Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and housing advocates ask National City to extend Tower 999 DDA to preserve affordable units
Summary
Public commenters representing the Tower 999 development asked the council to allow a contractual extension of the existing DDA so the project can remain under contract while parties negotiate a new agreement that preserves deep affordability.
Developers and affordable‑housing advocates urged the National City Council on Tuesday to preserve a planned affordable‑housing component of the Tower 999 project by granting a short contractual extension to the existing development agreement.
Cyrus, speaking during the agenda‑specific public‑comment period, said the current DDA is set to expire on Dec. 31 and that the agreement explicitly gives the developer the right to request a six‑month or one‑year extension. “Our request is to simply exercise that right as provided by the existing DDA agreement,” Cyrus said, adding that the parcel purchase is conditioned under the Exempt Surplus Land Act, which requires the development to include affordable housing.
Marie Devore, of Community Preservation Partners, said her firm joined the Tower 999 effort recently and has already invested time and money. Devore asked the council to direct staff to draft a short instrument — whether a DDA extension, an exclusive negotiating agreement or similar — to preserve the developer’s contractual status through the end of the year so parties can finalize a new DDA. “We’re willing to revisit certain items. We want to work with city staff and with council to make this project work,” she said.
Both speakers emphasized the project’s affordability commitments. Cyrus cited the Exempt Surplus Land Act and the current contract’s affordability targets, saying the DDA requires at least 50% of units be restricted to very‑low‑income households and that the agreement’s phrasing permits up to 100% affordability if needed. Devore reiterated the developers’ willingness to negotiate details and asked the council for time to complete those negotiations.
The public comments did not include a formal motion from council; city staff and the council did not announce a vote or decision on extending the DDA during the public comment period. The matter was listed as part of closed‑session agenda item 5.1 (conference with real‑property negotiator) and will be addressed further in closed session and in subsequent public proceedings.
