Dear Editor:
The proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan has received considerable
press recently, and rightly so since it goes to the City Planning
Commission for advisory approval on Thursday (Oct. 14) and on to
the City Council for final approval on Monday (Oct. 18). Much is
being said about the number of houses proposed and the need to
preserve cedar trees along Hecker Pass Highway.
Dear Editor:
The proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan has received considerable press recently, and rightly so since it goes to the City Planning Commission for advisory approval on Thursday (Oct. 14) and on to the City Council for final approval on Monday (Oct. 18). Much is being said about the number of houses proposed and the need to preserve cedar trees along Hecker Pass Highway. But nobody is talking about the sweetheart deal the city will be giving to developers in the Hecker Pass Area when the Plan’s Environmental Impact Report is approved by the Council.
The project]s EIR erroneously says that the loss of agricultural land to the urban developments identified in the Plan will not be a significant contribution to the cumulative loss of farmland in Santa Clara County.
Although the plan retains 115 acres of farmland for general agriculture, commercial agriculture, and agri-tourist uses, approximately 150 acres of agricultural land will be converted to non-agricultural uses, mainly residential development. At least 50 acres of this loss will be prime farmland. But the city’s EIR says this loss is not a significant contribution to the cumulative loss of farmland in the county.
One of the issues an EIR must evaluate by law is “cumulative impacts:” Does the proposal – the plan – significantly contribute to cumulative impacts. Most folks may think of cumulative impacts in terms of a project’s contribution to regional problems of increased traffic, air pollution, noise, demands on city services, etc. However, contributing to a regional loss of farmland also is defined by law as a “cumulative impact.” And here is where the city’s EIR fails and creates a sweetheart deal for developers.
The city failed to conduct a proper cumulative impact analysis and simply concluded in the EIR that converting about 150 acres of agricultural land, including at least 50 acres of prime farmland, to urban uses is not a significant cumulative impact. This benefits developers because they will not have to provide mitigation for the cumulative loss of farmland. They will not be required to comply with the General Plan’s Agricultural Mitigation Measure which requires mitigation for significant cumulative impacts. Since the EIR says the cumulative impact is not significant, developers are not required to preserve one acre of farmland (in South County or on-site) for each acre of farmland lost in the Hecker Pass Area. Sure sounds like a sweetheart deal for developers.
The city has made a major mistake by failing to conduct a proper cumulative impact analysis for loss of agricultural land and ignoring the counsel of the California Department of Conservation, the state agency most familiar with assessing impacts to farmland.
In a letter to the city, the Department of Conservation stated that the loss of agricultural land identified in the plan “must necessarily be considered cumulatively significant as part of general plan buildout.” It’s time for the Planning Commission and Council to correct this mistake and eliminate the perception that the city is granting developers a sweetheart deal.
Keith Anderson, Gilroy
