Laserfiche WebLink
g. Page 3. b. 2. Incentive is not defined and a density bonus is an <br />incentive, so it is not clear if a density bonus alone requires 30 year <br />affordability period or density bonus plus one other incentive. <br />City Attorney Schricker advised this wording tracks state law and state <br />law distinguishes between incentive and density bonus. <br />This amendment was withdrawn by Councilman Murray. <br />h. Page 4, d. 4. (b)... "this section" is confusing and should be replaced <br />with "planned development permit" which contains all requirements of the <br />project. <br />Amendment to the motion accepted by the mover and seconder. <br />Carried by unanimous roll call vote. <br />i. Page 4, d. 4. (c) delete ... "siting ". Whole section is confusing. <br />Councilman Greenalch described section of state law requiring that <br />affordable units must fit in with surroundings and cannot be singled out <br />by siting or design. <br />Planning Director Patterson described "siting" as considered in the <br />project itself, not within Redwood City. <br />Page 4, d. 4. (c) delete ... "substantially ", "in this section" or delete <br />entire section or change paragraph to read "the project as proposed <br />complies with state law and this ordinance." <br />The mover and seconder accepted only the following change to paragraph <br />d. 4. (c): to include the words "the project as proposed complies with <br />state law and this ordinance ". <br />Carried by unanimous roll call vote. <br />j. Page 4, d. 4. (a) add "individually and cumulatively" before the word <br />"proposed" and before the word "will ". <br />In response to Councilman Bury's question, City Attorney Schricker <br />advised that using a cumulative effect as a criterion could be perceived <br />as a special privilege, and that he viewed the state law as denying the <br />Council the authority to use cumulative effect to deny a project under <br />the density bonus statute. A project could be reviewed for its <br />cumulative effect and denied under the Subdivision Map Act or other <br />exercise of police powers. By not including it the Council is able to <br />deny a project when it is a problem. Council position would be more <br />legally defensible without that language. <br />The mover and seconder did not accept this amendment. <br />Reg. Mtg. Minutes <br />December 10, 1990 <br />Page 7 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 <br />Page No. 140 <br />