.
Feedback

Residents Circulate Petition, Speak Out Against Pete's Harbor Development

On the Planning Commission's agenda tonight - the owner of Pete's Harbor is seeking approval of a new 411-unit waterfront housing community that means many longtime houseboat residents will be forced out.

Once again, Paula Uccelli - owner of Pete's Harbor, founded by her late husband, Pete Uccelli, for whom it is named - is seeking approval by the City to sell the long-beloved harbor and develop it into luxury waterfront housing.

The possibility is worrying the community of houseboat dwellers who have called the harbor their home for quite some time - some dating back to 1958, when Pete Uccelli first founded it.

However, the current residents are vowing not to go quietly. Last week, many of them packed Monday night's City Council meeting, speaking out against Uccelli's proposed development; and tonight, many of them will be back for the Planning Commission meeting, to make their feelings known there as well.

More than one hour of public comments took place during the recent City Council meeting, many made by current harbor residents who fear becoming homeless if the project is approved.

"Pete's Harbor is home to a community of people who work together, laugh and cry together, and provide amazing support to each other," one resident, Gabriel Black, said passionately. "Pete's Harbor truly is a family, and is the strongest family that I have experienced in my lifetime."

Potential drawbacks of the proposed development

Uccelli's proposed plan - designed in partnership with RWC Harbor Communities, which is also currently developing the much-advertised One Marina Homes on the Peninsula - would consist of 411 multi-family waterfront homes, as well as some open space, a clubhouse, and a community pool. Approximately 263 slips will be converted from commercial to private - meaning, mooring would be limited to tenants of the new units.

Also, all existing commercial operations will be forced to cease, such as The Waterfront Restaurant, a small storage space facility, and Mt. Diablo Boat repair services.

The current residents will also be forced to relocate - possibly by as soon as the end of this year, which is coming up fast, they worry.

Some residents and lovers of the harbor are complaining that it seems the proposed development would block access to this treasured local landmark by the public.

"The current proposed development at Pete's Harbor would really, totally 'occupy' this unique geographic location, environment and community," Alison Madden, founder of a local group called Friends of Pete Harbor, which opposes the development, told Patch. "And, of course, it so occupies by totally eviscerating the harbor and marina community that is really a social and cultural institution, and that most feel is a historic landmark."

Madden and other members of the group have been spreading the word about their concerns throughout the community, trying to rally supporters to come to City meetings and speak out against it.

The group also started a petition on the website Change.org, which has nearly 900 signatures so far.

Smaller is still not small enough, many say

It appears Paula Uccelli's plans for a luxury housing development are shrinking with time, but still, many are saying it's not small enough.

Back in 2004, a proposal was made that was significantly larger, featuring nearly 2,000 homes, and towers that were 200 feet tall. However, public opponents got their way by getting a voter referendum on the election ballot that year, and then killing the proposal with 54 percent of voters voting No.

Now, Uccelli has shrunk her latest proposal down to 411 units, but many feel it is still too large and will rob locals of the chance to continue to enjoy the local landmark as they always have.

"Most people don't mind some development, but they want to keep the marina/harbor, and they feel this size of a development is not appropriate," Madden told Patch.

Madden also says, many in her group are angered by how fast the proposal is moving forward, and how little community outreach there has been on the subject.

"What most seems to get under the skin of members of the public that we have been talking to is the lack of notice, process, community engagement and public outreach - all 'buzzwords' that the City uses in its Inner Harbor Precise Plan discussion documents," she told Patch. "And indeed, all buzzwords that any city government should adhere to and prioritize in such an important development."

Many are also concerned that the proposal is riding on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that is more than nine years old, completed back in 2003, when development talks first started to get serious. Opponents of the project question how relevent the findings can still be in today's rapidly-changing environment, particularly when it comes to predictions of sea-level rising.

City planning staff recommends approval of proposal 

The Redwood City Planning Commission's agenda for Tuesday's night's meeting indicates the City's planning department staff is recommending that the Commission approve Uccelli's proposal.

Portions of the meeting are set aside for public comment.

The meeting will take place beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1017 Middlefield Road. For more information, visit the Planning Commission's page on The City's website.

 

PATCH WANTS TO KNOW - What do you think of the proposed housing development at Pete's Harbor? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Stay up-to-date on important city government happenings and housing development news such as this - follow Patch!

Want to share your opinions with the communities of Redwood City and Woodside? Start your own blog here.

 


Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Redwood City-Woodside Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vanessa Castañeda (Editor) May 16, 2013 at 11:35 am
Pamela, are you following a conversation that's taking place on Patch?
Bret Baird May 18, 2013 at 09:05 am
Thank you for posting this. As a teacher who represents 500 teachers, we routinely pay out of ourRead More own pockets to support our students.
Linda Allen April 10, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jennifer, thank you for all your wonderful work on Patch. Life is a journey and you're on yours.Read More It will be an amazing change for you and family. Real estate will definately be cheaper, which is my bigest gripe with rentals in the bay area. I wish you all the happiness you deserve. Linda Allen
Kate Ashley April 5, 2013 at 06:18 pm
Tot ziens en veel geluk Jennifer!
Jacqueline Whittier Kubicka April 5, 2013 at 04:03 pm
Jennifer: I really enjoyed working with you on the story about the Barnes family and Ballet AmericaRead More back in December. Also liked "following you around town" on the other stories you covered. There will be lots of great people and exciting news back east -- not to worry. Best of luck.
Buck Shaw March 31, 2013 at 01:15 pm
So why do you keep voting for bigger Government? Seems the consumers have solved the problemRead More without "It's" help.
Lou Covey, The Local Motive March 31, 2013 at 12:43 pm
This is a much more effective means for dealing with the issue. Legislation is not.
roberta peters March 31, 2013 at 12:26 am
I agree, the public has the right to know what they are eating. It is absurd to be purchasing foodRead More that contains GMOs and not be able to know it is in the food.... why the secret if it is so safe??? I will not shop at any food stores that refuse to provide the public with information on what I am eating or serving to the people I care about. Trader Joes and Whole Foods have my loyalty for having the courage to stand up against the big guys and set an example by doing what is right for the consumer and not folding to pressure from Monsanto, Dupont and the other corporate giants that could care less about our safety and only care about how much money they can rake in.