CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 was the same reasoning , however , the difference now is that the first time around there was no attempt to affect the actual ultimate density . Now , the developer would know in advance that the density does relate to the quality of the develop - ment and this was the basis of this proposal at this time . It was noted that the theory of increase of open space apparently did not work and at this time another step in this direction to accomplish better developments than the City had been ---, getting on the whole , was necessary . After a lengthy discussion on the present maximum allowable density and the pro - posed allowable density - units per acre , Planning Director cited areas and ex - amples stating the Planning Commission felt that they would be encouraging a better quality of life for the residents of the City by the proposed density as opposed to getting as many people in as possible on small sites . In answer to the Mayor ' s concern for lower --moderate - income housing , the Planning Director noted he could not speak for the Planning Commissioners , however , there were two Planning Commissioners on the Housing Concerns Committee and that there was indication of a rather strong shift away from that being the consequence of allowing high density development . It was noted that as soon as the high density is allowed the land value , or the asking price , accelerates which tends to dis - prove the notion that the higher the density the better to accommodate low - moderate - income families . Mention was made that perhaps these points could better be answered by a land economist . The Livingston and Blayney report ( Redwood City Downtown Development Plan ) and the downtown area development was mentioned and Planning Director noted that the " CB " Zoning ( Central Business ) does allow residential development at the present time , subject to a use permit , and would be compatible with the Livingston and Blayney report to allow as high a density as the City would like to have in Class "A " construction in the "CB " District . Both the "CB " and the "CP " ( Commercial Park ) Districts allow residential development subject to a use permit . The future assessed valuation of land in Redwood City was discussed with concern regarding what it would do to our future development with this proposed amendment . Some discussion was held with regard to the California Environmental Quality Act , which necessitates Environmental Impact Reports , and which have led to projects being turned down on environmental grounds even though they met the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance . It would appear that the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance , particularly with respect to allowable apartment house densities , are far from protecting the quality of the environment , and since it had been suggested that the Planning Commission not use the Environmental Impact Reports as a regulatory tool , this proposed recommendation of the revision of the Zoning Ordinance had come about . Appreciation for the Planning Director ' s report through the City Manager to Council of August 17 , 1973 was mentioned as one of the finest explanations of a situation that was complicated and extremely detailed . In discussing the on- going process in amending the Zoning Ordinance , the Planning Director clarified the point by noting that this was brought about by state law that a Zoning Ordi - nance must conform to or be compatible with the General Plan or Universal Land Use Plan which the City does not , as yet , have for the whole City . He noted that an attempt was being made with some objectives for the future of Redwood City by presenting fundamental , basic , reasonable changes so as to open up to the City a better atmosphere and a better knowledge of what was available in the way of re - sources and what there was in the way of willingness on the part of the City to accept as to the future of the City . In response to question regarding the future population potential of Redwood City, it was brought to Council ' s attention this proposed ordinance change was not a population projection and even if this was the effect , the City could accommodate double the population of what it is today , however , this would appear not to be the case for the future . It was noted that this change would create a cleaner , clearer atmosphere between the City and the developers than at present and that -- - the density , through the inclusion of other restrictions , had leveled off since 1968 . City Manager elaborated on the value of land processing with respect to land use determination and felt that if the policies of the City , not just residential or multi - residential development but all kinds of development - commercial , indus - trial - were spelled out in clearer and greater detail , the better off the com- munity would be with respect to the reasonable development of whatever property is available for development . He noted that it was the City ' s hope to build from the land use segments of the General Plan to provide indications regarding costs , municipal obligations , utility development , park dedication , etc . , which natural- ly flow from land processing and land use . In answer to Council ' s concern that they thought they had accomplished 21 years ago what they are being asked to do once again , the City Manager pointed out that the only part that would be in common with the past is that the City still does not have a basic land use program in terms of the General Plan . 8/27/73 Reg . Mtg . _ -