NEWS RELEASE: Environmentalists call for fewer new monster mansions on hillsides following the Santa Cruz Mountains fire

(CGF sent out the following news release yesterday. -Brian)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 26, 2008


PRESS CONTACTS:
Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate
phone (650) 968-7243,

Environmentalists call for fewer new monster mansions on hillsides following the Santa Cruz Mountains fire


Committee for Green Foothills called today for the Santa Clara County to reconsider environmental reforms that would reduce the number of new hillside "monster mansions" in the wake of the ongoing, 4,000 acre Summit Fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. "Taxpayer money and firefighters' lives should not be risked for more and more inappropriate, 'monster mansions' on the hillsides," said CGF Advocate Brian Schmidt. "Two years ago, the Committee for Green Foothills and other environmental groups sponsored the Measure A environmental initiative in Santa Clara County in 2006 that would have reduced new development in hillside areas, specifically including the area in the County that is now on fire. Our initiative failed by less than one-half of one percent, due to a half-million dollars spent by outside Realtors' groups from Southern California and from their national headquarters in Chicago. We now call on Santa Clara County to undertake new measures to limit inappropriate new development."

Committee for Green Foothills argues that more development in the hills increases the chance of someone doing something that starts a fire, while also making firefighting more dangerous and expensive as firefighters seek to rescue people and protect property. Schmidt said, "We're not trying to take away existing homes or even ending all new construction in the hills, but we need to stop adding to sprawl by putting more and more buildings in these fire-prone areas, especially large mansions that are difficult to protect and harder to rescue people from."

Last year, Santa Clara County Supervisors supported a motion by Supervisor Ken Yeager to draft a new ordinance toughening enforcement of fire regulations. "While the County has made a good first step, a lot more must be done," Schmidt said. "The County now lets land developers to deviate from the standard minimum parcel size in areas designated as 'Hillsides' and put up to eight times more development through a 'cluster subdivision'
process. This cluster subdivision option should be eliminated in areas with significantly elevated fire risk."

Other possibilities include enactment of certain portions of the Measure A initiative during upcoming revisions for the County's General Plan.
Residential building size limits to avoid "monster mansions" have also been supported by environmentalists, and giant structures favored by developers create more fire risks and are more difficult to defend.

# # #
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.

CGF comment on the Santa Cruz Mountains fire

(KQED had a radio program this morning about the Santa Cruz Mountains fires. We emailed in the following short comment - it didn't get into the show, but I thought we should share it. -Brian)


I work for Committee for Green Foothills, an organization that along with others sponsored the Measure A environmental initiative in Santa Clara County in 2006 that would have reduced new development in hillside areas, specifically including the area in the County that is now on fire. Our initiative failed by less than one-half of one percent, due to a half-million dollars spent by outside Realtors' groups from Southern California and from their national chapter.

We are continuing to work on measures to reduce sprawl, and these measures will decrease the chance of human-caused fires and the risk the fires will create. We hope that public support will make these efforts successful, and we welcome public input.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

Vacancy on the Santa Clara County Parks Commission

There's a vacancy on the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Commission, which would be a great place for a good environmentalist to get involved with local government. The announcement's here: http://www.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/SCC%20Public%20Portal/keyboard%20agenda/BOS%20Agenda/2008/May%2020,%202008/KeyboardTransmittal-0011957.PDF

Shortened version of URL here:
http://tiny.cc/KQQOE

While it says the vacant term ends next month, I think that's either a mistake or that a new four-year term starts afterward. The appointment is allocated to Supervisorial District 3 (McHugh), but I'm not sure if the applicant has to be from that district, as opposed to just being appointed by that Supervisor.
-Brian

Problem with Santa Clara County Parks funding road and airport responsibilities

(CGF sent out the following email about the County Habitat Plan and what we consider to be an inappropriate funding mechanism using the County Parks Charter funding. We will be following this closely. -Brian)

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:

To clarify comments the Committee for Green Foothills submitted at yesterday's (May 6th) Board meeting, we oppose the Habitat Plan recommendation announced yesterday to use County parkland purchased through the Parks Charter funding in order to mitigate habitat loss caused by other Santa Clara County government agencies.

The County voters passed Measure C in 1972 as a tax increase they imposed on themselves to provide an environmental benefit: more and better-maintained County Parks. The voters did not provide the County with this tax increase, and reaffirm it multiple times with the broad support of the environmental community, in order to enable road and airport expansion.

Using the Parks funding in this manner would convert it from an environmental benefit to an environmental mitigation, which is more than a semantic change. Environmental benefits are intended by voters to make us better off than would otherwise be the case, while environmental mitigation only makes up for other environmental harm and provides no net benefit. Because the voters expected a benefit, it would be highly inappropriate to change what the voters asked for.

I noted yesterday that County Counsel opined that using County Parkland for mitigation would be legal, and because we have had no opportunity to study the matter, we offer no opinion of our own at this point on its legality. As a matter of policy, however, it is clearly a bad one.

Similarly, County Parks Director indicated that she did not see this as harming County Parks, but that is not the appropriate test - the real issue is whether voters will get the environmental benefit that they voted for, and this proposal transforms a benefit into a mitigation without a net benefit.

The County Executive himself indicated that problems could result from mixing or apparent mixing of Parks funding and Roads funding, and we could not agree more. We request that this proposal be rejected.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

Time to take a hike

The Merc has a good column today, "Fisher: County asks families to take a hike."

Patty Fisher reports on Santa Clara County Parks Department's new Healthy Trails campaign to encourage people to use our local county parks. They even point out that parks by the Bay and in the redwoods will be great places to cool off for the hot weekend.

Public access and use of open space is the best guarantee of public support for open space. Encouraging people to get outside is good for their health and great for the environment.

-Brian

News Release: Morgan Hill must hold developers to the Coyote Valley standard for cost recovery, environmentalists say

(CGF issued the following news release last week. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills
NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2008

PRESS CONTACTS: Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate, phone (650) 968-7243, brian@greenfoothills.org

Morgan Hill must hold developers to the Coyote Valley standard for cost recovery, environmentalists say

IN COYOTE VALLEY, DEVELOPERS PAID ALL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COSTS FOR DEVELOPING THE AREA; Committee for Green Foothills states that Morgan Hill taxpayers deserve the same.

Committee for Green Foothills argues that Morgan Hill taxpayers have a right to expect the City-initiated planning for the "Southeast Quadrant" meet the same cost recovery standard imposed on developers by the City of San Jose for the Coyote Valley planning process. "San Jose also had a city-led process for analyzing potential development of Coyote Valley," said CGF Advocate Brian Schmidt, "but no one denied that the motivating force was the developers who owned much of the land. San Jose required developers to pay for every dime of environmental review and planning involving that area, and Morgan Hill taxpayers should not be presented with a bill for proposals that increase the property value in that area."

Last night, the Morgan Hill City Council voted to initiate an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process to convert the Southeast Quadrant area mainly to non-agricultural use, with a small portion to be retained for agricultural or open space uses. The Council also voted to initiate a study of the feasibility of agricultural mitigation and long-term agricultural viability in the broader Morgan Hill area. "None of the EIR costs should be borne by taxpayers," said Schmidt. "These EIRs will only exist because of the landowner interests in development. As for the costs of studying the feasibility of agricultural mitigation, that's mitigation for the loss of farmland due to proposals like the Southeast Quadrant, and any transfer of developer responsibilities to taxpayers is unacceptable. Only costs for studying agricultural viability and mitigation separate from the rezoning proposals in the Southeast Quadrant should be handled by taxpayers.

Schmidt continued, "the Coyote Valley planning process was riddled with flaws, but at least they claimed to get back all the money they spent from the developers. If these Southeast Quadrant studies don't even meet that standard, we fear the other results may be even worse.

# # #

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.

CGF comment: Significant problems with proposal to use County Parks funding to pay for County Habitat Plan

(We submitted the following comment about Santa Clara County Habitat Plan funding. -Brian)

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:

To clarify comments the Committee for Green Foothills submitted at yesterday's Board meeting, we oppose the Habitat Plan recommendation announced yesterday to use County parkland purchased through the Parks Charter funding in order to mitigate habitat loss caused by other Santa Clara County government agencies.

The County voters passed Measure C in 1972 as a tax increase they imposed on themselves to provide an environmental benefit: more and better-maintained County Parks. The voters did not provide the County with this tax increase, and reaffirm it multiple times with the broad support of the environmental community, in order to enable road and airport expansion.

Using the Parks funding in this manner would convert it from an environmental benefit to an environmental mitigation, which is more than a semantic change. Environmental benefits are intended by voters to make us better off than would otherwise be the case, while environmental mitigation only makes up for other environmental harm and provides no net benefit. Because the voters expected a benefit, it would be highly inappropriate to change what the voters asked for.

I noted yesterday that County Counsel opined that using County Parkland for mitigation would be legal, and because we have had no opportunity to study the matter, we offer no opinion of our own at this point on its legality. As a matter of policy, however, it is clearly a bad one.

Similarly, County Parks Director indicated that she did not see this as harming County Parks, but that is not the appropriate test - the real issue is whether voters will get the environmental benefit that they voted for, and this proposal transforms a benefit into a mitigation without a net benefit.

The County Executive himself indicated that problems could result from mixing or apparent mixing of Parks funding and Roads funding, and we could not agree more. We request that this proposal be rejected.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt