Stanford Trails issues

Last week, CGF sent out an Action Alert asking for support of Supervisor Liz Kniss' proposal to use the Stanford trail funds for two trail-related projects. Here's part of the text of our Alert:

In 2000, Stanford received permission from the County through its General Use Permit (GUP) to develop about 5 million square feet on its core campus. As mitigation for this campus expansion, Stanford agreed to grant two trail easements across Stanford land as shown on the County Trails Master Plan. After years of negotiation with Santa Clara County over the exact alignment of the trails, Stanford insisted on constructing one of the trails on a different alignment than the one shown on the Master Plan, and insisted that the second trail should be relocated to San Mateo County, along Alpine Road. Over the next few years, San Mateo County rejected Stanford’s proposed trail alignment three times, the final time being in December 2011. At this point, the trail funding was returned to Santa Clara County to be used to mitigate the loss of recreational opportunities due to Stanford’s development.

Now, Supervisor Liz Kniss (whose district includes Palo Alto and Stanford’s land) has proposed that a portion of the $10.4 million currently in this fund be used for two trail-related projects: a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing over Highway 101 at Adobe Creek, and the completion of the “Dumbarton link” of the Bay Trail, between the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and the Dumbarton Bridge. The Adobe Creek bridge would provide safe, year-round access between residential Palo Alto, including Stanford, and the Baylands nature preserve. The Dumbarton link would form the final link in the Bay Trail between Redwood City and Alviso, providing 27 miles of uninterrupted shoreline trail. Both of these trail projects would benefit bicycle commuters as well as recreational users, and would be environmentally beneficial in multiple ways: reducing automobile traffic, providing access to shoreline open space, encouraging increased biking and hiking, and drawing attention to the natural beauty of our Bayfront.

Here's our update from May 23:

Thanks to all of you who emailed comments to the Board of Supervisors in favor of the proposal, and an especially big thanks to those who showed up at the meeting and spoke in person! Unfortunately, the proposal was not voted on at the meeting yesterday. The Board of Supervisors decided to delay voting until after other proposals have been submitted for consideration. The Board is expected to hear this matter again in August. CGF will alert our members when the issue comes before the Board again. Thanks again for taking action -- the Board received a lot of emails, so they definitely know the public is paying attention!

Developer withdraws Saltworks development proposal

Big news on the Redwood City Cargill Saltworks project! At the May 7 Redwood City Council meeting, the Council announced that developer DMB Associates had officially withdrawn its application for development of the Cargill salt ponds. While this is very good news, the bad news is that DMB and Cargill are already planning a new development proposal to submit in place of this one. So we can’t relax our vigilance just yet!

After Councilmember Rosanne Foust requested that the City Council look into putting an advisory vote about Saltworks on the November ballot, Mayor Alicia Aguirre announced formation of an ad hoc Saltworks Committee to explore the City Council’s “options” regarding the development. The ad hoc committee recommended that the City Council deny the existing Saltworks development application. The committee’s reasoning was that the application had been pending for 3 years, was still incomplete, and was taking up too many City resources.

The report simultaneously acknowledged that developer DMB has made clear its intention to submit a revised project application, and that the City would have to determine whether and how to proceed on that application if/when it is received. Various options suggested in the report included: conducting a poll of residents via phone, postcard or online survey; holding workshops for public input; and holding an advisory vote on the new project.

DMB announced immediately after the City published its committee report that it would be withdrawing its application and focusing on preparing the new, revised project application, to be submitted at a later date.

The Cargill/DMB Saltworks project would be the largest Bayfill development since the 1960’s. The site is over 1400 acres of former wetlands that could be restored.  Even in their current state, the salt ponds provide valuable habitat to migratory waterfowl. The area is highly unsuitable for development, being below sea level and requiring levees to protect it from sea level rise, as well as being located in an earthquake liquefaction zone. Any development on this site, especially development involving housing that would place residents in this unsafe area, is a bad idea!

- Alice Kaufman, CGF Legislative Advocate

The ongoing saga of the Cargill Saltworks project in Redwood City took an unexpected turn recently when Redwood City Councilmember Rosanne Foust requested the City Council to put an advisory vote on the November ballot, asking voters whether the city should continue with its review of the project. CGF Legislative Advocate Alice Kaufman wrote the following op-ed for the Palo Alto Daily News:

Council shouldn't need an advisory vote to learn most oppose proposal

Like many others who have been watching Redwood City’s handling of the DMB/Cargill Saltworks proposal to build the equivalent of a small city on the Cargill salt ponds, I was surprised by the City Council’s announcement that it will consider placing an advisory vote on the November ballot to ask voters whether they should continue reviewing the project. Considering that the constant message from the City Council for the past several years has been that they will not make any decisions about the project until after environmental review has been completed, this seems like a complete about-face.

            I was even more surprised to learn that the advisory vote was proposed by Councilmember Rosanne Foust, who has been advised by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) that she must recuse herself from all City Council discussions and votes on the Saltworks project. Due to Foust’s position as President and CEO of a lobbying organization for business and development interests that has endorsed Saltworks, the FPPC determined that Foust has a personal financial interest in seeing this enormous development built on our shoreline.

            This bias was apparent in remarks that Foust made to the Redwood City Patch (http://bit.ly/IyYjBm), in which she stated that the advisory vote would list “all the benefits of the development” in its description of the project. “All the benefits”? What about all the risks and drawbacks? Shouldn’t voters get the whole picture before they decide? The Saltworks project will increase Redwood City’s population by 40% while it paves over restorable wetlands, puts people at risk from rising sea levels, and clogs our roads with thousands more cars daily. Does Foust include these issues among the “benefits” of this project?

The City Council’s willingness to consider Foust’s proposed advisory vote is bewildering. For one thing, the City has already received plenty of public input on this project. With the review process barely begun, already nearly 1,000 pages of comments have been submitted to the City from members of the community – and about 90% of those comments have been opposed to the project. It is hard to imagine what additional information the City Council feels an advisory vote might give them. If the mountain of negative comments they have already received is not reason enough to abandon this project, how will a nonbinding advisory vote help them to make up their minds?

            If the City Council shares Foust’s stated concerns about the “divisiveness” of the Saltworks project (though it is hard to see how the overwhelmingly negative response of the community can be described as “divided”), the City Council should halt the review process now and deny the project without going through the expense and delay of an advisory vote. If they are unwilling to deny the project before the EIR process is complete (which has been their consistent stance all along), then what is the point of the advisory vote? If the Council wants to know how the public feels about the project, they have already received more than enough feedback to answer that question.

Alice Kaufman is Legislative Advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills (www.greenfoothills.org) and a resident of Redwood City.

Go to http://thedailynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=13d65f2e8 to see this article on the Daily News website.

Facebook Relocation Will Significantly Impact Air Quality and GHG Emissions

You’ve probably heard about Facebook’s recent IPO, but you may not have heard about their plan to relocate to the former Sun Microsystems campus in Menlo Park, at the foot of the Dumbarton Bridge. Since this is an already-developed site, CGF did not oppose the plan, but due to the projected increases in traffic and potential impacts on the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge (which borders the new Facebook campus on two sides), we did submit comments on the EIR for the project. Here is an excerpt from our comments:

By far the greatest impact the Project will have on the surrounding area is the increased traffic and associated effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In spite of Facebook’s mitigation measures with regard to supporting bicycling amenities and other alternative modes of transport, which the Committee recognizes and appreciates, these impacts will significantly impact the environment and the surrounding community, especially taken in conjunction with increased traffic resulting from other projects already approved or planned in the vicinity. It is vitally important for the City of Menlo Park, as well as other local and regional agencies, to recognize the cumulative effect of more and more development occurring in this area, which is isolated from public transit options that could reduce car traffic if the projects were more centrally located. The Committee strongly urges the City to focus future development in underutilized and already-developed areas nearer to public transit corridors.

We will be keeping an eye on future development proposals in this area, including Cargill’s proposal to build a city of 30,000 people on the Redwood City salt ponds.

CGF Welcomes New Legislative Advocate

The Committee for Green Foothills is pleased to add Alice Kaufman to our staff. Alice is a graduate of UC Hastings Law School and the University of Chicago. Her experience as an environmental lawyer includes several years at the Environmental Law Foundation in Oakland, where she worked to enforce laws regarding toxics disclosure, lead paint hazards, and other environmental issues. More recently, Alice has been working as a community activist in Redwood City fighting the massive Cargill/DMB Saltworks development. She is also active with Redwood City public schools and local education issues. Alice’s relationship with CGF began in 2009, when she contributed CEQA comments on behalf of CGF in opposition to a development on the San Mateo County coast. She then joined CGF’s Board of Directors and is now on staff as a Legislative Advocate.

America's first environmental president long preceded Teddy Roosevelt

Found this interesting historical piece, a speech by our fourth president, James Madion:

But although no determinate limit presents itself. to the increase of food, and to a population commensurate with it, other than the limited productiveness of the earth itself, we can scarcely be warranted in supposing that all the productive powers of its surface can be made subservient to the use of man, in exclusion of all the plants and animals not entering into his stock of subsistence; that all the elements and combinations of elements in the earth, the atmosphere, and the water, which now support such various and such numerous descriptions of created beings, animate and inanimate, could be withdrawn from that general destination, and appropriated to the exclusive support and increase of the human part of the creation; so that the whole habitable earth should be as full of people as the spots most crowded now are or might be made, and as destitute as those spots of the plants and animals not used by man. 

The supposition cannot well be reconciled with that symmetry in the face of nature, which derives new beauty from every insight that can be gained into it. 

A nice description of ecosystem services, as well as a statement of value.

According to the link, the speech caught on at the time but was gradually forgotten.  Maybe some version of the idea went on to influence Thoreau and the incubating environmental movement.

-Brian

Unmanned drones - a tool for environmental groups?

There has been some possibly-deserved concern about unmanned drone use inside the US, due to civil liberties concerns:

Excitement over America’s use of drones in multiple Muslim countries is, predictably, causing those weapons to be imported onto U.S. soil. Federal law enforcement agencies and local police forces are buying more and more of them and putting them to increasingly diverse domestic uses, as well as patrolling the border, and even private corporations are now considering how to use them. One U.S. drone manufacturer advertises its product as ideal for “urban monitoring.” Orlando’s police departmentoriginally requested two drones to use for security at next year’s GOP convention, only to change their minds for budgetary reasons.

....the use of drones for domestic surveillance raises all sorts of extremely serious privacy concerns and other issues of potential abuse. 

We have to acknowledge these concerns, but at the same time, there could be beneficial uses by environmentalists.  Many environmental violations are hidden on private property or on inaccessible portions of public property.  Remote-controlled aircraft with cameras could help resolve those problems.  For example, a radio-controlled helicopter with a video camera, with 8 minutes of flying time, costing less $100.  This is an approach that environmentalists might want to consider, especially as their capabilities get better.

-Brian

Our new partner in the fight for San Francisco Bay

CGF has a new partner in the fight against the "Saltworks" project -- the proposed city-size development on Cargill's Redwood City salt ponds. A new grassroots community group, called Redwood City Neighbors United (RCNU), has been founded by a group of Redwood City residents, including Alice Kaufman, CGF's new Legislative Advocate, and Nancy Arbuckle, one of CGF's Board members. The group is dedicated to fighting the proposed Saltworks project and promoting responsible growth in Redwood City.

Why this is important

Cargill and its partner, Arizona luxury housing developer DMB Associates, want to build a massive development of 12,000 housing units and 1 million square feet of commercial/retail on the salt ponds between Woodside Road and Marsh Road in Redwood City. This would mean 30,000 more residents -- the size of the population of Foster City -- living behind a massive flood levee and adding to the already-heavy traffic on 101. No bayfill project this huge has been proposed since the 1960's. These salt ponds are former wetlands that were intended to be included in the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, and they can still be restored to wetlands if Cargill is not allowed to fill and pave them for this development. An estimated 90% of the Bay's wetlands have already been diked or filled in for development, and scientists tell us that we need at least 100,000 acres of wetlands for the Bay to thrive.

What's happening

Cargill and DMB have submitted a project application for their proposed "Saltworks" project to the Redwood City City Council, and a Notice of Preparation under CEQA has been prepared. Over 900 pages of comments in response to the NOP were received, expessing the concerns of Redwood City residents, environmental groups, labor unions, the governments of nearby cities, local businesses, and other concerned parties. Most recently, in early November, DMB announced that due to the high volume of comments received, they would not be issuing a revised project description by the end of 2011 as previously promised, but instead will be delaying the process for an indefinite period of time.

What you can do

We need to keep our opposition to the Saltworks project as strong as ever, in spite of DMB's delays. Please keep in touch with both CGF and RCNU (you can visit RCNU's website at www.rcnu.org) to learn the latest developments on this misguided and irresponsible project.

Thank you!

CGF corrects discussion of its No on E position

(Palo Alto Weekly published this letter from CGF correcting the discussion of the No on E position taken by CGF's Board of Directors.  Where the last line says "Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors", the Weekly failed to include the words from the letter that started with "On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors".  -Brian)

Editor,

It's unfortunate that the Palo Alto Weekly failed to consult with Committee for Green Foothills before incorrectly characterizing the CGF Board's position, among others, as stating that "parkland should never be repurposed." The CGF Board's statement and supporting material specifically recognizes the need to balance competing environmental interests and makes clear that it examines the issues on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the majority of greenhouse-gas emission reductions that would be done at a loss of parklands can instead be done by a smaller operation at the Water Quality Control Plant with no loss of parkland that has been promised to voters for forty years. Committee for Green Foothills' Board did not make a knee-jerk decision but rather a thoughtful one to support both action to fight climate change and to protect our local parkland and natural open space, by encouraging a no vote on Measure E.

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors  (CGF note:  Weekly failed to include the words "on behalf of" here)

East Bayshore Road

Palo Alto

Major step forward in San Jose (and a minor step back)

Yesterday, San Jose approved the General Plan that the City and we (together with other environmental groups) had been working on for years.

Good coverage in the Mercury News:

About two dozen speakers addressed the council on the Envision 2040 goals that include: adding as many as 470,000 new jobs and 120,000 new housing units; encouraging growth in North San Jose, North Coyote Valley, Evergreen and Edenvale, among other areas; building a high-density mix of housing, office and retail near transit corridors and commercial centers; creating "urban villages" designed as central places where people live, work and shop; and increasing the number of trails and bike paths, and protecting urban reserves in mid-Coyote Valley and South Almaden Valley.

We can't really emphasize enough how important and groundbreaking it is to have put Mid-Coyote and South Almaden off limits to development for the next 30 years.  For the last 40 years the San Jose General Plans have done their best to destroy those rural landscapes and wildlife corridors, so this represents a significant contraction in the overreach of the past, and a first step in acknowledging a Silicon Archipelago of vibrant cities and protected land.

So that's the very good news, along with other issues like transit oriented development that will reduce incentives for sprawl, and increased stream protection.  On the bad side, they did little to help protect North Coyote Valley, and with the exception of Councilmember Ash Kalra, refused to protect hillsides from inappropriate golf courses and cemeteries.  And the environmental review was completely inadequate, missing the additional opportunities given by environmental review to protect against environmental impacts.  CGF stated our position at the meeting:

And finally, an excellent column by Scott Herhold outlined a major next step that we're still working on:

End the system that allows developers to pick their own environmental consultants. San Jose is virtually alone among major Bay Area cities in allowing developers to pick their own environmental consultants. The conflict is inescapable. A consultant who craves more business from the same developer might view traffic numbers, say, in a way that favors the project.
Other cities do it better. In some cases, the city staff members pick the consultant and then bill the developer. In other cities, like San Francisco, the developer picks from a group of consultants: The city then pays and bills the developer.
The bottom line? A Thousand Wishes helps. A little steel would help more. Envision that.

-Brian

CGF Joint letter on protecting San Jose hillsides from sprawl

(CGF sent the letter below with other organizations on using the Draft General Plan to protect San Jose hillsides from sprawl.  We also sent a clarification that the support from city staff referred to staff's original March 21, 2011 position, and that staff's later positions have varied.  -Brian)

October 25, 2011  

San Jose City Hall

200 E Santa Clara Street

San Jose, CA 95112

To:  Honorable Mayor Reed and San Jose City Council,

We strongly support Open Hillside (Plan Option #1) as recommended by the Planning Staff and members of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Task Force to modify Policy Goal LU-19 and add further restrictions on the allowable development intensity for lands with Open Hillside designation, keeping the proposed limitation of 10% of developable land.

We respect and support the hard work of the Staff and Envision San José 2040 General Plan Task Force over the past four years for transit oriented development which ties into AB32, SB375 and San José’s Green Vision Plan (GVP). The plan has strong goals for economic growth, environmental stewardship, and enhanced quality of life for San José residents by putting emphasis on infill development. The prioritization of jobs and housing within the Urban Group Boundary (UGB) and on transit corridors begins to correct past errors in land use policy. The General Plan update integrates San José’s GVP which includes metrics for water conservation and adopting a general plan with Measurable Standards for Sustainable Development. Staff’s comprehensive evaluation for Plan Option #1 reinforces the GVP and most importantly development of urban villages with transit oriented blend.

The Envision 2040 Task Force unanimously voted and approved the draft General Plan on Monday, September 12, 2011. Staff and the Envision 2040 Task Force requested that the Planning Commission and City Council consider five other options to the 2040 Plan Update as Task Force members were split on the Open Hillside land use policy. The Planning Commission met on Wednesday, September 29, 2011 and did not support Plan Option #1,


with one dissenting vote from the Chair, Hope Cahan.

Chair Cahan expressed concerns regarding environmental impacts on water issues. The discussion was limited and did not connect the Envision 2040 policies/goals or linkages to performance metrics in GVP for water conservation (Goal #6), open space or quality of life amenities.  Development outside of the UGB conflicts with water goals from the GVP and with water conservation goals in the Draft Plan under MS-3 which includes a metric for reducing city wide per capita water consumption by 25% by 2050 utilizing a baseline from the 2010 Urban Water Management Plans of water retailers. Water sustainability is a major concern not only for San José residents and businesses but also for the State of California. Staff’s analysis and recommendation to prohibit new development in the UGB should be supported.

LU19.6 recommends not providing urban services to new development outside of UGB. We agree that adding any type of development with the exception of agriculture outside of the UGB will overload already stressed police and fire departments, add financial burdens for capital investment from taxpayers and compete for existing public infrastructure funding for roads and maintenance as well as increase the water demands. Furthermore, it will not meet San José’s goal of creating vibrant, walkable communities with reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced traffic.

We support the recommendations in LU19.8, which limits environmental impact in the UGB. Adding new development outside of the city’s boundaries conflicts with many policy and goals in the plan. Below is a partial list of policies and goals that conflict with development outside the UGB:

Goal LU-17- Hillside/Rural Preservation.
Preserve the valuable natural resources of the hillsides, and protect their aesthetic
and habitat amenities to enhance the rural character of these areas.

Policies – Responsible Management of Water Supply. 
MS-17.2 Ensure that development within San José is planned and built in a manner consistent with fiscally and environmentally sustainable use of current and future water supplies by encouraging sustainable development practices, including low-impact development, water-efficient development and green building techniques. Support the location of new development within the vicinity of the recycled water system and promote expansion of the SBWR system to areas planned for new development. Residential development outside of the Urban Service Area can be approved only at minimal levels and only allowed to use non-recycled water at urban intensities. For residential development outside of the Urban Service Area, restrict water usage to well water, rainwater collection, or other similar environmentally sustainable practice. Nonresidential development may use the same sources and potentially make use of recycled water, provided that its use will not result in conflicts with other General Plan policies, including geologic or habitat impacts. To maximize the efficient and environmentally beneficial use of water outside of the Urban Service Area, limit water consumption for new development so that it does not diminish the water supply available for projected development within San José’s urbanized areas.

Goal MS-18 – Water Conservation.  Continuously improve water conservation
efforts in order to achieve best in class performance. Double the City’s annual water conservation savings by 2040 and achieve half of the Water District’s goal for Santa Clara County on an annual basis.

Policies – Water Conservation. MS-18.2 Require new development outside of the City’s Urban Service Area to incorporate measures to minimize water consumption.

Goal ER-1 – Grassland, Oak Woodlands, Chaparral and Coastal Scrub.
Preserve, protect and restore the ecological integrity and scenic characteristics of grasslands, oak woodlands, chaparral and coastal scrub in hillside areas.

Goal ER-6 – Urban Natural Interface. Minimize adverse effects of urbanization
on natural lands surrounding the City’s developed areas.

Goal EC-4 – Geologic and Soil Hazards. Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life,
and property damage from soil and slope instability including landslides, differential settlement, and accelerated erosion.

Goal PR-1 – High Quality Facilities and Programs. Provide park lands, trails, open space, recreation amenities, and programs, nationally recognized for their excellence, which enhance the livability of the urban and suburban environments; preserve significant natural, historic, scenic and other open space resources; and meet the parks and recreation services needs of San José’s residents, workers, and visitors.

Goal PR-3 – Provide an Equitable Park System. Create a balanced park system that provides all residents access to parks, trails, open space, community centers, dog parks, skate parks, aquatics facilities, sports fields, community gardens, and other amenities.

Thank you for your continued efforts and leadership as indicated for your creative support for the Three Creek Trails project. We implore you to consider and restrict Open Hillside Development outside of UGB, and not develop them before 2040.  Please continue to focus development inside the urban growth boundary, positioning San José as a place for present and future generations to live, work and enjoy. 

Respectfully submitted,

Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, San José Cool Cities, Committee for Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, San José State Students and Alumni, David Marsland (District 1), Former Co-Chair San José Cool Cities, Susan Marsland (District 1) Helen Chapman (District 6), Megan  Fluke (District 7), and Jessica Gonzales (District 8)

Victory for Mountain View Open Space in Cuesta Annex

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

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

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

....

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

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

For more info on our letter, click here.

San Jose supports finalizing County Habitat Plan

San Jose voted unanimously to expend $100,000 for their share of finalizing the County Habitat Plan.  Mayor Reed mentioned significant improvements and benefits in the Plan.  I also spoke at the meeting:



I was in the meeting for quite a long time, so unlike other times I wrote out my speaking notes in detail beforehand.  I still had time, so I ran through them and realized they were too long.  Below, for what it's worth, is the notes for what I said and also the notes for what I wanted to say at somewhat greater length:

Short version:

We support the staff recs bc hab plan buys both environmental mitigation and environmental enhancement in bulk wholesale amounts.

A significant improvement in the draft Habitat Plan is that it has been changed to reflect the policies in San Jose’s draft General Plan proposed by its Task Force.  The changes assume that both South Almaden Valley and mid-Coyote Valley will remain mostly undeveloped, significantly reducing the habitat mitigation costs in the Habitat Plan.

But there’s another part of the Draft General Plan that needs further incorporation in the Habitat Plan.

ER-7.5 Support the on-going identification and protection of critical linkages for wildlife movement in the Mid-Coyote Valley. 

Nothing in the Habitat Plan has been changed to reflect this important new component of the City’s Draft General Plan

I believe that staff think it is as of yet unclear what this new Draft General Plan policy will mean for San Jose.  One thing I believe you can do that can be helpful is to communicate to staff that you believe this General Plan policy recommended to you by your Task Force is one that you support, and that the Habitat Plan should identify opportunities to protect wildlife movement in mid-Coyote Valley, especially because there are opportunities for outside funding that will not cost San Jose a dime while still helping to promote a San Jose policy.

These type of technical issues and improvements can still occur with little financial effects over the next few months, and we look forward to working staff and the City Council

Long version:

We support the staff recs bc hab plan buys both environmental mitigation and environmental enhancement in bulk wholesale amounts.  Not doing the plan doesn’t mean these costs go away, it simply means that you buy the mitigation and enhancement on a piecemeal basis for retail costs.  This appears to explain the difference between on the one hand, businesses like the two largest developers in Gilroy who strongly support the Habitat Plan, and on the other hand, other business groups with little economic interests one way or another who instead are motivated based on their ideology.

While we have some concerns about the changes in the Habitat Plan in recent months, we want to acknowledge some significant improvements.  For example, the draft Habitat Plan has been changed to reflect the policies in San Jose’s draft General Plan proposed by its Envision 2040 Task Force, with everyone acknowledging this is pending the final decisionmaking by the City Council.  The changes assume that both South Almaden Valley and mid-Coyote Valley will remain mostly undeveloped, significantly reducing the habitat mitigation costs in the Habitat Plan.

There’s another part of the Draft General Plan that needs further incorporation in the Habitat Plan.

ER-7.5 Support the on-going identification and protection of critical linkages for wildlife movement in the Mid-Coyote Valley. 

Nothing in the Habitat Plan has been changed to reflect this important new component of the City’s Draft General Plan

I believe that staff think it is as of yet unclear what this new Draft General Plan policy will mean for San Jose.  One thing I believe you can do that can be helpful is to communicate to staff that you believe this General Plan policy recommended to you by your Task Force is one that you support, and that the Habitat Plan should identify opportunities to protect wildlife movement in mid-Coyote Valley, especially because there are opportunities for outside funding that will not cost San Jose a dime while still helping to promote a San Jose policy.

These type of technical issues and improvements can still occur with little financial effects over the next few months, and we look forward to working staff and the City Council