Wrap-up: CGF comment letters on Gilroy sprawl applications

(Going through files I remembered two comment letters we wrote on the now-defeated Gilroy sprawl applications that hadn't been posted here. I'm adding them below. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills' continued opposition to all Gilroy Urban Service Area expansions

10/1/2009

Dear Planning Commission members,

I regret that a scheduling conflict prevents me from attending tonight's Planning Commission meeting, but I wish to reiterate in this letter the Committee for Green Foothills' continued opposition to the three USA proposals from Wren, Lucky Day, and Shapell. We believe these are unwise proposals that should not be considered until the City actually needs them - approvals now will just tie the hands of future Planning Commissions years down the road that will have a much better idea of what best fits the needs of the broader community.

Equally important, any approval of one or all of these projects right now would be a violation of CEQA for the reasons spelled out in the numerous, highly detailed and critical comment letters. The Shapell project in particular is in CEQA violation for similar reasons as the others, particularly climate impacts, and failed to prepare even as much as the inadequate DSEIR found with the other two projects.

We urge you to reject the projects, give a negative recommendation to the City Council, and preserve the opportunity for outward development, if the City needs it in the future, to be used only when necessary and according to a design that can be better determined at that time.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

-----------

October 19, 2009

Gilroy City Council

Dear Mayor Pinheiro and Councilmembers:

The Committee for Green Foothills opposes the Wren and Lucky Day USA Projects (Projects) that are to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting. The City of Gilroy cannot legally approve these projects due to violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, and we urge the Council to reject both projects due to the legal flaws and due to the projects' simply being bad for the City. (We understand the Shapell/Thomas proposal has been withdrawn, and we oppose it for identical reasons). Please note that the Committee retains all legal options to stop the projects if the City does approve them in violation of CEQA.

Climate change impacts dealt with inadequately.

As stated in previous letters and throughout the record for these Projects, the City's failure to establish a threshold of significance for climate change impacts and failure to determine whether impacts from the Projects are significant are violations of CEQA. Those violations remain unchanged in the FSEIR. In particular, the failure to acknowledge the impacts' significance means the City decision, if it approves the Projects, lacks the legally-required statement of overriding considerations and findings of infeasibility for alternatives or mitigations.

The FSEIR does contain a number of changes from the DSEIR that fail to mitigate climate change impacts or, even if they could change those impacts, constitute substantial new information that require recirculation of a revised DSEIR.

The changed Climate Change Program "mitigation" does not mitigate the Projects' impacts because neither the Projects nor subsequent development at the Projects are required to comply with the Climate Change Program. The Program as written also contains flaws that allow significant climate impacts:

• Timing. The requirement to "prepare" a Climate Action Plan within 36 months does not mean "adopt" the Plan with 36 months.

• Targets versus requirements. The Plan is to reference AB 32 levels for greenhouse gas emissions for its "targets," without saying those targets are mandatory requirements.

• Consistent versus not-to-exceed. The Plan will establish targets that are "consistent" with AB 32 but does not specify whether exceeding the targets by some percent could be consistent. The City may end up with a Plan that it might deem consistent with AB 32 while allowing excess emissions that could constitute significant impacts under CEQA.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan applicable to these Projects does not include mandatory requirements for compliance with AB 32 or any other proposed significance threshold under CEQA. Furthermore, and unlike the discussion of the Climate Change Program which said the Program "will include" the listed components, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan "could include" the listed components, leaving open the possibility that any of the listed components could be excluded despite being feasible mitigations that might reduce the Projects' impacts. Eliminating all net increases in greenhouse gas emissions from the Projects is a mitigation that could have been applied here, but the failure to do so without findings of the mitigation's infeasibility violates CEQA.

Finally, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan does not include any standard to eliminate climate change impacts from the Projects entirely, or even to reduce emissions by any measureable amount. While both the Climate Change Program and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan are improvements over the status quo, as implemented here they do not eliminate the significant climate change impacts from the Projects.

The Committee stands by our other criticism of these Projects, and urges the City to reject them.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Audubon Society agrees with CGF criticism of LAFCO

We at CGF have noted that the failure of Santa Clara County LAFCO has reached a level so that we have "No confidence" in the organization. We're not alone.

The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society passed the following resolution:

"To direct staff to draft correspondence to San Jose's City Council, Mayor Chuck Reed, the County's Board of Supes, and the City of Mountain View (These are the bodies that have appointed the LAFCO commissioners). Correspondence to cover that we've reviewed the recent action by the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), and the recent decisions by the LAFCO commission and that we are similarly deeply concerned that the commission's mission to control urban sprawl and protect open space is being seriously undermined and that those who have appointed the commissioners should consider what actions they can take to ensure the Commission performs its mission in the best interests of the the citizens of Santa Clara Co. (or words to that effect)."

We hope that LAFCO and the appointing agencies start to pay attention.

-Brian

Comments on the LAFCO ag mitigation guidelines

We submitted the following comments

-Brian
--------------

Dear LAFCo Commissioners;

Per the message below, the Committee for Green Foothills supports the LAFCo staff proposal on agricultural mitigation guidelines. We additionally support the Greenbelt Alliance position:

That no less than one acre of farmland be protected for every acre paved over.

That the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act definition of prime farmland be used instead of the LESA model which has failed to protect farmland in Gilroy. In other words, fallow farmland should trigger mitigation.

Cities should craft their own ordinances that assure LAFCO that mitigation will be fulfilled at the time of development and that the mitigation requirement be recorded against the property

Finally, we note that one sentence in the staff report should be clarified by the LAFCo Commission. On page 4, the last sentence in the second paragraph reads “LAFCO’s decision on the proposal will not be based solely on the issue of impacts to agriculture or consistency with LAFCO’s agricultural mitigation policies.” While it is correct that LAFCo may make its decision based on other criteria, this sentence unintentionally suggests that agricultural impacts are insufficient grounds, standing alone, to deny an application. LAFCo retains the authority to decide that even if all other criteria are met, impact to agriculture can be so severe as to justify denial. In staff’s attempt to clarify that compliance with guidelines is not mandatory, this statement became overbroad. I suggest LAFCo state their understanding to be the following instead:

“LAFCO’s decision on the proposal will consider all criteria, not solely the issue of impacts to agriculture or consistency with LAFCO’s agricultural mitigation policies.”

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

(650) 968-7243

---

From: Committee for Green Foothills [mailto:info@greenfoothills.org]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:10 PM
To: Committee for Green Foothills
Subject: Help Preserve Santa Clara County's Remaining Farmlands!

The Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is deciding whether to clarify agricultural mitigation guidelines that call on developers to legally protect at least one acre of farmland for each acre they convert into city land. Please contact the LAFCo Commission and tell them to support the guidelines as a significant step forward in protecting our remaining farmlands!

What's Happening

Santa Clara County LAFCo decides whether cities can expand and extend city services to new areas, such as City of San Jose is proposing to do in Coyote Valley. This means LAFCo is a crucial agency for controlling suburban sprawl and policies it develops that require environmental mitigation for expansions that do occur are critical to reducing the impacts of suburban sprawl. This Wednesday, April 5^th, LAFCo will decide whether to adopt a policy that clarifies how it will consider the loss of farmland in evaluating a proposed city expansion. This policy includes a guideline that cities mitigate for farmland converted to suburban uses through legally protecting other nearby farmland from future development.

Why this is Important

Santa Clara County used to be called “The Valley of Heart’s Delight” because of the miles and miles of farms and orchards that used to cover the valley. Then cities raced each other to see which one could annex and develop the most farmland, a runaway process that resulted in the state law creating LAFCo as a means to referee and slow down the expansion process.

LAFCo must consider the impact on farmland when deciding whether to approve city expansions, but the guidelines for considering this impact, and whether preserving other nearby farmland on a permanent basis would make up for the farmland lost to development, were all unclear. LAFCo staff now proposes guidelines suggesting that at least one acre should be preserved for every acre lost. While the guidelines could be stronger, they are a significant improvement over current policy. The proposed guideline also clarifies that even if cities comply with this one-to-one replacement factor, they would have no guarantee of approval of the annexation, because the loss of farmland can still be significant. The guidelines are also stiffer than those proposed or in place by some cities.

What you can do

The Santa Clara LAFCo Commission meets on Wednesday, April 4th, to decide whether to approve the staff recommendation. At the same meeting, LAFCo will decide whether to approve an expansion of Morgan Hill’s boundaries that seems likely to violate the new policy. Please tell LAFCo to support the staff recommendation on agricultural mitigation guidelines, and also to either reject the Morgan Hill expansion proposal or send it back for analysis under the new guidelines.

1. Please fax or email LAFCo and ask them to support the staff agricultural mitigation guidelines, and to deny the Morgan Hill expansion or apply the new guidelines to the expansion. Send your comments to:

Emmanuel Abuello, LAFCo Clerk, and request that he distribute your comments to all the LAFCo Commissioners.

Fax: (408) 295-1613
2. Please send a copy of your message to CGF so we can track our efforts on this issue:

Fax (650) 968-8431 or

To learn more,
read the LAFCo staff report on agricultural mitigation.

And read the CGF letter on ways to improve the mitigation.
Thanks for speaking up for open space. Your voice does make a difference!