The Institute Golf Course proponents have asked the city to
reject an appeal of a Temporary Use Permit by the Santa Clara
Valley Audubon Society and the Green Foothills Committee. The
appeal claimed continued play and maintenance would have an adverse
effect on nearby wildlife, groundwater and riparian ecology.
The Institute Golf Course proponents have asked the city to reject an appeal of a Temporary Use Permit by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Green Foothills Committee. The appeal claimed continued play and maintenance would have an adverse effect on nearby wildlife, groundwater and riparian ecology.
The TUP included 27 conditions under which the golf course would be allowed to operate while permits were acquired and environmental concerns were addressed. The conditions were collected from a variety of concerned water and environmental agencies and the city itself.
The permit also limited the course to 16 rounds of golf play a day from Aug. 27 to Sept. 30, 2003, and after Sept. 30, allowed limited maintenance of the golf course only.
A five-page letter, signed by Steve Sorenson, laid out The Institute’s rebuttal to what it calls “assumptions” and not statements of fact.
Sorenson is a partner in Corralitos Creek, LLC, the group that has built a world-class, 18-hole golf course on the Foothill Avenue site of the former Flying Lady restaurant and Hill Country complex. The golf course is intended to be a recreational adjunct when the American Institute of Mathematics, now in Palo Alto, moves onto the site. John Fry of Fry’s Electronics is another partner in Corralitos and a co-founder of the AIM.
Sorenson’s letter quotes from the appeal.
“The city’s failure to further condition future activities on the site will result in certain adverse environmental effects,” the appeal claimed.
“There is no basis for such an assumption,” Sorenson said. “The Draft Environmental Impact Report did not find any adverse environmental affects. What the DEIR did state is that since the DEIR did not perform some studies and did not gather some date, that unresolved questions remained.”
The DEIR recommended studies which The Institute has commissioned, the letter said.
According to Sorenson’s letter, studies have shown that the “existing operating methods” of the course have not resulted in a decline of the aquifer, an increase in nitrates in nearby wells – they have actually shown a decrease in those nitrate levels – nor have they contaminated surface water with pesticides.
Sorenson claimed that, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers visited the course it ruled that an area thought to be a wetland was not and, when the Santa Clara Valley Water District visited they retracted a claim that part of Corralitos Creek, which runs through the property, had been filled in.
The goal of The Institute, Sorenson told the City Council at a hearing earlier in the year “is to operate the golf course in a manner that results in no significant environmental impacts.”
Sorenson said in the letter that the appeal found three flaws that would result in insufficient environmental protections for the area’s groundwater, natural area and wildlife.
That they have failed to stop fertilizing and applying pesticides on the site, that they have not marked areas of the golf course to be mowed from those not to be mowed and that failure to require that any violation of any of the 27 conditions of the city’s TUP would cause the course to be closed.
The fertilization and pesticide consideration does not need to be followed – it was from the Regional Water Quality Control Board – since “there is no evidence to support the claim of water quality impacts occurring,” Sorenson said, referring to studies that had been shared with the city.
“The continued operation of the golf course also ‘would minimize or eliminate water quality impacts,’” Sorenson said.
About the mowing/not mowing, Sorenson’s letter said the “appellants” appeared not to understand an Aug. 8 statement by the RWQCB, emphasizing that, according to its studies, mowing is not a pollution concern.
Concerning shutting off operations if the TUP’s conditions are not met, Sorenson said, as in all construction activities under permit requirements, before any activity would be stopped, the city and The Institute would try to work things out first.
Sorenson also said that the Audubon Society had been excluded from taking part in the TUP process; they were invited three times to the site and had refused each time and The Institute had shared the results of new studies with them.
Craig Breon, executive director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, said earlier that he and Brian Schmidt of the Green Foothills Committee might not appeal the TUP.
“This (the TUP) is illegal and should be revoked,” Breon said. “However the city says the TUP would provide us with research results so we may decide not to challenge it,” Breon said. “We may work instead on the final permit.” Instead they did decide to appeal.
The RWQCB was due to discuss the golf course and its environmental impact today at a hearing in Salinas.
The AIM website was mentioned in Sept. 5 edition of The Times as www.aim.org. The correct website is www.aimath.org/ The Times regrets the error.
