Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Joseph Steinfeld <br /> The Raiser Organization <br /> MidPeninsula Housing Coalition <br /> Redwood City Redevelopment Agency <br /> November 1, 1995 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Findinqs <br /> <br /> 1. On September 19, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of <br /> Redwood City, following duly noticed public hearing, approved the issuance of a <br /> Planned Development Permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of <br /> Ordinance No. 1130, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Redwood <br /> City (the "Zon. Ord.") and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 1.7 acre (more <br /> or less) parcel of real property (the "Property") into two parcels pursuant to the <br /> provisions of Chapter 30 of the Code of the City of Redwood City (the "Subdiv. <br /> Ord.") , for a proposed commercial/residential development comprised of two <br /> buildings with interior open space courtyards and a parking garage (the <br /> "Project").The ground-level portion of the Project is to be used for retail stores <br /> and the above ground-level portion for 81 residential apartment units. <br /> 2. The Property is currently owned by the City of Redwood City and the <br /> Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redwood City. The Project is proposed to <br /> be developed jointly by the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition and The Raiser <br /> Organization (collectively, the aforesaid owners and developers are designated <br /> herein as "Applicants") under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & <br /> Safety Code § 33000 et seq.). <br /> 3. The Property is located on the northwesterly comer of the intersection <br /> of Main Street with Middlefield. Road in the City of Redwood City, within the "CB" <br /> (Central Business) Zoning District (Zon.Ord. § 14.1 et seq.). By letter dated <br /> September 25, 1995 ("Appeal Letter"), filed with the City Clerk on the same date, <br /> Appellant noticed timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. <br /> 4. Appellant raises seven numbered points on the appeal, of which <br /> numbers1 and 7 pertain to adequacy of parking proposed for the Project (Appeal <br /> Letter, items 1, 7). <br /> 5. Additionally, Appellant avers that no information was provided <br /> regarding ownership of the Property at the Planning Commission proceedings <br /> (Appeal Letter, item 2). <br /> 6. Ownership of the Property is expressly revealed in the Staff Report to <br /> the Planning Commission dated September 19, 1995. <br /> ~" <br /> L-O32 <br /> - - <br />