The Evergreen issue is still looming next week, but it is not the only development item on the radar screen these days. After a stinging editorial in the Mercury News on Tuesday, the city council unanimously backed off approving a proposal to begin major urban development in the Almaden Valley greenbelt by supporting Council Member Nancy Pyle in her efforts to thwart the usual assortment of lobbyists and support current city growth restraints. Planning Director Joe Horwedel said the Almaden proposal by the Rancho San Vicente partnership is so far removed from city policy that is isn’t worth the cost of the planning work and an Environmental Impact Report. We may have dodged a bullet here, but the issue will surely surface again.
Nancy Pyle’s Chief of Staff Lee Wilcox told me that Pyle plans to vote next week to delay consideration of the Evergreen development until everything necessary to make a decision is known, putting her firmly in the Reed/Cortese camp. It’s clear they believe that a properly considered vote based on knowing all the facts cannot take place until next year. However, that will not stop some council members’ efforts on behalf of the developers, as we noted on this site last week, and everything remains up in the air. Do the lobbyists and developers have enough council members in their grasp to get the plan approved next week? We will soon find out. If enough people make enough noise here and at the meeting next week, who knows?
Meanwhile, a judge has approved a settlement agreement that will allow part of the “North San Jose Vision 2030” plan to go ahead with the building of an additional 210,000 square feet on the Cadence Design Systems campus and 6,000 new homes in the district. The plan was approved by the council in 2005 but lawsuits by the county and the cities of Milpitas and Santa Clara took the matter into court. North San Jose Council Member and Mayor-elect Chuck Reed has been a supporter of the plan which allows 26.7 million square feet of office space and 32,000 new homes.
The cause of all these development issues constantly coming out of the woodwork is that the city’s General Plan is opened up to changes several times a year. It used to be only once annually, but the Gonzales administration changed the policy under the guise of creating more affordable housing. In reality, it has been a boon for lobbyists and developers. My information is that Mayor-elect Reed favors changing back to the old once-a-year policy in order to keep a tighter rein on development issues and allow the staff to use the vast amount of time they spend on the constant stream of planning issues to implement the waiting list of already-approved programs. This would certainly signal a significant change at City Hall.
This mornings’ Merc reported that the Council Rules Committee met yesterday and shoved a decision on Evergreen into Jauary after all the new electees are seated. Wise move. I agree with Mayor-elect Reed, once a year should be the review policy.
Jack, at what point do we slow down or stop growth in our Valley? How does one weigh the benefits of growth and more affordable housing against the environmental concerns. I’m not just talking about maintaining open space. More to the point, my concern is for such things as air quality and availability of water. You may recall that we suffered through a serious drought in the Valley several years ago. Restrictions were placed on such things as watering lawns and plants. With the additional thousands of residents, what will the next drought be like? Ditto air quality – spare the air alerts ask that we minimize driving and take public transportation, avoid mowing the lawn, and steer clear of backyard barbecues. I guess the question is: do we ratify continued growth at the expense of our quality of life?
Perhaps once a year is a longer period then necessary. It wouldn’t hurt to have this done twice a year. But whatever is done ther will be unhappy people. This “new look” by Nancy Pyle shouldn’t fool anybody. The only way she is going to rid herself of her past association with Gonso is to get thrown out of office. She will be here for a while unfortunately, but she’s just a follower. So no accolades should be given her.
#2,
On my 95 minute lightrail ride into downtown SJ this morning I overheard 2 CH types discussing just this issue.
Word is that there is a CH skunkworks project underway to help citizens spare the air via a greener barbecue solution.
It’s a program where you trade in your propane tank for an assemblage of rather large magnifying glasses that you mount over your grill.
I’m a little sketchy on further details due to the homeless guy next to me raising a ruckus.
Read the Merc editorial in the Valey section. Finaly, the link between industrial conversons and police stafing! Thank you Scott Herhold. How many times does it need to be spelled out for these people?
Greg#2: The only way to truly regulate growth is to reduce the birth rate. As long as births exceed deaths, and as long as this is a great place to live and work, people will want to come here, and they’ll need a place to live and work.
Otherwise, all local schemes in desirable places like ours to stop growth amount to nothing more than NIMBYISM, or the old lifeboat syndrome—I’m in, the rest of y’all stay out.
One can disguise it by saying we want quality of life, but it’s really little more than I have mine, you have to go elsewhere for yours.
So, we need to declare National Vasectomy Day once/year.
Quality of life has been on the backburner the past few years, unless you count the quality of life for the lobbyists and developers who have done quite well under the Gonzo administration.
We have packed housing units into every nook and cranny, along railroad tracks, practically in the middle of expressways, next to industrial uses, and other incompatible neighbors. Hopefully, under Mayor Reed, some sanity will return to our planning. Mayor Reed will probably even respect the opinions of our professional staff, unlike Gonzo and his previous lap dog city manager.
Evergreen is on the verge of being destroyed. It is already choking on its traffic, the hillsides have been covered with homes, and some folks want to add even more. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the more houses you pack in, the more city services that will be needed, and the more industrial land you convert for housing will bleed your general fund. Maybe some of our new councilmembers will have a clue, unlike some of our current one.
Champions of downtown development should take a close look at the picture above the Mercury’s editorial today about North San Jose.
As has been pointed out on this blog, that picture and the accompanying development plans for North First envision residential & employment projects that will rival downtown in size, complexity, and “bustle” (a favorite word of the city’s planning department to signify lots of on-the-ground activity).
It will pull far more development money and restaurant & social activity out of downtown than Santana Row ever will, probably on a more middle or upper-middle class level, but still huge.
The Mercury was wrong in its editorial when it said “the plan fell short of the city’s usual level of community involvement.” In fact a very large number of city residents took part in the entire planning process beginning with the scoping meeting. We emphasized parks and schools at every meeting, contradicting the Mercury’s revisionist remarks in its editorial today.
Both the planning commission and the city council were well and truly informed about the “human elements” as the Mercury refers to those amenities (like parks & schools) that people need in urban areas.
You can’t have North San Jose as envisioned by the city’s planners and still have a smart, growing, booming downtown.
Statements about stopping growth in our valley, developers having council members in their grasp, affordable housing and environmental concerns reveal the true reason for the current housing situation.
Given the incentives, it is easy to understand why “planning” commissions, “open space” laws and ” preservation” policies exist. People who already own homes don’t worry about whether such laws will drive housing prices sky-high. Somebody else will have to pay those prices while existing homeowners see their values rise.
As for “preserving,” some of the most beautiful places in California are where people live. What most preservationists want is to use the power of government to impose their conception of beauty on others, conveniently using words like “open space” and “air quality” to sell the idea.
Meanwhile, land that might otherwise provide homes for others becomes free land and views for themselves, keeping out everyone else. The amazing part is that such self-interest is depicted as idealism.
How many times do we have to hear about evil developers on this site? The fact that some people are on the inside looking out does not make them more important than people who are on the outside looking in. The real agenda of those who support such legislation is keeping people out, or forcing them to live in a manner and location the self-anointed approve of. Yet somehow homebuilders who enable other people to move into their community are considered selfish and greedy.
Please plan for infrastructure demands wisely, but don’t “restrict” others from enjoying what you do, or direct them as to what and where they can sell, build or rent.
Dale #8 – is on losing side of good planning policies and offers no worthwhile alternatives
North San Jose is where we need extensive mixed use high density development ( homes, offices and retail ) and reuse rather than continue flawed low density development policies with 3 land uses miles apart
Evergreen and Coyote Valley will gave us more LA style traffic and development environment disasters
Yes we can do both and grow booming Downtown if we focus on serving downtown residents and businesses and regional entertainment, theater, clubs, sports etc Regional retail was lost years ago to other cities by City Council’s poor planning
We also need very large North San Jose shopping center for residents and businesses
#8,
I agree with your assessment of both the North First Street project, and the lack of integrity on the part of the Mercury News.
At this time it makes no sense to add housing to North First Street. Continue adding jobs, and add some minimal housing downtown. After all, the light rail is in place between downtown and North First Street. For once, let’s actually use the light rail as it was intended.
After we get the jobs/housing imbalance corrected then, maybe, we can start to examine adding housing at North First, and other parts of the city.
I do not know what to do about the Mercury. They just run their mouth on any subject without having a clue as to what they are talking about. I subscribe to both the Chronicle and the Mercury News, and the Chronicle passed the Mercury News years ago as being a better paper.
To Secret identity #10
I suppose you would have wanted Cassandra to spell out alternatives when the Trojan horse was gifted.
However, there is an alternative to so-called Smart Growth, and it is Wise Growth, and you can read about it here:
http://www.comvirtual.com/saveopenspaces/2.htm
Dale
We know you have confidence that Mayor Reed will oversee wise growth North San Jose high density development
#4 Novice
#6 jmoc
This is too cool. The new mayor hasn’t even taken office yet and we’re well on the way to a greener and growth reduced San Jose.
I can see it now. . . guys lined up at City Hall from all over the city to help the cause.
What a deal; a free vasectomy with solar cauterizing. Bring your BBQ magnifying lens and get a free Starbucks coupon.
Joe Average (#9), my gosh, I imagine you must have to replace your PC every year or two after wearing down to a nub your open and close quotes key!
Joe, as I understand it, you’ll be willing to abandon bathing when we run out of water, am I right? Too, you’ll be willing to wear an oxygen tank and breathing apparatus when our air quality approaches that of Mexico City.
Good for you Joe, we need more pioneers like you here in the Valley.
#15 Greg,
I’m still trying to digest the argument that only x number of people and houses can be allowed because we will run out of clean air and water.
#16 David,
Great post. I agree with your resentment of track homes and monster estates. Of course, I would never politically force someone to build, or not build, to what we think looks nice. Even if we are the majority.
17 – Oh, I get it. You believe our finite resources are infinite. Too bad you’re wrong and that kind of thinking will have us depleting our natural resources because you apparently don’t want to control the number of houses and people that will populate our city. Good luck when we have to ration water, have more spare the air days, etc.
Joe Average (#9),
You are not alone. You share the concerns and feeling many would like to find a piece of the American dream here in San Jose. Many who have grown up or worked most of their lives here could not afford to buy the homes they live in if starting today. Retired folks are living off their equity and others have children and grandchildren living at home with them. It’s not easy and it will not get easier. Many of the children growing up in this valley will not be able to afford a house where they grew up.
The world and this valley where I was born is far from the San Jose of today. As San Jose’s population grows, so with it problems of meeting the needs of the people who live here.
Unfortunately carpeting the valley floor and surrounding hills with tract homes and monster estates is not the answer; nor is a no-growth policy to drive up home values and preserve undeveloped land. The answer lies somewhere in between; and the process for finding the right path forward takes time; and that path will not please everyone.
There’s only so much dirt in San Jose on which to build homes and places to work. The new mayor, his transition team, the City staff and new council will do the best they can to sort through these issues without letting San Jose drift in the direction of those cities where neither you nor I would want to live or work.
18- You’re right. I don’t want to control what other people do with their property, regardless of my preference of open space. And I certainly don’t want anyone who uses the centuries old “we’re running out of resources” logic to control anything. Infrastructure planning is great; not hillside, building, rent, resource, or your favorite, population control.
#15,
As our population demographic approaches that of Mexico City, doesn’t it follow that our air quality should too?
On a related note, given the plethora of spare the air *nights* we’re having, does anyone know where I can get headlights for my gas lawnmower?
I can sure as heck bbq at night but I’m not so confident about night mowing without proper lighting.
Native #18 said:“because you apparently don’t want to control the number of houses and people that will populate OUR city.”[emphasis mine]
So I guess it’s OK with you, Native, if they populate some other city, just stay out of San Jose so OUR air is pure. As I said in #6:“The only way to truly regulate growth is to reduce the birth rate. ” So you get the first free vasectomy, Native. I got mine 30+ years ago.
19 – Interesting misinterpretation of what I said. Try reading it again.
I assume from your comment that you believe our resources will simply expand to accommodate whatever number of people we build housing for? You must know something that the rest of us don’t about how we are going to sustain continued building and demand on city services.
Dale #8
North San Jose development plan was developed by city and redevelopment staff and as you stated ” a very large number of city residents took part in the entire planning process beginning with the scoping meeting ”
but your flawed Wise Growth ideas were rejected
If you – 1) understood Smart Growth principals, 2) used San Jose’s poor Smart Growth implementation examples and 3) could working well with others – you could have won many of your arguments but you do not and can not, so lost
Your continue to confuse poor Smart Growth implementation as a justification for rejecting proven Smart Growth principals
” Smart growth is development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment”
“Smart growth is about being good stewards of our communities and of our rural lands, parks, and forests. It is about ensuring that the best of the past is preserved, while creating new communities that are attractive, vital, and enduring.”
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_sg.htm
San Jose frequently talks Smart Growth to justify many poor planning decisions but infrequently, some would say never except by chance. follows Smart Growth principals
Smart Growth Principles / San Jose’s poor Implementation
1. Mix Land Uses / Almost never Mix use but falsely justifies only homes as Smart Growth
2. Take Advantage of Compact Building Design / Almost never since square feet and bland design gets higher profits
3. Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices / Mostly large suburban tract homes with a few condos / apartments
4. Create Walkable Neighborhoods / Very few – Mostly suburban sprawl – no sidewalks
5. Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place / Where in San Jose ?
6. Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty, and Critical Environmental Areas / Not in San Jose only in hillsides and other cities as we build more and more
7. Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities / Not done except to crowd more homes in neighborhoods without parks, pools, stores etc while people dirive to everywhere
8. Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices / Cars, more cars esulting in traffic jams and more jams and Public Transit that does not go where people want or takes 3 times as long
9. Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost Effective / San Jose has opposite – unpredictable except more developer exceptions, unfair to existing neighbors and highest costs in US
10. Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration in Development Decisions / Where has this ever been done in “ done deal “ San Jose with developers getting political contributions payback development exception approvals
Mayor and City Council’s statements about Smart Growth are used to justify approving hundreds of exceptions to development policies necessary as paybacks to their political campaign contributors
Your Wise Growth does not make good urban planning or financial sense for high density Light Rail stations and shows you do not understand Smart Growth concepts while using San Jose’s poor implementation that violates Smart Growth principals to develop and justify your flawed Wise Growth ideas:
1) “Smart Growth rejects open space near transit stations ” – No true since many stations have small parks or open spaces but if you mean having large open space next to transit stations that defeats the “pedistrian friendly walkable “ transit station concept and is not financial workable due to very high cost of land near stations. Large open spaces are not appropriate at transit stations and would result in more car usage, increase traffic and very low transit usage
2) ” Smart Growth deliberately plans for inadequate parking as a way to push residents into public transit ”
Parking is reduced by 10% at transit stations using reasonable assumption residents will use public transit instead of cars. If you argued that Light Rail is poorly designed, people not use it as assumed and San Jose should not reduce parking requirements many would agree. That is not your argument and you used a conspiracy argument again showing poor understanding of Smart Growth
3) ” Smart Growth emphasizes transportation corridor and node development whereas Wise Growth focuses on community and neighborhood development. ” Smart Growth properly done requires a community and neighborhood’s input, visions, values, and aspirations into reality, using smart growth techniques to improve the quality of development
Again you and a few people use San Jose’s poor implementation to justify your flawed unproven Wise Growth and again demonstrate you do not understand proven Smart Growth principals
Native-
If you are worried about air pollution, stop driving your car. If you are worried about water consumption, tear out your lawn.
But as long as you water your plants or drive your car, you have no right to claim “resources” as an excuse to deprive another man of a home.
24 – Interesting, if flawed concept. All of us should be doing everything possible to reduce our consumption of natural resources (I do.) Part of the process is we have to have common sense which some of you seem to lack. If we keep building more and more homes, thus increasing the number of people in THE city, we will not be able to supply adequate city services (police, fire, garbage, etc.) nor will be able to assure a continuous water supply, clean and safe air, or a basic quality of life.
Those of you who seem to think we should just keep building—I wonder how you expect to pay for the increased city services, how will you assure clean and safe air and water, how will you maintain streets and roads (which we can’t even do now), how will you provide adequate parklands, etc. etc.? If you’ve got this all worked out, please share your secret with us and the rest of cities around the country struggling with this dilemma.
JMO,Non Native, Joe A. and all the rest attacking Native,
50 years ago San Jose was a beautiful place to live, lots of open space, clean air and water. Poor planning, uncontrolled growth, greed and lack of vision got us to where we are today. What is your plan, is it stay the course, is it I want mine and screw future generations or do you have a plan that can help lift this sinking ship? I’m a Republican and all for small government and property rights. I’m also a local land and business owner that has lived here for over a half century and know what we have done in the past does not work. Please give us your plan, give us some hope.
#23: your assignment for the weekend is to learn the difference between principals and principles. Say each, spell each, and use each properly in a sentence.
Good luck!
# 26 said: 50 years ago San Jose was a beautiful place to live, lots of open space, clean air and water.” Jeez, a little helpless, so were a lot of places, depending upon your point of view.
As long as birth rates exceed death rates, our planet will have to struggle to accomodate us all. Maybe some day the planet will fail.
You can’t have those halcyon days of The Valley of Heart’s Delight anymore, Little Help. Sorry.
28 – Great attitude. I’m not ready to give up yet. I’m going to continue to try and save what little we have left.
So, Native # 29, how do you propose to slow the birth rate , amd how do you intend to get around that pesky Constitutional problem of freedom to travel and settle anywhere?
In my opinion, the North San Jose Intesification Plan is really an attempt by the SJRDA and Office of Economic Development to keep up with neighboring cities who have allowed more intensive office development to attract and retain corporations with HQ campus aspirations like Ebay and BEA. It was developed during a time frame after the valley lost approximately 200,000 jobs and Silicon Valley cities were trying to hang on to their major employers.
Additionally, another major motivation for SJRDA is that with the intensification of development in its Los Esoteros Project Area, the higher property values after redevelopment will significantly increase the SJRDA’s project area tax increment revenues, which were faltering until this past year.
It is my opinion, that this plan is a fatally flawed attempt at implementing the City’s Smart Growth Policies because it does not comprehensively plan for the needed services and public facilities to support the additional development envisioned. I have a strong suspicion that the “smart growth” tag was simply an added consideration/justification the planning staff noted to the RDA & OED after they were consulted about possible City strategies to keep corporations from bolting to Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, or Cupertino.
Approximately 1-yr ago, the “North San Jose Plan” was presented to the San Jose Housing Advisory Commission by the Planning Department. At that meeting, questions were raised with the planning staff about the need for schools, public facilities, and resident services to serve the projected population of 80,000 new residents and empolyees envisioned in the North San Jose Plan. As a benchmark, the the population of Cupertino is approximately 80,000 and the population of new residents in North San Jose would be greater than both Los Gatos and Saratoga combined (each about 30k). More importantly, the planners were questioned about whether the intensified development envisioned would seriously undermine the City’s stated goals of intensifying and guiding development to the Downtown Core. The response given by the planners at the time was that the City would examine these concerns and incorporate them as the project moved forward thru the required public review and environmental process. That did not occur.
In my opinion, the current plan still does not address these issues adequately.
Jack… Since KB Homes is player here in the valley this article from a respected financial news letter caught my eye.
An excerpt from that letter…..
“Lennar, the #3 homebuilding firm, said the cancellation rates for home sales were running about 30% last quarter. KB Homes said the number was 43%. A lot of anecdotal stories suggest the numbers could get worse. So that would add homes back into the Homes for Sale statistics that the Commerce Department (Census Bureau) tracks, wouldn’t it? “
“The simple answer is no. The Census Bureau surveys home builders and specific housing starts. If a home is built and at some point put under contract for sale, it is then considered sold. The Census Bureau does not go back a few months later and ask, “Did you really sell that house?” “
The rest of this article can be found at…
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com
by John Mauldin
News letter dated: December 8, 2006
In the Know in San Jose #32, Dale #8 , Dale’s Flawed Wise Growth ideas #23 , JMOC etc
North San Jose Plan expansion has many problems according to you.
How do YOU Fix North San Jose since
– doing nothing will not happen,
– downtown only is unrealistic
– and Evergreen, and Coyote Valley are worst?
Are you saying No growth or have other workable ideas unlike JMOC’s suspend reality fantasy – slow birth rate
In the Know in San Jose #32, Dale #8 , Dale’s Flawed Wise Growth ideas #23 , JMOC etc
North San Jose Plan expansion has many problems according to you.
How do YOU Fix North San Jose since
– doing nothing will not happen,
– downtown only is unrealistic
– and Evergreen, and Coyote Valley are worst?
Are you saying No growth or Have other workable ideas?
Unlike another of JMOC’s suspend reality fantasies – slow birth rate – Yea long wait until everyone is middle class or higher and birth rates go down
The plan has to be amended to include the basics to serve the 80,000 residents projected in the area:
1) identified school sites and means to pay for them,
2) fire station facilities and a means to pay for them,
3) a police substation and a means to pay for it,
4) public libraries and a means to pay for it,
5) community centers (afterschool & senior) and a means to pay for the,
6) badly needed parks & recreation facilities and a means to pay for them, and
7)neighborhood serving retail (grocery stores, drug stores, and specialty retail for the 23,000 housing units.
Until SJ includes all these things in the plan it will only perpetuate the non-smart growth sprawl that SJ has been known for. The plan being foisted on us only enriches the real estate trust and corporatons who own the land and hope to cash in when it is sold to residential developers like the Irvine Company.
This just in… Al Gore’s Oscar hopes up in smoke.
“The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.”
“The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.”
Let’s see, there can be little doubt but at the same time they reducing human estimated impact on global warming by 25%.
And get this – improved data is responsible for halving the estimated rise in sea level.
This improved data stuff is amazing! Is there anything that improved data can’t do?
Finally, don’t you find it a little odd that no other news outlet picked up this story? You’d almost think there was some kind of news media bias or something.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml