3/29/2007

Post date: Mar 23, 2013 8:59:05 PM

River Oaks Neighborhood Association Board Meeting

Thursday, 29 March 2007

6:30 PM Premier Pizza

Present: Mike, Jurgen, Laura, Jean, Erik, and Jim (guest)

• 1. Minutes: Minutes were not prepared from the last meeting held 15 March 2007. Erik was asked to prepare this week's minutes as soon as possible after the meeting and email them to Laura to post o the neighborhood Website. Items discussed on 15 March included plans for a City Council candidate forum and direction to Erik to attend a Planning Commission Meeting and invite commissioners to our neighborhood for a tour.

  2. Meetings with City Council Members

     1. • Jean and Mike met with Councilman Williams, who said that he would contact planning staff to request that they act on areas where not enough progress has taken place regarding master planning for the proposed developments.

        • Jean and Mike will meet with Cortese Wednesday at 5PM. Cortese was the only member to vote against the General Plan amendment in the first place.

  3. By-Laws

     1. • The by-laws as prepared by Laura were approved by the Board.

        • The revised by-laws as approved incorporated the following suggestions proposed by Jurgen:

          • • Officers are expected to attend most meetings;

            • New members/positions can be added to the Board by simple majority of the Board.

  4. Planning Commission Meeting

     1. • Jean, Mike, Robert, Jim, and Erik attended the Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday evening.

        • Erik invited the Planning Commission to visit River Oaks, and he will follow up with commissioners.

        • Issues raised at the meeting included the following:

          • • Rezoning of the parcel at Montague and Guadalupe River (ed. note, refers to: PDC05-099)

            • General Plan Amendment for an overlay along First Street

            • Flea market conversion to housing

            • VTA budget problems

            • Willow Glen tree removal permit appeal

        • Planning staff informed the Commission that hearings on the River Oaks projects are tentatively scheduled for May/June of this year. To this end, Mike proposed that we select a few issues on which we force the City to deal with us and. Given these issues, residents should make mass electronic contact with the City followed up by personalized contacts asking them to deal with the specific issues that we raise. Mike will work on this issue, and Laura will draft a grassroots e-mail to send to everyone on the River Oaks mailing list explaining this process to them.

  5. City Council Candidates Forum

     1. • Jean has submitted a request to use the Berryessa Community Center. She said that we can expect to be given that space sometime during the first week of May. She agreed to check Friday on the status of our reservation.

        • We will probably need two hours for the forum. We would like to start by 7:00 PM and finish by 8:30 with the possibility of continuing until 9:00 PM, but this will depend upon the hours of the Center.

        • The proposed format will be as follows:

          • • 5 minute opening statements by each candidate

            • 4-6 questions regarding our specific development concerns

              • The first respondent should alternate with each question asked

              • Time limits should be as follows

                • • 2 minutes for Candidate A to respond

                  • 2 minutes for Candidate B to respond

                  • 1 minute for Candidate A to rebut

                  • 1 minute for Candidate B to rebut

            • 2 minute closing statements from each candidate

        • Inviting the candidates

          • • We will submit an official invitation in writing.

            • We will copy these to the press.

            • Candidates will be provided with background information on our development concerns, including our petition, and they will be asked to focus their comments on these concerns.

            • There would be no problem with members of the Board meeting with the candidates before the forum to explain our position to them.

        • Advertising for the event

          • • Email list

            • Community discussion board

            • Community Website

            • Signs used to advertise for past community meetings

            • Flyers near mailboxes

            • Flyers delivered to the doors of registered voters living in River Oaks townhouses, who are expected to vote in the June election

• • • • • • • • Mike will deliver these to Parkside Residents

              • Erik will deliver to Millbrook

              • Jean and Marcelle will deliver to Crescendo, Villagio, and Galleria

• 5. 1. • There was a question about whether or not the Board should make an endorsement after the forum. Jim advised us against it as doing so might jeopardize our status as a neighborhood association. However, he pointed out that there would be nothing wrong with individual members endorsing particular candidates and using their roles on the Board in identifying themselves to community members in the process of making their endorsements known.

  6. Jim was invited to join the Board as a member-at-large, but he declined in the short-term. He will, however, continue to befriend, support, and advise the Board.

  7. Mike's Conversation with a Mercury News Reporter

     1. • Mike recently interviewed with a Mercury reporter who recommended that we review the transcript of the Council meeting at which the NSJ General Plan Amendment was approved.

        • There were verbal promises made by the Council to which we ought to pay attention.

        • In particular, there were Council discussions around schools, including a directive to Staff to put a plan in place for dealing with the issue of schools as soon as 50+ secondary students move into North San Jose from other locations.

        • The Board agreed that each member would take an opportunity to skim the transcripts.

        • Videos of the Council meeting in question may also be available for viewing.

  8. Jim attended a presentation regarding the General Plan Update, and he shared some information from that presentation with the Board.

     1. • San Jose already has 110-percent of the number of affordable housing units recommended for the City by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

        • Conversion of industrial land to high density residential results in a four time increase in site valuation, so by rezoning land to high density residential the City is essentially subsidizing developers without reaping any of the profits. Other Cities in the area require that developers share the profits of such conversions with the City.

        • At Mayor Reed's insistence, Staff are looking at the impact on the budget of more high density housing in the City given the jobs/housing imbalance.

        • San Jose is last in the region in per capita sales tax revenues.

        • Property tax revenues from industrial sites are higher than from residential sites except when densities above 55 DU/AC are achieved. However, converting land to high density housing puts greater stains on the general fund than commercial uses would due to an increase in the number of residents the City must serve.

        • Companies like NanoSolar have been attracted to San Jose because of vacant commercial buildings that met their needs were already located here.

        • Current General Plan proposals call for NSJ to be reserved for industrial uses.

        • Given these facts, it was the opinion of the Board that there is no need for the City to rush to make a decision on the Sony and Cadence sites. A 13 year old, highly functional building that another company might want already sits on the Sony site. Cadence plans to rent its old buildings from Essex for two years while it builds its new building. During that time an offer to use the Essex site for commercial purposes may very well come before the City.

        • The Board officially endorsed the City's Employment lands retention strategy. We took the position to encourage planners to delay approval for the Irvine/ Essex applications in light of this presentation.