TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Sins of California Coastal Commission, Part Two

Feel the Chill of the Coastal Commission. How would you like to have a knock on your door by the Attorney General of California requesting “All visual or audio recordings” of you on your own property? On May 6, 2009, The Coastal Commission subpoenaed the Film “Sins of Commission” (SOC) as well as “All visual or audio recordings” of owners (Norris and Gilder) on their own property in Topanga Canyon.

For details of all the prior discussions on this topic go to my posting on Feb 15, 2009, Web Link

The Deposition Subpoena was signed by Christina Bull Arndt, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of the State of California, on May 6, 2009, with plaintiffs Norris and Gilder and Defendants are the California Coastal Commission, et al.

You may recall that the owners of the 40 acre Topanga property, Dan Norris and Peg Gilder, were featured in SOC trying to film 3 sheriffs, Pat Veesart, Enforcement Officer for the Coastal Commission, and Rosana Miramontes, Deputy Attorney General of California while in the process of inspecting their Topanga Canyon property. Ms Miramontes would not allow filming by the owners of the property on their property, and Dan and Peg were subsequently issued an arrest warrant for simply trying to film this group (of more than 5 people from the state of California) while not impeding them in their inspections in any way, manner, or form. Dan and Peg left the state of California, to prepare their defense. Simply look at the film. Go to Web Link

Feel the chill of the Coastal Commission.


Comments

Another anarchist, just hoping for the collapse of civilized society.

Seen one, ya seen em all, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 8:00 pm


I wouldn't call Peter Douglas an anarchist. I believe he bills himself as a "radical pagan heretic."

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm


Terry;

Thanks for Part two. This saga needs to be said. The Coastal Commission (CCC)has alot of explaining to do. We cannot allow the CCC to continue to violate civil rights. I see very little differnece between them and the Southern leaders of the raly 1960s. In that case, civil rights finally prevailed. It would be interesting to see what the Obama administration thinks of our wonderful group!

Ted, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm


Terry,

You should buy a bunker and move to Idaho. Become a survivalist and grow a unabomber beard. Take George and BGinna with you. Weld yourselves into the vault and trade conspiracy theories.

Bring your "everyone is out to get me" glasses with you.

Bye bye.

SoCal Native, a resident of a community outside of the area, on June 25, 2009 at 8:15 pm


Don't mind SoCal Native. The real GANGSTERS are not the red and blue boys, its the Mike F.'s Old Guard crew.

Thanks Mike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ted, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 8:22 pm


I noticed that no one that has responded has answered my basic question--- How would you like to have a knock on your door by the Attorney General of California requesting “All visual or audio recordings” of you on your own property?

If that makes me an "everyone is out to get me" OR "Another anarchist, just hoping for the collapse of civilized society. "

Please let me know what you think about an Unelected body, the CCC-- California Coastal Commission, running our state into the GROUND..

It is Time to Reform the CCC...

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 25, 2009 at 8:23 pm


"Bring your "everyone is out to get me" glasses with you. "

Can we borrow yours? The store here is all out. We could also use a new BS detector. Just broke mine on your post.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm


I've been hearing naysayers belittle anyone that raises questions about the Commission for years.

I've followed the Commission for years and have had dealings with them.

Based on my experiences, I am comfortable saying that comments like the ones SoCal Native makes are either in ignorance (which is forgivable and correctable) or stupidity (for which there is no help).

I noticed that he/she is a resident of a community outside of the area. That may lean more towards ignorance.

I'm not trying to be cute here, but rather make a point. The only people that really have the opportunity to have dealings with the Commission are those of us in the Coastal Zone (CZ), which is not the majority of CA residents. Those that aren't in the CZ don't get it because they don't have to deal with them. That makes it a hard sell to change the Commission, but in no way reduces the fear the Commission generates within the CZ for those that have to deal with their gustapo tactics.

They are the same people that throw money at groups like POST, thinking they're doing something good, making themselves feel better by contributing to a "good cause", but not following up to see where their funds really go. They are content to read the website of the recipient, believe it and sleep better.

The CA Coastal Commission is a very scarry group of appointed, well compensated, idealogs that have and are wreaking havoc within our state.

Pay attention, folks. You may be next.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 8:56 pm


The California Coastal Commission is a classic example of the ability of absolute power to corrupt. The Commission staff have the real power, and are simply hired beaurocrats that are screened by Peter Douglas to ensure they have the correct ideology. The staff make the recommendations, and the appointed Commissioners generally follow them. It's not practical for Commissioners to wade through the mountain of staff reports that they get every month.

It's a broken process that is easily manipulated by an unscrupulous staff. It's an absolute crime that in this country, a law like the Coastal Act is being twisted in a way that allows hired state beaurocrats to tyrannize local elected officals and their citizens.

new revolution, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 9:01 pm


OK, some may think I am paranoid, but let me give you a link to an International Documentary Association Film Award about the FILM that the CCC does NOT want you to see-- Web Link

NOW, Naysayers, one & ALL--- How would you like a Knock on your door by your CA AG? ? ?? ??

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 25, 2009 at 9:09 pm


If you think you Nor Cal people got problems with the Coastal Commission, read this.

Web Link

Peter Douglas has got to go, and the Coastal Commission needs SERIOUS reform.

Surfer Dude, a resident of a community outside of the area, on June 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm


CCC must go. Stop the civil rights violations of the coastal commission.

Ted, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 9:27 pm


Sometimes I wonder what the hell is going on, is our government out of control? How much trust and power are we willing to give to the myriad staff of agencies that are NOT even elected (like the CCC)?

Some, like Peter Douglas have been in power for over THIRTY years. Douglas came here from Germany in the 1950's and has no personal history that anyone can find. How scary is that? Douglas has ruled the California Coastal Commission since the 1970's. Commissars follow his proclamations, and we blindly follow his rulings. John Lynch and Lennie Roberts are his disciples, and approve of ALL his rulings. Just look at the comments from the 16 June Midcoast LCP meeting at the HMB High School.

Responses are welcome.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm


California's ocean and coastal assets are unmatched in this country and the world. And most California residents live in coastal counties. It is the regulation of coastal development in California afforded by the Coastal Commission and Coastal Act and the accrued benefits to tourism, fisheries, agriculture and recreation that continue to make this state a desirable place to live in spite of the intended destruction by greedy special interests, anarchists, right-wing hate mongers and Stepford Sacramento minority Republicans. In the end, it will be our protected California coast and our state parks that will shine like a beacon of hope and sanity amid the ruins of greed and self-absorption. We will not let you have our coast, too. Screw you!!

BACK OFF, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 9:49 pm


Terry,

Is this the "change" for a "new America" that our newest chief executive keeps going on and on about? Or is this the result of the Democrats in our state house?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Coastal Act to ensure access to the beaches? Or was the Coastal Act enacted to eliminate all property rights for those with the means and foresight to own blufftop properties?

Oh, I get it, Peter Douglas has been authorized by the Coastal Act to arbitrarily decide the geographic borders of said act.......Oh, I get it, he then authorizes county sherrifs and attorney generals to enforce these arbitraries........Oh, I get it, he is the final arbiter of the defendants before his court, the California Coastal Commission.

One more query, are the San Mateo County Sherrifs going to show up on my doorstep demanding my copies of "Sins of Commission"?.....heh, heh.........too late, all my copies are in the DVD players of all my friends and family....

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 25, 2009 at 10:05 pm


No, they're going to come to your house because your parents taught you no rules and set you no boundaries, and sooner or later you're going to go over the top in a manner that will attract your neighbors' and their attention. You confuse your lack of boundaries with liberty.

Is it Anarchy or is it Liberty, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 25, 2009 at 10:12 pm


Dear Agitator for Anarchy:

There is no confusion of boundaries nor liberty, tyranny is tyranny whether it be emanating from the White House or our State house.

Please expound on your Brownshirt rebuttal, or shall we say your defense of tyranny?

In Liberty, JD - the "Attractive" Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 25, 2009 at 10:26 pm


You know, it's funny.

We've got one person pointing out that Peter Douglas has no personal history that anyone can find, that he came here in the 1950s from Germany.

Peter Douglas gave a lovely two hour interview to Richard Oshen, in which he cleared up some of this mystery for us.

For instance, he claimed that he was the "...last Jew born in Berlin...", and that he went to Mexico from Germany, before entering California. He didn't mention whether he's ever become a U.S. citizen, but then, no one's asked. He did brag that, of all of the civil servants in California, he's the only one who has never been required to take the civil service oath; you know, the one where you swear you'll uphold the Constitution? State law's pretty clear on this one: no oath, no job. And yet, there he sits.

He opened the interview by telling the story of the scorch marks on his head...

...apparently, when you're the Executive Director-for-life of the world's most powerful environmental regulatory body, you don't have to consider Federal or state laws when you get the urge to pour gasoline (yes, gasoline!) onto a brush pile in a riparian habitat. And when you've got that much political mojo, that much environmentally sensitive expertise, you just sort of know that it doesn't matter how close you get to all that gasoline when you're struck with the urge to throw a match on it. Fwoomph!

Douglas seemed to think it was pretty funny.

'Back Off', just for curiosity's sake, are you reading this shit from a brochure or something? What's up with that?

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 25, 2009 at 10:39 pm


Mr. Norris,

Well said, but you said a bad word (you know, one of those that George Carlin made a ton of money from their usage). Be prepared to re-post your excellent point because the moderator will eliminate it......Carry on

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 25, 2009 at 10:53 pm


You know what else is funny?

The CCC and the Deputy AG fought so hard to block our inclusion of Richard's tape as evidence in our case, hard evidence of what actually occurred on the day they entered our property, with those deputies, and with that warrant.

That was back before there were working copies of the film being submitted to California film festivals, way back before there was any buzz, back before anyone had heard anything about Sins of Commission.

Back then, it was about keeping the Substantial Evidence Rule in play, so that CCC staff would automatically be taken at their word. A trump card, as it were, that they needn't have worried about, since the Commissioners refused to look at anything that contradicted staff's recommendation.

A lot has changed since then.

Two CCC staff members have since admitted, in sworn testimony, that they illegally trespassed onto our property, an admission that points to one of them perjuring himself in a sworn declaration, in order to convince Judge McCoy to issue that inspection warrant.

The arrest warrant for me has since been dismissed, and I quote: "...in the furtherance of justice."

Judge Yaffe, of LA Superior Court, has agreed with the Deputy AG that gardening is NOT agriculture, as counterintuitive as that may seem. (and yes, Mr. Drouillard, we lost our writ proceeding, but please understand, we're not allowed to appeal the ruling until after our civil suit has run its course, and we have every intention of appealing)

When CCC staff at the Ventura office handed Public Records Act requested documents to our copy service for scanning, they handed at least one set to them SEVEN separate times. Only this particular set wasn't the docs we requested; they were the medical records for a comatose woman, seven copies, totaling almost THREE THOUSAND PAGES, almost $600 in extra charges to us by the copy service.

With all of these embarrassments stacking up for the CCC, their attempt to suppress Sins of Commission shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 12:13 am


JD-

The moderator has my permission to replace my bad word with asterisks, as an alternative to deleting the whole post.

Or, replace the bad word with 'blatant propaganda', if that's not too many key strokes. (I know I struggled...it's cumbersome, sometimes, avoiding bad words)

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 12:22 am


"NOW, Naysayers, one & ALL--- How would you like a Knock on your door by your CA AG? ? ?? ??"

I just don't know how I will be able to sleep tonight with another one of Gossett's fear-the-bogeyman posts.

Much ado about nothing. No more fearsome than the Mormons or the Witnesses knocking at the door. They just want your soul. The property wrongs crowd here wants your quality of life.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 26, 2009 at 1:51 am


Some of the legal implications of the processes involved with Sins of Commission are briefly described in the June Viewpoint of Ron Zumbrun, see Web Link

For those of you that wish to make fun of people with valid concerns about a government agency that is out of control, it might be useful for you to provide factual or legal responses to strengthen your points.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 8:18 am


Terry Gossett -- The property you imply is the film maker's is actually one in which the owner is suing the Coastal Commission, not the film maker's. That owner is essentially arguing that the Coastal Act doesn't apply to him. The continued howling by the extreme private property rights crowd -- and Coastal Act violators like Dan Norris -- that Richard Oshen is being "silenced" is far from the truth. He has documentary evidence that may refute the claims of the property owner (Dan Norris) that is suing the Commission. In other words, they're looking for evidence that supports the truth. Why wold the extreme private property rights crowd howl about getting at the truth?

And tell me, Terry Gossett, why did Dan Norris refuse to reciprocate regarding filming? Why did he demand that Richard Oshen be allowed to film the site inspection, but refuse to allow commission staff to film as well?

George -- Just how much do you think those on the Coastal Commission are paid? I don't think $200 per meeting day plus travel expenses is exorbitant, do you?

For those interested in another side to the story, refer to the Commission staff report regarding Coastal Act violations on the Gilder and Norris property:

<Web Link>

or

<Web Link>

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 9:04 am


Mr Drouillard,

From your comment "why did Dan Norris refuse to reciprocate regarding filming?" it is crystal clear that you still have not seen the film, "Sins of Commission" but that never stopped you from making assertions in the past.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 9:15 am


All you can point to is the crusty old staff report. You have *no* clue where the real, current action is, do you? You are missing it, but that has not stopped you in the past (and we can be sure, will not stop you in the future).

Mr. Douillard designs large, habitat-destroying bridges. He must feel very guilty.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 26, 2009 at 10:00 am


I find it interesting to note who is posting under their own name, and I wonder who is not.

Especially since we are discussing "a knock on your door by the Attorney General of California" and the people who find this worrisome (using their real names) are being told that they are being paranoid ("...trade conspiracy theories...Bring your 'everyone is out to get me' glasses with you") by someone posting anonymously.

Kinda make you wonder...

(Oh, and fun to see you back, Francis. Nice to see a real name.)

Mary Bordi, a resident of La Honda, on June 26, 2009 at 10:11 am


Terry Gossett -- The film maker reports on his website that the film is still in production. That means no one has seen the finished product, not even you. I don't know why you'd use that as a measure of the veracity of my posts, particularly since I've made it clear in the past that I'm responding to clips the film maker uses to promote his work. Perhaps its because you can't twist the facts that are stated so clearly in the referenced Commission staff report.

This isn't an effort to squash Mr. Oshen's 1st amendment right as Mr. Gossett and Mr. Oshen suggest. Nor is it a private property rights issue as Mr. Ronald Zumbrun would have you believe. Nor a Coastal Commission out of control as Richard Oshen and his cheerleaders would have you believe. It's about property owners that are unwilling to correct Coastal Act violations on their property that resulted from their failure to obtain Coastal Development permits for grading brush clearing.

Brian Ginna -- Perhaps you can share which bridge you're referring to. Nearly every one that I've designed has been the less harmful alternative. Better yet, perhaps you can explain the relevancy of your comment to the topic at hand. Not that it would make any difference to an irrelevant ankle-biter like you!

Mary Bordi -- Thanks! Very kind of you, and back atcha with the real name comment. I wish Clay would require that at this forum as it tends to make the comments more civil.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 12:41 pm


This comment is addressed to Francis Drouillard. As usual, he is spouting off with no basis in fact. He states:

"[The producer) has documentary evidence that may refute the claims of the property owner (Dan Norris) that is suing the Commission. In other words, they're looking for evidence that supports the truth. Why wold the extreme private property rights crowd howl about getting at the truth?"

First, Mr. Norris has already handed over ALL the footage pertaining to the lawsuit. Second, there is no footage on the documentary film pertaining to the illegal inspection the CCC coducted that the CCC DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE. The CCC wants the film becase Peter Douglas gave a 90 minute interview, for which he SIGNED A RELEASE, where he describes himself as "a radical pagan heretic." He calls people who stand up for their civil rights "jihads." He is now trying to rescind his release. I should post his pathetic attempt to retract his statements.

Mr. Drouillard states: "And tell me, Terry Gossett, why did Dan Norris refuse to reciprocate regarding filming? Why did he demand that Richard Oshen be allowed to film the site inspection, but refuse to allow commission staff to film as well?"

Mr. Drouillard, the first thing the attorney general said when she walked on the property with 3 police officers, one filming, was "WE DO NOT CONSENT TO BEING FILMED."

You're really going to look like an idiot when this film comes out. But I'm sure with your views, you'll be in good company.

Ocean Size, a resident of a community outside of the area, on June 26, 2009 at 3:00 pm


I too want Coastal Protection, and I also want "full participation" as provided me in the Coastal Act. Please read what I presented our County Supervisors and to the Coastal Commission, Charles Lester on June 16, 2009.

Memo for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

Subject: Midcoast Local Coastal Program as of June 16, 2009

Dear Honorable Supervisors,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Midcoast LCP. I am submitting this letter for the public record.

PROCESS-- The Midcoast LCP has been under public revision since 1999. For 7 years people of the Midcoast fully participated in scores of meetings to update their LCP, ably led by County Planners, most especially George Bergman. In January, 2007 SMC presented the culmination of those meetings to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Two years later, with very little participation by the public, the CCC staff presented their 341 page staff report. Recent public notices indicate that public meetings are planned for June 16, and July 7, and then, tentatively, the county will meet with the CCC in mid August 2009 for a decision on our LCP which will be the law of our precious coast for the next 20 years. The CCC staff recommendation is a drastic departure from the county offering, yet very little public participation has occurred for over two years, Here is my question. Will June 16 and July 7 be the only future participation by the public or by public service agencies in the Midcoast LCP with the CCC?

Let me remind you, Public Resources Code 30006 (The Coastal Act) states: “The legislature further finds and declares that the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation, and development...” Furthermore, the California Code of Regulations Section 13552 states “The LCP or LRDP amendment submittal shall include…a listing of members of the public, organizations, and agencies appearing in any hearing…and copies or summaries of significant comments received and of the local government or governing authority’s response to the comments.” For the Midcoast that would be seven years of comments from us, with responses from you, our governing authority.

Did the CCC receive “significant comments” and county responses when SMC submitted the LCP? The CCC staff report of Feb 2009 contains recommended modifications never previously seen by the public or service agencies. Any limitations on public input clearly does not comply with the Coastal Act. As of today, June 16, the county response to the CCC staff has been to provide 5 tentative recommendations for the 21 topics in the CCC staff report. In my opinion, there is no need to rush to judgment after 9 years of very hard work by the county of San Mateo, their hard working planning staff, and by their residents in the Coastal Zone.

ISSUE--If I were to use my 3 minutes today to comment on the 21 issues in this amendment to our LCP, I would have less than 9 seconds for each topic. So, let me cite just one topic. Prohibition of private wells in the urban area is an extremely unwise proposal. Given the 32 year water moratorium within the MWSD service area, a wise policy would be to simply require MWSD to do their job and provide public water. Also, based on what I heard at the Midcoast Community Council meeting last Wednesday, the Midcoast is the only LCP in all of California for which the CCC has proposed prohibition of private wells. Why is that? Does the CCC have a separate agenda beyond the Coastal Act? What might that agenda be?

SUGGESTIONS--- The LCP update process is very complicated. Perhaps you may wish to consider using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as a tool to help visualize and reconcile data and policies, and to mitigate differences between local people and their Coastal Commission. Each of the 21 topics could be an overlay on a valid and certified ground data base for the entire midcoast region, Think Google Earth. For a county example using GIS consider Kern County, with over twenty major overlays for every APN throughout their county. That process in Kern County is far better than our continuing quibbling over issues like, “how many private wells are there?, and how many failed wells are there? Or just how bad is the traffic?”

In addition, I suggest you defer any scheduled meeting with CCC until San Mateo County and the CCC can meet your common responsibilities to the Coastal Act by ensuring public and service agencies “full participation”.

Thank you for your efforts, consideration, and “full participation”

Terry Gossett,

Moss Beach California

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm


Looking for something to read this weekend? Go to Web Link and download and read 10 different very detailed documents on our Midcoast LCP. Current plans are for one last meeting on July 7th in RWC with our Supervisors. Each member of public got 2 minutes each on the only other public meeting since Nov 2006, on June 16, so that will probably be the same time allotment on the final meeting before the tentative meeting with the CCC on 12-14 August in San Francisco.

The Coastal ACT requires Full Participation by the public.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 6:40 pm


Ocean Size -- I think it's odd that you defend Richard Oshen's 1st Amendment rights (as fragile as they are in his eyes), but fail to recognize that Mr. Douglas has the same rights to express his personal opinions and beliefs.

Besides, it doesn't matter what Mr. Douglas thinks, which staff member walked on your property or how far, or that Mr. Oshen is easily intimidated. All that should matter to you is that Coastal Act violations exist on your property that need to be corrected.

It doesn't matter what the assistant AG said when she walked up to your property. That was long after you refused to allow the CCC the same courtesy you demanded of them.

And you still have violations that need to be corrected.

As for who is going to look like an idiot, I'll take measure after the results of your case while you do so for the documentary. That way, we'll both have a chance to look like an idiot at least once.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm


TERRY GOSSETT: hello, Terry...

For us to analyze as best we can, what is happening with this takeover of America by the German Greens we need to recognize how the word "fascist" is the operative word when considering their lead organization, the California Coastal Commission... a German Green Group remember. A fascist group.

" fascist " noun

" an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. "

" The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. "

''''''''''''''''''''''''

.

A typical fascist: Herr Doktor Joseph Goebbels, a used-to-be German chicken farmer who was later to murder in a German bunker (as the Russian army approached) his six children, wife, and himself, wrote once something that darn nearly immortalized him:

" “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ” " —JOSEPH GOEBBELS, of the perception modification school of economic thought.

'''''''''''''''''''

That was the Germany which present Coastal Commission Dictator, Peter Douglas, emigrated from at the end of World War II at the age of 7. He was taken by his family to the United States. We will probably never know what had been instilled into his still forming psyche, his soul, mind, and spirit : but, he was a CHOSEN PERSON. His Germqn Father was of modest means,but still little Peter was able to attend a private school in Carmel, not the Bronx, or Hell's Kitchen, but Carmel. A private school there until... until what ?

Until LAW SCHOOL: University of California at Los Angeles. After which, what? Why, folks, he mysteriously became an official on-the-payroll legislative consultant to certain forces in the California legislature. His career there is veiled in zero information.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''

.

Much of this is about the subpoena. A subpoena is a legal discovery procedure to produce something tangible. Such as my public appearance before the Half Moon Bay City Council under the force of a subpoena they had the City Attorney draw. A subpoena is for an object, or copy thereof, of something that exists such as copy of a check. It is not for a non-existient item such as a movie that is unfinished, and, therefore, does not exist.

SEARCH WARRANT:

No form of "subpoena" can replace the search warrant.

This is where I become confused, Terry Gossett. The law enforcement people who were on private property... Where can we obtain an exact copy of the SEARCH WARRANT? AND THEN POST IT TO WEB LINK? Same question regarding the subpoena? We need to post these two things to web links, so that all can see the use of law to break law.

" ...so that all can see the use of law to break law. "

Before the end of lost war WW II, the German Generals and financial leaders realized a Green movement could thrust it into planet wide leadership. This... this... is the misrepresented mission of the man who now calls himself, Peter Douglas.

I have looked the very best I can, Terry, and cannot locate a source for the two legal services that must have been made. But, they are public records, and they show the taking over of America by more people than Peter Douglas.

The search warrant for entrance to private property which has to justified in the warrant's text, and the subpoena for something that does not exist.

Will you be able to do that, to find them, Terry?

Larry Kay, a resident of a community outside of the area, on June 26, 2009 at 7:28 pm


Hi Larry,

As you know I cannot attach documents in Talkabout, so first let me just try to paste in the operative words from the Subpoena from Christina Bull Arndt which is in pdf.. from the Superior court in County of LA, signed on May 6, 2009.

Then I will try to answer your other question. I dont think this pasting is working--tried twice, but I can try to find link to LA Superior court?

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 8:00 pm


Larry,

If you go to Web Link and look at the archived past agenda, and the enforcement actions, then you should find links of the court approved enforcement actions. I will try to find a coupla links for you. I have seen the one for Dan Norris but have not located it yet because of the odd naming of files by the courts...

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 8:10 pm


Larry,

Here is an example for you from the CCC agenda of June 2008---

13. Commission Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-08-CD-07 (Gualala Festivals Committee, Gualala, Mendocino County.) Public hearing and Commission action on proposed Cease and Desist Order directing the Gualala Festivals Committee to cease and desist from undertaking or threatening to undertake development without the necessary coastal development permit, including, but not limited to, conducting a fireworks display over the Gualala River estuary or 39170 South Highway One, Gualala, Mendocino County (APN 145-261-12) (NC-SF) [APPROVED]

The CCC found that fireworks were development, and as judge, jury and executioner, made their finding. Perhaps Francis can enlighten us, it is in his neck of the woods. I wonder what the people in Gualala are doing this year for 4th of july?

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 26, 2009 at 9:06 pm


You got me to checking the Coasal Commission. Here is the oldest website I could find for them-- Look at how much they have changed in their mission. Web Link

But some things stay the same-- Even ten years ago, they had Eight active lawsuits. Are we paying for all of that?

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 26, 2009 at 9:35 pm


I forgot to mention two things--- even ten years ago from that link I provided above, Paul Perkovic appealed Chris Mickelsen on his building a Harvard and Broadway, and the second item was Wan & Reilly appealed conditions for the Ailanto Properties to divide 114 acres inbto 145 lots.

Clearly, this obstructionism has been going on for a long time. Chris did get his building, but Ailanto, who knows. Just a lot of time and money with lawyers the only winners on the california coast.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 26, 2009 at 9:43 pm


"In the end, it will be our protected California coast and our state parks that will shine like a beacon of hope and sanity..."

It is becoming so protected that Arnold is closing them. I suppose that's one way to preserve our coast, huh? Allow me to quote your ending, "Screw you!! BO.

2 Funny, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 26, 2009 at 9:52 pm


SCOTT,thanks, The current CCC agenda for July in San Luis Obispo shows a case or two fewer, but greater complexity in the cases, especially the Montara Water & Sewer case.

.

CLOSED SESSION. At a convenient time during the meeting, the Commission (CCC) will have a closed session to discuss items of pending litigation, including:

Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network v. CCC (Signal Landmark, RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network v. CCC (Malibu Valley Farms, RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

McAllister v. CCC (Laube et al., RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

Martins Beach 1 and 2, LLC v. County of San Mateo, CCC (new lawsuit) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

Norris et al. v. CCC et al. Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

Richard J. Livoni Second Family Limited Partnership v CCC et al. Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

More Citizens for Safe Water et al. v. CCC et al. (Montara Water & Sanitary District, RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).

''''''''''''''''''''

The Commission is authorized to discuss these matters in a closed session pursuant to Government Code Sections 11126(e)(2)(A) and (2)(C). In addition, the Commission may consider matters which fall under Government Code Section 11126(e)(2)(B) or (2)(C). The Commission may also consider personnel matters which fall under Government Code Section 11126(a).

Larry Kay, a resident of a community outside of the area, on June 26, 2009 at 9:56 pm


Haven't seen you for a while, Drouillard. I see you haven't changed. You say, among other things "Just how much do you think those on the Coastal Commission are paid? I don't think $200 per meeting day plus travel expenses is exorbitant, do you?"

Compensation comes in many shapes, sizes and forms. Your head in the sand approach won't get you far; not here, not anywhere.

FD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 10:07 pm


Mr. Drouillard, I'm only posting under my own name, but something you thought you were saying to me was most telling:

"...which staff member walked on your property or how far..."

Now, that's peculiar, says I.

Mr. Drouillard just confirmed that he's familiar with the contents of the sworn deposition of N. Patrick Veesart, CCC Enforcement, Ventura office, in the case of Norris, et al, v. CCC, et al.

None of which has been posted on the SOC website, nor by me, nor by anyone on either side.

And how would he be having personal knowledge of this, wonders I? Who could it be what's coaching him, what's feeding him these wee toady-bits of insider information?

Hmmm....?

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 26, 2009 at 11:18 pm


I wonder what Francis can tell us about the CCC cease and desist order against the Gualala Festivals Committee?

Was it a Good Thing™?

He knows more about that area than I do...

Tawdry Glamour, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 27, 2009 at 7:45 am


I was re-reading the webpage from the Coastal Commission for August 2000, and it stated "Public Participation-- The Commission's business requires active and frequent communications with the public, local governments and state and federal agencies."

Wow, how things have "changed". On the Midcoast there was no communication with the public from Nov 2006 until the staff of the Commission issued a 341 page report on Feb 2009 for "our" Local Coaastal Program. Change can be good, but not when it violates the Coastal Act. Oh wel, I guess the Commission and their staff are even above the Coastal Act.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 27, 2009 at 8:05 am


Sorry, I forgot to provide reference link for you to verify my quote. Web Link

The arrogance of the Commission and their staff knows no bounds.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 27, 2009 at 8:14 am


OK, one last ref from the agenda for Nov 1995 and it is about Pacifica, item 13a, application 1-95-40, by city of Pacifica for a wastewater treatment plant, with a discharge of 3.6-4 mgd of tertiary treated effluent into lower Calera Creek, with proposal to fill 7 acres of scattered wetlands, create 8 acres of new wetlands.

Web Link

History is fascinating. Yeah, that was 3.6-4.0 mgd into Calera Creek.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 27, 2009 at 8:32 am


Terry Gossett -- Regarding the 4th of July Fireworks in Gualala, all of the key issues are addressed in the staff report. You just need to read that instead of reading only what the PLF has to say about it.

<Web Link>

For the record, the GFC and the PLF have sued the Commission and lost. They appealed and lost the appeal, too.

Also, you might be interested to know that the Commission doesn't have anything against most Fireworks on the 4th of July -- just those that harm natural resources within the Coastal Zone (which also includes the California Coast National Monument). The City of Capitola has applied for a CDP for fireworks on September 2nd of this year. Staff was able to properly condition that event so it is compatible with the Coastal Act, and are recommending approval with conditions. The item will be heard at the next CCC meeting:

<Web Link>

Rather than take their case to the California Supreme Court, the GFC (a group of private individuals that are not elected representatives of the town of Gualala) should consider following the lead of the City of Capitola and apply for a CDP.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm


Dan Norris -- Starting on page 24 of 31 of the staff report regarding the violation on your property:

"6. Wildcrew’s’s Defense:

The October 19, 2005 Meeting: A site inspection was scheduled for the subject property on October 19, 2005. After arriving at the site, the Coastal Commission staff and attorney chose not to proceed with an inspection because a film crew was present to videotape the inspection. However, without my client’s knowledge and consent, one of the Coastal Commission staff proceeded to leave the group and apparently inspected and photographed part of the property. He was noticed to return to the group. The search warrant that had been obtained stated: “No Forced Entry.” It is my client’s position that this action was an illegal search and cannot be utilized for any purpose in these proceedings."

Just in case you forgot, that report can be found here:

<Web Link>

Also, first clip at about the 03:12 mark at Richard Oshen's site:

<Web Link>

Seems to show someone that I presume is from the Commission walking on what I presume is your land.

And, you still have Coastal Act violations on your property that you need to clear up. None of the other issues persistently raised by you or your supporters will change that fact.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 27, 2009 at 4:57 pm


Larry,

Did you find all the answers to your questions? According to film, in the case of Dan Norris, the CCC did not use a search warrant, but used an inspection warrant, issued by Judge Charles McCoy of LA County.

When Mr Norris filmed the CA AG and deputies and the CCC enforcement agent, they (CA AG) did not like it and went to court and got an arrest warrant under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. I went to that section and could not find a basis for an arrest warrant being issued, so I will link it and let you read it for yourself. Web Link

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm


FD -- You're being vague. Of course, some use the Commission as a stepping stone for higher office. This is particularly true of elected officials that serve on the Commission. Ben Hueso is certainly one. I suspect Ross Mirkarimi may be another.

However, if you have evidence that a Commissioner is on the take you need to report it. They're not allowed to accept any gift greater than $10. It's a crime that should be taken seriously.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 27, 2009 at 5:06 pm


Boy! A lot of outrage here about abuse of power, overreaching, even - somebody said it - tyranny. Wow! I wonder how many of the outraged feel even a bit uneasy about the power grab going on in Washington. The Coastal Commission, of course, is small potatoes. What is happening nationally is not.

Misanthrope, a resident of Montara, on June 27, 2009 at 6:33 pm


Misanthrope -- I couldn't agree with you more. Or Minority Leader John Boehner.

Nancy Pelosi and the far-left have clearly gone too far. The legislation has been promoted as a jobs-creating, energy independence and environmental cure-all. It won't do any of that, but all of us will suffer higher costs and a substantially reduced standard of living.

If this bill passes it will lead to a backlash against all environmental laws (good and bad) and environmentalists.

Call your Congressperson. If they supported the bill, admonish them for imposing a costly national energy tax that won't reduce carbon emissions or improve our energy independence. If they opposed the bill, send them a campaign contribution.

Then call and write Feinstein (Boxer is a lost cause). Demand that she oppose cap-and-trade in any shape or form. Remind her that there are better ways to clean up the environment, develop alternative forms of energy and achieve energy independence.

Then, participate in energy summits over the Independence Day holiday:

<Web Link>

One encouraging perspective may be noted in the last two paragraphs of the article.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 28, 2009 at 7:54 am


Francis,

I agree with you on your last post. It is way beyond this topic, but is very relevant. If we can find topics of agreement, then we could build a foundation for constructive discussion.

Next... I would hope that on every bill before congress, whether for stimulus, or TARP, or "nationalizing autos", or Cap & Trade, that each member of congress, actually read the bill, discuss the bill with staff, constituents, and experts, and then tell their constituents why they are voting as they do. For the past year, especially during the financial meltdown, that process has been often short circuited, and is way out of whack.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 28, 2009 at 8:07 am


No one is saying much about Gulala fireworks so here is a bit of reaction from the folks that live there. Web Link

For people new to California that may not know much about our Coastal Commission, here is another article.

Web Link

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 28, 2009 at 9:37 pm


Scott -- One article from last year and another from 2003. You're a bit out of date. I guess that's one way to stay agitated.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 29, 2009 at 7:41 am


Scott -- You don't have to worry about us folks on the north coast. We'll have our fireworks:

<Web Link>

BTW, Point Arena is the traditional location for fireworks for the so-called "Mendonoma" region of the coast, which includes Gualala. The Gualala 4th of July fireworks were started by a few local businessmen in 2006 in an attempt to steal some of Pt. Arena's thunder.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 29, 2009 at 8:05 am


I'd like to thank you Dan, for standing up for your (our) rights. I'd also like to recognize the courage and dignity that you exhibit. I'm sure it's not easy for you and your family and although it's easy for me to say, please don't stop.

The resources (yours) that are being consumed in your fight must be staggering. The stress you must be dealing with is extraordinary, I'm sure.

Thank you for making the time to share this travesty with us. Those that are smart will heed your cause. They better, cause any one of us could be next, and the list that has gone before you is long.

I admire and respect those that see evil and pursue it. Your fight is ours as well and just another example of what should never be.

I would offer one clarification here; those that oppose your efforts on the basis of the Act are missing the point entirely. There is a very wide gap between the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission. Hopefully, your case and message will draw that distinction clear enough for most to understand.

It's past time for change at the Commission. I do believe that some of what they and their staff do is criminal. We need accountability and restructure. Perhaps your case, Sins of Commission, and all they reach will provide support toward that goal.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 29, 2009 at 11:14 am


"Some of the legal implications of the processes involved with Sins of Commission are briefly described in the June Viewpoint of Ron Zumbrun, see Web Link"

Mentions of property wrongs zealots, such as attorney Zumbrun, or the natural resource extraction industry supported Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), are always good for a bit of levity in the midst of a heated discussion.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on June 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm


George,

Thank you so much, first for your kind words, but, more importantly, for acknowledging how daunting a task it is to stand up for what is right in the face of such entrenched hatred.

On July 15th, just over two weeks from now, it will be four years since we received the initial Notice of Violation from Pat Veesart of the CCC. You used the term 'staggering', George: we purchased the 40 acres in Topanga Canyon for $675,000; we've spent more than that in legal bills, to date, and the trial is still several months away. That's in excess of $15,000 per month for every month we've owned the property. Thank God for the good folk at Zumbrun Law Firm, or that figure would be considerably higher; I have never encountered such selfless people as these.

This is what it costs to call bullies out and make them stop, and there really isn't any choice in the matter, because bullies must be stopped, always. Always. It's that simple.

CCC staff have been bullying thousands of families, families who have their entire nest egg (often as not more than their entire net worth) held hostage at the fickle whims of cynical civil servants, drunkenly wielding discretionary powers that they should never have been granted in the first place. Contrary to what several of your anonymous posters would have the casual observer believe, none of these families are greedy money-grubbers; on the contrary, for most folks, it comes down to either waiving one's rights in exchange for 6% of one's dream (by complying with CCC staff's whims in exchange for a permit) or, literally, being bankrupted and losing a lifetime of working and sacrificing, saving and planning. Peggy & I are obligated to stand up and to stand fast; there has never been any question and there will never be a choice. Ever.

We bought forty acres with an existing road that had not been maintained for quite some time. We had a beautiful home 10 miles away, and had neither the need nor the desire to build another. We bought the Topanga Canyon property so our kids would have a safe place to run and play and camp, and Peggy and I could have a place to garden.

We began clearing and repairing the road ourselves, and managed 8' to 12' of usable width, enough to get an all-terrain vehicle up the hill to an old building pad we intended to use for camping and gardening. Unbeknownst to us, neighbors had trespassed and, after their urging, Patrick Veesart & Tom Sinclair of the CCC also trespassed, all with the supposed intention of stopping us from inflicting further "incredible environmental destruction". It was five weeks AFTER his trespass that Veesart issued the initial Notice of Violation, threatening us with up to $15,000 in daily fines.

Peter Douglas signed and issued his formal Notice of Intent to Record a Notice of Violation (NOI/NOV) on November 9, 2006, the very same day that Richard Oshen filmed a 90 minute interview with him, excerpts of which can be seen in Richard's excellent film 'Sins of Commission'. We presume that Mr. Douglas gave the interview first, and then issued the NOI/NOV immediately after finding out that Richard is our friend, the very same friend, in fact, who had refused to turn off his camera when Mr. Douglas' staff came onto our property with three sheriff's deputies, a Deputy AG and an inspection warrant that purportedly prohibited us from filming on our own property.

The work we did on our road is exempt, so of course it was 'unpermitted'; that term is just a matter of CCC staff employing semantics to get a desired effect. Yes, Mr. Drouillard, a CDP would have been required in an ESHA, but CCC staff didn't designate our place ESHA until long after we'd ceased all activity, and that ESHA designation was, arguably, as retaliatory as it was an abuse of discretionary power. Look at your precious staff report: the alleged 1986 LA County LUP/LCP ESHA map that Veesart used as justification and evidence does not actually exist, and the AG's office has since conceded as much. We submitted aerial photos from as far back as the 1940s, showing a 16' wide asphalt road. We submitted sworn affidavits from former owners (one of them a retired LA Superior Court judge) stating the same. None of these were included in the staff report, meaning that our supporting evidence was withheld from the Commissioners, by a staff that insisted we'd "widened" our road, without offering a single measurement to prove the allegation.

As you can see, none of our case really has to do with the Coastal Act itself, just the outrageous abuse of discretion in the CCC staff's interpretation of it, and the malicious and criminal intent behind such corrupt interpretation.

There's more, of course, much more; an arrest warrant for me, proof of CCC staff conducting a search for our assets, apparent perjury in declarations made to LA Superior Court when trying to get two separate inspection warrants, civil rights abuses, to name a few, but it's getting late and I'm tired, so the rest will have to wait, to be meted out in mercifully shorter posts.

Thanks again, George, and to you, too, Mr. Gossett, for giving us the opportunity to tell our story. Thanks to folks like you, change WILL come.

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 29, 2009 at 11:11 pm


Now Pitching,

Will you please explain what you mean by 'property wrongs'? I'll admit it's got a catchy sound, but I'm going to have to ask you to be much more specific as to what exactly you mean, unless of course you're just experimenting with some jargon you've heard somewhere else.

Do you mean that ownership is wrong?

Do you own nothing?

Or do you mean that being in control of an owned thing is wrong?

Are you in control of anything?

There's another thing I want to ask you to clarify for me, too:

Do you not use anything made from minerals or forest products?

I mean, like, a fork? A spoon? Public transportation? A bed, or a house, or an apartment?

You're the cross-dresser, right? What about nylon stockings, or panty hose? Vinyl or Pleather clothing? How about a makeup mirror? Do you use any of these products yourself, or any other such products that are made from resources that have to be extracted before you can purchase and use the finished product made from them?

Or do you exist only as bait?

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 29, 2009 at 11:36 pm


Mr Norris was one of 13 litigations listed by the CCC in their June 2009 Agenda. In May there were another 12 litigations listed by the CCC including our own Dan Sterling from El Granada, and More Citizens for Safe Water from Montara. In April only 10 litigations were cited. We are talking about some serious time and money being spent by landowners along with considerable anguish and stress to fight lawsuits, some with very little merit.

Enough about citizens and their rights and costs, what about the CCC, and how much of or our money are they spending in this quest? Who knows? If you go to their budget you will not see those expenditures listed, or if you go to the state budget you will not find it. The CCC is not about transparency.

Consider the Midcoast LCP update. The Coastal Act Section 30006 requires "full participation" by the public, yet while our county Supervisors afforded us that full participation in the update of our LCP for seven years, the Coastal Commission provides one meeting (the decision meeting) for us to consider their 341 pages of changes to our labor of 7 years. Our Midcoast LCP is only one of 126 LCP, so you see it is not just individuals being hurt by the CCC. If our LCP update process is any indication of how other LCP are updated, then it is all of our coastal communities in California being affected and harmed by our own CCC.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 30, 2009 at 12:40 pm


Thanks for your input, Dan Norris. I have seen the movie and your thousand words are a great addition to the information in the picture.

I wonder if Now Pitching will have a response to your questions? It will be anonymous so he should not hesitate.

Thanks for taking the time to illuminate the people in this area. Residents of coastal areas up and down California should be aware of what is going on in other "backyards".

Mary Bordi, a resident of La Honda, on June 30, 2009 at 1:19 pm


Larry where do you get this info about the CCC?

curious, a resident of Moss Beach, on June 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm


When I read an article like Web Link it is very clear that Peter Douglas does not behave like a normal citizen (is he one?) , and Mr Douglas does not let processes or regulations deter him from his goals, yet he forces his processes and delays on people in the coastal zone.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on June 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm


Thought balloon over my cartoony self's head: "Why does Francis Droulliard, a resident of a coastside community in another county, feel the need to defend the CCC?"

Mr. Anthrope, a resident of El Granada, on June 30, 2009 at 8:41 pm


I don't think they mention Peter Douglas by name, but this might go with Larry's post that mentions Germany: Web Link

Bratwurst, a resident of Pescadero, on June 30, 2009 at 8:49 pm


From the same 10th Edition Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary that Deputy Attorney General Christina Bull Arndt cited to LA Superior Court Judge Yaffe, in declaring that gardening is not 'agriculture':

radical -adj

3 d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

pagan -n

2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods: an irreligious or hedonistic person

heretic -n

2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine: NONCOMFORMIST

I hope this helps clarify what Peter Douglas means when he describes himself as a 'radical pagan heretic', as opposed to, say, 'a United States citizen'.

Dan Norris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on June 30, 2009 at 9:24 pm


According to Capitol Weekly, Peter Douglas is the 20th most powerful person in the state, that is, if you don't count politicians. People joke that there are four branches of government in California – the legislative, the judicial, the executive and the Coastal Commission. Web Link

The New York Times calls the Commission the most powerful land use agency in the USA.

Here is a sampling of other people on the list. Our governor's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, is the #1 rated power broker on the list. Maria Shriver is #4, and Jim Brulte, of California Strategies (a lobbying firm used by HMB to seek legislative support for AB 1991, and SB 863) is #13, and Richard Blum, husband of Diane Feinstein is #14.

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on July 1, 2009 at 8:09 am


Mr. Anthrope asks -- "Why does Francis Droulliard, a resident of a coastside community in another county, feel the need to defend the CCC?"

I try to correct misconceptions and restore focus to the relevant issues. If that's defending the CCC, then so be it.

But hey, if you and others want to keep setting yourselves up for failure (and that is what you're doing), then knock yourselves out.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 1, 2009 at 8:35 am


Dan Norris -- Your understanding of how ESHA is established is incorrect, and as a result, the categorical exemption you claim isn't applicable. It is the property owner's responsibility to show that their development activity does not affect ESHA (if any), and it is their obligation to delineate that ESHA (if any). The alternative would be for the Commission to do all the ESHA mapping throughout the entire Coastal Zone. I think even you would agree that is not a good idea. It is also worth mentioning that your cat ex claims would have easily been verified during the site inspection.

Your implication that you find the Coastal Act acceptable but the Coastal Commission and its staff reprehensible is akin to stating you like speeding laws but hate the police that enforce them.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 1, 2009 at 9:02 am


I see Drouillard is at it again. I guess things aren't hot enough in his own neighborhood. Another example of outside "help" for us, broadcasting his fertilizer like a farmer in his fields.

He says, "I try to correct misconceptions and restore focus to the relevant issues." I just can't stop laughing.

Then he tries to tell Mr. Norris what's wrong with Norris's case. I'm sure Norris appreciates another cheap seat Perry Mason wannabe's input. I know I sure do.

For more, check out Parr's garbage (there's more): "Picture: Another view of Beachwood" Web Link

The political BS spin meter has already started for the upcoming November election.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 1, 2009 at 9:47 am


Here is a choice cut from there:

" Comment 22 by Mike Ferreira on Jul 1 at 9:46am • All my comments •

Like I said, the applicant(s) didn’t inform the City that the subject wetlands were there when applications were filed."

Ferreira's version of history, as modified and parroted by Parr is truly imaginary.

Ferreira had a big part in causing this.

Ferreira had a big part in the City spending millions upon millions with a self-dealing attorney in a losing cause.

Ferreira fought the City in possible solutions in Sacramento.

All inconvenient facts for Ferreira. At this point, the argument over Parr's supposed nod to any objectivity is entirely lost. The misrepresentations, obfuscations and simple distortions are growing.

Mr. Droulliard - you fit right in with them. Your posts here are remarkable pieces of imagination.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 1, 2009 at 10:02 am


Let me remind people that we have a Major review of our Midcoast LCP next week on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at 915am, at The Board of Supervisor chambers. The recent input (341 pages) by the staff of the CCC, includes 19 new or revised policies to our 7 year local effort by the county and local citizens to update our LCP. Steve Monowitz will be posting the county's response on the following website tomorrow (Thursday). Web Link

We, the people, need "full participation" in this "Local" Coastal Program update in accord with The Coastal Act Section 30006. I hope that you can attend this very important meeting. From the link and agenda on July 7, you will see 19 recommendations by the staff of the CCC, here are just a few.

Lower the priority for affordable housing

Prohibit the formation or expansion of special districts until public service capacity issues are resolved

Limit the County's ability to resolve conflicts between LCP policies

Prohibit individual private wells and septic systems with the Midcoast urban area.

Limit water supply projects that would serve homes currently on private wells.

Require demonstration of adequate public service capacities

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 1, 2009 at 10:41 am


I actually look forward to hearing Mr. Drouillard's comments, at least he makes sense.

How can you say that the public has not been involved in our current LCP update?

One can only imagine what our Coastside would be like if we worked together.

P.S. Mr. Gossett, did you come out of your house and notice the traffic this weekend?

granny, a resident of El Granada, on July 1, 2009 at 11:23 am


Hi granny,

The public has had just one meeting with the county on 16 June to talk about the 19 recommendations by the staff of CCC, all with major impacts on Seven years of work by County Planning and hundreds of coastsiders. My point is that we public need to have full participation and an opportunity to respond to the "staff" of the CCC as provided for in the Coastal Act. Until June 16, there have been no public meetings on the Midcoast LCP since Nov 2006. Surely you and the staff of the CCC support provisions of the Coastal Act.

As just one example of the 19 recommendations by staff of CCC, the staff recommend to "restrict the allowable capacity of public works projects" and then also "require demonstration of adequate public service capacities". As I recall that restriction applied to about 8 public services, like water, sewer, roads, schools, and other services.

granny,

traffic will always be horrid, especially if "you" or CCC staff, "restrict the allowable capacity of public works projects".

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 1, 2009 at 11:38 am


Mr. Gossett,

Did you forget the MidCoast Community Council meeting on June l0th?

This meeting was devoted to the LCP updates with a member of the Coastal Comm (Ruby Pap) in attendance, and a representative from San Mateo Co. - Mr. Monowitz.

Now you have to help me with my confusion, isn't the MCC elected by the people on the Midcoast to represent their Community? Please don't categorize me as "you", I'm trying very hard to understand your contempt for the Coastal Commission.

There was also a Special Meeting by MCC on June 12th asking for input for a letter regarding the LCP updates.

granny, a resident of El Granada, on July 1, 2009 at 12:40 pm


granny and Terry -- The Coastal Commission cannot approve an LCP that fails to comply with the Coastal Act, including, for example, the requirement that Hwy 1 remain a two-lane highway. Why one would press for development limits that exceed the capacity of the two-lane highway is beyond me. Such over development has an adverse impact on everyone using that highway. The alternatives are to limit development to the capacity of the local infrastructure, or to expand that infrastructure. In the case of Hwy 1, it can't be done unless it's within the limits of a city. Creating a city has its adverse impacts, too, as everyone in HMB can now tell you.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 1, 2009 at 1:04 pm


I know I'm going to regret this, but ...

Tell us, Droillard, a little more about your comment; "The Coastal Commission cannot approve an LCP that fails to comply with the Coastal Act,..."

As I read your comment, I find it true and false at the same time. Perhaps an example might clarify my query.

In 1996, the Commission approved (certified) HMB's LCP/LUP; all of it.

In March 2000, with the certification ink still wet, the Commission "helped" us understand our interpretation and "correct" meaning of our LCP wetland definition by eliminating part of the definition (see Web Link ).

There you'll find on the record comments that support my claim with comments (May 2000 staff report) from Faust, a Commission attorney. Here's one of them: "'The City Council has also received and considered correspondence from Ralph Faust, Chief Counsel of the California Coastal Commission dated March 20, 2000. That letter includes an analysis of the above argument made by Messrs. Josselyn, Faulkner and Ms. Mudge. Mr. Faust notes that the definition above begins with the phrase:'

'Wetland is an area where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to bring about the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of plants which normally are found to grow in water or wet ground."

It continues with, "'Mr. Faust notes that the first sentence of the definition includes within the definition of wetland both wet areas which produce hydric soils and wet areas which produce hydrophytic vegetation, and that the first phrase defining a wetland to include wet areas which produce hydrophytic vegetation separate from those wet areas which only produce hydric soils would have no meaning if the last phrase restricted all wetlands to only those vernally wet areas which produce hydric soils and ignores and excludes those wet areas which produce hydrophytic plants but not hydric soils. That is, the first sentence of the definition is the actual definition, and the remainder of the text is explanatory. As Mr. Faust notes:'

"After providing a definition of wetlands consistent with the Coastal Act's implementing regulations, the City's certified LCP definition goes on to provide various examples of areas where the water table is near the surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or support the growth of plants which normally are found to grow in water or wet ground .... After providing such examples, the definition of wetlands contained in the City's certified LCP goes on to identify examples of areas where the water table is not near the surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or support the growth of plants which normally are found to grow in water or wet ground. One such example identified in the last sentence of section 18.30.020(E) is 'vernally wet areas where the soils are not hydric.' ... This example of not wetland areas does not extend to vernally wet areas that contain hydrophytes. Thus these latter vernally wet areas remain within the definition of wetlands. Accordingly, only vernally wet areas with neither hydric soils nor hydrophytes would be excluded from the City's definition of wetlands."

'Mr. Faust's letter concludes as follows:'

"In conclusion, the most logical interpretation of the above quoted language contained in the City's certified LCP, construed in light of the Coastal Act as a whole, requires the City to protect those areas at the Beachwood site where the water table is near the land surface long enough to either support the growth of hydrophytes or to support the formation of hydric soils. As such, only vernally

5

wet areas with neither hydric soils nor hydrophytes are excluded from the City's definition of wetlands."

So do you see my dilemma here? On the one hand they (the commission) approved and certified our LCP/LUP, while on the other they changed it.

Don't you find that peculiar? I know at least 12,990 HMB residents do.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 1, 2009 at 2:23 pm


Now the CCC is trying to Scam the California Legislature with a coupla bills, AB 226 and AB 291, and if they succeed, people living in the coastal zone will be guilty until proven innocent and the Commission can "bypass the courts, impose a penalty and place a lien on the involved property" See Web Link and read the July Viewpoint. Tyranny in the Coastal Zone, big surprise?, not really, ask the dozen or so individuals and groups that typically show up on the list of litigants from the CCC monthly agenda. No surprise at all.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm


Francis and others keep reminding us of all the good that the CCC is doing for "us". I agree there is some good.

But what is the cost? Mr Norris previously told George--- "On July 15th, just over two weeks from now, it will be four years since we received the initial Notice of Violation from Pat Veesart of the CCC. You used the term 'staggering', George: we purchased the 40 acres in Topanga Canyon for $675,000; we've spent more than that in legal bills, to date, and the trial is still several months away."

With about a dozen litigants listed every month by the CCC, that would be about 100-150 litigations a year. If each litigant spent at the rate of Mr Norris, that would be a total of about $60-90 Million being spent by the people involved with lawsuits with CCC. OK, so what is the CCC itself paying for their litigation? No one knows, but again.. Whatever the CCC pays would be us people paying the bill. IF the CCC spent just the same as the people with whom they are being sued by, that would be another $60-90Million.

Hmm... In this time of fiscal crisis for California ( a state with the worst bond rating out of 50) should our legislators consider trimming these costs a bit? Or possibly consider reforming the CCC just a bit, inline with all the other agencies in our state. Hmmm...

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm


"Do you not use anything made from minerals or forest products?"

From what you describe as a simple personal property issue, I find it touching that you have picked up on the standard lingo of the laissez-faire extraction industries that have already done so much permanent damage to the western landscape and have their sights set on the pieces of nature that remain. Surely your own specific property issues and innocence are genuine and not feigned, so perhaps it is rubbing elbows with property wrongs legal mouthpiece Zumbrun that is informing your vocabulary and thinking? Why do you suppose Zumbrun is able to give you a bargain rate?

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm


For those that like to follow bills working their way through the legislature without the spin Ronald Zumbrun provides, here's a link via California's Legislative portal:

<Web Link>

and

<Web Link>

I'm not yet that familiar with AB 226, but it appears its intended to provide relief to the courts. It does yield more power to the quasi-judicial (which was the intent of the Coastal Act).

AB 291 makes a lot of sense. It prevents the Coastal Commission from processing CDP applications for development on property that has a unresolved Coastal Act violation on the property. In Dan's case, if he were to apply for a permit to build a home, action on that permit application could not be completed until the existing violation was cleared up.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm


George -- I'm not that familiar with your Local Coastal Program, but if you try to amend it, then you give the Coastal Commission another opportunity to bring it into better compliance with the Coastal Act, which uses the CA Fish and Game definition of wetlands (any one of three indicators) rather than the US Army Corps of Engineers definition (every one of three indicators). If it's so important to you to restrict the definition of wetlands in your area, then don't give the Coastal Commission an opportunity to re-certify the LCP.

Or, you could do a little homework and begin to recognize the importance and value of wetlands, even degraded wetlands. Here, I Googled it for you: <Web Link>

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm


All government agencies are highly imperfect and prone to missteps, but thank goodness the Coastal Commission is defending the coast legally on behalf of the public in some instances. The money being spent is a pittance to what would be lost if shills for more wreckage to the public's detriment carried the day. (See above messages trying to turn the Norris issue into a, broad argument to turn off the Coastal Commission and its pesky staff--remind anyone of what our local shills are trying to do with the Beachwood issue?) Much is already gone, but there would be nothing of the California coast left at all if there was no way to stand up to developers and corporations who believe the coast should be their private wallet-enhancing plaything.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm


Now Pitching -- I would like to clarify a few myths. The Coastal Commission weighs in at about $16 million per year for about 125 employees. They typically bear the brunt of larger percentage cuts than other agencies. I challenge anyone to name any state agency that does more with less. In fact, they're a model of small efficient government, and despite the assertions of those that like to lock horns with them for sport, they're more responsive to the public than any other state agency. Compare them with Caltrans, where there is real government bloat. Why do they maintain a staff of 14,000 engineers and surveyors? (They had about 6,000 ten years ago and about 11,000 3 years ago.) Have the roads or bridges gotten any better? I don't think so.

Another myth is that they're tough on all developers, even small fries like Dan. (No offense intended, Dan.) That isn't true. In the majority of cases they approve permits for coastal dream homes with few modifications. Most of those are to maintain public access, to protect coastal resources, to avoid impinging on wetlands or to avoid bluff retreat. It's usually as simple as adjusting the location of house or scaling it down a bit in order to comply with the Coastal Act. They're very good about participating in pre-application meetings where they tell the developer what their concerns are and how the developer can address those concerns.

What most small developers object to are all the studies they often require, particularly if your property has blue line streams, wetlands or ESHA. It is up to the owner to delineate those resources and consider them in their development plans. I would rather have it that way than require it of the Coastal Commission and pass the cost to all state taxpayers. Better and more efficient to require it of the developer, in my view.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 1, 2009 at 6:30 pm


Francis,

So in summary, you believe that all legislation related to the Coastal Commission is Good, and all costs are Acceptable?

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on July 1, 2009 at 6:57 pm


I just flat disagree with your comment, "In fact, they're a model of small efficient government, and despite the assertions of those that like to lock horns with them for sport, they're more responsive to the public than any other state agency." I can't find any part of that comment that I can agree with.

On another note, perhaps changing the charge of the commission would lead to a better outcome for all.

It's no secret that CA is cash strapped. I won't get into all the facts and theories as to why, but with the knowledge that they are perhaps this would be a good time to adapt and adjust.

I wonder if a Statewide referendum reducing the Coastal Zone back to the Prop 20 approved 1,000 yards inland from our northern border to our southern border would help the commission. I think it would. It would reduce their charge, thereby making their limited resources go further in a smaller area.

I think it's time to cut back on the commission's duties, allowing them to do a better job on what they were created for; our coast.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 1, 2009 at 7:40 pm


Mr. Norris,

May I offer some 'light at the end of the tunnel'?

This film, "Sins of Commission", has opened the eyes of even the most fervent supporter of the "change" President Obama has wrought in my neighborhood. The best part? I offer no introduction other than a suggestion to keep an open mind.

It is also sparking into action those of us who work for living and are becoming fed up with nannery and jackboot thuggery that is on display in our state and federal governments. Albeit small little things like calling a state rep or congressman for the first time in their lives or really taking a risk (in their perspective) and attending the upcoming San Mateo County Tea Party in Central Park.

I believe the attendees of this Tea Party will be very receptive of this film, "Sins of Commission". Grass roots baby, all the way!

Ya think that the Attorney General will send the jackboots to the Tea Party to confiscate copies of this film?........If so, there will be plenty of camcorders ready to broadcast to the World Wide Web and a team of lawyers retained and willing...........Keep up the Good Fight

Yours in Liberty, JD (John Donovan) - the "Non-Anonymous" Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 1, 2009 at 8:35 pm


The MCC was elected to represent our community. The MCC endorsed everything that the staff of the Coastal Commission recommended with the exception of the staff proposed growth rate of 1%, and the MCC recommended 39 units per year instead.

granny, a resident of El Granada, on July 1, 2009 at 10:52 pm


Granny poser, who are you?

granny, a resident of El Granada, on July 1, 2009 at 11:18 pm


Scott -- Ask a question on topic without making straw men and you might get an answer.

George -- You're simply repeating yourself. You've failed to suggest ANY state agency from ANY state that does more with less money than the CCC or is more responsive to the public than the CCC.

JD -- You realize the the CCC is a state agency, don't you? Again, if all state agencies (or federal for that matter) were as efficient as the CCC, we wouldn't be in the current fiscal mess initiated by Bush and expanded by Obama.

One other thing -- since when did Tea Parties, which are largely _spending_ revolts become anti-environmental? Others that support that movement, including me, won't be as easily swayed by "Sins of Commission" as you and others on this list.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 2, 2009 at 8:11 am


Francis Drouillard says, "George -- You're simply repeating yourself. You've failed to suggest ANY state agency from ANY state that does more with less money than the CCC or is more responsive to the public than the CCC."

First of all, I'm not the least bit interested in playing your game. I have neither the interest or time in pursuing your offer of misdirection.

Secondly, and more importantly, I disagree with your very premise, containing, in part, with "..is more 'responsive to the public' than the CCC." I would have thought I've made that point quite clear. I apologize if I haven't.

Your theme of frugality on behalf of the CCC holds no water; however, Douglas's cunning is on display daily. Next to the IRS (and that's a close call) your Commission is quite good at shifting the financial burdens to those they "serve" (us). The burn rate of capital is substantially higher for anyone that has the misfortune of dealing with the commission than it is for the commission itself.

I might add here that the two pieces of legislation now meandering through our State Legislature, AB221 & AB226, would further the divide between the commission and those they are suppose to serve (us). At first blush, I’d have to say that the words Nazi & Gestapo comes readily to my mind; and no, I don’t think for a second that those words and images are too harsh.

The commission needs restructure, not more power; and it’s long overdue.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 9:24 am


Francis Drouillard admits (somewhere uptopic):

"I'm not that familiar with your Local Coastal Program"

Just bringing that to everyone's attention again.

Clement Clark Cordeiro, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 2, 2009 at 9:38 am


I'm sorry, but I need to correct one of the bill numbers currently working in Sac.

The line should read; ..,AB291 & AB226, - to read in total;

"I might add here that the two pieces of legislation now meandering through our State Legislature, AB291 & AB226, would further the divide between the commission and those they are suppose to serve (us)."

Sorry for the typo (stupid attack).

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 9:46 am


Finally, some mainstream coverage of Dan & Peggy's case against the CCC

Web Link

Sinclair's comments are very telling. Such bravado

" 'Basically, those claims are ludicrous,' Sinclair said in a telephone interview two weeks ago. 'We entered the property to take a look to see if there was anyone to contact.' "

*Oh, gee, and while we were there, took note of lots of evidence. Forced entry, plain and simple.*

"Sinclair also said he did not see any 'no trespassing' signs posted on the property. Gilder and Norris stated in a court petition that a sign was found discarded in the bushes.

'We didn't know who to call, we weren't sure if we were on the right property,' Sinclair said in response to why calls were not made to the property owners."

Wow, such flimsy statements. Didn't know who to call? I hope this judge is not buying that kind of nonsense.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 3:02 pm


Sara Wan, Commissioner of the Coastal Commission for decades, lives in a Malibu home a half mile from the Pacific Ocean squat in the middle of a considerable amount of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat. Dan Norris’s 40 acres also has ESHA and is on Topanga Canyon Road in LA county nearly 5 miles from the ocean. Sara’s home is visible from several other properties, Dan’s property is very secluded and cannot be easily seen. Sara has a very large home and neighbors have swimming pools and tennis courts. Dan has no plans to put in a home, but did wish to clear an existing road, trim a few diseased tree limbs, and put in a garden.

Question-- Who is most compliant with the Coastal Act? The Commissioner or the Gardener?

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm


What would Sara do if...

...Tom Sinclair from CCC entered her property looking for the owner

...Sara were issued an arrest warrant for filming sheriffs (and the CA AG and the CCC Code Enforcement Officer) who were also video taping her on her own property

...any state employee came on to her property for any purpose.

NOTE that "Hope Schmeltzer, the Coastal Commission's chief counsel, in a telephone interview said, "These are state employees, they have immunity from liability of these things. There's no damage, there's no legal liability here."

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 4:06 pm


If the property is fenced there is no need to post No Trespassing signs. A person who crosses that fence line without permission is trespassing.

Gee, too bad that government officials had no idea whose property is was. Maybe they were looking for the residents in a secret house that had been built or something.

Rancher, a resident of San Gregorio, on July 2, 2009 at 4:25 pm


"Dan Norris’s 40 acres also has ESHA"

Only because, as Mr. Norris notes above, the CCC staff "didn't designate our place ESHA until long after we'd ceased all activity..."

Retaliatory. Unfounded. Unconstitutional.

I completely understand why Ms. Schmeltzer would make the comments, but I for one am not taking them at face value. That is simply a legal argument, not fact, precedent or law.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 4:25 pm


Brian,

The CCC has often demonstrated that all the CCC needs is a legal argument to prevail over facts, precedent or law. So, what is your point. The CCC counsel has spoken, bow. puh-leese.

CCCer, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 2, 2009 at 5:31 pm


Dan Norris said something earlier in this thread that resonated with me. "Peter Douglas gave a lovely two hour interview to Richard Oshen, in which he cleared up some of this mystery for us.

For instance, he claimed that he was the "...last Jew born in Berlin...", and that he went to Mexico from Germany, before entering California. He didn't mention whether he's ever become a U.S. citizen, but then, no one's asked. He did brag that, of all of the civil servants in California, he's the only one who has never been required to take the civil service oath; you know, the one where you swear you'll uphold the Constitution? State law's pretty clear on this one: no oath, no job. And yet, there he sits. "

Regarding being the only civil servant in California that did not take an oath. Here is what the law requires.

The California Constitution provides in Article XX, Section 3 that “ Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support

and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-

tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign

and domestic;…”

CCC Commissioners and staff at times appear to be transgressing this oath of office in their zealous pursuit of their “mission”, and, other than litigation, no checks and balances of their “powers” are evident or available to those being transgressed.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 2, 2009 at 7:46 pm


It would be interesting to find out if any of the CCC commissioners have taken the oath.

I bet Francis could tell us if they are required to, and if not, why not.

E. Sha, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm


E. Sha,

Do you really think that it would matter if any of the staff or Commissioners took an oath or not. But, you and I know it is the law. They know it is the law and choose to do other wise. That is a Sin of Commission. So what is the penalty for non-compliance with the oath? Any precedence? Anybody?

E. Sha, Why rely on Francis, do you need him to apply CCC interpretations of what "The California Constitution provides in Article XX, Section 3"?

I think Douglas blew it big time by "bragging on tape that, of all of the civil servants in California, he's the only one who has never been required to take the civil service oath.

Now, here is the big question, Who is going to make the CCC obey the law? Certainly not the California Attorney General, who acts as counsel for the CCC. Sounds like a federal action to me.

Think about that concept, Our governator is threatening to shut down state parks, so the feds say, If you do that we want 6 prior fed parks that are now state parks deeded back to the USA gov. CA violated the condition of maintaining and providing them to their citizenry.

If the CCC continues to ignore the US Constitution, and fails to swear to support and defend the CA and US Constitution, and continues to harass people that live in the Coastal Zone, at some point the FEDS will have to step in to stop CCC and have them pay "just compensation" for property takings, just like Fed Judge Walker did on the Yamagiwa decision (Beachwood).

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 10:37 pm


The law is not what you imagine it is in your myopic head-banging sessions, kiddies. The law is what it is. It is far too weak for true coastal protection, and the California coast has continued to be degraded by human activity since the Coastal Act of 1976 came into being as a somewhat softened version of what the voters went for in Prop. 20. Nonetheless, parts of it have been tested all the way through the U.S. Supreme Court, and destructionists using the best lawyers willing to sell out to them have even won a few rounds.

All your babble back and forth won't change a thing, and your references to the Constitution are of the most superficial and easily dismissible kind. You'll have to figure out what the real world is and learn to play in it if you want to get anywhere except a small-town newspaper's message board with no more impact than a blown kiss hitting goose down.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 11:26 pm


So, sort of the way yours are, right ?

EcoFraud, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 2, 2009 at 11:33 pm


Whassamadda, EcoFraud? Unhappy that you can't get away with your typical bull with anyone who knows anything?

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 2, 2009 at 11:48 pm


If you read between the lines of what NP is saying, all the real action is in Sacramento and by lobbyists. NP is right that us HMBers have not a clue how to play that game. Consider 1991, 863, 650. Yet some locals have linked with the over the hill gang and the sierra club and the ccc and are working against local interests, voila, Beachwood.

Did you notice that our own MCC rejected years of hard work on the Midcoast LCP and endorsed the full ccc staff report over that of our county supervisors, and our, considerable efforts.

NP when you state, " your references to the Constitution are of the most superficial and easily dismissible kind." That tells me a lot about you man.

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2009 at 8:24 am


Double Standard,

So you are saying our voices are not being heard?

What a complete twist on the turn of events - The LCP's have been in the works for how long?

Seems to me the recommendation from the Community were taken to the Planning Comm. then they were addressed by the BOS, who in turn changed many of the recommendations. The Coastal Comm. is doing their job by defending the Coastal Act.

Even the individuals bringing the Traffic & Trails Workshop were well aware of the constraints placed on our roads. What was really refreshing to hear, was Cal Trans and Mr. Burden realized that the vision for the level of development on our Coastside will not be reached.

granny, a resident of El Granada, on July 3, 2009 at 8:49 am


Above, George mentions two pieces of legislation: "I might add here that the two pieces of legislation now meandering through our State Legislature, AB291 & AB226, would further the divide between the commission and those they are suppose to serve (us)."

What are these? What will they do? Anybody?

What's this all about?, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2009 at 10:28 am


With the great diversity of opinion on the coast, I would hope that a compromise of some sort could be realized. IMHO, Absolutism will continue to cripple us, whether it is pursuit of the Coastal ACT, or the next Beachwood.

The Midcoast LCP update process started in 1999. The offering by our county (and Midcoasters) to the CCC was in Feb 2007, The response from CCC staff in Feb 2009. The CCC staff raised 19 new recommendations with their 341 page report. I would hope we coastsiders could reach a compromise, otherwise we all will have lost 10 years of work. Steve Monowitz stated that it is "All or Nothing", meaning whatever comes out of the SMC Supervisors for the next agendized meeting with the CCC will be an up or down vote by the Commissioners. No cutting and pasting. That is a key point. Let me repeat. No cutting and pasting. No cherry picking.

granny, if you recommend an Absolutism approach (The Coastal Comm. is doing their job by defending the Coastal Act.) then that may take all of you guys on the Midcoast back to the 1998 LCP, and you can start another ten year process to update your LCP.

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2009 at 10:43 am


wtaa,

Here is a link for checking status of CA bills --just have to type in ab 291, and read all the links...

Note AB291 is the Saldana version that I think george is talking about,

On AB 226, and on AB 226 it is the Ruskin bill

Web Link

wtaa, please read the bills and tell us what you think is going on.

Researcher, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2009 at 10:53 am


Yes, I did mention both AB291 & AB226. Thank you, Researcher, for providing data and resources.

For a well written Cliff-Note version, allow me to yield to someone much better than I.

Ron Zumbrun, ESQ, dedicated July's Viewpoint to this very topic. It is a well written, easy read. I would direct you (anyone interested) to go here; Web Link . See for yourself.

AB226 will allow the commission an additional source of revenue that they can initiate on their own; at the expense of those they have disputes with, without any jurisprudence what-so-ever. No check & balance, no mediation, no court - no nothing. They would be able to feather their own bed, then turn and use those funds for enforcement activities. They would even be able to place a lien on your property for the amount.

At first blush, it could be argued as a land grab, further restricting the rights of property owners in the Coastal Zone. Pretty scary stuff.

AB229 will require that anyone applying for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) that has unresolved Coastal Act violations (remember, the commission itself determines that) would be ineligible to submit an application for a permit until the violations have been resolved.

So, if the commission says you have violated the Act, and they are the judge and jury, then you have. You can hire attorneys and go to court (lots of both your time and your money), but until you are absolved of or have satisfied the penalty for Act violations (years) you can not submit a CDP request.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm


Double Standard has a rather whimsical and pollyannaish take on the midcoast LCP revision process. The county's LCP sessions on the coastside were anything but an open and democratic process. They were set up from the start to get into only what the county wanted to get into and were directed to get to positions the county wanted to get to, mostly on behalf of its developer buddies. George Bergman is a nice guy, but he was, in essence, a lackey for the county politicians' agenda.

The MCC also put a tremendous amount of time into coming up with extensive formal suggestions for the revision. Some of these made it at least part way into the county Planning Commission's repiort to the supervisors. Much that was discussed in MCC meetings went nowhere.

But all that means nothing. There is no effort, corrupt or not, to be lost at this time. No ten years of a finagled process down the drain. Why? Because after most was said and done, the Supes, with a special committee of Hill and Gordon taking over, kicked it all. Gordon/Hill compiled their own LCP revision, and that is what has been at the Coastal Commission.

So ignorant of the Coastal Act was the Gordon/Hill revision, that the Commission staff must have wondered where to begin. So inadequate in bringing the Coastal Act to the midcoast was it (the Coastal Act creates the LCP process for the sole purpose of having municipalities apply the Coastal Act in their jurisdictions) that the staff had to remind the county what it was supposed to be doing throughout its analysis, which is part of the reason the staff report is so long. Not only did the Gordon/Hill LCP revision not correct shortcomings for the midcoast in the current LCP, it created a whole realm of new issues in its quest to shoehorn in more development under various guises and to avoid covering how the increased development and population engendered could be supported by our geography, resources, and infrastructure. In the end, to get to some kind of coherent analysis, the Coastal Commission staff boiled many of the revision's shortcomings down to considerations of water, wastewater, and traffic, using these factors both for their inherent issues and as surrogates for others of similar concern.

The county looks like it wants to stonewall, going for a political victory with the Coastal Commission rather than accept the staff's modest suggestions. Meetings being held by the county Supes are obviously window dressing for an agenda already decided. They can get some choice quotes from their developer backers and ignore the rest, if the stonewalling approach is taken.

That will lead to a staff report on any minor rewording the county tries to apply as lipstick. CC staff is not likely to be impressed. This will lead to a Commission vote, and the commission is political, if nothing else. No telling how that will go, but there will be opposition before the Commission from within and beyond the county's borders if it tries to force its will without complying with the requirements of the Coastal Act. If the Commission denies the county's request for certification, nothing will be lost except Gordon and Hill's concoction.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 3, 2009 at 8:05 pm


MB,

There you go, again.

Why would you just focus on the MCC input-- what about CCWD, MWSD, GSD, the public, and a host of other groups that worked to prepare OUR LCP. Attacking Gordon and Hill and their concoction? is very misplaced anger in my opinion.

Your idea of modest suggestions by CCC staff are in reality a nightmare of 19 dimensions, that were mostly not even considered or presented previously.

Then 11 days before our March 2009 agenda date with the CCC, the CCC staff spring into action and release a 341 page report. MB, dontcha think it would have been nice for the CCC to have some meetings to explain all these "modest suggestions"? There were 2 years of interactions between county and CCC staff from Feb 2007 to Feb 2009 (no public or MCC or CCWD or MWSD or GSD or public involved), and most of what was in the 341 CCC staff report was a surprise. Go figure. Give me a rationale for that. Blaming Gordon and Hill is totally ridiculous. Bergman was, and Monowitz is, doing a fine job.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 3, 2009 at 8:33 pm


True Story

Outside Bristol Zoo is the car park, with spaces for 150 cars and 8 coaches. It has been manned 6 days a week for 23 years by the same charming and very polite car park attendant with the ticket machine. The charges are £1 per car and £5 per coach.

On Monday 1 June, he did not turn up for work. Bristol Zoo Management phoned Bristol City Council and asked them to send a replacement parking attendant.

The Council said "That car park is your responsibility." The Zoo said "The attendant was employed by the City Council...wasn't he?"

The Council said "What attendant?"

Gone missing from his home is a man who has been taking daily the car park fees amounting to about £44 per day for 23 years.

THAT'S £3.3 MILLION QUID.

Epilogue--

Option 1-- Could we make Beachwood into a car park?

Option 2-- Could this be the story behind Peter Douglas? Notice that...Douglas authored Prop 20, and was principal author of the 1976 Coastal Act. After being diagnosed with cancer in May 2004, Douglas refused to take a sabbatical. How long is that? over 33 years !

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm


Cute story, but: Web Link

However, DS brings up a good point. What does Peter Douglas think he is? Royalty?

Elizabeth Tudor, a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 4, 2009 at 3:01 pm


Mea culpa. I did not check with snopes.com

Double Standard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 4, 2009 at 4:20 pm


Does anyone know if Gualala had fireworks this year---as a development project?? Francis?

Scott, a resident of Pacifica, on July 5, 2009 at 9:14 pm


Terry:

More good news for the "hope & change" of the Coastal Commission that we would like to see.

The film, "Sins of Commission" making the rounds in my neighborhood and beyond, is creating skepticism for those inclined to trust the government and outrage for those already distrustful of unchecked government power..........Keep Up the Good Fight.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 7, 2009 at 7:17 pm


Will Bristol be able to keep her zoo after her mom is no longer ripping off Alaska for a governor's paycheck?

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 7, 2009 at 7:32 pm


NP,

What might you be referring to as Bristol's zoo?

Sue, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 7, 2009 at 10:29 pm


Does Alaska have a Coastal Commission or is Nipper confused about what topic to post in?

Not Pitching, a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 8, 2009 at 6:50 pm


NP does not want to respond to my question. NP loves picking on little children and the Old Guard, anonymously, of course.

Sue, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 8, 2009 at 8:14 pm


Thank you to all of the Midcoast people that came out on July 7, and spoke to our Board of Supervisors. We need to let our representatives know what we think of the opinion of the staff of the Coastal Commission. It was interesting to see Mr Perkovic, Ms Roberts, and Ms Vargas speaking in support of the staff of the Coastal Commission and for prohibition of private wells in the urban area.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm


The opinions of the property wrongs crowd may provide feel-good moments for the developer-serving Supes, but it means nothing to the primary question regarding the LCP update when it hits the Coastal commission again. That question: Is the update consistent with the California Coastal Act?

The LCP update's popularity with the backward few it caters to is irrelevant.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 9, 2009 at 9:40 pm


Let us go back to the original question of this topic--- How would you like to have a knock on your door by the Attorney General of California requesting “All visual or audio recordings” of you on your own property?

What is property "wrongs" about that question? Do any of you believe that we have no longer have any rights? Do you believe Moss Bitcher that everything we aspire to be, and is promised to us in our US Constitution, is Wrong? Do you believe all elected officials, when they are sworn into office and say ""I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support

and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-

tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign

and domestic;…”

Let me remind you of our rights, that our elected officials have sworn to "Support and Defend"

First Amendment--speech,

Second Amendment--bear arms

Third Amendment--No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in my home, without the consent of owner...,

Fourth Amendment-- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures..., and

Fifth Amendment---...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.... and

Amendment XXV!--The right of citizens...to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States..."

Need I list all 27 amendments to our US Constitution to remind you what all our rights are? that our soldiers are dying for?

I wonder if Moss Bitcher is willing, or has ever, given up her/his rights. The california coastal commission has an executive director that is proud to "He did brag that, of all of the civil servants in California, he's the only one who has never been required to take the civil service oath; you know, the one where you swear you'll uphold the Constitution? State law's pretty clear on this one: no oath, no job. And yet, there he sits." It is on tape, no wonder the CA AG and the Coastal Commission wants a copy of that tape.

Property wrongs! My Gawd.

OBTW, in this topic the most applicable amendment being violated is the fourth, followed by the first, followed by the fifth, and so on and so on.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm


It's time to change out governmentfor the betterment of all. When government like the coastal commission can storm people's houses and properties without fear of constitutional boundaries, it's time to recognize the parallels to Chinese anarchy. Please support your neighbors. The time to act is now. Constitutional Convention...should we allow this type of illegall search and seizure?

Blue Moon, a resident of the Peninsula, on July 10, 2009 at 7:49 pm


It's important to allow for public access. Our state constitution allows the coastal commission to do whatever it takes to get coastal trails on private property. It's called the Coastal Act. If you own coastal property than you must accept that your property will be taken by the state without compensation. Unless you have lots of money, you cannot fight the commission. I have spent my life helping to open trails in the coastal zone by taking property from private land owners.

Rixanne Wehren, a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 10, 2009 at 7:57 pm


"...you must accept that your property will be taken by the state without compensation." You are appallingly arrogant and completely wrong.

"I have spent my life helping to open trails in the coastal zone by taking property from private land owners." You say that with a certain pride, where you should be ashamed of your actions.

It sounds like its people like you, Ms. Wehren, that place extraordinary burdens on the rest of us.

How dare you!

Could u b more arrogant?, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 10, 2009 at 9:02 pm


I am an outsider; I only read these blogs because I have a very good friend who is a party to the discussion. I would not have commented, but the post by Ms. Wehren just tore it for me.

Private property rights is the primary issue, and it is being distorted and avoided by many of the posts in this blog.

If a person has the good fortune to acquire private property it is his right to do whatever he wishes with that property to the point his actions infringe upon the rights of his neighbor. If another entity covets the property or wishes to exert control over the property he has the choice of persuading the owner to sell, or, if he has the power of eminent domain, he may take the property after compensating the owner.

Someone please explain to me the problem with this logic.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 11, 2009 at 8:26 am


Robert F. Ford, Jr. stated in part: "If a person has the good fortune to acquire private property it is his right to do whatever he wishes with that property to the point his actions infringe upon the rights of his neighbor."

When you live in the coastal zone, neighboring property is owned by the State of California, i.e., the people of California. They have a right to access that property and to protect the resources on that property. That is what the Coastal Act is all about.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 12, 2009 at 11:59 am


Look who's back to stir the pot. It does give us a warm fuzzy knowing that others care about our neighborhood almost as much as we do.

He says "When you live in the coastal zone, neighboring property is owned by the State of California, i.e., the people of California. They have a right to access that property and to protect the resources on that property. That is what the Coastal Act is all about."

I live in the Coastal Zone and my neighboring property is NOT owned by the State of California.

Your quoted comments are 100% wrong and misleading, but you've made a habit of that so we're accustomed to it.

Not enough to fix in your neighborhood, Francis?

Still at it, huh Francis?, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 12, 2009 at 12:09 pm


Still at it, huh ... --

If you don't live adjacent to the coast, then you then providing access to the ocean isn't something you can provide.

However, if you live within the Coastal Zone then you must still comply with other provisions of the Act, including its ESHA and wetland protection provisions.

If you live in California outside the Coastal Zone, it's likely you'd still have to comply ESHA and wetlands protections under CEQA. (But the wetlands definitions may be less strict.) Outside of Native American reservations, I don't know of any region in California where it is still legal to destroy ESHA or fill wetlands.

If you live on or adjacent to federal land in California, further restrictions may apply.

If you're not a property owner and live on federal land then ... oh well, never mind.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm


Francis Drouillard stated in part: "When you live in the coastal zone, neighboring property is owned by the State of California, i.e., the people of California. They have a right to access that property and to protect the resources on that property. That is what the Coastal Act is all about."

You have covered a lot of ground with your statement, but I will try to be brief.

Unless the right of access you prescribe is expressly stated in the deed signed by the owner neither the state nor anyone else is entitled to access without fiat, fee, or easement, or some other kind of written document encumbering the property with this liability which, incidentally, reduces the value of the property.

Also, to state the obvious, it is not incumbent for the landowner to provide the most CONVENIENT access to the state; access is always available to the state along the beach and from the sea.

The State of California and the People of California are not equivalent; the rights assumed by the state and the rights of the people are vastly different.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 12, 2009 at 2:16 pm


Still up to your old tricks, we see.

First, you make a bold, blanket statement (quoted above) then, when confronted with the facts that always seem to contradict your previously stated opinion (offered as fact), you want to qualify (restate) your prior statements.

Your motis operandi remains the same, yet you seem to continually wonder why you carry no credibility.

Why not worry about your neighborhood and let us worry about ours? We already have too many outsiders telling us how to live our lives.

Still at it, huh Francis?, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm


Mr. Ford -- Do not impute statements to me that I did not make. No one suggested that the Coastal Commission has or should have the right to impose the most CONVENIENT access, whatever that means.

If you choose to ignore the Coastal Act and the fact that the State of California owns those lands up to the mean high tide line, then much of what you say would be true. But there is a Coastal Act, the State does own the thin strip of land along the California coast and Californians have the right to access (most) of that land and to protect the resources on that land.

Still at it, huh ... -- I do worry about my neighborhood, that's why I support protection of the California coast, especially when it's not that difficult for the common man to comply with the Coastal Act.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm


Mr. Douillard is NOT a resident of the Coastal Zone. He lives much further inland and owns property on the Coast. Mr. Douillard has not yet had to face the Coastal Commission to develop his property. Anyone wondering why he fights "their" side of the battle?

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 12, 2009 at 3:52 pm


Mr. Douillard, I do not wish to impute statements; I only wish to recite statements you made.

What did you mean when you said,

"When you live in the coastal zone, neighboring property is owned by the State of California, i.e., the people of California. They have a right to access that property and to protect the resources on that property. That is what the Coastal Act is all about."

and

“If you choose to ignore the Coastal Act and the fact that the State of California owns those lands up to the mean high tide line, then much of what you say would be true. But there is a Coastal Act, the State does own the thin strip of land along the California coast and Californians have the right to access (most) of that land and to protect the resources on that land.”?

What is the dimension of this “thin strip of land” along the coast? Is it not accessible from the adjacent beach? Is it not accessible from the sea? Why is it necessary to access it through a private property, diminishing the value of that property? Is the statement of this access part of the deed signed by the landowner?

What is the purpose for this access? It is one thing for the state to require access for protection and repairs to the beach and another to provide a path for a citizen to enjoy the surf.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 12, 2009 at 4:42 pm


And what of Coastal Zone property that is a mile or more from the ocean?

I'm sure Francis can tell us how use of that property impacts the thin strip of land along the coast...

And afater he fills us in I would like to ask, well, why not move the line even further inland? Let's not err on the side of too little protection for heavens sake.

We all know we can't trust those greedy landowners.

Tawdry Glamour, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm


When the Coastal Zone extends 5 miles inland, like in the case of Dan Norris, Mr Drouillard is on very shaky ground with his assertions "When you live in the coastal zone, neighboring property is owned by the State of California,".

Uh-Ohh.

I vividly remember in the 70's when the Coastal Commission was seeking control over all lands concave to the Pacific Ocean, Hmm... that would include all rivers running to the ocean from the Sierras, the Sacramento delta, the Russian River, the American River, and much, much more. Nobody ever accused the Coastal Commission of being timid. Our land is "their" land.

Uh-Ohh, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 12, 2009 at 7:29 pm


Mr. Douillard, You said, "I think even Mr. Ford acknowledges that I was speaking in general terms."

My preference is that you be much more specific and answer my questions. Thank you.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 13, 2009 at 7:52 am


Francis replied to me: "If you really want to know how development in the SMM affects the coastal ecosystem..."

So Francis, what makes you think I DON'T really want to know how development affects the coastal ecosystems? That's what your statement implies. If you REALLY meant to be condescending you could have just called me an airhead. :)

Anyway, my question was about development farther inland. Yes, of course, any development upstream affects areas downstream, just as a butterfly's wing wing movement in China affects the weather elsewhere.

I am not going to rely on the CCC's staff biologist's ruminations to examine the affects of development in the CZ, however.

You know--the old adage about the fox guarding the hen house...

I guess I'll have to hire my own cadre of biologists at my own expense to find out. Just like the property owner who wants to add on to his house has to do.

Tawdry Glamour, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 13, 2009 at 10:09 am


"Do you have anything relevant to add to the debate?"

Absolutely. Framing your comments with 1) your position vis a vis ownership of land in the Coastal Zone and lack of residency in the Coastal Zone and 2) your intention to develop the land - both are vitally important facts for people to know when reading the blather you put up here.

Entirely relevant to the perception of you as a "do as I say, not as I do" or might do type, in your case.

Your development will not be approved without a hitch, no matter how much you think you can grease the skids with your pro-CCC rhetoric. You are mistaken and misguided in your arrogance.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 13, 2009 at 10:24 am


Brian Ginna -- Richard Oshen received a subpoena to provide evidence in a case brought by Dan Norris and Peg Guilder against the Coastal Commission. Judging by his continued publication on his blog, it clearly wasn't intended to "silence" him. Perhaps you'll next suggest that WHIFF 2009 pulled his film because of the subpoena, but that would be contrary Mr. Oshen's recent entry on his blog:

<Web Link>

Peg and Dan have property within the Coastal Zone, and there is photographic evidence provided by neighboring property owners that Peg and Dan have Coastal Act violations on their property. Uniform enforcement of the Coastal Act requires the Coastal Commission to first provide a Notice of Violation (to protect potential buyers) and to require Peg and Dan to correct those violations.

Coastal access is not an issue on Peg and Dan's property as it is not adjacent to the coast. In this case, the CCC requires protection of ESHA, which, in the Santa Monica Mountains, includes oak chaparral.

Were their property not in the Coastal Zone, grading permits for the road construction evidenced in the photographs would have been required, although not from the CCC.

Despite the litany of canards you provide, those facts are indisputable. My place of residence and intent to develop property within the Coastal Zone -- nor the limitied choices for "Select a City" -- are irrelevant when it comes to testing their veracity.

Your continued attempts to avert attention from those facts by revealing personal information about me does not change those facts. Keep that up and you'll look like the guy that failed to take Big Tom Callahan's advice in the movie "Tommy Boy."

<Web Link>

Nice hat there, Brian.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 13, 2009 at 4:33 pm


No, not all public tidelands--to mention public property extending along the entire California Coast--is available from an adjacent beach. Why do you think places like Malibu and the Sea Ranch were among the primary reasons the people of California voted for Prop. 20. They (used to) block access to miles of California coastline, and there are many other less notorious places that still do the same. Would-be developers scream like crazy when an action would landlock their properties without access, but apparently some do not believe public property should get the same consideration.

"Do you believe Moss Bitcher that everything we aspire to be, and is promised to us in our US Constitution, is Wrong?"

Do you believe attempts to implant their self-serving interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by self-appointed commentators pursuing a right-wing property rights agenda?

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 13, 2009 at 5:28 pm


This topic is way crazy, there is nothing like the CCC in all the other 49 states, just possibly not even in the world. Some commenting on this topic seem to think the CCC is perfect and has never done anything wrong and will never ever do any wrong, and Others think that the Commissioners and staff are crazy criminal idealogues. After reading about all the abuses by the CCC, and carefully reading the staunch defense of the need for a Coastal Act. Why can we not just agree that the Coastal Act needs to be amended with some constraints and oversight for the Commissioners and staff. The CCC is a legislative advocate, is an executive power, and has over 100 new lawsuits every year. Regarding legislation, in the most recent June meeting CCC staff reviewed 26 pending bills in Sacramento. Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely.

Sigmoid Polyp, a resident of Pescadero, on July 13, 2009 at 6:36 pm


I think I get it. Citizens in the USA have certain rights, like--Fourth Amendment-- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures..., so what is going on in the Coastal Zone?

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 15, 2009 at 3:24 pm


Miss B*tcher -- North Carolina has similar coastal protections, but not quite as tough or comprehensive as California's. New Zealand is also discussing the possibility of scrapping certain laws and agencies and setting up a Coastal Commission.

The CCC has photographic evidence of Coastal Act violations on land within the Coastal Zone. The property owner is arguing that the evidence was obtained illegally and has sued the Commission.

The property owners received a warrant to inspect their land. If I understand it correctly, the warrant had conditions that prevented videotaping of the inspection as well as forced entry to perform the inspection (I'm not sure about that last condition). The film maker received a subpoena for evidence that may (or may not) be on the video tape he recorded during the confrontation between the property owner and the sheriffs, assistant AG and CCC staff.

The CCC is essentially a planning agency that issues land use permits. Their main concern is maintaining public access to the ocean and protecting coastal resources.

Had the property owner in this case gotten a CDP, they would still have had to obtain grading permits from the local permitting agency. (That would be the case whether or not their propery was in the Coastal Zone, particularly in mountainous regions where improper road building or maintain can lead to big problems.)

The CCC is very similar (but more powerful and more far reaching) to planning agencies/ordinances in other municipalities. For example, if you live in a nice suburb or on a city street, you wouldn't want a small store or mechanic's shop to open next door to you if the area wasn't zoned for those land uses.

Anarchy is fine until the conflicts arise. That's where planning agencies come into play.

Hope that helps!

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 15, 2009 at 5:16 pm


Other states have laws, including zoning, for coastal protection. Oregon, for example. Not all of them have destructive overpopulation of the coastline as extreme as central and southern California, though all do have sustainability, ecosystem degradation (loss of nature's subsidies on which we all depend), access, coastal resource abuse, pollution issues, and loss of aesthetic features that most in the public (and visitors) value.

One of the severe shortcomings of the California Coastal Act is that it does not include all coastal watersheds to the ridgeline in the Coastal Zone. True ecosystem protection and protection of coastal resources is impossible because of this.

Another shortcoming is that the entire area in the Coastal Zone is treated pretty much as a homogenous entity rather than creating regulations that address situations for what they are. Because of this, some protections are pitifully inadequate for what they are supposed to protect and some can be unnecessarily restrictive because they apply protections created for one kind of place to a much different kind of place.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 15, 2009 at 6:01 pm


"One of the severe shortcomings of the California Coastal Act is that it does not include all coastal watersheds to the ridgeline in the Coastal Zone."

There is a very good reason for that. You said it yourself; it's called the "California Coastal Act", not 'the watershed act', 'the state of CA act', 'the we'll make all your decisions for you act', or 'the it's our land and we'll tell you what you can do with the ground you paid for act'.

The Coastal Act was written for and intended to protect our coastline. The Coastal Zone was originally 1,000 yards from the ocean throughout the state. That is appropriate. We should, among many other changes, reinstate that Coastal Zone...the original Coastal Zone and quit allowing douglas the nazi like power he has aquired through our apathy and legislators.

turn it back, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 26, 2009 at 12:34 pm


There is a saying that sums up my feelings for the Coastal Commission:

"Power Corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Lord Baron Acton 1834-1902

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 26, 2009 at 4:33 pm


Lisa:

Did the documentary film, "Sins of Commission", spark your outrage to have this unconstitutional entity brought back into conformance with the law, or has an experience with an arbitrary judgement of Mr. Douglas motivated you to post here?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 27, 2009 at 7:25 am


Let me share with you some information on two bills being promoted by the CCC before our state legislature.

AB 226 increases penalties imposed by the CCC payable to an account for their bhenefit managed by the Coastal Conservancy, and

AB 291 prohibits the commission from taking action on any application until the de minimus violation has been resolved, as determined by the executive director. Bear in mind that the notice of violation letter or the cease and desist order are conveniently also issued by the CCC. Once again the CCC is judge, jury, and executioner with Peter Douglas as the puppeteer and legislative manipulator who is also the sole person designated to resolving violations.

See

AB 226 Information Web Link

This bill would provide that a person who violates the act is

subject to an administrative civil penalty that may be imposed by the

California Coastal Commission by a majority vote of the

commissioners, upon consideration of various factors, in a public

hearing in an amount no less than $5,000 and no more than $50,000 for

each violation.

The act also requires that all funds derived from the payment

of a penalty are to be deposited into the Violation Remediation

Account of the Coastal Conservancy Fund, until appropriated by the

Legislature, for purposes of carrying out the act.

AB 291 Information Web Link

The bill would prohibit the commission from filing as

complete or acting upon an application for a coastal

development permit for development on any property

that is subject to, or is in common and contiguous ownership with any

property that is subject to an existing violation case for which a

violation notification letter has been sent, or a cease and desist

order, restoration order, or notice of violation has been issued or

recorded until the violation has been resolved.

This bill would prohibit

the commission from taking action on the application until the de

minimus violation has been resolved, as determined by the executive

director.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 27, 2009 at 11:56 am


AB 226 provides the CCC with the same penalty authority as other state environmental regulation agencies and will help clear the current backlog of 1300 enforcement cases:

<Web Link>

This is a good bill if you support the Coastal Act (and a bad one if you don't!).

AB 291 Prohibits any person subject to an enforcement action of the California Coastal Commission (Commission) from submitting a coastal development permit (CDP) application until the action has been resolved:

<Web Link>

Again, a good bill if you want the Coastal Act enforced (or bad if you don't!).

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm


Terry:

Are these so-called reform bills, AB226 & AB291, sponsored by the same Democrat state legislators who do not know how to stop spending other people's money that they don't have?

Hmmmm, these parasites seem to think that the doctrine of separation of powers is an inconvenience whimsically legislated away, and only convenient when it serves their insatiable desire for power.

A few phone calls are in order.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 27, 2009 at 2:04 pm


JD,

My advice is to carefully read the text of these two bills, and call your congressman with whatever your opinion is. You may also wish to give the Governor a call or a letter as well. Clearly I oppose the two bills for the reasons stated, and Mr Drouillard has never indicated what level of authority is too much for the Coastal Commission or for Mr Douglas. Would not a sane person want some oversight for Mr Douglas?

My concerns were twofold--increased penalties and more power to Peter Douglas. (as though he does not have enough already)

See Quote--This bill would prohibit the commission from taking action on the application until the de minimus violation has been resolved, as determined by the executive director.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm


Terry:

Whimsical misfeasance at its finest.

You may bet your booties that my lovely wife, my neighbors, my family members (those not of a Tory hue), and my friends will do our duty to inform our representatives that enough is enough.

Keep up the Good Fight!

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm


"My advice is to carefully read the text of these two bills, and call your congressman with whatever your opinion is."

Typically Gossett is so confused and locked into his myopia that he can't even suggest the correct level of government for comments. Besides which, we don't have a "congressman" representing the San Mateo County coastside.

"The Coastal Zone was originally 1,000 yards from the ocean throughout the state. That is appropriate."

No more appropriate than 100 yards or 10,000 yards or any other arbitrary and completely artificial distance applied to a landscape and adjacent ocean waters. The Coastal Act's supposed goal of protecting coastal features and values doesn't fit into a 1000-yard corridor. It works much better if one uses actual natural features that come much closer to delineating the area intimately and directly influencing and directly influenced by coastal processes and human uses. The ridgelines of coastal watersheds are one of the most obvious ways of delineating a true coastal zone on land.

People dreaming up numbers that relate to nothing but their pitiful, short-term, artificial agendas did not create the coast. Natural processes, including coastal ecosystems, did.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm


Now Pitching, the Coastal Zone protected by the Coastal Act should extend no further inland than the surface of the land wetted by the Mean High Tide.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 27, 2009 at 7:03 pm


Robert F. Ford, Jr. -- The coastal environment doesn't need protection from itself, which is all that your definition of the Coastal Zone would accomplish.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 27, 2009 at 7:24 pm


Mean high tide does not create a coastal zone that conforms to the reasons for or the stated purview of the Coastal Act. As for those reasons, read Proposition 20, which is what caused the Coastal Act to be created in the first place.

In a law separate from the Coastal Act, the mean high tide line designates the extent of public tidelands along the California coast, a form of public property, along our coast, tidelands to which the public deserves access when such will not cause damage to the property. This is based on the well-established legal principle that you cannot landlock someone else out of their property.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 27, 2009 at 7:34 pm


JD,

When I look at clips from Web Link it really bothers me that we have zealots, including Commission staffers and their executive director, Peter Douglas, using their power to get more power. The legislative process is being used by the Coastal Commission very effectively to that end.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 28, 2009 at 10:01 am


"No more appropriate than 100 yards or 10,000 yards or any other arbitrary and completely artificial distance applied to a landscape and adjacent ocean waters."

More utter garbage, I'll bet that's not what proponents of Prop 20 were saying when they were trying to get it passed in 1972. In fact, I don't need to bet because the language of Prop 20 is so simple and so clear that I suspect even someone as myopic as nipper can see it. Now, can s/he comprehend it? That's another story, and not my problem.

turn it back, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 26, 2009 at 12:34 pm, speaks well to the point of the CZ.

Regarding the two bills Terry speaks of, I addressed my thoughts on them above: George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm

I am very uncomfortable with both bills, and quite comfortable with my comments to them.

The commission needs restructure in the worst way, not the satisfaction of their increased appetite for power and control that they seek.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 10:57 am


Here's the simple and clear language of Proposition 20:

"Coastal zone" means that land and water area of the State of California from the border of the State of Oregon to the border of the Republic of Mexico, extending seaward to the outer limit of the state jurisdiction, including all islands within the jurisdiction of the state, and extending inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range, except that in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, the inland boundary of the coastal zone shall be the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is the shorter distance.

George, are you still myopic, or can you actually comprehend it now? It seems that Now Pitching was right on with his description, and that "turn it back" needs to learn how to research facts.

George, you just lost your bet. Sorry about that.

Paul Perkovic, a resident of Montara, on July 28, 2009 at 11:47 am


That was not the 1972 definition. Not even close.

Not True, Paul, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 12:11 pm


Originally, the commission was limited to 1,000 yards inland (Coastal Zone) “…between the seaward limits of state jurisdiction and 1,000 yards landward…” (from Prop 20).

Paul, do you see that? That is a direct quote from Prop 20, the 1972 ballot measure that started it all. There are many places you can find Prop 20; one is the film Sins of Commission, which apparently you have yet to see.

Look up, Paul. See the title of this thread? Try to keep that in your head when you pound out on your keyboard, and try to follow the dialog, if you're going to insert yourself into it.

You say, "George, are you still myopic, or can you actually comprehend it now?

Your smarmy remarks and unprovoked personal attack is both uncalled for and unwarranted. I would have thought you'd learned your lesson by now; apparently not.

It would be nice, and helpful to the discussion, is you'd park your attitude and provide accurate data. That has been hard for you in the past, as we've all seen, but you're not too old yet to change.

A change would do you (and us) good.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm


Fact !

THE CCC IS TO BLAME FOR THE DECLINE IN THE BIRD POPULATION WHEN IN 1982 THEY SIGNED INTO LAW THE BANE BILL WHICH ALLOWED THE RESIDENTS OF THE SEA RANCH TO BUILD THEIR HOMES ON THE BLUFFS OF THE NORTH COAST OF SONOMA COUNTY. THEY ALSO GAVE UP THEIR RIGHTS TO ANY DISPUTE BY THE SEA RANCH IN EXCHANGE FOR 5 ACCESS POINTS TO THE COAST FROM HIWAY 1. THIS IS THE ONLY 10 MILE STRETCH OF COAST WHERE THE CCC HAS NO JURISTRICTION IN CALIFORNIA. BLAMING THE GUALALA FESTIVAL COMMITTEE FOR LOSS OF BIRDS IS A JOKE AS BIG AS THE CCC. THE LEAD OBJECTOR TO THE FIREWORKS IS RICHARD KUEHN OF THE SEA RANCH WHO BUILT HIS HOME AS CLOSE TO THE ISLAND THAT THESE BIRDS LIVE AS POSSIBLE, APPROXIMATLY A COUPLE HUNDRED YARDS. 2 PLUS YEARS OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT HAMMERING,BACKHOES, NAIL GUNS ECT. DID THIS BOTHER THE BIRDS? NOT ACCORDING TO FRANCIS DRUILARD OR ANY OTHER NON KNOLOWEDGEABLE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED. MR. KUEHN TOLD THE COMMISSION AND I QUOTE ( WE ONLY WORKED ON THE HOUSE DURING THE DAY WHICH DIDN'T BOTHER ANYTHING). SURE MR. KUHN. AS FOR MR. DRUILARD FACTS ARE HE IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE COAST ONLY A VISITOR WHO OWNS A SMALL LOT IN ANCHOR BAY. THE CCC HAS FORCED ITS WAY INTO THE GUALALA RESIDENTS LIFE BY GETTING INVOLVED IN OTHER PEOPLES BUSINESS PRODDED BY OUTSIDERS WHO THINK THEIR WAY IS THE ONLY WAY. PLEASE SAVE MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS BY ELIMINATING THE NOSY, PUSHY CCC. SID A 30 YEAR GUALALA RESIDENT

Sid, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm


Web Link

check here, paul, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm


Thank you, Sid. Point(s) taken.

To Perk: what, no comeback? no 3 novel version of BS?

That may be because I quoted directly from Prop 20. The language in Prop 20 is clear, simple and written short enough to maintain the attention span of a 4 year old.

Gives you something to shoot for, Paul. Further, if you try a little honey rather than that nasty Castor Oil you use, you might just get a shot a viewing Sins of Commission. I know you won't like it, as you've got your upper region firmly entrenched in the commission's lower region, but at least you'll have a clue toward what the film is about and demonstrates.

Seeing is believing, even for you.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 1:54 pm


Sid,

You seem to know quite a bit about the Coastal Commission. Do you have any specific ideas on how we can make them follow the law instead of trying to advance legislation for more power.

Sometimes I think they need more oversight, a change in their appeal process, and possibly we need a new way to appoint Commissioners so that people that actually live in the Coastal Zone have more say in who governs them. That is how our normally government works with other "elected" officials. I like all your CAPS, THAT GOT MY ATTENTION.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 28, 2009 at 2:00 pm


A little too conceited, are we?

Myopic is the word people use when discussing things like the Airport Wells lawsuit.

And wasteful, too...

Paul, where'd ya go?, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 2:14 pm


I don't think that post was reallyl Paul Perkovik. It did not sound like the way he uses words and it was too short.

Actually it sounded like someone else we all know, but I don't think he would stoop to the low tactic he claims has been used against him.

Not Paul, a resident of El Granada, on July 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm


Lisa;

Unfortunatly I being one of the Gualala Festival Committee members have personally sat at the chambers listning to the self appointed CCC members listen to untruthfull comments by individuals who believe that a 15 minute fireworks display disturbs birds some 1.5 miles from our launch site in Gualala. Does the CCC really believe that of the 200 plus fireworks shows along the Calif. coast that there are no birds in Monterey, Half Moon Bay,San Diego, Point Arena or any other coastal town ? Of course not! The CCC called a special meeting in S F at the prodding of someone with horsepower on the last day before the Christmas recess in 2007. I found out about this meeting less than 3 days prior. I gave my alloted three minute statement with my wife defering her 3 minutes to me. The CCC said there would no deferals that day so I returned to my seat. When the fireworks opposers stood they requested to give a power play presentation, 5 members defered their time so the power play could be presented. This showed total bias and the result was that a cease and decist order was issued to the GFC the only group ever to recieve such an order. The CCC is a group of self appointed non elected individuals who ansewer to no one but themselves. Testimony is taken by the CCC with no swearing in so those who make statement can and did lie to make their point. We as citizens should write to the Govenor to stop this foolishness and wastfull spending of OUR tax dollars. What a shamefull group.

Sid, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm


Sid,

Thank you for that explanation. You helped me sort of understand why you are upset. IF you will go to this link Web Link You may be able to find the particular meeting you referred to-- The link is from the Coastal commission. Then we could go and see the people you told us about. Or tell us the month and year of the meeting and we can find it. Gualala keeps coming up in a lot of the discussions about the commission, and Francis could tell us his side, if it would not be too much to ask.

Thank you -- Lisa

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 28, 2009 at 5:53 pm


"We as citizens should write to the Governor to stop this foolishness and wastfull spending of OUR tax dollars."

Funny you should mention that. I faxed a letter to the Governor this afternoon. I asked him to veto the two Commission bills (above), and offered my reasons why.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 5:55 pm


Sid,

I just found what may be a better link Web Link so we cam see the video of the power play, after we find the topic on the agenda and the date for Gualala, if that is not too confusing.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 28, 2009 at 5:58 pm


Sid -- Take note -- the Commission approved fireworks for the City of Capitola on September 2nd of this year:

<Web Link>.

Now, since you've shared personal information about me, I think it appropriate that I share some info about you with everyone:.

Sid wants to do things for the people of Gualala. He was a judge in the highly successful first annual Gualala Arts Auto Show last weekend. It's rumored that he's looking ahead to next year to sponsor another auto show following the Fourth of July weekend. Knowing a little about Sid's background, I fully expect that it will be another highly successful event.

So folks, you may want to do what I plan to do -- head up to Gualala on Friday, July 2, 2010 and stay through Sunday, July 11, 2010. Get a campsite on the river or stay at one of many fine places in and around town. Enjoy the fireworks just 15 miles north in Arena Cove, then head back south for some great food at one of the many fine restaurants in Gualala.

During the week, walk the Gualala Bluff Trail or kayak the Gualala River. (Check out Adventure Rents.) Be daring and paddle up the lagoon towards the (closed) mouth of the river. Check out the local steelhead population! If you don't like rowing, you can walk to the same location from Gualala Point Regional Park, the entrance of which is just south of the bridge. After that, stop one of the many truly outstanding restaurants in Gualala and Anchor Bay. St. Orres has fine dining, as does the Redwood Grill. And don't miss Bones for a beer and some great ribs.

Repeat every day until the weekend. Once the Auto Show starts, you'll want to spend your days enjoying beautifully crafted machinery.

For what it's worth, I think it's fantastic that Sid is doing something for the locals, and I'm glad he provided this opportunity to promote Gualala. Atta boy, Sid!

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 28, 2009 at 6:15 pm


I forgot to mention something; Not Paul raised the idea that Perkovic may not have been the author of the comments (a few up) jumping my frame.

Not Paul, you may be right, but all I have to go by is what is stated. It is 'signed' by Perkovic, so I have to go by that.

If it is not Perkovic, and you may be right, the comments I made would then apply to whoever the author is/was.

Just wanted to recognize the point and respond. Thank you.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 6:17 pm


Lisa -- Go to 00:48:28 of the June 11, 2008 hearing, and 00:20:43 of the December 14, 2007 hearing. Hope that helps!

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 28, 2009 at 6:41 pm


Francis,

Thank you for the detailed explanation on your plans for Gualala in July 2010. Thanks also for the link on the approval of the Coastal Development Permit by the CCC for the fireworks for the city of Capitola for 30 minutes on Sept 2, 2009. I love the specificity of exactly what the CDP allowed--

"2. Fireworks Limitations.

a. Device Maximum. No more than a total maximum of 950 aerial shells and/or special effect

pyrotechnic devices shall be launched and/or detonated.

b. Aerial Salute Limitations. The total number of “aerial salute” shells or devices shall not exceed

6% of the total number of aerial shells and/or special effect pyrotechnic devices combined.

Aerial salute shells/devices shall not be launched or detonated during the first five minutes of the

fireworks display.

c. Plastic Labels and Wrapping Removed. All plastic labels and wrappings shall be removed

from all aerial shells and special effect pyrotechnic devices before they are launched or

detonated.

d. Prohibited Devices. Aerial shells and/or special effect pyrotechnic devices that include a plastic

outer casing and/or non-biodegradable inner components that make up more than 5% of the mass

of the shell/device shall be prohibited."

Is California a great country -- or what?

My fav story is going to a parade in Capitola many years ago (35?), and the town was so small that the band stayed in place and people walked along the curb to admire them and applaud. There was a great diner on the beach with superb soups and breads, and camping on New Brighton Beach was a blast unless you got into the poison oak.

Francis,

I find it remarkable that we can both laud the wonderful California coast, yet, apparently you have no problem with the capricious acts of the CCC in approving some communities' fireworks (with outrageous specifics), while denying other communities. Baffling to me, but what do I know.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 28, 2009 at 6:46 pm


Francis,

Thank you for the information-- I went to-- Web Link and tried everything to see the presentations, but was unsuccessful. I will try again tomorrow, I had a very tiring day.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm


Thank god the CCC is in place because if North Korea decides to invade they will have to wait for the CCC to approve their plan, this could make all the difference in the world.

EG-OG, a resident of El Granada, on July 28, 2009 at 7:45 pm


I agree with EG-OG, we need a nuclear free zone to protect us from iran and NK, and we need government czars for everything to conrol our lifes-- autos, banks, hospitals, schools, fireworks at gualala and capitola, porta potties in monatara and pescadero, and school lunches.

Nuclear Free Zone, a resident of Pescadero, on July 28, 2009 at 8:02 pm


AB 226 and AB 291 have nothing to do with protecting the coast and everything to do with protecting and enhancing the power of Peter Douglas and the Commission. Both the Commissioners and Mr. Douglas know most people can not afford to challenge their unconstitutional decisions in the court system. In many cases local decisions are appealed to the Commission by Commissioners themselves and then they sit as judge and jury on their own appeal. This is not due process.

The knock at the door and the film :Sins of Commission" may finally get someone to listen and bring reform to this out of control agency.

Mollie Green, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm


"The CCC is a group of self appointed non elected individuals who ansewer to no one but themselves."

What kind of know-nothing doofus imagines the members of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) are "self-appointed"? Trying to come off as knowledgeable on how the Coastal Commission operates without even knowing how its members are appointed shows someone shooting from the hip while blindfolded.

The erroneous hyperbole on such a simple matter wipes out all credibility of anything else said.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 10:18 pm


"More utter garbage, I'll bet that's not what proponents of Prop 20 were saying when they were trying to get it passed in 1972. In fact, I don't need to bet because the language of Prop 20 is so simple and so clear that I suspect even someone as myopic as nipper can see it. Now, can s/he comprehend it? That's another story, and not my problem."

Don't get out much, do you, George? Don't know much about the creation and passage of Prop. 20, do you? Do you even know what constitutes a decent definition of a coastal ecosystem? Of course you don't.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 28, 2009 at 10:23 pm


A number of people on this blog prefer to attack people posting on this topic, or attack their spelling or credibility, without addressing the essence of the topic. So, let me try once again to inject the topic of discussion for others that are interested in what is happening to people trying to live in the Coastal Zone.

"Filmmaker Defends First Amendment Rights Against California Coastal Commission

Filmmaker Richard Oshen’s documentary film SINS OF COMMISSION www.sinsofcommission.com has been subpoenaed by the primary star of the film, the California Coastal Commission.

The film, the first behind-the-scenes look at decades of alleged government corruption and malfeasance by the highly secretive Commission, features a first time in-depth, on camera interview with Peter Douglas, the Commission’s executive director of 20 plus years, as well as with former Commission members.

The sweep of the subpoena includes “all visual and/or audio recordings…as well as Mr. Oshen’s unpublished “Sins of Commission DVD.”

-David Greene, The First Amendment Project

The filmmaker believes the Commission is determined to stop the release of this film and is doing everything in its power to stop it, and Oshen sees the subpoena as the first step.

It’s a sad commentary for America when a government commission at the heart of an investigative documentary film, can summon a work print and raw footage of the film that they believe is exposing their decisions. If they have nothing to hide - what are they afraid of?

-Richard Oshen, SINS OF COMMISSION producer/director

Oshen believes that the reporter’s privilege, based on the First Amendment and the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution, applies to him and all documentary filmmakers, as well as print journalists.

Other courts have found that the reporter’s privilege applies to documentary filmmakers, most notably in Silkwood v. Kerr McGee and the same constitutional privilege of press applies to SINS OF COMMISSION - even though the documentary film lacks a distribution deal or a filmmaker, like Richard Oshen, has not previously produced a documentary film.

The First Amendment Project is defending Mr. Oshen and SINS OF COMMISSION and set forth objections in a letter to the CCC. David Greene, staff attorney and executive director at First Amendment Project says the Supreme Court of the United States recognizes the privilege based on the broad protections for Freedom of the Press, extends to documentary filmmakers.

The litmus test is whether the information sought was obtained during the course of gathering information for dissemination to the public - which Sins of Commission was.

Constitutional protection afforded a documentarian to shield his journalistic work product from subpoenas benefits not only that documentarian, but the public in general.

-David Greene, The First Amendment Project

He added that without these protections, news gatherers of all kinds would be discouraged from investigating, and the public would ultimately suffer by being denied access to important information.

For more information, contact David Greene at The First Amendment Project (510) 208-7744 or Richard Oshen 909 547-6262, sinsofcommission@gmail.com

Any REAL comments about the California Coastal Commission are appreciated. All aspersions, derisions, and attacks on people trying to have a real discussion on this topic are unappreciated, and will be noted and referred to the moderator.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 28, 2009 at 10:39 pm


Terry:

May I offer a cause as to why the CCC's tyrannical behavior is lauded so by its cheerleaders before us?

These sentiments of railing against property rights stem from the feminized 'progressive' notion of "fairness" which in today's political nomenclature, would mean a guarantee of equal results under the law. More simply put, changing the rules after the game has begun. The problem? Who becomes the arbiter of the rules guaranteeing equal outcomes?

This feminized "fairness doctrine" has a much different context than the Jeffersonian doctrine of "fair play" whereby all who set foot on the field of play know the rules beforehand and are guaranteed equal opportunities to succeed or fail. The arbiter, Lady Justice, is blind. No problem there.

What has this ill-conceived Right of "fairness" begat? If we look to the body politic of the Coastside, it has fostered the covetousness of all "open space" whether it be privately or publicly held. From there, the democratization of the commons mutates into the democratization of private holdings, which melds perfectly into Marx's stated objective to eliminate all private property. Then the duped majority (voters) hails the elitist minority (CCC) as the saviors of the environment, who then again further their power with subversive coercions.

That is what Mr. Oshen has captured on film.

So, when I look to the place I grew up and see these fellow travelers of Marx, the progressives and environmentalists, grandstanding as protectors of Mother Earth, and denying others their Right to the use of property after, of course, they have theirs; I cry foul.

Great work Terry.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 28, 2009 at 11:12 pm


Press Release - Here's a headline for you: "Filmmaker Richard Oshen’s documentary film SINS OF COMMISSION www.sinsofcommission.com has been subpoenaed by the primary star of the film, the California Coastal Commission."

Can you believe this?

It's followed by: "The film, the first behind-the-scenes look at decades of alleged government corruption and malfeasance by the highly secretive Commission, features a first time in-depth, on camera interview with Peter Douglas, the Commission’s executive director of 20 plus years, as well as with former Commission members."

I find it very peculiar that the Bush Administration (White House) can't stop an unflattering documentary about them, but the commission is on the verge of going where no government agency has gone before and sieze Oshen's work.

Wait, what did I just say? Did I just say that the commission is more powerful than the White House?

"The sweep of the subpoena includes “all visual and/or audio recordings…as well as Mr. Oshen’s unpublished “Sins of Commission DVD.”

-David Greene, The First Amendment Project

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 29, 2009 at 7:06 am


Lisa -- You want the website you originally linked: <Web Link>. Once there, get the complete videos of the December 14, 2007 and June 11, 2008 hearings. The testimony you want is at 00:48:28 of the June 11, 2008 hearing, and at 00:20:43 of the December 14, 2007 hearing.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 29, 2009 at 7:19 am


Francis--

Thank you. First I had problems with my firewall, and then my wmv or quicktime, but I got through all that. Then I listened to the first part of the December video and statewide issues were covered first, and I was surprised to hear the HMB Yamagiwa case discussed by the Dep Attorney General of California. He said that Yamagiwa determination was not the normal inverse takings, but was a "physical invasion", Wow. Peter Douglas said he was going to follow this case. Anyway, I will keep watching all these tapes and get better informed.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on July 29, 2009 at 2:33 pm


Terry Gossett -- The City of Capitola sought a CDP for their fireworks display. Commission staff properly conditioned that permit so the event would comply with the Coastal Act. Sid and the GFC did not apply for a CDP and they continue to argue that the CCC does not have jurisdiction over fireworks in the Coastal Zone.

The only way that you could rightfully claim that the CCC is acting capriciously is if both the City of Capitola and the GFC applied for a CDP, and that both were in similar environments with similar constraints, yet the CCC approved one CDP but not the other. Because the two events lack those similarities, it is incorrect to claim that the CCC acts capriciously regarding fireworks on the coast.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 29, 2009 at 2:45 pm


Lisa -- There's nothing nefarious about the Commission or the state AG following a case in which they would have participated had the City of HMB chosen to appeal Judge Walker's decision. In fact, it was both prudent and appropriate for them to do so.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 29, 2009 at 3:54 pm


My Dear, Francis Drouillard,

Do you maintain that a 30 min fireworks display is a "development"?

Did you see my previous post with "some" of the conditions placed by the CCC on the city of Capitola.

"2. Fireworks Limitations.

a. Device Maximum. No more than a total maximum of 950 aerial shells and/or special effect

pyrotechnic devices shall be launched and/or detonated.

b. Aerial Salute Limitations. The total number of “aerial salute” shells or devices shall not exceed

6% of the total number of aerial shells and/or special effect pyrotechnic devices combined.

Aerial salute shells/devices shall not be launched or detonated during the first five minutes of the

fireworks display."

What is magic about 950?

Where did 6% total number of aerial shells come from?

What the hell? Who does CCC and Peter Douglas think they are? It is time to answer that question. Would you be so kind to do so?

When I saw all the conditions required of Capitola, I wondered, where were the provisions for how many firetrucks, the amount of water available, the proximity of people to firewoerks... does this sound like nazi Germany to you? It does to me.

Does the city of Capitola have NO identity? Shall we simply eliminate all county responsibilities and municipality responsibilities in the Coastal Zone and cede that authority to Mr. Peter Douglas? and he can provide details ...like

Device Maximum. No more than a total maximum of 950 aerial shells and/or special effect

OR like---

b. Aerial Salute Limitations. The total number of “aerial salute” shells or devices shall not exceed

6% of the total number of aerial shells and/or special effect pyrotechnic devices combined.---

OMG. Is this America, or Nazi Germany?

Francis, please provide me a clue as to what limits you might conceive for the CCC relative to existing county and city authorities.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 29, 2009 at 3:56 pm


I hate the CCC. I hope Arnie slashes their budget to the bone where they can't even afford paperclips. I hate them, I hate them, I hate them!

I HATE CCC, a resident of El Granada, on July 29, 2009 at 4:50 pm


Terry;

You are right on my friend! The reason the Gualala Festivals Cmte would not apply for a CDP is exactly as you explained above. We did not want to set a precident by being the first ever to bow to the CCC,s demand for a CDP. FIREWORKS shows are NOT development!

My fear is if we lose this case, EVERY FIREWORKS SHOW in the state will be subject to the manuplation of the CCC. We totally stand behind the Pacific Legal Foundation for their support with which without we all may be in trouble, that includes Point Arena Francis.

Speaking of Francis , thank you for the kind words earlier, I really care about Gualala. But please remember, we are not incorperated and we get no financial help from our county. Our lumber trade is gone as construction. We now depend on tourism. Thanks to the CCC our Independance Days the last 2 years were devestating. Some of our nosy neighbors to the south even sent letters threatning boycots to anyone having donation jars for the fireworks. We are in this fight for the duration and need all the support we can get.

Sid

Sid, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 29, 2009 at 5:16 pm


Terry Gossett -- The term "development" as used in the Coastal Act is defined therein. It is that definition that is relevant, not the definition used in the dictionary. As for the conditions on the Capitola fireworks CDP, the reasons for imposing them are explained in the staff report. Generally speaking, they're intended to limit the adverse effects of the event on coastal resources.

Despite Sid's assertion to the contrary, the CCC won't require a CDP for every fireworks show or other temporary event in the Coastal Zone. They're only interested in regulating events that are known to restrict coastal access or those that adversely affect coastal resources. Recall, their mandate is to maintain coastal access and to protect the coastal ecosystem. In other words, their purpose is to conserve the coast.

There was a time when conservatives championed protecting our natural environment. They've now abandoned those principles and conceded the issue to the progressives. It is costing them political power, especially here in California.

It's not that hard to enjoy private property rights (which isn't at issue in the Gualala fireworks case) while protecting our coastal ecosystem. Liberals manage. Greens manage. It's time for conservatives to manage, too, and recognize that Californians want their coast protected. Otherwise, they'll have to wait until liberals screw up horribly on other issues such as the economy or to overplay their hand on issues such as cap and trade or health care.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 29, 2009 at 5:56 pm


Francis, you are not making sense.

"the CCC won't require a CDP for every fireworks show or other temporary event in the Coastal Zone."

And you know that how?

"They're only interested in regulating events that are known to restrict coastal access or those that adversely affect coastal resources."

And I wonder in the opinion of the CCC, what events (in the coastal area, however large that is defined) DO NOT affect "coastal resources" (which are defined as what...?)

"There was a time when conservatives championed protecting our natural environment. They've now abandoned those principles and conceded the issue to the progressives. It is costing them political power, especially here in California."

Uh, maybe conservatives still champion protecting our natural environment and it's the Liberals and Greens who have changed the definition of "protecting" and "natural environment".

Tee hee, I would comment on the last sentence of the post I am talking about but that would be overkill.

Normal Person, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 29, 2009 at 7:09 pm


What a bunch of garbage. Slash their budget to $0. I hate the CCC

I HATE CCC, a resident of El Granada, on July 29, 2009 at 7:47 pm


"My fear is if we lose this case, EVERY FIREWORKS SHOW in the state will be subject to the manuplation of the CCC. We totally stand behind the Pacific Legal Foundation for their support with which without we all may be in trouble, that includes Point Arena Francis."

Here we get some insight into a person's paranoia. How could the entire state be subject to the Coastal Act--the thing the CCC oversees--when most of the state is not in the Coastal Zone? The very next sentence tells us. The person sending the message endorses the right-wing, industry-supported, property wrongs legal mouthpiece known as the Pacific Legal Foundation. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, and hyperbole on environmental issues are their stock in trade and would be expected of anyone associated with or supporting them.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 29, 2009 at 7:54 pm


"Uh, maybe conservatives still champion protecting our natural environment..."

True Teddy-Roosevelt-type conservatives might, but political "conservatives," aka "right-wingers," are all about sacrificing anything and everything for power and the almighty dollar, which are essentially joined at the hip in their political philosophy. These neoconservatives have *zero* history of protecting anything natural for the natural resources and ecosystem services on which we all depend. If they support leaving a little postage-stamp-sized parcel in a somewhat natural condition somewhere, you can be sure it is because there is money to be made off its presence by some enterprise such as a resort or other tourism-oriented businesses.

The modern conservative's idea of natural protection is a view strip of trees left along a highway to mask a clear-cut.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 29, 2009 at 8:08 pm


Francis Drouillard,

I think we can protect the coast while having clear and fair rules, laws, and regulations for doing so. I do not see it as an Either, OR, situation.

When you state: "the CCC won't require a CDP for every fireworks show or other temporary event in the Coastal Zone." that is an example of what I am talking about. Can you provide me a clear definition of what is and is not a "development" to the CCC as a guide for people living in the Coastal Zone? Do you see it as acceptable for people that live in the Coastal Zone to wonder "OK, I am following all zoning and regulations, but what will Peter want, or what will Peter do?

Are people in the Coastal Zone subject to the whims of one man, Peter Douglas? ...without any appeal process for his proclamations and assertions and determinations? IF you lived in the coastal Zone would you feel that was fair? Please go back and read the current wording of AB 291. As leginfo summarizes---"This bill would prohibit the commission from taking action on the application until the de minimus violation has been resolved, as determined by the executive director. "

Really, (I really want to know) does that seem fair to you?

I think it is time for people that actually live in the coastal zone to be able to elect their own coastal representatives, and it is time to rotate some of the long-serving coastal staff and commissioners as we do with other representatives.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 30, 2009 at 8:17 am


Fraancis,

Maybe this is the wrong forum to resolve these issues. Maybe we just need to sit down over a beer and get to know each other. OK?

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 30, 2009 at 8:20 am


I noticed the following---

Web Link and the website had a notice of a 2009 Annual Parade of Lights... I wonder do THEY, The City of Santa Barbara, have a CDP for that parade?

Francis, Peter, Lennie, Zoe, Audrey, anyone... Do they?

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm


Web Link Highlight of the city website was slide show of activities for their visitor serving community. The City of Pismo Beach was founded in 1891 and incorporated in 1946. It is located mid-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco with a population of 8600. Pismo Beach is a recreation and tourism-oriented town with over 65 restaurants and more than 30 hotels, motels, inns and RV parks. Visitors enjoy a myriad of activities including golfing, bicycling, walking through the Monarch Butterfly Grove, tennis, horseback riding, scuba diving, bowling, hiking, miles of beautiful and clean beaches, exploring tide pools, coves, and caves. Enjoy the 1200-foot Pismo Pier for sightseeing, walking, fishing and seeing the great sunset.

Pismo Beach holds a variety of special events including the 4th of July Fireworks Show, Clam Festival, Band Review, Car Show and Jubilee-by-the-Sea Dixieland Jazz Festival.

Hello-- to Francis Drouillard, Audrey Rust, Peter Douglas, Charles Lester, Ruby Pap, Lennie Roberts, Zoe, KSC, PP, Julia Bott, Mark Masara, and many others, Do all of these activities in Pismo Beach (developments) along our 1100 miles of California coast have CDP like the Gualala fireworks and the Capitola 30 minute show? Where is the consistency? Who are you guys?

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on July 30, 2009 at 5:44 pm


You're wasting your time, Terry. The ones you name are only interested in their own views.

In order to have a debate, all participants have to listen to each speaker, one at a time, digest what they heard and respond to that point. Perhaps one or more of the speakers is so compelling that others adjust their views. Listening is the key.

What you have here is everybody talking with very little, if any, listening. If they are partially listening, it's only to pull something out to ambush you or your position.

They name streets after people like that: One Way!

Rather than attempt a real debate with them, we need to find others that understand and are getting their fill of the commission, in other locations up and down the coast.

Commission approach: divide and conquer

Our approach: unite the CA coastline and restructure the commission. It will take time and patience, but it's the only way. Most of our legislators are bought and paid for, so we can't use them. Not until we unite for the common good, for the benefit of CA, and for our rights as Americans.

waste of time, Terry, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 30, 2009 at 6:15 pm


Tempest in a teapot, Trolling Terry. What do the CCC-approved LCP's of your worrisome places say? Between reading the current Coastal Act and the LCP's of each jurisdiction you can answer your own questions most of the time.

Wait 'til we get the initiative petition going to plug the holes in the Coastal Act, make up for its shortcomings and misconceptions, and truly protect our coastal features and values. Destructionists will go belly up like trout on rotenone and the PLF will gyrate even more crazily, spinning like an off-center top.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm


BIG DIFFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS FIREWORKS AND GUALALA IS THE FACT THAT GUALALA’S FIREWORKS OCCUR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH ACCESS TO COASTAL RESOURCES. YES FIREWORKS DISTURB BIRDS – NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE FIRED. BUT CAR BACKFIRES, PEOPLE, CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES ALSO DISTURB BIRDS. ANOTHER FACT: 3000-4000 PEOPLE CROWDED GUALALA AND PATRONIZED LOCAL BUSINESSES.

THE CCC HAS GONE TOO FAR.

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 8:18 am


SICKOFCCC -- With respect the the 4th of July weekend, how many people crowded Gualala in the years before fireworks we held? How many people crowded Gualala for the two years they had the fireworks? How many in the following years without fireworks? How many people come to Gualala for the fireworks? How many for peace and quiet, or to enjoy the river and the natural beauty of the area?

It seems to me that the bad economy has had a greater effect on tourism than the lack of fireworks. I find that Gualala is always crowded during the 4th of July holiday. If the fireworks are intended to increase tourism, why not on another holiday, one that is outside the breeding/nesting season of local birds? Why not Labor Day? Or Guy Fawkes Day?

Why are you so combative and unaccommodating? Why are you so incapable of exploring alternatives that would accommodate the concerns of others?

Why do you keep setting yourselves up for failure? That's what I see and that's what I don't get.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 9:20 am


How many this Gualala... How many that Gualala...

How many know what/where is Gualala...?

Francis, your "why can't we all get along" attitude about accommodating the concerns of others is laughable. It just depends on who those "others" are, doesn't it.

Minnie Howhow, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm


What good is a LCP (Local Coastal Plan) if the CCC is going to overrule the local responsible agency that is charged with insuring compliance??

If an LCP is filed, reviewed for years, approved by the CCC and then adopted by the local community then besides the required updates the CCC should keep it's nose out of local issues. Otherwise the CCC rules become a moving target for local communities that have gone to the trouble of adopting a LCP.

If there is no LCP then of course the CCC should have full jurisdiction.

This is what happened in Mendocino County (which spent YEARS on its' LCP) and Gualala's fireworks.

The only word that comes to mind is OVERREACHING by an un-elected group. The Gualala fireworks were reviewd by local authorities, State of CA authorities and even Federal Authorities. No objections from any of them. So when a very small group of objectors couldn't get their way they used the CCC to do it. It is now heading to the CA Court of Appeals.

The CCC has and will change the rules "on the fly" rather than going through a "due process".

If a 20 minute fireworks show is deemed a "development" - because the CCC says the placement of boxes on the ground makes it so - then what else will constitute development?

Our liberties are truly endangered if the CCC is allowed to continue as it is today.

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm


Francis Drouillard- if you were here you would see the VACANCY signs on our motels. You would see the empty tables at Gualala's restaurants. You would hear the merchants discussing the empty commercial spaces and lack of business.

Minnie Howh- HOW RIGHT ON YOU ARE!!!! "It just depends on who those "others" are, doesn't it."

livingingualala, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 4:04 pm


Minnie Howhow -- Had the GFC been more forthcoming or more accommodating and neighborly-like, they'd likely have their fireworks. But instead, they kept their membership to themselves and ignored all public appeals to come up with fireworks that wouldn't disrupt nesting birds.

The first one to identify himself publicly as a GFC member showed up on the June 13, 2007 public comment period at a hearing in Santa Rosa:

<Web Link>

Public comment on the Gualala fireworks starts at about 02:43:46 of that clip. The only other member that identified himself publicly was Sid at the December 14, 2007 hearing.

For more evidence that the GFC was unnecessarily confrontational, see video for June 15, 2007. You might find the comments of Peter Douglas at approximately 02:41:00 interesting, unless, like those in the GFC, you prefer a more confrontational approach to achieving your stated goals.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 4:13 pm


livingingualala -- I have been in Gualala and I do make a point of purchasing in Gualala. Yes, tourism is down in Gualala, as well as home construction in TSR and elsewhere. But clearly, the sorry state of our economy is to blame, not the lack of fireworks. And Gualalans aren't the only ones that are hurting. Many in the rust belt, including friends and family in my home state of Michigan have it much, much worse than anyone in Gualala or other regions in the Coastal Zone -- and they have fireworks all over the place!

SICKOFCCC -- What good is an LCP if the local coastl permit administrator doesn't follow it or enforce it uniformly? That's the problem in Mendocino County, which is why many of the projects they approve are appealed.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm


Last year’s report from the commission doesn’t show a greater amount of appeals in Mendocino than other coastal areas. It does show the CCC sticking its nose into local govt processes. So I question the assertion that Mendocino County is not diligent in its administration of the LCP.

The California Coastal Act — the statute that authorizes and defines the Coastal Commission’s powers — recognizes that local coastal permitting decisions should, whenever possible, be left to local governments in order to “achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions.” To that end, the act allows local governments to adopt their own coastal program, which is certified by the commission.

Gualala has a Coastal Development Plan approved by both the County of Mendocino and the California Coastal Commission. It took over ten years to complete and was codified in 1999. When a local government has a certified Coastal Development Plan, as Gualala has, the commission has only very limited appellate jurisdiction. Supposedly, this element grants control to the local community over planning decisions.

If the Commission recognizes no principled limit on what can be classified as ‘development,’ absurd results will follow. Driving a car, camping, and picnicking, sunbathing, surfing, swimming, breathing, or just being in the coastal zone would all require applications for a development permit, or a request for an exemption. The California legislature could not have envisioned such absurd results.

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 5:25 pm


"Had the GFC been more forthcoming or more accommodating and neighborly-like, they'd likely have their fireworks. But instead, they kept their membership to themselves and ignored all public appeals to come up with fireworks that wouldn't disrupt nesting birds."

Boy does THAT sound familiar.

They wouldn't let ya play, eh?

Tawdry Glamour, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 6:23 pm


To learn more about the CCC and Gualala Fireworks and other Gualala issues with the CCC read a speech by one of the members of the GFC:

“Confronting the California Coastal Commission’s Ultra-control of Local Communities”

Web Link

The GFC petitioned the town, got over 900 signatures FOR FIREWORKS and then paid for the entire display - over $10,000 as a GIFT to the community. Thousands of people showed up and cheered.

Does the GFC sound like a group that is not "forthcoming or more accommodating and neighborly-like"???? They altered the following year's display to reduce the accused wildlife disturbance.

Mr Drouillard does not live in Gualala - maybe he missed the petitions. In any case people voted with their feet.

livingingualala, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 2, 2009 at 6:49 pm


What happened at the Coastal Commission workshop this week? Was the Commission responsible for any part of the Lockheed fire? Were any people in the coastal zone denied the ability to clear defensible spaces around their homes? Were large areas of environmentally sensitive habitat identified by the coastal commission off limits for clearing?

Curious, a resident of Pescadero, on August 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm


Curious -- You mean the workshop with the League of Cities, right? They had a public meeting. Nothing for the Commission to act on. The public was given an opportunity to speak.

I made it for only 2 of the 4 hours, and left after asking the Commission to de-certify or suspend those LCPs where administrators fail to adequately enforce them. I also suggested that the most reliable and expeditious way to get an LCP approved is to incorporate staff recommendations and conform to the spirit and the intent of the Coastal Act. (Sure wish I had stated it like that in public!)

Terry Gossett argued that the LCP process was broken and needed to be fixed in a manner the protected private property rights. (Or something along those lines. I'm confident you'll hear from him first hand.)

The League of Cities appeared to have the notion that the terms of the Coastal Act are negotiable under a collaborative effort between the Cities and the CCC, and sought greater participation from the CCC in that regard. The CCC made it clear that only those LCPs that conform to the Coastal Act could be approved by the CCC.

The only consensus between the CCC and the League of Cities that I saw was the need for a larger CCC budget so they could acquire more staff.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm


The CCC and its devotees (i.e. the Nipper and disciples) need to be cast forth into the Darkness where there is the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.

wemoan, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm


As long as people who talk like religious nutcases wish me poorly, I know I'm in good shape.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm


No, Nipper, that would be going home for you. That's wishing you good.

wemoan, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 14, 2009 at 5:13 pm


I feel a little bit guilty being so amused by true-believing whackos like wemoan. In my heart, I know I am right with the Pink Unicorn and the Giant Purple Jelly Bean.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 14, 2009 at 5:18 pm


Nipper, you are so far past The Electric Koolaid Acid Test, that we will have to devise a new test for you. Just for you, Nipper---

How about the Harley Burger at Alice's Restaurant with a quart of Koolaid, and you can go down the road as Shel Silverstein said, "and wrap my hair around my bare, and down the road I go."

Ball Four, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm


Francis Drouilliard,

You spoke to the California Cities Issue Group (CCIG ) and the Coastal Commissioners just before I did, about 940am on the morning of 12 August at the Hyatt Regency Embarcadero in San Francisco in front of nearly 160 people. I tried to talk with you, but you split.

The meeting was not as you just characterized it just now on this topic. Let me set the record straight. See the attached public record link from our California Coastal Commission. Web Link

The attached tape of the meeting refutes your interpretation. Readers of this blog can decide for themselves what they wish to believe about You and this Coastal Commission. The following are excerpts from a public record tape from the Coastal Commission.

Richard Gordon, Supervisor from San Mateo County, led the opening comments on behalf of the (CCIG) and stated “…this is a historic and unprecedented meeting…”, “…it is imperative that we requested this opportunity to meet with the commissioners and be partners…”, and “we hope this is a new beginning based on hope and trust.”

Sara Wan in her opening comments ended by saying we need “maximum public participation”

Nancy Gardner, Councilmember of Newport Beach, started her remarks saying “we can do a better job of public participation…”

Kathy Long, Supervisor from Ventura County asked for “trust, transparency, and consistency…”, and added that the public was very important and that she represented 155,000 coastal people, and that “the public is always represented in everything that I do”. Supervisor Long added, “I am not saying that the process is broken, but it does need a lot of tender loving care.”

Toni Iseman, Councilmember of Laguna Beach, added “We have never had an opportunity to meet with the Commissioners, but only with their staff”

Iya Falcon, Councilmember of Santa Barbara, added “This is an historic meeting where authorities collide between cities and the Coastal Commission, and how to work together. Our issue is the Funk Zone…”

Greg Cox, Supervisor from San Diego County had lots to say and then ended with “…we need to meet more than once every 33 years…”

During public comment Mr Drouillard stated “The League of Cities appeared to have the notion that the terms of the Coastal Act are negotiable under a collaborative effort between the Cities and the CCC, and sought greater participation from the CCC in that regard.” And added, with no basis in fact “The only consensus between the CCC and the League of Cities that I saw was the need for a larger CCC budget so they could acquire more staff.”

Terry Gossett, speaking on behalf of Californians for Property rights stated “We all know that the LCP process is broken, that is why we are here today” and added “The Coastal Act states that “during the preparation, approval, certification, and amendment of any local coastal program, the public, as well as all affected governmental agencies, including special districts, shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate.” And added..

“Public participation is NOT happening within processes controlled by the Commission. But processes being run by elected coastal officials DO comply with the Coastal Act, Why is that?

Ten years ago we started to update our LCP in San Mateo county, and after a gazillion meetings ably led by our county, we completed our LCP in Feb 2007 gave our LCP to you. Two years later your staff presented a 341 page document to our county just 12 days before a March 2009 meeting. Your staff introduced 19 new concepts, never previously presented to the public. Unable to reconcile the differences in 12 days, our county requested a continuance, and then held 3 community meetings. Over 125 attended their meeting in HMB. I cannot describe a ten year process in three minutes, but believe me, this LCP process is broken.

The Coastal Commission has usurped the rights given to the public and their elected officials by the Coastal Act. This Commission and staff need to reaffirm their allegiance to the Coastal Act and the Constitution of this state and the United States of America. “

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 14, 2009 at 9:29 pm


My, my, my, just look at all the maneuvering public officials and developer shills trying to get out of the requirements of the Coastal Act, the law that sets up the requirements for LCP's. It's an old story in California. Many sold-out coastal governments, such as HMB's, were many years late in creating their LCP's; and, like Gordon and the rest of the S.M. County fronts for destructive developers, they are still dragging their feet.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 14, 2009 at 10:38 pm


NP,

Let me try to put this workshop into perspective. The California League of Cities, for all of California, was concerned enough about the Coastal Act and the LCP process, that they formed a Coastal Cities Issues Group. Of the 128 LCP areas along 1100 miles of coast, 58 responded to a survey and those issues were discussed at this workshop to improve the LCP process.

Much discussion was similar to that of Kathy Long, Supervisor of Ventura county who asked for trust, transparency, and consistency.

NP,

Here we are again with you anonymously trashing people that are trying to work together to make our coast a better place. If you read what I said about the Midcoast, we had full participation by the public on the MIdcoast LCP UNTIL the LCP was submitted to the CCC in Feb 2007, but then our LCP was in a black hole until Feb 27, 2009 when the CCC staff announced what they contrived as their 341 page position with no public input or participation, just 12 days before a March decision meeting before the Commission.

NP,

So much for trust, transparency, and consistency from the CCC and their staff. I am thankful to have our county Supervisors that afford us full participation in our processes.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm


Mr Gossett: A very well stated series of points but, to try to make sense with the NP, one is casting pearls before swine.

wemoan, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 15, 2009 at 2:00 pm


Mr. Gossett -- Real nice, Terry. I provide a brief summary of that half of the hearing I observed as well as my public comment. I provided an extremely brief take on your public comment and noted that you would likely provide a fuller description (you're rant lasted the full 3 minutes allowed).

Very nice to see that you return the favor by accusing me of mischaracterizing the hearing, then completely and utterly (and perhaps intentionally) misquoting my public comment.

You are one strange agent, Mr. Gossett.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 15, 2009 at 2:31 pm


Mr Drouillard,

I took your quotes from your posting on this topic. Is that in dispute? I could and can go back and transcribe your every spoken word at the workshop as well, unless you wish to do that yourself. It is all public record, in perpetuity (and that is a long time)

I really do wish to meet you and talk with you, that would be a much better forum than this blog. As Judge Judy once said to a defendant, "We know each other, you and I" You and I don't need an audience.

You know, sort of like what the mayors of coastal cities and supervisors of coastal counties had wanted to do with the Commissioners. You were there, and I saw you there, did you hear the words from my Supervisor Gordon, words like "...historic...meet with the commissioners and be partners...and a new beginning based on hope and trust......................." As the initial spokesman for the Coastal Cities Issues Group, I think Rich Gordon nailed the problem with our LCP process.

You must to have also heard the sorry state of the LCP process statewide from Mike Reilly, moderator, and former Commissioner at the start of the meeting, 105 pending LCP out of 128 total, and with (I think 34 LCP that have never ever been certified in 33 years--as I remember,--am I the only one listening to the archive tape from the CCC for specifics?) but I ramble.

Mr Drouillard, you are not strange at all, I know you, you support whatever the CCC and their staff say. We have about 25 people like that where I live. You are like Mike F, with nothing but praise for the CCC and their staff, no matter what they propose, and nothing but scorn for our elected coastal officials.

It is high time to reform the CCC.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 15, 2009 at 3:32 pm


Mr. Gossett, yours is the voice of reason, and you appear to have made every effort to present a logical case to the opposition. The problem is that Drooly and Nipper have no interest in actually discussing anything; they have no interest in allowing facts, logic, or equity to confuse, or even influence, their issues. It is frustrating to attempt to deal with dogmatic demagogues like them. Good luck in the future.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 15, 2009 at 4:14 pm


Robert Ford is correct:

Some people don't want the facts to interfere with their opinion.

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 15, 2009 at 7:32 pm


I am pleased to see that more and more people are seeing the real truth of the Nipper and the members of his cell. Continue to call them as you see them; the counter revolution is underway and gaining speed. Time to run and hide in Switzerland, Nipper...or maybe Venezuela would be more to your liking; you and the Supreme Leader there have lots in common.

wemoan, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 15, 2009 at 9:56 pm


As much as I am upset with the CCC --- posts from people like Terry and Robert F. Ford are refreshing. Their posts are filled with FACTS and responsible commentary. Terry and Robert: Thank you for your informative material --

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm


Thanks for keeping the dialog moving, and thanks for thanks or constructive input. Here is a link that I got yesterday on the topic of Mr Oshen and his film and what the CCC has been doing. Web Link

Another Talkabout topic is on the CCC and how to protect yourself from trespassers on private property and/or coastal trails that may possibly sue, this topic is more about protecting yourself from the government, our own CCC.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 18, 2009 at 9:05 am


That was a good article, Mr. Gossett. I hope people will take the time to read it.

Maybe Francis will be along to explain what's wrong with the author's reporting or facts or opinion. (Or is he hanging out at that "other" place?)

I gotta hand it to Brian Doherty (the author). He's a long time Burner!

Reasonable, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 18, 2009 at 2:02 pm


Reasonable -- I find it odd that Mr. Doherty swallowed Mr. Oshen's story hook, line and sinker. Not a whit of effort on his part to verify the veracity of Mr. Oshen's claims or to get the other side of the story. Just a rehash of all the gibberish from the anti-CCC crowd, who seem to set themselves up for disappointment time and time again.

We'll see how the Norris v. CCC case goes. I suspect you'll all be chattering about how flawed that decision is if takes the law and all the facts into consideration and decides against Wildcrew's playground.

Mr. Oshen will then have to cling to new coat tails to promote his work.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 18, 2009 at 2:23 pm


Drooly, if the CCC were less about power, control, and punishment and more about actually improving the quality of life in coastal California the organization would command more respect.

It is unfortunate that California citizens asked for a little help in managing the beaches and got a whole AGENCY dedicated to usurping their private property rights.

If you will read the link provided by Mr. Gossett you will realize Brian Doherty preceded Mr. Oshen with criticism of the CCC.

It is unfortunate for the public, and especially for the residents of coastal California, that the primary weapon of the CCC (provided to the CCC by the public and the residents of coastal California) is the very expensive legal process used without limit against the people who the organization was supposed to benefit. An agency with unlimited funding is hardly a fair fight against a citizen trying to build a home on a small tract of land. Any lawyer will advise a person with a grievance against an agency like the CCC to fold; the cost of the lawsuit is not worth the loss of the use of your land.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 18, 2009 at 3:11 pm


Mr. Ford: A right-on commentary; what a pitiful situation we find ourselves in. The Coastal Commisstion needs to be brought into check or abolished; they no longer reflect the will of the people. The truth is, they never have reflected what the intention of the voters was. Why would anybody willfully inflict such a dictatorship upon themselves and a dictatorship that violates a basic right guaranteed to all by the Constitution and Common Law.

a concerned Democrat, a resident of Montara, on August 18, 2009 at 3:37 pm


"It is unfortunate that California citizens asked for a little help in managing the beaches and got a whole AGENCY dedicated to usurping their private property rights."

The author of the above quote seems to know nothing about Prop. 20 or the California Coastal Act--the people's initiative and the state legislation that have everything to do with establishing the Coastal Commission and setting forth its duties. The kinds of complaints about the Coastal Commission one reads in the above property-wrongs whining advocate the gross mismanagement, walling off from the public, and destruction of the multiple values of the California coastline that prompted Prop. 20 in the first place.

This weekend I'll be going to a pot-luck that one of the now elderly (but very sharp) authors of Prop. 20 will also attend this Sunday. If there is anything you toe-dragging know-nothings would like me to ask him, let me know.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm


NP,

Here is a question for you to ask. Why does the CCC, which is empowered to preserve and provide public access to our beautiful beaches, go to such lengths to deny infrastructure to people living in, and visitors to, the Coastal Zone? Infrastructure, as you know, consists of roads, water, sewer, housing (affordable and otherwise), fire, safety, rescue, lighting, and other vital services. If you need specifics, just read the current Midcoast LCP. Web Link This reference County website has over 20 documents and about 18MB of data.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 18, 2009 at 6:12 pm


OK, try this website, but you will have to click on Midcoast LCP Update to get the 20 documents and 18MB of data Web Link

AND I do still live in Moss Beach, My bad

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 18, 2009 at 6:16 pm


Mr Ford,

What could you possibly know about local issues when you live outside our community. Our Coastal Commission is trying to help us. They had a workshop to talk with mayors and supervisers.

Frank, a resident of La Honda, on August 18, 2009 at 7:22 pm


Frank,

It is excruciatingly apparent that you were not at the workshop. Mayors and Supervisors all along our California coast "talked" to the Commissioners for the first time in THIRTY THREE YEARS, and were rebuffed.

The Czars of our coast are arrogant and distant and antagonists to people living in the Coastal Zone.

Mr Ford understands completely what is happening to us.

Cathy, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 18, 2009 at 8:31 pm


Cathy -- Would you feel better if I proved that I were at the hearing?

The meeting with the league of cities was a waste of time and a waste of taxpayer's money. In my view, it was a bunch of incompetent elected city officials seeking to negotiate key provisions of the Coastal Act for the benefit of special interests that line their pockets. There used to be a time when conservatives deplored such efforts.

Of they want to revise the LCP process, then let's incorporate a method to decertify or suspend an LCP when cities or counties routinely fail to follow those LCPs.

They want a more reliable method of getting LCPs approved? Then consider staff recommendations and write an LCP that follows readily available Commission guidelines and conform to the spririt and intent of the Coastal Act.

Pretty straightforward, which is something conservatives also used to appreciate.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 18, 2009 at 9:00 pm


Mr Douillard,

Nothing you have ever said is more telling than "In my view, it was a bunch of incompetent elected city officials seeking to negotiate key provisions of the Coastal Act for the benefit of special interests that line their pockets."

For you to say that about the League of California Cities, and their sub-committee of Coastal Cities Issues Group, and represented by the following Elected Coastal Officials at the first historic and Unprecedented Workshop between elected officials and the Coastal Commissioners is Utterly Astounding and Preposterous--

Rich Gordon, San Mateo County rgordon@co.sanmateo.ca.us 650-363-4653

David Finigan, Del Norte County dfinigan@co.del-norte.ca.us

Bruce Gibson, San Luis Obispo County bgibson@co.slo.ca.us 805-751-1350

Kathy Long, Ventura County 805-654-2276 gis kathy.long@ventura.org

Greg Cox, San Diego County greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov 619-531-5511

Jere Melo, Council Member, City of Fort Bragg citycouncil@fortbragg.com 707-961-2823

John Shoals, Mayor, City of Grover Beach gbadmin@grover.org 805-473-4567

Carrie Downey, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Coronado cdowney@coronado.ca.us 619-522-2040

Iya Falcone, Council Member, City of Santa Barbara ifalcone@santabarbaraca.gov 805-564-5322

Nancy Gardner, Council Member, City of Newport Beach gardnerncy@aol.com 949-644-3004

Toni Iseman, Council Member, City of Laguna Beach tiseman2@aol.com 949-494-7648

Peter Tucker, Council Member, City of Hermosa Beach peter@electpetertucker.com 310-318-0216

Francis, you are a bizarre, estranged cat indeed.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm


Before reading this let me apologize for sounding personal. I re-read this and realized I was ranting in the first person.

Sorry – my emotions got the better of me

OMGosh

I thought for a moment we lived in the USA. You know: that odd place with a Constitution, separation of powers, due process, etc. etc.

Lets back off the CCC for just ONE MOMENT. If this was any other government agency would ANYONE agree to give the kind of power they have? NAME ONE.

CHP: to heck with the speeding ticket - judge jury and jail is efficient. no......shoot all the speeders on sight.

Planning Commissions: No discussion, TAKE THE REQUIREMENTS IN SPITE OF THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY RULES and don’t complain. After all you only spent 10 years on a Coastal Plan, approved by the very agency that is going to vacate your decision based on ONE person's statement. OH- The CCC staff is always right and more knowledgeable and all the local planning people and supervisors are corrupt……NOW I understand – it all makes sense when put in that context

I could go on and on. The CCC is NOT the sacred group that has the best interests of the people of California at heart. I repeat: when a LCP is approved the CCC should be barred from interfering- and It should take a COURT OF LAW to determine that issue. This allows communities to mold the rules to individual situations- AS DEFINED BY THE COASTAL ACT!! Without the court’s intervention the CCC is going to rule. Thank goodness for the Pacific Legal Foundation!!

Oh - I think i screwed up - Mr. Douillard wants a cookie cutter approach over the entire coast. And the CCC staff know better than local communities that have spent millions to comply.

I am sick and tired of some people implying that coastal property owners don't care about the Coast. We (the ones that LIVE HERE FULL TIME Mr. Douillard) are the ones picking up tourist trash, volunteering to help clean up the area and SPEND OUR MONEY TIME AND EFFORT making the coast a great place to live. We moved her because we love it and care about it. I do not mean to imply that you care any less than I.

I personally resent the implications of dereliction of duty by local officials. I contend just the opposite: I have seen officials over and over again spend taxpayer dollars doing a massive effort to satisfy people like Mr. Douillard. But of course this is part of “his” plan. Make the owner pay up the ying yang to get it approved with all the demanded mitigations. Then at the last minute- wait--- wait till the last minute……… and appeal by ONE person to the CCC or more than likely by a coastal commissioner who never attended any meetings at the local level. Projects that are GOOD cost double – if ever approved at all

Give me a break – Mr. Douillard is implying that all the officials up and down the coast are a bunch of thugs who want to destroy “your coast”. I see it a bit differently. I have spent MONTHS at hearings, Supervisor meetings, planning commission meeting and CCC meetings. There is a MASSIVE disconnect between the CCC, and its staff and local officials. Terry Gossett, is right- look at the record- oh oh – I forgot the League of California Cities, and their sub-committee of Coastal Cities Issues Group are all dishonest ELECTED officials that are looking to subvert the law.

One last thing.

Mr. Douillard. Please let all of us know if and when you plan to alter your home wherever you live now. I think we can gather several hundred people from outside the area that will have something to say about the color of your alterations, the footprint on the environment etc. I can see many people traveling a great distance to comment on YOUR proposal.

When are you building your home on the empty lot you own in the Coastal Zone?? We all want to know and want to examine your plans and be able to examine it well in advance…………..just think……….people from all over the state of CA will be able to stop your construction even though the corrupt building officials approved it!! What goes around will come back to you. . Then you can let the CCC decide for YOU - after all they do know what is best for you.

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 18, 2009 at 11:09 pm


Test your Coastal Land Rights IQ!!

Web Link

HINT: here is the first quiz question:

1. If you are a coastal homeowner, you need the Coastal Commission's permission in order to have a BBQ party in your yard with family and friends.

(A) True

(B) False

(C) Maybe

hmnnn, will the CCC condition the BBQ if it has extra vegies?

livingingualala, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 19, 2009 at 3:53 am


How far East of the Coast does the arm of the CC reach?

Curious, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 19, 2009 at 8:58 am


Go to the CCC website Web Link and look for the 6 pdf map files under "Local Coastal Program" For us we are in the "North Central Coast" and much of that map goes 5 miles east of the ocean.

You can also go to Public Resources Code sections 30000, and following, and read the text of the specific Coastal act sections for your part of the state.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 19, 2009 at 9:41 am


Here is the best way to find any info on California Codes--

Google "ca codes"

Pick the first link shown Web Link

Pick the code you want, for the coastal Act that is Public Resources Code, and do a search

Go to Section 30000. If you want boundaries then look at section 30150 to 30174 from the index...

You can thank Peter Douglas, exec director of CCC, for most of the wording and the expanded size of the Coastal Zone. (from 1000 yards to 5 miles) I believe this was enacted in 1977, just after the Coastal Act was passed in 1976.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 19, 2009 at 10:31 am


I keep trying to find information to help me decide what to do about our Coastal Commission. It is difficult, but I have finally decided that our Coastal Commission needs to be reformed. Web Link

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on August 19, 2009 at 7:01 pm


Interesting links about the CCC

I was getting more uncomfortable as it described the history……….

Web Link Impact of the Coastal Act on Malibu

Web Link Malibu vs. Coastal Commission

Web Link Malibu Development since 1991

Development slowed during the 1990s due to a general downzoning after Malibu became a city. Delays due to permit issues with City of Malibu and the termoil of Malibu's struggles with the Coastal Commission made it hard for projects to proceed. Residential property was stable to declining in value until after 2000 when a strong upward trend resumed. Residential properties that were developed in this period went for larger homes and higher density on existing plots while open space was very difficult to develop.

Web Link Opposing Overreaching by the California Coastal Commission

Web Link Maritime chaparral fuels more than fire

The familiar chaparral--brushy thickets that thrive along the foggy coast between Santa Barbara and southern Mendocino County--is prime fuel for fires.

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 19, 2009 at 8:12 pm


SICKO -- Appeals to the Coastal Commission don't always result in a finding of substantial issue. They frequently support the administrators of LCPs. A quick perusal of the agenda for previous hearings will bear that out. Just compare the number of NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND decisions with the number of SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND.

It is important to recognize that when a LCP exists, that forms the basis of review for Commission staff. So, when substanial issue is found, they find that the local administrators didn't follow their own LCP; otherwise, they find that the LCP was followed.

No one is arguing that coastal property owners don't love the coast. However, in many cases, they don't care about ESHA or wetlands or public access. That's when they can get into trouble at the local level and where they'll definitely get into trouble with the Commission.

And no, I don't seek a cookie-cutter approach to coastal planning. There are too many unique environments up and down the coast for such and approach. And, I think it is YOU that wants such an approach -- let the property owner do whatever they want no matter what resources they affect.

The problem with leaving local decisions to local officials is that in some communities those officials are easily swayed by wealthy land owners. Whether they approve applications because they're afraid they'll be sued, get lazy about enforcing key provisions of their LCP or take payoffs, the effect is the same -- the LCP isn't enforced.

How offended were you by the waste of taxpayer dollars to host the CCC meeting with officials from the League of Cities (or whatever it is they call themselves)? That was a huge chuck of dough down the toilet for no purpose whatsoever. Perhaps you're more outraged by the fact that you're no longer the only one that can sway those officials.

Despite your ignorant rant, it is not my goal to stop coastal development or to increase the cost of that development. My goal simple: uniform enforcement of LCPs and the Coastal Act. As I've stated before on numerous occasions, it is possible to develop your property AND conform to state and local ordinances. For some reason, conservatives in this state fail to recognize that fact.

You keep harping about the fact that I don't live on the coast full-time. Sorry, but the isn't a prerequisite for seeking enforcement of LCPs and the Coastal Act. Every Californian has a right to demand beach access and protection of coastal resources.

If you don't think local officials are willing to bend the law to have their pockets lined or their next campaign well funded, then you're a fool.

As for my development plans, they're proceeding rather slower, but that is my choice and not the fault of local P&B officials or the CCC or you and others like you. However, once my plans are submitted for review and approval, you will have a shot at them. That is if the P&B officials follow their own guidelines and require that I copy all my neighbors with my plans at the time of submittal, or if they require a permit at all. Judging by recent incidents, they may not require either of those things.

But if they do follow through, you'll have a public opportunity to be as petty as you like and complain about my color choices. Not that that will form a sound basis for appeal, but it will enhance your stature as a petty and vindictive fool.

And, thanks to a recent change in the CCC appeal process, if you and your local band of goons do manage to convince local officials to deny my CDP even if it conforms to the LCP, I can appeal that decision to the CCC. Since I've gone to great effort and expense to ensure that my plans do conform to the LCP, I'm confident I'll get a permit.

Why? Because I followed both the spirit and the intent of the law. Unlike you and others that seek to weaken or dismantle the Coastal Act, I don't need special dispensation from local official.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm


Drooly, relax; you appear to be wound much too tightly. Nasty ain't gonna' get it.

"a petty and vindictive fool" is what you appear to be, considering your rant.

The "local band of goons" is a perfect description of the CCC, assuming that one reads their history.

Regarding goals, I'm not sure many people care what goals you have; please ponder that point.

"Every Californian has a right to demand beach access and protection of coastal resources." Every Californian does not have the right to pick the spot he wishes for access, and he does not have the right to impose his preferred "protection" of resources.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm


Every Californian has the right to access the public tidelands and other public property along the coastline. No Californian has the right to landlock the public away from their lands. Every Californian has the right to have their mutually owned coastal resources protected. No Californian has the right to arbitrarily decide which resources should be protected and which should not.

Calling the Coastal Commission and its staff "goons" for upholding the Coastal Act shows a disagreement or lack of familiarity with the Coastal Act and a false notion of what public servants are supposed to be doing in upholding the law. If someone doesn't like the law, they should work to have it changed, not attack those hired to enforce the law. Come to think of it, the Coastal Act is, in fact, too weak and forgiving of violations and needs to have its resource protection and coastal management features strengthened.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 21, 2009 at 6:31 pm


Are there any areas of coastal California that don't have problems with the CCC? Mostly what I mean is that local planning okays something all the way up to the CCC hearing and then --bingo-- appeal.

If so, do their LCPs differ from ours? In what ways?

Do they all rigorously follow the "spirit and intent" (or let's make that the mandated legal guidelines) of the Coastal Act?

That is, if there is an area with a certified LCP that does not have --eh hem-- problems. Would be interested in knowing where, why and how.

Living on the edge (of the sea), a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 21, 2009 at 6:33 pm


M. Bitcher -

"Every Californian has the right to access the public tidelands and other public property along the coastline." No person has the right to access these properties through private property without the approval of the owner. Access to the beach by the public is always available from the ocean; no one said the access had to be the most convenient route.

The expression "goons" connotes the manner in which a person conducts business. The CCC is notorious for excessive, heavy-handed, punitive conduct.

A phrase like "too weak and forgiving of violations" conjures up visions of brown shirt personnel enforcing the "law".

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 21, 2009 at 6:56 pm


Living on the edge - GREAT QUESTION

Ask Terry G - the CCC has to produce a report on all applications and appeals yearly -- however it is full of holes - speaking to each Coastal act Administrator in each LCP would fill the holes

you will find letters threatening the project from the CCC at the local level. so if the developer backs away it is not in the CCC report - the local building dept has the info though

2nd - there are no records of litigation costs unless you go through the CA Attorney General as they represent the CCC - but the litigation costs are not detailed in the CCC budget

Again - Ask Terry Gosset about this one

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 21, 2009 at 7:19 pm


OK, let me try some answers.

First, let me thank the Commissioners for finally having a Workshop meeting on August 12, 2009, conditioned by them on having No Decisions, with representatives of all the Cities and County Supervisors along 1100 mile of coast from Mexico to Oregon.

Think about that.

Also NOTE that this Workshop was "historic and unprecedented" in the words of Supervisor Richard Gordon from my county of San Mateo. Thank you Mr Gordon. (that is, no previous meeting with mayors and supervisors have occurred in the past 33 years, and even though at least 6 people suggested another meeting be scheduled the response was that this is a "no decision" workshop)

Next-- The best way that I have found to follow the proceedings of the CCC is to download ALL links to every monthly meeting at Web Link . I have only found two archives (Feb and Mar of 2009) with the minutes of any meeting on their website... How strange is that? I guess we could all troop into the offices of the CCC and formally request a Public Records Request. So much for transparency and trust, two commodities requested by 5 city and county representatives. Perhaps you might ask Mr Drouillard for information....or Sara Wan... or better yet, the CZAR of the CCC, Peter Douglas.

Last Question? There is no public information available anywhere to describe the litigation costs borne by the CCC (that would be our money, yours, mine, our kids, and neighbors) From my research, it appears the amount is about $60 to $80 Million Per Year and that cost is borne by all of us in California, the litigations are from our very own California Attorney General.

Be careful who you vote for. You might get more that you wanted.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 21, 2009 at 8:57 pm


OK, let me put a www in that link Web Link

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 21, 2009 at 8:59 pm


Turns out that self-chuffing Richard Oshen was wholly irrelevant. I'd paste the web link here, but it's to a scoop at a local competitor's site.

He who laughs last laughs best, don't they Robert F. Ford, Jr.?

Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for Peg Gilder or Dan Norris, who were mislead by Mr. Zumbrun. Seems that Nollan v. CCC doesn't apply in every case after all.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 7:55 am


Mr Drouillard,

If you were to listen to, and look at people living in the Coastal Zone, you will not see a lot of laughing whenever they have to deal with the Commission. (and that would be for nearly anything and everything that they do) Here is the link that you referred to. Web Link

Be sure and download the Ruling on Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Luis Lavin, Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Unfortunately, this Commission does not do much for many other people living in the Coastal Zone. Talk about micro-management of people's lives.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 25, 2009 at 9:14 am


I'm not laughing at people within the Coastal Zone. I'm laughing at those like Terry Gossett, Robert F. Ford, Jr. and others that are to property rights what the Taliban is to the Koran.

I guess even conservatives need a "victimhood" card to play now and then.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 10:22 am


You and the CCC can only thumb your noses at people for so long, and then the pendulum will swing the other way. I am focussed on the historic workshop on August 12th between coastal cities and counties with the CCC. One hundred and twenty eight cities and counties with mayors and supervisors are also having difficulty with the CCC.

As I recall you earlier stated "The meeting with the league of cities was a waste of time and a waste of taxpayer's money. In my view, it was a bunch of incompetent elected city officials seeking to negotiate key provisions of the Coastal Act for the benefit of special interests that line their pockets. There used to be a time when conservatives deplored such efforts."

I feel just the opposite. We need transparency, honesty and trust between our elected officials and the CCC if we are going to protect our coast. People living in the Coastal Zone are not the enemy. Coastsiders more than any others want to protect their coast.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 25, 2009 at 11:34 am


I wonder if Francis feels that all elected officials are incompetent? Or just elected city officials? Or just THESE elected city officials?

Does he believe that political appointees are the way to go in planning in this state? In the whole country? In the whole political system?

Specific to the CCC, what gives the commissioners expertise in coastal planning? The learn-on-the-job lenght of their term?

In that case, Peter Douglas must be an expert. I guess he should be put in charge of planning for the whole USA>

Votes R. Us, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 12:24 pm


Votes R. Us -- Your questions suggest you know little about what the Coastal Commission does or how they do it, so here's an executive summary. Peter Douglas is the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. He oversees a staff that does contain experts in many fields, such as botany, biology, archeology, geology, hydrology, agriculture, law and planning to name a few. These experts review permit applications for compliance with the Coastal Act and submit their findings in a staff report. The Commissioners base their decisions on those staff reports as well as testimony at public hearings. A very transparent process, despite Terry Gossett's assertions to the contrary.

If you want to see the CCC process CDPs more quickly, then you should support fully staffing the Commission.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 1:11 pm


Only the very rich can afford to fight the illegal actions of the Coastal Commission and environmental terrorist who use CEQA and the Commission to further their personal no growth objectives.

The problem is that unless you have first hand experience, you believe that those of us trying to protect our rights are paranoid, right wing ding dongs. I am a life long democrat who believes that you have a constitutional right to use your property and build and maintain your home.

We need to expand the conversation to those not impacted because without them, the coast will perish, fishing communities will close, houses will collapse, fences will decay and trespass will be rampant.

Chris ~

Chris, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm


Chris -- The Coastal Commission does not have a "no growth" agenda. Yes, there are those that misuse the Coastal Act to try to stop projects, which is why the Commission frequently finds "no substantial issue" on appeals.

And no, I don't think those protecting their rights are paranoid, right wing ding dongs. (But I don think those that believe private property rights trump all other rights are extremist ding dongs.)

The Coastal Commission doesn't prevent property owners from using their property or building and maintaining their homes. However, they do require you to do so in a manner that protects coastal access as well as coastal resources such as ESHA, rare plant communities, marine mammal haul out areas and wetlands.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm


Drooly, I have questions.

1. Why is some CE major transplant from Michigan attempting to dictate what Californians can do with their private property?

2. “(But I don think those that believe private property rights trump all other rights are extremist ding dongs.)” I assume you meant “do”, rather than “don”; if so, why do you have so little respect for the private property of others? Do you have an agenda of blind support for the CCC? Are you a CCC contractor, by chance? In the best of worlds our country is a republic. It is impossible to sustain a republic without a strong private property rights policy.

3. What’s with Peter Douglas? Who died and made him God? Any other organization would have term-limited him a long time ago. Does being born in Berlin guarantee longevity in an organization? Maybe his background explains the tactics used against the public.

4. The Norris decision was unfortunate. The CCC had a sympathetic judge in Yaffe and outlawyered Norris. It is great to have unlimited resources. I hope there is an appeal, and Norris gets satisfaction.

Robert F. Ford, Jr, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 25, 2009 at 5:15 pm


Jr. -- You need to first conduct yourself like a rational adult and conform to forum rules if you want a reply from me.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 5:20 pm


Drooly, you will need to be a little more specific; make it real simple so I can understand it.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm


Amazing. Mr. Drouillard shows up everywhere, defending the CCC repeatedly as if this were his life's mission. He says,

"The Coastal Commission doesn't prevent property owners from using their property or building and maintaining their homes. However, they do require you to do so in a manner that protects coastal access as well as coastal resources such as ESHA, rare plant communities, marine mammal haul out areas and wetlands."

Mr. Drouillard. Property rights mean property rights. Under the United States Constitution there are no right granted to coastal resources, rare plants, marine mammals or wetlands. These things do not have rights. They do not supersede human property rights. They are subservient to property rights. Human beings take precedence to all other living things on this earth. If you believe differently, then you do not believe in the fundamental principles of American federalism and capitalism. The Coastal Commission's exercise of power is what offends us. It is an illicit and unconstitutional body and in time... you and those like you will be forced to eat crow and face a reality in which your determination to protect "coastal resources" will be set aside in favor of the thing you fear most... HORROR! People doing what they damn well want to do with their property. THEIR property. Not yours. With all the resources on it BELONGING TO THEM. Not you. Not Peter Douglas. And not "the people." To them. Get used to it. You're an endangered species, socialist.

TruthTeller, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm


There is a time to live

There is a time to work

There is a time to play

There is a time to stand your ground

There is a time to runaway

Pick Your Time

Tick...Tock..., a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm


FD sez: "He oversees a staff that does contain experts in many fields, such as botany, biology, archeology, geology, hydrology, agriculture, law and planning to name a few."

How nice! I wonder if any of these experts might be of the type retained by another state board: Web Link

The California Air Resouces Board "expert" lied about his degree and he is still on the payroll. They are still adopting rulings based on his "expert" "research".

Has anyone checked the expertise of the CCC staff and the "experts" that they retain? Or should I say, that WE pay with our taxes.

In order to refute the CCC deliniations (of, say, ESHA) a property owner (read: TAXPAYER) must hire his own experts.

Votes R. Us, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 25, 2009 at 7:26 pm


When I think of the Coastal Commission, I think of the group I once voted for, with principles to “Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.”

Then I think of the current Commission that has morphed into a Dichotomy (Web Link )

Dichotomy #1--- In 33 years the Commission has morphed into a group that retards or limits infrastructure in the Coastal Zone WHILE saying it is promoting visitor serving endeavors of beach access, conservation, restoration, and planning.

Dichotomy #2 – The Commission wants to improve beach access for ALL yet its policies make it difficult for people other than “rich” people to live in the Coastal Zone. How crazy is that?

Dichotomy #3 --- In our local LCP, the CCC staff proposed that applicants demonstrate they will not exceed the limits placed by the Commission in the Midcoast LCP of San Mateo County for Eight infrastructure areas. How crazy is THAT? This Commission Limits the infrastructure and then proposes to require residents in the Coastal Zone to demonstrate there is Adequate infrastructure in Eight Areas—roads, sewer, water, etc.

Dichotomy #4 --- In the Midcoast LCP we have had a moratorium on water connections for over 33 years, hmmm, a coincidence that is the same time that Sara Wan and Peter Douglas have been on the Commission. Anyway, here the CCC says they want to provide beach access, but after our visitors are here, what will they drink? Not water on the Midcoast of San Mateo County. No public bathrooms or drinking fountains, Thanks to MWSD and the CCC.

Mr Drouillard, try living in the Coastal Zone for awhile, and then I may deign to reply to your bizarre statements about “your” beneficent Commission.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 25, 2009 at 8:09 pm


Setting aside the non-sequiturs in Gossett's most recent post above, the "Sins" matters on which the documentary heading this thread is based have now all been tossed out of court.

We are left with little to debate other than "will this help or hurt the sales of Sins of Commission"?

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm


Ah ha! So Nipper DID get a viewing of the movie!

NP states: "matters on which the documentary heading this thread is based". You would not have made that statement, of course, without having seen the movie in question. Would you mind telling us where?

NP states: "will this help or hurt the sales of Sins of Commission"?

Hmmm. I don't see that it's for sale right now. Mr. Oshen, as an independent film maker is trying to get financing to put the final touches on the film in order to release it. (Admittedly, that might be where the money might come in. Oh, I hear those independents laughing at me...they know going in that it won't be to get rich.)

PG-13, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 27, 2009 at 9:26 am


NP,

OK, let us take a specific example, so that then you can show me the disconnect or non-sequitur.

Dichotomy #3

From the last public meeting on the Midcoast LCP here are the Notes from SMC Planning regarding Public Service Capacities.

New Policy Requiring the Demonstration of Public Service Capacities

a.

Description

As described above, CCC staff is concerned about the ability of existing infrastructure and public services to support the total amount of development allowed by the LCP referred to as “buildout.” These include concerns about the impact of traffic on coastal access; the ability of the wastewater collection system to handle increased flows; and the adequacy of local water supplies to sustain additional growth.

CCC staff attempts to address these concerns, among other ways, by adding a new policy (Suggested Modification 6) that prohibits the approval of new development unless it can be demonstrated that there are adequate public services. Services that must be addressed during the coastal development review process include, but are not limited to: water; wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal; storm drainage; fire, emergency, and medical response; police protection; transportation; schools; and solid waste collection and disposal (as applicable to the project). With regard to water and sewer services, the policy requires evidence that there is adequate capacity within the system to serve the development and “all other foreseeable development that the system is committed to serving.”

b.

Analysis

There is no question that the adequacy of public service capacities is an essential consideration in the review of development applications. The new policy proposed by CCC staff does not, however, provide a clear, reasonable, or effective method for addressing this issue. This is because the proposed policy is unclear about what constitutes adequate levels of service; does not identify the specific information needed to demonstrate such adequacy; and only applies to a very limited segment of new development that is not exempt from coastal development permit requirements by virtue of the existing Categorical Exclusion Order.

The policy proposed by CCC staff identifies over eight types of public services that must be addressed prior to the approval of any coastal development. However, there are only two areas in which adequate levels of service are defined. The first is in the area of water and sewer facilities, where the policy states that “adequate capacity (including transmission, collection, treatment, and disposal) exists within the system to serve the development and all other existing and foreseeable development the system is committed to serving.” The second is in the area of transportation, where the Commission staff suggests that a Level of Service (LOS) D at peak commuter hours, and LOS E during peak recreation periods, be considered as adequate along State Route 1 and Highway 92.

These thresholds present a number of unresolved issues. The first has to do with the requirement to demonstrate that water and sewer service is not only adequate to serve the proposed development, but all other development the system is committed to serving as well. It is unclear what constitutes a commitment to serve, such as whether an assessment levied by a service district for future service equates to such a commitment, even if the levy was assessed for a service that cannot be provided in a manner consistent with the LCP (such as for water or sewer treatment service outside the urban boundary). It is also unclear what is required to determine the full scope of existing service commitments, who will bear the burden of accurately making this determination, and how such commitments may preclude the establishment of Coastal Act priority land uses.

The second has to do with the feasibility and appropriateness of using roadway levels of service (LOS) as the threshold for circulation adequacy. Currently, there is no data available regarding LOS during peak recreation periods, which means that a new monitoring program will be needed to address CCC staff’s recommended threshold. More generally, it is important to consider whether the presence of commuter and weekend traffic present an appropriate basis for a moratorium on development, particularly in light of the role that it plays in financing needed circulation improvements and addressing the region’s jobs to housing imbalance.

A third issue has to do with the limited geographic area in which this standard will be applicable, and the resulting impediment it will create for commercial, mixed-use, and multi-residential infill projects that can help reduce traffic by creating walkable communities with a better jobs to housing balance. Single-family residential development will continue to be excluded from coastal development permit requirements throughout the urban exclusion area, and thereby exempt from the requirement to demonstrate adequate public services. Meanwhile, other uses that provide a greater degree of community benefit will be put to a much more rigorous test and at greater risk of being able to obtain the service capacities that are being consumed by single-family residences.

Finally, as discussed in Section 1.b above, the thresholds for determining the adequacy of roadway and wastewater treatment capacities appear to create a de facto moratorium on new development until peak traffic issues and wet weather overflow problems are resolved. This, in turn, creates impediments to implementing the infrastructure improvements needed to provide adequate service capacities.

c.

Recommendation

Request CCC staff to delete Sections a, b, g, and h of proposed Policy 1.18.1. Instead, CCC staff should work with the County through future LCP amendments to develop more specific and objective criteria that facilitate rather than hinder land use priorities.

NP, I await your response, however I expect more of your personal attacks. Let the reader decide who is the purveyor of non-sequiturs.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 27, 2009 at 11:31 am


Votes R. Us -- I can't speak for all CCC staff, but those I've dealt with seem well qualified.

You also have a misunderstanding of the review process. CCC staff, or local planning staff in the case of a certified LCP, don't delineate ESHA or wetlands. That is the applicant's responsibility. Staff then review the information provided in support of your application to determine if those EHSAs and wetlands were properly delineated. In other words, they serve as a BS detector.

As you can imagine, there are numerous applicants willing to deliver BS in support of their application, so those staff reviews are important.

For areas within the Coastal Zone covered by a certified LCP, staff sometimes "looks the other way" or accepts the load of BS delivered by the applicants. Some are outright hostile towards the Coastal Commission.

I hope that isn't the case up and down the state, but I do see those problems frequently within the Coastal Zone of Mendocino County. That county's Board of Supervisors is clearly hostile towards the Coastal Commission, as well as every other environmental law that constrains development.

However, I don't think anyone will have to worry about them looking the other way or accepting a load of BS when I submit my application.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm


Mr. Gossett,

You will save yourself a great deal of tail-chasing and talking to the hypothetical wall if you worry first about amounts of resources that can be used without degrading natural and developed values in the Coastal Zone before you get hung up on infrastructure to deliver or access resources. Sadly, many of the most important resources in our coastal areas, HMB and county alike, are already overdrawn and subject to shortages for human uses. You will have to shake that Horn of Plenty a lot harder or be doomed to continued talking into the ozone. All your twisted babble, your ridiculous roundabout on suggestions by the Coastal Commission staff for bringing SM County's LCP revision closer to the requirements of the Coastal Act in order to be recommended for certification, for example, leads to nothing if the required physical space, geographic features, ecosystem services, water, and other fundamentals for additional development on our narrow coastal shelf aren't there.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 27, 2009 at 7:47 pm


NP,

Let me see. How can I say this in a very delicate and politically correct way?

As I consider the full extent of the California coast from Oregon to Mexico, I see no area devoid (as you assert) of "required physical space, geographic features, ecosystem services, water, and other fundamentals for additional development on our narrow coastal shelf aren't there"

Wow, here we are in a 10 mile area of 1100 MILES that you say is devoid of

"required physical space, geographic features, ecosystem services, water, and other fundamentals for additional development on our narrow coastal shelf aren't there"

How unlucky could we coastsiders be? What a crock. This is just an assertion by NP, nothing more, nothing less. Even our Coastal Commission will not utter such a crock of baloney, they choose to use a lateral arabesque approach. See my previous quote from our own SMC Planning Staff, who fully understand what the stakes are, and what the lies are.

Does anyone really believe this tripe from Now Pitching?

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on August 27, 2009 at 10:30 pm


Mr. Gossett, Thank you for your last posting.

"Does anyone really believe this tripe from Now Pitching?". No.

No, wait; maybe Drooly believes Nipper, but he is the only one I can think of at the moment.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 28, 2009 at 11:49 am


Francis,

You have a certain air about you that causes me to carefully read whatever you write. For example, when responding to Votes R Us, you stated "You also have a misunderstanding of the review process. CCC staff, or local planning staff in the case of a certified LCP, don't delineate ESHA or wetlands. That is the applicant's responsibility."

I recall attending a Coastal Commission meeting at Stanford about 4 years ago, and the chair stated that in the life of the Coastal Commission this meeting was historic. I do not know the exact date, but I do recall that local people, Polacek and Waddell were on the agenda. I also vividly recall that the Commission that day unilaterally declared that coastal prairie terrace grass was ESHA all across California, (Not the Applicant), and they went on to declare that 100x100' (less than 1/4 acre) was all that a homeowner needed even if they had a ranch of 1500 acres, again throughout the 128 LCP. Also consider that a rancher needs many other support buildings to conduct their operations, and as the Commission described it, all must fit into that 100x100 footprint for all people in the Coastal Zone. If you do not believe me, simply talk with Dan Sterling in El Granada.

Francis, based on just one meeting that I attended, your statement is false. I wonder if that one sentence is more than just false, but that your statement is deliberately misleading.

Researcher, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm


Researcher -- Determining what constitutes an ESHA and delineating an ESHA are two separate things. In the example you cited, the Commission determined that coastal prairie terrace grass was ESHA. If there is a possibility that ESHA exists on your property, staff (local or commission) will require you to retain a specialist to map that ESHA and analyze the impacts of your proposed development on that ESHA. It's not that difficult a process to understand, and it's certainly not necessary to infer that one is a liar for describing one aspect of the process separately.

I suspect that the 100' x 100' development footprint was established for one particular project and not the entire coastal zone. There are several scenarios when establishing such a footprint is necessary. It is likely the commission was trying to avoid a "taking." In that case, the commission has to consider the applicant's reasonable expectations for development and choose the least environmentally harmful alternative. Again, the applicant has to propose those alternatives.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 30, 2009 at 7:25 am


Francis knows so much about the CCC and how it works I would not be surprised to see him seating on the commission one of these days!

Maybe after he jumps through all the hoops and gets his "developement" developled.

It wouldn't be a first!

Tawdry Glamour, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 30, 2009 at 9:18 am


Tawdry, that would be a sad day for anyone who cares about private property rights.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 30, 2009 at 9:38 am


Francis,

I went back to find the date of the meeting at Stanford, and it was on May 12, 2005. No video archives are available, but I did download the staff recommendations for both Polacek and Waddell. Staff recommended a 10,000 sq ft development envelope, equivalent to 100x100' limit for both applicants. In the discussions by the chair it was very clear that the 10,000 envelope would be used statewide for all applicants in the Coastal Zone. During the discussion on Waddell staff did not want to allow any trenching to connect the well to the home If it crossed and coastal terrace prairie habitat. The SMC Farm Bureau requested data on how coastal terrace prairie grass is now deemed ESHA for the first time by the Commission, and was provided no response.

Also, during that meeting SMC Supervisor Gordon spoke to the issue of the Midcoast LCP, and indicated that his county is proceeding as well and as fast as they could on updating the Midcoast LCP. I was prepared to go through the video for exact quotes but am unable to find any video or minutes.

Perhaps, Francis, you might be so kind as to acquire that public record information?

Researcher, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm


A quick review of the Polacek staff report <Web Link> indicates that the development footprint (10,000 SF) and residence size (2,500 SF) were necessary to maintain agricultural resources, which is given a high priority by the Coastal Act. The project was approved with conditions.

Protection of agricultual land was also an issue on the Waddell project: <Web Link>. Protection of views and ESHA were also issues of concern. Refer to page 19 of that staff report for an excellent discussion of the reasons for designating coastal terrace prairie an ESHA. Basically, it's because coastal terrace prairie contains more plant species per square meter than any other grassland in North America. In addition, there are numerous rare, threatened, and endangered species associated with this habitat type.

In other words, if you protect the coastal terrace prairie, you also protect the numberous rare, threatened or endangered species that rely on the type of habitat.

By the way, that project was also approved with conditions. Note also that in order to complete their de novo review, commission staff required the applicant to obtain biological reports, among other things. Note also that the applicant performed an analysis of various siting alternatives, which helped staff condition the project so that it would conform the the LCP.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 30, 2009 at 4:15 pm


"By the way, that project was also approved with conditions. Note also that in order to complete their de novo review, commission staff required the applicant to obtain biological reports, among other things. Note also that the applicant performed an analysis of various siting alternatives, which helped staff condition the project so that it would conform the the LCP."

Anyone have any comments on this?

Also, who performed the studies that identified coastal terrace prairie and declared that it is ESHA? Do these species live anywhere else?

Whatisname, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm


Most of the CDP and applications are approved by the staff and the Commission "with conditions" but please carefully consider and closely look at the "conditions". As I recall for Dan Sterling in the El Granada Highlands, the main "condition" was that he live on less than 1/4 acre of 143 acres, and that he grant an ag easement in perpetuity on his remaining 142.75 acres. That is what I would call a Helluva CONDITION.

Francis, are you telling me that you would be happy with that "CONDITION" for your land in Gualala? That is 98.75% of your land granted as an easement as a condition to use your land -- less than 1/4 acre. Francis, for the record on this blog, would you accept that as a condition?

Researcher, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on August 30, 2009 at 10:01 pm


Yes. Those conditions maintain the viability of that parcel for agricultural use, which is given a high priority in the SMC LCP as well as the Coastal Act.

My property is zoned rural residential, so "reasonable use" on mine will differ from Waddell's agricultural parcel. I have different environmental issues to address, and they will restrict the size of house I can build and where it can be built. If I want to build a bigger house I'll have to buy a parcel that will support it.

Luckily for me I'd rather have the riparian habitat, osprey habitat, rare plant habitat and wetlands than a bigger house. There are plenty of parcels available for those that want it the other way around.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 31, 2009 at 6:56 am


Lately, everytime I watch TV News I see wildfires, many of those fires are in the Coastal Zone, and I think of the graphic on this thread about Sins of Commission. What can we do to reduce the risk of fire in our Coastal Communities?

On the news I also see lots of firebombers, and bulldozers clearing firebreaks. WHY do we have to wait until there is a FIRE to put in a FIREBREAK?

I have friends in California living with a huge risk and in trouble in a rural area, this is not a bureaucratic game, homes and lives and pets are at great risk.

We people in Montara or El Granada could be next for a wildfire. We do not even have enough water to fight fires with our local water moratorium in Montara.

Does anyone care? Before you respond by lecturing ME, I would like to hear from anyone that cares about Human habitat. I have had my fill about riparian, plant, wetlands, and frog habitat. What about me and my girls?

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on September 1, 2009 at 10:58 pm


Lisa -- First, I'd like to point out that none of the fires currently being fought are within the Coastal Zone.

Second, by and large, you get choose where you live. You chose to live in an area prone to wildfires with limited resources for fighting those fires. Now, you expect other Californians to allow you to ruin habitat for creatures that really don't get to choose where they live, or to pay the tremendous costs to protect your homes. In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to live somewhere else?

I'm not blaming you for your choices. I'm blaming poor planning at the local level. If you can't build homes in areas without drastically altering the vegetation -- habitat -- then maybe that's a bad place to build a home. Not good for you, other Californians, or critters that rely on that habitat to survive.

What to do about all the existing homes in fire alleys? That's a tough question. It may come down to insurance companies changing their policies regarding those homes, or communities developing better "stay and defend" policies. Haven't thought much about the problem with existing homes, but I do think we should stop expanding the problem. Californians must cease building new homes in areas prone to natural disasters. (It'd be nice if they spread them out a bit more, too!)

You may have had your fill hearing about habitat, but that is part of what makes it so desirable to live on the coast. Take away the habitat and a lot of other good stuff goes with it, including the health of our entire coastal ecosystem.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 2, 2009 at 6:57 am


Drooly, the concept proposed in your response is a classic example of allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Using the “law” to prevent the ecosystem from being managed results in the catastrophe we are reading about daily, during which lives, property, plants, animals, habitat, and resources are destroyed, or ruined. The inevitable consequence of this management prevention is a manmade “natural disaster”.

While it may be the intent of the misguided eco-Nazi to provide more and better habitat by preventing any “development” it is well established in agricultural disciplines that cultivation and management improve production, both in quality and quantity, for humans, plants, and animals.

To allow brush to grow unchecked is very much like allowing a young child to grow up in a bad neighborhood without any instruction or discipline. It is a common practice in most parts of the world to control the growth of brush (read “chaparral”) using fire, or mechanical or chemical means. They learned a long time ago that a well-managed landscape is far more productive than an impenetrable thicket or charred wasteland.

Insurance is not a viable option. The best it can provide is to allow one to recover a part of his lost property. It is far better to allow the person who cares the most about his property to manage and care for the property as he wishes to the extent it does not infringe upon the rights of his neighbors.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on September 2, 2009 at 5:50 pm


It's not surprising that a dunder-head like junior would continue building homes in areas prone to natural disasters. It's bad planning that only a fool would promote or excuse.

He clearly has trouble comprehending what he reads, too. Good planning is not the same as preventing any development. Good planning includes development that minimizes environmental harm.

It's too bad that the conservative movement has been usurped by extremist private property owners. As many of them have proven here time and again, they're incapable of considering the impact of their development on the environment, even the one in which they've chosen to live.

With that bunch, it's no wonder conservatives have such limited political power in California.

It's time for conservatives to toss the private property extremists under the proverbial bus. They harm the conservative cause rather than help it. True conservatives conserve habitat to benefit nature. They don't support candidates that are hostile towards our state's environmental laws.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm


Drooly, the position you support is not very popular (in both senses), but you would do a better job of presenting your position if you did not demagogue your way through your responses. Some of your posts, including your most recent post, diminish your credibility. In it you ramble, make rash statements and personal attacks, and, most importantly, do not respond to the concepts posed to you.

It is not “good planning” to allow brush to grow without prudent management.

“Environmental harm” comes in many forms, mismanagement being one.

I confess that I have never heard of, nor can I imagine how you would define, an “extremist private property owner”.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on September 2, 2009 at 7:52 pm


Let me make this very simple.

We have several questions left unanswered on this "discussion", so I would like to pose them to Mr Drouillard, clearly a self-annointed spokeman for the CCC.

Why do we no longer have fire breaks until there is imminent danger.

Please name all habitat in the Coastal Zone that is not ESHA (Endangered Species Habitat Areas)

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on September 2, 2009 at 9:36 pm


Make that "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas." For a good description of what can be considered an ESHA under the Coastal Act, I again refer you to the memo by Dr. John Dixon: <Web Link>

As quoted in that memo, the definition of ESHA in the Coastal Act is “Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments” (Section 30107.5).

No shortcuts for lazy coastal property owners are allowed. Each must determine whether or not ESHA exists on the property they want to develop.

An alternative approach would be to have the Coastal Commission analyze and map the entire coastal zone. That massive effort would require legislation and additional funding for the Coastal Commission.

It's more efficient and better for taxpayers to leave property owners within the Coastal Zone responsible for mapping ESHA.

Regarding fire breaks, please provide an example of such a project that has gone before the Coastal Commission.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 3, 2009 at 7:41 am


Francis,

Thanks for the correction on ESHA, My mistake late at night after using the term for years and scores of LCP meetings. We have discussed the Dixon memo before, in SOC Part 1. You ask for a ref on fire breaks, the following is from AP yesterday. Now, Could you provide a list of all things that are NOT ESHA to help us lazy coastal property owners? I have been unable to find that listing.

Brush clearing before big L.A. fire fell short

Forest Service wasn't able to do as many pre-emptive burns as planned

The Associated Press

updated 3:42 p.rn. PT, Wed .• Sept, 2, 2009

Feds failed to clear brush in LA wildfire area

AP

LOS ANGELES – Federal authorities failed to follow through on plans earlier this year to burn away highly flammable brush in a forest on the edge of Los Angeles to avoid the very kind of wildfire now raging there, The Associated Press has learned.

The U.S. Forest Service said that months before the huge blaze erupted, it obtained permits to burn away the undergrowth on more than 1,700 acres of the Angeles National Forest. But just 193 acres had been cleared by the time the fire broke out, the agency said.

Could more have been done to clear tinder-dry hillsides and canyons?

"We don't necessarily disagree with that," Bear said. "We weren't able to complete what we wanted to do."

Some critics suggested that protests from environmentalists contributed to the disaster, which came after the brush was allowed to build up for as much as 40 years.

"This brush was ready to explode," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, whose district overlaps the forest. "The environmentalists have gone to the extreme to prevent controlled burns, and as a result we have this catastrophe today."

Prescribed burns are intended to protect homes and lives by eliminating fuel that can cause explosive wildfires. The wildfire that has blackened 140,000 acres — or nearly 219 square miles — in the forest over the past week has been fed by the kind of tinder-dry vegetation that prescribed burns are designed to safely devour.

The blaze has destroyed more than five dozen homes, killed two firefighters and forced thousands of people to flee.

Figures from the California's South Coast Air Quality Management District suggested even less was protectively burned. The agency said it granted seven permits sought by the Forest Service to conduct prescribed burns on 2,748 acres in the forest this year. The agency reviews such requests to ensure air quality in the often-smoggy Los Angeles area will not be worsened by smoke from intentional fires. But records show only 12.8 acres burned.

Obtaining the necessary permits is a complicated process, and such efforts often draw protests from environmentalists.

Calls to the Sierra Club for comment were not immediately returned.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on September 3, 2009 at 9:43 am


Yawn ... more conflation from a private property extremist.

Did the Coastal Commission stop the US Forest Service from doing controlled burns? No, they did not. Did environmentalist stop them? No, because the US Forest Service had the necessary permits.

The only evidence you offer is rampant speculation by a local politician that environmentalists are responsible for the Station wildfire or any other.

Maybe the constituents of Mr. Antonovich should ask why the county allowed homes to be built within areas prone to wildfires. Maybe the should be asking why the US Forest Service didn't do its job.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 3, 2009 at 10:08 am


The definition of ESHA in the Coastal Act is what it is.

If you want to know where the ESHA isn't, then you or someone else needs to map all areas that are ESHA now as well as those that will become ESHA in the future.

It's much more practical to address ESHA on a case by case basis. A one-size-fits-all cookie cutter approach won't work very well in an ecosystem as large and diverse and complex as the California coast. It's also fair to other California taxpayers if developers bear the burden of ensuring that development preserves ESHA.

Any more silly "gotcha!" questions?

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 3, 2009 at 10:52 am


"Wow, here we are in a 10 mile area of 1100 MILES that you say is devoid of

'required physical space, geographic features, ecosystem services, water, and other fundamentals for additional development on our narrow coastal shelf aren't there'

"How unlucky could we coastsiders be? What a crock. This is just an assertion by NP, nothing more, nothing less."

The gross ignorance of coastal features, ecosystems, and resources, especially definitions and quantification of such, exhibited by Gossett in the above excerpt and his overall stance, shows what people who deal with their surroundings objectively are up against in trying to protect their personal property, coastal values, and life support systems from the blindered property rights whackos who would freely subtract from us all for their own ends.

Mr. Gossett has a feeling that there is plenty of everything to support all the destructive coastal develoopment he would like to see. He can maintain that feeling by maintaining his ignorance of the geographic place and keeping his eyes closed to the prior human overexploitation of the California coastline to the degree that only a few percent of some natural areas critical to ongoing functioning of ecosystems and the free natural subsidies they provide us all remain along our grossly overpopulated shore.

So it goes with cornucopians and their unfounded belief that plenty of everything will be provided, even if they can't actually find it in the Coastal Zone. What keeps such people going in the face of overwhelming facts? Greed depending on short-term fantasies? Religious dogmatism allowing them to imagine all of what they might call "Creation" exists for whatever money-grubbing human whim might wish to do with it? No matter. The steamrolling of others to support their concocted "rights" and whims cannot be excused or go unopposed.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 3, 2009 at 12:55 pm


Nipper, it sounds like both you and Drooly went to the same school of psychobabble and each got a PHD in Demagoguery. Your most recent post is frantic and fractured. How can you maintain that clearing understory and creating a fire lane around his house will present an infringement by Mr. Gossett upon your rights? You are not “objectively …trying to protect their personal property, coastal values, and life support systems”; you are attempting to impose your will in an unreasonable fashion. What kind of value do you place on chaparral compared with life and property?

Nipper, both you and Drooly puzzle me. You and he, professed conservatives, often refer to “property rights extremists”, implying that is a liberal notion, but a strong property rights agenda is a conservative principle. How do you reconcile your conflict?

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on September 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm


Dirty Little Coward, Jr. hasn't learned much about civility in the past 16 days. He's still using straw men to make his arguments, too.

Conserving resources and preserving the environment are strong conservative principles, but the inept Republican Party of California has forgotten its own history.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 3, 2009 at 2:47 pm


Pardon me, Fordie, but I did cover, in general terms, the depredations caused by the sum, the collective, of individual destructive actions on our coastline. It is in the area of scope and scale that the property wrongs crowd loses all credibility with its arguments that a particular individual action will have so little effect on the landscape that any policies or laws governing that action should be done away with. Sorry, but what weak coastal environmental protections we do have were pushed into being by ravages of the California coastline. The degradation and continuing, though slightly slowed, downward spiral of our area are there for all to see.

I don't consider the property wrongs crowd to be strictly liberal, conservative, or anything else other than self-serving, consciously ignorant wealth worshippers looking to feather their own few beds at the expense of everyone else sharing their surroundings. They are most often from the right-wing ideologue camp that denies any inconvenience to its desires brought about the material realities of our situation, but there are plenty of bleeding-heart liberals turning a blind eye to overpopulation who are, individually and in their associations, just as guilty of fostering environmental decline.

Chaparral burns. If you don't want a house in this important California biome to burn, don't build in it. If you ignorantly bought a house in chaparral without realizing or wanting to deal with the consequences of natural fire regimes, alter your behavior to co-existence or move. There is nothing inherently sacred or inviolable about land bounded by lines someone drew on a map for whatever reason. All private property in the U.S. is subject to governmental regulation and to restrictions when impacts due to activities on private property negatively affect others.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 3, 2009 at 2:59 pm


Francis, regarding civility, I am only responding in kind. You appear to show little respect to the people you disagree with in this blog. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. You will be “Drooly” until I see a change in your tone.

Nipper, “self-serving, consciously ignorant wealth worshippers” is a very telling statement. You appear to have a problem with both liberals and conservatives. That may tell you something about the validity of your position. I can’t imagine that anyone wealthy enough to buy a place on the coast would want to degrade their property in any way. Protecting your property cannot be classified as degradation.

Chaparral is not much more than brush and is considered noxious vegetation in some areas. It is prudent to manage it to improve the value to the environment and to improve the safety to one’s home. How hard is that?

“All private property in the U.S. is subject to governmental regulation and to restrictions when impacts due to activities on private property negatively affect others.” You and I agree completely in this concept. Both common law and civil law provide basis and precedent to support us.

Robert F. Ford, Jr., a resident of a community outside of the area, on September 3, 2009 at 4:30 pm


Do humans have any habitat in the coastal zone? IF so, what is that ranking compared to that of chapparal?

As I asked before, Does anyone care? Before you respond by lecturing ME, I would like to hear from anyone that cares about Human habitat. I have had my fill about riparian, plant, wetlands, and frog habitat. What about me and my girls?

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on September 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm


Lisa- what a great question!

Of Course if the Drouillard's of this area get their way we would all be banned and the fire vegetation and gophers will take precedent!!

SICKOFCCC, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm


"Yes. Those conditions maintain the viability of that parcel for agricultural use, which is given a high priority in the SMC LCP as well as the Coastal Act."

Francie - please tell me how you know that "viability" of the Sterling's property is an issue? Do you know how much agriculture happens on the property? Do you know anything at all about the parcel other than what you see in the CCC Staff Report.

You know what - don't bother. Your answers will be unfounded. The truth is you do not know.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 3, 2009 at 6:37 pm


Brian Ginna -- Hard to deny that agricultural viability was an issue when the staff report and the LCP clearly state that it is.

See the discussion starting on page 25 of the staff report, which quotes the local LCP. Specifically, check out out Zoning Code Section 6355 F. Criteria for the Conversion of Lands Suitable for Agriculture and Other Lands:

"All lands suitable for agriculture and other lands within a parcel shall not be converted to uses permitted by a Planned Agricultural Permit unless all of the following criteria are met ... :

2. continued or renewed agricultural use of the soils is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors (Section 30108 of the Coastal Act), and ..."

How's that for an "unfounded answer?"

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm


Lisa, I, as a resident of the coastal zone (before it was termed thusly) wish to see the best of care taken of it. But in turn, as a resident, I want to go on living here. I try to take care of my few acres. I want my grandkids to be able to look after it, too.

It might be interesting to see what is happening to the smelt in the delta. That's another human vs (so called) endangered species. I think there is a lawsuit. Cutting off the water has done much damage to the local economy in the valley, agricultural and otherwise.

We're here, we're taking care. We should remain!

Another Mother, a resident of Montara, on September 3, 2009 at 7:19 pm


Nah, you know exactly what I meant. Dance around it all you want just like you normally do. Embarrassing.

Specifically address the Sterling's property.

No more definitions, please. No citing mumbo jumbo from the one-sided staff report.

Step up with facts.

What leads you to believe an easement was necessary for the "viability" of anything?

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 3, 2009 at 7:43 pm


Another Mother,

Thank you. Your comments give me some hope for humans on this planet. Who in their right mind would put Peter and Francis in charge of the Coastal Zone? Can you believe that the staff of the Commission want to prohibit any new private wells where we live in Montara. I cannot keep up with all the new ideas from the staff of the Commission.

Can you imagine if there were Commissions with rules for a Mountain top Zone, and a River Zone, and a FlatLand Zone, with similar rules to those that Francis continues to spout for the Coastal Zone?

What is next? Maybe that is the plan with Cap 'n Trade. I have no idea. The rules are changing faster than I can read about them.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on September 3, 2009 at 9:09 pm


Please stop with the name-calling and such on this thread. And consider it fair warning. If you can't comment without attempting to diminish those who disagree with you, please don't comment at all. Thank you.

Clay, Editor of the Half Moon Bay Review, on September 3, 2009 at 11:26 pm


Brian Ginna -- The discussion you barged in on to share your ignorance of the Coastal Act and the LCP was related to the Polacek <Web Link> and Waddell <Web Link> projects. "Researcher" raised questions regarding the designation of coastal terrace prairie as ESHA as well as the imposition of a 10,000 SF limit on the development "footprint."

As explained to "Researcher," coastal terrace prairie is considered ESHA under the Coastal Act because it provides habitat for numerous rare, endangered or threatened species. Again, a good discussion of what makes an ESHA under the Coastal Act can be found in the memo from Dr. John Dixon: <Web Link>

The 10,000 SF development footprint was imposed to minimize the "take" of viable agricultural land and to make the project more compatible with meighboring agricultural properties. It is imposed on a case-by-case basis, and not statewide as "Researcher" believed. The intent is to preserve agricultural lands, which is given a high priority in both the LCP and the CCC.

For parcels zoned for agriculture, the viability of the land for agriculture becomes an issue when considering the impact of development. "Viability" explicitly includes the economic viability of that land for agriculture. Again, the intent is to maintain as much viable land for agricultural as possible and to drive development onto lands that can't be used for agriculture.

Your failure to know the law or understand how it's applied doesn't mean that the law is bad or that it's been applied improperly. It simply means that you are ignorant of the law.

How's that for embarrassing?

Perhaps you were trying to use another project in an attempt to refute facts regarding the Polacek and Waddell projects. That's a good way to obfuscate, but it does little to advance the understanding of the Coastal Act or decisions of the Coastal Commission.

Lisa -- In my view (hello Terry!) Cap-and-Trade is a huge boondoggle that will not benefit the environment. I do not support efforts to limit the output of plant food. Why? Because cap-and-trade will harm many to enrich a few while having zero impact on climate change. I believe there are far better and much less intrusive ways to achieve cleaner air, cleaner water, greater energy independence and a healthier environment while accommodating climate change.

I also remain concerned that imposition of cap-and-trade will eventually lead to a widespread revolt against other environmental laws.

We're just now starting to see how the CCC will address climate change in their recent decision on the del Norte LCP. My current belief is that they're seeking to accommodate climate change rather than stop it. So far so good.

As for your well, I think you're confusing those that enforce the moratorium with those that imposed it. You folks in Montara don't have enough water to support current development. Additional development that further depletes fresh water sources will exacerbate that problem. If you need more water to get by, then you're living in the wrong place. The Coastal Act and the various LCPs up and down the coast require you to modify your development to fit the land, not the other way around.

And, just to dispel a fallacy that appears from time to time, I'm not employed by the Commission nor do I speak for them in any official capacity. I have no more access to Commissioners or staff than you do. I may have slightly more influence on them than you, but that is because I attend public hearings and try to base my arguments on specific provisions in the Coastal Act.

Then again, they too might be sick of seeing me and hearing from me.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 4, 2009 at 9:25 am


Again, Francis.

"to minimize the "take" of viable agricultural land"

How much of their parcel is "viable" at this point in time? How much was 9 years ago? What do you know about the history of agriculture on the parcel (again, quoting from the staff report is weak - stop)?

What specifically about *their* parcel (not any parcel subject to all of the laws you keep restating and restating) would still be "viable" in the view of the Commission by their granting an easement (which the Sterling's would have to maintain yet have absolutely no control over)?

Your constant restating of laws and regulations and definitions with no evidence or real facts is very tiring and shows your lack of concrete knowledge of their situation. All you have is a staff report.

Brian Ginna, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 4, 2009 at 9:46 am


Brian Ginna -- Are you suggesting that the law is irrelevant, or that you're above the law? Or do you just need to keep changing the subject in a vain effort to be right?

Again, the issue was how the LCP and the Coastal Act were applied such that coastal terrace prairie grass was designated ESHA and how protection of viable agricultural land resulted in an allowable development "footprint" for the two subject parcels.

If you want to raise another issue, then do so, and back up your assertions with an analysis based on the LCP or the Coastal Act. If you can't do that, then you won't achieve a convincing argument.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 4, 2009 at 10:43 am


Keep up the good work, Francis! You are so eloquent and so right.

Julienne, a resident of Moss Beach, on September 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm


I have to agree with Francis on this:

"I also remain concerned that imposition of cap-and-trade will eventually lead to a widespread revolt against other environmental laws."

I have seen it coming for a long time. The backlash against the enviromental fundamentalists. I don't know that cap-and-trade will be the catalyst. Let's hope something is.

It's sad that the Environmentalists (big E) have gone so far. I fear that our enviroment will suffer in the backlash. Too bad that sensible enviromental protections could not have been implemented in the first place because they were the "right thing to do". Instead our laws are being influenced by the Gaians.

Here is an attempt to reign them in. Web Link May it not go so far as to become a destructive backlash. But if it does, the enviros only have themselves and their methods to blame.

Mr. Anthrope, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 4, 2009 at 1:21 pm


Everyone could learn a great deal from Francis Drouillard about democracy and democratic process. Recently he explained to Barry Parr on Coastsider how President Zelaya was "properly removed" this summer in Honduras.

Francis Drouillard on Aug 3 at 5:46pm:

"The incident Barry Parr calls a “coup” really wasn’t a coup. Lanny Davis is representing those that impeached, convicted and properly removed Zelaya. They then replaced him with a member of the same political party."

Read and Learn from an Expert on Democracy, a resident of El Granada, on September 5, 2009 at 11:00 am


As I stated earlier "Can you imagine if there were Commissions with rules for a Mountain top Zone, and a River Zone, and a FlatLand Zone, with similar rules to those that Francis continues to spout for the Coastal Zone?

What is next? Maybe that is the plan with Cap 'n Trade. I have no idea. The rules are changing faster than I can read about them."

Our local eco-guard and state-wide delta-smelters, and national eco-gurus are all over playing their hands. I lost track of Obama's Czars at 19, do we have an Eco-Czar yet? I think I will goo gle "Czars" and see what appears.

If there is a National Eco-Czar, will it be Peter, Sara, or Francis? Clay, can we have a betting pool on Talkabout?

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on September 5, 2009 at 7:44 pm


Hi Francis (Hello, Sara & Peter)

OK, I did google Obama czars and this is what I got (try it).... Web Link

Of the 32 Czars, 11 report directly to President Obama, others report directly to Cabinet positions, to VP Biden, and others.

It is not clear how CZARS operate, what staff they have, what budget they have, where their offices are, if they are appointed or civil service, etc. In sum, CZARS are not transparent or consistent with prior executive histories for this USA.

How similar is this idea to have National CZARS to the Commissara of the CCC? Is the CCC a model for Obama?

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on September 5, 2009 at 7:56 pm


The eco-czar is van jones, and his title is green jobs czar. Web Link

This website lists 34 czars, but who is counting.

Ball Four, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 5, 2009 at 8:06 pm


This just in on Yahoo minutes ago, Van Jones resigns, leaving either 31 or 33 Czars. Web Link

Who will be the Next ECO-Czar for Obama?

Ball Four, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 5, 2009 at 10:06 pm


Wow! Sara or Peter or Francis are still in the running. I vote for Peter for Czar. Get him out of California at least.

Of course, that would leave an opening on the CCC...

E. Cozar, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 6, 2009 at 7:02 pm


Lisa -- The CCC has to conduct its business in the open during public hearings. How can you fairly compare them to the "czars" that conduct their business behind closed doors?

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on September 8, 2009 at 9:54 am


Hi Francis,

You are a very funny man. First you say the "The CCC has to conduct its business in the open during public hearings." And my little bitty mind wanders to all the interactions I have seen between Veesart and Massara and other CCC Staff during the CCC meetings, and at every break. You really ought to get a copy of the Sins of Commission. All of this is on the tape, you know.

And, I think of the complete lack of openness during the lengthy staff reviews of scores of LCP submitted to the CCC, with over 100 LCP still awaiting certification. And I wonder what other cabals are also interacting with the CCC and their staff. I also wonder where are the details on the scores of lawsuits that the CCC is involved with each year. Is that open and available to the public also? Pray tell, where that might be.

Next, I think of your funny statement "How can you fairly compare them to the "czars" that conduct their business behind closed doors? " These CZARS all represent the people of the USA, are being paid by the people of the USA, and all of them report to either the President, a Cabinet Level, or an Administrator or Director. Please look at my link. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability, for the CZARS or for the CCC and their staff?

Francis you are ONE Funny Man.

Lisa, a resident of Montara, on September 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm


"You appear to have a problem with both liberals and conservatives."

So sad that political myopia causes some to divide everything into "liberal" and "conservative." Cooked-up political positions are a poor approach to managing the material, observable environment on which we all depend for life, itself.

In many jurisdictions in the U.S., people who identify themselves as political "independents" are at least a quarter of those given the choice and, in some areas, form a plurality, albeit a diverse one.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 8, 2009 at 4:50 pm


Alamagordo, Tucumcari, and Sasquatch. You people in Half Moon Bay have all of those towns beat, hands down, and big time, by any measure when it comes to lawsuits.

OMG, grab my side laffin, it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where you coastal buddies, working with your study buddies, the Coastal Commission, and other eco-buddies could not do a worse job of muck up for your rate payers. So, here is my question, "Are most of the voters in HMB, Lawyers?"

Hooter, a resident of a community outside of the area, on September 8, 2009 at 7:57 pm


We need more control of our coast, not less. We need change. Our Coastal Commission needs to do more to control the access to our beaches, not less. The costs of hundreds of lawsuits a year by our Commission is worth it, we need to do even more to protect our coast. We need to do whatever it takes.

granny, a resident of El Granada, on September 14, 2009 at 7:13 pm


I agree with granny. Furthermore, all people need to move out of the coastal zone and move 5 miles inland immediately. Only charter or lifetime members of the sierra club should be permitted access to the beaches. As granny says, we need to do whatever it takes.

Coastal Land Czar, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on September 20, 2009 at 10:10 pm


A very important Board of Supervisors Hearing on the Midcoast LCP is scheduled for December 1, 2009 in Redwood City. Also at that same meeting, our Supervisors are considering "a Urgency Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting New Water Wells in certain Midcoast Areas" Web Link

The "temporary" 45 day Urgency ordinance may be extended by 22 and 1/2 months at the end of the 45 day period and provides that "no permits shall be issued to authorize the digging, boring, deepening, reperforation, excavation, construction, or conversion of any water wells in the following subareas"

I wonder if the county is notifying all the lot owners and well owners in the MIDCOAST? I will be following up on this issue.

Every citizen and property owner needs to check into the impact of these proposed actions on your property, valuations, and taxes. As you may know no property in the MWSD service area has access to public water. Now, IF private wells are prohibited, it may render your property waterless and practically worthless.

This limitation of private wells in the urban area of the Midcoast was first proposed by the Coastal Commission staff in February 2009, along with 18 other "revisions" to what our community offered as an update to our LCP in February 2007, The 6 years efforts of the Midcoast community in updating their LCP was tossed by Coastal Commission staffers and now here we are.

FURTHERMORE, a meeting with the Coastal Commission on the Midcoast LCP is tentatively scheduled for December 10 in San Francisco. That meeting presumably will address, AND RESOLVE, and DECIDE the 19 new issues that the Coastal Commission had with our Midcoast LCP.

I wonder, where is the public participation in all of this? Where is the SMC staff position?

The Coastal Act Section 3006 states... from the Public Resources Code...

"30006. The Legislature further finds and declares that the public

has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal

planning, conservation, and development; that achievement of sound

coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public

understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and

implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development

should include the widest opportunity for public participation."

LOCAL Coastal Program? The Coastal Act says the public has a RIGHT TO FULLY PARTICIPATE? Why not rename it the Commissioner's Coastal Program. THE PUBLIC HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT with the Commission from Feb 2007 til Feb 2009. Once the Commission provided a 341 page document with 19 major changes on Feb 2009, then our Supervisors afforded us the opportunity for public input at an MCC meeting, a coastside meeting attended by the Supervisors, and a meeting in RWC with the Supervisors.

The outcome of this Midcoast LCP update will affect all of us for 20 years. this is important.

BE THERE.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on November 22, 2009 at 6:09 pm


I plan on attending the meeting with the Supervisors on December 1, 2009. After visiting the county weblink, I read the memo to Charles Lester from Lisa Grote dated July 17, 2009. The county proposal to the Commission appeared reasonable. What is going on here? Does anyone know what it is? How will these imminent actions on the Midcoast affect the HMB LCP?

Ball Four, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on November 22, 2009 at 10:51 pm


I just talked with Mr Steve Monowitz, SMC long range planner, and he advised me that the public notice about the Dec 1, meeting on prohibiting private wells, and on the Midcoast LCP was sent out to over 500 people on the Midcoast LCP list, as well as to the SMC Daily, and the HMB Review. He also said that he will issue an update of the SMC staff position on the Midcoast LCP this week, and it will be available on the county website.

This will be an VERY important meeting.

I also noticed that the Coastal Commission has put their staff report on the Midcoast LCP on their website, and it is now 403 pages long, up from their most recent staff position of 341 pages in Feb 2009. The CCC staff also issued a 57 page LCP amendment on Midcoast Residntial Design Standards for discussion on Dec 10th. Add the reading of the Kleinfelder San Mateo County Midcoast Groundwater Study, Phase II, dated January 8, 2007 (revised October 2008) and us Midcoasters have some considerable amount of reading to do before next Tuesday, Dec 1. We are about to surpass the number of pages in the Health Care Bill, but luckily we have a week to assimilate it all.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on November 24, 2009 at 12:22 pm


Is it too late to apply to drill a well in Montara? I plan to contact the county on Monday.

Al, a resident of Montara, on November 27, 2009 at 8:11 pm


We need more control of our coast, not less.

We need to protect our aquifers, not more drilling.

Our Coastal Commission is the best thing that ever happened to California. They will protect us, forever and ever.

grandma, a resident of Montara, on November 29, 2009 at 9:15 pm


Grandma:

Obviously you have not been paying attention. Owners of Coastal Properties have proven time and time again that they treasure the coast - because THEY LIVE ON IT. The CCC has twisted the Coastal Act and violated the constitution and property rights of people that care about the Coast as much as you do. Look at what has happened - this LCP has been hijacked by the CCC who are tasked with insuring LOCAL CONTROL. This is not an isolated incident – many communities have literally been held hostage by this type of CCC inaction/arbitrary decisions/delays/local interference etc etc etc.

Well - I guess the Board of Supes and the planning dept and years and years of studies are all wrong. Only the CCC knows what is best for us all. Gee didn't a guy named Adolf say the same thing? "Trust me - I know what is best for you" - Go for it Grandma - after you have NO RIGHTS LEFT and the CCC TAKES YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY post another compliment to them. Bottom line is if you don't want someone to do something with their property cause you think the view belongs to YOU -- let the constitution be your guide - PAY FOR IT – DON’T PUNISH THE PROPERTY OWNER

OR is it ok to come to YOUR house and tell YOU your elected officials are all wrong and you can’t have water on your property?

GIVE ME A BREAK – GET EDUCATED

Involved, a resident of Another Coastside community, on November 30, 2009 at 1:56 am


Involved -- I have gotten educated and have learned that much of what you claim about the CCC is just plain wrong, no matter how many caps you use.

The CCC doesn't take your property rights, they enforce the Coastal Act, which is something that local governments don't always do.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on November 30, 2009 at 5:55 am


Francis,

Tell that { "The CCC doesn't take your property rights,"} to a fellow that lives in El Granada, Dan Sterling.

Lisa, a resident of El Granada, on November 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm


Lisa -- That permit was approved with conditions. I think you need a better example of a CCC taking (if one exists).

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 1, 2009 at 5:48 am


Oh Francis, Francis, Francis...

"(if one exists)"...The most blatant example we can use locally is Beachwood. Ring a bell, Francis?

It's been suggested many times, by many individuals on this blog, that you'd be so much better off minding your own business. You are no more than a pot stirrer, complete with misinformation and an obvious bias for your messiah...the coastal commission.

Still haven't seen Sins of Commission, huh Francis.

We'd be better off if you'd follow the suggestions given. Your stuff is weak.

some people, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 1, 2009 at 10:05 am


some people -- If I'm the stirrer, does that make you the pot or its contents? Judging by the quality of your analysis, I think it's the latter.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of El Granada, on December 1, 2009 at 10:11 am


Regarding the Midcoast LCP agenda item, Planning staffer Steve Monowitz presented a summary of the positions of both the CCC staff and the County. Following considerable public input, Our Supervisors strongly supported their county staff's position on 7 unresolved issues with the Coastal Commission on the Midcoast LCP, and then entertained an agenda item on restrictions on private wells in 7 sub-areas of the midcoast.

Many public comments were heard on this red hot topic of restricting wells, Lennie Roberts and Sabrina Brennan wanted to increase the areas of restriction on wells to include Seal Cove. Many noted that data was lacking and that none of the nine Kleinfelder recommendations included any mention of prohibition or restrictions of wells. Charles Lester of the Coastal Commission was present for both agenda items.

Lisa Grote advised the Supervisors that Phase 3 of the Kleinfelder report will be released on Dec 31, and then amended that to Jan 31, 2010. So, .....why an OBVIOUS question was why pre-empt the high priced study results with an Urgent Ordinance at the start of the Rainy season????...hmmm... There was a hum in the room. Supervisors Gordon and Groom had not been aware the Phase Three recommendations were that soon, Ms. Groom noted she thought it was a coupla years away.

Supervisor Groom suggested a public workshop so that some of the well informed professionals speaking could interact with staff with real data. Supervisor Tissier asked why is this restriction of private wells an Urgent ordinance in the rainy season. The Vote by our Board of Supervisors was 5-0 to defer this issue.

Midcoaster, a resident of Montara, on December 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm


Are these the same people talking at the Midcoast LCP who are the source of all our problems? How did MWSD and Lennie Roberts and Kathryn Carter and Paul Perkovic get to be so powerful? It is time to re-think this ugly senseless paradigm. I like the idea of having a county Emergency Ordinance to make MWSD put in two more wells and End the Moratorium on providing water, then we could get on with living on our beautiful coast. That would be a win--win--win for everyone. Protect the aquifer, protect the environment, quit drilling private wells, have quality water, and surf, dude.

Al, a resident of Montara, on December 1, 2009 at 6:12 pm


"I like the idea of having a county Emergency Ordinance to make MWSD put in two more wells and End the Moratorium on providing water, then we could get on with living on our beautiful coast."

So, unlike the experts who directed MWSD's drilling program for water after the district took over water services from the private corporation--a greatly beneficial takeover to which Gossett, among a few other boosters of overdevelopment, objected, if I recall correctly--you know where those two wells should go to provide an additional sustainable water supply? Yikes! Please don't walk, but run down to the MWSD office and let them know.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 1, 2009 at 10:08 pm


Moss Bitcher asks "you know where those two wells should go to provide an additional sustainable water supply?"

I think I have an answer, but I am afraid, vewy afwaid that Clay would censure my response.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 1, 2009 at 10:17 pm


In other words, Miss B indicates "I'm flying blind on this one but have faith in the water gods that the stuff is down there somewhere."

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 1, 2009 at 10:34 pm


It has been suggested that the Midcoast of San Mateo County DO need an Urgent Immediate Ordinance for Carter, Boyd, Harvey, Ptacek and Perkovic to Drill Baby, Drill, so that our County does not have to deny private wells for hundreds of private wells, all at a cost for property owners of $35-50,000 a well. Do the math.

The Coastal Commission and Francis Drouillard prefer prohibition of private wells in our county rather than providing public water. What are those dudes smokin'?

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 1, 2009 at 10:47 pm


Ah, the dream world of the water conjurers. If MWSD would tap into the magic they live by, we could have gushing public fountains in every neighborhood.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 1, 2009 at 10:52 pm


Miss B -- What are _you_ smoking? I haven't taken a position on well-drilling in your neck of the woods. Yet. Generally speaking, however, I do think it's a bad idea to allow development in areas where water supplies are inadequate to support that development.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 2, 2009 at 7:23 am


I do think it's a bad idea to allow development in areas where water supplies are inadequate to support that development.

That would exclude almost all of California. If we lived where the fresh water was, one quarter of the world population would be canadian.

The notion that people should only live where there is sufficient local water makes as much sense as insisting that people only live where there is sufficient local oil, natural gas, electrical generation, food, timber, metals, and other raw materials we use to make all the objects we use. The Coastside has none, repeat none, of the essentials necessary to sustain even our current population. We call ourselves an agricultural community, but if we all had to subsist on locally grown food, we would starve.

Lack of local water is a convenient pretext to keep unwanted people from living in our corner of the world. End of story.

end of story, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 2, 2009 at 8:28 am


end of story -- It sounds like you support overdevelopment and the decrease in living standards that requires. Is that correct? If not, where do you intend to get the water to support development if local supplies are inadequate? If you or other developers can't answer that question, then common sense dictates that you shouldn't be allowed to develop.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 2, 2009 at 9:01 am


It looks like Francis either has no life at all, or wishes with all his might that he lived in HMB.

Just look through this thread; he's prominant throughout.

We can be a funny bunch. We don't care much for outsiders trying to tell us how we should live...at least most of us.

Where does this guy get off extolling his 'virtues' on us, from afar.

Get your own life Francis. We've managed to get by this long without you. I'm quite sure we can continue without you.

Mind your own and you'll stay quite busy.

some people, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 2, 2009 at 3:08 pm


some people -- That's quite a convincing argument, and I'm sure it will help you achieve all your goals.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm


Francis,

Here is a Solution which you may approve of...or not.

One suggestion presented to the SMC Supervisors on December 1st, was to change the Urgency Ordinance from restricting private wells in the Midcoast to an Urgency Ordinance to Assist the public water agency, MWSD, to add 2 public wells so that the moratorium for providing public water could be lifted. Then no one would need any of the hundreds of private wells through out the MWSD service area.

Does that meet with your approval, Francis? That approach, ostensibly appeared to resonate with the MWSD Directors present at the meeting.

Solutions, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm


Solutions -- Why would you want to negotiate a solution with me? Seems to me you're better off making your case at the Commission hearing. If local water supplies are inadequate for growth, it doesn't matter who drills the wells.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 3, 2009 at 7:34 am


Ahh, but Francis, it does matter in so many ways, and you and I both know that. The costs of a private well are usually between $35,000 and $50,000 each, and Miss Carter referred to 946 private wells. So a cost of about $40,000,000. The one new public well could not possibly have cost that much, possibly counting the PWP a total of $400,000 or 1% of the costs of the private wells. At the time of the Alta Vista well testing MWSD said it was the purest water in the county and tested at 300 gpm. Perhaps adding one or two more public wells in the Montara highlands will end the moratorium on water and be a Solution for us all.

Solutions, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 3, 2009 at 8:03 am


Can a few of my friends still apply for drilling a water well in Montara or will the Coastal Commission stop it. I understand the County will not stop a well application, for now.

Al, a resident of Montara, on December 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm


Can a few of my friends still apply for drilling a water well in Montara or will the Coastal Commission stop it. I understand the County will not stop a well application, for now.

Al, a resident of Montara, on December 3, 2009 at 3:00 pm


Can a few of my friends still apply for drilling a water well in Montara or will the Coastal Commission stop it? I understand the County will not stop a well application, for now.

Al, a resident of Montara, on December 3, 2009 at 3:00 pm


From another thread for you dreamers and whiners. If you actually cared about your home and you can feel the pain of people like the Skowrons, you don't want to be on a private well in MMB:

"A little something about water in the aquifers of the Montara/Moss Beach/El Granada area. Water flows through the strata of these midcoast areas in the lower areas where the communities are built. It doesn't sit in big underground lakes waiting to be tapped. This means that the aquifers need to be recharged relatively frequently to maintain the flow that is being tapped. A few drought years in a row, and that great well could be a problem. And the more roofs and pavement over the land, the more water will run off immediately rather than seeping down to recharge the aquifer.

"Morals of the story: avoid houses on private wells, especially wells that have no or incomplete history of production over a major drought or two; only look at well production during the times of lowest output for water that will be essential, and even then don't be too sure about depending on it; minimize or remove hardscaping of all sorts in Montara and Moss Beach when possible, especially in areas "upstream" of any wells; look with a jaundiced eye at any claims made by sellers of houses on wells or their real estate agents--they can guarantee nothing because information is simply not there for our area to make reasonable guarantees. And new district wells from MWSD? Be cautious about depending on water from them for your home or business. The district won't know what it can really rely on from new wells in the way of production for many years.

"What this has to do with tsunamis? Nothing, except in the general sense that anyone sincere about development and human well being cannot ignore the geologists, especially not in favor of dilettantes and property wealth builders looking to make a quick buck with the aid of hypothetical lipstick in their plans and EIRs."

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 3, 2009 at 3:25 pm


If MWSD would simply drill two more wells, we would not need private wells. It is now 6 and 1/2 years since MWSD had a $18M bond to get rid of the evil company, and here we are with one new well, alta vista, just putting out 69gpm. The Board of MWSD need to get moving -- at this rate it will be 2050 before we are off the moratorium. Maybe they need prodding from our SMC Supervisors, or even their bosses, andthat would be us ratepayers.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm


"If MWSD would simply drill two more wells, we would not need private wells."

Yeah, Harry Potter would know where to drill those wells and get a magic water supply that has never been shown to exist.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 4, 2009 at 8:16 pm


MB,

Any num nuts would think to try to drill in the Montara high lands. Or ask a successful well driller, or ask Moss Bitcher who apparently knows everything. I submit Anything is better than doing Nothing for 6.5 years. which is what Harvey, Ptacek, Carter, Boyd and Perkovic are doing.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 4, 2009 at 10:18 pm


On Dec 10, 2009 the long awaited Midcoast LCP was reviewed by the Coastal Commission.

Our Supervisors scored an A+ for protecting our environment, while accurately representing our local views following 7 years of meetings, and for protecting humans in the midcoast from such weird ideas as:

lot retirement (basically a one for two, buy two to use one)

prohibition of private wells

elimination of the historic grandfather rules

limiting public works and improvements to infrastructure

and rezoning of Devils slide bypass prior to resolution of issues.

The fiscal impact of following the advice of the Commission is beyond measure. Note that the Commission does not even try to quantify the economic impact of such hare-brained ideas.

Also note that all four motions by the Commission on the Midcoast LCP were by Steve Blank, and all seconds were from Sara Wan. They and their supporters all share the same philosophy, "I've got mine". Check out the archived webcast for thursday, December 10 at Web Link

Unfortunately, all Commissioners voted 12-0 on all motions to fully support the position by Commission staff, and to reject our Local Coastal Program ably presented by Gordon, Grote, and Monowitz. Next, our Board of Supervisors will probably agendize this topic again in late January or February.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 12, 2009 at 4:22 pm


Couldn't even get votes from the commissioners on the political right/property wrongs side? Poor baby. How could there be more obvious evidence of how out of compliance the S.M. County LCP Update sham concocted by the supes is with the Coastal Act?

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm


Miss B*tcher -- According to Greg Thomas reporting for HMB Review,

the Commission requires that the county develop a comprehensive Midcoast groundwater management plan before allowing further drilling of private wells. That is much more responsible that allowing well drilling to continue without knowing whether or not those wells will remain productive. The CCC-proposed policy protects those with existing wells and prevents unscrupulous sellers of parcels from duping taking advantage of those that may not have knowledge of the water supply problems on your midcoast. You're not opposed to those protections, are you?

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 12, 2009 at 4:47 pm


Francis,

I do not think you attended the last meeting with our Supervisors on Dec 1st. It was noted by the county that the phase 3 report from Kleinfelder comes out in January, so it would be prudent to wait for those conclusions before taking any action to restrict wells, especially at the start of the rainy season. Also Supervisor Groom suggested a workshop of knowledgeable people on aquifers and drilling before voting on the issue. Wells was only one of 7 unresolved issues on our midcoast. Are you in support of all the Commission on all other issues as well?

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm


Phase 3 for Kleinfelder won't be definitive, either, because of the lack of data noted in the Phase 2 report. Many hydrologists and others have already looked at the midcoast over the years. Do you want to keep convening meetings until you can find a bunch that can be paid to say what you want? To get more accurate about local aquifers will require a lot of detailed study over a number of years in order to get enough representative data to make reasonable projections. There will need to be a moratorium on new wells in place for at least that length of time. So, where's the beef? And if that next round of more definitive studies shows that the aquifers are already maxed out or overdrawn in terms of sustainability, as some of the cautionary best guesses say they may be, what will be your next plea for trying to shove more development into an area that is already built out?

Note that there are a number of lots with already-drilled wells in Montara and Moss Beach. Build on them if you can clear the other hurdles and don't mind running the risk of a house on a water supply that could go south.

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 12, 2009 at 5:30 pm


Moss Bitcher,

So, basically you are telling us that Kleinfelder has a lack of data, BUT we need to act anyway to restrict or prohibit wells in the middle of the rainy season? Perhaps a course in logic and common sense is in order. Why not just state what it is that you reaaally want.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 13, 2009 at 10:06 am


Miss B*tcher -- I think the faulty logic is on your end. It makes no sense to proceed with unlimited well-drilling before the adequacy of the aquifer is established. The burden is on the BOS to show that water supplies are adequate (and will remain adequate during periods of drought) for additional development and to establish a comprehensive groundwater management plan. Rather than continuing to negotiate with those that favor the CCC's decision, you should be demanding that your BOS initiate the necessary studies and establish a comprehensive groundwater management plan.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm


Francis Drouillard,

At one of the meetings, and I believe it was the Dec 1, 2009 meeting Steve Monowitz stated 7 wells have been drilled in the Midcoast in the last 5 years. So, what is the problem? We are at the start of the rainy season. Why would you suggest anyone take action to prohibit wells without data? Think. to drill a well, or to not drill a well, or to dig a tunnel or to build a bridge. Data is important. Crystal Springs reservoir is near capacity at the start of the rainy season. I am mystified.

Francis I have a question for you.

Does your LCP in Gualala (or any other LCP in the state of California) have the same provisions that you are asking us in the Midcoast to support? in particular--

lot retirement (basically a one for two, buy two to use one)

prohibition of private wells

elimination of the historic grandfather rules

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 13, 2009 at 2:35 pm


Miss B*tcher,

It doesn't matter what's in my local coastal plan, or any other LCP. What is relevant is the capacity of your local aquifer to support additional development. Without adequate water supplies, it is foolish to promote further development. As pointed out more than once in this thread, doing so would devalue existing development.

As for similar constraints in the Mendocino County LCP, we do have a groundwater management plan, which is what the CCC is asking the SMC BOS to establish. We're allowed to drill test wells, but we can't use them until we get a CDP. If those well(s) is(are) dry, develoent isn't allowed unless another adequate source of water is obtained, such as from the local water company. (There's currently a moratorium on new hookups because of the drought-induced low flows in the Gualala River North Fork).

Given that all certified LCPs should conform to the Coastal Act, and that the Act requires adequate infrastructure to support development (roads, water, sewer, power and the like), you folks on the midcoast aren't being singled out.

If you look at if from the perspective of protecting an unsuspecting public from unscrupulous developers, those requirements make sense. And, they're not unique to the California Coastal Zone. There are similar restrictions on well drilling and development on the old farm in Michigan, too. No responsible planning agency allows development where the long-term supply of water is dubious.

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 13, 2009 at 3:10 pm


Mr Drouillard,

So, in sum, according to you, and I quote--

"It doesn't matter what's in my local coastal plan, or any other LCP"

AND I infer from that Mendocino County does not prohibit private wells, big surprise, nor does any other LCP ! ! !! And you add "We're allowed to drill test wells, but we can't use them until we get a CDP." Another "Big Surprise", so is every other LCP area in California.

Furthermore, as Mr Douilliard and I both know, no other county in California is subject to what the Coastal Commission staff is trying to force us in the Midcoast to do, namely--

lot retirement (basically a one for two, buy two to use one)

prohibition of private wells

elimination of the historic grandfather rules

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 13, 2009 at 4:52 pm


Miss Bitcher, why waste your time with fd. He's just getting your motor running with not a care in the world how we live or exist.

He's not worth the time of day, getting his jollies by stirring any pot that gets a reaction. Probably can't count to eleven without taking off his shoes and socks.

If he were qualified, he'd apply for a job with the commission. Now what does that tell you, considering the qualifications for any spot on the commission or staff just requires a bad attitude and a dash of nepatism.

Your time would be better spent focusing on our issues with someone...anyone who may have an impact on the outcome; droullard is not one of them.

some people, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 13, 2009 at 5:19 pm


As I watched the December 10th webcast of our Local Coastal Program with the Coastal Commission I was struck by the number of times that ORCA was mentioned by Commissioners. I saw at least 4 times that Commissioner Steve Blank, in ex parte communication, mentioned the names of Lennie Roberts and Mike Ferreira, representatives of ORCA, had approached him with issues before the Commission.

Upon looking into who was ORCA, I found that it stood for Organization of Regional Coastal Activists, a 501c3 organization, originated by the longest standing Commissioner, Sara Wan, and that she alone could hand pick members of that organization by having "candidate members" attend a two day course by herself of course. The object of the course was to appeal to the Commission.

How Quaint, How, utterly quaint. See Web Link

ORCA is about as quaint as Commissioner Blank providing $1000 each to Ruddock, Freer, and Handler in the recent campaign for the HMB City Council.

Hmmm..., a resident of El Granada, on December 13, 2009 at 6:02 pm


One would think that to be a "conflict of interest", Hmmm, but we are creatures of habit.

Regarding blank's contribution, he's just doing what's worked for him in the past. How do you think he became a coastal commissioner?

Hint; it wasn't his tireless efforts throughout the State, it wasn't his world renown conservation efforts, it wasn't through completion of any academia geared toward land use, it wasn't his charming disposition, .....

old habits die hard, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 13, 2009 at 6:17 pm


when one thinks of california coastal commission, corrupt comes to mind. as i read that coastal commissioner blank donated $1000 to ruddock for the hmb city council in 2009, i recalled her ten year stint as a project manager for the coastal conservancy.

then i wondered about all the questions by coastal commissioners, themselves, on the accounting of funding between the coastal conservancy and the commission during the december 10, 2009 session of the coastal commission, see Web Link

also during that same session many questions by multiple commissioners addressed the propriety and accounting of "in lieu" fees that were extracted by the commission for "affordable housing" following the issue on "extracting" a $1,000,000 FEE for a Long Beach hotel project. Commissioners "really" wanted to know where all this FEE money was going, and it turned out they had been asking peter douglas this question for 3 years with no response.

the term corrupt clearly applies to the coastal commission.

corrupt comes to mind, a resident of the Peninsula, on December 13, 2009 at 6:42 pm


I can't help but notice that neither Miss B*tcher nor some people argues that water supplies are known and sufficient for further development on the midcoast. Perhaps that is why Miss B*tcher seizes on the irrelevant and remains frustrated and why some people tries to denigrate me while echoing this sound advice:

"Rather than continuing to negotiate with those that favor the CCC's decision, you should be demanding that your BOS initiate the necessary studies and establish a comprehensive groundwater management plan."

That would be the most effective way to get the moratorium lifted so you can drill-baby-drill!

Francis Drouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 13, 2009 at 6:48 pm


Francis, Francis, Francis,

If we are to ever have a civil dialog, we need to simplu answer each others questions, with no personal attacks. We can do that. I know we can. Here is my restrained attempt to that end.

I voted for my SMC Supervisors and trust them. Did you? Who did you vote for in Mendocino county? Why are you telling me what to do in my county? Why are you, in Mendocino county, telling us how and when and how deep to drill our wells. Who do you think you are. A Coastal Commissioner??? Are you practicing to be a Commissioner? Are you also a member of Sara Wan's ORCA? I checked the ORCA website, scary stuff.

Miss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 13, 2009 at 7:04 pm


Mr. Drouillard does not live on the coast

he lives in the bay area and owns an empty lot above Anchor Bay

however he seems to be running for coast CZAR

he knows what is good for everyone

just ask him

truth be told, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 13, 2009 at 7:11 pm


Funny how this thread morphed from fire to water, yet some use the same tired arguments that fail them time and again.

The Coastal Act is a state law. Everyone in the coastal zone must abide by that law. That includes folks on the MSC midcoast as well folks in Mendocino County. That includes property owners that know their rights and responsibilities as well as those that now their rights and shirk their responsibilities.

The CCC is needed to remind folks like Miss B*tcher that they have responsibilities that go along with those property rights.

Francis Drouiilard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on December 14, 2009 at 6:53 am


"Funny how this thread morphed from fire to water, yet some use the same tired arguments that fail them time and again." No droullard, just expanded. There are many inconsistencies and wrongs performed by the commission, each commissioners and the staff of the commission...daily.

Why don't you do something productive, rather than peddle your worshop here? It would be of benefit to us all..including you.

We're tired of your blind cheerleading and would prefer you focus your whatever on your own issues.

MYOB, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 14, 2009 at 10:23 am


This thread has morphed from fire to water, because the CCC put prohibition of wells on the agenda for the Midcoast Local Coastal Program.

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 14, 2009 at 11:32 am


We have all heard of "two fors", at any grocery, clothing, auto, or other store where you can buy one and get two of an item.

Well, in the wild and crazy minds of the Steve Martin and THE Coastal Commission they have a NEW concept of "one fors" where They make you pay for two lots, and They will let you have ONE.

Talkabout a truly wacked out and unsustainable idea.

What's next? Maybe next month they may even try that One For concept to wells, where you can pay them for two wells, and they will let you have ONE.

Stupid. Idiotic.

One Fors, a resident of Montara, on December 14, 2009 at 12:36 pm


"So, basically you are telling us that Kleinfelder has a lack of data, BUT we need to act anyway to restrict or prohibit wells in the middle of the rainy season? Perhaps a course in logic and common sense is in order."

Exactly. In a self-supplying district with no current prospects for significant new water resources--a district that has done extensive searching for such sources, in which many attempts to drill wells on private property can't even meet inadequate county standards for a permit, and in which some private wells have failed or are on the brink of failure as their output dwindles over time (some district wells have also dwindled over time)--the district must side with its responsibility to provide sustainable water. Doing that requires going with the best current information, and the best current information provides no expectation of additional indefinite-term supplies. I will spare you a detailed critique of your geologically ignorant notion that a few rainstorms so far this year have anything to do with water actually recharging local aquifers for the forseeable future, especially since water flows *through* our aquifers and is not retained in underground storage (more of that information you need to acquire).

Simple common sense says you don't guarantee water you can't rely on for the long term to people who will need to use it over the long term. Where is the illogic in that?

Moss Bitcher, a resident of Moss Beach, on December 14, 2009 at 7:25 pm


Hi, I was on another thread about the Midcoast LCP, and some of the questions we were discussing there seemed they might apply to this thread, so I am adding some thoughts about the Coastal Commission, that might clarify their scope, range of interests, agenda, litigations, transparency, and accountability. These are just a few of my personal observations about the CCC, so here they are:

If you guys want to talk about the CCC, it might help you to know the scope of its territory. You can find it at Web Link and download maps for the entire 1100 miles of the coast of California. You can also go to the public resources code and download all of sections 30000 and following and read the text that describes the changes from 1000' to all kinds of ranges of distances inland up to 5 miles inland which was the legislative change written mostly by Peter Douglas and enacted as the Coastal Act in 1976.

By the way, the coastal zone for San Mateo County and HMB reaches 5 miles inland. However, this is where it is tricky. Our existing LCP for the Midcoast is just a small part of that for the Unincorporated SMC, last updated in 1980, Now the Midcoast LCP is just a very small part of that LCP from 1980 and does not go all the way back 5 miles inland, but the coastal zone for the county does, same applies for HMB, whose LCP does not go back 5 miles, but the county coastal zone does extend 5 miles inland from the ocean east of HMB.

Also you may want to actually read an agenda for any monthly meeting for the CCC, or better yet, attend one. I have read and attended scores. A very scary corrupt group of people, but that is just my opinion.

Anyway, even though the scope of the CCC never extends beyond 5 miles inland, the commissioners and staff review nearly every bill in California Every Month to consider ways to amend the bills to expand their influence. Also if you were to peruse their litigations, over the course of a year, they total nearly 85 litigations. Quite a few bucks being spent there, but it comes from the Attorney General of California, and is not part of the budget of CCC. We still pay the bill, of course.

Also, If you were at the last CCC meeting in SF you might have noticed quite a stir between Commissioners Kruer and staff regarding where the "in lieu" monies collected for affordable housing really go, no one knew, peter douglas said he knew, but not at that moment. The same question arose from Commissioners regarding monies in the millions to the Coastal Conservancy for "habitat". Again no one had an answer where the money was, and again peter douglas said he knew, but not at the moment. Kruer indicated he had sought that data for 3 years.

Ahhh, for all those dreamers out there. Dream On. I am...

No Dreamer

No Dreamer, a resident of El Granada, on December 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm


A friend told me about this topic, and when I saw something about ORCA on this topic, I thought I should let you readers know about another topic with juicy details about who and how ORCA operates. go to Web Link

boogur, a resident of San Gregorio, on December 15, 2009 at 6:04 pm


one more thing

Here is a link from Sara and "Francis Drouillard,PE" about ORCA.

It is very interesting to note that Francis says "If anyone from this list is interested, please contact me offline and I will

provide you with the necessary contact info. If anyone from this list is interested, please contact me offline and I will

provide you with the necessary contact info.

Web Link Web Link

"

It is SMALL wonder that Mr Drouillard knows so much about the Coastal Commission...he has all the inside dope from the longest serving Commissioner-- SARA WAN.

boogur, a resident of San Gregorio, on December 15, 2009 at 7:50 pm


Between ORCA, ACORN, the Sierra Club, and al Qaeda, it's a wonder we aren't all bombed away back to the Stone Age. Keep checking under your bed every night before you turn in.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on December 18, 2009 at 1:32 am


Now Pitching,

What are you doing up at 230AM? Are you OK?

I did not first bring up the topic of ORCA, however several Coastal Commissioners did at their meeting in San Francisco on December 10th, when they voted 12-0 to support their staff on the Midcoast LCP.

Hmmm..., a resident of El Granada, on December 18, 2009 at 6:32 am


Many issues keep coming before the coastal commission, and they keep mucking them up. Here are a few issues that Talkabout readers may find very interesting. Why are apartments falling into the sea in Pacifica, why are there restrictions on the Lagunitas watershed, and disruption to Lawson's Landing, and no enforcement action on Audubon (big surprise), yet a big fine on Drake's Bay Oyster Company. Read all about it on Judy Borello's blog.

Please read Judy Borello’s latest Coastal Post column: Web Link

Terry Gossett, a resident of Moss Beach, on January 24, 2010 at 9:31 pm


Poor Gossett, trying to chase down perceived affronts to his property wrongs philosophy. It would be so much easier on the hapless fellow if he would read the Coastal Act and the local LCPs and learn something about the coastal phenomena and economy that underlie the regulations. By joining the real world, he might gain a shred of credibility.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on January 26, 2010 at 12:33 am


I am reading many articles of the distrust, unrest and anger by the voters in California. I believe some of that anger will soon be directed at the legislature and some to groups, like the Coastal Commission, that are too zealous in their oppression of people living along the coast.

Hmmm..., a resident of El Granada, on February 8, 2010 at 7:36 pm


Well Hmmm..., you've got it going on. This piece, from the NY Times says change is coming to CA. All registered voters have to do is read and go vote this November.

Web Link

check this out, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on February 8, 2010 at 9:40 pm


Oh boy! Californians voting for change! Like they have done so well with it in the past. The money-corrupted processes for putting anything on the ballot--political nominee for office, voter initiative, constitutional change passed by the legislature, etc.--almost ensures the choices, in terms of general benefit to the populace, will be worse, "worser," or stupid. That is what has resonated with the easily-duped voters for most of the past 160 years.

Yes, there are things that could be done in a state constitutional convention that would make much of government better, just as a reasoned division of California into two or three more naturally-delineated and governable states might do. Between that happening and the Raiders becoming Super Bowl champs next year, put your bet down on the Raiders.

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on February 8, 2010 at 10:51 pm


oh, how far it is, i mean the division of California in states..i'm afraid changes can take too much time and money so it is easier for government to leave everything in present state (

Shamray, a resident of Moss Beach, on April 11, 2011 at 12:12 am


Today the Coastal Commission and staff and public had a field trip of Dillon's Beach and Lawson's Landing. Web Link

Neither I nor my neighbors were able to attend, did anyone go on this field trip from your coastal area? Any comments or notes?

B Frank, a resident of a community outside of the area, on July 12, 2011 at 6:40 pm


I didn't go, but staff is recommending approval with conditions. Some folks are seeking a few additional modifications.

The project will likely get approved. The big test for this new commission is whether or not they'll agree with those seeking more conditions for approval.

fdrouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on July 12, 2011 at 7:03 pm


Congratulations again to the Sterling family. Again they won against the Coastal Commission in court. The courage they've shown is extraordinary, along with the resources required to fight for their rights.

From page 11 of 11 of the latest Sterling decision, Judge George A. Miram states; "The California Coastal Commission's determination for the second time, ignores the lessons of Dolan and Nollan. The new condition, in the form of an open space deed restriction is not tailored to the development and is once again irreconcilable with Nollan and Dolan. As compared to the Commission's prior attempt to impose an agricultural easement on the property the Commission's new attempt is a distinction without a difference."

"The Petition for Writ of Mandate is GRANTED and the Judgment is to be entered in accordance with this ruling."

"IT IS SO ORDERED."

"Dated: July 22, 2011" and signed by Judge George A. Miram

Here we have yet another example of the CA Coastal Commission's bullying black boot tactics, whereby they force yet another applicant to exhaust their personal resources in pursuit of their rights by law, while the tax payers pick up the tab against one of their own. This is another prime example of why the Commission should be required to pay their own way, which of course would make them much more diligent and selective in the actions they initiate and take.

Who now pays the Sterling family back for the time lost to build, the time lost in courts, the time lost to family pursuits, the money lost, the stress of litigation and the rest?

All I can say is God Bless the Sterlings and thank you, although that is of little to no solace for their extreme losses.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on July 26, 2011 at 12:11 pm


The Sterlings rock. Stand up and be counted with the Sterlings, who are still fighting for their rights against the oppressive Coastal Commission and their staff. I understand that the Commissioners will next meet in closed session to determine if they want to continue the Sterling litigation in the Supreme court. But remember, the Commissioners do not pay for any of their litigations, we California taxpayers do. That is so wrong in so many ways.

Hopefully, the upcoming removal of Douglas as Executive Director will yield some modicum of common sense to the staff for the Commissioners.

B Frank, a resident of a community outside of the area, on August 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm


>>But remember, the Commissioners do not pay for any of their litigations, we California taxpayers do. That is so wrong in so many ways.<< Unless the Commission is protecting coastal resources and traditional coastal uses, such as agriculture.

>>Hopefully, the upcoming removal of Douglas as Executive Director ...<< Actually, he retired due to health reasons.

fdrouillard, a resident of Another Coastside community, on August 14, 2011 at 8:26 am


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium