UPDATE, 12:52 P.M.: The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office sent an e-mail to Patch indicating they would not be involved in the eviction of any tenants of the harbor.
"We are not involved in today's eviction, nor does our civil bureau respond out to act as 'muscle' should things get out of hand the way it seems like is being implied," said Detective Rebecca Rosenblatt. "The harbor itself is Redwood City PD's jurisdiction, and any involvement from our civil bureau would only be on direction from a court order, which there isnt one."
--------------------------------------
Today is Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013 - and though that may be an ordinary day for most of us, it is a day filled with panic for many remaining tenants at Pete's Harbor in Redwood City.
Today is eviction day, as surviving Pete's Harbor owner Paula Uccelli served her tenants with eviction notices recently, despite the fact that the sale to and potential development of her property by Colorado-based developer Pauls Corporation has not been given a definitive green light, as an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval is still on the table, and the future of Uccelli's lease on the outer harbor is still in question with the State Lands Commission (SLC).
However, despite the fact that many tenants say they are fearful of what harbor management will do to them if they are still on the premises after the deadline of midnight tonight, many residents say, they have no choice, and couldn't leave even if they wanted to.
Paul Supplee, who has been a live-aboard for 12 years at Pete's Harbor, says his boat is in no condition to move, though he has already secured a new slip at a marina in Marin. Three months ago, when it became clear he would most likely be evicted from Pete's Harbor, he began shopping for a new boat to move into. However, winter is not boating season, and therefore is not a time when anyone is putting their boats up for sale, he said.
It took him three long months, but he recently found a boat for sale that meets his live-aboard needs in Stockton. But Supplee said the boat needs a few replacement parts, and won't be ready for him to take delivery of for at least another month.
"So, I can't leave now. I'm probably going to have to be here for at least another few weeks," Supplee said.
Supplee is worried because he, like many others, has been told to his face by Uccelli's harbor manager, Giorgio Garilli, that if he is not out by midnight tonight, the Sheriff will come and "seize" or "chain up" his boat.
"If that happens, I'll be homeless," he said, as there is nothing he can do to speed up delivery of his new live-aboard boat.
Supplee says all this is very upsetting and frustrating to him, as he is a tenant of the outer harbor, which is owned by the state and not Uccelli. He said, he sees no reason why the tenants have to be out so quickly, or why Uccelli can't sympathize with tenants that are trying to leave but just can't quite be out by the 15th for various reasons.
"It doesn't make sense, because [the development] plans aren't even approved yet, so they don't need to kick everyone out now. So it's just not right," he said. "It will be months before they'll have the approvals they need to get started."
"Plus, the outer harbor where I live, this is public trust land, that belongs to the state of California - to you, and me, and everyone else," he added. "Paula should be able to do whatever she wants with the inner harbor and I wish her the best, but they're trying to treat the outer harbor like their own property that they can do whatever they want with, and that I object to."
As for the fact that he said he is forced to stay there longer despite his eviction notice, Supplee said, "I will do whatever the court tells me to do, but I won't have a place to live until my new boat is ready to move into, so I'll probably be here at least until the 24th, possibly longer."
For live-aboard resident Buckley Stone, who has lived at the harbor for 20 years, the recent controversy over the harbor's sale and potential development has cost him a longtime friend - Paula Uccelli herself.
When Stone first moved into Pete's Harbor, he had a lucrative job that kept him on the move roughly 25 days out of the month. He said, it made no sense for him to pay rent on an apartment he was never in, so the live-aboard lifestyle fit him perfectly.
Then, sadly, in the 1970s, he developed cancer - and then, even more sadly, he contracted Hepatitis C from the injections from his cancer treatments, which was discovered by his doctors around 2001.
Stone said, Paula Uccelli was always nice and gracious to him, and even a few times let him skip his rent payments when he was in the thick of chemotherapy treatments. Stone said, Pete and Paula were even guests at his wedding.
Now, everything has changed.
"After Sept 20 [when she announced she was planning to sell the harbor], the whole relationship between Paula and I changed," Stone said. "Their whole attitude toward us changed, to something like we were freeloaders who felt entitled to be here. Since then, we've been used, abused and discarded."
Stone said, he is trying to get his boat in order so that he can move, and he has been clearing out his storage lockers at the harbor of his possessions. His brother, Chris Stone, is coming up from Lemoore, about 20 miles south of Fresno, to help him move today, but he is unsure if he will be ready to leave in time.
For Buckley, though, leaving is a lot scarier than just worrying about honoring his eviction notice - Buckley receives regular healthcare from the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital. His compromised immune system means he has to come in for treatments sometimes as often as twice a week.
Today, even, while he tries to prepare to leave the harbor, Buckley is sick with an upper respiratory infection that the VA Hospital is trying to help him treat with antibiotics, though his delicate immune system has a hard time fighting such an infection.
Moving in the thick of winter is even harder on his health, not to mention dangerous weather for sailing, he said.
"It's the middle of winter, for goodness' sake," he said. "You don't take your boat across the ocean in the middle of winter. It's dangerous."
Buckley said he has felt harassed by Garilli the harbor manager.
"He has been yelling at me, telling me my boat looks ugly and that I need to get out of here," he said. "When I see him, he yells at me, 'Why aren't you gone yet?'" Stone said, even though the eviction date of Jan. 15 had not come yet.
Stone said he is also worried about some safety issues he has seen around the harbor lately.
Stone said the harbor management has all of a sudden started padlocking the electrical breaker boxes that supply power to the boats recently. So, if the power goes out at night - which he says is very possible considering how cold it gets on the boats at night in winter, leading many to run their heaters for long periods of time - they can't go reset the breakers like they have always done in the past.
This could be dangerous not only because of the cold temperatures, which can get down to around 28 degrees sometimes, but because he knows one tenant who needs power for an oxygen tank, and another who is diabetic and must refrigerate his insulin, neither of which they can do without power.
Stone has spoken to the press a few times about the situation at Pete's Harbor, and he still holds out hope that everything will work out. But he says, this is never a fight he imagined finding himself in the middle of.
"I'm not trying to cause trouble, and I certainly never wanted to be an activist," he said.
Leslie Webster, another live-aboard tenant, said she has seen other concerns around the harbor lately, particularly with security.
These days, a large portion of tenants have already left the harbor, and she said, that leaves the several that remain without their built-in security system - each other.
"When there's a lot of boats in a marina, there's increased safety because someone's always around to keep an eye on things. But right now it's so empty," she said.
Webster said she knows fellow tenants in boats, trucks and trailers who have had their units vandalized and belongings stolen.
"This is not a great place to be right now," she said.
James Lee, who has many friends who live at the harbor, said he has heard scary stories from more than a few of them as well.
"They have told me about multiple incidences of theft, scavengers, and people they've never seen before driving and walking through the harbor late at night," Lee told Patch.
Lee said he thinks it is more likely that those unwanted visitors are the ones responsible for recent threats and vandalism committed against Uccelli, than it was a tenant or a member of the groups Occupy Redwood City or Save Pete's Harbor - particularly since Uccelli's home is at the harbor as well, so she is subject to the same crimes as the tenants.
Webster, a member of Save Pete's Harbor, agreed.
"I am positive it was no one in our organization [that committed any of those acts]. We have always been fair and forward," she said.
Uccelli and spokesperson send out eviction-day statement
As Patch prepared to publish this story, a last-minute statement was sent out by Paula Uccelli's spokesperson, Adam Alberti of Singer Media.
The statement said Pete's Harbor staff was making themselves "available until close of business tonight to help tenants peacefully relocate their yachts, boats and RVs to new facilities," and that, "on a case-by-case basis, special arrangements have been made for boat owners who have asked Pete’s Harbor for extra time to move their boats."
However, several tenants, such as those interviewed for this article, have told Patch that they asked for extra time and were told a firm "no" by harbor manager Giorgio Garilli.
The statement said, though, "Tenants who have not sought help from harbor staff are encouraged to do so. Staff will be on hand all day to help as needed."
Paula Uccelli included a personal statement of her own, as well.
"We have spent many wonderful years with our tenants, and I am hopeful that they will respect the Harbor and respect the great legacy of my late husband Pete Uccelli on their final day with us," it said. "We encourage any tenant who needs help to please ask. We will do our best to help facilitate a smooth transition to their vessel’s new home."
Patch will continue to follow this story.
Stay informed on the latest news from your local neighborhood - follow Patch!
Sign up for Redwood City-Woodside Patch’s daily newsletter
"Like” us on Facebook
"Follow” us on Twitter
Want to share your opinions with the communities of Redwood City and Woodside? Start your own blog here.
What I would like to see is the SPH people put their efforts into presenting an option to what is currently on the table, so we have something real to debate and not just cast personal aspersions without basis in reality.
In August there were 88 live aboard boats at the harbor and 78 non-liveaboards, which is when the unofficial notice went out. By October 30 there were 43 liveaboards and 61 non-liveaboards. These people knew that the marina was closing and made other plans. That tells me that if someone at the marina didn't know about this action, they just weren't paying attention. It also tells me that the harbor gave more notice to residents then I got as a renter. But I didn't have people putting on fundraisers or protests on my behalf or sending letters to the editor all the was from the UK. You doubt that Paula is truthful when she says she didn't know where to send the money for the state lease. Well I'll give you this much, if it is reasonable that you didn't know this was coming, then it's reasonable to assume that Paula didn't know where to send the money.
I imagine it would be nice for some people to preserve Pete's Harbor. I've gone out there often for lunch and have enjoyed the view, but only from the restaurant. As a non-boat owner, however, I really don't belong there. From what I see of the developer's plans public access will be significantly increased even though the harbor will be private for the most part. i don't think that is set in stone, though. The number of boat slips in Redwood City has grown faster than the number of homes since Pete's was created and I don't begrudge any of that. But the reality is that no one has come forward publicly with a plan to save Pete's Harbor as a public facility and Paula doesn't want to continue. As the boaters have said, this is not the right time to close the facility, and in that spirit, I'd like to propose that this is the wrong time to start looking for an alternative. That should have been done after Measure Q stopped the last development. That's when the Uccelli's made it known they wanted out of the harbor business. That's when the SLC should have been approached with an alternative to public access.
"But I didn't have people putting on fundraisers or protests on my behalf or sending letters to the editor all the was from the UK." I'm a California resident. I first moved to the Bay Area in the mid 90's. I pay taxes in the Bay Area. I spend money there. We're only in the UK for 6 months, so I still have a vested interest in what happens in CA and my community. Why don't I simply have the right to "protest" something I don't agree with with all the fervour you've had on these comment boards for months? Why can't I be against this development because I simply don't agree with it? Why do you have to chalk it up to some perceived animus towards someone I don't even know? I fault Paula and her group for not being prepared for this. They handled this whole thing poorly. That's just a fact and I would think that someone like you who specializes in corporate communications would at least admit to that fact. Stop making this out as if I'm some agent with a financial motive. That would be the PR people she's hired. I'm just a concerned citizen.
There are long waiting lists and limited liveaboard slips, especially in the South Bay area. It's winter. It's the Americas Cup. This from you is annoying: " i find it hard to believe that you can say things about her now, when you admit that you don't know her, even though you did business with her. " Please find one single thing I have said personally against Paula...one thing that isn't true. I never did business with Paula, because I almost never saw her. My checks went directly to the harbormaster or were sent in the mail. I have only spoken here about what I've personally experienced (of which there are dozens of witnesses), and my own research which is documented fact that anyone can google. You try to turn this around to make it as if I have some personal issue with her, when I've stated again and again, I do not agree with the proposal to privatize the marina, and I do not like the way they handled this whole process. I don't suggest you try to color me as some operative who hates poor old widows. I've been around the "online block" a few times.
I also don't have infinite time to post on this so I'll just finalize with this. You won't find anything I've written regarding this situation to be untruthful or deliberately hurtful. I've simply written about facts and experiences that I know of and yes, they don't paint a great picture. That's no fault of mine. Yes, I think there are a lot of suspicious things happening. Yes, I think they did a terrible job managing this, which is why they currently are having the trouble they have. Yes, I disagree with this development for many reasons including a critical one in the very near future, sea level in the bay. It will only take one tide/storm to do untold damage to those condos. And yes I'm against privatizing the marina. This doesn't make me an operative. This doesn't make this personal no matter how hard anyone tries to spin it. And this is not my first rodeo, so I'd be careful anyone trying to spin my statements or question my motives. I'm sure Paula is a lovely person. She's done a lot of good in the community. She's also been called a powerful political operative many times in publications she appears in. She's donated a lot of money to causes and candidates. I didn't have anything to do with any of that. I'm not spinning that, it's just a fact. Not every person has some ulterior motive Lou and including myself there are a lot of people who are passionate about this for similar reasons. It's not personal, but I can only really speak for myself.
I try to answer all your queries regarding the so called "personal" reasons behind my opposition to this development, but every time I present you with facts, you don't really answer them. There's some careful dodging going on. I know you are friends with these folks, so you may not want to answer, but I'll present it once more. Fact: Uccelli and Hannig have multiple ties to Planning Commission members and the City Council. They've both donated considerable sums (thousands more than most people donate) to their campaigns. Hannig even represented at least one as a client. These relationships go back years and years. Do you not in any bit find that to be a conflict of interest in any way? Here's a copy of the incomplete diagram I've been working on (more connections to come): http://www.flickr.com/photos/54131547@N00/8401821750/sizes/l/in/photostream/ Hard to follow ain't it? In another comment post about the Cargill development you said: "Considering that Cohen and Fergusson receive campaign contributions from the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, on organization that opposes the development, maybe they should have recused themselves from voting on the council's condemnation of the only plan proposed for restoring wetlands on that spot." So you do see connections between contributions and votes, except in this particular case? More...
Fact: The plans for the marina development were submitted last summer, and yet Uccelli had no actual plan in place to help tenants. The helpful website she launched wasn't launched until about two weeks from eviction. Do you not agree that more could have been done in preparation? Fact: Unless you don't believe in climate change and rising sea levels and in case you haven't been at the marina during a spring tide (not the season), you have no idea how high the water level gets. I've seen high tides almost enter the parking lot. Combine this tide with a severe rain and what would you get? The water has nowhere to go. That means unless they significantly raise these buildings (not likely possible), the first flood is going to cause huge damage and costs that may seriously affect Redwood City. Boats…float. You don't see this as a potential problem that deserves further looking into other than a rubber stamp approval? More...
Fact: You say no one has presented an alternative plan for the development. Well many of us have suggested other ideas, but it's a bit hard to put forth a plan when the current owner has already sold the land and the current developer has the City's full unanimous support. The only option left to anyone right now is the option of the outer docks remaining public and not private. That's been stated time and time again and I see no reason, Lou, why it can't remain as it is co-existing with the current development plans. The state could issue that lease to a co-op which could in turn run those docks independent of the Pauls development. Do you support that possibility? I mean what changes? Unless of course they don't want "undesirable" people at their fancy new development. More...
Fact: There are other alternative developments that could happen to the marina, like the development of an actual waterfront destination. How about something more akin to a destination with businesses that bring people from around the area to Redwood City's waterfront? Restaurants, shops, walking paths, better public access. These things could also raise a lot of tax revenue for the city and bring in visitors from around the area to enjoy the waterfront. Would you support such a development? More...
I think you have many more personal reasons for supporting this development that has nothing to do with being a paid shill. I never claimed you were, although I have pointed out you are involved in corporate communications/PR work. That's a fact. You are a life long resident of Redwood City, I haven't been. You know these people and they are friends of yours. I expect you to feel passionate about this. I don't fault you for that. I am passionate for different reasons, stated above, but not one single aspect of this is personal towards Uccelli or Hannig. I don't know them. I haven't attacked them personally or said anything untrue. And honestly, both Uccelli and Hannig support causes I care about and I applaud them for that. I'd even donate to their causes if they asked. That doesn't mean I can't have an intelligent and reasoned opposition to this development. I have that right! Do I have friends who are still there or are fighting this. Absolutely. But my reasons of opposition are my own and they have nothing to do with any personal animosity towards people I don't even know. I simply ask you to answer my questions above in a reasoned manner, because I've only presented facts that can be answered with an intelligent opinion.
I want to stress again that while I disagree with many aspects of this development, and I do question a lot of statements coming from the other camp, this is not any more personal with me than when Hannig sues Redwood City. Yes, I care about the city...I loved living there and I'd love to come back and keep spending lots of money (although I have nowhere to put my boat), but I also care about the long term affects of shutting down this marina and building a large development on a piece of land that is one natural disaster away from a catastrophe. Meanwhile Pauls will be long gone with their money and the citizens of RWC will be left to pick up the pieces. I hate losing another marina, but I can't imagine how awful this could be if those condos/apartments face a natural or other disaster. And, I can't imagine the impact this development could have while under construction to the wetlands not 100 yards away. This deserves more than an old environmental impact report and a unanimous vote, don't you think? Can't we agree this is going a bit too fast? You are the sustainable RWC guy, right?
1. Paula did more for her tenants than any other landlord I have seen done. Fact: Paula did help people to move going all the way back to September. I talked to a few of them. Could more have been done? Sure. More can always be done. She could have taken on the repairs of everyone's boats personally. She would still get raked over the coals for evicting them. No matter what is done, more can be done. That's not an argument.
And just to be clear, I never stated anything linking you to any public official or any financial contributions to any public official. As for Paula helping tenants...I've heard great things about the Uccelli's in the past and of Paula herself. I wouldn't dare besmirch that. My point was that they were poorly prepared for their announcement to the tenants and should have had things ready at that meeting and not release some website two weeks before the eviction. I was there for that September meeting and I have to admit being personally offended at not being straight with us up front, and instead making us sit through what felt like a timeshare pitch. That...was obnoxious. It should have been simply an announcement and some immediate resources in place to help people move quickly and efficiently at that moment. That said...I still don't agree with the outer harbor being privatized. That's my opinion. As for payoff "slurs," I've only stated facts regarding contributions to local officials and how that looks. It looks suspicious. Doesn't matter if it had no impact, it matters how it appears to the public.
As the BCDC said...there is room for a compromise here, and I'm certain the boaters are open to one, but I don't hear any talk of compromise from the other side. This could all go away with a simple discussion.