Coastsider now has the development agreement between the city of Half Moon Bay and Wavecrest Partners LLC [PDF], thanks to the good folks at SanMateo.org. The document, dated August 31, 1999, is 46 pages long and 8.7MB in size. Note: a few of the pages are out of order in the scan, including pages 14 and 15.
Portola Valley is considering an ordinance that would ban front-yard fences that the you can’t see through—outlawing hedges, boards, stone, or any other solid material. Front-yard fences could be split rail, mesh or wire, according to the Mercury News.
The goal is to preserve the openness of the community. Too many fences make things too constricted, cutting folks off from nature and from their neighbors. I think they have a point. Take a look at the pictures on the story and you’ll understand what they’re talking about.
"The newer folks coming into town, the first thing they’ve asked is: ‘Where can I put my fence?’ and ‘Can I have a gate?’" said town planning manager Leslie Lambert, who estimates that 80 percent of new-home-buyers visiting town hall these days ask about fences.
Big fences aren’t much of an issue on the Coastside. But I think this story points out how lots of seemingly small individual decisions can degrade a neighborhood pretty quickly.
The League for Coastside Protection is holding a BBQ/fundraiser on Saturday August 6, from 4 to 7pm. The LCP is a political action committee set up to support political candidates "who uphold the spirit and substance of the California Coastal Act". There are three featured guests:
Other local candidates and elected officials will be there, and it will be a good opportunity to meet them in an informal environment.
The event will be at the home of John and Jules Lynch, 2098 Touraine Lane, in the Frenchman’s Creek neighborhood in Half Moon Bay. Parking is tight in Frenchman’s Creek, so parking and a shuttle from entrance to Frenchman’s Creek to the Lynch residence will be available from the lot adjacent to the traffic light.
This is also a fundraiser for LCP’s 2005 election work. Each attendee is asked to make a donation of at least $20 for adults and $5 for children. Donations of $35 for adults and $15 for children are suggested to those would who would like to provide additional support.
RSVP to 650-726-9280 by Wednesday evening to let them know how many of you will be attending and your preference for chicken, hot dogs, or veggie burgers.
The city of Half Moon Bay and Wavecrest Village LLC have settled a lawsuit [PDF] brought by Wavecrest nearly two years ago, following special meeting of the City Council at 7:30 this morning.
The Wavecrest project has been a source of friction within the community for years. See Coastsider’s chronology of the project for details. Two years ago, the city found the developer to be in default of its development agreement. Wavecrest sued the city over this, and the parties came to an agreement last summer.
According to the settlement, not much was changed by the lawsuit. Neither party pays anything to the other, each absorbs their own legal fees, the city brings Wavecrest’s Compliance Certificates up to date. The city and Wavcrest may explore alternative locations for the middle school and the Boy’s and Girl’s Club without violating the agreement. Both parties agreed to give one another three days notice before communicating with any public agencies. The agreement leaves unresolved their continuing disagreement over the meaning of some aspects of the 1999 Development Agreement.
The city had already reached a temporary agreement with the developer just over a year ago, but it had become stalled by the discovery of endangered species habitat on the site.
In a prepared press release Mayor Grady said "We were able to resolve our differences so that we could all get on with the business of getting the project processed through the Coastal Commission appeal." On behalf of Wavecrest Bill Barrett said "We are glad to be able to put this disagreement behind us, and we look forward to working cooperatively with the City to achieve a viable project that delivers the public benefits that the parties want to realize from this project."
Why hold the meeting early on Monday? Council Member Mike Ferreira said both sides faced additional daily legal expenses beginning today.
While Mayor Grady and Council Member Ferreira acted as the council’s committee on the matter, everyone on the council was involved in the process. Grady praised the late hours and weekend work of City Attorney Adam Lindgren along with Wavecrest’s Bruce Russell. He also singled out Council Member Toni Taylor for her contributions, "She’s a tough boss when it comes to protecting the City’s interests."
UPDATE: I’ve added a link to a copy of the settlement agreement, which is six pages long. It refers to exhibits, which I don’t have yet. This story has been edited to add details to the description of the terms and the history of the settlement.
ADDENDUM: Coastsider now has the development agreement between the city of Half Moon Bay and Wavecrest Partners LLC [PDF], thanks to the good folks at SanMateo.org. The document, dated August 31, 1999, is 46 pages long and 8.7MB in size. Note: a few of the pages are out of order in the scan, including pages 14 and 15.
The city of Half Moon Bay has won a huge legal victory in a case that hinged on the definition of wetlands in its Local Coastal Plan. Wednesday, a state Appeals Court upheld the city’s interpretation of its LCP [PDF] in a struggle that has been going on since 1990. The result is that the Beachwood subdivision, which was to be built in the vacant lot between Terrace Ave. and Grandview Blvd. will likely never be developed as it was envisioned.
The case, [em]Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay CA[/em], came down to a pretty technical point—whether the city’s definition of wetlands in its Local Coastal Plan meant that the presence of "hydrophytic" (adapted to water) plants alone was sufficient to make a property wetlands, or whether the soil also had to be "hydric" (characterized by considerable moisture).
It was a classic lawyerly case of "Does this mean ‘and’ or does this mean ‘or’?"
The path to this decision was long and complex.
Beachwood aging: a fifteen year process
The city approved a subdivision of the 24-acre property into 85 lots in 1990. But the actual development was put on hold from 1991 to 1998 by a sewer moratorium. Toward the end of the moratorium, Beachwood applied for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). By law, a community can’t issue CDP’s until it has an approved LCP. Half Moon Bay’s LCP was approved in 1996.
In 2000, the city declined to approve a CDP for Beachwood because the water table was high enough for enough of the year to support wetlands plants. The Coastal Commission supported this interpretation of the LCP.
This led to a complex series of lawsuits and appeals that wound up before the state Appeals Court. Many of the issues were procedural. But the main issue was always whether the property met the LCP’s definition of wetlands. Wednesday, the court accepted the city’s and the Coastal Commission’s interpretation of the LCP’s wetlands definition, essentially saying that Beachwood was picking nits.
In order to satisfy ourselves of the proper interpretation, we must take our lens of review to a wider angle. We must view this wetland definition not in isolation, but in the context of the LCP as a whole.
...
evidence that hydrophytes exist on a property to a degree permitting jurisdictional wetland determination renders unnecessary any additional evidence of wetland hydrology or hydric soils.
This decision is also significant for the unincorporated Coastside, because the city’s LCP is based on the county’s.
What’s next?
The result is that this land, which was originally planned for 85 lots, and for which the commission at one point was willing to approve 27 lots, may remain undeveloped. Or a much smaller portion may be targeted for development. Short of reversal by the state Supreme Court, Beachwood will have to begin the process with the city from scratch.
Beachwood says the city assessed them $550,000 for drainage improvements, $900,000 for sewer improvements, and required Beachwood to spend $300,000 to widen Highway 1. The court determined that any money that Beachwood spent improving the property for development doesn’t give them a right to complete the project, because they didn’t have a valid building permit or Coastal Development Permit. However, Beachwood may try to recover part of their costs from the city.
A Monterey County judge is wrestling with the validity of an "antiquated" subdivision map. The county and a developer are all set to go with a developement that will increase by 40% th size of Spreckels, which the Mercury News describes as "a Norman Rockwell factory town just south of Salinas".
Local activists aren’t so sure. The case hinges on whether a 1907 subdivision map is valid. The state Supreme Court has ruled that subdivisions before 1893 are invalid, but it left open how to deal with those created betwen 1893 and 1929. This case is expected to be be appealed to a higher court.
San Francisco attorney Matthew Francois and Dennis LeClere, deputy Monterey County counsel, argued vehemently Wednesday that the 1907 subdivision map was legal under the 1893 law and thus still valid.
But Santa Cruz attorney Jonathan Wittwer, representing the Spreckels homeowners and LandWatch, argued that because the county didn’t have the discretion to say no to the 1907 map, it did not create "legal lots of record.’‘
California’s purchase of development rights to the Hearst Ranch in San Luis Obispo county was expensive—$235 in cash and tax credits—and controversial. The Mercury News got a look at the appraisal and wrote a report. Interestingly, it’s not really clear from the story who got the best deal, but it definitely looks like Hearst drove a hard bargain.
The appraisal concluded that Hearst had enough legal lots, water and road access to build luxury homes on the site. The report said that Hearst was considering dividing its land into 43 mini-ranches of 1,000 acres each.
The coast of land on the Coastside figured into the transaction price.
Some were close to the ocean, like the 1,255-acre Bixby Ranch in Big Sur—once owned by Allen Funt of "Candid Camera’’—that sold for $24.4 million in 2001 to the Trust for Public Land. Others were farther inland, like Rancho Corral de Tierra, a 4,262-acre parcel near Half Moon Bay that sold for $29.7 million in 2001 to the Peninsula Open Space Trust.
Based on those sales, Carney divided Hearst Ranch into three zones: 3,989 acres nearest the ocean he valued at $22,000 an acre; 44,716 acres of foothills at $4,000 an acre; and 32,958 acres of steep, remote land at $2,500 an acre. He subtracted what Hearst would keep—ranch land for grazing, the 27 new homes and the new hotel—to arrive at the $230 million unused development value.
One of the beautiful aspects of Pedro Point is its relaxing setting. Unfortunately, development is now threatening to destroy the tranquility. The property at 315 San Pedro, Pacifica [Google satellite map] is now for sale. You may know it as the flat field where the llamas hang out.
You can see the listing yourself at http://www.californiamoves.com/property/propertysearch.aspx. In "Quick Search" enter the number "292178" then click GO button.
This 5.5 acres is zoned C-2 Commercial. This type of zoning allows for the building of hotels, retail comercial, automobile sales and services, electrical substation, RV park, poultry slaughtering, etc. Virtually everything under the sun. At $7,000,000 it would take a substantial development to get the return on the investment.
You can find the permitted uses and developmental regulations in the zoning section of the Pacifica municipal codes at Lexis-Nexis.
Needless to say this could substantially change the character of Pedro Point.
The multi-agency staff meeting at HMB’s proposed Community Park site on Thursday morning was, in my estimation, a complete success. Agencies represented by staffmembers were the City of Half Moon Bay, California Coastal Commission and California Fish and Game with the latter acting as an information conduit for U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Also involved was the City’s park design consultant, MIGS, and the environmental consultant subcontracted to MIGS.
The desired outcome of the meeting was to sort through the many overlapping issues and rules of the various agencies in order to give MIGS a clearer idea as to environmentally acceptable areas and design features on likely developable areas as well as to distill a clear set of acceptable interim maintenance procedures for the City. The depth of the discussion was excellent and ranged beyond agency policy and into the behavior patterns of threatened and endangered species.
The desired outcome was achieved. Due to the environmental status of the site as operated by the previous owner - even with the presence of Red Legged Frogs in the pond - the preponderance of the site is very likely quite appropriate for a Community Park Site and is maintainable in its current condition until a Coastal Development Permit is obtained for the actual park construction. I use the phrase "very likely" because guidance from staffmembers at this phase must always be subject to further environmental studies and permits.
The Community Park—from an environmental standpoint—is as much of a "go" at this stage of the process as any project on the Coastside can possibly be.
Mike Ferreira is a member of the Half Moon Bay City Council
The Examiner features a story about a dream home for sale in the hills of Montara. You’ve probably already seen it on the hills to the north of town, where it looks like it’s bigger than its 2,557 square feet. It is indeed a beautiful house, and its natural materials and curves make it a lot less ugly than the typical stucco and red tile box.
The property borders open space, which means residents can "basically go out the door and go on a long hike," Stafford said.
The couple is proud of the sensitive design they will leave behind.
"Even the most ardent opponent of growth on the coast compliments us on how well the house fits into the environment," Stafford said.
There might be a lot of claimants for the title of "most ardent opponent of growth on the coast".
The asking price is $2.2 million.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS