CC Min 1992-01-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the building at street level with increased underground parking of 134 spaces, which is a lower height and has more parking than the D.E.C. approved development. Mr. Levin asked the Council to approve the conditions in his booklet with the assurances contained in "A. Findings of Approval", and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. In response to Council questions City Attorney Schricker advised Council that it appeared some of the changes being discussed by Mr. Levin were substantial and that the Council should consider the development proposal as it was submitted to the Historic Resources Committee, the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission when reaching a decision to uphold or deny the appeal. Council Members acknowledged and discussed the only issue before them at this Meeting was the appeal of the denial of the Planning Commission to grant a Planned Development Permit for a very specific design and development proposal, and that their decision would be based on the facts of that proposal. Significant modifications to that proposal would not be considered at this Meeting, but would have to be resubmitted for approval, according to the Zoning Ordinance. In response to Council questions, Mr. Levin stated the biggest single issue was open space, and that he removed the decks (considered open space) from his design to increase bedroom size to attract families to buy these affordable units. Mr. Levin insisted the decks were not needed, but three bedroom middle class affordable units were. Mr. Levin advised his new court yard design was more inviting with two separate play areas for children, with patios and barbecue areas. Further in response to Council questions, Mr. Levin described his non- profit organization and the importance of the family owned home, especially for the middle class. Mr. Levin stated the units were to be sold at cost with the developer to receive no money but the opportunity to live in one of the units for a year with the wording of the agreement to be approved by the City. Mr. Levin expressed concern at the personal nature of some of the comments made during the process and added that resubmittal of plans would necessitate the need for additional fees, and his current proposal was a one-time offer. Mr. Levin advised that his proposal allows the City to "buy down" as many as 50% of the units, thus freeing up as many as 32 units for middle class families. Council discussed the affordable housing policies in Redwood City and the need for understanding why a City demands a quality development for affordable housing, and the benefits of the economic "mix" Mr. Levin found so disturbing. Further, an ad hominem approach is unproductive as a development of this magnitude should be a partnership between the City and the developer as the City would be expected to be a major financial contributor to creating affordable housing. Concern was expressed that this one project would use up most of the monies set aside for affordable housing and no other developments could be encouraged. Regular Meeting Minutes January 20, 1992 MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 Page 5 Page No. 437 ^-,._.."".,---~,._---. 1 . I