It’s important to give definition to the difference of genuine debate here, versus those who entertain themselves with internet flaming.

In case no one clicked on my hyperlinked “troll” above, the definition from the Urban Dictionary:
Troll - 1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”

To keep the conversation on topic:  “Local Government Committee passes AB1991-next stop: Appropriations Committee:”

Let’s remind everyone that this Thursday, May 22, is when AB 1991 will be heard by the Appropriations Committee.  Please contact Appropriations Committee members and urge them to oppose AB 1991 (Mullin).

Maybe you are right - I always thought of him as a turnip. But I don’t want to change the conversation from “Local Government Committee passes AB1991-next stop: Appropriations Committee” ;|

Ken Johnson

Let’s pretend you are as confused about the basics of ecological matters as your latest try at fiction indicates. Part of the pretending will be that you are sincere.

One way you can begin to clear the fog away is to drop into a beginning environmental science course. One at any of the nearby JCs will do fine. Perhaps you can find one online. Such courses give the rudiments of ecology and related natural sciences with an applied slant toward the big environmental issues that concern us all. (Ecology is the study of the interactions betweens living things and their living and non-living environment--this definition is a freebie.)

Now such an introduction is not going to answer everything that dumfounds you, but it will give you an initial look at what is involved in the matters that you can only now address with made-up stories. You can go on to other related introductory studies--courses on geology, aquatic biology, etc. By gosh, before long you will begin to see how information that seems like it is from an alien presence turning cartwheels through the universe is developed right here on Earth. How terms are created. How observation and experimentation are employed to provide information on a subject. How mathematics come into play to quantify information and demonstrate relationships among data.

How field procedures must be organized to provide information and analyses that are supported and verifiable--so very different from the silly exercise of your little fantasy. How to genuinely critique scientific information without making a fool of yourself. How to spot doctored science and fraud, such as one can buy from rent-a-biologists and rent-a-geologists.

I feel really good about our little exchange today because I have been able to see some of the areas that throw you off track and lead to your confusion and have been able to suggest one approach for you to help yourself. All still pretending, of course.

And don’t you think it is a bit ridiculous that someone imparts judgement that a few yards away the land must be wetland, but over in this one particular spot, it has been determined that there are certainly no wetlands her?

I can visualize it right now.... Our coastal commission scientist is sitting at his desk and a call comes in. Some NIMBYer reports “Someone is starting to develop on this land that has been used for farming for so many years. My view of the ocean will be blocked… or I will no longer have direct access to the beach. Something must be done”.

So our coastal commission rep puts on his uniform and hat, with a label that reads, instead of “To Protect and Servce”: “To Protect and Prevent Excessive Development” (Thanks for the phrase Francis).

Our hero then heads out to the plot of land, takes a quick survey and says to himself “Why, this must be a wetland. But first, I must apply the scientific method!”

He then starts with step 1:
See if there is standing water on the land. After a quick survey he notices no water, but says “I must wait til the rains come. And the law says I must see this happen periodically”. he comes back in a few months to find water sitting and say “If I see this again, it must be a wetland”.

So onto step 2: Let’s test the soil. After carefully inspecting areas where the water consistently drains from the soil (but it is dry) he determines, this spot must be of hydric soil composition. So it takes samples to the lab to investigate. Perhaps tests were negative, but he takes many samples over the land, just in case.

And finally onto step 3: Let’s find a hydrophytic plant, there must be one somewhere. So he waits til the rainy season, and low and behold plants start cropping, so he takes photos and samples back to the lab as evidence.

I’m being humorous here… but could this be not far from the truth??

Artificial development for such warm fuzzies as “recreation” and “access” do not excuse damage to an area or overdevelopment.

Like the inappropriate LCP update being engineered by county politicians, the comprehensive “new” (there were prior ones that covered the same ground) parks and recreation plan for the midcoast is an urbanizing one, a plan for serving urbanized places. It is in the urbanizing (development) process that the most money gets spent. To take one of my personal interest areas, benign, sensibly located footpaths that provide visitation without wrecking a place give way to paved roads with shoulders costing an order of magnitude more while damaging features of a place they are supposed to be providing access to.

It is the availability of money that allows the damage to go ahead, and it looks for all the world like the new revenue from Measure O to be spent on projects at the whim of county politicians and bureaucrats will be this kind of money. People who have lived on the midcoast for a while know how county projects are conducted for the benefit of forces influential in Redwood City and not necessarily for the good of coastside citizens and communities.

This is the primary reason I will be voting against Measure O.

Other reasons have to do with the kind of tax involved. Sales taxes are regressive taxes in that they tend to tax a greater proportion of what less wealthy people spend. And this sales tax would not be directly related to what the tax is for, meaning all those who would not benefit from more developed county and city parks would be taxed the same as those who would.

Carl May

So, take the Fisheries and Wildlife version, which has its limitations when it comes to ecology but will serve. You don’t seem to understand the part that says the land supports hydrophytes. This doesn’t mean a couple of water-loving plants growing under a dripping outdoor faucet with a bad washer or even in low spots on a property that is overwatered. It does mean an established, ongoing hydrophytic plant community.

Finding a hydrophytic plant on your property means nothing to the definition; finding hydrophytic plants that are there annually due to prevailing conditions means something. And so on for the other parts of the definition. Wetlands are ecosystems; hydrophytic plant communities are indicators that such an ecosystem is present.

Going over the entire coastal zone landscape of the midcoast and HMB, very little of the land area has even one of the elements of the F & W definition or any other codified definition of wetlands. So I accused you of hyperbole in your sweeping assertion. I still do. You ought to learn what you are talking about before you make general suppositions.

I’m surprised you do not know about the 19 housing units that were approved under a Coastal Commission formula for the non-wetland (by the definition they were using) area of Beachwood. Those 19 units made the artificial establishment of new “wetlands” on the property not a “taking” by U.S. Supreme Court decisions on what constitutes a “taking.” Look up the SC decisions and learn that essentially all use of a property must be denied before a taking can legitimately be claimed.

This fact that Beachwood is a non-taking (by definition and regardless of Walker’s grossly erroneous and inexpert judgement) is just one of the elements of the self-inflicted mess made of the situation by the current City Council’s giveaway to the developer in the settlement. Why on earth should the rest of California suffer establishment of a new means for avoiding almost all state and local level environmental regulation just because the City Council and its legal/PR advisors schemed up AB 1991 as part of a sweetheart deal that can only be characterized as stupid and/or corrupt? If AB 1991 passes, look for a whole new marketplace for political exemption trading to be established in the state legislature--the familiar “you approve my (fill in) and I’ll approve your (fill in). All actively brokered by special interests and their lobbyists, of course.

Carl May

These I believe are the 3 conditions, only one of which has to be met. I can probably find a hydrophyte that periodically grows in my backyard, perhaps even riparian vegatation that would also be considered a hydrophtye, and grows annually in my backyard.

The point is not about the literal terms of the text… It is about deciding when (and when not) to apply it. And then to take it and say: well you could build 20 homes on this wetland and it would be ok.
I am not in favor of Chop boy, and I really wish some Lawyer can stick it to him.

Or are we really confused about the definitions of “literally” and “all land”? Or the meaning of “hyperbole”?

http://tinyurl.com/5nksdf has the definition of wetlands. As you can see it is codified into state and federal law. The California Coastal Commission is charged with enforcing those laws within California’s Coastal Zone.

The Beachwood property could be developed in a manner fully consistent with the Coastal Act, but not with as many homes as you or the developer would like.

Preventing development that is 4 times what the Coastal Act allows can hardly be described as anti-development. It’s simply stopping excessive development, which is one of many legitimate purposes of the Coastal Act.

And I do not disagree with trying to protect our wetlands, and try to keep some sort of balance for our beautiful coast. That is why I’ve lived on the coast all my life. It’s just this stupid bickering on plots of land that actually, were originally planned to be developed in some way.

What wetland definition would that be?

“Wetland” is defined several ways in our society, and the legal definitions are often less than scientifically supportable because the wordings have been politically influenced. (Sorta like the Bush Administration rewriting reports by government scientists to make them say what they want them to say.) But even the contrived definitions don’t make more than a tiny percentage of the California coastal zone a wetland. Less than five percent of our coastal wetlands remain in California, the other 95 percent having been destroyed by human activity. And anyone who stayed awake in biology class can go to that five percent and see the human impacts that make these wetlands far from pristine and far from providing the full complement of ecological stability and subsidies we should be getting from them.

So, again, where is this definition which, when taken literally, makes all the land on the coast a wetland?  Or has someone been listening to too much right-wing radio?

The Coastal Initiative was passed specifically to preserve California’s coast for all people of California, not just those of us lucky enough to be able to live here.  Think of it as a tradeoff—in order to be able to own land here, develop here, or live here, you have to make concessions.  They’re reasonable concessions considering that the value of land / developing / living here is so much higher than the rest of the state.

(As Carl May has mentioned, it’s time to do another Coastal Initiative to close the loopholes that have been bored through the Coastal Act over the years.  And I have confidence that it would pass as easily as it did the first time.  One thing that I’d insert this time is Constitutional protection for the CCC’s funding, which would actually benefit developers since the CCC would have enough staff, resulting in time frames shortening to something reasonable.)

And we all know that you if take the “wetland” definition very literally it would mean that all land on the california coast, probably for several miles inland is considered a wetland. I know I can find a plant growing in my backyard that is seen to have grown in a wetland condition. This is definitely a mess the state of california has helped us get into.

Francis has it exactly right. The rest of us have no duty to HMB because of the city’s botched settlement agreement. The citizens of the state should not have to suffer a new model for weakening environmental protections almost across the board just because some backward people in HMB have a selfish, parochial sense of entitlement. Just because the City Council of HMB and the town’s dug-in, self-serving cadre of obdurate destructionists are incapable of being responsible (or even modestly able to work out problems such as Beachwood) does not mean the rest of the state should take pity on their incompetence. Goodness knows, we have plenty of problems of our own crying for resolution.

Carl May

Also, according Bob’s website, he’s a sales and marketing specialist, not a developer of ten-million-dollar projects:

http://www.bobmitton.com/Nav.aspx/Page=/About/Default.aspx

The land is clearly not worthless. The only people who are saying it is are those who stand to profit from AB1991.

And the city has a responsibility to explain itself to the state legislature in exchange for getting AB1991 passed. They’re trying to overturn a whole raft of environmental, coastal and planning protections by pleading poverty. But they’re not as poor as they pretend to be.

Whoever buys this parcel will make their own assessments as to how many homes will be permitted, that is assuming it is sold to another person.  I would assume that someone would assume the worst (like 19 homes) and hope they can squeeze out more.  But that’s a crap shoot.

Of course, the real question is who in their right mind would want to buy this troublesome property with its litigious history.  Think about the years of grief and expense the new owner will have to endure.  Especially with so many other projects to choose from throughout the State with less issues.

So this property’s history will significantly lessen its value.  And aren’t we lucky cause this infill parcel with sensitive wetlands probably cost HMB over $25 million and we can sell it for a small fraction of that.  Such a deal!

So, are you saying Bob Mitton is lying?

“I took my best shot at estimating the value and no one has seen fit to refute it.”

Not in the least.  Since you have zero background in valuing development properties, your best shot has no bearing on anything.

“Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on the city, not on opponents of AB1991. They have yet to prove the land has no value. They can’t.”

I will repeat again what I have said elsewhere - Half Moon Bay has absolutely *zero* responsibility to explain the situation to you.

You are doing your best to make it seem that you or some “concerned citizens” are being “kept in the dark” according to some devious motive (something Grady tried unsuccessfully to argue last week).  The fact is, and this is something you know to be true, the City’s actions and the basis for those actions is the City’s business - not yours.  They must keep this confidential for very simple reasons, and you are well aware of them.

HMB is in its current financial predicament because of its own actions. It is not the fault of the Coastal Commission or other Californians. It’s the actions of YOUR city council that caused the problem, not any state agency enforcing environmental laws.

Fix the mess you made for yourselves without adversely impacting other coastal communities. If you want the help of other Californians, try a little humility and stop dictating to us how we should help.

I took my best shot at estimating the value and no one has seen fit to refute it.

Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on the city, not on opponents of AB1991. They have yet to prove the land has no value. They can’t.

Second, I think the city council negotiated a bad deal.  Don’t blame me, I didn’t get to vote for your city council.

Third, the decision was outrageous. A damn shame.  Let’s call it the equivalent of a natural disaster, and the city should get some help.

I would have supported a less aggressive settlement.  I now would support some kind of state help for the city in developing/selling Beachwood.  I shouldn’t because the city’s negotiated settlement is a Pandora’s Box filled with nothing but trouble for the state of California.

Barry,
My point about financial interest is alluding to the possibility that I might have a financial obligation to pay for 18 million that is on table at the moment. I suspect that you truly may not care about that obligation, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Is financial interest the only kind that matters?

Also, please note that AB1991 is a state law.  I’ve got as much of an interest in the integrity of the Coastal Act as anyone and a lot less to gain than a resident of Half Moon Bay from its subversion.

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.

The statistics bear that out.  On the Coast, you have inventory at near record levels, sales volume has been declining since 2004 (with 2008 turning out to be worse than 2007), sellers are realistic, selling time is increasing and mortgage rates are declining.  There are even a growing number of distressed sales, mostly at the low end, cause of lax lending with 0 down payments.

But people buy a home cause they need a home.  I think anyone who tries to do it for a flip is asking for trouble.

My crystal ball is pretty good for 6 months out.  After that, its a crap shoot.

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 ...

And you, of course, would never dream of insulting natural scientists and those who apply their findings?

Carl May

Steve, have you told a client in 2008 that now is a good time to buy?

Just curious.

And I’m glad to hear that Jonathan’s experience in getting a building permit went smoothly.  You are a lucky man.

I have heard and seen too many instances that were quite different.  And then you add to that some of the cases I have heard from other Realtors, gives me the views I have.

It now takes almost 1 year to get a permit from the county and the fees have increased significantly.  And on top of that, they are now adding Green ordinances that will add to the construction costs.

I know you’ll be pleased to know, that these increased times, fees and building costs are making building the “dream Home” more of a nightmare.  And these delays also makes builders less likely to take a gamble on such a drawn out process.

And BTW, its insulting to refer to people who buy and sell real estate on the Coast as MARKS.  Several of the posters who share your views here are my clients/friends and I can’t imagine they would take kindly to your poor choice of words.

In August 2004, for example, the Review printed a highly misleading story (written by Jeanine Gore) and an accompanying editorial (written by Debra Godshall) that falsely claimed “State and Federal Biologists Find No Frog at Wavecrest.” (We all know how that one turned out).
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2004/08/19/news/letter_to_the_editor/story12.txt

I will be the first to admit that complaining about the Review’s biased coverage will not do much good---other than perhaps to inform a few unsuspecting recent subscribers. As I have said before, it’s the Review’s basic nature to slant things toward the interests of realtors and developers.
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/02/23/news/letter_to_the_editor/story07.txt

Finally, Kevin Barron seems to think that AB 1991 is being opposed by enviro-extremists.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Lots of people are opposing AB 1991 because it undercuts existing laws. In other words, they are saying

“...how about just enforcing the LAW that is ALREADY in place?”

Where I have heard that phrase before?
http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/un_dia_sin_immigrantes_a_day_without_immigrants/#1477

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.

Ken… if I cared enough, I could close my eyes, click my mouse on this (and many other blogs) and find one in a nanosecond… you’ve just been drinking the coastal Kool-Aid so long, you can’t even recognize the artificial biased sweetener anymore. Course you might lambast me ... and make me clarify my meaning of what “the” means…

Kudos to the Review, for swinging the pendulum back to an iota of neutrality and reasonability.

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.

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.

Its critical for large projects to hire these consultants.  Unfortunately, the little person who just wants to build their dream house doesn’t have the resources to hire these people and is abused by the system.  This is what I call permit hell.”

We built a house not long ago and had a rather different experience. I suspect it’s because we employed a rather sneaky ruse to get past your permit hell. I’ll explain the trick, and you should feel free to pass the tip on to your marks clients.

My wife, acting as our general contractor, talked to the permit-issuing agencies, explaining what we wanted to do. They in turn explained the regulatory requirements, which we followed.

No snags, no delays. (Except for HMB Fire, where we got some rather contradictory advice; I attribute that to their rather high rate of personnel turnover. And it worked out in the end anyway.)

I suppose you might equate compliance with hell, but it has real advantages. Give it a try sometime.

Suffice it to say, having lived here for 25 years and being involved in real estate for over 20 years, I have seen how this place has developed. Observing the progression (or stone walling) of many projects gives me the views I have.

Land owners have been relegated to second class citizens here.  Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long overdue change.

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.

“I unfortunately have seen too many projects endlessly appealed to the Coastal Commission which perhaps explains my views.  I resent that things get dragged out for years, if not decades.”

The truth is that Beachwood has been a City of Half Moon Bay problem that has dragged on for years, not an endless California Coastal Commission appeal.

Parks for the Future—Measure O is a proposed San Mateo County sales tax increase by 1/8th of a cent for 25 years.  The revenue would support parks and recreation in San Mateo County.

Measure O will be on the June 3rd 2008 ballot. It is projected to cost the average person $18 per year. The revenue would generate approximately $16 million of new-dedicated funds per year for San Mateo County parks and recreation.

What would this sales tax increase mean for the unincorporated Midcoast?

San Mateo County will receive 42% of the $16 million per year (in 2002 figures) generated by the 1/8 of a percent sales increase. The County has verbally promised to spend a small percentage (approximately $300,000.
per year) of the 42% to help implement the Midcoast Action Plan for Parks.

The 20 San Mateo Cities would receive 52% of the sales tax revenue. The breakdown is based on city population with a minimum going to small cities. Half Moon Bay with an estimated population 12,000 is considered a small city and would receive approximately $205,000.

The population of the unincorporated Midcoast and the city of Half Moon Bay are each approximately 12,000 based on US census statistics.

Out of the County’s 42% the County verbally promised to allocate approximately $300,000.00 per year to the implementation of the Midcoast Action Plan for Parks (MAPP).  It was expected that this promise would be memorialized by a Board of Supervisors resolution. 

At the October 25th 2007 Parks For The Future meeting at the Harbor House, Parks Director Dave Holland said that he would request the Parks and Recreation Commission approve a resolution memorializing sales tax revenue allocation commitments to the Midcoast Action Plan for Parks (MAPP).  The resolution would then need to be signed by the Board of Supervisors.  Parks Commissioner Bern Smith attended the October 07 meeting and did not object to the proposed resolution.

Dave Holland said in a December 2007 phone conversation that the County Board of Supervisors would not memorialize sales tax revenue allocation for the Midcoast because it might upset the cites.

It is disappointing that the Parks & Recreation Commissioners were unable to get the “promise” memorialized in writing by the Board of Supervisors. 

The Parks Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors missed an important opportunity to advocate on behalf of the unincorporated Midcoast. 

Measure O does not guarantee that money will be allocated to the Midcoast on a continual basis. 

In addition to the promise of $300,000 per year for implementation of the Midcoast Action Plan for Parks (MAPP) the County said they would spend approximately $100,000 per year on additional resources for the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve (FMR) staircase and improvements on the Mirada Surf property (east & west sides of Highway 1 near Surfers Beach) Including a new Mirada Surf bathroom facility located at the Miramar end of the property and the extension of the Coastal Trail through the Mirada Surf property.

While the Midcoast has the support of County Parks and Recreation Director Dave Holland what will happen when Dave moves on?  Can we count on Measure O to provide Midcoast Park Funding for the Future?

For more information on Parks For The Future—Measure O go to the May 14th Midcoast Community Council meeting at 7:30pm located at Seton Medical Center.

It would be great if the loser had to pay the owner’s expenses like attorney fees and interest.  That would cut down on the frivolous appeals that go on here.

The only positive thing I can say about the judgment and settlement is that this is the beginning of a more moderate approach to development.  Maybe the staggering amount of money being paid will be a wake up call that endless litigation has its painful limits.

Property owners have rights too.  And hopefully, they will have more rights soon.

I’m sure that’s not what you want to hear but there are many people besides me who feel this way also.

I have said for years that this place has been run by the loud minority.  Its time for the silent majority to take our town back. And I think you are starting to see that.

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.

Its critical for large projects to hire these consultants.  Unfortunately, the little person who just wants to build their dream house doesn’t have the resources to hire these people and is abused by the system.  This is what I call permit hell.

Personally, this infill parcel looks out of place with homes surrounding it, HWY 1, McDonalds and a sewer plant.  This isn’t like someone trying to put 500 condos at Ano Nuevo!

And as far as the size of the judgment and settlement goes, that’s the price to be paid when peoples’ property rights are trampled.

It would be interesting if someone ever did a full accounting on what Beachwood really cost us.  Besides the $18 million settlement, there’s the $5 million on HMB’s legal fees.  The other question is how much of other City services, fees, experts and employee costs were spent.  That’s got to be a few million more.  So when all is said and done, this sacred piece of wetlands probably cost the community $25-30 million, which grossly exceeds the market value.  What a incredible waste of our money and time.  Its very sad and will hopefully we will never see this repeated.