Half Moon Bay Review

Enhancing value for Beachwood "amended" AB1991 City Council, posted by Jerry Steinberg, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2008 at 8:36 pm Share It:             The Beachwood Development / AB 1991 was sent back to the "Rules Committee" of the California State Senate for amendments to meet the requests of all agencies involved. It would appear that the Rules Committee will attempt to enhance the "value" of the Beachwood property (number of houses allowed to be built??) to increase its development potential. The present property owner may choose the 18 million dollar payout by the City of Half Moon Bay (down from the 41 million dollar awarded them in Federal Court)instead of accepting a modified AB 1991. The Beachwood development would provide a traffic signal at Bay View and Highway 1 which could be used for access to the Pacific Ridge/Ailanto Property. This issue will be discussed with the Coastal Commission which will be considering the Pacific Ridge project during the next few months. For the City of Half Moon Bay to recover some of the 18 million dollar payout, the ability to connect to the Pacific Ridge project would allow for the use of several million dollars that are now in escrow for both the traffic light signal and road modifications. It would also provide a link (Golden Gate Avenue) between four subdivisions to utilize the stoplight and crosswalks to the west side of Highway 1. Is there a developer/property manager that has the skill and ability to work with the various agencies/organizations to "Do It"!? Mr Keenan has suggested "only someone who has had a "lobotomy" would be interested...but I think there does exist a firm that is doing development on the coast that has the proven capability of "conflict resolution" between the various group "visions" for land development. The question is, "Do they have the "appetite" to do it?" Jerry Steinberg July 3, 2008 Comments (20)

Jerry,

I admire your audacity and demonstrated commitment to the community. You are reaching out for a solution that would clearly benefit the community. Thank you.

Now, here is the hard part, I am afraid that legislative processes are similar to making sausages, and I do not want to say anything further on that topic.

If one were to carefully read the Beachwood settlement agreement, it specifically refers to AB1991, so only very limited changes to that bill, acceptable to both parties to the agreement, Mr Keenan, and the City of HMB is absolutely necessary for that option to proceed.

I do not even know who is on the Rules Committee, and that is probably the MOST important issue for this proposal, that you describe, to have a chance to succeed.

Neither of us is lawyers. (clearly I am not)

So, it comes back to the elected City Council of HMB. I have always thought a negotiated settlement was better than a prolonged appeal.

I have no specific advice, nor do I have access or knowledge into the inner dealings of this agreement, but I do wish the HMB City Council the very best of luck in helping our community out of this quagmire..

Does anyone have Keet's phone number? Just kidding. (maybe not)

Wow, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Neither of us is A LAWYER, Mr. Wow.

graham aryan, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Thanks for the update and input, Jerry.

Enjoy your Fourth!

Joan, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

Why does the map show Golden Gate connecting Grand Ave to Terrace Ave, running right across the Beachwood parcel? Is that part of the settlement agreement????

I don't want people cutting through my neighborhood to take the Beachwood bypass. Who decided this stuff without telling us?

Grand Ave Resident, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Nothing is decided, but when deals are made during private negotiations, affected citizens are a missing voice. For example, where was the citizen input during the settlement talks during which the City Council rolled over for Keenan? The discussions in Sacramento are much more removed from citizen input. Residents of Terrace and Grandview subdivisions who may be affected by any deal will just have to deal with any agreements made. If you don't like this kind of government, elect people to office who listen to their constituents.

Any fool can see who is on the Senate Rules Committee by going to the State Legislature's website. But who believes it is the Rules Committee that is conducting whatever talks are going on now with regard to Beachwood? Again, the legislature's website will provide superficial education on what each committee does.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 2:26 pm

The connection you refer to is part of the City's General Plan, just like Foothill Boulevard. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is somehow abstract.

We have 'paper streets' all over HMB. In fact, it is from those paper streets that the City created the depressions that gave the 1999 Planning Commissioners, with the support of the 2000 Council and Coastal Commission the bright idea of claiming wetlands on Beachwood.

The rest, as they say, is history.

General Plan, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Finally, NP places something of value on the table. Well stated.

General Plan, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Future plans for the City of Half Moon Bay or for the rest of the Coastside are not secret documents they are built into the Local Coastal Plans that are certified by the Coastal Commission. The record of how these plans are developed is also no secret; it is the record of deliberations of the Planning Commission, City Council, and Board of Supervisors. All a matter of public record and all arrived at over years with plenty of opportunity for everyone's input.

Anyone who wants to spend the time and effort to participate in government by attending these meetings can have an input. If you don't like the plan get involved. Claims that these plans are all arrived at in smoke filled back rooms may make you feel better when you discover something you don't like, but it just isn't true. All anyone ever has to do to be heard is to show up.

Where Zoning Decisions Are Made, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 4:57 pm

What you say looks good on paper and sounds all warm and fuzzy, but it ain't so. There's a huge difference between being heard and being listened to.

General Plan, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Pay attention to the words. I never claimed the general plans or LCP's are created in secret. Read again, and welcome to the world if you then understand the nature of the recent and current backroom talks I referred to.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 6:42 pm

"Finally, NP places something of value on the table. Well stated."

General Plan, a resident of Half Moon Bay, 2 hours ago

Not my fault if you have trouble following along. I have referred to teh state legislature's website as a source of information at least a half dozen times in the last couple of months. Why wouldn't I? It sometimes directly refutes much of what some misleaders of the faithful post on TalkAbout concerning their little universe of HMB and its Beachwood dreams.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2008 at 6:47 pm

To: Grand (GrandView) poster:

The General Plan Circulation Element for the City of Half Moon Bay includes:

“Transportation Policies In THE CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM/ Land Use Plan”

It was adopted on the 7th day of July, 1992 by the following vote of the City Council,

To wit: AYES, Councilmembers: Iverson, Ruddock, Pastorino, Patridge and Mayor Patterson.

See Page 23 for comments on Grand Avenue, Terrace Avenue and Grandview Boulevard at:

Web Link

Jerry Steinberg, CE

Half Moon Bay

Jerry Steinberg, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 6, 2008 at 1:26 am

Jerry,

I love it when people, like yourself, use real data. Real data certainly helps separate the men from the boys. Thanks.

Facts, Please, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 6, 2008 at 8:31 am

Jerry,

Your horse is so out of the barn, beyond the gate, not even in sight of the coral anymore. So yeah, thanks for your penetratingly perspicacious suggestions for reengineering access to all of the PUDs north and east of your street. Now all you need is a time machine to make it happen. Otherwise, it's all very practical.

Blatant admirer, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 6, 2008 at 11:18 am

Jerry correctly identifies the action taken by our Council in 1992. That action, and many others taken by that Council, and many others, collectively comprise HMB's Local Coastal Plan/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP), which was Certified by the Coastal Commission in 1996 thereby giving HMB the right to approve &/or deny 'development' based on Those Policies in our Certified LCP/LUP. Another action taken by our Council, and included in our 1996 Certified LCP/LUP is our “Wetland” definition, which we copied from the San Mateo County LCP definition.

Violations of that LCP/LUP started almost immediately, with the denial of Yamagiwa's Coastal Development Permit (CDP) request in May, 2000, being the most glaring (resulting in the $41 Million Federal Judgment against us), with the altering of our Certified Wetland Definition. Complicit in that violation was the Coastal Commission.

Within a handful of months, again with Coastal Commission ‘assistance’, another glaring violation by our Council took place during the settlement negotiations with Ailanto (another law suit) that not only reduced the number of homes in that project, but also moved those homes south and plopped them squarely on Foothill Boulevard, violating the Circulation element of our General Plan; part of our Commission Certified LCP/LUP (1996). Ferreira’s signature is on the bottom line on that one.

So, here we now sit starting to pay the cost of those violations by that group (1999-2005). How many more violations did that group rack up? How much will we be forced to pay? For how long? And, in the end, what will the total cost be for us, our kids, and those that visit us?

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 6, 2008 at 12:13 pm

How many pitiful years was foot-dragging Half Moon Bay in violation by not getting a Coastal Commission approved LCP in place until 1996? By not having a certified LCP in place, how many decisions did the City of Half Moon Bay allow to be made by the Coastal Commission instead? In what regard are the alleged "violations" of the 1996 LCP actually violations of the Coastal Act as applied locally through the HMB LCP? I think we know the answer to that. He who would be king (no offense to Ken King if he is reading) wishes to decide for all what is a violation. No legal test necessary.

It may have taken many decisions on sections, but the state-certified LCP is a single document. Any LUP involved is not separate, it becomes part of the overall LCP as incorporated. The entire LCP is what needs to be approved by the Coastal Commission, as does any revision to the LCP.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 7, 2008 at 6:55 pm

"I have referred to teh state legislature's website as a source of information at least a half dozen times in the last couple of months."

Here is the visual - Now Pitching is by the duck pond, distributing stale bread crumbs in an orderly manner and muttering "these ducks sure need these in order to subsist," not realizing that the neighborhood kids already plied them with bags of rolls and bread earlier. I can get you guys a great link to Google if that helps too.

Brian, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 8, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Having a tough time focusing again, Brian? How about answers to my pertinent questions, which have been avoided by you slander broadcasters? You can keep referring back to the message if you can't keep them in mind long enough to formulate answers.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

As we all wait for the “Rules Committee” of the California State Senate to determine their direction on AB 1991, we can consider how their “amended bill” will interact with the Pacific Ridge subdivision soon to be considered by the California Coastal commission.

Here is another way to enhance the Beachwood property if an amended AB 1991 is not acceptable to the present property owner.

Recognizing that Terrace Avenue is a 36 foot wide “Local Street”, and NOT a 40 feet wide “Collector Street”, the 2.5 million dollars in escrow from Pacific Ridge/Ailanto can be used for the stoplight at Bayview Drive and Highway 1, with Golden Gate Avenue extended to Bayview Drive. See green line on sketch at: Web Link)

Terrace Avenue would be closed, and would follow the “General Plan Circulation Element for the City of Half Moon Bay”, adopted July 7, 1992 and in our LCP policy guidelines. Web Link

Jerry Steinberg, CE

Half Moon Bay

Jerry Steinberg, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 14, 2008 at 5:32 pm

It isn't the Senate Rules Committee that is now wangling over the language of AB 1991. That committee is a holding location at present, since the bill was withdrawn from the Local Government Committee where it was apparently stalled. The Rules Committee directs bill traffic (a very powerful task), but it does not create bills. Naturally, we'll want the revised bill, if there is one and if a waiver is granted, to go to Natural Resources or to Environmental Quality rather than Local Government for a more appropriate committee appraisal.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 14, 2008 at 6:37 pm