Coyote Valley Plan Delayed

An avalanche of criticism has inspired San Jose officials to
revise an environmental report before pressing ahead with plans to
build 25,000 homes in Coyote Valley.
Gilroy – An avalanche of criticism has inspired San Jose officials to revise an environmental report before pressing ahead with plans to build 25,000 homes in Coyote Valley.

The move, which spells an indefinite delay for San Jose’s efforts to create a virtual mini-city in the region just north of Morgan Hill, comes in response to 1,300 pages of comment on the draft environmental impact report for the Coyote Valley Specific Plan, according to a Wednesday memo from Joseph Horwedel, director of San Jose’s planning, building and code enforcement department.

“The amount, tone, extent and depth of the comments received are unprecedented in the experience of staff and consultants,” Horwedel wrote, explaining that most of the 80 organizations and individuals who wrote letters disagreed “with the analytical approach or methodology, took issue with impact conclusions or suggested there were missing or incomplete mitigation measures.” 

A lack of figures on projected traffic increases and an absence of a commitment to help fund regional transportation improvements topped the list of concerns in a 10-page letter from Morgan Hill officials. The letter also pointed out discrepancies on housing and employment estimates for the project, expected to bring 50,000 jobs and up to 80,000 residents to Coyote Valley in the next two or three decades. A 3,600-acre greenbelt will separate those residents from Morgan Hill, though city officials remain anxious about long-term effects on the city.

“We felt that the approach of their whole (report) didn’t talk about any phasing, what would go first, what would go second, and it didn’t have any mitigations,” Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate said Thursday. “There are traffic impacts. What are they going to do along the way? It sounds to me like they’ve taken it offline to go back and do a much better and thorough job, which will take significant amounts of time but will be well worth it.”

In addition to traffic, a slew of agencies and organizations raised concerns about water supply and quality and wildlife protection in the 7,000-acre corridor governed by the Coyote Valley Specific Plan.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found the environmental report’s analysis and protections for “almost all plant and animal species to be inadequate,” according to the memo. The Santa Clara Valley Water District stated that the report’s conclusions about water supply and quality relied on actions for which the water utility has no current plans or budget. And the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission, a land-use agency that will decide whether to let San Jose bring more than 1,000 acres of Coyote Valley land into city borders for development, said the city has not shown how it plans to offset the loss of farmland.

But the most encyclopedic critique came in 450 pages from Santa Clara County.

“The concerns are very basic – roads, traffic, parks, air quality, transportation – it runs a long list,” said District 1 Supervisor Don Gage, who represents South County. “It was the smartest thing they can do. If you don’t have an effective (environmental report) that responds to the comments, you’re going to get sued.”

Kerry Williams, president of the Coyote Valley Housing Group predicted it would only take a few months for the revisions.

“There wasn’t anything in any of the agency comments that I saw that was alarming to me or out of the ordinary,” she said. “The underlying plan is very strong environmentally … The problems with the document have less to do with the plan than how the information was presented.”

The private investment group has invested nearly $18 million in the project to date.

Horwedel’s memo states the revisions “will have a significant effect” on the project’s schedule, though he did go into detail. Horwedel, who did not return a call for comment, said the agency does not plan to solicit another round of public comment. The first pubic comment period ended June 29.

“But no matter how much additional analysis and consideration of public comments is undertaken by the city,” he wrote, “in all likelihood the city will still receive comments that a revised and re-circulated (environmental report) is inadequate due to the large scope of the effort and the varying interests involved. However, the city will be in a better position to defend challenges to the (report) if there is a record of appropriate consideration of the public comments.”

Staff Writer Serdar Tumgoren covers county government for the Dispatch. Reach him at 779-4106 or st*******@**********rs.com.