AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 62 No public posting was made of any filing in July,August or September, on the property, on the website, in rent bills or otherwise. In mid-September Mrs. Uccelli sent a letter in a separate mailing inviting residents to a coffee on the early morning of September 20, 2012, without mentioning that there was an architectural review board("ARB") public hearing the day before.The September letter also stated that the July letter had advised tenants that a developer had filed plans, which is an untrue statement, as the July letter never mentioned the developer's filing. No notice of public hearing for the ARB meeting was posted at the property, on the website, in rent bills, or otherwise.Two full precious months were lost within which residents and members of the public could obtain and review the proposals, relevant history and impacting issues. On September 20,Mrs. Uccelli, the developer and a city contract employee were present at the meeting,and advised tenants that if the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution on October 16, 2012,eviction notices would be issued promptly and tenants would be given"60 to 45"days notice, with full vacancy expected no later than mid-January 2013.The developer revealed plans to fully shut down the site, apparently with no road access to the state lands. "September 20,2012 breakfast meeting and response" A number of very concerned residents expressed the hardship experienced by boaters in finding local empty slips due to waiting lists occasioned by demand and the 10% BCDC liveaboard cap, and others noted that those that must sell in lieu of relocating would be unable to,or seriously harmed, in the dead of winter when the market for selling boats is at its yearly low. Despite these concerns and lack of notice,Mrs. UcceIli advised residents they would not be allowed more time, that there would be no blanket relocation package, process, or assistance, and that there would "be no community meetings".Attendees present reported a"done deal" communication, and it is noteworthy that an early private communication with the city's contract manager revealed that she had been given extensive information painting the current liveaboards in a negative light. In response to the lack of public notice, lack of process and lack of public involvement SPH "2012" was formed. A Wordpress blog was started with key words "Save Pete's Harbor".A Facebook page was started titled"Friends of Pete's Harbor—Redwood City" with content and postings by supporters, and nearly 150 "Likes" to stop the development. A change.org petition with key words "Pete's Harbor" was started and is gaining on 900 signatures, many of whom are Bay Area residents and San Mateo County voters who know and support residents at Pete's, as well as national and international supporters of the boaters and residents.The comments are touching and revealing, this is an issue that is striking a chord locally and nationally. "1600 supporters in one week" These over 1,000 digital supporters are joined by the very important in-person public expression of opposition—nearly 600 people have signed a hard-copy petition with the same wording as the change.org and Facebook page. Those signing have expressed their desire to slow down, stop and scale back construction at this lands-end site. Many are rolling their eyes, saying"we voted this kind of thing down" when shown the plan drawing. Others are saying"this is how Redwood City is doing it now", meaning working privately with developers and excluding the public until it is too late. Others simply say they want Pete's to stay, that this is irresponsible development, that we need housing inland and not on the bayfront waters edge, and similar comments.The consistent, striking feedback is that people knew about the former development, did not want it, did not have sufficient notice of this development, and do not want it. Many voters are mad at the 3