April 1994 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

San Jose Setbacks

The banks of San Jose's every creek, trickle and ditch, if they have any riparian value, will soon be subject to a set of new guidelines for development. But as city officials flesh out the details, they've been unable to agree on one crucial point - how far back from the creek is far enough to protect biodiversity.

The guidelines cover toxics runoff, restoration and planting procedures, recreational use, noise, lighting, even building orientation - if a creek bank is too private it's likely to invite degradation and dumping. But the stumbling block seems to be what the actual distances from various land uses - buildings, streets, parks, golf courses - should be from the creeks.

"There's little scientific evidence one way or another to suggest that any particular distance is better," says Mike Rigney of Coyote Creek Riparian Station. But Rigney thinks 100 feet makes sense based on professional judgement, guidelines already on the books in other cities and the recommendations of natural resource agencies. He thinks substantial setbacks are essential as buffer zones in the highly disturbed riparian corridors of urban areas.

But San Jose's Planning Department feels a blanket 100-foot setback - recommended by its Planning Commission - is too broad and isn't scientifically defensible. "We don't want the guidelines to be pie in the sky because they won't get implemented," says the city's Pat Colombe. "The stuff that gets implemented is practical and usable."

Rigney says legal and developer interests leaned on the city to "water down" the guidelines and include various exceptions to the 100-foot setback. But Colombe says the city is simply being very specific. "We don't want to be negotiating with developers on a case-by-case basis for every project," she says.

Exceptions presented by staff at a March 24 City Council committee meeting included a lesser setback for tiny trickles, golf courses, streets and small parcels flanked by existing development where lesser setbacks are already the norm.

As this issue goes to press, San Jose's planning staff, City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission each had a different view on the setbacks issue. Colombe says she hopes these differences will be resolved by the end of April.

In the meantime, the illusive scientific evidence for setbacks may be on the horizon. Rigney says a Stanford student is now examining the relationship between riparian biodiversity and land uses for his Ph.D. thesis.

Contact: Pat Colombe (408)277-4576

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project