AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 67 substantial beneficial use of th[e] lands," and that, "absent the[se] actions . . . they would not be suitable for such access by the public as a marina and harbor facility." Sec. 2(e). The Act was specifically enacted to "resolve this controversy in a fair,just, and equitable manner which will protect the right of the public within the navigable waters of this state. . . ." Sec. 2(j). Notably the Act gave permission to place a berm, and to enter into some repairs, maintenance and improvements consistent with use as a marina. Secs. 3(b)(4)-(6). The SLC land was specifically "[to] be leased for the purpose of maintaining marina and harbor facilities," Sec. 3(b)(5), "to clarify and protect the public interest in [these] certain lands which have been developed for marina purposes." Sec 7. The legislative history and record is absolutely applicable to the Act.The Act routinely refers to the public interest and contains provisions and directions only consistent with intent that change from public access supports. The people at a minimum need a month to gather, analyze and prepare legal arguments for ultimate decision, if necessary, by a court for a preliminary injunction.The stakes are too high and the balance of harms too weighted against the liveaboard tenants for any private or publicly-supported action to occur to evict them when important statutory questions are at play. As known by many the standard for preliminary injunction weighs the likelihood of prevailing on the merits against the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied, as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issues. The subject property has been the subject of back and forth efforts to develop for approximately ten years, perhaps longer.The voters voted down a proposal for high density luxury residences in 2004. There may be an option that may expire, but the harm to ejecting a liveaboard community, eviscerating that community, displacing local residents who vote and pay taxes in Redwood City, and who send their children to local schools, is far more harm than a developer and even the owner waiting a few more months for a court ruling on the status of the outer harbor. If a court were to rule that the outer harbor is in public trust and the SLC is not required to consent to an assignment,there is a possible solution for the liveaboards to stay on state land and Redwood Creek. This potential should be explored by the City with a vested and determined interest in seeing this solution into reality. If the City declines, it should be the right of the people to investigate this possibility and ultimately, depending on SPH analysis and SLC input, move forward if reasonably expected to succeed, with an injunction permitting their interim stay. Army Corps of Engineers ACE has jurisdiction over inland waters not in the Bay, it is possible that such jurisdiction will impact the inner harbor construction.Although the City's summary of the proposal indicates no destruction, modification or alteration of any kind for the outer or inner harbor,the Plan drawing eliminates a row of inner harbor and most of the outer harbor from its representation. The SLC has, and ACE may also have, an interest in the destruction of any slips as these areas are in the public trust and construction that impacts them invokes their jurisdictional realm. The prior history of this developer at Peninsula Marina should not be ignored, and a surety should be required to adhere to the promise not to destroy any slips or docks. D. Environmental Issues—EYR process,landfill issues(hazmat and stability); CEOA, Climate Change/Sea Level Rise,Neighboring communities and buildings—damage. 8