The county’s controversial plan that supporters say will
streamline the development process has been refined, pleasing some.
Yet not everyone believes the 50-year, 2,800-page Habitat
Conservation Plan will accomplish what is intended. The plan aims
to identify land occupied by endangered or threatened species and
streamline the process to obtain permits to build on that land.
The county’s controversial plan that supporters say will streamline the development process has been refined, pleasing some. Yet not everyone believes the 50-year, 2,800-page Habitat Conservation Plan will accomplish what is intended. The plan aims to identify land occupied by endangered or threatened species and streamline the process to obtain permits to build on that land. When completed, the plan will use building permits to allow developers to build on the 49,453 acres of Santa Clara County land – where 19 plant and animal species, nine of which are endangered, live – if they implement mitigation efforts. Species include the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and the Bay checkerspot butterfly.
Opposition was received from the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, which has been involved in discussions and a member of a stakeholder committee for six years, said Executive Director Jennifer Williams. They plan to continue to be active in the process as the plan moves forward and lobby elected officials on the disadvantages of the HCP.
Read about the Gilroy City Council voting itself out of the plan, then rejoining.
The Santa Clara Farm Bureau is now also part of the newly formed South County Business Council, which also includes such groups as the Cattlemen’s Association and Santa Clara Wineries, which share concerns over the current plan. The council sent a letter to Supervisor Mike Wasserman last week outlining their concerns.
“Now is not the time to create a new layer of government when critical government services concerned with public safety and social services are being cut,” read the document.
Newly formed business council eyes habitat conservation plan
On Sept. 27 the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors voted to continue their participation in the Habitat Conservation Plan. The following night, the city of Morgan Hill followed suit.
The vote was 3 to 2 with supervisors Wasserman, Ken Yeager and Liz Kniss voting for the continuation of the plan, leaving Supervisors Dave Cortese and George Shirakawa against. Wasserman represents District 1 which includes Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, Los Gatos and parts of San Jose.
“The HCP has received support from many land owners who want to develop their property because the HCP is expected to greatly shorten the current permitting process, in some instances by several years. Time is money for them,” Wasserman said.
He points out that farmland without threatened species may not be subject to fees.
“Most farm land is presumed not to have any endangered species and will therefore not be subject to HCP fees. It is important to note that just because a property is ‘in the plan’ does not mean it is necessarily subject to any fees,” he said.
The Gilroy City Council had voted 4-3 back in March to opt out of the plan, with some councilmembers saying the plan did not adequately address the concern of Gilroy. Six weeks later, the council again voted 4-3, with Mayor Al Pinheiro changing his vote to allow the city to rejoin the plan.
A final plan will be prepared by staff of the Santa Clara County in mid-2012, with implementation as early as January 2013. Continuation of the plan and its completion now depends on the votes of the cities of Gilroy, San Jose and the Valley Transportation Authority.
The overall planning process cost to date is $5.1 million shared by the cities of Morgan Hill, Gilroy, San Jose, Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and the Valley Transportation Authority.
In September, a revised version of the HCP was presented following hundreds of public comments that reduced the project cost from $941 million to $660 million in the 50-year term. It is primarily funded by zoned development fees ranging from $16,660 an acre for ranchlands, $11,610 an acre for farmland, $4,140 an acre for developed areas and $343,710 per wetland acre according to Ken Schreiber, program manager for the HCP.
These fees would go toward implementing the conservation strategy, which includes things such as acquiring and preserving lands, removing thatch, grazing contracts and hiring laborers said Debbie Cauble, the county’s lead representative for the habitat plan.
Williams said although the revisions “look pretty good to us” they are still unhappy with the “incredibly expensive” HCP.
“Even with the revisions, the plan isn’t something that is favorable,” she said. “All the changes were more or less in the right direction. The structure is something we disagree with.”
According to the habitat plan, the reserve system keeps in mind two objectives: mitigate public and private development authorized by issued permits and contribute to the recovery of covered species.
She said she does not see this plan bringing back a single species, listed or otherwise.
Williams is also concerned over the acquisition of land: that parcels acquired would “not be adequately cared for.”
“The point of acquisition is one of two things: to make sure that nothing happens to that land, and or better management. I don’t see either (with the plan),” said Williams.
One member of the South County Business Council, Kyle Wolfe president of the Cattlemen’s Association said he is also concerned with the funding of the plan.
“Now they’re finally starting to listen to us,” said Wolfe, who said that stakeholders have been involved and speaking their mind since the beginning of the process. “The price of it could rise to fund the plan. They also say they can’t predict the future. Who knows?”
President of the Board of Supervisors Cortese, who voted against the plan last week, defended his statement issued in a press release.
“After 10 years and more than $6 million over budget, there are still significant questions that plan preparers can’t provide answers to,” said Cortese in a press release. “There are documented cases where other HCP’s have sanctioned authority to bulldoze entire areas of sensitive habitat and endangered populations that would have never been allowed under the Federal Endangered Species Act.”
Developers in South County are generally supportive of the HCP, even though it will bring “an additional layer of bureaucracy” that could expand or transform over time, said Dividend Homes President Dick Oliver.
As an example, Oliver cited a recent development he took part in Gilroy. Under the current process, the developer waited for five years and spent millions of dollars to gain a permit to mitigate the impact of salamanders found on the 30-acre property.
“Under (the HCP), it would cost about $13,000 (per acre), and we could have had a permit in under a year. That’s a significant benefit to local developers,” Oliver said.
An economic feasibility study commissioned by the HCP found that the plan would not have a detrimental effect on development costs, property values, home prices and other market worries identified previously by some property owners, said Jim Rowe, Morgan Hill’s senior planner.
