AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 274 Natwithsta��ding tl�at the SLC did not convey any�articular position.and is i� i�formatian-�;ath�ring phase, there did appear to be conce�'��hati � hi�h visibility praperty, formerly tl�e subject of a settl�ment and cttrren�ly under lease, is being devela�ed fc�r private luxury acc�ss. At a n�it�zrt�.utn, the Commissian should wait untii the S�.0 has hac�an oppo�tu�aity�or re�iew a��d analysis of tl�e situation. The documents that must lle ohtained and r�viewec�(by SPH and�zkely alsa by the SLC) are: • Tlae en�ire Cou��ty af San Mateo Case�le�o� SLC vs. Ucc�lli and coLU-�terclaaa��, • The original p�teni eleeds wherein 5LC deetied the overfEowed and swampland to the original record titleholders(as the r�servatiolls, if any, f�flwed witt�the property); • The legislative llistory unc�erlyir�g the Chap. 447 Secs I tlaxougl� 7 11et of 1983 t�at was filed wit�the Secre�ary of�tate J�ly 2�, 1983 {t�e"Aet"); • The Act iiself, • The Settle�ne��t/Judgment entered pursua��t to tl��Act; � The two leases�c�outcr harbor SLC lat�d entered into pursuant€o the Act; • The Findings of Fact enterect iilto pursuai�t to tlse Acf; • Original Surv�ys a��d a�urvey e��tered inta pursuant to the Aet. Important c�uestions are presented by the�'la��aing Con��nission's li��tly-�sserted ass�mption tha!the lease� are fully and fr�ely transferable for a private luxury ltousing project. The Act speci�cally stated.�hat it was "to clarify anct protect lhe public interest in certain la��.ds wlaic�� laave been develaped for inarina��rposes within ihe Caur�ty of San Mateo,"(Sec. 7), and referr�d extensively thraughout the Act to "publ.ic"us�, l�enefit and access. The purpose for the legislature steppin�in at tl�e ti.me was ta assist Peter Uccelli in clarifying title rights to tl�e land�ortio�� of Pete's.Harbor, iaotably a restat�rant, marana, boat launchiug ramp and baat repaiz' facility. The Act provides tl�at by virtue of the developn�ent activities, "Pete's Harbar has been accessihle to the pubIic as a marina and harbe�r facilaty and the public��as�ade su�stantial beneficial use of th[�] lands," and that, "absent the[se] actions . . . they wauld not be suitable for such access by the public as a marina and harE�or facility." {Sec. 2(�j) The Act was specifical�y e��acted to"resolv�this co��troversy in a�air,jt�st, ar�d ec�uitalale man�ier which will protect the right of tt�e public within the navigable waters of tEsis state. . . ." {Sec. 2{�)). Notably, the Act gave permissian ta place a be��, and to enter inta sam�repairs, maintenar�ee and irtaprovements eansistent witl�use as a marina. (Sees. 3(b}(4)-(6)). The SLC Iand was specifically"[to] be leased t'or the p�rpose of mair�taiz�iztg r�arina and harbor facilities,"{Sec. 3(�)(5)}, "to clarify and prot�ct the public infierest in [these] certai�� ands wl�ich have be�n developed for maz'ina�au�poses." (Sec. 7j T�ae le�islative history and record is absolutely a�pIicable�o the Act. The Act routi�aely rcf�rs to the pubIic irtterest and contains provisions and directiazzs only consist�nt with intent that change from public access suppar�s. Tl�e peaple at a tninilnurtt need a rttonth to gather, analyze and prepare legal arg�:m�nts for ultimate decision, if necessary, by a court for a preli�naz�ary iz�jttnetion, The stakes are tflo high and the balance of Y�arms toa weigl�ted against the liveahoard tenants for any private or publicly supparted actzdn ta occur to evict the�n when im�ortant statutory questians ar� at p1ay. As l�no�vn by many, tF�e standard for preliminary inju�lction weighs the likelihaad o�'prevailing pn t�e rr�erits against tl�e interim�arn� the plaintiff is likely fa sustait� if the injunction were denied, as coinpared ta th�Y�.arrr�the defet�daz�t is likely to suffer if the pre�iminary injtanctian were issues. The subject property Y�as be��a the subject of hack and farth efforts to develop for appraxiinately 10 years, 17