AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 16 Appellants' Position: The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, particularly the Housing Element, because it does not include live-aboard opportunities at this site. (Appeal, pp. 3, 8, 13.) City's response: First, the General Plan does not require live-aboard opportunities to be incorporated into a private project, rather it allows/accommodates them should the applicant wish to include them in the scope of the project. Second, many objectives and goals described in the Housing Element policies support the type of project proposed at Pete's Harbor, irrespective of to whom slips are leased. 1. The General Plan Does Not Require Private Development of Pete's Harbor to Incorporate Live-aboard Housinq into Its Proiect Appellant points to a Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites to contend that the City should reject the Project because the owner and applicant have chosen not to rent to boaters who live aboard their vessels. (Appeal, p. 8.) However, while the General Plan includes passages supportive of live-aboard communities, it does not require the owner to retain or to provide live-aboard opportunities. To the contrary, the General Plan anticipated that this site would be developed with up to 412 dwelling units, and the General Plan includes numerous goals and objectives which are advanced by this Project. State law requires the Housing Element to identify sites at which development may occur to further City efforts to meet regional housing needs. "Cities are required to identify appropriate and adequate sites to plan for housing in their housing element. Consistent with State law, the Redwood City Housing Element demonstrates that the City has a sufficient land inventory to facilitate and encourage the development of housing that is accessible to a variety of income groups." (General Plan, p. H-106) In furtherance of this purpose, the Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites, referred to by Appellant, lists sites at which housing development may occur, including 412 units at Pete's Harbor. Thus, as part of the City's projection of future housing development, the City prepared the Table so it could evaluate opportunity sites which could contribute to satisfying the region's housing development needs. This Table, however, does not mandate that live-aboard housing be incorporated into a project at Pete's Harbor. It merely identified mixed-use sites that are good candidates for the development of housing, and it lists the density potential, the existing units, the potential housing units, and the affordability level, among other things. Thus, for that limited purpose, the City assumed that the existing live-aboard community would remain, because removal was not part of any redevelopment plan. (See footnote Page 16 of 27