Read on Twitter
South Pasadena started their 6th cycle Housing Element early and I have already found 3 different ways they are trying to cheat. (thread)
@Yimby_Law, @AbundantHousing, @HousingOC are hosting a webinar about how to make a difference in ur housing element https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MewZrEFIQgOIOAHs4NrU9g
@Yimby_Law, @AbundantHousing, @HousingOC are hosting a webinar about how to make a difference in ur housing element https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MewZrEFIQgOIOAHs4NrU9g
That Webinar is on Thursday, 12/3 at 5:30 PM. Click on the link above to join.
South Pasadena started it's housing element early because it was trying to raise a voter approved height limit of 45 feet that was passed in 1983. They need to get on the ballot to do that.
South Pasadena started it's housing element early because it was trying to raise a voter approved height limit of 45 feet that was passed in 1983. They need to get on the ballot to do that.
South Pasadena has a 2,062 RHNA number. The first way they tried to cheat is by claiming they would build 1,000 ADUs on 5,000 single family lots.
The HCD guidance is fairly clear about the amount of ADUs a city can claim is.
The HCD guidance is fairly clear about the amount of ADUs a city can claim is.
A city can claim an ADU number based on it's production from Jan 2018 on. Since there is 3 years of data by April first, 2021, they can really only claim what they have done in these past years. If it was 10 ->15->25 they could claim about 30 to 35 ADUs per year.
They have this data. It is required to be turned into the state. If they claim a different high number, be sure to send a letter telling them that it is wrong so that there is documentation that they know they are cheating.
The second way they have tried to cheat is to claim a realistic capacity of 80% in commercial zones for every lot in South Pasadena. South Pasadena must base this number on past production and they are actually pulling it out of thin air.
In all of the HCD videos they mention that places that commercial only is allowed should be much lower because they can build something that is not housing. So if you see anything about 65% in a place commercial only can be built, comment on it.
Lastly, South Pasadena is trying to include sites that will not be redeveloped into housing in the next 8 years. One example is a Pavillions that had plans to build a new Pavillions but recently changed and is not spending $2 million on renovations. https://southpasadenan.com/plans-for-new-pavilions-underway/
Anything thing they are trying to say is that the parking lot (blue) that the Ride Aid and other stores can be developed but not include the Rite Aid (red) itself. These stores cannot function without their parking lot.
Those are the main things I have seen and that people can look for. The good news is, when the Housing Elements are submitted to @California_HCD, public comment is allowed an encouraged. Sending this stuff to HCD in March should stop the cities from cheating.
