Laserfiche WebLink
9.A. - Page 2 <br /> the community about the existing programs that achieve community benefits, such as park and <br /> transportation impact fees. Potential new programs or program expansions were also <br /> discussed. At that point, meeting attendees were asked to rank priorities or "spend their benefit <br /> dollars" in line with their priorities. Affordable housing was the highest priority, with additional <br /> emphasis on schools, child care sites, job programs and public art programs. Complete <br /> summaries of the workshop materials, presentations, and summary of results are also located <br /> on the project website. <br /> The Planning Commission heard and provided input related to the framework of Partnership <br /> Redwood City on February 3, 2014. A discussion detailing the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation is located on page 6 of the staff report. <br /> ANALYSIS <br /> Current Fee Mechanisms <br /> The City has a number of existing fees that are applied to new developments. These "impact <br /> fees" are charged to offset impacts created by new development. For example, building <br /> additional housing adds new residents to the City, which increases demand for additional parks <br /> and recreation programs. A "Park Impact Fee" is therefore assessed on each new residential <br /> unit to pay for increased park facilities or improvements to existing parks. These new parks and <br /> programs can then be used by the entire community. Similar fees are assessed for <br /> transportation-related impacts (TIFs). The Redwood City Elementary School and Sequoia Union <br /> High School Districts also levy school impact fees on new development within the City. <br /> Many of our current fees were established in the late 2000s. Since that time, two significant <br /> changes have occurred that prompted the need for community benefits, as well as created the <br /> market value necessary to support a successful program: <br /> • First, the State dissolved all Redevelopment agencies in 2011, eliminating the City's <br /> primary way to fund affordable housing developments. Redevelopment also funded a <br /> number of other programs that benefited the community, from infrastructure <br /> improvements to a façade improvement programs. Approximately 20% of <br /> Redevelopment funds were spent on housing, while the remaining 80% were spent on <br /> other local programs. Since the loss of Redevelopment, California cities have been <br /> looking for ways to support housing and other programs which lost funding in 2011. <br /> Community Benefits could help fill in this gap. <br /> • Secondly, the City of Redwood City is now a proven development market with a high <br /> level of developer interest. The success of the Downtown Precise Plan, and <br /> simultaneous economic recovery in the Bay Area, has raised the value of development <br /> and property substantially. A portion of this greater value could now be "captured" and <br /> placed into a community benefits program. <br /> Required Conditions and Mitigations <br /> Prior to detailing the potential framework of a program, it should be noted that a community <br /> benefits program would not reduce or remove requirements, conditions, or environmental <br /> mitigations for new development projects. In fact, the proposed program framework could <br /> include new requirements in the form of impact fees or area-specific requirements for enhanced <br /> benefits. Regardless of what additional requirements the City imposes to obtain community <br /> benefits, projects must still incorporate measures to mitigate impacts identified through <br /> environmental review and must comply with basic requirements included in the zoning <br />