Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

From the Coastal Commission letter:

"The Commission was prepared to assist the city with an appeal to the 9th Circuit, and, along with the Attorney General’s office, made that offer known to the City."

Another piece of evidence which shows the City Council threw away an appeal that: (1) had good chance of winning (according to statements made by their own lawyer John Knox), and (2) could have received some very influential assistance from the State Attorney General's office.

Why did the City Council throw away the promising appeal? Because they wanted to see those properties developed (it's part of their philosophy--sort of like realtors) even though the City gets no net benefits from the development, only costs, like more traffic and need to provide more services.

But also from the Coastal Commission letter:

"The settlement agreement includes a provision wherein the city must purchase the property for $18 million, should AB 1991 fail passage in the Legislature. It seems reasonable to assume that the city would not have agreed to this provision if it had not anticipated having the resources to exercise this clause."

This is exactly my point from yesterday (see link below). Either the City can pay the $18 million or our City Council members are grossly negligent for agreeing to that figure.

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/hmbtosacramentoifyoudontsupportab1991wellkillthis_dog/#5447

How arrogant can our city council be to sign an agreement based on a bill (AB1991) they don't even know will pass! How could they possibly think that they had the power to overturn existing legislation for the benefit of one developer. The S.F. Airport development couldn't do it. The "Tunnel" couldn't do it. HMB has just given a signed check for 18mil. Good Grief! Steve

I believe this presents a tremendous opportunity for HMB.

Can the City pursue an appeal? Perhaps.

Would the Commission and the Attorney General still assist the city in the appeal? I think so. This case presents an all-round success scenario that would demonstrate the Commission's problem solving capacity.

The City Council should talk with the Commission and the Attorney General about this case.

Judging by the Coastal Commission's letter, the flaws in the settlement may be sufficient grounds to have is set aside and allow an appeal.

Ray, Steve: View this as an opportunity to make the Coastal Act work for you.

terry: This may be the best way to create a win-win situation for everyone, especially the City of HMB. Talk with commission staff or write them. They may not respond at all or right away, but I assure you they consider your views (Ray and Steve's, too).

Its interesting that many of the posters are so confident that the City could have won on an appeal. None of us have all the facts and were not present at the settlement meetings.

I think it would have been the height of irresponsibility and arrogance to pursue that knowing that a loss would cost us $50 million which we don't have.

You also need to understand that this was probably the best the City was going to get without risking bankruptcy and financial ruin.

I'm glad the City has finally woken up and stopped listening to the same people who would lead them off the cliff.

This settlement is also a repudiation of litigate everything to death philosophy that has permeated this town for too long. How many more millions of dollars does HMB have to throw down the rat hole on attorney fees? We have probably wasted $10 million on lawyers over the past few years with no benefit to the taxpayers.

We also would have enjoyed many projects (new school, Boys & Girls Club, water pipe line, etc) that have been stalled for years over weeds.

Its time for HMB to get into the act of doing instead of suing. I think you will find that there is outrage among the general public about the mess we got ourselves into and will not tolerate more of the same.

Those days are over. Its just $18 million too late.

Like the $18 million cliff the City just self-propelled themselves over without a parachute?

Steve Hyman wrote: "I’m glad the City has finally woken up and stopped listening to the same people who would lead them off the cliff."

The fact that a realtor like Steve Hyman could choose to ignore the damage that AB 1991 could do to the whole state, let alone HMB, speaks volumes. I guess its just about 129 more potential sales commissions.

Comment 7 by Barry Parr  on  Apr 18  at  11:09pm  •  All my comments • 

I think it would be more effective if you refuted Steve's arguments instead of questioning his motives.

Steve, as I pointed out earlier, it's possible to get big projects approved reasonably fast. But you've got to follow the law. Flouting the law is what leads to appeals and delays. That's a pretty consistent pattern.

Personally, I think the city could have pulled off AB1991 if they hadn't overreached.

What I can't ignore is the damage this has been done to our town. This inflexible attitude of weeds over people has gotten out of hand and threatened our financial stability.

Every day when I drive past Beachwood, I stare at it and shake my head. When I point out to potential homeowners the site, they ask me if I'm joking. They too can't see the rationale for saving the weeds.

Its good that the City settled. Maybe Walker's decision will start injecting some reality into things. I can't imagine this folly being repeated again. If for no other reason, the City is too broke to take on another battle like this.

For another, like the little boy who cried too many times there's a wolf, the weeds first group is loosing influence and credibility because of the horrible damage they've done. And that's a good thing.

Maybe Steve Hyman has a good idea after all. We can get rid of these cumbersome state laws that protect wetlands and sensitive habitat, and replace them with a committee of potential homeowners (like those Steve keeps mentioning). We'll drive the potential homeowners past a proposed development site, and if they shake their heads, we'll let the bulldozers roll.

A number of us keep trying to point out that what little wetlands and habitat is left is increasingly near the borders of existing development.

But Steve would prefer to ignore those arguments and instead rely on the biological expertise of his potential homebuyers.

Comment 10 by Barry Parr  on  Apr 19  at  11:20am  •  All my comments • 

"Weeds over people" is of course a straw man. How about "this inflexible attitude of money over the law", or "money over people", or "money over common sense", or "money over the environment", or "money über alles".

I haven't a clue whether the vegetation at Beachwood is weeds or natural coastal scrub or some combination that thrives in degraded environments.

I support infill development, as long as it is done in compliance with the law, in cooperation with local authorities, at a rate consistent with good planning, and in a fashion that is sustainable and humane. The Beachwood settlement is none of those things.

And I certainly agree with Steve that our fast-food and other lighted-plastic-sign establishments are a blight that bring with them the excuse for further trashy development of the kind envisioned in the settlement.

Comment 11 by Jonathan Lundell  on  Apr 19  at  1:52pm  •  All my comments • 

I'm reminded of a letter that the Review ran some years back, after the golf course at the south end of town was finished.

The author was grateful for the new landscaping--what an improvement, she gushed, over the "barren coastside" that it replaced.

Sadly, the letter does not appear to be online.

Deliver us, O Steve and Chop, from the weeds and the barren coastside. Give us our pavement, grotesque houses, and gas stations. Amen.

Excellent, Jonathan

To Barry, Kevin, Mike and Ken,

I respect your commitment to HMB and I know you are all very intelligent. We just see things differently and that's OK. Just as nothing I've said here has changed your views, there's nothing you have said so far that's changed mine.

Perhaps my anger is over the never ending fighting that has gone on here for 10-20 years. Everything is such a major production. Maybe a few things got done but so many other projects that really matter to the community are fought tooth and nail.

I also resent the massive amount of money that has been wasted in the process. I know the money could have been spent better on things that really matter to the community.

Is Beachwood worth the $23 million? Not to anybody I know. Were these weeds worth the battle? Again, not to me.

I would venture to say that many of the newer communities like Alsace Loraine, Highland Park, Miramar and the new golf course had the same weeds yet they got developed.

And Barry, in case you thought I was being sarcastic about McDonald's, let me clarify things. I LOVE McDonald's and I was thrilled that they opened their place here right after I moved here with my family.

Its going to be interesting, to say the least, to see how this plays out. Whoever said living in a small town was boring, doesn't know HMB.

For those who don't know where Beachwood is (at the north end of the Kodak moment drive):

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=37.474092,-122.43516&spn=0.009826,0.013947&t=h&z=16&msid=116243905506174453640.00044b436133680ad45ab

About those "weeds":

FINDINGS OF FACT The Beachwood Property 1. This case involves a 24.7-acre undeveloped parcel of property located in the City of Half Moon Bay, known as Beachwood ("Beachwood," or "the Property"). (Ex 556.) Both sides agree that there are substantial wetlands on the Property.

...

On July 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, issued its decision in Yamagiwa v City of Half Moon Bay, Nos A105612, A105613. (Ex 445.) The Court of Appeal framed the issue thusly: "Are vernally wet areas covered with hydrophytic vegetation wetlands under the LCP, or must they also contain hydric soils?" (Ex 445, at 9900895.) It determined that the City's interpretation of "wetlands" under its LCP was the correct one, contrary to Yamagiwa's position and the trial court's ruling: "[W]e conclude the City rationally interpreted its LCP to treat vernally wet areas covered with hydrophytic vegetation as wetlands, whether or not hydric soils are also present." (Ex 445, at 9900898.)

...

Wetlands constitute a "coastal resource." (Cal Pub Res Code § 30116(a); see also Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, "Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies," which contains the prohibition on filling wetlands, Cal Pub Res Code § 30233.)

...

The mission of the Coastal Commission is to:

Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.

The California Coastal Commission was established by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and later made permanent by the Legislature through adoption of the California Coastal Act of 1976.

Comment 15 by Kevin Barron  on  Apr 28  at  4:43pm  •  All my comments • 

The Beachwood subdivision... such a shame, but looks like the typical action/re-action that Steve indirectly refers to has bit back for once. And this was a hard bite.

"Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations."

This rhetoric and idealism has provided no-growth pundits to arm themselves with the CCC, Coastal Act, et. al. with this undeniable doctrine to execute NIMBY to the hilt. I call it as I have seen it for years now here on the coast.

I see too often the leveraging of the Coastal Act, and so on by defining and executing their awarded powers to the "interpretable" maximum (often on wetlands stipulations). That's absolute folly. Might be time to amend for reason and realism. I think what was intended to inhibit careless filling of coastal lagoons with cement at will, has devolved into leveraging them for finding any excuse to stop development. There are quite a few among us that aren't as staunch, but it's almost as if there is no argument and everyone abides.

Meanwhile, environmental, civic, and development lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. I wonder if they switch off hosting each other's Christmas parties each year? Regardless, they'll raise their flutes and nibble on pumpkin pie ;-)

Congrats, you are keeping your "small town"... nee "small poor town". Maybe downtown HMB will get this sorta rundown Flint, Michigan sorta vibe to it. Makes for compelling photography subjects.

On the other hand, it can do wonders for existing real estate values, so guys like Steve pull in the same coin, by moving less but more profitable inventory.

In the year 2000, a Council that was split between 3 slow-growth members (Taylor, Ruddock & Coleman) and 2 pro-growth members (Donovan & Patridge) voted 5 to 0 – that’s 5 to 0 or unanimous - in support of the denial recommendation presented to them by their generally pro-growth staff - the City Manager (King), the City Attorney (Truxaw), and the Planning Director (Curtis).

Why? Because:

1.) both the staff and the Council believed the Law required them to do so when the developer refused to accept any redrawing of the map (which had never received final approval by the Coastal Commission) that would have reduced the quantity of lots by recognizing the wetlands. The developer demanded an up or down on the full quantity.

2.) the developer’s claim that the City caused one of the many wetlands by not maintaining an unpermitted, unrecorded, unreported ditch outside the City’s easement that was dug in 1984 - yes, 1984 - was neither credible nor a legally sustainable finding that could have allowed the legal filling of that particular wetland under California law. In other words, the City didn’t have the right to fill it even if it wanted to.

3.) the City staff coordinated their analysis with the California Coastal Commission staff in order to be consistent with that agency’s processes but did not push the legal limits at all. City staff’s proposal would have reduced the number of lots by roughly half. When the Coastal Commission itself heard the project on appeal in September, 2001, the number of lots was reduced by roughly three quarters, to 19 lots.