Reso24 16252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

93 Sheet PA2.1, 10/27/23); (3) “Open Space” –waiver of the minimum open space standard because the dog run located in the rear yard of the project component is in a setback and therefore cannot be counted, resulting in the project component not meeting the zoning code performance standard; (4) “Pervious Area” -- waiver of the requirement in the zoning code that 20 percent of a project’s lot be pervious for residential uses due to the impact on building footprint from increasing the pervious area that would preclude the ability to achieve the number of units and parking spaces planned; and (5) concession/incentive regarding the parking ratio to allow the project component to provide fewer parking spaces than required by the building standard. These waivers and the concession/incentive are requested to provide sufficient space necessary to make the project component 100 percent affordable (City of Redwood City Architectural Advisory Committee Staff Report, April 25, 2024; Eden Housing, “847 Woodside Road Planning Application Submittal, Revised Letter of Intent to Apply State Density Bonus,” dated June 17, 2024). Density bonus projects receive protection under the Housing Accountability Act. If a housing development project is entitled to a density bonus under the Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 65915), then the density bonus does not count as a violation of the local general plan, zoning code, etc. Likewise, if a housing development project is entitled to waivers or concessions of local rules under the Density Bonus Law, those waivers or concessions do not count as violations of the local general plan, zoning code, etc. Thus, the project component would be compatible with existing zoning and land uses (Mixed Use-Neighborhood) as designated by the existing Redwood City General Plan (see General Plan Figure BE-6: Land Use Map). For these reasons, it would have a less than significant impact. The project would connect into the existing transit network, and would not create any barriers that would physically divide the community. This project component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. As discussed in the Focused GPU program EIR (p. 4.11-16), future housing development associated with implementation of the Focused GPU would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including policies and programs adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing adverse physical effects on the environment. The Focused GPU program EIR (p. 4.11-16) also discussed Plan Bay Area 2050 and determined that the Focused GPU would be consistent because it would advance housing development and residential growth promoted in Plan Bay Area 2050. For these reasons, the impact of the Focused GPU was considered to be less than significant. The 847 Woodside project component implements the General Plan. The General Plan envisions the site as being part of a key residential and commercial corridor (Page BE-27) and designates the site for a mix of residential and neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and the project proposes multifamily residential. In addition, the project component is consistent with Redwood City General Plan Policy BE-22.2, which states that performance criteria and standards should be applied to all new development projects, with the level of application commensurate with the scale of development. Policy BE-22.2 (Focused GPU program EIR pp. 4.11-12 and 4.11-13) identifies a list of performance criteria and standards including, but not limited to: (1) availability of adequate water supplies to serve new development; (2) achieving adopted service standards for pedestrian, bicycle, public transit usage, and motorized vehicle mobility; (3) limiting new development within the floodplain or ensuring new development incorporates extra precautions for floodplain location; (4) minimizing direct or indirect impact to sensitive biological resources; (5) incorporating sustainability features that minimize energy and water use, limit carbon emissions, provide opportunities for local power generation and food production, and provide areas for recreation; and (6) providing a measurable and/or clearly identifiable community benefit in the form of affordable housing, jobs generation, available parkland or open space, environmental hazard protection, and/or other criteria established by the City. These and other environmental topics are discussed throughout this document in item XIX, Utilities and Service Systems; item XVII, Transportation; item X, Hydrology and Water Quality; item IV, Biological Resources; item VI, Energy; item VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; as well as in the project description (item #8 above) and elsewhere throughout the document. These sections conclude that the 847 Woodside Road project component has either no impact or a less- than-significant impact for these environmental topics, and confirm that the project component does not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Because the project component would be consistent with the Focused GPU, there would be no significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the General Plan, zoning ordinance, or associated regional plans (e.g., Plan Bay Area 2050). No land use planning impacts are anticipated beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the Focused GPU program EIR, and this impact would be less than significant. This project component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. ATTY/RESO.0074/CC RESO 847 WOODSIDE (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST REV: 10-23-24 VR Page 93 of 135