Residents reminded of lost battle over housing project by vacant
dirt lot where construction has halted
Gilroy – A year after losing a battle to protect scenic Miller Avenue from a controversial housing project, residents continue to be reminded of their defeat by a vacant dirt lot. Six new homes and a cul-de-sac are on the way, developers assure the city, but the most vocal critic of the proposal is warning residents to brace for the worst.
Developer and former Miller Avenue resident Robb Alonzo led a petition drive against the project headed for 7861 and 7891 Miller Avenue – the two lots immediately north of his family’s home. Alonzo now claims the development deal has stalled in the face of spiraling construction costs and legal troubles involving another project proposed by father-son development team Neil Mussallem Sr. and Jr.
“The cost of everything has gone up – it doesn’t matter what you’re building right now,” said Alonzo, who said his father learned of the development delays from Rich Robinson, the landowner who teamed up with the Mussallems on the project.
“Mussallem has pretty much realized that the project will not be a money maker,” Alonzo said. “The city’s stuck with a dirt patch.”
Mussallem Jr. declined to comment on the story and Robinson was out of town Monday and did not return several calls by press time. But both have assured Mayor Al Pinheiro in recent weeks that the project remains on track.
“I saw Mr. Rich Robinson a few weeks ago and I asked him about it and they said ‘We’re working on it’,” Pinheiro said. “I got a call back and a letter saying they were working on a few details and they were starting on it soon. … I don’t know if there’s anything the city can do. I would question that these two gentlemen who are in the business of developing would sit on a piece of property, (but) things come up.”
Pinheiro is keenly aware of the dirt patch that has sat idle on the north end of the street for months. The developers were quick to raze two homes on the land and fill in the basements after council narrowly pushed through the project. At the time, Pinheiro and three other councilmen justified the decision by arguing the project would blend with “higher density uses” such as an apartment complex and gas station to the north.
Opponents decried the decision, which involved joining two lots to make room for six homes and the private road connecting them, as a dangerous precedent for Miller Avenue. They feared other developers may seek to cobble together lots on the stately, tree-lined street.
Now such fears may come to pass with the aid of the project’s strongest opponent. Throughout the political turmoil surrounding the development, Alonzo made clear that his family would pursue a similar path as the Mussallems and Robinson if the city approved the project. True to his word, Alonzo has moved from the home and has discussed with at least one developer, whom he would not name, the prospect of combining his lot with the vacant land next door, along with a third lot to the north.
The resulting parcel would measure roughly three acres and could potentially accommodate dozens of homes. It remains to be seen if council would approve such a project.
“We have now in place a project that was approved,” Pinheiro said. “Anything north of that makes sense (for development), anything south of that may not make sense. I said from day one that anything further down the block I would have questions about. It’s a completely different street in the middle.”
Alonzo’s property lies to the south of the vacant land, though all the parcels are just a few hundred feet from the First Street shopping corridor.
The prospect of an even bigger project did not sit well with most neighbors.
“I hate to be a curmudgeon about development,” said Lauri ThushMurillo, who lives a block south of the vacant lot, “but as a resident on Miller Avenue, I feel the traffic here is bad enough. This would make it worse.”
Ray Mirelez, who lives a few doors down at 7710 Miller Ave., said he prefers a vacant lot to half a dozen homes.
“Being that they own the land, they can do what they want,” Mirelez said. “But it sure doesn’t seem right for Miller Avenue.”
Rosemary Wrolsen, whose home directly faces the dirt lot, had the fewest qualms with its current state and its future use. Vacant land, she figured, was safer for kids than abandoned houses or cement and other construction debris.
“(The project) doesn’t bother me,” she added. “I think people should be able to do what they want with their property.”
In August, the Mussallems and Robinson requested a six-month extension of the building permit for the project. The developers are allowed an additional year-long extension, according to City Planning Manager Bill Faus. If they fail to push forward with construction by that time, they must resubmit plans and pass through the development process again.
Faus predicted the developers would take full advantage of permit extensions to maximize land values.
“There are so many variables in something like this – especially the market,” Faus said. “When you start construction, you’re putting hundreds of thousands of dollars down with the intention of selling those homes, and as you know, right now the market has become very soft. They’re actually in very good position because they can wait … and let the market adjust to a more favorable position to them.”
