Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

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• The environmental review is out of date: AB1991 is based on a 20 year old environmental review.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