CC Min 1992-01-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I I MIS: MURRAVIBUCHAN TO DENV THE APPEAL OF DANIEL LEVIN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENV A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO PRAXIS HOUSING PARTNERS, FOR A 64-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1305 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD. Council Members explained the reasoning behind their upcoming vote: Councilman Claire advised he has long supported affordable housing; the previously approved D.E.C. development was stopped due to financial problems; and the current proposal involves architectural problems. The most compelling reason to vote to deny the appeal is the letter from the Architectural Advisory Committee that pointed the direction for approval that Mr. Levin could have chosen to pursue; but, Mr. Levin did not like the suggestions, and put himself above THE Architectural Advisory Committee. Citizens of Redwood City demanded this Committee, and the Committee made suggestions, but the developer refused to follow them. Non-profit approach is to be applauded, and Mr. Levin should look at existing organizations where there would be no question about their desire to provide low income housing not for profit, and if one of those groups presented an architecturally approved project by our Advisory Committee he would be inclined to vote in favor of it. Councilman Bury advised that after reviewing all the information from Mr. Levin and the Architectural Advisory Commission, Historic Resources Committee and the Planning Commission and hearing Mr. Levin's testimony it appeared the seven findings had not been responded to. Also, the Council is not turning down affordable housing nor an individual, but turning down a proposal that has sidebar negative social consequences for the subject neighborhood. Councilman Greenalch stated it was unfortunate this vote was being framed as I. ___.. being "for or against housing" when it is not. This issue is about a ¡ specific proposal which would provide middle income housing to the community, which housing is non-existent at the present time, and would involve considerable cost to the City. The City is being asked to co-sponsor this development, but the City has not been consulted as to how it should look, etc. If the City is being asked to invest $45,000 per unit, or $1,350,000 for 30 units, to reduce the price and make each unit affordable, it is critical that the City have input. It is a matter of public record that the reason the previous project did not go forward was that the Redevelopment Agency was asked for a similar amount and the City was unwilling to invest so much in that one project. The Council believed that housing could be built and be affordable and meet the requirements of the community with a cost of less than that, and there is a consistency in the Council's actions. Although he felt passionately about the affordable family housing issue it was pointed out that this was not the right place for it as there is no place for children to go to school or to play, and intellectually, everyone had to agree that this setting was inappropriate. I I If the City is to subsidize middle income housing with $1,350,000 of City funds, a better place should be found. Amenities are definitely not an issue. The appellant has tried to frame this as a vote against middle income housing. This is a vote against a project where the City is told I "accept it on my terms, or reject it on my terms" and under those terms Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 January 20, 1992 Page No. 440 Page 8 I -- ------- ~- - -- ~-- --- ~.- ------ - -.._-- - -- _. _.--- -~-_.~_.- ,-- ~-_.~- ~- -- --- - P.·_· - - - - - _______ I