Stanford balks re bike/ped bridge
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Ellen Fletcher
May 22, 2012, 2:59:30 PM5/22/12
to svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org, bikesmc Google group
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=25452&e=y
Uploaded: Monday, May 21, 2012, 5:04 PM
Kniss' plan for new bike bridge meets Stanford resistance
Stanford campus residents, university officials urge Santa Clara County supervisors to slow down the process
by Gennady Sheyner <http://www.paloaltoonline.com/staff/mailto.php?e=gsheyner>
Palo Alto Weekly Staff
A proposal by Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss to use funds contributed to the county by Stanford University for a new bike bridge over Highway 101 in Palo Alto is facing resistance from the Stanford community, where residents and officials are urging the county to slow down and consider other alternatives for the funds.
The plan, which Kniss and Supervisor Dave Cortese unveiled Wednesday <http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=25394> , May 16, calls for using $5 million in Stanford funds for the bike bridge at Adobe Creek and another $3 million to complete the Dumbarton link in the Bay Trail between Redwood City and Alviso. The money would come from a $10.34 fund that Stanford pledged to the county when it was applying for a General Use Permit (GUP) 11 years ago. The permit allowed Stanford to add up to 5 million square feet of construction to its campus. The $8 million recreation fund (which has since grown to $10.34 million because of interest) was intended to mitigate the loss of recreational opportunities that would result from the new construction.
But while Kniss maintained Wednesday that her proposals would boost recreational opportunities for Stanford students, residents and the wider community, members of the Stanford Campus Residential Leaseholders (SCRL) board of directors have other thoughts. The board, which is elected to represent the Stanford campus community, had its annual meeting last Wednesday night and Kniss' plan did not go down well with the board, said James Sweeney, the board's president.
Specifically, the board feels that the benefits of Kniss' proposed projects would provide little or no benefit to the campus residents, Sweeney said. Stanford had planned to use the funds to build a trail in San Mateo County but that plan fizzled in December, when the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to nix the idea.
The GUP specifies that if the trail proposal doesn't move forward, the funds would be used to reduce "the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and facility users that will be caused by the housing and academic development approved by the GUP, which will reduce the availability of recreational facilities, while increasing the demand for such facilities."
Sweeney said he and the board believe that the projects proposed by Kniss fail to meet this criteria. Though they would provide benefits to the general population, they are too distant from Stanford's campus to get much use from the university community. Ideally, he said, the projects would benefit both Stanford and the public at large.
"We had a very strong negative reaction and we have not been able to identify anyone else who believes they'd have any benefit to them on the campus," Sweeney said, referring to the board's discussion of Kniss' proposals.
One proposal that the SCRL board supports is a plan to improve a trail along El Camino Real, between Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Avenue and to enhance the existing trail along Stanford Avenue, which stops just short of the Stanford Dish. The proposal would stretch the trail to the Dish and to the newly completed S-1 trail on Page Mill Road.
University officials are also urging the Board of Supervisors to slow down. Though the board was scheduled to consider Kniss' proposals Tuesday morning, Stanford officials are calling for the board to continue the meeting to another date. Jean McCown, Stanford's vice president for communications, said Stanford has been waiting for the board to come up with a process for selecting a project that would be funded through Stanford's contributions.
McCown said that while the university does not have an official stance on Kniss' proposals, these ideas shouldn't be the only ones that the board considers. She noted that SCRL and the university have been considering their own proposals and that the board should consider those as well.
"These (Kniss') ideas should be in the mix and there are other ideas that we want to bring forward that should be in the mix as well," McCown told the Weekly.
Stanford's proposal has at least one supporter on the five-member board -- George Shirakawa, the board president, has proposed continuing the decision on Stanford funds to a later meeting. Stanford officials hope other board members will join him in slowing down the process. Larry Horton, Stanford's director of government and community relations, wrote a letter to the board Monday seeking to urge the rest of the board not to rush to a vote on the Kniss proposals.
"Stanford anticipated the County would seek input from the people directly benefited by this provision -- campus residents and those who come to Stanford to use its facilities -- before selecting a set of projects to propose for funding," Horton wrote, noting that university officials have met with Board members several times to discuss concerns over the recreational funds. "We also stated many times that Stanford and probably the Campus the residents would like to submit proposals for consideration. However, we were not consulted regarding the current agenda item, nor have we been informed of the process for submitting projects to the County for consideration."
Meanwhile, local bike enthusiasts and members of conservation groups, including the Committee for Green Foothills and the Sierra Club, have submitted letters urging the board to follow Kniss' lead and to approve the projects she proposed. Alice Kaufman, legislative advocate for Committee for Green Foothills, said her group "looks forward to completion of the Bay Trail and a new connection at Adobe Creek so Stanford residents and facility users, as well as residents of the surrounding communities, can access these regional facilities."
Corinne Winter, president of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, agreed and also urged the board to approve Kniss' plan.
"I urge you not to let this opportunity pass us by," Winter wrote. "The money invested by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should benefit as many residents in the county and region as possible -- not solely Stanford University students and staff. The proposed projects will serve a far greater number of people and help keep the whole area healthy and active."
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on May 22 in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 70 West Hedding St., San Jose.
Uploaded: Monday, May 21, 2012, 5:04 PM
Kniss' plan for new bike bridge meets Stanford resistance
Stanford campus residents, university officials urge Santa Clara County supervisors to slow down the process
by Gennady Sheyner <http://www.paloaltoonline.com/staff/mailto.php?e=gsheyner>
Palo Alto Weekly Staff
A proposal by Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss to use funds contributed to the county by Stanford University for a new bike bridge over Highway 101 in Palo Alto is facing resistance from the Stanford community, where residents and officials are urging the county to slow down and consider other alternatives for the funds.
The plan, which Kniss and Supervisor Dave Cortese unveiled Wednesday <http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=25394> , May 16, calls for using $5 million in Stanford funds for the bike bridge at Adobe Creek and another $3 million to complete the Dumbarton link in the Bay Trail between Redwood City and Alviso. The money would come from a $10.34 fund that Stanford pledged to the county when it was applying for a General Use Permit (GUP) 11 years ago. The permit allowed Stanford to add up to 5 million square feet of construction to its campus. The $8 million recreation fund (which has since grown to $10.34 million because of interest) was intended to mitigate the loss of recreational opportunities that would result from the new construction.
But while Kniss maintained Wednesday that her proposals would boost recreational opportunities for Stanford students, residents and the wider community, members of the Stanford Campus Residential Leaseholders (SCRL) board of directors have other thoughts. The board, which is elected to represent the Stanford campus community, had its annual meeting last Wednesday night and Kniss' plan did not go down well with the board, said James Sweeney, the board's president.
Specifically, the board feels that the benefits of Kniss' proposed projects would provide little or no benefit to the campus residents, Sweeney said. Stanford had planned to use the funds to build a trail in San Mateo County but that plan fizzled in December, when the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to nix the idea.
The GUP specifies that if the trail proposal doesn't move forward, the funds would be used to reduce "the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and facility users that will be caused by the housing and academic development approved by the GUP, which will reduce the availability of recreational facilities, while increasing the demand for such facilities."
Sweeney said he and the board believe that the projects proposed by Kniss fail to meet this criteria. Though they would provide benefits to the general population, they are too distant from Stanford's campus to get much use from the university community. Ideally, he said, the projects would benefit both Stanford and the public at large.
"We had a very strong negative reaction and we have not been able to identify anyone else who believes they'd have any benefit to them on the campus," Sweeney said, referring to the board's discussion of Kniss' proposals.
One proposal that the SCRL board supports is a plan to improve a trail along El Camino Real, between Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Avenue and to enhance the existing trail along Stanford Avenue, which stops just short of the Stanford Dish. The proposal would stretch the trail to the Dish and to the newly completed S-1 trail on Page Mill Road.
University officials are also urging the Board of Supervisors to slow down. Though the board was scheduled to consider Kniss' proposals Tuesday morning, Stanford officials are calling for the board to continue the meeting to another date. Jean McCown, Stanford's vice president for communications, said Stanford has been waiting for the board to come up with a process for selecting a project that would be funded through Stanford's contributions.
McCown said that while the university does not have an official stance on Kniss' proposals, these ideas shouldn't be the only ones that the board considers. She noted that SCRL and the university have been considering their own proposals and that the board should consider those as well.
"These (Kniss') ideas should be in the mix and there are other ideas that we want to bring forward that should be in the mix as well," McCown told the Weekly.
Stanford's proposal has at least one supporter on the five-member board -- George Shirakawa, the board president, has proposed continuing the decision on Stanford funds to a later meeting. Stanford officials hope other board members will join him in slowing down the process. Larry Horton, Stanford's director of government and community relations, wrote a letter to the board Monday seeking to urge the rest of the board not to rush to a vote on the Kniss proposals.
"Stanford anticipated the County would seek input from the people directly benefited by this provision -- campus residents and those who come to Stanford to use its facilities -- before selecting a set of projects to propose for funding," Horton wrote, noting that university officials have met with Board members several times to discuss concerns over the recreational funds. "We also stated many times that Stanford and probably the Campus the residents would like to submit proposals for consideration. However, we were not consulted regarding the current agenda item, nor have we been informed of the process for submitting projects to the County for consideration."
Meanwhile, local bike enthusiasts and members of conservation groups, including the Committee for Green Foothills and the Sierra Club, have submitted letters urging the board to follow Kniss' lead and to approve the projects she proposed. Alice Kaufman, legislative advocate for Committee for Green Foothills, said her group "looks forward to completion of the Bay Trail and a new connection at Adobe Creek so Stanford residents and facility users, as well as residents of the surrounding communities, can access these regional facilities."
Corinne Winter, president of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, agreed and also urged the board to approve Kniss' plan.
"I urge you not to let this opportunity pass us by," Winter wrote. "The money invested by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should benefit as many residents in the county and region as possible -- not solely Stanford University students and staff. The proposed projects will serve a far greater number of people and help keep the whole area healthy and active."
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on May 22 in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 70 West Hedding St., San Jose.
Adina Levin
May 22, 2012, 4:59:08 PM5/22/12
to SVBC Palo Alto Team, paloa...@googlegroups.com, svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org, bikesmc Google group, Ellen Fletcher, SF2G, Brett Lider
At the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors this morning, the board
thankfully did not take Chair Shirakawa's proposal to defer the
decision and the discussion to "date uncertain".
Instead, the Supes set a deadline of June for proposals to be put
forward and for the decision process to be made explicit, and August
for the decision to be made.
There was public comment reflecting two different perspectives.
* Residents at Stanford who want recreational facilities that
primarily benefit people who live at Stanford
* Other advocates of trails, biking, and walking who want facilities
that benefit people at Stanford and in the surrounding region.
Alice Kauffman of Greenbelt Alliance explained that the argument for
improvements at Stanford Campus is bogus. In the original
environmental impact report in 2000 where the mitigations were
defined, there were two categories of mitigation
1) recreational facilities on campus - which have since been built
2) mitigation for other lost recreational opportunities. The initial
proposal was for trails heading up into the foothills, connecting to
the ocean - not on-campus improvements. The next proposal was for the
Lower Alpine trail - not an on-campus improvement.
Alice said very succinctely - we should not permit the privatization
of these public benefits
The Stanford residents proposal was for a jogging trail that goes
around the Campus perimiter including Sand Hill, Junipero Serra, and
El Camino. This has not yet been planned or estimated, to the best of
my understanding
So, between now and August, we will need to continue to advocate for
investments in:
* access to worldclass recreational facilities (the bay trail)
* well-defined, well-vetted, mature projects that are ready for investment
* projects that, in addition to great recreation, provide add-on
benefits for bike commuting as well
Thanks for your attention, your letters, and for those who came out to
the meeting this morning. We'll need to do more to make sure that the
money is spent on excellent improvements that benefit the region, not
only Stanford residents.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "bikesmc" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bikesmc+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bikesmc?hl=en.
A t
thankfully did not take Chair Shirakawa's proposal to defer the
decision and the discussion to "date uncertain".
Instead, the Supes set a deadline of June for proposals to be put
forward and for the decision process to be made explicit, and August
for the decision to be made.
There was public comment reflecting two different perspectives.
* Residents at Stanford who want recreational facilities that
primarily benefit people who live at Stanford
* Other advocates of trails, biking, and walking who want facilities
that benefit people at Stanford and in the surrounding region.
Alice Kauffman of Greenbelt Alliance explained that the argument for
improvements at Stanford Campus is bogus. In the original
environmental impact report in 2000 where the mitigations were
defined, there were two categories of mitigation
1) recreational facilities on campus - which have since been built
2) mitigation for other lost recreational opportunities. The initial
proposal was for trails heading up into the foothills, connecting to
the ocean - not on-campus improvements. The next proposal was for the
Lower Alpine trail - not an on-campus improvement.
Alice said very succinctely - we should not permit the privatization
of these public benefits
The Stanford residents proposal was for a jogging trail that goes
around the Campus perimiter including Sand Hill, Junipero Serra, and
El Camino. This has not yet been planned or estimated, to the best of
my understanding
So, between now and August, we will need to continue to advocate for
investments in:
* access to worldclass recreational facilities (the bay trail)
* well-defined, well-vetted, mature projects that are ready for investment
* projects that, in addition to great recreation, provide add-on
benefits for bike commuting as well
Thanks for your attention, your letters, and for those who came out to
the meeting this morning. We'll need to do more to make sure that the
money is spent on excellent improvements that benefit the region, not
only Stanford residents.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "bikesmc" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bik...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bikesmc+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bikesmc?hl=en.
A t
Adina Levin
May 22, 2012, 6:16:54 PM5/22/12
to Paul Goldstein, SVBC Palo Alto Team, paloa...@googlegroups.com, svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org, bikesmc Google group, Ellen Fletcher, Brett Lider
Hi, Paul,
It would be good for the point to be made in an op-ed. The Stanford residents are aggressively making the case that the primary goal of the mitigation money is to serve residents.
Would you be willing to write, or have others do so.
- Adina
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Paul Goldstein <mar...@stanford.edu> wrote:
Hi Adina,
I am glad to hear it went well and that the Supervisors did not go along
with the motion to table. The suggestion that the mitigations should be
primarily for Stanford residents is really a pernicious misunderstanding of
the GUP provisions.
The 2000 EIR analyzed the project and stated:
3. Will the Project adversely affect recreational opportunities for
existing or new campus residents and facility users? Loss of areas
currently used for recreation.
a. Substantial limitation or prohibition of use of a publicly used
recreation
resource (park, open space or trail)
b. Substantial change in quality of public recreational experience
c. Substantial increased demand for other public recreation resources
[Note the use of "public" here]
Also in table 7-3 it goes on:
Table 7-3
Description and Analysis of Alternative Components
Analysis:
This component would include the dedication of two
County identified trail corridors. The dedication of the
trail corridors would set up the possibility for the
eventual improvement of the trails pursuant to the
County Trails Master Plan. The trails would connect
Stanford lands with other County trails, and could
potentially allow for a trail corridor to connect the San
Francisco bay with the I-280 foothills. The trails
would help mitigate recreational impacts from the
population increases that would result from the
CP/GUP, and would provide alternative transportation
choices to help mitigate traffic impacts..
The EIR correctly acknowledged that the Stanford foothills were used by the
public, and not solely, or even primarily by Stanford residents.
I am sorry I was not able to attend and speak at the meeting today. Thanks
to all who came and who contacted their supervisors.
-Paul
pat giorni
May 23, 2012, 12:44:00 PM5/23/12
to Adina Levin, Paul Goldstein, SVBC Palo Alto Team, paloa...@googlegroups.com, svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org, bikesmc Google group, Ellen Fletcher, Brett Lider
I have just sent the following letter to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors and suggest that you all might do the same...we all know there is strength in numbers, but the weight is greater if you can get electeds to unite.
pat
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
To: "atis...@smcgov.org" <atis...@smcgov.org>; Carole Groom <cgr...@smcgov.org>; "Ros...@smcgov.org" <Ros...@smcgov.org>; Dave Pine <dp...@smcgov.org>; "dhor...@smcgov.org" <dhor...@smcgov.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: Stanford balks re bike/ped bridge
From: pat giorni <hog...@yahoo.com>
To: "atis...@smcgov.org" <atis...@smcgov.org>; Carole Groom <cgr...@smcgov.org>; "Ros...@smcgov.org" <Ros...@smcgov.org>; Dave Pine <dp...@smcgov.org>; "dhor...@smcgov.org" <dhor...@smcgov.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: Stanford balks re bike/ped bridge
Dear Chair Tissier and Supervisors,
I apologize for the length of this forwarded message, but it supplies context for my request.
When
you voted to not accept the Stanford funding for the Alpine Road
mitigation you did the right thing. Now that the money has reverted to
Santa Clara County, Stanford is once again attempting to sidestep its
mitigation responsibilities.
What
I think is at issue is the precedent that might be set that could erode
CEQA legislation if EIR mitigation is allowed to be set aside once a
project applicant has completed his project but fails to provide what
was a contractual Condition of
Approval.
My request is that the San Mateo Board of Supervisors ally itself with the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors in support of Supervisor Kniss' proposal before
the item is discussed on the Board's meeting calender where there is a
deadline of June when all proposals will be put forward with the
decision process to be made explicit, and August when the decision is to
be made.
Support
for Supervisor Kniss' proposal would provide a win-win for both
Counties by removing a barrier to access the Bay Trail with the Palo
Alto/US 101 Pedestrian Over Crossing (POC), while finally completing
gaps in the San Mateo County portions of the Bay Trail. It would be a
clear example of regional cooperation. And it would reenforce the
protections afforded the public in CEQA
legislation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pat Giorni
Burlingame, California 94010
From: Adina Levin <aldei...@gmail.com>
To: Paul Goldstein <mar...@stanford.edu>
Cc: SVBC Palo Alto Team <palo...@bikesiliconvalley.org>; paloa...@googlegroups.com; svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org; bikesmc Google group <bik...@googlegroups.com>; Ellen Fletcher <e...@ellenfletcher.net>; Brett Lider <bli...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [SVBC PA] Re: [BikeSMC] Stanford balks re bike/ped bridge
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages