Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 63 <br /> fast-track process and perceived secrecy, and exclusion of the public from the process.Response <br /> to this petition can be accurately characterized as close to 99% opposed to this development for <br /> people who have stopped to discuss the details. <br /> "Less than one month to prepare for Public Hearing,Research,Advocacy and Appeal" <br /> These 1600 supporters were obtained in a single initial push, with a handful of residents <br /> canvassing the general public downtown and at local Redwood City venues and events over the <br /> course of one week. Since that initial push SPH has been fully consumed with research and <br /> advocacy toward the October 16,2012 meeting,under imperative of raising all appealable issues <br /> should the Resolution pass. <br /> That 1600 supporters so quickly and decisively supported the petition should not go unnoticed, or <br /> disregarded,by the City.Most of the in-person signatures are local Bay Area and San Mateo <br /> County voters who do not want this scale and scope of development across from the protected <br /> open space federal reserve. SPH will continue its public notice drive regardless of the outcome of <br /> the Resolution vote, and may drive toward initiative to impact this development if necessary. <br /> Finally, it should be noted that a number of current residents would be more vocal and active if <br /> not for the owner's community involvement and fear of potential retaliation, including eviction, <br /> harassment and/or blacklisting from other local marinas. There have been actions to support these <br /> fears since residents began organizing into SPH. <br /> Sources of information: <br /> Change.org: http://www.change.org/petitions#search/pete's harbor <br /> Wordpress:http://savepetesharbor.wordpress.com/ <br /> Facebook: https://www.facebook.cone/#!/pages/Friends-of Petes-Harbor-Redwood- <br /> City/272717189513511?fref=ts <br /> Two letters from Pete's Harbor Owner to residents (submitted into the public record as <br /> attachments) <br /> With the above Background in mind, the following points are raised by SPH as grounds for <br /> appeal of the Commission's action should it approve the Resolution on October 16, 2012.Note: <br /> all written statements submitted by speakers during the Public Hearing in either Public Comments <br /> or Agenda speaking are intended to be exhibits to this Memorandum. <br /> A. Sunshine/Process/Governance: <br /> The people reserve for appeal all arguments that can be made based on the sunshine,process and <br /> public access rules, regulations, policies,practices, statutes,ordinances and other sources of law <br /> of Redwood City, San Mateo County and the State of California("Access Laws"). <br /> The people reserve the right to access all documents of the Planning Commission,Planning Staff, <br /> City Council or other City unit that are discoverable under the Access Laws and that pertain to <br /> development at One Uccelli Boulevard, including but not limited to,from 2008 forward. <br /> Based on the text in the Background section above, SPH takes the position that the Commission <br /> and Planning Staff may have compromised the rights of residents and the general public by <br /> potentially engaging in a private process that, whether legal or not,has harmed the public interest. <br /> The Redwood City General Plan includes Ianguage throughout it supporting and requiring the <br /> Planning Commission to invite and make use of public participation hi the planning process. No <br /> 4 <br />