Coastal Commission legislative director answers HMB’s “misinformation and inaccuracies”

posted by Barry Parr on Apr 29, 2008 at 04:10 pm in  Government   Real Estate
2 comments • Click to email this story

Coastal Commission legislative director Sarah Christie has taken on what she calls “misinformation and inaccuracies” in Half Moon Bay’s response to her initial letter on the deficiencies in AB1991. In a sharply-worded letter to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Protempore Don Perata [pdf], Christie rather contemptuously takes apart the city’s counterattack, making the following points:

  • The city “ignores the obvious fact” that the process of AB1991 creates a precedent for future legislation.
  • The city makes the “insinuation ... that it is somehow the Commission’s fault that the City finds itself in its current predicament”, because it consulted the Commission before it denied the 85-parcel subdivision of Beachwood and the denial was upheld by the state appeals court.
  • The city’s assertion that the Commission’s approval of 19 parcels on Beachwood was illegal because the Commission lacked juridiction is “incomplete and therefore misleading”.
  • The city “derisively dismissed” the Commission’s offer of assistance, because the Commission didn’t offer to pay its bond or legal fees—which it does not have the authority to do. However, says Christie, the Commission offered an amicus brief represented by the Attorney General’s office.
  • The city said that the inclusion of Glencree in the settlement was not arbitrary, “because… most importantly, the plaintiff, ‘Chop’ Keenan, demanded it. We think the City’s response speaks for itself and makes our original point quite well.”
  • The city’s claim that the property would be built out by now, but for the city’s sewer moratorium, is not only “unlikely, it is irrelevant. The City might as well point to all the development that would already be built out today if the Coastal Act had never been passed, or CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, or any General Plan law”.
The Commission’s legislative director concludes by saying that the legislature should “let the bill die, so that the City can pursue the escape clause it agreed to in the settlement...and...work with the community and interested stakeholders”.

Click below to see the letter embedded in the page, or click here for the pdf.

Read this doc on Scribd: ccc responds to hmb

Comments

Comment 1 by Kevin J. Lansing  on  Apr 29  at  6:35pm  •  All my comments • 

If this bill passes, we will know there is some serious corruption going on in Sacramento. AB 1991 is simply nuts.

And I still cannot believe that the HMB City Council is using our money to pay Lanny Davis (Bill Clinton's Lewinsky lawyer) to be their political hatchetman for this fiasco. Next they'll be looking to hire Karl Rove.

http://talkabout.hmbreview.com/topic.php?t=1858&c=1&d=m

Comment 2 by Carl May  on  Apr 29  at  6:50pm  •  All my comments • 

"If this bill passes, we will know there is some serious corruption going on in Sacramento. AB 1991 is simply nuts."

Kevin,

Allow me to remind you this is California. Anything can happen, and does. Best to express oneself vigorously and not be too certain of any outcome before it happens.

Anyone who objects to the destructive potential of AB1991 should e-mail or phone the members of the Assembly committee to weigh in. You can be sure the other side is doing so to the best of its ability.

We already know there is some serious corruption in Sacramento.

Carl May


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.

Search Coastside and San Mateo County media.