Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

655Re: [ALPA_Forum] Re: Critique: Palo Alto's Housing Element and RHNA wrestling

Expand Messages
  • Irvin Dawid
    Sep 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve,
      The fact that the 'highrise' has no housing, is a TOD sans housing depending on design, also goes to the "jobs-housing" ratio that proves, from a certain perspective, that ABAG was right - PA goes all out for commercial but neglects its housing responsibility.
      I see from today's Daily News that we may vote on it - without the housing component I believe this development is unsupportable.

      What do others think?

      Irvin Dawid
      753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA  94301
      650-283-6534 (cell)



      On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM, steveraneyc21 <cities21@...> wrote:
       

      Just to attempt to (hopefully accurately) relay some off-line communications between Irvin and myself on this topic:

      1. Recent approvals for new office towers near train stations represent lost opportunities to maximize dense, walkable housing near train stations to meet RHNA. A more prudent RHNA-focused course of action is for the city to proactively up-zone ripe-for-redevelopment TOD parcels for dense residential.

      2. The 2007-2014 Housing Element has been submitted to the state for adoption. See July 13 Weakly, "The council's decision to forward the Housing Element to the state will now prompt a dialogue between city and state officials about the policies in the document. Once the state signs off, the council can adopt it and integrate it into its Comprehensive Plan, the city's official land-use bible."

      3. For the much larger 2014-2021 RHNA allocation, Council formed a Regional Housing Mandate Committee to caterwaul.

      --- In ALPA_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Irvin Dawid <irvindawid@...> wrote:
      >
      > Steve,
      > The article is dated - July 13
      > I'm not sure the official housing element has been submitted.
      > The fact that we may be the only city not to submit a housing element to Housing and Community Development speaks for itself.
      >
      > Jeff, do you know if the official element has been submitted?
      >
      > I think the 'highrise' by the train station, having no housing, also speaks for itself.
      > Irv
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Irvin Dawid
      > irvindawid@...
      > 753 Alma St., #126, Palo Alto, CA 94301
      > 650-283-6534
      >
      >
      > On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:53 PM, steveraneyc21 wrote:
      >
      > > The main insights in this critique come from an anonymous source.
      > >
      > > The fact that staff got Council to adopt RHNA numbers (and avoid a lawsuit for an out-of-compliance housing element) deserves an A.
      > >
      > > Features of the plan: Targets major transportation hubs for growth. Protects single-family residential neighborhoods. Probably break the 50' limit. Smaller units and senior housing will yield fewer kids resulting in a larger positive fiscal new housing impact from high property taxes with low service draw. Compatible with SB375 SCS.
      > >
      > > Council is majority slow-growth and is infamous for factually-challenged anti-RHNA and anti-ABAG comments. Staff fought an uphill battle that seemed doomed, but eventually reversed Council's anti-climate and "I've got mine, you can't have yours" proclivities. During the process, it appeared that haphazard growth would occur, as there did not seem to be a coherent, overarching vision. It now seems as though staff may have had a vision the entire time, they just couldn't air it out in public.
      > >
      > > The process deserves an F for tardiness, although staff might have cleverly employed some schedule brinksmanship to win the day. The adoption of a Housing Element where the total housing opportunities identified do not add up to the RHNA goal, with the instigation of an additional study to find new housing sites is appallingly slow.
      > >
      > > Overall, a much, much better-than-expected outcome, although still nothing to brag about.
      > >
      > > See July 13 Weakly: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=17193
      > >
      > > What do you think?
      > >
      > >
      >


    • Show all 6 messages in this topic