7/2/2007

Post date: Mar 23, 2013 9:01:51 PM

River Oaks Neighborhood Association Board Meeting

Monday, July 2, 2007, 6:30 PM @ Premier Pizza

Present: Jean, Mike, Jim, Jürgen, Abhay, Laura, Erik

    1. We are scheduled to meet with Kansen Chu on Thursday, July 5, at 7:00 PM at City Hall.

    2. What we want out of a master plan

        1. We want the City to produce a scheduled, published plan for the process

        2. Per the Policy, the Planning Commission's Recommendations, and the planning efforts that have already gone into North San José, we believe the master plan should include the following:

            1. A conceptual plan for the size and location of parks

            2. An agreement between SCUSD and the City regarding the number of schools that will be needed in NSJ by 2030, a conceptual idea of where those schools will be located, a timeline for opening new schools, and identification of funds with which to build the schools

            3. A plan for meeting the public safety needs of the area (police, fire, emergency care, etc.), including an area disaster plan

            4. A traffic plan -- that addresses the general needs of North San José, as well as the specific traffic calming needs of River Oaks -- to be developed by an independent, competent traffic consultant

            5. A conceptual plan for the location of other community services, including libraries, community centers, and retail services

            6. Design guidelines for the area

        3. We do not expect this to be a lengthy process, as the NSJ Policy already lays the foundation for the master plan. Also, the school study has already been conducted by the school district, and the design guideline consultants have already completed their work.

        4. The City will determine the size and scope of the master plan task force, but in any event we expect ample opportunity to be represented on that body.

        5. Specific questions/ concerns that were brought up by board members included:

            1. What will happen at the intersection of Montague and Trimble?

            2. There should be some sort of density gradient between existing neighborhoods and new developments. This could be achieved in part by creating strips of parkland along existing developments that connect to larger community parks.

            3. How will Cisco fit into the master plan? Part of their land is included in the River Oaks overlay, and the City has negotiated first right of refusal with them for Agnews.

            4. The City should purchase all/part of Agnews. We fear they won't be able to afford to purchase land for community services if they don't purchase it below market rate.

            5. Could the general plan update include Agnews, and could it include language that would allow gradual changes in density away from existing developments?

            6. We have concerns that the City might go "shopping" and allow a larger part of North San José to be annexed into Orchard School District if they demonstrate a willingness to produce a school study with numbers that would be more favorable to their goals. We want to remain within SCUSD as the teaching staff is better paid and generally more experienced, the District's management has a better reputation than Orchard, and being a unified district, there will be only one district to whom the developers would have to pay fees.

            7. After our past experience with PDO funds, we expect more transparency from the City. We want to proof that PDO fees paid in NSJ go to build community parks in NSJ. We also want more sunshine from the City generally. We expect more credibility and less semantic gymnastics from the Mayor and Planning Department.

            8. What is the status of Cadence/Essex?

    3. What we want specifically from Irvine:

        1. A density gradient

        2. A rectangular park at the intersection of Research and River Oaks

        3. More parkland

        4. Traffic calming

        5. No segregation of affordable family units from market rate units

        6. Points where there was not a consensus:

            1. Our association has differences of opinion regarding how best to calm traffic along River Oaks. However, we all agree that a traffic consultant should be hired to create a plan to meet our needs.

            2. There is also a difference of opinion as to whether or not segregated affordable units would be acceptable in the case of housing designed specifically for seniors. However, we all agree that the impact of labeling and self-stigmatization on young children would be detrimental to their development and to the needs of the community; therefore, there was consensus that affordable units for families should be fully integrated.

        7. General questions/ concerns:

            1. What will the plan be for construction traffic?

            2. How will the 400,000 SF of new construction planned for Lockheed impact traffic flows around the SONY site?