(June 20, 2006) A California Chamber of Commerce-opposed bill that limits land use and could bring building projects to a halt for an undisclosed period is being considered by the Senate Natural Resources Committee today.
AB 2641 (Coto; D-San Jose) halts development indefinitely by requiring open-ended consultation and ultimate land use decision by an advocacy commission for Native Americans.
The Chamber and a coalition of business, agriculture, taxpayer and other industry groups is opposing AB 2641 because it will be detrimental to the state’s economy and also will:
- substantially increase taxpayer costs for future infrastructure projects;
- delay and undermine the delivery of critical infrastructure projects;
- create greater uncertainty in the land use approval process; and
- threaten future job-generating projects and housing developments throughout California.
AB 2641 places into law a vague and open-ended new term, “Native American burial ground.” As defined in the bill, this term can be easily interpreted to go well beyond the discovery of actual human remains to include associated grave goods such as beads, crystals, arrowheads and the like. Once a burial ground is discovered as a result of any “ground disturbing land development activity,” an interruption in the development activity is required and the project is thrown into an open-ended consultation process.
Critical Risks for Development
AB 2641 threatens to put a halt to a broad-range of land development and infrastructure activity until the Native American Heritage Commission, a valuable but not unbiased body, determines whether the site or area in question is or is not a burial ground. The bill imposes no time frame upon the commission to render its decision and the gathering of evidence and information to support the existence of the burial ground is largely in the hands of the tribes, who have little incentive to move deliberatively. The commission has the final say on whether a site is a burial ground.
Conflicts with Current Law
AB 2641 turns on its head the existing process by redefining “consultation” as established by law (SB 18) in 2004 to place the burden of mandated consultation on the landowner or project sponsor.
Under existing law the most likely descendent (MLD) or descendents as identified by the commission may, if they choose, initiate consultation with the landowner or project sponsor. Under AB 2641 the landowner is required to consult with the MLD and is required to “address every feasible option” for preserving the site.
In addition to shifting the responsibility to consult to the landowner, the bill also directly conflicts with existing law that allows a landowner to refuse a recommendation made by the MLD and (after a mediation process) relocate remains to another portion of the property.
Action Needed
The Chamber strongly urges members to express their opposition to this legislation by either writing the Senate Natural Resources Committee or calling the committee members’ offices.
Staff Contact: Valerie Nera