Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 73 <br /> Specific Plan area does not include the Pete's Harbor site, (the Pete's Harbor <br /> site is adjacent to the Specific Plan area and is located just to the north, across <br /> Redwood Creek). As discussed in the "Project Background" section of this report, <br /> the Inner Harbor Specific Plan process has conducted meetings and workshops <br /> since June of 2013. <br /> Furthermore, the City may not deny a project which is compliant with the General <br /> Plan and Zoning Code merely on the grounds that a Specific Plan has not been <br /> prepared. A Specific Plan is a useful tool for developing a more specific long- <br /> term plan, particularly where a zoning change is required. However, there is no <br /> requirement to prepare a Specific Plan (unlike a General Plan), and a Specific <br /> Plan is not necessary for an application which is consistent with current zoning. <br /> In addition, the City is required to evaluate a project based on the existing rules <br /> and regulations. <br /> C. Appellant's Contentions Regarding the SLC and Army Corps of <br /> Engineers Are Either Unfounded or Moot <br /> Appellant's Position: The SLC and the Army Corps of Engineers may take action <br /> to require the retention of the marina in its prior form and to preclude the removal <br /> of slips at which live-aboards reside. (2012 Memorandum, pp. 6-8.) <br /> City's response: The owner has removed the marina improvements associated <br /> with the outer marina, and there are no longer any live-aboards residing at Pete's <br /> Harbor. In addition, the outer marina area has been removed from the Project <br /> area by the Applicant since the 2012 memorandum. Thus, this issue is moot. <br /> D. Environmental Issues <br /> Appellant's Position: The EIR did not adequately study the contents of the fill on <br /> the site. (2012 Memorandum, p. 9.) <br /> City's response: The content of the fill, including the potential presence of <br /> hazardous material, was studied at Chapters 11 and 12 of the EIR. (See, e.g., <br /> EIR, pp. 11-5, 12-8.) The Applicant provided both Phase I and Phase II studies, <br /> which were considered in the EIR. Appellant refers to a letter from James Beeby, <br /> but that letter merely provides the writer's observation of apparently illegal <br /> dumping at the site (e.g., tires, scrap metal and a large household appliance). <br /> Appellant's Position: The EIR did not adequately consider the loss of slips for <br /> live-aboards. (2012 Memorandum, p. 9.) <br />