Posted on 05/01/2008 9:17:52 AM PDT by SmithL
SACRAMENTO — A bill that would erase Half Moon Bay's lawsuit debt to a developer in return for the construction of a major subdivision on land containing wetlands overcame a major hurdle on Wednesday, narrowly winning approval from the Assembly's Local Government Committee.
The panel, headed by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero D-Salinas, voted 4-2 to send the controversial proposal, AB1991, to the Appropriations Committee for cursory approval before it moves to the Assembly floor for a vote.
A coalition of environmental groups has fought the bill at every turn, concerned about the precedent it could set. It fears that the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Gene Mullin D-South San Francisco, could exempt the proposed subdivision — 129 homes on a 36-acre piece of land east of Highway 1 — from all existing state environmental laws, including the Coastal Act and the Fish and Game Code.
The city has argued that the bill's language would not set a legal precedent for other cities seeking a legislated exemption for their own future developments — contrary to a vigorous argument put forth by the environmental groups.
The bill codifies a settlement with developer Charles Keenan, reached in early April following a $41 million U.S. District Court judgment that would have pushed Half Moon Bay into bankruptcy.
All debts will be forgiven if the city can deliver all development rights to Keenan by Dec, 31, 2011, including an exemption from low-income housing requirements. If not, Half Moon Bay would owe Keenan $18 million, plus interest, in return for the deed to the Beachwood property that started the bitter cycle of litigation more than 15 years ago.
Both Beachwood and the small parcel next to it named Glencree were awarded development permits in 1990, but the city imposed a lengthy moratorium on new sewer connections shortly after.
In 2000, a new City Council denied Beachwood a coastal development permit based on the presence of protected coastal wetlands. The city now acknowledges the wetlands were man-made and developed while the site was being graded to help install water drains on another nearby development.
Environmental advocates who spoke at the hearing waved aside an argument from the city's lawyers that the bill was so narrowly written that it could never be made to apply again.
"I can guarantee "... one of the dozens of small coastal cities will come to you within the next few years with their own set of dire circumstances," said Pete Price, a spokesman for the California League of Conservation Voters. "If you say yes to them this first time, it will be harder not to say yes the next time. We think this is going to come back to haunt you again and again."
Added Sarah Christie, a legislative analyst for the California Coastal Commission: "These parcels aren't just being excepted from the Coastal Act, they're being removed from the Coastal Zone by an amendment to the Subdivision Map Act. That has never been done. It's never even been suggested before."
Caballero said the bill deserved to move forward for an Assembly vote but she wasn't sure whether she would support it again when it does.
"I am deeply disturbed by waivers to the environmental rules," she said, "and, in particular, the inclusionary housing ordinance. But I am also mindful of the impact of the judge's decision on this community, what devastation it would wreak if they had to pay out $18 million with the budget they have."
Half Moon Bay has an annual budget of $10 million, and officials estimate that to pay the $18 million the city would owe $1.3 million a year for 40 years. A Half Moon Bay police officer testified that cutbacks would force the city to make some tough choices, especially with respect to public safety.
The city brought a strong show of support to Sacramento. Fifteen people, most of them Half Moon Bay residents, spoke on behalf of AB 1991. Most who opposed it were from state environmental groups; only two opponents were Half Moon Bay residents.
The bill now has until May 30 to pass the Appropriations Committee — a formality, because the bill contains no fiscal implications for the state — and to receive a majority floor vote. The process will begin again in the Senate, which must pass the bill by the end of the session on Aug. 31 to fulfill the terms of the settlement.
The bill has been without a Senate sponsor ever since state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) dropped his support after the terms of the settlement were announced.
Half Moon Bay Mayor Bonnie McClung said she would now begin "working with the Assembly to tell the city's story.
"I'm really pleased with today's outcome," she said. "But this is step one and we have a lot of work to do before this bill becomes a law."
Hillarious that it pits the non-local EnviroGreeniWeenies against the Half Moon Bayers!!
If the greenies want to "preserve" this private property so badly whay dont they help pony up the 18+ mill???
Yeah, but should the developer actually trust that any “assurance” won’t be tied up in court for years.
Good question. In addition, who can trust the word of the greenies to keep their end of the bargain? The courts may enforce the agreement with the city, but outside groups may launch their own legal battles. The developer should be looking at bringing the hammer down on the city the instant it veers from the straight and narrow path of the settlement.
I lived in Half moon bay for about 5 years in the 80’s...I’m pretty sure I know were this is at...
The streets were even in and paved...storm sewers water lines and everything...
Just empty blocks of grass...
Between HWY 1 and the cliffs off magnolia...
They don't have to. They are using the courts as a "force multiplier".
...don't negotiate w/ 'em ....crush 'em all.
To me, the preferable solution.
So long as these legalized crooks get away with criminal robbery under the filthy blanket of "envirenmentalism", more will try.
No consequences, ---- no restraints.
129 homesites & $41M = about $320K per homesite; at $18M it's about $140K per.
Sure is a lot of information missing here, such as does Keenan have the option to just say 'screw it' and take the $41M & run?
Seems to be the best deal for him, and will ease the burden on all future developments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.