|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Danville town planners are taking a look at housing throughout the area as they begin the process of updating the town’s housing element, a state-mandated part of the General Plan.
Chief of Planning Kevin Gailey discussed the update with the members of the Planning Commission at their March 10 meeting. The Housing Element is the part of the plan that deals with the housing needs of people from all economic strata.
The last update was from 1999-2006. The update currently under way goes from 2007 through 2014. Under the state mandate, local governments must adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing need. This is done through the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP).
Documents from the Department of Housing and Community Development say the plan should promote:
• Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenures and affordability.
• Socioeconomic equity and the protection of environmental and agricultural resources.
• Improved intra-regional relationship between jobs and housing.
•
Gailey said that part of doing the update to the Housing Element is providing a housing-needs assessment that takes into account both current and projected needs. The assessment is set by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), comprising 101 cities within its nine-county jurisdiction.
ABAG has determined that Danville’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) consists of 583 units, with 196 very low, 130 low, 146 moderate, and 111 above-moderate income units. In the first two years of the current cycle, 2007-2014, construction in Danville constitutes roughly 30 percent of the town’s allocation for the planning period with 44 percent of the units qualifying as affordable.
The Planning Commission has held two work sessions to study the update to the Housing Element. Gailey said that in the two sessions, he has been providing background and an overview of the process.
“The Planning Commission is in a ‘receive the information and ask questions’ mode at this point, not so much in a ‘here’s our feedback and recommendations’ mode,” he stated.
Gailey and the Planning Commission will continue to examine the needs to be addressed in the update, and public hearings on the Housing Element will be scheduled starting in May.
Dolores, would you ask Kevin Galley a question for me?
I want an element in my house, so where do it go and what does it do?
I could imagine my acquaintances, due to the lack of friends, arriving and saying, “It’s elemental my dear Halamo!
Can I get an element franchise for our region?
Oh, do please ask,
Hal, as Halamo
A towne fool annexed to Danville
@Odds, a Saloon for Fools
The Hotel Snaymuth
Uptown in lovely downtown Danville
But wait…we were told by the pro incorporation people that there was no government requirement for low income housing. Thanks Danville for setting them straight.
Dear Dolores,
As Alamo Resident noted, incorporation proponents did not disclose that such housing plans must be part of the General Plan development during the first 30 months of the proposed town of Alamo. ABAG, in response to neighborhoods’ committees, detailed the requirement for such planning as a function of establishing a new city.
What was labeled as scare tactics by opposition and challengers of AIM’s incorporation campaign is now finding validation as true concerns in the operations and budgets of Contra Costa cities. Sadly, such information comes too late to allow community in the pursuit of acceptable local government for the Alamo region.
Hal, as a community courtesy
What I recall being said during the debate running up to the election on incorporation was that regional housing need allocation is a requirement of both cities and counties. Contra Costa County is, in fact, preparing it’s housing element right now and Alamo is part of it.
Hal from Alamo: there you go again. Every time one of your friendly neighbors reminds you that you are a bag of fart wind, you rip Danville. For you it’s like a knee-jerk reaction, without the knee.
Dear Dolores,
Let’s provide an answer to Mike’s notation about AIM campaign responses to Stephen Heafey’s Alamo Today advertorials on “affordable housing.” Resident counsel reviewed the many responses from Sharon Burke and other AIM committee members noting that several published remarks stated that no affordable housing requirement existed beyond the county general plan and the town of Alamo would not be required to plan such affordable housing beyond the county general plan. In resident counsel’s e-exchange distributions in January and February 2009, it was clarified that such planning would be a state requirement to be included in the Town of Alamo general plan created during the first 30 months of incorporation.
Alamo Today archives should be reviewed if regional residents want more clarification.
Hal, as a community courtesy
I don’t remember seeing the “many responses from Sharon Burke and other AIM committee members” that “stated that no affordable housing requirement existed beyond the county general plan and the town of Alamo would not be required to plan such affordable housing beyond the county general plan”. Of course, maybe I missed them. Hal, perhaps you could provide citations for these responses so that others could view them online.
Dear Dolores,
By copy, you received the detailed AIM reference and the summation of ABAG commentary to neighbors fact-checking AIM campaign information. Readers can access http://www.alamoinc.org to review Sharon’s comments.
Edited from my copy to you: “ABAG confirmed that the proposed town of Alamo, if it had been incorporated, would have to exercise a “mix of housing types, tenures and AFFORDABILITY” requirement as part of the General Plan to be created during the first 30 months of cityhood. Alamo citizens, as the five town council members, would have fulfilled the state requirement for planning a “mix of housing types, tenures and AFFORDABILITY” without the majority of citizens of having any role in the town council’s decisions.”
Dolores, I invite you to fulfill Mike’s request with the information and references provided to you by copy today.
Hal, as a community courtesy
Hal, you are making the allegations and you, not Dolores, were asked to back them up. Maybe you could provide here the “detailed AIM reference and the summation of ABAG commentary to neighbors fact-checking AIM campaign information” to which you refer above.
Dear Dolores, a courtesy to Mike:
AIM Reference from http://www.alamoinc.org: Alamo Incorporation Movement
Incorporation opponents have sent in several letters and website posts with inaccurate information which I would like to correct.
Affordable housing: No law requires either the County or the Town of Alamo to build affordable housing.
Summary Reference to State Requirements: Under the state mandate, local governments must adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing need. This is done through the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP).
Documents from the Department of Housing and Community Development say the plan should promote:
• Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenures and affordability.
• Socioeconomic equity and the protection of environmental and agricultural resources.
• Improved intra-regional relationship between jobs and housing.
Summary of response from ABAG: ABAG confirmed that the proposed town of Alamo, if it had been incorporated, would have to exercise a “mix of housing types, tenures and AFFORDABILITY” requirement as part of the General Plan to be created during the first 30 months of cityhood.
ABAG overview and access site: http://www.abag.ca.gov/housing-top.html
**Information supplied as a community courtesy by Melissa, Alamo regional counsel committee, Alamo region community of neighborhoods**
Hal, as a community courtesy
The only reference to anything other than ABAG that I can glean from above is the statement that “No law requires either the County or the Town of Alamo to build affordable housing.” That statement is true. Counties and Towns must have capacity within their zoning for the market to build housing as deemed “adequate” by the State and by ABAG, but they are not required to build it and they are not penalized in any way of the market does not produce the “adequate” level of housing.
One County General Plan policy specifically applicable to Alamo provides that “The character of the area as one of predominantly single family residences shall be developed, and multiple family residential units shall be provided in suitable densities and locations. A range of densities shall be offered in order to provide for a variety of family sizes, income levels, and age groups.” Both the County and Alamo as an incorporated town would be required to “exercise a “mix of housing types, tenures and AFFORDABILITY” as part of their General Plans. Is that a bad thing?
Dear Dolores,
Let’s thank Mike for confirmation that the town of Alamo would have had to plan for a “mix of housing types, tenures and AFFORDABILITY” as part of their General Plans if incorporation had been successful. Alamo region community of neighborhoods supports such renewal, rejuvenation and expansion of high-density residential in our business and commercial districts.
Hal, as a community courtesy
Mike confirms that, had incorporation been successful, the town of Alamo would have had to plan for a “mix of housing types, tenures and AFFORDABILITY” as part of its General Plan in just the same way that the County does for Alamo now through its General Plan.
Dolores, this commentary just received:
Dear Hal,
We need to refocus housing element discussion on Danville. Alamo region community of neighborhoods in Danville north of Diablo Road support renewal of high density residential, including residential over retail in the north Danville business district from El Cerro to Diablo Road. Our ad hoc business district committee would appreciate comments from our Danville neighbors about such rejuvenation and renewal in the north Danville business district.
**Commentary by Jane, North Danville neighborhoods discussion groups, Alamo region community of neighborhoods**
Hal, as a community courtesy