CC Min 1992-08-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6. Appellant owns an II-unit apartment building located at 36 Renato Court, which borders the northern boundary of the Project site. Appellant's structure is referred to as the "apartment building to the south" in mitigation No.3, quoted abR~~~~~~ 7. Appellant contends that the Project will reduce the sense of "openness" now existing, that the view of tenants in Appellant's apartment building will consist of a "blank wall", and that direct sunlight will be blocked from Appellant's building during a considerable portion of each day. Appellant further contends that the foregoing effects will reduce the value of Appellant's apartment building. 8. The architecture of the Project is superior to that of the existing motel, scheduled to be demolished, hence the project will enhance the overall visual characteristics of the neighborhood. 9. The landscaping buffer between Appellant's building and the Project, which will be implemented under the mitigation, includes a 15-foot landscaped area including Sequoia trees, evergreen Pittosporum shrubs, and ground cover. A wooden trellis with 13 flowering vines shall screen an outdoor patio area located along the southwest corner of the Project site. The Project layout will provide a landscaped area in the vicinity of Appellant's apartment building which is not provided under existing condit ions. 10. The setback and building height features of the Project are consistent with zoning regulations for the site. 11. The mitigation measures above-described reasonably address aesthetic issues raised by the Project and are consistent with the requirements of CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and Resolution No. 6882. 12. Appellant's major objection to the Project, which is directed at the size and location of the proposed building, could only be addressed by substantially redesigning the entire Project in a manner consistent with Appellant's desires for the use of Appellant's property, or by not proceeding with the Project. Either such requirement, as a condition of approval to the Project under CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines or Redwood City Resolution No. 6882, would be unreasonable. CONCLUSION The appeal should be, and is hereby, denied, and the certification that the mitigated negative declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA is hereby affirmed. Dated: ISI Georgi La Berge, Mayor MINUTE ORDER NO. 92-134 Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes August 31, 1992 Page 3 MINUTE BOOK NO. 51 Page No. 177 i --.oo,. r -,