Dear Editor, This letter is in response to the article
“Where’s LAFCO When We Need Them,” (Editorial, Sept. 10). As a
LAFCO Executive Officer, I am concerned about the misconceptions in
the article relating to LAFCO.
Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to the article “Where’s LAFCO When We Need Them,” (Editorial, Sept. 10). As a LAFCO Executive Officer, I am concerned about the misconceptions in the article relating to LAFCO. First of all, I would like to clarify LAFCO’s role. LAFCO’s mandate from the State Legislature is to ensure orderly growth and development and logical boundaries while preventing urban sprawl, preserving open space, and agriculture, and encouraging efficient provision of services. While LAFCO is composed of public members and elected members from various jurisdictions and geographic areas within the county, LAFCO’s decisions on city and special district boundary changes are primarily guided by these overriding goals.
Specifically, I would like to clarify that:
n LAFCO has not yet taken a position on Coyote Valley. San Jose must submit a formal application for inclusion of a portion of Coyote Valley into its USA (Urban Service Area) prior to developing the area. Once LAFCO receives an application, LAFCO will hold a public hearing and make a decision on the proposal. In the meantime, LAFCO staff has been following and updating the Commission on the Coyote Valley Specific Plan process. So far, LAFCO has sent three comment letters to San Jose and the Task Force identifying issues of concern for LAFCO, and urging the City of San Jose to address these issues in its specific plan process. Copies of LAFCO’s letter are on the City of San Jose’s Web site for the Coyote Valley Specific Plan. Or you may request a copy of the letters from LAFCO.
n Although LAFCO denied the inclusion of the Sports Park in Gilroy’s Urban Service Area, LAFCO did conditionally approve annexation of the Sports Park parcels to the City. However, the conditions have not been met and so the parcels remain unincorporated.
I hope this letter addresses the issues presented in the newspaper article.
Neelima Placherla, LAFCO Executive Office
Editor’s note: The article was an editorial published on the Opinion page suggesting state legislators make all LAFCO members elected by the public.
