AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 9 The Appeal attaches a Memorandum, dated October 16, 2012 (2012 Memorandum), submitted by the former Save Pete's Harbor 2012 association "for incorporation of all of the factual background and all of the citations therein to the General Plan and applicable law." (Appeal, p. 2.)2 This 2012 Memorandum also does not identify any error in the Planning Commission's decision or a well-grounded basis for denying the Project. In sum, as discussed below, the Appeal raises no compelling reason for reversing the Planning Commission's decision based on City policies and regulations.3 Thus, staff recommends rejection of the Appeal and approval of the Project. Appellant Does Not Establish a Basis for Granting the Appeal The eight main points of the Appeal do not establish a basis for granting the Appeal. 1. The City Should Not Defer a Decision Until a Lawsuit Regarding the Smith Slough Marina Is Resolved Appellant's Position: The City should not act until a "writ and civil rights action pending in San Francisco Superior Court" challenging the removal of slips from Smith Slough is resolved. (Appeal, p. 2.) City's Response: At issue before the City Council is whether the Planning Commission properly approved the Pete's Harbor Project. Purportedly at issue in the San Francisco Superior Court case is whether BCDC wrongfully permitted the removal of slips from Smith Slough. Smith Slough is not a part of the Pete's Harbor project area and as such the lawsuit bears no relevance to the Pete's Harbor Project under consideration. In any event, whether BCDC should have prohibited or permitted the removal of slips, or whether the owner lawfully removed the slips, does not affect whether the Applicant's proposed project satisfies the City's land use regulations. Moreover, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that the Court has issued an injunction, a writ or other relief precluding the Applicant from proceeding with the application (or the City from considering the application). In addition, while Appellant did not identify the Superior Court case, staff believes it is titled SF Bay Marinas for All, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and staff has been informed that four causes of action have been dismissed with two causes of action remaining that allege procedural and substantive due process claims, and further that the Applicant has been dismissed from the case altogether. 2. The Applicant Has Sufficiently Demonstrated Access Rights to the Project Appellant's Position: The redevelopment of Pete's Harbor would violate an access easement to Pete's Harbor over federal land. (Appeal, pp. 2-3.) 2 The Appeal states the Memorandum is dated October 15, 2012. It is actually dated October 16, 2012. 3 In addition to the points made below, the Council may consider the entire record of proceedings regarding the Project, including the January 28, 2013 Staff Report to the City Council which addressed the points raised by the Save Pete's Harbor 2012 Appeal.