Laserfiche WebLink
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 5:56 PM Julie Pardini <iuliepardini .vahoo.com> wrote: <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/9/19: <br />GLelJ►1���I�E:� <br />9/8/19 <br />Mayor Ian Alan Bain, Vice Mayor Diane Howard, Council members: <br />We need housing, not offices. <br />If we cannot provide housing in an 8 acre development (as massive as the size of The Moffett Field Hangar, 8 <br />acres), when *will* the much needed housing Redwood City needs be built? And where? <br />The ratio of 5 to 1 (Office employees to Housing to accommodate them) is in inverse order to what it should <br />be. It should be Housing 5 to Office employees 1). The ratio is counter -intuitive. <br />Not only is the amount of Housing proposed in this development inadequate for the development's needs, but <br />it further increases our already existing housing deficit, overall. <br />If this land is redeveloped for uses other than housing, it will no longer be available for housing. It will have <br />been developed for other uses. Once done, the opportunities to create housing units will be over. <br />ADU Units cannot accomplish what newly constructed housing can accomplish—not at the same rate and not <br />at the same volume. <br />We cannot squander opportunities such as this to finally try to equalize our housing imbalance. <br />Bottom line: a City should build what it needs. At the very least, it should not build what will most certainly <br />make our available housing inventory EVEN LESS that it is currently, because of the newly created housing <br />demands created by this project. It makes no sense. <br />Build to the need. Even if it requires a zoning change. <br />We should try to fix our dilemma, and not take any steps that will guarantee we will foster it's continuity and <br />it's longevity. <br />Time is of the essence. <br />Sincerely, <br />Julie Pardini <br />