|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 11:41 AM
Portola Valley: Council to allow contract to expire on nursery purchase
Moderate income housing still possible at 900 Portola Road
|
|
by Dave Boyce
Almanac Staff
Applause from a group of maybe 10 Portola Valley residents greeted a late-night decision on Wednesday, Dec. 12, by the Town Council to allow the probable expiration of a contract to acquire a former plant nursery at 900 Portola Road. By not extending the contract and continuing the council's interest in buying the nursery, the council has sidelined a proposal to use the property to address a state mandate that requires communities to create zoning for homes affordable to people of moderate incomes.
The council, through Mayor John Richards, also announced plans to form an ad hoc committee in January to examine the issue of affordable housing in the community.
The contract for 900 Portola Road included a stipulation that San Mateo County environmental authorities provide a letter, before Dec. 19, attesting to the proper clean-up of pesticide residues in the grounds. That deadline faded into insignificance after a Nov. 6 letter from the county in which officials declared the clean-up so far to be inadequate, citing several problems, and gave the environmental consulting firm until May 2013 to come up with a detailed work plan. The council had not yet acted on that news.
The council reported its decision around midnight after a closed session of about 45 minutes. The open meeting that preceded it included a packed audience and a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors of 900 Portola Road aired their negative opinions as to the propriety of the council's actions. The council was acting hastily, they said, and in secret, complaints that are at odds with the record.
In a related matter, and to the expressed disappointment of that same group of residents, a unanimous council voted to sell two properties in the Blue Oaks neighborhood that had been intended for affordable housing. The council had been planning to use that $2.88 million to buy 900 Portola Road, but with that contract now likely to expire, the money will be banked. The funds are restricted and must be used to address affordable housing mandates, town officials have said.
Single-family homes are a tradition and the homeowners opposing this proposal argue that while they are not opposed to affordable housing in Portola Valley, this proposal would likely have lowered their property values. Data has shown this not to be the case for moderate income housing, Town Attorney Sandy Sloan told the council and the audience.
The opponents regularly suggest that state mandates can be met with second units -- cottages for rent. Many towns use second units to address mandates for very-low and low- income housing, but the state requires zoning for "a variety of housing types, including multi-family," state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) spokesman Colin Parent told the Almanac.
In San Mateo County, according to the HCD, a moderate income is around $86,500 for an individual and $123,600 for a family of four. Prices for moderate-income homes are adjusted to reflect the incomes of the buyers, Town Planner Tom Vlasic said.
The state does not require that the homes be built, but it does specify sanctions that a judge can impose if a group such as an affordable-housing advocate successfully sues a city or town over its inaction.
Plan for the future?
Is 900 Portola Road now off the table for affordable housing?
"No, not necessarily," Mayor Richards said in an interview. "We're trying to leave the door open in case they manage to get it cleaned up in time." And give the process time to work, including the ad hoc committee proposed for January, he added.
And the decision to allow the contract to lapse. What led to that?
Town Hall is facing a 2013 deadline in preparing the 2014-2022 housing-element chapter of the general plan. The length of time needed to clean up the site at 900 Portola Road put the town at a disadvantage, Mr. Richards said. "Having that hanging there was kind of a burden."Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Mark Wilson, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm Town Council - plan for low income housing. All I know about this is issue is what I have read in the Almanac. However, one of two possibilities strike me regarding the Town Council. Either they do not know what they are doing and have inadequately thought through their low income housing proposal, or, what would be unfortunate, they are bending to the will of a very small, vocal minority. The requirement for low income housing is not negotiable and, I believe, would be welcomed by a majority of the community in the public spirit intended by the legislation. I, for one, believe a thoughtful plan should embrace the requirement rather than shirk the town's civic responsibilities.
|
|
Posted by PV Resident, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2012 at 11:10 am I do not live near this nursery, but cannot blame an organized group of residents opposing a change in thier immediate area. That is thier right and they accomplished thier goal. Let's focus on the stupidity of the law. Why is the town being forced to alter its overall plan and character based on a few in Sacramento who feel it's the right thing to do. This is not a class or income issue. Different towns/areas have different have different rules. I assume the town council was merely trying to keep the town compliant with the law. The problem is the stupid law. Pressure Sacramento to change it.
|
|
Posted by Louis Ebner, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm Mr Boyce has yet again mischaracterized both the situation vis a vis 900 Portola Road and the argument against its purhase.In fact, the Council operated in stealth mode for several years in attempting to acquire the property, never bothering to communicate their intentions to contiguous neighbors or to invite public commentary or to seek professional analysis on the wisdom of the purchase for BMR. And indeed the Council has acted in ill-advised haste by summariy contracting to spend over three million dollars of BMR funds on a property whose suitability as a site for BMR is debatable at best-- most damningly, with no plan, no economic feasibility analysis and no clear idea of how many units of housing of what height coverage or density will result once 900PVR is declared a BMR zone.Whatever one thinks of BMR in the abstract, the Council's stampede for 900 Portola Road has exemplified questionable public policy,very questionable treatment of neighbors most directly impacted by that policy and stunningly questionable economics.
|
|
Posted by Honesty please?, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Dec 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm " not in MY backyard " - and if I can't get it done as a neighbor, I'll create an organization that doesn't identify itself as NIMBY neighbors and lobby that way. Too bad the council couldn't 't stand up to the vocal NIMBY minority, ihad hoped for better
|
|
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Dec 16, 2012 at 7:52 am Honesty:
I suppose you wouldn't mind if they built it next door to you then?
|
|
Posted by Louis Ebner, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13 am Rather telling that “Honesty, please” lacks the “honesty” to state (his/her) real name, even as (he/she) invokes the mannerism “please” with the glibness of a confounded adolescent rolling (his/her) eyes toward the heavens. This is nothing new, nor does the ensuing message constitute coherent argument, with any attention at all to the facts of the situation at hand. Instead, we are treated to the usual reductio ad acronym coming from a quarter that believes there can be no virtuous objection to its own favored policies and plans. The tactic: scream NIMBY and stomp away, suggesting as you exit that you are speaking for some put-upon “majority”. If this is the field upon which “Honesty” demands to play, then let us at least (please) even the rhetorical scales for (him/her), and introduce a countervailing acronym: “WIMPY”— Willful Imposition of My Preferences on You.
|
|
Posted by PV resident, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2012 at 5:21 pm I was at the meeting and there were many more speakers from the audience than 900 Portola Rd. neighbors. The theme I heard repeated was that spending $3 million for a property with no development plan was unsound policy. The Keep PV Rural group did not speak out against affordable housing but did suggest the Town slow down and study the situation with more community input.
Your reporter failed to capture the essence of the hearing in his article. The speakers were respectful, the Town Council listened, and overall the long evening was an exercise of democracy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
