August 16, 2007

Questions arise at Coyote Valley Task Force meeting

By Lorraine Gabbert
Staff Writer

Despite negative press and public concern, Coyote Valley Spe-cific Plan Task Force members resolved to continue moving forward during an Aug. 13 city hall discussion revolving around the possibility of revising the triggers associated with the development of Coyote Valley.

“There is the impression that if we stopped our efforts, nothing would happen in Coyote Valley,” said Councilmember Forrest Williams, CVSP Task Force co-chair. “But, there are permits to build that have been exercised in Coyote Valley today.”

Williams believes the task force is on the right track. “What we are trying to craft with the Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is very important for the future,” he said. “…There is an agreement here between the city and those that have funded the project. We have to deliver the project or we open ourselves up to [law] suits…Let’s get the answers, put the package together and deliver it to the council. We must proceed.”

Councilmember and task force co-chair Nancy Pyle agreed. “This shows a certain amount of disrespect for all those people who not only helped to fund a $17 million EIR, but diligently attended task force meetings for almost five years,” she said. “At any time, developers could have gone out and built, but have refrained in order to build a more perfect community.”

However, members of the community were not convinced. “Evidence points to the fact that this development project is a mistake,” stated San Jose State University student Leila Forouhi. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game, recommends that Coyote Valley be part of a management community’s conservation plan, not an urban center. If the city is serious about minimizing environmental impacts, have the developers move to a north San Jose site and do infill development.”

Resident Donna Wallach believes CVSP is horrendous. “It’s outrageous to be told the plan will happen regardless of the damage. The deadly impacts this CVSP will have on animals, plants and human beings will last forever,” she said.

“We received new data and comments from regulatory agencies regarding nitrogen deposition methodology, wildlife connectivity, riparian corridor and special status of species; some of which we may have been missed,” said Darryl Boyd, principal planner, CVSP Environmental.

There were numerous questions about water quality and supply, flood protection and the conversion of agricultural land. In fact, the task force received 1,300 pages of comments, including studies pertaining to these topics.

Boyd noted the issues of global warming and the implication of a court decision on a vineyard demanding a vigorous analysis of their water supply as thorns in the DEIR. “We reworked our water provision analysis, but this raised the subject of providing other public services,” he said.

Triggers
Opening a Pandora’s box on revising triggers, Sal Yakubu, principal planner, CVSP Land Use said, “We’re coming to the task force next month to talk about phasing; how to grow out Coyote Valley for 25,000 houses and 50,000 jobs. We have to talk about triggers as a base line before we talk about phasing.”

One task force member considered the phasing stage premature. “As far as I know,” she said, “the General Plan Updates haven’t started yet, so why are we talking about phasing when we don’t know what the General Plan is going to recommend as far as the triggers?”

“We already have a position where Coyote Valley is a bedroom community,” County Supervisor Don Gage said. “We don’t have enough jobs for the amount of housing. But, if we have to build more housing, it only exacerbates the problem.

Balancing jobs with housing was foremost in Williams’ mind. “We need to have a discussion on phasing and receive input on how we do it. I’m not saying we should build houses before jobs: a housing/jobs balance is key.”

He sees the solution in modifying the current triggers of the San Jose 2020 General Plan, which requires 5,000 new jobs in the North Coyote Campus Industrial Area. The plan also calls for a stable fiscal condition of the city, based on a five-year economic forecast derived from a balanced or surplus city budget.

“Are you implying that you want to change the triggers?” Gage asked. “Because after all the material you went through, it tells me that you can’t do Coyote Valley. You don’t have a balanced budget and you’re 5,000 jobs short in the North end. If you build housing before you put in jobs, then you’re going to kill the idea of having people live and work there.”

Dorothy Hinze thinks the current triggers should remain. “I respect that you all worked on this for five years and want to finish the plan,” she said, “but I’m concerned about the impact of this on city services. There was a $13 million shortfall in the city’s General Fund projected for five years. The triggers should stay in effect; we have to make sure that Coyote Valley can provide services for itself.”

“Triggers were put in place so you couldn’t develop,” added resident Ken Saso. “This plan is going to carry the financial structure to pay for itself. There’s no way these triggers can stand in the way of the development of Coyote Valley. They have to be changed.”

Brian Schmidt of the Committee for Green Foothills supports the existing triggers in the General Plan, which he believes will protect the city against fiscal risks and make sure development doesn’t happen before its time. But he is concerned the task force may be asked to exceed its mandate. “We saw your memo at the June City Council meeting. That was not the memo that was adopted. The adopted memo says that it is the General Plan, not the task force that addresses this issue.”

Kerry Williams of the Coyote Housing Group thinks the city council did not restrict the CVSP task force from recommending the triggers be changed. “They said that if the task force recommends a change to the triggers and the council agrees the change has merit, it should be folded into the General Plan, perhaps in Phase 2 Update, and involve citywide input,” he said.

“What we started was to come up with a mixed use, transit-oriented, smart-growth plan,” said task force member Dan Hancock, “which met all the criteria for what we thought a 20th Century development should look like.”

Not everyone was in favor with the CVSP moving forward, including Mark Anthony Mederios of Save Coyote Valley.
He told Pyle and Williams that his impression is that Coyote Valley will be built no matter what, even if Attorney General Brown it can’t be done because of global warming. “You have a responsibility to create something better for people who are going to come here in the future. You have to respect the legacy of farmers who have worked this valley and the legacy of the Ohlone people who lived here before.”

David Marsland of the Sierra Club said the club believes development should come after “a complete inventory of infill opportunities within urbanized San Jose has been undertaken.” It asks council members to commit to a conservation policy that mitigates environmental impacts. “…Re-placing agriculture with housing is reducing jobs. Agriculture is what once made Silicon Valley the Valley of Heart’s Delight. We just keep what’s left of the City of Heart’s Delight.”

The next task force meeting is Sept. 10 at City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara St., in Wing rooms W118 and W119.

Save Coyote Valley! Supporters share their message at the CVSP task force meeting. Photo by Lorraine Gabbert