Portola Valley examines 'affordable housing'
Original post made on Jul 12, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, July 12, 2012, 10:43 AM
on Jul 12, 2012 at 11:35 am
A good balanced report of what occurred.
One question I have is if the Town were to acquire the Al's Nursery site why would the zoning have to be changed if another "mixed" (housing/commercial)use development were done here.
All in all the Town could have handled this issue better.
The topic we need to deal with should be affordable housing, not the purchase and sale of a particular pieces of land.
It's clear the Town will suffer dramatically if we can't find a way to help plan for this growing need.
I fervently hope we can come together as a community and continue the dialog towards a solution.
on Jul 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm
One question that I have: all of the news articles talk about two Blue Oaks lots, but my reading of the town housing element indicates that 15% of new development lots (which includes a 10% density bonus to the developer) are to be set aside to support BMR housing. From what I know Blue Oaks is 26 lots, which would give 4 BMR lots, which as I understood where to be zoned for up to 2 units / parcel for a total of 8 units. All of the old news articles dating to when Blue Oaks was proposed talk about 4 lots.
Why/how did this eventually turn into 2 lots?
on Jul 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Dave Boyce is a registered user.
Dear Confused. Your confusion is justified. My mistake. There are four below-market-rate parcels that the town owns in Blue Oaks.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have made a correction to the story.