Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 66 <br /> The SLC has county attorneys, and one is working on this matter, Ms. SheIli Haaf.In addition, <br /> chief counsel for the SLC is Jennifer Lucchessi, and the two attorneys are only in the <br /> information-gathering stage of addressing this issue. <br /> SPH member Alison Madden attended the October 1, 2012 Special Meeting of the SLC and <br /> addressed the body of delegate/representatives in the public comment section of the meeting. The <br /> October 1 Special Meeting was convened to discuss discrete items in closed session, but Ms. <br /> Madden was able to have an information discussion with the SLC, who expressed an interest and <br /> desire to know more before taking any action or contributing any advisement or input. One <br /> commission delegate informed Ms.Madden that Mrs.Uccelli had visited the SLC in the weeks <br /> prior to the Special Meeting appearance. The information relayed is that it was a private meeting <br /> to ask the commission to address issues surrounding the state leases.The entire commission and <br /> Mrs.Lucchessi, in the October 1 Special Meeting and a subsequent information telephone call <br /> with Ms.Madden, did not convey any particular position and noted that a current development <br /> was relatively new to them,per the private visit and the public comments. <br /> A transcript of the public comments will be provided in the appeal and/or public record when <br /> obtained. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the SLC is October 19, 2012. <br /> Notwithstanding that the SLC did not convey any particular position and is in information- <br /> gathering phase,there did appear to be concern that a high visibility property formerly the subject <br /> of a settlement and currently under lease, is being developed for private luxury access. At a <br /> minimum,the Commission should wait until the SLC has had an opportunity for review and <br /> analysis of the situation. <br /> The documents that must be obtained and reviewed(by SPH and likely also by the SLC) are: <br /> 1. The entire County of San Mateo Case file for SLC vs. Uccelli and counterclaim; <br /> 2. The original patent deeds wherein SLC deeded the overflowed and swampland to the <br /> original record titleholders (as the reservations, if any,flowed with the property); <br /> 3. The legislative history underlying the Chap.447 Secs 1 through 7 Act of 1983 that was <br /> filed with the Secretary of State July 28, 1983 (the "Act"); <br /> 4. The Act itself; <br /> 5. The Settlement/Judgment entered pursuant to the Act; <br /> 6. The two leases to outer harbor SLC land entered into pursuant to the Act; <br /> 7. The Findings of Fact entered into pursuant to the Act; <br /> 8. Original Surveys and a Survey entered into pursuant to the Act. <br /> Important questions are presented by the Commission's lightly-asserted assumption that the <br /> leases are fully and freely transferable for a private luxury housing project. <br /> The Act specifically stated that it was "to clarify and protect the public interest in certain lands <br /> which have been developed for marina purposes within the County of San Mateo",(Sec. 7), and <br /> referred extensively throughout the Act to "public"use, benefit and access. <br /> The purpose for the legislature stepping in at the time was to assist Peter Uccelli in clarifying title <br /> rights to the land portion of Pete's Harbor,notably a restaurant, marina,boat launching ramp and <br /> boat repair facility. The Act provides that by virtue of the development activities, "Pete's Harbor <br /> has been accessible to the public as a marina and harbor facility and the public has made <br /> 7 <br />