Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

June 20, 2006

SANTA CLARA CO. SUPES REJECT STUDY ON LAND CONSERVATION MEASURE

SAN JOSE (BCN)

Supervisor Pete McHugh was the sole opponent to vote against placing the measure on the ballot, which was the second option regarding land conservation considered at today's meeting.

The vote to put the initiative on the ballot came after the City Council voted against an economic and legal impact study that dozens of homeowners, realtors, and farmers advocated in an unusually well-attended meeting.

In a 2-3 vote, Supervisors Jim Beall, Liz Kniss and Blanca Alvarado rejected that study, which would have examined the cost to the county of implementing the changes proposed by the initiative.

State law allows supervisors to request county or independent studies before placing any county measure on the ballot.

Both Alvarado and Beall cited the legal requirement to complete the study within the required 30 days as an obstacle to producing a multi-faceted and well-balanced analysis.

"There would be much unintended political fodder" that both sides would be put out in response to the county's analysis, Kniss said.

That sentiment rang true among some residents who argued that opponents to the initiative would distort parts of the study to benefit their arguments, citing the county as a source rather than their own campaign.

Opponents, on the other hand, argued that a study was necessary to provide voters with information needed to make an educated decision. They claimed the initiative could have unintended consequences and adversely affect farmers passing down land to their children. Some also feared the initiative would allow the government to seize land from property owners while others claimed it would cut the county's property tax base and limit resources available to police and fire.

Gage agreed, saying, "We owe it to the voters to gather as much information as possible before placing it on the ballot."

Proponents refuted those arguments.

The initiative came before the board after a coalition of local environmental organizations, including the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Committee for Green Foothills, the Sierra Club and the Greenbelt Alliance raised enough signatures to qualify the measure for the Nov. 7 general election ballot. More than 58,000 signatures were turned into the county Registrar of Voters last month, nearly double the 36,040 signatures required.

The initiative would provide a charter for future use of about 400,000 acres of rural land in the county by reducing the number of hillside, ranchland and agricultural parcels that could be developed.

The minimum parcel size in areas zoned as hillsides, for example, would be 160 acres with exceptions for clustered residential developments that would allow one home for each 40 to 160 acres depending on the average slope of the parcel. For ranchland, the minimum parcel size for a new development would be 160 acres and for large-scale agricultural developments the minimum parcel size could be no less than 40 acres.

Proponents today argued that unchecked rural developments threaten the quality of life South Bay residents desire by generating increased pollution and obscuring the scenic view enjoyed by valley property owners.

Palo Alto Mayor Judy Kleinberg, who came out in support of the measure, said future developments should be limited to cities to avoid urban sprawl and in part to attract a workforce willing to live in a high-cost area that still offered environmental escapes.

###