NEWS RELEASE: Environmentalists call for fewer new monster mansions on hillsides following the Santa Cruz Mountains fire

(CGF sent out the following news release yesterday. -Brian)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 26, 2008


PRESS CONTACTS:
Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate
phone (650) 968-7243,

Environmentalists call for fewer new monster mansions on hillsides following the Santa Cruz Mountains fire


Committee for Green Foothills called today for the Santa Clara County to reconsider environmental reforms that would reduce the number of new hillside "monster mansions" in the wake of the ongoing, 4,000 acre Summit Fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. "Taxpayer money and firefighters' lives should not be risked for more and more inappropriate, 'monster mansions' on the hillsides," said CGF Advocate Brian Schmidt. "Two years ago, the Committee for Green Foothills and other environmental groups sponsored the Measure A environmental initiative in Santa Clara County in 2006 that would have reduced new development in hillside areas, specifically including the area in the County that is now on fire. Our initiative failed by less than one-half of one percent, due to a half-million dollars spent by outside Realtors' groups from Southern California and from their national headquarters in Chicago. We now call on Santa Clara County to undertake new measures to limit inappropriate new development."

Committee for Green Foothills argues that more development in the hills increases the chance of someone doing something that starts a fire, while also making firefighting more dangerous and expensive as firefighters seek to rescue people and protect property. Schmidt said, "We're not trying to take away existing homes or even ending all new construction in the hills, but we need to stop adding to sprawl by putting more and more buildings in these fire-prone areas, especially large mansions that are difficult to protect and harder to rescue people from."

Last year, Santa Clara County Supervisors supported a motion by Supervisor Ken Yeager to draft a new ordinance toughening enforcement of fire regulations. "While the County has made a good first step, a lot more must be done," Schmidt said. "The County now lets land developers to deviate from the standard minimum parcel size in areas designated as 'Hillsides' and put up to eight times more development through a 'cluster subdivision'
process. This cluster subdivision option should be eliminated in areas with significantly elevated fire risk."

Other possibilities include enactment of certain portions of the Measure A initiative during upcoming revisions for the County's General Plan.
Residential building size limits to avoid "monster mansions" have also been supported by environmentalists, and giant structures favored by developers create more fire risks and are more difficult to defend.

# # #
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 about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

CGF comment on the Santa Cruz Mountains fire

(KQED had a radio program this morning about the Santa Cruz Mountains fires. We emailed in the following short comment - it didn't get into the show, but I thought we should share it. -Brian)


I work for Committee for Green Foothills, an organization that along with others sponsored the Measure A environmental initiative in Santa Clara County in 2006 that would have reduced new development in hillside areas, specifically including the area in the County that is now on fire. Our initiative failed by less than one-half of one percent, due to a half-million dollars spent by outside Realtors' groups from Southern California and from their national chapter.

We are continuing to work on measures to reduce sprawl, and these measures will decrease the chance of human-caused fires and the risk the fires will create. We hope that public support will make these efforts successful, and we welcome public input.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

Vacancy on the Santa Clara County Parks Commission

There's a vacancy on the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Commission, which would be a great place for a good environmentalist to get involved with local government. The announcement's here: http://www.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/SCC%20Public%20Portal/keyboard%20agenda/BOS%20Agenda/2008/May%2020,%202008/KeyboardTransmittal-0011957.PDF

Shortened version of URL here:
http://tiny.cc/KQQOE

While it says the vacant term ends next month, I think that's either a mistake or that a new four-year term starts afterward. The appointment is allocated to Supervisorial District 3 (McHugh), but I'm not sure if the applicant has to be from that district, as opposed to just being appointed by that Supervisor.
-Brian

Problem with Santa Clara County Parks funding road and airport responsibilities

(CGF sent out the following email about the County Habitat Plan and what we consider to be an inappropriate funding mechanism using the County Parks Charter funding. We will be following this closely. -Brian)

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:

To clarify comments the Committee for Green Foothills submitted at yesterday's (May 6th) Board meeting, we oppose the Habitat Plan recommendation announced yesterday to use County parkland purchased through the Parks Charter funding in order to mitigate habitat loss caused by other Santa Clara County government agencies.

The County voters passed Measure C in 1972 as a tax increase they imposed on themselves to provide an environmental benefit: more and better-maintained County Parks. The voters did not provide the County with this tax increase, and reaffirm it multiple times with the broad support of the environmental community, in order to enable road and airport expansion.

Using the Parks funding in this manner would convert it from an environmental benefit to an environmental mitigation, which is more than a semantic change. Environmental benefits are intended by voters to make us better off than would otherwise be the case, while environmental mitigation only makes up for other environmental harm and provides no net benefit. Because the voters expected a benefit, it would be highly inappropriate to change what the voters asked for.

I noted yesterday that County Counsel opined that using County Parkland for mitigation would be legal, and because we have had no opportunity to study the matter, we offer no opinion of our own at this point on its legality. As a matter of policy, however, it is clearly a bad one.

Similarly, County Parks Director indicated that she did not see this as harming County Parks, but that is not the appropriate test - the real issue is whether voters will get the environmental benefit that they voted for, and this proposal transforms a benefit into a mitigation without a net benefit.

The County Executive himself indicated that problems could result from mixing or apparent mixing of Parks funding and Roads funding, and we could not agree more. We request that this proposal be rejected.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

Time to take a hike

The Merc has a good column today, "Fisher: County asks families to take a hike."

Patty Fisher reports on Santa Clara County Parks Department's new Healthy Trails campaign to encourage people to use our local county parks. They even point out that parks by the Bay and in the redwoods will be great places to cool off for the hot weekend.

Public access and use of open space is the best guarantee of public support for open space. Encouraging people to get outside is good for their health and great for the environment.

-Brian

News Release: Morgan Hill must hold developers to the Coyote Valley standard for cost recovery, environmentalists say

(CGF issued the following news release last week. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills
NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2008

PRESS CONTACTS: Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate, phone (650) 968-7243, brian@greenfoothills.org

Morgan Hill must hold developers to the Coyote Valley standard for cost recovery, environmentalists say

IN COYOTE VALLEY, DEVELOPERS PAID ALL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COSTS FOR DEVELOPING THE AREA; Committee for Green Foothills states that Morgan Hill taxpayers deserve the same.

Committee for Green Foothills argues that Morgan Hill taxpayers have a right to expect the City-initiated planning for the "Southeast Quadrant" meet the same cost recovery standard imposed on developers by the City of San Jose for the Coyote Valley planning process. "San Jose also had a city-led process for analyzing potential development of Coyote Valley," said CGF Advocate Brian Schmidt, "but no one denied that the motivating force was the developers who owned much of the land. San Jose required developers to pay for every dime of environmental review and planning involving that area, and Morgan Hill taxpayers should not be presented with a bill for proposals that increase the property value in that area."

Last night, the Morgan Hill City Council voted to initiate an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process to convert the Southeast Quadrant area mainly to non-agricultural use, with a small portion to be retained for agricultural or open space uses. The Council also voted to initiate a study of the feasibility of agricultural mitigation and long-term agricultural viability in the broader Morgan Hill area. "None of the EIR costs should be borne by taxpayers," said Schmidt. "These EIRs will only exist because of the landowner interests in development. As for the costs of studying the feasibility of agricultural mitigation, that's mitigation for the loss of farmland due to proposals like the Southeast Quadrant, and any transfer of developer responsibilities to taxpayers is unacceptable. Only costs for studying agricultural viability and mitigation separate from the rezoning proposals in the Southeast Quadrant should be handled by taxpayers.

Schmidt continued, "the Coyote Valley planning process was riddled with flaws, but at least they claimed to get back all the money they spent from the developers. If these Southeast Quadrant studies don't even meet that standard, we fear the other results may be even worse.

# # #

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 about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

CGF comment: Significant problems with proposal to use County Parks funding to pay for County Habitat Plan

(We submitted the following comment about Santa Clara County Habitat Plan funding. -Brian)

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:

To clarify comments the Committee for Green Foothills submitted at yesterday's Board meeting, we oppose the Habitat Plan recommendation announced yesterday to use County parkland purchased through the Parks Charter funding in order to mitigate habitat loss caused by other Santa Clara County government agencies.

The County voters passed Measure C in 1972 as a tax increase they imposed on themselves to provide an environmental benefit: more and better-maintained County Parks. The voters did not provide the County with this tax increase, and reaffirm it multiple times with the broad support of the environmental community, in order to enable road and airport expansion.

Using the Parks funding in this manner would convert it from an environmental benefit to an environmental mitigation, which is more than a semantic change. Environmental benefits are intended by voters to make us better off than would otherwise be the case, while environmental mitigation only makes up for other environmental harm and provides no net benefit. Because the voters expected a benefit, it would be highly inappropriate to change what the voters asked for.

I noted yesterday that County Counsel opined that using County Parkland for mitigation would be legal, and because we have had no opportunity to study the matter, we offer no opinion of our own at this point on its legality. As a matter of policy, however, it is clearly a bad one.

Similarly, County Parks Director indicated that she did not see this as harming County Parks, but that is not the appropriate test - the real issue is whether voters will get the environmental benefit that they voted for, and this proposal transforms a benefit into a mitigation without a net benefit.

The County Executive himself indicated that problems could result from mixing or apparent mixing of Parks funding and Roads funding, and we could not agree more. We request that this proposal be rejected.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills cited in "Last Child in the Woods"

CGF got a brief mention in Last Child in the Woods, an important book about how children have been losing their connection to nature, particularly the opportunity for unstructured play. The updated edition of the book includes this about removing legal barriers to access due to liability fears:

While we wait for legal reform, environmental attorney Brian Schmidt has an idea that just might help. Schmidt is an advocate with the Committee for Green Foothills, an organization working to protect local natural environments in the South San Francisco Bay Area. To liberate natural play, he suggests the creation of what he calls a "Leave No Child Inside Legal Defense Fund," a foundation that would pay the legal defense costs of select institutions and individuals who encourage children to go outdoors but are then hit with frivolous lawsuits.

I've suggested the Leave No Child Inside idea just as my personal idea, not as an official CGF idea (we'd have to decide if its close enough to our mission to be something that CGF officially supported). It's nice though to have Committee for Green Foothills recognized in the book.

-Brian

MidPen expansion to the Coast is complete!

You probably thought that MidPen's expansion to the Coast, a major goal of CGF, had been completed years ago. That was effectively right, and now the final paperwork is done:

Victory for Open Space

Decades of effort by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to dramatically expand the amount of coastal land in San Mateo County eligible for preservation may finally come to fruition, following a decision Wednesday by the state Supreme Court to reject a lawsuit seeking to block the expansion.

The court refused to review the February decision of a state appeals court that the district legally arranged to add as many as 144,000 acres of potential territory in coastal San Mateo County.

Now on to the work of protecting that open space!

-Brian

CGF is everywhere during Earth Week

CGF has four tabling events for Earth Week, which I think might be a CGF record for the most appearances in a few days.

I manned one table at Full Circle Farm, a community effort to bring farming back to Sunnyvale on an 11-acre parcel that is just getting going. This type of community farming is something we'd very much like to see, and will be discussed in our upcoming newsletter.

While there, I finally had the chance to meet people from Bon Appetit, an onsite restaurant company that won the Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voter's Green Business of the Year Award for their use of fresh, local produce. I wanted to talk to them about using locally produced meat as well as produce. Turns out they're already doing it, but there's always more to be done.

All in all, a nice chance to see people I might not otherwise see.

-Brian

CGF comments on Gavilan's Coyote Campus Draft EIR

(CGF submitted the following comments on the proposal to put a large college campus in the middle of North Coyote Valley, a sprawl-inducing proposal that makes no sense given the collapse of other Coyote Valley development plans. -Brian)

April 7, 2008

Dr. Steven Kinsella,
Gavilan College

Re: Comments on Gavilan College: Coyote Campus Project DEIR, SCH No. 2007122009

Dear Dr. Kinsella;

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Coyote Campus Project (“Project”) DEIR. We conclude that Gavilan College (“College”) cannot legally approve the Project based on the inadequate DEIR. We understand that other groups and individuals have concerns about the wildlife analysis in the DEIR, which we share. We submit the following additional comments:

• The DEIR fails to adequately discuss effects climate change has on water availability. A Superior Court finding that the State Department of Water Resources has not established the effect of climate change on water supplies (DEIR at 133) does not eliminate the College’s obligation to discuss the potential effects to the best of its ability. The DEIR fails to discuss whether the Project might have to be closed during droughts due to the effects of climate change. This inadequate discussion that fails to identify a significant impact leaves the DEIR critically flawed.

• The discussion fails to identify whether 100-year flood plains would change as the result of climate change.

• The discussion fails to include displacement of current farming elsewhere. Other agricultural production must take place of the lost production on this land and should be included in the emission totals. The DEIR therefore substantially underestimates the Project’s climate change impacts.

• The DEIR conclusion that no individually or cumulatively significant hydrological impacts will result from the project is incorrect. Reliance on compliance with NPDES HMP standards is inadequate to justify the less-than-significant conclusion, because those standards only satisfy the “maximum extent practicable” standards of the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Act, and were not designed as thresholds of significance. See the attached White Paper, “Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces,” for more information. In particular, the failure to control for hydrological impacts from storms larger than 10-year storms is not addressed by either the HMP or by this DEIR, invalidating the DEIR’s conclusions regarding hydrology.

• The DEIR’s misplaces reliance on the compatibility between the IBM campus and nearby agriculture as the reason for concluding the Project will not be incompatible with nearby agriculture. The DEIR fails to compare the number of vehicle trips and the presence of people outdoors to the IBM campus for determining whether the Project would have a larger impact. The DEIR fails to analyze cumulative impacts from the Projects and other projects to determine whether they are incompatible with agriculture. Gavilan therefore cannot rely on the DEIR’s conclusions.

• The conclusion that LESA scores show an inadequate Site Assessment scores result from a flawed analysis that understates the true agricultural value. The high land costs are irrelevant to whether the land is potentially irrigable. The water table in Coyote Valley is known to be quite high, and irrigated agriculture exists throughout Coyote Valley. The LESA scores therefore underestimate the potentially significant impact of the loss of agricultural resources.

• The conclusion that the Project has no growth-inducing impacts is simply wrong. The discussion fails to consider that the lack of infrastructure is the primary obstacle to further development in Coyote Valley. Providing the extension of utilities along Bailey Avenue to the site will facilitate additional job development in Coyote Valley, making it more likely to reach the 5,000 jobs trigger found in the City of San Jose General Plan for large-scale development of the Valley. The conclusion that community colleges only serve growth instead of stimulating growth is both circular and ridiculous. No justification is given for this conclusion, when in fact a major development like the Project will have significant impacts. The complete lack of discussion as to whether the Project will encourage further development of the Coyote Valley Research Park, other industrial projects, or of a Coyote Valley Specific Plan-level residential development, fails to meet standards of EIR adequacy.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Status of Coyote Valley

(We had an inquiry as to what's the current status of Coyote Valley, so I'm reproducing our response below. Some more info is in our press release here. -Brian)


The developers have suspended their application to develop 3,000 acres, so that project is dead (except for some details) until someone wants to pay to continue the planning process. We need to pressure San Jose to place stronger preconditions ("triggers") on development.

A prior-approved project, the Coyote Valley Research Park, could still happen if economic conditions allow it. They might not. We need to pressure San Jose not to extend deadlines for this project (its approvals will disappear if it doesn't start building by the deadlines, first of which is in 2013).

Gavilan College wants to build a massive 80-acre campus out on farmland in Coyote Valley instead of where people live and can commute to by public transit, so we need to fight that too.

A lot still needs to be done!

KRON 4 News Interviews Brian regarding Coyote Valley

It's only 30 seconds in a 3-minute segment, but they did let us environmentalists talk about how stopping Coyote Valley development was very much a good thing.

To see it, click here (scroll down to the video stories shown on the bottom left, and look for “Coyote Valley Project Halts”).

-Brian

A great day for Coyote Valley!

(I think our press release speaks for itself. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills
NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 18, 2008


PRESS CONTACTS:
Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate
phone (650) 968-7243, (415) 994-7403 cell
* brian@greenfoothills.org


Committee for Green Foothills Welcomes Withdrawal of Coyote Valley Development Proposal, Calls for New Steps to Protect Against Sprawl

The Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) welcomed the decision today by the Coyote Housing Group to withdraw its proposal to develop three thousand acres of working farmland and vital wildlife habitat in Coyote Valley, and CGF called on San Jose to act now to stop new sprawl proposals. "The misguided proposal to get rid of prime working farmland and a vital wildlife corridor sank from its own weight, and from the work of all the organizations like Committee for Green Foothills that argued for San Jose's growth to be directed within the City instead of expanding it," said Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate for CGF. "The Committee for Green Foothills has worked for years to fight this proposal and the many proposals that preceded it, dating back to the 1970s. We're very glad that our work, along with the vital work of other groups like the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Audubon Society, has helped to reach this point."

Schmidt called on San Jose to take new steps to protect this vital area.
"The Mayor has said there should be stronger 'triggers' in the General Plan to prevent developing Coyote Valley until it's really necessary. Other City Council members have called for prioritizing development in downtown and North San Jose before development comes to Coyote Valley. It's time to examine those priorities in the ongoing General Plan review."

Unanswered questions remain regarding other potential developments in Coyote Valley. "The Coyote Valley Research Park proposal received permits it never should have been granted," said Schmidt, "but economic conditions have stopped its development. In several years, those permits will start expiring, and it's time to examine whether that project should happen.
Gavilan College also has started planning a massive campus in Coyote Valley that makes little sense without urban development, and that process needs reassessment. The Habitat Conservation Plan had exempted much of Coyote Valley from its jurisdiction, and that also needs reassessment."

"We hope that the withdrawal decision creates a new opportunity for long-term agricultural survival and a vibrant ecology in Santa Clara County, and we salute the decision of the Coyote Valley developers to end the process," Schmidt continued.

Environmental organizations including the Committee for Green Foothills have closely followed proposed developments in Coyote Valley. Their extensive comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report showed significant deficiencies in the report that failed to recognize the impacts of the proposed project. Committee for Green Foothills participated extensively in that process, and took the lead in showing how the fiscal analysis that purported to show a tax surplus for city government was based on unrealistic expectations of a continued housing boom. CGF also took the lead in showing that consultants used by the city to draft environmental and fiscal documents had first been hand-picked by the developers, and then hired by the city in a no-bid 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 about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

CGF opposes inappropriate hillside San Jose development

(CGF sent the following short letter to the San Jose Planning Commission, supporting staff's recommendation to reject the proposed hillside development in San Jose's Evergreen District. More information is available here. -Brian)


Dear Planning Commission members,

The Committee for Green Foothills agrees with City Staff recommending denial of a developer's proposal to rezone hillside land in the Evergreen District from a quasi-public designated use to residential development. Any one of the many reasons staff have provided for why this proposal is a bad idea. Intensified development that would push into the 15% slope is a bad precedent, which may actually be the reason for the proposal.

We would only add to the staff comments that the proposal, if not rejected at this point, would definitely require an EIR. The conflict with existing land use policies constitute one reason for an EIR, but the loss of valuable open space, much of which could be conserved with the current use designation, and the visual impact on the neighborhood and on thousands of people driving by on Highway 101, also would be significant environmental impacts.

We urge the Commission to reject this project.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

Great news for Santa Clara Valley Water District - all environmental recommendations were enacted

I just wanted to follow up on the Urgent Alert we wrote up (and sent out by our diligent Office Manager Wendee on Saturday afternoon). The day before, the Water District finalized a decision to consider a number of recommendations made by the District's Environmental Advisory Committee (I'm the current chair of the EAC). More information is here, but suffice it to say that all recommendations were accepted, so the Water District is on record that industrial producers should be responsible for pollution from their products, and that the District will focus more closely on the environmental problems from erosion.

The District Board commented on the letters they received from the public, and said they appreciated and read the comments, all of them favoring our position.

Thanks everyone!

-Brian

Thank the stars that they're not around here

News reports suggest that arson against a mansion development in Washington state may have been the work of "ecoterrorists". The evidence released so far is skimpy, and even the term "ecoterrorism" is debatable to me, tying it to terroristic violence when "ecoarson" might be more appropriate.

Regardless, though, I'm very glad we don't have foolish people pulling these stunts in our area. They are so counterproductive that they would only make the job of sprawl-fighting organizations like CGF much tougher.

Civil disobedience, by contrast, is more of a mixed outcome. I could see it being counterproductive in many circumstances, but not always, and doesn't involve destroying property or even a slight risk to human life. Of course, civil disobedience is not a technique that CGF has used.

-Brian

Amah-Mutsun comments on the issue of Coyote Valley development proposals

(Attached is a copy of a letter from Valentin Lopez, Chairman of the Amah-Mutsun Tribal Band, regarding development in Coyote Valley. It's important to recognize the cultural implications as well as the environmental implications from misguided development in Coyote Valley. -Brian)

January 4, 2007

Mr. Daryl Boyd
Planning Services Division
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113-1905

Subject: Coyote Valley EIR

Dear Mr. Boyd,

I am writing this letter on behalf of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (AMTB). The AMTB is comprised of the descendents of Missions San Juan Bautista and Santa Cruz. Coyote Valley represents the transitional territory between the Amah Mutsun and the Muwekma tribes. Together, these tribes represent the indigenous people of Santa Clara County. The purpose of this letter is to express four concerns regarding the Coyote Valley development plan.

Our first concern pertains to the recognition that numerous Ohlone communities historically lived along the waterways of Coyote Valley. If County staff reviewed the historical maps of Coyote Valley, you would find that much of Coyote Valley was inundated with water much of the year. In a recent report by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) on the historical ecology of Coyote Creek Watershed, they pointed out that Coyote Valley represents the single largest remaining wetland habitat in the South Bay Area. They also indicated the historic existence of numerous plant species in this area that were critical to the local Ohlone communities. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band has developed a number of recommendations pertaining to such cultural habitats, one of which is that all construction should be no closer than 300 feet from a natural waterway. It is common, especially in such a heavily populated area, to encounter human burials very close to watersways. For the Coyote Valley development plan, we ask that the 300-foot requirement be implemented using historical maps that show the waterways prior to first contact. In the event this request cannot be honored, we request that a Native American monitor be employed for all underground construction work that occurs within the historical floodplain, and extending out to the 300-foot boundary limit. Furthermore, we ask that only monitors certified by the Society for California Archaeology’s Native American Program be employed.

Our second concern is that the Coyote Valley development plan presents south Coyote Valley as representing “open space.” We feel this is incorrect and grossly inappropirate. Much of the south Coyote Valley is occupied by small ranchettes. These ranchettes should not be considered open space. Privately owned properties such as these have far less protection and present far fewer opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement, and protection of cultural resources than does publicly owned open space. Our Tribe requests that the City of San Jose provide a clearly written and legally defensible definition of open space and implement that definition in the Coyote Valley development plan. This definition should include provisions to ensure the survival of all existing wildlife in the areas defined as open space, as well as provisions for protection of cultural resources.

Our third concern is that there do not appear to be adequate protections built into the Plan to preserve the Native American village site we visited with County staff. It has been our experience that when the boundries of a cultural site are delineated only by the presence or absence of “hard” artifacts (i.e. stone, bone, and shell), the elements of the cultural landscape that were required to sustain the focal site are ignored, and most often developed. The Amah Mutsun would like the City of San Jose to recognize that when Native American artifacts are encountered, the surrounding landscape associated with those cultural resources should be included in the site designation. We have found that the methods employed by SFEI to reconstruct these historic habitats are sufficient for this purpose. We request that the City of San Jose consider applying protective measures to the full cultural landscape of this Native American village site.

We would also like to work with the City of San Jose on the Matalan Village site. We feel that this area represents a tremendous educational opportunity for the City and County. We would like to work with the City on the development of a cultural resource center here, including a simulated Native American village, a Mutsun/Muwekma history center, an arts, crafts, and gift center, a fire pit with theatre for story telling, tool making activities, etc. and onsite housing for several tribal members to provide 24/7 security. All structures should be built outside the village site area, as we do not want any construction to occur on known Native American sites. Our tribe would be pleased to work with City staff on the planning and capitol campaign for this cultural center, and can provide technical expertise on the development of exhibits and curricula for this facility. This site should also be available to our tribes’ for dances, feasts, and other ceremonial events.

Our final point concerns other village sites that exist in the Coyote Valley. We request that no construction project be approved for the fenced site that we could not access during our visit. It is critical that this site be adequately surveyed and consultation with Native Americans take place before project approvals are made. Finally, there are other cultural sites that have been lost to construction. We ask that no additional construction be within 300 feet of a know site. For these areas we recommend that a park be built on the site and that the park give recognition to the indigenous people.

In closing, we would very much like to work with City staff on protocols between the Tribe(s) and the City of San Jose to deal with the inadvertent discovery of remains prior to approving any construction project. As always, we are available to meet with you to discuss any or all of these comments. Please feel to contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Valentin J. Lopez, Chairman
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band

Government as prosecutor versus government as defendant

As an attorney, I have to do Continuing Legal Education to keep my Bar membership, so I've been listening to audio CDs about environmental trial advocacy education. They consist mostly of dialog between attorneys who are government prosecutors for environmental crimes and attorneys who represent environmental crime defendants.

What struck me as in interesting was the main prosecuting attorney's advice to opposing counsel to be cooperative, not to use a scorched-earth legal strategy, to admit fault where fault occurred and to work to fix the problem. He argued that defendants get much better results than fighting with everything they've got.

This struck me because my experience is that the government doesn't follow its own advice when it's the defendant. I've been involved in lawsuits against the government as an attorney and as a client staff member here at CGF. While there are exceptions, the usual government response has been to fight the legal battle and let the court force them to take a decision rather than reach a compromise settlement.

Maybe it's unsurprising that the government doesn't follow its own advice. But then the lecturer who was an attorney representing defendants spoke, and she agreed with the prosecutor, telling her fellow attorneys that they're much better off striking a deal than they are fighting.

Maybe that just reflects relative power positions - the government doesn't need to compromise when mere citizen groups sue it, but corporations do need to compromise when the government sues it. But then, the government prosecutor brought up the scenario of citizen groups suing corporations, and again advised defense attorneys to compromise with citizen groups.

So, all the advice seems to say that when the government has a bad case, it should compromise. So far I've seen little sign that they take their own advice, a result that's bad for the environment and just costs taxpayer money. Let's hope that changes.

-Brian

A congratulations post - to Lennie Roberts, Hewlett and Packard families, and even the Homebuilders Association

I'll just gather a few congratulations together:

First to CGF's own Lennie Roberts for winning the Conservationist of the Year Award from the John Muir Association. CGF's write-up is here:

Congratulations to long-time Committee for Green Foothills San Mateo Advocate Lennie Roberts, who will be honored on January 20 by the John Muir Association as its 30^th Annual Conservationist of the Year. The John Muir Conservation Awards are given annually to recognize those whose work continues John Muir's legacy of environmental preservation. Corrina Marshall, Acting Executive Director of CGF, writes that Lennie's efforts as CGF’s San Mateo County Advocate have "led to the development of sound, proactive land use policies, won countless battles to preserve precious coastal resources, led several historic countywide environmental initiatives despite fierce opposition, and taught countless citizens how to be effective advocates for their local environments."

Lennie will be honored along with Bank of America, the GreenInfo Network, and the Environmental Studies Academy for their significant contributions to environmental preservation efforts. The John Muir Conservation Awards will be presented at a dinner to be held on Sunday, January 20, 2008 at the Campbell Theatre in Martinez, CA. To learn more about the John Muir Association and the John Muir Conservation Awards, visit them online at www.johnmuirassociation.org. To learn more about Lennie's work with the CGF visit www.greenfoothills.org/projects.

Next, congratulations to the Hewlett and Packard families for donating the development rights to a massive tract of ranchland they own between Grant County Park and Henry Coe State Park in east Santa Clara County, a huge step toward protecting the Mount Hamilton Range ecosystem.

And finally, congratulations are due to an organization that we've often tussled with. The Home Builders Association of Northern California has too often supported sprawl development in the past, but this time they've announced their support for green building standards for residential buildings to reduce energy usage. While requiring green building standards is commonplace for commercial buildings, making them mandatory for residential building is still a new idea, and our local home builders are the first in the nation to support it. Congratulations! (Now, fighting sprawl is an even better way to reduce energy usage...)

-Brian

CGF recommends a "No" vote on BAREC referendum in the City of Santa Clara

A referendum will be held on February 5th in the City of Santa Clara over the 17-acre BAREC property on 90 North Winchester Road, bordering San Jose. This is a historic agricultural research and University of California agricultural extension project, and one of the small number of surviving parts of prime farmland in North Santa Clara County. Admittedly, the property is situated well for high-density, smart growth project, if an appropriate one were to be proposed there.

The land is currently zoned for its historical agricultural use, with a General Plan overlay designation of moderate-density residential development, should the land ever get developed. Santa Clara has supported a proposal by the State of California and land developers to decrease the residential density expected for the property, and get rid of the historic agriculture without mitigating for its loss.

The Committee for Green Foothills supports moving towards a balance between jobs and housing to avoid sprawl and long distance commuting, and we oppose the loss of agricultural land where such loss occurs without mitigation. The proposed development would destroy one of the last parts of our region's agricultural and open space heritage while also reducing the amount of residential development that would otherwise occur if the property were to be developed. For these two reasons, CGF opposes this project as currently designed and supports a "No" vote on Measures A and B in the City of Santa Clara on Febuary 5th.

Better alternatives exist. Santa Clara could save the entire parcel for its open space and historic agricultural value, working together the state and with neighboring, parks-deficient San Jose to make both Santa Clara and San Jose more attractive and livable cities that promote smart growth. Or some amount of the parcel could be developed at the higher density that originally had been designated, and any loss of agricultural value mitigated through on-site programs and through other mitigations either in Santa Clara or nearby.

More information is available at SaveBAREC.

-Brian

Brian to chair Environmental Advisory Committee

Just publishing a note here that I've been elected the chair of the Environmental Advisory Committee for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. I've been vice-chair for the last two years.

A little more work, but it's an important committee in terms of emphasizing the environmental restoration that the District needs to do.

-Brian

CGF letter to the Coyote Valley Task Force

(The letter below was delivered to the Coyote Valley Task Force yesterday. -Brian)

January 14, 2008

CVSP Task Force

Re: Updates to Coyote Valley process

Dear CVSP Task Force Members;

I regret that I will not be able to attend today’s meeting, and would like to make the following points:

1. The Committee for Green Foothills supports the Sierra Club’s call to bring the Coyote Valley process to a close, at the very least temporarily closing the process until the General Plan review is complete, for all the reasons stated by the Sierra Club.

2. I attended the Nov. 29^th TAC meeting but was not listed as a Committee member in the minutes. If I’ve been demoted, I wasn’t aware of it.

3. The City Staff said at the TAC that the Draft Fiscal Analysis revision is being postponed. It is not clear whether the revision will respond to the extensive comments that we at CGF submitted to the first draft. We request clarification as to whether there will be a response to those comments, especially the assertion that the analysis relied on unrealistic assumptions regarding the housing market and household income.

4. In addition to our original comments, the revised fiscal analysis should address the changes in the housing market that has occurred in the last two years, particularly the slowed increase in prices and reduced turnover in sales, both of which should have profound fiscal implications to the revised analysis.

5. If the planned fiscal analysis revision is not already planning to address our previous comments and the new economic conditions, we humbly request that the Task Force vote on whether it should. We note that some Task Force members had previously requested a response to these comments.

6. The City will undoubtedly be glad to know that Committee for Green Foothills has won special funding so that we can do an in-depth review of the revised Fiscal Analysis when it is made available, a review that will go beyond my own limited expertise. I assume we can rely on the cooperation of the City and its consultants for requests to see the data and methodology used in the analysis.
Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Will be a little quiet around here for the holidays

I will be off on vacation for a few weeks, so the the CGF Journal blog will be quiet for a bit. The rest of the CGF staff will be around though, continuing to do the good work to protect our local open space.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

-Brian

San Jose Inside agrees: time to fix the San Jose EIR process

San Jose Inside, a prominent political blog, has highlighted and supported the recent Metro investigation of San Jose's biased environmental review process. We're very glad to see the issue get picked up some more. Hopefully this attention will translate into action.

-Brian

Committee for Green Foothills comments on potential City Council instructions for a Development Agreement with Stanford

(We sent the following to the Palo Alto City Council as it prepares to give instructions to staff on how staff should negotiate with Stanford.

-Brian)

November 26, 2007

Palo Alto City Council

Dear Mayor Kishimoto and City Council Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills appreciates the opportunity to help provide input to City staff regarding the Stanford University Medical Center and Shopping Center expansion proposal. As an organization dedicated to open space and natural resource protection with a history of Stanford involvement that dates back to our founding, we hope to see the best possible environmental mitigations in the forthcoming EIR and the best environmental benefits as part of the development agreement.

City staff are entirely correct in saying “community benefits and mitigations negotiated by the City as consideration for the Development Agreement are not limited to the mitigations required under CEQA. Mitigation required under CEQA should not be confused with the community benefits and mitigations negotiated by the City in exchange for the Development Agreement.” (CMR: 427:07, page 2.) Stanford has requested significant deviations from current zoning standards and requested the City relinquish its right to apply more stringent standards in the future. The City, in return, can request environmental benefits that the City needs. Technical requirements such as “proportionality” and “nexus” are immaterial to the Development Agreement. Instead, the issue for the City Council is to how to negotiate an agreement that is the best one for the community.

The best agreement embodies a symbiotic relationship between Stanford and the broader community: Stanford gets the facilities it needs without harming the environment, and Palo Alto supports a high quality of life and a wonderful environment that attracts people to come use Stanford’s facilities. The worst agreement from Palo Alto’s perspective would have Stanford simply taking what it wants in terms of massive development while requiring the broader community to shoulder the impacts.

To obtain the best agreement rather than the worst agreement, we urge the City to start with Mayor Kishimoto’s November 7^th Op-Ed in the Palo Alto Weekly. Everyone, including Stanford, has an obligation not to make climate change worse, and requiring a no-net increase in emissions and car trips is essential to this. The housing problem pointed out by the Mayor is both an open space and a greenhouse gas issue, as well as a social justice issue – if no increase in local housing is provided, open space will be consumed elsewhere, and the workers will have to commute in on Palo Alto’s roads and nearby highways. Creation of sufficient housing, including low-income housing commensurate with the demand created for that housing, should be part of the overall package.

Mayor Kishimoto also properly acknowledges the need to protect open space. What Stanford proposes is essentially a trade-off: the university wants a significant increase in the density and height of development in places that benefit Stanford’s plans. The community, in return, should get a benefit of a reduction of unwanted development in places that should be open spaces – the foothills, creeks, and nearby areas. It would be entirely appropriate for this to be in the form of conservation easements on Stanford lands, but purchasing easement on other nearby lands could also serve the same purpose.

The Committee for Green Foothills has no opinion on whether the basic permissions sought by Stanford are appropriate and necessary, as these medical issues go beyond our expertise. What is within our expertise and clearly needed, however, is protection of the environmental values held by our community and at special risk from massive development. If an agreement should go forward, these values – protecting against climate change, providing a full amount of housing, and protecting open space – are essential components to a good agreement.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Excellent Metro article on The San Jose Process

This Metro article does a great job of discussing the systematic problem San Jose has in conducting environmental reviews:

The thing is, the science of predicting environmental impacts that haven't actually happened yet is highly interpretive.

"A lot of areas in EIRs are fuzzy," says Gary Binger, urban planning professor at the University of California at Berkeley. "There's a lot of subjectivity."

That's why many public agencies choose their environmental consultants carefully in order to minimize the potential for bias.

Prior to 1996, developers wanting projects approved by Santa Clara County could hire a consultant directly and submit the results of the study with their application.

"How can there be bias when that happens?" county Planner Rob Eastwood points out sarcastically. "No, just kidding."

Then-county Supervisor Joe Simitian changed the practice in 1996 in order to avoid conflict of interest and public criticism. Now county officials stick to a list of environmental consultants that are screened with questions like: "During the preparation of a Draft EIR, how would you respond if a project proponent directly pressures you to change a conclusion, minimize an impact, or otherwise influence the findings of the EIR?"

Many other cities and counties in the Bay Area follow a similar process: they hire consultants directly so the paychecks come from the public agency (although the money gets reimbursed by project applicants). The developers also have little or no input in choosing the consultant.

Of the eight cities Metro surveyed in Santa Clara County, San Jose was the only one that allowed developers to contract with consultants directly, essentially giving them the freedom to pick whomever they wanted to conduct the environmental studies.

We hope San Jose will listen!

-Brian

P.S. For those wondering - yes, I've since watered the plant in the picture.

"...when you look at (home) prices relative to income, it's completely insane."

The quote above is from an economist saying existing home prices have to fall because they're priced out of reach of people's income.

This just further supports our argument that Coyote Valley's Draft Fiscal Analysis was fatally flawed in assuming housing prices (and resulting tax revenues) will go up 2% faster each year than income, every year for 57 years. The economist linked to above says the ratio between housing costs and income is already unsustainable. To think this unsustainable ratio could be made much, much worse, and then sustained at that level for decades is simply ridiculous.

This is why we think it's wrong for San Jose to hire analysts that were already selected and hired by developers to do an analysis of the developers' project.

CGF and Climate Change

We occasionally get asked about how our work relates to fighting climate change. I'm recopying below a short email response I wrote on this subject:

The main thing is that we fight sprawl, the car-use-maximizing, environment-destroying driver of climate change.

We've written about climate change here:

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=%22global+warming%22+&B1.x=0&B1.y=0&sp-a=sp1002afb3&sp-p=all&sp-f=ISO-8859-1

We've submitted critical environmental comments on bad projects that point out the climate change effects. We've opposed many logging projects which have climate change impacts. We've supported natural flood plain protection as opposed to dams, pumping, and still more streamside development. We've supported initiatives that reduce house sizes, which waste energy.

And we've proven that environmentalists can win victories, just as the environmental values will win and stop climate change.

-Brian

More radio for CGF

Well, this time it's KCBS radio discussing funds held by Santa Clara County Parks, and possible acquistion of the redwood forest owned by San Jose Water Company. We're very glad to be noticed.

-Brian

More KQED Commentary on the "San Jose Process", and a response by Mayor Reed

KQED's Forum program yesterday followed up Tuesday's Perspectives piece on how San Jose shouldn't give developers control over intial aspects of environmental review.

You can listen to the Forum program here. Our issue comes up in the second half of the show.

When I heard yesterday morning that Mayor Reed would be on the show, I emailed the following question:

Yesterday’s KQED Perspectives commentary at www.kqed.org/perspectives criticized “The San Jose Process” for environmental review because unlike other cities, private developers create and control the initial, administrative draft versions of environmental impact reports. The Perspective said that process is a legacy of the previous city administration, but will you commit to at least investigating whether this system should be changed to meet the standards found in other Bay Area cities, where the cities and not the developers select the consultants who prepare the reports?

(Full disclosure: I was the person who gave yesterday’s Perspective.)

Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

When asked, Mayor Reed responded as follows (after some preliminary comments):

The environmental reports we do are the City’s environmental reports, and we rely on our professional staff to make sure that the work done by the consultants is correct and eventually if people disagree with that we have to defend it in court .... we have to prepare for that so we have to do it right, and I don’t think it matters where it starts as much as where it ends up. I can’t make a personal commitment to Brian that we’ll change that. I understand his comment, I understand the perception, but we have a really good environmental staff that makes these things work, and I’m confident we’re doing it correctly and defensibly.

My reaction:

The Mayor said he can't commit on the spot to change the system. I understood that, and had only asked for a commitment to investigate it. That's an easy thing to miss in the middle of live radio, so hopefully he will still consider investigating alternatives.

Mayor Reed says it's the end result that counts the most, and I agree with that, but throwing in a barrier to a good end result in the form of a biased starting point just makes it harder for the City's professional staff. If they can get a good result with this handicapped start, then they'll do even better with an unbiased start. I would add though that in CGF's opinion we do have a problem with some of the end results, as seen with Coyote Valley.

Finally, the City's professional staff can't go out and redo shoddy fieldwork by consultant experts. They might not even know if the fieldwork was shoddy or the subjective judgment was out of line with standard expert opinion. The vast majority of environmental reviews never get challenged in court, especially Initial Studies for smaller projects, so a court-challenge safeguard is inadequate and not the way to do quality control, in any event.

-Brian

Brian Schmidt on KQED Perspectives program

Today the KQED Radio Perspectives program ran my perspective on "The San Jose Process." The Perspective is a two-minute commentary piece, and in this piece I discuss the significant problem of San Jose giving control to developers over initial aspects of environmental review.

The Perspectives are from individuals, not organizations, but I enthusiastically agree with the position that I've represented on behalf of CGF and its members. On the radio today, the announcer identified me as working for Committee for Green Foothills, so our organization also received some Bay-Area wide media exposure.

Now hopefully, we'll get some action for San Jose to fix this!

-Brian

Come on Stanford! YouTube tells you to do what you promised

A CGF advertisement that aired during the Stanford-USC football game several weeks ago is now on YouTube.

See it right here.

-Brian

Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition (and CGF) event on November 17

CGF is a participating member of the Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, an umbrella group coordinating stream protection in our county. I'll be mentioning SCCCC activities from time to time.

A big event coming up next month is the Creeks and Watershed Conference, an all day conference on November 17th in San Jose to educate the public about watershed protection efforts. More information is available here - please come for any part of the event, or for the whole day!

-Brian

(I should note that children are welcome, but the presentations will be geared to an adult level.)

British wetland restoration at one-tenth of the cost here?

Here's an interesting article from a British news source: 400-year old dikes are being breached to restore 1,700 acres of tidal wetlands on what is currently farmland, for a price of 17 million British pounds (about $25 million). That is a restoration cost of $15,000 an acre. Wetland restoration projects in Santa Clara County routinely cost more than ten times as much.

Obviously these are very different places, but it would be interesting to see if there's any lessons we can learn on cost containment, since the costs of restoration are a significant barrier to environmental enhancement.

-Brian

Checking out the Henry Coe Park fire (or trying to)

I went Sunday to Henry Coe State Park, planning to hike out to the areas that had been burnt in the fire last month. Unfortunately, park officials have closed all trails leading into or even along the burnt area. This seems hard to justify - it's hard to imagine that fire-fighting equipment has done so much damage to the trails to make them dangerous. And if firefighting has done damage to the environment, then I want to see it. But they're not showing it.

Still, there was one trail we could hike on that got within a half-mile or so of the fire. It looked not great and not terrible at that distance - it seemed like the fire burned pretty hot and took out even the trees, so it wasn't just a grass and brush fire, but it was also very spotty, leaving lots of unburnt areas. This was only a small part of the fire though, and I'm not sure what the rest looks like.

And if the firefighting had gone overboard and did any damage, we were too far away to know.

-Brian

More good news from last week - County denies sprawl proposal near Morgan Hill

We'll have an article mentioning this in the Fall 2007 Green Footnotes - Santa Clara County last week rejected a proposal to redesignate 60 acres of land on Watsonville Road from Hillside designation to Rural Residential. The redesignation would have tripled the amount of allowed development, and because only about one-third of the parcel touch Rural Residential parcels, it would have stretched the concept of "infill" beyond recognition. This isn't what we need, especially so far away from city limits.

Instead, the Supervisors voted 5-0 to reject the idea. It didn't seem like we'd have such a resounding victory at the beginning - we at CGF spent a lot of time calling Supervisors, meeting with them and their staffs, and appearing at the hearing. We're very glad to have stopped a bad precedent and maintained a good one.

-Brian

CGF scoping comments on the proposed Stanford Shopping/Medical Center Expansion

(CGF submitted the following comments on the scoping (preparation) of the environmental review for the Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center expansions. We'll also review the actual environmental documents when the drafts are available. -Brian)

October 1, 2007

Steven Turner
City of Palo Alto

Re: Scoping comments for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center Expansion EIR

Dear Steven;

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments for scoping the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center:

· The purpose of the approval for this project must be defined by the City, not by the applicant. If the purpose that the permissions the applicants seeks (such as improving medical care) can be done in a way that the applicant does not seek, that option remains within the purpose of the City. Legally, the applicant cannot define the purpose in a way that artificially narrows the scope of the project and its alternatives. Because the City is deciding whether to approve the agreement, it has to define the purpose.

· The EIR must consider a “no expansion/seismic only upgrade” alternative for the Medical Center.

· A “no increase in medical office space” alternative should be included. Conditions should be placed defining what type of activity or organization may use “medical office space.”

· Any relaxing of existing zoning standards will violate thresholds for environmental significance that the standards are meant to protect, unless compensatory environmental mitigation is required. This is especially true given the large size of the project. For example, easing density restrictions should be compensated with open space protection.)

· Increased building height and density should be compensated with open space protection. Decreasing views of hillsides and of natural areas are visual impacts that can be appropriately compensated for by open space protection.

· Increase utilization of recreational resources must be analyzed in the EIR for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The City should compare the analysis used for the Stanford GUP in Santa Clara Clount’s EIR for comparison. Increased utilization is a significant impact unless mitigated.

· The EIR process should analyze the phasing and mitigation monitoring used in the Stanford GUP EIR to avoid similar problems. For the Stanford GUP, six years after the impacts have occurred, the promised trails have not yet been constructed. Mitigations should not just be begun before the impacts have occurred, they should be completed, or at least a schedule established with clear stop dates.

· The hospital opening should be in phases, with none the medical office space opening until all environmental mitigations have been complied with. This will make mitigation monitoring and enforcement more credible if it stops use of medical office space until environmental conditions are complied with as opposed to stopping use of the hospital.

· Any net increases in greenhouse gas emissions are cumulatively significant.

· “Green building” standards should be required.

· The impact on housing will be significant unless mitigated and must be analyzed. The impact will also affect open space and traffic, because if new housing is not constructed by Stanford, it will be constructed mostly in Central Valley and elsewhere, with workers commuting in on area highways. The City must do its own calculations about the number of jobs generated by the amount of space created. Secondary (off-site) economic impacts must also be considered in determining the net demand for housing created by this project.

· All newly-created housing demand should be fully mitigated with housing creation that matches the income level of housing demand generated.

· Any analysis that concludes a “no net increase” mitigation standard for transportation is not feasible, must also determine why it is feasible for the much larger Stanford GUP expansion but not for this project.

· Significant and unavoidable impacts must be compensated for in a comparable manner. For example, the visual impact of Medical Center skyscraper will be unavoidable, but rather than simply accept that as the cost the community must bear, it should be compensated for with open space protection where buildings do not predominate views.

· Eliminate Stanford’s “plateau bargaining” through the use of binding promises in the process. For example, Stanford has made promises on where it would agree to place the S1 Trail on its property, and then after much work had been done by the County so it could accept the offer, Stanford reneged on the promises unless dramatic new concessions were added. This problem can be stopped by spelling out in advance when and which parts of a promise are binding.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

CGF-sponsored forum on Habitat Plan for Santa Clara County this Wednesday

Should be a very useful public education forum on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, and is co-sponsored by CGF.

It will be here at the Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 East Bayshore Road in Palo Alto, tomorrow at 6:30 p.m.

More info here.

Hope to see you there!
-Brian

Breaking news - San Jose Water Company logging plan rejected!

We just heard from Assemblyman Ira Ruskin's office that the proposal to log the redwood trees in the watershed supplying much of Santa Clara County with water has been rejected. San Jose Water Company applied for a special "NTMP" permit that allows logging in perpetuity, but had to meet several conditions that they didn't meet.

The Committee for Green Foothills has opposed this project from the beginning. We're still waiting on details, and it may well come back from the dead, but still it's excellent news!

-Brian

CGF News Release: The “San Jose Process” Resulted in Coyote Valley Debacle, Environmentalists Say

(The following is from a press release CGF sent out yesterday. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 17, 2007

PRESS CONTACTS:

Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate

phone (650) 968-7243 * brian@greenfoothills.org

The “San Jose Process” Resulted in Coyote Valley

Debacle, Environmentalists Say

SAN JOSE DIFFERS FROM MOST CITIES IN ALLOWING DEVELOPER-SELECTED AND CONTROLLED EXPERTS DETERMINE INITIAL ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) alleged today that the “San Jose Process” of using developer-selected and developer-paid consultants for the city’s own environmental review is a systematic problem that resulted in the extensively criticized and withdrawn Coyote Valley Draft Environmental Impact Report. “Most other cities in the Bay Area have abandoned the practice of letting developers themselves select and hire the consultants to prepare the administrative draft versions of Environmental Impact Reports, but not San Jose,” said Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate for CGF. “The Coyote Valley Draft EIR only varied slightly from the usual San Jose Process where the City ‘adopted’ consultants previously hired by Coyote Valley developers in a no-bid arrangement. This slight improvement still resulted in a terrible, flaw-ridden document, but the only difference is this time there was intense scrutiny. The San Jose Process needs a systematic fix,” Schmidt continued.

In most Bay Area cities, when a developer applies for a permit that requires the city to do environmental review, the developer pays a fee and the city then uses the fee money to hire expert consultants to prepare the environmental report. San Jose, by contrast, allows the developer to directly select and hire the environmental consultants who prepare an administrative draft of the environmental report. While San Jose may then modify the administrative draft, the developer-controlled draft is biased to play down the impacts. The direct expertise is in the hands of people loyal to the developers, not to the City or to a neutral evaluation process.

“The Coyote Valley EIR actually improved modestly on the usual San Jose Process, and still produced a completely inadequate analysis that had to be withdrawn,” Schmidt said. “In this case, the City took over from the developers earlier than it usually does, but even that didn’t fix the biased report. The only real difference between this EIR and what San Jose usually produces from developer experts is that this time, people paid attention, and nobody liked what they saw.”

The City received over 1300 pages of comments from agencies, non-profit organizations, and individuals. The widespread scrutiny and criticism led to the decision to withdraw, revise, and recirculate the Draft EIR.

“San Jose has not yet fixed the San Jose Process,” Schmidt continued. “That Process is a holdover from a previous administration, but the new Mayor and City Council have the opportunity to make a change. The City should stop right now in its current plans to use the same biased consultant work. They should stop any decision on the Coyote Valley EIR until after the City’s General Plan has been revised. As part of the General Plan revision, or even earlier, the City should adopt the modern process used by almost everyone else, and have the City choose and direct the consultants that prepare the technical reports and Administrative Draft EIRs.”

Draft EIRs are the first version of the Environmental Impact Report circulated for public comments, and if not found to be significantly flawed, become the basis of the Final EIR. Administrative Draft EIRs are the initial versions of Draft EIRs that summarize and draw conclusions from the information found in the technical consultant reports on subjects such as impacts to air quality, traffic, and wildlife. Most cities require developers to pay a fee so the cities control all consultants involved in this process. The San Jose Process gives all control up to the Administrative Draft EIR to the developer. The extent to which the City even disputes developer bias is unknown as it all occurs behind the scenes, and the City has no right to access information created by consultants unless the developer allows it. For Coyote Valley, the City did ultimately hire the technical consultants and the consultants who prepared the Administrative Draft EIR, but only after those consultants had first been selected and paid for by the Coyote Valley developers (see Exhibit A to this Press Release).

In the mid-1990s, the Santa Clara County government under the leadership of then-Supervisor Joe Simitian switched from a developer-controlled process to the current process, and there has been no effort since to switch back.

# # #

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 about the Committee for Green Foothills or about our work on this issue, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.