There are a couple of things (probably many more but I am concentrating on two) that came up at last night’s meeting that really disturb me and I don’t understand why “Staff” is allowed to get away with it.
REGARDING SUNSET
There is always, without fail, a rush to sign on the bottom line or approve something. In this case, it is Staff’s recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. All of this just has to be sent to the State by May 14, according to Ms. Bach, Director of P&Z. Solution—Ask for an extension.
The City hired its own outside counsel, Nancy Stroud, to evaluate the Bert J. Harris Act and how it might pertain to the Sunset parcel and if there could be any possible claim against the City if the zoning was changed to SF-7.
In spite of what their paid attorney said last night and what Richard Grosso confirmed, that the zoning change to SF-7 is not affected by the Bert J. Harris Law, that the City can not promise zoning and that it was “Contract Zoning,” when it promised MF-20...the mystery is why Staff still recommends that the Land use remain as MF-20, not SF-7. Contract zoning is illegal. Staff received Ms. Stroud’s report on April 9th and Staff went around legal opinion in its recommendation, by signing on April 14th Staff’s recommendation, not heeding the Stroud report. This was signed by R. Bach. Now what is that all about?
I have a request for public information to get a copy of Stroud’s evaluation and will report further.
REGARDING THE BEACH
Regarding the Beach and changing its present zoning from PROS to BAC, Staff continually misleads the Commission and the public in this regard. The present shops are grandfathered in under PROS. They are already “conformed.” There is absolutely no need to change the zoning there, unless, of course, there is an aim to further develop the beach and not refurbish/restore the present Casino.
