Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 21 of 61 <br />By way of example, a 50% bonus on the project would yield 149 units (90 du/acre), only <br />half of the 301 units proposed. In addition, this process would likely precede the Housing <br />Element Update. Any units built prior to the completion of the Housing Element Update <br />could not count towards the upcoming RHNA cycle. <br />Amend the existing Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) ("Option 2"): Figure 2 outlines how the existing <br />DTPP boundaries could be amended to include 651 EI Camino Real and four other sites outlined. <br />The DTPP does not outline density requirements but rather development caps. Therefore, the <br />development caps for housing could be increased and studied in line with the project proposal, <br />and would require additional CEQA review, potentially tiering off of the existing DTPP <br />Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The increased development caps would need to also account <br />for the additional sites included in the DTPP boundaries and their development potential. <br />• Pros: Option 2 could provide more flexibility in getting the project to the requested 301 <br />unit count. <br />• Considerations: This option would expand the DTPP area at the same time as the City is <br />considering a geographically broader Central Redwood City Plan. Additionally, extending <br />the DTPP boundary would include four other parcels in addition to 651 EI Camino Real <br />and the City would need to also consider the development potential for these properties <br />as part of this process. <br />figure 2: Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP) Amended Boundaries <br />6 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.org <br />:: <br />