Protect it or lose it
AB 1991, one of the worst environmental bills in a long time, and clearly the worst of this session. AB 1991 has passed the Assembly and is headed for the Senate Local Government Committe. It had now been referred back to th Senate Rules committee. We do not know when or in what committee it will be heard. Please check back and be ready to oppose this ill conceived piece of legislation that will undermine all environmental protection in our State as soon as we know the Committee.
AB 1991- WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT
AB 1991 would implement a settlement agreement reached between the City of Half Moon Bay and private developer to construct 129 homes on wetlands at the junction of Highways 1 and 92. The project has a complicated legal history, which you can review by clicking on the Legal History page. In essence this bill uses the Subdivision Map Act to amend the Coastal Act and create exemptions from ALL state environmental laws on two properties known as "Beachwood" and "Glencree", the later property was not part of the litigation. Both properties have naturally occurring wetlands on them as well as endangered species habitat, but the bill exempts the project form CEQA, the Coastal Act, Fish and Game Codes, Water Quality regulations, traffic impact mitigations, park fees and affordable housing requirements and revives the expired Vesting Tentative Maps for both properties. The properties are removed from the Coastal Zone and the exemptions are in perpetuity.
Perhaps what is most troubling about this bill is the fact that these sweeping exemptions to numerous statutes in the Public Resources Code would all be enacted in a completely different body of law- the Subdivision Map Act within the Government Code. That means that this unprecedented end run around state environmental laws will be heard by a policy committee which does not deal with these laws! Developers can remove environmental laws on land, one parcel at a time.
IF DEVELOPERS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DECIDE THEY CAN FOLLOW THIS EXAMPLE AND GUT THE COASTAL ACT AND CEQA BY AMENDING THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THERE WILL BE NO STOPPING THE DESTRUCTION TO FOLLOW!
WHAT AB 1991 WILL DO:
This bill essentially implements an appealable Federal Trial Court decision on a takings claim that fails to acknowledge that the property had a previously approved development entitlement outside of the wetland areas. It also contravenes an earlier State Appeals Court decision. The Coastal Commission and the Attorney General's office informed the City that they were prepared to assist the City with an appeal. The City decided not to appeal and instead agreed to the settlement in which the city agreed to seek legislation to exempt not just the property at issue in the litigation but also the adjacent property that the developer holds an option on. The terms of the settlement are heavily weighted in favor of the development to the detriment of statewide coastal protection policies. If the legislation does not pass, the City must purchase the Beachwood property at a cost of $18 million. This "all or nothing" approach holds a gun to the head of the legislature because it claims the City has only 2 options: pass the legislation or go bankrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that the City had the option of appealing and entered into this agreement presumably because the City could afford this option but not the loss of the appeal, it still has many other options. Under the terms of the agreement, the City can purchase the property for $18 million and then pursue its own development project based on the prior approval by the Coastal Commission. Future development by the City (or sale to a subsequent party for development) could include partial restoration and the creation of a wetland mitigation bank, designated groundwater recharge areas and public parkland or open space. Assistance from the Coastal Conservancy, and other conservancies could reduce the initial bond indebtedness. For a complete review of the response to comments by the City of Half Moon Bay please go to: FACT SHEET
While the City and Assemblymember Mullin claim this will not create any precedent because it is specific to these two properties, that is not the case.
The process that has been followed to justify this legislation sets out a road map for any City and the developer who wish to, to do likewise
.
The bill passed the Assembly, in major part because the then Speaker Nunez prevented it from going to the Natural Resources Committee. The bill is now at the Senate. It is bad legsilation and sets a terrible precedent. Your help is critical to its defeat.
Please keep checking this web site to find out what you can do to help as soon as we know when it will be heard.