Apple orchard in Cupertino?

Take a look at this Youtube video of a presentation by Steve Jobs to Cupertino City Council, discussing a potential new campus for Apple that would bring back plum orchards and natural landscaping.

The new jobs could also have a lot of impacts that need addressing, but the proposal is interesting.

-Brian

CGF sponsors Community Design Day on the future of South Santa Clara County

The video below is from the Community Design Day that CGF sponsored in Morgan Hill:

Tipping points for housing-deficient areas

In a housing deficient area like here in the San Francisco Bay region, it's wrong to simply say any new house anywhere is a good thing.  This is true economically as well as environmentally - a potential house location 10 miles due east of San Jose might sound like a quick jaunt away from Silicon Valley, but that would actually put it in a place with no roads, no services, no groundwater in reach, and no geologically-safe spot to build on.  It wouldn't sell economically, as well as being bad environmentally.

Alternatively, a potential high-density housing location near a train station might appeal to environmentalists but seem too risky economically.  There are different tipping points for different issues, and there's increased opportunities for cooperation where they overlap.

So here are some ideas:

Transportation:  adding housing in an area that has little future prospect to use public transit is unlikely to help the transit situation.  Transportation goes through a tipping point above a certain level of density that can use transit effectively.  Any increase in that density above that point makes transit even more cost effective.  Proximity to good transit also creates a tipping point, where any increase in density is beneficial.  Inner suburbs might be the tipping point level of density for transportation.

Walkability:  making a low density residential area slightly less low-density isn't going to make the area more walkable, it just puts more cars on the roads.  On the other hand, adding more housing to an area that is already walkable means that more people will be using the local stores, making them more financially viable.  The tipping point is when an area is already walkable, or likely to become walkable.  Urban townhouses and brownstones are the tipping point.

Natural open space:  at first glance, there doesn't seem to be a tipping point:  any increase in density decreases open space and habitat potential.  Even a tiny yard might offer potential habitat that an apartment block wouldn't.  However, dense housing removes pressure to construct less dense housing somewhere else. And habitat values for common wildlife decrease rapidly once roads and structures take up more land than natural habitat.  Low-density suburbia probably constitutes a tipping point for natural open space.

Farming:  farming may be even more sensitive to density than natural open space.  Rural residential levels of density, one house per acre or even less, probably constitute a tipping point for farming.

Financial/economic:  up to a certain point, more is better.  Two homes on 50 acre lots are worth more than one on 100 acres.  A tall apartment building might be more risky and appeal to a smaller market segment than a small condo building, however.

So what's the upshot of all this?  From the environmental perspective, somewhere around low density suburbs, maybe two houses per acre, is the point where almost all environmental incentives are to avoid increases in density - in areas at that level of density or less, environmental groups should oppose efforts to add housing.  Somewhere around the level found in inner suburbs, maybe 10 houses per acre, the environmental incentives are to support increases in density and environmental groups should support policies that increase housing.  

And from the inner suburbs up to city areas where multi-story apartments are possible, the environmental and financial interests are closely aligned.

This is all a simplification, of course.  Dense housing in the wrong place is just a mistake.  Natural open space in an urban area near a stream can also be very beneficial given the importance of stream environments.  But it does point to areas of overlap between environmental and developer interests.

-Brian

Real version of Farmville - a model for local farms?

Here's an interesting experiment in England - a farm is signing up 10,000 subscribers to run their farm, making actual monthly decisions (loosely based on the Facebook game called Farmville):

The farm is on the National Trust’s Wimpole Estate. You’ll be part of a group of 10,000 online Farmers working with farm manager Richard Morris to decide how it should be run. You’ll vote once a month, discuss the issues with other members and explore the world of farming.


The cost 30 British pounds yearly.  Could be an interesting step beyond shares in a Community Supported Agriculture operation, but without the time commitments of some model farms where people put in actual work hours.


We'll see how it goes.


-Brian

CGF urges Gilroy to stay involved in the County Habitat Plan

(We sent the letter below to Gilroy's City Council, urging them to reconsider a proposal to withdraw from the County Habitat Plan.  Their decision was to reconsider it a later point.  -Brian)

May 2, 2011

City Council

City of Gilroy

            Re:  Item 10b, Gilroy's participation in the County Habitat Plan

Dear City Council Members;

As an organization representing families in both South County and North County for nearly 50 years, the Committee for Green Foothills urges the City to reconsider the decision to withdraw from the County Habitat Plan before it becomes it becomes impractical to do so.

We note first of all that while the Habitat Plan only covers two-thirds of the County and not the whole region, that is not the end of the process.  We and the other environmental organizations are well aware that similar comprehensive planning must come and will come to North County, and the city governments that participate in the County Habitat Plan at the outset have a much better chance to shape the outline of the plan, and especially its initial operations, than cities that lag behind.  Furthermore, two other habitat plans are in process that cover significant parts of North County (Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan and the Stanford HCP) as well as significant efforts to protect burrowing owl habitat in Mountain View, the South Bay Saltponds restoration, and extensive stream restoration/protection projects in Milpitas and other cities not included in the County Habitat Plan.

Simply put, the habitat planning process is equitable between South County and North County, and early participation gives Gilroy a better chance to shape that process.

Second, Gilroy's financial interest and especially recovery of funds invested to date favor its continued participation.   Documents from other agencies make clear the advantage to Gilroy (such as the letter from US Fish and Wildlife pointing out the backlog in processing new HCPs, and pointing out that future increases in capacity for the South County Water Treatment Plant could be permitted under the Habitat Plan for Morgan Hill but not for Gilroy).  Something that has received little attention is the sum of over $450,000 that Gilroy has paid or owes for the Habitat Plan preparation costs to date.  The Habitat Plan allows preparation cost recovery from permit fees incurred over the 50-year course of the Plan, but that recovery won't be available to Gilroy if the City remains outside of the Plan. The costs to complete the Plan for Gilroy over the next year are less than $50,000, so dropping out of the Plan now to save $50,000 will cost the City the $450,000 it could have recovered.

Finally, the US Fish and Wildlife Service letter notes that habitat alterations done without permission under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will require a permit under Section 10 of the ESA.  In addition to what the letter stated, we would add that the failure to get such a permit means the habitat alteration is a violation of Section 9 of the ESA.  That habitat alteration is already happening – for example, the traffic Gilroy creates through Silicon Valley causes damage to serpentine soil habitat and ESA-listed species using that habitat.  Wildlife agencies, and others, have the ability to enforce Section 9 of the ESA.  No one has yet used that capability because of the progress that seems to be apparent both in Habitat Plan area and in North County for habitat protection, but if Gilroy definitively removes itself from the Habitat Plan process, then it needs to demonstrate what steps it will take to bring the City's actions into compliance with Section 9 of the ESA.

The simplest and most-financially sound way for Gilroy to move forward is to reconsider a withdrawal from the Habitat Plan, making use of the additional information and the opportunity Gilroy will have to control and reduce costs of Plan administration.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

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

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

-Brian

CGF letter:

Dear President Cortese and Board of Supervisors:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills

and video (speakers were only allowed one minute):

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

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

April 15, 2011

Santa Clara and San Jose City Councils

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

Dear Santa Clara and San Jose City Council Members;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nature in the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

CGF comments on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan

(We submitted the comments below on the County's Habitat Plan.  To follow along, the citations can be found here.  -Brian)

April 18, 2011

Cori Mustin, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist

USFWS

Ken Schreiber, HCP/NCCP Program Manager

County of Santa Clara Executive's Office

            Re:  Comments on the Draft Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan

Dear Cori and Ken:

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan:

Implementing Agreement:

7.4.3 Neighboring landowners:  we understand the reference and description of farmlands to exclude horse stabling except for purposes of horse breeding, and also to exclude recreational equestrian uses.  The reference to "associated activities such as … vehicle or horse use" is assumed to mean using vehicles or horses for the purposes of facilitating the previously described agricultural practices.  The above assumptions conform to the normal description of agricultural practice in Santa Clara County that excludes horse boarding stables and recreational equestrian uses.  If these assumptions are incorrect, then the language should be changed to specifically exclude horse boarding stables and equestrian recreation.

8.2.1. Exemptions:  the reference to "Table 6-10" should be "Table 6-1".

9.2.1. Conservation Easements:  if conservation organizations other than Implementing Entity hold the easements, the easements must also identify the Wildlife Agencies as third party beneficiaries.  This should be expressly stated in section 9.2.1.

9.4 Stay-Ahead or Rough Proportionality Requirement:  the language on page 30 stating "the Implementing Entity will fulfill the requirements of this Section and Chapter 8.6.1 so long as it ensures the pace…does not fall behind the pace at which Covered Activities impact habitat by more than ten percent…." presents a potential conflict with language in Chapter 8.6.1 (at 8-26) stating Habitat Plan requirements in Tables 5-11 and 5-13 still apply and must be met by Year 45 or Year 40.  To eliminate confusion, the IA language should be changed to read ""the Implementing Entity will fulfill the requirements of this Section and Chapter 8.6.1 so long as,subject to restrictions in Chapter 8.6.1, it ensures the pace…." (italicized language added).

In addition, the "Stay-Ahead" terminology is inaccurate because the Habitat Plan does not require the mitigation pace to stay ahead but instead allows it to fall as much as 10% behind.  The only term that should be used is "Rough Proportionality".

9.4.1 State and Federal Funding:  it is unclear when in the course of the permit term that the Plan will ensure that state and federal lands purchases "will not be credited towards SCVHP mitigation requirements" because this section states these purchases will be credited towards the rough proportionality requirement.  To take an extreme example, it appears under this provision that for an initial period of indefinite length, no land could be purchased for mitigation purposes, and 18,000 acres described in Chapter 9.4.3 could be purchased by state and federal funds, yet the rough proportionality requirement would still be satisfied.

If the intent regarding rough proportionality is to credit state and federal purchases toward a recovery pace requirement only, then that would solve the above problem but should be expressly stated.  If not, then there should be some other periodic check-in to ensure that mitigation is keeping pace with impacts and is not being obscured by the early application of enhancement land purchases.

If the Plan relies on purchases dedicated only to recovery to demonstrate rough proportionality, then it risks failing to actually achieve rough proportionality at a later point, because the Plan will have failed to increase mitigation requirements when it could have at an earlier point, and there will be no opportunity to return to prior-approved projects, particularly private projects, and request additional mitigation.

Draft Habitat Plan

Chapter 5:

General Comment:  for the reasons stated in the letter of April 18, 2011 from the De Anza College Wildlife Corridor Technician Program commenting on the Habitat Plan, the Plan should do much more for both 1.  permanent protection of lands in  Mid-Coyote (and we include North Coyote Valley area as well), and 2.  interim protection of lands in the same area pending future development.  The De Anza Program letter focuses on permanent protection and on Mid-Coyote, but their arguments can also be applied to North Coyote and to interim protection.

We support permanent protection for all the reasons stated in the De Anza letter.  In addition, permanent protection is at least partially compatible with urban development in Coyote Valley, because the proposals for urban development would not occupy 100% of the land.  Plans such as the now-defunct Coyote Valley Specific Plan acknowledged a role for natural open space.  It is conceivable that even with urban development, significant amounts of natural open space would be available in Mid and North Coyote flatland in the vicinity of Fisher Creek, along the southern boundary of Mid Coyote, areas adjoining the recently-purchased Open Space Authority land at the terminus of Palm Drive, and along the northern border of North Coyote/southern edge of Tulare Hill.   Fee title and easement purchases would be appropriate in all those areas. Small areas of permanent valley-floor protection could also be useful linkages for insects and native plants between Santa Teresa Hills and the Mount Hamilton range, and useful for research purposes.

Interim habitat protection and enhancement could also serve recovery goals.  The Habitat Plan acknowledges the negative temporal impacts if an interim period occurred between an impact and its mitigation, so the positive temporal impacts of an interim protection that might not be permanent should also be included.  Equally important, there is no binding commitment by the City of San Jose to allow permanent development of the majority of Coyote Valley, so that development might not happen.  This means the Habitat Plan's interim protection has the possibility of becoming permanent protection, and is all the more valuable.  Finally, the Plan anticipates a recovery trajectory for habitats and species in the Study Area, so interim protection can provide bridging benefits until new land can be purchased, rehabilitated, and enhanced.

Specific comments on Chapter 5:

Table 5-1a Objective 2.4 Species movement via Coyote Valley:  the Plan should purchase permanent or interim fee title/lease or easements in Coyote Valley, especially near Fisher Creek and other water bodies, near Palm Drive, near the north edge of North Coyote Valley, and near important crossing points  for  Highway 101 and Monterey Highway, and manage the properties to facilitate wildlife movement.

Table 5-2b Page 9 Directed Studies:  a new directed study should purchase land or easements in Mid and North Coyote and manage it as grassland to determine its value as annual grassland, its native plant value, its usefulness in linking insect and native plant communities across the Valley floor, and as nesting and overwintering burrowing owl habitat.

Table 5-9 Ref #10:  native species likely use this linkage also include coyote, ground squirrel, and mountain lion.

Table 5-21:  a footnote 5 is in the table, but no footnote 5 appears afterward.

Figure 5-9b:  it appears unlikely that there are only two culverts on Highway 152.

Chapter 6:

Table 6-1, page 3:  we understand the exemption for areas mapped as "landfill" does not include areas that are not yet landfill but are planned to be incorporated into a landfill, such as adjoining habitat near Kirby Landfill.  The exemption should not encompass these neighboring areas.

Chapter 8:

8.6.1 at 8-26 Measurement of Stay Ahead:  the language here regarding a 10% deviation conflicts with language in Implementing Agreement 9.4, and the IA 9.4 language is preferable.  Here, the requirement for no more than a 10% deviation implies that achieving over 110% of the conservation pace expected at the particular time is non-compliant, which should not be the case.  Instead, the IA 9.4 language that requirement means the pace "does not fall behind by more than ten percent" is better, and it allows for large land purchases that may bring the total to over 110% of the expected pace.  Similarly, the concave (upper) curves on Figures 8.4a and 8.4b should be deleted.

8.6.2 at 8-32 Interim Conservation:  this section refers to Figure 5-12, but no Figure 5-12 is included in Chapter 5.  It may actually be a reference to Figure 5-4.

Chapter 9:

9.4.1 at 9-30 Nitrogen Deposition Fee:  it is crucial that this relatively modest fee be retained in the Habitat Plan funding in order to accurately reflect actual costs caused by development, and to incentivize development that produces fewer vehicle trips.  Modifications that reflect the increase costs of longer vehicle trips could be appropriate, but elimination of this fee would impose improper burdens on others who are not creating the impacts described.

9.4.1 at 9-37 Temporary Impact Fee:  the description of temporary impacts on page 9-37 as those that "alter cover for less than one year and that allow the disturbed area to recover to pre-project" conditions appears to conflict with the formula on page 9-38 that allows the impact to occur for multiple years.  If this is for frequent, returning impacts, the language should be clarified.

Temporary impacts to grassland should be allowed in-lieu mitigation through interim grassland conservation actions in Mid and North Coyote Valley, such as temporarily enhancing the existing baseline conditions to facilitate grassland and wildlife linkage uses.  This comment also applies to Page 9-45, Implementing Conservation Actions in Lieu of Development Fees.

9.4.2 at 9-49 Land Acquisition by Other Local Land Agencies, Non-Profits, and Foundations:  this section should note that much if not nearly all of these acquisitions are likely to be limited to promoting recovery and not used as mitigation.

9.4.3 at 9-53 Measuring State and Federal Contributions:  see comment regarding Implementing Agreement 9.4.1 (If the intent regarding rough proportionality is to credit state and federal purchases toward an enhancement pace requirement only, then that would solve the above problem but should be expressly stated.  If not, then there should be some other periodic check-in to ensure that mitigation is keeping pace with impacts and is not being obscured by the early application of enhancement land purchases.)

Table 9-1 Remedial Measures:  the word "construction" after "Remedial Measures" should be deleted, because remedial measures deal with a wide variety of changed circumstances beyond just that of construction.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

CGF Position Statement on the proposal to destroy farmland for east-side Gilroy high speed rail station

(CGF issued the following position statement earlier this year.  -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills

Policy Opposing a Proposed Eastern Location for the Gilroy Train Station

February 16, 2011

Committee for Green Foothills is reviewing the as-yet incomplete information on the alignment and potential impacts of High Speed Rail between San Jose and Merced.  Even at this early stage, however, we are deeply concerned about the proposed location of a Gilroy train station on working farmland east of Highway 101.  This location could cause a significant loss to vital urban edge agriculture that currently limits destructive sprawl. This loss would result both from the footprint occupied by the station and by the tracks leading north and south from the station. The east station would pull Gilroy development in general away from downtown and towards outward sprawl - directly aimed at the stronghold of Santa Clara County agriculture currently existing to the east and south of Gilroy.  The station would increase the likelihood that the rail alignment from Gilroy to San Jose would further destroy even more farmland on its route.  

Additionally, the proposal would orient the train station to servicing cars instead of public transit.  A downtown location would encourage customers to arrive and depart by public transit, while the Highway 101 location would require auto use.  The potential Highway 101 station would make it easier for sprawling hillside subdivisions to be created an hour's drive away in multiple directions from Gilroy, where commuters would drive in on the highways and then take the High Speed Rail to their jobs.

Placing the station east of Hwy 101 in Gilroy completely ignores and is counter to the HSR Authority’s prescribed criteria for HST Station Area Development: ¹

·          To be considered for a station, the proposed site must have the potential to promote higher density, mixed-use, pedestrian accessible development around the station.

·         As the HST project proceeds to more detailed study, and before a final station location decision is made, the responsible local government(s) are expected to provide (through planning and zoning) for TOD around HST station locations.

·         Give priority to stations for which the city and/or county has adopted station area TOD plans and general plans that focus and prioritize development on the TOD areas rather than on auto-oriented outlying areas.

·         As the project proceeds to more detailed study, local governments are expected to finance (e.g., through value-capture or other financing techniques) the public spaces needed to support the pedestrian/bicycle traffic generated by hub stations, as well as identifying long-term maintenance of the spaces.

Committee for Green Foothills opposes any use of the limited transit and high speed rail funding for the further planning of this destructive site proposal.

^1. Draft: HST Station Area Development: General Principles and Guidelines, August 6, 2010 

Action Alert: Santa Clara County Parks

Preserve the mission of County Parks Department as providing regional-level parks and trails
http://www.greenfoothills.org/action/2011/SCCParks032311.pdf



Please email or write to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and ask them to approve the staff proposal, to increase the emphasis on acquiring natural habitats, and to reject any proposal to drop "regionality" as the central concern of County acquisitions.

Action Alert: Say NO to Big Wave housing in a Tsunami Zone!

See CGF's Action Alert  http://www.greenfoothills.org/action/Big%20Wave/BigWave032411.pdf

Please email or write to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and ask them to uphold the appeals and deny the project.

 - the folks at Committee for Green Foothills

People of Gilroy oppose destroying farmland to construct a remote train station

There's a good article in the Gilroy Dispatch about the proposed High Speed Rail system and potential train station in Gilroy, and it quotes CGF Advocate Julie Hutcheson.  One potential location is downtown at the existing station, while the other is far east of town where a lot of prime farmland would be lost:

Residents rail against proposed East Gilroy bullet train station

A study of two proposed locations for a high-speed rail station in Gilroy will address concerns of traffic circulation, parking, land use, economic impacts and other factors, a city official said during a South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee meeting Thursday night in Morgan Hill. 

....

 The California High-Speed Rail Authority has designated two possible locations for a station in Gilroy - downtown and east of Highway 101 just outside the city. The CHSRA will make its decision later this fall, Bischoff said.

Several residents who attended Thursday's meeting, however, said the east Gilroy station shouldn't be an option.

 Yvonne Sheets-Saucedo read a statement from Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design claiming the east Gilroy station violated an existing 20-year agreement between Santa Clara County's Local Agency Formation Commission, the city of Gilroy and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

....
Jennifer Williams, executive director for the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, said Thursday that land east of Gilroy was "the best remaining farmland," and constructing a rail station in that region was "counter to everything in society we're trying to protect."

 Julie Hutcheson, an advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills, said she feared an east Gilroy station would contribute to a loss of agriculture, due to the station footprint and the tracks themselves.

-Brian

South County Investigative Series

Please join Committee for Green Foothills and Greenbelt Alliance for our investigative series as we explore the issues facing South Santa Clara County and plan for a future where farms, natural resources and attractive towns thrive side by side. 

Essence of Life: Water Tour 
March 12, 2011
10:00am – 2:30pm

- The tour will start at Nordstrom Well with speakers Director Don Gage of the Santa Clara Valley Water Districtand Mario Iglesias Utilities Systems Manager, Department of Public Works, City of Morgan Hill.  They  will address water supply, water quality, and conservation issues.

- Our second stop will be at Christmas Hill Park/Sylva’s Crossing where Herman Garcia, President, Coastal Habitat Education and Environmental Restoration (CHEER) will address storm water runoff, creek stewardship, and steelhead rearing habitat.

- Our third stop is Casa Dos Rios, home of Jean Myers.  She will address creek management and native plant and riparian restoration.

- The tour will end at Jason Stephens Winery where CHEER has a steelhead nursery.  There Herman Garcia will address CHEER’s success in restoring steelhead to Uvas Creek and the regional and statewide recognition they have received for their work. 

Food of Life: Agricultural Panel
April 15, 6:30pm

Join us for a panel discussion on the opportunities and challenges facing South Santa Clara County agriculture at the Lizarran Tapas Restaurant, a fantastic Gilroy restaurant.


Quality of Life: Urban TourApril 16, 9:45am
A walking tour of Downtown Morgan Hill that will highlight the elements of a vibrant community designed around people, including a visit to a community garden and an opportunity to envision a creek walk.

Combining the Components of Life: Community Design Day
May 14, 11:00am
Bring your ideas to this community design day! Led by professional designers and land use planners; through the use of maps and visual imagery, participants will help create designs to inspire decision makers of this region.
Granary 17500 Depot Street, Morgan Hill

RSVP
info@greenfoothills.org or
(650) 968-7243 x314

Comment letter on damaging stream environment at Dittos Lane in Los Gatos

(CGF submitted the following comment letter on proposed development that could harm Los Gatos Creek.  The City of Los Gatos needs to have much better defined standards than the ones it used in its analysis.  -Brian)

February 4, 2011

Joe Paulson, Senior Planner

Town of Los Gatos

jpaulson@losgatosca.gov

Re:  Comments on DEIR 10-001 for Dittos Lane Apartments Planned Development Application PD-10-002

Dear Joe:

            The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments on the Draft EIR for the Dittos Lane Apartments.  We note that CGF appreciates and supports the intent of providing housing, especially affordable housing, in Los Gatos.  We express the following concerns regarding the DEIR for this project, without taking a position at the present time as to whether the project should proceed.

            Our concerns revolve around the adequacy of the description of potential impacts to the riparian area of Los Gatos Creek.  First, the DEIR needs to adequately describe and assess any potential impact to Los Gatos Creek as a wildlife migration corridor, especially for larger mammals like deer.  The corridor appears to be restricted but still viable, so if this project would further impede that corridor, then that needs to be disclosed and analyzed for its potential individually- and cumulatively- significant impact.

            Second, the standards for assessing overall riparian impacts in the area appear to be overly vague, and further analysis is needed to do adequate analysis.  The standards described in the DEIR are as follows:

ENV-3.1: Preserve riparian corridors and riparian

habitats and avoid disturbances to these areas.

ENV-3.2: Ensure development prevents damage to

native plants in the hillsides, riparian areas,

watersheds and other sensitive natural habitats.

ENV-3.3: Retain creek beds, riparian corridors, water

courses and associated vegetation in their natural

state to assist groundwater percolation and prevent

erosion and downstream sedimentation.

ENV-3.4: Require setbacks or other protective

measures as appropriate to protect riparian corridors.

ENV-3.5: Promote the planting of local native trees

and shrubs on land surrounding reservoirs and

streams, especially adjacent to areas where banks or

channels have been modified for flood protection

DEIR at 4.7-8

The resulting analysis:

Proposed site development would generally avoid

disturbance of riparian corridor vegetation and habitat.

Grading on the site perimeter would require the removal

of 56 trees within the oak/bay woodland that is

contiguous to riparian vegetation. No disturbance would

occur on the lower hillsides above Los Gatos Creek

banks or below the top of bank. As discussed above,

proposed landscaping plans include planting coast live

oaks and other native species. Appropriate mitigation

measures are included in the discussion below to ensure

protection of off-site riparian resources.

Id.

Additional analysis is needed to justify the claim that the 56 to-be-removed trees "contiguous" to the riparian area are not actually part of the riparian area.  The DEIR needs to describe what, if any, buffer exists between the development footprint and the riparian edge, and it needs to establish a standard of what constitutes an appropriate buffer.  The Town's neighboring city, San Jose, has a riparian buffer policy of 100 feet, and while that policy also has some exceptions, it is tightening up the policy.  The lack of any expressed policy in this DEIR is disturbing, but it does not excuse the Town from applying a reasonable standard, so that needs to be done.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

For the record: info on cities that took control of environmental review away from developers

(Since there was some interest in this, I'm copying below a memo of which local cities in 2005 had taken control of environmental review away from developers - most of them.  San Jose was and remains an outlier in retaining a biased system that it uses extensively.  Many people don't even know that this is going on.  -Brian)

MEMO

    To:    Brian Schmidt

From:    Kelley Wood

 Date:     6/14/05

    Re:     Cities of Santa Clara County Environmental Impact Report Information

Below, please find the information collected from the cities within Santa Clara County regarding the preparation of the preliminary versions of their Environmental Impact Reports.

1. City of Campbell hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 866-2140

2. City of Cupertino hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 777-3308

3. City of Gilroy hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 846-0440

4. City of Los Altos hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report as well as allows the developer to hire a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(650) 947-2750

5. City of Los Altos Hills planning department received a message from me on June 14, 2005 regarding their Environmental Impact Reports.

(650) 941-7222 x235

6. Town of Los Gatos hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 354-6872

7. City of Milpitas planning department received a message from me on June 1, 2005 regarding their Environmental Impact Reports.

(408) 586-3279

8. City of Monte Sereno planning department (Brian Levinthal) received a message from me on June 1, 2005 regarding their Environmental Impact Reports.

(408) 354-7635

9. City of Morgan Hill hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 779-7248

10.  City of Mountain View hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report (a developer may suggest consultant, but decision is ultimately up to the city).

(650) 903-6306

11. City of Palo Alto hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

12. City of San Jose allows the developer to hire a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 277-4000

13. City of Santa Clara hires a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 615-2450

14. City of Saratoga planning department will not be answering questions via phone.

(408) 868-1222

15. City of Sunnyvale allows the developer to hire a consultant to prepare the preliminary version of the Environmental Impact Report.

(408) 730-7431