CGF: News: City of San Jose Stalls Cisco Referendum

News

News
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Sign up for Email Updates
CGF In the News
Press Inquiries
Past Articles
Calendar

City of San Jose Stalls Cisco Referendum
by Denice Dade

On January 16th, the City Council voted to deny the people of San Jose the opportunity to vote on the largest and most significant development decision this region has faced in decades. Cisco's plans for a sprawling 6.6 million square foot industrial campus in North Coyote Valley will produce traffic gridlock, exacerbate the housing crisis and pave over rich agricultural soil.

The Cisco campus is the first step in developing the entire North Coyote Valley. More significantly, it is the economic catalyst necessary for generating infrastructure improvements that would pave the way for 50,000 jobs over the next 15 years, plus an additional 75,000 service-related jobs. As a region, we must decide whether to condone massive sprawl developments or revitalize existing city centers with compact urban development.

Cisco proposal is sprawl of the worst kind
This massive job center, more than ten miles away from downtown, will put tremendous development pressure on southern counties, which offer a supply of cheaper housing and land. The impacts of the development of the North Coyote Valley are significant, and a project of this size should be accompanied by extensive regional planning. Yet the City Council has refused to adequately address issues of transportation and housing, and is single-mindedly driving San Jose in the direction of massive suburban sprawl, traffic congestion throughout the region, and destruction of valuable agricultural lands.

San Jose rejects voters' right to PLAN
In an effort to require the city to consider an alternative vision for Coyote Valley, People for Livable and Affordable Neighborhoods (PLAN), gathered more than 50,000 signatures from registered San Jose voters to allow public approval of this project. Cisco's development will forever change this region and PLAN believes that the people of San Jose must be able to vote on a decision of this magnitude.

Despite these efforts, the City of San Jose ignored the right and desire of the people to decide, and voted not to certify PLAN's referendum. The city's attorney claims that PLAN's referendum is not valid. PLAN, confident of the referendum's legality, has filed suit against the City of San Jose to require that the referendum be put to a vote. PLAN has hired Fred Woocher, a partner in the prestigious firm Strumwasser & Woocher, nationally renowned for its expertise in election law, to represent the group on this issue.

Referendum will protect open space
The property owner has made unsubstantiated claims in the press that the referendum will have little effect on the project. However, PLAN has found no legal evidence for these claims, and is moving forward with the referendum campaign. The referendum, if successful, may stop the project altogether; at a minimum, it would force Cisco to:

• Reduce the project's size by 26% (by not allowing the transfer of development credits necessary to complete the project)

• Increase the amount of open space at the site from 25% to 35% (that would in turn increase the density and add parking structures to the development).

PLAN's alternative vision
The Cisco proposal backed by the San Jose City Council is destructive and prohibitively expensive. Taxpayers will be required to subsidize more than 40 million dollars in infrastructure costs, in addition to the costs for new schools, police, firemen, libraries and other community services. This development would locate workers far from housing and mass transit, cause massive traffic congestion throughout the region, and destroy prime agricultural land.

PLAN has an alternative vision for development of jobs in San Jose. This vision includes compact urban development, with new job generation occurring in downtown San Jose. By locating new jobs in redevelopment areas, downtown, the city could take advantage of tax revenue generated from new property taxes. This revenue would go directly to the city, instead of to state and county governments. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency could utilize this revenue to provide much needed community centers, libraries, public parks, and low cost housing. State funding for public schools would also come with such redevelopment.

Furthermore, workers in downtown would be able to take advantage of the recently approved BART expansion, increasing the ridership required to offset public subsidies to run the trains.

Committee for Green Foothills is working with PLAN to see that this vision becomes a reality. If you are interested in finding out more about PLAN's efforts or in supporting our work in Santa Clara County, please contact Denice Dade: Denice@GreenFoothills.org or (650) 968-7243.

PLAN is supported by a coalition of individuals and organizations including Committee for Green Foothills, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Community Homeless Advocacy Ministry and the Green Party.

Published May 2001 in Green Footnotes.
Page last updated August 4, 2001.


	News Subscribe to Our Newsletter Sign up for Email Updates CGF In the News Press Inquiries Past Articles Calendar			City of San Jose Stalls Cisco Referendum by Denice Dade On January 16th, the City Council voted to deny the people of San Jose the opportunity to vote on the largest and most significant development decision this region has faced in decades. Cisco's plans for a sprawling 6.6 million square foot industrial campus in North Coyote Valley will produce traffic gridlock, exacerbate the housing crisis and pave over rich agricultural soil. The Cisco campus is the first step in developing the entire North Coyote Valley. More significantly, it is the economic catalyst necessary for generating infrastructure improvements that would pave the way for 50,000 jobs over the next 15 years, plus an additional 75,000 service-related jobs. As a region, we must decide whether to condone massive sprawl developments or revitalize existing city centers with compact urban development. Cisco proposal is sprawl of the worst kind This massive job center, more than ten miles away from downtown, will put tremendous development pressure on southern counties, which offer a supply of cheaper housing and land. The impacts of the development of the North Coyote Valley are significant, and a project of this size should be accompanied by extensive regional planning. Yet the City Council has refused to adequately address issues of transportation and housing, and is single-mindedly driving San Jose in the direction of massive suburban sprawl, traffic congestion throughout the region, and destruction of valuable agricultural lands. San Jose rejects voters' right to PLAN In an effort to require the city to consider an alternative vision for Coyote Valley, People for Livable and Affordable Neighborhoods (PLAN), gathered more than 50,000 signatures from registered San Jose voters to allow public approval of this project. Cisco's development will forever change this region and PLAN believes that the people of San Jose must be able to vote on a decision of this magnitude. Despite these efforts, the City of San Jose ignored the right and desire of the people to decide, and voted not to certify PLAN's referendum. The city's attorney claims that PLAN's referendum is not valid. PLAN, confident of the referendum's legality, has filed suit against the City of San Jose to require that the referendum be put to a vote. PLAN has hired Fred Woocher, a partner in the prestigious firm Strumwasser & Woocher, nationally renowned for its expertise in election law, to represent the group on this issue. Referendum will protect open space The property owner has made unsubstantiated claims in the press that the referendum will have little effect on the project. However, PLAN has found no legal evidence for these claims, and is moving forward with the referendum campaign. The referendum, if successful, may stop the project altogether; at a minimum, it would force Cisco to: • Reduce the project's size by 26% (by not allowing the transfer of development credits necessary to complete the project) • Increase the amount of open space at the site from 25% to 35% (that would in turn increase the density and add parking structures to the development). PLAN's alternative vision The Cisco proposal backed by the San Jose City Council is destructive and prohibitively expensive. Taxpayers will be required to subsidize more than 40 million dollars in infrastructure costs, in addition to the costs for new schools, police, firemen, libraries and other community services. This development would locate workers far from housing and mass transit, cause massive traffic congestion throughout the region, and destroy prime agricultural land. PLAN has an alternative vision for development of jobs in San Jose. This vision includes compact urban development, with new job generation occurring in downtown San Jose. By locating new jobs in redevelopment areas, downtown, the city could take advantage of tax revenue generated from new property taxes. This revenue would go directly to the city, instead of to state and county governments. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency could utilize this revenue to provide much needed community centers, libraries, public parks, and low cost housing. State funding for public schools would also come with such redevelopment. Furthermore, workers in downtown would be able to take advantage of the recently approved BART expansion, increasing the ridership required to offset public subsidies to run the trains. Committee for Green Foothills is working with PLAN to see that this vision becomes a reality. If you are interested in finding out more about PLAN's efforts or in supporting our work in Santa Clara County, please contact Denice Dade: Denice@GreenFoothills.org or (650) 968-7243. PLAN is supported by a coalition of individuals and organizations including Committee for Green Foothills, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Community Homeless Advocacy Ministry and the Green Party. Published May 2001 in Green Footnotes. Page last updated August 4, 2001.