Cities in no rush to meet housing mandates Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jun 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm
California's effort to require cities to provide their "fair share" of housing gained some muscle last month when Attorney General Jerry Brown sued Pleasanton over the city's housing cap. But in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park and other California cities currently revising their long-term housing plans, planning officials aren't exactly rushing to meet the state's ambitious housing mandates.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, June 29, 2009, 4:36 PM
Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm
"Palo Alto should identify sites where new houses could be constructed and where they wouldn't significantly impact schools and existing communities, Keller argued."
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2009 at 10:41 pm
To meet the ABAG mandate we only need to convert one in eight existing dwellings to a duplex. That's two houses on each residential block. What's so hard about that?
Posted by Anon, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Where does this vision statement come from? when was it written, and who wrote it?
...the city's vision statement, which states that Palo Alto "will aggressively pursue a variety of housing opportunities and enhance the character, diversity and vitality of the city" and that the city is "committed to increasing the development of affordable and market-rate housing, including converting non-residential lands to residential or mixed use."
Posted by Gennady Sheyner, Palo Alto Weekly staff writer, on Jun 29, 2009 at 11:12 pm Gennady Sheyner is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Anon,
This vision statement comes from the Housing section (Chapter 4) of Palo Alto's current Comprehensive Plan:
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 8:56 am
Has anyone every challenged this "big brother ABAG" state law'? Taken ABAG to court?And Jerry Brown wants to run for Governor. Heaven help us.
I think most of the laws that come out of the US Congress are not even constitutional, let alone California's laws. This Legislature and many before it are destroying California. The State even governs the city's speed limit, e.g. Embarcadero from Middlefield to 101.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 10:17 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Within the bouds of public healh and safety, planning should be a function of ownership.
Posted by Frank Flynn, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 11:40 am
From the article:
>"There's been vibrant retail along El Camino Real that has slowly been poached and turned into housing."
Where Commissioner Lippert talking about? Not here (vacant lot 3600 El Camino - building on both sides are empty have been for years; building on other side of the street has been empty for over 20 years) :
just go up and down the street and notice half a dozen vacant lots of empty buildings - and this is a year or so old, many are still empty. El Camino has never been what I'd call a 'vibrant' commercial zone; not that I'm advocating turning these lots into housing. We need the housing, we need El Camino to be a vibrant commercial zone.
Posted by Concerned Retiree, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Enough is enough. Not everyone needs to live in Palo Alto. We need to cap this run away housing growth and offer more retail, neighborhood serving and tax paying businesses. Houses always take more tax money than they bring in.
I agree with Lee Lippert's comments above. ABAG should not hold this housing requirement ax over our heads.
Posted by Marsh, a resident of another community, on Jun 30, 2009 at 12:26 pm
First I'd like to clear up what appears to be a common misunderstanding: ABAG does not create the housing allocations. ABAG, the Association of Bay Area Governments, passes on the State's housing allocations that are based on US Census forecasts. Santa Clara County should consider doing what San Mateo County has instituted; rather than accept the ABAG community allocations, divide the total county allocation among the communities by negociated agreement of these communities. Local jurisdictions know far better what fits the comunities' plans and characters.
The wide spread, seemingly parochial references to development along El Camino Real are worrisome to me. Aren't there other usable housing sites in Palo Alto? Any development along El Camino Real should create, enhance, and/or promote what several commenters have referred to as a "vibrant" nature of this road that links all of the communities from San Francisco to San Jose. Palo Alto should use the Grand Boulevard [www.grandboulevard.net] vision to guide their future plans.
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 12:46 pm
ABAG does far more (unfortunately) than just 'pass on' state allocations to the communities. They have developed their own methodologies and models to determine what type of housing for what income levels, etc must be built in each community.
Posted by Stu Berman, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The housing mandates are a classic case of urban planning gone awry. The US needs to have a goal of slowing or stopping population growth. Also, there are a myriad of places for people to live in this country. We don't have to put everyone in California or the Bay Area. At a micro level lets look at some of the unaddressed problems:
• Too much Traffic
• Overcrowded, under-resourced Schools
• Inadequate Recreation facilities (see todays Express article on Gym allocation policy)
• etc.
We need to work on solving the problems that we have before we add more people to the mix.
Posted by hard worker, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 7:51 pm
i agree with "concerned retiree". what is with this city and it's concern to try and fit everyone in this city? there are plenty of other cities for people to move to. i worked extremely hard to be able to live here. i abhor this push for so much below market rate and high density housing. there are not below market rate cars or resorts or other highly desirable items. why should a house be any different?
Posted by Irvin, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2009 at 8:51 pm
In terms of "Jerry is at it again" - if you mean by "it" - environment and global warming, I think he's on the right track.
The article only mentions that the AG is on Pleasanton's case over not meeting its 'fair share housing requirement', but doesn't mention why this is an issue for Brown.
"Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today (6/24)sued the City of Pleasanton to remove its "draconian and illegal" limit on new housing, a significant cause of traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area.
"Pleasanton's draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to the bumper-to-bumper traffic along 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution," Brown said. "It's time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART....."continues
Read "ATTORNEY GENERAL BROWN SUES TO INVALIDATE PLEASANTON'S ILLEGAL HOUSING CAP"
Posted by architect, a resident of another community, on Jul 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Transit oriented development, as it is called, is quite appropriate along corridors like El Camino. Well-planned and designed, having residential above street-level commercial & retail, is an age-old model. We find it charming in North Beach or Chinatown. There are actually people who don't have or don't want cars (shocking!), who could walk to work. The waiter in that restaurant or the clerk in that shop, they could live upstairs. What a revolutionary concept?! There's your diversity and small carbon footprint. NIMBY communities need a nudge from the state if they aren't doing it on their own.
Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford, on Jul 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Great comments, Concerned Retiree. "Not everyone needs to live in Palo Alto." So true! I'd love a reduced-cost palazzo in Venice, but sincerely doubt the Italian government will accommodate this desire!
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
