This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Pete's Harbor: The Evolving Story

According to Paula Uccelli's recent op-ed[1] and press coverage, her interactions with the State of California have resulted in a myriad of state requirements and details with regard to the Pete's Harbor area. She claims these issues have mired attempts to convert the public marina at Pete's Harbor into a private one: a playground on the water solely for the benefit of the residents of the luxury condominiums the Pauls Corporation plans for the site.

In the confusion, Paula laments that she can't continue operation of a commercial, "public" marina, saying "this has been an extremely difficult decision and it is with heavy hearts that the community will be forced to say goodbye to the possibility of Pete's Harbor continuing operations on the site."[2]

But what are the facts?

When Paula first publicly announced her decision to cease operation of a commercial marina last September, the mantra of that PR campaign was “Change is Hard” and she encouraged the public to embrace the Pauls Corporation's plans for a luxury housing development and private marina at Pete's Harbor.[3][4]

Nine months have passed and her story has evolved. With the direction of her high-powered PR firm, Uccelli is now attempting to intertwine the business decision she made (in 2012 or before) to cease operation of a public marina so that a luxury housing development could be built at Pete's Harbor, directly with the State of California's current efforts to assure that the conditions of the Pete's Harbor leases of public trust lands were met.

How did we get here? In 1952, Pete Uccelli saw the need for a marina and harbor for the boating public, and during the 1960s he built a business around providing for that need. Pete executed his plans with as little interference from the government as possible. His marina, restaurant, and harbor used state lands without the required permissions and permits. He wrangled with the state over trespass, right of way, and public access issues from the late 1960s onwards. Pete was happy to serve the public voluntarily; he just didn't like the state requiring him to do so on the public trust lands he'd annexed as part of Pete's Harbor.

When conflict and confusion about Pete's Harbor's use of public trust lands came to a head with the state in the 1980s, it was possible for the state to see that Pete was fulfilling a public trust purpose by having a public marina, eatery, and boatyard/harbor right there on public trust lands. The state provided Pete Uccelli with what was essentially a give-away lease and gave clear title to the contested adjacent lands. The public rallied around Pete to help make this happen with a campaign called "Save Pete's Harbor."

Now the public access marina on public trust lands is again at risk. It could become a casualty of red tape and bureaucratic details that may inadvertently allow Uccelli or the developer to remove leasehold improvements from the State of California's public trust lands before the public has had time to express to the state its concerns about preserving the community's access to and the public trust interests at Pete's Harbor.

Save Pete's Harbor, a California public benefit corporation, is intent on preserving a public marina in Smith Slough for the benefit of the boating public and will work with the state, the county of San Mateo, the city of Redwood City, the Pauls Corporation, and other entities to make this happen. Please visit Save Pete's Harbor for more information.

[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23537232 
[2] http://spectrummagazine.blogspot.com/2013/06/petes-harbor-forced-to-terminate-outer.html
[3] http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1756583
[4] http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21797505

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?