Reso PC18-11 0058 PC Reso Granting Approval of an Architectural Permit - 515 Cleveland

Browse Search

ATTY/RESO.0058/PC RESO GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECURAL PERMIT – 515 CLEVELAND REV: 06-26-18 PR Page 6 of 17 No modifications to development standards are requested. Section 5. Vesting Tentative Map: TM2017-005 (Section 30.42 of the Subdivision Ordinance): The Planning Commission finds that none of the following findings can be made, as described below, and therefore approval of the application for a Vesting Tentative Map is appropriate: A. The map, design, or improvement of the proposed subdivision are inconsistent with the general or specific plans, the Zoning Ordinance, or the subdivision improvement requirements. The proposed subdivision and associated improvements are consistent with Redwood City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and all applicable subdivision improvements required. B. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type or density of development. The 0.73 acre site is flat and contains no natural features, such as a creek, which would physically preclude development. The Project complies with minimum lot area zoning requirements for the proposed 17 units. The Project would provide sufficient open space and parking for the site. C. The design or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat, or cause serious public health problems. There is no known fish or wildlife habitat near the Project. The Project would not cause substantial environmental damage. The project would replace eight residential units with 17 residential units and the increase in units is not anticipated to adversely impact public health. The improvements to the intersection at Duane and Harrison would improve the safety of the crossing for school students and adjacent residents. The bulb-outs reduce crossing distance and traffic speeds, which improve public safety. D. The design or improvements will conflict with essential public easements for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision, unless acceptable alternate public easements will be provided. The proposed Project would not conflict with any public easements. There are no existing public easements on the site. The project would provide public access easements for emergency vehicles and for trash collection. E. The reasons submitted for the granting of any exceptions applied for do not comply with requirements for findings described in Section 30.69, and