February 23, 2006

Coyote Valley Task Force considers traffic policy

Members worry about possible roadway congestion outside of plan

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

Coyote Valley Task Force members immersed themselves in the often-confusing language of traffic last week as they discussed transportation impacts to San Jose’s last piece of undeveloped rural land.

Councilwoman Nancy Pyle and Councilman Forrest Williams, who chair the Coyote Valley Task Force, considered traffic policy issues for the plan during the group’s Jan. 13 meeting at City Hall. Photo by Sheila Sanchez

Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, a member of the task force, simplified city planners’ head-scratching traffic jargon when he asked after the meeting, “How are the future residents of Coyote Valley going to move around? Are they going to take the train to San Francisco or are they going to travel south to Gilroy and beyond?”

Task Force members attempted to answer those questions during the group’s Jan. 13 meeting at City Hall.

The task force, made up of nearly 20 public and private members, under the new leadership of Councilwoman Nancy Pyle and Councilman Forrest Williams, is guiding the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the future of Coyote Valley.

Experts are saying its development could cost between $600 and $800 million. The plan calls for a community of about 80,000 people living in more than 25,000 housing units and benefiting from 50,000 jobs.

The 7,000-acre valley at the southern end of San Jose is situated roughly 13 miles from downtown. It is about six miles long and two miles wide, enclosed by the Diablo Range foothills to the east, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, Tulare Hill to the north and the city of Morgan Hill to the south.

“If you’re going to have 80,000 people living there you better have a transit plan. All those people who will live there aren’t necessarily going to work there so how do they get out?” Gage said, adding that he’s concerned about allowing anything other than a roadway level of service “D” in the area and all tributaries feeding into the project, including Highway 101.

A roadway level of service “D” is described as a zone that approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds, however driving speed is considerably affected by changes in operating conditions. A level of service “A” is the least congested, while a level of service “F” is the most congested.

Gage and other task force members said they are anxious for city transportation officials to present to them traffic mitigation proposals for the area outside the community.

“If they have level of service ‘F’ within the project and you have all these cars speeding in on Monterey Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard, as soon as that level slows down everything is going to start backing up, including Highway 101 and Bailey Avenue,” Gage said. “It’s important to understand where these pockets are going to be to get people in and out of there otherwise somebody going to IBM taking Santa Teresa Boulevard is going to get caught in a traffic jam.”

A complete traffic policy for Coyote Valley could be presented to the San Jose City Council in late March.

Darryl Boyd, principal planner with San Jose’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, gave an overview of the transportation policy options for Coyote Valley.

Task force members asked about the possible creation of a customized traffic plan for Coyote Valley.

Task force member Gladwyn D’Souza said Coyote Valley’s transportation plan should maximize internal traffic and trails.

Task force member Pat Dando, CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, expressed enthusiasm with the creation of a traffic policy for the area.

“If we get this right, we may surprise ourselves,” Dando said. “Our real challenge is to decide how to take advantage of the reverse commute (the incoming traffic from the south to San Jose) but also the job-housing balance.”

Dando said she would like transportation officials to consider the River Oaks housing development in north San Jose as an example for addressing traffic concerns.

“I think we’re cutting new ground,” she said.

Other task force members supported creating a customized transportation plan for the area and expressed concern about “wag the dog transportation planning.”

“The old solution of hopping in the car and thinking that you can get anywhere you want in five minutes isn’t necessarily the point to encourage,” one task force member said.

Brian Schmidt of the Committee for Green Foothills, a preservation group that has long been critical of the project, said taking advantage of the reverse commute emphasizes the point that the city’s general plan job triggers should be strengthened and not weakened. “If we start putting housing in Coyote Valley first and then jobs then we’re not taking advantage of the reverse commute, we’re making it worse,” Schmidt said.

Councilman Forrest Williams, co-chairman of the task force, said it’s important to think outside of the box and be pedestrian friendly. He also said city officials need to start thinking of ways to reduce automobile usage by finding different modes of transportation like trails.

Boyd said the prevailing direction of regional peak-hour travel in the northern direction is impacting existing roadways with a lot of traffic traveling by the project area in the morning and evening.

Hans Larson, San Jose’s deputy transportation director, said with the assistance of a consultant, city officials would prepare a transportation simulation forecast for the area and create a sound transportation plan.

Larson said he would analyze data obtained on the local street system, transit and non-auto modes and the freeway system to create a highly sophisticated computer simulation model to prepare a transportation forecast for the area.

He said he would use the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 prepared by the VTA to create a 30-year transportation master plan for the region.

The model is comprehensive and looks at traffic issues in 13 counties, three regions, including San Francisco-San Jose Bay Area region, the Central Valley region and the Monterey region, he said.

The model was prepared in partnership with the county, using census data, the Employment Development Department, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the MTC Bay Area Travel Survey. The model is based on 2,000 socio-economic and traffic data zone.

Councilwoman Nancy Pyle, new co-chairwoman of the task force, said she was concerned with roadway level of service issues for the plan and keeping the plan’s interior traffic as contained as possible.

She also said she would like the future residents of Coyote Valley to think of mass transit. “When I go to Europe, students there take mass transit. They don’t have the same worries we have here,” Pyle said.

In other news, the task force is looking to replace environmentalist Terry Watt, who resigned last month “due to personal obligations.” San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales announced Watt’s resignation during the group’s Dec. 12 meeting. Councilmembers Williams and Pyle are expected to appoint a new task force member soon.

The next Coyote Valley community meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 24 at the Coyote Creek Golf Club, One Coyote Creek Golf Drive, San Jose, Calif., 95037. The next Coyote Valley Task Force meeting will be at 5:30 p.m. Feb. 27 at City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, combined rooms W118, W119 and W120.

The next San Jose City Council Coyote Valley study session is scheduled for March 3. For more information on the Coyote Valley plan visit www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley.