S«\>J^C«- ^r^V VS"!/"!

^K^VQ_ V^O^S"
.

III. BRIEF HISTORY AND GENERAL BACKGROUND

The San Mateo County Harbor District is a County-wide

independent single-purpose special district formed in 1933
for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and administering
harbor facilities. The enabling legislation of the District
is specified in the Harbors and Navigation Code, Section 6000
et seq.
It was originally planned that the District would develop
a commercial port at Redwood Creek in Redwood City. Due to
the inability of obtaining financing for the development of
the port at Redwood City, the District remained inactive from
1935 to 1948. The District was resurrected in 1948 in order
to obtain federal funds to construct a harbor- of refuge at
Pillar Point harbor. A breakwater was constructed at Pillar
Point in 1962 with the use of federal funds and modified in
196 7 to help correct wave problems within the harbor.
After the initiation of proceedings by the County Board
of Supervisors, the District was dissolved in 1966 by a vote
of 62,308 votes in favor of dissolution and 46,797 votes
against; but in 1969, the dissolution was voided by the
courts, and control of Pillar Point Harbor was returned to the
Harbor District. In 1970 the dissolution of the District
was requested by the Board of Supervisors and placed
before the voters. This action to dissolve the District
.was denied by a County-wide vote of 80,840 against dissolu
tion and 78,664 in favor of dissolution, or by a margin of
1.4 percent.
From approximately April 11, 1973 to July 11, 1973, six
3 cities and four special districts within the County filed
applications with LAFCo for the detachment of their respective
territories from the Harbor District. In September 1973 the

III-l

3
Conmission approved these detachments from the District. The
Commission subsequently denied apetition by .the Harbor District
for re-hearing of these approvals. As aresult of this denial,
the Harbor Distinct filed legal action in November 1973. A >
major issue in this legal action was whether or not the Califor- |
nia Environmental Quality Act applied to LAFCos. j
The commission, in February 1974, considered arequest by |;
the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to reconsider the
Commission's approvals of the approved detachments. It was
decided then that the reconsideration would be scheduled for
public hearing April 10, 1974.
Before the Harbor District's legal action was scheduled for
trial, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in the Bozung
case (March 1974) which found that CEQA applied to LAFCos. It
was anticipated at this time that the Supreme Court would ulti
mately hear this matter, so accordingly the trial in this action
was continued from time-to-time until the Supreme Court made
its decision.
in late February 1974, the Commission received an application
from the City of San Bruno requesting dissolution of the Harbor
District. Since there were then detachment and dissolution 1

actions before the Conunission, the Commission decided to estab ti

lish ahigher priority to the dissolution proceedings than for

the detachment proceedings, as provided for under the District
Reorganization Act.
The Formation Commission approved the application calling
for'the dissolution of the Harbor District on July 1, 1974
and forwarded the matter to the Board of Supervisors for the
conduction of subsequent proceedings. During this period,
twelve cities by Council action either approved of the proposed
dissolution of the Harbor District or approved of placing the
III-2
 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_by
Council action supported the continued existence of the San
Mateo county Harbor District. These- three cities included
Foster City, Half Moon Bay and Pacifica. The remaining four .
cities in the County took no official position one way or the
other. The twelve City Councils favoring dissolution and an
election represented a population of 321,480, or 64 percent of
the County's incorporated population, while the three cities
supporting the Harbor District represented 62,925 persons, or
12 percent of the County's incorporated population. The re
maining four cities which took no official position represented
121,460 persons, or 24 percent of the County's incorporated
population. The remaining 65,035 persons residing within the
County in 1974 were in the unincorporated portions of the County
The Board of Supervisors, in disapproving the dissolution
application,.on August 8, 1974, refused to place the question
on the ballot.
The "Bozung Case" decision by the State Supreme Court
was filed January 7, 1975. Prior to the Bozung decision, no
environmental assessment had been made in regard to the Harbor
District's changes in organization or any other applications
before LAFCo. Generally, the Supreme Court in its decision
adopted the previously issued decision of the Court of Appeals
that CEQA has application to decisions by Local Agency Forma
tion Commissions. Upon advice by counsel, the Formation
commission on February 26, 1975 re-opened the public hearings
on the various detachments from the District. After hearing
public testimony, the Commission decided to rescind the prior
resolutions authorizing the detachments of territory from the
District.

III-3
 •-

The commission received a resolution of application from

the City of Menlo Park in May of 1975. The City was requested
at that time by the Harbor District Board of Commissioners to
review its' position relative to the dissolution of the District
in light of changes in plans for the New Pillar Point Harbor
Project. The Menlo Park City Council appointed athree-member
blue ribbon citizens' committee that met several times with
the District's Harbor Commissioners and staff to review the.
operation of the Harbor District and the plans for "the "Hew
Pillar Point Harobr Project". As aresult of this committee's
study and recommendations, the City of Menlo Park re-affirmed
its previous action requesting LAFCo to proceed with the
dissolution of the Harbor District.

l^Y^C} Q^rf^-^ ^Svx-fv-cA r^ cc^^Ayv\fv<i^-A -Ha5^

Ko^L r^^S- A****** d^-WK

III-4