Publication Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Editorial: 'Stanford trails' back -- still need work
Editorial: 'Stanford trails' back -- still need work
(September 29, 2004) Despite thick environmental-impact report, foothills-trail alternatives still fall short of real commitment to creating regional trails, not roadside bike lanes
The publication this month of a 1 1/2-inch-thick environmental impact report on alternative ways to create trails from the flatlands to the foothills above Stanford University brings to an end a nearly two-year interlude on the "Stanford Trails" debate.
It also brings back larger issues involved than just a couple of trail connections -- such as what Stanford agreed to during Santa Clara County approvals of a new General Use Permit for Stanford during 2000 to 2002. In our reading of the mitigation agreement -- signed by university officials -- Stanford agreed to add regional-trail connections consistent with adopted trails master plans in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.
It was only later that Stanford officials balked at the idea of routing trails along the inner edge of its lower-foothills lands -- the Dish area east of I-280 and Felt Lake region west of I-280. Instead, it began promoting -- strongly lobbying for -- alternatives that put virtually all the connections outside those lands.
The new report focuses only on the southern trail along the Page Mill Road corridor, and puts off to a later report the potentially more controversial trail routing along Alpine Road.
The report also excludes as "legally unfeasible" the proposed interior-trail routes along existing service roads pushed by environmental organizations, consistent with 2002 actions by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors after hard lobbying by Stanford officials. We agree that the interior routes would unnecessarily intrude upon and divide the Stanford lands. Routes along the periphery, however, are appropriate, and in our opinion must be substantially more than roadside paths.
The report examines a plethora of environmental considerations, such as habitat favored by the threatened red-legged frog. But it finds few impacts that can't be mitigated in any alternative. The hefty report is even heavier reading due to alphanumeric designations for different trail alternatives mixed liberally with boilerplate EIR-eze. (The full report is posted online at www.sccplanning.org/planning/.)
The two primary alignments for the Page Mill corridor are:
1) Up Old Page Mill Road to 280 Freeway, then north parallel to the freeway frontage to a large service tunnel -- described by Stanford as a "cow tunnel" -- under the freeway with a trail extending west to link to Palo Alto's Enid Pearson/Arastradero Open Space Preserve, and
2) A route along the south side of Page Mill Expressway, veering south along Deer Creek Road, with one alternative winding through a horse-boarding pasture hill area between Deer Creek and 280. Each has alternative segments.
Of the two, the Old Page Mill Road alignment is clearly superior in terms of it being a "trail" and not -- as we have earlier characterized Stanford's preferred Alpine Road alignment to the north -- a "glorified bike lane" along the 40,000-vehicle-per-day Page Mill Expressway.
The Old Page Mill trail alternative would be enhanced by using the so-called "cherry stem" route that would turn uphill near the old Frenchman's Tower structure, then bend down to the cow tunnel. But Stanford has objected on the grounds that even that route intrudes too deeply into Stanford lands. This position is highly questionable, because the corner the route would cut off is virtually undevelopable due to terrain: a steep oak-covered hill and a small canyon with a seasonal stream (dry in summer).
A similar issue exists along Alpine Road. The General Use Permit documents clearly show a dotted-line trail route located within the Felt Lake Stanford lands, but the university instead proposed widening to 12 feet the existing small bike lane at the edge of Alpine Road -- completely off its lands.
Had Stanford agreed to provide a fancy bike lane it would be one thing, but the university agreed to provide trails connections as required by the General Use Permit, and we feel it should honor its agreement.
As Stanford struggles to enhance its image in the community, the topic of these trails has been a raw and unresolved issue, with a degree of emotional polarization far out of proportion to the actual impact of the trails on either the environment or on Stanford's long-term interests as a landowner.
The trails will be there beyond our lifetimes. We should do them right, as a legacy.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
