CGF opposes redesignating land to facilitate overdevelopment in South County

(We sent this letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission last week.  -Brian)

June 30, 2010

Santa Clara County Planning Commission

            Re:  CGF support for the County staff position on Planning Commission July 1, 2010 meeting Agenda Item 11, recommending rejection of application for formal processing

Dear Commissioners;

I regret that I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting discussing the Pickett General Plan Amendment Proposal, but as we also stated in 2007, the Committee for Green Foothills continues to oppose the proposal, and the current proposal does not change any important issue that constituted adequate reason for rejecting the proposal three years ago.

The staff report describes several reasons for rejecting the application, both now and in 2007.  Related to the 2007 discussion, I would like to correct the record contained in the staff report:  it correctly states that I spoke on behalf of CGF in opposition to the project, but also states that I supported "conversion of lands to rural residential if the property is 35 percent or more surrounded by rural residential."

I am attempting to obtain the audio recording for that meeting, but at the least, the record does not describe what I intended to say.  Proposals like this one, where a minority of adjacent land is Rural Residential, should be rejected.  Proposals where even a majority of adjacent perimeter land is Rural Residential may also be inappropriate, and only where a substantial majority, such as three out of four sides, may be appropriately considered infill under some circumstances.

The applicant's proposal for what constitutes "infill" actually leads to a logical contradiction.  As can be seen on the parcel maps for the area, parcels with a large variety of sizes and shape are adjacent to one another.  If infill is only allowed where a substantial majority of adjacent perimeter is Rural Residential, then there will soon be a condition where the infill has "infilled" and no other parcels qualify for consideration.  If, on the other hand, the County uses the applicant's very different, proposed criteria of a minority of adjacent land being sufficient to justify changing designation, then the "infill" will actually expand consistently outward.  Instead of infilling holes, the applicant's rationale will lead to outward expansion, in direct contradiction to the purpose of infill.

Take the applicant's own example, where approximately one-third of their parcel number 77611001 borders Rural Residential property.  Changing this parcel's designation means that other neighboring parcels will have similar or greater percentages of perimeter shared with Rural Residential and appropriate for re-designation – parcels 77929027 (small parcel to the east), 77926003, 75619032 (already at equivalent percentage), 75619036, and 77612008.  These parcels, once re-designated, would justify changing the designation of still other parcels in an outward expansion that includes parcels 77929028, 75619031, 75619006, and 77612012, and those parcels would justify still more re-designations.  This is just in the immediate vicinity of the applicant, but their argument logically applies to any parcels anywhere in the County that border Rural Residential land.

The problem with the applicant's argument is not that it may someday take us down a "slippery slope" of accepting ever-smaller percentages for justifying re-designations.  Rather it is the applicant's own principle without any further deterioration that justifies outwardly expanding "infill".

Committee for Green Foothills has seen too many instances where past environmental mistakes have been used by developers to justify arguing for new mistakes.  We urge the Planning Commission to avoid a repeat of that process, and to recommend rejection of this application.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Tiger Salamanders Return to Historical Marsh Site to Breed Where Lake Lagunita Now Sits

(Another helpful guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts.  I had wondered about this issue for a while.  -Brian Schmidt)

While looking through the “Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity” created by Janet M. Sowers and published by the Oakland Museum of California (2004), I came across the following information: “Historian Alan K. Brown observed that in 1857, a natural marsh occupied the depression that is now the lake.”  While Stanford’s Lake Lagunita was originally built as a livestock watering hole, it appears that a natural wetland predated this artificial lake. This fact is significant given the debate around the vulnerable California tiger salamander population that uses Lake Lag as a winter breeding ground.

Some people have stated that the salamanders are simply benefiting from a lake that Stanford created.  They therefore resent the obligation they consider imposed on Stanford, or they think Stanford hasn't received credit it deserves for its good work.  However, the existence of a natural marsh prior to the lake might suggest otherwise. In fact, the tiger salamander may merely be returning to a spot used as a breeding ground long before Stanford came into being.

Bay Area Peninsula’s Mercury Problem Continues to Attract Attention (Guest Post)

(Another guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts, taking a break from his other research to return to the mercury issue.  -Brian Schmidt)

            A few weeks ago, I wrote about a Mercury News article which detailed the mercury contamination in Santa Clara County bodies of water. The article suggested that the origin of the problem might be traced back to the County’s use of mercury in its intense mining history. However, a recent SF Chronicle article discussed how levels of mercury beyond the safe consumption threshold have also been found in fish living in the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir of San Mateo County. Crystal Springs is one of several water storage facilities, managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, used to supply drinking water to surrounding municipalities. Researchers are unsure of the source of the mercury in Lower Crystal Springs, but have suggested that atmospheric deposition carrying pollution across the ocean from China may be to blame. If this were the case, it would raise the additional need for air monitoring systems as a means for combating the mercury’s spread. As this problem continues to attract wider attention, it goes to highlight the need for a swift and dedicated approach to resolving the issue. 

Bucks and Silicon Archipelago in the Mercury News

CGF's direct and indirect connections to the high tech/silicon economy are in full display in recent editions of the Mercury News.

CGF Board President, Margaret MacNiven, got front page, above-the-fold treatment over her Buck's restaurant in Woodside:

Call it the Buck's Silicon Valley Barometer: The economy may be wobbly and the mood of the country anxious, but the Woodside cafe is humming again with deal-making breakfasts.

"There is more activity on the venture capital front. There is renewed enthusiasm," said Jamis MacNiven, who co-owns the restaurant with his wife, Margaret. "A year ago, it was about as bleak as it has ever been. People were talking about the drop in home values and joblessness as opposed to deal flows. Now the topic is back on business."

Meanwhile, the Mercury News just published our Op-Ed on the "Silicon Archipelago" as a new model to replace Silicon Valley sprawl in describing future economic growth for San Jose southwards:

Goodbye, Silicon Valley.  Hello, Silicon Archipelago.

 The low-density, land-wasting sprawl of Silicon Valley's past does not have to continue through the South Bay.  A better model can be an archipelago, a chain of urban islands emerging from an ocean of green space, all interrelated but separated.  This Silicon Archipelago model has a realistic chance of describing the future geography of our region as our high-tech economy extends southward. 

 The Silicon Archipelago will be an island chain of vibrant, prosperous, and high-tech cities growing upward and not outward, while ringed by “seas” of working farmlands, natural open space areas, and wildlife.  This future combines the best of environmental protection and technological development from San Jose, south to Morgan Hill and to Gilroy, and even to Hollister and beyond, without destroying the farmlands in between and wildlife nearby. 

 Just a few years ago, the idea of a Silicon Archipelago south of San Jose instead of endless sprawl would seem only a treehugger’s fantasy.  Times change, however, and the sprawling developments on the outskirts of San Jose have been stopped in their tracks. 

Debacles like the proposed Almaden Valley Sports Complex and the Coyote Valley Specific Plan are two examples of defeated threats. The Coyote Valley Research Park approved in 2000 wheezes onward in paper form only, with its permits nearly expired.  And two years ago, San Jose's City Council put South Almaden Valley and Mid-Coyote Valley off limits in the upcoming General Plan. 

 Then on April 20^th of this year, the City Council took a little-noticed but potentially dramatic move toward a Silicon Archipelago.  For the first time in 35 years, the Council hinted that greenfield areas, the farmlands of North Coyote Valley and the ranchlands of east Evergreen, may not be as appropriate for new development as are the many other parts of the city that desperately need redevelopment.

 After a suggestion by Committee for Green Foothills (my employer), the Council directed the General Plan revision process to consider the idea of "backloading" development in the greenfields of North Coyote and east Evergreen.  If enacted, this backloading would mean that only after redevelopment goals had been reached elsewhere (such as downtown) would the city consider proposals to siphon off development to the outskirts.  While an advisory Task Force rejected the backloading idea in a close vote, both that concept and the Silicon Archipelago model can still be used by the City Council to determine our future. 

 The wrong way forward into the future is to double the length of Silicon Valley sprawl from its current San Francisco-to-San Jose length, and extend it all the way through Gilroy.  This threat, while real, can be replaced by an alternative vision where San Jose is both the capital of Silicon Valley and the launchpoint of the Silicon Archipelago. 

 San Jose and cities to its south need not follow the philosophy of cancer, expanding ever outwards.  San Jose can instead be a model of an environmental, high-tech city that grows greener and richer within geographic limits.  This city with leopard sharks swimming in the Bay inside the northern city limits, tule elk grazing on the hills within its southern limits, and steelhead trout navigating the river that runs through it, is a city that can marry technology and nature. 

With these initial steps already taken, we're seeing the Silicon Archipelago at its birth.

Please click on the links above to read the complete versions in the Mercury News.

We've been talking about the Silicon Archipelago for years now and are very happy to see the concept get more prominence.  The next step is follow-through to make it happen.

-Brian Schmidt

Opposition to Santa Clara County General Plan Amendment Proposal

(CGF sent the letter below to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. -Brian)

June 30, 2010

Santa Clara County Planning Commission

            Re:  CGF support for the County staff position on Planning Commission July 1, 2010 meeting Agenda Item 11, recommending rejection of application for formal processing

Dear Commissioners;

I regret that I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting discussing the Pickett General Plan Amendment Proposal, but as we also stated in 2007, the Committee for Green Foothills continues to oppose the proposal, and the current proposal does not change any important issue that constituted adequate reason for rejecting the proposal three years ago.

The staff report describes several reasons for rejecting the application, both now and in 2007.  Related to the 2007 discussion, I would like to correct the record contained in the staff report:  it correctly states that I spoke on behalf of CGF in opposition to the project, but also states that I supported "conversion of lands to rural residential if the property is 35 percent or more surrounded by rural residential."

I am attempting to obtain the audio recording for that meeting, but at the least, the record does not describe what I intended to say.  Proposals like this one, where a minority of adjacent land is Rural Residential, should be rejected.  Proposals where even a majority of adjacent perimeter land is Rural Residential may also be inappropriate, and only where a substantial majority, such as three out of four sides, may be appropriately considered infill under some circumstances.

The applicant's proposal for what constitutes "infill" actually leads to a logical contradiction.  As can be seen on the parcel maps for the area, parcels with a large variety of sizes and shape are adjacent to one another.  If infill is only allowed where a substantial majority of adjacent perimeter is Rural Residential, then there will soon be a condition where the infill has "infilled" and no other parcels qualify for consideration.  If, on the other hand, the County uses the applicant's very different, proposed criteria of a minority of adjacent land being sufficient to justify changing designation, then the "infill" will actually expand consistently outward.  Instead of infilling holes, the applicant's rationale will lead to outward expansion, in direct contradiction to the purpose of infill.

Take the applicant's own example, where approximately one-third of their parcel number 77611001 borders Rural Residential property.  Changing this parcel's designation means that other neighboring parcels will have similar or greater percentages of perimeter shared with Rural Residential and appropriate for re-designation – parcels 77929027 (small parcel to the east), 77926003, 75619032 (already at equivalent percentage), 75619036, and 77612008.  These parcels, once re-designated, would justify changing the designation of still other parcels in an outward expansion that includes parcels 77929028, 75619031, 75619006, and 77612012, and those parcels would justify still more re-designations.  This is just in the immediate vicinity of the applicant, but their argument logically applies to any parcels anywhere in the County that border Rural Residential land.

The problem with the applicant's argument is not that it may someday take us down a "slippery slope" of accepting ever-smaller percentages for justifying re-designations.  Rather it is the applicant's own principle without any further deterioration that justifies outwardly expanding "infill".

Committee for Green Foothills has seen too many instances where past environmental mistakes have been used by developers to justify arguing for new mistakes.  We urge the Planning Commission to avoid a repeat of that process, and to recommend rejection of this application.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Neutering feral cats not shown to reduce their environmental impact

An interesting if depressing piece of research about feral cats:  the "trap, neuter, and return" policy for neutering and returning feral cats to the wild doesn't reduce their tendency to roam and hunt widely.  The "return" happens because there are too many feral cats to find homes for, and many are too wild to ever socialize in order to be come pets.

Neutering will keep those cats from reproducing, but as long as there are other fertile cats, the populations will stay just as high.

Santa Clara County has a significant problem with feral cats and with people who set up feeding stations for them, so this issue is something that affects us locally.

-Brian Schmidt

Fixing the mercury problem here at home and throughout California - a guest post

(Below is a guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts, completed today on his first day on the job.  We expect that we'll be seeing more over the summer.  -Brian Schmidt)

Due to its unique mining history of being the main source of mercury used in vast quantities for gold processing during California's Gold rush, Santa Clara County suffers from large concentrations of mercury pollution. In high enough amounts, mercury can prove harmful to humans, especially to children and pregnant women, by causing neurological defects. A recent Mercury News article detailed the severity of this problem by reporting on a survey conducted by the State Water Resource Control Board. The survey found that five Santa Clara County lakes and reservoirs rank in the top 15 statewide for mercury contamination, with concentrations well above the consumption-safe level. Almaden Lake, near San Jose, has the highest mercury concentration in California.

 Several policy options should be considered for reversing this contamination. These policies function as variations of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a standard pollution-control concept which holds the original producers of a pollutant responsible for the recovery and disposal costs throughout the entire life of their product. In Germany, EPR is applied through the Green Dot System whereby a product is awarded a distinguishing symbol if its manufacturer helps to fund the recovery and recycling of the product’s packaging waste.

One solution here in California would be a new state law making the original mercury producers responsible for funding the removal of the mercury that they have introduced into California's economy. These would be the earliest in time, "upstream" producers of the mercury, who would be responsible for solutions at least as much as the later consumers who may have less knowledge of the problem or only deal with tiny amounts.  The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC)  works on similar EPR concepts that shift costs of waste management from publicly-funded entities to private manufacturers.

  Depending on the product, some waste materials are difficult or impossible to recover. Applying EPR may work best when manufacturers can recover the same kind of waste even if it’s  not tracking and recovering the specific waste they released.  From a cost-efficiency standpoint, it may be cheaper to allow manufacturers of mercury-related products the option of participating in the removal of the mercury waste of others. For example, several old mine sites have large concentrations of mercury and do not present the same clean-up challenges as tracking and disposing of mercury-related products distributed over a large area . Cleanup of mercury in “fixed” locations, however, may provide fewer environmental benefits because that mercury has less outlets to enter the ecosystem. In order to compensate, producers who choose this option should have to clean up much more mercury than they actually emit thorough their own product.

A third potential solution is to focus not on the physical removal of the mercury, but rather on mitigating its toxic effects. These measures include installing devices which might pump oxygen into lakes to prevent mercury from being chemically converted into its harmful form and working to isolate old mercury deposits.

CGF will continue to track this issue and cooperate with the with other organizations looking for opportunities to help create the significant legislative and regulatory changes needed to combat the severe problem of mercury contamination in Santa Clara County waters.

(UPDATE:  Anthony has revised the text above to clarify some of the concepts.  We thank readers for the suggestions.)

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

Not letting the "Interchange to Nowhere" force additional sprawl in Coyote Valley

The San Jose General Plan Task Force talked about backloading development in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen. I'm actually writing this during the meeting and will soon have my very short chance to comment.

Unfortunately there was one objection to backloading which couldn't be more wrong but I won't have time to address.  One person said that the state spent money building infrastructure in Coyote Valley, so it would be wrong not to promote development there.

What I would say, if I had time, would be to say that the state spent money widening Highway 101 and on building the Bailey Avenue/Highway 101 Interchange.  Widening Highway 101 was done for many reasons for better or worse and isn't dependent on developing Coyote Valley.  The commenter may appreciate Highway 101's widening, without needing to support development of Coyote Valley.

The Bailey Interchange, however, could probably be known better as the Interchange to Nowhere - a massive, expensive construction designed to funnel tens of thousands of non-existent commuters to non-existent jobs in Coyote Valley.  A significant portion of the useable lifetime of the structure has passed and will pass for no reason with no justified use - think of the actually useful things that could have been done with that money.  The Interchange to Nowhere isn't a reason to double down on a mistake; it's a glaring example of why sprawl is a gigantic waste of taxpayer money.

Letter to San Jose Envision 2040 Task Force on backloading North Coyote and East Evergreen

(The letter below was submitted to the San Jose General Plan Task Force, discussing why and how the City should "backload" development in the greenspace areas of North Coyote and east Evergreen until until other areas have been fully developed, if at all.  -Brian)

Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force

Re:  following the City Council's direction, some options on "backloading" development in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen

Dear Task Force Members;

On April 20^th, the City Council directed that the General Plan revision process include consideration of "backloading" greenfield development in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen until jobs capacity has been fully developed in other areas of the City.  The vote was to entertain and consider the idea, not necessarily to do it.  To provide feedback from the Task Force to the City Council and staff, we suggest the Task Force hold two votes.  First the Task Force should consider whether it supports the general principle of backloading, which is modifies the idea that jobs development should occur anytime and anywhere to an idea that prioritizes redevelopment over conversion of open space.  Second, the Task Force should vote on different options on backloading to recommend to the City Council, a recommendation that could be useful regardless of the outcome of the first vote, because the City Council must make the final decision on General Plan issues.

We strongly urge the Task Force to support backloading, and to recommend a policy that only exempts existing permits and entitlements.

1.  Supporting the principle of backloading.  We will not repeat the argument made at length to the Task Force and to the City Council that converting valuable farmlands, ranchland, and open space buffers to development when the rest of the City needs redevelopment is a mistake.  San Jose has a chance to grow upward instead of outward, and places like downtown, North First Street, and Evergreen would benefit if development is not siphoned off elsewhere.  The idea would not permanently forbid development of North Coyote and east Evergreen, although the Council is aware that the effect may be to stop development. While existing permits such as the Coyote Valley Research Park would not be affected, renewal of unutilized permits would be.  Please see the attached April 26^th letter for more information. 

We suggest a simple motion on this issue that provides feedback to staff and City Council on the general idea that they can use regardless of how the City proceeds on the second question.

2. Options for backloading.

Our recommendation and proposed General Plan Policy:

Preferred Policy:  "New permits for industrial or commercial development of undeveloped lands in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen shall not be issued until the planned jobs capacity has been reached in all other parts of the City."

Please note the above policy contains an implicit exemption, in that any truly exceptional proposal could be approved by the City Council through a General Plan amendment, something that a "truly exceptional" proposal shouldn't have trouble achieving.

Alternative policies:

Alternative 1: "New permits for industrial or commercial development of undeveloped lands in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen shall not be issued until the planned jobs capacity has been reached in all other parts of the City; provided however that exceptions for projects of unique economic opportunity creating at least X thousand jobs shall be allowed when the "trigger" conditions for City fiscal health and governmental services, described for development in mid-Coyote Valley in the San Jose 2020 General Plan, are also met."

We suggest the project be a minimum of 10,000 jobs to ensure a size of project that could not be easily accommodated elsewhere.  We recommend this alternative if an exception is to be included.

Alternative 2: "New permits for industrial or commercial development of undeveloped lands in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen shall not be issued until the planned jobs capacity has been reached in all other parts of the City; provided however that exceptions for projects of unique economic opportunity creating at least X thousand jobs shall be allowed."

Removes the trigger concept.

Alternative 3: "New permits for industrial or commercial development of undeveloped lands in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen shall not be issued until the planned jobs capacity has been reached in all other parts of the City; provided however that exceptions for large projects of unique economic opportunity shall be allowed."

Instead of providing a set number, it merely says the project must be "large."

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

"To protect City and minimize fiscal impact, a revenue guarantee should be included in the proposed development agreement"

The headline is from a fiscal analysis presentation to Palo Alto City Council today by the experts it hired to analyze the fiscal impact of the Stanford Medical Center expansion.  The idea is to ensure the risk of insufficient revenues from the expansion is transferred away from taxpayers and to the applicant, Stanford. (Also discussed here.)

This idea is striking because we proposed a similar thing in Coyote Valley, where a ridiculous fiscal analysis assumed steady growth in housing values and therefore rosy revenues.  We suggested the developers bear the risks if things somehow didn't work out.  The whole project broke down before we could see if developers would put their own money where their mouths are, but it's interesting to see someone else come up with a similar idea.

-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

Letter to Envision San Jose 2040 Task Force on "backloading" greenfield development

(We made some important progress with San Jose City Council, and this letter followed up on that issue.  -Brian)

April 26, 2010

Envision San Jose Task Force

Re:  Last week's decision by the City Council to consider "backloading" greenfield development

Dear Task Force Members;

Committee for Green Foothills would like to thank the San Jose City Council for accepting our suggestion that the General Plan revision process include consideration of "backloading" greenfield development in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen until jobs capacity has been fully developed in other areas of the City.  The vote was to entertain and consider the idea, not necessarily to do it, but we are satisfied with and appreciate the decision.  I will also note that the idea has been briefly discussed before – I specifically raised it at the last Task Force meeting – but further consideration is always helpful.

A written version of my suggestion at last week's City Council meeting is attached below (I may have diverged slightly from the text when speaking).  As you will see from the text, I disclosed to City Councilmembers who may have been unaware of it that the proposal might mean the greenfield areas will not be developed before 2040, and they still supported consideration of the idea.

Regarding Coyote Valley Research Park, the only entitled project I am aware of in North Coyote or east Evergreen, the permits would allow them to develop if they still wish to, and upon development would no longer be considered greenfields.  If, however, the permit holders continue with their decade-long failure to build, then the backloading proposal as expressed to the City Council would mean they could not receive new permits until jobs capacity had been reached elsewhere.  Of course, in both this case and the hypothetical example given by Mayor Reed of a proposed development in east Evergreen, any proposal with sufficient advantages for the City could be accommodated with a General Plan amendment.

We are sure that the City Council direction intended this backloading proposal receive sufficient consideration, and we trust City staff to ensure that is the case.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

(Written version of the oral comments given by Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills, to the City Council meeting on April 20, 2010.  Actual oral comments may have diverged slightly from the written version.  The comment proposal was suggested for consideration in the General Plan revision process in a friendly amendment by Councilmember Ash Kalra, accepted by Councilmember Sam Liccardo and approved by the City Council.)

We support a minor but important variation on the current land use proposal that jobs development should happen anytime, anywhere in City limits.

We would like to ask the City Council to recommend a proposal to "backload" development of open spaces and greenfield until after other areas are developed.

 San Jose greenfields are East Evergreen and parts of North Coyote Valley, and the idea is that these areas would not develop until after jobs capacity has been fully developed elsewhere in the City, where greenfields aren't at risk.  This proposal would not affect existing permits like the Coyote Valley Research Park, the already-developed western half of the Evergreen, or the Water Treatment Plant area that is undergoing separate planning.

The advantage of this suggestion is it would encourage development where it is needed – Evergreen Village and East Evergreen, Edenvale, downtown, and North First Street.  It is possible that the suggestion means these Greenfield areas are not developed before 2040, but so long as the same development happens elsewhere that needs redevelopment, then that result is a good feature and not a bug in the General Plan.  Other areas of the City have the capacity for the same kind of development elsewhere, and if by some strange chance an important proposal could only happen on greenfields, such a proposal could be tied to a General Plan amendment.

Again we request that you ask staff to include this suggestion in some form as the revision process moves forward.  I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CGF comments on the City of Santa Clara General Plan Revision

(Not as many of our open space issues arise in Santa Clara as in other cities like San Jose, but there are some relevant issues, so we discuss them below.  -Brian)

May 6, 2010

Julie Moloney

City of Santa Clara

Re:  General Plan Revision

Dear Julie;

The Committee for Green Foothills supports the comments of the Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition that will be submitted separately, and additionally submits the following comments for the Santa Clara General Plan revision.

*Biological Resources (5-121):  Recommend adding a sentence stating "landscaped areas can provide some habitat value to common native species, particularly birds and insects."

*Wastewater Conveyance (5-123) Recommend adding a sentence stating "the amount and percentage of impervious surface in the City affect the ability of the WPCP to treat wastewater."

*Conservation Goals (5-123) To reinforce the importance of common native species, change 5.10.1-G1 to "The protection of fish, wildlife and their habitats, including but not limited to rare and endangered species."

*Conservation Policies (5-123 to 124) To support above changes, add new policies:

      "Require use of native plants and wildlife-compatible non-native plants when feasible for landscaping done by City services or on City property."  (This policy could follow current Policy 5.10.1-P4.)

"Encourage property owners and landscapers to use native plants and wildlife-compatible non-native plants when feasible." (Following new policy suggested above.)

"Encourage downspout disconnection and encourage replacement of hardscapes with landscaping and permeable surfaces."(Following Policy 5.10.1-P5

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

CGF Coyote Ridge hike in Morgan Hill Times

Just a quick note that our annual hike to Coyote Ridge got a nice writeup in the Morgan Hill Times:

....Last weekend, I was reminded of this there's-more-there-than-meets-the-eye lesson here in my own back yard.....How many times does mom need to remind us that the charms of a person or a place may not be evident at first glance? Our guided walk up Coyote Ridge was a reminder than mom knows what she is talking about. A number of phenomena converge here to create a community of rare and unusual interest.

....

We lunched among the flowers, taking in the beauty near and far. A small herd of tule elk lounged on the ridge below. A prairie falcon darted overhead. A golden eagle drifted across the face of the ridge below. 

In 1868, John Muir, in California for only a matter of days and on his way to Yosemite, walked along this very ridge and later wrote, "the landscapes of Santa Clara Valley were fairly drenched with sunshine. All the air was quivering with the songs of the meadow-larks, and the hills were so covered with flowers that they seemed to be painted."

The work of good people at the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (www.openspaceauthority.org), the Silicon Valley Land Conservancy (www.siliconvalleylc.org) and the Committee for Green Foothills (www.greenfoothills.org) have allowed us to enjoy this setting much as John Muir did 140 years ago.

Sign up for our Action Alerts to be notified about this hike, other events, and calls to action to help the local environment.

-Brian

Cupcake Alert! Last two days!

(CGF sent this News Alert out earlier this week - buy some Sprinkles Earth Day Vanilla Cupcakes and support CGF.  More info here on what Sprinkles is doing for the environment.  -Brian)

Dear Friend!

Every year on Earth Day, Sprinkles Cupcakes donates to non-profits located within communities where their stores are located.  Once again this year CGF has been selected by Sprinkle’s to receive this donation.  With your help we can all have our (cup)cake and eat it too!

How it works:

It’s easy! All proceeds from “Earth Day Vanilla” cupcakes sold Monday, April 19 through Thursday, April 23 will be donated to Committee for Green Foothills! 

What you can do:

Buy “Earth Day Vanilla” cupcakes from Sprinkles store in Stanford Shopping Center April 19-23 (Monday – Thursday)! (393 Stanford Shopping Center, near Plum Lane ).

Since it opened, the Palo Alto Sprinkles store has chosen CGF to be the recipient of their Earth Day proceeds. Sprinkles Cupcakes uses recycled boxes, shopping bags, gift boxes, plates and napkins in all of its bakeries.  They donate to local charities and give all daily leftover cupcakes to local food banks.

Last Year Sprinkles donated $2,100 to CGF because of you! 

As always, we can’t do it without you.

Thank you for your support of CGF and we hope you will take part by enjoying a cupcake (or two) to celebrate Earth Day!

- The Folks at Committee for Green Foothills

CGF letter to San Mateo County Supervisors supporting suggested modifications to the Local Coastal Plan

(CGF sent out the letter below regarding the Local Coastal Plan for San Mateo County.  -Brian)

April 9, 2010

President Rich Gordon and Members,

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

400 County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

Re:  Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 13, 2010, Item 11:  Consideration of the Midcoast Local Coastal Program (LCP) Update

Dear President Gordon and Members of the Board,

Committee for Green Foothills urges your board to accept the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications to the Midcoast LCP Update.  It has been over ten years since the County embarked on this important planning effort.  CGF commends the County and Coastal Commission in working together to resolve many issues that were initially identified by the Coastal Commission staff.

Regarding the issues that are discussed in the March 29, 2010 Staff Report, CGF has the following comments:

1.      Lot Retirement/Traffic Mitigation:  Retirement of lots as a condition of new subdivisions is an important and necessary mitigation measure to offset the cumulative impacts of new development on the coastside’s already inadequate highways.   There are not many lands in the urban midcoast that can be subdivided, and most of these areas are zoned for agriculture or open space.  Nonetheless, any new land divisions will have impacts on the already overburdened public services, particularly coastal highways.  CGF urges the County to institute a program to retire development rights on lots that are located within environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands and riparian areas in Miramar and the Montecito Riparian Corridor, or in hazardous areas such as along the cliffs of Seal Cove, and lots that are underwater in the Princeton area.  CGF could support an exception to the traffic mitigation program for conditional Certificates of Compliance (CCOC’s) that are now required to legalize antiquated subdivision lots per the Witt and Abernathy decisions (and that are also conditioned to maximize consistency with current zoning and other applicable LCP requirements), inasmuch as these lots have already been included in the LCP’s buildout numbers.  CGF also urges the Board of Supervisors to adopt a traffic mitigation fee for new development in the urban midcoast, similar to Half Moon Bay’s.  This would help fund necessary traffic and safety improvements.

2.      Prohibition of New Private Wells:  CGF strongly supports the prohibition of new drinking water wells (and septic systems) in the urban midcoast area.  Allowing private wells within the boundaries of public water agencies places an undue economic burden on customers of the water districts, who must pay for costly infrastructure.  The small, isolated groundwater basins in much of the urban midcoast cannot support wells over the long term.  New wells near the Pillar Point Marsh could adversely impact this sensitive coastal resource.  Already some midcoast wells have failed, and in future drought cycles we can expect many more to fail.  Similarly, it makes no sense to allow private septic systems within the boundaries of public wastewater treatment agencies.

3.      Growth Limits:  CGF supports the growth rate limit of 40 (approximately 1%) residential units per year.  The County Planning Commission recommended this limit, and it is consistent with Half Moon Bay’s annual limit as well.  Over the past five years, an average of just 38 residential units have been approved annually.  County planning staff has agreed that the limit of 40 residential units should not have an impact on the current rate of development.

4.      Grandfathering:  Although it has been County policy to “grandfather” projects where an application has been submitted to County Planning, the proposed modifications would still allow projects that have received a Building Permit to proceed under the existing LCP.   As of December 2009, there were some 143 applications that had not received a Coastal Development Permit.  These should be evaluated under the updated Midcoast LCP standards.

5.      Public Works:  The County’s existing LCP already requires new public works facilities to be phased with each other and to be sized so as to serve, but not exceed, the buildout allowed by the LCP.  The Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications require that for public works expansion projects aimed at solving existing deficiencies for existing development, (i.e., to serve existing development on private wells or new infrastructure to solve the Sewer Authority Midcoastside’s wet weather flow problem), other public works deficiencies do not need to be solved first.  If a proposed public works expansion project were sized to accommodate existing buildout, the permit for the project could, and should, be conditioned to allowing the phasing of new sewer or water connections, for example.  CGF supports this approach.

6.      Land Use Priorities:  CGF supports the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications that will set aside water and sewer capacities for affordable housing, through a two-tiered approach that maintains the LCP’s existing capacities for coastal act priorities.

7.      Rezoning of Bypass Lands:  CGF supports the rezoning of the former Caltrans Right of Way that is no longer needed for the Devil’s Slide Bypass.  This is an important step to ensure that these lands will become a trail and park system that will provide public access and a scenic non-motorized transportation route.

CGF urges the Board of Supervisors to accept the suggested modifications.  If there are outstanding issues you feel must be addressed, we suggest that you ask for an extension of time, not to exceed six months, so your Board of Supervisors can complete this planning effort that you and the Coastal Commission have invested a great deal of time and money in.

Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate

Committee for Green Foothills

One study ignores the role of environmental protection in enhancing land value, but another study does better

I probably shouldn't completely condemn the study because I haven't finished reading it.  Still, I have problems with this Harvard study of Massachusetts land values that appears to conclude that environmental protections, such as ones that keep development away from floodplains and increased septic system requirements, caused an artificial land scarcity and forced up the cost of housing.  The problem is that what I've read doesn't address how environmental improvements reduce negative externalities that harm the land value of the broader community.  Keeping development out of flood plains and keeping septic systems from failing in particular are hugely beneficial to the broader community.  So is the increase in cost due to artificial scarcity, or is it just a reflection of increased environmental benefits?  Maybe this is addressed somewhere in the study, but I've missed it.

Much more promising is a Stanford study showing that conservation efforts didn't substantially reduce the housing stock in Silicon Valley:

It's no secret that the San Francisco Bay Area, where the median house price is $350,000, is home to expensive real estate. Developers have often blamed conservationists for the high costs by arguing that making land off-limits for new construction shrinks the area's housing supply and drives up prices.

But Stanford researchers say that argument holds little water. Only 51,000 more homes would have been built in the southern Bay Area's Silicon Valley if land had not been set aside by nonprofit groups and the government, they say.

In a study conducted by the university's Bill Lane Center for the American West, executive directorJon Christensen, sociology graduate student Carrie Denning and landscape ecologist Robert McDonald analyzed whether land conservation efforts in Silicon Valley – which has about 116,000 acres of protected parks, forests, waterfronts and wildlife refuges – have hurt housing development.

Their findings, published online in the journal Biological Conservation, suggest that land protection may not have much of an impact on the number of housing units available in the region. That's because most of the protected land isn't suitable for development, they say.

-Brian

The Future of Freezing

Interesting website showing how drastically the decrease will be in the amount of land area below freezing over this century due to climate change.  You can adjust it to focus on California.  Currently it just shows February and March, but it gives an idea how much snowpack we'll lose in the Sierras, which will have a definite effect on water supplies in our area.  It also shows how the effect will be reduced if we take quick action to address climate change.

-Brian

Grist: Silicon Valley investors place bets on sustainable ag

There's an interesting article in the Grist environmental website about Silicon Valley investors looking at ways to invest in sustainable agriculture, during a big event that happened this weekend in Palo Alto:

I attended an agriculture conference this week at the Four Seasons in Palo Alto.

There were no pickup trucks in the BMW-packed parking lot, and few farmers with dirt under their fingernails could be found milling about the sleek hotel lobby. But the place was swarming with venture capitalists from some of Silicon Valley's marquee firms looking to grow profits with investments in sustainable agriculture.

Welcome to Agriculture 2.0.

That was the name of the conference and represents a growing effort to scale up sustainable agriculture from a hodge-podge of hippies and back-to-the-land types into a viable big business by bringing together venture capitalists and startups doing everything from rooftop farming to high-tech soil mapping to identifying the best areas for growing crops.

The big idea is that venture capitalists can help disrupt industrial agriculture much as they have the computer, entertainment and energy industries by investing in sustainable ag and using information technology to connect producers and consumers.

Let's hope that some of that effort at investment is done locally, in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties!

-Brian

Lehigh Hanson Quarry/Cement Plant violation

(This doesn't look good, and we'll be following the issue. It's the text of a letter from the Regional Water Board to Lehigh Hanson quarry/cement plant operators.  -Brian)


Sent via certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
March 26, 2010
Lehigh Southwest Cement Co.
c/o Scott Renfew, Environmental Manager
24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino , CA 95014

Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION and required corrective actions for failure to protect stormwater at industrial facility

Facility: Lehigh Southwest Cement Co. (formally Hanson Permanente Cement) Industrial facility, located at 24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, Santa Clara County
WDID No. 2 43I006267

Dear Mr. Renfew:

You are hereby given notice that the industrial facility indicated above (Facility) is in violation of stormwater protection requirements. On behalf of Water Board staff, a PG Environmental, LLC, inspector recently inspected the Facility, and noted numerous water quality violations. You are required to correct the problems noted in the attached Inspection Findings, Violations, and Corrective Actions Report and send us documentation of your corrective actions by the dates indicated in this Report.

The Facility is in violation of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities, Order No. 97-03-DWQ (Permit1) and the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan2).

Permit violations

The Permit requires industrial facility owners to implement controls that reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT/BCT) performance standard. Development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that complies with the requirements in Section A of the Permit and that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that achieve BAT/BCT constitutes compliance with this requirement. Our inspector observed that the Facility does not meet this standard, and therefore, the Facility is in violation of the Permit.

Basin Plan Prohibition violations

Additionally, the Facility is in violation of the Basin Plan, which is the Regional Water Board’s master water quality control document. The Basin Plan applies to all discharges within the Regional Water Board’s jurisdiction, including discharges from this Facility. We observed during the February 10, 2010, inspection evidence of discharges that are in violation of, at a minimum, Basin Plan Prohibition 7:

Prohibition 7 prohibits rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.

Please refer to the attached inspection report for the details of the violations and required corrective actions.

Consequences for not coming into compliance

Failure to return to compliance with the Permit and failure to comply with the Basin Plan prohibitions are violations of CWC Section 13385(a)(2) and (a)(4), respectively, for which the Water Board may impose civil liability in the amount not to exceed $10,000 per day of each violation, plus $10 per gallon in excess of 1,000 gallons per discharge.

Additional notes

If you need guidance, the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) publishes a handbook for Industrial Stormwater Best Management Practices3. The CASQA handbook is one of many online resources that describe industry standard BMPs. Please note that Water Board can not specify means of compliance. It is your responsibility to select and correctly implement an appropriate suite of BMPs. Use of the CASQA handbook or other similar guidance documents may help you achieve compliance, but it does not guarantee compliance.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Christine Boschen at (510) 622-2346 or by email at cboschen@waterboards.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Dyan C. Whyte
Assistant Executive Officer
Encl.: February 10, 2010, Inspection Findings, Violations, and Corrective Actions

San Jose Business Journal might want to work on its reporting

Unfortunately, and in our opinion a case of poor journalism, the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal took Stanford's press release on our lawsuit with Stanford and ran it nearly verbatim, with cursory changes and no attempt to contact us for our side of the story.

Below is something we sent to the Business Journal with the documentation about their lax reporting, but we've not heard back from them:

Your article on our organization's litigation against Stanford appears to be a barely-retouched version of Stanford's press release.  One can easily compare here:

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/02/08/daily82.html#comment

and here:

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-stanford-county-trails-021110.html

I will note that we were never contacted by your newspaper for a contrasting position.  If, however, you have no problems running press releases as articles, ours is here:

http://www.greenfoothills.org/blog/2010/02/sad-legal-result-on-stanford-trails.html

Please contact me with any questions, comments, or new or altered articles on this issue, preferably sooner rather than later.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills 

Accomplishments of the Environmental Advisory Committee for the Water District

On Tuesday, I presented an accomplishment report for the Santa Clara Valley Water District's Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), where I've been the chair for the last two years.  You can hear (and possibly see) the proceedings here at their webcast archive.  My portion starts at 1:17:30, which you can find by scrolling down to Item 3 directly below the video and clicking, which occurred on the agenda out of order, after Item 13.  I didn't discuss much of the accomplishment report, but you can read it by clicking the different Item 3, just to the left of the video (hope that's not too confusing!).

Anyway, the Board of Directors had very nice things to say about our work.  Director Kamei and Director Mann said that we got a lot accomplished, and Director Santos complimented me for my work on behalf of CGF, "taking a stand" that has a significant influence in the County.

Director Wilson had a compliment for the entire EAC that I transcribed below:

This Commitee is one that has really learned how to bring about real change through its efforts and to understand the policy process that we have to go through and we've made real changes that I think you're going to see more, based on input from the Environmental Advisory Committee.  I don't know of any committee that's had a greater impact in the last three or four years.  Thank you very much.

The whole thing's about six minutes.

-Brian

Housekeeping - reduced blog posting

Just a note that I'll be on vacation until March 22, so there won't be much blogging until then.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

-Brian