Environmental groups outline why they oppose AB1991

posted by Barry Parr  on Sun, Apr 27 at 11:42 am in  Environment   Government
2 comments; click to add your own Print Share on Mail, Facebook, Twitter…

Eighteen environmental groups sent the following letter to the committee considering AB1991, the Beachwood settlement bill. It outlines the principal arguments against the bill and answers the city’s most recent arguments in its favor.

April 24, 2008
The Honorable Anna Caballero
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
1 020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 1991 (Mullin) - OPPOSE

Dear Assemblywoman Caballero and Members of the Committee:

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose AB 1991 (Mullin) and urge that the bill be held in committee. AB 1991 puts the Legislature in the indefensible position of exempting two parcels in Half Moon Bay, totaling 36 acres, from every applicable environmental protection law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, the Coastal Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, and applicable provisions of the Fish and Game Code. It even declares, in Alice in Wonderland fashion, that the parcels in Half Moon Bay are not in the coastal zone.

We are not indifferent to the situation the city of Half Moon Bay finds itself in, even though it was of its own doing. Nor is our opposition to AB 1991 based on opposition to development of the parcels. In fact, the continuing opportunity to develop the site is the very reason why the city’s claims of financial calamity are unfounded and why AB 1991 is not needed.
We oppose AB 1991 first because there is no justifiable reason why these two parcels—which are in the coastal zone, contain wetlands, and will likely have water quality and habitat impacts when developed—should be exempted from all environmental laws. And much more importantly, enactment of AB 1991 will set a powerful precedent for developers and cities to come to the legislature and seek similar exemptions for what they claim are similar hardships.

The city takes a reductionist approach and seeks to clear the field of all discussion except for the unalterable fact that it now faces only two options: either enact AB 1991 or pay the $18 million settlement. It asks the Legislature to ignore troublesome facts, including:

  • The Court of Appeal has upheld the city’s denial of a development permit due to its impact on wetlands
  • The development permit approved by the Coastal Commission was for 19 lots, not the 83 originally proposed by the developer
  • The settlement allows an even larger 129-lot development, regardless of its environmental impacts
  • The city chose not to appeal the district court’s judgment even though the Attorney General found the city had a strong basis for appeal and the judge has a well-known and dubious record of having his decisions overturned on appeal.

But most glaringly, it has mischaracterized the options it faces. The settlement agreement makes it clear that if the city pays the settlement, it then owns the land. At that point the city would certainly sell the land, presumably to a developer, who will work with the city to take the project through the environmental review process that AB 1991 would obliterate. While there is no way to know exactly how much of its $18 million cost the city would recoup from the sale of the parcels, it is reasonable to conclude that the sale would substantially reduce, and perhaps eliminate, the net cost to the city. In short, the city does not face the dire financial circumstances it claims. Other fund sources may become available as well to further reduce the city’s net obligation, but those opportunities will only emerge if AB 1991 is taken off the table as an option.

Finally, we wish to respond to the argument that AB 1991 is narrowly crafted with the express intent of making it clear that it should not be seen as a precedent. We believe the attempt is sincere, but ultimately it is hollow. Bluntly put, it means nothing. Precedent is the province of the courts, and while judges and litigants may be bound by precedent, legislators and special interests certainly are not. If AB 1991 is enacted, it will set a precedent, and the Legislature will be asked a second time to take into account another small city’s desperate situation, which will be portrayed as at least as dire as that faced by Half Moon Bay. And the decision to deny that city will be just as difficult as this one. If AB 1991 is not rejected, we doubt the next request will be, either.

Californians should not be asked to reject the rule of law and ignore the state’s most basic environmental laws to bailout a city and its bad decisions, especially when the city has the ability to recoup most if not all of its short-term financial obligation. That’s a very bad and unnecessary trade-off for the people of California, and we urge you to reject it by voting NO on AB 1991.

Click below for signature list

 

...there's more after the jump.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Click here to post your own letter to Coastsider.

Looking for a cheap room in San Mateo County / near environment

Letter by Katharina Deutzmann on Wed, Mar 17 at 07:01 pm • 0 comments; click to add your own

Hi! My name is Katharina. I’ve been living in HMB for about six weeks. My intention is to stay here until August 2010. Although I intend to explore the Bay Area and the South of California, I’d like to spend the next few weeks here in San Mateo County.
Therefore, I’m looking for someone (or a family) who can offer me a room to overnight for some time. It doesn’t have to be a big room; all I need is some space for me and my baggage.

My travel budget isn’t unlimited, but I’m sure that we could

Read more...

Family Service Welcomes Volunteers to Senior Peer Counselor Training Sessions

Letter by Kathy Chouteau on Wed, Mar 17 at 12:31 pm • 0 comments; click to add your own

Family Service Agency of San Mateo County’s Senior Peer Counseling Program welcomes anyone in the community interested in becoming a volunteer senior peer counselor to register in advance for two training sessions. Held at the nonprofit’s headquarters at 24 Second Avenue in San Mateo, the training will prepare new volunteers to provide free one-on-one and group peer counseling to older adults and will cover the basics of counseling, social and family relationships, self-awareness,

Read more...

Princeton Seafood Co. on board with “Hats Off to Teachers”

Letter by Princeton Seafood Company on Fri, Mar 12 at 04:14 pm • 1 comments; click to add your own

Campaign Offers Educators Hearty Discount

Where would we be without our teachers? They’ve given us the fundamentals – the foundation we need to succeed in today’s society. And now, Princeton Seafood is giving something back. With JointVenture’s “Hats off to Teachers” campaign, the restaurant is offering all teachers 10 percent off any meal daily and a full 20 percent off on our special “Teacher Tuesday.”

To receive a discount, teachers must present the restaurant staff with

Read more...

Sam’s Chowder House Hosts Fundraiser Supporting the Big Wave Project

Letter by David Vespremi on Fri, Mar 12 at 11:25 am • 2 comments; click to add your own

Have a comment?

Twitter @samschowder
 
Mail:

4210 North Cabrillo Highway
Half Moon Bay
CA
94019

Telephone: 650.712.0245
Fax: 650.712.0371

Read more...

Earlier letters

...Looking for something even earlier? Try our letter archives.
Get Coastside alerts from Fire Dispatch on Coastsider's Twitter feed...

Thu, Mar 11
Tue, Mar 9
Mon, Mar 8
Sun, Mar 7
Thu, Mar 4
Wed, Mar 3
Mon, Mar 1
Sun, Feb 28
Sat, Feb 27
Fri, Feb 26
...Looking for something even earlier? Try Coastsider's monthly archives.