An easy (and resounding) Stanford trails victory for the environment in San Mateo County

This morning, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors unanimously reaffirmed their 2008 decision to reject Stanford's environmentally-destructive proposal to widen the Alpine Road sidewalk.  Stanford made the proposal in order to avoid constructing a trail on its property that it had promised in the 2000 General Use Permit that Stanford received from Santa Clara County.  The sidewalk expansion would have had significant impacts on the creeks and the local community, with almost none of it on Stanford land.  Committee for Green Foothills even litigated against the project, although the litigation was dismissed over a technical issue.

San Mateo County also reaffirmed their prior proposal that the money for this very expensive proposal instead be spent in a grant program that could actually succeed in mitigating the impacts from Stanford's new development.

The decision helps in two important respects.  First, the original decision by San Mateo County Supervisors in 2008 resulted from the leadership of two supervisors, Jerry Hill and Rich Gordon, neither of whom will still be at the County after this year and able to provide institutional memory.  This new decision reiterates the resolve of the supervisors who will still be around in 2011 and onwards.

Second, the agreement between Stanford and Santa Clara County states that Stanford has through the year 2011 to persuade San Mateo County to accept the sidewalk expansion.  Afterwards, Stanford must give the money to Santa Clara County Parks Department to mitigate Stanford's impacts - unless Santa Clara County agrees to give Stanford yet another two years to change San Mateo County's decision.  By taking this decision, San Mateo County has clearly indicated it will not change its mind, and that Santa Clara County should not cause more needless delay of the environmental mitigation that Stanford promised a decade ago.

Great work by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.  The ball is now in the court of Santa Clara County and Stanford to do the right thing.

-Brian

UPDATE:  Here's the letter that CGF prepared, but turned out to not even be necessary (the Board of Supervisors thought the issue was so uncontroversial that they passed it as a "consent" item without need for discussion):

November 29, 2010

 

President Rich Gordon and

Members of the Board of Supervisors

400 County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

Re:  Item #10 on the November 30, 2010 Board of Supervisors Agenda: Resolution Reaffirming the Decision of the Board of Supervisors to Reject an offer from Stanford University for a Trail on Alpine Road

Dear President Gordon and Members of the Board,

Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) strongly supports the Board’s reaffirmation of your February 12. 2008 decision to reject Stanford University’s offer of $8.4 million to widen the Alpine Road sidewalk, and instead request that Santa Clara County establish a regional grants program to mitigate the impacts caused by Stanford’s General Use Permit, issued in 2000. 

The expansion of the existing sidewalk along heavily travelled Alpine Road would disproportionately impact the Stanford Weekend Acres community and would not provide true recreational opportunities.  There are many potential trail connections and/or improvements in the communities surrounding Stanford that a regional grants program could facilitate.

Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, San Mateo County Legislative Advocate

CGF Comments on the draft Stanford HCP and EIS

(We submitted the comments below on the draft Stanford HCP.  -Brian) 

August 30, 2010

Sheila Larsen

Gary Stern

Fish and Wildlife Service and

National Marine Fisheries Service

            Re:  Comments on the Draft EIS and HCP/ITP for Stanford University

Dear Sheila and Gary:

Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) submits the following comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) and HCP/ITP (HCP) for Stanford University:

I. Relationship to Searsville Dam and operations

The EIS, on pages 3-24 and 3-25, discusses an alternative that covers modifications to Searsville Dam and Reservoir for Flood Control, and concludes that this alternative was rejected from further consideration because no specific modifications have been evaluated for feasibility, and there is a large array of flood control measures that the Army Corps and the JPA will be analyzing and considering in the future.  The EIS does not discuss an alternative that covers modifications to Searsville Dam and Reservoir for the purpose of benefitting steelhead.  The HCP (Section 1.3, page 11) states that future structural changes to the dam could be covered by an addendum to the HCP.

Potential removal or modifications of Searsville dam to allow fish passage, while potentially beneficial for fish, could also have potentially adverse impacts to steelhead downstream of the dam due to increased sedimentation of the main stem of San Francisquito Creek. The large sediment load that originates in the Corte Madera Creek sub-watershed currently accumulates in large part behind the dam.  Searsville Lake and associated marshes and riparian areas provide habitat for species that would be greatly altered if the dam were removed.  These unknown impacts, particularly to aquatic avian species and bats, could outweigh the benefits of increased spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead upstream of the dam.   Downstream sedimentation associated with removal or modification of Searsville and potential increases in flood hazards in East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park is another complex issue that must be carefully studied and thoroughly evaluated.

CGF supports a comprehensive study of options for Searsville Dam and Lake in collaboration with Stanford and other stakeholders.  Such a study should include analysis of beneficial and adverse impacts to species as well as downstream flood hazards.  CGF does not oppose inclusion of a sufficiently-comprehensive study in this HCP, even recognizing that such a study would necessarily delay the HCP.  CGF further believes, however, that a comprehensive study could also be done as an amendment to the HCP/ITP.

II. The HCP and DEIS fail to address the Stanford Sustainable Development Study

The wholesale failure to include discussion or analysis of the Stanford Sustainable Development Study (Sustainability Study) constitutes a significant oversight in the HCP and environmental review.  Stanford authored both the Sustainability Study and the Draft HCP, making the oversight particularly jarring.  Correcting this oversight will require significant rewriting of the HCP and EIS to reflect the Sustainable Development Study's conclusions about the amount of campus development that will be needed to occur beyond the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB).

The land outside the AGB and subject to the Sustainability Study analysis is likely to contain the majority of habitat potentially affected by the HCP, so conclusions in the Sustainability Study about level of anticipated development should weigh heavily on the assessment of anticipated impacts from the HCP.  Historically, the level of development of Stanford land in San Mateo County has been quite small – most development occurred in Santa Clara County.  The vast majority of habitat in Santa Clara County is outside the AGB.  Important exceptions occur in the vicinity of San Francisquito Creek and Lake Lagunita, but both of those areas will be subject to special restrictions in the HCP. 

The Sustainability Study analysis covers approximately half the time period of the proposed HCP, also making it highly determinative of projections for the second half of the HCP time period.  There is no reason for assuming a sudden explosion of development after the current General Use Permit and Sustainability Study analysis end, so the best practice would be to rely on these existing analyses to project outward for an additional 25 years.

III. The HCP and DEIS overestimate the amount of habitat that Stanford may want to impact

HCP and DEIS should examine actual habitat development rates under the GUP for purposes of projecting future needs.  The DEIS states that under the existing GUP, Stanford "could" develop up to 30 acres of potential habitat.  DEIS at 3-2.  No citation is given for this statement, and the GUP in any event is not the final word on new development at Stanford.  To assess future habitat development rates based on the GUP, the HCP should instead examine what acreage of habitat has been developed in the nearly 10 years that the GUP has been in place.

The 180-acre estimate double-counts the 30 acres for the GUP.  As discussed below, the projection of 50-150 acres of anticipated development overstates the existing trends and contradicts Stanford's own analysis.  Even if the trend of 1-3 acres annually were correct, however, that would cover the time period and geographic area of the GUP.  There is no analysis supporting the conclusion that Stanford would damage habitat at its pre-GUP rate, and then in addition to that impact, would destroy another 30 acres through the GUP.  The already-inflated and incorrect 150 acre estimate of habitat impact forms a ceiling.

The Sustainability Analysis estimates significant constraints on future development that need to be included the HCP analysis.  To our knowledge, the Sustainability Study is left unmentioned in the HCP and DEIS, especially its conclusion that essentially no development need occur beyond the AGB in Santa Clara County.  While it is not binding, the Sustainability Study is Stanford's own analysis of future impacts that it should not ignore simply because it is not currently discussing the sustainability of development patterns.

The Sustainability Study indicates the level of impact on acreage beyond the AGB should be near zero for the 25 years covered by the Study, and the HCP impact levels should be adjusted to the reflect that fact.  The Sustainability Study further indicates a likely constrained level of development in other habitat areas and constrained development in the area beyond the AGB after 2035.  No evidence has been provided for a different trend in the future than the trend anticipated by Stanford itself in its own study.  That trend should be extended forward to cover the period of the HCP.

Simply put, the HCP and DEIS provided an incorrect trend line for anticipating future habitat development that would require a permit.  It has not provided a habitat development rate for recent years under the GUP, nor has it included the constraints on development that Stanford itself acknowledged in the Sustainability Study.  Reduced impact figures should therefore be included as constraints on the terms of the HCP.

IV. Stanford's authority over the land trust significantly reduces the trust's ability to do its job and avoid conflicts of interest.

The land trust that is to be the recipient of conservation easements from Stanford needs to be completely independent of Stanford and ready (if needed) to even bring legal action against Stanford to enforce the easements, yet Stanford is given authority to set up the trust with no details on how that will happen.   Establishment of a trust directed in whole or even in part by persons receiving paychecks from Stanford would create irreconcilable conflicts of interest, as Stanford's ability to exercise control over its employees could influence whether the trust could exercise its legal obligation to protect the conservation easements.  Disclaimers that "Stanford would never do such a thing, even 50 years from now" are wholly irrelevant, whether such disclaimers are accurate or not.  The conflict of interest exists regardless of good intentions.

The trust also needs sufficient resources to monitor and defend the easements that it owns.  This could include litigation both litigation and ability to call on independent scientific expertise.  The land trust needs to be adequately funded by Stanford[1], and run by worthy people nominated by Stanford in advance of approval, who are not Stanford employees, and who appoint their own replacements so that Stanford has no subsequent appointment power.

V. Additional issues

            CGF provides the following short-but-important comments:

The HCP needs to integrate and work with downstream impacts of San Fracisquito Creek on endangered species.  The San Francisquito Creek flood control project in particular should be discussed in the HCP as an opportunity for potential cooperation.

The HCP needs further specificity in describing areas that are to be preserved away from the riparian zones.

            Undevelopable areas placed under conservation easements should not be credited to Stanford as mitigation for development elsewhere.  In particular, streambeds are essentially undevelopable.  Stanford will never have an opportunity to develop those areas and creation of conservation easements therefore does nothing to mitigate impacts elsewhere.  The conservation easements should have to extend an additional distance away beyond streambeds to include areas that have some potential for development in order to act as real mitigation.

            As the red-sided garter snake habitat is unprotected and increasingly likely to be destroyed south of Stanford, it is also likely that intergrade garter snakes at Stanford will increasingly belong to the San Francisco garter snake gene pool and should be treated as a listed species.

Conclusion.

            We urge the HCP and DEIS be revised to reflect the comments in this letter.

            Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt                                                                                    Lennie Roberts

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County                                                 Legislative Advocate, San Mateo County

---

[1] One possibility is a funding agreement with Stanford that allows the trust to obtain funding from Stanford for consultants and even to oppose the university, such as in an enforcement action.  This agreement would have to be clear in that there could be no possibility for Stanford to evade its responsibilities, and also requires a truly independent trust to function.

Committee for Green Foothills' comments on Stanford Medical Center DEIR

(We submitted the comments below on the draft environmental review of the Stanford Medical Center. The letter references a previous letter that CGF wrote in 2007, which can be found here.  -Brian)

July 27, 2010

Steven Turner

Department of Planning and Community Environment

Re:  Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2007082130

Dear Steven,

The Committee for Green Foothills ("Committee") submits the following comments on the Stanford University Medical Center Draft Environmental Impact Report ("SUMC DEIR", or "DEIR").

General Comments:

Length of review period.  We are aware of complaints that the review period for this project is taking too long and is too close to the statutory deadline for seismic upgrades, and therefore further review should be truncated, no new mitigations should be requested, and Stanford's project should be approved without modifications.  These objections fail to account for two reasons that are related to Stanford's own actions. 

First, Stanford began the process much later than other hospital systems like the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center.  This strategy by Stanford, of beginning a process late and then claiming their proposal needs to be approved as is because there's no time to change it, is an oft-used procedure.  Stanford used the identical strategy for obtaining approval of its Sustainable Development Study from Santa Clara County, without incorporating any changes suggested by Palo Alto.  Giving into this strategy is self-defeating, so neither the City nor the County should let Stanford's delay function as a reason for giving in to its demands.

Second, the review was delayed for a period when Stanford was given unannounced access to preliminary versions of the DEIR.  This access contravenes a statement by the City several years earlier (which was the last that we had heard from the City) that the City would not share preliminary versions of DEIRs with applicants, a practice that biases the review process and gives applicants inappropriate opportunities to influence what is supposed to be a neutral evaluation.  While exactly what happened is unclear, it appears Stanford took advantage of its access to argue for changes in the DEIR that delayed its publication.  Again the fault for delay lies with Stanford (although also in part with the City for its mistaken decision).  These delays do not justify short-changing environmental review.

DEIR inadequately addressed issues raised in our scoping letter.  On October 1, 2007, the Committee submitted scoping comments for the DEIR (attached).  Several of our comments, reproduced below, have not been addressed adequately:

·         Any relaxing of existing zoning standards will violate thresholds for environmental significance that the standards are meant to protect, unless compensatory environmental mitigation is required.  This is especially true given the large size of the project. For example, easing density restrictions should be compensated with open space protection.

·         Increased building height and density should be compensated with open space protection.  Decreasing views of hillsides and of natural areas are visual impacts that can be appropriately compensated for by open space protection.

·         Increase utilization of recreational resources must be analyzed in the EIR for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.  The City should compare the analysis used for the Stanford GUP in Santa Clara Clount’s EIR for comparison.  Increased utilization is a significant impact unless mitigated.

·         The impact on housing will be significant unless mitigated and must be analyzed.  The impact will also affect open space and traffic, because if new housing is not constructed by Stanford, it will be constructed mostly in Central Valley and elsewhere, with workers commuting in on area highways.  The City must do its own calculations about the number of jobs generated by the amount of space created.  Secondary (off-site) economic impacts must also be considered in determining the net demand for housing created by this project.

·         All newly-created housing demand should be fully mitigated with housing creation that matches the income level of housing demand generated.

·         Any analysis that concludes a “no net increase” mitigation standard for transportation is not feasible, must also determine why it is feasible for the much larger Stanford GUP expansion but not for this project.

Raising height limits, visual impacts, and the recreational impacts justify and require open space mitigation.  The Committee disagrees that simple compliance with undefined ARB recommendations for final design (DEIR at S-28) will suffice to convert an admittedly-significant impact before mitigation into one that is less-than-significant.  The loss of open views and a "big sky" means that the ability to travel around the City and surrounding area and not find it dominated by structures is reduced.  An appropriate mitigation for this impact is to secure nearby open space, and Stanford could appropriately do that by providing open space access or paying funds that could be used to secure open space access.

Similarly, increased recreational use in an area that the DEIR acknowledges has insufficient parkland (DEIR at 3.14-8) is a significant impact.  The analysis of employee use fails to include overall increased population pressure, as the people who will be brought to work at SUMC will have to live somewhere with their families, despite the City's disinterest in requiring housing as part of the project.  The failure to account for housing impacts means payment of the Community Facility Fee for non-residential development is insufficient to fully mitigate the project's impacts.  Even if these people cannot live in Palo Alto, living elsewhere means they will place pressure on recreational uses elsewhere.  That effect on recreational uses elsewhere is unanalyzed, as is the lost opportunity of Palo Alto residents to use these out-of-city facilities, thereby placing more pressure on City facilities.  Finally, the analysis fails to consider the recreational impacts to areas immediately outside of Palo Alto such as the main campus area of Stanford and in San Mateo County, where the Community Facility Fee would not provide mitigation.

The cumulative recreational impact of this project together with other recreational population pressures is significant.  Combined with visual impacts, the DEIR should require mitigation that creates recreational access to open space to mitigate the lost open sky and diminished recreational opportunities.  One possibility which was included in the Stanford GUP DEIR was the construction of two trails from the main campus into the Foothills.  The same could be done in this case, either from SUMC or from portions of the main campus easily accessible from SUMC into the Foothills.   Alignments of the C1 Trail near the north side of Stanford Foothills and outside of the golf course would be ideal, or alternative versions of the S1 Trail that run along the Stanford Foothills and eventually connect to the trail under construction could work as well.

An alternative to dedication of a trail is payment of equivalent funds into a grant program that would mitigate Stanford's recreational impacts.  Stanford has essentially agreed to do just that regarding its proposed sidewalk expansion along Alpine Road.  If San Mateo County continues to reject the sidewalk expansion as it has, then Stanford will pay the money it would have spent on that massive project into a fund run by Santa Clara County Parks Department that could mitigate the recreational impacts of the Stanford GUP.  Given that was Stanford's own agreement with the County, it should meet the same standard with the City.

Transportation issues.Given the conclusion that transportation, air quality, and climate change impacts will be significant, the DEIR should have included either of the following feasible mitigations to reduce those impacts:  1. a No-Net-New Trips standard, based on the standard used in the Stanford County GUP EIR, requiring Stanford to either avoid the creation of net new trips or install the traffic mitigations required in this DEIR; or 2. the equivalent of No-Net-New Trips that would require SUMC to match every incentive and disincentive used by Stanford in the core campus, but without requiring actual measurement of traffic.  This would not exempt Stanford from traffic mitigations required in the DEIR.  This second alternative would adjust over time, "ratcheting" up to match changes in the program used on the core campus to avoid increased trips.

In developing a No-Net-New Trips standarad, patient trips should also be taken into account, and Stanford should provide similar incentives to patients and guests to avoid increased trips.  If this is seen as infeasible, however, the no net new trips standard could exempt patients and guests and still provide partial mitigation to the significant impacts from this project.

It should be noted that one traffic mitigation, improvements to Intersection #3 (El Camino/Ravenswood) (DEIR at 3.4-61), appears to be at least partially the same listed mitigation as that found in the Stanford GUP DEIR to mitigate for that separate and different Stanford project (Stanford GUP DEIR at 4.4-98).  While the SUMC DEIR does not count the improvement of Intersection #3 towards the post-mitigation conclusion (DEIR at 3.4-65), it does count it here as potential mitigation for this project, and that could be double-counting of a mitigation that will not be effective because it could be "used up" for another Stanford project.  It would be disturbing and inadequate if this same intersection keeps getting listed in still more environmental reviews as potential mitigation for still more projects.  Similarly, Intersections #10, #18, and #23 are listed in both DEIRs, although they raise fewer issues as they are not considered feasible.  The failure to discuss the potential double-counting in the DEIR is disturbing.

The DEIR states "The three feasible intersection improvements in Table 3.4-18" were combined with other mitigations to assess overall impact mitigation.  In fact, only two feasible improvements are listed in Table 3.4-18.  If the overall analysis counted on a third intersection mitigation that is now only considered "Potentially Feasible" or "Not Feasible", then the analysis exaggerates the effectiveness of the mitigation.

The impact of the SUMC expansion to traffic on Alpine Road between Juniper Serra and Highway 280 is likely to be especially severe.  For this reason as well, a No-Net-New Trips standard should be applied.

Additional comments:

The Tree Replacement Mitigation Measure BR-4.5 should emphasize the use of native trees and that provide maximum benefitis to wildlife as replacement trees for the ones that would be removed if this project is approved.

PH-1 impact analysis states the percentage of regional housing demand from the project is relatively small.  DEIR at S-85.  Given the tremendous total housing demand on this area, the cumulative is considerable and should be mitigated by the provision of on-site housing or paying into a fund for the construction of housing, especially housing that is affordable according to the type of demand generated by the new jobs at SUMC.  Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 should be mandatory and should expressly apply to the SUMC project.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Attachment:  Letter of October 1, 2007, from Committee for Green Foothills to City of Palo Alto

Committee for Green Foothills' scoping letter on Stanford Medical Center from October 1, 2007

(The letter below is referenced in another letter that CGF sent yesterday, so I'm posting it here.  -Brian)

October 1, 2007

Steven Turner

City of Palo Alto

Re:  Scoping comments for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center Expansion EIR

Dear Steven;

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments for scoping the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center:

·         The purpose of the approval for this project must be defined by the City, not by the applicant.  If the purpose that the permissions the applicants seeks (such as improving medical care) can be done in a way that the applicant does not seek, that option remains within the purpose of the City.  Legally, the applicant cannot define the purpose in a way that artificially narrows the scope of the project and its alternatives.  Because the City is deciding whether to approve the agreement, it has to define the purpose.

·         The EIR must consider a “no expansion/seismic only upgrade” alternative for the Medical Center.

·         A “no increase in medical office space” alternative should be included.  Conditions should be placed defining what type of activity or organization may use “medical office space.”

·         Any relaxing of existing zoning standards will violate thresholds for environmental significance that the standards are meant to protect, unless compensatory environmental mitigation is required.  This is especially true given the large size of the project. For example, easing density restrictions should be compensated with open space protection.)

·         Increased building height and density should be compensated with open space protection.  Decreasing views of hillsides and of natural areas are visual impacts that can be appropriately compensated for by open space protection.

·         Increase utilization of recreational resources must be analyzed in the EIR for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.  The City should compare the analysis used for the Stanford GUP in Santa Clara Clount’s EIR for comparison.  Increased utilization is a significant impact unless mitigated.

·         The EIR process should analyze the phasing and mitigation monitoring used in the Stanford GUP EIR to avoid similar problems.  For the Stanford GUP, six years after the impacts have occurred, the promised trails have not yet been constructed.  Mitigations should not just be begun before the impacts have occurred, they should be completed, or at least a schedule established with clear stop dates.

·         The hospital opening should be in phases, with none the medical office space opening until all environmental mitigations have been complied with.  This will make mitigation monitoring and enforcement more credible if it stops use of medical office space until environmental conditions are complied with as opposed to stopping use of the hospital.

·         Any net increases in greenhouse gas emissions are cumulatively significant.

·         “Green building” standards should be required.

·         The impact on housing will be significant unless mitigated and must be analyzed.  The impact will also affect open space and traffic, because if new housing is not constructed by Stanford, it will be constructed mostly in Central Valley and elsewhere, with workers commuting in on area highways.  The City must do its own calculations about the number of jobs generated by the amount of space created.  Secondary (off-site) economic impacts must also be considered in determining the net demand for housing created by this project.

·         All newly-created housing demand should be fully mitigated with housing creation that matches the income level of housing demand generated.

·         Any analysis that concludes a “no net increase” mitigation standard for transportation is not feasible, must also determine why it is feasible for the much larger Stanford GUP expansion but not for this project.

·         Significant and unavoidable impacts must be compensated for in a comparable manner.  For example, the visual impact of Medical Center skyscraper will be unavoidable, but rather than simply accept that as the cost the community must bear, it should be compensated for with open space protection where buildings do not predominate views.

·         Eliminate Stanford’s “plateau bargaining” through the use of binding promises in the process.  For example, Stanford has made promises on where it would agree to place the S1 Trail on its property, and then after much work had been done by the County so it could accept the offer, Stanford reneged on the promises unless dramatic new concessions were added.  This problem can be stopped by spelling out in advance when and which parts of a promise are binding.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Tiger Salamanders Return to Historical Marsh Site to Breed Where Lake Lagunita Now Sits

(Another helpful guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts.  I had wondered about this issue for a while.  -Brian Schmidt)

While looking through the “Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity” created by Janet M. Sowers and published by the Oakland Museum of California (2004), I came across the following information: “Historian Alan K. Brown observed that in 1857, a natural marsh occupied the depression that is now the lake.”  While Stanford’s Lake Lagunita was originally built as a livestock watering hole, it appears that a natural wetland predated this artificial lake. This fact is significant given the debate around the vulnerable California tiger salamander population that uses Lake Lag as a winter breeding ground.

Some people have stated that the salamanders are simply benefiting from a lake that Stanford created.  They therefore resent the obligation they consider imposed on Stanford, or they think Stanford hasn't received credit it deserves for its good work.  However, the existence of a natural marsh prior to the lake might suggest otherwise. In fact, the tiger salamander may merely be returning to a spot used as a breeding ground long before Stanford came into being.

"To protect City and minimize fiscal impact, a revenue guarantee should be included in the proposed development agreement"

The headline is from a fiscal analysis presentation to Palo Alto City Council today by the experts it hired to analyze the fiscal impact of the Stanford Medical Center expansion.  The idea is to ensure the risk of insufficient revenues from the expansion is transferred away from taxpayers and to the applicant, Stanford. (Also discussed here.)

This idea is striking because we proposed a similar thing in Coyote Valley, where a ridiculous fiscal analysis assumed steady growth in housing values and therefore rosy revenues.  We suggested the developers bear the risks if things somehow didn't work out.  The whole project broke down before we could see if developers would put their own money where their mouths are, but it's interesting to see someone else come up with a similar idea.

-Brian Schmidt

San Jose Business Journal might want to work on its reporting

Unfortunately, and in our opinion a case of poor journalism, the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal took Stanford's press release on our lawsuit with Stanford and ran it nearly verbatim, with cursory changes and no attempt to contact us for our side of the story.

Below is something we sent to the Business Journal with the documentation about their lax reporting, but we've not heard back from them:

Your article on our organization's litigation against Stanford appears to be a barely-retouched version of Stanford's press release.  One can easily compare here:

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/02/08/daily82.html#comment

and here:

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-stanford-county-trails-021110.html

I will note that we were never contacted by your newspaper for a contrasting position.  If, however, you have no problems running press releases as articles, ours is here:

http://www.greenfoothills.org/blog/2010/02/sad-legal-result-on-stanford-trails.html

Please contact me with any questions, comments, or new or altered articles on this issue, preferably sooner rather than later.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills 

Sad legal result on Stanford Trails litigation, but the fight continues in San Mateo County

The California Supreme Court has ruled against CGF over a technical issue regarding the right time to file our lawsuit about Stanford's proposal to expand the Alpine Road sidewalk on top of San Francisquito Creek.  Unfortunately, we don't have a chance to even discuss in court the merits of our argument.  Fortunately, though, San Mateo County has listened both to us and to Stanford and concluded in February 2008 that the proposal was environmentally harmful and dangerous.  Stanford will doubtless try to wave construction money at them to change their minds, but we'll be there still to fight that extremely bad idea.  CGF's press release is below.

-Brian

Committee for Green Foothills

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 11, 2010                               

PRESS CONTACTS: Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate, 650.968.7243w, 415.994.7403c, brian@greenfoothills.org

Supreme Court Decision on Stanford Trail Issue  Turns Attention to San Mateo County's Opposition to Sidewalk Expansion

Decision overturns appellate court ruling on technical filing issue that ends litigation; San mateo County's opposition not affected by ruling

PALO ALTO, CA  --  The California Supreme Court announced today that contrary to an appellate court ruling, Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) relied on the wrong deadline for filing litigation over a controversial Stanford University proposal to expand an existing sidewalk in San Mateo County to fulfill Stanford's promise of a trail on its lands.  The decision ends the lawsuit without considering the merits of CGF's argument that excluding a trail from Santa Clara County had unexamined environmental impacts.  San Mateo County has already rejected the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion proposed by Stanford to substitute for a trail on Stanford lands in Santa Clara County.  The end of litigation means that San Mateo County's previous decision and any potential change of mind will ultimately decide the trail issue.  If San Mateo County continues to reject the sidewalk expansion, Stanford must provide an equivalent amount of money to Santa Clara County Parks Department to mitigate for impacts caused the massive new development permitted on campus since 2000.

"We haven't had time to review the Court opinion," said Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills' Legislative Advocate, "we just know the outcome.  We've seen the arguments on filing deadlines and we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, but it's important to remember that regarding the trail controversy, the decision is only about a technicality.  Cut your way through the technicalities, and the problem is that Stanford is trying to get out of fulfilling a promise it made in return for being allowed massive new development," said Schmidt.  "It promised two trails on its own land to make up for the cumulative impact that its new development would have on the broader community.  Expanding an existing sidewalk on a dangerously-busy street doesn't provide a recreational experience, and Stanford's proposal to build alongside and into the San Francisquito Creek would have significant environmental impacts, none of them reviewed in previous environmental documents.  We are very grateful that San Mateo County has stood up to Stanford, and we hope that continues."

The Court ruling concerned whether a 30-day or a 180-day deadline applied to the lawsuit filed against Stanford and Santa Clara County.  Committee for Green Foothills argued the 180-day deadline applies because the decision to exclude the trail from Santa Clara County was done without environmental review, which allows 180 days for a challenge.  Stanford and Santa Clara County argued that certain parts of the wording of the December 2005 decision and in one of the documents filed at the County Clerk's office show they relied upon previous environmental reviews, and a 30-day deadline was required.  CGF says that 30 days is wrong.  The trial court ruled against CGF, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the 180 day deadline.  With the Supreme Court overturning the appellate ruling, the case will be dismissed without considering the environmental issues.

Stanford and Santa Clara County argue that San Mateo County will have to review the environmental effects of Stanford's proposal prior to making a decision.  However, the decision that the trail could not go on Stanford land in Santa Clara County, as the trail was shown to go in Santa Clara County's own trail map, was made by Santa Clara County in December 2005 and environmental review should have been done at that time.

San Mateo County residents, County officials, and the County Board of Supervisors had sharply negative reactions to Stanford's proposal when brought to them after the December 2005 decision, and San Mateo County has already rejected Stanford's proposal.  San Mateo County's position will stop the sidewalk regardless of court litigation.  Stanford has until 2011 to change San Mateo's position, with a potential two-year extension into 2013 if Santa Clara County agrees to further delay.  If the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion does not happen, the money for the expansion reverts to the Santa Clara County Parks Department to spend on recreational improvements in the vicinity of Stanford, something that Supervisor Liz Kniss had advocated since 2005.

Another effect of the Supreme Court litigation will be on Stanford's decision in 2006 to stop constructing the other one of the two trails it had promised, the S1 Trail running near to Page Mill Road.  Committee for Green Foothills had not sued over the S1 Trail decision and said it did not oppose that trail's construction or alignment, but after CGF filed its lawsuit, Stanford halted construction on the S1 Trail and blamed CGF's lawsuit.  CGF responded that its suit only concerned the substitution of the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion for the other proposed trail on the north side of the Stanford Foothills.

The question now arises as to whether and when Stanford will construct the S1 Trail that it had promised.

The third aspect of the trails controversy concerns the Alpine Road sidewalk in the jurisdiction of Portola Valley.  The environmental damages and large expense associated with expanding the sidewalk elsewhere generally do not apply to the section in Portola Valley, but the decision to expand that portion of the sidewalk was an inseparable part of the decision to exclude the trail alignment from Santa Clara County that Committee for Green Foothills had litigated.  With the Supreme Court ruling ending the litigation, the decision on the Portola Valley proposal could proceed depending on Portola Valley's decision whether to accept Stanford's proposal.

"Regardless of what happened today, it is still possible to do something besides throwing away money on a destructive and useless expanded sidewalk," said Schmidt.  "San Mateo County called for a grant program instead of harming San Francisquito Creek and instead of taking out part of a hill as Stanford proposed.  That is what should happen, now, and given San Mateo County's control over the issue, we agree with previous statements that it is unconscionable for Stanford to continue delaying and refusing to provide for its side of a deal it received for massive development rights."

Background

“Stanford tried to get out of its obligation to build a trail crossing its land in return for substantial development rights,” said Brian Schmidt.  “Santa Clara County capitulated to Stanford’s intense lobbying, tossed the trail out of Santa Clara County and proposed instead to expand the existing sidewalk/trail along busy Alpine Road in San Mateo County. This decision to move the trail across the creek and out of Santa Clara County was done without the required environmental review.”

Stanford and Santa Clara County did not seek approval of San Mateo County before deciding to replace its trail with the sidewalk expansion. Residents strongly oppose the proposed 16-foot wide sidewalk because of safety concerns where the expanded sidewalk would cross many private driveways in the Stanford Weekend Acres area, environmental impacts to sensitive creek and riparian areas, the proposal’s need to armor creek banks to support the expanded sidewalk, and to cut into a steep hillside to move Alpine Road.   Inquiries about replacing the sidewalk with other trail options outside of Stanford lands have been rebuffed.

The lower court ruled in October that Committee for Green Foothills had only 30 days to file suit over the decision that Stanford and Santa Clara County made in December 2005.  The Committee filed suit in June 2006, under the belief that a 180-day deadline should have applied.  To date, the court has not reviewed the merits of the case.

Stanford required to provide two trails

The Santa Clara County 1995 Trails Master Plan identified two trails crossing on the northern and southern sides of Stanford lands, identified as the “C1” and the “S1” trails.  As a condition of Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit that allowed the University to build an additional 5 million square feet of housing and academic facilities, Stanford was required to come back to the County with a plan to move forward with ‘building, dedicating and maintaining’ these two trails on University lands by the end of 2001.  “During this 5 year period, Committee for Green Foothills and other community members proposed several alternative alignments and several compromise alignments, all of which were rejected outright by Stanford,” said Schmidt. 

In 2003, the County decided to split the planning of the two trails and moved forward with planning for the less-controversial “S1 Trail” first, and initiated an extensive review process to determine the S1 Trail alignment.

Stanford offered an alternative alignment for the S1 Trail that moved it away from Page Mill Road, but when the County indicated in the fall of 2005 that it would accept that offer, Stanford added another condition.  It offered to make the “S1 Trail” available immediately, but only if the County immediately decided to exclude the second trail, the “C1 Trail” from crossing Stanford lands in Santa Clara County.  Stanford proposed that instead of going forward with the C1 Trail within its lands, it would offer to pay San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley to expand an existing sidewalk along Alpine Road.  The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to accept this proposal in December, 2005.  The County’s approval did not contain any environmental review of the C1 alignment, even though the environmental review for the S1 Trail had been extensive.

“Stanford’s offer for the S1 Trail was used to get the County to throw out better alignments proposed by the environmental community.  Later, Stanford said its S1 Trail offer was unavailable unless the County immediately excluded the C1 Trail, or unless another long delay ensued to hold up the S1 Trail until the C1 Trail had also been reviewed,” said Brian Schmidt, CGF’s Legislative Advocate.  “Even if San Mateo County eventually does review the proposal, that doesn’t release Santa Clara County from conducting its own review of its own decisions.”

Stanford and Santa Clara County also changed plans without environmental review by agreeing to take money instead of a trail if San Mateo County or Portola Valley rejected plans for an expanded sidewalk.  This decision to eliminate a potential Santa Clara County trail in return for money is another approval made by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors without environmental review.  This agreement also leaves unclear what happens if Stanford money is spent by San Mateo County or Portola Valley to prepare environmental reviews but then did not go forward with the sidewalk expansion , then it is quite possible that no trail would get build nor would Stanford need to provide any money to build trails elsewhere .

“There’s a striking contrast between the S1 Trail decision with a full scale Environmental Impact Report, and the more-destructive decision on the Alpine Road sidewalk, which was made with no review at all,” said Schmidt.  “That was our basis of argument that the 180-day period in which to file suit should have applied.”

# # #

About the Committee for Green Foothills

Committee for Green Foothills is a regional grassroots organization working to establish and maintain land-use policies that protect the environment throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.  Committee for Green Foothills, established in 1962, is a Bay Area leader in the continuing effort to protect open space and the natural environment of our Peninsula.   For more information about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

Press Release: Supreme Court To Issue Opinion Tomorrow in Litigation Over Stanford Sidewalk Expansion

(CGF sent out this press release today.  -Brian)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 10, 2010                               

PRESS CONTACTS: Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate, 650.968.7243w, 415.994.7403c, brian@greenfoothills.org

Supreme Court To Issue Opinion Tomorrow in Litigation Over Stanford Sidewalk Expansion

California Supreme Court to announce whether it will dismiss lawsuit on technical issue or allow trial to proceed

PALO ALTO, CA  --  The California Supreme Court announced today that it will issue its opinion tomorrow over a technical issue involving deadlines for a lawsuit regarding a controversial Stanford University proposal to expand an existing sidewalk in San Mateo County to fulfill Stanford's promise of a trail on its lands.  The decision for this stage of the litigation will end the lawsuit if the Supreme Court overrules the appellate court finding that the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) correctly relied on a longer deadline for filing its complaint.  If the court rules in favor of environmentalists, the case will proceed to trial; but regardless, San Mateo County has rejected Stanford's proposal as environmentally damaging and dangerous.

Either a 30-day or a 180-day deadline applied to the lawsuit filed against Stanford and Santa Clara County.  Committee for Green Foothills argues the 180-day deadline applies because the decision to exclude the trail from Santa Clara County was done without environmental review, which allows 180 days for a challenge.  Stanford and Santa Clara County argue that certain parts of the wording of the December 2005 decision and in one of the documents filed at the County Clerk's office show they relied upon previous environmental reviews, and a 30-day deadline was required.  CGF says that 30 days is wrong.  The trial court ruled against CGF, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the 180 day deadline.

"Cut your way through the technicalities, and the problem is that Stanford is trying to get out of fulfilling a promise it made in return for being allowed massive new development," said Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate for Committee for Green Foothills.  "It promised two trails on its own land to make up for the cumulative impact that its new development would have on the broader community.  Expanding an existing sidewalk on a dangerously-busy street doesn't provide a recreational experience, and Stanford's proposal to build alongside and into the San Francisquito Creek would have significant environmental impacts, none of them reviewed in previous environmental documents."

Stanford and Santa Clara County argue that San Mateo County will have to review the environmental effects of Stanford's proposal prior to making a decision.  However, the decision that the trail could not go on Stanford land in Santa Clara County, as the trail was shown to go in Santa Clara County's own trail map, was made by Santa Clara County in December 2005 and environmental review should have been done at that time.

San Mateo County residents, County officials, and the County Board of Supervisors had sharply negative reactions to Stanford's proposal when brought to them after the December 2005 decision, and San Mateo County has already rejected Stanford's proposal.  San Mateo County's position will stop the sidewalk regardless of court litigation.  Stanford has until 2011 to change San Mateo's position, with a potential two-year extension into 2013 if Santa Clara County agrees to further delay.  If the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion does not happen, the money for the expansion reverts to the Santa Clara County Parks Department to spend on recreational improvements in the vicinity of Stanford, something that Supervisor Liz Kniss had advocated since 2005.

Another effect of the Supreme Court litigation might be on Stanford's decision in 2006 to stop constructing the other one of the two trails it had promised, the S1 Trail running near to Page Mill Road.  Committee for Green Foothills had not sued over the S1 Trail decision and said it did not oppose that trail's construction or alignment, but after CGF filed its lawsuit, Stanford halted construction on the S1 Trail and blamed CGF's lawsuit.  CGF responded that its suit only concerned the substitution of the Alpine Road sidewalk expansion for the other proposed trail on the north side of the Stanford Foothills.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of CGF, then the dispute over the S1 Trail continues.  If the Supreme Court says the litigation was filed too late, a question will arise as to whether and when Stanford will construct the S1 Trail that it had promised.

The third aspect of the trails controversy concerns the Alpine Road sidewalk in the jurisdiction of Portola Valley.  The environmental damages and large expense associated with expanding the sidewalk elsewhere generally do not apply to the section in Portola Valley, but the decision to expand that portion of the sidewalk was an inseparable part of the decision to exclude the trail alignment from Santa Clara County that Committee for Green Foothills had litigated.  If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court decision, then it remains unclear whether the Portola Valley section can proceed.  If the Supreme Court rules against CGF, then Portola Valley work could proceed.

"Regardless of what happens tomorrow, it is still possible to do something besides throwing away money on a destructive and useless expanded sidewalk," said Schmidt.  "San Mateo County called for a grant program instead of harming San Francisquito Creek and instead of taking out part of a hill as Stanford proposed."

Background

“Stanford tried to get out of its obligation to build a trail crossing its land in return for substantial development rights,” said Brian Schmidt.  “Santa Clara County capitulated to Stanford’s intense lobbying, tossed the trail out of Santa Clara County and proposed instead to expand the existing sidewalk/trail along busy Alpine Road in San Mateo County. This decision to move the trail across the creek and out of Santa Clara County was done without the required environmental review.”

Stanford and Santa Clara County did not seek approval of San Mateo County before deciding to replace its trail with the sidewalk expansion. Residents strongly oppose the proposed 16-foot wide sidewalk because of safety concerns where the expanded sidewalk would cross many private driveways in the Stanford Weekend Acres area, environmental impacts to sensitive creek and riparian areas, the proposal’s need to armor creek banks to support the expanded sidewalk, and to cut into a steep hillside to move Alpine Road.   Inquiries about replacing the sidewalk with other trail options outside of Stanford lands have been rebuffed.

The lower court ruled in October that Committee for Green Foothills had only 30 days to file suit over the decision that Stanford and Santa Clara County made in December 2005.  The Committee filed suit in June 2006, under the belief that a 180-day deadline should have applied.  To date, the court has not reviewed the merits of the case.

Stanford required to provide two trails

The Santa Clara County 1995 Trails Master Plan identified two trails crossing on the northern and southern sides of Stanford lands, identified as the “C1” and the “S1” trails.  As a condition of Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit that allowed the University to build an additional 5 million square feet of housing and academic facilities, Stanford was required to come back to the County with a plan to move forward with ‘building, dedicating and maintaining’ these two trails on University lands by the end of 2001.  “During this 5 year period, Committee for Green Foothills and other community members proposed several alternative alignments and several compromise alignments, all of which were rejected outright by Stanford,” said Schmidt. 

In 2003, the County decided to split the planning of the two trails and moved forward with planning for the less-controversial “S1 Trail” first, and initiated an extensive review process to determine the S1 Trail alignment.

Stanford offered an alternative alignment for the S1 Trail that moved it away from Page Mill Road, but when the County indicated in the fall of 2005 that it would accept that offer, Stanford added another condition.  It offered to make the “S1 Trail” available immediately, but only if the County immediately decided to exclude the second trail, the “C1 Trail” from crossing Stanford lands in Santa Clara County.  Stanford proposed that instead of going forward with the C1 Trail within its lands, it would offer to pay San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley to expand an existing sidewalk along Alpine Road.  The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to accept this proposal in December, 2005.  The County’s approval did not contain any environmental review of the C1 alignment, even though the environmental review for the S1 Trail had been extensive.

“Stanford’s offer for the S1 Trail was used to get the County to throw out better alignments proposed by the environmental community.  Later, Stanford said its S1 Trail offer was unavailable unless the County immediately excluded the C1 Trail, or unless another long delay ensued to hold up the S1 Trail until the C1 Trail had also been reviewed,” said Brian Schmidt, CGF’s Legislative Advocate.  “Even if San Mateo County eventually does review the proposal, that doesn’t release Santa Clara County from conducting its own review of its own decisions.”

Stanford and Santa Clara County also changed plans without environmental review by agreeing to take money instead of a trail if San Mateo County or Portola Valley rejected plans for an expanded sidewalk.  This decision to eliminate a potential Santa Clara County trail in return for money is another approval made by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors without environmental review.  This agreement also leaves unclear what happens if Stanford money is spent by San Mateo County or Portola Valley to prepare environmental reviews but then did not go forward with the sidewalk expansion , then it is quite possible that no trail would get build nor would Stanford need to provide any money to build trails elsewhere .

“There’s a striking contrast between the S1 Trail decision with a full scale Environmental Impact Report, and the more-destructive decision on the Alpine Road sidewalk, which was made with no review at all,” said Schmidt.  “That was our basis of argument that the 180-day period in which to file suit should have applied.”

# # #

About the Committee for Green Foothills

Committee for Green Foothills is a regional grassroots organization working to establish and maintain land-use policies that protect the environment throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.  Committee for Green Foothills, established in 1962, is a Bay Area leader in the continuing effort to protect open space and the natural environment of our Peninsula.   For more information about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.