Editor's Note: This letter was submitted to Patch by the City of Redwood City.
On Oct. 24, 2012, an opinion piece ("Op-Ed: Pete's Harbor Tenants Are Not Anti-Development") was posted on Redwood City-Woodside Patch, concerning the proposed development at Pete's Harbor.
This article contained a number of inaccurate statements about the City's work toward an "Inner Harbor Precise Plan."
The Inner Harbor Precise Plan we are contemplating does not include Pete's Harbor. The area under consideration for this precise plan includes the Docktown Marina, the County Women's Jail facility, a homeless shelter, the City's police headquarters, the planned County Jail, Bair Island Aquatic Center, and several vacant properties owned by the City.
See the map attached to this article in the photos section.
The purpose of the City Council's initial discussion of an Inner Harbor Precise Plan, at their meeting of June 25, 2012, was to provide staff with general guidance as to the desired public process for developing the precise plan for that area.
As a bayside property, Pete's Harbor is considered a stakeholder in the process - but that property does not lie within the boundaries of the contemplated precise plan.
At that meeting, it was stated that it would take at least a year to produce a precise plan. That estimate for completion, as a minimum, still stands.
The June 25, 2012 Inner Harbor Precise Plan staff report, as well as minutes and video from that City Council meeting, are available online (scroll down to the June 25 meeting and select "Agenda," "Minutes," or "Video").
The City is also regularly posting staff reports and other information on the Pete's Harbor proposal at www.redwoodcity.org/petesharbor.
Stay up-to-date on all Pete's Harbor and city government news - 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.
I wonder if the city will address the other concerns raised in the OP-Ed. Displacement of the current residents at a time when all the live-aboard slips in the bay area are occupied due to maximum residency restrictions, and forcing them to sell their homes at a time of year where boats are undervalued. The use of a 10 year old EIR in the development. The lack of transparency on the planning, Lack of inclusion of affordable housing, The 400-500 extra cars on 101 at whipple going north and woodside going south in the morning, as well as increased construction traffic. How about the cost of shoring up the levees over the next 20-50 years? These costs will be incurred disproportionally by residents not living in a flood zone... in short, property tax for all of redwood city will go to protecting a small number of overpriced boxes? What about the insufficient parking? How about the loss of public access to the bay?
Public Access - it will dramatically increase with a 1/3 mile water front trail and a new disability friendly kayak / boating dock for the public. Parking? Spaces increase to over 800. No slips available? Over half have - without formal notice yet - found new homes ALREADY. That's the majority. A survey of 22 local marinas and yacht harbors found space still available. Levies? The new project requires compliance with potential rising sea waters - the existing structures are not flood protected - flooding risk decrease. Traffic? The development opposition claimed there were over 500 residents - if true - no change. Environmental studies? Yes, independent experts recently reviewed. Property tax? Currently $16,500. With the project $2,400,000 in new tax revenue. And 48% goes to our schools. - that's over a million dollars a year for local schools. And starting the project causes the owner to pay about $10 million in impact fees to our community while 2,000 jobs created. You also did not mention that since 2002 all boat live aboard leases inform the tenant that the marinia is for sale, that they prefer no more live aboards but will accept as a favor to the boater as long as they promise to move when asked in exchange for the low rent cost slips that were made available. They are now going back on the word they gave the owner. The fact is the inner harbor at Pete's and the marina property is private. And the proposal is 100% within zoning.
Doing a favor. Slip fees are the going market rate in the Bay Area, and I know because my boat is in a slip in Emeryville. Not a favor. As for space available, that doesn't include liveaboard space. I've spoken to a lot of harbor masters, there are a lack of slips due to the coming America's Cup. Allow me to clarify a few other things. Aaron mentioned 500-600 cars. That's a low ball, closer to 800 cars, not to mention the addition of One Marina traffic. How about Cargill, and you have a carpocalypse on the verge of happening. Whipple, El Camino Real, Seaport, Woodside are already awful. Seems to me a better legacy for Pete Uccelli would be to instead use the Harbor as a waterfront development which included boats and businesses, picnic areas, restaurants, etc. Redwood City would be better served having a waterfront destination considering there aren't many of those this far south. Does progress always have to be a codeword for money? Can't we look at progress as a way of improving the entire community through protecting something of beauty and preserving it for future generations? What legacy does this really leave for Uccelli in 10 or 15 years. No tenant or condo owner will know anything about how special the area their tiny apartment sits on was.
“The fact is the inner harbor at Pete’s and the marina property is private, and the proposal is 100% within zoning.” This means that the outer harbor is not private, is on a commercial lease from the state and everyone knows this, but it has not been taken into account. Second, zoning and land use are distinct, or more properly everyone is referring to the CGR ‘zoning’ as allowing residential, but it also allows commercial. The land use being marina vs. waterfront would entail lower density residences, commercial application (i.e. restaurants, shops) and a commercial marina, which is “open for the public” vs. “privatized luxury slips.” Finally, on this point, the people of California GAVE the private status to Pete by legislation that was only agreed to by all parties BECAUSE of the COMMERCIAL application of the Waterfront Restaurant and publicly available harbor and marina. The people are not allowing the developer, owner and attorneys to confuse “Commercial” and “public access”. We are not duped or fooled.