Patch reported Wednesday that surviving Pete's Harbor owner Paula Uccelli and her attorney Ted Hannig delivered checks totaling $409,253.24 to the State Lands Commission (SLC) this week to settle nearly 28 years of back rent owed on the outer harbor, which is owned by the SLC and leased to Uccelli.
In a multiple-page letter accompanying the payment, Hannig said Uccelli was sending the funds "in protest" because, in essence, the state is forcing "a 70-year-old widow" to pay roughly "20 times more" than she should owe, or face losing her lease - which could lose Uccelli her home as well.
Hannig says, legally, a landlord such as the state cannot demand more than four years' worth of back rent from a tenant, which is why he calls the $409,253.24 payment an "unjust overpayment."
State confirms payment, declines comment on status of leases
Shelli Haaf, an attorney for the SLC, confirmed to Patch Wednesday that the state did indeed receive the two checks for the full amount from Uccelli and Hannig on Monday, Jan. 7.
However, Haaf avoided answering Patch's question of whether or not - now that payments have been tendered - the outer harbor leases would or could be transferred to developer Pauls Corporation, which Uccelli is trying to sell the whole of Pete's Harbor to, so Pauls can build a 411-unit luxury waterfront community.
However, Adam Alberti, a spokesperson for Uccelli and Pete's Harbor, told Patch Wednesday that, now that the funds have been paid, "the leases are, and always have been, in full force," and that "the leases are completely transferrable."
Pete's Harbor tenants attempt to file restraining order against eviction
On Wednesday at 2 p.m., several tenants of Pete's Harbor and the group Save Pete's Harbor 2012 appeared before San Mateo County Court Judge George A. Miram to ask for a TRO, or temporary restraining order, against being evicted from Pete's Harbor, as Uccelli recently served all tenants and businesses with notices to vacate the premises by Jan. 15, next week.
The TRO was not granted, but Pete's Harbor tenant and lawyer Alison Madden told Patch Wednesday evening that the tenants may go back and attempt to get the TRO again before their eviction date next week.
The group's basis for their argument was rooted in their theory that the 1983 law enacted to grant the Marina lease was unconstitutional.
When asked if tenants have been speaking with members of the SLC to plead their case or request to take over the outer harbor lease, Madden said yes.
She added that Uccelli's attorney Ted Hannig's claims that the ex parte communication between the SLC and the tenants is inappropiate, and possibly even "unlawful interference," is untrue.
"These are public trust lands, so this matter is in the public interest," she said.
What happens now?
The appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Pauls Corporation development will be heard at City Hall on Jan. 28.
If the appeal is not granted, Pete's Harbor spokesperson Adam Alberti told Patch the next step will be for the SLC to decide whether or not to transfer the leases on the outer harbor to Pauls Corporation, which he is confident will happen.
Alberti said he and Hannig have been told that can only happen during a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. It appears the next meeting may take place sometime in April.
Stay informed on the latest news from your local neighborhood - follow Patch!
Sign up for Redwood City-Woodside Patch’s daily newsletter
"Like” us on Facebook
"Follow” us on Twitter
Want to share your opinions with the communities of Redwood City and Woodside? Start your own blog here.
Is it this admiration for Paula that lead your group to establish fake Facebook and twitter accounts in her name. To me it seems consistent with elder abuse...with a little bit of cyber bullying on the side.
FMI: I need clarification. Is all Pete's land leased? I got the impression from files that the lease covers the outer harbor. The rest he owns, which would include the present marina. Archives indicate the state's initial concerns were over a waterway called Smith's Slough, which is adjacent to the marina.
The Irony of it all... Poor, poor 70 year old Millionaire, might not get the windfall of millions more after getting the zoning changed and selling out a local landmark to an out of state developer who just happens to have a development next door that caused 400 people to be evicted. 12 years later the marina still sits empty but the place is named "one marina". Don't those 500k 2 bedroom ticky-tacky slapped up side by side as many as you can get into a shoebox condos look great? I wonder if they are on a 50year lease like the condos across the street are?
Wish you'd answer my earlier post about what is leased. I need clarification for The Journal of Local History.
AM: you are correct that the 1983 Act (if it's valid and although highly likely it may not be, no one's preference is to go there) deeded fee simple title to PU for the "land" and that would include the 'inner harbor' not all of the "present marina" (which is inner and outer). Archives indicate the state's initial concerns were over a waterway called Smith's Slough, which is adjacent to the marina. AM: yes, I'd like to see the 'Archives'. I got the initial San Mateo County case file and read the complaint and all attachments (which show Pete knew in the 60s that he didn't have title to submerged lands, regardless of what he thought his deed said). I don't think it's accurate to say Smith slough is "adjacent to the marina". The harbor and marina are 240 slips approx (permitted up to 263 or 280 depending on source you look at), 140 on 'outer harbor and marina' and 100 on 'inner harbor and marina'. However, Smith Slough when California entered the union wrapped around and WAS both the inner and outer harbor. State public trust is inviolate and a fraudulent party that tries to convey title to submerged lands simply can't do so. The argument is that a survey mistake or an innocent or fraudulent deed purported to cover submerged land in the waterways, and this can't be done.
The archives item was a newspaper clip quoting the SLC attorney, think name was Kiley, who made comments about the slough.
"Sarah: My understanding is that Smith's Slough was the crux of the initial dispute in the 1980s. The state eventually agreed to leasing part of it to Pete. Pete's Harbor didn't block the slough, but the state feared that someone in the future might. The state conceded Pete's ownership of more than 20 acres of harborland. The lease called for him to maintain "a marina and harbor facilities." I got this from something called "settlement of litigation" in the SLC files dated 6-26-85. As for the photos, I'll check but I've never seen any. I do have quotes from Pete that there was nothing out there but duck hunters." AM: there are a bunch of photos on the pete's harbor website that has been changed to allege that everyone is vultures and greedy, not that people are people and imagine greed when pro bono work has been done for months. But, go there and see the pix; also Google Earth does have some former photos. The slough used to wrap around and there was fill, although maybe by Leslie Salt and augmented by Pete with his berm for his home. There is not just the settlement doc you reference Jim, but a 1983 Statute and two public leases, plus some court settlement documents. There's a lot of paper on this, but essentially you can't trespass into, build on and privatize the Bay without permission and keeping it public. Alison 650.924.5004