Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 13 <br /> permitted by the Zoning Code) and the Tentative Map, along with Conditions of <br /> Approval. (See Resolution No. 12-23, Attachment 8.) <br /> ANALYSIS <br /> APPEAL <br /> An association of opponents has appealed to the City Council to deny the Project <br /> (Attachment 9). <br /> Introduction <br /> The "Save Pete's Harbor 2012" association requests the City Council to reverse the <br /> Planning Commission's approval of the Project based upon a myriad of contentions, <br /> which may be grouped together and analyzed under the following categories: (1) the <br /> Project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and should not proceed until an Inner <br /> Harbor Precise Plan is prepared, (2) the environmental review is inadequate under the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and (3) miscellaneous other reasons <br /> (including that notice to the tenants was inadequate, the Project will reduce property <br /> values, and the Project will lead to conflicts with State Lands Commission objectives). <br /> The Appeal shall be heard de novo. (RCMC § 1.45.10.) As explained in Section 1.45.10 <br /> of the Municipal Code: "the reviewing body [City Council] shall hear the appeal as a new <br /> matter. The original applicant has the burden of proof. In addition to considering the <br /> testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the reviewing body <br /> [City Council] shall consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the <br /> previous hearings from which the appeal is taken." <br /> The Appeal raises no compelling reason for reversing the Planning Commission's <br /> decision based on City policies and regulations. Thus, staff recommends rejection of the <br /> Appeal and approval of the Project. <br /> I. The Project Is in Compliance with General Plan Policies, and an Inner <br /> Harbor Precise Plan Is Not Required. <br /> A. The Appeal Should Not Be Granted on the Ground that an Inner Harbor <br /> Precise Plan Has Not Been Prepared <br /> Appellant's Position: A precise plan is required to effectively implement the General <br /> Plan, and the PD Permit is improper. (Appeal, pp. 6-7.) <br /> Page 13 of 27 <br />