REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and City Council From the City Manager

January 28, 2013

SUBJECT Appeal of the Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map approved by the Planning Commission for the Pete’s Harbor Project, located at 1 Uccelli Blvd.

RECOMMENDATION 1. Hold a Public Hearing on the Appeal by Save Pete’s Harbor 2012 of the Planning Commission approvals. 2. Continue the Public Hearing on the Appeal to a date certain in order to afford the Applicant sufficient time to provide clarity regarding the State Lands Commission's leases on the proposed use of the outer marina area.

I. INTRODUCTION There are two issues before the City Council on this matter:

(1) Consider continuing this matter; and (2) Consider the merits of the Appeal and the Project.

As such, this staff report is broken up into two sections. Section II is a discussion on Continuation, and Section III is a discussion on the merits of the Appeal and the Project.

II. DISCUSSION REGARDING CONTINUATION The Pete’s Harbor Project that is the subject of this Appeal and this Public Hearing involves development of Bayfront lands, including the outer marina. As described more fully in Section III below, the Applicant seeks to build 411 residential units on land adjacent to the marina and to incorporate the outer marina into the project for use restricted to project residents.

Such development is a vital ingredient in the growth and economic vitality of the City. Consequently, the Project proposal to integrate the landside development with improved Bay access and marina activities for the public and on-site recreational opportunities on the marina to residents is of great import to the City. However, the interface between land and water leads to the need for additional approvals and consents by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California State Lands Commission (SLC).

As discussed more fully below in Section III, BCDC has regulatory authority over the San Francisco Bay shoreline, or in this case the land bordering the outer marina of the

Page 1 of 27 Project, and the Applicant is working with BCDC to ensure that the waterfront public amenity and Bay Trail "spur" is consistent with BCDC policies and goals. It is City staff’s understanding that BCDC seeks to have the City approve the Project before BCDC consideration. Only upon City approval would the Project proceed to the BCDC commission for consideration.

SLC is the property owner of the outer marina. The outer marina of the Project is subject to two leases between SLC and Peter Uccelli, dba Pete’s Harbor. The smaller lease is for a portion of the outer marina generally to the west of the existing restaurant (from the gangway protruding northward into Smith Slough and the two gangways protruding to the west further into Smith Slough). The larger lease is for a portion of the outer marina in front of the restaurant and protruding towards and into Redwood Creek. (See Figures 2.3 and 2.4 of Addendum No. 2 for general depictions of the marina, though property lines are not shown.) Both leases are for a 49 year term beginning June 1, 1984, and allow the outer marina to be used for a commercial marina and ancillary uses. The Applicant and current property owner have entered into an arrangement by which the Applicant is to assume the SLC leases and purchase the land on which the residences would be built.

At the time this Project was considered by the Planning Commission, staff and the Planning Commission recognized that the outer marina of the Project was regulated by BCDC and ultimately controlled by SLC. In deference to BCDC’s and SLC’s independent authority, the Planning Commission’s action included a condition of approval to ensure that if either agency were not to permit the Applicant to proceed with the Project as approved by the City, the Applicant could not proceed under the subject City permits (See Condition of Approval No. 6 adopted by the Planning Commission, which requires the Applicant “to comply with any and all regulatory or state agency requirements and obtain any and all necessary regulatory or state agency approvals prior to commencement of construction.”). If the Applicant were unable to obtain the necessary approvals from BCDC or SLC, the Applicant would have to obtain a modification of the City Planned Development permit approval in order to proceed any further.

Since the Planning Commission’s action on this Project, new facts and information have come to light with regard to the SLC leases. SLC’s authority and leaseholder’s rights under the leases are presently the subject of discussions among the stakeholders and SLC. For example, whether the SLC leases were still in effect was an issue that the City learned of following the Planning Commission’s approvals. The current property owner has provided an excerpt from an Attorney General correspondence that states: “From the perspective of SLC staff, the issues identified in the November 9, 2012 notice have

Page 2 of 27 been cured,” and represents that this issue is resolved. Had SLC terminated the leases, the project application would have had to be modified.

However, staff understands that additional issues remain, including: (1) whether SLC’s consent is required before the property owner may transfer her interests in the smaller lease to the Applicant (there is apparently concurrence that the owner need only provide notice to SLC with respect to transfer of the larger lease), (2) whether the proposed use of slips by Project residents is allowed or requires amendments to the leases; and (3) whether the leaseholder will seek to amend the leases or litigate the matter. Staff does not know whether there are any other remaining disputes.

The interconnectivity between the marina and the residences is an important aspect of the proposed project so how the SLC disputes are resolved may be important to the City Council. The issue for the City Council is whether it is prepared to evaluate the project in the absence of clarity as to how the outer marina will relate to the residential project and/or the community. For example, if the SLC issues are resolved such that the outer marina use is restricted to project residents, the City Council can approve (or deny) the project as proposed for 411 residential units with a marina providing ancillary recreational facilities to the residents. If, however, the SLC issues were resolved in such a way that the outer marina must serve the public (i.e. non-project residents), there are potential impacts on the project as proposed. The Applicant would need to modify the Project and the City would need to evaluate the modifications. For instance, the Project as proposed contemplates only parking for its residents, and guests and visitors of the residents (and a small number of parking spaces for the public access provided per BCDC). If the Project were to change for the outer marina (or any portion of the marina for that matter) to be used as a commercial marina, parking would need to be provided by the Project to accommodate the new commercial component. As discussed in more detail in Section III below, the Project as presently proposed already seeks a Parking Exception and Parking Modifications resulting in 835 parking spaces (as compared to the 925 parking spaces that would have been required but for the exception and modifications). The City would need to evaluate the impacts resulting from adding a commercial use to the Project.

Respecting that SLC, a state agency that has property rights to the outer marina, has yet to determine whether the proposed Project is acceptable to SLC, staff recommends deferring the matter until there is clarity from SLC as to the ability of the Applicant to use the outer marina as a marina serving the Project residents only.

Finally, if the applicant chooses to seek an amendment to the leases, it would require submittal of an application to SLC. Such amendment would then need to be considered by the Commission at a publicly noticed meeting. As staff understands it, there is

Page 3 of 27 currently no application under review by SLC, but the Applicant is in the process of preparing such application(s) for submittal. A review of the application form shows that the Applicant must submit its project approvals from the City to SLC prior to SLC’s consideration of the project. Alternatively, the SLC will also accept a letter or other document explaining the status of the City application and any concerns relating to the project. Staff believes this report should suffice to provide such needed information for SLC to proceed with consideration of any needed amendments. Staff would provide any additional information or documentation that SLC might seek.

III. EVALUATION OF PROJECT AND APPEAL BACKGROUND Project Overview General Description

On July 23, 2012, RWC Harbor Communities, LLC applied for a Planned Development (PD) Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for Pete’s Harbor. The Project is to redevelop the 13.85 acre site with a multi-family residential project. Current land uses on the site— which is located on the north side of U.S. Highway 101 between Bair Island Road and Redwood Creek—include a marina, restaurant, various storage buildings, light manufacturing, a single-family residence and paved parking lots. The Project would redevelop the site with 411 multi-family residential units and associated parking, a clubhouse, a community pool, walkways, and public open space areas along Smith Slough. No physical improvements or alterations are proposed for the marina, which includes 263 slips in the outer and inner marina, though, as proposed, only project residents would be eligible to lease slips.

The Project is a scaled-down version of a 2003 proposal. The 2003 proposal required zoning changes, envisioned 633 residential units at Pete’s Harbor, proposed multiple residential towers as high as 23 stories/260 feet, and had a density of 54.81 dwelling units per acre. By contrast, the current Project requires no zoning change, is for 222 fewer units, proposes buildings that vary in height from three (3) stories (40 foot 6 inches maximum height) to five (5) stories (75 foot maximum height), and has a density of 38.52 dwelling units per acre. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation (Mixed Use-Waterfront) and Zoning (General Commercial-Residential), furthers multiple City development policies, including without limitation policies promoting (1) higher density, pedestrian and water oriented development in Mixed Use- Waterfront land areas; (2) engaging, well-landscaped outdoor spaces; (3) a variety of housing types in master planned developments; and (4) public access to the waterfront.

The City has extensively studied potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, including in the 2003 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the original

Page 4 of 27 iteration of the Project, the 2007 Addendum (Addendum No. 1) for the neighboring Peninsula Park (now One Marina) project, and the 2012 Addendum (Addendum No. 2) for the current Project. The environmental analysis shows that the revised Project will not create any new significant impact or increase in severity to previously identified impacts.

Land Use Summary

The following table provides a land use summary of the project components:

Pete’s Harbor Project Summary

Total Site Area 13.85 Acres Land Area 10.67 Acres Water Area 3.18 Acres Residential 411 Units Parking Spaces 1 835 spaces (including 30 motorcycle)

Density 38.52 du/acre Office None Neighborhood Serving Retail None Hotel None Marina Slips 2 Approximately 263 Maximum Building Height 75 No. of buildings at max. height 13 Parkland and Open Space Approx. 5.2 Acres 4 Du/acre: dwelling units per acre

1 – One parking space will be assigned per unit (except where tandem spaces exist, both spaces will be assigned to that unit). The remaining parking spaces will be unassigned and available for resident / guest / visitor parking. 2 – No change in the marina, though owner has decided to rent slips to Project residents only. 3 – The “Wrap” Building (Building #1) has a maximum height of 75’ and houses 311 units, see Project Description below. 4 – This constitutes public access areas for the spur of the Bay Trail and associated amenities and other landscape and open space areas within the project.

Page 5 of 27 Project and Environmental Review History: 2004 – Marina Shores Village

In 2004, the City considered the Marina Shores Village (MSV) project, which encompassed Pete’s Harbor and neighboring Peninsula Park (now One Marina). The project proposed 1,930 homes at Pete’s Harbor and Peninsula Park (633 units and 1,297 units, respectively), 300,000 square feet of office space, 12,000 square feet of commercial space, and a 200-room hotel. The project proposed several towers, including 13 residential towers as high as 23 stories/260 feet. (See EIR, p. 3-13.)

The City prepared, considered and certified a comprehensive EIR. The City also approved zoning and general plan amendments for slightly modified version of the MSV Project. 1 The amendments included a Precise Plan modifying the General Commercial- Residential (CG-R) zoning at Pete’s Harbor and the General Commercial (GC) zoning at Peninsula Park. The General Plan land use designation was changed from Office Park to Mixed Use (Commercial and Residential) for the Peninsula Park site.

In November 2004, the approval was overturned through a voter referendum (Measure Q). The referendum repealed the MSV Precise Plan, which served as the zoning allowances for the project development. Thus, zoning for Pete’s Harbor and Peninsula Marina reverted to the previous zoning (CG-R and CG, respectively). The referendum affected neither the General Plan designation (at the time, Mixed Use (Commercial and Residential), which has subsequently been updated to Mixed Use- Waterfront), nor the EIR certification. The referendum cited a wide range of specific concerns about MSV. The main issues included building height, density, traffic, and public access, which the current Pete’s Harbor project addresses as described below.

2006 – Peninsula Park (AKA Peninsula Marina, now One Marina)

In 2006, the Applicant submitted a new application for Peninsula Park/Peninsula Marina (now called “One Marina”). Addendum No. 1 to the EIR analyzed this revised project. The project included 796 residential homes (a reduction of 501 units from that analyzed in the EIR), 10,000 square feet of commercial space and a 200-room hotel (in place of the 312,000 square feet of commercial uses). Addendum No. 1 assumed development of the Pete’s Harbor site based on the then current General Plan designation and existing zoning, which allowed a density of 40 dwelling units per acre resulting in up to 412 units without any marina fill. In January 2008, the City considered the environmental review (the EIR and Addendum No. 1) and approved the Peninsula Park

1 Modifications included reductions in the commercial and office space square footage. The approval still included nearly 2,000 homes, 17 240-foot high towers and a hotel.

Page 6 of 27 Precise Plan. One Marina is under construction and includes 231 multifamily residential units, 565 fewer units than the 796 units evaluated in Addendum No. 1.

2012 – Pete’s Harbor

The Current Project Is a Scaled-Down Version of the 2003 Proposal; It is Consistent with and furthers the new General Plan vision for the area and complies with City Regulations.

The current Project has been reduced in scope and scale and is consistent with the vision for the General Plan Waterfront Neighborhoods land use designation and complies with the General Commercial–Residential zoning. A comparison of the Pete’s Harbor portion analyzed in the 2003 MSV EIR to the current proposal illustrates the changes:

Table 2 – Comparison of the original Marina Shores Village EIR (2003) and current Pete’s Harbor Proposal

Marina Shores Village (MSV) Current proposal EIR (2003) Pete’s Harbor (2012) Pete’s Harbor portion Project Area Approx. 13.21 Acres 13.85 Acres Land Area Approx. 11.55 Acres 10.67 Acres Water Area Approx. 1.66 Acres 3.18 Acres Land Use Multi-family Residential Multi-family Residential # of units 633 411 Allowable Density 40 DU/Acre* 40 DU/Acre Proposed Density 54.81 DU/Acre 38.52 DU/Acre Max. Building Height 240 feet 75 feet Max. Stories 21 Stories 5 stories (6 for parking) Parking spaces 1,266 835** Marina Slips 263 slips 263 slips General Plan Mixed Use (Commercial and Mixed Use - Waterfront Residential) Zoning P (Precise Plan) CG-R * Density under the CG-R zoning can be increased with the adoption of a Precise Plan (i.e. a rezone)

** Includes 30 motorcycle parking spaces and spaces for BCDC parking.

Page 7 of 27 The significant changes to reduce the scope of the project described in the EIR include: reduction in building height; reduction in density; maintenance of the existing land configuration (thereby reducing the amount of grading and fill and eliminating the need for shoreline modification); and the retention of some palm and oak trees and additional landscaping.

The Project maintains many important design components contained in the original 2003 Project, including: visual integration of public spaces and community serving amenities such as overlooks, plazas and paths; trails throughout the site that connect and coordinate with off-site trails; opportunities for social interaction (plazas, promenades, playground, overlooks); emergency access; and a spur of the Bay Trail with parking.

The 2003 project required zoning changes. The current Project does not. It is consistent with and in furtherance of City development regulations and policies, including:

1. The Pete's Harbor Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, Mixed Use-Waterfront Neighborhood, and the Zoning Code, General Commercial-Residential, including as to number of units, density and building height. (See, e.g., General Plan, p. H-119; Appendix B, Table AB 1.1, p. B-1-5; Zoning Code §§ 10.5, 25.7; 10/30/12 Planning Commission Report, pp. 9, 13.)

2. The Project helps the City implement the vision in its award-winning General Plan by establishing a mixed-use waterfront with multi-unit housing projects, waterfront public amenities, access to open space and trails. (See, e.g., General Plan, pp. H-110-111, 118, pp. BE-21, BE-67 (Policy BE-10.1).) In fact, the General Plan identified this site for development of up to 412 units. (General Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-1-15-16.)

3. The Project furthers the implementation of the City’s Housing Element by adding hundreds of residential units, helping to address the Jobs / Housing imbalance in accordance with the General Plan. (General Plan, pp. H-14, 106)

4. The Project advances General Plan policies promoting the development of well-landscaped outdoor spaces that invite and support activities for residents (General Plan, p. BE-64 (Policy BE-3.3)); minimizing the visibility of parking facilities from public streets and neighboring properties (General Plan, p. BE-64 (Policy BE- 3.6)); encouraging a variety of homes (General Plan, p. BE-64 (Policy BE-9.3)); including trail systems for pedestrians, cyclists and others (General Plan, p. BE-137 (Policy BE-26.6)); and completing the Bay Trail (General Plan, p. BC-30 (Policies BC-5.2, 5.3)). (See also 10/30/12 Planning Commission Report, pp. 9-13.)

Page 8 of 27 5. Historically the City has maintained a working waterfront, with much of the waterfront land uses dedicated to industrial or commercial land uses that discourage public access. This Project improves public access along the waterfront. (General Plan, pp. BE-11, 21, 36, 48, 60, 67 (Policies BE-10.1, 10.5, 10.6, 10.8), p. BE-73 (Policy BE-17.4).)

In addition, this Project affords the City the opportunity to leverage private dollars for public spaces and public infrastructure. For example, the Project is responsible for upgrading utilities, constructing new trails, and providing public open spaces and access to the waterfront. In sum, the current Project is a direct result of over nine years of planning and input from the community, the City and the BCDC, which yielded a Project consistent with City regulations and policies. DISCUSSION OF APPLICATION, PROJECT DETAILS, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PROJECT APPROVAL

The Application: Planned Development (PD) Permit and Vesting Tentative Map The Applicant requested a Planned Development (PD) Permit (refer to Attachment 2 for PD2012-01), including parking modifications permitted by the Zoning Code, for residential uses (411 units). As stated in Article 46, Section 46.1, the purpose of the PD is to:

“ provide a vehicle for planned development within the existing zoning districts of the City of Redwood City; to encourage flexibility of design and development of land in such a manner as to promote its most appropriate use; to encourage the development of innovative projects which incorporate the highest quality architectural solutions, building materials and landscaping concepts; to promote the most functional and aesthetic relationships between building structures, signs, open space and parking areas in residential, commercial and industrial zoning districts; to encourage the development of quality open space and recreational opportunities within projects, including providing for clustered development and increased open space; and to incorporate stormwater treatment provisions in site planning.”

The Applicant also requested a Vesting Tentative Map (TM2012-02) to allow the subject property to be re-subdivided from two legal parcels to three legal parcels (Refer to Attachment 3 for TM2012-02). Two of these parcels (Parcels 1 and 2) are for condominium lots. Parcel 3 contains the inner marina area as described below:

• Parcel 1 (5.0 acres) — This is the southernmost parcel and contains the Wrap

Page 9 of 27 Building (311 units), community building, pool and associated landscaped open space and access lane. • Parcel 2 (5.2 acres) — This is the northern and western areas of the site and contains the ten-plex buildings (100 units), landscaping and the spur for the Bay Trail and associated amenities. • Parcel 3 (3.1 acres) — This is the inner marina water area.

Project Details The Project will include 411 residential units in eleven buildings as follows:

• Ten 3-story buildings (ten-plex buildings) providing 100 apartments—30 one bedroom/one bath units, 60 two bedroom/two bath units, and 10 three bedroom/two bath units. These buildings are at the west and north portions of the site and will be 40 feet, six inches tall.

• A 5-story “Wrap Building” providing 311 apartments—55 studios, 186 one bedroom/one bath units, 55 two bedroom/two bath units, and 15 three bedroom/two bath units. This building is at the southern end of the site, adjacent to The Villas at Bair Island, and will be 75 feet tall.

The Project will provide two (2) parking spaces per unit (835 vehicle spaces for the 411 units). The Project includes design features and a parking management plan which ensure that this is a sufficient number of spaces and which permits approval, as discussed in detail in the October 30, 2012 Planning Commission Report, pages 4-6.

Project amenities include a clubhouse (or community building). The clubhouse will serve as both an amenity center for the residents as well as the leasing center and onsite management office. The marina will be for project residents only. The Applicant has indicated the project will no longer to lease slips to live-aboard boat tenants, nor to provide commercial services.

Open space and parklands amenities include walkways and bike paths, gazebos, picnic areas, tot lot, bocce ball court, public plazas, a playground, outdoor art, five overlooks, bike racks, and a spur of the Bay Trail (totaling approximately 5.2 acres). The Project will not fill any water areas and/or make any improvements to the Marina areas and/or slips. BCDC has jurisdiction over a 100-foot band inland of and parallel with the San Francisco Bay shoreline, which in this case includes the western and northern edges of the project site (Smith Slough). Public parking is provided at the northwestern portion of the site for use of the Bay Trail improvements (see Project Plans, Sheet L-2).

Page 10 of 27 The Project provides over 4 acres (179,031 sf) of pervious area which is in excess of the requirement of 20% of Lot Area (which would be 2.13 acres or 92,954 sf). (Per Article 10, Section 10.12 minimum pervious area and stormwater requirements.)

With approval of the Project, the Applicant anticipates commencing construction in the first quarter of 2013 and that the first units could be ready for occupancy as early as the Fall of 2014.

For additional Project details, please see the October 30, 2012 Planning Commission Report, pp. 3-8.

The Outer Marina: BCDC and State Lands Commission Authority

As mentioned above in Section II of this report, the Project involves development of Bayfront lands, including the outer marina, requiring approvals and consents by BCDC and SLC.

BCDC has regulatory authority over a 100-foot band inland of and parallel with the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The Applicant is working with BCDC to ensure that the waterfront public amenity and Bay Trail "spur" is consistent with BCDC policies and goals. The Applicant has incorporated BCDC direction and feedback into the plans for the programming and layout of the waterfront areas under BCDC's jurisdiction, which includes the smaller lease where the marina protrudes into Smith Slough. Off-site improvements to the west side of Uccelli Boulevard are also at issue, including a bike lane and pedestrian path that will connect to the project. After several meetings with BCDC staff, the Applicant submitted the site plan to the BCDC Design Review Board on November 5, 2012. The Design Review Board approved the revised project design at its follow-up meeting on January 7, 2013. Should the City approve the Project, it would then proceed to the full commission (BCDC) for consideration.

In addition, as explained more fully in Section II above, the outer marina of the Project is subject to two leases with SLC.

Environmental Review

The EIR evaluated the potential effects of the Marina Shore Village (MSV) project, which included development at Pete’s Harbor of 633 homes (and 1,297 units and neighboring Peninsula Marina/Peninsula Park (now One Marina). Addendum No. 1 updated the environmental analysis in the EIR, analyzing impacts of development of 796 residential units at Peninsula Park, along with 412 units at Pete’s Harbor with respect to the cumulative impacts analysis.

Page 11 of 27 In 2012, the City prepared Addendum No. 2 for the current iteration of the development proposal for Pete’s Harbor. The purpose of an Addendum is to describe the changes and additions to the previously certified EIR necessary to achieve CEQA compliance for the current proposal. A city shall not prepare another EIR if the analysis demonstrates that there are no new significant impacts or increases in severity to previously identified significant impacts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(a); 15164, see also Addendum No. 2, p. 3-1.)

The Addendum analysis demonstrates that the revised Pete’s Harbor Project will not cause new significant impacts or increases in severity to previously identified significant impacts. Thus, the City properly relies upon the environmental analysis in the EIR and the Addenda and does not need to prepare another EIR (e.g., a supplemental or subsequent EIR). Addendum No. 2 was published for the Planning Commission meeting. (Addenda do not need to be circulated for public review and comments.) (Pub. Resources Code § 15164(a).)

Section 2 of Addendum No. 2 (Attachment 4, including Errata Sheets, Attachments 5-7) describes the specific differences between the current Pete's Harbor Project and the version analyzed in the EIR. Section 3 of Addendum No. 2 describes how the differences affect the impact and mitigation conclusions of the EIR. Addendum No. 2 also identifies mitigation measures that have been removed as a result of the reduced project scope, mitigation measures that remain applicable, and any new mitigation measures (as applicable). A summary of the revised impacts and mitigation measures is included in Table 1.1 of the Addendum, which verifies that the revisions incorporated in the current Project would not result in new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant effects identified in the certified EIR. In fact, due to the reduction in the scale of the Project, there are fewer significant impacts than had been identified in the EIR, for which the Council already adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 1-6.)

Approval of the Project

The Project was first reviewed by the Architecture Advisory Committee (AAC), on September 19, 2012. It recommended approval of the site plan and basic massing, with recommendations regarding some details, which were incorporated into the Project. The Planning Commission reviewed the Project on October 16 and 30, 2012. Staff recommended approval of the Project, citing compliance with multiple General Plan policies. After considering the environmental review (including the EIR and Addenda Nos. 1 and 2), the comments from the public and staff, and the merits of the Project, the Planning Commission approved the PD Permit (including parking modifications

Page 12 of 27 permitted by the Zoning Code) and the Tentative Map, along with Conditions of Approval. (See Resolution No. 12-23, Attachment 8.)

ANALYSIS APPEAL

An association of opponents has appealed to the City Council to deny the Project (Attachment 9). Introduction

The “Save Pete’s Harbor 2012” association requests the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project based upon a myriad of contentions, which may be grouped together and analyzed under the following categories: (1) the Project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and should not proceed until an Inner Harbor Precise Plan is prepared, (2) the environmental review is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and (3) miscellaneous other reasons (including that notice to the tenants was inadequate, the Project will reduce property values, and the Project will lead to conflicts with State Lands Commission objectives).

The Appeal shall be heard de novo. (RCMC § 1.45.10.) As explained in Section 1.45.10 of the Municipal Code: “the reviewing body [City Council] shall hear the appeal as a new matter. The original applicant has the burden of proof. In addition to considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on the appeal, the reviewing body [City Council] shall consider all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken.”

The Appeal raises no compelling reason for reversing the Planning Commission’s decision based on City policies and regulations. Thus, staff recommends rejection of the Appeal and approval of the Project.

I. The Project Is in Compliance with General Plan Policies, and an Inner Harbor Precise Plan Is Not Required.

A. The Appeal Should Not Be Granted on the Ground that an Inner Harbor Precise Plan Has Not Been Prepared

Appellant’s Position: A precise plan is required to effectively implement the General Plan, and the PD Permit is improper. (Appeal, pp. 6-7.)

Page 13 of 27 City’s Response:

1. A Precise Plan Is Not Required or Warranted

The General Plan provides a master framework for land use and planning decisions. It sets forth many baseline policies which reflect a variety of interests and goals, including the creation of innovative neighborhoods, development of multi-unit housing at the waterfront, and facilitation of development to meet housing needs.

A Precise Plan is a useful tool for developing a more specific long-term plan, particularly where a zoning change is required. However, there is no requirement to prepare a Precise Plan (unlike a General Plan), and a Precise Plan is not necessary for an application which is consistent with current zoning. In addition, the City is required to evaluate a project based on the existing rules and regulations. Thus, the City may not deny a project which is compliant with the General Plan and Zoning Code merely on the ground that a Precise Plan has not been prepared. Further, a PD Permit properly facilitates development “if it is determined that the proposed development will provide an environment of physical and functional desirability in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or district.” (General Plan, p. H-89)

Thus, where a project is consistent with the General Plan (as this one is since it meets a multitude of General Plan policies) and the project details are appropriately addressed in a PD Permit, the preparation of a Precise Plan prior to approval of the Project is neither necessary nor warranted.

2. The Project Is Consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies and Will Provide an Environment of Physical and Functional Desirability in Harmony with the Neighborhood

The Applicant has not sought amendments to the governing regulations, but has submitted an application which is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Thus, the City should base its consideration of the merits of the Application on the basis of the applicable, governing policy and law, with which this Project is consistent. Review of the Project shows it is consistent with the General Plan and meets numerous General Plan policies and objectives.

The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Mixed Use-Waterfront. The General Plan also notes that zoning is CG-R [General Commercial and Residential]. The subject Land Use Designation and Zoning authorize high density, multi-family housing for up to 412 dwelling units and a building maximum height of up to 75 feet. (General Plan, p. H-119; see also Appendix B, Table AB 1.1, p. B-1-5; see also 10/30/12 Planning Commission Report, pp. 9, 13.)

Page 14 of 27 Consistent with the above, the General Plan identifies this site for development of up to 412 units. (General Plan, Appendix B, Table AB 1.1, p. B-1-5.) Further, the General Plan acknowledged owner/developer interest in creating up to 412 new units: “Located with access to the water, this site is a prime location for new residential development as a new Mixed Use–Waterfront development. There is owner/developer interest in this site. The owner has been in discussions with developers regarding redevelopment. The site provides opportunities for development of an estimated 412 new residential units.” (2010 General Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-1-15-16.)

The density, 38.52 dwelling units/acre, is consistent with the General Plan, which allows a maximum residential density of 40 units/acre. The Project is also consistent with parking requirements of the Zoning Code, as discussed at page --- above.

The Project is consistent with numerous General Plan polices relative to land use, including polices promoting (1) higher density, pedestrian and water oriented development; (2) engaging, well-landscaped outdoor spaces; a variety of housing types in master planned developments; and (3) public access to the water front, among many others, as thoroughly explained in the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission. (See, e.g., 10/30/12 Planning Commission Report, pp. 9-13.) The Project is also consistent with many Housing Element Policies, as discussed at pages --- below.

B. The City Should Not Change the Land Use Designation Rather than Approve this Project

Appellants’ Position: Appellant contends that the General Plan land use designation should be changed from Mixed Use-Waterfront to Mixed Use Marina. (Appeal, p. 16.)

City’s Response: The Mixed-Use Waterfront land use designation was incorporated into the 2010 General Plan, after substantial input from the public, City staff, and City policymakers, over a nearly three year period. 2 This Appeal is not a proper vehicle for Appellant to seek Council action on an amendment to the General Plan.

C. The Project Is Consistent with Housing Policies, Including re: Live-aboards

2 The consideration and adoption of the General Plan included extensive staff outreach, numerous community and “affinity group” meetings, and several Planning Commission and City Council meetings, as well as the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, from January 2008 through October 11, 2010. (See, e.g., staff reports regarding community input at http://www.redwoodcity.org/government/council/meetings.html and http://www.redwoodcity.org/government/bcc/plan/index.html .) Through this comprehensive process, the City prepared an award-winning General Plan to provide the foundation for future development.

Page 15 of 27 Appellants’ Position: The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, particularly the Housing Element, because it does not include live-aboard opportunities at this site. (Appeal, pp. 3, 8, 13.)

City’s response: First, the General Plan does not require live-aboard opportunities to be incorporated into a private project, rather it allows/accommodates them should the applicant wish to include them in the scope of the project. Second, many objectives and goals described in the Housing Element policies support the type of project proposed at Pete’s Harbor, irrespective of to whom slips are leased.

1. The General Plan Does Not Require Private Development of Pete’s Harbor to Incorporate Live-aboard Housing into Its Project

Appellant points to a Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites to contend that the City should reject the Project because the owner and applicant have chosen not to rent to boaters who live aboard their vessels. (Appeal, p. 8.)

However, while the General Plan includes passages supportive of live-aboard communities, it does not require the owner to retain or to provide live-aboard opportunities. To the contrary, the General Plan anticipated that this site would be developed with up to 412 dwelling units, and the General Plan includes numerous goals and objectives which are advanced by this Project.

State law requires the Housing Element to identify sites at which development may occur to further City efforts to meet regional housing needs. “Cities are required to identify appropriate and adequate sites to plan for housing in their housing element. Consistent with State law, the Redwood City Housing Element demonstrates that the City has a sufficient land inventory to facilitate and encourage the development of housing that is accessible to a variety of income groups.” (General Plan, p. H-106)

In furtherance of this purpose, the Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites, referred to by Appellant, lists sites at which housing development may occur, including 412 units at Pete’s Harbor. Thus, as part of the City’s projection of future housing development, the City prepared the Table so it could evaluate opportunity sites which could contribute to satisfying the region’s housing development needs. This Table, however, does not mandate that live-aboard housing be incorporated into a project at Pete’s Harbor. It merely identified mixed-use sites that are good candidates for the development of housing, and it lists the density potential, the existing units, the potential housing units, and the affordability level, among other things.

Thus, for that limited purpose, the City assumed that the existing live-aboard community would remain, because removal was not part of any redevelopment plan. (See footnote

Page 16 of 27 to Table of Mixed Use Opportunity Sites, at p. H-119 of the General Plan and at p. B-1- 12 of Appendix B to General Plan.) The purpose was not to establish City policy regarding whether the property owner could apply to develop a project that would propose 400-plus new units, without live-aboard opportunities. In fact, the Housing Element explains that the City was aware of private interest in development of this site with 412 new units, without a condition regarding retention of live-aboards. (General Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-1-15-16.)

Appellant also asserts that “all published plans and references in the General Plan documents assume or reference keeping live-aboards at Pete’s Harbor.” (Appeal, p. 8, citing p. H-178 (program H-23) of the Housing Element of the General Plan.) However, the Mixed Use-Waterfront 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.)

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, p. H-178)—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.

Page 17 of 27 Thus, owners and developers are not bound to propose any particular type of housing, or to retain any particular type of housing. 3

2. Many Objectives and Goals Described in the Housing Element Support the Type of Project Proposed at Pete’s Harbor

In fact, the Project advances applicable Housing Element policies, including the following: addition of new housing to further the City’s efforts to meet its and the region’s housing needs (General Plan, pp. H-14, H-106); promoting multi-unit housing, which “can provide affordable options for individuals and families” (General Plan, p. H-37); encouraging Planned Development Permit applications, such as this one which create innovative housing, recreational opportunities, functional and aesthetic relationships with development and surrounding area (General Plan, p. H-88); 4 promoting a wide variety of housing is positive for the City (General Plan, p. H-107; see also p. H-155, 156); and concentrated development in mixed use areas and at the emerging water front (General Plan, pp. H-110-111).

In addition, the General Plan acknowledges that “Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)” sentiment can stall development. Thus, the General Plan encourages the City not to succumb to NIMBYism, and instead to support higher density development in areas with appropriate land use designations. (General Plan, p. H-101-02)

Thus, Appellant has not made a compelling case to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision that approved the Project.

II. The Environmental Review Has Been Thorough and Proper

A. The City Properly Relies on the EIR and Addenda Nos. 1 and 2

Appellant’s Position: It is improper to rely upon the EIR and the Addendum No. 1 because they were prepared before the new General Plan was adopted. (Appeal, p. 10.)

City’s Response: CEQA does not so require. Rather, because the City had already thoroughly studied the environmental impacts related to a much larger development at Pete’s Harbor, CEQA commands that the City not prepare another EIR at the present

3 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. 4 Moreover, CG-R Zoning requires a PD Permit application for the current Project. (See Zoning Code § 25.7.B)

Page 18 of 27 time absent certain circumstances not at issue here (described below). Thus, preparation of an Addendum is proper.

The EIR and Addendum No. 1 thoroughly analyze environmental impacts for a much a larger development in and around Pete’s Harbor. Addendum No. 2 updates the environmental analysis in light of the scaled-down, revised proposal and the current facts and circumstances. (See, e.g., Addendum No. 2, Chapter 2, comparing the proposals.)

As explained in Addendum No. 2, Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164 provide the standards under which a public agency shall perform additional environmental review. Where an EIR has been certified for a project, the lead agency (i.e., the City) shall not prepare another EIR unless certain events occur, e.g., there are substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new impact or increase in severity to a previously identified impact. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a); see also Addendum No. 2, p. 3-1, which quotes CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a).)

If the conditions described above are not triggered, the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to the EIR to analyze changes to the project, the circumstances, and/or new information. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164.)

Addendum No. 2 includes analysis of changes and of potential new significant impacts and increases in significantly identified impacts. The analysis reveals that there are no new impacts or increases in severity to previously identified impacts. Table 1.1 summarizes the information. (Addendum No. 2, p. 1-7.) In addition, the responses to Appellant’s contentions demonstrate the sufficiency of the environmental review.

Thus, Appellant improperly contends that the City may not rely upon the EIR or Addendum No. 1. Rather, CEQA provides that a city shall prepare an Addendum to the prior environmental documents, and shall not prepare a new EIR, because the standards for preparation of a new EIR were not triggered.

In addition, Appellant makes several contentions regarding the need for further environmental review, which are discussed below.

B. The Content of Fill Has Been Thoroughly Analyzed

Appellant’s Position: The City should further study the contents of the fill on the site because it might include hazardous waste. (Appeal, p. 10.)

City’s Response: The content of the fill, including the potential presence of hazardous material, was studied at Chapters 11 and 12 of the EIR. (See, e.g., EIR, pp. 11-5, 12-8.)

Page 19 of 27 The Applicant provided both Phase I and Phase II studies, which were considered in the EIR. Appellant offers unsupported speculation that the site could include hazardous material. Appellant refers to a letter from James Beeby, but that letter merely provides the writer’s observation of apparently illegal dumping at the site (e.g., tires, scrap metal and a large household appliance). Thus, in sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

C. Quality of Fill Relative to Construction Has Been Thoroughly Analyzed

Appellant’s Position: The City should study whether the site would be subject to settling. (Appeal, p. 11.)

City’s Response: The EIR studied the environmental issues related to Appellant’s contentions, including without limitation regarding the contents of the soil, topography, seismicity, and foundation and settlement impacts. (See Chapter 11 of the EIR, including at p. 11-12.) In sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

D. The Visual Impacts Have Been Thoroughly Analyzed (Appeal, p. 11)

Appellant’s Position: The view from the Villas will be degraded. (Appeal, p. 11)

City’s Response: In the EIR and Addendum No. 1, the City thoroughly studied the visual impacts of the Project, including at the Villas. (See, e.g., EIR, pp. 5-1, 5-4, 5-26, 5-27.) Addendum No. 2 updates this analysis and concludes that there is no longer any significant impact.

Specifically, the EIR determined that originally proposed building heights for Pete’s Harbor—up to 240 feet—was a significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. The current Project has buildings up to 75 feet tall, and the Addendum concludes the reduced height eliminates any significant impact. Now that the “reduction in building mass would substantially reduce visual impacts on surrounding views and vistas compared to the previous project,” there is no significant impact. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-20 – p. 3-21.) Reasons include without limitation that the scaled-down buildings of the revised Project (maximum 75 feet, rather than 240 feet) result in no significant impacts both because the height is within the generally applicable 75-foot limit 5 and

5 The height of the tallest buildings, 75 feet, is within the generally applicable height limit of the applicable Residential Combining District, the R-5 District Zoning. (RCZD §§10.5, 25.7(c). However, because the site is larger than 40,000 square feet, there is no height limit. (Zoning Code §10.5(B).)

Page 20 of 27 because the smaller buildings do not negatively affect vistas or views. (Addendum No. 2, pp. 3-6, 3-7, 3-20, 3-21.) 6 In sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

E. Slip-Loss and Displacement of Live-aboards Has Been Thoroughly Analyzed, Beyond that Required by CEQA

Appellant’s Position: CEQA review is inadequate because circumstances have changed since the EIR was certified. Appellant asserts that the EIR “relied upon a silver bullet— the coincidental approval for a brand new marina at Westpoint Harbor,” which does not presently have capacity to accept residents that could not live-aboard their vessels at the subject Project. (Appeal, pp. 11-12.)

City’s Response: The EIR thoroughly studied potential environmental impacts related to the termination of live-aboard opportunities at Pete’s Harbor (as was proposed in the prior iteration of the project). (See, EIR, pp. 4-2, 4-23 through 4-26, and 6-14 through 6- 16.) The EIR explained that there were approximately 90 vessels used for residences at that time, and that none would be permitted to stay. (EIR, pp. 3-34, 4-2, 4-26)

With respect to land use impacts, a project which physically changes a community (e.g., by building a highway through an existing neighborhood) may create a significant impact. Here, the Project is not physically dividing the community. New construction within the community is planned, keeping the physical community in tact. In addition, a project which is inconsistent with land use regulations may create a significant impact. The Project is consistent with the City’s land use regulations. Thus, there is no land use impact.

Appellant also contends a third land use impact criterion is “whether the Project will “displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.” (Appeal, p. 11.) This is not a land use impact criterion; it is a population and housing impact criterion and is thus discussed in the population and housing section below. Moreover, the purpose of CEQA review is to address environmental impacts. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines §§ 15360, 15378, 15382 (discussing projects, environment and significant effects of projects on the environment). Appellant’s concern about displacement of live-aboards is not an environmental issue, but is a social, economic and policy issue.

6 Moreover, Appellant implies that the visual impacts are an issue relative to the property rights of owners at the Villas at Bair Island. CEQA concerns environmental impacts, not property rights. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines §§ 15360, 15378, 15382 (discussing projects, environment and significant effects of projects on the environment).

Page 21 of 27 In any event, the EIR concluded that the loss of the 90 live-aboard slips, as well as the loss of 173 recreational slips (263 total slips) was not a significant land use impact. (EIR, p. 4-25.) The EIR did not reach this conclusion through consideration of any mitigation plan. (EIR, p. 4-25.) Rather, the ultimate conclusion was that there was no slip loss and no impact. (EIR, p. 4-25.) The same is true here; the Pete’s Harbor project would not result in any physical loss of slips, but rather a change in tenancy. The Project provides for 263 slips, the same number as currently exist. Moreover, there are slips at Westpoint. Thus, Addendum No. 2 concludes that there are no new significant land use impacts or increases in severity to a previously identified land use impact. (Addendum No. 2, p. 3-5.)

With respect to population and housing impacts, the EIR thoroughly evaluated whether the termination of live-aboard rights would “displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere.” (EIR, p. 6-11.) The EIR also notes that approximately 110 existing on-site “mobile” residential units (including live-aboard boats, recreational vehicles, and a mobile home) would be displaced (EIR p 6-14). BCDC staff also noted that live-aboard houseboats displaced by the proposed project which relocate to the Bay without BCDC authorization may become a ‘serious enforcement issue’ for BCDC. The EIR concludes that “neither of these issues would constitute a direct environmental effect under CEQA (see subsection 6.3.1) unless the displacement were to “necessitat[e] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere”.

While the EIR discussed the potential for other marinas to house live-aboards, it did not base its conclusion on this potential. Rather, even with options at other marinas, approximately 50 live-aboards would be displaced. The EIR concluded that displacement of 50 live-aboards would not be a significant impact “because there is no evidence that the displacement will “necessitat[e] the construction of housing elsewhere.” (EIR, p. 6-17.) This remains true. The net-housing effect of the Project is positive, and there is no evidence that the residents of living on their vessels will need new housing constructed in order to find a place to live.

In sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

F. Sea Level Rise Issues Are Being Analyzed, and Further Review Is Not Required Prior to Approval of the Subject Permits

Appellant’s Position: The Project is inconsistent with General Plan polices regarding sea level rise, which should be further studied. (Appeal, p. 12)

Page 22 of 27 City’s Response: CEQA requires study of impact of project on environment, not impact of environment on project. Moreover, (1) the Project complies with existing regulations such as Floodplain Management requirement in Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code, and the Conditions of Approval so require this for the Project, (2) the Applicant has been working with BCDC to address project design features that respond to the need for adaptive management strategies, these design components have been incorporated into the project proposal, and (3) to the extent that the City has programs or regulations in place the Project is consistent with General Plan Polices relative to global warming and sea level issues, including BE 10.3, BE 22.2, BE 24.2, BE 24.11. (See General Plan, pp. BE-67, 78, 80, 81.).

Thus, in sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

G. Parking

Appellant’s Position: Providing two (2) parking spaces per unit, rather than 2.25 spaces per unit, “will have a disastrous impact on the spot” because there is not sufficient public transportation or other means of access to Pete’s Harbor. (Appeal, p. 12.)

City’s Response: Parking is studied in the EIR (p. 7-70) and Addendum No. 2 (p. 3-32). With respect to the project as proposed, Appellant’s assertions are mere speculation, and there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

H. The Traffic Issues Relative to Emergency Have Been Thoroughly Analyzed

Appellant’s Position: Conditions at Bair Island Road, East Bayshore Road, and Whipple Avenue could devolve to LOS F. (Appeal, p. 7.)

City Response:

Addendum No. 1 includes an analysis of traffic conditions for build-out of 796 units (rather than the 231 units ultimately approved and built), plus construction of 412 units at Pete’s Harbor for the cumulative traffic impacts. (Addendum No. 1, p. 3-23; Addendum No. 2, pp. 2-1, 3-28.) Ultimately, One Marina has only 231 residential units. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-27.) The One Marina Project was required to adopt mitigation measures based upon the impacts associated with the 1,208 additional residential units (412 plus 796). (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-27.)

Page 23 of 27 Addendum No. 2 revisits the traffic analysis previously performed, which was based upon more intensive development plans. It found no new significant impacts or increases in severity to previously identified impacts. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-25 et seq.) Thus, Appellant’s contentions regarding impacts to Bair Island Road, East Bayshore Road, and Whipple Avenue do not raise any CEQA issue, as any and all potentially significant impacts were previously addressed and disclosed, and there are no new impacts or increases in severity to any existing impact.

I. Traffic Congestion Issues Have Been Thoroughly Analyzed

Appellant’s Position: Traffic at East Bayshore Road/Bair Island is deemed acceptable, but measurements are not included. (Appeal, pp. 7-8.)

City’s Response: As discussed above (relative to emergency access and conditions at Bair Island Road, East Bayshore Road, and Whipple Avenue), the traffic impacts were fully addressed in the EIR and Addenda No’s. 1 and 2 review each of the roadway segments and intersections and finds that there are no new impacts or increases in severity to an existing impact.

J. Historic and Architectural Matters

Appellant’s Position: Pete’s Harbor is an historic resource that will be lost if the Project proceeds. (Appeal, p.15)

City’s Response: The prior iteration of the project would also have resulted in loss of live-aboard boat slips, removal of the restaurant, and architectural features which Appellant considers worthy of preservation. The site was not identified as a potentially historical resource in the EIR. (See Chapter 14.) The EIR, certified and never challenged, is irrefutably deemed valid. Moreover, Pete’s Harbor is not considered an historic site under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 40 of the Municipal Code); thus, the Ordinance is not applicable. In sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. The City Has Complied with Public Notification Requirements

Appellant’s Position: Appellant “appeals the Matter based on all applicable arguments under sunshine, process and governance policies reflected in or supported by Access Laws of Redwood City, San Mateo County and/or California .” (Appeal, p. 9.) Appellant seeks “to reserve” all arguments that notice was not properly provided with respect to the Architectural Review Board Hearing and the October 16, 2012 Planning

Page 24 of 27 Commission meeting. (Appeal, pp. 9-10.) Appellant does not identify any particular alleged violation. In addition, Appellant complains that the owner of Pete’s Harbor, Paula Uccelli, made misleading statements in letters to her tenants. (Appeal, p. 3.)

City’s Position: Appellant’s non-specific, generalized grievance does not serve as a basis for appeal. Appellant has not provided “any supporting information, materials and documents the appellant requests be considered by the reviewing body during the appeal hearing.” (Zoning Code § 48.4.) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City more than satisfied its legal obligations to provide notice of the Planning Commission meeting (see, e.g., Zoning Code § 49.4 and Gov. Code § 65901) including by:

• Mailing notice to property owners and tenants within 300 foot radius of the site on October 3, 2012, including the State Lands Commission. • Publishing notice in the Redwood City Daily News on October 6, 2012. • Mailing notice to BCDC, C/CAG, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (responsible agencies). • Mailing notice to Save the Bay, Diana Reddy, and Chamber of Commerce (interested parties). • Providing on-site postings at Pete's Harbor, Villas at Bair Island, Marina Pointe and One Marina. 7 • Appellant’s contentions that the property owner has misled her tenants raises issues relative to the landlord-tenant relationship, not the adequacy of any legally required notice associated with the City’s process relating to the proposed development. Thus, this is not a valid grounds for the Appeal. In any event, the property owner and/or applicant have conducted public outreach with the stakeholders at Pete’s Harbor, including a meeting with all tenants on September 20, 2012, and a meeting with the restaurant operator on September 19, 2012. Further, the property owner and/or applicant has met with owners and interested parties from nearby properties and businesses, such as the residents, purchasers and Homeowners’ Association board members of One Marina Pointe and the management of The Villas at Bair Island, as discussed in the October 30, 2012, Planning Commission Staff Report at page 14. B. Affect on Neighboring Property Values (Appeal, p. 7)

7 Appellant suggests that notice should have been posted at the site after filing of the application, as well as prior to the September 19, 2012, architectural review hearing. (Appeal, p. 3.) There is no such legal obligation.

Page 25 of 27 Appellant’s Position: Property values at neighboring Bair Island will be negatively affected by impacts to emergency access and traffic congestion. (Appeal, p. 7.)

City’s Response: Appellant merely speculates as to property values and has offered no evidence. Furthermore, property values are economic issue, not a land use issue and therefore, do not fall within the purview of the Planning Commission’s decision.

C. State Lands Commission

Appellant’s Position: The City should expect that if the Project proceeds, the owner will likely “violate[] and repudiate[]” its leases with the live-aboard residents, which would purportedly violate tenants’ and public trust rights. (Appeal, p. 4)

City’s Response: See discussion above.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Deny the appeal and approve the Planned Development Permit and the Vesting Tentative Map for the project. (See Attachment 1 - City Council Resolution)

2. Uphold the appeal thereby denying the proposed project.

FISCAL IMPACT None anticipated. Review of the proposed project is subject to the City’s Cost Recovery System; therefore, direct costs during the entitlement process associated with staff’s time and materials are covered by an applicant deposit. Should the Project be approved, the Applicant will be required to pay development impact fees, as applicable and as established by ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pete’s Harbor project have been analyzed in the Marina Shores Village Environmental Impact Report, as well as Addendum No.2, as previously described in this report.

BLAKE LYON , PLANNING MANAGER

BILL EKERN DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Page 26 of 27

ROBERT B. BELL CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council Resolution 2. Planned Development Permit 3. Vesting Tentative Map 4. Addendum No. 2 5. Errata Sheet p. 3-32 6. Errata Sheet Table 1-1 7. Errata Sheet p3-45 8. Planning Commission Resolution 12-23 9. Appeal letter

INFORMATION ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK ’S OFFICE 1. Marina Shores Village EIR 2. Addendum No. 1 to the Marina Shores Village EIR 3. Project File (including correspondence)

Page 27 of 27