Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 53 <br /> 1 consent. Despite an email confirming a prior verbal non-opposition, this local manager <br /> 2 does not have the authority that the City is assuming. <br /> 3 <br /> All holdings of the refuge have protected wildlife status, and the proper channels must be <br /> 4 <br /> used to either effectuate a land swap that guarantees ongoing public access of all types <br /> 5 <br /> 6 or to document the proper approvals. The land swap would increase dirt land holdings <br /> 7 to the refuge while still guaranteeing public access at all times to the road, which has <br /> been treated like private property of the harbor for decades. We want the City Council <br /> to reverse the Planning Commission action and have the City Attorney undertake a non- <br /> 10 <br /> privileged legal review of this matter for the citizens of Redwood City, to determine <br /> 11 <br /> whether the City may indeed lawfully grant a permit to develop over federal land. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 This issue is analogous to the State Public Trust issue that required reversal of the last <br /> 14 Planning Commission approval of this project. <br /> 15 Note: the City held open houses, a town hall and scheduled its Planning Commission <br /> 16 <br /> meeting all based on an opinion by the developer's attorney that the developer did not <br /> 17 <br /> even need`any' federal consent(called a"solid legal opinion"by Redwood City's <br /> 18 <br /> 19 former communication chief who apparently now works for the developer). This is not <br /> 20 true. The legal opinion by Mayers Nave only reflected that it may continue to use the <br /> 21 easement as a road in. No one disputes that.No authority was provided that it may treat <br /> 22 <br /> the land as if it is its own property. It may not develop without proper federal consent. <br /> 23 <br /> The Villas development right next door has a roadway in front of it, and residents and <br /> 24 <br /> 25 guests must simply turn off the road into the development, which starts set back from the <br /> 26 road. That must be the case in this instant development and location. The developer must <br /> 27 redraw its development to account for this. <br /> 26 <br /> Appeal of Planning Commission Issuance of PD Permit, Vesting Map and Condo <br /> Permit - 1 Uccelli Boulevard, Redwood City <br />