Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 122 <br /> • construct 200 new affordable housing units; <br /> • publicize affordable incentives; and <br /> • facilitate land assembly for affordable housing. <br /> (H -133, Table H -61.) However, it appears that the City has not accomplished these <br /> objectives. Indeed, of these three important objectives, the Housing Element only <br /> addresses the publicizing of affordable incentives, and only in the context of density <br /> bonuses (H -133). <br /> Remarkably, the "200 new affordable housing units" goal appears to be mentioned only <br /> once in the entire Housing Element. With the challenges facing affordable housing <br /> developers in the current funding environment, cities should be taking steps like this to <br /> fill the gap. If Redwood City has managed to construct 200 new affordable homes, it <br /> should make that fact clear in the element and detail how it accomplished that feat. If <br /> not, this should be acknowledged and the failure analyzed to help inform future efforts. <br /> Land assembly was and continues to be an important component of Redwood City's <br /> ability to meet its housing needs. Its site inventories for both the prior and current <br /> planning period rely heavily on lot consolidation to support the possibility of <br /> development.' Again, however, the City does not discuss whether it actually made <br /> efforts to facilitate land assembly in the past planning period; nor does it describe how <br /> successful those efforts were. This is very important information as Redwood City goes <br /> into the next planning period to allow an informed analysis of the City's assertion that <br /> assemblage of the parcels in its proposed inventory is actually realistic. <br /> Housing Needs Assessment <br /> The survey of Redwood City's housing stock (H -40 to H -42) is not sufficiently detailed <br /> and does not provide analysis of specific housing types. (Gov. Code, §65583, subd. (a).) <br /> For example, there is no discussion of mobile home park housing despite the existence <br /> of 9 mobile home and/or RV parks in Redwood City. Mobile home parks represent one <br /> of the only sources of unsubsidized affordable housing in the Bay Area, especially for <br /> seniors and people with disabilities, and as the current proposed closures of mobile home <br /> parks in Palo Alto and San Jose demonstrate, increasing land values in Silicon Valley <br /> make this housing type particularly at -risk. <br /> Along the same lines, the draft housing element does not provide any information <br /> regarding Docktown Marina. The Marina is currently at risk of closure and its residents <br /> are at risk of needing to relocate to another floating location, which for some residents' <br /> floating homes, would not be feasible. Redwood City's 2007 -2014 Housing Element <br /> specifically listed Docktown as an alternative housing model that facilitates affordable <br /> 1 <br /> Indeed, the chart listing the sites reveals that 9 of the 11 sites identified as Downtown Opportunity Sites <br /> and 4 of the 6 sites listed as Mixed -Use Opportunity Sites are composed of multiple parcels (Apx. B -2 to <br /> B -3). <br /> 2 <br />