Comments by Francis Drouillard

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

Ray, refer to the URL provided in my previous post.

Although a wetlands definition isn’t provided in the initial act language, so there was a gray area. However, the definition they now use is codified in state law.

So again, I do not see how you can claim the commission has any responsibility for the predicament HMB finds themselves in.

I believe any attempt to hold the commission responsible will result in the commission suing to have the settlement set aside. Thoat could be a good thing for HMB.

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

All LCPs must conform to the Coastal Act, and the Coastal Act has a more strict interpretation of wetlands than the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game.

You may want to check out the following URL for more details:

<http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/introduction/defining_wetlands.html>

There are good reasons for having a more strict defininition of wetlands in the coastal zone.

Again, the commission enforces state law. If you don’t like the definition codified in the Coastal Act you should try to amend the it, not criticize the commission for enforcing it.

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

The California Coastal Act applies to the entire 1100 mile California Coast. The Act allows for coastal towns, cities and counties develop to develop and administer their own Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Once those LCPs are reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission they become certified LCPs. The commission can only certify LCPs that conform to the Coastal Act.

Once an LCP is certified, it becomes the standard of review, even if a project is appealed to the Coastal Commission.

In unincorporated areas or areas that do not yet have a certified LCP, the standard of review is the Coastal Act.

The commission enforces state law, namely the Coastal Act, which happens to be very well-written and explicit.

Unless you can show that they erred enforcing the Coastal Act (or the LCP), then your problem is with the Act and not the commission.

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

Why should the Coastal Commission (i.e., California taxpayers) pay for the settlement?

The problem was caused by HMB, not the commission. They’ve done what they’re supposed to do—enforce the California Coastal Act.

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

Brian, your comment doesn’t make any sense.

I can see how passage of AB1991 will jeopardize the state’s ability to protect state property (the coast) from activities on private property. But how does its failure to pass jeopardize ANY private property laws?

HMB’s lawyers “educating” environmental groups about AB1991

From the referenced article:

“It’s very easy for the Coastal Commission to come out against this settlement without telling us how we pay for the judgment if we lose it,” Davis added. “We haven’t seen anyone from the Coastal Commission willing to write that check.”

Why should the Coastal Commission pay, Mr. Davis? The City of HMB is responsible for this mess, not the Coastal Commission.

HMB lawyers issue city’s statement on AB 1991

If we take the attorney at his word, AB1991 will benefit the citizens of HMB and the developer only.

I am opposed to any state law that cannot be applied equally to all Californians.

Legislators need to write laws that cover all citizens and not get involved in individual legal cases. Otherwise we’ll start the short march to the Law of Man rather than the Rule of Law.

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

I’m a long-time conservative Republican and I’m deeply dismayed by the contempt that the California Republican Party holds for environmental laws and the Coastal Commission in particular. They fail to recognize that others like me can find fiscally and socially conservatives Democrats to support, but nary an environmentally conservative Republican. As a result, their power and influence in the state will continue to wane, thereby offering more opportunities for Democrats to feed at the trough of developers. Sigh.

Time to investigate AB1991 and alert other coastal activists.

Stop SB 1295: Defend Coastal Commission

Thanks, Ken, already did that.

I encourage folks here to contact their representatives in Sacramento to ask that they reject the Governor’s proposed budget cuts to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission is already chronically understaffed, and a 10% cut will require the loss of 17 positions. This will leave the Commission unable to fulfill its legislative mandate.

State Assemlymember Noreen Evans should also be contacted. She is on the subcommitted that will be hearing the proposed CCC budget on April 2nd. (Tomorrow!)

BTW, an adequately staffed Coastal Commission benefits developers as well as the general public. Mr. Ward may not realize this, but staff is available to discuss his project before an application for a CDP is submitted. That is an extremely useful resource for folks trying to develop within California’s Coastal Zone. An adequately staffed commission also speeds the review process once a permit application is submitted.

Stop SB 1295: Defend Coastal Commission

I’ve contacted her and the competition for her senate seat, namely Assemblymember Mark Leno and former Assemblymember Joe Nation.

Nothing like healthy political competition! Too bad the California Republicans don’t know how to play!

Stop SB 1295: Defend Coastal Commission

A good example of why we need an appeals process can be found in a project that will be reviewed the Commission April 11th, namely item F13b (near bottom of page):

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

This project clearly violates several aspects of the LCP. Both the local planning department and the county Board of Supervisors knew it. They approved the project and rejected all appeals anyway. Why? One reason is because the applicant is litigious and they would rather he sue the Coastal Commission than them.

Were it not for a few diligent local coastal activists, the only chance at appeal would have been the type Ducheny is attempting to eliminate.

If local governments and bureaucracies did their jobs and enforced the LCP, we could do away with the type of appeal that Ducheny wants to eliminate. But they don’t, so we still must allow commissioners to appeal projects in these cases.

Stop SB 1295: Defend Coastal Commission

I’m a conservative Republican that stands for private property rights. I used to think like George and Greg. Then I studied the Coastal Act, had an opportunity to speak before the commission and had an opportunity to work with commission staff.

Were all state agencies staffed by hardworking and dedicated personnel like the Coastal Commission, this state wouldn’t be in its current financial straits.

It is clear to me that the Commission does not capriciously stop development. Rather, they stop development that does not conform to state law, namely the Coastal Act. Unfortunately, due to political pressure, the Commission doesn’t stop every development that should be stopped.

In my view, competent developers can and do develop their property to the full extend allowed by the Coastal Act (and more if there is a “takings” issue involved).

I have no patience for anyone that thinks they should be allowed to skirt the law.

Page 4 of 4 pages « First  <  2 3 4