CGF comments on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan

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

April 18, 2011

Cori Mustin, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist

USFWS

Ken Schreiber, HCP/NCCP Program Manager

County of Santa Clara Executive's Office

            Re:  Comments on the Draft Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan

Dear Cori and Ken:

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

Implementing Agreement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Habitat Plan

Chapter 5:

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

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

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

Specific comments on Chapter 5:

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6:

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

Chapter 8:

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

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

Chapter 9:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

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

Committee for Green Foothills

Policy Opposing a Proposed Eastern Location for the Gilroy Train Station

February 16, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Alert: Santa Clara County Parks

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



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

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

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

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

 - the folks at Committee for Green Foothills

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

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

Residents rail against proposed East Gilroy bullet train station

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

-Brian

South County Investigative Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

February 4, 2011

Joe Paulson, Senior Planner

Town of Los Gatos

jpaulson@losgatosca.gov

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

Dear Joe:

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

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

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

ENV-3.1: Preserve riparian corridors and riparian

habitats and avoid disturbances to these areas.

ENV-3.2: Ensure development prevents damage to

native plants in the hillsides, riparian areas,

watersheds and other sensitive natural habitats.

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

courses and associated vegetation in their natural

state to assist groundwater percolation and prevent

erosion and downstream sedimentation.

ENV-3.4: Require setbacks or other protective

measures as appropriate to protect riparian corridors.

ENV-3.5: Promote the planting of local native trees

and shrubs on land surrounding reservoirs and

streams, especially adjacent to areas where banks or

channels have been modified for flood protection

DEIR at 4.7-8

The resulting analysis:

Proposed site development would generally avoid

disturbance of riparian corridor vegetation and habitat.

Grading on the site perimeter would require the removal

of 56 trees within the oak/bay woodland that is

contiguous to riparian vegetation. No disturbance would

occur on the lower hillsides above Los Gatos Creek

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

proposed landscaping plans include planting coast live

oaks and other native species. Appropriate mitigation

measures are included in the discussion below to ensure

protection of off-site riparian resources.

Id.

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

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

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

MEMO

    To:    Brian Schmidt

From:    Kelley Wood

 Date:     6/14/05

    Re:     Cities of Santa Clara County Environmental Impact Report Information

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

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

(408) 866-2140

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

(408) 777-3308

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

(408) 846-0440

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

(650) 947-2750

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

(650) 941-7222 x235

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

(408) 354-6872

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

(408) 586-3279

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

(408) 354-7635

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

(408) 779-7248

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

(650) 903-6306

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

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

(408) 277-4000

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

(408) 615-2450

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

(408) 868-1222

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

(408) 730-7431 

CGF's Action Alert and joint letter on the 2,600 acres of Bayside land in the Wastewater Treatment Plant area

(CGF sent out the Action Alert below regarding the Wastewater Pollution and Control Plant used by San Jose, Santa Clara, and surrounding cities, and situated on 2,600 acres of mostly-undeveloped Bayside land.  -Brian)

Dear Friend,

The 2,600 acres of mostly-natural Bayside habitat visible north of Highway 237 is undergoing a massive planning process that could both help and harm the environment.  This area contains the massive wastewater treatment plant serving San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, and neighboring cities, and the aging plant must undergo major upgrades.  New technologies open up possibilities for restoring natural habitats but also make unnecessary sprawl possible in buffer lands.  Please submit comments by January 30 telling the planners to stop excluding from consideration an Environmental Alternative that keeps the land in its current use of wastewater treatment and natural habitat without unnecessary, unrelated development!

Why this is important

This is one of the largest, if not the largest, Bayside habitat areas in the South Bay that is not permanently protected. Originally the treatment plant needed unoccupied buffer lands because of odors and because of the need for sewage settling ponds.  The uplands of the property function as one of the last strongholds of our diminishing burrowing owl populations, while lowlands are wetlands and former sewage pond buffer lands which offer the extremely rare chance to restore natural habitats.

What's happening

New, closed-building sewage treatment systems eliminate the need for settling ponds and may reduce odors that previously required bufferlands north of Highway 237.  Developers see the possibility of using publicly-owned land for commercial developments, city governments see potential revenues from the developments, but the public can see the possibility of protecting the crucial habitat and getting a tiny fraction back of all that has been lost.

What you can do

The planning process has focused on variations of future plans for the 2,600 acre property, all of them with some valuable environmental components, but all of them also including commercial development.  Committee for Green Foothills and a broad coalition other environmental organizations have been saying for months that the process must include at least one Environmental Alternative that stays with the original uses of the area - water treatment and natural habitat, with only low-impact recreational uses included that do not fundamentally affect the property.

Comments are being accepted at the main website for the planning process:

Please comment by January 30, telling them to stop excluding the Environmental Alternative proposed by environmental groups, and to allow the public consideration of this one alternative that best preserves the environment by excluding unnecessary development that is unrelated to water treatment, leaving the remainder the land as natural and restored habitat.

Submit your comments here:  http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/go/doc/1823/988947/Draft-Recommended-Alternative-Jan-2011

For more information on the Environmental Alternative, read our letter here:  http://greenfoothills.blogspot.com/2011/01/cgf-coalition-letter-on-environmental.html

More information on the plant is here:  http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/

CGF-Coalition letter on Environmental Alternative for Bayside Water Treatment Plant

(CGF and a coalition of environmental groups sent the letter below last summer about the 2,600 acre wastewater treatment plant area north of Highway 237 that is currently undergoing master planning.  -Brian)


June 28, 2010

Matt Krupp, Project Planner
Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan
Santa Clara San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant

Re: Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan Alternatives

Dear Mr. Krupp,

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.

Respectfully,
Brian A. Schmidt                                         David Lewis
Legislative Advocate                                  Executive Director
Santa Clara County                                    SAVE THE BAY

Charles G. Schafer                                   Eileen P. McLaughlin
Chair, Executive Committee                     Advocate, San Jose Shoreline
Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club              Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

Michele Beasley                                      Mondy Lariz
Senior Field Representative,                    South Bay Director
Greenbelt Alliance                                 Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition

Shani Kleinhaus                                        Kevin Bryant
Environmental Advocate                           Chapter Council Chair
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society         Santa Clara Valley Chapter
                                                               California Native Plant Society

Deb Self                                                  Hon. Clysta Seney
Executive Director                                 Former Director, District 3
SF Baykeeper,                                      Santa Clara County Open Space Authority


CC:
John Stufflebean, Director
City of Jose Environmental Services Department

Yet another financial model for preserving land

A non-profit founded by rock-climbers, the Access Fund, has purchased a conservation easement on private land near Sonora California to retain public access to a rock-climbing area on the property.  Agreements like this one and trail easements do not guarantee a reduction of sprawl and environmental damage from development, but they help - any development is legally restricted from impairing the access, and that tends to benefit natural resources.

Other interest-based non-profits like Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited have an even longer history of purchasing easements or land to protect their interests.  Not much of that has happened in our area, but we have ducks, trout, and rock-climbing cliffs, so we can always hope it will spread here.

-Brian

Unaffordable land stunts farming - yet another reason to fight sprawl

Good article in the Mercury News:

Unaffordable land stunts new generation of small farmers in California

PESCADERO -- In 2005, would-be farmers Nancy Vail and Jered Lawson spotted an old barn along Highway 1 that would make a good produce stand, along with 13 acres of prime coastal property, available for $1.25 million. They jumped at the chance to buy it.

"We were incredibly lucky," Vail said. "It's a lot of money, but it's actually pretty good."

Indeed, Vail and Lawson, who operate Pie Ranch, a nonprofit educational farm on the edge of the Pacific Ocean, were lucky to find land to farm.

They are part of a new and growing generation of farmers who aspire to deliver locally grown organic food to their communities but can't usually afford the land to do so.

Access to land is the main impediment to beginning farmers and ranchers today, said Reggie Knox, Central Coast coordinator for California FarmLink, a nonprofit that works to preserve family farming and conserve farmland in California.

"Small farmers like to be close to urban areas," said Knox, who has a long waiting list of people who are looking for affordable farmland. "Land values are going up around all the urban areas, so it's harder to get into land."

...

But even though the amount of California farmland in production has been falling for decades, and the average California farmer is now 58 years old, the latest agricultural census reveals another trend: The number of small farms -- 49 acres or less -- in the state has grown by more than 4,000 since 2002.

Many of these operations are founded by people in their 20s and 30s for whom earning a profit may be secondary to their real goal of producing wholesome, seasonal food and teaching others about farming.

...

Most farm program graduates won't be as fortunate as the founders of Pie Ranch, who turned to the Peninsula Open Space Trust to help them buy the first 13-acre parcel and the old barn. The farm produces many ingredients found in a pie, such as eggs to strawberries. It connects high school kids to the land and sells produce in the old barn.

The Peninsula Open Space Trust applied a conservation easement to the land to prevent development. Pending a capital campaign, Pie Ranch will soon own the land outright.

...

"This is part of a larger vision of a sustainable agriculture corridor from San Francisco down through Santa Cruz," Vail said. "We need to have more farmers, and they need to be able to access land and make a living and pull it off. We can't be the only ones doing that."

This is yet another reason to fight sprawl:  only where land is clearly delineated as urban or rural is there a chance for farmers to buy land for its intended agricultural and ranchland use.  It can be done, but strong policies against sprawl are necessary to foster the growth of small, urban-edge farms.

-Brian

An easy (and resounding) Stanford trails victory for the environment in San Mateo County

This morning, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors unanimously reaffirmed their 2008 decision to reject Stanford's environmentally-destructive proposal to widen the Alpine Road sidewalk.  Stanford made the proposal in order to avoid constructing a trail on its property that it had promised in the 2000 General Use Permit that Stanford received from Santa Clara County.  The sidewalk expansion would have had significant impacts on the creeks and the local community, with almost none of it on Stanford land.  Committee for Green Foothills even litigated against the project, although the litigation was dismissed over a technical issue.

San Mateo County also reaffirmed their prior proposal that the money for this very expensive proposal instead be spent in a grant program that could actually succeed in mitigating the impacts from Stanford's new development.

The decision helps in two important respects.  First, the original decision by San Mateo County Supervisors in 2008 resulted from the leadership of two supervisors, Jerry Hill and Rich Gordon, neither of whom will still be at the County after this year and able to provide institutional memory.  This new decision reiterates the resolve of the supervisors who will still be around in 2011 and onwards.

Second, the agreement between Stanford and Santa Clara County states that Stanford has through the year 2011 to persuade San Mateo County to accept the sidewalk expansion.  Afterwards, Stanford must give the money to Santa Clara County Parks Department to mitigate Stanford's impacts - unless Santa Clara County agrees to give Stanford yet another two years to change San Mateo County's decision.  By taking this decision, San Mateo County has clearly indicated it will not change its mind, and that Santa Clara County should not cause more needless delay of the environmental mitigation that Stanford promised a decade ago.

Great work by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.  The ball is now in the court of Santa Clara County and Stanford to do the right thing.

-Brian

UPDATE:  Here's the letter that CGF prepared, but turned out to not even be necessary (the Board of Supervisors thought the issue was so uncontroversial that they passed it as a "consent" item without need for discussion):

November 29, 2010

 

President Rich Gordon and

Members of the Board of Supervisors

400 County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

Re:  Item #10 on the November 30, 2010 Board of Supervisors Agenda: Resolution Reaffirming the Decision of the Board of Supervisors to Reject an offer from Stanford University for a Trail on Alpine Road

Dear President Gordon and Members of the Board,

Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) strongly supports the Board’s reaffirmation of your February 12. 2008 decision to reject Stanford University’s offer of $8.4 million to widen the Alpine Road sidewalk, and instead request that Santa Clara County establish a regional grants program to mitigate the impacts caused by Stanford’s General Use Permit, issued in 2000. 

The expansion of the existing sidewalk along heavily travelled Alpine Road would disproportionately impact the Stanford Weekend Acres community and would not provide true recreational opportunities.  There are many potential trail connections and/or improvements in the communities surrounding Stanford that a regional grants program could facilitate.

Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, San Mateo County Legislative Advocate

CGF comments on small-scale commercial solar facilities in Santa Clara County

(We submitted the following comments on small scale solar facilities and zoning for them in Santa Clara County.  -Brian)

Dear President Yeager and Board of Supervisors:

 

I regret that I will not be able to attend today's Board Meeting.  I would like to note that in addition to the written input described by staff transmittal memo, the Committee for Green Foothills testified at the Planning Commission meeting on this item.  We identified the difficulty with this issue is that it is difficult to tell at the present time whether small scale commercial solar will be only a minor addition to our rural landscape over time, in which case it is a useful if minor benefit, or whether it has potential to transform hundreds of acres to a new developed use, and should be scrutinized much more carefully.

 

We were glad to suggest a major review in three years to consider how solar is proceeding, and we appreciate the support from the Planning Commission for this and the other changes that we suggested.  I would suggest the Board direct staff to ensure the review in three years is put on the calendar.

 

The other issue where CGF expressed admittedly-vague concerns is regarding decommissioning.  Solar panels after their life span could be unsightly and interfere with other rural land uses.  They also contain toxins, and decommissioning could be expensive, raising the concern that it might not occur.  The review in three years should consider whether to require bonding for decommisioning purposes. 

 

The one additional suggestion CGF makes today is that the permits for commercial solar be given an expiration point after 20 years.  Staff expects that many panels would be replaced with upgrades, and a landowner in that case would likely want to renew their permit.  At that time it would be very easy to make decommissioning a condition of renewal.  As this change is just an additional mitigation, no additional environmental review would be required to add it to the proposed ordinance.

 

Please contact us with any questions.

 

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

Comments on Water District concerns about riparian protection

(We submitted the comments below on attempts to fight poor implementation of riparian protection policies in Santa Clara County.  -Brian) 

October 25, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors

            Re:  Agenda Item 12, BMR-10-0064 regarding exceptions to riparian ordinances

Dear Chair Santos and District Board Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills agrees with the Staff recommendation that the two options that Staff identified for performance evaluations of riparian protections would likely be unproductive for the cost involved.  However, it may be productive to broaden the BMR to consider more generally whether land use agencies have provided the adequate riparian protection that was the necessary counterpart to revoking Water District Ordinance 83-2 as well as the decision to desis from expanding the District's permit authority to a 150-foot buffer.  The BMR might also consider whether the District could do more to assist in the application of adequate riparian protection policies.

I would encourage consideration of specific examples to see whether the protection the District sought through expanding Ordinance 83-2 has been achieved under present conditions.  Several examples that immediately spring to mind include:

·         Los Altos Hills, with a 25-foot riparian buffer policy.

·         Los Gatos and the development recently proposed along Ross Creek.

·         San Jose and the relatively recent development projects on Duckett Way and Guadalupe Mines Road.

In each case the District might analyze whether it could help with riparian protection under current policies.  For example, in the case of the Guadalupe Mines Road project, the District submitted a useful comment letter prior to the initiation of CEQA review for the project, but the District did not comment on the CEQA document itself and did not provide comments when the project approval was appealed by environmental groups and another governmental agency, the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District.

We believe that more can be done to improve riparian protection.  Because we are aware of interest in different cities for improving policies (for example, San Jose's proposed Draft General Plan revision to reduce exceptions to its 100-foot buffer policy), we think this could be advanced in a way that shows the District's concern but is still productive and cooperative.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

CGF Letter requestion adequate time to comment on massive proposal on the Coast

(CGF Legislative Advocate Lennie Roberts sent the letter below requesting adequate time to comment on the newly-released document for the Big Wave project on the Coast.  -Brian)

October 10, 2010

David Bomberger, Chair and

Members of the Planning Commission

455 County Center, 2^nd Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Re:  Request for Extension of Time to 60 days for Public Review for Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Big Wave Project

Dear Chair Bomberger and Members of the Planning Commission

On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), I am requesting a 60-day public review period in order to give the public and responsible agencies sufficient time to review the FEIR for the Big Wave Project.

As you know, the Big Wave Project, as proposed and described in the DEIR, is enormously complex, and includes residential, office, manufacturing and warehousing uses, as well as an onsite wastewater treatment plant, onsite wastewater recycling, conversion of an onsite agricultural well to domestic and industrial use, and solar, wind, and natural gas power generation.

The DEIR, along with its Technical Appendices and Facilities Plan, was over 2,000 pages long.  It was a daunting task to digest and comment on the DEIR.  The public is keenly interested in the project as evidenced by the 245 written comments on the DEIR.

CGF believes that given the complexity of the proposed project and the high level of interest/controversy it has raised, it is vitally important for the County to allow sufficient time for thoughtful review of the responses to comments.

Therefore, CGF respectfully requests that the review period for the FEIR be extended to 60 days.

Thank you for consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate

Committee for Green Foothills

cc:        Jim Eggemeyer, Director, Planning and Building Department

            Camille Leung, Project Planner