AB1991 passes Assembly, moves to the Senate

posted by Barry Parr on May 29, 2008 at 10:52 am in  Government
9 comments • Click to email this story

The California Assembly passed AB1991 by a vote of 45 to 19 at 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday. The bill needed 41 votes to pass, reports Julia Scott in the County Times. Assembly Republicans, who are in the minority, played a key role in pushing the bill out of the body. It faces an entirely new committee process in the Senate.

It took a while for members to come around to supporting the controversial legislation, or so it appeared. The first vote, in the early afternoon, was 19 yes to 12 no, with hardly any members voting even though the chambers were full. Mullin held the bill for a second vote later in the afternoon, which also failed with 35 yes and 15 no.

The objections from environmental groups caused Democrats on each committee that heard the bill to pause and some to vote against it, although Republicans came out strongly in its favor.

Mullin was counting on Republican support to pass AB1991, and the Republicans decided to withhold their votes for most of the day in a sort of political game to force the hand of some Democrats uncomfortable with supporting it, said Sara Ramirez, chief of staff in Mullin’s office.

“Before we went to the floor, we had support from the Republican caucus. They wanted some Democrats to sweat it out. I think they just found a bill they had control over,” she said.

...

The bill will likely pass through three Senate committees before heading to the floor, where it needs to receive a vote by Aug. 31 to meet the deadlines outlined in the agreement. If the bill fails, the city will owe Keenan $18 million plus 6 percent interest per year.

Comments

Comment 1 by Ken Johnson  on  May 30  at  1:28pm  •  All my comments • 

AB 1991 - Round 2 In Senate. Read first time.
To Rules Committee for assignment. June 2 Committee meetings may resume

Rules Committee JURISDICTION: Proposed amendments to the rules and other matters relating to the business of the Legislature. Members: Senator Don Perata (Chair)
Senator Jim Battin (Vice-Chair)
Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Senator Robert Dutton Senator Alex Padilla

Since as AB 1991 states: “The bill would exempt the specified property and certain development thereof from (a) certain requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act; (b) permit requirements under the California Coastal Act; (c) the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; (d) certain permit requirements relating to state highways; and (e) certain requirements relating to fish and game.”

Should go to: SEN NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER w/o regard to title since the true subject matter should govern. Committee on Natural Resources and Water JURISDICTION: Bills relating to conservation and management of public resources, fish and wildlife, regulation of oil, mining, geothermal development, acid deposition, wetlands and lakes, global atmospheric effects, ocean and bay pollution, forestry practices, recreation, parks and historical resources and beverage container recycling. Members: Senator Darrell Steinberg (Chair) Senator Dennis Hollingsworth (Vice Chair) Senator Dave Cogdill Senator Christine Kehoe Senator Sheila Kuehl Senator Michael Machado Senator Bob Margett Senator Carole Migden

Committee on Environmental Quality - JURISDICTION: Bills relating to environmental quality, air quality, water quality, integrated waste management, toxics, and hazardous waste. Members: Senator Joe Simitian (Chair) Senator George Runner (Vice Chair) Senator Samuel Aanestad Senator Ellen Corbett Senator Dean Florez Senator Sheila Kuehl Senator Alan Lowenthal

Probably will go to Committee on Local Government: JURISDICTION: Bills relating to local governmental procedure and organization. Bills relating to land use. Bills that have been considered by other committees having jurisdiction of the appropriate subject, for consideration of any questions relating to local government administration. Members: Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair) Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair) Senator Tom Harman Senator Christine Kehoe Senator Michael Machado

Ken Johnson

Comment 2 by Ken Johnson  on  May 30  at  3:16pm  •  All my comments • 

CUSD Bored Meeting THURSDAY, June 5, 2008 ACTION ITEMS Direct the Superintendent, on behalf of the District, to write and submit a letter in support of Assembly Bill 1991.

Sort of a vote for what will hurt CUSD. This would be a vote to accept less funds for construction than would apply today.

I guess if you have already squandered $15,000,000 by waiting all that time on N. Wavecrest, this doesn’t seem so extreme in their support of developers’ schemes! Can’t wait for the announcement of which CUSD property they are selling off to cover up and complete the Cunha Middle School upgrade.

Ken Johnson

P.S. Also on agenda:

Discuss with consideration of action proposed Resolution No. 13-08, in response to the Municipal Service Review for the City of Half Moon Bay and the un-incorporated Midcoast.

Seems like Dissolution of CUSD should also be discussed, with K-8 merging to the north and the High School merging to the east. We would no longer be in a Failing School District. More money. Stronger and successful academic programs!

As an added benefit - TRUTH -, unlike the CUSD Board, parents of Farallone View Elementary children would not have been lied to about Farallone View Elementary being classified by the State as failing last fall!

Not certain whether: Farallone View Elementary Hatch (Alvin S.) Elementary Cunha (Manuel F.) Intermediate Would still be classified as Failing.

Maybe MCC and MWSD could take up the subject of CUSD Dissolution to LAFCO.

Comment 3 by Ken Johnson  on  May 31  at  12:21am  •  All my comments • 

As an added benefit - TRUTH! CUSD lied to the parents of Farallone View Elementary children. Farallone View Elementary was classified by the State as failing last fall! That status has Never been changed.

[clarification to my comment above] Ken Johnson

Comment 4 by Kevin J. Lansing  on  May 31  at  1:03am  •  All my comments • 

Farrallone view is in Montara—which is where CUSD trustees Jolanda Schreurs and Charles Gardner reside, I beleive.

So Ken, are you saying that these esteemed elected officials have not been wholly truthful to the community? I am shocked.

Comment 5 by Ken Johnson  on  May 31  at  1:25am  •  All my comments • 

Kevin,

I am shocked when they tell the truth!

Ken Johnson

Comment 6 by Ken Johnson  on  May 31  at  1:57am  •  All my comments • 

Kevin,

I think Charles Gardner is on the CUSD Board ONLY for the purpose of supporting Development Schemes - like their vote on next Thursday will be to support Assembly Bill 1991 - even when it would hurt CUSD! This would be a vote to accept less funds for construction than would apply today - he simply is disinterested about our schools.

Ken Johnson

Comment 7 by Kevin J. Lansing  on  May 31  at  11:50am  •  All my comments • 

Below is something I found posted over on the Review website. Sounds about right, but they did leave out any mention of Mr. Gardner, who on the eve of the last failed parcel tax vote, was out pushing another giant local development project (Big Wave).

“The middle school construction would have been done at least 5 years ago, and would have cost at least $10 million less if the late 90s, and early 2000s school board led by Ken Jones and Jolanda Schreurs (egged on by CCWD’s James Larimer) had not decided to get into the development speculation game (i.e., Wavecrest). It’s a really long story, but basically they tried to grease the skids for a major housing subdivision rather than focusing on their real job: ensuring that our schools actually teach kids.

Bottom line: we all lose but Jones/Schreurs/Larimer and their cronys are most at fault. Funny thing is, a little bird told me that the very same thing is happening again. Bye bye parcel tax for at least another 5 years.”

Comment 8 by Leonard Woren  on  May 31  at  3:10pm  •  All my comments • 

LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over school districts.

Comment 9 by Ken Johnson  on  Jun 01  at  1:27am  •  All my comments • 

Leonard,

True, sort of, LAFCo does not have statutory authority to act. But as in:

35700.5. “Before initiating proceedings to consider any reorganization plan, the county committee on school district organization shall provide written notice of the proposed action to the local agency formation commission for the affected area.”

LAFCO may and should note to the County a request of the CUSD Board to place on the agenda an “action to reorganize districts” including: deunification, to transfer all or part of a district to another district(s), and to have other district(s) in the County annex all or part of the territory of a district to other district(s).

They should note that CUSD is: one of only two School Districts in the County that is failing; the residential demographics is substantially above average yet academic achievement is below County achievement levels and has resulted in wide spread and precipitous abandonment of the public schools; and that CUSD has acted contrary to its fiduciary responsibility.

Ken Johnson


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.
Search Coastside and San Mateo County media.