AgdaPkt 2013-05-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 73 Tl�e voters want history,co�nxnunity and liveabaards,and R,edwood City's Genera.l Plans have always exiensively reflected khe value of history,community and publia participation.And the Flan expressly contemplates retaining liveaboards at Pete's Harbor during any development. The Ci Council_ �►doubtedly has discretion,to,delav and,��} es�.�,1��rations ta these�lans. Do nat seil s�iort the public,the PIan and the Harbor for a fast-tracked develo�ent thac is too big for the inlet to sustain.Be inclUSive of history and preserve the altemative and affardabte neigk�borhood t�at nee� nat be displaced. Public access is already real and meaningful at Pete's,and the open space add'►tions ofthe proposal are wonderf�and long overdue.However,for the Bay/Water Trai�and public boating to be meaningfi�ly used,th�re must be space far pablic res#,raoms on site, for public showers, a.nd foz�camping and other �acilities that would truly enadle a Bay Water Trail use.The�D Permit does not address these and tl�ese amenities covld benefit and be shared by the exis�sng iiveaboard cornmunity. Tlie development is too bsg,is careless and is insufficient in its present seaps and details,and more time should be s�ent on it�ia the Inrter Harbor Precise Flan and Study Session{s). The vastin�tentative rn�p t a ' i u u e 'ect c3 'v f n �' and in Save Pete's Harbor 2012("SPH°')is a coalition of ciuxe�nt and former residexits of Pete's Harbor and over 1604 su�orters who are lo�a�voters,Bay Area resider�ts and supporters who oppose a�option af the Resolution as c�u�rently worded.. Support zncludes nearly i,�OU change.org petitian signatures and over GO(?in-person peti�ion signatiues. SPH insists that the City Counci�r�ject and reverse the Pianning Connmisszan's October 30,2012 Decision and Resv�ution, The City s�ould: • sFovs�dawn the current approvai process to allow sufl�ciant pubIic input via t1�e City's 7nner Harbar Precise Ptan pracess,ar pravide at a minimiun for a Study Session or other process allowing for significant public sta�ehoider inval�eYnent; • sca.�e back any proposed development on the parcel to avaid�ery high-density luxury residential d�velapm�t zza favor of madera�e residen�ial with mixed commercial; • in any cu�rent or future developnaent xetain a material portion of the outer harbor as a comrnercial marina opet�for�ublie leasing on state public trus�.land; ettti • tal�e i�ato account the histaric value a�d special-use case of this lar�ds-end bayfront properiy directly across from a federal wetlands and habitat preserve to permit only responsible and approprsate developinent of the paved partia�s of the site. The bases af Appeai are noted in Attachment 1 ta ttte Appeal Form aud briefed in znare detaii in this Appea�B�ief, in the saxne order.It s�ould be noted that mernbers a�the puhlie raiscd a myrisd of issues pertaining tn pub�ic safaty, overcrawding,deficient parking far adequate public access and r�are. However,not a single persan believes thafi Mrs.Uccelli does nat have the right ta setl her property and retire. This is not about"boat dwellerrs"warxtung the harbor"as is,ar"fea�ring change"or being"not willing to go without a fight"This is about responsible governance and dev�3opmerst,and abaut what any responsible town with marina and harbor z�2dural res�utces woul�.do. Mnc�,�eoule fa�or rnoderate, i 1 de�elo ment ta r' resi t f r some� 'p e ot�er residential units on this iniet—not dwarfin�the at�racti�e Vi�las,and rnore like the othex condo and apartment buil�i��gs on Bair Island Road, Please ex�rcise your dzscretion tn rejeet the Decision and Resolutifln. 2