Laserfiche WebLink
7.1.C. - Page 10 <br /> look at it and they know that there will be 45 to 65 boat slips available to the residents <br /> and the general public and are also pleased to have figured out a way to offer <br /> nonresidents use of all the club house facilities. He said that they are focused on how <br /> to make the hand launch work well; he takes people's concerns very seriously on where <br /> it should be and how it should function and to make it easy for people to get their boats <br /> there. This Council Member asked if people could drive their boats back into it and Mr. <br /> Powers clarified that it will not be for vehicular boats, but for hand launching things like <br /> kayaks and canoes. This Council Member also asked about the timeline for <br /> development. Mr. Powers responded that they will leave the current slips in place, <br /> without any increase in the boats slips, gangways, or shading and they hope for a year <br /> and a half for Pete's Harbor. This Council Member expressed appreciation for <br /> responding to many concerns. <br /> Vice Mayor Foust spoke about the appellants' claim versus the fact that it has always <br /> been clear that the easement to provide access for the project has never counted <br /> towards the development. Mr. Ekern articulated what was laid out in the staff report that <br /> the easement agreement that was granted to the Uccellis, and is now owned by the <br /> federal government, is for access to the property and maintenance of that access; the <br /> purpose of the easement is to provide access and it is treated as a separate piece of <br /> property from the project that is being considered for development. She then spoke <br /> about the amended and revised Condition #6 in the staff report and the City Attorney <br /> confirmed the interpretation that the City can move forward with things that are within <br /> the City's jurisdiction and not under the jurisdiction of other agencies. <br /> Dr. Bell noted that when the Hearing date was set it was within the ninety day period <br /> from the date the appeal was filed, both the appellant and applicant (developer) were <br /> contacted as to whether or not this date was agreeable. He also noted that this date <br /> was set well before the March 17th letter they had received from Fish and Wildlife. <br /> Mayor Gee commented on the issue of affordable housing and said it is better located <br /> along the transit corridor (such as along the El Camino Real) and this project is not the <br /> right place because it is not along the transit corridor and is not served by public transit, <br /> but this conversation will be continued under the Community Benefits discussion, which <br /> has begun. <br /> M/S Foust/Seybert to deny the appeal and to approve Planned Development (PD) <br /> Permit including Parking Modifications, Vesting Tentative Map and Condominium Permit <br /> based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of approval contained therein upon <br /> consideration of Revised Addendum No. 2 and Addendum #2 with the revised Condition <br /> 6 and the revised resolution. Council Member Seybert provided some history on the <br /> Zoning for the area and noted that this project is consistent with the General Plan and <br /> meets the City's standards with regard to sea level rise. Another Council Member <br /> supports the motion, adding that there has been extensive review and he is confident <br /> and supports it, but said that affordable housing is a bigger issue and he believes the <br /> demise of the RDA (Redevelopment Agency) took away funding mechanics for that <br /> cause. <br /> CITY COUNCIL March 24, 2014 <br /> MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 <br />