12/11/2008
Post date: Mar 23, 2013 9:16:29 PM
River Oaks Neighborhood Association Board Meeting
Thursday December 11, 2008
7:00 PM @ Premier Pizza, River Oaks
Present: Jean, Laura, Mike, Erik
Due to the current economic crisis, a number of the developers with approved residential units in the NSJ area have run into financial difficulties; they may not be able to start their projects before their development permit expires. The Mayor is proposing modifications to the NSJ Policy Phase 1 residential unit cap, and has asked city staff for a staff report for proposed changes. The city council will be discussing this item at their 12/16 meeting. RONA is going to ask that this item be delayed so that we (and others) have a chance to review the proposals and comment. RONA-Board does not want haphazard short-term changes made that adversely effect the long-term plans for our community in NSJ. RONA is going to ask that this agenda item be delayed until after then new year so that we (and others) have a chance to review the proposals and comment. We will be contacting Kansen and attending the council meeting to make sure the delay occurs.
Jean has acquired the contact-information of Cisco's Portfolio Manager, who manages properties that Cisco owns. We will attempt to meet with him to discuss Cisco's plans for NSJ after the holidays.
The @First project is proposing to include buildings for Brocade's new headquarters, but needs redevelopment agency funds to do so. Details here.
Park renaming discussion update: we haven't responded with our opinion yet. Laura to write-up official letter. Jean to deliver it in person when meeting with CM Chu on Monday 12/15.
Tree removal update: Jean has copied details of one of the tree-removal proposals written by the arborist we (and Rosemary Gardens Neighborhood Group) are concerned about. The city staff also seem concerned about these projects. RONA-Board will review. Also, an email (page 1 and page 2) summarizing the various tree-ordinances involved.
There are updated plans for 199 ROP (BRE).
VTA has moved some of the shuttle stops, a new one is at the corner of Mill River Dr. and ROP. We will post the updated shuttle map when it is available. (Thanks Mary Ann C. for noticing this!)
Inclusionary Housing update: The council voted on 12/9 to direct staff to draft a city-wide inclusionary ordinance, see synopsis for Council Item 5.2. Erik has written this summary of the proposals:
Basically, in redevelopment areas like where we live, developers have to set aside a certain number of units (20%) for affordable housing. They can do this either on site or by dedicating land or by paying in lieu fees. The proposal would extend this requirement throughout the city. The policy would look a little different for non-redevelopment areas (e.g., 15% set aside if you build the units on site, but 20% if you build off site; different incentives and in lieu options, etc.), but in ways that wouldn't really impact us. The existing redevelopment area policy would apply in North San José. The Mayor had made some proposals that could have impacted us negatively by making it more feasible to pay fees than to build housing and by eliminating geographic restrictions on where in lieu housing could be built (i.e., all of the in lieu housing probably would have ended up in NSJ; and with that comes off sets for developers that would mean less parkland, less parking, etc.). His proposals WEREN'T approved by Council, so I can't see any danger in this policy hurting us in any way. There's no reason for us to oppose it. It doesn't help or hurt us, and it's a nice thing to support and would put a lot of civic groups on our side. On Tuesday, the Council received a presentation from staff on the proposed ordinance that it developed. They also suggested some changes to the policy and decided when to bring the policy back for a first reading. After reading pages of transcript, here's what I can tell you about the changes Council proposed:
In *low income* areas affected by the *existing* redevelopment area policy, the requirement would go from 20% inclusionary down to 15% (they specifically stated that our area wouldn't be included in this change because even though NSJ is a redevelopment area, we're not low income).
The policy will apply to developments with 20+ units instead of 11+ as staff proposed.
The policy will take effect when the market improves, but no later than 2013 (staff had proposed 2012). Also, the formula used to decide when the housing market has improved looks at how many city wide permits are pulled for new housing. No more than half of the permits used in the calculation can be NSJ permits because we're expecting so much new housing that including permitted units from up here would trigger the policy right away.
The staff proposal included a grandfather provision so that projects in the pipeline at the time that the policy become operative (i.e., developers have already started working with staff to get their projects approved) could be exempt if certain requirements are met. Council decided to make the provision more generous for developers.
The staff proposed a provision so that in lieu housing would have to be built in the same planning area as a given project, or else in an adjacent area. Council asked them to axe this restriction and let them build the housing anywhere in the city *so long* as the City's dispersion policies are followed (i.e., each Council district has to accept its fair share of new housing, which means that they can't shove all the affordable units up here as the Mayor's more lax proposal might have allowed). To avoid some strange state law, Council also added that in lieu housing for a subject development in an redevelopment area would have to be built in the same or another redevelopment area (that might mean that we get more than our share of affordables, but this requirement is already technically in place since inclusionary housing only applies to redevelopment areas at the moment). I guess that if they build in lieu housing for an redevelopment area in a non-redevelopment area, then the City has to ensure that 2 units get built for every 1 unit that would have been built in the redevelopment area (or something strange like that, it's not always obvious what they're talking about when you read these transcripts because they are talking amongst themselves and not thinking about the background knowledge of their listeners).
The in lieu fees proposed by staff were retained *except* that they were lowered by 15-percent for rental units (bad idea in my opinion since it make the fees more favorable than dedicating units on-site -- so much for the "inclusionary" aspect -- however, the Mayor had proposed something even more drastic).
Staff will explore whether in lieu fees can be used for anything other than housing (again, bad idea if it can because the point is to get more housing). Specifically, Council wants to use the money to build parks since affordable units are exempt from PDO requirements. To me, it seems like the solution is to get rid of the exemption.
Staff will bring its revised policy back to the Rules Committee on 1/14, and then it will be decided when Council will hold the first reading of the ordinance.
RONA-Board supports this inclusionary housing ordinance and will continue to follow up on it.