Our View: Clearly, there are some issues that require tough
negotiating before San Ysidro Square becomes a proposal for serious
consideration
The idea of turning the now-defunct Indian motorcycle plant at the corner of Tenth and Alexander into moderately priced condominiums has some merit – maybe. Several issues need to be resolved, and toughly negotiated by the city, before we can support it.
First, the children living in the complex are going to need safe passage to school. Remember that the seductive argument that only childless people will live there was made for Eagle Ridge, too. Many children now dwell in that sidewalk-free enclave; that dog won’t fight. Families need housing. Plan for it.
The children might be assigned to Eliot Elementary School. In that case, they will be crossing Tenth Street in the teeth of the early-morning rush: commuters to work and high school students to school. Or they might be assigned to Glen View School, crossing Tenth, the railroad tracks and Monterey and Church streets during that self-same commute.
Second, the proposed project is too dense. Revive the plan to establish retail on the ground floors. Also, four floors are just not feasible with a city ordinance that prohibits buildings more than 35 feet tall. Scale it back.
Third, the covenants, clauses and restrictions had better be complete, candid and realistic. The CC&Rs had better include the facts that the complex is adjacent to a railroad, that diesel trains idle nearby for long periods of time, and that trains pass, whistling, at all hours of the day and night.
Lastly, we could look more favorably on the project if it entailed inclusionary zoning of affordable housing.
The biggest obstacle to acceptance is that the City of Gilroy is already 30 percent over its housing cap. The city should not be authorizing any more permits until 2013. We need a chance to catch our breaths. We also need to boost city services to accommodate the influx of population already approved.
The biggest reason to accept the project is that people need to live somewhere. Not many can afford a $700,000 first home. If we want our children’s children to be able to live in this green and pleasant valley we call home, we need to have starter housing.
But not housing that places children at risk, not overly crowded conditions, not housing full of sleep-deprived madmen attempting to shut down Union Pacific for tooting into their bedroom windows at 2 in the morning. These concerns must be resolved before the project earns our approval … and then, maybe.
