Truth Squad

WELCOME to the Beachwood/AB 1991 Truth Squad Page AB 1991 is a special rescue bill that will allow Half Moon Bay to avoid an $18 million payment in settlement of a $41.1 million court-imposed liability by re-instating the subdivision maps on two properties, Beachwood and Glencree, that were originally approved in 1990. This legislation ensures the future economic health of Half Moon Bay. Without AB 1991, Half Moon Bay will be forced to issue bonds that will cost 13% of the City’s $10 million annual budget for the next 40 years, forcing cuts in vital city services. In an ongoing effort to derail AB 1991, opponents of the bill, lead by California Coastal Commission staff members, are conducting a deliberate misinformation campaign. In reality, the claims made by AB 1991’s opponents either confirms a City statement, changes the subject, or replaces facts with non-factual speculation and opinion. These false and misleading claims are not new to the debate over AB 1991, and have been considered and rejected by independent third-parties like the San Francisco Chronicle. Yet opponents of AB 1991 persist in make the same claims even after they have been rejected. Starting today, this website will list any and all false or misleading claims made about Beachwood or AB 1991 and provide the facts that refute them.
June 11, 2008 Coastsider Asserts that Events in 2008 are Precedent for Events in 2007 False Claim A June 9 post on the Coastsider website states, “In an obvious parallel to Half Moon Bay’s AB1991, a Los Angeles developer is attempting to get the state legislature to pass a special exemption so he can develop 229 homes on a golf course that the city wants to keep as open space . . . . This certainly puts the whole notion of ‘no precedent’ into a new light.” http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/another_bill_to_exempt_developer_from_the_law_submitted_to_assembly/20080609/ FACTS Coastsider implies that AB 1991 is a precedent for this legislation, despite the fact that the bill, AB 212, was written at least *6 months before AB 1991* included language allowing re-instatement of the vesting tentative maps for Beachwood and Glencree. To quote directly from the article, “After Handel and neighborhood groups held community meetings on his proposal, Greuel, who sympathized with area residents' desire to preserve the golf course as open space, proposed a change to the city plan to limit construction to 20 homes. Despite Greuel's move, Handel filed his application for 229 homes in June 2007. Four months later, Fuentes wrote the bill to restrict what the city could do.” http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-build9-2008jun09,0,2605623,full.story Even ignoring the fact AB 1991 came after AB 212 and thus cannot be a precedent for it, there is no parallel, obvious or otherwise, between the two bills. The preamble of AB 1991 contains three conditions, which uniquely combined in the Beachwood case and are the basis for the legislation: 1) the wetland conditions on Beachwood are man-made, 2) a vesting tentative map was approved after an environmental review by the city found no significant effect on the environment, before delays caused wetland conditions to develop, and 3) the City faced a $41.1 million court-imposed liability that would have bankrupted it. Without all three of these facts present, AB 1991 does not set a precedent. None of these facts is present in the circumstance cited by Coastsider. AB 212 has nothing to do with wetlands or any other environmental law. AB 1991 would, at the request of the City, re-instate already approved vesting tentative maps. AB 212 would prevent a city from changing its zoning laws. Finally, AB 212 is not the result of a settlement agreement, has nothing to do with litigation, and will not save Los Angeles bankruptcy. It should also be noted that Coastsider’s description of AB 212 states that the City of Los Angeles opposes the housing development and the bill. Half Moon Bay’s City Council voted to enter a settlement agreement that would allow development on Beachwood and Glencree and is supporting AB 1991, the special rescue legislation that would allow this development.
June 5, 2008 Half Moon Bay Review Misstates Assembly Vote Count on AB 1991 One Week After Vote
June 2, 2008 Sierra Club Deputy Director Paul Mason Pushes Inaccurate Claim that AB 1991 Ignores Environmental Laws
May 28, 2008 Response to false and misleading claims made by staff of the California Coastal Commission as part of a misinformation campaign designed to defeat AB 1991.

WELCOME

to the

Beachwood/AB 1991 Truth Squad Page

AB 1991 is a special rescue bill that will allow Half Moon Bay to avoid an $18 million payment in settlement of a $41.1 million court-imposed liability by re-instating the subdivision maps on two properties, Beachwood and Glencree, that were originally approved in 1990. This legislation ensures the future economic health of Half Moon Bay. Without AB 1991, Half Moon Bay will be forced to issue bonds that will cost 13% of the City’s $10 million annual budget for the next 40 years, forcing cuts in vital city services.

In an ongoing effort to derail AB 1991, opponents of the bill, lead by California Coastal Commission staff members, are conducting a deliberate misinformation campaign. In reality, the claims made by AB 1991’s opponents either confirms a City statement, changes the subject, or replaces facts with non-factual speculation and opinion.

These false and misleading claims are not new to the debate over AB 1991, and have been considered and rejected by independent third-parties like the San Francisco Chronicle. Yet opponents of AB 1991 persist in make the same claims even after they have been rejected. Starting today, this website will list any and all false or misleading claims made about Beachwood or AB 1991 and provide the facts that refute them.

June 11, 2008

Coastsider Asserts that Events in 2008 are Precedent for Events in 2007

False Claim

A June 9 post on the Coastsider website states, “In an obvious parallel to Half Moon Bay’s AB1991, a Los Angeles developer is attempting to get the state legislature to pass a special exemption so he can develop 229 homes on a golf course that the city wants to keep as open space . . . . This certainly puts the whole notion of ‘no precedent’ into a new light.”

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/another_bill_to_exempt_developer_from_the_law_submitted_to_assembly/20080609/

FACTS

Coastsider implies that AB 1991 is a precedent for this legislation, despite the fact that the bill, AB 212, was written at least 6 months before AB 1991 included language allowing re-instatement of the vesting tentative maps for Beachwood and Glencree. To quote directly from the article, “After Handel and neighborhood groups held community meetings on his proposal, Greuel, who sympathized with area residents' desire to preserve the golf course as open space, proposed a change to the city plan to limit construction to 20 homes. Despite Greuel's move, Handel filed his application for 229 homes in June 2007. Four months later, Fuentes wrote the bill to restrict what the city could do.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-build9-2008jun09,0,2605623,full.story

Even ignoring the fact AB 1991 came after AB 212 and thus cannot be a precedent for it, there is no parallel, obvious or otherwise, between the two bills. The preamble of AB 1991 contains three conditions, which uniquely combined in the Beachwood case and are the basis for the legislation: 1) the wetland conditions on Beachwood are man-made, 2) a vesting tentative map was approved after an environmental review by the city found no significant effect on the environment, before delays caused wetland conditions to develop, and 3) the City faced a $41.1 million court-imposed liability that would have bankrupted it. Without all three of these facts present, AB 1991 does not set a precedent.

None of these facts is present in the circumstance cited by Coastsider. AB 212 has nothing to do with wetlands or any other environmental law. AB 1991 would, at the request of the City, re-instate already approved vesting tentative maps. AB 212 would prevent a city from changing its zoning laws. Finally, AB 212 is not the result of a settlement agreement, has nothing to do with litigation, and will not save Los Angeles bankruptcy.

It should also be noted that Coastsider’s description of AB 212 states that the City of Los Angeles opposes the housing development and the bill. Half Moon Bay’s City Council voted to enter a settlement agreement that would allow development on Beachwood and Glencree and is supporting AB 1991, the special rescue legislation that would allow this development.

June 5, 2008

Half Moon Bay Review Misstates Assembly Vote Count on AB 1991 One Week After Vote

June 2, 2008

Sierra Club Deputy Director Paul Mason Pushes Inaccurate Claim that AB 1991 Ignores Environmental Laws

May 28, 2008

Response to false and misleading claims made by staff of the California Coastal Commission as part of a misinformation campaign designed to defeat AB 1991.