SAN MARTIN
– Streamside land in Santa Clara County is getting increased
attention from another agency aiming to influence land-use
decisions there for environmental and flood-control purposes.
The County of Santa Clara is currently working on new
regulations for development in unincorporated streamside areas in
hopes of better protecting and offsetting the impacts of future
development.
SAN MARTIN – Streamside land in Santa Clara County is getting increased attention from another agency aiming to influence land-use decisions there for environmental and flood-control purposes.
The County of Santa Clara is currently working on new regulations for development in unincorporated streamside areas in hopes of better protecting and offsetting the impacts of future development.
Those efforts come at the same time as a somewhat controversial move by the Santa Clara Valley Water District to gain more authority in streamside areas through an update of its own regulations.
How those two efforts will coincide and what the end result will be is unclear so far, but it could mean two agencies could have tighter controls over a bigger section of creekside land.
So far, the county’s efforts have gained praise from environmental groups but also raised concerns from South County’s supervisor.
“I think it’s moving the county in a very positive direction,” said Craig Breon, executive director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. “The county has lost of the best streams – especially the smaller streams – left in our region.
“Hopefully we can avoid some of the issues on county lands we now see in the cities, where homes are built far too close to the creek, and it leaves us with worse habitat, more flooding and worse control problems and water quality.”
District 1 County Supervisor Don Gage said the concept of an ordinance is good because it gives the county teeth for enforcement – but the county needs to ensure the standards are good ones.
“We have to protect the environment, and you need to do that by ordinance,” he said. “If anyone’s violating it, then you can enforce it.
“The ordinance concept is a good concept, (but) we have to make sure the parameters are the best.”
And while he noted a draft ordinance hasn’t been distributed yet, so far Gage said the potential for 150-foot setbacks from creeks is a source of concern.
“It’s a lot of land,” he said. “I’m not sure everybody’s entirely happy with that.”
Protecting wildlife habitat, preventing pollution, controlling floodwaters and providing recreational and open-space opportunities are the stated objectives of the riparian ordinance currently in development by the county’s Planning Department.
Once complete, the regulations could eventually outline rules for new development within certain swaths of land around creeks, and require habitat disturbed by development there to be mitigated or replaced elsewhere.
“Our ideas are now that no, it would not be a prohibition,” said Hugh Graham, a county planner. “What we’re looking at is if someone proposes something, we want to look at it. We want to review this, and if there’s no other alternative there we probably look for mitigation.”
Specific objectives include stabilizing stream banks, reducing erosion and the addition of stream-choking sediment and pollution from storm water run-off and providing ample space for flood waters to flow.
Goals also include protecting the tree canopies around waterways to assure they remain cooler and more viable homes for fish and other wildlife and providing scenic value, open space and recreational opportunities.
The new provisions are in their infancy but could eventually regulate development within a certain setback or swath of land around creeks. While county planners say they haven’t suggested a specific setback yet, they note the county’s overall land-use blueprint, the General Plan, suggests buffer-area setbacks of 150 feet from the banks of unaltered streams.
The county also will have to decide what kind of creeks qualify for protection under buffers and the new regulations.
While he noted a specific ordinance hasn’t emerged yet, Gage is concerned that a 150-foot setback could be excessive.
“You have to apply more reasonableness to it,” he said. “If you have a small piece of property that had a 50-foot setback and now you have 150 feet, you can make the property useless.”
But Breon said 150 feet seems like a good standard for rural county lands.
“Most rural properties are so large that this should have little impact on development, or at least reasonable expectations of development,” he said.
Graham said there’s no intention to affect agricultural operations. The county is looking at the type of development that requires certain permits under county rules that usually aren’t related to agriculture.
Existing development also is likely to be recognized under the new rules.
The new regulations could require a general plan amendment – a somewhat major and expensive bureaucratic process – if they range far enough from current policies outlined in the existing document.
County staff hope to make their next report on the ordinance to the Planning Commission in June.
