CC Min 1997-10-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

II I I I I II Commissioner Giannini said he agreed with Dr. Howard that there was a need for more interior open space and common recreation facilities. He said the proposed development - appeared to be rather dense at this point. Jeff Hansen said the quality of life of the people who will live in the community will be balanced with the traffic circulation, open space availability, recreation and other amenities. He said it is always a struggle with the concept of critical mass, having sufficient density to make economic sense, in terms of construction costs, architectural details and quality. Mr. Hansen said the 300 for-sale and 200 rental units on the 16 acres made economic sense given the housing needs of the City, and to include the concept of a pedestrian friendly urban village. Mr. Hansen described another Shea project in San Jose with 2200 units on 70 acres that some people in the Chamber had seen, where deference had been paid to pedestrians and children. He said the proposal was a work-in-progress, and the development team very much wanted this kind of input. Mr. Hansen said there were many competing goals, and the team wanted the Planning Commission and Council to "determine what is the best balance." He said it was "a challenge to get the unit production in, also looking at affordability, and interior open space and creating the ideal development." Vice Chairman Verdone called on Council Members who wished to speak to this issue. Councilman Leipzig said, "I wanted to clarify something Mr. Church brought up about the relocation costs. If the Agency is involved, it gets a little complicated. If the Agency is not -- involved people like Dr. Haars and others would deal directly with whoever the developers are, is that correct? If the Agency is not involved then relocation costs do not come into play?" Redevelopment Agency Director Church said that "it would be entirely up to the parties involved." Councilman Leipzig said, "given those facts, let's keep the Agency out of this project if possible. That is not a derogatory comment to Mr. Church or anyone in the Agency department. We have affordable, subsidized rental housing right behind us coming on line, several hundred units, if I'm not mistaken. When this project came before Council for the first time when I saw it, Irvine came before us, it was strictly rental, and in a limited area along the project site." Councilman Leipzig said the Council asked that for-sale units be included, approximately 60%, and that the project area be expanded. He said, "Let's go in that direction. You heard a couple of people tonight talk about needing more affordable housing. Redwood City has done a tremendous job in providing affordable housing. We have done probably more than any city in the County, if I'm correct. We have a lot of affordable housing. And affordable housing is what the market will bear, so we are really talking about subsidized housing. And I don't think the majority of residents in Redwood City want more subsidized housing. We have a huge subsidized project right behind us. What we need downtown are people who have disposable income, and the realities of it are the people behind us that are going to move into these apartments are very fortunate. But they are not going to have the - disposable income that we need in shoppers coming downtown, going to the restaurants, the PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION WITH COUNCIL PARTICIPATION OCTOBER21,1997 STUDY SESSION MEETING MINUTES MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 PAGE 5 Page No. 607