New apartment complexes built near Caltrain stations must reserve at least 30 percent of their units for low-income residents.
The board that oversees the transit agency approved the policy Thursday, along with rules that residential projects built on Caltrain land must be at least four stories and hold at least 50 units per acre.
“We’re thrilled,” said Leora Tanjuatco Ross, organizing director for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, which had pushed for the new requirements.
But Tanjuatco Ross acknowledged her group was “disappointed” the board — which includes officials from San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties — rejected a request from advocates to give affordable housing developers the right of first refusal on properties that can be developed.
“Generally, they don’t work out very well for any of the parties,” said Jim Hartnett, Caltrain’s executive director, of such requirements.
Robust competition, added Brian Fitzpatrick, manager of real estate and property, “is our best bet.”
Caltrain, the pair said, must create space for the rail network to thrive and grow in the coming years and also determine how best to use what little land the agency thinks it can spare. That means weighing what will bring in the most revenue with community demand for affordable housing.
“For us it’s about balance,” Fitzpatrick said, later adding, “if you create affordability, you are going to take a hit” when it comes to revenue.
But Tanjuatco Ross called it “unconscionable” to consider putting hotels or offices on public land when there is so much need for housing.
Charles Stone, a board member who also sits on the Belmont City Council, thanked Caltrain staff and acknowledged the “tension.”
But, Stone said, public libraries and public parks are not in the business of setting late-return fines or entrance fees as high as possible. Instead, they are tasked with providing a public good. Caltrain’s aim, he said, likewise should not be to maximize revenue.
“We’re not going to build a heckuva lot of housing” compared to BART, which owns much more developable space, he said, “but every little bit helps.”
Caltrain staff view two small sites — just under five acres combined — at Redwood City and Mountain View as the most appropriate for new development, with parcels in a few other locations, including in San Mateo, Sunnyvale and elsewhere, up for consideration.
And, Fitzpatrick noted, “these are challenging sites,” with irregular shapes, potential contamination issues and parking needs to resolve before any developer starts building. There’s also no requirement that such sites be reserved for housing, although several board members agreed housing should be the priority.
Where housing is built, the new policy says at least 10 percent of units should be targeted to families making half the area’s median income or less. The amounts vary, but in Redwood City last year, the median income for a family of four was around $136,800. The policy says another 10 percent of units should be targeted to households bringing in no more than 80 percent of an area’s median income and the final 10 percent should be targeted to families pulling in no more than 120 percent of the local median income.
BART and VTA have taken slightly different approaches. Both have slightly higher affordability goals for housing across their entire systems — 35 percent — but slightly lower targets — 20 percent — for any single site. Caltrain won’t have a portfolio-wide goal.
Board member Ron Collins, the mayor of San Carlos, said setting minimum on-site affordability and density requirements will set an example for how cities and counties can spur affordable housing development in the region moving forward.
Collins pointed to recently built homes near the San Carlos train station as a cautionary tale, noting that the council ultimately allowed a three-story development rather than the six that were initially proposed.
That, he said, was a “monumental mistake,” because while the city had a requirement that 15 percent of the units be affordable, the lower density made that unrealistic. In the end, he said, just 10 percent of the 220 units were designated for lower-income residents.
“That was a hard lesson for me to learn,” Collins said, adding that when a city reduces density, “you also reduce your leverage.”
Source: Mercurynews
