A nice chat with Alison Madden about Pete's Harbor

More facts about Pete's Harbor and development

I had a conversation recently with Alison Madden, the leader of the Save Pete’s Harbor 2012 (SPH12).  It was a lively and civil discussion about my previous post regarding the development of the harbor and the requirement for all boat owners with slips there to vacate by January 1.  We disagreed on many points, but there were several that I could not respond to because I lacked direct knowledge.  I promised to do some research and do a followup post. So here goes.

Development alternatives

Madden and her group do not have any problem with development of the land, but they object to how this development is planned.  What they want is to be allowed to stay at Pete’s Harbor, as they are now, and be included in the overall development.  She stated that she was told by Paula Uccelli’s lawyer, Ted Hannig, that Paula actually received an offer from the Irvine Corporation that was for more money than from Paul Powers, who has had a long history with the Uccellis.  Irvine built The Villas, next to the Uccelli property and said they wanted to do something similar.

Madden assumes that “something similar” would be a plan that would allow the liveaboards to continue at the harbor indefinitely, but checking with Hannig I learned that that is not necessarily an informed assumption because unlike Powers, Irvine provided no indication of what kind of development they would do to Uccelli.  It was strictly a cash offer and her knowledge of what The Villas had to offer.

Unfortunately, Paula never like The Villas and thought the quality of the development was less than what her husband, Pete, wanted to see on their property (and having toured the sample units before the project went up, I have to agree with her).

Other than the Irvine offer, there have been no alternatives.

Insurance issues

The SPH12 group has requested the opportunity to stay by moving to the outer harbor slips while the project was under construction but were told insurance would not be available.  Madden firmly believes this is untrue because she has seen many residential properties being built elsewhere in the midst of construction.  What she apparently doesn’t know is that One Marina boat owners sued KB Homes over dust from their construction site, and the insurance company settled.  According to Hannig, because the boat owners in the area showed themselves to be litigious, no insurance company will insure any other  development project where boats may be involved.

Public access

The SPH12 group considers the marina to be an public access point to the bay.  Fair enough.  But it is an access point primarily for people who can afford to keep expensive personal watercraft moored at the site.  The plan for the development includes a kayak launch that will be, in fact, open to all the public.  So the site will continue to be an access point for bay access, and will be available for people with more affordable equipment.  There will also be slips available to residents of the development, but not for live-aboard boat owners.

Displacing residents

There has been a lot of talk about how many people are being evicted in this process.  Madden points out that if you add up the number of slips that were eliminated when One Marina was developed and the number of slips to be lost at Pete’s Harbor, you get around 500 slips.  But slips are not people.

As of the end of October, there are 43 liveaboard boats at Pete’s Harbor and 61 non-liveaboards.  We’re talking about 100 people who live on boats.  It’s a great lifestyle.  But it is not necessarily a permanent lifestyle, especially when you consider that all the leases at Pete’s Harbor are month to month.  No one is losing their home, just the place where they put their home.  It’s a bummer, but it is part of the consequences for living that lifestyle.  And since August more than half of the people who were living onboard at Pete’s Harbor have found other places to put their boats.  It isn’t easy, but it can be done.


This was another point of discussion.  Madden could not understand how a person committed to sustainability (me) could not be in favor of their lifestyle.  

In the first place, if I had the financial means to live on a yacht, I would.  So it’s not that I don’t think they have a cool life.  If I were in Madden’s place, thinking about sustaining my personal lifestyle, I would probably be doing the same thing.  If I were thinking about the sustainability of my particular neighborhood (other liveaboards), I’d probably be doing the same thing.  But my particular concern is about the sustainability of all of Redwood City.  We had a chance to deal with a lot of that with the Saltworks project, but that’s long gone.  We have to look at smaller opportunities.

Here are the numbers.  Right now, Pete’s Harbor brings in $16,500 annually in property taxes, employs a couple dozen people and houses 100 people.  The Powers project will bring in $10 million in immediate fees to local school districts and the city coffers, and provide $2.4 million in property taxes annually after that.  It will employ 2,000 construction workers during the course of the development, and it will house right around 1,000 people in reality.  That is a sustainable model for that site and for the entire community.

When you talk about sustainability you have to realize that what is sustainable for one person, is not necessarily sustainable for a community of 70,000.

The insults, ORWC and Peninsula Direct Action

This was a particularly sticky part of the conversation.  Madden said she does not endorse their character assassinations of city commissioners, council members, city staff, nor of the insults thrown at Paula Uccelli, her attorney Ted Hannig, and the developer Paul Powers by the members of those organizations. She does however, appreciate the support of James Lee of Occupy Redwood City and Aaron Castle of Peninsula Direct Action, but her organization is not aligned with them and she cannot control what they say and do.  As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Going further, she pointed out that most of the people in her group are not low-income people.  They are, for the most part, professionals with good paying jobs.  She, herself is a corporate attorney for a high-tech firm, which makes many of them targets of groups like ORWC.  They just prefer not to own homes.

In fact, she pointed out, twice, that she has never actually spoke to Paula and bears her no ill will.  She made a point of going to Hannig and apologizing for the individual that called him a liar.

The future of Pete’s Harbor

It comes down to this.  The membership of SPH12 has a lifestyle that they want to continue exactly as is and they expect the city government to step up and protect that way of life.  Fair enough.  Government should be considered a protector of all the people and even a few people if necessary.

What they may have not yet realized is Paula Uccelli wants to retire. She has no one to take over management of the marina, even if there is no development.  No one has come forward with a plan to take over the marina that doesn’t hurt her, or the vision she and Pete have had for it for a long time.

So let’s put it in very clear terms.  Development or not, Pete’s Harbor Marina will close on January 1.  The continued existence of the marina is a non starter.

That brings me to the point of the current leases.  I called Hannig and asked a few questions about the eviction process and learned, in fact, that no notices have yet gone out but that for every lease signed since 2002 there is a clause that reads, “Since the marina is up for sale and no more liveaboards are being admitted, the live-aboard status was granted to you as a favor.”  Tenants signed an agreement with Paula that said “I … agree to leave the slip when this will be required by the marina (with notice from the owner).”

And from my point of view, that’s really what we are talking about.  There are agreements in place.  There has been no lack of notice.  It’s particularly crappy to understand that some people may have entered into those agreements believing that something might happen that would make it all go away. But living in a community means sometimes, you have to make a sacrifice.  Redwood City needs housing development and it needs it now.  Losing some boat slips to make that happen is the price.

The problem is, no one is going to accept that.  SPH12 is already preparing an initiative to stop the development, even after the the marina is long gone.  There will not be a reasoned argument about the issue because politics in this day and age is not about reason.  It’s about name calling and emotion.  I do feel for the people that have to move their boats, but I really feel for Paula Uccelli who has given a lot to this community and will become the target of a lot of unreasoned hatred from some very nasty people in the coming months.

That’s the really sad thing.


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Alison Madden November 14, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Sustainability. Lou, OMG, do the math. We don't want 411 condos here, nor do RWC residents. But what would be sustainble? Maybe 325? Maybe. But the public was never "invited" to enter into the conversation (even though the General Plan says when specific developments are proposed, the public will be involved). The PD permit process normally takes 4 to 6 months, but here less than 3. Knowledge of a filing was hidden for 2 months by the Owner when she sent an early July letter basically saying "don't worry be happy". I can't even tell you how many people are telling me it is the wrong way and overkill. Also I told you I don't even live on a boat yet. I moved down there to look around and buy one. My budget is no more than $40K and there are lots of nice boats for that price. I'm a single working mom with a special needs kid, so I'm one of those "tweeners" who has never owned a land-based home and can't buy one in this economy and geography. However, I have paid rent for over 20 years on other people's properties, including now in a classic Airstream at Pete's until I had the info and knowledge about available boats to buy one. I told you this. But aside from just another assumption and error, how about considerating that we and RWC voters want just enough development here to allow sufficient parking for the residences and a commercial marina.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Alison, we ended our discussion with you not understanding how I could not totally agree with you, so that I state positions that are counter to your position should not be surprising. You also made several statements in our conversation that you had to recant before we finished. That I maybe confused by what you actually said should be understandable. As to your points, you may disagree that insurance can't be obtained, but that doesn't mean they didn't try. It talked to the people that tried and they said it wasn't possible. You may not appreciate their effort but, again, that's a matter of perspective not fact. The quality of a development is also a matter of perspective not fact. The entire argument boils down to one side saying the other didn't do enough to accommodate them. Between the time Pete's Harbor opened and now, the number of slips in Redwood City has grown faster, percentage wise, then the number of land-based homes. You've pointed out several times that there are other places open to boats. That the current residents did not make an effort to move to those sites over the past 10 years is not the fault of the current owner. What Paula could and could not do during her time as owner is debatable. She is not a developer and she has said, many times, over the years, that she did not plan to be a marina manager in her later years. Yes, it is a difficult situation, but it is what it is.
Jackie and Mark November 14, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Lou, up until we moved our boat in September we were indeed residents of Redwood City as we lived on our boat so yes Redwood City did get our tax revenue. I understand that the development will provide a more significant revenue than what we contribute as I am sure would be the case if the developer decided to tear down most neighborhoods in Redwood City. Since Redwood City is so focused on the money it seems that this is a perfect opportunity for them to make lots of it. My main problem with all of this is how boaters have been made out to be sewage dumping freeloaders by many when this is just not reality. I understand that to make boaters out in this light allows them to get what they want (lots of money) but it is wrong and it is being noticed.
Brenda and David November 14, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Lou--if you are speaking for the people of RWC, you should want an open public discourse with the people of RWC about this matter in 2012. America is a fluid society--Americans move, change, their value systems change, the environment we live and work in changes. All reasons for current discussions to take place and priority over those a decade ago. Discussions lead to understanding and cooperation by all. The owner has many rights regarding her property and most certainly to her retirement. These are not disputed by me or any one else. Development is good--this is not disputed. It's my understanding that the land was never *really* on the market but rather there was a relationship between Uccelli and Powers regarding development. I do, quite by coincidence, know of someone who approached Uccelli in the last couple years--but Uccelli wasn't interested. It is Ucelli's right to do as she pleases & there's no requirement to discuss options with other developers. The people of RWC and the boaters of California have rights, as well, that responsibly should be blended with those of the property owner. Non market forces (for example when nepotism or crony-ism are involved) often take things in unexpected directions not in keeping with good business sense or good public policy from the private or public sectors. When there is a public good involved (the commercial marina) it makes sense for there to be active public participation in the process.
Alison Madden November 14, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Sustainability continued. . . The planning staff and commission have a job to implement the entire General Plan, not the utter, outermost, ultimate financial result that can possibly be squeezed out of a property. First, it is not at all certain that the owner/developer/city have a right to shut down the outer harbor. The lease arguably is repudiated by the closure of the commercial, publicly-available outer harbor. Second, there is no public transport down here. No SamTrans bus, no light rail, no street car, no shuttle as previously mentioned here and there. It is too far to walk. Sustainable means residences close to public transport, the El Camino and Woodside Rd. and that's what people want. This is a gargantuan development at the end of an inlet that will be a nightmare in an evacuation if needed. There is already traffic drama (double parked big rigs, people driving one way in the wrong way on the roundabout), the public parking down here is already taken by residents of other housing complexes, there is already the Villas, One Marina and a townhome complex, with more to come. The PC and staff utterly had the discretion to say: 1. this is now a specific development under the General Plan and we should first, include the community rather than hide it from them and second, discuss how the GP says that liveaboards will not be displaced in a new development. and 2. use the 4 to 6 month process with a study session to take into account all RWC residents opinions.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Alison, Redwood City needs 6,000 housing units or plans to build them to stay compliant with federal housing requirements.
Brenda and David November 14, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Thanks Jackie for that opening for us to provide a link to the video we made about liveaboard boaters here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5DwDL8zgSI I am hopeful that this unfortunate situation provides some opportunity for RWC to understand the liveaboard community
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:40 PM
I don't agree with the characterization, either. But in the public discussion I have heard, that is not what has been characterized. That is where the opponents have taken it.
Alison Madden November 14, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Final post on "future". I am so sick of hearing about the "favor" clause. First, Mr. Hannig must have been in Hawaii or in law school when that was written and implemented by Pete. There are no favors in lease law. You either have a lease or not. Further, it was used in 2002 before Measure Q was even proposed, and has a "condition precedent" of "since no more liveaboards are being admitted." However, it fails because for 10 years liveaboards were admitted. In addition, 25% of the boaters don't even have this clause and I certainly never saw it b/c I had a land lease and storage. One sharp safety professional never saw his because it is a single standalone clause on the back of the final page of the lease and they never had him sign his. In any event Pete used it to protect himself for the 2003/04 development, but note "liveaboards would have stayed in Marina Shores". So whether Measure Q passed or not, they would have stayed. And there has been NO public discussion since, except the key 2010 General Plan statements that say there is no anticipation that liveaboards would be ejected for new development. Hello? Also no one wants to hurt Paula, why would she not have involved tenants in a proposal to lease the outer harbor and not interfere with development. If there wer enough parking we'd all be home by now. This is about parking and NIMBYism (reverse) and not wanting "them" (actually that's "us" if you follow) in teh backyard of a luxury condo development. She never tried.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Never said I was speaking for all of Redwood City. That's your characterization of my remarks. I am one person with an opinion different from you. And I am not alone in my opinion. Yes there was a special relationship between Paula and Paul Powers. Part of that was because Powers presented a full concept while other presented a check. When a municipality wants to sell a piece of property, it has to go through a lengthy process with a lot of due diligence. Private property owners do not. Yet the potential to sell the property has been around for a long time. There were not a lot of takers, primarily because of the anti-growth forces in Redwood City. And as far as I can tell, all recognized rights have been addressed in the process. Others may have a different view as to how that should go, but that is a matter of opinion.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:46 PM
As far as I can tell from reading the General Plan, everything in this plan fits.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:47 PM
And according to the agreements on file at Pete's Harbor, liveaboards have always been a temporary accommodation. Docktown is a completely different situation.
Brenda and David November 14, 2012 at 09:50 PM
"I don't agree with the characterization, either. But in the public discussion I have heard, that is not what has been characterized. That is where the opponents have taken it." Uccelli's lawyer took it there. I believe he is a "proponent" if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure that there are any "opponents" of development here--only people who want responsible development. Lou, I'd love to talk with you about liveaboard boaters and cruisers. Your own statements in this blog make me realize that you don't seem to understand the value of this community, and the larger boating community, to Redwood City.
Alison Madden November 14, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Finally I'm not sure what hatred you are talking about. I think that Mrs. Uccelli's misleading notice in July was reprehensible, as have many of Mr. Hannig's statements and playing the dark card of sewage. But I don't hate her. I am baffled by people who talk about her empathy and community building but don't point out how she did not involve her "family" or tell them early enough to have any feeling of input or participation. The renters of Pete's have also been part of this equation for decades, making her a wealthy person who has the money to contribute to politicians and organizations that do good. This is not about Paula's popularity or desire to retire. This is about probably 75 fewer condos to preserve enough parking for a commercial marina with a historic past. Finally, you should disclose that Paula sent an unsolicited contribution of $500 to your organization although you do not accept contributions from outside sources. I wish you the best in continuing to be part of the feedback loop for this outdated conversation. The rest of the Peninsula has moved on to the real issues and not these red herrings pulled out in the first hearings on this matter. If we need an initiative to get the right thing, instead of them coming to the table, so be it. sorry. (not)
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 09:58 PM
I'm always open to discussions. Prefer face to face, though. While I enjoyed talking to Alison, is was over the phone and she was obviously distracted by other things that she was doing concurrently.
Alison Madden November 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Alison, Redwood City needs 6,000 housing units or plans to build them to stay compliant with federal housing requirements. Lou I have read the GP, there are many properties slated and identified for development. We need them on El Camino, Woodside Road and other neighborhoods. We don't need 411 in lieu of 325 here. If you did not displace 86 but build 325 then you are still net positive. It is not true that liveaboards have always been temporary we've been through this. In 2002 (fifty years after founding of Pete's) for the first time Pete included this clause, but it's been vitiated by "continuing to admit liveaboards by the dozens and hundreds since then). Sheesh. Feedback loop. That's all you are. Also we didn't end with the status of me not liking that you did not agree with everything I said. Our conversation was a black hole of spin. Everything I said you immediately had the Uccelli/Hannig spin. What I did say is that I can't wrap my mind around how our group and a sustainability proponent didn't agree on a lot of the issues (not all). Finally RWC is not under an imminent state or federal lack of certification and potential action about 6000 units. The sky is not falling. Final final and I'm signing off now, the 2010 GP talks about keeping Pete's - how does that "fit"?
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Alison, never said you were saying hateful things. There are people surrounding you, as we discussed, who are. Regarding "historic past" I have an amusing anecdote about that. I was sitting t the base of Blarney Castle in Ireland, listening to some music and talking with locals. One asked me what the biggest difference between the US and Ireland was. I looked up at the castle, more than 1,000 years old and quite impressive, and said, "In Palo Alto, a community just south of where I live, the city council is considering an ordinance that would confer historic status on any building more than 50 years old." He looked at me, blinked twice, and then burst out laughing.
Brenda and David November 14, 2012 at 10:42 PM
quote Lou: "Alison, never said you were saying hateful things. There are people surrounding you, as we discussed, who are. " Please don't go down that unkind path. There are very few people "surrounding" Alison and all of them are sincere people who are not saying hateful things. It is my observation that ALL the people who are part of SPH2012 and have been supporters of SPH2012 are civic-minded and RWC is very lucky to have such people here. Please do not disparage the character or actions of these supporters of SPH2012 whether it is by individual or other known group association. I hope that Redwood City will be thankful that these people care enough to set aside thoughts of personal gain or harm that may come to them and they raise the 'elephant in the room' questions that others will not in public discussion. These things are important to the people of RWC and California. Count your luck--or if you chose--count your blessings that you have these people among you who take their civic duty seriously.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM
And I never said the people of SPH2012 were those people. In our conversation, Alison admitted that there were people who spoke out of turn and used inappropriate language against Paula Uccelli and he friends. She disavowed what they said but appreciated their support.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 11:46 PM
There are many civic minded people in Redwood City. There is also a very small, but active group of people that take every opportunity to smear the name of civic minded people whose only fault is that the stand for an opinion different from them. Many of those people do not live in Redwood City. They are here only to promote a specific agenda that really has no concern with the welfare of this city.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 14, 2012 at 11:51 PM
I think one thing is very clear in all of this. The Uccelli's should never have allowed liveaboard status at the marina. That was a big mistake.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive November 15, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Awesome. That is not an argument and it is personally offensive. Well done. Now I know who you are.
Lee Callister December 09, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Hi Lou Being the honest broker that you are I know you will be interested in knowing that the State Lands Commission has just established that the owners of Pete's Harbor have never paid any of the required rents on the outer harbor they lease from the State, and are now in default in the amount of over $430,000 in payments and penalties. (While collecting millions renting out the slips in the harbor to boaters) At the commission meeting last week they asked Ted Hannig for an explanation about that, as well as why the developers need to close down the Harbor to develop the land, and why there couldn't be a comprise that keeps the Marina open to the public, including the liveaboards. Here is the video showing the relevant part the meeting which I am sure you will want to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AurwrVW_C0g&feature=youtu.be
Lou Covey, The Local Motive December 09, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Thanks, Lee. I think it's fascinating that the lease payments to the state currently has the payments sitting in a fire safe somewhere in the State Lands Commission office because no one in the state knows what to do with the money or where that safe is. What it sounds like is Uccelli and the developer are between a rock and a hard place. They cannot compromise with the tenants because of the legal restrictions placed on them by local and state requirements, and the tenants are not willing to compromise to help. Seems like the commission is in a good place to broker that compromise, but they lack the organization to do so.
Lee Callister December 10, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Lou, I think you may have misunderstood the comments by both Hannig and the Commissioners. Don't know why you assume payments are in a safe somewhere, when Hanning said the money was still "in Ucelli's bank account". An obviously skeptical Commission said they have no record of any attempts to reach them about them the payments, and asked for names, dates, and any other proof. The state has sent a letter of default to Hannig and the Ucelli's telling them they have until mid-January to come up with the money or the lease will be terminated. Assuming the payments are made, I see no impediment to Powers negotiating with the boaters over the future of the outer harbor. Commissioner Alan Gordon said that was his preferred solution. So it's now in Powers' interest to do that . The city attorney's office has said the entire project will die if the SLC does not bless the project . (On the record in response to a question at the City Council meeting or Planning Commission mtg. I don't remember which.) Alternately the Pete's community are asking that they are granted status to take the Outer Harbor lease. Again note that the boaters are NOT trying to block the development.. Just the provisions forcing them to leave rather than coexist with the new project.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive December 13, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Lee, from back to front. 3. The boaters have filed an appeal against the project, due to be heard mid January. That is an attempt to block the development. 2. I agree that Paul Powers may have to change his plans and negotiate separately with the state. Negotiating with the boaters is an entirely different issue. The current lease holder has decided to shutter her business. The lease agreements signed for the past decade have indicated the property was for sale and tenancy was month to month. More than legally adequate time has been given for the boaters to vacate the facilities. By the time the appeal is heard, the marina will be closed. Now, the state may decide to take over the marina and run it themselves, but there will be no Pete's Harbor. it might be possible that the current residents could apply to take over the lease themselves. Lots might happen. 1. There is a $20,000 check floating around out there with the state's name on it, according to Hannig. I have had no reason to doubt what he says. Based on my experience with the state, I can fully believe that the bureaucracy let the whole thing slip through the cracks. What stood out to me that the state, in the three decades this relationship has existed, only recently sent a demand letter for the full amount. That is all they could say they have done in an attempt to collect the money. Would that my creditors would wait 28 years to send a bill. I've asked to see Hannig's records
Sarah Adams March 12, 2013 at 02:54 PM
Why didn't the tenant apply to take over the lease? The marina is now closed even though the owner paid the back rent to the state. Why pay for something you are closing down?
Lou Covey, The Local Motive March 12, 2013 at 04:01 PM
Sarah, the previous owner has applied to transfer the state lease to the new owner of the property. Before that can be done, the lease had to be current.
Lee Callister March 12, 2013 at 04:44 PM
The latest news is that on 2/18 Paul Powers filed a single page document with the city which says the plan is now to keep the big lease portion of the outer harbor a commercial/public marina. Not surprising, as it was clear the State Lands Commission was not going to allow them to take it private.
Alison Madden March 12, 2013 at 06:43 PM
Lee, yes, indeed, they do know after several communications from SLC (including the attorney in court at the TRO and the later Kato letter) that the SLC desires the outer harbor to be public &commercial for recreational boating. What we need is two things: the consent lease (former Leslie Salt lease that didn't have to be given to Pete, it was not in his cloudy title to my understanding); and 2. a commitment to liveaboards. There is an app on file at SLC by Pauls re: the consent/Leslie Salt (aka the "small lease" that requires consent to transfer) and my understanding is that docks would be destroyed to allow for public kayak use. But public kayak use now exists alongside the docks and I hope the SLC does NOT allow destruction, DOES transfer and DOES require that liveaboards remain. Although residence on public trust isn't typical for inland properties, a floating community serves 4 public trust uses: commercial, recreational, fishing and navigation, when it is a dynamic and fluid community, which can happen. We hope RWC does the right thing, and honors its General Plan, to have condos and liveaboards. And we hope SLC recognizes that a BMR community (which all liveaboard boating basically is, even with nice boats) at a historic site that is allegedly protected by the General Plan, is the right way to go. I have asked SLC to transfer the small lease only on the condition that it contain at least 26 liveabords (10% of the EIR permitted 263 slips that were once at Pete's).


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »