AB 1991 Opposition Letter: What do you think?

Anyone familiar with what is going on about this? This seems like an environmental issue to me, especially if it is going to set a precident of exempting development from environmental review. Send a letter if you think this is wrong. I feel like younger families on our midcoast and HMB are not really getting exposed to current issues like this. We are too busy with our jobs and families. Understandable, but we also don't want to lose our beautiful coastal environment to excessive over-development. Realtors and developers are always going to push to build on our last open spaces to make money. Someone needs to constantly fight to protect it. There is just not enough land left for continual development. Here is a sample letter:

Senate Local Government Committee
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Fax: 916-445-0128

RE: AB 1991 (Mullin)---OPPOSE

Dear Chairwoman Negrete McLeod;

We are writing to urge you and your fellow committee members to deny AB 1991. This misguided bill would remove 2 properties, Beachwood and Glencree, from the Coastal Zone and exempt a proposed development project on them from all environmental review, in perpetuity. The exemptions would include CEQA, the Coastal Act, Fish and Game Codes and Water Codes as well as reviving the expired Vesting Tentative Maps for the two properties. Such sweeping exemptions have never been approved for a private development as far as we know of, and certainly not in the Government Code. It creates an extremely bad precedent and sets out a road map for any City and developer who wish to, to do likewise. There is another developer in the City of Pacifica who is apparently heading down this same tract.

We understand that the City was faced with a bad lower court decision that, if upheld, could have resulted in a 40 million dollar penalty. That is why the City should have appealed that decision. This is also why the Coastal Commission and the AG's office notified the City that they were prepared to assist in such an appeal. Furthermore, the chance of reversing the ruling on appeal was good, as the trial court failed to even acknowledge that the property had development potential outside of the wetland areas as evidenced by the Coastal Commission's approval 19 homes in 2001.

The legislation essentially implements an appealable Federal Trial Court decision that ignores a State Court of Appeals ruling. It does this through a change in the Subdivision Map Act.

While it was the City's prerogative not to appeal, the settlement terms are without precedent. We know of no other instance where a parcel of land, entirely within the Coastal Zone has been removed from the Coastal Zone and totally exempted from all Coastal Act requirements. In addition, the City has forfeited its right to take up the appeal should AB 1991 fail passage in the Legislature. Negotiating away such a fundamental public right and the City's most legitimate point of leverage indicates that the City is being excessively accommodating to the developer's wishes-indeed, we think unreasonably so.

Yet even with the terms of the extremely lopsided settlement, the City still has other options besides asking the Legislature to facilitate the wholesale suspension of all state environmental laws. Under the terms of the agreement, the City can purchase the two properties for $18 million, and pursue a variety of options to recover most of the $18 million.

In conclusion, by taking this “all or nothing approach” the City is effectively holding a gun to the head of the Legislature and asking it to pass this precedential legislation with no ability to amend or alter it in any way. Removal of ALL environmental regulations on development and other constraints dealing with traffic impacts, affordable housing requirements, etc. cannot be justified.

We urge you not to set these precedents and to oppose AB 1991

Sincerely,


Cc: Senator Mike Machado- 916-323-2307
Senator Christine Kehoe-916-327-2188
Senator Tom Harman- 916-445-9263

Not that I approve of the solution using this bill making an end-run around our laws, but to bring more info into the picture... This issue isn't as simple as "the city of HMB wants to let someone develop on wetlands". First let me be clear that I'm no expert and I'm only writing from memory of articles read long ago. But if I recall, this is a LONG TIME PROBLEM for development that was approved something like 20 or 30 years ago BEFORE there were any wetlands on the property. I believe the city's actions created the wetlands during the time they were putting up roadblocks to previously approved plans. Also, I believe that the developers (the property has changed hands) has complied with requirements in the past - this new solution is wacky and brought on because previous officials so botched it the current ones are scrambling. If only reason had prevailed in decades before...

That's it - just wanted a little info brought into the discussion from "the other side" of the issue.

ooops, I thought I was replying to something I think I'm reading over our email. Sorry 'bout that. Here was that message:

Thank you for sending this info Michelle. This is an issue of concern because it involves our local environment. AB 1991 is sacrificing all environmental protections and review for a particular development in order to fix the problem that the city of HMB got itself into. If I am not mistaken from reading about this previously, HMB is basically letting a developer build on two properties in the Coastal Zone designated as wetland in order to get out of a lawsuit. The concern is that once it sacrifices all environmental review in this instance, it will set a dangerous precedent for any coastal environmental review to be exempted. That might be a deal for the city, but not for it's residents! Interesting to note that other coastal cities are concerned about this bill as it will likely affect them too. The email that Michelle sent was forwarded from people who live on the Mendonoma Coast. Other major en vironmental organizations like the Sierra Club are against this bill as well because it outright exempts all Coastal Act requirements. Our coast is such a special place. We are so lucky to live here. We still have wetlands and beautiful undeveloped spaces to enjoy. Let's not let it become the next Daily City by letting our environmental laws get watered down. If this concerns you, please fax a letter and speak out. Fax info on Michelle's email.
http://mendonoma.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-time-to-oppose-ab-1991.html