Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 6 (continued out of order) <br />12. It is immaterial whether the purported parcels encompassed within <br />the Subject Property are under common or separate ownership because the <br />City's standards for development are the same in either instance, i.e., the <br />properties do not conform to the requirements of RCC S30.117 nor the <br />provisions of Zon. Ord. S5.10 as modified by Zon. Ord. 532.2, irrespective of <br />ownership. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For the foregoing reasons, the appeal should be denied, and the decision <br />of the Planning Commission affirmed, and it is so ordered. <br />The foregoing findings were approved by the Council of Redwood City at a <br />regular meeting thereof on May 15, 1989 by the following roll call vote: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Buchan, Bury, Claire, LaBerge, Murray and <br />Mayor Greenalch <br />NOES: Councilmember Stangel <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 89 -68 <br />----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- <br />WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS <br />None <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- <br />EXECUTIVE SESSION <br />M /S: Murray /Bury to adjourn to an executive session to consider personnel matters <br />and labor negotiations and to reconvene solely to adjourn. <br />Carried by unanimous voice vote and Council adjourned to executive session at 9:45 <br />p.m. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- <br />ADJOURNMENT <br />Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried the Council adjourned at 10 :30 p.m. <br />to the next regular Council meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m., May 22, 1989 at the <br />Hotel Sofitel, 223 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City <br />Arlyn C. Jorgenson <br />City Clerk <br />Reg.Mtg. <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 5/15/89 <br />Page No. 390 Page 9 <br />