Greenfeet

Facebook Relocation Will Significantly Impact Air Quality and GHG Emissions

2012-02-07T20:24:00.000-08:00

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

By far thegreatest impact the Project will have on the surrounding area is the increasedtraffic and associated effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Inspite of Facebook’s mitigation measures with regard to supporting bicyclingamenities and other alternative modes of transport, which the Committeerecognizes and appreciates, these impacts will significantly impact theenvironment and the surrounding community, especially taken in conjunction withincreased traffic resulting from other projects already approved or planned inthe vicinity. It is vitally important for the City of Menlo Park, as well asother local and regional agencies, to recognize the cumulative effect of moreand more development occurring in this area, which is isolated from publictransit options that could reduce car traffic if the projects were morecentrally located. The Committee strongly urges the City to focus futuredevelopment in underutilized and already-developed areas nearer to publictransit corridors.

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

CGF Welcomes New Legislative Advocate

2012-01-04T16:16:00.000-08:00

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

America's first environmental president long preceded Teddy Roosevelt

2011-12-21T14:07:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-12-10T16:41:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-09T16:35:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-03T12:11:00.000-07:00

(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)

2011-11-02T14:57:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-28T15:03:00.000-07:00

(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) asrecommended by the Planning Staff and members of the Envision San José 2040General Plan Task Force to modify Policy Goal LU-19 and add furtherrestrictions on the allowable development intensity for lands with OpenHillside designation, keeping the proposed limitation of 10% of developableland.

We respect and support the hard work of the Staff and Envision SanJosé 2040 General Plan Task Force over the past four years for transit orienteddevelopment which ties into AB32, SB375 and San José’s Green Vision Plan (GVP).The plan has strong goals for economic growth, environmental stewardship, andenhanced quality of life for San José residents by putting emphasis on infilldevelopment. The prioritization of jobs and housing within the Urban GroupBoundary (UGB) and on transit corridors begins to correct past errors in landuse policy. The General Plan update integrates San José’s GVP which includesmetrics for water conservation and adopting a general plan with MeasurableStandards for Sustainable Development. Staff’s comprehensive evaluation forPlan Option #1 reinforces the GVP and most importantly development of urbanvillages with transit oriented blend.

The Envision 2040 Task Force unanimously voted and approved thedraft General Plan on Monday, September 12, 2011. Staff and the Envision 2040Task Force requested that the Planning Commission and City Council considerfive other options to the 2040 Plan Update as Task Force members were split onthe 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 onwater issues. The discussion was limited and did not connect the Envision 2040policies/goals or linkages to performance metrics in GVP for water conservation(Goal #6), open space or quality of life amenities. Development outsideof the UGB conflicts with water goals from the GVP and with water conservationgoals in the Draft Plan under MS-3 which includes a metric for reducing citywide per capita water consumption by 25% by 2050 utilizing a baseline from the2010 Urban Water Management Plans of water retailers. Water sustainability is amajor concern not only for San José residents and businesses but also for theState of California. Staff’s analysis and recommendation to prohibit newdevelopment in the UGB should be supported.

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

We support the recommendations in LU19.8, which limitsenvironmental impact in the UGB. Adding new development outside of the city’sboundaries conflicts with many policy and goals in the plan. Below is a partiallist 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 theiraesthetic
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 amanner consistent with fiscally and environmentally sustainable use of currentand future water supplies by encouraging sustainable development practices,including low-impact development, water-efficient development and greenbuilding techniques. Support the location of new development within thevicinity of the recycled water system and promote expansion of the SBWRsystem to areas planned for new development. Residential development outside ofthe Urban Service Area can be approved only at minimal levels and only allowedto use non-recycled water at urban intensities. For residential developmentoutside 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 ofrecycled water, provided that its use will not result in conflicts with otherGeneral Plan policies, including geologic or habitat impacts. To maximize theefficient and environmentally beneficial use of water outside of the UrbanService Area, limit water consumption for new development so that it does notdiminish the water supply available for projected development within San José’surbanized areas.

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

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

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

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

Goal EC-4 – Geologic and Soil Hazards. Minimizethe 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 parklands, trails, open space, recreation amenities, and programs, nationallyrecognized for their excellence, which enhance the livability of the urban andsuburban environments; preserve significant natural, historic, scenic and otheropen space resources; and meet the parks and recreation services needs of SanJosé’s residents, workers, and visitors.

Goal PR-3 – Provide an Equitable Park System. Create abalanced park system that provides all residents access to parks, trails, openspace, community centers, dog parks, skate parks, aquatics facilities, sportsfields, community gardens, and other amenities.

Thank you for your continued efforts and leadership as indicatedfor your creative support for the Three Creek Trails project. We implore you toconsider and restrict Open Hillside Development outside of UGB, and not developthem before 2040. Please continue to focus development inside the urbangrowth boundary, positioning San José as a place for present and futuregenerations to live, work and enjoy.

Respectfully submitted,

Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, San José Cool Cities, Committeefor Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, San José State Students and Alumni,David Marsland (District 1), Former Co-Chair San José Cool Cities, SusanMarsland (District 1) Helen Chapman (District 6), Megan Fluke (District7), and Jessica Gonzales (District 8)

Victory for Mountain View Open Space in Cuesta Annex

2011-10-20T17:47:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

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 bothenvironmental mitigation and environmental enhancement in bulk wholesale amounts.

A significant improvement in the draft Habitat Plan is thatit has been changed to reflect the policies in San Jose’s draft General Planproposed by its Task Force. The changesassume that both South Almaden Valley and mid-Coyote Valley will remain mostlyundeveloped, significantly reducing the habitat mitigation costs in the HabitatPlan.

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

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

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

I believe that staff think it is as of yet unclear what thisnew Draft General Plan policy will mean for San Jose. One thing I believe you can do that can behelpful is to communicate to staff that you believe this General Plan policyrecommended to you by your Task Force is one that you support, and that theHabitat Plan should identify opportunities to protect wildlife movement inmid-Coyote Valley, especially because there are opportunities for outsidefunding that will not cost San Jose a dime while still helping to promote a SanJose policy.

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

Long version:

We support the staff recs bc hab plan buys bothenvironmental mitigation and environmental enhancement in bulk wholesaleamounts. Not doing the plan doesn’t meanthese costs go away, it simply means that you buy the mitigation andenhancement on a piecemeal basis for retail costs. This appears to explain the differencebetween on the one hand, businesses like the two largest developers in Gilroywho strongly support the Habitat Plan, and on the other hand, other businessgroups with little economic interests one way or another who instead aremotivated based on their ideology.

While we have some concerns about the changes in the HabitatPlan in recent months, we want to acknowledge some significantimprovements. For example, the draftHabitat Plan has been changed to reflect the policies in San Jose’s draftGeneral Plan proposed by its Envision 2040 Task Force, with everyoneacknowledging this is pending the final decisionmaking by the CityCouncil. The changes assume that bothSouth 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 needsfurther incorporation in the Habitat Plan.

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

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

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

Letter to Mountain View City Council on History Museum at Cuesta Annex

2011-10-18T14:03:00.000-07:00

(CGF sent the letter below to Mountain View City Council. -Brian)

October 18,2011

Mountain ViewCity Council

Re: Please preserve the living history of CuestaAnnex by locating the History Museum at a different site

Dear MayorSiegel and City Councilmembers;

TheCommittee for Green Foothills and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society do notoppose the proposed Mountain View History Museum, but its location should notbe on and should not obliterate a significant portion of Cuesta Annex, for bothhistorical and open space reasons. As organizationsdedicated to protecting undeveloped open space – natural habitats andagriculture - we are acutely aware ofthe loss of both kinds of habitats here in the Valley of Heart's Delight,replaced nearly entirely with developed buildings and to some extent withdeveloped turf parklands

Asboth remnants of a historical orchard that could be restored and natural openspace that often interspersed with Mountain View farmlands of just twogenerations ago, Cuesta annex’s undeveloped, turf-free, natural flat land openspace that is inland and not along the Bay is truly execptional. The City currently has the option of bringingback some of the historical orchards that were present at the site, and it canaugment and support the natural habitat that is present. It can even choose to continue allowing inthis one place in Mountain View the most ancient of historical practices – tensof thousands of years of children being allowed to wander around at will anddig in the dirt.

Pleaseput the History Museum somewhere else. Even right next to Cuesta Annex in Cuesta Park is a far better location,with far more acres of turf than natural open space, or elsewhere here inMountain View than has many turf parks and only one uniquely free area forchildren to roam in the dirt and the bugs and the birds. And while the museum should not be located atCuesta Annex, if it is located there then it should occupy a minimizedfootprint and public monies should not be used to subsidize or accelerate thisproposal to take away part the public’s annex.

Pleasecontact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A.Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills

LegislativeAdvocate, Santa Clara County

ShaniKleinhaus, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society

EnvironmentalAdvocate

UPDATE: Our letter was published in Mountain View Patch.

We have proof that lions can cross Highway 101

2011-10-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

There's strong reason to believe that Coyote Valley forms a crucial wildlife link between the Santa Cruz Mountains of the Peninsula, and the Mount Hamilton Range in east Santa Clara County that provides a wildlife connection to the rest of the state. However huge the area of the Santa Cruz Mountains might be, they're too small for rare or wide-ranging animals like mountain lions and badgers to survive if isolated.

Some people disagree that Coyote Valley is still a functional wildlife corridor. Strangely, that doesn't imply to them the necessity of improving Coyote Valley's usefulness for wildlife but rather that we should ignore its wildlife linkage value.

They use Highway 101 as insurmountable barrier - lions can't get across it, they say, so there's no point in preserving the rest of Coyote Valley so that lions and badgers can make it the rest of the way.

Except we have proof that one lion made it across, and this lion is actually exceptionally slow and clumsy compared to the average mountain lion:

Sea lion rescued after crossing Highway 101 in Burlingame

Sluglike, the beast lumbered across Highway 101, vaulting the median barrier, coming to rest on the shoulder of the Broadway exit, dazed and confused and now eight wide traffic lanes away from the bay it apparently emerged from early Saturday.

Not a good place for a sea lion.

Burlingame police got the call shortly before 7 a.m.

Fast Lane Freddy or Bayshore Betty -- take your choice, since the marine mammal's sex remains undetermined -- had somehow scooted up and across the freeway, a beautiful 150-pound blob of Zalophus californianus, now sitting in eucalyptus leaves, wondering to him/herself: "What the heck did I just do?''

"We got between a half-dozen and a dozen calls from motorists saying 'A sea lion just crossed 101!' " said Burlingame police Cpl. Laura Terada. "By the time we got there, he was heading down the ramp actually exiting into Burlingame. Then he sat on a tree stump, just chillin'."

If a sea lion can slowly bounce its way across Highway 101, then it seems like a mountain lion can do the same thing much more easily.

-Brian

Committee for Green Foothills Urges Palo Alto to Vote No on Measure E, has a better plan for climate change and open space

2011-09-23T10:44:00.000-07:00

Statement of the CGF's Board of Directors:

Committee for Green Foothills Board of Directors urges a no vote on Palo Alto’s Measure E.

The Board of Directors of the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) recognizes that its mission of protecting the open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties may on occasion require balancing competing valid environmental interests. In the case of Measure E in Palo Alto, we find that the un-dedication of parkland for potential gains on greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on unproven composting techniques, and with no guaranty provided that the loss of the open space would be mitigated by other open space, or that a dedicated funding source for restoration of Byxbee Park would be created, is not a trade-off that the Board believes is consistent with its mission. We support replacing the sewage treatment plant incinerator with a composting operation at the RWQCP because this would reduce the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions promised by Measure E proponents, without unnecessarily compromising open space. Therefore, CGF goes on record opposing Measure E.

UPDATE: CGF also emailed this explanatory statement to Measure E advocates and opponents:

CGF's Board of Directors thanks the supporters and opponents of Measure E for the information and assistance in developing its opinion, and acknowledges the reasonable arguments, good intentions, and strong environmental interests on both sides. After over an hour of discussion, and while agreeing with Measure E supporters that climate change is an open space issue with open space impacts, the Board unanimously voted that it opposes Measure E as unnecessarily impacting open space. Instead of passing Measure E, CGF suggests a compromise with people primarily concerned with climate change, that we all work together to replace the sewage plant incinerator with a composting operation at the plant instead of at Byxbee, and that we also work together to get the funding to renovate Byxbee. If Measure E fails, this is a way that both sides can work together. The Board also noted its appreciation of Measure E supporters stating that they want a "no net loss" of parkland, so if Measure E passes, this is also something we could work together on in the future.

Center for Biological Diversity warns San Jose and Santa Clara County not to walk away from Habitat Plan

2011-08-30T14:31:00.000-07:00

(Below is a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity warning San Jose and Santa Clara that withdrawing/suspending their participation in the Habitat Plan could result in immediate legal vulnerabilities. It's the same issue I warn about in the video above. -Brian)

August 29, 2011

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
Tenth Floor - East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110

San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Re: Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan

The Center for Biological Diversity has learned that Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose
considering withdrawing from participation in the proposed Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan (“HCP”). While the HCP is a voluntary process, the end result is issuance of
incidental take permits pursuant to the Endangered Species Act that allow for lawful
development, growth and maintenance activities that comply with the Endangered Species Act
by adhering to the plan and providing guaranteed conservation measures for endangered and
threatened species.

Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose have indicated that their agencies can still continue
development, growth and maintenance activities on a legal basis without participation in the
HCP. This is incorrect – the County and City cannot lawfully continue projects or policies that
adversely impacted wildlife species or their habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act,
without a lawful incidental take permit. The County and City are currently permitting, funding,
conducting and authorizing activities and projects that adversely affect listed species in violation
of the Endangered Species Act.

The draft HCP prepared by the County and City acknowledges ongoing impacts of such
activities on listed species, and applies for incidental take coverage for these activities for a wide
range of protected species. Given this admission regarding the take of listed species, the County
and City cannot legally continue to permit, fund, conduct or authorize activities that cause these
impacts while walking away from the HCP and refusing to address ongoing Endangered Species
Act violations through a legally adequate, approved HCP and Incidental Take Permit.

We are particularly concerned about ongoing adverse impacts from City and County activities to
listed species that depend on serpentine soil habitat, such as Bay checkerspot butterfly, Tiburon
Indian paintbrush, coyote ceanothus, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, and Metcalf Canyon
jewelflower. The draft HCP acknowledges that nitrogen deposition in Santa Clara County
threatens serpentine grasslands that support numerous listed species, including the threatened
Bay checkerspot butterfly. Emissions from vehicles and other industrial and nonindustrial
sources increase airborne nitrogen, of which a certain amount is converted into forms that can
fall to earth as depositional nitrogen. It has been shown that increased nitrogen in serpentine soils
can favor the growth of nonnative annual grasses over native serpentine species. These nonnative
species, if left unmanaged, can overtake the native serpentine species.

The draft HCP also acknowledges impacts of nitrogen deposition on non-serpentine habitat by
resulting in the displacement of native forbs in over 300,000 acres, or 60% of the study area. The
vast majority of the area considered in the HCP, especially the highly-vulnerable serpentine soil
habitats, is subject to current impacts from activities permitted, funded or authorized by the
County and City that result in harmful nitrogen deposition. While some emissions come from
other areas, the draft HCP acknowledges that a substantial portion originates from within the
study area. While even minor impacts to listed species may constitute violations of the
Endangered Species Act, the City of San Jose's contribution alone is significant, and Santa Clara
County as a whole consumes power, generates traffic, and makes land use decisions that also
increase nitrogen deposition.

Section 9 of the ESA specifically prohibits the “take” of a listed species, 16 U.S.C. §
1538(a)(1)(B), a term broadly defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding or
killing such species, 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). The term “harm” is further defined to include
“significant habitat modification or degradation where it . . . injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R.
§17.3 “Harass” includes any “act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife
by annoying it to such and extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Id. The ESA’s legislative
history supports “the broadest possible” reading of “take.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of
Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 704-05 (1995). The take prohibition applies to
any “person,” 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1), state agencies, cities, and counties, 16 U.S.C. § 1532(13).
The ESA further makes it unlawful for any person to “cause to be committed” the take of a
species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(g). Violations of Section 9 are enforceable under the ESA’s citizensuit
provision. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g).

Courts have repeatedly held that government regulations authorizing third parties to engage in
harmful actions can constitute an illegal taking under Section 9 of the ESA. See Strahan v. Coxe,
127 F.3d 155, 158, 163-64 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 830 (1998) (state agency caused
takings of the endangered right whale because it "licensed commercial fishing operations to use
gillnets and lobster pots in specifically the manner that is likely to result in violation of [the
ESA]"); Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator, Envtl. Protection Agency, 882 F.2d 1294, 1300-
01 (8th Cir.1989) (federal agency caused takes of the endangered black-footed ferret through its
“decision to register pesticides” even though other persons actually distributed or used the
pesticides); Loggerhead Turtle v. City Council of Volusia County, 148 F.3d 1231, 1253 (11th
Cir. 1998) (county’s inadequate regulation of beachfront artificial light sources may constitute a
taking of turtles in violation of the ESA).

The Center submits this letter to encourage Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose to meet
their responsibilities. There are currently impacts on endangered species caused by activities
permitted, funded, conducted or authorized by the County and City – this is not just a matter of
future permits. Failing to obtain legal authorization for take of listed species opens the agencies
to liability from enforcement actions by federal agencies and environmental organizations, which
have standing to enforce the Endangered Species Act to protect listed species and their habitat.
Participation in the Santa Clara Valley HCP is a common-sense process to bring the agencies
into compliance with the Endangered Species Act while allowing well-planned development,
growth and maintenance activities to go forward and at the same time provide for the
conservation and recovery of the Santa Clara Valley’s unique endangered species.

Sincerely,
Jeff Miller
Conservation Advocate

Two minutes, three points, three successes

2011-08-27T19:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Brian

Guest post: A Riparian Exploration of San Jose

2011-08-25T17:40:00.000-07:00

(Below is a guest post by CGF Intern Kelsey Grousbeck. -Brian)

We all know urban creeks don't get the best treatment. There are organizations and felons dedicated to cleaning the banks and there are messages above storm drains that caution people to think before they dump, but these measures cannot protect every stretch of creek habitat, especially in San Jose. My first week at the Committee for Green Foothills, I was sent on a task to photograph riparian setbacks at four different locations in San Jose. Technically, the setback for projects is supposed to be about 100 feet, but since there is no strict policy, the city offers exceptions for many projects. Julie and Brian wanted to see whether these projects were impacting the riparian areas around the creeks and whether they were adhering to their setback requirements. Ideally, the photos I took could help make a case for a stricter setback policy.

So, one sunny morning, I arrived in San Jose, camera in hand, to explore some creeks. I have a notoriously terrible sense of direction, so besides my car GPS, I was armed with my iPhone, four different maps of the waterways of San Jose, and a list of properties that I needed to go to with detailed descriptions about their location. Of course, I still got lost. On top of it, I pictured these properties as located in more rural areas of San Jose and I figured I would need to trek to get to the creeks. It's amazing how many strange looks I got as I wandered through the streets of downtown San Jose in hiking boots, pants, and a wide brimmed hat with my Nalgene dangling off my bag, holding a large map of San Jose waterways in front of me.

Eventually, I did find the creeks they were looking for. One project had adhered very well to their setback requirement, and the creek looked beautiful. One of them did not have a development on it yet, but the condition of the creek (pictured above) was clearly poorer than desired. One would have required trespassing to get good photos, and one creek was right off the highway, but inaccessible from any angle other than pulling into the breakdown lane and running out of the car for a picture, causing some concerned motorists to also pull over and ask if I was okay. California is so nice. Hopefully the photos I took will help our organization make a case to the City to include a stricter setback policy in San Jose's General Plan for 2040. Since a lot of our successful environmental protection comes in the form of policy revision, we have a chance to preserve significant tracts of land and waterways in San Jose for at least 30 years with the upcoming General Plan by preventing zoning for development in sensitive areas and including stricter building policies.

-Kelsey Grousbeck

Joint Organization letter on the San Jose General Plan

2011-08-17T01:26:00.000-07:00

(CGF co-authored the letter below with a number of other environmental groups. -Brian)

August 15, 2011

Mr. Andrew Crabtree, Envision Team Leader

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

San Jose City Hall

200 East Santa Clara Street

San Jose, CA 95113

Dear Mr. Crabtree,

On behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, the Loma-Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, San Jose Cool Cities, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Committee for Green Foothills, Working Partnerships, USA, and The Health Trust, we are writing to thank the City of San Jose for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

In many ways, this General Plan is a model that focuses on urban villages and corridors, infill development near transit, ambitious mode split targets and improved public health.

Our comments below reflect our desire to strengthen Envision 2040 even more and support San Jose on its path to becoming a more sustainable, equitable and healthier City.

Jobs-Housing Ratio

The environmental review acknowledges that significant environmental impacts result from the possibility of a Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio that exceeds 1:1 (see, e.g., Impact PH-1 and Impact TRANS-1, among others). The City has acknowledged that one reason for these impacts is not that it intends and prefers the highest possible J:ER ratio, but that it seeks to maximize the jobs capacity to increase the current J:ER ratio which is significantly below 1:1.

Accordingly, our organizations jointly recommend an additional mitigation: for purposes of avoiding environmental impacts or delaying environmental impacts, the City should require orderly development that prioritizes a J:ER ratio of 1:1 as long as housing is available to match job growth. We recognize that ultimately job growth could exceed housing capacity, but this mitigation would at least postpone the impacts associated with the excess of jobs over housing, and postponing the impacts are feasible means of partially reducing their scale.

As a result of pursuing a J:ER ratio of 1.3:1, more people will be commuting into San Jose for work, exacerbating a regional housing problem. This combined with the fact that the DEIR shows a decrease in the percentage of jobs within walking distance of transit has a significant impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Additionally, San Jose proposes to expand vehicle capacity on a number of roadways which makes driving more convenient, inducing demand for more drivers on the road. This works directly against the City’s goals of reducing automobile emissions.

Our organizations jointly recommend mitigation that prioritizes transit friendly job development and thereby provides limits on development in areas that do not have transit. Such prioritization of development in transit friendly areas over areas that do not have transit yet have agricultural value, such as Coyote Valley, also functions as mitigation that reduces the impacts on open space and prime farmland by reducing the pressure for immediate development of those areas.

The Jobs to Employed Resident ratios in the environmental review, for the highest ratios at least, are not intended results so much as foreseeable impacts described in the document. The environmental protections described in the document, by contrast, are expressly intended and planned. We urge the City to reaffirm these environmental protections and we will work to assist and ensure that the City is able to fulfill its commitment to put these policies in place.

Housing

We applaud the plan for establishing social equity as a planning goal including promoting quality job opportunities and an equitable park system. However, more can be done to support the plan’s guiding principle of social equity.

The DEIR seems to treat lightly the potential for voluntary displacement as a result of new development at transit stations driving up prices. People will move further afield to places like Tracy in search of more affordable homes. This in turn forces people to commute back to the community in which they may work. It is therefore critical that San Jose has strong affordable housing policies. San Jose has an excellent record in building affordable homes and we recognize that the future is uncertain when it comes to building more homes affordable to a range of incomes. That said, Envision 2040 is planning out to the year 2040 and the economy will go through many cycles.

We jointly recommend that strong protections are in place to preserve the existing affordable housing stock in transit zones, which provides people with access to opportunity. We also recommend that as large planning projects move forward, such as Diridon Station, that the affordable housing requirements are met on site, including for rental affordable housing.

Transportation

Envision 2040 has very ambitious mode split goals, proposing that the percentage of trips made by bicycle will increase from 1.2% in 2008 to at least 15% in 2040 while the number of those driving alone will decrease from 78% to no more than 40%. San Jose should be applauded for pursuing these goals. However, Table 3.2-14 on page 270 shows that with the proposed Envision 2040 General Plan policies, the percent mode share increase in bicycle trips is 1% for a total of 2% of all trips made by bike. This is evidence that stronger, more holistic balanced transportation policies are necessary. As such, we support policies that prioritize walking, cycling and riding transit.

Our organizations recommend pursuing more aggressive complete streets and parking policies as a way to achieve the commendable and ambitious mode split targets, including a 40% reduction in VMT. This includes expanding the Protected Intersections Policy to all Planned and Identified Growth Areas and reducing the number of streets slated for expansion. Also, we encourage the consideration of Parking Benefits Districts that establish performance pricing of street parking and then return the revenues to the neighborhood.

Public Health

We commend San Jose for its leadership in including community health as a major theme in the draft General Plan. Recognizing the growing body of evidence showing the link between land use patterns and health outcomes, this plan lays out a strong commitment to promoting community health as San Jose grows over the next 30 years. In particular, the Plan’s emphasis on improving access to healthy food in low-income neighborhoods and access to medical services is thoughtful and visionary and can serve as a model for other communities looking to address health challenges as they grow.

We appreciate Envision 2040’s support for the development of a Community Risk Reduction Plan that will reduce air pollution exposures in communities located near busy roadways and industrial sources and inclusion of specific health-protective mitigation measures for development in those areas.

The General Plan is an opportunity to build healthy, livable complete neighborhoods, communities that intentionally support the well-being of all ages, strengthen families and enable seniors to remain in their homes as they age with independence, dignity and the ability to remain engaged in their community.

We support the village concept that is the cornerstone of the draft General Plan. We strongly encourage the Task Force to include language in the General Plan that prioritizes development of village plans for low-income neighborhoods, oftentimes those with the greatest need for increased access to walkable communities, safe streets, physical activity opportunities, and healthy food.

Additionally, we also support policies to review and revise diesel truck routes to minimize exposure of harmful diesel exhaust to sensitive receptors, including children and the elderly.

Open Space

For lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), it is important that they remain as undeveloped open space. Lands outside the UGB play an important role as natural infrastructure, cleaning our air and water.

For non-agricultural uses, our organizations support minimal disturbance to lands located outside the UGB so as to preserve the rural nature of this greenbelt and to provide a viable wildlife corridor.

Conclusion

Overall, the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan update has set exceptional economic, environmental, and social equity goals for the City of San Jose thanks to the hard work of dedicated task force members and city staff. We hope decision makers honor this hard work as they implement the General Plan over the next 10-20 years.

San Jose can be a better city tomorrow and the General Plan sets the framework to do so. Once the plan is passed, our organizations will support the City in its implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to make public comment.

Sincerely,

Michele Beasley

Senior Field Representative

Greenbelt Alliance

Charles Schafer

Chair, Executive Committee

Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Frederick J Ferrer, M.S.

Chief Executive Officer

The Health Trust

Shiloh Ballard

Vice President, Housing & Community Development

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Brian Darrow

Associate Director of Land Use and Urban Policy

Working Partnerships, USA

Brian Schmidt

Legislative Advocate

Committee for Green Foothills

Erica Stanojevic

San Jose Cool Cities

CGF Comment letter on San Jose General Plan Programmatic EIR

2011-08-16T13:26:00.000-07:00

(We wrote the letter below on the draft environmental review for the San Jose General Plan. CGF Intern Kelsey Grousbeck did great work co-authoring this letter. -Brian)

August 15, 2011

Andrew Crabtree, City of San Jose

RE: Committee for Green Foothills comment letter on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan

Dear Andrew:

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan (PEIR). We again thank the City for extending the deadline for comments.

I. Feasible mitigations were omitted and must be included for Housing Imbalance, Transportation, Air Quality, Biological, and Land Use Impacts.

Impact PH -1, Impact TRANS -1, and other impacts listed below are described as significant. The mitigation we describe below will reduce that impact, although not necessarily to a level of insignificance, by delaying when it will occur and preventing unnecessary additional impacts. Feasible mitigations not discussed in the PDEIR reduce the multiple significant impacts associated with Jobs:Employed Resident ratios exceeding 1:1

The City worsens many of its environmental impacts, including the above impacts, through the proposed Jobs:Employed Residents ratio (J:ER) greater than 1:1, which, given the lack of housing in the Bay Area have the effect of causing large numbers of people to reside away from the Bay Area and commute by car. The City also acknowledges that it the J:ER ratios exceed 1:1 not so much because the City actually intends those high ratios but because it wants to maximize job opportunities that will increase the current ratio significantly below 1:1. See Committee for Green Foothills attached letter of February 22, 2010 for context. Mitigations that allow the flexibility of planning for jobs in multiple areas while preventing or delaying J:ER ratios far in excess of 1:1 should therefore be feasible and desireable.

1. Mitigation requiring that the J:ER jobs capacity of 1.3:1 can be planned but the actual J:ER ratio should not exceed 1:1. The PEIR should include a mitigation for Impact PH-1, Impact TRANS -1, Impact AQ- 1, Impact LU -6, and for Impacts BIO -1, BIO -4, and LU -7, all three of which should be considered significant for reasons discussed later in this letter, a requirement that the actual jobs to employed residents ratio to remain no higher than a 1:1 ratio. Development of jobs capacity in the City should happen in stages for different areas, and once the 1:1 ratio is reached, additional areas for additional capacity should not be readied for new jobs until the residential development level is also matched and planned to occur at approximately the same time. The City should include this mitigation and recalculate impacts on its basis.

2. Alternative mitigation to the strict limit of an actual J:ER ratio of 1:1, requiring the J:ER ratio remain no higher than 1:1 as long as housing is available. The City recognizes that a higher ratio of J:ER than 1:1 means there will be more people living outside San Jose and commuting to and from the City, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and creating significantly more traffic congestion. To partially mitigate the detrimental imbalance from jobs growth without housing for Impacts (ADD FROM LIST ABOVE), the growth of jobs should be bound to the growth of housing, such that the J/ER ratio does not exceeds 1:1 until the City completes their housing development goals, and then the jobs continue to be developed, possibly up to the ratio limit of 1.3:1. If the 1:1 ratio is exceeded before all the housing is completed, job capacity expansion should cease until an adequate number of housing units are developed to bring the ratio back down to 1:1.

The 1:1 ratio for the near future of J:ER can prevent a sudden influx of workers before housing is available in the city, which will mitigate the environmental impact of more employees living in surrounding regions and commuting than necessary. We understand that there needs to be a certain level of housing and job developments created for the region within San Jose, yet the ratio of jobs created does not need to be over 1:1 in order to have a fiscally successful city, especially not until housing goals are reached. The backloading mitigation policy is therefore both feasible and effective in preventing further environmental damage than the proposed developments are already causing.

II. Impacts from Prime Agricultural Land Loss

There are several flaws in the PEIR related to analysis of impacts on Prime Agricultural Land.

Failure to quantify the analysis for amount of acreage of prime farmland lost. CEQA is very clear that EIRs must be accurate, that they must not minimize project impacts, and that programmatic EIRs must not delay to project level review any impact analysis that can be conducted on the programmatic level. The PEIR here discusses the areas where prime farmland exists and would be developed, but fails to describe exactly how many acres would be lost. That figure is knowable;it is necessary to create an accurate EIR; the failure to include it minimizes the impact on agricultural land by omitting the large amount of lost farmland; and the figure can be derived now and need not wait for subsequent approvals. The City cannot adequately make a Finding of Overriding Circumstances if it fails to look adequately at the significant impacts that the General Plan would authorize.

Failure to use existing conditions as the baseline. Contrary to the statement at the beginning of PEIR Section 3 that existing conditions are used as the baseline for measuring impacts, the section on farmland references entitlements on existing farmland during the analysis of farmland impacts. It is unclear what this reference means because no quantification of farmland impacts is given, but appears to suggest that farmland with "entitled" development would not be considered part of the lost farmland. This fails to identify existing farmland condition as the baseline.

Describing "most" of North Coyote as entitled is insufficiently accurate. Much of North Coyote does not even have the pretense of entitlement, and any development in those areas would indisputably result from the PEIR.

Entitlement in North Coyote Valley is questionable for failure to meet Development Agreement benchmarks. Even if the PEIR could ignore the existing farmland condition on "entitled" land, the Development Agreement for the Coyote Valley Research Park has not been satisfied due to failure to meet benchmarks on job creation in Coyote Valley in the years since the DA had been signed. Furthermore, both the DA and subsequent permits are due to expire between now and the end of 2012. The PEIR should not plan for the next 30 years based on agreements that are either invalid or that have not been exercised and are nearly at the point of expiration.

Impact LU-6 listed on pages 176-179 has listed the loss of Prime Agricultural Land as significant and Section 3.1.4.1 on pages 193-194 has listed the loss of Prime Agricultural Land as significant and unavoidable. The feasible mitigation described below and not included in the PEIR will reduce that impact by offsetting the effects of development on agricultural lands and delaying when the impacts will occur.

There are approximately 957 acres of Prime Farmland in North Coyote Valley within the city limits and the Urban Service Area, with even more in the Coyote Valley Urban Reserve and in South Coyote Valley. Development of North Coyote Valley should be listed as a significant impact both for the impact on agricultural land and as a vital wildlife corridor. The City should not plan for any development in North Coyote Valley until the urban regions of the City have been built out. There is no reason to begin impacting this Prime Agriculture land when there is still viable space to develop and redevelop within the City. By backloading development in the city instead of undeveloped open space like Coyote Valley, this will mitigate the effects of increased transit to Coyote Valley as well as delay environmental impacts of development in the area.

The City should mitigate any agricultural development in other areas by establishing conservation easements or other permanent protection measures for agricultural lands in a 1:1 ratio of acres developed to acres preserved. Specifically, agriculture should be protected in the Coyote Valley Urban Reserve, as well as South and North Coyote Valley once the Urban Reserve is completely protected. CEQA is clear that temporary impacts are significant, so mitigations that delay impacts and are otherwise feasible have the effect of reducing those impacts and must be implemented.

III. Other comments on Agricultural Land and mitigation

Preservation is mitigation. In light of the California Supreme Court’s depublication of Friends of the Kangaroo Rat v. California Dept. of Corrections (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1400, the City should consider agricultural preservation as a feasible mitigation for the loss of agricultural land. Preservation should be at least at a one-acre-for-one-acre ratio. Preservation in Coyote Valley is preferable, but preserving farmlands in other areas of Santa Clara County should also be considered for purposes of determining feasible mitigation. Preservation of agricultural land in other parts of the state does not adequately mitigate for the loss of local farmland and contradicts other local policies for farmland mitigation.

The claim in the PEIR that the "protection of other existing farmland, such as through the use of agricultural easements or outright purchase, would not be considered mitigation under CEQA because the net result of such actions would still be a net loss of farmland acreage" (PEIR at 193) contradicts more recent CEQA caselaw cited above and other local farmland preservation policies such as by Santa Clara County LAFCO and City of Gilroy. See also Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4^th 477 and Sierra Club v. County of Napa, (2004) Cal.App.LEXIS 1467.

It is inappropriate to defer to project level mitigation (PEIR at 193-194) the decision of whether agricultural mitigation should be required. The PEIR projects the loss of farmland now, so deferring mitigation decisions to a later point contravenes CEQA.

Rooftop gardens and natural landscaping should be required. Once all agricultural land in Coyote Valley incorporated into the greenbelt is protected, the City should require rooftop gardens and extensive natural landscaping on developments on agricultural lands to help mitigate the loss of agricultural land. This will offset the effects of heat islands, maintain air quality in the area, and potentially provide habitat for raptors and other native, winged fauna.

IV. Impact on Serpentine Lands

Impact BIO-2 listed on pages 470-471 has been listed as significant. The mitigation described below will ensure the impact is lessened as opposed to the previous mitigation that does not commit to any measures.

The City is relying on the completion and implementation of the Santa Clara County Habitat Conservation Plan to create preserves and enforce measures to decrease nitrogen impact on serpentine lands. Before the HCP is implemented, and in case the HCP is not implemented, the City currently says it will develop its own measures if it has the appropriate resources, then continues to say that they do not have the appropriate resources. There needs to be a tangible interim mitigation to damage done to serpentine lands created and implemented by the City and based on the proposals in the HCP. If the HCP is implemented, then the City can cease their mitigation only if the HCP is serving to at least fully mitigate the impact.

Some suggested mitigation measures include creating serpentine preserves to prevent nearby development, charging a nitrogen deposition tax on new developments in the sensitive areas, charging a fee on sewer hook-ups near the sensitive areas, and charging a gas or Vehicle Miles Traveled fee. These measures would help protect an extremely unique and fragile ecosystem from irreversible damage, and to reach that goal the City should devote as many resources as necessary. These mitigations should mandatory in the absence of an approved Habitat Plan.

V. Impact on Wetlands, Baylands, and Riparian Corridors, and on Wildlife Movement

Impact BIO -1 and BIO -4 have been listed as less than significant, but should be listed as significant.

Incorrect description of impacts on North Coyote Valley as less than significant. Page 458 of the PEIR states:

Due to the relatively high levels of disturbance associated with already existing agricultural habitats that could be developed under the proposed General Plan, the relative abundance of suitable habitat for species such as raptors, other birds, and small mammals that use agricultural habitats both within the region and the state (e.g., when grassland availability in the vicinity in the Diablo Range and Santa Cruz Mountains is considered), impacts of development allowed by the General Plan to agricultural habitats within San José would be less than significant.

Documentation by the De Anza College Wildlife Corridor Stewardship Team that is briefly described by the PEIR but effectively ignored actually refutes this argument (see attached letter also available at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/docs/Ltr_DeAnza_Wildlife_Study_04.14.08.pdf):

“The ‘heavily disturbed agricultural and developed areas on the Coyote Valley Floor’ is currently providing a wildlife corridor for species of Coyote Valley that come from both mountain ranges and ones which are already in the valley” -7

“Animals are not only moving but also foraging on the floor of Coyote Valley” -10

“Agricultural lands are of high value to wildlife that forage” -10

“One should not be surprised that such high animal use happens on the ‘heavily disturbed agricultural and developed areas on the Coyote Valley floor’. These agricultural lands provide a home for a variety of rodents, which are the main prey for several predators found on the Coyote Valley floor. We have not gone a day in Coyote Valley with out seeing several California ground squirrels.” -10

"If [The Coyote Valley Specific Plan, making the same claim of less-than-significant impacts] were to be implemented it would have a highly significant impact to this existing wildlife corridor and the regional movement of species, thus completely halting the natural movement that wildlife species have implemented themselves. This movement has enabled them to be able to exist in the last remaining large open space in the area of Santa Clara County" -11

These analyses show, as they did with the Coyote Valley Specific Plan, that significant wildlife impacts occur with development in Coyote Valley. (See also attached De Anza Wildlife Corridor Project Annual Report available at http://www.deanza.edu/es/wildlifecorrproj/CV%202008%20Annual%20Report%20Final%20V2%201_14_10.pdf ("Coyote Valley is one of two connectivity points between the Diablo Range and the Santa Cruz Mountains, the other being through the Pajaro River Basin, and is the only linkage with a direct connection between the two. If Coyote Valley is developed, the linkage will be lost and species in the Santa Cruz Mountains with large home ranges such as the mountain lion and the North American badger will be genetically isolated and local extinction may occur."))

Below are suggestions on refining policies to ensure mitigation measures are met:

Policy ER-3.2 should be written with stricter language. Instead of calling a 100-ft setback “a standard to be achieved” it should be a required standard, unless it can be proven there is no feasible alternative. In the case where there is no feasible alternative, the farthest distance possible should be proposed as the setback and the City must review and approve the proposal, which should include measures to mitigate the project’s impact on the riparian corridor. This minimizes impacts to the riparian corridors and waterways in a more tangible way than the recommendations from San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy Study.
With Policy ER-4.4, instead of “avoiding new development”, changing the language to “prohibiting new development” will guarantee the mitigation is successful. In sensitive areas such as baylands and wetlands, all detrimental development should be prohibited, especially in specific regions where endangered species are known to breed or nest. Failure to adopt stricter policies on development in these areas will cause significant, irreversible damage to San Jose and the surrounding regions’ wildlife populations.

VI. Other considerations.

Require recycled-water tolerant landscaping. To reduce impacts on water supply, the PEIR should include a mitigation that the Community Forest, City-managed landscaping, and other new landscaping be recycled-water tolerant.

Institute a policy on no-net increase in impervious surfaces: Either as a feasible mitigation for hydrological impacts or as an independent choice by the City to avoid environmental effects, it should institute the following as a mitigation or a new policy: "encourage an overall trend toward a net decrease in impervious surface areas through project renovations with a focus on parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and patios, and investigate a project-specific, no-net-increase in imperviousness that would allow payment into compensation funds where projects require on-site increase in impervious surfaces."

Impact LU -7 should be considered significant. The Golf Course Overlay in particular creates the opportunity for tens to hundreds of acres of lost habitat that have not been analyzed in the PEIR. The Golf Course Overlay should be eliminated (existing courses will therefore be grandfathered). All other disturbances should be limited to no more than 10% of the property's surface area. Only these changes can make this impact less than significant.

Conclusion.

Please contact us with any questions. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and deadline extension, and we expect our comments will help improve the environment for San Jose for decades to come.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Kelsey A. Grousbeck

Advocate Intern, Committee for Green Foothills

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

2011-07-29T17:38:00.000-07:00

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

July 26, 2011

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

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

Dear Mr. Davidson and Mr. Horwedel,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Brian Schmidt Megan Fluke Michele Beasley

Individual Signatories:

Linda J. LeZotte

Susan Marsland

Apple orchard in Cupertino?

2011-06-13T16:23:00.000-07:00

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

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

-Brian

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

2011-05-18T17:20:00.000-07:00

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

Tipping points for housing-deficient areas

2011-05-10T21:10:00.000-07:00

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

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

So here are some ideas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Brian

Real version of Farmville - a model for local farms?

2011-05-05T13:57:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

We'll see how it goes.

-Brian

CGF urges Gilroy to stay involved in the County Habitat Plan

2011-05-03T13:56:00.000-07:00

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

May 2, 2011

City Council

City of Gilroy

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

Dear City Council Members;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

2011-04-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

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

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

-Brian

CGF letter:

Dear President Cortese and Board of Supervisors:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

Committee for Green Foothills

and video (speakers were only allowed one minute):

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

2011-04-24T01:13:00.000-07:00

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

April 15, 2011

Santa Clara and San Jose City Councils

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

Dear Santa Clara and San Jose City Council Members;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nature in the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

CGF comments on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan

2011-04-21T11:12:00.000-07:00

(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

2011-04-14T14:35:00.000-07:00

(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

2011-03-25T10:25:00.000-07:00

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!

2011-03-25T10:23:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-15T22:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-04T17:04:00.000-08:00

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

2011-03-02T14:25:00.000-08:00

(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

2011-02-28T14:15:00.000-08:00

(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.

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

(408) 866-2140

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

(408) 777-3308

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

(408) 846-0440

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

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

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

(408) 354-6872

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

(408) 586-3279

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

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

(408) 779-7248

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

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

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

(408) 277-4000

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

(408) 615-2450

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

(408) 868-1222

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

2011-01-31T14:31:00.000-08:00

(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

2011-01-26T13:10:00.000-08:00

(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

2011-01-25T11:20:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-24T11:19:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-30T16:06:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-09T15:35:00.000-08:00

(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

2010-10-26T17:43:00.000-07:00

(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

2010-10-22T15:48:00.000-07:00

(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

Comments on Water District Ends Policy Workshop

2010-10-21T16:00:00.000-07:00

(Yesterday I attended the Water District Board workshop on changing its overall guidance policies. In addition to attending, I spoke at the meeting and submitted the letter below. It might help to read the Board materials for October 20, 2010 and Agenda Item 4 to understand the letter I submitted. We did get some action on one item, but the others will have to wait another day. -Brian)

October 20, 2010

Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors

Re: Agenda Item 4, Ends Policy Workshop and Recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Committee

Dear Chair Santos and Board Members;

I submit the following comments on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills regarding the Ends Policies recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Committee. We thank District Staff for their work with the EAC and other committees, and for Staff's support of the large majority of Ends Policy changes that the EAC has recommended in recent years. In some cases discussed below we disagree with staff on certain recommendations, and in others we believe that staff misunderstood the purpose of the recommendations.

My comments refer to Attachment 2, Advisory Committee Recommendations:

Policy 1 E-2, language regarding change in winter storms from a mix of rain and snow to mostly rain. The staff response misunderstands this recommendation to deal with water supply, possibly considering it a reference to Sierra snowpack changes. It actually concerned our local hydrology, where winter storms that currently deliver snow at high elevations will increasingly switch to rain throughout, with a possible increase to flood risk. While Executive Limitation EL7.7 on understanding climate change impacts might apply here, the EAC hasn't been informed that flooding forecasts have actually been analyzed to consider this issue.

Policy 2 E-2, language on policies for geographic areas outside of the District. Staff misunderstands this recommendation to refer to adequate supplies of imported water. It actually referred to the environmental impacts the District doubtless has on geographic areas through our imported water use and other potential effects (examples may include downstream flooding on the Pajaro and operation of the San Luis Reservoir). The idea is that the District's interest in minimizing its environmental impact extends beyond District boundaries.

Policy 7 E-4, language regarding habitat conservation plans. We may need more specifics on this recommendation from the EAC's July 2010 meeting.

Policy 10 E-4.1.3, recommending a new Objective to "Protect, enhance, and restore the natural physical stability/dynamic equilibrium of streams." Staff disagree with this recommendation for two reasons. First they say (correctly) that the concepts are considered at Staff level. While true, the question is whether Objectives set by the Board provide sufficient direction for Staff to execute the Board Policies. The existing Objective most closely related to this issue is E-4.1.2, "Improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources." (See Attachment 6, page 1.) The opinion that EAC members and subcommittee members have expressed is that Objective 4.1.2 does not provide adequate direction. While details done at Staff level are helpful, they do not make up for inadequate direction given at the Board level in the Objectives.

The second objection raised by staff is that many factors need to be balanced for District projects. The EAC concurs and raises no objection to existing Objective 4.1.1, "Balance water supply, flood protection, and environmental stewardship functions." The proposed Objective no more conflicts with this balancing provision than does existing Objective 4.1.2 to improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources.

Policy 11 E-4.1.4, a new Objective to "Protect, enhance and restore thriving populations of key species indicative watershed health." The same issue arises here as above, that Staff interpretation does not remove the need for adequate Board direction, and Objective 4.1.2 is too general to provide adequate direction.

Staff also state that restoring habitat is better wording than restoring species. If the Board agrees with Staff, then the solution here would be to reword this Objective rather than reject it outright.

Policy 12 E-4.1.5, a new Objective to "Protect, enhance, and restore riparian and in-stream and tidal habitat conditions conducive to watershed health, including diked historical bay land wetlands and former salt ponds." Same issues as with the previous two Objectives, that existing Objective 4.1.2, "Improve watersheds, streams, and natural resources," does not provide real direction to Staff.

We appreciate Staff's support for Policies 14 and 15, as well as Staff support for many EAC policy recommendations that have already been incorporated into Board policies.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Letter to San Jose on Brookside Estate project

2010-10-13T01:51:00.000-07:00

(We wrote the following letter to San Jose City Council saying that we weren't going to litigate over the flawed Brookside Estate project, but that we would follow up on better riparian protection policies and on followup approvals for that project. -Brian)

October 12, 2010

San Jose City Council

Re: Brookside Estate project on Guadalupe Mines Road

Dear Mayor Reed and City Council Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills believes that the Brookside Estate rezoning project on Guadalupe Mines Road suffers from both legal flaws and policy flaws. The legal flaws stem from the beginning of the project when environmental groups were not notified of the environmental review, and from the dismissive response of a Negative Declaration for a project that uproots hundreds of trees, requiring years and decades before the replacement trees will grow to size (if they actually grow successfully). Legal flaws also include the vast expansion of the use of the site from the limited intensity of activity only during the work hours for five days a week, to a 24-hour, seven days a week activity of nearly 90 residences. Policy flaws include the significant job losses to the City from the permanent jobs from the company that is presently on the site, to the decision to ignore the recommendations of both Planning staff and of the City's Planning Commission and exempt this project from the 100-foot riparian buffer policy that the City talks so proudly about in other contexts. Flaws also include a lack of contact or follow through with regulatory agencies, ignoring that that there are special status species in the vicinity, and a faulty method of determination of ‘riparian edge’.

Despite all the above, and while the Committee for Green Foothills has openly considered litigation regarding this project, we are also aware of good faith efforts by staff, the Mayor's Office, and by Council Members Kalra and Pyle to address the issue of stream protection. While every effort would be made to separate that work from ongoing litigation, some defensiveness is inevitable.

Given the potential conflict, the potential for progress on overall policy, and the subsequent planning that will still occur on the Brookside Estate project, the Committee for Green Foothills' Board of Director members support a dual path in lieu of litigation at present, where the Committee will stay intensely involved in all subsequent planning for Brookside Estate, and the Committee will be involved with better overall policies.

We hereby request that from this time on, unlike the previous practice, that we and all other environmental organizations be notified of any project, permit, or environmental review related to Brookside Estate. We appreciate the willingness to improve the present policy, and hope to achieve substantial improvements to protect the environment and surrounding community near the Brookside Estate project.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Letter to Palo Alto City Council on house size limits in Foothills

2010-10-12T13:51:00.000-07:00

(We wrote the letter below urging the City to adopt maximum house size limits to control monster mansions in the foothills. Unfortunately the City declined to do so after some landowners called for time for "present restrictions to work." We'll have to give it a little time, and then try again. -Brian)

September 29, 2010

Palo Alto City Council

Dear Mayor Burt and City Council Members;

The Committee for Green Foothills regrets that the Palo Alto Planning Commission, in our opinion, failed to follow City Council direction to provide real options on house size limits. Instead the Commission returned to the Council a simplified recommendation that provided fewer options than what the Council originally had, when it directed to the Planning Commission to research this issue. We accordingly recommend that City Council take no final action on this issue at the Monday meeting, and instead direct staff to create a range of house size options and provide them to the City Council at a later date.

Please see the attached letter from Committee for Green Foothills dated February 18, 2010 that explains the appropriate reasons for house size limits and our suggestion of how they could be done.

In its simplest form, the question is whether the Buckingham Palace should be considered a single family residence for an elderly couple. If you agree that is an inappropriate designation, then we need to work on specifics, and these were not given to the City Council. The "one size fits all" category of 12,000 square feet with additional loopholes fails to provide a range of real options, as well as being so loose as to be nearly meaningless.

The one idea not mentioned in our February 18 letter is to encourage the City Council to direct staff to provide an open-ended exemption. Let an applicant demonstrate through the applicant's own creativity and diligence that the proposal exceeds the environmental value of a smaller project, and it could be approved.

Finally, if the City decides not to impose realistic limits, we request that you direct staff to consider development restrictions that encompass the many environmental parameters that are not addressed under current development standards, like the carbon footprint from increased transportation for the staff needed to service monster mansions, the increased habitat loss from the need to construct a defensible fire perimeter around large structures with large perimeters, and changed hydrology from increased impervious surface area relative to smaller structures.

We encourage you to consider the specifics listed in our letters, and ask that you direct staff to return to you with additional ideas.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

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

2010-09-29T17:09:00.000-07:00

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

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

Overall, some good news at yesterday's meeting!

-Brian Schmidt

Letter to Santa Clara County on Parkland Acquisition Plan

2010-09-27T20:05:00.000-07:00

(Committee for Green Foothills submitted the letter below to Santa Clara County Supervisors on improving the Parkland Acquisition Plan. -Brian)

September 27, 2010

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Re: Item 20, Study Session on the County Parks Acquisition Plan – comment for the Study Session and response to the Draft Summary of Public Workshops

Dear President Yeager and Board of Supervisors:

CGF submits the following comments on the County Parks Acquisition Plan as well as some disagreement with the Draft Summary of Public Workshops ("Summary") for the Parks Acquisition Plan. As an initial matter, we thank County Staff for all the extensive outreach work that they did.

On page 8 of the Summary, the document states there was confusion in the public comments relating to "the appropriateness of using the Park Charter Fund monies to acquire lands for [County Habitat Plan] mitigation not related to the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department." We don't believe this summary captures the point that CGF and others were expressing.

We have two concerns regarding the relationship between the Park Charter Fund and Acquisition Plan on one side, and the County Habitat Plan on the other. First, to the extent that the Park Charter Fund is used to mitigate impacts created by other County government agencies, an environmental benefit that would otherwise accrue to the taxpaying public has been lost. This is because to the extent used as mitigation, the benefit of preserving endangered species habitat will be balanced with an equivalent level of harm caused to endangered species habitat by other County agencies.

Second, the criterion in the draft Acquisition Plan that would support acquiring parkland that fulfills the County Road Department mitigation requirements under the County Habitat Plan (phrased as fulfilling "Valley Habitat Plan Priorities" on Page A-4 of Supp. Info. 1a on the agenda), has the exact negative effect that Committee for Green Foothills predicted three years ago when we opposed this use of Park Charter Fund. We said the effect would be to skew the acquisition process, from the endangered habitat that is most in need of preservation to habitat the Roads Department and other County agencies want purchased. This appears to be happening. We also anticipate that removing the obligation of County agencies to pay for habitat mitigation will also remove their incentive to minimize the impact.

For the above reasons, the Committee for Green Foothills supports an increased emphasis on parkland acquisition that protects endangered habitat, but not one that changes the benefit of increased protection into the neutral value of mitigation that only balances habitat destruction. We request that acquisition emphasize the protection of endangered species habitat that is not needed by other County agencies to mitigate their habitat impacts.

We also request that the Draft Summary be amended to reflect the concerns listed above, concerns that were presented at one of the Public Workshops.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

New Advocate, Julie Hutcheson, joins Committee for Green Foothills

2010-09-22T16:06:00.000-07:00

(We're extremely happy to have Julie join our team and expand our efforts to help preserve the natural resources, working farmlands, and native habitats of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. -Brian)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE

Environmental group hires new Legislative Advocate

Activist will join Brian Schmidt and Lennie Roberts as County watchdogs

PALO ALTO, CA –Environmental nonprofit Committee for Green Foothills announced today that the organization has hired local activist Julie Hutcheson to serve as the organization’s third County Legislative Advocate. Hutcheson will join longtime Legislative Advocates Brian Schmidt and Lennie Roberts, who will also continue to work on open space issues throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.

Hutcheson, a native Canadian and long time Morgan Hill resident, has been involved locally advocating for preservation of farmland, improving and sustaining smart growth and quality of life, and open space protection. She is the founder of Thrive! Morgan Hill, was active in the 2009 Measure A campaign for the Downtown Morgan Hill, has been an advocate of the Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Business Advocacy Committee and the Environmental Affairs Council.

“Julie brings to our team a strong working knowledge of county issues and policies. Her first-hand experience with local land use issues and grassroots organizing is invaluable to the Committee’s work in the County,” said Cynthia D’Agosta, Executive Director. “We are excited about adding her expertise and passion to our team of Advocates and increasing our capacity to fight for protection of local lands for future generations.”

About Committee for Green Foothills

Committee for Green Foothills is a regional grassroots organization working to establish and maintain land-use policies that protect the environment throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Committee for Green Foothills, established in 1962, is a Bay Area leader in the continuing effort to protect open space and the natural environment of our beautiful area. For more information about the Committee, visit www.GreenFoothills.org.

# # #

Guest Post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts

2010-09-10T15:33:00.000-07:00

(CGF Intern Anthony Aerts gave us this final write-up about his time with us this summer. Thanks for all the help, Anthony! -Brian)

8/31/10

My Time at CGF

Today was the final day of my summer internship with CGF. It’s hard to believe that ten weeks can go by so quickly. During my time here, I was fortunate to be given the responsibility and independence to complete three diverse projects. I was also lucky to be able to work and learn from both Brian and Cynthia on a one-on-one basis. For ten weeks, I felt not like a grunt worker, but a part of the CGF team.

Some of my earliest work consisted of researching the current hillside development regulations in place for various jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. I collected data from the each jurisdiction’s zoning code for relevant regulatory measures. These measures included green building standards, house size limits, building height limits, light reflectance values, and transferable development credits. As a final product, I combined these findings into a forward-looking project proposal for future hillside development research to combat urban sprawl in the Bay Area.

Second, I worked closely with Cynthia to develop a write-up on the historical ecology of the San Francisquito Creek watershed. This watershed will face many biologic and jurisdictional challenges in the years to come, and CGF may have a role to play. My summary was used to compliment the more extensive cultural study done on the Creek’s lower watershed by co-intern, Annika Christensen. Hopefully this project can be of use to the debate and planning around one of Santa Clara’s most valuable natural resources.

Finally, the project which required most of my time involved creating, with Brian’s help, a position statement on subsidized water for urban edge farms. While subsidies are normally discouraged by environmentalists when they lead to waste, we had reason to believe that this label may not necessarily be appropriate for urban edge farms who engage in water conservation practices. CGF considers all farms in Santa Clara County to be urban edge. As such, they provide many environmental benefits as buffers to urban sprawl and preservers of cultural/historic values. I was fortunate enough to conduct informational interviews with five farmers in the region, and the testimony I collected formed a supporting document to the position statement. We concluded that water subsidies do play a role in helping these urban edge farms stay economically viability and continue to provide the above mentioned environmental benefits. This project was an important exercise in unifying the visions of the farming and environmental communities; something that will be increasingly important for both sides going forward.

I appreciate all that I have learned here at CGF and all of you who I met this summer.

Happy trails -- Anthony