The Loma Prietan
May/June 2000
Flawed Coyote Plan = Sprawled Coyote Valley
by Barry Boulton
In the November edition of the Loma Prietan we described the magnitude of the Coyote Valley development project and its regional impacts.
Since that time, the City of San Jose published the legally required draft environmental impact report (EIR) with opportunity for the public to comment, and the Land Ethic committee has submitted comments on behalf of the Chapter.
It has become apparent that the City is generally anxious to have the plan approved and to begin breaking ground as soon as possible. The official public comment period ended on March 29, and the City plans to complete the final EIR and present it to the Planning Commission as early as May 24-a nearly impossible task if a quality analysis and response is truly desired. The full City Council may seek to approve the project in June, with Cisco breaking ground later this year.
Curiously though, for such a massive project in which both the City and Cisco want to proceed quickly, the draft EIR is a shoddy document, full of legal holes. The law requires mitigation for significant environmental impacts, and yet, the Cisco/Coyote Valley development plan offers no mitigation for the loss of agricultural land and open space. An example of mitigation is that the City of San Jose purchased habitat land on Bair Island in Redwood City as mitigation for the loss of saltwater marshes in Alviso due to the outflow of fresh water from the San Jose sewage treatment works. In Cisco's case, it would be rather easy to provide mitigation by, for instance, purchasing development rights in South Coyote Valley known as the "Coyote Greenbelt" in the City's general plan. Or, Cisco could acquire development rights on threatened agricultural land and open space in other locations, analogously to the Bair Island example. Alternatively, Cisco could build some accommodation on-site (using some of the excess parking area) and buy development rights in the Mid Coyote Urban Reserve. In short, there are several mitigation opportunities, and yet the draft EIR offers nothing.
Another example of no mitigation is that of air quality. The plan is for Cisco to provide up to 20,000 jobs, yet they plan to provide nearly 22,000 parking spaces, thereby encouraging single-occupancy automobile commuting. Further, even though the State of California is likely to provide a $5M subsidy for a CalTrain depot adjacent to the site, it is projected that only 500-800 workers will travel by CalTrain, buses, and light rail in total. This in an area that they say has an "aggressive trip reduction program". The plan offers no legally mandated mitigation for what is defined as a significant impact even though the negative impact on air quality in the southern Santa Clara County would be dramatic.
The document is deficient in its analyses of alternative sites, in its claim that only 20% of the workers will live south of Coyote Valley, and in its claim that auto traffic will be primarily reverse commute. In all cases, it makes claims with no attempt to explain and justify them. It claims that no alternative sites are feasible in the downtown and infill areas of San Jose, yet it provides insufficient data for the public and decision-makers to confirm that assertion.
On a political note, Cisco has formally opposed the proposed Calpine Corporation natural gas power plant just to the north of the Cisco site because of air pollution - and yet the pollution levels are very similar (Cisco and Calpine). Of course, they've opposed the Calpine plant to gain support from the local community that opposes the Calpine plant. One wonders if Cisco will now write a letter to the San Jose City Council opposing its own development plan due to pollution impacts!
Overall, the plan constitutes massive leapfrog sprawl, and will set the tone for continued sprawl in south Santa Clara County and beyond for decades to come. The environmental impact report is generally legally deficient, inadequate in analyses, and self-serving in its presentation. This plan and its associated EIR do not do justice to the community and environment of San Jose and the region, and the Chapter will oppose it strenuously in the critical weeks to come. If you live in Santa Clara County - especially in San Jose and the south county communities - write your city Councilmembers and let them know of your concerns with this project as currently proposed.
For more information, contact the Sierra Club chapter at 650-390-8411. If you wish to become involved as events unfold, please send e-mail to barryboulton@earthlink.net. We will be happy to e-mail you our EIR comments upon your request.