Environmental groups outline why they oppose AB1991

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