June Update

Want to stay up to date on our advocacy work in 2025?

You can now follow our efforts and read all of our public comment letters! Browse the letters here.

Thank you for standing with us for a healthier, more sustainable future!

Calling all Palo Alto residents and neighbors! 

On Thursday, June 12, 6–8 p.m. the City is hosting Cubberley Master Plan Community Meeting #2 at the Cubberley Community Center Pavilion (4000 Middlefield Rd.). This is our chance to speak up for an ecological future for Cubberley and ask for open space, a rich ecosystem of native trees and plants, and bird-safe buildings with minimal glass.

Bring your ideas, your friends, and your passion for a greener Palo Alto. Let’s make sure the new Cubberley puts nature first! 

Event details & RSVP

Help Stop BAD Senate Bill 607

SCVBA joined with conservation, land use, and environmental justice organizations to oppose Senate Bill 607 (Wiener)—a dangerous rollback of environmental protections and public transparency. SB 607 would exempt a wide range of private and government projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including:

Freeways, Airports, Sports complexes, Office parks and shopping malls, Rail yards and shipping terminals, Mines and incinerators, Power plants and sewage treatment facilities and Massive mixed-use developments, even on farmland, sensitive habitats, and wildfire zones.

These CEQA exemptions mean these projects could move forward without public notice, environmental review, or mitigation for harm to communities, ecosystems, or climate

TAKE ACTION: Call your state legislators (your elected officials ) and urge them to oppose SB 607. It takes just 1 minute to make a difference! This bill is a direct assault on California’s environment, public transparency, and our democratic right to know what’s being built in our communities. Let’s protect what matters—our land, air, water, and voice. 

Update: Pacheco Dam Project

SCVBA continues to oppose Valley Water’s Pacheco Dam Project in southern Santa Clara County. The proposed project would construct a major new reservoir on the North Fork of Pacheco Creek—approximately two miles north of Highway 152 and east of Casa de Fruta—flooding about 1,500 acres of remote canyons and wetlands. Water would be diverted from the nearby San Luis Reservoir during wet years and stored for use during dry years.

SCVBA maintains that, if built, this project will destroy landscapes and values cherished by our organization. The affected area consists of natural, unfragmented habitat that provides critical refuge for birds and wildlife—an area that has, so far, remained largely untouched by human development, including roads and artificial lighting. The inundation zone includes a portion of Henry W. Coe State Park and encompasses sensitive natural communities and habitat for endangered species, including one of the last intact native sycamore riparian forests. It also serves as an essential wildlife movement corridor. 

In contrast to the extensive ecological harm the project would cause, Valley Water’s proposed environmental benefits are both uncertain and minimal. For instance, the claim that the project would provide 2,000 acre-feet of water to wetlands in the Delta watershed is only marginally beneficial—and that benefit would disappear entirely in drought years. Nevertheless, these questionable ecological benefits were the basis for the State Water Commission allocating over half a billion dollars to a project now estimated to cost nearly $3 billion.

SCVBA submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigations related to the Pacheco Dam Project (and we thank all who responded to our Action Alert and submitted their own comments). 

In May 2025, Valley Water presented an update to the California Water Commission (CWC). The report revealed little progress on planning and permitting for this project. Community feedback at the meeting demonstrated widespread opposition. Commissioners openly questioned whether the state funds allocated to the project should be redirected. 

You can view SCVBA’s verbal comments to the Commission, and a Mercury News story by journalist Paul Rogers, here.

Off-Highway Vehicles at Henry Coe State Park?

Henry Coe is one of the State Parks being considered for increased motor vehicle access under the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Access Project. This threatens quiet trails, wildlife habitat, and sensitive ecosystems with noise, erosion, and fragmentation. While recommendations for expansion have not been presented at this time, we urge you to keep advocating for keeping Henry Coe wild for the wildlife, for the hikers, and for future generations.

The next California State Parks OHV Commission meeting is June 11–12, starting at 8:30 AM.  Public comment is allowed on items not on the agenda and you may join the meeting remotely. The link will be available on the Commission meeting page by June 9th: https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27160

You may also sign for the OHV Access Project & mailing list.

May Update - California Legislation

State Action Alerts

Action Alert: California’s Environment Is on the Chopping Block

California’s natural beauty and wildlife are under increasing threat, and now is the time for us to speak up and let our State representatives that we care. Please use Find Your Rep to identify your State Assemblymember and Senator—then use the links to their websites to leave a comment or call their offices to share your support or opposition on the critical bills below. It only takes a few minutes to make a difference.


SUPPORT AB 454 – Protect Migratory Birds  (Assemblymember Ash Kalra)

This bill ensures that California’s existing protections for migratory birds remain in place—regardless of weakening actions by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Why it matters: With federal safeguards under threat, AB 454 preserves our state’s longstanding commitment to bird conservation.

Fact Sheet  and Audubon California Action Alert

OPPOSE SB 607 – CEQA Rollback Disguised as Infill Housing (Senator Wiener)

SB 607 represents a sweeping attack on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a cornerstone of environmental protection for over 50 years.

Why it matters: This bill would gut environmental review for nearly all private and public projects—including freeways, airports, dams, railyards, shopping centers, sports complexes, power plants, prisons, and mining operations —under the guise of promoting housing.

Analysis & a Group Letter that SCVBA signed in opposition,

OPPOSE SB 315 – Undermining the Future of Parks (Senator Grayson)

SB 315 would block cities from requiring developers to dedicate parkland or pay park fees for many new housing projects, especially within ½ mile from existing parks (even tiny ones!).

Why it matters: This bill would result in more housing without the parks and open space residents need, weakening communities across the state.

SUPPORT SB 457 – A Smart Fix for Housing Accountability (Senator Josh Becker)

SB 457 addresses misuse of the “Builder’s Remedy,” closing several loopholes that allow speculators and developers to override local zoning laws even when cities make good effort to meet state housing goals.

Why it matters: The bill promotes fair, balanced housing development and protects communities from speculative projects that disregard planning standards.

Take Action Today:  Your voice matters—reach out to your representatives and urge them to protect California’s environment during this critical legislative session.

SCVBA in the Media:

  • Los Altos City Council adopts an ordinance to address light pollution, but drops work on Bird Friendly Design. “Shani Kleinhaus with the Silicon Valley Bird Alliance was disappointed with the council’s action. “This wasn’t a sweeping or radical policy,” she said. “The proposed ordinance would have applied only to new construction – there was no mandate to retrofit or replace existing buildings. The goal was simple: incorporate well-established design practices into future development to prevent birds from fatally colliding with glass, something that kills an estimated one billion birds in the U.S. every year.”

  • San Jose parks budget has not kept up with the need for maintenance, “Parks advocates such as All District Leadership Group President Greg Peck and Shani Kleinhaus, an environmental advocate with Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, said San Jose elected officials need to scale back tax breaks that allow housing developers to avoid funding park maintenance.”

  • Palo Alto City Council Directed staff to develop stronger regulations to curb light pollution

    • Advocates from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club similarly argued that the city needs to take a more aggressive stance toward light pollution. Shani Kleinhaus, who represented the Bird Alliance, argued that the applicability criteria of the proposed ordinance actually “degrades the protections that residents and the environment in Palo Alto currently enjoy.” She cited one local resident who complained to code enforcement after her neighbor across the street flashed three projectors into her house. “If the ordinance moves forward as is, applying only to new construction that becomes legal, she can no longer ask code enforcement to ask neighbors to turn the light off or turn it down instead of into her home or anything. Basically, any existing property is now exempt,” Kleinhaus said.

    • https://www.paloaltoonline.com/city-government/2025/04/08/palo-alto-council-presses-for-stricter-dark-sky-law/

Pacheco Dam

American Kestrel: Roberto Martinez

Please Send comments for Pacheco Dam Geotechnical Investigations

What is happening

Valley Water has released a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Design Level Geotechnical Investigations for the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project (Draft EIR) for public review.  Public comments on the Draft EIR are due by April 25th at 5 PM.

Why it matters

SCVBA has opposed the Pacheco Dam Project due to the tremendous harm that this project would inflict upon our birds, wildlife and landscapes. The proposed Geotechnical Investigations are a step in the wrong direction. Furthermore, the Draft EIR underestimates the project's environmental impacts, and overlooks major concerns.

Valley Water needs to hear from the public that the Draft EIR for this work towards the construction of the Pacheco Dam project fails to provide adequate mitigation and analysis of the proposed activities, and that this project should not be approved

What you can do

Send an email to tsexauer@valleywater.org at Valley Water by April 25, 2025. Below is a ‘Cut and Paste’ Sample Public Comment Letter you may use:

To: tsexauer@valleywater.org

Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Design Level Geotechnical Investigations for the Pacheco Dam Project

Dear Mr. Sexauer:

These comments pertain to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Design Level Geotechnical Investigations for the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project (Draft EIR) that Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has released for public review.  The geotechnical work for the Pacheco Dam would have adverse environmental effects that are not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR, as described below.

Disturbance to Wildlife: The geotechnical activities would take place in an area with multiple wildlife corridors, and involve noisy helicopters and heavy equipment, which would disrupt sensitive wildlife habitats. The Draft EIR concludes that the project impact on wildlife movement is insignificant without mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 3-168.) Noise is an impact on and a deterrent to wildlife movement. The combined effect of vehicle traffic, human presence, and equipment operation may result in diversion of wildlife away from this movement corridor. Diverted wildlife may face greater incidences of mortality on the nearby State Route (SR) 152.

Disruption of Tribal Cultural Resources: In addition to wildlife impacts, the proposed investigations would potentially disturb cultural resources, some of which may be over 3,000 years old. This presents a grave concern for the local Native American tribes. Valley Water must engage in a complete and good faith discussion with tribes that attach cultural significance to tribal cultural resources in the project area.

Incomplete Environmental Review: While the Draft EIR was prepared for the geotechnical investigations, Valley Water has acknowledged that the 2021 Draft EIR for the entire Pacheco Dam Project needs to be revised and recirculated. The geotechnical work is a necessary and foreseeable element of the overall dam project, and should be analyzed together with the reservoir expansion project itself, to avoid improper piecemealing. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15376(a).)

For these reasons, I urge Valley Water not to certify the Draft EIR or move forward with the geotechnical investigations for this destructive dam project.

[Your Name and City of Residence]

Palo Alto Dark Skies

Palo Alto’s Night Sky is Fading – Help Strengthen the Dark Sky Ordinance!

Palo Alto City Council will consider adopting a Dark Sky Ordinance on April 7th. The proposed draft ordinance is inadequate and does not address the impacts and concerns associated with light pollution. The proposed ordinance scope is so limited, that it exempts new lighting fixtures on existing buildings and structures, allows excessive light pollution spillage, and could even make things worse by failing to regulate replacements for outdated fixtures.

The proposed ordinance significantly weakens existing light trespass protections. Under the current ordinance, all properties are subject to a standard limiting light trespass to no more than 0.5 foot-candles at the property line. However, the proposed ordinance applies this restriction only to new buildings, major remodels, and lighting systems that require a permit. This means that existing properties would no longer be subject to any enforceable limits on light trespass.

As a result, if this proposal is adopted without change, an existing neighbor could legally install a bright or intrusive light—such as a strobe light—that shines into adjacent properties, without any violation of the ordinance. While good neighborly practices may help mitigate conflicts, this change removes an important safeguard that currently protects all residents from excessive and disruptive lighting.

This creates an uneven playing field where existing properties are exempt from regulations that apply to new developments, potentially leading to increased light pollution and nighttime disturbances in residential areas. Restoring citywide light trespass limits would help ensure that all residents, regardless of when their home was built or last renovated, are protected from intrusive lighting.

Artificial light at night harms environmental and human health

Studies show that even outdoor artificial light at night disrupts sleep, hormone regulation, and overall health. It’s linked to increased risks of breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease and mood disorders.

Light pollution also disrupts our natural environment. Artificial light at night disorients migrating birds, leading to collisions with buildings, exhaustion, and disrupted navigation. It also alters feeding, mating, and nesting behaviors, threatening bird populations. Light pollution also interferes with animal movement across the landscape and throws off the timing of key ecological processes and behaviors, like when migration or nesting starts, or flowers bloom and when pollinators emerge. decouples critical ecological synchronizations among species, such as time flowers bloom and the time pollinators emerge.

Furthermore, the proposed ordinance allows light spillage equivalent to 50 full moons—far too bright for a city committed to environmental health and sustainability. Our endangered snowy plovers avoid nesting at just 1% of this brightness!

Light pollution wastes energy. It is contrary to sound sustainability principles and to the primary directive of the dark sky of using light only where and when it is needed, at the lowest level needed, and not more.

And last but not least - Light pollution obscures the stars. Seeing the milky way has become a privilege!

What can you do?

The proposed ordinance applies only to new construction and major remodels. Please urge  Mayor Lauing and City Council to:

  • Apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission.

  • Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting.

  • Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces.

Please note that this ordinance does not apply to street lights, and active enforcement is not expected. The ordinance provides a recourse to residents who are negatively impacted by light pollution.

Please write to the Palo Alto City Council to express your support for this ordinance and ask them to support the bullets listed above. If you have any experience with nuisance light shining through your window and affecting your quality of life, this would be a great opportunity to share your story!

Here is the Palo Alto City Council email address, which you can send your email to.

city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org

Here is an example:

To: city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org

Subject: Please protect our city from light pollution

Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo alto Councilmembers,

My Name is  (enter your name and say a little about yourself and why you care)

Please strengthen the proposed Dark Sky Ordinance, Please ask city staff to

  • Apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission.

  • Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting.

  • Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces.

Thank you,  [Your name]

You can join the City Council meeting via zoom or in person and give a brief 2-minute public comment:

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION:

Click here to join

Meeting ID: 362 027 238    

Phone:1(669)900-6833

Meeting Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16024

A dark sky is a shared heritage. Let’s bring back the stars, protect our health, and safeguard wildlife—starting with a stronger Dark Sky Ordinance!