AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 On January 17, 2017, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposal to consider how the applicant addressed its concerns. The applicant modified the project by converting 4,500 sq. ft. (of the 5,900 sq. ft.) of ground floor retail into four residential units with entry stoops, lowered the height of the southern building corner by one story, and changed the colors, materials, articulation, and roof form of the southern building element. PROJECT COMPARISON ELEVATIONS The Commission agreed that the revisions were an improvement to the project but some questioned whether the revisions were enough to address its concerns of physically breaking-up the building’s mass and scale. The Commission ultimately supported the project as revised, with the added condition that the ground floor unit at the southern corner at El Camino Real and the alley be converted back to retail, for a total of 2,900 sq. ft. of ground floor retail. The Planning Commission approved the entitlement applications for the project by adopting Resolution No. 16-20, finding that the City had complied with CEQA and that the proposed project was consistent with the DTPP and the certified EIR, including its applicable mitigation measures and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (4-1). To determine whether further environmental review was required in connection with the project, the City prepared an extensive Initial Study Checklist that considered technical studies by environmental consultants and analyzed other relevant facts and requirements. At the conclusion of its review, the City determined that no further environmental review was required. As described below, the proposed development does not involve any new environmental impacts or an increase in severity of previously identified impacts, when compared to the DTPP Environmental Impact Report. Appeal Filed: Kris Johnson, on behalf of Redwood City Residents for Responsible Development (Appellant), appealed the Planning Commission of the project (as revised).1 The appeal challenges (1) the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA, and (2) the project’s consistency with the General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan. The Appeal shall be heard de novo. (RCMC § 1.45.10.) As explained in Section 1.45.10 of the Municipal Code: 1 References below to the project are to the project as revised and approved by the Planning Commission. Prior Proposal Revised Proposal 8.A. - Page 6