” every eight years to plan for housing, including that which is deemed “affordable” sold at or below market rate,”
Be interesting to see how places like Beverly Hills are conforming.
“Be interesting to see how places like Beverly Hills are conforming.”
Lots of towns on the San Francisco Peninsula are like Beverly Hills. One of the hottest topics of discussion in City Council meetings the past 30 or 40 years is how to meet the state’s mandated “fair share” of affordable housing. In our little town, I don’t think there’s been a City Council meeting in recent memory where this hasn’t come up.
The cities are trying to balance the needs of residents (who want to preserve their small-town feel) with the communist busy-bodies in Sacramento who are out to destroy it. As you would imagine, there are plenty of local busy-bodies who want to destroy the town as well. They follow the Sacramento lead lock-step.
The developers all smell big money to be made. Our little town had a strict two-story height limit for the downtown area that was put into the town founding charter back in the 50s. With the changes imposed by Sacramento to build “affordable” housing, a particularly noxious developer proposed to build a FOUR story building right on Main Street. The city fought it and lost in the courts. The developer, out of spite for facing opposition, came back with a FIVE story project plan.
So, to answer your question, the richest towns all over CA are spending huge amounts of time, people resources and money (lawyers) trying to figure out how to meet the state demands and not destroy the characteristics of the towns that make them desirable. It is increasingly hard to do and nobody is happy.
Or Monterey or Pebble Beach?