My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2019-12-16 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
AgdaPkt 2019-12-16 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2020 12:17:00 PM
Creation date
12/13/2019 1:39:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
12/16/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
866
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
B NO question, JohnS91 <br />Byes. Its gonna happen whether we want it or not, so may as well include benefits that help the <br />community. <br />B. I'm not sure if this option is worded correct by saying "Only" increases in density if developers pay for <br />improvements. <br />It should be if their development results in increase in density then they should be responsible for <br />paying for infrastructure required to support that density increase. That should be part of the expense <br />they incur to develop instead of putting it on the tax payer. <br />B Requiring community benefits seems smart unless it creates an onerous cost on developers that <br />would discourage new housing being built. I'd like to see data on that. It also depends on the benefits -- <br />more parking seems like the wrong priority. <br />B - and community benefits should explicitly be made to better support our local public schools <br />B. Please use the inevitable development to help with affordable housing and infrastructure needs <br />B - destiny is great, but we need the improvements as well, I think this is fair. <br />B -but the pay from developers should be proportional to the benefit they gain. <br />B they should absolutely be required to do this for the benefit they are getting <br />'No, density should not be increased, regardless of benefits' comments: <br />+a C) Affordable housing should be mandatory, rather than simply an option. In addition, developers <br />should no longer be allowed to simply pay a fine for noncompliance. Sanction and bar from future <br />projects if they do not comply with affordable housing requirements. <br />+5 C, Absolutely not. No increased housing. Period. <br />+4 c <br />I don't need another postage stamp park. Another garage isn't going to do me any good if it's full of the <br />cars of all the extra people who live there. Increased density needs to be epoxied to concrete <br />improvements in fundamental infrastructure. You want a new bike lane that four people are going to <br />use? Build a new one. Don't take it out of an existing lane that three hundred cars already use. Stop <br />making it harder to get around. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.