Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 06/08/1998 All articles from this issue

City can't afford affordable housing law

printer friendly version

Editorial

Last week's passing of a Los Altos affordable second-living-unit ordinance may address density concerns in the council's minds, but it sends the wrong message to the state about the city's desire to comply with affordable housing mandates.

The new ordinance, which requires 15,000-square-feet minimum lots for detached affordable units (or 13,000 square feet for attached "granny units"), narrows the potential considerably for such units in town. There are approximately 400 such lots that qualify, vs. more than 6,200 between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. A previous affordable unit ordinance which expired last year required a minimum 10,000-square-foot lot.

Proponents argue the ordinance guards against the possibility of second units overcrowding relatively small lots. Also, proposals for second-living units thus far have not been overwhelming from owners of lots below 15,000 square feet.

However, we agree with city staff, who disagreed with council, that "eliminating the majority of parcels in the city from the ability to even apply for (a use permit) is likely not to result in more affordable (units)." Staff also notes, "it is likely that the total number of applications will drop significantly because of the inability of the property owner to realize a financial return on the construction costs."

One could argue the ordinance guards against a potential glut of second units and allays fears of perceived lower living standards. However, based on the number of applications, these scenarios are pure fantasy.

Far more real, however, is the risk that state officials will be questioning Los Altos' conviction in meeting its affordable housing mandate. If the state perceives city rebellion, some serious penalties, such as a building moratorium, could occur. So we have an "affordable" ordinance that, in fact, undermines affordable housing and puts us at risk.