Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 278 <br /> at its yearly law. Des�ite these conc�rt�s a��d lack of�lotice, Mrs. Uccelli advised <br /> residents they would ��ot be allowed inore time, that tilere would Ue no blanket reloca�ion <br /> package, process, or assastance, and tl��t there would"be na col�rnunity �neetings". <br /> Attendees present re�ort�d a "done deal" com�nu��icatio��, and it is note�rorthy that a�1 <br /> ear-Iy private communication with the city's contract mana�er revealed that she�ad b�er� <br /> given extensive informa�ion paintin� the cunent liv�aboards in a�legative �i�ht. <br /> In response to tl�e lack of public notice, lack of pracess anc� lack af p�blic involvement <br /> SPI� "20I2" was formed. A Wordpress hlog was started with key words "Save Pete's <br /> Harbnr". A�ace�iook page was stat-ted titled "�'rie��ds of Pete's Harbo�-—Redwood City" <br /> with content and postings by sup�orters, anci nearIy 150 "Likes"to stop the development. <br /> A cl�az�ge.org petition with key words "Pete's Harbc�r"was started and is gaining on 900 <br /> signatures, many o�wl�orn are Bay Area residents a�1d San Mateo Cou��ty�oters who <br /> know and support resic�ents at Pete's, as well as natioi�al and int�ri�ational s�z�po�ters af <br /> the boa�ers and residents. The co�nment� are touchin�; and revealing, this is an issue that <br /> is striking a cl�orc� locally and n�tionally. <br /> "�.600 supportears in o�e week" <br /> These €��er 1 0�0 cii ital su orters are "oined b the ve im orta��t in- ersan ublic <br /> ex ression of o asition —i�earl 600 �eo Ie have si ned a hard-co etition with the <br /> same wordin� as thc chan�e.org; and Facebook �a�e. Those signing have expresse� thei�• <br /> desire to s��w dow��, sfiop and �cale back co��str�ctio�� at this lands-end site. Mai�y are <br /> rglling their eyes, saying "we voted tl�is kind of thing c�own" when shown t�e�Ian <br /> drawing. Others are sayin� "this is �ow Redwaad City ia daing it now", rr��aning <br /> working privately witl� de�velo�ers a�1d exeludin� the public u�til it is too late. Qthers <br /> simpiy say they war�t Pe��'s €o stay, that t1�is is irresponsible developme�lt, �hat we r�eed <br /> �ousing in�a��d and npt on the bayfront waters ed�e, and si�r►ila�-c�rr�;nents. The <br /> eonsistent, striking �eedbac� is t�at pea�le knew abnut�he former develapir�ei�t, did not <br /> want it, did not have suf�'icient notice of this deve�apment, and da not want ii. Ma1�y <br /> vot�rs are mad at�:he fast-track�rocess and perceived secz-ecy, a��d exclusion of the public <br /> from the pracess. Response to this petitian can be accura�ely characterized as elose ta <br /> 99% oppc�sed ta this develapmer�t for people who have �to�ped to diacuss tl�e details. <br /> "Less than one m�ntlh to prepare �oar Pub�ic Hearing, R�search,Adr�ocacy and <br /> Appea�" <br /> T�ese 160Q supporters w�r� obtait�e� in a sin�le i�litial�ush, witl� a handful of residez�ts <br /> canvassing the �eneral p�biic downfown and at �oca1 Redwood City ve��►zes and ev�nts <br /> over the course of one week. Si��ce �hat initial push SI'H has b��n fu11y consuined wit� <br /> researcl� and advocacy toward the October 16, 20l 2 �eeting,under imperative of raising <br /> a11 appealable issues shouId the ResoIution pass. <br /> Tha� 1600 supporters sa quickly and decisively sup��ort-ted the petitian should not go <br /> �niaoticed, ar disregarded, by the City. Most of tl�� i��-person signatures are local Bay <br /> Area and San Mateo County voters who do not wa�-�t this scale and scape of cle�relopinent <br />