AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 18 (Chapter 447 of the Statutes of 1983, § 2(d).) The Legislature resolved that controversy through the 1983 Act, including by a delineation of ownership interests in and to Pete's Harbor and Smith Slough. (Chapter 447 of the Statutes of 1983, § 3(b).) While the Act discusses a lease for a marina for a portion of Smith Slough (§3(7)), it does not provide that the owner shall perpetually operate a marina. Nor does the 1983 Act purport to require the City to impose a "Marina" land use designation on Pete's Harbor. Appellant provides neither analysis nor authority to support the contention that the City cannot approve the project because the Owner is obligated to continue operating a marina for public use. The Miscellaneous Points of the 2012 Memorandum Do Not Establish a Basis for Granting the Appeal Appellant attached an October 2012 Memorandum to the Appeal which addressed whether the Planning Commission should have approved a prior iteration of the Project. Although Appellant is under the obligation to set forth the basis for appeal, Appellant failed to explain the relevance of the 2012 Memorandum to the Appeal of this revised Project so it is unclear what is intended to be incorporated. However, in an abundance of caution, Staff addresses the miscellaneous points raised therein in Attachment 3 hereto. The Council will note that many of the points raised therein are no longer applicable. ALTERNATIVES Appeal 1. Deny the appeal and approve the Planned Development Permit, the Vesting Tentative Map and the Condominium Permit for the project. (See Attachment 1 - City Council Resolution) 2. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the proposed project. 3. Deny the appeal and approve the Planned Development Permit, the Vesting Tentative Map and the Condominium Permit for the project, but modify the Conditions of Approval, either as requested by the Developer (see discussion below) or as it deems appropriate. Proposed Condition of Approval Revision The Developer has requested more flexibility to commence construction on portions of the property not affected by other agencies while pursuing permits from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. Current Condition #6 requires the Developer to obtain all state and federal regulatory permits including those for reconfiguration of the marina before commencing construction on the Project. The Project calls for the inner marina to be reconfigured to accommodate accessibility improvements as well as a hand-launch boat ramp. Because the length of the permitting process is unpredictable, the Developer requests that the permitting requirements for the marina reconfiguration be separated from the permitting requirements that affect the development of the land. The Developer remains committed to developing and operating the reconfigured marina and has proposed that certificates of occupancy