Gilroy
– San Jose planners will publicize possible alternatives to
Coyote Valley development, but they will not allow the public or
San Jose City Council members to suggest changes to the plan, as
they previously indicated they would.
Gilroy – San Jose planners will publicize possible alternatives to Coyote Valley development, but they will not allow the public or San Jose City Council members to suggest changes to the plan, as they previously indicated they would.
Environmental advocates greeted the move Wednesday with a mix of frustration and hope that the unusual move of airing the alternatives is a sign that planners are willing to listen to what the public has to say about the controversial development.
“It would have been wonderful,” said the Greenbelt Alliance’s Michelle Beasley of the prospect of further public input, “but the planning staff has done something different and they’ve had a lot of interaction with the community.
The Coyote Valley Specific Plan envisions a high-density neighborhood on the city’s southern edge with 25,000 homes, 50,000 jobs and 75,000 residents. It has been criticized from all corners. Morgan Hill officials are upset over the city’s plan for Coyote Valley schools and the traffic impacts on their town, property owners in South Coyote say they’re being unfairly frozen out of an expected windfall in property values, and environmentalists say the project will do irreparable harm to critical habit for several endangered plant and animal species.
Under state law, the city must prepare an EIR detailing the Coyote Valley Specific Plan’s effects on the environment.
The report must study its impacts on transportation, air quality, noise, geology, water use and public facilities, and offer feasible solutions for any detrimental impacts. The city must also propose reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. One alternative will be to not do the project.
Beasley is pleased that that planners appear to take seriously a Greenbelt Alliance proposal that calls for scaling-back or eliminating a man-made lake and parkway that she expects will cause budget overruns and sap the city’s general fund.
In January, environmentalists praised planners for agreeing to get further public input on the environmental report and subjecting it to city council scrutiny before moving forward with the environmental review process. At that time, Laurel Prevetti, the project’s principal planner, told city council members that she would present a list of alternatives for them to consider.
City planners did host two community meetings to solicit input on the EIR, but a motion made Tuesday night by council member Chuck Reed to require planning staff to present a list of alternatives subject to amendment by the council failed by one vote.
Those opposed to the motion said doing so would cause a delay without any benefit.
San Jose planners could not be reached for comment Wednesday. They have promised to send council a memo detailing alternative projects some time in the next two months.
Reed said the memo will be “helpful because everyone will know alternatives at the beginning of the process instead of the end, but it doesn’t give the council a chance to tell them it missed something. It’s an opportunity for the public to know, but not impact what’s going on.”
Brian Schmidt, a legislative advocate with the Committee for Green Foothills, said Wednesday that the city council should have held planners accountable to their previous comments about the EIR process.
“Staff failed to take their promised action of giving the community and the city council a chance to review the alternatives for Coyote Valley, which is a critically important part of land use planning,” he said.
In addition to championing the ecological benefits of Coyote Valley, Schmidt is hoping to persuade city planners that the development will have negative economic consequences by siphoning businesses and home buyers from the rest of San Jose and endangering the city’s plan to bring BART to downtown.
A draft EIR is scheduled to be released in September.
