Review incorrectly blames “environmental litigation” for Wavecrest delays

Last Wednesday, the Half Moon Bay Review, for the first time we remember, took a fond look at the history and possible future of Cunha Intermediate School. However, they got their facts wrong on why the district was unable to build its middle school at Wavecrest:

The decision to build a new middle school at the Cunha site came almost 10 years after voters approved a 1996 bond measure that would provide funds to build a brand new middle school.

Initially the district planned to build at the Wavecrest development, but years of litigation regarding environmental issues have brought construction to a halt. That left the decision about where to build the new middle school up in the air for years afterward.

This gives the false impression that environmental litigation was the reason the school was never built at Wavecrest.

First, there has been no litigation. The closest that Wavecrest ever got to a courtroom was when Wavecrest Village LLC sued the city of Half Moon Bay, which had found the project to be out of compliance with its original development agreement. The suit was never litigated, and has since been settled.

Second, neither the lawsuit nor the original appeal to the Coastal Commission was over environmental issues. The former was over compliance with the original development agreement, while the latter was a quarrel between developers over development priorities.

Last, construction could hardly have been brought to a halt, since it has never been close to starting.

There are environmental issues with the Wavecrest project. The developers have not addressed the issues of endangered species habitat on the property, and have failed to bring the project into compliance with the Coastal Act and the HMB LCP. But all scheduled hearings before the Coastal Commission have been cancelled at the request of the developers. For a more complete history, see Coastsider’s chronologies of the Wavecrest and middle school projects.

This is not a small distinction. The Review’s story perpetuates the myth that "environmentalists" and "no-growthers" held up these projects. Like all myths, it’s charming but false.