Guest View

John McKay in a recent column said the city must grow. But how do you define growth?  He mentions the good work of General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), but does not mention the 30,000 additional residents the GPAC is considering adding to the 40,000 already here. Such numbers would overwhelm our community, change it and put it at risk.Thirty thousand new residents will place overwhelming demands upon municipal services and infrastructure. You would think that the city will gain from the new property tax but the city receives very little of that as the state, county and school districts siphon most of it. Cities that relied on a residential tax base suffer and are at risk of becoming insolvent.This city struggles to meet its current demands. It has difficulty in maintaining what we have. The city has deferred millions in needed street and other projects but it does not have resources to address them. We spend millions on property for ball fields we don’t need for which we have no resources to build. Point being we cannot grow without revenue to support such growth. We have to grow with all other considerations, including our quality of life. It must be a planned and balanced approach.Realtors and developers have been engaged, and are salivating at paving over precious farmlands and open space. I attended a number of the public meetings of the GPAC and attendance was few in number and always the same people: property consultants and developers. But that is not public engagement.  If you want to gather information from the community, you also scientifically survey and/or present the projects for municipal vote, neither of which has happened. At the moment, county landowners and developers run this city and gave the council an ultimatum last week to which this weak council yielded. So who is running this city?When you start addressing interest in the downtown, John, I would expect you would have many business owners interested as the effects are immediate and close by. But many consider the Southeast Quadrant, where most of the growth will occur, as a distant project and cannot fathom the impacts of traffic, crime, noise, pollution, sewage and the need for higher taxes to support a massive new population.The City has thousands of acres of land within its existing city limits. There is plenty of land to grow up, if not out. Building within the existing city limits/framework is the most cost effective and efficient means of growth—no ifs, ands or buts. Annexing county land and paving over farmlands in light of climate change without a mitigation and adaptation plan and a constrained city budget is irresponsible leadership.John McKay, if you want to discuss the future and growth of Morgan Hill, I would surely like that conversation. Your perspective in my opinion is not aligned with what I believe the residents of Morgan Hill really want and more importantly the protections they absolutely need.—Mark Grzan is a former Morgan Hill City Councilmember/Vice Mayor.

John McKay’s avocation for an “not perfect” Measure S is exactly the reason it should be rejected. It is this imperfection wrapped around vague and ambiguous language that leaves the measure open to interpretation. If passed, the measure at best will likely end up in the courts, resulting is costly and unnecessary litigation. At worst, it could lead to the destruction of our precious open spaces.For example, John cites in his article that 300 agricultural units can be set aside in Morgan Hill’s “developable areas” for preservation. But John, how do you define “developable?” As a Planning Commissioner, you know that when we define lands and boundaries we use terms such as the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary), City Limits or Sphere of influence, etc. These are legal terms. They are well known and there are maps with lines that define them. But none of these terms are used in the measure. Instead, we find the term, “developable lands.” All lands are developable and that includes county farm and agricultural lands. And therein lies the problem.The city has already spent over a decade in an effort to develop county farm and agricultural lands at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, only to be rejected by the state regulatory agency—not once, but twice. There is good reason to distrust the ambiguity of the measure as a continued pursuit to pave over our open spaces.John’s article fails to mention that those 300 agricultural units are specifically identified for housing, encouraging urban sprawl and untold costs to our community. And again, I have to ask, what is a unit?Measure S doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. It is labeled to “conserve water and preserve open space,” but it does none of that. Measure S is a “smoke and mirrors” effort to undermine our slow growth policies and encourage excessive development.If you discount that, just look at where our pro-growth incumbents are getting their campaign funding: real estate companies, landowners and developers. Councilmember Marilyn Librers, the strongest advocate for sprawl, received $3,000 alone from a Cupertino developer with land interests and projects in Morgan Hill.John, you want facts, and so do I. But the wording in Measure S lacks factual language and likely by intent. It deserves a NO vote until it can be rewritten clearly and factually. Your comment that it is not perfect is correct and we agree but no measure such as this should have ever have been brought before the community unless it is openly clear as to its intent and impacts.Mark Grzan is a former Morgan Hill City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tempore. 

Here in Santa Clara County, more than half the water we use is “imported,” meaning it’s conveyed to us from other parts of the state.Most of that water starts out as snow in the Sierra Nevada. When it melts, it makes its way into large reservoirs like lakes Oroville and Shasta.From these reservoirs, the water flows in rivers to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where it is then conveyed through state and federally run infrastructure known as the State Water Project and Central Valley Project to us and other southern, central and coastal parts of the state.That close to half the water we use in Santa Clara County comes through the Delta means the health of the Delta is extremely important to us and should be a concern to everyone. But the Delta is quavering under pressure from aging levees, sea level rise and human and environmental demands. So we have been working with other water agencies, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders to evaluate options.There have been a number of plans throughout the years to improve the health of the Delta and to try to meet the demands of urban and agricultural users and the environment. The latest is a pair of proposals by the state, called California WaterFix and California EcoRestore. The WaterFix plan aims to change the way water moves south through the Delta in an effort to safeguard drinking water and improve water flows for the environment. The EcoRestore plan aims to restore at least 30,000 acres of habitat by 2020 to benefit the Delta environment.The Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors is poised to make a decision on whether to support the WaterFix plan and whether to participate in it sometime this year. But before we can do that, we want to be sure we—and the public—fully understand it.That’s why we held a special workshop Jan. 26, where we invited representatives from the state Department of Water Resources, the California Natural Resources Agency and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to present more information on this plan for the Delta. If you missed it, our board meetings are webcast and archived online for later viewing.Board members asked a number of questions, ranging from cost to governance to environmental impact, and we also heard from members of the community who voiced concerns and asked questions. This is an important part of the process, and we have more workshops and committee meetings planned to learn much more about this proposal and what benefits or challenges it could pose to our county, as well as how much it would cost to participate. These workshops and meetings are open to the public, and we invite you to attend so you too can learn more and provide input. The state of our water concerns everybody.Our next discussion of the plan is scheduled for a Feb. 22 meeting of our BDCP Ad Hoc Committee. Check back at valleywater.org for final dates and times. You can submit feedback to [email protected] Varela is Vice Chairman and District 1 Director of the Board of Directors for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. For further information, contact Varela [email protected].

Last winter’s drenching rain filled many state and local reservoirs, and dumped a healthy dose of snow on the Sierra Nevada. But the state’s fragile Delta infrastructure threatens the delivery of imported water throughout the state, which can become challenging for water agencies, especially in times of drought.The Santa Clara Valley Water District knows that to protect us from future droughts and dependency on imported water, we must continue to work toward securing reliable local water sources. That’s why the water district has been hard at work expanding its recycled and purified water program.Recycled water is wastewater cleaned through multiple levels of treatment. It can be purified to produce water that meets or exceeds all state drinking water quality standards. Through a series of advanced treatment processes, wastewater is stripped of contaminants, pharmaceuticals, viruses and bacteria to produce clean, safe and drinkable water.All of these advanced processes can be seen up close at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center in San Jose. The largest facility of its kind in northern California, the purification center is a cornerstone of our recycled and purified water program. Since its doors opened in 2014, this state-of-the-art facility has been key in our efforts to increasing our drinking water supply with this drought-proof water source, independent of rainfall.There are two paths to do this: through indirect potable reuse or direct potable reuse. The first consists of replenishing our groundwater aquifers by allowing purified water to filter naturally through soil and rock layers, to be pumped later for drinking. The second is to send purified water directly to our drinking water system after it has been treated. Both options require further research and would require expansion of our pipeline system.Currently, recycled water is used for landscaping, agricultural and industrial purposes, such as irrigation or for cooling towers. This allows us to conserve drinking water.Since before the historic drought, the water district has made great strides expanding the recycled water pipeline network with several projects, such as the South County Recycled Water Pipeline Project. A partnership between the water district, cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority, this effort will add about 14,500 linear feet of pipeline in South County. When completed, it will increase the availability of recycled water in the area by roughly 50 percent, from 2,000 acre-feet per year to up to 3,000. (An acre-foot is about the same amount of water two families of five use in a year). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently awarded $5.7 million in federal funding for the project, equating to about 25 percent of the total project cost.   The four agencies have been working on expanding recycled water delivery for over a decade, as laid out in the South County Recycled Water Master Plan, which was introduced in 2004 and updated in 2015.For more information on our progress in recycled and purified water, I invite you to a free tour of our purification center. Schedule your tour and find tasting events at purewater4u.org.SCVWD Director John Varela represents the South County district, which includes Morgan Hill, on the water district’s board of directors. He can be contacted at [email protected].