Under the improbable headline "Special Rescue Bill AB 1991 Takes Center Stage at Key Assembly Committee Hearing Tomorrow in Sacramento; Half Moon Bay Citizens To Rally in Support of Bill California State Police and Firefighters’ Associations and Endorse AB 1991" we find the following press release:

City of Half Moon Bay leaders will testify tomorrow before the Local Government Committee of the State Assembly, while dozens of Half Moon Bay citizens will head to Sacramento to rally for passage of AB 1991, the special rescue bill that would help the City avoid an $18 million settlement of a $41.1 million court-imposed liability.

Click to read on

Coastal Commission legislative director Sarah Christie has taken on what she calls "misinformation and inaccuracies" in Half Moon Bay’s response to her initial letter on the deficiencies in AB1991. In a sharply-worded letter to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Protempore Don Perata [pdf], Christie rather contemptuously takes apart the city’s counterattack, making the following points:

• The city "ignores the obvious fact" that the process of AB1991 creates a precedent for future legislation.

 

• The city makes the "insinuation ... that it is somehow the Commission’s fault that the City finds itself in its current predicament",  because it consulted the Commission before it denied the 85-parcel subdivision of Beachwood and the denial was upheld by the state appeals court.

 

• The city’s assertion that the Commission’s approval of 19 parcels on Beachwood was illegal because the Commission lacked juridiction is "incomplete and therefore misleading".

 

• The city "derisively dismissed" the Commission’s offer of assistance, because the Commission didn’t offer to pay its bond or legal fees—which it does not have the authority to do. However, says Christie, the Commission offered an amicus brief represented by the Attorney General’s office.

 

• The city said that the inclusion of Glencree in the settlement was not arbitrary, "because… most importantly, the plaintiff, ‘Chop’ Keenan, demanded it. We think the City’s response speaks for itself and makes our original point quite well."

 

• The city’s claim that the property would be built out by now, but for the city’s sewer moratorium, is not only "unlikely, it is irrelevant. The City might as well point to all the development that would already be built out today if the Coastal Act had never been passed, or CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, or any General Plan law".

The Commission’s legislative director concludes by saying that the legislature should "let the bill die, so that the City can pursue the escape clause it agreed to in the settlement…and…work with the community and interested stakeholders".

Click below to see the letter embedded in the page, or click here for the pdf.

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

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.

Kevin J. Lansing is former Chair and member of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission

Editor’s note: I was on the city’s conference call today. I’ll post some more information on the call later tonight.

Earlier today, Half Moon Bay City officials held a conference call to dispense some spin about AB 1991, a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Gene Mullin.

This poorly-conceived bill seeks to abrogate several widely-supported state environmental laws for the purpose of facilitating a sweetheart deal that will make millions for wealthy developer Charles "Chop" Keenan.

The California Coastal Commission has unanimously expressed opposition to AB 1991, as have numerous statewide environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and the California Audubon Society.

During the conference call, the City’ s hired lawyer/lobbyist Lanny Davis kept saying that AB 1991 would "set no precedent" and is a "one-off bill." That is, of course, until the next opportunistic Assemblymember decides to sponsor his own pet bill to exempt his or her own pet locality from statewide environmental laws. Note to Mr. Davis: We’re not that naive.

Below are some questions that City officials should have been required to answer but unfortunately they were not. Only representatives of the media were allowed to ask questions.

1. The City’s press release describes AB 1991 as a "Rescue Bill." Is the City Council claiming that the City will essentially "die" (i.e., go bankrupt) if AB 1991 is not passed?

2. The settlement agreement provides for a payment of $18 million to the developer if AB 1991 does not pass. Due diligence would have required the City Council to analyze the City’s financial ability to pay $18 million (say, via a bond) before agreeing to that figure. Is the City Council now claiming that the $18 million payment, if triggered, would send the City into bankruptcy?

3. Can the City Council release the financial analysis that shows it fulfilled its duty of due diligence before agreeing to the $18 million figure?

4. The announcement of the press conference states "City officials will also discuss why AB 1991 is crucial to public safety in Half Moon Bay."  The City currently spends about $5 million per year on Police Services out of a total annual budget of about $10 million. Spending on Police Services has doubled over the last five years or so. Is the City Council attempting to exploit AB 1991 in an effort to compensate for poor fiscal management, i.e., excessive growth of public safety salaries and benefits along the lines of the City of Vallejo ?

5. Given that the recent LAFCo municipal service review stated that significant cost savings could be obtained by contracting out a portion of City Police Services to the County, is the City Council being truthful when it claims that AB 1991 is crucial for public safety?

6.  How much has the City spent up to this point in lobbying efforts to get AB 1991 passed (including payments to consultants)? How much has the City budgeted for future lobbying efforts? Will the City Council agree to release a full accounting of these lobbying expenses to the public?

7. AB 1991 would facilitate a Beachwood/Glencree development of 129 houses. The traffic impacts would combine with those from the nearby 63 houses previously approved via the Ailanto settlement. The cumulative traffic impacts from these developments has never been studied. How is the public’s interest being served by exempting a project of this size from the standard environmental review that is required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act?

REMINDER: Jerry Hill is this Friday night

We are opening our home for people who want to meet the Democratic candidates for Gene Mullin’s 19th Assembly District seat. Our home is at 2098 Touraine Lane, Frenchman’s Creek, Half Moon Bay. RVSP, so we’ll have some idea of the number of attendees.

• Richard Holober—Friday, March 14, 2008 at 7:00 P.M.
• Gina Papan—Friday, March 21, 2008 at 7:00 P.M.
• Jerry Hill—April 25, 2008. At 7:00 P.M.

The Democratic primary will be June 3.

Jule and John Lynch
650-726-9280
[email protected]

Supervisor Rich Gordon will be holding his office hours Thursday, April 24 from 10am to Noon at the Moss Beach Sheriff’s Substation.

In a strongly-worded letter[pdf], the California Coastal Commission’s legislative director outlined the reasons why the Commission would oppose AB1991. The letter is addressed to Assembly member Gene Mullin, and copied to the chairs of the Assembly Local Government, Natural Resources, and Rules Committee.  Legislative Director Sarah Christie laid down five major areas where AB1991 fails:

 
• The level of development is excessive: The Beachwood subdivision was approved before the city had a local coastal program, it will cause serious traffic problems, and AB1991 would exempt the developer from modern sewer practices designed to reduce polluted runoff into Pilarcitos Creek and the ocean.

 

• The Glencree parcel is "an inappropriate and opportunistic overreach": Glencree is known to contain sensitive natural wetlands, no coastal development permit has ever been approved for Glencree, and Glencree was not subject to the original lawsuit.

 

• Previously approved Coastal Act mitigations on Beachwood are not included: In 2001, the Commission set down conditions to protect wetlands and sensitive habitat, reduce runoff, protect water quality, protect scenic public views, and mitigate severe traffic impacts.

 

• The environmental review is out of date: AB1991 is based on a 20 year old environmental review. "This makes a mockery of contemporary land use planning and environmental protection principles."

 

• Excluding property from the Coastal Zone is inappropriate and risky: "It is wholly inappropriate for private parties to enact coastal zone boundary changes in the context of private litigation settlement agreements. In addition, by exempting the property from the Coastal Act, this developer or a subsequent developer could change the project and still avoid Coastal Act review for a completely different project."

The letter also reveals for the first time that the Commission and and Attorney General’s office offered to assist the city in its appeal of the Beachwood decision.