Although not initially envisioned for a major residential development, a gated golf course near Lake Cunningham east of San Jose could become the site of a new neighborhood, potentially providing thousands of homes to a city that desperately needs more housing.
San Jose city officials approved “guiding principles” for the redevelopment of the Pleasant Hills Golf Course, setting out broad land use themes that residents asked developers to provide during a process of innovative community engagement spanning over a year.
However, while developers have submitted initial plans for 1,716 units on the 115-acre site, some neighborhood and housing advocates have questioned the process, particularly whether San Jose is missing the mark by not requiring housing at higher density on the property.
“We need to build and plan for the future,” said Jake Wilde, development projects manager at Catalyse SV. “As it stands, this project is just a status quo that will only increase the negative impacts of decades of urban sprawl. Pleasant Hills presents a unique opportunity. Please ensure that we use the site and land wisely in a way that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
Pleasant Hills Golf Course opened in 1960 but has remained inactive since 2004 except for intermittent grazing on the property.
Lakeside Community, led by South Bay real estate veterans Tony Arreola and Mark Lazzarini, is the development company behind the 2050 White Road project.
Unlike other development projects, community members were given a voice from the start to express their concerns about the impact the development might have on them and the types of residential and non-residential uses they would like to see.
Community members requested a mix of densities, rental and for-sale units, and affordable housing. They also requested that residential components not exceed three stories and that the developer locate low-density units closer to existing single-family home neighborhoods nearby.
For non-residential uses, small retail businesses, including stores, restaurants and a mid-sized grocery store, were at the forefront of their concerns.
The initial proposal included 1,374 homes for sale and 342 high-density affordable rental apartments for local seniors and workers. The development also includes up to 50,000 square feet of local retail adjacent to a public plaza.
“Our proposal reflects exactly what residents want to see at this site, development that respects the character of the neighborhood and also provides a significant number of new homes to help the county and city achieve their housing goals,” Lazzarini recently told The Mercury News.
However, community members have differing opinions on whether the feedback process went far enough to solicit diverse voices, engage surrounding residents, and consider the impacts of building an entirely new neighborhood in the region.
“This development represents perhaps the most significant change to the character of Evergreen in the last 40 years,” said Jonathan Padilla, an East San Jose resident. “This goes against decades of city policy with the reprocessed East Hills Development Plan. With the likely accretive development of Reid Hillview and Eastridge, this will have significant impacts on quality of life, traffic flow and other localized resources.
Although he admitted the process wasn’t perfect, District 8 council member Domingo Candelas — who represents the Evergreen neighborhood and much of East San Jose — isn’t. agreement that it was defective.
“In addition to the 2,500 foot radius, or nearly 4,100 homes, I went door to door in adjacent neighborhoods, knocking on thousands of doors, dropping off literature and talking to people to help me. ensure that the residents of my neighborhood and the people who would be directly affected by this had the opportunity to provide feedback,” he said.
The City Council also requested that San Jose conduct a financial analysis of the impacts of land use and density and how financial tools such as a special assessment district could potentially fund increased infrastructure , public safety and other costs once the city receives a completed project. application.
“If we want to expand, especially on a site that was not supposed to be developed in this way, at least originally in the general plan, we certainly need to make sure that this will not undermine our financial stability , because a city and cost us money,” said District 4 Council Member David Cohen. “We also need to make sure that we get enough benefits from it, including housing which is part of the principles general, but we know that a certain density is required to be fiscally positive for the city rather than negative for the city. .”
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan stressed that the city should weigh tradeoffs, including the implications of density on an area poorly connected to public transportation, while still generating enough revenue to pay for city services.
“There is no perfect project,” Mahan said. “These are just compromises. It won’t have the kind of density that a project next to a BART station could support, ultimately, but the density also can’t be so low that we can’t afford to provide an answer basic emergency.
