AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 11 In addition, the General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use-Waterfront. This land use category is available for a broad range of housing options, from new construction to live-aboards, without favoring one type of housing over the other. For example: • "Housing options can include structured housing, floating homes, houseboats, and live-aboard boats." (General Plan, p. H-65.) • "The Mixed Use-Waterfront Neighborhood designation is intended to foster unique neighborhoods that take advantage of Redwood City's bayfront. A mix of uses is allowed within this designation, including housing (up to 40 units per acre) and supporting commercial businesses, hospitality and restaurant uses that attract visitors, marinas, and businesses that support marina functions. Housing options can also include floating homes, houseboats, and live-aboard boats. Public access and open space amenities are required along the waterfront, and internal pedestrian circulation of the neighborhoods should link to waterfront amenities." (General Plan, p. H-118; see also General Plan, pp. H-110-111.) This is part of the City's multi-pronged approach to the development and retention of alternative housing models. Indeed, no policy requires the City to deny a project if the property owner and Applicant have elected to develop a residential project that does not incorporate live-aboard housing. Rather, while the General Plan encourages City staff to consult "stakeholders regarding existing floating communities in Redwood City [and to] [e]stablish a set of floating community best practices to ensure the viability of this innovative housing type" (General Plan, pp. H-178, see also BE-67 (Policy BE 10.2))— which staff will be doing in connection with the preparation of mixed use waterfront implementing zoning—this is not a basis to deny a project. Thus, owners and developers are not bound to propose any particular type of housing, or to retain any particular type of housing.6 In addition, the Project advances multiple General Plan policies, as discussed in the February 4, 2014, Staff Report to the Planning Commission.' 4. The City Has Conducted Thorough and Proper Environmental Review at p. H-119 of the General Plan and at p. B-1-12 of Appendix B to General Plan.) The assumption does constitute a policy precluding a project to redevelop the site with 400-plus new units, without live-aboard opportunities. In any event, the Owner unilaterally decided to stop renting to live-aboards. 6 Moreover, the City has affirmatively promoted live-aboard opportunities, by approving projects such as Westpoint Marina. However, if the private property owner elects to develop a mixed-unit project such as this one, rather than retain live-aboard options, the General Plan does not require denial of the Project. Appellant also suggests that the City should require the Applicant to revise its plans because it has moved the hand-launched boat ramp. (Appeal, p. 4.) However, the City Council is considering the Application de novo, including the current location for the boat ramp (which the Applicant moved after consulting with design professionals).