May 18, 2007

City Council says no to Evergreen’s Campus Industrial site development

Developer dollars likely lost; council votes 9-1 in favor of exploring jobs to housing triggers

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

It took the San Jose City Council less than four hours to dramatically alter four years of work on the Evergreen East Hills Vision Strategy on May 15 when it deferred rezoning the Campus Industrial site for housing.

In a 9-1 vote, with only District 8 council member/San Jose Vice Mayor Dave Cortese dissenting, the council followed a recommendation from Mayor Chuck Reed and council members Judy Chirco, Pete Constant and Nancy Pyle that sought to defer the industrial parcel and to seek methods of enticing industry to the area.

A second motion, voted through 9-1, this time with District 3 council member Sam Liccardo against it, the council asked the Planning Department staff to return within 30 days with a proposal allowing development on the Arcadia, Evergreen Valley College and Pleasant Hills Golf Course sites, along with the smaller residential pool units, to go forward.

During that discussion, the motion was amended to combine triggers with incentives to develop the industrial site with employment-generating uses as was done in north San Jose and Coyote Valley, as well as incorporating the Evergreen Visioning Project’s Guiding principals into a proposed revision of the Evergreen Development Project, while including the current list of amenities in the EDP as an unmet/unfunded need for the community.

These decisions were made after a long day for council members that began at 9 a.m. Most of the council discussion didn’t begin until nearly 10 p.m., and at one point, Pyle suggested that it might be preferable to wait until council members were more rested to make such momentous decisions.

While the council was effusive in its thanks to the Planning Department staff and all of the members who worked on the task force guidelines, the effective result was a loss of money that developers had planned to swap with the city for permission to build on the four sites.

During the four-year process, developer/property owners promised the council they would provide money for amenities and traffic calming, among other things, in return for building a number of homes on the four parcels of land.

However, the amount has dwindled. At the end of the task force project last October, the money was at about $224 million and over the winter it dropped to $221 million. The proposal at Tuesday night’s meeting—one developer would not sign an agreement—had dropped to $167 million.

“It’s a better outcome than allowing 3,600 units to go forward,” Cortese told the Times after the meeting. “But it’s sad, letting the $167 million get away plus another $30 million and land for an Evergreen school. I didn’t want to let go of that money.”

Cortese’s concerns about the money are centered in two areas. First is the highway 101 corridor from Tully Road through Capitol Expressway/Yerba Buena exits, which causes extensive backups that severely hamper traffic flow in and out of the area. In addition, developer dollars would’ve helped eliminate the overcrowded traffic corridors—Tully road and Capitol Expressway—within the Evergreen area.

His other concern centered on the need to provide amenities, such as sports fields and community centers to the area. In some cases, these plans have been discussed for more than 20 years.

In a memo he sent out earlier in the day, Cortese called for “a moratorium on new homes in Evergreen” if the council rejected the funding agreement.

“I would be betraying the people of my district if I allowed homes to be built without providing the needed traffic enhancements,” he told the Times.

During the meeting, Cortese suggested triggers be used to allow portions of residential home development so that jobs and housing could go hand in hand.

Public concerns
Before discussion on the issue began, nearly 40 members of the public spoke to the council, the vast majority providing little support for the plans. Many were concerned that if the Campus Industrial site was maintained for industry, that development would be added piecemeal. Others cited concerns for public safety and quality of life.
“We need a well balanced job-to-housing ratio,” said one resident.

“You need to look 20 years down the road. We need to preserve this land, not build more homes,” said another.
Some council members tended to agree.

“I don’t see the [Mayor’s] memo as a no to the project. I see it as taking a more global look, ensuring a balance of industrial lands throughout the city,” said council member Pete Constant.

Other council members expressed concern that the money developers were offering wasn’t adequate for the improvements. Council member Forrest Williams asked about cost overruns and was told by Deputy Planning Director Laurel Prevetti that the city would be obligated for any cost overruns.

Chirco also cited concerns over more housing potentially increasing the area’s already jammed traffic.

“My real concern is that the city may be on the ropes, if we can’t afford all the traffic improvements,” she said.

Chirco also expressed concerns about increased costs as the years go by and whether the department looked at costs with 2007 dollars or factored in increases for more costly materials in suggested traffic improvements and amenities.

“There are more questions being raised than answered,” council member Nora Campos added.

After the vote took place, Prevetti and Planning Director Joe Horwedel both indicated it’s not likely the department will be able to finish work on the remaining development proposals still in play within 30 days, adding that work will most likely continue until the next general plan meeting in the fall or possibly into 2008.

Different process?
“This [whole thing] is clearly an example that land use planning by committee doesn’t work,” said Ed Abelite, managing general partner of the Canyon Creek Shopping Center in Evergreen.

He noted that he felt sorry for everyone involved in the process, “to be shot down after all the work they’ve done. But I understand where the Mayor is going. General policy questions about land use are not easy.”

He also hoped that some changes would be made in future decisions.

“No one has defended the smaller developers, the people who were stuck in the pool allocations. I hope the city council takes care of these guys who haven’t had a seat at the table. I hope they get a spokesman,” Abelite said.

Other legislation
During the afternoon session, the council approved a Planning Department recommendation outlined in a memo from Reed about industrial land conversion. The memo modified Planning’s recommendations to include the wording, “applications for conversions to support public infrastructure may be accepted only after the infrastructure has been designated by the council.”

In other words, Reed is attempting to forestall the recent trend of converting industrial land to housing. The proposal that passed asked that Planning Department staff develop a framework or guideline for conversion evaluations.