AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 17 Furthermore, the BCDC itself will not actually formally consider the proposal until after the Applicant has received the discretionary approvals from the City. In sum, Appellant has offered no factual basis to support the assertion that the parking plan is inadequate, much less that it is "dangerous and improvident". (Appeal, p. 6.) 7. The City Should Not Require that the Marina Be Built and Populated First Appellant's Position: The City should delay the development of housing until the marina is built and repopulated. (Appeal, pp. 6-7.) City's Response: Appellant speculates that the Applicant will not build marina improvements as part of the One Marina project approvals, therefore there is "no marina in sight" (p. 6, Appeal). First, the matter before the City Council is regarding the February 4, 2014 Project approvals by the Planning Commission for Pete's Harbor, not the One Marina approvals which were obtained in 2010. However, staff has confirmed with the Pauls Corporation, that they are in receipt of a permit (dated January 14, 2014) from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a 25-40 boat marina at the One Marina site. They have also verified that they would be moving forward with obtaining the proper permits from the City to construct the marina improvements in accordance with the USACE permit conditions. With that said, as part of the Planning Commission's approvals for Pete's Harbor, a commercial marina has been approved at Pete's Harbor in the inner marina area which will include 45-65 boat slips and associated parking, (see Expanded Project Description in the Planning Commission's February 4, 2014 staff report). Should the City Council have concerns regarding the redevelopment of the marina at Pete's Harbor, it is within its purview to include a new condition of approval addressing the phasing of the development. 8. The Owner Is Not Obligated to Continue Preexisting Marina Use Appellant's Position: The Owner developed a marina for public use from navigable waterways, and the Owner cannot change that use—either because the State Legislature unlawfully granted private rights in and to Pete's Harbor or because the public can compel continued operation of a marina for public use. (Appeal, pp. 7-8.) City's Response: Appellant attempts to articulate an argument that the State unlawfully adopted legislation in 1983 that granted private rights to Pete's Harbor. However, Appellant offers no evidence or analysis to support this contention. In addition, Appellant suggests that the Owner is perpetually required by the 1983 Act to operate a marina for public use. In 1983, the State Legislature addressed a controversy "as to whether certain lands within Pete's Harbor are in public or private ownership."