STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
GRAY DAVIS, G O V E R N O R
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
4 5 FREMONT, S U I T E 2000
S A N FRANCISCO, CA 94105 - 2 2 1 9
VOICE AND T D D ( 4 1 5 ) 904 - 5200
F A X ( 4 1 5 ) 904 - 5 4 0 0
F-6
Received:
Staff:
Staff Report:
Hearing Date:
Item Number:
2/11/2000
CLK-SF
2/29/2000
3/17/2000
F-6
STAFF REPORT
REVOCATION REQUEST
APPLICATION:
R-1-94-005
APPLICANT:
Donald Pera, Marilyn Pera, & Alice Francis
PROJECT LOCATION:
Within the former Ocean Shore Railroad right-of-way,
between Kelly and Central Avenues and between
Myrtle and Seymour Streets, west of Highway 1, in
the City of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County.
APNs: 056-096-010; 056-125-110; 064-053-010; 064073-010; 064-192-030; 064-213-010; 064-313-030;
and 064-313-040
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Lot line adjustments to modify the boundaries of 7
parcels. As adjusted, all 7 lots conform to the
minimum lot size requirement for the zoning
designation.
INDIVIDUAL REQUESTING
REVOCATION:
Scott Singer
AGENT:
Gregg Garrison
SUBSTANTIVE FILE
DOCUMENTS:
See Appendix A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 1994, the Commission granted Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 1-94-005 for
lot line adjustments on seven parcels. The approved lot line adjustments modified the
boundaries of existing parcels. No new parcels were created. Prior to making its
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 2 of 14
decision to approve the permit application, the Commission received several letters
from neighboring property owners opposed to the project.
On February 15, 2000, the Commission received a request for revocation of CDP 1-94005. The revocation request contends that there are 14 grounds supporting revocation
of the permit, including 13 contentions of erroneous information submitted by the
applicant, and one contention based on failure to comply with the Commission’s permit
application public noticing requirements.
Staff recommends that the Commission deny the request to revoke permit 1-94-005
because the revocation request does not establish any part of either of the grounds
required by Section 13105 of the Commission’s regulations.
PROCEDURES FOR REVOCATION
In pertinent part, the Commission’s regulations pertaining to revocation of a coastal
development permit are as follows:
Section 13105
Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be:
(a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in
connection with a coastal development permit application, where the
Commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the
Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an
application;
(b) Failure to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054, where the
views of the person(s) not notified were not otherwise made known to the
commission and would have caused the commission to require additional or
different conditions on a permit or deny an application.
Section 13108
(a) At the next regularly scheduled meeting, and after notice to the permittee and
any persons the executive director has reason to know would be interested in the
permit or revocation, the executive director shall report the request for revocation
to the Commission with a preliminary recommendation on the merits of the
request.
(b) The person requesting the revocation shall be afforded a reasonable time to
present the request and the permittee shall be afforded a like time for rebuttal.
(c) The Commission shall ordinarily vote on the request at the same meeting,
but the vote may be postponed to a subsequent meeting if the Commission
wishes the executive director or the attorney general to perform further
investigation.
(d) A permit may be revoked by a majority vote of the members of the
Commission present if it finds that any of the grounds specified in Section 13105
exist. If the Commission finds that the request for revocation was not filed with
due diligence, it shall deny the request.
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 3 of 14
Because of the potential impacts revocation could have on an applicant who may have
acted in reliance on the permit, the grounds for revocation are necessarily narrow. The
rules of revocation, for instance, do not allow the Commission to make a second
judgement on a previously issued permit based on information that comes into
existence after the granting of the permit, no matter how compelling that information
might be. The grounds for revocation are, of necessity, confined to information in
existence at the time of the Commission’s action.
This revocation request is based on both subsections (a) and (b) of Section 13105 of
the Commission’s regulations. The three elements of Section 13105(a) that must be
proved before a permit can be revoked are:
•
The applicant provided inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information;
•
The inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information was supplied intentionally; and
•
The Commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused it
to impose different conditions or to deny the permit application.
Subsection (b) of Section 13105 also includes three necessary findings for revocation:
•
The permit applicant failed to comply with the Commission’s permit application
noticing requirements;
•
The views of the person(s) not notified were not otherwise made known to the
Commission; and
•
The views of the person(s) not notified could have caused the Commission to
impose different conditions or to deny the permit application.
In addition to these three elements, Section 13108(d) establishes that the Commission
must deny a revocation request that has not been filed with due diligence. As it may
take some time to prepare a request, the Commission has accepted requests submitted
at various times after permit approval. In this case, the permit was approved April 12,
1994, and the request submitted February 15, 2000. Therefore, an issue of due
diligence is raised.
1.0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Commission deny the request to revoke permit 1-94-005
because the revocation request does not establish the grounds required by Section
13105 of the Commission’s regulations.
1.1
MOTION
I move that the Commission grant revocation of Coastal Development Permit 1-94-005.
1.2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL
Staff recommends a NO vote on the motion. Failure of this motion will result in denial of
the request for revocation and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The
motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of Commissioners present.
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 4 of 14
1.3
RESOLUTION TO DENY REVOCATION
The Commission hereby denies the request for revocation of the Commission’s decision
on Coastal Development Permit 1-94-005 on the grounds that there is no:
a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in
connection with a coastal development permit application, where the Commission
finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the Commission to
require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application; and/or
b) Failure to comply with the notice provisions of §13054, where the views of the
person(s) not notified were not otherwise made known to the Commission and could
have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit
or deny an application.
2.0
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The Commission hereby finds and declares:
2.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 1-94-005 authorized lot line adjustments affecting
seven parcels (APNs: 056-096-010, 056-125-110, 064-053-010, 064-073-010, 064-192030, 064-213-010, 064-313-030, and 064-313-040). The parcels are all located within
the former Ocean Shore Railroad right-of-way, between Kelly and Central Avenues and
between Myrtle and Seymour Streets, west of Highway 1, in the City of Half Moon Bay,
San Mateo County. A more detailed site and project description is contained on pages
2-4 of the original permit application staff report (Attachment 1) Exhibits 4 and 5 of the
permit staff report show the configuration of the parcels before and after the lot line
adjustments.
2.2
REVOCATION REQUEST
On February 11, 2000, the Commission staff received a request from Scott Singer to
revoke CDP 1-94-005 (Attachment 2). In accordance with the Commission’s
regulations, the staff:
•
Reviewed the stated grounds for revocation and determined that the request is not
patently frivolous and without merit and initiated revocation proceedings (14 CCR
§13106)
•
Mailed a copy of the revocation request and a summary of the Commission’s
revocation procedures to the permittees (14 CCR §13107).
•
Scheduled a public hearing and provided public notice for Commission consideration
of this revocation request at the next regularly scheduled meeting (14 CCR
§13108(a)).
Mr. Singer contends that there are 14 grounds supporting revocation of the permit,
including 13 contentions based on Section 13105(a)1, regarding erroneous information
1
§13105.
Grounds for Revocation
Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be:
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 5 of 14
submitted by the applicant, and one contention based on section 13105(b) 2, regarding
failure to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054.
2.2.1 CONTENTION 1
The footnote on page 2 of the revocation request contends that the applicants may not
have complied with the notice provisions of Section 13054. As support regarding
provision of notice for this contention, the request alleges that the applicants’ application
to the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission for lot line adjustments includes an
uncompleted “Affidavit of Certified Property Owners List.”
As discussed above, revocation of a coastal development permit under Section
13105(b) requires three findings. If any of these three findings cannot be made, the
revocation request under Section 13105(b) must be rejected. The first required finding is
that the applicants failed to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054. Section
13054 is specific to the notice requirements for CDP applications to the Coastal
Commission. Mr. Singer’s contention raises an issue with respect to the manner in
which notice was provided for an application to the Half Moon Bay Planning
Commission prior to certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program. The revocation
request does not raise issue with the manner in which the applicants provided notice of
the CDP application. Nevertheless, staff reviewed the file materials for CDP 1-94-005.
Those materials include evidence that the applicants did comply with the notice
requirements of Section 13054. In fact, the list of adjacent property owners contained in
the CDP application file includes Philip and Cheryl Young, 208 Garcia Avenue (Mr.
Singer’s current address). Therefore, the Commission finds that there is no evidence
that the applicants failed to comply with the CDP application notice requirements
described in Section 13105(b).
OTHER CONTENTIONS REGARDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION
Contentions 2 through 13 contained in the revocation request and described below do
not pertain to information provided to the Commission by the applicants in connection to
the CDP application. Rather, these contentions allege inaccuracies in the staff report.
The revocation request does not demonstrate, that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the matters raised by these
contentions. Finally, there is no evidence to support a finding that accurate or complete
information would have caused the Commission to require additional or different
conditions on the permit or to deny the application. Therefore, the Commission finds
(a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal
development permit application, where the Commission finds that accurate and complete information
would have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an
application; ...
2
§13105.
Grounds for Revocation
Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be: ...
(b) Failure to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054, where the views of the person(s) not
notified were not otherwise made known to the commission and would have caused the commission to
require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application.
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 6 of 14
that Contentions 2 through 13 described below do not establish grounds for revocation
of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.2 CONTENTION 2
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“No environmentally sensitive areas are present on the subject parcels.”
The revocation request supports this contention by stating:
“There is currently no dispute that the subject parcels contain wetlands. In
addition, it appears that the parcels may likely contain endangered or threatened
species habitat.”
The Commission did not require a wetland delineation or biological survey of the site in
its consideration of the CDP application for the lot line adjustments. At the time of the
permit application in 1994, no wetlands or other environmentally sensitive habitat areas
were known or suspected to be located on the subject parcels.
In association with development proposals, Environmental Collaborative conducted
biological assessments of the northernmost of the two subject parcels, located between
Kelly and Correas Avenues, (Environmental Collaborative May 1999 and August 1999).
These assessments identified two pocket wetland areas approximately 10 feet to the
west of the northern parcel. The survey did not identify any wetlands located within the
boundaries of the parcels. The City of Half Moon Bay subsequently conducted an
independent biological review of these parcels (LSA 1999). The City’s assessment
generally concurred with the Environmental Collaborative reports. However, the City’s
consultant did identify a 4-foot-wide drainage ditch supporting a dominance of wetland
vegetation on the northern parcel.
In addition to the biological assessments of the northern two parcels discussed above,
MAY Consulting Services conducted a wetlands delineation and a biological resources
study of “Undeveloped Land West of Railroad Avenue” (MAY 1999). MAY was not
aware of the configuration or boundaries of the subject parcels during the biological
survey and wetlands delineation work. Consequently, MAY did not map wetlands or
other environmentally sensitive habitats on the subject properties located within the
former Ocean Shore Railroad right-of-way. However, the MAY report describes
biological resources generally found within the coastal plane area west of Railroad
Avenue. This description states that “Seasonal wetlands occur within enclosed basins
within the annual grasslands.” The report does not contradict the findings of the City’s
biological assessment.
The biological assessments described above were all undertaken in 1999, five years
after the Commission’s action on CDP 1-94-005. The information contained in these
reports was not available at the time of the Commission’s decision. This information
therefore cannot be utilized to establish either that the applicant intentionally submitted
erroneous information in connection with the CDP application or that accurate
information would have affected the Commission’s decision.
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 7 of 14
Neither the revocation request nor the permit application file provides any support to the
contention that the applicants intentionally withheld information concerning potential
wetland habitat on the site. Contention 2 of the revocation request fails to demonstrate
that the applicants intentionally included inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete
information in connection with the permit application. Therefore, the Commission finds
that the contention does not meet the requirements for permit revocation under either
the first or the second tests of Section 13105(a).
Because all three tests must be satisfied to establish a ground for revocation, the
Commission is able to deny Contention 2 as a ground for revocation without considering
whether the third test is met. However, even if the first and second tests were met, the
contention would still fail to establish a valid ground for revocation of the permit. The
third test requires a finding that accurate and complete information submitted at the time
of permit application would have caused the Commission to require additional or
different conditions or to deny the permit. The lot line adjustments approved by the CDP
authorized only the adjustment of the boundaries between seven existing parcels. There
is no evidence to suggest that these lot line adjustments were inconsistent with the
Coastal Act policies requiring protection of the wetland habitat at the time of the
Commission’s action in 1994. Even if wetland habitat did exist in the drainage ditch
located on a small portion of the northern most of the seven parcels in 1994, the
configuration of the parcel as approved would allow a sufficient buffer to protect the
wetland habitat from potential impacts associated with future development of the
property. Thus, there is no evidence to support a finding that knowledge of the wetland
habitat would have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions
or to deny the permit. Therefore, the Commission finds that the contention does not
establish any part of the grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.3 CONTENTION 3
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The lands... are substantially built out with single-family residences.”
Contrary to Mr. Singer’s contention, the staff report provides a clear and accurate
description of the state of development on the subject and adjacent properties. The
paragraph from which the above quoted excerpt is taken is on page 3 of the staff report
and reads in its entirety:
“To the east of the subject parcels are lands that are also designated in the City’s
LUP as Residential Medium Density, 2.1 to 8 dwelling units/acre. These lands
are zoned as R-1, Single Family Residential, and are substantially built out with
single-family residences on 5,000-square-foot parcels.”
The staff report further states that the parcels subject to the proposed lot line
adjustments are undeveloped and that the lands lying to the west are undeveloped. All
of these statements are accurate. Moreover, statements contained in the staff report in
no way establish that the applicant intentionally provided erroneous information in
connection with a CDP application. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is no
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 8 of 14
evidence to support the allegation described as Contention 3 that the applicants
provided inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information.
The revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the surrounding properties
or that accurate or complete information would have caused the Commission to require
additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the application. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the contention does not establish any part of the grounds for
revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.4 CONTENTION 4
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The subject parcels are lands that are also designated in the City’s LUP as
Residential Medium Density”
Notwithstanding any statement in the staff report, the land use designation in 1994 did
not govern the Commission’s approval of the CDP. The Commission approved the CDP
for the lot line adjustments prior to certification of the City’s LCP. Therefore, the Chapter
3 policies of the Coastal Act, rather than any provision of the Certified LUP, governed
the Commission’s approval of the CDP. Therefore, Contention 4 of the revocation
request does not contain a valid ground for revocation.
The revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the land use designation of
the parcels or that accurate or complete information would have caused the
Commission to require additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the
application. Therefore, the Commission finds that the contention does not establish any
part of the grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.5 CONTENTION 5
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The parcels are physically distant from the sea”
The subject parcels are located approximately 1,000 feet inland from the edge of the
bluff. The staff report includes five exhibits that clearly show the location of the parcels
and their proximity to the shoreline. Therefore, there is no evidence to support this
contention. Moreover, statements contained in the staff report in no way establish that
the applicant intentionally provided erroneous information in connection with a CDP
application.
The revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the location of the parcels
or that accurate or complete information would have caused the Commission to require
additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the application. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the contention does not establish any part of the grounds for
revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 9 of 14
2.2.6 CONTENTION 6
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The parcels are zoned R-1 B-1”
As stated above, statements contained in the staff report in no way establish that the
applicant intentionally provided erroneous information in connection with a CDP
application. In addition, notwithstanding any statement in the staff report, the local
zoning designation in 1994 did not govern the Commission’s approval of the CDP. The
Commission approved the CDP for the lot line adjustments prior to certification of the
City’s LCP. Therefore, there was no certified coastal zoning designation within the City
for purposes of coastal development permits. The local zoning designation was in no
way the standard of review for the issuance of coastal development permits within the
City of Half Moon Bay at the time that the Commission approved the subject CDP.
Therefore, Contention 6 of the revocation request does not contain a valid ground for
revocation.
The revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the zoning designation of
the property or that accurate or complete information would have caused the
Commission to require additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the
application. Therefore, the Commission finds that the contention does not establish any
part of the grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.7 CONTENTION 7
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“Railroad Avenue, a City-owned street, runs along the entire east and the entire
west sides of the subject parcels.”
The revocation request also points out that the staff report contains the statement “[t]he
Railroad Right of Way is not clearly shown.”
In fact, this incomplete quote of the staff report is misleading. The staff report actually
states:
“The Railroad Avenue right of way is not clearly shown in Exhibits No. 4 and 5.
However, this right of way is clearly shown on the more detailed tentative maps
for the boundary line adjustments that are part of the permit file.”
Upon further investigation of the materials contained in the permit file, the staff confirms
that the description of Railroad Avenue in the staff report is accurate. Moreover,
notwithstanding the accuracy of the staff report, the revocation request does not
demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous or
incomplete information concerning this matter. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest
that the location of the Railroad Avenue right-of-way relative to the subject parcels
would have affected the Commission’s approval of the lot line adjustments. Therefore,
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 10 of 14
Contention 7 fails all three tests under Section 13105(a) to establish a valid ground for
revocation of the permit.
2.2.8 CONTENTION 8
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The project does not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, within
the meaning of CEQA” and has “consistency with the Coastal Act.”
The quoted statements are legal conclusions reached by the Commission through its
consideration of the permit application. In support of this contention, the request
references a February 8, 2000 letter to the City. This legal challenge written six years
after the Commission’s action on the permit does not represent information provided to
the Commission by the applicants, and is not a valid ground for revocation. Moreover,
these arguments, raised years after the Commission’s action on CDP 1-94-005, cannot
be utilized to establish either that the applicant intentionally submitted erroneous
information in connection with the CDP application or that accurate information would
have affected the Commission’s decision.
The revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the consistency of the
project with the requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act or that accurate or complete
information would have caused the Commission to require additional or different
conditions on the permit or deny the application. Therefore, the Commission finds that
the contention does not establish any part of the grounds for revocation of the permit
under Section 13105(a).
2.2.9 CONTENTION 9
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The City of Half Moon Bay acted as lead agency for this project under CEQA
and found that the project was categorically exempt.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the City of Half Moon Bay did in fact find the project
categorically exempt under CEQA, this contention does not address information
provided to the Commission by the applicants, and is therefore not a valid ground for
permit revocation.
The revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the City’s CEQA
determination or that accurate or complete information would have caused the
Commission to require additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the
application. Therefore, the Commission finds that the contention does not establish any
part of the grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 11 of 14
2.2.10 CONTENTION 10
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is incomplete or
erroneous:
“Local Approvals Received: City of Half Moon Bay lot line adjustments SUB-0893, and seven conditional certificates of compliance, No. 93098915 to No.
93098921.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the permit application file contains copies of each of the
above-cite local approvals, this contention does not evidence that the applicant
intentionally provided the Commission with erroneous or incomplete information at the
time they submitted their CDP application, and is therefore not a valid ground for permit
revocation. In addition, as support for this contention, the revocation request references
a February 8, 2000 letter further detailing examples of erroneous information. However,
these arguments, raised years after the Commission’s action on CDP 1-94-005, cannot
be utilized to establish either that the applicant intentionally submitted erroneous
information in connection with the CDP application or that accurate information would
have affected the Commission’s decision.
The revocation request does demonstrate that the applicants intentionally provided
inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the local approvals or that
accurate or complete information would have caused the Commission to require
additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the application. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the contention does not establish any part of the grounds for
revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.11 CONTENTION 11
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“The subject parcels were created in 1905 when the Old Ocean Shore Railroad
was abandoned.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the certificates of compliance for the subject properties
appear to support the statement in the staff report that the parcels were created in 1905,
this contention does not evidence that the applicant intentionally provided the
Commission with erroneous information at the time they submitted their application and
is therefore not a valid ground for permit revocation.
Therefore, the revocation request does not demonstrate that the applicants intentionally
provided inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information concerning the history of the
property or that accurate or complete information would have caused the Commission
to require additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the application.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the contention does not establish any part of the
grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 12 of 14
2.2.12 CONTENTION 12
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“Subject parcels... [contain only] four existing street and utility crossings that
have been acquired through use”
Singer contends that:
“Pera granted title in fee to three actual streets, namely Poplar, Grove, and
Magnolia to the City in the same transaction wherein the City of Half Moon Bay
granted Pera’s 1994 lot line adjustment.”
This contention does not pertain to information provided to the Commission by the
applicants in connection with the CDP application. It does not demonstrate that the
applicants intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information
concerning the streets and utility crossings on the property or that accurate or complete
information would have caused the Commission to require additional or different
conditions on the permit or deny the application. Therefore, the Commission finds that
the contention does not establish any part of the grounds for revocation of the permit
under Section 13105(a).
2.2.13 CONTENTION 13
The revocation request contends that the permit should be revoked under Section
13105(a) on the grounds that the following statement in the staff report is inaccurate:
“development [will] not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea”
Singer contends that:
“There is unbroken and continuous historical access to the Ocean across the
subject parcel that would be significantly impacted upon as result of build out.”
This contention does not pertain to information provided to the Commission by the
applicants in connection with the CDP application. It does not demonstrate that the
applicants intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information
concerning the access across the property or that accurate or complete information
would have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on the
permit or deny the application. The revocation request provides no specific evidence in
support of the allegations that build out of the parcels would interfere with the public’s
right of access to the sea. The CDP approved lot line adjustments of existing parcels,
neither creating new parcels, nor approving development of the parcels. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the contention does not establish any part of the grounds for
revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.2.14 CONTENTION 14
The final contention contained in the revocation request states that the boundaries of
the subject parcels are based on an inaccurate survey. This contention is based on the
findings of two surveys recently conducted on the behalf of Mr. Singer and Jim Grady,
another neighboring property owner. These surveys were conducted after the
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 13 of 14
Commission approved the lot line adjustments. In a February 25, 2000 telephone
conversation with Chris Kern of the Commission’s staff, Mr. Singer’s representative,
Herman Kalfen, attorney with the Garrison Law Corporation, stated “We were not aware
of any survey error until recently.”
The permit application file contains (1) City-approved certificates of compliance for each
lot, (2) legal descriptions for each lot, and (3) preliminary title reports for each lot. The
revocation does demonstrate that the validity of the subject parcels was in question at
the time of the Commission’s action on the permit. Therefore, Contention 14 does not
establish that the applicants intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete
information concerning the legal boundaries of the subject parcels at the time of the
permit application.
The revocation request does not establish that accurate or complete information
concerning the surveyed property boundaries would have caused the Commission to
require additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the application.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the contention does not establish any part of the
any part of the grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105(a).
2.3
CONCLUSION
The Commission denies the revocation request for Coastal Development Permit 1-94005 because the grounds identified in Section 13105(a) and 13105(b) do not exist.
R-1-94-005 (Pera & Francis)
Page 14 of 14
APPENDIX A
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS
Coastal Development Permit File 1-94-005
Environmental Collaborative May 1999, Biological Resources Assessment for the
Labuda Property on Miramontes Avenue, Environmental Collaborative May 11, 1999.
Environmental Collaborative August 1999, Biological Resources Assessment for the
Pera Property Old Ocean Shore Railway Right-of-Way, Environmental Collaborative
August 13, 1999.
LSA 1999, Review of Pera and Labuda Property Assessments, LSA Associates, Inc.,
October 18, 1999.
MAY 1999, Biological Resources Occurring on Undeveloped Land West of Railroad
Avenue, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, MAY Consulting Services, October 1999.
