Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment 2 <br /> 9.A. - Page 9 <br /> August 7, 2014 <br /> Page 2 <br /> the City that resulted in the property becoming subject to tidal influence, it would likely <br /> not create a sovereign property interest in the Ferrari Property. However, it would be <br /> likely that a navigational easement would attach to any submerged lands. <br /> The Use of Arks on Granted Lands <br /> Your second inquiry is whether Arks, which you state are residential uses extending <br /> over the granted lands, would be consistent with the permissible uses of sovereign <br /> lands and the terms of the City's granting statutes. As discussed below, because an <br /> Ark is a private residential use, it is inconsistent with the City's granting statutes and the <br /> common law Public Trust Doctrine. <br /> The City's granting statutes limit the public trust uses of the tidelands to the <br /> "construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays <br /> and other utilities, structures, facilities and appliances necessary or convenient for the <br /> promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation by air as well as by water." <br /> Further, the City's granting statutes limit the uses permissible in leases and franchises <br /> to only those "for wharves and other public uses and purposes ... and for purposes <br /> consistent with the trust upon which said lands are held by the State of California...." <br /> Arks, as private residential structures, are neither necessary nor convenient for the <br /> promotion and accommodation of commerce or navigation. <br /> Additionally, the granting statutes require that any use must be consistent with the <br /> common law Public Trust Doctrine, which is the "trust upon which said lands are held by <br /> the State of California." The seminal case on sovereign lands and the Public Trust <br /> Doctrine is Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387. Traditionally, public <br /> trust uses were limited to water-related commerce, navigation, and fishing. In more <br /> recent years, however, the California Supreme Court has held that the Public Trust uses <br /> may include preservation of lands in their natural state for scientific study, open space, <br /> and wildlife habitat. In contrast, uses that are local, municipal or "neighborhood-serving" <br /> confer no significant benefit to Californians statewide and are generally inconsistent with <br /> the Public Trust Doctrine (City of Long Beach v. Morse (1947) 31 Cal.2d.254). Arks, as <br /> a private residential use, even if water-dependent, are contrary to the permissible uses <br /> under the common law Public Trust Doctrine. They are not a public use, are not one of <br /> the permissible uses identified by the courts, and they do not serve either a regional or <br /> statewide public purpose. <br /> As such, under the granting statutes and the common law Public Trust Doctrine, which <br /> is incorporated by reference into the City' granting statutes, issuing leases for private <br /> residential uses on tidelands would violate the City's duties, obligations and authority as <br /> a trustee for the State. <br /> Enforcement Mechanisms <br /> Your third question inquires what enforcement mechanisms are available to the <br /> Commission when there is an alleged violation of a granting statute. As you are aware, <br />