Training for change

The environmental community needs strong leaders volunteering at local government commissions, and hopefully even running for office. Acterra is starting a new leadership program "Be the Change," that will help people acquire the skills and knowledge so they can take up the work our local communities need, in a variety of ways. You can find out more about it here, deadline for applying is June 15th.

(And after you're done, we'd love to have you come and volunteer with us here at CGF!)

Principles for resolving the Williamson Act issues in Santa Clara County

Along with our Action Alert on Williamson Act issues, CGF submitted the following memo that gives an expanded version of the working principles we think should be used to resolve compliance problems in Santa Clara County.

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


To: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
From: Committee for Green Foothills
Date: May 31, 2005

Re: Proposed working principles for resolving Williamson Act Issues in Santa Clara County


The Committee for Green Foothills proposes the following principles for resolving problems with Williamson Act compliance in Santa Clara County:

1. Each Williamson Act constitutes an agreement between the landowner and the taxpayers – the taxpayers have agreed to pay higher taxes than the landowner has to in order to preserve farming and ranching for ten years. Cancellation of contracts (as opposed to non-renewal) is appropriately disfavored and subject to a penalty because the taxpayers lose that medium term, ten-year protection.

2. Landowners have developed and subdivided land under Williamson Act contracts in ways that contravene their contracts. These violations have occurred while the County has been deficient in protecting the taxpayers’ side of Williamson Act contracts over the years, by allowing development and subdivisions that harms farming and ranching. Taxpayers and the state are appropriately upset over non-compliance by landowners and non-enforcement by the County. The past violations are not grounds for landowners to demand continued non-enforcement of Williamson Act contracts. The County, instead, must start protecting the taxpayers’ interest in the Williamson Act.

3. Developers and others who purchased lands based on their own expectation that non-enforcement of Williamson Act in the past will continue in the future, made that purchase at their own risk.

4. The simplest method for landowners to end Williamson Act restrictions on their property is to file non-renewal of the contract, and start the ten-year clock to allow development.

5. The per-acre value of small parcels (less than 10 acres of prime land or less than 40 acres of non-prime land) carved from larger parcels after Williamson Act restrictions were in place have mushroomed over the value the acreage would have had if it had been retained in a large parcel. If people want to cancel the contracts now, the land they possess already has greatly appreciated in value, so there is no clear reason why the 12.5% cancellation fee should be waived.

6. Preservation as open space rather than agricultural use would be worth considering in the County for properties that are not viable for farming and ranching. However, the County should be careful about immediately switching viable Williamson Act properties to Open Space contracts merely to facilitate monster mansion development.

7. Monster mansions can interfere with the continuing viability of farming and ranching on a property both by directly interfering with agricultural operations, and by making the property only financially available to those who want the monster mansion, not genuine farmers and ranchers who want to continue agricultural operations. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “incidental” as “[s]ubordinate to something of greater importance; having a minor role.” A monster mansion will substantially detract from the ability to keep a property in agricultural operations and therefore will not be an “incidental” use.

8. For very large parcels, the size of the residence may be less important. A rancher with the financial ability to buy a 5,000 acre ranch will likely be able to afford the cost of a larger residence on-site, while a rancher investigating a 70 acre parcel might not be able to afford a large residence on site.

9. Some flexibility in proving agricultural use is necessary, but the County must not create a loophole where landowners providing essentially no agricultural use are taking a tax subsidy. While the $10,000 annual gross income figure is too large for many parcels involved in ranching and hay production, some criteria must be used that demonstrates more than token agricultural use, and that demonstrated use should scale to the size of the parcel. Proof of actual agricultural use for 1000 acres should be more substantial than that needed for 40 acres.

10. The County should enforce the Williamson Act through the use of penalty provisions provided by law for illegal construction as well as any other actions necessary to retain the ability for Williamson Act properties to remain viable for farming and ranching.

News roundup

Nice article about the beautiful and endangered San Francisco garter snake in the Chron. CGF Board Member Chris Powell has a quote in the article about the importance of small animals to the environment.

The Mercury News has two articles of interest: first, that the landslides that destroyed homes in Southern California are equally a threat up here, which is still more reason for protecting hillsides and ridgelines from development. Also, a sad article on the loss of vineyards in San Jose. We may have some concerns about planting new vineyards that remove natural habitats, but long-established vineyards are certainly far better than sprawl. The article says you can't stop progress, but we question what they call progress, and we know that if we try, we can stop sprawl.

And not quite in Santa Clara County but I'm reporting it anyway: just south in Pinnacles National Monument is one of the world's bee biodiversity hotspots. “The Pinnacles has about one-thousandth of 1 percent of land mass of the contiguous United States, and we have 10 percent of U.S. bee species.”

-Brian

Some good news in San Jose

I spoke at the San Jose Planning Commission last night to ask them to consider our recommendations for reducing the cumulative impact from impervious surfaces on San Jose watersheds. They were very receptive, and asked me to do a joint presentation with City staff at a study session.

I also asked them to start overhauling the environmental review process and match what Santa Clara County did. In an important way, San Jose has a worse system than Santa Clara County did - in San Jose, the developers hire the consultants that prepare preliminary versions of environmental documents, giving all the initial control and knowledge to the developers, and raising the prospect that no truly independent review is done by the City. While the County had a legal problem in how they handled the process, San Jose simply has a bad and archaic process.

The reaction to this was a little confused, with the City Attorney saying the decision on changes belonged to the Planning Director, not the Commission. Regardless, the Commission can give recommendations, and I hope that will happen before too long.

All in all, then, some good news and some decent news from San Jose.

-Brian

Pigeon Point Park?

The front page of today’s Mercury News has wonderful news: the Pigeon Point Lighthouse is, as of today, in the hands of the California Parks Department.

This landmark building is the site of a long-fought battle in which CGF and others opposed the development at Pigeon Point of a bed and breakfast on Whaler’s Cove, a key coastal parcel with great historical and ecological value.

After our continued vociferous opposition, with the construction half-finished, the developer sold the four-acre property to Peninsula Open Space Trust.

POST has transferred its controversial property to State Parks as well.

-Kathy

We're watching you look around, Stanford

A little bird tells us that someone has commissioned a phone survey of Menlo Park residents to ask their opinions of Stanford, of increased development by Stanford, and their opinion of the Committee for Green Foothills.

The callers aren't saying who they're working for, but we know they aren't working for us, and that leaves a pretty short list of suspects.

So whoever requested the survey (let's call him Stan) wants to know what people think about development in the foothills, about Stanford's proposed hotel on Highway 280, about potential expansion of Stanford hospitals, about increased housing, and about moving car dealerships from El Camino to Highway 101. And of course, about attitudes towards the Committee for Green Foothills, the only environmental group they specifically mentioned.

So what's this survey all about? Is my alma mater up to something besides the proposed hotel? We've long maintained that Stanford's aggressively pro-development, no-restrictions-on-foothills-sprawl attitude has harmed their relationship to the community. If Stan is trying to figure out whether that's true, we're glad they're investigating.

Alternatively, Stanford has a new person in charge of community relations, David Demarest. David was hired from outside Stanford, and previously worked in Washington D.C. Commissioning a poll about local attitudes is something I'd expect from an outsider and from someone who comes from Washington D.C. Again, nothing worrying in that.

But there's also the possibility of new development proposals. The question about hospitals is unsurprising. The question about car dealers is puzzling unless some complicated land swap is under discussion.

The Committee's main charge is open space and natural resource protection, so we would have to consider how relevant any development proposal is to our work. The Highway 280 Hotel is, and the question about development in the foothills is relevant too, so we'll keep watching for Stan's questions.

-Brian

P.S. If anyone else gets surveyed outside of Menlo Park, we'd be very interested to hear about it. Thanks!

Coyote Valley lessons from history

At Sanjoseinside.com, former San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery points out all the bad development history in San Jose, and asks why the history appears to be repeating itself in Coyote Valley. As Tom says, "The question awaits an answer."

-Brian

As the song goes, "Paranoia runs deep...."

But it may be accurate. Yesterday's Coyote Valley Task Force meeting did nothing to reduce the worries we expressed earlier about eliminating San Jose's triggers that forestall development. The meeting did raise a new worry though.

Developer Steve Speno very briefly mentioned the possibility of some type of creative financing tying residential and commercial development together. That set off alarm bells in my mind, because residential development is where the profit lies in the near term market, but commercial development is the trigger/barrier to residential development.

Some of the San Jose insiders I've talked to have downplayed the threat Coyote Valley plays to development in downtown and North First Street because commercial development in Coyote would be more expensive than in the already-developed areas. Now there's a way to creatively finance a solution to this problem.

It would work like this: developers either singly or jointly use residential development to subsidize commercial development in Coyote Valley that is stolen away from central San Jose. They sell commercial land at a significant discount, making little money or even losing money, but they don't care because that sale ultimately results in residential development rights.

In this scenario, I think even the skeptics could see how Coyote Valley would steal business away from central San Jose. Maybe it's good to be paranoid.

-Brian

Did CGF invent a new catch-phrase?

CGF has long opposed oversized residences in rural areas that dominate the visual landscape, suck up resources, and encourage land speculation. I've never been satisfied with the term "monster home" because the word "home" connotes something positive and cozy, which these buildings aren't. Last fall I thought of and began using the term "monster mansion," a more specific and descriptive term.

In today's SF Chronicle, in a teaser to a real estate column:

"Ditch the monster mansion. If designed right, tiny spaces can make perfect homes."

As far as I can tell from Google, we first used the term this way (it's been used for haunted houses). Life's little victories!

-Brian

Update: The Chron apparently rotates different teasers, so you might not see the one printed above if you click on the link.

Trouble in Coyote Valley

A memo signed by Mayor Gonzales and Councilmember Williams suggests that San Jose is trying to abandon its decades-old policy of "triggers" that would restrain Coyote Valley development until the City is prepared to handle the massive growth. The memo is here.

Some of our concerns:

*The concept of "phasing by the willing" seems to mean grow anywhere, in any increment, at any time. This contradicts earlier plans to start growth in a central area. The statement "[d]evelopment may occur in ANY increment and in any location as long as it conforms to the Specific Plan's land use and design guidelines" seems to waive the requirement that 5,000 jobs be located in the region before residential construction begins.

*The memo claims the City Council has approved moving away from budgetary triggers that are intended to insure the City can handle the development. No citation is given, and "moving away" sounds like a vague term to this lawyer. I'd like to see exactly what they're talking about. Again, this functions to eliminate a trigger that would have reduced the extent that Coyote would compete with Downtown and North First Street development in the short term.

*The City continues to ignore City Council direction that the 50,000 jobs planned for Coyote are "primarily" industrial/office jobs, instead all planning has required a minimum of 50,000 industrial/office jobs. This is important because the City is providing insufficient housing for the number of people it wants to work in Coyote. Every extra job without housing translates into sprawl.

*The statement "[s]ubregions (phases) are not required to have geographic continuity" makes no sense, and it doesn't make sense for a reason. The City Council's Outcome #13 focuses on allowing development to move forward "when a subregion has ability to finance the appropriate infrastructure." This memo contradicts that requirement in order to rush development as soon as possible.

*The requirement to preserve farmland to mitigate conversion of farmland applies only to farmland converted to low-density residential development, while imposing no duty mitigate land lost to commercial development or for infrastructure. Again, this makes no sense. All farmland loss in Coyote Valley should be mitigated, just as Gilroy requires (and as many other cities require).

*The memo only requires maintaining the average residential density for the first 30% of the buildout. This suggests that for most of buildout, less-profitable, high density residences can be "backloaded", and then forgotten. The City's goal of 25,000 residences, already inadequate for the jobs planned, will not be met.

In short, every aspect of this memo is intended to accellerate development of Coyote Valley. While this isn't exactly surprising, it is very worrying. We'll be waiting to see what the Coyote Valley Task Force and City Council do with it.

-Brian

Our comments on the Vintage Subdivision project and North San Jose

CGF submitted two short comment letters on the Draft EIRs for a subdivision in the hillsides above Milpitas, and on the large development planned in North San Jose. They're reproduced below.

-Brian

(To see a satellite picture of the Vintage Estate area click here. It's the brown hilly area south of the main road.)
---------
April 25, 2005

Rob Eastwood
Santa Clara County Planning Office

RE: Comments on the Vintage Estates Cluster Subdivision DEIR

Dear Rob:

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments on the Vintage Estates Cluster Subdivision DEIR:

The public hearing should be established at or shortly after the expiration of written comments, not before. CGF has made this suggestion before to the County, that the public hearing will only include substantive comments when commentors have prepared written comments. The hearing for this project was over 2 weeks ago, and we suspect that few comments were received at that hearing. If the County wants to make efficient use of the Planning Commission’s time, it should have a policy that the hearing should coincide or follow the written comment deadline.

Open space monitoring and funding should be a condition of approval, and should make use of the Santa Clara Open Space Authority. We understand that zoning code section 5.45.050(D) 1 states landowner maintenance obligations shall be specified in order to preserve natural resources when part of the environmental mitigations for a project. The landowners themselves do not have the necessary management capability and an inherent bias against spending the resources necessary to do adequate maintenance. The County is not as well situated as the Open Space Authority to maintain the land’s open space character. An adequate mitigation fund and co-dedication of the easement to the OSA would allow proper maintenance.

The mitigation measures required to reduce cumulative visual impacts are feasible. None of the proposed mitigations present undue burdens on the Vintage Estate developers; they are simply conditions that are commonly met by developments in many other parts of the County to avoid creating visual impacts. If the County approves this project, these mitigation measures should be included.

Air quality emissions should include analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. As we have stated in comments on another DEIR that failed to consider greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide is the main pollutant causing global warming, and can have significant environmental impacts. The lack of a regulatory standard for carbon dioxide does not mean that it can be ignored, and other agencies take global warming effects into account. See, e.g., "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" (“The SCAQMD adopted a policy on global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion on April 6, 1990, that committed the SCAQMD to consider global impacts in its rule making and in drafting revisions to the AQMP”) available at www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CH3_rev.doc. For residential development such as this, the County should develop a standardized analysis such as it has for other air emissions, and include construction emissions, vehicle emissions, and ongoing home heating emissions.

If greenhouse gas emissions were found to be cumulatively significant, adequate mitigation funding to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions in the County would be an appropriate and feasible method to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Wetlands mitigation should be required regardless of whether the wetlands identified on-site fall under federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. It is our understanding that state protection for wetlands under the Porter-Cologne Act remains even where federal jurisdiction for protecting wetlands may not exist. See “Effect Of Swancc v. United States On The 401 Certification Program”, available at www.waterboards.ca.gov/cwa401/ docs/stateregulation_memorandum.pdf. Wetland mitigation minimums described in BR-12.3 should therefore apply.

It is also our understanding that the typical mitigation ratio for constructing new wetlands is at least 3:1, not the 1:1 ratio specified in the DEIR at 3.9-28, based on the reason that it is difficult to ensure that newly constructed wetlands will be viable. The ratio described in this DEIR should be modified.

Aside from the above comments, the Committee expresses no opinion on whether this project should be approved.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County
--------------------
April 25, 2005

Andrew Crabtree
Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement

RE: Comments on the North San Jose Development Policies Update Draft Program EIR

Dear Andrew:

The Committee for Green Foothills submits this comment letter on the North San Jose Development Policies Update Draft Program EIR (DEIR). The Committee takes no position regarding whether the City should approve this project and its associated environmental documentation. As a general matter, the Committee supports focusing development in already developed areas, rather than needlessly sacrificing agricultural land as may occur in Coyote Valley.

Land use impacts should include discussion of the effects of the jobs-housing imbalance beyond the City of San Jose. Like Coyote Valley, this project provides insufficient housing to accommodate the increased jobs projected to result from the project. The DEIR notes that the City has had a shortage of jobs compared to the number of employed residents in the City, while failing to note that the majority of nearby jurisdictions have the opposite jobs-housing relationship. The DEIR should discuss the impacts from the project in displacing the people who lived in San Jose and worked nearby – those people are not going to disappear.

Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments, and please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Short posts

The Mercury News gave us a great editorial on our effort to reform the enviromental review process at Santa Clara County:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11440064.htm

And another good article on local endangered species, featuring the checkerspot butterfly we've been working so hard to save on Coyote Ridge:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/11460237.htm

I actually didn't realize the checkerspot had been found throughout the Bay Area, while the current distribution in serpentine habitat just represents the "last stand" of native plant life that the butterfly can use.

The Metro has a fascinating cover story tying local farm production to food banks:


http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.20.05/hunger-0516.html

The Dispatch reviews natural ecology recovery from the Croy fire two years ago in the south County:

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=155470

Fire can be a good thing in the right places. Henry Coe State Park in particular is slowly working on fire management plan that will hopefully result in a more natural fire ecology.

And The Pinnacle has an interesting article on the Calpine power plant set to start producing in Coyote Valley:

http://www.pinnaclenews.com/sv-edition/story.php?id=1


Not the best spot from an open-space perspective, but not something that's likely to change.

And finally, the biggest news item:

Today is Earth Day!! Please enjoy your planet today and this weekend - we'll get back to protecting our planet early on Monday.

-Brian

A public forum on Pilarcitos

The Pilarcitos Creek watershed isn't all that large, but it drains the western slope of the foothills from Skyline to Half Moon Bay, and thus brings quite a lot of water to the Pacific.

The debate about appropriate use of all this water has been going on for more than 140 years. Today its management involves a huge number of public agencies as well as private nonprofits (CGF among them), and the issues - like the water - can get quite muddy.

As a step toward working this all out, CGF and 17 other groups are sponsoring a public forum on restoring the Pilarcitos Creek Watershed. The Half Moon Bay Water Summit will invoke a watershed approach for balancing the competing demands for water in this area.

The forum's next Thursday, April 28 from 9-4pm at the I.D.E.S. Hall in Half Moon Bay.

Admission is free, but pre-registation is required if you want to get in on the complimentary lunch.

For more info call 650-712-7765 or get the details on the CGF calendar.

-Kathy

CGF-Sierra Club comments on Santa Clara County HCP Planning Agreement

Sierra Club asked CGF if we would join them in sending a letter commenting on the Draft Planning Agreement that local agencies are submitting to state and federal wildlife agencies. The agreement would help plan out how the local agencies will develop a Habitat Conservation Plan for Santa Clara County, which will greatly influence future development and wildlife protection in our County. Sierra Club did most of the writing, but I couldn't resist throwing in a few arguments and lawyerish footnotes.

Our organizations will be tracking this process - it'll be a long haul, but we will stay focused on it.

-Brian
--------
Scott Wilson, Central Coast Region
California Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 47
Yountville, CA 94599

April 15, 2005

Re: Proposed Planning Agreement for Santa Clara County Regional NCCP/HCP

Dear Mr. Wilson,

The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club and Committee for Green Foothills are pleased to have the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed planning agreement for the Santa Clara County regional NCCP/HCP. This planning approach has great potential for protecting species and their habitats in light of ongoing demand for development. The key to wildlife and native plant conservation is the continued existence of diverse natural ecosystems and the preservation of native biodiversity. The Sierra Club is committed to maintaining our remaining natural ecosystems, and, where feasible, to the restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems. Wildlife, plants, and their ecosystems have value in their own right, as well as value to humans and to the health of the biosphere. The ecosystem approach inherent in a regional NCCP/HCP is the best tool available today to ensure the long term protection of Santa Clara County’s natural heritage.

Our comments are as follows:

Coyote Valley Must Not be an Exception

As described in the Memorandum of Agreement among Local Partners, it is the intention of the partners to develop a plan that will allow incidental take permit coverage to expand individual projects in exchange for defined mitigation or conservation action. In the draft Planning Agreement, section 5.1.7.5, it is noted that the Coyote Valley Specific Plan (CVSP) is considered an interim project under the agreement and should not be delayed by the HCP/NCCP project. We strongly object to this exception as there is no need for the CVSP to move to completion now or within the planning horizon of the HCP/NCCP. The 7,100 acres of the CVSP is known to have threatened and endangered species and important wetland habitat. As acknowledged at Task Force meetings and within the consultants plans Coyote Valley provides an important wildlife corridor between the Hamilton Range and the Santa Cruz mountains. Furthermore, the serpentine soils of Coyote Ridge are already impacted by car exhaust and other human activities and additional development in the Valley is certain to exacerbate this effect. It is therefore critical that Coyote Valley be considered wholly within the HCP/NCCP process so that impacts across this biologically rich area can be addressed at the ecosystem level.

We further note that the sentence, “Consequently, the Parties agree and acknowledge that the CVSP is an Interim Project under this Agreement and that the CVSP and its implementation will not be delayed by development of the Plan” appears to abdicate, in advance, state and federal agency authority to halt CVSP for violations of FESA and CESA. Prior sentences refer to some unexplained process for using FESA Section 7 compliance for aspects of CVSP that do not appear to involve federal permits, and omits entirely a discussion of how to comply with CESA in the interim. FESA Section 7 will not provide adequate project-wide coverage, the omission of CESA means no CESA protection, and the abdication of responsibility in the last sentence of Section 5.1.7.5 was not even made dependent on fully adequate FESA and CESA compliance through FESA Section 7, assuming such a thing is even possible. This sentence in particular should be deleted.

Section 5.1.7.5 should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with a statement that CVSP should be delayed until the Plan has been developed and accepted by the Wildlife Agencies. Absent that decision to expressly delay CVSP, Section 5.1.7.5 should simply be deleted, which would leave CVSP as being treated no differently than any other proposed interim project. While we oppose treating CVSP as an interim project, the City should at least not be allowed to tie the hands of the Wildlife Agencies in determining how to treat this particular project. It should be made clear in this Agreement that interim projects do not overrule FESA and CESA compliance, but rather state and federal law has the last word, even if that means delaying the interim project until the Plan is complete.(Footnote 1)

Expand the Definition of Species for Inclusion

We would like to see an expansion in the definition of species beyond the limits of legally defined threatened, endangered or special concern. South Santa Clara County has a rich ecological diversity and due to extensive amounts of land in private holdings it is unlikely that current knowledge covers the actual diversity and potential threats. In addition, we would like to see every effort made for a comprehensive species list for consideration as early in the process as possible.

Expand the Geographical Areas Included in the Project

The currently proposed project area covers important habitats ranging from wetlands to serpentine. We strongly urge the continuing inclusion of these areas and offer the following areas to consider for expansion of the project area. The continuing threat of the construction of a highway over Mt. Hamilton raises a need to immediately capture and plan for the existing resources of the area east of Mt Hamilton. Another area that is under significant development pressure is the area just north of Calero Reservoir moving northwest to Highway 17 and north to Highway 85. It includes areas of proposed development on a large scale (South Almaden Urban Reserve), an expanding north Almaden Valley, Santa Teresa Ridge (excellent serpentine habitat) and the Lexington basin.(Footnote 2)

Organizational Structure Must Reflect Commitment to Public Participation

We are disappointed that a stakeholder entity is not provided for in the Local Partners Memorandum of Understanding, Section 8 Organizational Structure and Governance. While there is an acknowledgement of the importance of public participation (Section 14) the lack of an explicit commitment in the organizational structure provides little assurance that meaningful public participation will occur. The description of public participation in the draft planning agreement (section 5.1.6) provides more detail of how stakeholder participation will occurs, yet this document also omits an explicit inclusion of a stakeholder group among participating parties (section 3). It is our intent to apply for formal stakeholder status and work hard to ensure a meaningful public participation process as it is critical to a successful outcome for the project.

The importance of the success of the HCP/NCCP for south Santa Clara County and the future of the area’s diverse ecosystems (from the South Bay to the San Benito county line) should not be underestimated. As recently noted in a local paper, population growth has been strong in Santa Clara County and it is reasonable to expect it to continue into the future. The natural resources of South Santa Clara County require our commitment to protect them. The HCP/NCCP has the potential to not only identify a means to do this, while balancing the demands of growth, but it offers a unique opportunity to bring a wide range of interests together to learn about the delicate balance between nature and society and work towards achieving a long term vision of maintaining that balance in Santa Clara County.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Planning Agreement and provide input into how the Local Partners will work wildlife agencies on the HCP/NCCP for Santa Clara County. We are eager to support this effort and welcome any input from you and the California Department of Fish & Game. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,



Melissa Hippard
Chapter Director



Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate
Committee for Green Foothills

FN.1. Section 5.1.7.3. should reflect this understanding by stating “mitigation may include delaying the project until the Plan is in effect.”

FN.2. We additionally note that all serpentine soil habitat communities should be within the geographic scope of the Plan, not just that of Coyote Ridge.

Good news updates

A "three-per" here:

1. San Jose City Council will require an informational memo from staff on alternatives to Coyote Valley. It wasn't clear to me they would do that, partly because I couldn't hear what a City Council member was saying, but it looks good now. An actual hearing to oversee staff would be better, but this is a start.

2. Last week, Santa Clara County finalized its plan to revise its EIR process and eliminate the "sneak peek" provision giving developers access to documents no one else could see. We've been working on this issue for a long time. The Merc did a write-up here.

3. CGF went out hiking on Coyote Ridge on Saturday to see the best wildflower display in the Bay Area. We hope to someday preserve this area and open it public access so everyone will get the chance to see this beautiful display each spring.

-Brian

Lost a Coyote Valley skirmish, but watch this space

A half-hour ago, San Jose City Council failed to require City staff to present a list of alternatives for Coyote Valley development prior to beginning the EIR for Coyote, despite the fact that staff had promised that list at a previous meeting. The vote couldn't have been closer - it was a tie 5-5 vote, with no one representing District 7 to break the tie. Reed, Lezotte, Yeager, Pyle, and Chirco tried to get staff to come through, while Gonzales, Williams, Chavez, Campos, and Cortese let them off the hook.

At the January 25th City Council meeting, staff made the following promises:

Vice-Mayor Chavez: Does scope of the EIR, will that come to the Council?

Laurel Prevetti: It can, we, I think from the comments we have heard this evening and the interest on the part of the Council to understand the alternatives especially economically I’m thinking that may be the next status report to you so you have a direct say in the alternatives that we look at.

Vice-Mayor Chavez: I think that’s going to be important.

……

Councilmember Reed [to City Planner Laurel Prevetti]: Can you just clarify what’s coming back to us, next?

Laurel Prevetti: Based on the conversation this evening, the next thing will come back to you is a scope of what will be the alternatives for the EIR, I think given the public comments and your own comments as it relates to other studies in our community, we would like to frame those alternatives for your consideration….

Councilmember Reed: Thank you, and is that understood by the maker of the motion [Councilmember Williams], is that what you understand is going to happen? Okay, thank you.


I played the second half of this transcript on a cassette recorder at tonight's hearing - not sure if it seemed overdramatic, but Councilmembers Reed and Pyle seemed unhappy with staff's failure to come through. I'm disappointed though that Vice-Mayor Chavez didn't seem affected by staff's unfulfilled promise.

HOWEVER, watch this space - Councilmember Cortese supported getting a list of alternatives from staff, but didn't want a delay with another hearing. That's something we can now ask for, and I count six votes for that idea. Watch this space.

-Brian

Thinking of an elephant to avoid the death of environmentalism

Two documents have created a great deal of ruckus in the liberal political community and in the environmental community: Don't Think of An Elephant, by George Lakoff, and The Death of Environmentalism, by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger.

Lakoff argues in Don't Think of an Elephant that liberal/progressives have failed to articulate a compelling overall framework that unites their varied constituencies (including environmentalism as belonging to the left), even though an overall psychological framework exists. He criticizes the varied groups for focusing on technocratic solutions to their various problems, and failing to work together.

Meanwhile, Death of Environmentalism argues the environmental movement has been inadequately successful in recent years, and argues that is because the movement has focused on technocratic solutions to environmental problems. The authors state that instead the movement should focus on developing alliances with a broader "progressive" constituency.

Here at the non-partisan, strongly environmental Committee for Green Foothills, we might look at things a little differently.

First, as Mark Schmitt (no relation) argues in "Death and Resurrection", many other movements would deeply envy the supposed underperformance of the environmental movement, with its wide base of support in the public, academia, and in funding instutions. Schmitt points out that wide base of support extends across the political spectrum to include "real Republicans". Ken Ward builds from this point in "Response to 'Death': Part II" in questioning Lakoff's assertion that environmentalism is just a subsidiary part of the partisan left political framework. Ward suggests that environmentalism can be an entirely different framework from that of the left-right partisan split. Given the support for environmentalism among Republicans, including religious conservatives and neo-conservatives, Ward has a point.

This does not mean rejecting everything that Lakoff, Nordhaus, and Shellenberger have said. Building coalitions can be a great way to advance the environmental agenda. We just don't have to limit ourselves to one side of the political spectrum.


-Brian

Green Footnotes article republished by Morgan Hill Times

The Morgan Hill Times contacted us and asked permission to republish our Coyote Valley piece in the latest Green Footnotes as an Op-Ed, which we were very happy to do. It's great to get the extra attention.

The republished article is here, while the original is here.

-Brian

More quarry issues

We've been dealing with problems at the Hanson Quarry, but it's only one of several active quarries in Santa Clara County.

Below is our comment letter on an EIR that would expand the Lexington Quarry. Some of the same issues involving a massive industrial project in a pristine area arise at Lexington as well as Hanson. It's also another example of cooperating with concerned neighbors.

-Brian

---
March 25, 2005

Rob Eastwood
Santa Clara County Planning Office
70 West Hedding St., 7th Floor East Wing
San Jose CA 95110

Email: rob.eastwood@pln.sccgov.org

Dear Rob,

The Committee for Green Foothills submits these comments regarding the Lexington Quarry Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. CGF generally supports the concerns and critiques that the Los Gatos Hillside Preservation League (League) has regarding the DEIR, and we refer you to the League’s forthcoming comment letter for the specifics of their concerns. The League’s concerns indicate flaws in the DEIR that make it an inadequate basis for proceeding with project approval. We wish to emphasize the following points:


· The County failed to consider that existing impacts from the quarry will end earlier without the Project than will be the case if the County approves the Project. In City of Santee v. County of San Diego ((1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438), California courts found inadequate an EIR that failed to consider the future effects of a “temporary” project. Many of the impacts from the currently operating quarry are similarly temporary – expanding the quarry is extending those impacts into the future. Failing to consider the future extension of the quarry’s noise, dust, and other impacts similarly makes this DEIR inadequate.

· We share the League’s concern that the County clearly articulate its own objectives in deciding whether to approve this Project. The DEIR states the applicant’s objectives without indicating whether the County accepts or rejects these objectives. DEIR at 30. The lack of clarity resurfaces in the Alternatives Analysis, where a conclusion refers to an alternative’s failure to meet the applicant’s objectives of making money as quickly as possible. DEIR at 161. If this objective is not the County’s objective, then it is no more relevant than an environmentalist objective - like eliminating all impacts from the quarry as soon as possible and converting the property to private or public open space.

· The DEIR’s Land Use analysis rewards the applicant for its past illegal behavior by emphasizing that the quarry’s permit violations constituted the most noticeable past impact from the quarry. DEIR at 66. No one questions that permit violations had even worse adverse impacts, but that is not the relevant question for the DEIR. Had the quarry not violated its permit, the DEIR would be forced to focus on the operating effects of the quarry in the past and whether those effects are incompatible with surrounding land uses.

· The DEIR states that operation during “proposed normal operating hours” would not result in “new, significant land use compatibility impacts”. DEIR at 66. This analysis ignores the City of Santee requirement that future extension of otherwise temporary impacts be analyzed. The present incompatibility would end sooner without the Project, and this difference was not analyzed in the DEIR.

· In addition to extending the Quarry’s impacts into the future, the DEIR notes expanded operating hours will occur on weekends and evenings. DEIR at 66. The next sentence reads, “While these activities could annoy residents in this relatively quite rural area, they would not constitute a significant land use compatibility impact.” Id. This sentence is a conclusion, not an analysis. Why is the extended operation merely “annoying” and not incompatible with surrounding land uses? CEQA requires substantial evidence in support of the agency’s conclusion, and the DEIR offers no evidence that the extended operation has insignificant impacts. CEQA also requires the DEIR demonstrate the “analytic route” that the agency takes in making its conclusion. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Comm’n. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 547, 556-557. Again, no analysis has been presented. Given that more than one out of four previously quiet Saturdays will be noisy, and that half of the active evening hours of 6 to 10 p.m. will now be noisy, the evidence indicates an incompatible use.

· The DEIR’s Erosion and Sedimentation analysis states that “Timing for planned removal of the rockfall protection fence will be included in the monitoring schedule in the Final Reclamation Plan.” DEIR at 123. The DEIR gives no indication of why it can ever be removed. The DEIR should clarify that the fence may need to be permanent and sufficient mitigation funding included for the fence’s upkeep and replacement.

· The DEIR at pages 94-95 mentions a landslide eroding into the creek that may have resulted from the quarry activities. If it is from the quarry, it is an ongoing violation of state and federal law, and the DEIR should address whether the Project will affect the slide, as well as what steps have been taken to enforce the law.

· A feasible impact from noise impacts includes the use of flashing lights instead of backup beepers under low-light conditions. The Hanson Permanente Quarry makes use of this mitigation, so it should also be applied to the Project. A significant fraction of the work at the Project site will occur under low-light conditions, especially with extended operating hours and especially in the wintertime. The Project should include this mitigation currently by a nearby quarry.

· The DEIR Air Quality analysis does not discuss increased carbon dioxide emissions that result from the Project. Carbon dioxide is the main pollutant causing global warming, which will have significant environmental impacts. The lack of a regulatory standard for carbon dioxide does not mean that it can be ignored, and other agencies take global warming effects into account. See, e.g., "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" (“The SCAQMD adopted a policy on global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion on April 6, 1990, that committed the SCAQMD to consider global impacts in its rule making and in drafting revisions to the AQMP”) available at www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CH3_rev.doc. Here, the increased traffic and increased quarrying activities indicate additional carbon dioxide emissions that could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

· The DEIR states that the purpose of the Project is to induce growth (“a large volume of construction grade rock is needed in Santa Clara County for new development” (DEIR at 30)) and then concludes the project does not have significant growth inducing impacts. DEIR at 166. We believe the conclusion is incorrect based on the fact that the quarry provides a critical element in the development of infrastructure. If the Project provides an important source of construction grade rock for new development, which the County implies it does (DEIR at 30), then the Project must create significant growth-inducing impacts. If the Project is not an important source, then the impacts created by the Project should weigh much more heavily against the minimal benefit that the County derives from its existence.

For the above reasons, we urge the County to not move forward with the Project as proposed. At the present time it may not be possible to end an incompatible land use of industrial quarry operations with an otherwise pristine environment. That provides no reason, however, for making the problem worse.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Impervious surface document -draft for review

This posting is a little different from our others - CGF received a generous grant from the Santa Clara Valley Water District to write a report on the missing analysis of impacts from increased impervious surfaces in Santa Clara County. We have a draft available for review - when the final version comes out it will get a separate fancy webpage.

To make it easier for reviewers to access the draft document, we're posting it here.

By the way, while we will invite specific people to review the draft, comments from anyone will be welcome.

-Brian

Earth's health in trouble

From the SF Chronicle website: "U.N. Study: Earth's Health Deteriorating"


Unless nations adopt more eco-friendly policies, increased human demands for food, clean water and fuels could speed the disappearance of forests, fish and fresh water reserves and lead to more frequent disease outbreaks over the next 50 years, it said.

Something we should keep in mind in the Bay Area.

-Brian

Morgan Hill looking for good people on its Planning Commission

The City of Morgan Hill wants volunteers to serve on its Planning Commission, which I can guarantee would be a great place for some good environmentalists. You have to be a City resident or in the City's Sphere of Influence, which extends a bit beyond the City's boundary.

City describes the Planning Commission below:

7-member Advisory Commission that serves as an advisory body to the City Council on matters related to city growth and development; and on such matters as may be requested by the City Council. The Commission meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. Three vacancies to be filled by June 1, 2005 (4-year term).

For more information about applying, go to the City's website here, and scroll about half-way down. Feel free to contact me about it as well.

-Brian

San Jose illegally polluting the Bay

The Merc reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered San Jose to clean up pollutants it dumps into San Francisco Bay. EPA produced a 28-page list of violations of the Clean Water Act.

Disturbing quote from the article:

Significantly, the city wastewater plant empties into South Bay marshes, where water is less than five feet deep with little tidal action.

``You would be hard-pressed to find a worse place to have toxics getting into the system than the South Bay,'' said Greg Karras, senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment, in Oakland.

``It is a wildlife refuge, and people fish in it, so you have a human health threat exacerbated by this stuff. It is particularly sensitive.''

-Brian

Global warming and open space protection

(Below is another "thought piece" on issues relevant to CGF's work)

Stop global warming – save the Bay Area’s farms and natural areas!

Many Bay Area residents want to stop the global warming that will dry up our water supplies and flood our coastal and Bayside lands, but taking action means more than buying hybrid cars and installing solar panels on homes. Land use planning that organizes our cities and rural areas will also determine how much greenhouse gas we produce. By stopping unplanned sprawl, we can save the undeveloped lands we have every reason to preserve, and direct the population and business growth into urban areas. Efficient use of space will give us the capability to reduce emissions, while sprawl destroys that capability.

If you talk to Bay Area old-timers, they will tell of driving from San Francisco to San Jose through miles orchards and gardens, an area called the Valley of Heart’s Delight. Now, boats and planes spew pollutants as they bring the same produce from distant continents, but much of what we have lost still remains. San Jose cherries, Half Moon Bay artichokes, Gilroy garlic, and grass-fed cattle from around the Bay Area all provide local alternatives to distant products arriving on a wave of petroleum emissions. Our mostly green and forested hillsides also provide a strong contrast to the endless suburbs of Southern California, where residents drive long distances in emission-spewing cars with little public transit.

Fighting global warming will be a marathon, not a sprint, so we need to consider what the Bay Area will be like when we all become the old-timers. Will we just tell our grandchildren about food that was not trucked from far away, about how you could hike locally instead of driving to the Sierras? Or instead of telling, will we show them the same farmlands, ranchlands, and natural areas that we enjoy today in the Bay Area? Our grandchildren’s environment, as well as our effect on the global environment, depend on getting the right answer to land use planning for the Bay Area.

-Brian

Coyote Valley Alternatives letter

San Jose has solicited comments on the alternatives it should consider in the EIR for Coyote Valley. CGF initiated this letter, which was cosigned by Sierra Club and Audubon Society after their input.

-Brian

Stanford trail and hotel news

We've been hearing about a potential hotel on Stanford land near the end of Sand Hill Road. Something like this has been under discussion for years, but news from The Almanac suggests they're getting a little more serious.

The land is undeveloped open space with some environmental value involved. CGF will be following this issue closely.

And Stanford has also been doing some testing in support of expanding an existing trail along Alpine Road. Stanford contends that expanding the existing trail in San Mateo County fulfills its obligation to dedicate a new "C-1" trail in Santa Clara County. We obviously disagree and will be working hard on the issue.

No official news yet on the process for the "S-1" trail Stanford is also supposed to dedicate along the southern part of its property, but that process is a little further along. We should be hearing something about it soon.

-Brian

Cyberspace environmentalism

Brad DeLong has an interesting post about Internet spam as a form of pollution that benefits polluters but harms the cyberspace environment. I thought it's an interesting way to take an environmental analogy and apply it to an "unreal" world.

Brad discusses the typical economist solution to the problem - privatize the property being polluted, and presumably the property owner will protect her property. Just as we know that doesn't always work in the real world, it's not clear to me whether it will work in the cyberworld.

-Brian

Another victory

We didn't give it the same press as when Santa Clara County changed its policy on secret contacts with developers, but on the same day, the County rejected a 25,000 square-foot monster mansion on a ridgeline. CGF Journal describes our work on this here.

The County told the developers to to reduce the size of the building and to take it off the ridgeline where it dominated the views of all the neighbors. Even more important, the County is now beginning a process to consider house size limits and rideline/viewshed protections. We're glad the County wants to deal with the problem in a systematic way, and we hope it will devote the resources to make it happen.

-Brian

Coyote Ridge internship available NOW

The Santa Clara Valley chapter of the California Native Plant Society has for some time been working to protect Coyote Ridge, home to a number of endangered / threatened species and one of the region's most stunning springtime wildflower displays.

As part of that chapter's joint project with Committee for Green Foothills and the Sierra Club, they are looking for an intern to help coordinate Operation Flower Power, a springtime campaign to help protect the ridge.

This is a great opportunity to lend a hand to an important project - and get paid! More details here.

- Kathy

We win! We win! We win!

The title to this post is what I tried to convince our Outreach Director to put as the headline on today's press release, but she went with something more sober:

"Environmental group stops secret County-developer contacts"

Regardless, it's great news - Santa Clara County will stop giving developers favored access to the County's environmental documents, something that we are convinced is both a bad idea and a violation of the Public Records Act. Now we just have to get the rest of the local governments to do the same thing. We applaud Santa Clara County for making the change.

The press release follows:

SANTA CLARA COUNTY ENDS PRACTICE OF SHARING
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ONLY WITH APPLICANTS

SAN JOSE, CA – This week Santa Clara County ended its practice of providing preliminary environmental documents to project applicants while refusing public access to the documents and refusing to show how developers had affected the assessment of their projects’ environmental impacts.
Concerned that negotiations were going on behind closed doors, grassroots environmental group Committee for Green Foothills challenged that practice months ago, but County staff denied that the group had a right to see the drafts.
At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting, County Counsel admitted that the County’s practice might be found illegal by a judge, and the County announced it would change its policy.

County shared preliminary drafts with Stanford

Committee for Green Foothills Legislative Advocate Brian Schmidt discovered the illegal practice in this course of his review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for Stanford University’s S1 trail. When he found that the County had shared preliminary drafts with Stanford officials -- allowing them to review and argue for changes -- Schmidt became concerned that the County had been in back-room discussions with Stanford, one of the County’s largest landowners, as well as other developers.

The County released the records from its Stanford trail documents to Committee for Green Foothills in January after the organization filed a formal request under the Public Records Act, but the County still maintained that it didn’t need to change its practice.

“Not only was this practice illegal because it excludes citizen review and biases decision-making in favor of development, it made for bad planning,” says Schmidt. “Developers have no special right to influence the government’s analysis, and allowing just one side to argue its case sets the stage for an incomplete analysis.”

Public Records Act request leads to change in policy

County staff argued that it was appropriate to limit access of preliminary versions of Draft EIRs because a later, publicly available Draft EIR allowed public access. Committee for Green Foothills disagreed, as it becomes much more difficult to change an environmental analysis after a Draft EIR has been published. The organization asked for a change in policy so that the playing field would be equal for developers, environmentalists, and the public.

Schmidt also argued that this policy biased the planning process and was illegal under the Public Records Act. The policy also violated Proposition 59, a recent voter amendment to the state constitution that maximizes public access to government records.

This week the County decided to end the previous policy, and will study choices on how to replace it.

“Committee for Green Foothills is dedicated to ensuring that the land use planning process is fair and open to the public, especially so that it allows the public to learn about and become involved in issues that might pose environmental concerns,” Schmidt said. “This is a win for open decision-making in Santa Clara County. We know that other governments including San Jose, Morgan Hill, and San Mateo County, also share draft documents with developers, and we will be working to ensure fair access in those jurisdictions as well.”

Santa Clara County may choose to make the preliminary drafts of environmental documents available to all who request them. Alternatively, the County could keep all preliminary drafts confidential (to the extent allowed under the Public Records Act), sharing them with no one. Either of these practices would end the previous unfair practice, which allowed developers and applicants unequal access, input and influence in the process.

# # #

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, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

Audubon, MROSD, mercury ...

Lots of news to blog about!



The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society has announced their new Executive Director, Brenda Torres. CGF works extensively with Audubon and we welcome Brenda to the neighborhood. She is replacing outgoing E.D. Craig Breon, who will be greatly missed.



A new guidebook to MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, "Peninsula Tales and Trails" was reviewed in the Palo Alto Weekly by Acterra Executive Director Michael Closson. "Tour de force" is the summary. CGF advocacy helped protect many of the properties now managed by MROSD, and CGF support helped establish MROSD itself, so the guidebook is a welcome new publication.



On the national stage, the New York Times reports on disputes regarding control of mercury pollution in the United States, much of which comes from coal burning. The quote at the end states "Nearly every state in the country has issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury-poisoned waters." This includes reservoirs in our region, such as the Stevens Creek Reservoir. The nearby Hanson Quarry burns coal to power its cement plant. CGF recently met with Hanson staff who doubt their plant is responsible for Stevens Creek, pointing out that mercury is found naturally in the area. We will keep watching this issue.



-Brian

Think globally, eat locally

There's been quite a bit of buzz around David Mas Masumoto's recent book, "Epitaph for a Peach: Four Seasons on My Family Farm," which describes the passions and challenges of this third-generation farmers working in the San Joaquin Valley.



Masumoto's book has been selected for the Mercury News' "Silicon Valley Reads" program (note: this program's website includes a list of other great reads about agriculture as well).



In today's Merc, Leigh Weimers writes about the Silicon Valley Reads kickoff speech Masumoto gave in San Jose earlier this week.



He also plugs an interesting-looking panel of four local fruit growers who will discuss local – and quality – produce next Thursday, February 10. It’s at 7pm at the Almaden Expressway/Blossom Hill Road Barnes & Noble, and it’s free.



I’d say it’s well worth an evening to hear fruit tree collector Andrew Mariani, long-time farmer Phil Cosentino, cherry guru Charlie Olson, and ag attorney/ fruit grower Todd Kennedy. There’s probably a lot we can learn from these guys.



- Kathy

Santa Monica's sustainable landscaping program

Taking a look at interesting programs in other areas, I came across Santa Monica's program to provide grants for landscaping that replaces water-thirsty turf and other plants with water-conserving landscaping, including native plants. Sustainable landscaping has not been a focus of CGF, but it's not completely unrelated, either. Some of the water that the good citizens of Santa Monica have been pouring on their lawns was diverted from its original destination, the San Francisco Bay. Conserving that water is a great idea. And just as CGF is concerned with conserving natural, open areas, making developed areas more natural also seems like a good idea.



-Brian

Forum this Sunday on conservation easements

Today's the last day to register for an interesting-looking community forum put together by the League of Women Voters, and cosponsored by CGF (among others), Conservation Easements: Land Preservation Tools for Local Communities.



The afternoon will include two panel discussions on conservation easements and open space easements, two important tools communities can use to protect open space.



And don't miss a special presentation awarding the Mary and Wallace Stegner Award for Environmental Stewardship to CGF co-founder Lois Crozier-Hogle, who recently announced the donation of an 11-acre conservation easement.



The forum's this Sunday, February 6 from 3-5 pm, at Congregation Beth Am (26790 Arastradero Road, Los Altos Hills), and it's free! To register (required), call 650-941-4808 or email couperus@mindspring.com.



More info on our calendar.



- Kathy

Could be worse - news on Coyote Valley

We would like San Jose to take a break on developing Coyote Valley, considering that more appropriate prospects for urban redevelopment exist that could be hurt by siphoning business to the south. We knew, however, that this was unlikely, so the next best news is that San Jose did NOT clear the deck for an Environmental Impact Report necessary for developing Coyote Valley. Following Morgan Hill Mayor Kennedy's suggestion (and maybe my own encouragement), the City directed staff to produce a list of alternatives for developing Coyote Valley prior to beginning the actual EIR.



Unfortunately, the Mercury News missed this change when it reported on the Tuesday's events. It's important because the public may have a chance for real input on what alternatives should be considered - staff is usually very hesitant to add alternatives after they have gone through the trouble of creating an EIR.



The Merc also had an editorial saying the EIR should go forward. We obviously disagree, and the step the City did take was better than simply plunging ahead.



By the way, I'll be doing a radio call-in interview on 91.5 FM community radio shortly after 10 p.m. tonight, which could be heard mostly in areas south of Palo Alto down to San Benito County. Audubon Society's Craig Breon will be hosting, and we'll discuss Coyote Valley.



-Brian

Coyote Valley/HCP news

The Gilroy Dispatch has a very informative article on how a delay in the County's Habitat Conservation Plan is playing into attempts to develop Coyote Valley. The Dispatch quotes CGF several times in the article.



And the Pinnacle newspaper has the latest news on the Coyote Valley Task Force approving an outline of the overall plan for the valley. Things are heating up over this sorely mistaken project - we will do everything we can to stop it or at least to minimize the damage it will cause.



-Brian

CGF takes legal action to stop sprawl

Yesterday, CGF and Save Almaden Valley Rural Alliance filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court to stop San Jose's illegal effort to bring sprawl to Almaden Valley. Read about our lawsuit here, and for more information about threat to Almaden, see our Action Alert here.



San Jose has an unfortunate reputation of only listening to environmental groups after the groups have sued the City. Hopefully the City will listen now, or the courts are going to make them listen.



-Brian

News bits

The Metro has a nicely-titled "Secrets 'R' Us" piece, half-way down its collection of news items titled "The Fly". Metro picks up where The Pinnacle newspaper left off on the story of how CGF is fighting the County's attempts to disclose environmental documents to developers while locking them away from everyone else.





The Merc has a good article on fighting invasive plant species in San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties. This is an issue that may eventually involve CGF - invasive species are generally considered the second biggest threat to biological diversity in developed countries, with habitat loss being the number one problem. The article describes how nurseries stock invasive plants for landscaping that promptly escape and damage the environment. Voluntary action by nurseries to stop selling these plants would be welcome, but government regulation may also be needed.



Finally, the Gilroy Dispatch describes increasing interest in having the City of Gilroy join the Santa Clara Open Space Authority. Gilroy is the only part of Santa Clara County that is not included in an open space district government. Something else that needs support.



-Brian

"My higher power was a cow"

The quote above is from a 21-year-old recovering alcoholic who found sobriety at a farm treatment center in Sonoma County, described in the San Francisco Chronicle. The organic farm/drug addiction treatment center has apparently had successes where more traditional programs have failed.



This example shows the value of preserving rural lands near to urban areas, by helping people find and retain an inner sense of peace. It also shows how farming can be done differently in the Bay Area - not that thousands of farmland acres can now become treatment centers, but rather as one example of how Bay Area farms can diversify and find special niches where they remain relevant to modern life.

Numero Uno - Comite para las Colinas Verdes

That's the "Committee for Green Foothills" in Spanish, and now (thanks to our webmaster Kathy Switky's work) almost all of the information on CGF's website can be automatically translated into Spanish with a single click of the mouse. From our front page, a Spanish reader just clicks on the button labelled in Spanish on the left hand side of the page and almost everything from then on is translated. Some English remains where the words are saved as images instead of text, but the vast majority gets translated. My Spanish is a little rusty, but my reading of the translation is that it gets the point across, which is the whole point of communicating. A quick review of other area environmental group websites indicates that CGF is the first - numero uno! - to do this in our area (Sierra Club does have a translation for national level activities). One more step in environmental outreach!



-Brian

Looking to the future

An excellent Op-Ed in today's Merc by Tom Steinbach from Greenbelt Alliance looks to the future of San Jose and says if "Downtown North" is developing, why develop Coyote Valley?



We may not be quite as enthusiastic about the North First Street development as Greenbelt (see our post here), particularly because of the jobs-housing imbalance, but the point is right on target that Coyote Valley is not needed for development. Any growth that does occur in San Jose should be more central and not destroy farmlands. This Op-Ed brings Greenbelt and other environmental groups even closer towards common ground regarding Coyote Valley, so it is a great way to welcome in the new year.



-Brian

Looking to the past

"Throwing a Long Shadow" is the title of a new exhibit opening Sunday at the Los Altos History Museum featuring CGF's cofounder, the author/environmentalist Wallace Stegner. More information about the exhibit is at the museum website, here.



The Merc has a good article on the man other authors have called the only American author who deserved a Nobel Prize.



CGF is co-sponsoring the exhibit, featuring materials from our archives. I have read simple comment letters on environmentally-destructive projects that Stegner wrote, just like the ones I write today. The difference, however, is that even his comment letters were works of art. Definitely throwing a long shadow.



-Brian

Proposed casino moved away from Santa Clara County

In somewhat-good news for controlling sprawl in Santa Clara County, a proposal to place a Native American casino right across the border in San Benito County has been moved further south, to just north of Hollister. The original location was in an environmentally-sensitive floodplain and wildlife migration corridor shared between the two counties, and was close enough to promote sprawl in Gilroy. The new location eliminates some of those impacts, but would still increase traffic on Highway 101 that would ratchet up pressure to widen the highway, and may still have growth impacts on Santa Clara County. As The Pinnacle newspaper article above notes, many issues still surround this controversial project.

Coastside: Bedford Falls or Pottersville?

Last week's Half Moon Bay Review includes a thought-provoking editorial by Montara resident Barry Parr, who compares alternate realities for the San Mateo County Coast.



This is just the kind of long-range thinking that inspires those of us at Committee for Green Foothills. As the editorial says, together we CAN create the positive vision provided by Bedford Falls, and keep Pottersville from coming to our communities.



- Kathy

Breaking the law....

Breaking the law - don't do it!



That's what we're saying to Santa Clara County and other jurisdictions that are giving developers access to environmental documents while locking out the rest of us. Here's our latest letter.



-Brian

Secret developer access exposed

The Pinnacle newspaper in south Santa Clara County did an in-depth article about the issue CGF exposed - developers are given access to draft environmental documents to review those documents and argue for changes while environmentalists are excluded.



Two points we can add here - County staff said giving equal access to environmentalists would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It would not - all the County would have to do is to respond to requests for the same documents the County was already giving to developers.



Second, Supervisor Gage compared the process to the County reviewing financial audit reports before they became public, and said there's nothing wrong the developers doing the same thing with environmental documents. The difference is between who's in charge of the process - the County commissions audit reports which belong to the County, but environmental documents do not belong to developers. They belong to the people of the County, and if one member of the public - a developer - can get to see them, then so should anyone else who requests the opportunity.



-Brian

San Jose to worsen the jobs-housing balance

San Jose has long (and justifiably) complained that north Santa Clara County cities would build tax-revenue-increasing business developments while failing to provide tax-revenue-decreasing housing. San Jose and areas south and east are then forced to provide housing for the North County jobs, resulting in sprawl and long commutes.



Taking this lesson to heart, San Jose now wants to become like its north County sister cities. With the planned development of Coyote Valley and North First Street, San Jose will also have insufficient housing. Given that the region as a whole is so deficient in housing, San Jose's action will significantly harm the overall region.



Here's our latest letter to the City on the subject (included free in the letter is an argument requiring farmland protection).



-Brian

MROSD wants your input

The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has just posted a Visitor Satisfaction Survey on their newly designed website. Let them know what you think!



Their new site is beautiful, and much easier to use than the old design. I particularly like the new preserve finder - check it out.



- Kathy

Stanford's improved finances to affect construction?

There's been relatively little construction on Stanford campus pursuant to the 2000 General Use Permit, but much of that lull could be attributed to finances. Things may be changing:



"The university’s investment returns last year were $1.7 billion. The university’s endowment is now $9.9 billion, up from $8.6 billion a year ago."



We'll need to keep a watch on the pace of construction, to see if it's affected by this. Spending the extra cash on environmental research and conservation would be extremely welcome.



-Brian

Fighting the monster mansion

We've been opposing a "monster mansion" on the outskirts of San Jose. It was first described as a 17,000 square-foot residence on a hilltop. It turns out to be actually 25,000 square feet. The environmental documentation needs to be redone, and Santa Clara County needs to put an upper limit on resource-consuming, speculation-inducing monster mansions.





The property is located above the white rectangle in the aerial photo above (thanks, Keyhole!). Most of the homes directly below and to the right of the white rectangle were not considered in the visibility analysis of the project, and we suspect that they will find the monster mansion dominating their views of the hills.



Here are our two letters about the project, beginning with the most current, December 3, 2004.



For more details, see our September 7th letter.



We'll keep working to fix these problems!



-Brian