Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 10 <br /> City's Response: The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated access rights. Consistent <br /> with the City's process, City staff confirmed there was an easement of record providing <br /> such access rights. City staff further reviewed the easement documents and confirmed <br /> the easement included the right to construct improvements to allow for access within the <br /> easement area. An Easement Deed, recorded in 1965, granted rights to the owner of <br /> Pete's Harbor for "the construction, maintenance and use of a roadway for ingress and <br /> egress from adjoining real property of Uccelli" (Attachment 10). The federal government <br /> subsequently acquired the land underlying the Easement. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service <br /> staff has confirmed that they do not object to the project and use of the Easement. <br /> (Attachment 12)4 <br /> In addition, the Applicant's attorney has provided a written legal opinion of its counsel, <br /> dated November 18, 2013, that the Project is consistent with the Easement. <br /> (Attachment 11.) Appellant has offered no basis to refute that opinion, and City staff has <br /> no reason to doubt the opinion. <br /> 3. The General Plan Does Not Require the Project to Include Live-Aboards <br /> Appellant's Position: The General Plan commands that the Project retain live-aboards. <br /> (Appeal, p. 4.) <br /> City's Response: There are no longer any live-aboards residing at Pete's Harbor. In <br /> addition, the General Plan does not require the owner to incorporate live-aboard <br /> opportunities. To the contrary, the General Plan anticipated that this site would be <br /> developed with up to 412 dwelling units, and the General Plan includes numerous goals <br /> and objectives which are advanced by this Project. <br /> First, the owner is no longer renting to any live-aboards. Thus, Appellant's contention <br /> that the City must compel the Applicant to retain live-aboards is unfounded. <br /> Second, the General Plan does not require the Project to incorporate live-aboards. <br /> Pursuant to California law, the Housing Element of the City's General Plan identifies <br /> sites at which development may occur to further City efforts to meet regional housing <br /> needs. The Housing Element identifies appropriate and adequate sites "to facilitate and <br /> encourage the development of housing that is accessible to a variety of income groups." <br /> (General Plan, p. H-106.) For example, in a Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites, the <br /> General Plan lists sites at which housing development may occur, including 412 units at <br /> Pete's Harbor. Notably, the General Plan does not declare that live-aboards shall <br /> remain at Pete's Harbor even though the City was aware of private interest in <br /> development of this site with 412 new units. (See General Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-1- <br /> 15-16.)5 <br /> 4 Appellant also suggests that the City should ensure the federal government obtains additional land for <br /> access to its wildlife refuge. (Appeal, p. 3.) However, that issue is beyond the purview of the City and the <br /> issue at hand. <br /> 5 Instead, the General Plan assumed that the existing live-aboard community would remain, because <br /> removal was not part of any redevelopment plan. (See footnote to Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites, <br />