Dear Editor:
At the recent May 28 School Board meeting, it was obvious that
the site selection had already been pre-determined to be the
Silveira (Day Road West) site, even though, according to the
Board’s own site selection criteria, that site falls substantially
short of the other sites.
Dear Editor:
At the recent May 28 School Board meeting, it was obvious that the site selection had already been pre-determined to be the Silveira (Day Road West) site, even though, according to the Board’s own site selection criteria, that site falls substantially short of the other sites.
In fact, the only advantage to the Silveira site is the single-seller aspect. But such is only a convenience and does not meet any of the meaningful criteria the Board said was necessary for proper site selection.
The reality of the situation is that a local and powerful developer (the Glen Loma Group) controls the disposition of the Silveira property. They had originally proposed a mixed residential use which comes closest to the existing zoning and surrounding rural residential use. However, since the housing allotments have been used up for the next 8 to 10 years, the developer is looking to dispose of the land in the most expedient and beneficial manner to him. This requires changing the zoning to allow for non-residential uses or development which is not in conformance with the city General Plan and not consistent with the existing surrounding land uses.
This developer, and his two principal advocates on the school board, is forcing the Silveira site for high school use, and it appears to be in their best interests and not that of the future high school, the students or the city of Gilroy. Responsible community leaders and school board members should not allow the powerful few to dictate to the many.
The criteria presented by the school board staff was so biased that the only obvious site became the Silveira property. In fact, no negatives were noted for the Silveira property, and yet they clearly exist, while negatives were noted for all other sites. No traffic impact was mentioned for this Silveira site, which will have its only access from Day Road West, a minor two-lane country road. Traffic impacts were included for other sites, all of which have at least two substantial roads serving them.
The following items are the site selection criteria the school board determined as necessary:
1) Land costs
2) Traffic impacts
3) Local Master Plan
4) Site shape
5) Mitigation Costs (of site development)
A) Flood control
B) Road widening
C) Safe walking routes
D) Traffic lights
E) Topography
F) Excess grading
G) Steep/hilly sites
The following is amplification on some of these criteria as they relate to all the sites.
1) Land costs: Not known at this time or available to the public. However, the Silveira site would appear to be more expensive, due to location and site development costs.
2) Traffic Impact: This is one of the most critical items as it concerns safety, convenience and service to a proposed site. The proposed development of the Silveira site, prior to the recent introduction of the high school, considered a 10-acre church/church school through 8th grades (210 students) with the remaining 50 acres a mix of single family residential and higher density housing.
The Initial Study for the church/residential development stated that such development would generate almost 5,000 (4,916) new vehicles trips daily at the Day Road west and Santa Teresa intersection. However, with the recent high school proposal in lieu of the residences on the 50-acre portion, those daily vehicle trips would increase dramatically. To date, there has been no initial study or EIR to assess the impact of a high school at this location. The high school will eventually accommodate 1,800 students, plus additional facility, administrative and maintenance personnel. Sporting and other school events could include even more people to add to the traffic. The daily vehicle trips would certainly double to at least 10,000 at this single intersection alone.
The only entrance to the site would be from Day Road. Such tremendous traffic impact would require changing the nice, two-lane Day Road into a four-lane, congested traffic mess.
Also, turning from Santa Teresa onto Day Road and from Day Road into the site would require two left hand turns across oncoming traffic. This is very dangerous and would promote delays and congestion. This is not necessary as the other sites are served by two main roads from two different directions: Monterey Road, a four-lane, under utilized road from the east, and Santa Teresa from the west. Two roads serving a proposed site will be safer, less congested, more convenient and allow for emergency vehicles, if required. School traffic combined with the normal commute traffic and the left hand turn onto Day Road will make this area impassable.
Why build more roads or widen existing ones, when such already exist at other sites?
Why ruin a beautiful, scenic gateway to Gilroy, with road expansion and rezoning, when other sites solve the problems better and do not provide a dangerous, single raceway and traffic hazards for student and residents alike?
3) Local Master Plan: The present zoning of agriculture and rural residential would have to change to accommodate a high school. Such zoning would not be consistent with existing surrounding uses and zoning. In fact, introducing a high school would be the first non-residential use to occur west of Santa Teresa Road and would irrevocably change the western portion of the city and valley. Such unwise planning could encourage additional non residential uses beyond the natural Santa Teresa Road boundary.
High schools are a magnate for all sorts of other businesses wanting to cater to the students’ buying power. Where high schools locate, commercial development soon follows.
We just don’t need or want San Jose or Los Angeles sprawl in this part of the valley. Such is more appropriate along Monterey Road and areas closer to U.S. 101, where major streets already exist to handle the traffic and where residential uses are not as appropriate.
4) Site Shape: Not really a concern for size of parcels being considered.
5) Site Development Mitigation costs:
A) Flood Control: Presently the subject parcel floods each year along the Santa Teresa border of the property. This will be an expensive condition to rectify. Most of the other sites do not have this problem.
B) Road Widening: It would be required at Day Road West and Santa Teresa, as such is the only proposed means of ingress and egress. Access to the site would require two left hand turns against traffic, which will cause congestion and unsafe driving conditions. Minimal, if any, road widening would be required at alternate sites.
C) Safer Walking Routes: The only feasible pedestrian route to the Silveira site would have to be along Santa Teresa Road and an inland route, from the south. No walking is feasible along Day Road west itself, or should be encouraged, as very few students would come from the west as such area is rural with fewer homes on larger parcels and are longer distances to walk. The other sites all have pedestrian access along several different approaches.
D) Traffic Lights: Probably required at all sites. However, the traffic impact and congestion will be far greater at the single intersection approach at Day Road West as opposed to two intersections from two different directions to handle the same traffic volume at other sites. The other sites will be more student and traffic friendly, safer and better able to handle emergency vehicles, if needed.
E, F & G) the remaining three mitigation costs of topography, excessive grading and steep/hilly sites can be combined into one item.
The Silveira site has a prominent and substantial hill. This natural terrain feature is the beginning of the rolling hills on the west side. It would most certainly be removed to accommodate a school facility. Presently it is a wonderful feature and is at the gateway to this scenic, pastoral, western portion of the valley, with access to Morgan Hill and Watsonville Road beyond. This approach was designated a scenic feature in the Gilroy General Plan and a Santa Clara County designate scenic route. Why destroy this? It cannot be replaced. The other sites have no such features, are flat, and are not in a designated scenic area and they will be less costly to develop.
The Wren/Kern site in the north central area seems to be quite promising and was stated by School Trustee Bob Kraemer as being the best site except for the 2008 deadline for construction. However, deadlines seem to be arbitrarily applied, are never met, and seem to be minor criteria when compared to other criteria. The important aspect is the suitability of the site in meeting the majority of the site selection criteria.
The Wren/Kern site can also be served by nearby utilities and services, even though it is not in an Urban Service Area (USA). This was done for the Sobrato High School in Morgan Hill and approved by LAFCO. Therefore, a precedent was set for the Wren/Kern site and possibly other sites reasonably close to utilities or USAs.
Therefore, I urge the school board to reject the Silveira site.
The other sites are more suitable from a traffic and safety standpoint, from the City Master Plan standpoint, from an existing terrain/grading standpoint, from a flood control standpoint, from a vehicle and pedestrian access standpoint, from a road widening/improvement cost standpoint from a cost/development standpoint in general from a common sense standpoint and from the standpoint of the Board’s own site selection criteria.
We urge the school board to do what is right for the students, the public and the community at large, as opposed to what is convenient and satisfies the demands of those who control the Silveira property.
Paul McAllister, Gilroy, Neighbors for Responsible Development
Submitted Tuesday, June 17 to ed****@****ic.com
