harbor district background from lafco

8/7/2019 Harbor District Background from LAFCo

1/4

S\>J^C- ^r^V VS"!/"! ^K^VQ_ V^.

III. BRIEF HISTORY AND GENERAL BACKGROUNDThe San Mateo County Harbor District is a County-wide

independent single-purpose special district formed in 1933for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and administeringharbor facilities. The enabling legislation of the Districtis specified in the Harbors and Navigation Code, Section 6000et seq.

It was originally planned that the District would developa commercial port at Redwood Creek in Redwood City. Due tothe inability of obtaining financing for the development ofthe port at Redwood City, the District remained inactive from1935 to 1948. The District was resurrected in 1948 in orderto obtain federal funds to construct a harbor- of refuge atPillar Point harbor. A breakwater was constructed at PillarPoint in 1962 with the use of federal funds and modified in196 7 to help correct wave problems within the harbor.

After the initiation of proceedings by the County Boardof Supervisors, the District was dissolved in 1966 by a voteof 62,308 votes in favor of dissolution and 46,797 votesagainst; but in 1969, the dissolution was voided by thecourts, and control of Pillar Point Harbor was returned to theHarbor District. In 1970 the dissolution of the Districtwas requested by the Board of Supervisors and placedbefore the voters. This action to dissolve the District.was denied by a County-wide vote of 80,840 against dissolution and 78,664 in favor of dissolution, or by a margin of1.4 percent.From approximately April 11, 1973 to July 11, 1973, sixcities and four special districts within the County filedapplications with LAFCo for the detachment of their respectiveterritories from the Harbor District. In September 1973 the

III-l


2/4

Conmission approved these detachments from the District. TheCommission subsequently denied apetition by .the Harbor Districtfor re-hearing of these approvals. As aresult of this denial,the Harbor Distinct filed legal action in November 1973. Amajor issue in this legal action was whether or not the Califor-nia Environmental Quality Act applied to LAFCos.The commission, in February 1974, considered arequest bythe San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to reconsider theCommission's approvals of the approved detachments. It wasdecided then that the reconsideration would be scheduled forpublic hearing April 10, 1974.Before the Harbor District's legal action was scheduled fortrial, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in the Bozungcase (March 1974) which found that CEQA applied to LAFCos. Itwas anticipated at this time that the Supreme Court would ultimately hear this matter, so accordingly the trial in this actionwas continued from time-to-time until the Supreme Court madeits decision.in late February 1974, the Commission received an applicationfrom the City of San Bruno requesting dissolution of the HarborDistrict. Since there were then detachment and dissolutionactions before the Conunission, the Commission decided to establish ahigher priority to the dissolution proceedings than forthe detachment proceedings, as provided for under the DistrictReorganization Act.The Formation Commission approved the application callingfor'the dissolution of the Harbor District on July 1, 1974and forwarded the matter to the Board of Supervisors for theconduction of subsequent proceedings. During this period,twelve cities by Council action either approved of the proposeddissolution of the Harbor District or approved of placing the

III-2


3/4

1

question of dissolution before the electorate for their decision.These cities included Atherton, Brisbane; Burlingame, San Bruno,Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Portola Valley, Redwood City,San Mateo, South San Francisco and Woodside. Three cities_byCouncil action supported the continued existence of the SanMateo county Harbor District. These- three cities includedFoster City, Half Moon Bay and Pacifica. The remaining four .cities in the County took no official position one way or theother. The twelve City Councils favoring dissolution and anelection represented a population of 321,480, or 64 percent ofthe County's incorporated population, while the three citiessupporting the Harbor District represented 62,925 persons, or12 percent of the County's incorporated population. The remaining four cities which took no official position represented121,460 persons, or 24 percent of the County's incorporatedpopulation. The remaining 65,035 persons residing within theCounty in 1974 were in the unincorporated portions of the CountyThe Board of Supervisors, in disapproving the dissolutionapplication,.on August 8, 1974, refused to place the questionon the ballot.The "Bozung Case" decision by the State Supreme Courtwas filed January 7, 1975. Prior to the Bozung decision, noenvironmental assessment had been made in regard to the HarborDistrict's changes in organization or any other applicationsbefore LAFCo. Generally, the Supreme Court in its decisionadopted the previously issued decision of the Court of Appealsthat CEQA has application to decisions by Local Agency Formation Commissions. Upon advice by counsel, the Formationcommission on February 26, 1975 re-opened the public hearingson the various detachments from the District. After hearingpublic testimony, the Commission decided to rescind the priorresolutions authorizing the detachments of territory from theDistrict.

III-3


4/4

-

The commission received a resolution of application fromthe City of Menlo Park in May of 1975. The City was requestedat that time by the Harbor District Board of Commissioners toreview its' position relative to the dissolution of the Districtin light of changes in plans for the New Pillar Point HarborProject. The Menlo Park City Council appointed athree-memberblue ribbon citizens' committee that met several times withthe District's Harbor Commissioners and staff to review the.operation of the Harbor District and the plans for "the "HewPillar Point Harobr Project". As aresult of this committee'sstudy and recommendations, the City of Menlo Park re-affirmedits previous action requesting LAFCo to proceed with thedissolution of the Harbor District.

l^Y^C} Q^rf^-^ ^Svx-fv-cA r^ cc^^Ayv\fv

harbor district background from lafco

Documents