June 29, 2007

Coyote Valley Task Force:

Passions ignite over development’s effect on environment and wildlife

By Lorraine Gabbert
Staff Writer

Guest speakers, task force members and public citizens spoke in earnest regarding the development of Coyote Valley at the Coyote Valley Specific Plan (CVSP) Task Force meeting held June 18 at City Hall.

Santa Clara Valley Water District Assistant Operating Officer Melanie Richardson speaks on behalf of restoring wetlands in the Laguna Seca area. “The Laguna Seca area is one of the best potential wetland mitigation sites in the entire Bay Area,” she says. Photo by Lorraine Gabbert

“I don’t think that developing Coyote Valley is necessarily a good answer,” said De Anza environmental studies student Nicole Tindall. “I don’t feel it’s sustainable to utilize our resources in developing an urban sprawl in the only open space that we have.”

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Wildlife Deputy Henry Coletto agreed, noting that natural valleys and foothills, from downtown San Jose to Silver Creek, have been developed, decimating agricultural land and wildlife habitats. “Now you have the choice to protect Coyote Valley,” he said, “or cover it over with asphalt. We hope you do the right thing to preserve part of the valley for future generations.”

Guest speakers, focusing on wildlife and the environment, echoed these concerns.

Santa Clara Valley Water District representatives, however, stunned task force members with the announcement that the property the task force had chosen for ball fields was the site of historic wetlands allocated to return to that status.

Laguna Seca
“The Laguna Seca area is one of the best potential wetland mitigation sites in the entire Bay Area,” said Santa Clara Valley Water District Assistant Operating Officer Melanie Richardson.

“We’ve been actively looking for suitable sites for wetland restoration and preservation,” added Water District Senior Project Manager Ngoc H. Nguyen. “We have not been able to identify any other suitable site with large acreage and connectivity of habitat for birds and wildlife like Laguna Seca.”

Indignant, task force member Ken Saso, spoke on behalf of Coyote Valley development. “Every governmental agency takes from the Valley and never gives,” he said. “We’re taking again from Coyote Valley for mitigation outside the valley. So, it’s another take from the valley.”

“...and a give,” replied Richardson. “We’ll be operating and maintaining this in perpetuity. That would be our commitment.”

“I have seen this valley being taken all my life,” said Saso. “When it comes to trying to get a decent plan on the books, and get development rights done...all we do is take from this valley.”

Task force member Craig Edgerton reminded the task force of their environmental responsibility. “When we first started this process,” he said, “we were told that the CVSP would start with the environmental footprint...that it was the most important thing, and I think we should keep that in mind. In the past, when we weren’t concerned with the environmental footprint in San Jose, we just drained the wetlands so there isn’t much left. We need to do it the right way this time.”

Compromise
Task force members searched for a compromise. “The proposed ballpark is 31 acres,” said one member. “I wonder if we could have a portion for baseball fields and still provide a substantial wetlands area.”

“We want to maximize use at the site,” replied Nguyen. “Our current plan is to make the entire site wetlands. The area is required by the Army Corps of Engineers to be maintained as a wetland. The Department of Fish & Game wants to know why the CVSP Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shows a ballpark there. We’ve already received phone calls from U.S. Fish & Game and the Army Corps of Engineers on that.”

“Sites like this one are very rare,” added John Hesler, vice president of environmental consulting firm David J. Powers & Associates. “We go up creeks and streams looking for sites for mitigation and end up finding a quarter of an acre here and there. It ends up being very expensive, and ecologically, they don’t function very well. The chance of coming up with alternative sites, although not zero, is very, very low.”

Kathleen Hoffman, with Save Coyote Valley! also weighed in on this issue. “When I went to the Coyote Valley wildlife forum on May 6, Nancy (Councilmember Nancy Pyle, CVSP task force co-chair), you said the reason you chose Coyote Valley is...corporations would like a more natural setting. My answer to that is: it’s not going to be natural anymore.”

“Ken, you were saying what the Water District was taking away from Coyote Valley,” continued Hoffman, “I’m going to read [from the Draft EIR] what the Coyote Valley Specific Plan is taking away from Coyote Valley: 82 acres of wetlands, 888 heritage trees, 1,023 ordinance-sized trees, 4,514 non-ordinance sized trees, disturbance of raptor and burrowing owl habitat. I think you should take that into consideration when you’re fighting over whether to make a wetland or a baseball field.”

“There have to be some tradeoffs made,” stated CVSP task force co-chair Councilmember Forrest Williams. “We’re not all going to get everything we want. We should do as much as we can to accommodate the wetlands elsewhere. Is there anyway we can create wetlands in the lake?”

“Mr. Williams,” replied Richardson, “the regulatory agencies have already required and designated that as wetlands just to accommodate the CVRP (County Valley Research Park), and you can’t put one on top of the other. They won’t let you double-count.”

“Maybe the city should have brought this to us sooner,” stated a task force member. “We had visions of this being an ideal spot for a ballpark and I don’t want to see that diminished. Are there any more surprises?”

Avoiding extinction
Next, scientists implored the task force to provide connectivity (migration conduits) for wildlife to avoid animal extinction.

Dr. Michael N. Josselyn, biotic consultant with David J. Powers & Associates, spoke on the biological impact of the project. “Movement between core areas is important in sustaining species,” he said, explaining that different types of animals require different types of corridors. For instance, some animals may travel through culverts or highway underpasses, while others may use bridges. Josselyn also noted that the Fisher Creek restoration plan considered in the CVSP (to return the creek to its historic site in the foothills, connecting with Coyote Creek) would create an important wildlife corridor, especially for aquatic and nocturnal species.

Josselyn proposed that the EIR consider flora and fauna in designing new roads by enlarging culverts, planting natural vegetation, eliminating night time lighting and providing wildlife-friendly corridors.

Dr. Grey Hayes, with Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, pointed out that the slough’s namesake, the Tulle Elk, became extinct there, as did the American badger, due to poor planning. Hayes also blames a lack of careful development for the decline in the sea otter population from toxoplasmosis.

“Due to poor development planning,” he said, “the number of larger mammals has decreased as smaller predators like skunks, opossums and raccoons have increased.” Hayes noted that unfortunately, additional smaller mammals results in more feces flowing into the slough and the ocean, resulting in toxoplasmosis in ocean mammals.

On behalf of the local wildlife, Hayes also highlighted the importance of Habitat Connectivity. “Ani-mals used to travel through the mountain ranges,” he said. “But, these habitats are now fragmented is-lands. Wildlife needs to move between these islands to avoid extinction, or suffer from inbreeding or overpopulation.”

Hayes implored the task force to maintain wildlife corridors, recommending a broad swath of land at the southern end of Tulare Hill for wildlife movement. He also suggested creating recreational trails and large culverts within the development. “The corridor issue,” he said, “is by far the greatest issue from the science aspect of this project.”

Resident Michele Korpos agreed. “Especially given what we’ve heard regarding corridors and connectivity,” she said, “we in Silicon Valley have a unique opportunity to show the world that we care about our ecosystem. We can design something that takes wildlife into consideration first...that will make people around the world say, ‘Wow, we want to be like Silicon Valley.’”

Uncertain future
Priorities shifted for other speakers. According to Jo Crosby, the unknown future for his property in the greenbelt has resulted in a 10 percent loss of property value and a lack of potential buyers. “You talk about providing a recovery for the species,” said Crosby. “As a landowner in the greenbelt, I sure need some recovery.”

Brian Schmidt, speaking on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills complained that consultants weren’t permitted access to property within the CVSP area. “I consider this a significant problem,” said Schmidt. “It’s important that city consultants can get their own answers so that this process can go forward in an unbiased manner. There’s a fundamental issue of why the city should go forth with this project when the primary instigators and movers of this project are not cooperating with the city.”

However, during this stage of the Draft EIR process, the focus was mainly on wildlife and preserving the environment. “We’re very concerned with protecting the character of this area,” said Daniel Olstein, representing the Nature Conservancy, “and maintaining connections for wildlife to move between here and the Santa Cruz Mountains. We want that to be looked at fully and a plan made that is strongly based in science and addresses connectivity to maintain species.”

“I wish I was here 100 years ago,” shared Mark Anthony Mederios, with Save Coyote Valley! “Peoples’ jaws dropped to the ground because it was so beautiful. We’ve paved over most of the valley, and really, if we were to do things right, Coyote Valley would be mitigation for what we’ve done to the rest of the valley.”

Emboldened by applause, Mederios admonished members of the task force for what he perceived as their negativity during the presentations. “Mitigation and protecting the environment for the future is not a burden,” he said. “You should be proud you’re protecting the environment. There’s a handful of special interest [groups] who have funded and put forward this project and it’s not in the interest of the whole community. What’s in the interest of the whole community is to protect this place for its agricultural uses and natural resources.”

Williams was satisfied that the meeting achieved its purpose. “We give everybody a chance to input their concerns regarding our EIR,” he said. “I appreciate everybody’s input and it will be looked at.”

However, he cautioned that the task force must adhere to their guidelines. “We must stay on the course that the council directed us,” he said. “If you want to have changes made, we ask that you go to the city council and make your request.”

The next task force meeting is Aug. 13, from 5 to 9 p.m. at City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street. The meeting will be held in Wing rooms W118, W119 and W120.