CGF Joint letter on protecting San Jose hillsides from sprawl

(CGF sent the letter below with other organizations on using the Draft General Plan to protect San Jose hillsides from sprawl.  We also sent a clarification that the support from city staff referred to staff's original March 21, 2011 position, and that staff's later positions have varied.  -Brian)

October 25, 2011  

San Jose City Hall

200 E Santa Clara Street

San Jose, CA 95112

To:  Honorable Mayor Reed and San Jose City Council,

We strongly support Open Hillside (Plan Option #1) as recommended by the Planning Staff and members of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Task Force to modify Policy Goal LU-19 and add further restrictions on the allowable development intensity for lands with Open Hillside designation, keeping the proposed limitation of 10% of developable land.

We respect and support the hard work of the Staff and Envision San José 2040 General Plan Task Force over the past four years for transit oriented development which ties into AB32, SB375 and San José’s Green Vision Plan (GVP). The plan has strong goals for economic growth, environmental stewardship, and enhanced quality of life for San José residents by putting emphasis on infill development. The prioritization of jobs and housing within the Urban Group Boundary (UGB) and on transit corridors begins to correct past errors in land use policy. The General Plan update integrates San José’s GVP which includes metrics for water conservation and adopting a general plan with Measurable Standards for Sustainable Development. Staff’s comprehensive evaluation for Plan Option #1 reinforces the GVP and most importantly development of urban villages with transit oriented blend.

The Envision 2040 Task Force unanimously voted and approved the draft General Plan on Monday, September 12, 2011. Staff and the Envision 2040 Task Force requested that the Planning Commission and City Council consider five other options to the 2040 Plan Update as Task Force members were split on the Open Hillside land use policy. The Planning Commission met on Wednesday, September 29, 2011 and did not support Plan Option #1,


with one dissenting vote from the Chair, Hope Cahan.

Chair Cahan expressed concerns regarding environmental impacts on water issues. The discussion was limited and did not connect the Envision 2040 policies/goals or linkages to performance metrics in GVP for water conservation (Goal #6), open space or quality of life amenities.  Development outside of the UGB conflicts with water goals from the GVP and with water conservation goals in the Draft Plan under MS-3 which includes a metric for reducing city wide per capita water consumption by 25% by 2050 utilizing a baseline from the 2010 Urban Water Management Plans of water retailers. Water sustainability is a major concern not only for San José residents and businesses but also for the State of California. Staff’s analysis and recommendation to prohibit new development in the UGB should be supported.

LU19.6 recommends not providing urban services to new development outside of UGB. We agree that adding any type of development with the exception of agriculture outside of the UGB will overload already stressed police and fire departments, add financial burdens for capital investment from taxpayers and compete for existing public infrastructure funding for roads and maintenance as well as increase the water demands. Furthermore, it will not meet San José’s goal of creating vibrant, walkable communities with reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced traffic.

We support the recommendations in LU19.8, which limits environmental impact in the UGB. Adding new development outside of the city’s boundaries conflicts with many policy and goals in the plan. Below is a partial list of policies and goals that conflict with development outside the UGB:

Goal LU-17- Hillside/Rural Preservation.
Preserve the valuable natural resources of the hillsides, and protect their aesthetic
and habitat amenities to enhance the rural character of these areas.

Policies – Responsible Management of Water Supply. 
MS-17.2 Ensure that development within San José is planned and built in a manner consistent with fiscally and environmentally sustainable use of current and future water supplies by encouraging sustainable development practices, including low-impact development, water-efficient development and green building techniques. Support the location of new development within the vicinity of the recycled water system and promote expansion of the SBWR system to areas planned for new development. Residential development outside of the Urban Service Area can be approved only at minimal levels and only allowed to use non-recycled water at urban intensities. For residential development outside of the Urban Service Area, restrict water usage to well water, rainwater collection, or other similar environmentally sustainable practice. Nonresidential development may use the same sources and potentially make use of recycled water, provided that its use will not result in conflicts with other General Plan policies, including geologic or habitat impacts. To maximize the efficient and environmentally beneficial use of water outside of the Urban Service Area, limit water consumption for new development so that it does not diminish the water supply available for projected development within San José’s urbanized areas.

Goal MS-18 – Water Conservation.  Continuously improve water conservation
efforts in order to achieve best in class performance. Double the City’s annual water conservation savings by 2040 and achieve half of the Water District’s goal for Santa Clara County on an annual basis.

Policies – Water Conservation. MS-18.2 Require new development outside of the City’s Urban Service Area to incorporate measures to minimize water consumption.

Goal ER-1 – Grassland, Oak Woodlands, Chaparral and Coastal Scrub.
Preserve, protect and restore the ecological integrity and scenic characteristics of grasslands, oak woodlands, chaparral and coastal scrub in hillside areas.

Goal ER-6 – Urban Natural Interface. Minimize adverse effects of urbanization
on natural lands surrounding the City’s developed areas.

Goal EC-4 – Geologic and Soil Hazards. Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life,
and property damage from soil and slope instability including landslides, differential settlement, and accelerated erosion.

Goal PR-1 – High Quality Facilities and Programs. Provide park lands, trails, open space, recreation amenities, and programs, nationally recognized for their excellence, which enhance the livability of the urban and suburban environments; preserve significant natural, historic, scenic and other open space resources; and meet the parks and recreation services needs of San José’s residents, workers, and visitors.

Goal PR-3 – Provide an Equitable Park System. Create a balanced park system that provides all residents access to parks, trails, open space, community centers, dog parks, skate parks, aquatics facilities, sports fields, community gardens, and other amenities.

Thank you for your continued efforts and leadership as indicated for your creative support for the Three Creek Trails project. We implore you to consider and restrict Open Hillside Development outside of UGB, and not develop them before 2040.  Please continue to focus development inside the urban growth boundary, positioning San José as a place for present and future generations to live, work and enjoy. 

Respectfully submitted,

Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, San José Cool Cities, Committee for Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, San José State Students and Alumni, David Marsland (District 1), Former Co-Chair San José Cool Cities, Susan Marsland (District 1) Helen Chapman (District 6), Megan  Fluke (District 7), and Jessica Gonzales (District 8)

Victory for Mountain View Open Space in Cuesta Annex

Nice article in the Mountain View Voice:  a proposal to move a historic building to Cuesta Annex, a rare, undeveloped open space area that is not along the Bay and the foothills, has ended.  We have no problem with the history museum or historic preservation, but don't want the Cuesta Annex damaged.  The article cites the letter we wrote:

Following a City Council decision made behind closed doors on Tuesday, the future hangs in the balance for a 130-year-old house and the city's proposed history museum. 

City Council members say they voted 4-2 against a proposal to add a restored 1880s home to plans for a Mountain View history museum in the Cuesta Annex. Mayor Jac Siegel recused himself because he owns property nearby. 

....

But council members say they received more comments opposing the museum than supporting it because its footprint intrudes on the unstructured open space at the Cuesta Annex -- and the Pearson House could potentially increase that footprint by 10,000 feet. Those comments include a letter sent to the council on Tuesday, Oct. 19, from the Audubon Society and the Committee for Green Foothills, which said the Annex is Mountain View's "one uniquely free area for children to roam in the dirt and the bugs and the birds," adding that "Cuesta Park is a far better location" as only developed parkland would be lost.

"I did not hear from the community that they wanted this house there," said council member Laura Macias, explaining her vote against the proposal in the closed session meeting. 
Macias said she hoped the house could be moved to Shoreline Park where it could sit near the Rengstorff House. "We have this developer willing to refurbish it. It is important to see where our momentum is and continue that."

For more info on our letter, click here.

San Jose supports finalizing County Habitat Plan

San Jose voted unanimously to expend $100,000 for their share of finalizing the County Habitat Plan.  Mayor Reed mentioned significant improvements and benefits in the Plan.  I also spoke at the meeting:



I was in the meeting for quite a long time, so unlike other times I wrote out my speaking notes in detail beforehand.  I still had time, so I ran through them and realized they were too long.  Below, for what it's worth, is the notes for what I said and also the notes for what I wanted to say at somewhat greater length:

Short version:

We support the staff recs bc hab plan buys both environmental mitigation and environmental enhancement in bulk wholesale amounts.

A significant improvement in the draft Habitat Plan is that it has been changed to reflect the policies in San Jose’s draft General Plan proposed by its Task Force.  The changes assume that both South Almaden Valley and mid-Coyote Valley will remain mostly undeveloped, significantly reducing the habitat mitigation costs in the Habitat Plan.

But there’s another part of the Draft General Plan that needs further incorporation in the Habitat Plan.

ER-7.5 Support the on-going identification and protection of critical linkages for wildlife movement in the Mid-Coyote Valley. 

Nothing in the Habitat Plan has been changed to reflect this important new component of the City’s Draft General Plan

I believe that staff think it is as of yet unclear what this new Draft General Plan policy will mean for San Jose.  One thing I believe you can do that can be helpful is to communicate to staff that you believe this General Plan policy recommended to you by your Task Force is one that you support, and that the Habitat Plan should identify opportunities to protect wildlife movement in mid-Coyote Valley, especially because there are opportunities for outside funding that will not cost San Jose a dime while still helping to promote a San Jose policy.

These type of technical issues and improvements can still occur with little financial effects over the next few months, and we look forward to working staff and the City Council

Long version:

We support the staff recs bc hab plan buys both environmental mitigation and environmental enhancement in bulk wholesale amounts.  Not doing the plan doesn’t mean these costs go away, it simply means that you buy the mitigation and enhancement on a piecemeal basis for retail costs.  This appears to explain the difference between on the one hand, businesses like the two largest developers in Gilroy who strongly support the Habitat Plan, and on the other hand, other business groups with little economic interests one way or another who instead are motivated based on their ideology.

While we have some concerns about the changes in the Habitat Plan in recent months, we want to acknowledge some significant improvements.  For example, the draft Habitat Plan has been changed to reflect the policies in San Jose’s draft General Plan proposed by its Envision 2040 Task Force, with everyone acknowledging this is pending the final decisionmaking by the City Council.  The changes assume that both South Almaden Valley and mid-Coyote Valley will remain mostly undeveloped, significantly reducing the habitat mitigation costs in the Habitat Plan.

There’s another part of the Draft General Plan that needs further incorporation in the Habitat Plan.

ER-7.5 Support the on-going identification and protection of critical linkages for wildlife movement in the Mid-Coyote Valley. 

Nothing in the Habitat Plan has been changed to reflect this important new component of the City’s Draft General Plan

I believe that staff think it is as of yet unclear what this new Draft General Plan policy will mean for San Jose.  One thing I believe you can do that can be helpful is to communicate to staff that you believe this General Plan policy recommended to you by your Task Force is one that you support, and that the Habitat Plan should identify opportunities to protect wildlife movement in mid-Coyote Valley, especially because there are opportunities for outside funding that will not cost San Jose a dime while still helping to promote a San Jose policy.

These type of technical issues and improvements can still occur with little financial effects over the next few months, and we look forward to working staff and the City Council

Letter to Mountain View City Council on History Museum at Cuesta Annex

(CGF sent the letter below to Mountain View City Council.  -Brian)

October 18, 2011

Mountain View City Council

            Re:  Please preserve the living history of Cuesta Annex by locating the History Museum at a different site

Dear Mayor Siegel and City Councilmembers;

The Committee for Green Foothills and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society do not oppose the proposed Mountain View History Museum, but its location should not be on and should not obliterate a significant portion of Cuesta Annex, for both historical and open space reasons.  As organizations dedicated to protecting undeveloped open space – natural habitats and agriculture -  we are acutely aware of the loss of both kinds of habitats here in the Valley of Heart's Delight, replaced nearly entirely with developed buildings and to some extent with developed turf parklands

As both remnants of a historical orchard that could be restored and natural open space that often interspersed with Mountain View farmlands of just two generations ago, Cuesta annex’s undeveloped, turf-free, natural flat land open space that is inland and not along the Bay is truly execptional.  The City currently has the option of bringing back some of the historical orchards that were present at the site, and it can augment and support the natural habitat that is present.  It can even choose to continue allowing in this one place in Mountain View the most ancient of historical practices – tens of thousands of years of children being allowed to wander around at will and dig in the dirt.

Please put the History Museum somewhere else.  Even right next to Cuesta Annex in Cuesta Park is a far better location, with far more acres of turf than natural open space, or elsewhere here in Mountain View than has many turf parks and only one uniquely free area for children to roam in the dirt and the bugs and the birds.  And while the museum should not be located at Cuesta Annex, if it is located there then it should occupy a minimized footprint and public monies should not be used to subsidize or accelerate this proposal to take away part the public’s annex.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Shani Kleinhaus, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

Environmental Advocate


UPDATE:  Our letter was published in Mountain View Patch.

We have proof that lions can cross Highway 101

There's strong reason to believe that Coyote Valley forms a crucial wildlife link between the Santa Cruz Mountains of the Peninsula, and the Mount Hamilton Range in east Santa Clara County that provides a wildlife connection to the rest of the state.  However huge the area of the Santa Cruz Mountains might be, they're too small for rare or wide-ranging animals like mountain lions and badgers to survive if isolated.

Some people disagree that Coyote Valley is still a functional wildlife corridor.  Strangely, that doesn't imply to them the necessity of improving Coyote Valley's usefulness for wildlife but rather that we should ignore its wildlife linkage value.

They use Highway 101 as insurmountable barrier - lions can't get across it, they say, so there's no point in preserving the rest of Coyote Valley so that lions and badgers can make it the rest of the way.

Except we have proof that one lion made it across, and this lion is actually exceptionally slow and clumsy compared to the average mountain lion:

Sea lion rescued after crossing Highway 101 in Burlingame

Sluglike, the beast lumbered across Highway 101, vaulting the median barrier, coming to rest on the shoulder of the Broadway exit, dazed and confused and now eight wide traffic lanes away from the bay it apparently emerged from early Saturday. 

Not a good place for a sea lion. 

Burlingame police got the call shortly before 7 a.m.

Fast Lane Freddy or Bayshore Betty -- take your choice, since the marine mammal's sex remains undetermined -- had somehow scooted up and across the freeway, a beautiful 150-pound blob of Zalophus californianus, now sitting in eucalyptus leaves, wondering to him/herself: "What the heck did I just do?'' 

"We got between a half-dozen and a dozen calls from motorists saying 'A sea lion just crossed 101!' " said Burlingame police Cpl. Laura Terada. "By the time we got there, he was heading down the ramp actually exiting into Burlingame. Then he sat on a tree stump, just chillin'."

If a sea lion can slowly bounce its way across Highway 101, then it seems like a mountain lion can do the same thing much more easily.

-Brian