AgdaPkt 2013-05-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 88 Notwit�standing that the S�.0 did n.ot convey any particular position and is�inforttaation-gathering phase,�ere ciid appear to be cor►cern that a high visibility�roperty, formerly the suhje,ct of a settlement and currently und�r lease,is being developed for private luxury access.At a minimum,the Commission shau�dwait un#il the SLC has had an oppartwnity for review and analysis of the situation. 1'he docurnents that must be ob�aineci and reviewed{by SPH a�ad lilcely also by the S�.C)a�'e: • Tk�e entire County of San�Vlateo Case file for SLC vs. UcceIli and ca�terclaanr�.; • The original pate�t deeds wherein 5LC deeded the overflowed and swamplar►d to the original rec4rd titleholders{as the r�s�rvations,if any,flowed with the property); • The legislative histary under[ying the Chap. 447 Secs 1 thraugh 7 Act of 1983 that was filed with the Secretary of S#ate J'uly 28, 1983 (#he"Ae�'�; • The Act itself; • The Settlemendludgment entered pursuant to t�e Act; * The two leases ta o�er harbor SLC Iand entered into pu�suant•tQ the Act; • The Findings of Faat�terec�into pursuant to tl�e Acf; � dr�gina�Surveys and a Seuvey e��tered into pursua�#to�ie Act, Important questians are presented by tlte Planning Cornrnission's lightly-asserted asswpnpt�on that the leases are fully and freely transferable for a pr�vate tuxury hausing projec� 1'he Act specifically stated.that it was"to ciarify and proteat t�e public interest in eertain lands which har�e been develop�d for m�arina puxpases within the County of S�n Mateo,"(Sec.7),and refe�'red extensit�ely throu�nu�the Act to"public"tise,benefit and access. The purpose for. the legislature steppirkg in at the taxt�te was to as�ist Peter Uccelli in clarif.ying title rights to the larr.d portinn of Pete's Harbor,natably a restaurant,rnarina,hoat launching ramp and boat repair faeility. The Act provides that by virtue of the de�elopment activities, "Pe�e's Harbor has been accessible fo th.e pub�ic as a marina and barbor facility and the�ublic l�as rri�de substan�ial beneftcial use of tI�[eJ lands,"and that, "absent ttle[se]a.ctions. . .they would�ot be suitabte for such access by the put�lic as a marina�nd hax�bar facility."(Sec. 2($)) The Act was specificaIty enacted to"resolve this controversy in a Fair,just, and equitable manner which wiil proteet the right af t�e public wi�in the navigable waters of this state. . . ."{Sec•2(j))•Notably,the Act g�ve perrnission ta place a berm, and#o erater into some repairs,maint�ance and impirovements consistent rrvifh use ss a marina.(Sees. 3{b}{4}-{6}), The Si.0 land was specif�cally"[to�be leasad far the �UTp05e of m8.irlt8l�lirig 1]]�1'li�a a.tid harbOr faCilitieS,"(�ec. 3(b)(5}),"to�lar�fy and�rotect the public interest in [these] certait�Iands which have been de�e�oped for marina purpases."(Sec. 7) The legislative history and record.is absolutely applicable ta the Act, The Act routiately refers to the pu�lic interest and contains prov�sions and directicros oniy cansistent with intent that change frarn public acceas supports.The people at a minimum need a month to gathsr,analyze and prepare legal arg�ments for uitiina#e decisioa, if necessary, by a court for a pretimi�ary injunction.The stakes are too high and the �alance of harms too weighted against the liveaboxrd te�ants for a�y private ar pt�blicly supported acixon to occur ta evict them whes�important statu#ory t�uestians are at p1ay. As irnown by many,the standard for prelirttinary Xnjunctiqn weighs the�ikelihaod af prevailing an the merits against the interim�arm the piaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were der�ied,as campared to the harm the defendant is likely ta suffer it'the preliminary injunction were issues. The subject prapez�ty has beet�the subject of back and forth efforts to develop f�r appro�cirnately 10 years, 17 i