AgdaPkt 2019-12-16 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

C The infrastructure needed for the current population is inadequate. It's stressful to live in Redwood city now C- We are already saturated. Increased density means increased traffic jams, more accidents, decreased quality of life. No public space is going to improve that. C, we need better public transit options and to make sure we have enough housing relative to the new jobs being added C City is already overbuilt. The city needs to provide additional open space, parks, parking while we assess the impact of already built apartments. C. The city has already shown that they won't hold developers to standards for providing improvements. C. We have a real traffic problem and increasing the population density is making it worse. The city needs to really start addressing how they plan on reducing traffic. No more talk about growing the population without real solutions to reducing traffic. Paid HOV lanes is not a solution. It's a scam to get more free revenue. C if they pass this each council member must have to live there C) there should only be affordable housing developments at this rate. C but also need to include benefits for transportation fixes like road and railway crossing improvements so Redwood City is easier to navigate through as density increases. C: EXPAND downtown - ie do more development in the area bounded by Woodside Road Middlefield Broadway and sth street [avenue?] C. I could support A as well. Part of the issue with housing getting built are all the city fees which make affordable housing impossible to price out. That said, new housing should have some fees to cover impact of new residents. 'Neutral or don't know' comments: +s D sounds like an okay proposal. With the housing crisis I don't see why any strings are attached to housing programs. As long as the zoning doesn't continue to result in office space outpacing living space it's fine.