THE COASTAL ACT AND ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE UNDER ATTACK

Dear Friend of the Coast,

I am writing to urge you to ask you to help to kill a very bad bill, AB 1991, and to do it quickly.

Sara Wan


AB 1991 would implement a settlement agreement reached between the City of Half Moon Bay 
and a 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 
VTC website (www.votethecoast.org)  but 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, but the 
bill exempts the project from CEQA, the Coastal Act, Fish and Game Codes, Water Quality Codes, t
raffic impact mitigations, current school and park fees and revives the expired Vesting Tentative 
Maps for both properties. The properties are removed from the Coastal Act 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 sate environmental laws will be heard by a policy committee with no experience 
in these laws! This would be like using the Streets and Highways Code to reform the state prison 
system, or using the Fish and Game code to amend tax laws.



The Speaker refused to grant a request by the Natural Resources Committee to have the bill 
referred to that committee, where Coastal Act and CEQA bills are routinely referred. 
IF DEVELOPERS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS LEARN THAT THEY CAN GUT THE COASTAL 
ACT AND CEQA BY AMENDING THE GOVERNMENT CODE, THERE WILL BE NO STOPPING 
THE DESTRUCTION TO FOLLOW!!!



What AB 1991 would 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 should never 
have entered into an agreement that bargained away this right, it still has many other 
options.  Under the terms of the agreement, the City can purchase the two properties for $18 
million, and 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, 
once regulatory approvals have been obtained) could include partial restoration, creation of 
a wetland mitigation bank, designated groundwater recharge areas and public parkland 
or open space. Assistance from the Coastal Conservancy, POST, and others could 
educe the initial bond indebtedness.



While the City and Assemblymember Mullin claim this bill 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 developer 
who wish to, to do likewise.



It is critical that letters go out to oppose this bill which will be heard in the Assembly 
Local Government Committee on Wednesday April 30th.  Please get your letters of 
objection in ASAP.  We are providing you with 2 versions for your use, a short one 
(below) and a longer version attached. 

REMEMBER THIS WILL BE HEARD A WEEK FROM NOW SO YOUR LETTERS 
NEED TO GO IN BY WEEKS END.



PLEASE FAX YOUR LETTERS TO:



Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee

Assemblymember Anna Cabellero

Attn:  Stacey Sullivan

916-319-3959



Copy to:

Assemblymember Sally Lieber- 916-319-2122

Assemblymember Lori Saldana- 916-319-2176

Assemblymember Hector De La Torre- 916-319-2150

Assemblymember Mark Desaulnier- 916-319-2111



PLEASE ALSO SEND A LETTER TO LONI HANCOCK, Chair Assembly 
Natural Resources Committee and tell her you are upset that this has not been 
referred to her committee and ask her to do whatever she can to get it referred.  
Fax: 916-319-2114



Dear Chairwoman Cabellero:



                                    AB 1991 (Mullin): OPPOSE



We are writing to urge you in the strongest possible terms to vote to deny AB 1991.  
This ill conceived bill will allow 2 properties to be exempt from all environmental 
laws and sets an extremely bad precedent for the exemption of properties from these laws.  
It sets out a road map for others to follow and implements an appealable Federal Trial 
Court decision that ignores a State Court of Appeals ruling.



The City cannot be allowed to hold a gun to the legislature and use the Subdivision Map 
Act to do this with.  The City would like you to believe it has no other options but this is not 
correct.  The City can obtain the funds through a bond and then, once having the property 
could sell it,, or part of it, to a subsequent party for development of the 19 homes approved 
by the Coastal Commission, and include on the undeveloped portions the creation of a 
wetland mitigation bank, designated groundwater recharge areas and public parkland or 
open space, etc. Assistance from the Coastal Conservancy, POST, and others could 
reduce the initial bond indebtedness, and it is not inconceivable that the City could 
actually see a profitable return on its investment at the end of the process. At a minimum, 
it could reasonably expect to recoup a sizeable portion of its expenditure, while benefiting 
in the long-term from a development that does not destroy coastal resources, degrade water 
quality and public views, and contribute to the area’s intractable traffic problems.



The removal of ALL environmental regulations on development and other constraints 
dealing with traffic impacts, school and park fees, etc. cannot be justified.



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





You can view the full announcement by following this link:

http://marina-del-rey-conservancy.org/index.php?topic=213.0

Regards,
The Marina Del Rey Conservancy Team.