The California Coastal Conservancy approved a grant of $7.5 million toward the purchase of Mindego Hill, 1,047 acres of scenic ranchland just west of Skyline Boulevard near La Honda. The Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) coordinated efforts by public and private agencies as well as local donors and expects to piece together the hefty $29.4 million cost of securing the property.

"In October we announced plans to raise money to save this signature Peninsula property," says POST President Audrey Rust. "Since that time we have gathered $6.5 million in private contributions. By adding public funds from the Coastal Conservancy and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and private foundation money from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, we will match this generous outpouring of local gifts, roughly 3-to-1. Only by reaching consensus about the importance of this project will POST be able to reach such an ambitious goal, quickly, in tough financial times."

That’s all the news we have right now, but the county advises planning an alternate route. We’ll let you know when the route is open again.

How much money will Half Moon Bay lose if AB1991 fails to pass? If you answered $18 million, you’re way off. Let’s see if we can estimate the city’s net cost of paying $18 million, taking possession of Beachwood, and developing the land within the law. This analysis is based on public information as well as private conversations with people familiar with local development.

How many many buildable lots are there?

The last time they looked at it, the Coastal Commission approved 19 houses on Beachwood. This month, Coastal Commission executive director Peter Douglas said "It may be possible that a higher number of homes could be approved there,"—suggesting that more homes could be built on site if some sort of mitigation were to take place. So, at least 19 homes could be built, and the Coastal Commission has suggested elsewhere that with mitigation it could be 30.

What is each lot worth?

In his decision, Judge Walker used a 2006 value of $443,000 per lot ($36.8 million divided by 83 lots).  That’s for a relatively large development in 2006 and the judge was clearly in mood to favor the plaintiff, so let’s call that the crazy top end of the range.

However, this would be a smaller development that is likely have to a view of open space and hills, and not part of some maxed-out development that is looked down upon by a reconfigured Pacific Ridge. That is likely to increase the value of the homes.

More realistically perhaps, residential lots in this part of Half Moon Bay can sell for about $375,000. You’d need to subtract about $60,000 for building streets and sewers. But, if the city packaged the deal nicely and the buyer knew they’d get some special consideration from the city and maybe even the Coastal Commission, which could easily be worth $50,000 to a risk-averse buyer.  With a 20% margin of error either way, the value of the lots is $292,000 to $438,000.

Hang on, that’s a lot of assumptions!

Yes it is. The city of Half Moon Bay probably has a better estimate. It makes no sense that the city would negotiate this settlement without some idea of the value of the land. They’re not talking, so we have to guess.  This is my guess.

So, what’s the bottom line?

The city should be able to gross at least 19 x $292,000, or about $5.5 million, and at most 30 x $438,000, or about $13 million. That means that the net cost to the city could be in the neighborhood of $5 to $12.5 million, and not $18 million.

That’s still a lot of money!

Yes, but we’ve now cut the city’s liability in half. The big question is: What does the city believe the value of the land to be and why aren’t they telling Sacramento?

It’s pretty irrelevant now, but I just learned something interesting about Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge in the Beachwood case. He’s the guy that dismissed a suit by anti-logging protesters whose eyes were swabbed with liquid pepper spray, a decision later overturned by an appeals court.

You can read the details at the linked site.  Or more information and disturbing photos on this site.

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

Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary advises boaters to steer clear of whales, which migrate through the San Francisco Bay Area in large numbers during the spring. Gray whales are at a particularly high risk of collisions with vessels, as they often travel near shore and may even wander into the bay itself.

I am the parent of a child on the waitlist for the popular Spanish Immersion program at Hatch Elementary.

Desite the fact that a third Kindergarten classroom was added last year to meet the demand, there are a total of 30 families on the list again this year. 

This is an innovative and successful program that is obviously in demand by parents on the coast. As wait-listed parents, we are banding together to approach the district to request further expansion. We would like to reach out to other parents on the wait list to offer them the opportunity to be a part of our effort.

Our first organizing meeting is on Wed, April 30th at 6:30 pm in Half Moon Bay. If your child is on the list and you’d like to participate or simply be kept up to date on our activities,  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The County Times has a good summary of the points made by Half Moon Bay’s attorneys attacking the Coastal Commission’s letter on AB1991 at Thursday’s press conference. It’s still mostly hand-waving, but it is clear that the Commission’s executive director Peter Douglas is not backing down from the Commission’s letter to the state assembly.

Coastal Commission Executive Director Pete Douglas said he was sticking with his facts. He said the Coastal Commission voted to oppose the bill based on the public settlement between the parties, and called AB1991 a "sweetheart deal" that would "carve a hole" in the Coastal Act.

As for helping Half Moon Bay with a Beachwood appeal, Douglas said the city never took his lawyers up on their offer.

"It was clear to us that they didn’t want to appeal this at all. They were just looking to structure a deal," he said.

The city of Half Moon Bay is stonewalling its residents and the rest of the state on AB1991.

Half Moon Bay Review editor Clay Lambert has blogged that he’s having a hard time getting his calls returned by City Hall. I’ve made several calls to City Manager Marcia Raines since the settlement was announced, asking about envrionmental reviews of the Glencree property, but have never heard from her.

How can the community get its questions answered about AB1991? You’re only allowed to get its predigested spin, such as its most recent letter disputing the Coastal Commission’s arguments from Coastsider. The city will not talk to you.

Thursday, the city held a telephone press conference attempting to dispute the Coastal Commission’s negative assessment of AB1991 [click for MP3 recording].

The city’s spin machine was working overtime this afternoon. A number of folks, including myself, tried to get a question to Mayor Bonnie McClung, but access was so tightly controlled that only three reporters were able to ask a mere four questions. It was more like a George W. Bush White House press conference than a real Q&A about an important issue in our community.

Two of those four questions went unanswered. You can listen to Orrick attorney/flack Lanny Davis fail to deliver the details of a lawsuit which he claimed invalidated the Coastal Commission’s assertion that the inclusion of Glencree was arbitrary. And hear Mayor McClung fail to tell us the city’s cost for lobbying for AB1991.

At the end, Mr. Davis ran out the clock by describing the settlement as a deal which cannot be undone, but failed to mention who cut the deal and why it was structured the way it was.

No further questions were taken.