Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 61 <br /> Although always in private ownership by Peter Uccelli,then Paula Uccelli upon his death in <br /> 2005,the 280 slips have always been subject to readily-available lease by members of the general <br /> public with seaworthy vessels. <br /> "Save Pete's Harbor" <br /> In the late 1970s and early 1980s,residents of Redwood City on the other side of Highway 101 <br /> joined Pete and the residents of Pete's Harbor in a drive to "Save Pete's Harbor"from <br /> reclamation by the California State Lands Commission ("SLC").The SLC initiated an action to <br /> reclaim the land, alleging that Pete did not have full clear title. In a successful public campaign <br /> with "Save Pete's Harbor"bumper stickers being a memory of many local residents,the <br /> California State Legislature stepped in with emergency 1983 legislation, deeding the land to Pete <br /> Uccelli and providing for a lease of the outer harbor, which remains the property of the SLC in <br /> trust for the people of California. The area along Redwood Creek is under the jurisdiction of <br /> Redwood City and in many instances the Army Corps of Engineers.The emergency legislation, <br /> settlement/judgment and related findings of fact and leases extensively refer to the public use and <br /> access as considerations for their actions and provisions. <br /> "Unsuccessful prior development attempts" <br /> Since the early 2000s the Pauls Corporation has had an interest in the land, both figuratively and, <br /> most likely via option or other private docment, literally. The voters rejected big commercial and <br /> residential development in Measure Q in 2004, allowing moderate residential development via <br /> competing Measure W. Although the 2003 ER, that the Council is currently proposing to amend <br /> for current use, mentioned the destruction of liveaboards at Pete's Harbor, the text of Measure Q <br /> and succeeding proposed developments retained liveaboards at Pete's Harbor. It is the <br /> understanding of residents that while Pete was alive, retaining the current liveaboards was a <br /> feature of development at Pete's Harbor.All liveaboards were ejected from the developer's other <br /> "One Marina"site, the slips were destroyed and the Army Corps of Engineers is currently taking <br /> the position that no new slips may be rebuilt.The Pauls Corporation,if successful in expanding <br /> its large development plan to Pete's Harbor, will have totally eradicated public boating from two <br /> formerly very active and vibrant publicly-accessible marinas. <br /> In 2008 due to considerations not specifically known to SPH,but potentially due to the economy <br /> and the Pauls Corporation's desire to focus on Peninsula Park(now One Marina), any plans for <br /> development of Pete's Harbor were removed from the planning process, taken off the public <br /> record, and no discussion of development has occurred since 2008. As a consequence of Measure <br /> Q and no public action since 2008,it has not been the daily experience of residents and voters, <br /> nor the general public,that an extensive public commentary has occurred regarding development <br /> of this lands-end point. In fact,the opposite is true—despite the slightly scaled back nature of the <br /> Pete's Harbor .ortion of the Pauls Co 'oration's current .lans the voters re'ected this t .e of <br /> development and no one has considered any active proposal on it since 2008. <br /> "Current filing and proposal—intentional campaign or unintended unfortunate series of <br /> events?" <br /> In July 2012 Mrs. Uccelli included in rent-bill envelopes a letter stating that there was current <br /> interest in developing the property, but not revealing that a plan filing was imminent.Many <br /> residents who pay their bills on a regular basis by walking in to the office, did not see that <br /> mailing, and no separate mailing was done. Days later the Pauls Corporation filed its proposal. <br /> 2 <br />