AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 8 Specific outreach also occurred with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, BCDC, State Lands Commission, County of San Mateo and San Carlos Airport. Public Notification: The Planning Commission public hearing notice was published in the Redwood City Daily News on January 24, 2014 and the notice for the City Council hearing was published on March 14, 2014. ANALYSIS Planned Development Permit It is important to note that under the City's Zoning Code the project permitted by a Planned Development permit must begin within one year. If the project is not begun within that time frame, it can be brought back to the City Council for a one-time one-year extension. This is of import to this project as there are a number of permits regulated by state and federal jurisdictions over which neither the City nor the developer have control. Appeal and City Responses Appellant San Francisco Bay Marinas for All Inc. requests the City Council to deny the Project (Attachment 2).1 The Appeal shall be heard de novo. (RCMC § 1 .45.10.) As explained in Section 1.45.10 of the Municipal Code: "the reviewing body [City Council] shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The original applicant has the burden of proof. In addition to considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the reviewing body [City Council] shall consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken." Introduction The Appeal requests the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's approval of the Project based upon on eight principal points. The thrust of the Appeal is that it would be bad policy to allow the Project to proceed. For example, Appellant suggests the Project undermines General Plan policy because it does not incorporate opportunities for residents to live aboard boats, that a marina should be rebuilt and "repopulated," and that the parking plans are "improvident." The Appeal also suggests that the City should not make any decision until a separate suit regarding the removal of slips is resolved and until the City obtains further confirmation that the Applicant has easement access to Pete's Harbor. However, the Appeal does not demonstrate either any error in the Planning Commission's decision nor a well-grounded basis for denying the Project. 1 The Appeal materials include a cover page and an unnumbered, eight-page document,to which we assign page numbers (Appeal), along with attachments.