Opinion: Some questions HMB didn’t answer today

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?