Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 18 <br /> Thus, owners and developers are not bound to propose any particular type of housing, <br /> or to retain any particular type of housing.3 <br /> 2. Many Obiectives and Goals Described in the Housinq Element <br /> Support the Type of Proiect Proposed at Pete's Harbor <br /> In fact, the Project advances applicable Housing Element policies, including the <br /> following: addition of new housing to further the City's efforts to meet its and the region's <br /> housing needs (General Plan, pp. H-14, H-106); promoting multi-unit housing, which <br /> "can provide affordable options for individuals and families" (General Plan, p. H-37); <br /> encouraging Planned Development Permit applications, such as this one which create <br /> innovative housing, recreational opportunities, functional and aesthetic relationships <br /> with development and surrounding area (General Plan, p. H-88);4 promoting a wide <br /> variety of housing is positive for the City (General Plan, p. H-107; see also p. H-155, <br /> 156); and concentrated development in mixed use areas and at the emerging water <br /> front (General Plan, pp. H-110-111). <br /> In addition, the General Plan acknowledges that "Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)" <br /> sentiment can stall development. Thus, the General Plan encourages the City not to <br /> succumb to NIMBYism, and instead to support higher density development in areas with <br /> appropriate land use designations. (General Plan, p. H-101-02) <br /> Thus, Appellant has not made a compelling case to reverse the Planning Commission's <br /> decision that approved the Project. <br /> II. The Environmental Review Has Been Thorough and Proper <br /> A. The City Properly Relies on the EIR and Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 <br /> Appellant's Position: It is improper to rely upon the EIR and the Addendum No. 1 <br /> because they were prepared before the new General Plan was adopted. (Appeal, <br /> p. 10.) <br /> City's Response: CEQA does not so require. Rather, because the City had already <br /> thoroughly studied the environmental impacts related to a much larger development at <br /> Pete's Harbor, CEQA commands that the City not prepare another EIR at the present <br /> 3 Moreover, the City has affirmatively promoted live-aboard opportunities, by approving <br /> projects such as Westpoint Marina. However, if the private property owner elects to <br /> develop a mixed-unit project such as this one, rather than retain live-aboard options, the <br /> General Plan does not require denial of the Project. <br /> 4 Moreover, CG-R Zoning requires a PD Permit application for the current Project. (See <br /> Zoning Code § 25.7.B) <br /> Page 18 of 27 <br />