Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sub-Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Technical Advisory Committee 2-08-07 Minutes

Sub-Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Technical Advisory Committee 2-08-07 Minutes

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by Sabrina Brennan
TAC 020807 Minutes
San Mateo County
TAC 020807 Minutes
San Mateo County

More info:

Published by: Sabrina Brennan on Sep 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/01/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 Atherton
Belmont 
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
San Mateo County
South San Francisco
Woodside
San Mateo County
Sub-Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process
Technical Advisory Committee
Thursday, February 8, 2007
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Minutes
2MinutesMinutes from January 11, 2007 meeting were approved.3ABAG Report (verbal)4Example Methodology Implementation Calculation
Hillsborough expressed a concern for the need of a chair for the Policy Advisory Committee.Jurisdictions responses to the number that they would be comfortable with:
Atherton – lowest achievable number 
Redwood city – ABAG number 
S. San Francsico -
Foster City – ABAG methodology okay as well as the presented methodology
Daly City – Concerned that they are already too dense
San Bruno – projections based on available sites, Projections 2007 is too large to accommodate,ABAG alternative 3 seems reasonable
Woodside – Thought purpose was to trade, etc. Feel as if we are recreating the wheel. Perhapswe should use ABAG number to start with.
Portola Valley – Analyzed holding capacity, much land is already encumbered by MROSD. 100additional units appears to be holding capacity. Planning Commission had updated the GeneralPlan but residents came with a referendum to shoot it down.
East Palo Alto – Concern on projected household and job growth. Density will be an issue.Community seems to want low density on available land.
Menlo Park – Both methodologies were okay as both gave a lower number. The ABAG transitfactor may increase the number too much. The ABAG formula 3 is okay.
Hillsborough – ABAG 3 will work. Would like to focus on implementation.
San Carlos – Would like to look at ABAG number too. In 2001 the Housing Element called for 368 units. Now with the proposed methodologies they would have around 850 units. Similar communities do not seem to be receiving a similar number of units.
Burlingame – Households and projected jobs seem okay.
Brisbane – Recognize the importance of vehicle miles traveled. Recognize that there aredifferent constraints for housing and land use. Recognize that if a community is providing jobsthe effect from vehicle miles traveled. Question the premise of Projections 2007 and the transitcomponent, especially so close to the bay with environmental effects. Have capacity to put jobs

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->