In the latest chapter of a five-year long struggle between Stanford and an environmental advocacy group, the Santa Clara County Superior Court has ruled in favor of the University and Santa Clara County in a suit regarding a trails project.

The lawsuit had challenged the formal agreement between Santa Clara County and Stanford regarding the construction of two trails, one along the eastern edge of Stanford lands, known as S-1, and another trail on the west side of campus, called C-1.

“Stanford promised to build trails on Stanford land, as shown in the master plans,” said Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate for the Committee on Green Foothills. “Instead, Stanford simply wants to expand a sidewalk, which is in direct contradiction of what was promised.”

For its part, the University contends that the location of the trails was specified previously, and that Stanford was both fulfilling its legal responsibilities and responding to community needs in building the C-1 trail.

“We believe that we are absolutely fulfilling our obligation,” said Larry Horton, director of government and community relations at Stanford.

In the Oct. 12 decision, Judge Leslie Nichols ruled that the Committee for Green Foothills failed to file its lawsuit within the 30-day period established by state law for submitting such challenges. The Committee for Green Foothills argued in its suit that the C-1 trail merely expanded an existing sidewalk instead of creating a new trail. This did not serve the purpose of increasing recreational opportunities for the neighboring community, argued the Committee, which they say was the intent behind the General Use Permit’s requirement for the trails.

The Signing of the General Use Permit

On December 12, 2000, Santa Clara County granted Stanford a General Use Permit, which allowed for expanded development in the portion of University-owned land located in unincorporated Santa Clara County.

The Permit — which included permission for the expansion of academic and academic-support uses, student housing units, graduate housing units, faculty housing and parking spaces — counterbalanced the allowed development by requiring the University to meet conditions designed to minimize development’s adverse impact on the greater Santa Clara community. Among these requirements was the stipulation that Stanford “dedicates easements for, develop and maintain the portions of two trail alignments which cross Stanford lands”: Routes S-1 and C-1, which were specified in the 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan.

The Final Environmental Impact Report, which was certified by the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County concurrently with the General Use Permit, stated that the development projects that would result from the General Use Permit would significantly affect recreational opportunities for campus residents and facility users. Housing development would take place in areas that previously served the community as recreational space, and Stanford’s plans to engage in habitat and environmental restoration in the Dish would restrict the establishment of formal trails there.

The dedications of the S-1 and C-1 trails were, therefore, explicitly intended to “replace and expand recreational opportunities in the foothills,” as the Impact Report noted. “Improved parks and dedicated trail corridors will provide a higher quality of recreational experience for users, replacing the informal recreational areas that will be converted to other uses.”

The Report also stated that “cumulative population growth at Stanford will combine with regional population growth to place additional demand on recreational resources. The project will also induce additional growth due to the multiplier effect of new jobs on campus.”

“No one ever dreamed this would be a controversial issue”

Whether the easements cut into the University’s land is critical, Horton said, because once land is allocated for public use, it can no longer be used for private development by the University.

“This is not a minor thing,” he said. “We are giving away this land for perpetuity. The land involved in the trails will no longer be available to Stanford, which is why we never agreed to an interior trail in the first place. We would not have agreed to give up the right of future generations of Stanford students, faculty and administrators to determine the use of Stanford lands.

“No one ever dreamed this would be a controversial issue,” he added, noting that the requirements in the General Use Permit numbered 107 in total, and that the trails were but one facet of these provisions. “We have felt for many years that we have been absolutely correct in our interpretation, and the documentation supports us.”

The Committee on Green Foothills, however, framed the issue differently. The most important issue, Schmidt argued, was whether the C-1 path accomplished the requirement that Stanford cede easements in order to build a path with high recreational value and in order to preserve environmental integrity.

“The impact report mandates easements,” Schmidt said. “The General Use permit says that Stanford will build and maintain easements. But there is no dedication of easements in taking an already existing sidewalk and expanding it. The vast majority of the proposed trail is not on Stanford land, or has already been dedicated for public use.”

Additionally, the Committee for Green Foothills criticized the December 13, 2005 agreement between the University and Santa Clara County, in which Stanford agreed to construct the S-1 trail itself, but decided to provide San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley with the capital funds to construct the portions of the C-1 trail that lay within their respective jurisdictions. This was an exclusion of the trail from Santa Clara County, argued Schmidt, which was unjust because the trail rightfully belonged to the residents of Santa Clara County in exchange for the burdens that Stanford’s expansion would place on the County’s infrastructure. The press release prepared by the Committee regarding the dismissal of the Committee’s lawsuit characterized the act as “a substantive environmental violation by the University and County in eliminating a promised trail from Santa Clara County.”

Horton, however, argued that the University was promoting responsible and environment-friendly growth.

“The General Use Permit includes a requirement for an academic growth boundary — Stanford is obligated to have no development along the boundary for twenty five years,” he said. He also noted that, by limiting itself to a small area of development, Stanford was undertaking infill development — development projects that take place in proximity to existing development, as to prevent overdevelopment or irresponsible destruction of undeveloped lands.

“What is important is that the Committee for Green Foothills lost on all counts,” he added. “They have petitioned the court twice; the first time they were given leave to file a new petition, but the new petition was also dismissed from the court. The Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County voted against them 4-1, in agreeing to sign the agreement with us. All of their arguments have been rebutted and found false many times in the past, and their arguments remain false today.”

The Committee on Green Foothills, however, was not about to concede defeat.

“We emphasize that the judge’s decision was based on a technical issue,” rebutted Schmidt. “It’s not about whether the Committee on Green Foothills is right or not. There is no independent third party saying that we’re wrong.

“This is a chance for students to get out and use the foothills that belong to them, instead of being forced to walk along one of the busiest surface streets in the area,” he added. “The proposed sidewalk would be a waste of student tuition and alumni donations, and we are proud to be keeping that kind of waste from occurring.”