Build It Green information

I had blogged earlier about Santa Clara County's intent to require "green building" principles for new residences.

Attached are some of those principles for future reference. Looks pretty good!

-Brian

General Plan updates in Santa Clara County

A useful list I received about the schedules for General Plan updates in Santa Clara County - something good to keep in mind.

-Brian

General Plan Updates – Santa Clara County Cities

listed by City, Next Scheduled Update, and Plan Elements To Be Updated
Campbell 2008 Housing (Other elements not scheduled)
Cupertino ? None scheduled. (Comprehensive update in 2005)
Gilroy 2015-17 Comprehensive
Los Altos 2008 Housing (Comprehensive not scheduled)
Los Altos Hills 2008 (at council now) Land Use
Los Gatos 2010 (just underway) Comprehensive
Milpitas 2009 Housing (Comprehensive not scheduled)
Monte Sereno 2008 (at council now) Comprehensive
Morgan Hill 2011 (approx) Comprehensive
Mountain View 2009-10
just underway Comprehensive
Palo Alto 2010 just underway Housing, add Sustainability, update all other elements
San Jose 2008 Comprehensive
Santa Clara 2009 Comprehensive
Saratoga 2008 Housing (Comprehensive not scheduled)
Sunnyvale 2008
Parks & Recreation (2008), Land Use & Transportation (2009), Housing (2009-10),
Santa Clara County ? Comprehensive not scheduled
Stanford University ? Comprehensive not scheduled

A PowerPoint presentation on why Parks Charter Funding shouldn't be used for road mitigation

We've written repeatedly on why using Parks Funding as credit against impacts from road impacts in the Habitat Conservation Plan is a bad idea. Below the fold is a PowerPoint explanation of the problem.

-Brian

Some very good news to update

First, we had a wonderful Nature's Inspiration event on Sunday, celebrating Lennie Roberts' 30 years of service. Lots of people, beautiful setting, very nice things that were said - it couldn't be better.

More at the link....


In addition, last week the Santa Clara County Supervisors told County staff to begin a residential Green Building ordinance that will promote water conservation, native plants, energy savings, a lot of other approaches that fall in line with CGF's mandate of protecting open space and natural resources. The Supervisors supported CGF's position of requiring increasing amounts of "Build It Green" requirements for larger residences starting at 3,000 square feet, an incentive for reducing the number of monster mansions blighting our hillsides. We'll be closely watching the ultimate zoning ordinance.

Onward!

-Brian

Opposing the Bush Administration attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act

We sent out an Urgent Alert to supporters over the weekend, asking them to contact the Bush Administration and announce their opposition to proposed rules that would weaken the Endangered Species Act. We contacted the Interior Department as well, and wrote the following.

The Committee for Green Foothills represents over a thousand families in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties in its mission of protecting open space and natural resources in those counties. We at the Committee oppose the proposed revisions to Section 7 consultations. These revisions will reduce the use of valuable expertise and bias evaluation of endangered species impacts against their actual import, as the action agencies will be inclined to downplay environmental impacts. For the above reasons, we oppose the proposed rule revisions.

Below is a copy of the Urgent Alert:

The endangered species of the Bay Area and of the rest of the country need your help. In its last months in office, the Bush Administration proposes to dramatically weaken the Endangered Species Act by letting federal agencies considering actions that harm species avoid consultation and oversight from with expert wildlife agencies. This reverses 30 years of federal regulation designed to restrain federal agencies whose mission and political culture is focused on other things besides protecting species. Please use the website below to submit a comment opposing the proposed changes. Comments must be submitted by Monday, September 15, to be considered.

What's Happening

The Interior Department has proposed the change to limit "Section 7" consultations between federal agencies considering an action ("action agencies") and the expert wildlife agencies (the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service).

Why This is Important

Contrary to Administration claims, the action agencies do not have the same level of expertise about effects on endangered species as the wildlife agencies. In addition, the action agencies inevitably prioritize achieving their main missions over endangered species so they will often interpret evidence in such a way as to reduce its significance. Locking out the agencies with the most expertise and the most interest in protecting species will mean more species will fall through the cracks.

What You Can Do

In another change to previous policy, the Interior Department refuses to accept emailed comments on its proposed rule, but it will accept comments submitted on a government website. Tell them you oppose the proposed new rule and that the Endangered Species Act should be strengthened, not weakened.

To submit the comments, click on this link:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064806c5826

You will need to fill out the submitter information at the top of the web page, and then at the bottom of the page you can inform them of your comment opposing the proposed rule.

For more information, see the Sierra Club's Take Action webpage:

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ProtecttheEndangeredSpeciesAct

Thanks for speaking up for our coastal wetlands and environmental protections! Your voice does make a difference!

- The folks at Committee for Green Foothills

Earth to Google: Reduce, Reuse, Redeploy

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


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


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


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


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


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

Winning the Los Gatos lawsuit!

Just a quick note - we learned today that Judge Nichols ruled in our favor on a lawsuit over Los Gatos' decision approving a development that harms Los Gatos Creek. Great news!

We'll have more about it tomorrow.

-Brian

Yet another problem with the Parks Charter Fund/Habitat Plan issue

Yesterday someone pointed out to me a problem with counting parkland purchases as mitigation for road impacts that I hadn't thought of before: the Habitat Plan treats the amount of road impacts as a fixed quantity (somewhat simplified but accurate enough for these purposes), when in fact it could be higher or lower. If the County Roads Department uses parkland to count as mitigation for road impacts rather than paying for it from the Roads budget, it has just lost any incentive it has to minimize the impacts. In other words, we'll get far more impacts than would otherwise be the case. True, those impacts will be mitigated, but that's inadequate for two reasons: first, mitigation isn't as good as avoiding impacts, and second, the mitigation has the effect of eliminating a net benefit of more endangered habitat.

Let's walk through two cost scenarios as an example, where the County Roads Department has to choose between widening a road into endangered habitat riparian zone on one side, or encroaching into a hillside on the other:

Scenario 1: Costs of widening a road into riparian zone:
Construction and non-habitat costs: $1.0 million
Habitat mitigation cost: $0.5 million
Total: $1.5 million

Scenario 2: Costs of widening a road into a hillside:
Construction and non-habitat costs: $1.1 million
Habitat mitigation cost: none
Total: $1.1 million

The rational choice if the Roads Department considered (meaning, "had to pay for") all costs would be Scenario 2. But if the Roads Department just gets free credit for land purchased by the Parks Department, then Scenario 2 looks more expensive to it, and it will choose Scenario 1 instead. I was fumbling toward this idea when I repeatedly told the County that it's bad policy to shift costs between departments, but this points it out really well.

So what's the likely County response? If I were them, I'd point to toothless and unenforceable provisions in the Habitat Plan that say "where economically feasible, impacts should be avoided" and claim that meant something. I expect they believe that to be true in the abstract, but when it gets down to the specifics of each budget, the real choice will always default to Scenario 1.

(More reasons here for why using Parks Charter Fund is a bad idea.)
-Brian

Why Santa Clara County shouldn't reduce the benefits of the Parks Charter Fund

(Below is a display we used in a so-far-unsuccessful effort to get the County Roads Department to keep its hands off of the Parks Charter fund. -Brian)

Reasons why the Roads Fund, not the Parks Charter Fund, should pay for roads impacts

1. Parks Fund meant to be a net benefit, but used as a mitigation means the environment is no better off

2. Better management principle is to reduce cross-subsidies, in this case using Parks funding to subsidize road development.

3. Using Parks funding may interfere with the future selection of parkland in order to maximize mitigation of roads impacts.

Alternative:

Parks Dept. pays for park impacts

Roads Dept. pays for road impacts

Parks can purchase recreational use on lands bought by Roads Dept.

Bad decision by Santa Clara County Supervisors on Parks

We told them not to convert the Parks Charter Fund from an environmental benefit to a kind of mitigation bank that pays for environmental impacts from road widening. Unfortunately we haven't been able to persuade them so far.

Below is a recent letter on this issue in the Mercury News:

Parks Charter Fund not meant for roads

On Tuesday, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors decided to pilfer $14 million from the Santa Clara County Parks Charter funds to pay for non-park-related expenses. This is a dangerous precedent and goes against the will of the voters. The Parks Charter Fund was passed specifically by the voters, since 1972, to set aside funds to buy and maintain county parks and nothing else. But the supervisors (Pete McHugh, Don Gage and Ken Yeager - for; Blanca Alvarado and Liz Kniss - against) decided to use those funds to pay for obligations incurred by the county roads department to meet their mitigation obligation under the proposed county habitat plan. This is irresponsible, and the decision should be rescinded immediately.

Craige Edgerton
Member, Stakeholders Group Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan

When is a math error a real error?

Yesterday I went to a Planning Commission hearing to oppose a project for 26,000 square foot covered horse arena and barn on a 14 acre property that also has 6,000 square feet of residential development on it. This seemed to me to be a terrible precedent for massive development that would be used to push permits for monster mansions.

That was the main point I brought up, although it was rejected by County staff and the commission, both swearing up and down that it's not a precedent for other development. Hopefully they'll remember that when the time comes.

The other point though was about the environmental document from 2007 that they were using. It said the total development including the residence was 26,000 feet, not the 32,000 feet now being considered. I argued they couldn't use the document if the project had been expanded.

After some confusion among staff, they said that the project hadn't been changed, it always had been 32,000 square feet, and it was just the calculation of footage in the document that was wrong. Personally, I'm not all that happy with sloppiness or consider it meaningless, especially when it's a 25% underestimate. Too bad the Planning Commission didn't care.

This happens all the time. We'll just have to keep fighting.

-Brian

Great article about Stanford blocking the Bay-to-Ridge Trail

Palo Alto Weekly has a great article here about how a trail from Skyline to the Bay is all but constructed. The only missing part runs through Stanford. That part should have been constructed years ago - Stanford agreed to do it, but has since backed out. We'll keep working on them though.

-Brian

(An excellent map too is here.)

Judicial activism against the environment

A blow is struck by judicial activism on behalf of a misguided minority of landowners in a recent California Supreme Court decision overriding the majority of voters in a Santa Clara County Open Space Authority election (decision here). Worse still, this decision will make future funding of open space purchases by any California government agency more difficult, although not impossible. We at CGF participated in a "Friend of the Court" brief on behalf of the Open Space Authority, and are sorry things didn't go the right way.

The background is that California law since Proposition 13 has allowed a simple majority of voters to decrease tax rates but requires a two-thirds supermajority to increase "special taxes" (taxes not just meant for general public benefit purposes). A "special assessment," however, is different from a "special tax" in that it provides a special benefit to specific properties, and doesn't require a two-thirds vote. The entire legal battle is over what constitutes a "special assessment."

Proposition 218, passed in 1996, tightened the legal requirements for special assessments in ways that remained poorly defined (probably to keep voters from anticipating specific problems and voting against the measure). As the Supreme Court notes, Prop. 218 created a paradox whereby a "special district" must constitute all the parcels that receive a special benefit from the assessment, but it also says that if the benefit reaches every parcel in the district then it isn't a "special benefit" but rather a general benefit that needs a supermajority to pass.

The Supreme Court dealt with this paradox by saying that if parcels receive "direct advantages" from the benefit, like proximity to a park, then it's a special benefit even if conferred on all parcels in the district. So far, so good. But then the Court spends the remainder of the opinion ignoring what it just said. The Open Space Authority had justified the assessment by describing the direct advantages all parcels in the district will receive, such as better views and improved access to public recreation. The Court ignores this and says because these benefits reach everyone, they aren't special benefits and fall under Prop. 218 proscriptions.

So why would the Supreme Court behave so strangely? The likely reason is that Prop. 218 was itself a voter reaction to a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed expansive uses of special districts. The Court is aware that initiative propositions are the only mechanisms that voters have to overrule it, so the Court felt obligated to overreact to the Open Space Authority's special assessment, something that resembled a standard property assessment.

Short of changing Propositions 218 or 13, this decision is the last word on this issue, and an assessment like the Open Space Authority's will require a two-thirds supermajority. However, somewhat different special assessments may still be possible. An assessment that set up a priority acquisition area and assessed more in the immediate vicinity of that area than far away from there, or assessed more when an acquisition is first made, might still be legal. This is something that will have to be tested in the future.

-Brian

Online tool for Letters to the Editor email addresses

I came across this the other day: an online tool for finding email addresses for sending letters to the editor, based on physical location. When a land use issue affects a particular place, this can help to figure out which newspaper may be interested in it.

I tried it out for Mountain View, where I live. It didn't get all the papers, but it did get some, so it's useful.

-Brian

Audubon Society agrees with CGF criticism of LAFCO

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

The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society passed the following resolution:

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

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

-Brian

A great time on the Santa Clara County Farm Tour

Just reporting in that CGF's Farm Tour went really well on Saturday. Around 40 people attended, we went to four locations (an orchard with cherry tastings, an organic vegetable farm, a cattle ranch, and winery), had lots of great food, and heard the farmers' concerns. Jan Garrod, president of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, gave a very nice speech on how the farmers' best allies are the environmentalists. There was one spill on the bus that turned out to be very minor, so everything worked out fine.

We'll do an in-depth report later, but just wanted to get the word out. These events have been a lot of fun as well as extremely educational.

-Brian

CGF joins the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition

We've just sent in our commitment to be part of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition, an entity that recognizes the importance of private rangeland for the environment and helps bring ranchers and environmentalists together.

Very happy to join!

-Brian

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