• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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.

Load more

  27

Copy Link