Laserfiche WebLink
7.A. - Page 92 <br /> at its yearXy low. Despite these concerns and lack of notice,Mrs. llccelli advised <br /> r�sid�nts they would not be allawed more time,that there would be na blanket relocation <br /> package,process, or assist�.n.ce,and that there would"be na community rneet�ngs". <br /> A�tendees present reported a"done deal"commt�tsication, and it is noteworthy that a� <br /> earl�private comrnunication vvith the city's contract mar�ager revealed that she had been <br /> gi�en exteFisive informa�ion painting the current Iiveaboarcis in a aegative light. <br /> In response to tlie lack of publi�natice, lack of process and lack of public involvement <br /> SPH"201 Z"was formed.A Wordpress blog was started with key wards"Save Pete's <br /> Harbor".A Facebook�age was started titled"Frie�ads of Pete's Ha�'bor—Redwood City" <br /> with content and postings by supporters, and nearly 1S0"Likes"to stop the develapment. <br /> A change.org petition with key wards "Pete's Harbor"was st�uted and is gaining on 900 <br /> signatt�res,max�y of whom are Bay Area residents and San Ma�eo County voters who <br /> k�ow and support residerits at Pete's, as well as national and interrta�ional supportera of <br /> the boaters and.residents. The cammen�s are touching and revealing, this is�issue that <br /> is striking a chord localiy and nationally, <br /> "l.6QQ supporters in ana week" <br /> These over 1.000 di�ital sup�orters are joined by-�y��°rtan��e sa �uh1i� <br /> ex ressian - 1 0 e le have si ed � ` n � � <br /> me w rdin as the chan e. . Those sigr�ing have expressed t�eir <br /> desire to slovv down, stop and scale back construa�ion at this lat�ds-end si�e. Many are <br /> ralling their syes, saying "we voted this kind of thing down"wh�n shuwn tk�e plan <br /> cirawit�g. Others are saying"this is how Redwoad City�s doing it now", m�aning <br /> working privately with developers and excluding the public until it is too lat.�. �hers <br /> simply say�hey want Pete's to stay,that�his is ii3xesponsibFe developrnent,that we need <br /> housing inland and not on the hayfront waters edge, and sirnilar comxnen�s, Tkje <br /> con,sistent, stri,k�ing £eedback is that peopie k�ew about the fazmez�development, did not <br /> want i�, did not have sufficient natice of this development,at�d do no�want it. Many <br /> voters are mad at tite fast-tracl�proc�ss and p�rceivad secrecy,aa.�d excliasion of the public <br /> fram�e process. Response to this petatzan can be aeeurateIy characterized as close ta <br /> 99%opposed tc�this development for pec3ple who have stopged ta discuss the d�tails. <br /> `iLes�tl�an one enonth ta prepare for Pul��.c Hearing, Research,Advocacy and <br /> Appeal" <br /> These 1dOp supporters were abtained in a single initaa�puah,with a handful of residents <br /> canrrassing#he generaI public downtown and at local Redwood City venues and e�rents <br /> aver the course of one we�k. Since that initial push SPH has�eer�ful ly consurned with <br /> research and advocacy taward the Octo�er 16,20I2 meeting,under irnperative of raisin� <br /> alI appealable issues should the Resotudon pass. <br /> That 1600 supporters su quickl�and decisively supported the petitian shauid na�go <br /> unnoticec�, ar disregarded,by the City. Most af the in-person signatures are loGal Bay <br /> Area an.d San MaCao County vaters who da not want tltis sca.le and scope of development <br />