Showing posts with label Mountain View. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mountain View. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2011

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.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

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.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Two environmental victories

Important not to overlook these victories. At the end of 2008, Santa Clara County instituted new "Green Building" rules for residential development that required minimizing the impacts from new residences and major remodels (info here).

While the County staff planned to require more from larger homes, they also planned to stop requiring more at a certain point. We successfully convinced the County that monster mansion impacts continue as they increase in size, so the required "Build It Green" points needed will also have to increase with size.

The new standards will reduce the climate change impacts from the homes, they encourage such things as native plant use and reduced visibility, and the reduce the economic incentive for sprawling monster mansions, all of which supports CGF's core mission.

The second ongoing victory is at Moffett Field, where the US Navy took another major step towards restoring polluted lands as tidal wetlands. CGF had been involved in this effort several years ago (a major effort by Save the Bay), and when the Navy indicated it would go in this direction, we've limited ourselves to monitoring it. Great to see it moving closer to realization.

-Brian

Monday, September 15, 2008

Earth to Google: Reduce, Reuse, Redeploy

(The following is a guest blog post written by CGF Intern Laurel Smith. We hope to follow up on these issues in the coming months. -Brian)


For the past 14 years NASA has controlled Moffett Field and kept it within federal jurisdiction, thus subjecting all new development to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NASA requires 7 million dollars each year to maintain the site, and rents space to agenda-fitting private businesses to carry the cash inflow. One such qualified business is Google, who is willing and able to dish out $3.7 million a year for a plot of Moffett land. Google and NASA began their relationship three years ago when the NASA Research Park was establishing new partnerships; today the two superpowers have a very strong bond as they collaborate on revolutionary projects such as Google Earth.


In June, NASA got Google’s signature on a 40-year lease that has the option of being extended up to 90 years. See NASA’s press release here. The lease grants 42.2 acres of “underdeveloped” land to the company, which will be used to build 1.2 million square feet of office space. Google already has 2 million square feet of office space in the area, and constitutes the biggest employer in Mountain View. The project will bring 4,000 new people to the city, and with that comes employee housing, fitness facilities, dining rooms, conference halls, childcare centers, and the potential for a bridge over Stevens Creek.


The project has been undertaken by William McDonough + Partners, an architecture firm known for their environmental sustainability. Construction will include 13 buildings, and will take place in 3 phases, starting in 2013, and following with stages in 2018 and 2022. All construction and permits will be overseen by NASA, who is acting as a city would if the project were taking place within municipal boundaries. NASA will be responsible for approving the design, and completing regular inspections of the project. Google will also be building parking garages, and outdoor recreation facilities and parks for all of NASA’s inhabitants to use. Further, the project will require basic amenities such as roads and a sewage system, which on their own take a heavy toll on the land and existing environment.


Primary concerns regarding this project are issues of environmental welfare, housing, transportation, and taxation. (See a great article from San Francisco Gate here.) Northern Santa Clara County currently has more jobs than available housing, and this imbalance can only tip further with the new Google campus. With 4,000 new employees in the area, speculation arises as to where everyone will live, what the new population will contribute to traffic, and what role the new roads and sewage systems will have on the fragile ecosystem. Google will be constructing and running the whole operation in what they claim to be a cutting-edge, environmentally sound way, but this may not be the most earth friendly option.


What Google seems to have overlooked is that there are millions of square feet of unoccupied and available office space within miles of the planned construction site. Just minutes past the Moffett exit along highway 237, one can’t help but notice the abundance of vacant office buildings decorated with “For Lease” and “For Sale” signs. These empty structures could easily be modified to suit the needs of Google, but instead the company has chosen to create anew. The company could spare itself the millions of dollars in Moffett rent, development costs, and mitigation efforts by purchasing the already existing space where roads, plumbing, and basic infrastructure are already in place. Such locations could then be maintained in the greenest way possible, and could be used to preserve Google’s progressive image. We might not be in a position to stop Google from pursuing the establishment of this new campus, but we can certainly put pressure on the company. Hopefully this will lead Google to mitigate more than is required by NEPA, and to thoughtfully consider a fuller realm of options in its future endeavors.