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• The environmental review is out of date: AB1991 is based on a 20 year old environmental review.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.

The seems more appropriate than ever.  I cut the last verse, but you can find the full lyrics, or click the YouTube video above to watch the original if you’ve never heard of this or need a refresher. Here’s a lousy pirated copy of the brilliant Simpsons parody. Songwriter Dave Frishberg is a genius who also wrote a lot of wonderful tunes for grown-ups.

Boy: Woof! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?

I’m just a bill.
Yes, I’m only a bill.
And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it’s a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It’s a long, long wait
While I’m sitting in committee,
But I know I’ll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.

Bill: Well I got this far. When I started, I wasn’t even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman and he said, "You’re right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I’ll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.

I’m just a bill
Yes I’m only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I’m stuck in committee
And I’ll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?

Bill: Yeah, I’m one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.

Boy: Die?

Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I’m gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.

Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?

Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.

Boy: Oh no!

Bill: Oh yes!

On the evening of April 15 several items were taken from our car including two bags and a cell phone.

The bag was a silver Tumi brand computer bag with the computer in it (unfortunately). The computer has a capital asset tag on it with a phone number on it. There was also a light blue scrapbooking bag with cropping tools and paper in it.The paper was returned to me by a gracious neighbor that found it.

If anyone knows where these items are I would greatly appreciate them being returned no questions asked. Please either take them to the Sheriff’s station, call the number on the asset tag and arrange for them to claim it or contact me at [email protected].

Thank you to Cindy for keeping my scrapbooking items safe until I could claim them. I was quite upset when they were taken from my car the other night. It made me feel so much better that someone would take the time to find their owner.  Thanks!

Ellie Bailey

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.

There’s a nice use of quotes in Julia Scott’s lead for today’s story about AB1991 in the County Times.

Lawyers for the city unleashed a public relations campaign Tuesday aimed at "educating" environmental groups about the merits of the Beachwood settlement legislation, attempting to dispel their "misconceptions" about how the bill might set legal precedent for future developments in California.

The story also quoted Coastal Commission Executive Direct Peter Douglas as offering some creative suggestions for compromise.  However, it’s not clear that this is possible any longer, now that the city has give up their right to appeal and guaranteed Chop Keenan $18 million if he doesn’t get everything they promised.

No one from the Coastal Commission was available for comment Tuesday afternoon. On Monday, however, Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said his staff hoped that some compromise could be achieved if the parties were willing to rewrite the bill without setting aside the possibility of any environmental review.

The Coastal Commission approved 19 homes on the Beachwood property in 2001, whittling the original project down considerably because of the presence of coastal wetlands.

"It may be possible that a higher number of homes could be approved there," Douglas said, suggesting a hypothetical situation where the developer could offer to create a series of wetlands elsewhere in Half Moon Bay to account for the ones he would fill in during construction. "That’s a matter of compromise. But that’s not what they’re asking for. They’re asking for a complete exemption."

I’ve created a new website called the "Montara Dog Blog,"The purposes of this site are:

To provide a forum for everyone who walks their dog(s) in Montara and the surrounding trails.

To create a loose association of dog owners, linked by e-mail, to share information of urgent interest, such as lost dogs, found dogs, mountain lion sightings, etc.

To create a photo gallery of Montara dogs and their owners, just for fun.

And, last but not least, to encourage responsible behavior on the part of dogs and their owners.

In addition to the blog and photo gallery, the site has a map of Montara’s popular dog walking trails, a page for free classified ads relating to dogs, and useful links to other web sites.

For more details, visit http://montaradogs.com or call Bill at 728-3946.

"At a time when jazz piano prodigies are moving into the spotlight around the world…, Clayton is showing all the signs of becoming one of the most significant young jazz artists to emerge in the Southland in recent years."  – Don Heckman, Los Angeles Times

http://www.geraldclayton.com
Bach Dancing & Dynamite Society
307 Mirada Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
$35.  Tickets at the door. Reservations for members.
Doors Open at 3 PM, Music from 4:30 to 7:30 PM, with intermission.

I made a couple of significant errors regarding MCTV in my recent postings. The errors were entirely mine, but I was working from inadequate information because MCTV had ignored my repeated requests for information. I still haven’t heard from MCTV, but I did discover these errors and wanted to correct them here and in the original stories.

My first error was to say that MCTV’s board of directors is selected by the board, and not by its members. In fact, MCTV does offer memberships and its members do get to vote on who can be on the board. However, with $20 per year membership dues and only $685 in membership revenue in fiscal 2007, MCTV may have fewer than 35 paying members.

My second error was to say that MCTV’s executive director Constance Malach is paid $45,000 for 25 hours of work per week.  My source was MCTV’s 2005 tax return, which was the most recent I had available to me at the time. I now know that in fiscal 2007, according to MCTV’s most recent tax filings, Ms. Malach’s salary was $60,970 for 25 hours per week, a 37% increase over 2006.

We just received the following statement from Half Moon Bay’s attorneys via email. My initial reaction is in the comments. Let’s hear yours.

Statement by Half Moon Bay

The City of Half Moon Bay is faced with two options, and only two options - either AB 1991 passes or the City must pay Mr. Keenan $18 million, a cost which will seriously burden the City and its citizens.  Although people may disagree with the specific terms of the settlement, it was the best the City was able to negotiate. Now is not the time to ask what might have been.  The combination of specific facts of the Beachwood litigation are unique and, as a result, AB 1991, the legislation approving development on Beachwood and Glencree, would not set a precedent for any future exceptions to California environmental regulations because:

1.  The wetland conditions on the Beachwood property are the man-made result of a half-completed grading and drainage improvements undertaken by the City of Half Moon Bay (Exhibit I); and

2.  Development on the Beachwood property was always part of the City of Half Moon Bay’s growth plan and vesting tentative maps were approved in 1990 after an environmental review by the City that found no significant impact on the environment (development of the pre-existing natural wetlands in the southeast corner of Beachwood was prevented, as it is under this agreement), before delays caused wetland conditions to develop (Exhibit II); and

3.  The City of Half Moon Bay faced a $41.1 million judgment concerning Beachwood that could have bankrupted the city and forced cutbacks in vital city services (Exhibit III).

Regarding the inclusion of the 12-acre Glencree parcel that is adjacent to Beachwood, the developer required the inclusion of that parcel in the settlement agreement.  In addition, it should be noted that Glencree also had been previously approved for development, at approximately the same time as Beachwood with no adverse environmental impact.  From current observations, there appear to be wetland conditions on Glencree that one can reasonably assume developed after the construction activities by the City in the 1980s.  (See also Sierra Club statement that "even Judge Walker acknowledges the Glencree wetlands!")

All three facts must be present for the California Legislature to ever use this legislation as precedent for permitting development on wetlands, whether naturally-occurring or manmade.  Only having one or two of the criteria present would not be sufficient.

For example, if a wetland is manmade but the other two facts are not present, it would not meet the requirement for legislative action.  If a city has a vesting tentative map that is approved for a property and wetlands later occur on that property, that would not meet the requirement for state legislation permitting the development if the city does not also face a court judgment that would result in the city’s bankruptcy.  If a court enters a judgment for an amount that forces a city into bankruptcy because of manmade wetlands created by actions taken by a city, such a situation would not meet the requirement for legislation if a vesting tentative map for the property was never issued.

In order for this legislation to be a precedent, all three specific facts would have to be present.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Contacts: Lanny J. Davis 301-928-7532 and Josh Galper 202-744-4047