Laserfiche WebLink
28 <br /> <br />In terms of the identification of affordable housing opportunity sites, State law requires <br />the City to zone and plan for land to accommodate the projected housing need. In its <br />General Plan Housing Element the City identified eleven potential housing sites within <br />the DTPP area, and several outside of the DTPP. The City has identified enough sites <br />in its General Plan Housing Element to meet over 175% of its projected housing unit <br />need. The City is in compliance with State law, and is presently processing three <br />development applications for downtown residential development that will provide <br />affordable housing units that were not anticipated in the Housing Element. These <br />projects are the Habitat for Humanity project (20 units), 1409 El Camino Real (35 <br />affordable units), and 801 Brewster (250 units including 50 affordable). It is also notable <br />that the Bradford Concept Plan site identified in Table H-58 of the Housing Element is <br />presently under review for a project that would provide 117 affordable units for seniors, <br />47 more units than was estimated in the Housing Element. <br /> <br />IV. The Public Hearing was Properly Noticed in Accordance with the <br />Redwood City Code <br /> <br />Appellants’ Contention: That the staff report indicated that the Public Notice appeared in <br />the Redwood City Daily News and no such entity currently exists, and that the City is <br />using the Palo Alto Daily News for Public Notices. (See Kris Johnson Appeal, p. 3) <br /> <br />City’s Response: The City had the Public Notice published on May 6, 2016 in full <br />accordance with adopted City code and on-going standard practice. It was published in <br />the newspaper that is now known as the “Daily News”, which is circulated in Redwood <br />City and other nearby cities. In addition, notice was mailed to all property owners within <br />a 300-foot radius of the Project site. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1. The City Council may choose to deny the appeals and approve a modified <br />project design. <br />2. The City Council may choose to continue the item to a future meeting and direct <br />Staff and/or the Applicant to provide additional information or analysis. <br />3. The City Council may uphold the appeals and overturn the Planning <br />Commission’s project approval. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br />Review of the proposed project is subject to the City’s Cost Recovery System, <br />therefore, direct costs during the entitlement process associated with staff and <br />consultant time are covered by an applicant deposit. Should the appeals be denied and <br />the project approved, the Applicant will be required to pay all associated development <br />impact and permitting fees, as applicable and as established by ordinance. <br /> <br />8.C. - Page 28