Great article about Stanford blocking the Bay-to-Ridge Trail

Palo Alto Weekly has a great article here about how a trail from Skyline to the Bay is all but constructed. The only missing part runs through Stanford. That part should have been constructed years ago - Stanford agreed to do it, but has since backed out. We'll keep working on them though.

-Brian

(An excellent map too is here.)

Judicial activism against the environment

A blow is struck by judicial activism on behalf of a misguided minority of landowners in a recent California Supreme Court decision overriding the majority of voters in a Santa Clara County Open Space Authority election (decision here). Worse still, this decision will make future funding of open space purchases by any California government agency more difficult, although not impossible. We at CGF participated in a "Friend of the Court" brief on behalf of the Open Space Authority, and are sorry things didn't go the right way.

The background is that California law since Proposition 13 has allowed a simple majority of voters to decrease tax rates but requires a two-thirds supermajority to increase "special taxes" (taxes not just meant for general public benefit purposes). A "special assessment," however, is different from a "special tax" in that it provides a special benefit to specific properties, and doesn't require a two-thirds vote. The entire legal battle is over what constitutes a "special assessment."

Proposition 218, passed in 1996, tightened the legal requirements for special assessments in ways that remained poorly defined (probably to keep voters from anticipating specific problems and voting against the measure). As the Supreme Court notes, Prop. 218 created a paradox whereby a "special district" must constitute all the parcels that receive a special benefit from the assessment, but it also says that if the benefit reaches every parcel in the district then it isn't a "special benefit" but rather a general benefit that needs a supermajority to pass.

The Supreme Court dealt with this paradox by saying that if parcels receive "direct advantages" from the benefit, like proximity to a park, then it's a special benefit even if conferred on all parcels in the district. So far, so good. But then the Court spends the remainder of the opinion ignoring what it just said. The Open Space Authority had justified the assessment by describing the direct advantages all parcels in the district will receive, such as better views and improved access to public recreation. The Court ignores this and says because these benefits reach everyone, they aren't special benefits and fall under Prop. 218 proscriptions.

So why would the Supreme Court behave so strangely? The likely reason is that Prop. 218 was itself a voter reaction to a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed expansive uses of special districts. The Court is aware that initiative propositions are the only mechanisms that voters have to overrule it, so the Court felt obligated to overreact to the Open Space Authority's special assessment, something that resembled a standard property assessment.

Short of changing Propositions 218 or 13, this decision is the last word on this issue, and an assessment like the Open Space Authority's will require a two-thirds supermajority. However, somewhat different special assessments may still be possible. An assessment that set up a priority acquisition area and assessed more in the immediate vicinity of that area than far away from there, or assessed more when an acquisition is first made, might still be legal. This is something that will have to be tested in the future.

-Brian

Online tool for Letters to the Editor email addresses

I came across this the other day: an online tool for finding email addresses for sending letters to the editor, based on physical location. When a land use issue affects a particular place, this can help to figure out which newspaper may be interested in it.

I tried it out for Mountain View, where I live. It didn't get all the papers, but it did get some, so it's useful.

-Brian

Audubon Society agrees with CGF criticism of LAFCO

We at CGF have noted that the failure of Santa Clara County LAFCO has reached a level so that we have "No confidence" in the organization. We're not alone.

The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society passed the following resolution:

"To direct staff to draft correspondence to San Jose's City Council, Mayor Chuck Reed, the County's Board of Supes, and the City of Mountain View (These are the bodies that have appointed the LAFCO commissioners). Correspondence to cover that we've reviewed the recent action by the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), and the recent decisions by the LAFCO commission and that we are similarly deeply concerned that the commission's mission to control urban sprawl and protect open space is being seriously undermined and that those who have appointed the commissioners should consider what actions they can take to ensure the Commission performs its mission in the best interests of the the citizens of Santa Clara Co. (or words to that effect)."

We hope that LAFCO and the appointing agencies start to pay attention.

-Brian

A great time on the Santa Clara County Farm Tour

Just reporting in that CGF's Farm Tour went really well on Saturday. Around 40 people attended, we went to four locations (an orchard with cherry tastings, an organic vegetable farm, a cattle ranch, and winery), had lots of great food, and heard the farmers' concerns. Jan Garrod, president of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, gave a very nice speech on how the farmers' best allies are the environmentalists. There was one spill on the bus that turned out to be very minor, so everything worked out fine.

We'll do an in-depth report later, but just wanted to get the word out. These events have been a lot of fun as well as extremely educational.

-Brian

CGF joins the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition

We've just sent in our commitment to be part of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition, an entity that recognizes the importance of private rangeland for the environment and helps bring ranchers and environmentalists together.

Very happy to join!

-Brian

NEWS RELEASE: Environmentalists call for fewer new monster mansions on hillsides following the Santa Cruz Mountains fire

(CGF sent out the following news release yesterday. -Brian)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 26, 2008


PRESS CONTACTS:
Brian Schmidt, Legislative Advocate
phone (650) 968-7243,

Environmentalists call for fewer new monster mansions on hillsides following the Santa Cruz Mountains fire


Committee for Green Foothills called today for the Santa Clara County to reconsider environmental reforms that would reduce the number of new hillside "monster mansions" in the wake of the ongoing, 4,000 acre Summit Fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. "Taxpayer money and firefighters' lives should not be risked for more and more inappropriate, 'monster mansions' on the hillsides," said CGF Advocate Brian Schmidt. "Two years ago, the Committee for Green Foothills and other environmental groups sponsored the Measure A environmental initiative in Santa Clara County in 2006 that would have reduced new development in hillside areas, specifically including the area in the County that is now on fire. Our initiative failed by less than one-half of one percent, due to a half-million dollars spent by outside Realtors' groups from Southern California and from their national headquarters in Chicago. We now call on Santa Clara County to undertake new measures to limit inappropriate new development."

Committee for Green Foothills argues that more development in the hills increases the chance of someone doing something that starts a fire, while also making firefighting more dangerous and expensive as firefighters seek to rescue people and protect property. Schmidt said, "We're not trying to take away existing homes or even ending all new construction in the hills, but we need to stop adding to sprawl by putting more and more buildings in these fire-prone areas, especially large mansions that are difficult to protect and harder to rescue people from."

Last year, Santa Clara County Supervisors supported a motion by Supervisor Ken Yeager to draft a new ordinance toughening enforcement of fire regulations. "While the County has made a good first step, a lot more must be done," Schmidt said. "The County now lets land developers to deviate from the standard minimum parcel size in areas designated as 'Hillsides' and put up to eight times more development through a 'cluster subdivision'
process. This cluster subdivision option should be eliminated in areas with significantly elevated fire risk."

Other possibilities include enactment of certain portions of the Measure A initiative during upcoming revisions for the County's General Plan.
Residential building size limits to avoid "monster mansions" have also been supported by environmentalists, and giant structures favored by developers create more fire risks and are more difficult to defend.

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