The Loma Prietan
February 2001
Coyote Valley: An Insider’s Perspective
by Brian Grayson
As a San Jose native, I have been and continue to be interested in helping to make San Jose a more livable community. During my eight years on the San Jose Planning Commission, I had the opportunity to review hundreds of development proposals. Some were simple and non-controversial, others were not. I made my decisions based on a combination of factors—San Jose’s General Plan and Zoning Code, citizen and city staff input, my own experience, and the pros and cons of each proposal.
I do not generally think it a good idea to use ballot measures to make land use decisions. However, Cisco’s Coyote Valley proposal is so massive and potentially damaging to San Jose and surrounding communities, I believe the ballot is the only chance for the people to send a message and stop this project.
Although I was no longer a Commissioner when Cisco’s Coyote Valley project came before the Commission, I and many others raised serious concerns about the proposal’s impacts not only to San Jose, but far beyond the borders of the City. The Planning Commission had the opportunity to require more detailed information in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but chose not to. They could have brought something to the EIR that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require but does not prevent and that is common sense.
The formulas used to develop much of the information provided to the decision makers do not allow for the common sense factor. And in this instance, a decision was made by the Commission and the City Council based on flawed information.
The decision-making process must factor in the common sense component. The process should be conducted efficiently, but not at the expense of thoroughness of information. This is too important, especially since the final decision could very well result in the elimination of the last remnants of the
San Jose that once was.
The EIR concluded that 80% of employees at the proposed Coyote site will live to the north and only 20% (80/20) will live to the South, thereby having minimal impact on cities to the south. This is an assumption and one that may well prove incorrect. It is this assumption that the very fragile balance of this project hangs on.
If this were a stand alone project, not attached to an already crowded city with
a jobs/housing imbalance, then, with
some modest changes, it might be more acceptable—but that is not the case. San Jose’s growth has exploded as infill projects claim every last parcel, coupled with skyrocketing land and housing prices.
Although Cisco has been sensitive in working with some community groups and leaving a modest portion of open space on the site, that does not make-up for the serious degradation on the quality of life this project will have.
Key areas where detailed information was lacking and thus prevented decision-makers from making a well-informed decision included not knowing where many of the employees who will locate at the Coyote facility are coming from.
Since it is unclear how many current Cisco employees will be relocated to the Coyote site, this further confuses the numbers that were presented. If 20,000 jobs are to be created and only a small percentage of current Cisco employees are to locate at this new site, then the 80/20 split becomes even less reliable as a figure on which to base a decision.
The City maintains that, based on the locations of Cisco’s current employees, their 80/20 estimate is accurate. Given Cisco’s current locations, it is not surprising that most of their current employees live in San Jose or to the north of the proposed site. With a south County site in Coyote Valley, it is very likely that new and current employees may choose to purchase more affordable housing to the south, rather than pay the high real estate prices of this area, but the EIR took little notice of this.
There is also minimal acknowledgment of the expected impact on the lower housing prices in Monterey and San Benito Counties as Cisco employees scramble to find affordable housing relatively close to their place of employment.
The response from the City, that they have provided all of the information that CEQA requires, may or may not be a legally defensible argument, but it is no less than arrogant on the part of San Jose and Cisco.
Telling other cities that they are free to change their general plans to accommodate more housing may be an accurate statement, but it is no way to form a strong regional partnership to address the growing traffic, housing and air quality problems we all face.
Even if the City is correct in saying that CEQA does not require them to address some of the concerns that have been raised, San Jose has an obligation as a regional partner and good neighbor to
deal with these issues. The City needs to do a better job in cooperating with its neighbors.
Some of the areas that should have been more adequately addressed in the EIR, as well as additional information that should have been required are:
• A more detailed analysis of the impacts on the surrounding cities;
• The percentage of workers in Santa Clara County that currently commute from outside the county, particularly from the south and what methods of transit
they use;
• A detailed breakdown of new and current Cisco employees that will be locating to the Coyote site;
• A more realistic defense of the 80/20 split projection or revising that figure to a more justifiable one; and
• Justification for locating a major employee center 20 miles from the closest proposed BART station.
The Planning Commission had the right and I would say the obligation, to request new and/or more detailed information
in the EIR, even if it is not required by CEQA. CEQA does not legislate right and wrong or common sense, and I believe it was wrong to certify the EIR as presented to the Commission. It would have been right to have additional information included and common sense indicated this proposal was too big and had too many impacts not to have the most complete environmental document possible before making a decision.
This project does not only impact San Jose; therefore, it is a decision that cannot be made in isolation. It will make existing problems worse and create new ones.
A regional dialogue is needed, one that should have been underway years ago,
and not one that might take place in the future.With approval of this project, there will be much less incentive for San Jose to resolve the major impacts this project will bring to surrounding communities.
The voters of San Jose will have the opportunity to reject this project as a result of a grassroots effort by residents from San Jose and around the South Bay. Sometimes our elected and appointed officials rush to judgment when the pressure is on, and as
a result they make a bad decision. The approval of Cisco’s Coyote Valley project was a bad decision, made under crushing political pressure and without the benefit of having all of the necessary information.
The impact that this sprawling project will have on traffic congestion and air quality are among the numerous reasons to vote it down. When the people of San Jose have all of the details presented to them, and after they take the time to review that information, I believe they will decide that the negatives of this proposal far outweigh the potential positives.
Brian Grayson is a former Chairman of the San Jose Planning Commission.