The city's tribulations over the urgency ordinance it passed July 6 to rezone much of residential Half Moon Bay could go to trial if residents follow through with threats against the city.
Meanwhile, the city's Planning Commission is set to consider zoning changes that could radically alter the zoning designation and render any lawsuit moot.
|
|
Their principal concern, which is identical to that of the California Coastal Commission, is the significant change to development allowed under the new zoning on approximately 1,400 homes in the city.
The group of residents who have threatened to file a lawsuit against the city is being led by Terri Lahey and Steve Smith, who live in the Casa Del Mar neighborhood where the issue first emerged. Residents in the neighborhood discovered that most of their homes were on substandard lots. Soon after, they realized that most of the city's homes were similarly situated.
The ordinance could pave the way for small additions and complete teardowns in neighborhoods that suddenly find themselves zoned R1B1 instead of strictly residential.
Opponents of the urgency ordinance support the goal of fixing the substandard problem, but disagree with the city's approach. They say passing an urgency ordinance wasn't legal under the circumstances and that the city broke state law, including the Coastal Act, when it did so.
"I think the City Council should be embarrassed about what they've done," Smith said.
Furthermore, they say rezoning was the most drastic of options the city had, adding that other exemptions could have been adopted to deal with the pre-existing roadblocks to developing small home additions and sheds.
Ken Johnson is still hopeful that the California Coastal Commission will force the city to rescind the urgency ordinance so that residents can drop the lawsuit threat.
"Fortunately we have the Coastal Commission and fortunately we also have state law. I don't want to see it go through (court)," he said.
"The desire is not to have to litigate," Johnson said.
"Nobody wants a lawsuit," Smith added. "It doesn't make any friends."
And it's starting to look like they won't have to file a lawsuit.
If the new suggestions being put forward by planning staff are any measure of things to come, it appears the city may quickly backtrack on the urgency ordinance, which was originally presented as an option that would face least resistance.
From the beginning, the city maintained that the urgency ordinance was the best option available to avoid Coastal Commission approval.
But that opinion (which rested squarely on the advice of the city's attorney) took on a life of its own when the Coastal Commission heard of the city's plans and hurriedly sent a letter outlining its concerns.
Disregarding the commission's concerns, the City Council passed the urgency ordinance as planned. That then sparked a debate between the city and commission over whether a zoning change constitutes a change to the city's Local Coastal Program, which requires commission approval.
Little progress has been made on the legality of the urgency ordinance in light of the commission's concerns, and now the city is facing another legal battle from residents.
Last week, City Attorney Adam Lindgren informed the City Council that an attorney hired by Smith may challenge the urgency ordinance. Lindgren called it a "credible threat of litigation" from a "well-known firm and well-known attorney."
He declined to comment on the debate between the city and commission, saying, "I think it's more productive to focus on what's happening at the Planning Commission and moving forward."
State law reserves urgency ordinances "for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency."
Johnson doesn't think the city met those guidelines, however Planning Director Jack Liebster explained that the language in state code is rather vague and terms such as peace, health or safety are used to describe a wide range of issues - essentially leaving it open to debate.
"It's really unclear why the city staff and City Council would want to rezone more than half of Half Moon Bay. They know better," Johnson said.
"Somehow this doesn't make sense. It should be obvious to anybody at this point that they screwed up," he said.
Lahey, however, wants to avoid a war of words. "Let's just get something together that protects us," she said.
While the city maintains that it isn't backtracking on the urgency ordinance, it has taken a sharp turn in another direction.
Liebster said the Planning Commission will continue to consider alternatives to the urgency ordinance at its meeting Thursday.
At that meeting, planning staff will present two alternatives for the Planning Commission to pursue. The staff report is available for review on the city's Web site at http://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/pcagenda082604.htm.
The first of those options resulted from discussions with the Coastal Commission. It calls for a redefinition of what constitutes a substandard lot and includes a permit exemption for minor additions on substandard lots.
Following the Planning Commission's recommendations to staff, Liebster said, specific ordinance language will be presented at its next meeting Sept. 23.
w