Random California housing law question: if a city lists a parcel as a housing inventory site in the housing element of its comprehensive plan, are there consequences if it changes the zoning for those parcels so it's no longer possible to build the listed amount of housing?
3
2
6
Context: I just found two parcels listed in Palo Alto's housing inventory (469 University and 360 University) where Palo Alto did this when it added PAMC 18.18.060(m) as part of the 2018 Housing Work Plan (cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/f…).
1
5
Extra Context: the thread leading up to
L. David Baron @dbaron@w3c.social @davidbaron
22 Apr 2019
Replying to @davidbaron
I think this is why we need the state to step in with laws like SB50 and limit the power of city governments to do this sort of thing.
1
1
And even more context: (a) they're probably going to add a further 9 month extension of the 1 year moratorium mentioned in the above thread in Monday's council meeting, and (b) the above thread was subtly wrong; there are non-office non-residential uses still allowed
1
1
Oh, actually, it's just one parcel. 360 University doesn't count since there's an alley (and city parking lot) at the back of the parcel that could connect to underground parking.

Oct 2, 2020 · 1:46 AM UTC
1