Victory for Mountain View Open Space in Cuesta Annex

Nice article in the Mountain View Voice:  a proposal to move a historic building to Cuesta Annex, a rare, undeveloped open space area that is not along the Bay and the foothills, has ended.  We have no problem with the history museum or historic preservation, but don't want the Cuesta Annex damaged.  The article cites the letter we wrote:

Following a City Council decision made behind closed doors on Tuesday, the future hangs in the balance for a 130-year-old house and the city's proposed history museum. 

City Council members say they voted 4-2 against a proposal to add a restored 1880s home to plans for a Mountain View history museum in the Cuesta Annex. Mayor Jac Siegel recused himself because he owns property nearby. 

....

But council members say they received more comments opposing the museum than supporting it because its footprint intrudes on the unstructured open space at the Cuesta Annex -- and the Pearson House could potentially increase that footprint by 10,000 feet. Those comments include a letter sent to the council on Tuesday, Oct. 19, from the Audubon Society and the Committee for Green Foothills, which said the Annex is Mountain View's "one uniquely free area for children to roam in the dirt and the bugs and the birds," adding that "Cuesta Park is a far better location" as only developed parkland would be lost.

"I did not hear from the community that they wanted this house there," said council member Laura Macias, explaining her vote against the proposal in the closed session meeting. 
Macias said she hoped the house could be moved to Shoreline Park where it could sit near the Rengstorff House. "We have this developer willing to refurbish it. It is important to see where our momentum is and continue that."

For more info on our letter, click here.

Two minutes, three points, three successes

It's hard to figure out how many points you can get across in the very limited time for public comment at various agency meetings.  In the case of Monday's San Jose Task Force meeting to revise its General Plan, they gave us two minutes.  I decided to make two points and get in a third if there was time.

In my first point, I showed where changes to the Draft General Plan contradicted a policy that "grandfathered", now-unpermitted uses should be gradually phased out, and suggested alternative language to use.

In my second point, I argued an evenly-split vote at the Task Force over whether to allow environmentally-destructive golf courses on hillsides was not fairly reflected in the revisions to be sent to the City Council, and suggested exactly how to make sure the pro-environment side was represented.

I then checked my watch - thirty seconds left.  I hurriedly added that the Plan's call for massive tree planting in the city, the "Community Forest," should recommend that the tree types planted be compatible with recycled water.  Water-hungry trees that aren't native to San Jose, like redwoods, also can't stand the slightly elevated salt levels in recycled water that are no problem for our native oaks.  Recycled water diminishes our local environmental impacts, if we make sure our landscaping can use it.

Then I sat down, the public comment period ended.  The Task Force members started calling for their own changes, and they called out my suggestions and adopted all of them.

I'm always happy to get any of my suggestions adopted, but all three was fantastic.  That was a well-used two minutes.

-Brian

CGF letter gets extension of time to file comments on San Jose General Plan EIR

(We're happy to note that the letter we wrote and found co-signers below resulted in a two week extension of time to file comments by anyone, greatly helping the role of public participation.  CGF Intern Kelsey Grousbeck did great work to help make it happen.  San Jose staff also deserve credit for being willing to give extra time to comment preparation.  -Brian)

July 26, 2011

John Davidson, San Jose Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Joe Horwedel, Director of the City of San Jose Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Dear Mr. Davidson and Mr. Horwedel,

           

            The undersigned organizations and individuals request a 30-day extension on the public comment period for the DPEIR for San Jose’s General Plan.  A project with this vast scope requires more time to fully consider and respond to than the 45-day comment period currently allocated, and the summer time period makes it too difficult to coordinate and develop comments in the minimum statutory period.

Because the General Plan for San Jose will be implemented for the next 28 years, it is extremely important to address any potential concerns at this stage as opposed to after the plan has been implemented. If we are able to resolve issues now, it would save both parties more time and resources than if we were to address them once the projects are underway. This is particularly vital for issues regarding development goals and their potential environmental impacts on San Jose and the surrounding regions. Forty-five days is not enough time to consider every potential environmental impact the project might have for the next 28 years, nor is it enough time to consider the potential mitigation measures.

Additionally, the comment period falls during the summer months, when many key organizations are not operating with a full staff. As a result, it is taking longer to organize comments than it would during other months. A 30-day extension would allow organizations the time they need for formulating accurate and thorough comments, which we are assuming you are going to take into close consideration when moving forwards with this plan. Not allowing adequate time for organizations to comment to the best of their ability is neglecting the purpose of the comment process. 

We understand that the City is expecting our organizations to provide you with comments that are valid, beneficial, and thoughtful. In order to meet your expectations, we request that you grant a 30-day extension for comments to be submitted.

Thank you for your consideration, and please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Committee for Green Foothills     The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club      Greenbelt Alliance

            Brian Schmidt                                       Megan Fluke                                Michele Beasley

Individual Signatories:

Linda J. LeZotte

Susan Marsland

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)

Good news - Santa Clara County Supervisors reject Planning Commission advice to weaken water conservation standards

Yesterday I attended the County Board of Supervisors meeting, where they were considering a new landscaping water conservation ordinance.  The Planning Commission had recommended several steps to weaken the ordinance proposed by County Planning staff, which was strange because the staff version basically followed the state model ordinance, and state law says the alternatives must be at least as effective in water conservation.

Committee for Green Foothills spoke against the proposed changes, and I'm relieved to announce that the Supervisors voted unanimously for the staff version.  There was a proposed change that would eliminate maintenance requirements, which would be a very bad idea, and it's not totally clear to me whether that flaw has been fixed - we'll have to see when the draft ordinance comes out.

Overall, some good news at yesterday's meeting!

-Brian Schmidt

Good news from the Water District's Environmental Advisory Committee

Yesterday, the Environmental Advisory Committee of the Santa Clara Valley Water District approved five policy recommendations made by a subcommittee that I chair, all designed to improve the District's handling of erosion and the impact on streams and habitats.  Three of the recommendations were somewhat controversial as District staff felt they were too specific for the higher level policy recommendations, but in the end the Committee agreed with all five.  They'll now get passed on to the Water District Board for its final decision.

The new recommended policies are these:

Policy Objectives

4.1.3 Protect, enhance and restore the natural physical

     stability/dynamic equilibrium of streams.

4.1.4  Protect, enhance and restore thriving populations of key    

     species indicative of watershed health.

4.1.5    Protect, enhance and restore riparian and in stream and

                   tidal habitat conditions conducive to watershed health,  

including diked historical bayland wetlands and former salt ponds. 

Strategies

4.1.2.3      Develop ecologically based habitat goals and levels of

service for use in planning and implementation.” (P & C)

4.1.2.4            Develop Stream Restoration Plans in collaboration with

                  municipal governments (C) 

-Brian Schmidt

Good news for improving environmental funding by the Water District

A potential environmental victory may be in the works at the Water District, fixing a defect in the current Clean Safe Creeks measure, if the measure gets renewed.

The current CSC funding is supposed to dedicate 14% of the parcel tax to environmental enhancement, while most of the remainder is dedicated to flood control.  While that 14% of course should be good news, included in the allowable activities for that 14% is removing vegetation from flood channels.  The argument is that much of the removed vegetation are non-native plants, but really it's not about getting rid of non-natives, it's about improving flood conveyance.

At a recent workshop about a potential renewed CSC measure (the current one expires in 2016), I raised this issue and said vegetation removal from channels should be charged to flood control, not to environmental enhancement.  Water District staff agreed with me, and said they'd been thinking along the same lines.

While that might not sound like a huge victory (and it's not a victory at all unless and until a new parcel tax measure is written with the right language and passes), it could be bigger than it sounds.  In effect, it boosts the amount spent on actual environmental enhancement, and will help make Santa Clara County watersheds that much better off.

-Brian Schmidt

Good news - Water District to support Extended Producer Responsibility

On Tuesday, the Santa Clara Valley Water District reconsidered a recommendation to pull sponsorship and funding from the California Product Stewardship Council.  Several environmental leaders wrote into the District to ask them to continue their support.  I went to the budget meeting on Tuesday and pointed out that Extended Producer Responsibility - the idea that producers of toxins and other wastes are responsible for removing them from the environment - could help the cleanup of the many local areas affected by mercury. The Water District Board unanimously chose to continue sponsorship.

Congrats to the Water District for its decision, and hopefully we can make progress on the mercury cleanup.

-Brian Schmidt

Victory for riparian protection in San Jose

Good news from the revision process for the San Jose General Plan - staff has included a 100' stream buffer from development in all but "exceptional circumstances" in the draft to be sent to the City Council.  This protection was originally omitted, but I pointed out the omission at Monday's Task Force revision, and staff agreed to include it.

To be sure, this is somewhat duplicative - the draft Habitat Plan for the county will likely have at least as stringent protections that will also cover San Jose.  This is insurance though in case something happens to stop the Habitat Plan and for the day when the Habitat Plan expires.

Good news!

-Brian

A CGF quarry victory I didn't even realize had happened

Some good news from the Lehigh-Hanson Quarry in the hills above Cupertino and Los Altos:  on CGF's suggestion, they have changed the night-time lighting to decrease the light pollution offsite.  We suggested this years ago, and on a recent visit the quarry operators told me they had taken us up on the suggestion.  They said they've turned off the most prominent lighting, the ones on top of a tower, and only turn them on when maintenance is needed.  There's another set of lights on a conveyor that have also been reconfigured.

Perhaps not the biggest victory in the world, but it's an improvement.  The ability to see the stars is a natural resource that belongs to everyone, and light pollution is a documented environmental problem for both people and wildlife.

Also based on our suggestion, Lehigh changed the management of the rock scar above Los Altos Hills to prioritize completion of the visible section so revegetation can happen as soon as possible.  They anticipate finishing the visible section this year, with revegetation occurring at the very to in the 2011-2012 rainy season.

Plenty of other issues to work on there, however, so we'll keep focused.

-Brian

Lennie wins the Cox Conserves Hero’s Award!

(Below is a wonderful email we got to send out last week to folks signed up on our Action Alert list. -Brian)

Dear Friends!

We are so very delighted to announce CGF Advocate Lennie Roberts was awarded the Cox Conserves Hero’s Award today!!!

CGF is honored to have Lennie’s support, dedication, perseverance and generosity working on behalf of the open space, farmlands and natural resources of San Mateo County. All of us and the Bay Area itself would be a poorer place without her.

Without your support Lennie would not have been given this award. Thank you for your vote and for passing on the voting request to your friends and families.

Lennie, has generously donated the $5,000 winner’s check to CGF. Thank you, Lennie!

We have been told that clips of the award luncheon can be seen tonight on the Channel 2 10 o’clock news. Tune in!

Again, we thank you for all the ways you support CGF!

- The folks at Green Foothills

News Alert: Success in Gilroy and great progress in San Jose!

(CGF sent out the News Alert below about victories in Gilroy and San Jose. -Brian)

We've had great news in Gilroy and San Jose that we want to share with supporters.

All four sprawl proposals in Gilroy that we've been fighting have now been defeated or withdrawn! Since 2008, Committee for Green Foothills fought the proposals for over 1,000 acres of sprawl and inappropriate development that would move the City of Gilroy’s current boundaries outward.

We testified at hearings and sent several highly critical letters about the deficient environmental analysis. We were joined in this by other environmental organizations, local community organizations, and several government agencies that also wrote letters critical of the environmental documentation and the proposals themselves.

Two of the four proposals had already been withdrawn by the applicants when the issue finally reached the Gilroy City Council last week. On a 4-3 vote, Mayor Al Pinheiro and Council Members Peter Arrellano, Kat Tucker, and Perry Woodward voted against certifying the environmental documentation (EIRs) for the projects, which had the effect of killing the proposals. While we regret that it had not been a unanimous vote, Committee for Green Foothills salutes the City Council for making this sensible decision.

Turning to San Jose, the Envision 2040 Task Force has supported a strong policy for protecting streamside riparian corridors from inappropriate development and for closing loopholes in the current policy. For the first time after years of CGF efforts, the City of San Jose agreed to examine whether to continue the current practice of letting developers write the initial version of environmental documents that the City uses for examining streams.

Thank you for your support of CGF! Your support makes it possible for us to continue to be ever vigilant about land protection.

We will lobby Gilroy to develop a Climate Action Plan that will discourage sprawl proposals. We will track San Jose as it considers whether to remove developers' role in preparing the City's environmental documents, and encourage them to expand that change from stream issues to all environmental reviews.

We will continue to monitor the many issues throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.

We'll keep active and keep you informed.

- The folks at Committee for Green Foothills

Great news from Gilroy - last two remaining sprawl proposals defeated

(I just wanted to put a link to this Gilroy Dispatch article, and we'll add more later. -Brian)

Article:

Citing uncertainties over environmental reports, the council voted 4-3 - with Council members Dion Bracco, Bob Dillon and Craig Gartman dissenting - against two annexation requests that would eventually lead to residential development. Gillmor's Lucky Day Ranch application proposed the incorporation of 285 hilly acres straddling Burchell Road north of Hecker Pass Highway for up to 193 homes and 244 acres of open space and parks - just a sliver of the applicant's original proposal to annex 2,014 pristine acres stretching up to the Corde Valle Golf Course in San Martin. The council also rejected a separate application from Wren Investors to annex 48 acres near Christopher High School for up to 430 dwellings.

Environmentalists, rural residents and county representatives encouraged the rejections by arguing that at least 2,100 additional residents, about 4 percent of Gilroy, will tax the city's stressed school and emergency services. That many new residents could cost the county and Gilroy hundreds of thousands of dollars over a 10-year period, according to staff projections that considered property and sales tax revenues against city and county expenses on the hypothetical residents.

"We've just gone through a huge budget crisis and are looking to hire more police (officers) and (firefighters) just to catch up," Council member Peter Arellano said. "I'm not looking forward to trying to find another amount of money to catch up with these developments."

Opponents also stressed that Gilroy - which has exceeded its self-imposed growth limit - already has enough vacant land to develop 3,500 homes over the next 11 years, according to conservative city estimates. They also decried the projects' preliminary environmental reports as lacking carbon footprint analyses and avoiding scenarios based on an exact number of homes. Other residents had simpler concerns about the region's tranquility.

One victory and possibly more for the environment

1. San Jose City Council's Committee on Economic Development voted 4-0 to recommend the City Council pass a ban on plastic bags from retailers and groceries (with limited exceptions) and a ban on paper bags with less than 50% recycled content. The City Council will also consider a 10 to 25 cent fee on paper bags as well (media reports saying the Committee recommended the fee are wrong, the actual stance is neutral). Seven of the 11 council members have now publicly supported this position. CGF and Save the Bay were the only major environmental groups that spoke at the meeting. This is a good step for stream protection and would put San Jose at the forefront of this issue with a stronger position than even what San Francisco did. More info is at the Mercury News.

I'll just add that the plastic bag industry may be shooting itself in the foot - they've opposed fees on takeout bags, relying on voter resistance to anything that resembles a tax, but that has pushed the reform direction towards an outright ban instead. Maybe next time the bag people will be more reasonable.

2. Second piece of possibly good news is that one of the four applications to expand Gilroy outward has been dropped after they received extensive critiques from CGF and others on their environmental documents. This was Gavilan's application to expand development of its main campus in Gilroy, completely separate from the other controversy over a proposed new campus in Coyote Valley. I only call it "possibly" good news because Gavilan has asserted they are not legally required to get Gilroy's permission, so they might have a Plan B in mind, but we'll be ready to react if Plan B comes around.

-Brian

The great news keeps rolling in, and we can take some of the credit

Last week we could celebrate the purchase of 966-acre Rancho San Vicente, an important link in a chain of protected land extending immediately south of San Jose. Environmental opposition to sprawl in Coyote Valley was crucial for stopping the sprawl proposal that the developers originally tried at San Vicente:

Tom deRegt, a partner in New Cities Development Group, said his firm
decided to sell the Rancho San Vicente land for the same price it
paid in 1998. Back then, he said, the driving force was Cisco Systems' plans for
a new campus at Coyote Valley on Highway 101.
"We felt the jobs created by Cisco would push the need for more housing, and that there would be a demand for executive housing," deRegt said. "Obviously things changed since then."

CGF and other organizations fought the Cisco project long enough for economic conditions to derail it, and then did so again with an even bigger proposal for Coyote Valley that stopped at an earlier stage. If either project had succeeded, the the speculative sprawl potential would have made San Vicente impossible to purchase.

And yesterday, San Jose's General Plan Task Force supported staff recommendations to not plan for development in Almaden Valley and Mid-Coyote Valley, and to keep Evergreen's industrial areas zoned industrial, all of which are supported by CGF:

A special panel charged with charting San
Jose's long-term growth has put the city one step closer to keeping its
undeveloped southern fringes — most prominently Coyote
Valley — off-limits to new housing tracts.

Citing the cost of providing services to those far-flung areas, as well
as the environmental damage that development might bring, the Envision San Jose
2040 Task Force voted overwhelmingly late Tuesday to keep the city's so-called
"urban reserves" in Coyote Valley and Almaden Valley out of any future growth
discussions.

In addition, the panel unanimously urged that open space in Evergreen —
currently targeted for industrial uses — remain formally out of the mix for new
homes.
...

Tuesday's meeting brought out scores of green and open space advocates
who sought to reinforce those concerns and urge planners to focus on development
already inside the urban core.

"Let's fix what we have first," said Helen Chapman, a director of the
Committee for Green Foothills.

Of course they could have done more - in particular, they shouldn't continue to assume that development will come to North Coyote Valley, as the economic conditions haven't changed and the permits are about to expire. On the other hand, four years ago I really couldn't have imagined this - CGF was in the middle of a lawsuit to stop a stupid and dangerous soccer field complex in Alamden Valley farmland, and the plan to develop both North and Mid Coyote was on an express track. These changes are amazing.

-Brian

UPDATE: a short video showing San Vicente is here.

Another victory for the environment - Rancho San Benito proposal withdrawn

Great news in the Hollister FreeLance:

DMB informed San Benito County officials today the company has
officially withdrawn its proposal for the 6,800-unit El Rancho San Benito
development northwest of Hollister off Highway 25, a planning official confirmed
to the Free Lance. DMB representatives submitted the withdrawal letter to the
county today and attributed the decision to the ailing economy, said Art
Henriques, county planning director. "They indicated in the letter, clearly,
there's a lot more going on in the world than just this project in San Benito
County," Henriques said. "They have a significant company that is dealing with a
global economy."

I'm sure economic conditions played a big role, but so could environmental opposition. While the project is in San Benito County, it is right across the county line from Santa Clara County and can have negative impacts on both counties. For example, below is a letter CGF wrote to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors:

May 4, 2009

Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors

Re: The environmentally-destructive Rancho San
Benito Proposal bordering Santa Clara County

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors;

We wish to bring to
your attention, and hopefully your engagement as a priority, the issue of a
proposed massive development called Rancho San Benito that is immediately across
the county border in San Benito County. This proposal would construct
6,800 residences and funnel the traffic onto highways heading up into Silicon
Valley. The development would occur in the vicinity of the Pajaro River
floodplain, one of only two wildlife corridors connecting The Santa Cruz
Mountain Range with Mount Hamilton Range and the rest of California. The
development would convert agricultural land to other uses in area that is still
relatively close to massive Bay Area population but still undeniably viable for
farming and ranching on both sides of the county border.

Given the
above, the Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors resolved on April
29, 2009:

1. that Committee for Green Foothills opposes the proposed Rancho San Benito in San Benito County, a massive development project adjacent to Santa Clara County; and
2. that Committee for Green Foothills urges Santa Clara County to oppose the Rancho San Benito project and to work to minimize the project's environmental harm to Santa Clara County;

We understand that other environmental organizations in the Bay Area and in San
Benito County share our concerns, and we urge the Supervisors to make this issue
a priority.

Thank you for your time, and please contact us if you
have any questions.

I delivered that letter on Tuesday and gave a public statement, and was informed that the Supervisors considered it a sufficiently serious issue that scheduled a special hearing on it.

Also below is a letter we wrote but didn't send yet to San Benito County (needs to be revised now, obviously):

San Benito County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Art Henriques, County Planning

Re: Opposition to the environmentally-destructive Rancho San Benito Proposal

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Henriques;

The Committee for Green Foothills' mission is to protect open space and natural resources in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Protecting these counties necessarily overlaps with protecting similar environmental qualities with neighboring counties including San Benito County. While we do not regularly operate in San Benito County, we recognize that stopping sprawl, reducing traffic, protecting air quality, preserving farming and ranching, and keeping viable and healthy populations of fish and wildlife are issues that cross county borders.

For all these reasons, the Committee for Green Foothills' Board of Directors decided in April to officially oppose the unnecessary and environmentally-destructive Rancho San Benito Proposal. This proposal to create a large new city in San Benito County without incorporating the new city will have significant traffic impacts, in effect "jumping the line" of every single commuter in San Benito County today that heads north for work. The proposal would impose a city, unnecessarily, in the vicinity of the Pajaro River corridor, a crucial environmental corridor of streams, natural habitats, and farmland that keep the California coastal mountain ranges connected to the Mount Hamilton Range and the rest of California. The proposal would harm the farming and ranching business in an area where that business is currently thriving, and recreate the same urban-agricultural interface that has created problems in the past.

These are only some of the potential environmental problems of the Rancho San Benito Proposal. Given the redevelopment possibilities elsewhere, there is no need to consider this project. And these impacts are not just limited to San Benito County – the same traffic impacts, Pajaro corridor impacts, and farming impacts will occur in Santa Clara County. For those reasons, we have already asked the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to oppose this project and to closely monitor and be involved with environmental planning for the project.

If the project proponents and the County decide they will continue planning this project, it will be essential that an extremely thorough environmental review accompany the project. The project will likely require many environmental mitigations to reduce its environmental impacts, if it is approved at all. It may very well additionally require significant downsizing from the current proposal of 6,800 residences. The best approach is simply not to start.

We anticipate that if this planning continues, we will continue to monitor it closely, as well as ensure that Santa Clara County does its share of due diligence over the issue.

We thank the Supervisors for their time, and please contact us if you have any questions.

Previously we wrote a comment letter to the Notice of Preparation for the environmental report. I attended a meeting in San Benito County and another in Monterey County about the project, and several in Gilroy that partially concerned it as well. While CGF was one of several groups showing their concern, I think the fact that environmental groups weren't going to let this project skate by with minimal review was obvious, and played a role in the decision to pull it.

The future of the south Santa Clara County and San Benito County, or at least a hopeful future, is not Silicon Valley sprawl. It's a Silicon Archipelago, of vibrant towns with housing and jobs, surrounded by a rural atmosphere that people love to reach, and not miles of suburbia. Rancho San Benito adds nothing to existing towns and cities, and instead detracts from them as well as threatening farmland and natural lands. This proposal stopped for the time being at least, and that's a very good thing.

-Brian

Two environmental victories

Important not to overlook these victories. At the end of 2008, Santa Clara County instituted new "Green Building" rules for residential development that required minimizing the impacts from new residences and major remodels (info here).

While the County staff planned to require more from larger homes, they also planned to stop requiring more at a certain point. We successfully convinced the County that monster mansion impacts continue as they increase in size, so the required "Build It Green" points needed will also have to increase with size.

The new standards will reduce the climate change impacts from the homes, they encourage such things as native plant use and reduced visibility, and the reduce the economic incentive for sprawling monster mansions, all of which supports CGF's core mission.

The second ongoing victory is at Moffett Field, where the US Navy took another major step towards restoring polluted lands as tidal wetlands. CGF had been involved in this effort several years ago (a major effort by Save the Bay), and when the Navy indicated it would go in this direction, we've limited ourselves to monitoring it. Great to see it moving closer to realization.

-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.

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

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

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

-Brian