AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 259 Tk�e t�oters want history, communi#y and liveaboards, �nd Redwood City's General P1.ans�Zave always extensively refiIected t�e value of 1aa.story, eo�n�unity at�d public participation. Ar�d Ehe Plan expressly co�tez�nplates retaining liveaboards at Pete's Harbor during any developinenfi. The Citv Council undc�ubtedl has discretion to d�ta ai�d su �est alie�'atio�as to thes� lans. Do not sell short tl�e public, tlte T'Ian and the Harbor for a fas�-tracic.ed development that is too bi�, for the i€��et to sustain. Be inc�usive of history and preserve tlae alternati�ve and affordable neigllborhoc�d that necd not b�displaced. �'ublic access is already real and meaningf�tz� at Pete's, and the open space additions of the proposal are wo��derful and long overdue. However, for She I3ay/Water Trail an.d public boat�n.g to l�e ineanin�;fulIy used, Ehere must be space for public restraottn,s an site, far public showers, a�id for camping and ather facilifies tl�at�woi�Id truly Enable a E3ay Water Trail use. The PD Permit does not address these and tl�ese amenities could beneft and b�shared by tl�e exi.sting liveaboard coinn�unity. The deveiopment is too big, is careless and is ii�sufficient zn its p�'esent sco�e and details, ancl�t�ore ti��e should be spent on it via the Inner Harbor�'recise Plan ar�d Study Session(s}. The�esting tentative �na�, at a miniznum, should be re�ected�iven the Iack of notice and in�u�. Save Pete's�-Iarbor 2p12 ("SPI-3"} is a coalitio�l of current aild former residents af Pe��'s Harbor a��d over 1600 supporters who are local voters, Bay Area residents and supparters�v�c�oppose adoptioil of the ResoIution as cu��rently worded. Support incl�d.es nearly 1,000 change.org�etitio��sig��atures and over 6�Q i��-persan petitia�i signatures. SPH i.nsists tl�at tlae City Gou��ci� reject ai�d revcrse the Plamling Com�nission's October 30, 2012 Decisioil and Resolution. The City sho�zld: � slow down the c��rrent a�prova�process t€� aIlow suf�cie��t public input via the City's Inner Harbor Precise Plan prac�ss, or provide at a minimum for a Stuc�y Session ar ather pracess allowi.r�g #ar sig�ificant pu�lic stakeholder involvemer�t; • scale back any propased developme��t an the parcel to avoid very high-density luxury residential develapment in favor oftr►oderate residential with��Zixed commercial; • in any current or future develop�ne�tt retair� a material poi°tion of the outer harbor as a comrn�rcial naarizaa open l'or public leasi�ig on state pubIic t�-ust land; and • take into acc�unt th�I�istoric value and speciai-�se case of this la��ds-�nd bayfront property directly across from a federal wetlands a�zd habitat pz'ese�v�tQ permit o��iy respo�tsible and appropriate development of the paved portia��s of ihe site. The bas�s of Appeal are noted i��Attachme��t l to the Appeal Fo�m and briefed iz�mo�•e detail iz�this Appeal Brief, in t13e sat�3e ord�r. Tt should be noted that metnbers of the public raised a�nyriad of iss��es pertaiz�i.r�g�o pu�alic safety, overcrowding, deficaent parking for adequate public access and more. However, not a sir�gle person believes that Mrs. Ucce�li does not�ave tlae rigk�t to sel�her property and retire. T"his is r�ot abtiut"baat dwelle�s" wat�ting th�harbor"�s is, or"fearing cha��ge" or bein�"not wzlling to go wit�out a fight." This is aba�t responsible governance and devel.op�aezat, a��d abaut what a��y responsible tav��with marina and harl�or�aatural resaurces wouId do. 1�Iost peo�Ie fa�or moderatei rest�nnsible devefoument to brin�r�sidences to the site,�u�favor somethin� more in scale to the other residential units on this irtlet� ��►ot dwarl`i3ag the attz'active Villas, art�d n3ore like the other co��do and apartment bualdi��g� o�a Bair Island Road. Pi�ase exercise your discre#ion to rejecfi tl�e Decision azld Resolution. 2