* Off road park in San Jose-Alviso update, email support needed

The Deanster

Well-known member
A while back I submitted a proposal for an off road motorcycle park in the land becoming available around the waste water treatment plant in Alviso.

The theme of the development is "renewable energy, clean tech" so I proposed an electric off road park and suggested gas bikes could be allowed temporarily. Electric bikes would be rented out. I just want a place I can ride dirt bikes anytime I want and this is probably the only place left near the bay in silicon valley for something like this. I used to ride near there and want to again. I would settle for any local off-road and would probably buy an electric bike if it was 5 min from my house like this place.

I posted this in general for the exposure, even if you don't ride dirt or think electric bikes are lame please take a moment to help save some dirt from being wasted with more empty buildings.

I have made some progress gaining support.

The end of June is the deadline for public comments. Please go to the site and tell them you want an off road park included in the master plan.

You can fill out a survey at:
http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/go/survey/1823/3615

Or just send them comments at:
http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/go/inquiry/1823/

Thanks for your support:thumbup

The following is the last email I sent out and tells what I have done lately:

To:
Matt Krupp
Plant Master Planner
Environmental Services
Technical Services
City of San Jose

Steven Blomquist
Policy Aid to Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese

Cc:
The Honorable Mayor Chuck Reed
City of San Jose, CA

Ruth Coleman
Director
California State Parks

Daphne Greene
Deputy Director
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division
California State Parks

RE: San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (Plant) Master Plan

Dear Mayor Reed, Matt and Steve,

It has been an honor and pleasure meeting all of you and discussing my vision of an environmentally friendly, all-electric motor-sports park being included in the plan for the buffer lands surrounding the Water Pollution Control plant.

Matt, I met Mayor Reed, Supervisor Cortese and Steve Blomquist, Policy Aid to Supervisor Cortese at the re-opening celebration for the restored boat launches at the Alviso Marina.

Steve was one of those in charge of the Alviso park project and has expressed an interest in the details of our proposed motor-sport recreation component of the Master Plan. Mayor Reed asked if he could keep the copy of the plan I was showing him.

I am writing this email to give Steve the details and give an update to everyone involved. Attached is the preliminary project plan.

Following is my progress in gaining support on the park.

I met with Ruth Coleman, Director of the State of California’s Park and recreation Department and Daphne Greene, Deputy Director of the State’s Off-Highway Motor vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR) at an event at the State Capitol.

During the event Ruth spoke of the sustainability of the sport and the emerging technology of electric vehicles and their viability. I gave Ruth and Daphne a copy of the plan and discussed it with them. They are both very interested in the project and the location. The OHMVR Division has grant programs and monies available to plan, construct, environmentally restore and maintain parks dedicated to off-highway vehicle recreation. A near-by example of their funding is the support they provide to Santa Clara County for their Metcalf Park facility.

After I read the OHMVR Division Strategic Plan I discovered that it is almost a blueprint of my submitted park plan and includes statement such as:

… development of urban or regional opportunities to reduce system-wide transit time and con*sumption of resources to reach recre*ation destinations.

Support, and where possible, facilitate technological advancements to reduce the environmental impacts of OHVs.

… provide opportunities for quality outdoor recreation and promote the maintenance or improvement of qual*ity species habitat.

Plan, acquire, develop, conserve, and restore lands…

The OHMVR Division Strategic Plan can be viewed at: http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/25010/...gic plan.pdf

In the attached plan I have a letter from Windation Energy Systems Inc. Windation is interested in supporting the park's energy needs and is expressing an interest in running a production factory with up to 400 employees in the light industrial development area of your plan. (Mark) has assured me that if needed, Windation can lease temporary facilities until such time as the development progresses enough for their factory to be constructed.

Possible plan phase-in options.

My main goal is to establish a park in the far backlands in the solid waste drying pond area and as close to the bay as possible considering environmental issues. The park should include narrow trails throughout as much of the property as possible and could circle the entire area as the proposed walking trails do. If the far northern area has trail access then the possibility of utilizing the landfill for park use exists when it is closed.

I realize that the pond area will not be available for many years and it is discouraging to know that no development is planned to happen until 2013.

To maintain the interest of the State Parks in this location I would therefore like to propose a phase-in plan for the park starting as soon as possible. I see on your website that the bufferlands are currently designated as being available for recreational uses.

From: http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/go/doc/1823/253339/

“In accordance with the "City Council Policy on Use of San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Lands," bufferlands may be considered to provide "dual use" benefits.”Dual use" benefits means the land may provide a buffer as well as protect the environment and/or support recreational uses.”

I propose that grants from the state or private funds can be used to plan and operate a small park in bufferlands that are currently empty fields. This small park can be opened with minimal temporary or no structures and can expand or “migrate” when development commences. A small trail system and a motocross track can easily be relocated to areas that become open during the modernization. If only electric vehicles are allowed, storage facilities will be needed for rentals. If traditional vehicles are also temporarily allowed, limits on noise levels and the stricter level of emissions limits (Green Sticker) rules used at existing parks can be enforced.

To maintain the buffer zone until the plant is updated, the park can be kept a minimum distance away and the number of users can be limited to meet the recreation recommendation of your land opportunities and constraints assessment.

The initial park could need little to no staff. One park, San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area, has a post in the ground for accepting fees and a ranger is assigned to patrol at intervals. In this case a locked gate and key access system or an on-site employee may be more appropriate.

I understand that RC hobbyists are in great need of recreational land also. Having been a member of the Fremont club that is losing its site to BART I would embrace sharing any land made available for recreation under the dual use benefit policy.

The former horse ranch area and access gate, the land along Highway 237 or the area between the power plant and treatment plant would be excellent areas for these recreational purposes.

I am looking forward to your response and seeing the report summarizing input received at the workshops that is due this summer and any other updates on the plant project.

Thank You for you time,

Dean



I showed the plan to Mayor Reed and he asked if he could keep it. I said NO (not, I gave it to him)

While talking to the Mayor and Supervisor I could not really gauge the response, to them I was like a bee buzzing around and they are looking for who they should really be talking to.

The Policy Aide was very interested and he is forwarding it to the supervisor.

Some electric bikes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBJqrXuujPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjtb8BAkK9M
 

icemilkcoffee

Well-known member
Yup. Unfortunately on their feedback form, it seems like they only want to hear feedback from residents or business/orgs, etc.
 

The Deanster

Well-known member
You don't need to be a resident of San Jose. Just put your name and comment an send it. The plant serves the entire south bay and they want input from anyone.
 

bluenoser

Well-known member
My experience with city councils is during the meeting, anyone can show up and speak. So let's get all outta-towners there to boost this idea! :party
 

The Deanster

Well-known member
The first step is to convince the planners to include the park in their project plan. Then it goes past TWO city councils. The land is owned mostly by San Jose (75-80%) and most of the rest by Santa Clara.
 

Brokenlink

Banned
Dude, why the hell didn't you PM me before you prepared this letter? There are some things that will never fly due to environmental constraints. The buffer zone, while also intended as a dual use area, will never be allowed to be used for off-road vehicles. It pretty much flies against the whole concept of a buffer zone. And the idea of a roaming trail system is too uncontrollable. Not trying to rain on your parade, but if you want this to fly, you have to consider some things before you present the idea. We can discuss this if you'd like.
 

Ducky_Fresh

Treasure Hunter
Dude, why the hell didn't you PM me before you prepared this letter? There are some things that will never fly due to environmental constraints. The buffer zone, while also intended as a dual use area, will never be allowed to be used for off-road vehicles. It pretty much flies against the whole concept of a buffer zone. And the idea of a roaming trail system is too uncontrollable. Not trying to rain on your parade, but if you want this to fly, you have to consider some things before you present the idea. We can discuss this if you'd like.

That might as well have been acid rain. :laughing
 

Brokenlink

Banned
Yeah well the dude had me listed as his environmental specialist, then he throws out these ideas that are so environmentally insane (from a permitting standpoint) that:
A: they will never fly
B: It gives the impression that he hasn't done his homework and the council will just laugh this project out of the room
C: Puts my name in sort of a bad light (as if I had something to do with this plan).

So next time my company want to do work for the city, and they submit my name on the proposal, people in charge will think "Hmmm, isn't this that guy that wanted to build a motocross track in our mitigation site? I don't think we want to hire them."

So I am a little blown away that this wasn't run by me, considering I offered to help for free and he put my name on his list of people involved as "environmental specialist". Not cool at all.
 

The Deanster

Well-known member
Sorry if I offended you mcarb. The phase in plan is only an email suggestion, in the draft I suggested that we could do a limited EIR for a specific area. I was advised to not mention it. The official EIR is not due until 2013. I found out about the "dual use" and I brought it up as an option.

If you think you could do a limited EIR for the empty fields on the salary I pay ($0) i will defiantly offer that up. I know that they would not let anyone on the land w/o an EIR but i was going to let them tell me.

The officially submitted plan does not have the "phase in plan" but i want to add it in. If you want me to propose that we do the limited EIR i will add it in.

How much will it cost to do, file etc?

I appreciate your willingness to help. I will keep you more informed. I did not think we were at that stage yet.

The main goal right now is to convince the planners to include the park in the plan. Like I said, the phase in was only a suggestion to get something going before 2013.

Thanks for your support.

P.S. PM sent
 
Last edited:

The Deanster

Well-known member
If you read between the lines you can see where I mentioned the EIR:

"I would therefore like to propose a phase-in plan for the park starting as soon as possible (Including planner acceptance, doing the EIR, political fighting, environmental opposition, 2 city councils' approvals, grants requests, funding, planning, construction, finding dirt, etc.) I see on your website that the bufferlands are currently designated as being available for recreational uses."
 

Brokenlink

Banned
Dean,
My issue isn't the environmental documentation. What I am saying is that had you called and discussed some of the ideas you had, I could have given you some advice (at the rate you pay) regarding which of those ideas is feasible or not. You want to present your plan as well thought out and already considering the various issues that may be brought up. You have done that to some degree, but some of your proposals are completely out of line with the intention of the property. Since you are proposing an off-road park, you need to realize that there will be opposition. And you have to think ahead about the reason for this opposition. For example, the dual use buffer thing may fly, but the concept of trails that evolve and migrate, as well as spanning the entire area will be tough sells. Migrating trails will in all likelihood be viewed as nothing more than "a bunch of dirt bikers building trails" and the spanning thing isn't going to fly with wildlife corridors.

This is all I was saying. You may want to have someone check over these things before you propose them.

Thanks,
Mike
 

The Deanster

Well-known member
Ok, I understand :thumbupWhat I mean by the trails moving is that the empty fields will have retail development eventually and at that time the park could move to the opened up solid waste pond areas. Not trails moving all the time. The thing about the trails in the entire area is meant to mimic the walking trails they have planned. We can take this off line, PM me your email please and I will send you the proposal I submitted.
 
Top