Laserfiche WebLink
8.B. - Page 8 <br /> WHEREAS, the Commission determined that the proposed Planned <br /> Development Permit would further the purposes of and appropriately implement <br /> the City of Redwood City General Plan, applicable provisions of the Redwood <br /> City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, and the 1410 Valota Road <br /> Residential Project; and <br /> WHEREAS, on July 15, 2013, Kellie Guinto ("Appellant") filed an appeal of <br /> the Planning Commission approval of Planned Development Permit Application <br /> No. PD2013-04; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Redwood City ("City CounciP') <br /> is empowered by Article 48 (Appeals) to act upon appeals of the Planning <br /> Commission; and <br /> WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, the City Council conducted a public <br /> hearing, in accordance with all applicable requirements of the State Planning and <br /> Zoning Law and the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, to consider ]the appeal of <br /> the Planning Commission action on Planned Development Permit Application No. <br /> PD2013-04; and <br /> WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, Appellant and Applicant and all other <br /> interested parties were given the opportunity to participate in the public hearing <br /> through oral testimony and the submittal of written comments; and <br /> WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, the City Council fully reviewed, <br /> considered, and evaluated the staff reports prepared for the Project including the <br /> attachments to the staff reports, oral and written public testimony, and all other <br /> documents and evidence in the public record on the Project and the appeal. <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF <br /> THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AS FOLLOWS: <br /> Section 1. The City Council, having independently heard, considered, <br /> and weighed all the evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and <br /> being fully informed of the Project, the Planning Commission's decision, and the <br /> two appeals, finds that Appellant has not shown, based on evidence in the <br /> record, that the Planning Commission's decisions were made in error, that there <br /> was an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, that the Planning <br /> Commission's decision was otherwise improper, or that the City's notices, <br /> agendas, and appeal procedures were unlawful in any manner. This <br /> determination is based, in part, on the IS/MND, the staff reports and attachments <br /> prepared for the Planning Commission hearings on the Project and the staff <br /> ATTY/RES0.2916/1410 VALOTA PD APPEAL RESO <br /> REV: 09-27-13 VR <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br />