City Hall Diary
At the August 28 city council evening meeting, the council spent over two hours deliberating on where to put the park that is part of the Irvine Development in North San Jose. This item was continued from the August 14 meeting where the council discussed it at length until 1 a.m.
There were two possible park locations discussed. One option was to locate the five acre turnkey park at a central location so that future residents could enjoy the park. The other option was to move the park to the eastern side of the parcel. This location would not suit the majority of residents and the future communities that will eventually live there.
The residents currently living in the existing high-density development want the park to be at the eastern side so it will serve as a buffer to the new development. That may make one pause and think about this option, however. There are a few problems that I found against having the park on the eastern side. One is that the city and community would lose 50 parking spaces resulting in more on-street parking, which I know would lead to problems down the road. Also, a five acre park is for everyone to enjoy, not just those who live adjacent to the park.
Another problem with the eastern side is that this location would not be able to accommodate as many organized playing fields for children or adults. Not allowing room for children to play team sports is not a good use of a five acre park. Again, we must make sure that San Jose’s larger parks are utilized to their fullest potential.
I voted to keep the park in the location that the developer and planning/park staff recommended: the central location. One reason I support this recommendation is that this location would allow for residents to view the park at all times, thus allowing for the potential to prevent vandalism or other suspicious activity at the park.
Keeping the park at its current location also allows the Guadalupe Creek Trail and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to link together there. In addition, at the central location, this five acre park has the potential to be a seven acre park, which will allow all residents of San Jose to utilize it, much like the historic Rose Garden Municipal Park and Alum Rock Park. Moving the park would cap it at five acres.
I find it disingenuous that residents who are living in a high-density development are against others having the opportunity to live in a high-density development. As a resident and an elected official, I want housing to be available for all people, and the amenities that accompany housing to be available to all as well.
As I continue to mention (whenever I get the chance), I support smart urban development and growth within San Jose’s boundaries, not more sprawl. North San Jose is and can continue to be a very thoughtful, well-planned community with large parks, light rail, commercial, industrial, housing and jobs. This type of development is what San Jose needs. In addition, it is important to remember that this specific development will not be occupied until spring/summer 2011.
Thanks for laying out your reasons for your vote. They are well thought out. I wish others of the council would be so bold to have such an open blog.
Parks are certainly a vital element to quality of life in San Jose, particularly when living in densely populated housing. The ability to increase the size of this park is a big plus, as well as the trail linkage. A real win-win if you ask me!
The park in the area of north first street
Should be for everyone, not just the elite
Build tables and benches, a place to eat
Some trees and flowers that smell sweet
A gathering place where friends can meet
Provide trash receptacles, to keep it neat
An area where seniors can have a seat
A place so toddlers and parents can greet
Rest areas so you can get off your feet
A wonderful park would be a treat
All our worries and stress we could delete
To hear birds go chirp, chirp, tweet
A walking path made of concrete
But keep it simple, no luxury suite
Trees will provide shade from the heat
Ice cream vendors, something cool and sweet
Yes, I hope this park will not face defeat
I hope it pencils out on the balance sheet
Let’s turn this dream into something concrete
PO,
Please clarify why the City has resources to develop new parks when there is not sufficient resources to properly take care of the parks it already has? Even if the developer pays for initial construction, what about future maintenance?
Why is there money for new parks while other parks, such as the historic Rose Garden, go begging?
Are we really mourning the loss of surface-level parking? We should be rejoicing in the destruction of an eyesore in exchange for a park.
Developer is building the park not San Jose since state law requires developer to contribute money or land for parks for new residents
San Jose general fund budget pays for park maintenance and 67% goes to city employee pay, benefits and retirement costs leaving only 33% for all other expenses so parks and many other services are underfunded
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/FY0708/0708BudgetMessage.pdf
Mercury published salaries of 7,500 current full-time and part-time workers who were on the city payroll last year and 2046 ( 27% )made more than $100,000
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6772455
#3
Irvine the developer of this project has offered to maintain the park after it is built, even paying prevailing wage. It is in Irvine’s best interest since the park will be surrounded by their rental development.
When is Pellier Park going to be rebuilt, as promised by the developer who “temporarily” demolished it?
I just woke up from your post last week and want you to know……..zzzzzzzzzz
#5
So, the developer has offered to maintain the park? How nice! For what period of time? A month? A Year?
Sooner or later maintenance of this park will get dropped back into the City’s lap.
I think the thing that is not being talked about here is that the folks in the River Oak neighborhood want the park to be central to the old development of River Oaks and the new Irvine development.
From conversations that I have had with people there, they want something that is central to everybody and not just a fancy entrance way to the Irvine sales and rental offices. If you take a look at a similar situation in a completed development you can see that this has the very real potential to becoming something that is for the use of the new development.
Take a look at Moitozo Park. Unless you live there, take the light rail or walk you can not use it. The residents of the surrounding development take up pretty much all of the parking. This has become a park for the residents only.
The other thing about the River Oaks area is that when it was built there was not the land donation scheme that exists now. The developer was required to give money to the city to construct a park. Where did that money go? Where is the park that they were supposed to have gotten?
P O said @ #5:“Irvine the developer of this project has offered to maintain the park after it is built, even paying prevailing wage.”
#9 asked: “So, the developer has offered to maintain the park? How nice! For what period of time? A month? A Year? ” P.O. please respond. Or is the word “offered” the one we should fixate on? Sounds like there is no substantial agreement on any terms whatsoever.
#10 has some interesting observations, which brings up the question: who uses parks? Answer, for the most part, people who have no other acceptable outdoor recreation opportunities. People with yards party in their yards. People without yards big enough to party in need yards to party inprovided by the taxpayers. Those are called parks.
So, take Willow Street Park, which all the city types want to call Bramhall Park, but the residents keep resisting. Who partys there? Few Willow Gleners; mostly Gardner/Virginia Street, “North Willow Glen (a construct by whom???) folks. My point?? Nice parks often attract folks from other neighborhoods who don’t have such nice parks to party in. So, how can we give everyone reasonable access to parks? Probably can’t happen except on the outskirts, or as a part of new development.
On the other hand, Mike # 10 decries the fact that Moitozo Park (I must confess to never having heard of it) is for residents only. So, what’s wrong with that, Mike? A convenient park for people who live in the area. What an abomination!!!!
So, we now get to the essential questions: what obligation does any municipal government have to provide free access at taxpayer expense to open space recreational opportunities (a park) a reasonable distance from the homes of various sectors of its population? Does that obligation to provide those parks lessen when that municipality is unable to provide adequate public safety and adequate infrastructure to the general population?
JMOC
I go to Willow Street Bramhall Park frequently and see both Willow Glen people using the park and people from Washington Guadalupe on east side of Highway 87 one of oldest, poorest, and gang problem areas of San Jose with 70% renters using the park
San Jose neglected to build them park, middle or high school so they go to Willow Glen schools and Willow Street Bramhall Park
Washington Guadalupe people do not go to nearest park, Gardner / Virginia Biebrach Park because that is another gang’s park and they will get shot or stabbed
Part of my point #12—parks are places where gangs congregate ( or drug sellers/users in the case of St. James, and probably others). Parks were fine when the cultural ethic was more peaceful. Now, I’m not so sure parks are a wise use of land, especially at the price of land here.
Mike #13, where exactly is Moitozo Park?
#11
I meant to say that Moitozo Park is cover on three sides by a large condo/apartment development and that the way it is set up only the people that live in those apartments/condo can use it. There are quite a few other residents in that area that could use the park but it is about a mile walk to get there and as I stated before the residents use the parking that is supposed to be for the park (along with all of the street parking). End result is that it is only convenient for the people that live there to get there. As this relates to the Irvine development, the park that is going to be there is also going to be surrounded on three sides by the new apartments and condos that Irvine is going to buld there.
Luckily for the folks near Moitozo Park that have a hard time accessing the park there are other projects that will correct this. For the folks at River Oaks this is it.
I feel that the City leaders need to establish park standards and policies that they will follow with all developments. For example, a minimum standard that developers should be required to provide is two acres per thousand residents with the City approving the number of estimated residents per household. In addition, the developer should be required to design and construct the new park as approved by the City. Restrooms should be mandatory in all new parks (if you need expertise in building restrooms that are low maintenance and low cost ), contact San Jose architect Pierre Prodis, who has built several such restrooms in our neighboring cities. Just a few thoughts as a result of reading this.
Chief Davis, Mayor Reed
John Michael O Conner has just given you the answer to your frustrations. Assuming John is correct in knowing that parks are where gang bangers and drugs are distributed. Let’s build more parks. We could have this drug and Gang problem solved in no time. OK Guys take a number you are all under arrest.
Once the gang and drug problem is solved, Barry could build more condos on these sites.
Thanks John. you are so brillant. You should have been an attorney!
D.O.A.
#12 wrote: “Washington Guadalupe people do not go to nearest park, Gardner / Virginia Biebrach Park because that is another gang’s park and they will get shot or stabbed.” My point exactly.
DOA, take note of #12’s post.
You can keep your pollyanna-ish notions, or accept the reality of life these days.