DEAR EDITOR:
This is with regards to the upcoming decision of the site for
the second high school.
DEAR EDITOR:
This is with regards to the upcoming decision of the site for the second high school.
I am a resident, taxpayer, and voter that lives in the Northwest Quad. I also have two children that may, one day, attend this new high school or Gilroy High depending on how attendance areas are drawn.
I have several concerns that through all the discussions, at the district’s presentation on May 28th and opinions by The Dispatch, have not been talked about.
The recent “Our Voice” editorial in The Dispatch that ridicules the mayor and his suggestion for the business park, and then endorses the Day Road site as being the best site, has some obvious errors in it.
The issues The Dispatch has with the mayor seem very petty and childlike; at least he is saying something about the process for selecting the site for spending millions of taxpayer dollars for a new high school. To have four of the five sites outside of the Urban Service Area seems like having the selection process extremely slighted toward one site before it even starts. From the map that was provided by the selection committee at the governing board study session on May 28, all five sites are outside of city limits, four to the north and one to the south.
The Day Road site on the map also includes the corner that the Catholic Church has its eyes on for a church, and school. The school was said to be an elementary school, but with them selling the proposed property in Morgan Hill, between Hale and Monterey, the question needs to be asked “Are they thinking of putting it in Gilroy at the Day Road site?” One of the negative comments at the site presentation was about one of the sites would have a high school and elementary school in close proximity – what would two high schools be like?
The master plan that Gilroy has been using for development has the entire area earmarked for “single-family housing.” Single road access is acceptable for housing developments, but not for high traffic generating developments.
The area in question, the Day Road site, was applied for to the Planning Commission but did not win any grants at this time. That means they will need to wait until the next time around, not sell for some other use.
The presentation on the proposed sites stated pros and cons for all of the sites except the Day Road site, they only had positive things to say for that site. They mentioned traffic impact on three of the four other sites, sites that all have multiple access routes, yet found nothing wrong with a site that all the traffic would be going down a two-lane road.
The Dispatch said that the site is located on a main thoroughfare. When did Day Road become a main thoroughfare? Santa Teresa is also only two lanes. It already has traffic-controlled intersections at First Street, Welburn, Mantelli, and Longmeadow. There would be a need for traffic signals with turn lanes at Sunrise, Day Road East, and Day Road West if a high school was built on Day Road. That would make seven signals in about 1.5 miles, probably more than there are on Monterey between Welburn and 10th Street, which is downtown Gilroy.
To put hundreds of additional vehicles on Santa Teresa that would have to turn onto Day Road to get to school on time would cause total gridlock from about 7 a.m. until after school actually started. The existing Gilroy High School can be accessed from the east and west on 10th Street, and North and South from Princevalle Street. Imagine all the traffic from one direction. This is what is being proposed for the Day Road site.
The leadership, Jim Rogers and Bob Kraemer, of the GUSD Board has already shown a strong preference for the Day Road site, so much so that one of the spouses has been telling people to “get with the program, the high school is going in there” and this was several weeks before the presentation. This does not sound like the Board is evaluating the sites OBJECTIVELY.
The list of sites needs to have certain starting criteria before they can be considered: 40-50 acres, access more than one road in and out, central location inside city limits would be a good starting point.
The mayor’s “joke” about the Southpoint Business Park fits those criteria.
Another site would be the Wal-Mart building when they move to the Super-size Wal-Mart that is planned over by Costco. This site would have many positive attributes – already partially built, just need to create the classrooms and hallways, complete with services, water, gas, and electricity. Parking lot already there, with several entrances. There could even be a possibility of getting Wal-Mart show what a community-orientated company it is by donating some or part of the site. A site that would probably sit vacant for many years until another occupant could be located.
The Dispatch mentioned that the Southpoint Business Park site would not have any walking distance students, the Day Road site would need walkway bridge over the flood control channels for any students to walk there from the Northwest Quad.
To continue forward with the Day Road site would be a waste of taxpayer’s money, time and effort on the part of those pushing the site. An EIR will show that there is NO WAY to solve the projected traffic impact or to solve the emergency vehicles lack of easy access should a tragic event happen at the school. Bob Kraemer made a comment about not wanting on his tombstone that he put the second high school in the southern section of town, I would not like to see tombstones of students who died because there emergency vehicles were held up due to traffic when every second counts.
The City Council needs to deny annexation of the Day Road property. The Council and mayor need to inform GUSD and the Catholic Church that it will not allow any development on that parcel except for the single-family housing that the master plans calls for.
The site selection process needs to start with a clean slate of unbiased taxpayers whose taxes will be spent to build this high school.
Howard Cowles, Gilroy
Submitted Friday, June 6 to ed****@****ic.com
