CGF corrects discussion of its No on E position

(Palo Alto Weekly published this letter from CGF correcting the discussion of the No on E position taken by CGF's Board of Directors.  Where the last line says "Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors", the Weekly failed to include the words from the letter that started with "On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors".  -Brian)

Editor,

It's unfortunate that the Palo Alto Weekly failed to consult with Committee for Green Foothills before incorrectly characterizing the CGF Board's position, among others, as stating that "parkland should never be repurposed." The CGF Board's statement and supporting material specifically recognizes the need to balance competing environmental interests and makes clear that it examines the issues on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the majority of greenhouse-gas emission reductions that would be done at a loss of parklands can instead be done by a smaller operation at the Water Quality Control Plant with no loss of parkland that has been promised to voters for forty years. Committee for Green Foothills' Board did not make a knee-jerk decision but rather a thoughtful one to support both action to fight climate change and to protect our local parkland and natural open space, by encouraging a no vote on Measure E.

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors  (CGF note:  Weekly failed to include the words "on behalf of" here)

East Bayshore Road

Palo Alto

Committee for Green Foothills Urges Palo Alto to Vote No on Measure E, has a better plan for climate change and open space

Statement of the CGF's Board of Directors:

Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors urges a no vote on Palo Alto’s Measure E.

The Board of Directors of the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) recognizes that its mission of protecting the open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties may on occasion require balancing competing valid environmental interests. In the case of Measure E in Palo Alto, we find that the un-dedication of parkland for potential gains on greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on unproven composting techniques, and with no guaranty provided that the loss of the open space would be mitigated by other open space, or that a dedicated funding source for restoration of Byxbee Park would be created, is not a trade-off that the Board believes is consistent with its mission. We support replacing the sewage treatment plant incinerator with a composting operation at the RWQCP because this would reduce the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions promised by Measure E proponents, without unnecessarily compromising open space. Therefore, CGF goes on record opposing Measure E. 





UPDATE:  CGF also emailed this explanatory statement to Measure E advocates and opponents:

CGF's Board of Directors thanks the supporters and opponents of Measure E for the information and assistance in developing its opinion, and acknowledges the reasonable arguments, good intentions, and strong environmental interests on both sides.  After over an hour of discussion, and while agreeing with Measure E supporters that climate change is an open space issue with open space impacts, the Board unanimously voted that it opposes Measure E as unnecessarily impacting open space.  Instead of passing Measure E, CGF suggests a compromise with people primarily concerned with climate change, that we all work together to replace the sewage plant incinerator with a composting operation at the plant instead of at Byxbee, and that we also work together to get the funding to renovate Byxbee.  If Measure E fails, this is a way that both sides can work together.  The Board also noted its appreciation of Measure E supporters stating that they want a "no net loss" of parkland, so if Measure E passes, this is also something we could work together on in the future.

More good news! Santa Clara County joins the ban on single use takeout bags

Yesterday, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to enact a ban on single-use takeout bags.  With reasonable exceptions, it bans plastic bags, bans paper bags with less than 40% recycled content, and requires a 15 cent fee on paper bag use to encourage the use of reusable bags.  We thank Supervisors Shirakawa, Cortese, Kniss, and Yeager for their votes. Supervisor Yeager in particular has been supporting this issue for several years. President Cortese also rightly applauded the cooperation by the California Grocers Association on this matter, which I've seen personally at the city and county level.

You can watch the Supervisors here (Item 7).  A Mercury News report is here.  We have been following this issue for years in San Jose, Morgan Hill and elsewhere in addition to the County level, and are glad to see it succeed.  Below are CGF's latest letter to the Supervisors and video testimony by CGF Advocate Julie Hutcheson.  Next up is to get the remaining cities in our area and elsewhere to move forward.

-Brian

CGF letter:

Dear President Cortese and Board of Supervisors:

The Committee for Green Foothills proudly supports the staff recommendation to enact a ban on single use takeout bags (Item 7 on tomorrow's agenda), noting that staff's proposed ban includes certain exceptions such as the use of recycled-content paper bags sold at a small fee, exceptions for certain items and for the economically disadvantaged.

Similar actions have been taken by cities in Santa Clara County, most notably San Jose with approximately half of the County population.  Staff's proposal would bring the vast majority of the geographic area of the County in rough conformity on takeout bags, and constitutes a significant step forward in protecting resources and in protecting our streams, protecting San Francisco and Monterey Bays, and the Pacific Ocean from this destructive and unnecessary pollution.

We are happy to answer any questions and urge you to pass the takeout bag ban ordinance per staff's recommendation.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills

and video (speakers were only allowed one minute):

Good news! CGF successfully urges San Jose and Santa Clara to provide an Environmental Alternative at the Water Plant

(We submitted the comments below as part of a long-running CGF campaign to protect the natural habitat near the Santa Clara San Jose water plant near Alviso.  You can watch the San Jose discussion here, and I spoke at the 2:40:00 mark.  The City Council appears to have listened and will include an "Environmental Alternative" for further consideration in the environmental planning.  As the process continues, we'll continue to fight for our local natural habitats.  -Brian)

April 15, 2011

Santa Clara and San Jose City Councils

            Re:  providing an "Environmental Alternative" for the upcoming review of the Water Pollution Control Plant

Dear Santa Clara and San Jose City Council Members;

Both San Jose City Council (in Item 7.4) and Santa Clara City Council (Item 7C-4) are considering the forthcoming environmental review for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan.  For nearly a year, practically every environmental organization concerned with this area has sent a single clear message that has been rebuffed.  Our urgent request is to include for consideration an "Environmental Alternative" that does upgrade the treatment facility but does not convert a significant portion of the footprint to an unnecessary expansion of the existing office space glut.  We simply ask that the Cities simply consider keeping these 2,000 acres in their present, modern, and compatible use of wastewater treatment, environmental benefit and restoration, and low-impact public recreation.

Now is the time to begin planning the environmental review, and we request that both of your City Councils advise planning staff that a reasonable range of alternative must include this Environmental Alternative.  This is emphatically not the No-Action Alternative, a false choice that handcuffs environmental restoration to an increasingly outmoded treatment system.  The public, and no less yourselves as decision-makers, deserve the right to make a choice that does not include nearly-identical commercial/industria/retail development on still-available open space.

For your convenience, we are reprinting below the body of the first joint letter sent in June 2010:

We submit this position on the Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan Alternatives on behalf

of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Committee for Green Foothills, Loma Prieta Chapter of

the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, Save The Bay, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge,

Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant

Society, San Francisco Baykeeper, and the thousands of individuals we represent.

In May 2010, after a three-year effort, the planning team for the San Jose-Santa Clara Water

Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) revealed three land use alternatives for the Plant Master Plan.

While we appreciate the attempt to provide alternatives, the alternatives are so similar that they

fail to provide an adequate range of alternatives for good planning. The proposed alternatives

consist of the same elements at various proportions. We argue that the three presented

alternatives fail to analyze an adequate range of possibilities for the treatment plant land, and fall

short of the excellent planning we all hope for. All three alternatives inherently provide the same

option – significant development unrelated to the water treatment purpose of the plant, and

significant development unrelated to the current and historical ecology of the Bay, the land and

nature in the area.

Proper planning requires the development of a truly different alternative. We urge planners to

return to the drawing table and create an “Environment, Ecology and Water Alternative” that

would allow developed land uses solely for development addressing the water treatment purpose

of the plant. All other land uses should be based on the existing environment, view-sheds,

ecology, connectivity, the historic Bay ecology and environment, and recreational uses consistent

with the ecology and the nature of the land and its restoration.

Asking the public to select one of the three proposed alternatives channels the input by survey

participants to a predetermined set of very similar outcomes. The undersigned organizations

request that the planning team develop the fourth “Environment, Ecology and Water Alternative” and offer it to the public for review.

While there have been subsequent improvements in the planning, there is still no proposal set forth to consider this Environmental Alternative.  Numerous subsequent letters by the organizations jointly, separately, and by individuals have re-emphasized this option, with no indication yet received that it will be forthcoming.

We understand the reasoning that leads planners to think of economic advantages to developing this open space, a reasoning that often, and often erroneously, drives every other plan to pave and build over.  If that is the path that is ultimately taken by the decisionmakers and the public, then so be it, but good planning, responsiveness to environmental need, and the law itself demand consideration of the Environmental Alternative.  We urge you to help this happen.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

(As an experiment, we'll see if we can include below the video segment of when I spoke at the City Council.  It's only 1 minute long, so it will include speakers before me and after me.  -Brian)

CGF's Action Alert and joint letter on the 2,600 acres of Bayside land in the Wastewater Treatment Plant area

(CGF sent out the Action Alert below regarding the Wastewater Pollution and Control Plant used by San Jose, Santa Clara, and surrounding cities, and situated on 2,600 acres of mostly-undeveloped Bayside land.  -Brian)

Dear Friend,

The 2,600 acres of mostly-natural Bayside habitat visible north of Highway 237 is undergoing a massive planning process that could both help and harm the environment.  This area contains the massive wastewater treatment plant serving San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, and neighboring cities, and the aging plant must undergo major upgrades.  New technologies open up possibilities for restoring natural habitats but also make unnecessary sprawl possible in buffer lands.  Please submit comments by January 30 telling the planners to stop excluding from consideration an Environmental Alternative that keeps the land in its current use of wastewater treatment and natural habitat without unnecessary, unrelated development!

Why this is important

This is one of the largest, if not the largest, Bayside habitat areas in the South Bay that is not permanently protected. Originally the treatment plant needed unoccupied buffer lands because of odors and because of the need for sewage settling ponds.  The uplands of the property function as one of the last strongholds of our diminishing burrowing owl populations, while lowlands are wetlands and former sewage pond buffer lands which offer the extremely rare chance to restore natural habitats.

What's happening

New, closed-building sewage treatment systems eliminate the need for settling ponds and may reduce odors that previously required bufferlands north of Highway 237.  Developers see the possibility of using publicly-owned land for commercial developments, city governments see potential revenues from the developments, but the public can see the possibility of protecting the crucial habitat and getting a tiny fraction back of all that has been lost.

What you can do

The planning process has focused on variations of future plans for the 2,600 acre property, all of them with some valuable environmental components, but all of them also including commercial development.  Committee for Green Foothills and a broad coalition other environmental organizations have been saying for months that the process must include at least one Environmental Alternative that stays with the original uses of the area - water treatment and natural habitat, with only low-impact recreational uses included that do not fundamentally affect the property.

Comments are being accepted at the main website for the planning process:

Please comment by January 30, telling them to stop excluding the Environmental Alternative proposed by environmental groups, and to allow the public consideration of this one alternative that best preserves the environment by excluding unnecessary development that is unrelated to water treatment, leaving the remainder the land as natural and restored habitat.

Submit your comments here:  http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/go/doc/1823/988947/Draft-Recommended-Alternative-Jan-2011

For more information on the Environmental Alternative, read our letter here:  http://greenfoothills.blogspot.com/2011/01/cgf-coalition-letter-on-environmental.html

More information on the plant is here:  http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/

CGF-Coalition letter on Environmental Alternative for Bayside Water Treatment Plant

(CGF and a coalition of environmental groups sent the letter below last summer about the 2,600 acre wastewater treatment plant area north of Highway 237 that is currently undergoing master planning.  -Brian)


June 28, 2010

Matt Krupp, Project Planner
Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan
Santa Clara San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant

Re: Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan Alternatives

Dear Mr. Krupp,

We submit this position on the Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan Alternatives on behalf
of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Committee for Green Foothills, Loma Prieta Chapter of
the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, Save The Bay, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge,
Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant
Society, San Francisco Baykeeper, and the thousands of individuals we represent.

In May 2010, after a three-year effort, the planning team for the San Jose-Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) revealed three land use alternatives for the Plant Master Plan.
While we appreciate the attempt to provide alternatives, the alternatives are so similar that they
fail to provide an adequate range of alternatives for good planning. The proposed alternatives
consist of the same elements at various proportions. We argue that the three presented
alternatives fail to analyze an adequate range of possibilities for the treatment plant land, and fall
short of the excellent planning we all hope for. All three alternatives inherently provide the same
option – significant development unrelated to the water treatment purpose of the plant, and
significant development unrelated to the current and historical ecology of the Bay, the land and
nature in the area.

Proper planning requires the development of a truly different alternative. We urge planners to
return to the drawing table and create an “Environment, Ecology and Water Alternative” that
would allow developed land uses solely for development addressing the water treatment purpose
of the plant. All other land uses should be based on the existing environment, view-sheds,
ecology, connectivity, the historic Bay ecology and environment, and recreational uses consistent
with the ecology and the nature of the land and its restoration.

Asking the public to select one of the three proposed alternatives channels the input by survey
participants to a predetermined set of very similar outcomes. The undersigned organizations
request that the planning team develop the fourth “Environment, Ecology and Water Alternative”
and offer it to the public for review.

Respectfully,
Brian A. Schmidt                                         David Lewis
Legislative Advocate                                  Executive Director
Santa Clara County                                    SAVE THE BAY

Charles G. Schafer                                   Eileen P. McLaughlin
Chair, Executive Committee                     Advocate, San Jose Shoreline
Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club              Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

Michele Beasley                                      Mondy Lariz
Senior Field Representative,                    South Bay Director
Greenbelt Alliance                                 Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition

Shani Kleinhaus                                        Kevin Bryant
Environmental Advocate                           Chapter Council Chair
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society         Santa Clara Valley Chapter
                                                               California Native Plant Society

Deb Self                                                  Hon. Clysta Seney
Executive Director                                 Former Director, District 3
SF Baykeeper,                                      Santa Clara County Open Space Authority


CC:
John Stufflebean, Director
City of Jose Environmental Services Department

More pictures of Cargill as part of San Francisco Bay

Arizona developers are denying that Cargill ponds are part of San Francisco Bay.  Below is more evidence to the contrary.

-Brian

Tackling the rise in SF Bay levels

Climate change-induced sea level rise will have a similar effect on San Francisco Bay, leaving planners, taxpayers, and environmentalists with a difficult problem in how to manage the rising Bay. The Chronicle covers some interesting and highly speculative ideas entered in a recent contest:

Once they would have been the stuff of science fiction: shimmering levees of
water that shield cities, or laser beams slicing across water through the
night.

In fact, these are two of six winners announced Tuesday in a
design competition that responds to a real-life threat - scientific projections
that in the century to come, the sea level of San Francisco Bay could climb 55
inches beyond today's high tide.
"We need to rethink how we build along the
shoreline, but we didn't have the answers," said Will Travis, executive director
of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which
organized the competition. "So we decided to cast the net for ideas."

The ideas can be seen here. I skimmed through a few, and any solution is going to be expensive. This is something that both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties are going to have to deal with, soon.

It would be interesting to see how much could be saved if aggressive action on climate cut the Bay level increase in half.

-Brian

The great San Francisco Bay snail migration (with some exaggeration)

One nice aspect of our office on Bayshore Road is it's sufficiently close to the Baylands that I can get out on occasional walks. One day recently I had a burrito lunch walk, ending up on a wooden platform extending a little ways over the water at high tide. Everywhere under the shallow surface were snails, slowly moving about.

Seeing snails was nothing new, but this time I stayed in one place long enough to see something different. The seemingly-random, slow snail movement was actually converging on a submerged tidal channel, where a higher concentration of snails were already moving downstream - thousands of snails as far as I could see, in some kind of migration.

I don't really know what was going on. It was shortly after high tide, so the snails may have just been moving to keep below water level. Or maybe it was a real seasonal migration of some type. Still, I felt lucky to have this mini-revelation of a natural process going on in a place I had been to dozens of times before.

Another reason to keep in mind the value of easily-visited, local open space, giving us a chance for revelations that we don't see in our first visit.

-Brian