News Alert: Success in Gilroy and great progress in San Jose!

(CGF sent out the News Alert below about victories in Gilroy and San Jose. -Brian)

We've had great news in Gilroy and San Jose that we want to share with supporters.

All four sprawl proposals in Gilroy that we've been fighting have now been defeated or withdrawn! Since 2008, Committee for Green Foothills fought the proposals for over 1,000 acres of sprawl and inappropriate development that would move the City of Gilroy’s current boundaries outward.

We testified at hearings and sent several highly critical letters about the deficient environmental analysis. We were joined in this by other environmental organizations, local community organizations, and several government agencies that also wrote letters critical of the environmental documentation and the proposals themselves.

Two of the four proposals had already been withdrawn by the applicants when the issue finally reached the Gilroy City Council last week. On a 4-3 vote, Mayor Al Pinheiro and Council Members Peter Arrellano, Kat Tucker, and Perry Woodward voted against certifying the environmental documentation (EIRs) for the projects, which had the effect of killing the proposals. While we regret that it had not been a unanimous vote, Committee for Green Foothills salutes the City Council for making this sensible decision.

Turning to San Jose, the Envision 2040 Task Force has supported a strong policy for protecting streamside riparian corridors from inappropriate development and for closing loopholes in the current policy. For the first time after years of CGF efforts, the City of San Jose agreed to examine whether to continue the current practice of letting developers write the initial version of environmental documents that the City uses for examining streams.

Thank you for your support of CGF! Your support makes it possible for us to continue to be ever vigilant about land protection.

We will lobby Gilroy to develop a Climate Action Plan that will discourage sprawl proposals. We will track San Jose as it considers whether to remove developers' role in preparing the City's environmental documents, and encourage them to expand that change from stream issues to all environmental reviews.

We will continue to monitor the many issues throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.

We'll keep active and keep you informed.

- The folks at Committee for Green Foothills

Read more!

Wrap-up: CGF comment letters on Gilroy sprawl applications

(Going through files I remembered two comment letters we wrote on the now-defeated Gilroy sprawl applications that hadn't been posted here. I'm adding them below. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills' continued opposition to all Gilroy Urban Service Area expansions

10/1/2009

Dear Planning Commission members,

I regret that a scheduling conflict prevents me from attending tonight's Planning Commission meeting, but I wish to reiterate in this letter the Committee for Green Foothills' continued opposition to the three USA proposals from Wren, Lucky Day, and Shapell. We believe these are unwise proposals that should not be considered until the City actually needs them - approvals now will just tie the hands of future Planning Commissions years down the road that will have a much better idea of what best fits the needs of the broader community.

Equally important, any approval of one or all of these projects right now would be a violation of CEQA for the reasons spelled out in the numerous, highly detailed and critical comment letters. The Shapell project in particular is in CEQA violation for similar reasons as the others, particularly climate impacts, and failed to prepare even as much as the inadequate DSEIR found with the other two projects.

We urge you to reject the projects, give a negative recommendation to the City Council, and preserve the opportunity for outward development, if the City needs it in the future, to be used only when necessary and according to a design that can be better determined at that time.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

-----------

October 19, 2009

Gilroy City Council

Dear Mayor Pinheiro and Councilmembers:

The Committee for Green Foothills opposes the Wren and Lucky Day USA Projects (Projects) that are to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting. The City of Gilroy cannot legally approve these projects due to violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, and we urge the Council to reject both projects due to the legal flaws and due to the projects' simply being bad for the City. (We understand the Shapell/Thomas proposal has been withdrawn, and we oppose it for identical reasons). Please note that the Committee retains all legal options to stop the projects if the City does approve them in violation of CEQA.

Climate change impacts dealt with inadequately.

As stated in previous letters and throughout the record for these Projects, the City's failure to establish a threshold of significance for climate change impacts and failure to determine whether impacts from the Projects are significant are violations of CEQA. Those violations remain unchanged in the FSEIR. In particular, the failure to acknowledge the impacts' significance means the City decision, if it approves the Projects, lacks the legally-required statement of overriding considerations and findings of infeasibility for alternatives or mitigations.

The FSEIR does contain a number of changes from the DSEIR that fail to mitigate climate change impacts or, even if they could change those impacts, constitute substantial new information that require recirculation of a revised DSEIR.

The changed Climate Change Program "mitigation" does not mitigate the Projects' impacts because neither the Projects nor subsequent development at the Projects are required to comply with the Climate Change Program. The Program as written also contains flaws that allow significant climate impacts:

• Timing. The requirement to "prepare" a Climate Action Plan within 36 months does not mean "adopt" the Plan with 36 months.

• Targets versus requirements. The Plan is to reference AB 32 levels for greenhouse gas emissions for its "targets," without saying those targets are mandatory requirements.

• Consistent versus not-to-exceed. The Plan will establish targets that are "consistent" with AB 32 but does not specify whether exceeding the targets by some percent could be consistent. The City may end up with a Plan that it might deem consistent with AB 32 while allowing excess emissions that could constitute significant impacts under CEQA.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan applicable to these Projects does not include mandatory requirements for compliance with AB 32 or any other proposed significance threshold under CEQA. Furthermore, and unlike the discussion of the Climate Change Program which said the Program "will include" the listed components, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan "could include" the listed components, leaving open the possibility that any of the listed components could be excluded despite being feasible mitigations that might reduce the Projects' impacts. Eliminating all net increases in greenhouse gas emissions from the Projects is a mitigation that could have been applied here, but the failure to do so without findings of the mitigation's infeasibility violates CEQA.

Finally, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan does not include any standard to eliminate climate change impacts from the Projects entirely, or even to reduce emissions by any measureable amount. While both the Climate Change Program and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan are improvements over the status quo, as implemented here they do not eliminate the significant climate change impacts from the Projects.

The Committee stands by our other criticism of these Projects, and urges the City to reject them.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Read more!

Great news from Gilroy - last two remaining sprawl proposals defeated

(I just wanted to put a link to this Gilroy Dispatch article, and we'll add more later. -Brian)

Article:

Citing uncertainties over environmental reports, the council voted 4-3 - with Council members Dion Bracco, Bob Dillon and Craig Gartman dissenting - against two annexation requests that would eventually lead to residential development. Gillmor's Lucky Day Ranch application proposed the incorporation of 285 hilly acres straddling Burchell Road north of Hecker Pass Highway for up to 193 homes and 244 acres of open space and parks - just a sliver of the applicant's original proposal to annex 2,014 pristine acres stretching up to the Corde Valle Golf Course in San Martin. The council also rejected a separate application from Wren Investors to annex 48 acres near Christopher High School for up to 430 dwellings.

Environmentalists, rural residents and county representatives encouraged the rejections by arguing that at least 2,100 additional residents, about 4 percent of Gilroy, will tax the city's stressed school and emergency services. That many new residents could cost the county and Gilroy hundreds of thousands of dollars over a 10-year period, according to staff projections that considered property and sales tax revenues against city and county expenses on the hypothetical residents.

"We've just gone through a huge budget crisis and are looking to hire more police (officers) and (firefighters) just to catch up," Council member Peter Arellano said. "I'm not looking forward to trying to find another amount of money to catch up with these developments."

Opponents also stressed that Gilroy - which has exceeded its self-imposed growth limit - already has enough vacant land to develop 3,500 homes over the next 11 years, according to conservative city estimates. They also decried the projects' preliminary environmental reports as lacking carbon footprint analyses and avoiding scenarios based on an exact number of homes. Other residents had simpler concerns about the region's tranquility.

Read more!

CGF at Morgan Hill City Council

Morgan Hill puts its City Council meetings online, so I wanted to point to two items where we were involved.

We announced our Nov. 7th event on the South Valley in Gilroy:

City of Morgan Hll City Council Meeting 10-7-2009 Part 1 from Larry Talbot on Vimeo.

(You need to let it buffer for a few minutes and then move to the 11:15 minute mark.)


Also, I summarized our concern about the proposed outward expansion of Morgan Hill into farmland:

City of Morgan Hll City Council Meeting 10-7-2009 Part 2 from Larry Talbot on Vimeo.

The item starts at minute 22, citizen comment at minute 33:30 with me first, then followed by Julie Hutcheson and Beth Wyman. The City Council made sympathetic noises about the concerns we raised, but unfortunately they then just did what staff recommended. We'll just have to follow the EIR process to make comments.

-Brian

Read more!

Comments on Gilroy expansion SEIRs for Lucky Day, Gavilan, and Wren Investor proposals

The Committee for Green Foothills submitted comment letters below (click "Read More" to see the full letters) on proposed outward expansions of the City of Gilroy. There's no reason to do this, and the environmental documentation is inadequate.

The letters reference appendices that I haven't attached due to length, but I can send them to anyone who's interested.

-Brian


(Letter re Lucky Day DSEIR)
August 20, 2009

Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner
City of Gilroy Planning Division

Re: Lucky Day Urban Service Area Amendment (07-01) SCH#2009022046

Dear Stan:

The Committee for Green Foothills ("Committee") submits the following comments regarding the Lucky Day USA amendment ("Lucky Day Project" or "Project"). As an initial matter, we thank the City for the two-week extension of time to comment. We continue to believe, however, that more time would have been appropriate, at a minimum the 30-day extension we understand was requested by Santa Clara County. There is no pressing urgency for this or any other of the proposed USA amendment projects.

The Committee supports the position of SOS Gilroy and their counsel that the Draft SEIR for the Project ("DSEIR") does not comply with CEQA law and Guidelines. We support this position for the reasons stated in their letters and as further explained below.


I. The DSEIR fails to analyze adequately climate-change related impacts and mitigation associated with the Project

A. The DSEIR fails to consider effects of climate change on the Project and its residents and visitors.

We note as an initial matter that the DSEIR entirely fails to discuss how the Project, residents, and visitors could be affected by climate change relative to how the area and people could be affected by climate change under the unchanged baseline use of little to no occupancy. As stated in Association of Environmental Professionals' 2007 report, Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents:

CEQA Projects Affected by Climate Change Impacts

The effects that GCC may have on a specific project also need to be considered in CEQA reviews.
Care is needed to determine if there is a connection between a project’s location or character and the
potential for impacts on the project to occur that are caused by GCC. Mandating mitigation to lessen
the environmental impacts of climate change on a project-level analysis without clear disclosure of
the relationship between the project and the environmental impact would not comply with CEQA.
Section 21002.1 of the California Public Resources Code states, “the purpose of an environmental
impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project…” Without
establishing what those effects are for residents in the State of California, and the relative degree of
certainty of those effects, an adequate disclosure of GCC impacts on a project would not be realized.

The precise timing, nature, and magnitude of climate change impacts at specific locations is not
certain, although projections with wide confidence limits have been developed for some parameters
such as sea level rise and meteorology. However, effects of climate change specifically mentioned in
AB 32, such as rising sea levels, modified meteorology and flood hydrographs, and changes in
snowpack could be addressed in CEQA documents. How GCC may affect species ranges may also
be considered. CEQA documents should address whether projected changes in sea level,
meteorology, flooding, snow pack, and other identifiable consequences of GCC may create hazards
for or otherwise adversely affect a project. The degree of uncertainty should also be addressed.

Potential health effects from GCC may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases,
extreme events, and air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average
temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in
warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems (e.g., heat rash and
heat stroke). In addition, climate sensitive diseases (such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and
encephalitis) may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects.

GCC-related meteorological changes and sea level rises are expected to lead to other adverse impacts.
Extreme events, such as flooding and hurricanes, can displace people and damage property and
agriculture. Drought in some areas may increase and snowpack may decrease, which would decrease
water and food availability. Rising sea levels would increase stress on levees and exacerbate storm
wave run-up and coastal erosion. GCC may also contribute to air quality problems from increased
frequency of smog and particulate air pollution (EPA 2006c).

Some agencies have begun to assess potential risks from climate change in various regions of the
State. The California Climate Change Center uses three IPCC climate change scenarios to assess
risks from climate change to California (CCCC 2006). The report indicates GCC could result in the
following changes in California: poor air quality; more severe heat; increased wildfires; shifting
vegetation; declining forest productivity; decreased spring snowpack; water shortages; a potential
reduction in hydropower; a loss in winter recreation; agricultural damages from heat, pests,
pathogens, and weeds; and rising sea levels resulting in shrinking beaches and increased coastal
floods (CCCC 2006).

The California Department of Water Resources published a report that describes the progress on
incorporating climate change into existing water resources planning and management tools and
methodologies (DWR 2006). While it does not focus on CEQA, the report does describe potential
impacts of climate change on California’s water resources. The California Coastal Commission
published a Discussion Draft titled Global Warming and the California Coastal Commission (CCC
2006), which recommends that the Commission address GCC because the Coastal Act protects
resources that are threatened by global warming.

It is hoped that a greater number of California agencies will assess climate change risks. Once
information is made available by State government agencies, it could be used to determine more
precisely to what extent a project is affected. Until then, environmental documents could make a
good faith effort to assess the potential effects of GCC on projects. In some cases, such as coastal
developments, an evaluation could be feasible, with recognized limitations related to uncertainties. In
other locations, specific impact analysis may not be feasible.

AEP Report at 16-17 (attached as Appendix A).

The fact that the AEP Report says analysis in some locations may not be feasible does not excuse the City here, because the DSEIR made no attempt to determine if specific impact analysis is feasible. Increased air temperatures and associated pollution from increased temperatures, as well as decreased water availability are foreseeable impacts on the project site and proposed residents that should be addressed, as well as the other potential impacts described above.

In fact, the DSEIR at page 2-25 actually cites some consequences of climate change for California as a whole, including: increase in temperature, reduced water supply from Sierra Nevada snowpack, and potential negative impact rise in sea level will have on surface water quality. While the DSEIR fails to analyze these impacts on the Project, they can foreseeably harm access to water. Both the golf course and residents will require a lot of water.


B. Refusing to make a CEQA significance determination on cumulative climate change impacts is unlawful.

As stated in the August 5, 2009 letter from Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP to the City ("SMW Letter"), it is unlawful for the City to refuse to make a determination as to whether a project's non-speculative impacts are significant. CEQA Guideline s. 15064(b) requires the City to exercise "careful judgment…based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" while Guideline s. 15144 notes that the lead agency "must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can."

As the (attached as Appendix B) June 19, 2007 letter from California Department of Justice to the City of San Jose ("DOJ Letter") states, "it is inappropriate for the City to find, as it did in the [Coyote Valley] DEIR, that it is excused from making a significance determination under CEQA." The DOJ Letter expressly applied CEQA Guideline s 15064(b) to the identical failure by San Jose to determine whether climate change impacts are significant:

While the City is correct that there are currently no regulatory thresholds for significance relating to global warming impacts, this does not relieve a lead agency of its statutory obligation under CEQA to determine whether or not a project’s impacts are significant. As the CEQA Guidelines note, “[a]n ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible ....” In the future, there may well be “an approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem” of GHG emissions and global warming impacts, but until that time, lead agencies must rely only on their own “careful judgment ... based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data” in determining whether a project’s global warming-related impacts are significant.

DOJ Letter at 5-6 (internal citations omitted).

The failure in the DSEIR to exercise "careful judgment ... based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" under Guideline s. 15064(b) match the case where the DOJ Letter indicated to San Jose regarding its (ultimately-withdrawn) DEIR that it was inappropriate in determining whether a project’s global warming-related impacts are significant.


1. Significance thresholds exist, yet the SEIR fails to exercise judgment to apply them.

While significance thresholds may not have been finalized, they indisputably exist, as acknowledged in the DSEIR. DSEIR at 2-17. Two thresholds that could be used and have been suggested are zero increase in emissions and 900 ton CO2 Equivalent. SMW Letter at 9. The DSEIR offers no evidence in support of its refusal to adopt a threshold, despite the substantial evidence by experts in the field that either of these thresholds would be appropriate. Id. This fails to comply with CEQA.

As stated by the Attorney General's office, California law AB 32, "the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set State targets to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, provide a relevant benchmark for determining significance." DOJ Letter at 7. Any impact of the project that reduces the likelihood of compliance with AB 32 justifies a determination of significance.

California currently is not trending towards compliance with AB 32, as seen on page 22 of the Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions ("California Inventory") cited in the DSEIR:


Any net increase in emissions resulting from the Project would move away from AB 32 compliance. We further note that Gilroy's increasing population indicates that Gilroy itself is also unlikely to be moving in the direction toward compliance with AB 32.


2. The DSEIR must make determinations of significance even in the absence of finalized thresholds created by other agencies.

As noted above, lead agencies must use their own determinations and judgment, backed by substantial evidence, to determine whether impacts are significant, and these commonly occur in situations where no significance thresholds have been created by other agencies. For example, a lead agency may need to determine whether removing a number of trees from a parcel in order to develop it is a significant impact, and whether the size, proximity, and visibility of a development make the visual impacts significant. In neither case can the lead agency rely on simple application of a regulatory threshold developed by expert agencies, yet significance determinations such as these are commonplace. Here, where draft thresholds and guidance from professionals and the State Attorney General are available, the City has even less excuse in its unlawful failure to apply a significance threshold.


3. Failure to make a significance determination is contrary to the purpose of CEQA and contrary to the purpose of exempting EIRs from speculative determinations.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure the public and decision-makers are adequately informed when making decisions and that feasible mitigations are applied. Speculative determinations are not required under CEQA because from the nature of being speculative, they would not inform decisionmakers whether the project's benefits exceed its environmental costs. That is not the case here, where the DSEIR does not deny impacts but only refuses to draw conclusions about them. The DSEIR deprives the City and the public from the opportunity to determine whether the project should go forward, as well as unlawfully denying the protection under CEQA of requiring feasible mitigations that reduce significant impacts.


C. The DSEIR underestimates climate change impacts from the Project.

Not only does the DSEIR fail to properly apply a significance threshold to climate change impacts, it underestimates those impacts and fails to adequately measure and describe what in fact is a cumulatively significant impact. The DSEIR states its estimate of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions is "likely to be quite conservative". DSEIR at 2-30. This is both incorrect and contradicted by information on the same page of the DSEIR that acknowledges additional GHG sources that were not included in the calculations. Id.

While the DSEIR claims these other sources would be insubstantial, it provides no information to support it. To the contrary, it acknowledges that only 82% of California GHG emissions come from CO2 (id. at 2-26), and the DSEIR does not measure all CO2 emissions from the Project, but only those from transportation and electricity production. Emissions that were left out that could substantially increase the Project's impacts include:

• Construction, especially with cement, emits substantial amounts of CO2. California Inventory at 11. Construction emissions on site were not quantified.

• Nitrous oxide results from "soil management" in agricultural sectors. California Inventory at 10. Application of fertilizer can increase nitrous oxide. See http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html. The Project's golf course and residential development will foreseeably result in significant in significant fertilizer use compared to present conditions. See, e.g., http://www.brodheadwatershed.org/drinkingwaterthreats.html ("Homeowners use four to eight times the amount of fertilizer and pesticides per acre than farms. Golf courses are another potential source of groundwater contamination from overuse of fertilizer and pesticides.")

• Landfill methane emissions from the project should be included, and the California Inventory notes this as an important issue with data expected available in 2008. California Inventory at iii.

• The Project will result in substantial increases in water usage. In addition to all other aspects of water impacts, the GHG emissions needed to provide the water from local and distant sources should be quantified.

• “The General Plan EIR identified that development consistent with the general plan would increase wastewater generation that would exceed the existing treatment and disposal capacity of the WWTP. DSEIR at 2-42. Feasibility and desirability wastewater system expansion, considering expected reduction in availability of water due to climate change, must be considered. Energy impacts from wastewater treatment and from expanding the wastewater infrastructure must also be included.


D. Feasible climate change mitigation measures were unlawfully excluded from the DSEIR.

Because this Project in fact has cumulatively significant climate change impacts, it should have required mitigation measures that are absent from the DSEIR. These include the following:

• Minimizing and/or adapting to climate change will require alterations to existing regional transportation system. Mobility will most likely include increased use of public transportation, carpooling, biking, and/or walking. The effect that expanding the developed land area within Gilroy will have on the feasibility of alternative transportation methods should be considered. The DSEIR does not adequately address the role of alternative transportation, nor does it analyze whether a feasible alternative exists by channeling development in existing City boundaries where alternative transportation is more likely to succeed.

• The statement that future development should be constructed to LEED or Build It Green standards "where feasible" (DSEIR at 2-31) has an exemption of "feasibility" that swallows the rule. If the mitigation is simply found "infeasible" then the project could have significant impacts without any finding of overriding circumstances required under CEQA.


II. The DSEIR underestimates or omits other significant impacts.

The DSEIR states that the General Plan EIR found that increased flooding, erosion, and siltation from the Project area and other development, absent mitigation, would be significant. DSEIR at 2-46. It said mitigation to contain runoff to predevelopment levels would reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Id. (referencing the General Plan EIR). The DSEIR says independently of the General Plan EIR that the "California Regional Water Quality Control Board will require future development to be designed to ensure that post-development runoff is contained to pre-development levels." Id. This is incorrect.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits under Water Quality Control Boards have not, in fact, required a match between pre- and post- development runoff, permit systems that have changed substantially since the General Plan EIR. See, e.g., Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces: Analysis and Recommendations for Santa Clara County (attached as Appendix C). Generally, they allow post-development hydrology to differ from pre-development for the effects of large storms, for situations where mitigation costs exceed a certain percentage of the cost of the project, and to completely differ from pre-development hydrology for any project smaller a certain maximum size. Id. The exact permit requirements for the Gilroy area should be examined, and they hydrological impacts including siltation, impacts on salmonids, etc., should also be examined in light of this new information that was missed by the DSEIR. The new information indicates the presence of unexamined impacts in violation of CEQA.


III. Conclusion.

The City of Gilroy cannot approve the Project based on this inadequate DSEIR, and we request that no further consideration of the Project be given to it.


Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt, CGF Legislative Advocate
Shari Pomerantz, CGF Volunteer

Appendix A: Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents
Appendix B: June 19, 2007 letter from California Department of Justice to the City of San Jose ("DOJ Letter")
Appendix C: Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces: Analysis and Recommendations for Santa Clara County

-------------------------
(Letter re Gavilan DSEIR)

August 20, 2009

Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner
City of Gilroy Planning Division

Re: Gavilan Joint Community College District Urban Service Area Amendment (08-02) SCH#2009022045

Dear Stan:

The Committee for Green Foothills ("Committee") submits the following comments regarding the Gavilan USA amendment ("Gavilan Project" or "Project"). As an initial matter, we thank the City for the two-week extension of time to comment. We continue to believe, however, that more time would have been appropriate, at a minimum the 30-day extension we understand was requested by Santa Clara County. There is no pressing urgency for this or any other of the proposed USA amendment projects.

The Committee supports the position of SOS Gilroy and their counsel that the Draft SEIR for the Project ("DSEIR") does not comply with CEQA law and Guidelines. We support this position for the reasons stated in their letters and as further explained below.


I. The DSEIR fails to analyze adequately climate-change related impacts and mitigation associated with the Project

A. The DSEIR fails to consider effects of climate change on the Project and its residents and visitors.

We note as an initial matter that the DSEIR entirely fails to discuss how the Project, residents, and visitors could be affected by climate change relative to how the area and people could be affected by climate change under the unchanged baseline level of less-intense use than proposed. As stated in Association of Environmental Professionals' 2007 report, Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents:

CEQA Projects Affected by Climate Change Impacts

The effects that GCC may have on a specific project also need to be considered in CEQA reviews.
Care is needed to determine if there is a connection between a project’s location or character and the
potential for impacts on the project to occur that are caused by GCC. Mandating mitigation to lessen
the environmental impacts of climate change on a project-level analysis without clear disclosure of
the relationship between the project and the environmental impact would not comply with CEQA.
Section 21002.1 of the California Public Resources Code states, “the purpose of an environmental
impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project…” Without
establishing what those effects are for residents in the State of California, and the relative degree of
certainty of those effects, an adequate disclosure of GCC impacts on a project would not be realized.

The precise timing, nature, and magnitude of climate change impacts at specific locations is not
certain, although projections with wide confidence limits have been developed for some parameters
such as sea level rise and meteorology. However, effects of climate change specifically mentioned in
AB 32, such as rising sea levels, modified meteorology and flood hydrographs, and changes in
snowpack could be addressed in CEQA documents. How GCC may affect species ranges may also
be considered. CEQA documents should address whether projected changes in sea level,
meteorology, flooding, snow pack, and other identifiable consequences of GCC may create hazards
for or otherwise adversely affect a project. The degree of uncertainty should also be addressed.

Potential health effects from GCC may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases,
extreme events, and air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average
temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in
warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems (e.g., heat rash and
heat stroke). In addition, climate sensitive diseases (such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and
encephalitis) may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects.

GCC-related meteorological changes and sea level rises are expected to lead to other adverse impacts.
Extreme events, such as flooding and hurricanes, can displace people and damage property and
agriculture. Drought in some areas may increase and snowpack may decrease, which would decrease
water and food availability. Rising sea levels would increase stress on levees and exacerbate storm
wave run-up and coastal erosion. GCC may also contribute to air quality problems from increased
frequency of smog and particulate air pollution (EPA 2006c).

Some agencies have begun to assess potential risks from climate change in various regions of the
State. The California Climate Change Center uses three IPCC climate change scenarios to assess
risks from climate change to California (CCCC 2006). The report indicates GCC could result in the
following changes in California: poor air quality; more severe heat; increased wildfires; shifting
vegetation; declining forest productivity; decreased spring snowpack; water shortages; a potential
reduction in hydropower; a loss in winter recreation; agricultural damages from heat, pests,
pathogens, and weeds; and rising sea levels resulting in shrinking beaches and increased coastal
floods (CCCC 2006).

The California Department of Water Resources published a report that describes the progress on
incorporating climate change into existing water resources planning and management tools and
methodologies (DWR 2006). While it does not focus on CEQA, the report does describe potential
impacts of climate change on California’s water resources. The California Coastal Commission
published a Discussion Draft titled Global Warming and the California Coastal Commission (CCC
2006), which recommends that the Commission address GCC because the Coastal Act protects
resources that are threatened by global warming.

It is hoped that a greater number of California agencies will assess climate change risks. Once
information is made available by State government agencies, it could be used to determine more
precisely to what extent a project is affected. Until then, environmental documents could make a
good faith effort to assess the potential effects of GCC on projects. In some cases, such as coastal
developments, an evaluation could be feasible, with recognized limitations related to uncertainties. In
other locations, specific impact analysis may not be feasible.

AEP Report at 16-17 (attached as Appendix A).

The fact that the AEP Report says analysis in some locations may not be feasible does not excuse the City here, because the DSEIR made no attempt to determine if specific impact analysis is feasible. Increased air temperatures and associated pollution from increased temperatures, as well as decreased water availability are foreseeable impacts on the project site and proposed residents that should be addressed, as well as the other potential impacts described above.

In fact, the DSEIR at page 2-10 actually cites some consequences of climate change for California as a whole, including: increase in temperature, reduced water supply from Sierra Nevada snowpack, and potential negative impact rise in sea level will have on surface water quality. While the DSEIR fails to analyze these impacts on the Project, they can foreseeably harm access to water.


B. Refusing to make a CEQA significance determination on cumulative climate change impacts is unlawful.

As stated in the August 5, 2009 letter from Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP to the City ("SMW Letter"), it is unlawful for the City to refuse to make a determination as to whether a project's non-speculative impacts are significant. CEQA Guideline s. 15064(b) requires the City to exercise "careful judgment…based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" while Guideline s. 15144 notes that the lead agency "must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can."

As the (attached as Appendix B) June 19, 2007 letter from California Department of Justice to the City of San Jose ("DOJ Letter") states, "it is inappropriate for the City to find, as it did in the [Coyote Valley] DEIR, that it is excused from making a significance determination under CEQA." The DOJ Letter expressly applied CEQA Guideline s 15064(b) to the identical failure by San Jose to determine whether climate change impacts are significant:

While the City is correct that there are currently no regulatory thresholds for significance relating to global warming impacts, this does not relieve a lead agency of its statutory obligation under CEQA to determine whether or not a project’s impacts are significant. As the CEQA Guidelines note, “[a]n ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible ....” In the future, there may well be “an approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem” of GHG emissions and global warming impacts, but until that time, lead agencies must rely only on their own “careful judgment ... based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data” in determining whether a project’s global warming-related impacts are significant.

DOJ Letter at 5-6 (internal citations omitted).

The failure in the DSEIR to exercise "careful judgment ... based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" under Guideline s. 15064(b) match the case where the DOJ Letter indicated to San Jose regarding its (ultimately-withdrawn) DEIR that it was inappropriate in determining whether a project’s global warming-related impacts are significant.


1. Significance thresholds exist, yet the SEIR fails to exercise judgment to apply them.

While significance thresholds may not have been finalized, they indisputably exist, as acknowledged in the DSEIR. DSEIR at 2-2. Two thresholds that could be used and have been suggested are zero increase in emissions and 900 ton CO2 Equivalent. SMW Letter at 9. The DSEIR offers no evidence in support of its refusal to adopt a threshold, despite the substantial evidence by experts in the field that either of these thresholds would be appropriate. Id. This fails to comply with CEQA.

As stated by the Attorney General's office, California law AB 32, "the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set State targets to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, provide a relevant benchmark for determining significance." DOJ Letter at 7. Any impact of the project that reduces the likelihood of compliance with AB 32 justifies a determination of significance.

California currently is not trending towards compliance with AB 32, as seen on page 22 of the Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions ("California Inventory") cited in the DSEIR:


Any net increase in emissions resulting from the Project would move away from AB 32 compliance. We further note that Gilroy's increasing population indicates that Gilroy itself is also unlikely to be moving in the direction toward compliance with AB 32.


2. The DSEIR must make determinations of significance even in the absence of finalized thresholds created by other agencies.

As noted above, lead agencies must use their own determinations and judgment, backed by substantial evidence, to determine whether impacts are significant, and these commonly occur in situations where no significance thresholds have been created by other agencies. For example, a lead agency may need to determine whether removing a number of trees from a parcel in order to develop it is a significant impact, and whether the size, proximity, and visibility of a development make the visual impacts significant. In neither case can the lead agency rely on simple application of a regulatory threshold developed by expert agencies, yet significance determinations such as these are commonplace. Here, where draft thresholds and guidance from professionals and the State Attorney General are available, the City has even less excuse in its unlawful failure to apply a significance threshold.


3. Failure to make a significance determination is contrary to the purpose of CEQA and contrary to the purpose of exempting EIRs from speculative determinations.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure the public and decision-makers are adequately informed when making decisions and that feasible mitigations are applied. Speculative determinations are not required under CEQA because from the nature of being speculative, they would not inform decisionmakers whether the project's benefits exceed its environmental costs. That is not the case here, where the DSEIR does not deny impacts but only refuses to draw conclusions about them. The DSEIR deprives the City and the public from the opportunity to determine whether the project should go forward, as well as unlawfully denying the protection under CEQA of requiring feasible mitigations that reduce significant impacts.


C. The DSEIR underestimates climate change impacts from the Project.

Not only does the DSEIR fail to properly apply a significance threshold to climate change impacts, it underestimates those impacts and fails to adequately measure and describe what in fact is a cumulatively significant impact. The DSEIR states its estimate of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions is "likely to be quite conservative". DSEIR at 2-16. This is both incorrect and contradicted by information on the same page of the DSEIR that acknowledges additional GHG sources that were not included in the calculations. Id.

While the DSEIR claims these other sources would be insubstantial, it provides no information to support it. To the contrary, it acknowledges that only 82% of California GHG emissions come from CO2 (id. at 2-12), and the DSEIR does not measure all CO2 emissions from the Project, but only those from transportation and electricity production. Emissions that were left out that could substantially increase the Project's impacts include:

• Construction, especially with cement, emits substantial amounts of CO2. California Inventory at 11. Construction emissions on site were not quantified.

• Nitrous oxide results from "soil management" in agricultural sectors. California Inventory at 10. Application of fertilizer can increase nitrous oxide. See http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html. The Project's golf course and residential development will foreseeably result in significant in significant fertilizer use compared to present conditions. See, e.g., http://www.brodheadwatershed.org/drinkingwaterthreats.html ("Homeowners use four to eight times the amount of fertilizer and pesticides per acre than farms. Golf courses are another potential source of groundwater contamination from overuse of fertilizer and pesticides.")

• Landfill methane emissions from the project should be included, and the California Inventory notes this as an important issue with data expected available in 2008. California Inventory at iii.

• The Project will result in substantial increases in water usage. In addition to all other aspects of water impacts, the GHG emissions needed to provide the water from local and distant sources should be quantified.

• “The General Plan EIR identified that development consistent with the general plan would increase wastewater generation that would exceed the existing treatment and disposal capacity of the WWTP. DSEIR at 2-28. Feasibility and desirability wastewater system expansion, considering expected reduction in availability of water due to climate change, must be considered. Energy impacts from wastewater treatment and from expanding the wastewater infrastructure must also be included.


D. Feasible climate change mitigation measures were unlawfully excluded from the DSEIR.

Because this Project in fact has cumulatively significant climate change impacts, it should have required mitigation measures that are absent from the DSEIR. These include the following:

• Minimizing and/or adapting to climate change will require alterations to existing regional transportation system. Mobility will most likely include increased use of public transportation, carpooling, biking, and/or walking. The effect that expanding the developed land area within Gilroy will have on the feasibility of alternative transportation methods should be considered. The DSEIR does not adequately address the role of alternative transportation, nor does it analyze whether a feasible alternative exists by channeling development in existing City boundaries where alternative transportation is more likely to succeed.

• The statement that future development should be constructed to LEED or Build It Green standards "where feasible" (DSEIR at 2-18) has an exemption of "feasibility" that swallows the rule. If the mitigation is simply found "infeasible" then the project could have significant impacts without any finding of overriding circumstances required under CEQA.


II. The DSEIR underestimates or omits other significant impacts.

The DSEIR states that the General Plan EIR found that increased flooding, erosion, and siltation from the Project area and other development, absent mitigation, would be significant. DSEIR at 2-31 to 2-32. It said mitigation to contain runoff to predevelopment levels would reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Id. (referencing the General Plan EIR). The DSEIR says independently of the General Plan EIR that the "California Regional Water Quality Control Board will require future development to be designed to ensure that post-development runoff is contained to pre-development levels." Id. This is incorrect.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits under Water Quality Control Boards have not, in fact, required a match between pre- and post- development runoff, permit systems that have changed substantially since the General Plan EIR. See, e.g., Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces: Analysis and Recommendations for Santa Clara County (attached as Appendix C). Generally, they allow post-development hydrology to differ from pre-development for the effects of large storms, for situations where mitigation costs exceed a certain percentage of the cost of the project, and to completely differ from pre-development hydrology for any project smaller a certain maximum size. Id. The exact permit requirements for the Gilroy area should be examined, and they hydrological impacts including siltation, impacts on salmonids, etc., should also be examined in light of this new information that was missed by the DSEIR. The new information indicates the presence of unexamined impacts in violation of CEQA.


III. Conclusion.

The City of Gilroy cannot approve the Project based on this inadequate DSEIR, and we request that no further consideration of the Project be given to it.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt, CGF Legislative Advocate
Shari Pomerantz, CGF Volunteer

Appendix A: Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents
Appendix B: June 19, 2007 letter from California Department of Justice to the City of San Jose ("DOJ Letter")
Appendix C: Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces: Analysis and Recommendations for Santa Clara County

-----------------
(Letter re Wren Investors DSEIR)

August 20, 2009

Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner
City of Gilroy Planning Division

Re: Wren Investors Urban Service Area Amendment (00-02) SCH#99072074

Dear Stan:

The Committee for Green Foothills ("Committee") submits the following comments regarding the Wren USA amendment ("Wren Project" or "Project"). As an initial matter, we thank the City for the two-week extension of time to comment. We continue to believe, however, that more time would have been appropriate, at a minimum the 30-day extension we understand was requested by Santa Clara County. There is no pressing urgency for this or any other of the proposed USA amendment projects.

The Committee supports the position of SOS Gilroy and their counsel that the Draft SEIR for the Project ("DSEIR") does not comply with CEQA law and Guidelines. We support this position for the reasons stated in their letters and as further explained below.


I. The DSEIR fails to analyze adequately climate-change related impacts and mitigation associated with the Project

A. The DSEIR fails to consider effects of climate change on the Project and its residents and visitors.

We note as an initial matter that the DSEIR entirely fails to discuss how the Project, residents, and visitors could be affected by climate change relative to how the area and people could be affected by climate change under the unchanged baseline use of low levels of development. As stated in Association of Environmental Professionals' 2007 report, Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents:

CEQA Projects Affected by Climate Change Impacts

The effects that GCC may have on a specific project also need to be considered in CEQA reviews.
Care is needed to determine if there is a connection between a project’s location or character and the
potential for impacts on the project to occur that are caused by GCC. Mandating mitigation to lessen
the environmental impacts of climate change on a project-level analysis without clear disclosure of
the relationship between the project and the environmental impact would not comply with CEQA.
Section 21002.1 of the California Public Resources Code states, “the purpose of an environmental
impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project…” Without
establishing what those effects are for residents in the State of California, and the relative degree of
certainty of those effects, an adequate disclosure of GCC impacts on a project would not be realized.

The precise timing, nature, and magnitude of climate change impacts at specific locations is not
certain, although projections with wide confidence limits have been developed for some parameters
such as sea level rise and meteorology. However, effects of climate change specifically mentioned in
AB 32, such as rising sea levels, modified meteorology and flood hydrographs, and changes in
snowpack could be addressed in CEQA documents. How GCC may affect species ranges may also
be considered. CEQA documents should address whether projected changes in sea level,
meteorology, flooding, snow pack, and other identifiable consequences of GCC may create hazards
for or otherwise adversely affect a project. The degree of uncertainty should also be addressed.

Potential health effects from GCC may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases,
extreme events, and air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average
temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in
warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems (e.g., heat rash and
heat stroke). In addition, climate sensitive diseases (such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and
encephalitis) may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects.

GCC-related meteorological changes and sea level rises are expected to lead to other adverse impacts.
Extreme events, such as flooding and hurricanes, can displace people and damage property and
agriculture. Drought in some areas may increase and snowpack may decrease, which would decrease
water and food availability. Rising sea levels would increase stress on levees and exacerbate storm
wave run-up and coastal erosion. GCC may also contribute to air quality problems from increased
frequency of smog and particulate air pollution (EPA 2006c).

Some agencies have begun to assess potential risks from climate change in various regions of the
State. The California Climate Change Center uses three IPCC climate change scenarios to assess
risks from climate change to California (CCCC 2006). The report indicates GCC could result in the
following changes in California: poor air quality; more severe heat; increased wildfires; shifting
vegetation; declining forest productivity; decreased spring snowpack; water shortages; a potential
reduction in hydropower; a loss in winter recreation; agricultural damages from heat, pests,
pathogens, and weeds; and rising sea levels resulting in shrinking beaches and increased coastal
floods (CCCC 2006).

The California Department of Water Resources published a report that describes the progress on
incorporating climate change into existing water resources planning and management tools and
methodologies (DWR 2006). While it does not focus on CEQA, the report does describe potential
impacts of climate change on California’s water resources. The California Coastal Commission
published a Discussion Draft titled Global Warming and the California Coastal Commission (CCC
2006), which recommends that the Commission address GCC because the Coastal Act protects
resources that are threatened by global warming.

It is hoped that a greater number of California agencies will assess climate change risks. Once
information is made available by State government agencies, it could be used to determine more
precisely to what extent a project is affected. Until then, environmental documents could make a
good faith effort to assess the potential effects of GCC on projects. In some cases, such as coastal
developments, an evaluation could be feasible, with recognized limitations related to uncertainties. In
other locations, specific impact analysis may not be feasible.

AEP Report at 16-17 (attached as Appendix A).

The fact that the AEP Report says analysis in some locations may not be feasible does not excuse the City here, because the DSEIR made no attempt to determine if specific impact analysis is feasible. Increased air temperatures and associated pollution from increased temperatures, as well as decreased water availability are foreseeable impacts on the project site and proposed residents that should be addressed, as well as the other potential impacts described above.

In fact, the DSEIR at page 2-20 actually cites some consequences of climate change for California as a whole, including: increase in temperature, reduced water supply from Sierra Nevada snowpack, and potential negative impact rise in sea level will have on surface water quality. While the DSEIR fails to analyze these impacts on the Project, they can foreseeably harm access to water.


B. Refusing to make a CEQA significance determination on cumulative climate change impacts is unlawful.

As stated in the August 5, 2009 letter from Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP to the City ("SMW Letter"), it is unlawful for the City to refuse to make a determination as to whether a project's non-speculative impacts are significant. CEQA Guideline s. 15064(b) requires the City to exercise "careful judgment…based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" while Guideline s. 15144 notes that the lead agency "must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can."

As the (attached as Appendix B) June 19, 2007 letter from California Department of Justice to the City of San Jose ("DOJ Letter") states, "it is inappropriate for the City to find, as it did in the [Coyote Valley] DEIR, that it is excused from making a significance determination under CEQA." The DOJ Letter expressly applied CEQA Guideline s 15064(b) to the identical failure by San Jose to determine whether climate change impacts are significant:

While the City is correct that there are currently no regulatory thresholds for significance relating to global warming impacts, this does not relieve a lead agency of its statutory obligation under CEQA to determine whether or not a project’s impacts are significant. As the CEQA Guidelines note, “[a]n ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible ....” In the future, there may well be “an approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem” of GHG emissions and global warming impacts, but until that time, lead agencies must rely only on their own “careful judgment ... based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data” in determining whether a project’s global warming-related impacts are significant.

DOJ Letter at 5-6 (internal citations omitted).

The failure in the DSEIR to exercise "careful judgment ... based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data" under Guideline s. 15064(b) match the case where the DOJ Letter indicated to San Jose regarding its (ultimately-withdrawn) DEIR that it was inappropriate in determining whether a project’s global warming-related impacts are significant.


1. Significance thresholds exist, yet the SEIR fails to exercise judgment to apply them.

While significance thresholds may not have been finalized, they indisputably exist, as acknowledged in the DSEIR. DSEIR at 2-12. Two thresholds that could be used and have been suggested are zero increase in emissions and 900 ton CO2 Equivalent. SMW Letter at 8. The DSEIR offers no evidence in support of its refusal to adopt a threshold, despite the substantial evidence by experts in the field that either of these thresholds would be appropriate. Id. This fails to comply with CEQA.

As stated by the Attorney General's office, California law AB 32, "the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set State targets to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, provide a relevant benchmark for determining significance." DOJ Letter at 7. Any impact of the project that reduces the likelihood of compliance with AB 32 justifies a determination of significance.

California currently is not trending towards compliance with AB 32, as seen on page 22 of the Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions ("California Inventory") cited in the DSEIR:


Any net increase in emissions resulting from the Project would move away from AB 32 compliance. We further note that Gilroy's increasing population indicates that Gilroy itself is also unlikely to be moving in the direction toward compliance with AB 32.


2. The DSEIR must make determinations of significance even in the absence of finalized thresholds created by other agencies.

As noted above, lead agencies must use their own determinations and judgment, backed by substantial evidence, to determine whether impacts are significant, and these commonly occur in situations where no significance thresholds have been created by other agencies. For example, a lead agency may need to determine whether removing a number of trees from a parcel in order to develop it is a significant impact, and whether the size, proximity, and visibility of a development make the visual impacts significant. In neither case can the lead agency rely on simple application of a regulatory threshold developed by expert agencies, yet significance determinations such as these are commonplace. Here, where draft thresholds and guidance from professionals and the State Attorney General are available, the City has even less excuse in its unlawful failure to apply a significance threshold.


3. Failure to make a significance determination is contrary to the purpose of CEQA and contrary to the purpose of exempting EIRs from speculative determinations.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure the public and decision-makers are adequately informed when making decisions and that feasible mitigations are applied. Speculative determinations are not required under CEQA because from the nature of being speculative, they would not inform decisionmakers whether the project's benefits exceed its environmental costs. That is not the case here, where the DSEIR does not deny impacts but only refuses to draw conclusions about them. The DSEIR deprives the City and the public from the opportunity to determine whether the project should go forward, as well as unlawfully denying the protection under CEQA of requiring feasible mitigations that reduce significant impacts.


C. The DSEIR underestimates climate change impacts from the Project.

Not only does the DSEIR fail to properly apply a significance threshold to climate change impacts, it underestimates those impacts and fails to adequately measure and describe what in fact is a cumulatively significant impact. The DSEIR states its estimate of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions is "likely to be quite conservative". DSEIR at 2-25 to 2-26. This is both incorrect and contradicted by information on the same page of the DSEIR that acknowledges additional GHG sources that were not included in the calculations. Id.

While the DSEIR claims these other sources would be insubstantial, it provides no information to support it. To the contrary, it acknowledges that only 82% of California GHG emissions come from CO2 (id. at 2-22), and the DSEIR does not measure all CO2 emissions from the Project, but only those from transportation and electricity production. Emissions that were left out that could substantially increase the Project's impacts include:

• Construction, especially with cement, emits substantial amounts of CO2. California Inventory at 11. Construction emissions on site were not quantified.

• Nitrous oxide results from "soil management" in agricultural sectors. California Inventory at 10. Application of fertilizer can increase nitrous oxide. See http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html. The Project's golf course and residential development will foreseeably result in significant in significant fertilizer use compared to present conditions. See, e.g., http://www.brodheadwatershed.org/drinkingwaterthreats.html ("Homeowners use four to eight times the amount of fertilizer and pesticides per acre than farms. Golf courses are another potential source of groundwater contamination from overuse of fertilizer and pesticides.")

• Landfill methane emissions from the project should be included, and the California Inventory notes this as an important issue with data expected available in 2008. California Inventory at iii.

• The Project will result in substantial increases in water usage. In addition to all other aspects of water impacts, the GHG emissions needed to provide the water from local and distant sources should be quantified.

• “The General Plan EIR identified that development consistent with the general plan would increase wastewater generation that would exceed the existing treatment and disposal capacity of the WWTP. DSEIR at 2-38. Feasibility and desirability wastewater system expansion, considering expected reduction in availability of water due to climate change, must be considered. Energy impacts from wastewater treatment and from expanding the wastewater infrastructure must also be included.


D. Feasible climate change mitigation measures were unlawfully excluded from the DSEIR.

Because this Project in fact has cumulatively significant climate change impacts, it should have required mitigation measures that are absent from the DSEIR. These include the following:

• Minimizing and/or adapting to climate change will require alterations to existing regional transportation system. Mobility will most likely include increased use of public transportation, carpooling, biking, and/or walking. The effect that expanding the developed land area within Gilroy will have on the feasibility of alternative transportation methods should be considered. The DSEIR does not adequately address the role of alternative transportation, nor does it analyze whether a feasible alternative exists by channeling development in existing City boundaries where alternative transportation is more likely to succeed.

• The statement that future development should be constructed to LEED or Build It Green standards "where feasible" (DSEIR at 2-27) has an exemption of "feasibility" that swallows the rule. If the mitigation is simply found "infeasible" then the project could have significant impacts without any finding of overriding circumstances required under CEQA.


II. The DSEIR underestimates or omits other significant impacts.

The DSEIR states that the General Plan EIR found that increased flooding, erosion, and siltation from the Project area and other development, absent mitigation, would be significant. DSEIR at 2-42. It said mitigation to contain runoff to predevelopment levels would reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Id. (referencing the General Plan EIR). The DSEIR says independently of the General Plan EIR that the "California Regional Water Quality Control Board will require future development to be designed to ensure that post-development runoff is contained to pre-development levels." Id. This is incorrect.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits under Water Quality Control Boards have not, in fact, required a match between pre- and post- development runoff, permit systems that have changed substantially since the General Plan EIR. See, e.g., Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces: Analysis and Recommendations for Santa Clara County (attached as Appendix C). Generally, they allow post-development hydrology to differ from pre-development for the effects of large storms, for situations where mitigation costs exceed a certain percentage of the cost of the project, and to completely differ from pre-development hydrology for any project smaller a certain maximum size. Id. The exact permit requirements for the Gilroy area should be examined, and they hydrological impacts including siltation, impacts on salmonids, etc., should also be examined in light of this new information that was missed by the DSEIR. The new information indicates the presence of unexamined impacts in violation of CEQA.


III. Conclusion.

The City of Gilroy cannot approve the Project based on this inadequate DSEIR, and we request that no further consideration of the Project be given to it.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt, CGF Legislative Advocate
Shari Pomerantz, CGF Volunteer

Appendix A: Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents
Appendix B: June 19, 2007 letter from California Department of Justice to the City of San Jose ("DOJ Letter")
Appendix C: Controlling Cumulative Impacts from Impervious Surfaces: Analysis and Recommendations for Santa Clara County

Read more!