May 17, 2007

City Council defers Evergreen development; votes against
seeking outside maintenance of city parks

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

After four years of meetings and plans for future development of four land parcels in the Evergreen area, the City Council rejected plans to rezone a Campus Industrial site for housing and approved plans to seek industrial development before any housing is added.

In a 9-1 vote, 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.

During the four-year process, developer/property owners promised the council they would provide them with money for amenities and traffic calming or whatever the city wished to use it for in return for building a number of homes on the four parcels of land. However, over time that amount has dwindled. At the end of the task force project last October, the money offered was about $224 million. Last night’s proposal—and 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,” Council member Dave 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.”

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, he suggested triggers be used to allow portions of residential home development so that jobs and housing go hand in hand.

Industrial land
During the afternoon, the council approved a Planning Department recommendation outlined in a memo from Reed. The memo modified the 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 the Planning division develop a framework or guideline for conversion evaluations.

Parks
In other city council news in mid-April District 6 Council member Pierluigi Oliverio suggested that the city approve a pilot program to outsource maintenance of the Rose Garden regional park evoking strong feelings on both sides of the issue. It was rejected last night by a vote of 8-2 with Oliverio and Reed in the minority.

One of two lengthy sessions held Tuesday night, Oliverio’s recommendation brought a number of citizens to the meeting to discuss the issue. Some residents of the Rose Garden area sought approval because they claimed little was done in the way of pruning and weeding until Oliverio brought it up. Once he opened it up, the park got cleaned up, they said.

A number of others disagreed, especially park maintenance people and union members. More than 20 spoke to the council during the public comment period, with the majority—including the Parks Department—claimed the problems stemmed from the severe budget cuts forced on the department since the dot.com bust. At least half the workers have been laid off.

Most of the citizens seeking privatization live in the Rose Garden neighborhood. The majority of speakers asked the council to vote against the measure, including some Rose Garden residents and city employees and union members asking that city park jobs should not be eliminated.

Oliverio said he saw the privatization as an opportunity to save money and to make city employees more accountable. “I’m trying to deliver efficiency and affordable services,” he said. “The option to take over Rose Garden maintenance is not limited to private companies, union shops could also bid for the project.”

This brought a heated response from Pyle. “I’m offended by the approach, we shouldn’t be looking at just one park. This is a citywide issue; the city suffers from a lack of things. I understand the problem, but it’s important to respect the city and budget process and to respect our employees,” Pyle stated emphatically.

She suggested, and other council members agreed during the discussion, that public/private agreements, volunteers and other methods were a better way to solve the matter. “Outsourcing is not the answer. Outsourcing jobs sends the wrong message. City employees work hard. Everyone who wears a city badge acts as an ambassador for the city,” she said.

After much council discussion, most centering around the need for maintenance improvement with the budget shortfall allowing little movement, the council decided unanimously to ask the parks staff to check out what other cities are doing and analyze the situation to improve the maintenance of all the parks in San Jose.