My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2006-12-04
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2006
>
AgdaPkt 2006-12-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2014 10:20:08 AM
Creation date
11/30/2006 4:10:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council & Redevelopment
Date
12/4/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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 />8A <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />Housing Affordability <br />Policy Decision Check list <br />December 4, 2006 <br /> <br />1. Housing Supply <br />a. Should the City pursue opportunities to use residential land more <br />efficiently through diverse, well-designed, higher density housing in <br />downtown? <br />b. Should staff pursue opportunities to rezone under-utilized industrial or <br />commercial sites to residential? <br />c. Should staff explore adding residential to under-utilized portions of existing <br />commercial developments? <br />d. Should staff revisit modifications to the city's Accessory Unit provisions as <br />part of an overall housing affordability policy in order to increase <br />production of such units? <br /> <br />2. Should staff work with the Planning Commission, HHCC, and other stakeholders <br />to prepare an Inclusionary Housing Policy and Program fOf City Council <br />consideration? <br />a. Should the cost of the affordable units be absorbed by the market rate <br />project? Are there guidelines for considering public/private partnerships? <br />What should those guidelines be? <br />b. Should the affordable units be equal in size, shape, location and amenities <br />to the market fate units? <br />c. Should the program apply to both rental and ownership residential <br />projects? <br />d. Should the program include an In Lieu Fund for residential ownership <br />projects? <br />e. Should new affordable housing units be provided in <br />i. Affordable Only Projects? <br />ii. Blended into Market Rate Projects? <br />iii. Are both types acceptable? <br />f. Should the program apply citywide, rather than to just downtown? <br />Conversely, should the inclusionary program apply throughout the City <br />except for Downtown? <br />g. What percentage of units and at what level of affordability should be <br />required for an inclusionary program? <br />h. What is the minimum project size that would trigger requirement to include <br />affordable units? <br />i. If in-lieu fees are permitted, should they be sized to fund 100% of the cost <br />of providing the affordable units? <br />j. Should the inclusionary requirements for rental projects be different than <br />the requirements for ownership projects? <br /> <br />3. Should staff pursue creation of a new local ordinance and a program for <br />implementing the State Density Bonus Law? Should staff continue use of its <br />current local ordinance instead, if possible? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.