Comments by Francis Drouillard

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

No, AB 1991(Mullin) is not “about having a quality of life that you would expect in this period of our country.”

It’s about suspending state and local environmental laws in exchange for cash and the bad statewide precedent it would set.

And no, I don’t have any real estate interests in HMB. I could care less about the effect its failure to pass would have on HMB.

I’m more concerned about how AB 1991 will be used as a roadmap to circumvent environmental laws in Mendocino County, where I do have real estate interests.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steven,

The length of time it takes to review a project within the Coastal Zone is a legitimate complaint. (It takes upwards of 18 months in Sonoma County and maybe a little less in Mendocino County.) But there are better ways to address that problem than eliminating environmental laws or the review process altogether.

For one, review agencies need to be adequately staffed. In my opinion, staff shortages are a real problem in Mendocino County and at the Coastal Commission. Maintaining adequate staff would greatly help the review process.

Timely submittal of items requested by the review agencies would also help. But most developers, especially small developers, are reluctant to pay all the consulting fees needed to obtain the requested information, especially if the costs are unforeseen.

I think more could be done to inform small developers what to expect when they apply for a Coastal Development Permit. Unfortunately, the Coastal Commission and administrators of local coastal plans don’t have the resources to develop and maintain that information.

Say, that leaves an opportunity for someone to write a book ...

Opinion: Review’s coverage of AB 1991 is biased and incomplete

Kevin,

I was hoping you would answer Ken’s question by providing specific examples of biased and incomplete stories at Coastsider.

You may not realize it, but your response pretty much made Ken’s point.

I’d also be interested to know why you personally are so hostile towards environmental laws.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steve,

I would like to add to Mr. Lundell’s comment.

Coastal Commission staff can be very helpful to folks that want to build their dream homes within the Coastal Zone, and do it it a manner that conforms to the Coastal Act.

This is especially true of folks that provide the information sought by the Commission in a timely manner, and those that attempt to incorporate some of staff’s recommendations.

The most powerful tools you can have to obtain Commission approval are knowledge of the Coastal Act and staff cooperation. A site map that clearly shows the constraints on your development (setbacks, wetlands, easements, etc) is the best way to acquire the latter.

Scroll down to item F7a of the meeting last Friday:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html

In this case the Commission denied an appeal by 18 neighbors that sought to stop a couple from building their dream home because they were allowed a 50-foot setback from the local creek whereas the neighbors were required to provide a 100-foot setback.

You may be interested in downloading that file to learn why staff recommended denying the appeal (no substantial issue found).

There are many, many stories like these you’ll never hear about from the pro-development community. The Commission doesn’t waste resources on public relations, so you have to dig to find them. But they do exist, and in far greater numbers than you might believe. And most, if not all, of those folks are now proponents of conforming to the Coastal Act.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steven,

I’m sorry you took my post that way.

Judging by your comments on this thread, you would benefit by learning more about the Coastal Act. I believe that knowledge would benefit your clients, too.

You can have a far greater impact in 3 minutes before the Commission (they have daily public comment sessions) than at any other public agency. But you need to know the Coastal Act to be effective.

There may be better ways for you to learn about the Coastal Act on your own, but I believe the best place to start is by attending a Commission hearing.

The Commission’s meetings move around. Their June meeting is in Santa Rosa. Their December meeting is in San Francisco. You can find schedules for all their public meetings at their website.

Friday meetings tend to be 1/2 day sessions that deal mostly with the North and North Central Coast.

I’d be happy to with meet you at one of the meetings to share what I know of how they do business. You may not agree with what they do, but you will definitely appreciate knowing more about their purpose and processes.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steven,

You’re all over the map with your reply, but you answered my questions satisfactorily—you don’t know enough about developing within the Coastal Zone, and you don’t know enough about the Coastal Commission or the Coastal Act.

May I recommend you spend more time learning about the process than lamenting it?

A good way to start is to sit through a Coastal Commission meeting at least once. Their next meeting is in Santa Rosa June 11-13th.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steven,

Do you know anything about developing within the coastal zone? About the Coastal Commission? About the coastal resources they’re charged with protecting?

Judging by your comments, it seems you need to become much more familiar with the various environmental laws and processes used to enforce them. ONce you do, you’ll see the permitting process isn’t as onerous as you make it out to be for the “little guy.”

It’s the big developers that need consultants and lawyers to push the limits of the Coastal Act, and whenever and wherever possible, to exceed those limits.

Opinion: Review’s coverage of AB 1991 is biased and incomplete

Steven,

You may not be aware of it, but AB 1991 (Mullin) will have disastrous effects up and down the California coast.

Unscrupulous bureaucrats and elected officials in counties such as Mendocino will gleefully work with developers and use the AB 1991 template to circumvent CEQA and the Coastal Act. They’re already notorious for their utter contempt of state environmental laws and the Coastal Act in particular.

With that in mind, you may want to reconsider your statement “...[it]shows the efforts taken to kill the bill by people who have nothing to do with it or don’t live anywhere near HMB...”

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Do you have a problem with Americans freely associating with one another to promote their common point of view? According to the US Constitution, we do.

Do we have a right to decry suspending environmental laws in return for cash? Of course we do. The resources being protected are those on state lands. No private property owner within the Coastal Zone has the right to develop in a way that adversely affects those resources.

Not sure where you’re going with that “eating pollution cake in the East Bay hills” comment.

HMB’s Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English

18. Is AD 1991 constitutional/legal?

Yes.

Has anybody seriously asked that question?
------------------------------------------

If a settlement is similar to contract and HMB lacks the capacity to pay $18 million, then the “contract” isn’t enforceable.

I don’t know if that’s the case, but it would be interesting to know if the settlement could be challenged on that basis.

There’s also the constitutional question of legislating in a such a way as to effectively change legislation resulting from a voter initiative.

That’d be another dandy precedent this lousy bill would establish. Don’t like Prop. 13? Then use the Subdivision Map Act to re-define residential property in a way that allows the state to disqualify most Californians from the mortgage interest deduction.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

That’s the amount negotiated by the city, so we have to presume it’s an amount HMB is capable of paying.

If the bill fails, as I believe it should, the Commission will likey do everything in its power to help the city develop the lots to the fullest extent allowed by law so they can recover as much of the $18 million as possible.

The Commission clearly has compassion for HMB’s plight, and it would be good public relations for them to apply their knowledge and expertise to help HMB out of their predicament without exempting them from environmental laws.

That would be a great lesson for other coastal communities.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

“Hopefully now other cities will learn from our mistakes and tread more carefully or they too can stare down the barrel of choking judgments.”

The best way for HMB—and other cities—to learn from HMB’s mistakes is for AB 1991 to fail.

That will place all of the accountability right where it belongs—with the City of Half Moon Bay.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steve,

Have you ever considered that “these groups” have the law on their side? That the number of Californians concerned about the adverse effects of excessive development is growing? Both explain the influence anti-AB 1991 groups have on legislators.

The anti-AB 1991 side is asking for the law to be applied equally and uniformly. The pro-AB 1991 side is seeking to exchange exemptions to the law for a select few that will benefit monetarily or politically or both.

I prefer laws that treat folks equally, especially when the application of those laws cause elected officials to be held accountable.

I would be more inclined to support AB 1991 if it sought exemptions in exchange for, say, a 30-year moratorium on all development in HMB and de-certification of their LCP.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

If it were “outside their edicts” as you claim, then AB 1991 wouldn’t be needed now, would it?

Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

I believe this presents a tremendous opportunity for HMB.

Can the City pursue an appeal? Perhaps.

Would the Commission and the Attorney General still assist the city in the appeal? I think so. This case presents an all-round success scenario that would demonstrate the Commission’s problem solving capacity.

The City Council should talk with the Commission and the Attorney General about this case.

Judging by the Coastal Commission’s letter, the flaws in the settlement may be sufficient grounds to have is set aside and allow an appeal.

Ray, Steve: View this as an opportunity to make the Coastal Act work for you.

terry: This may be the best way to create a win-win situation for everyone, especially the City of HMB. Talk with commission staff or write them. They may not respond at all or right away, but I assure you they consider your views (Ray and Steve’s, too).

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Carl,

Just to clarify, I live in Novato and own vacant land in the Gualala area. I also participated in an appeal to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors related to a project that was approved by the Coastal Permit Administrator despite clearly failing to conform to numerous provisions of the LCP.

There is no question that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors is very hostile towards state and federal environmental laws and the Coastal Act in particular. If AB1991 passes, they will use special legislation to circumvent environmental laws in that county, too.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

terry gossett asked of Mr. Ferreira:

What is your plan? From what I understand [snip] it appears you prefer to support the interests of the Sierra Club (or possibly the Coastal Commission) over the interests of the City of HMB and its ratepayers.

terry, please recognize that the Coastal Commission supports the interests of the people of California. Recall, Californians stated overwhelmingly that we want the coast to remain accessible and its environment protected from development activities on private property.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Regarding AB1991: I’m not a citizen of HMB and want to see the city solve its legal problems without circumventing environmental laws. I am also opposed to setting the bad precedent of combining legislative acts with civil lawsuits.

Regarding private property rights: Owners that have been denied any access or any use of their land by the commission must be compensated for their land. However, such “takings” are rarely the case.

If property owners propose development that fits the site (i.e., conforms to the Coastal Act) the commission will approve the project and issue a coastal development permit.

It is when property owners attempt to alter the site to fit the development that they run afoul of the commission. (Projects that close access to or views of the coast get stopped, too.) That is what the Coastal Act requires them to do.

Commission and staff are very forthright about what changes are required (or what additional information is required) in order to approve a project and issue a CDP.

When developers push the envelope to exceed the limits of the Coastal Act, they should not blame the commission for denying their project.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Well, that’s the point—we need a definition that isn’t open to interpretation, and we have one.

You can see if there’s standing water on a site. You can analyze the soil to see if it is hydrophytic, and identify plants that are defined as hydrophytic.

So where’s the problem? Are you arguing that the wetlands identified at Beachwood don’t meet these criteria?

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

The presence of either standing water, hydrophytic soils or hydrophytic plants requires the commission to designate any lands meeting those conditions as wetlands.

Your argument seems to be founded on the notion that the commission is inconsistent and capricious when it comes to defining wetlands. They are not. All of the conditions described above can be established by scientific means—there isn’t any guesswork required of the commission.

Page 3 of 4 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 >