Palo Alto does not follow the county's  practice, so we know that, for some local governments, acting in a legal  fashion is possible. CGF committed to working for good trails and  a good process The Committee for Green Foothills and other environmental groups have  plenty of work to do in the coming months. We will be reviewing environmental  documents on both the S1 and C1 trails, advocating for safe, recreational  and scenic trail alignments that provide true mitigation for Stanford's  development rights, and making sure that the community is adequately represented.  Unfortunately, three years later, we are still waiting  for the required recreational trail access. However, we  are committed to ensuring that Stanford fulfills its obligation to  the community, and we will continue to insist that documents can be reviewed  by everyone in an open, public and legal manner. Published November 2004 in Green  Footnotes . Page last updated November 15, 2004 .

	Photo by Jeff Segall.