AgdaPkt 2020-08-10 Special Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 8 of 25 square feet proposed event space would help generate additional revenue and allow for the facilities to be rented out for social, business, religious or other functions. Discussion: The current site includes a historic house. The existing historic evaluation for this house associates significance with an important person, the McGarvey family, but is not currently designated. The applicant has not yet identified if this vacant house is to be demolished or relocated. Staff recommend further historic evaluation on this potentially historic home as well as consideration/input from the Historic Resources Advisory Committee (HRAC). While the General Plan and Zoning allow for a mixed-use development, the project proposes a higher density (181 dwelling unit (du)/acre) than what is currently allowed under the General Plan (60 du/acre). As such, if the City Council is interested in further studying this project, staff have outlined the below possible options: 1. Amendment to Affordable Housing Density Bonus provision in Zoning Ordinance ("Option 1"): The State Density Bonus law indicates that cities must allow a density bonus of up to 35%, but allows cities to exceed this amount. The City's Density Bonus regulations (§32.19) allows a maximum of 35% density, consistent with state law. In addition, Assembly Bill No. 1763 (approved) allows projects that are 100% affordable to seek a density bonus of up to 80%. Proceeding under Option 1 would not require a General Plan Amendment, but rather a zoning amendment to the City's Density Bonus regulations. The amendment could allow projects to exceed the maximum bonus allowed if certain criteria were met. These criteria would need to be developed by staff. This provision would be applicable for all future projects that would meet established criteria. • Pros: Option 1 would allow staff to create provisions for allowing a density bonus greater than 35% for projects that meets/exceeds City goals and priorities. Because this mechanism could also be used for all future projects, staff would have to consider criteria in place so it could be used for projects proposing an appropriate amount of level of affordability in said project. Additionally, this option would likely allow for a faster application processing because the review will be project specific. • Considerations: This mechanism will likely not provide the project with the number of units currently proposed. A revised density bonus maximum would likely be between 35% (current max) and 80% (allowable under AB1763 for projects that are 100% affordable). By way of example, a 50% bonus on the project would yield 149 units (90 du/acre), only half of the 301 units proposed. In addition, this process would likely precede the Housing Element Update. Any units built prior to the completion of the Housing Element Update could not count towards the upcoming RHNA cycle. 2. Amend the existing Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) ("Option 2"): Figure 2 outlines how the existing DTPP boundaries could be amended to include 651 EI Camino Real and four other sites outlined. The DTPP does not outline density requirements but rather development caps. Therefore, the development caps for housing could be increased and studied in line with the project proposal, and would require additional CEQA review, potentially tiering off of the existing DTPP Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The increased development caps would need to also account for the additional sites included in the DTPP boundaries and their development potential. Page 8 of 13 City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.ore