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.

If a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, how cynical do you have to be to think Half Moon Bay’s settlement is a good deal for the community? How cynical do you have to be to think it’s a good deal for California?

You can’t put a price on creating the precedent of bypassing environmental laws in exchange for cash.

You can’t put a price on ignoring decades of state protection of the coast, environmental quality, wetlands, and endangered species habitat.

You can’t put a price on turning the clock back 20 years for one developer, to a time before Half Moon Bay’s citizens overwhelmingly approved growth limits, and before the developer himself allowed wetlands to develop in holes and clogged drains on his own property.

You can’t put a price on simply ignoring your own laws, after they were vindicated by the state supreme court, just to negotiate a cheaper deal.

The Half Moon Bay City Council is willing to do all that and more for about fifty cents on the dollar.

And they’re also willing to put Senator Leland Yee in an untenable position. Why else would they try to get him to commit to their secret settlement one day before he got a look at it? Why would they threaten him with a city bankruptcy that they knew was already off the table when they asked him to put his name on the bill?  Yee made a mistake signing on to this deal before he knew what it was, but at least he had the courage to take his name off it until he understood the stakes.

Once the legislature gets this thing out into the open air, we may discover that the city has committed to developing state- and federally-protected land. And that the city’s ultimate exposure—if it were to take ownership of Beachwood and develop it to the standard mandated by the city’s own laws—is a lot less than $18 million. And far short of bankruptcy. Especially if, as suggested by the Coastal Commission’s executive director, there is is a way to mitigate development of some of the wetlands.

Half Moon Bay’s City Council structured this settlement so that they would have no choice but to pay up if the state chooses to enforce its own laws. And now they’re telling us "Now is not the time to ask what might have been".  Citizens who don’t want to put a price on the protection of the law shouldn’t have to pay for Half Moon Bay’s cynical settlement.

The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary is offering excursions into our marine and land habitats this spring.

Sunday, April 20 – 2:00 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.
Coastal Flower Walk in Pescadero Marsh, San Mateo County. Local botanist and author Toni Corelli will lead a walk among the dazzling spring flowers of the Pescadero Coast. Learn how to identify both native and introduced species while exploring the dunes, coastal marsh and coastal scrub along the stunning sanctuary coastline. Well-behaved children are welcome. Space is limited. Cost: $10. For registration, contact Christy Walker at (650) 712-8948 or [email protected].

Saturday, May 31 - 8:30 A.M.–11:30 A.M.
Spotting the Nesting Seabirds of Alcatraz, Alcatraz Island, San Francisco Bay.
Join Alcatraz Island Wildlife Intern Stephanie Bishop (Golden Gate National Recreation Area) on an up close and personal tour of nesting seabirds. Observe seabirds such as cormorants, guillemots, gulls, egrets, and night-herons nesting, courting, incubating their eggs and feeding their young. After tour, participants may choose to stay on Alcatraz and return on a later ferry.Well-behaved children are welcome. Space is limited. Cost: $20 (includes ferry). For registration, contact Justin Holl at (415) 561-6625 x308 or [email protected].

Saturday, June 14 - 10:00 A.M. – 2:00 P.M.
Paddling in Pillar Point Harbor, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County.
Kayak to explore Pillar Point Harbor to view harbor seals, seabirds and other marine sanctuary wildlife. Pack a lunch for a relaxing picnic on the beach. First time paddlers as well as experienced kayakers are welcome on this fun sanctuary excursion. Minimum age is 14 years. Children under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. Space is limited. Cost: $49. For registration, contact California Canoe and Kayak at 1-800-366-9804 or www.calkayak.com and ask for the sanctuary excursion on June 14th.

Sunday, July 13 – 7:30 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.
Sanctuary Whale Watch, San Francisco Marina. Come join us on a day-long whale watching trip through the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Summer is a perfect time to experience the diverse & beautiful wildlife of the sanctuary. Thirty-six species of marine mammals can be found here including blue and humpback whales that come to feed in the summer, harbor porpoise, common dolphin, seals and sea lions. This is an excellent place to look for seabirds, including shearwaters, cormorants, and Common Murres. Weather permitting we’ll see the Farallon Islands up close. Our experienced naturalist will lead us in an exciting journey of wildlife exploration and discovery. Minimum age is 10 years. Children under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. Space is limited. Cost: $85. For registration, contact Adrian at: (415) 561-6625 x300 or [email protected].

Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) has submitted a permit application to San Mateo County officials for the implementation of a fuels reduction plan on POST’s Wicklow property and on neighboring Quarry Park in El Granada. The project will improve public safety and help protect against the threat of wildfire in the immediate area.

The plan focuses on the western slopes of POST’s 478-acre Wicklow property. Objectives are to provide emergency response access in case of fire on the land, limit the size and behavior of potential fires, and reduce fire intensity near structures. The plan also seeks to minimize the number of fire ignitions, protect and enhance natural resources, and engage the community in fire safety.

"We seek to reduce the potential fire risk and the damage that might result to natural resources, including vegetation, wildlife, soil stability and water quality," said POST Executive Vice President Walter T. Moore. "By submitting this plan, we want to act as good neighbors and do what we can to address potential fire threats on the land."

A dense, 265-acre forest of eucalyptus trees—a non-native, invasive species—covers more than 55 percent of the Wicklow property. The land also contains more than 160 acres of northern coastal scrub, as well as small areas of grassland and riparian scrub.

Because the property was logged within the last 20 years, the eucalyptus forest is comprised mostly of overcrowded pole-sized trees that have re-sprouted from stumps left after logging. The forest has a thick debris layer of fallen trees, branches and peeled bark. The combination of the debris, overcrowded trees and shrubs can provide a ladder for fire to climb into the tree canopy and create the potential for fast-moving fires. By removing flammable debris, grasses and understory plants, the risk of igniting the canopy is greatly decreased.

The California Coastal Commission voted unanimously at Thursday’s meeting to oppose AB1991 in concept so that commission staff could prepare for hearings next month and be able to present the commission’s opinion of the settlement.

In proposing the resolution, Commissioner Sara Wan said, "This is a very bad settlement agreement and could set terrible precedent. So, I would like this commission to oppose in concept this and to give the staff the ability to deal with it."

Commissioner Steve Blank seconded the motion, saying, "I think this is a big deal."

The whole item lasted just three minutes. Click to watch.

Embedded within San Francisco’s program to retrofit our ailing Hetch Hetchy water system is a plan to divert up to 25 million more gallons of water per day from the Tuolumne River. The Tuolumne, with its headwaters in Yosemite National Park, is a federally- protected Wild and Scenic River and a California jewel. With the looming consequences of global warming, an ever-growing demand for water, and the need to sustain the health of our rivers, delta and ocean ecosystems, the conflict over water has taken center stage.

We invite Pacifica residents to learn how our community is connected to these problems and howe can be part of the solution. 

~ PowerPoint Presentation
~ What You Can Do
~ Food and Beverages Provided

City Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd Pacifica, CA 94044
Tuesday, April 15
7:00pm

If you do nothing else, watch the lawyer’s announcement and imagine yourself in the audience.

We’ve broken out the city council’s discussion as well as the oral communications so you can watch individual presentations. We will post the rest of the city council meeting when it is ready.

• City’s attorney describes settlement [10 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Distribution of settlement to the public [2 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• City council discussion [11 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Sam (unintelligible last name) [6 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Brian Ginna [2 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: George Muteff [3 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Dale Dunham [2 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Jerry Steinberg [1 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Dennis Paull [3 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Oral communication: Mike Ferreira [4 min] | Quicktime | Flash |
• Conclusion [1 min] | Quicktime | Flash |