Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 26 <br /> Appellant's Position: Property values at neighboring Bair Island will be negatively <br /> affected by impacts to emergency access and traffic congestion. (Appeal, p. 7.) <br /> City's Response: Appellant merely speculates as to property values and has offered no <br /> evidence. Furthermore, property values are economic issue, not a land use issue and <br /> therefore, do not fall within the purview of the Planning Commission's decision. <br /> C. State Lands Commission <br /> Appellant's Position: The City should expect that if the Project proceeds, the owner will <br /> likely "violate[] and repudiate[]" its leases with the live-aboard residents, which would <br /> purportedly violate tenants' and public trust rights. (Appeal, p. 4) <br /> City's Response: See discussion above. <br /> ALTERNATIVES <br /> 1. Deny the appeal and approve the Planned Development Permit and the Vesting <br /> Tentative Map for the project. (See Attachment 1 - City Council Resolution) <br /> 2. Uphold the appeal thereby denying the proposed project. <br /> FISCAL IMPACT <br /> None anticipated. Review of the proposed project is subject to the City's Cost Recovery <br /> System; therefore, direct costs during the entitlement process associated with staff's <br /> time and materials are covered by an applicant deposit. Should the Project be <br /> approved, the Applicant will be required to pay development impact fees, as applicable <br /> and as established by ordinance. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW <br /> The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pete's Harbor project have <br /> been analyzed in the Marina Shores Village Environmental Impact Report, as well as <br /> Addendum No.2, as previously described in this report. <br /> ���li— <br /> � <br /> BLAKE LYON, <br /> PLANNING MANAGER <br /> G�� <br /> BILL EKERN <br /> DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT <br /> Page 26 of 27 <br />