Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 64 <br /> interest or right of an out-of-state developer,even if it holds an option or other right, is supreme <br /> to the rights of the public in effective, acceptable and proper governance. <br /> The people insist, and reserve the right to appeal to demand, an extended public process that <br /> involves the public as a stakeholder, whether by Study Session(s) or other process. Preliminary <br /> discussions with the Planning Staff indicate that because this project has been around a long time, <br /> and has a history, that there has been sufficient public involvement. However this position is <br /> beyond disingenuous and is unacceptable. Part of that process involved an initiative referendum <br /> to "reject" very similar development by the same developer, and has not been discussed since <br /> 2008, with all intervening proposals having been in the sunshine. Residents demand that <br /> Redwood City not become a City in which the sun no longer shines. <br /> The people also collaterally reserve all arguments based on lack of, or improper,notice, including <br /> without limitation the failure to post notice or properly send notice to all affected residents at <br /> Pete's Harbor notifying of the plan filing, the ARB hearing and the October 16,2012 Planning <br /> Commission Meeting, and respecting the latter event posting incorrect times. Due to such <br /> omissions and errors adequate notice of the applicable hearing may be challenged. <br /> B. General Plan and Developing Inner Harbor Precise Plan: <br /> SPH believes that the General Plan has consistently supported the cultural value of liveaboard <br /> boaters on Smith Slough, Redwood Creek and the inner harbor at Pete's Harbor. <br /> Policies <br /> The General Plan gives significant, material discretion to the Commission and the City Council to <br /> approve, reject or require modifications to proposed development that are not consistent with <br /> important policies stated in the Plan. One such policy is "collaborate with interested stakeholders <br /> to enhance existing floating communities and to establish floating community best practices and <br /> standards".Policy BE-10.2. BE-10.2 also would"allow for a diversity of unique housing types, <br /> including floating homes and live-aboard boats." <br /> Other important policies are to protect, restore and minimize encroachment on environmentally <br /> sensitive land and provide sufficient public access.Policies NR-6.1 and 6.2 describe"several <br /> policies and implementation programs of the New General Plan" to, among other goals, "provide <br /> encouragement of the Bay's responsible use". A number of the goals and policies stated in NR- <br /> 6.1 through 6.4 provide for environmentally sensitive and consistent treatment to restore and <br /> preclude development encroachment on marshlands. Other policies encourage Redwood City to <br /> assist in achieving the goals of BCDC access. <br /> This development eradicates the floating community of liveaboards,encroaches significantly on <br /> the bayfront environment and provides only 2 parking spaces for public access to a narrow <br /> walkway/bike path, with no access to the waterfront use of boating. <br /> Zoning and Land Use <br /> In addition, mixed use commercial zoning CG-R requires some commercial application,not <br /> solely residential.Moreover, the land use designation of the property as Mixed Use Waterfront <br /> (MU-Waterfront) appears in conflict with some statements that the property is actually properly <br /> designated as Mixed Use Marina(MU-Marina). Preliminary research indicates that MU-Marina <br /> use would preclude buildings taller than three(3) stories and not permit 100% residential use. <br /> 5 <br />