Laserfiche WebLink
I am asking that this email be treated in the same manner. <br />I'm trying to keep it brief, but it's really important and I ask that it be <br />seriously considered, the disclosures and revelations in this email below. <br />The salient conclusion for commission members is in yellow highlight <br />below. <br />I would have spoken on this yesterday but it became more clear after our <br />CRAL case management conference with Judge Weiner at 2 p.m. after the <br />SLC meeting. It has to some extent been present ever since the Vogel <br />Letter was disclosed, but has come into much clearer, and sharper, focus <br />since the CRAL action has advanced (see below). <br />Hence, the follow up. <br />As you know, the "Vogel Letter" was the informal legal advice given to you <br />as EO of the SLC staff. Although it was variously referred to as an AG <br />Opinion or informal AG Opinion or the like, it was not a Gov. Code AG <br />Opinion, which is provided for by statute and must be ordered by, and <br />given to, commissioners after a public vote. An AG Opinion (and there is <br />no formal or informal, it is statutory), is also overseen by the Opinions <br />Unit, all as noted on the AG's webpage and all as provided for by statute. <br />I raise that only because of the status that the Council of Redwood City <br />has given the Vogel letter. As mentioned before, members of the public in <br />support of Ted Hannig got up and said "Kamala Harris says they have to <br />go", etc. after that letter (public hearing adopting Docktown Plan). And as <br />I've mentioned, the Vogel Letter did not contain authority from marina, <br />nor boat, nor water cases, but almost exclusively filled public trust land <br />and fixed firm permanent construction situations, which has now even <br />been allowed at the S.F. Port lands. <br />More saliently now, however, is that the Council is relying on the Vogel <br />Letter not only to clear Docktown of residential use (which they've <br />sufficiently effectuated in our view), but they are also relying on it to <br />say they do not need to pay relocation benefits to anyone. <br />They always said that, from the start, in 2016, in adopting the Docktown <br />Plan, that the Cal. Relocation Assistance Act or Law (CRAA and CRAL, for <br />easier reference) did not apply. And hence, they were not required to <br />provide any relocation to anyone (barge (large) home owners, vessels, <br />liveaboards, or otherwise). CRAL is at Gov. Code Sec. 7260. They hired <br />OPC, a really unimpressive firm that bungled a lot, as a gesture to provide <br />some baseline moving and storage costs, and woefully inadequate <br />compensation for the equivalent of decades -long homes. <br />They (City Manager, Council, Attorney) would never clearly articulate why, <br />however, even when asked multiple times. People would ask why do you <br />