My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC Min 1991-10-21
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CC Min 1991-10-21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:50:24 PM
Creation date
8/27/2004 8:57:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Date
10/21/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />CDD Draft Mitigation Report, Item No.7 <br /> <br />M/S: ClairelMurray to delete Item No.7 of CDD, requiring a percentage of all <br />residential projects to be affordable." <br /> <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 91-220 <br /> <br />Councilman Claire advised this item was too broad, unenforceable and would <br />drive developers elsewhere. <br /> <br />Councilman Murray suggested this was anti-housing as it does not provide <br />incentives, but mandates a percent. <br /> <br />In response to Council questions Housing Director Church advised "in lieu" fees <br />are part of Redwood City housing strategies. <br /> <br />Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 91-221 <br /> <br />CDD Draft Mitigation Report, Item No.9 <br /> <br />City Attorney Schricker advised that Item No.9, "Zone land for pre-manufacture <br />housing" might be illegal, as state law requires integration. However, if <br />meant to cover mobile homes then it is unnecessary as General Plan covers <br />mobile homes. <br /> <br />M/S: <br /> <br />Claire/Bury to delete Item No.9 as quoted above. <br /> <br />Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 91-222 <br /> <br />CDD Draft Mitigation Report, Item No. 10 <br /> <br />In response to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker advised the state law <br />was not well drafted and is complexly ambiguous: although our second unit <br />ordinance does not literally conform to state law, we believe we can defend the <br />ordinance as drafted. <br /> <br />In response to Council questions Senior Planner Jany advised that the Planning <br />Commission had reviewed this mitigation measure and had reviewed Redwood City <br />Second Unit Ordinance, and voted to recommend it. <br /> <br />Councilman Murray advised we should let our Second Unit Ordinance work before <br />we go back to change it. <br /> <br />Housing Director Church advised of the concerns of the Housing and Human <br />Concerns Committee regarding size of units limited to 640 feet. <br /> <br />Council discussed state law; increased density impacts; current limitations has <br />discouraged applications for second units; conflicting concerns; and number of <br />requests for larger units; Friendly Acres Neighborhood residents complaints <br />regarding increased density. <br /> <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 <br />Page No. 382 <br /> <br />Regular Agenda Minutes <br />October 21, 1991 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />"'u ,_u. --- - --T-- ,,----- - - - -- --,-- _.. ------ ,---- uu_----' -- ,----- - - -- -'-- .-- --- ----- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.