Individual rights are at the very core of who we are as Americans. We see it firmly planted in every aspect of our legislation, going back to the Constitution, including one’s right to appeal at the local level. I may not agree with a few of them, like burning the American flag for example, but I would fight to support that right, as well as all the others we enjoy.

The right to appeal, locally, is a hot topic lately, and probably deserves a more in depth look. As it turns out, two HMB Planning Commission decisions have been appealed within a three week period. Although they have some common ground, they are miles apart in other aspects.

The first appeal was received by the City, from Mr. Benjamin, on September 11, 2006, and is appealing the night time permit parking program (PDP-02-04), approved by the Commission. The second appeal was received by the City, from Mr. Ferreira, on September 28, 2006, and is appealing KC Branscomb’s horse project (PDP-012-06), approved by the Commission. The common ground is that both appeals are by former Commissioners appealing a Planning Commission approved project, and both projects were recommended for approval by the Planning Department staff. That’s pretty much the end of similarities.

RESOLUTION NO. C-70-00, unanimously passed and adopted by the City Council October 17, 2000, states; “Fees for appeal of all discretionary planning decisions is $200 for each occurrence.”
An Agenda Report dated July 18, 2000 states; “In areas outside the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, however, appeal fees are charged according to the fee resolution”.
Additionally, 18.20.075 Appeals and Finality of City Action, from Title 18 of the HMB Zoning Code states, “Grounds for an appeal of a Coastal Development Permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the Certified Local Coastal Program or the Coastal Access policies of the Coastal Act”.
That same section, under E., Appeals, states; “The appeal shall be accompanied by a fee set by Resolution of the City Council and a statement of the grounds of the appeal”.

Now, to simplify all this legal talk, Mr. Benjamin’s appeal does not require the $200.00 fee because PDP-02-04 applies to the ‘Appeal Zone’, and can be appealed to the Coastal Commission directly. Mr. Ferreira’s appeal, however, is NOT in the ‘Appeal Zone’, therefore is NOT eligible for appeal to the Coastal Commission, and comes with the $200.00 fee, which he refused to pay prior to deadline, thereby invalidating the appeal. Not satisfied with this disregard of the rules, and to further disrupt the appeal application, Mr. Ferreira completed the section of the appeal form reserved for Staff Use Only, falsely indicating it was appealable to the Coastal Commission.

I know it’s not easy for the average person to digest, but Mr. Ferreira is not what I would refer to as the average person. He can hardly claim ignorance, as his political resume is extensive. He was appointed to the HMB Planning Commission in April, 1998. He served on the Planning Commission until 2001, when he was elected to the HMB City Council, and was Planning Commission Chairman in 2000 (same year Resolution No. C-70-00 was passed). He served on the HMB City Council from 2001 through 2005, and was mayor of HMB in 2004. One would think that not only would he be familiar with our laws, but he would be extremely familiar with them. He currently sits on the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. How is it, then, that he has turned this simple matter of a $200.00 fee into a rag between two tugging dogs (Policy vs. Practice)? Could he not have known? Is it that he simply can’t afford it?

Perhaps he was unclear or just plain forgot the law. After all, he was very busy on the Planning Commission as Chairman at about that time; passing illegal Resolution P-19-00 on August 10, 2000, then rescinding it two weeks later on August 24th, and immediately replacing it with illegal Resolution P-20-00, all in the same night, slipping Mr. Grady’s non-conforming house into the pipeline through his Planning Commission, and then closing that door again!

Mr. Ferreira is a master deal maker. Examples of that abound, but three high profile deals near the top of the list include shutting down Beechwood (resulting in a $30 MILLION law suit against HMB), Ailanto (settling 3 law suits, kind of, and attempting to kill Foothill Blvd), and the ‘Park’ purchase (Is The ‘Park’ a Good Deal?). Regarding this latest deal, however, he clearly forfeited his right to appeal by refusing to pay the 200.00., baseless claims notwithstanding. While we’re on the subject of money, he owes $10.00 p/day late penalty for his PAC, for not adhering to the State law which requires filing a financial statement for his election PAC by July 31, 06 ($670.00 as of October 6).

I have no familiarity with either of the appeals referenced.  Since Mr. Muteff’s posting covers a broad range of issues, I hope he won’t complain that I’m hijacking the thread by asking Why is it reasonable to charge <u>any</u> citizen an appeal fee, when the purpose of appeals is (theoretically, anyway) to get the government to correctly apply the law?  San Mateo County has downright punitive appeal fees, and I would claim that it’s primarily for the purpose of discouraging appeals.  While HMB’s appeal fees are not quite as punitive, I feel they are still much too high.  But HMB doesn’t have a stellar record of encouraging public participation—why do they charge much more per page for copies of documents than a for-profit copy shop charges?  And as an aside, why isn’t HMB’s Ordinance Code online?

Mr. Muteff,

The more I read your post, the more it seems to me that you simply wish to attack Mr. Ferreira, and not to raise any process issue at all.

You call him a master deal maker, and accuse him of first causing a lawsuit, and then of settling a separate lawsuit.  Setting aside the merits for a moment, I am curious: are causing a lawsuit and bringing about the resolution of a lawsuit both *equally bad* things in your mind?

And about the merits of which of you two is correct about what is and what is not appealable, how can we readers assume that you - who have held no positions, and borne no public responsibilities - are correct?  I’d bet the odds are that Mike Ferreira knows the laws, the rules, and the precedents much better than you do, and that he is more likely to be correct than you are.  The Appellate Court certainly seemed to come down on his side in the Ailanto matters.  You, on the other hand, wish to reject recognizing the Ailanto settlement because you’d prefer to take their property for your wished-for road project, regardless of the feasibility of such a project.

And the most cogent point you seem to have made lately - at least, from what I see here on Coastsider - seems to be when you offered your expertise on the size of a horse brain to the HMB City Council during the public comment period a few weeks ago.

Perhaps Mr. Ginna is correct that I should start a separate thread about the wasteful conduct of the school district by not taking bids for the design of the new Cunha middle school.  But you really ought to have answered the questions about how much or little parkland the City prior to the Ferreira/Grady/Taylor/et al City Councils, compared to what has been acquired during their tenure.  Ms. Patridge seems to have spent decades renting Smith Field, but not seeing to acquiring permanent parks and ballfields.  I agree with all who want things to be cost-effective; you, on the other hand, seem to simply want to tear down those who you deem oposed to your point of view.  I look forward to hearing something constructive.

Seems to me Mr Ferreira needs to either pay the $200 or withdraw the appeal…

We always talk about following the rules, the law…so, that appears to be the nugget in this original posting.

No need to go off on philosopy, or CUSD, or the price of eggs in China.

terry gossett

I think we can put aside Mr. Muteffs outrageous accusations as unproven scandal mongering.  The larger issue is that HMB check its policies to see if it is compliant with state law.

If the local governement charges a fee for an appeal the appeal can be made directly to the Coastal Commission for no fee.  The question the city council needs to decide is whether or not it wants to examine the decison of its planning commission before the direct appeal to the Coastal Commission.  It can choose not to and Mr. Ferreir can appeal directly to the state agency - for free. 

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.

I swear I saw Mr. Muteff at Tuesday night’s council meeting where Paul Nagengast and Adam Lindgren explained why they chose not to levy a fee on Ferreira’s appeal at that time—they were not sure what the rules were and needed to examine the codes first; they were extremely clear about this. Only a person who enjoys making incendiary personal attacks would ignore their professed confusion and blame it on the appellant’s devious plan to game the system. Mr. Ferreira is smart, but that would be too smart by half, as the saying goes.

Everyone is supposed to remember what Muteff looked up afterwards. Right. I suppose Mr. Muteff has never screwed up a form when filling out one himself, but most of the rest of us have because we aren’t perfect. For those who didn’t hear the details, all of this was all done a few minutes before closing time at city hall, so being rushed might have contributed to carelessness. (Side note: I find it curious and disturbing that Mr. Muteff examined another citizen’s form that is a communication with city government. Yes, it went on the public record as of last Tuesday night, but it was evident then that a lot of people including Mr. Muteff knew about it before it became a public item. This suggests that there is a nexus—cabal?—involving the development lobby (for which Muteff is a spokesperson) and city hall which ought to strike reasonable people as rather seamy upon consideration. $$ & development & city hall = not good.)

Leaving aside the truth for a moment, let’s treat Mr. Muteff’s post with a degree of seriousness. He claims that Mr. Ferreira’s appeal “is Not in the Appeal Zone.” That claim serves as a premise in his argument that the appeal should be dismissed, but his claim is just that and not based on any evidence. The property in question is within the coastal zone and has coastal resources (Frenchman’s Creek), which is all that is required for the appeal. Because Muteff’s argument is based on a false premise, it is invalid. Mr. Muteff likes to construct arguments that incorporate lots of facts, but a lot of facts loaded into a faulty argument give you argle-bargle. Hal Bogner effectively deconstructs Mr. Muteff’s illogic in the Beachwood and Alainto actions where, it should be noted, that Muteff rooted against the city in its legal dealings with developers.

Mr. Gossett, Under the California Administrative Code, an appellant can appeal a CDP directly to the Coastal Commission - free of charge - if the local authority charges a fee and the appellant has withdrawn his appeal. That is in fact what transpired by week’s end.

terry gossett - 07 October 2006 04:17 AM

Seems to me Mr Ferreira needs to either pay the $200 or withdraw the appeal…

We always talk about following the rules, the law…so, that appears to be the nugget in this original posting.

No need to go off on philosopy, or CUSD, or the price of eggs in China.

terry gossett

Hi Terry,

Weren’t we just talking in another thread about being neighborly and about canaries? Didn’t you just suggest that people talk directly to each other to solve problems before going bonkers and running around with cameras and making accusations?

So now George is trying to sing like a canary in every online forum he can find—and yet you defend him—though his post(s) have the look and feel of an underhanded political attack supported by some sort of back-room political machination at HMB City Hall.

No matter how many times I read George’s post and your defense I see nothing neighborly about them…

—Darin

Mr. Woren, the argument regarding fees, from the municipality’s side, is to partially offset staff costs. I don’t know how much staff time it takes to ‘process’ a complaint, but I do know the Council wasted over an hour discussing it at the last CC meeting. Regarding public participation, that’s been an issue, and continues to be so. Attempts to obtain information on computer disc rather than hard copy (which is more costly and time consuming) have been unsuccessful so far. Likewise, the City does not yet have an online capability for the public availability of documents, which is equally costly for both the City and the public, and is long overdue. Communications at Council meetings continue to be a problem, with the Mayor sometimes arbitrarily reducing public speaker time from three to two minutes. I will continue to address these important matters.

Mr. Bognar, I take no pleasure in attacking anyone. The facts and history speak for themselves. My post clearly focuses on policy and process, and how someone who has, for years, been setting policy, refuses to abide by those processes. Regarding the Beechwood matter, HMB is being sued for $30 Million, basically for a taking. Our annual budget is $9.5 Million; Our TOT is $2.5 Million. You’re a smart guy; how many years will it take to pay that penalty, with a Trustee at the helm at City Hall, IF we loose? If we were to assume a 50-50 shot, are you willing to leverage HMB’s future on the flip of a coin, when we (City) clearly screwed this guy, without dialog to attempt to work it out? He played by the rules we set. We created those depressions on his property, then changed the definition of wetlands, then told him have a nice day, all the while taking his money. As to Ailanto, where’s the benefit to the City (us)?; another stoplight (maybe), and more burden on our infrastructure, and crushing a great opportunity to vastly improve our traffic circulation (Foothill Blvd) for decades to come. Yeah, that’s a great deal. As far as who is more ‘likely’ to be correct, I don’t set policy, I just quoted it. You seem to prefer, as does Mr. Ferreira, to litigate (at our expense); I prefer to negotiate, and follow the laws. As to HMB’s history of acquiring parkland, I agree, it’s pretty dismal, but that doesn’t make the acquisition of the red legged ‘park’ a good deal (for us). In my opinion, that is merely ‘spin’. BTW, thanks for at least a nominal attempt at addressing issues this time, rather than another hijack attempt.

Now, Ms. Carter, ‘scandal mongering’; really? HMB is a City, with its own policies and procedures, with a certified LCP (by the CCC, a State Agency). At first blush, I’d say that’s compliance. If Mr. Ferreira feels the need to ‘appeal directly to the state agency – for free’, then go ahead, but he better bring something better than what he showed to the City. The frivolous eight points we’ve seen aren’t worth the paper used to scribe them. There could be an accountability issue regarding harassment, and this time the funds to litigate won’t be coming from City coffers. Further, there is a huge difference between the ‘Appeal Zone’, and the ‘Coastal Zone’. Check further into the state code you quote. You’ll find the definitions. Regarding the code you quote, I couldn’t agree more with the concept of including ‘the widest opportunity for public participation’. Would you say the prior Council followed that mantra (LCP Update; purchase, and subsequent conservation easement dedication of 144 Kelly; Measure D implementation, ‘park’ purchase, etc.)?

To Mr. Boville, surely you jest; ‘underhanded political attack supported by some back-room political machination at HMB City Hall’. You must be kidding! Our City, with all due respect, is as dysfunctional right now as I’ve ever seen it. We have no City Manager (and for all practical purposes, haven’t had one for over two years), an “interim” Planning Director (who is knowledgeable, approachable, and articulate; but hasn’t been here long, and can’t know our history and nuances), legal council that micromanages everything done (thanks to prior Council) and three different people filling the same Council seat in as many years (thanks Sid & Dave). When I look back over the last year, we’ve come a long way, but clearly have so much further to go. ‘Political machination’?; the only support I have received is from other citizens, also concerned with doing the right thing. Evidence of that is at City Hall, and the County, in the form of State required filings that I have submitted (public information, and completely accessible to anyone that asks) complete and on time, as per State law, unlike Mr. Ferreira ($690.00 due in penalties, as of today). I receive no financial support for my time, effort, and work, other than my own wallet, and contributions to my PAC (Make It Right). “Sing like a canary in every online forum he can find”?; I’d prefer to call it educating the public, with factual data.

Mr. King, your vitriol is at least consistent, but your observations and data are not. Let’s start with the Council meeting you refer to, on 10-03-06. You are correct, I was at that meeting. That’s the one where you tried to convince the Council what a great deal the ‘park’ was (please see “Is The ‘Park’ a Good Deal”, posted on Coastsider). Unlike you, I saw Mr. Nagengast and Joe Chapman (attorney) spout Mr. Lingren’s (attorney; NOT present) argument, against City Policy. Perhaps your vision was better when Mr. Chapman pulled me aside to ask me for copies of the Policies I showed and quoted, because he didn’t have them! Now tell me, how can anyone form an opinion (legal or not), without the pertinent data (save you and a handful of others)? As I stated above, I take no pleasure in attacking anyone, including you, but I will stand up for what I believe is right (law, people, and principle). Further, I will defend our rights, and myself, with appropriate data. Where’s yours? The data I provide comes from my research of public information; the same public information that you have access to. I suggest you try using it, rather than insinuating some covert plot that might fit in a Class B spy movie. The moment that document was received by the City it was public information. Sorry, no plot here. ‘Spokesperson’ for the ‘development lobby’; again, please! Because I believe Foothill Blvd is a sorely needed infrastructure improvement that will benefit everyone on the coast for decades to come I’m considered (by you, anyway) as someone’s spokesperson? If proper planning, and vision make me a ‘spokesperson’, well I guess I’ll take that lick. Regarding ‘Appeal Zone vs. ‘Coastal Zone’, please see above, or call the City for clarification. While there, please read all the pertinent policies as well. The answers you seek are in that language. Have a nice day.

George Muteff - 08 October 2006 04:17 PM

Mr. Bognar, I take no pleasure in attacking anyone.

I’ll take your statements at face value and address several of them below. And I won’t mind if it takes you another try to spell my name correctly. :-)

George Muteff - 08 October 2006 04:17 PM

The facts and history speak for themselves. My post clearly focuses on policy and process, and how someone who has, for years, been setting policy, refuses to abide by those processes.

Separating the person from the issues/policies/etc.:

George Muteff - 08 October 2006 04:17 PM

Regarding the Beechwood matter, HMB is being sued for $30 Million, basically for a taking. Our annual budget is $9.5 Million; Our TOT is $2.5 Million. You’re a smart guy; how many years will it take to pay that penalty, with a Trustee at the helm at City Hall, IF we loose? If we were to assume a 50-50 shot, are you willing to leverage HMB’s future on the flip of a coin, when we (City) clearly screwed this guy, without dialog to attempt to work it out? He played by the rules we set. We created those depressions on his property, then changed the definition of wetlands, then told him have a nice day, all the while taking his money.

OK, me being smart, I won’t make an assumption that any - much less *each and every* - lawsuit is exactly 50/50 odds.  And it is my current understanding that the ruling of the Appellate Court on the three HMB vs. Ailanto lawsuits recently resolved the underlying issue in HMB’s favor. Perhaps Barry has an article on this, or perhaps this is information that should be in an article or thread here on Coastsider.com.

I don’t know anything about the issues raised at the end of your paragraph above, nor whether they are valid, so I can’t address them.

George Muteff - 08 October 2006 04:17 PM

As to Ailanto, where’s the benefit to the City (us)?; another stoplight (maybe), and more burden on our infrastructure, and crushing a great opportunity to vastly improve our traffic circulation (Foothill Blvd) for decades to come. Yeah, that’s a great deal. As far as who is more ‘likely’ to be correct, I don’t set policy, I just quoted it. You seem to prefer, as does Mr. Ferreira, to litigate (at our expense); I prefer to negotiate, and follow the laws.

I have a big problem with this statement, beause now you are abandoning the argument that the City should (a) follow the law and (b) do what it has agreed to. Instead, you become an “opportunist” - wanting to run a proposed road across Ailanto’s property - and *you* argue that the City should “clearly screwed this guy” (your words from the Beachwood paragraph).

So where do you really stand on these matters of principle - or alternatively, do you argue that they are not matters or principle, or that principles don’t matter, or some fourth thing?

George Muteff - 08 October 2006 04:17 PM

As to HMB’s history of acquiring parkland, I agree, it’s pretty dismal, but that doesn’t make the acquisition of the red legged ‘park’ a good deal (for us). In my opinion, that is merely ‘spin’. BTW, thanks for at least a nominal attempt at addressing issues this time, rather than another hijack attempt.

I didn’t mean to dismiss this subject when I raised my issue with CUSD - and it needs to be discussed somewhere, because it probably costs us taxpayers millions. And I certainly don’t mind discussing issues.

Mr. Bogner, a thousand apologies for misspelling your name. I meant no harm, and will try to do better in the future, should our paths cross again.

I do appreciate a point that you made. Too many times, when someone isn’t familiar with a particular issue, or doesn’t know the answer to a question, he/she will offer an opinion anyway. The fact that you state unfamiliarity with Beechwood, and Ailonto (if I understood your comments correctly) is actually very refreshing. If you wanted to learn more about either of these issues, there is plenty of data available. You might want to start with the Ailanto Settlement Agreement, regarding that issue. If you start there, directing yourself backwards through the project’s history may be easier.

There have been numerous posts in both Coastsider and the Review as well, particularly regarding Ailanto. Beechwood will require a little more digging, but it’s worth it. These two issues are totally separate, and very interesting, and each has gone through the wringer for a lot of years. Check them out for yourself.

To another point you shared, I have not, nor am not advocating the ‘taking’ of the Ailanto property. I am, and have however, proposed a significant traffic circulation improvement that I believe will benefit residents and visitors to the coastside for decades to come. Funny thing is it’s in everyone’s best interest, even the people that will purchase those 40 or 63 homes that Ailanto will sell, and the sellers of those homes. If you’d like more information on that, go back to Coastsider from May 2nd forward; the Review as well (same timeframe). You will find the proposal, complete with maps and diagrams, and some sense of cost. You can also go to my election site http://www.electgeorge.net . I discussed this topic over a year ago. Get more data. It’ll be interesting to hear your comments on either or both projects.

With regard to the Beechwood owner and the City, I think you may want to go back and read it again. You misquoted me. I did not say, nor imply that the City should screw anyone; Quite the contrary. It was the applicant that, in my opinion, got screwed by the City.

Glad you enjoyed the horse brain education. UC Davis is a fine school, and was happy to inform.

George Muteff - 09 October 2006 03:47 AM

Mr. Bogner, a thousand apologies for misspelling your name. I meant no harm, and will try to do better in the future, should our paths cross again.

I do appreciate a point that you made. Too many times, when someone isn’t familiar with a particular issue, or doesn’t know the answer to a question, he/she will offer an opinion anyway. The fact that you state unfamiliarity with Beechwood, and Ailonto (if I understood your comments correctly) is actually very refreshing. If you wanted to learn more about either of these issues, there is plenty of data available. You might want to start with the Ailanto Settlement Agreement, regarding that issue. If you start there, directing yourself backwards through the project’s history may be easier.

There have been numerous posts in both Coastsider and the Review as well, particularly regarding Ailanto.

I have some familiarity with Ailanto, including attending one of their recent presentation.  The developer is very clear: he settled his lawsuits with the City, and means to live by the settlement, and he expects HMB to do so, too.  If you get the City to renege, he will go back to litigating.  It’s simple, and I think I understand it completely.  Do you understand differently?  If so, please explain.

George Muteff - 09 October 2006 03:47 AM

Beechwood will require a little more digging, but it’s worth it. These two issues are totally separate, and very interesting, and each has gone through the wringer for a lot of years. Check them out for yourself.

I am unfamiliar with the terrain issues you described in your earlier post.  What I do understand is that the City is not expecting to lose the current litigation, and that the recent Appellate decision supports the City’s position.

And returning to your suggestion that the City faces a “50/50 chance of losing $30 million” - and therefore, should knuckle under and give in…well, successfully defending such lawsuits, as happened in several recently resolved cases, will eventually bring these things to a stop.  Settling them without merit will cause more of them to happen.

George Muteff - 09 October 2006 03:47 AM

To another point you shared, I have not, nor am not advocating the ‘taking’ of the Ailanto property. I am, and have however, proposed a significant traffic circulation improvement that I believe will benefit residents and visitors to the coastside for decades to come. Funny thing is it’s in everyone’s best interest, even the people that will purchase those 40 or 63 homes that Ailanto will sell, and the sellers of those homes. If you’d like more information on that, go back to Coastsider from May 2nd forward; the Review as well (same timeframe). You will find the proposal, complete with maps and diagrams, and some sense of cost. You can also go to my election site http://www.electgeorge.net . I discussed this topic over a year ago. Get more data. It’ll be interesting to hear your comments on either or both projects.

By the way, the Ailanto developer also says that he hired the same firm that CCWD used for a recent project (Carter Hill, I think) to look at your “Foothill Bl.” proposal, and found it to be totally impossible due to wetlands at numerous points along the proposed route.  Have you seen the maps he showed, and can you refute them?

And he also said that one of your CCF cohorts called his people up the day before launching your “Let’s scuttle the Ailanto Agreement and agitate for Foothill Bl.” campaign, and told them “We’re going to help you to be able to build a lot more houses.”  He said he made his settlement - and it was a difficult choice, reducing the number of houses and giving land for a park and for open space, and cash for the light and cash for the lot retirement program - and he means to stick by it - even if the your CCF proposal could possibly “get him more than he settled for.”

I don’t understand why you continue to beat this drum.  Even the Review finds your proposal “dead on arrival.”

George Muteff - 09 October 2006 03:47 AM

With regard to the Beechwood owner and the City, I think you may want to go back and read it again. You misquoted me. I did not say, nor imply that the City should screw anyone; Quite the contrary. It was the applicant that, in my opinion, got screwed by the City.

I was applying your contention that the City was screwing the Beechwood developer to what you were advocating be done to the Ailanot developer - which is, to screw him, in your parlance.  I’m sorry if you feel I didn’t state this clearly the first time.

George Muteff - 09 October 2006 03:47 AM

Glad you enjoyed the horse brain education. UC Davis is a fine school, and was happy to inform.

Actually, I wondered whether the City Council, and the paid staff and attorney, found it worth their time.  (On the other hand, it was not as egregious a waste of their time as Joel Farbstein’s absurd claims, which were aired at much greater length that night during the public comment period…so perhaps the comic relief was welcome, after all.)

Hmmm…Barry, there was a problem while posting the above, and several duplicates were posted. Can you remove this?

Hmmm…Barry, there was a problem while posting the above, and several duplicates were posted. Can you remove this?

Hmmm…Barry, there was a problem while posting the above, and several duplicates were posted. Can you remove this?

Mr. Bogner, the resources I recommended you seek regarding Ailanto and Beechwood are available to all, at virtually no cost. Again, I suggest you access them so you have a better, clearer understanding of both projects, who benefits, to what degree, and what’s at stake. If you like, you can hang out just a bit longer and you should be treated to yet more data on Ailanto, as the DEIR is just about to be released and is sure to generate discussion.

From what I can tell of your comments on this thread, it will be educational for you, while at the same time allow us to get back to the point of questioning Mr. Ferreira’s appeal, the motives of said appeal, the basis of said appeal, and the process of that appeal, as well as the special treatment he apparently received. We might also discuss the $10.00 p/day penalty due, starting August 1st, for Mr. Ferreira’s violation of State law requiring financial filings for PAC’s, that apparently he feels doesn’t apply to him, totaling $700.00 as of today (in case he decides he wants to come into compliance, file his forms, and pay the penalty today). It would be to everyone’s best interest if Mr. Ferreira would simply abide by the same laws that everyone else abides by.

I am still curious how it is that your friend, Mr. Ferreira, can feign ignorance of the rules he helped established regarding the appeal process of Planning Commission decisions, as he was Planning Commission Chairman during the time all the pertinent rules were adopted. Did he forget? Was he too busy to pay attention? He was busy, as described above, rescinding illegal Resolution P-19-00, putting his friend Mr. Grady’s house in the pipeline, and then reinstating illegal Resolution P-19-00 as illegal Resolution P-20-00, all in the same night!  That was the net/gross lot rule, rescinded for good, with current Council blessing, by the current Planning Commission this year. Could it be that there’s a pattern here?

You may recall, being the chess master you claim to be, that I mentioned two appeals at the start of this thread. If not, feel free to reread and you will see it there. I only mention this because I have not discussed Mr. Benjamin’s appeal (much). The reason is simple; he did everything that is required for a legitimate appeal, from ‘Details of Grounds for the Appeal’ to ‘Relief Being Sought’ (quoted directly from the Appeal Form, stamped in huge bold print just above ‘Signature of Appellant’). Further, as his appealable decision is in the ‘Appeal Zone’, he clearly has the right to take it to the Coastal Commission, as is clearly stated in Policy, at no cost to him. In fact, Mr. Benjamin’s appeal could stand as a model for how to file. Mr. Ferreira’s, however, is the model of how NOT to file.

BTW, if you continue to feel the need to hijack this thread, perhaps you might want to take the discussion in the direction of whether or not Mr. Ferreira still owes the required $200.00 fee for the appeal, since he has withdrawn it. After all, the City did initiate the process, at a cost, and the Council did waste valuable time discussing it. That’s a tough one. I wouldn’t want to be punitive, like your friend. Interesting question, huh? I might also add that I admire your enthusiasm, having posted your latest retort not once, but four times. I guess you’re really passionate about your thoughts.

What was resolution P-19-00 (and P-20-00)?  Why do you believe they were illegal?

Mr. Muteff,

Based on your reply to what I wrote last night, I can answer the question asked in the title of this topic that you started.

Instead of acknowledging any of what I wrote, or answering it in any way, you change the subject.

So I conclude that this is not abuse.  This is simply a waste of time and effort.

George Muteff - 09 October 2006 03:47 AM

Glad you enjoyed the horse brain education. UC Davis is a fine school, and was happy to inform.

I’ve been trying with little success to follow this discussion and have concluded that it’s about a dead horse—at least, IMHO.

If it is about more than that, perhaps a few concise paragraphs devoted to just one or two topics at a time, minus confrontational language and ad hominem jabs, would help. Nobody ever won a war of words with sheer numbers of them.

Thanks, Suzanne. That’s been my concern all along. George’s accusations are long on rhetoric and short on substance, which has the effect of creating a sense of doubt, but for reasons this reader is still confused about.  Was this more than a technical violation?

Guess what, I checked around town and it looks like there are upwards of five people reading this journal now. The rest of them went back to the comics some time ago, although some continue to see if you’re still at it (their loss, they don’t know what they’re missing).

George, congratulations on your tenacity, but at this point I believe you have done all you can to educate the uninformed. The few ill informed and misinformed are obviously just as tenacious as you, and clearly not very receptive to your efforts to save them from damnation. In truth, I am disappointed that you have allowed yourself to be dragged down to their level of nonsensical banter (even with the best of intentions).

Barry, thanks for establishing a new category: misguided. I’m sure Mr. Ferreira’s numerous supporters will agree that George is LOR and SOS and his critics are the pinnacle of reason, logic and fact. Did you really miss the question?

Why did Mike Ferreira file an appeal?

• He felt it was his civic duty to point out what he thought were violations of the LCP?
• He didn’t have anything better to do?
• He’s afraid that horses will scare away the tourists?
• He’s really a secret undercover agent for the Dictatorship of the CCC?
• A woman shouldn’t raise horses anyway?
• The location could interfere with his secret plans for Foothill Blvd Extended?
• He’s afraid one of the horses will urinate in Frenchmans Creek?
• It’s a potential location for another new park?
• It will encourage builders to disregard Measure D and initiate uncontrolled building on the coastside?
• Construction of a Boys and Girls Club nearby might frighten descendant of the
horses in the far future?
• It’s right in the middle of a new subdivision he has planned?
• The horses will drink all the remaining water and drain the wetlands.

• He wants to show the Council and Planning Commission who’s really running this town?
• All of the above, none of the above or some of the above?

I give up. I guess maybe you’ve got the right idea after all…he was committing a technical error. Huh?

Ms. Black, it can get confusing, what with all the back and forth, coupled with repeated attempts to change the subject. I’ll try to synopsize the main points.

Throughout history, we’ve seen abuse of power, for various reasons. Usually those reasons revolve around two forms of perceived gain; money or sex, both funneling to one goal…more power. Some high profile examples might include Watergate, Ken Lay/Enron ($20 Billion taken from CA alone), and Martha Stewart. More recent examples would include Congressman Jefferson (D-LA), under investigation for bribery ($100,000 in freezer), or Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) whose sexcapades currently has the GOP in a tizzy. These examples demonstrate people that feel they are above the law.

Regarding Mr. Ferreira’s ‘appeal’, HMB Policy is clear; clear as a bell. These are the rules, which Mr. Ferreira participated in crafting; RESOLUTION NO. C-70-00, unanimously passed and adopted by the City Council October 17, 2000, states; “Fees for appeal of all discretionary planning decisions is $200 for each occurrence.”
An Agenda Report dated July 18, 2000 states; “In areas outside the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, however, appeal fees are charged according to the fee resolution”.
Additionally, 18.20.075 Appeals and Finality of City Action, from Title 18 of the HMB Zoning Code states, “Grounds for an appeal of a Coastal Development Permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the Certified Local Coastal Program or the Coastal Access policies of the Coastal Act”.
That same section, under E., Appeals, states; “The appeal shall be accompanied by a fee set by Resolution of the City Council and a statement of the grounds of the appeal”.
Now, the resume; He was appointed to the HMB Planning Commission in April, 1998. He served on the Planning Commission until 2001, when he was elected to the HMB City Council, and was Planning Commission Chairman in 2000 (same year Resolution No. C-70-00 was passed). He served on the HMB City Council from 2001 through 2005, and was mayor of HMB in 2004. One would think that not only would he be familiar with our laws, but he would be extremely familiar with them. He currently sits on the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. How is it, then, that he has turned this simple matter of a $200.00 fee into a rag between two tugging dogs (Policy vs. Practice)? Could he not have known? Is it that he simply can’t afford it?

Perhaps Barry can post Mr. Ferreira’s appeal as a link, so everyone can see for themselves, and form their own opinions. That would be helpful.

It is my contention that Mr. Ferreira filed this alleged appeal without following the established rules, rules that he had a hand in crafting. Further, that Mr. Ferreira met NONE of the requirements of those rules, and then spun it to revolve around the fee requirement turning him into a victimized soul. Also, we might question … Mr. Ferreira’s appeal, the motives of said appeal, the basis of said appeal, and the process of that appeal, as well as the special treatment he apparently received. We might also discuss the $10.00 p/day penalty due, starting August 1st, for Mr. Ferreira’s violation of State law requiring financial filings for PAC’s, that apparently he feels doesn’t apply to him, totaling $700.00 as of today (in case he decides he wants to come into compliance, file his forms, and pay the penalty today). It would be to everyone’s best interest if Mr. Ferreira would simply abide by the same laws that everyone else abides by.

In addition; … He was busy, as described above, rescinding illegal Resolution P-19-00, putting his friend Mr. Grady’s house in the pipeline, and then reinstating illegal Resolution P-19-00 as illegal Resolution P-20-00, all in the same night!  That was the net/gross lot rule, rescinded for good, with current Council blessing, by the current Planning Commission this year. Could it be that there’s a pattern here?

Ms. Black, as I’ve stated in prior posts, I take no pleasure in attacking anyone. We all have better things to do with our time. Also stated in prior posts, enough is enough. The rules are clear. We are all supposed to stay within the rules. Most of us do. There are, however, repeated examples of those who choose not to, and it usually comes at the expense of someone else. In my opinion, this attack is personal, not based on merit, and has been spun into something other. There are times when one must draw a line in the sand. In my opinion, this is one of those times.

George,

The appeal Mike filed has to do with the horse project, right?

Then I think, especially given your dogged attention to this matter which others may see as trivial, that readers should be aware that the horse project, both the business and the individual who owns the business, are significant financial supporters of yours.

Could you do me a favor and lay to rest a few nagging doubts in my mind and detail for us here all forms of financial and in-kind support you have received from them in the past few years, including support to your PAC?

Having financial support from one party or other is no sin, of course. I’m just looking for full disclosure so I can have all the information I need to judge this situation.

—Darin

Darin,

While you are waiting for the info - could you or Barry list the amounts that either you or Barry contributed to LCP and Mike Ferreira?  Please include financial and in-kind support as well. 

Back to 2004 will do.

Thanks!

Darin, regarding your latest post to this piece, # 22, happy to oblige. There could be a couple points that might be clearer, due to the subjectivity of the questions/statements you make. Let’s get everything as clear as we can.

‘The appeal Mike filed has to do with the horse project, right?’
Yes.

‘Then I think, especially given your dogged attention to this matter which others may see as trivial, that readers should be aware that the horse project, both the business and the individual who owns the business, are significant financial supporters of yours.’
If that’s a question, it would help if you were more specific. But, let me answer your next specific question which is simply an extension of this one, as referred to below;

‘Could you do me a favor and lay to rest a few nagging doubts in my mind and detail for us here all forms of financial and in-kind support you have received from them in the past few years, including support to your PAC?
Having financial support from one party or other is no sin, of course. I’m just looking for full disclosure so I can have all the information I need to judge this situation.
—Darin’

As I stated above, happy to oblige. All of my required financial disclosures, including my election PAC (closed after the election), and my current PAC, Make It Right, were filed on time, complete, and correctly. Complete copies are currently on file with the City (although my Make It Right PAC is filed with the County as required, it is also filed with the City as a courtesy). All the questions you ask will be answered in full by simply requesting copies for yourself. As I’m sure you are aware, the forms are rather extensive (20 pages), and this forum wouldn’t allow the complete, unabridged versions. All the data you seek is available, as stated above, at HMB City Hall. All you need do is go to the front counter at City Hall, and request the information. They may (or not) require a small fee for reproduction.

To Mr. Ginna’s post, #23, I would think everyone would be interested in your response. The only change that I’d ask is that we replace ‘or’ with ‘and’, and ‘either’ with ‘both’, as shown (in caps); could you AND Barry list the amounts that BOTH you AND Barry contributed to LCP and Mike Ferreira?  Please include financial and in-kind support as well. 
Back to 2004 will do.
Thanks!

George,

I asked a simple, fair, and I think relevant question—is the person/business you are defending so tenaciously one of your financial supporters? Any advocate of open government would see the relevance of the question.

I don’t understand why you chose to dodge the question (telling me to go to City Hall to request the forms myself) when I bet you could share the numbers from memory.

In any event, as you say, the forms are available. Here are the ones from your election campaign from the first three-quarters of 2005:

http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/government/election2005/muteff2005.pdf

And here is an article on Coastsider that talks about contributions to you, Mike, and others:

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/890/

What this shows so far is that the horse project that you are so aggressively defending was one of your largest financial backers, if not the largest.

I don’t have data from 2006 or from your new PAC—is it already on file?

Nothing wrong with having generous financial supporters—we all wish we had them!—but from the point of view of open government it strikes me as worrisome that you are willing to spend so much energy on this issue, direct such harsh words about “abuse” at others, and have still refused to acknowledge that the proposal you are defending is from one of your top financial supporters.

Why the secrecy?

I see no legal wrongdoing here whatsoever on your part, to be clear. It even appears to me that you filled out the forms correctly and paid applicable fees on time!

What I am saying, though, is that if readers are to evaluate both sides of this argument fairly they surely need to know that the horse project was, and still may be, a major source of money for your political ambitions.

—Darin

Darin, your questions and comments were simple, fair, relevant, and quite clear. I thought my answers and comments were equal in simplicity, fairness, relevance and clarity; and complete.

I realize that actually having to research something can be a pain. I deal with that all the time, but if you want accurate and complete information, and that is what you seek, it’s a necessity. I would think that in your capacity with Coastsider, you, of all people, would be aware of that. There’s nothing to dodge. The data you seek is fully available to you (particularly as a member of the press) and anyone else interested, and it’s free! I find it interesting that you ask questions, and then post two links that you imply answer the very questions you ask. If you already knew the answers, why did you ask the questions (I haven’t had the time to check the links yet, but I trust you)? I’ll let my filings speak for themselves, particularly in light of the way you couch the questions. I have received no contributions, to date, for my Make It Right PAC.

As you note, my filings are complete, accurate, and on time. You ask about 2006, and my new PAC, Make It Right. All financial data, repeat, all financial data regarding the election PAC (closed after the election), and Make It Right (opened upon closing of election PAC) is on file, as described in my most recent post, #24 above. As you see, or will see, I followed, and continue to follow, every single law, whether local, county, state and/or federal. That’s why we have laws, isn’t it? Is it too much to ask Mr. Ferreira to do the same?

Now, to continue with the issue of abuse, which, after all, is the theme of this thread. Believe it or not, Darin, if the ranch we’re discussing were yours, and everything else remained the same, I would fight for your rights with the same vigor. Note the name of my PAC; Make It Right. That, to me, means exactly what it says; no matter who’s CDP was appealed (in the manner this one was). As a side note, I did ask if Barry would post the appeal as a link, to let all your readers see it and judge for themselves. I haven’t seen that link, yet. It would be helpful for those trying to understand. After all, as you put it “…if readers are to evaluate both sides of this argument fairly they surely need to know…” 

I do find your final comment, the end of the above quote, rather humorous. My ‘political ambitions’? What political ambitions? I don’t have any preconceived political ambitions, but bearing in mind how I feel about justice, who knows what the future holds? Do you know something in that regard that I don’t? Is it just too hard to believe, that as a resident of HMB for decades, I might just have had enough of all the abuse that’s happened here over the last 10-15 years? The callous abuse and blatant disregard of the law has got to stop, and this is as good a time as any.

George Muteff - 11 October 2006 06:31 PM

Ms. Black, as I’ve stated in prior posts, I take no pleasure in attacking anyone. We all have better things to do with our time.

Are you sure you don’t have anything more important to do, because it looks an awful lot like you are doing this 24/7 judging from all of your posts here and elsewhere. I suppose you expect someone will believe that you really take no pleasure in attacking Mr. Ferreira though you go off topic as often as possible to demonize him.

George Muteff - 11 October 2006 06:31 PM

It is my contention that Mr. Ferreira filed this alleged appeal without following the established rules, rules that he had a hand in crafting. Further, that Mr. Ferreira met NONE of the requirements of those rules, and then spun it to revolve around the fee requirement turning him into a victimized soul.

From my 10/7 post which you conveniently ignored: Mr. Muteff was at Tuesday night’s council meeting where Paul Nagengast and Adam Lindgren explained why they chose not to levy a fee on Ferreira’s appeal at that time—they were not sure what the rules were and needed to examine the codes first; they were extremely clear about this. It was not Ferreira’s fault that the staff, the acting city manager, or the city attorney did not know the policy and wanted time to examine it. They said that publicly, you’ve been corrected previously, so your distortion is egregious, but standard operating procedure for you. 

George Muteff - 11 October 2006 06:31 PM

Also, we might question … Mr. Ferreira’s appeal, the motives of said appeal, the basis of said appeal, and the process of that appeal, as well as the special treatment he apparently received.

We might question anyone’s appeal, their motives, etc.. In your case since you are bent on demonization, you have an a priori conclusion that omits possibilities like Ferreira wanting others to follow the rules, really follow the rules you claim are so important and that should always be followed. Of course when favortism trumps the rules applied to your compadres, that is a horse of a different color.

George Muteff - 11 October 2006 06:31 PM

We might also discuss the $10.00 p/day penalty due, starting August 1st, for Mr. Ferreira’s violation of State law requiring financial filings for PAC’s, that apparently he feels doesn’t apply to him, totaling $700.00 as of today (in case he decides he wants to come into compliance, file his forms, and pay the penalty today). It would be to everyone’s best interest if Mr. Ferreira would simply abide by the same laws that everyone else abides by.

You really should apply for compliance officer with the city so that you can levy “discretionary” fees to your heart’s content. We’ll need all of the fees you could muster to apply against all of the litigation your side is apt to inspire in the not-too-distant-future. You seem to enjoy throwing mud despite your disclaimer.

George Muteff - 11 October 2006 06:31 PM

In addition; … He was busy, as described above, rescinding illegal Resolution P-19-00, putting his friend Mr. Grady’s house in the pipeline, and then reinstating illegal Resolution P-19-00 as illegal Resolution P-20-00, all in the same night!  That was the net/gross lot rule, rescinded for good, with current Council blessing, by the current Planning Commission this year.

Definitely inside ball, but a convenient distortion of an appeal process in the works for two years, and one that involved several other nearby properties in the real story. The one thing I’ll give your side, Mr. Muteff, is its long memory, its uncompromising, take-no-prisoners approach, and its unslaked thirst for revenge.

To all you readers out there, please allow me a momentary indiscretion. To Mr. King, as I stated on another thread last night (Is The ‘Park’ a Good Deal; # 36); C’mon Ken, is that the best you got?

I can only speak for myself, but your continuous repetition of your vitriolic diatribe is old, and frankly doesn’t help your ‘cause’, nor does it enhance the level of understanding that we’re all seeking. You quote my post responding to Ms. Black 5 times in your most recent post (27). She had asked for clarity of issue(s), and compaction. I gave my best effort to do just that.

Taking your comments in sets, as you provided them, let me respond.

  I stay very busy, as you have acknowledged, and don’t require a lot of sleep. There is a lot to do. As I’ve stated multiple times, I take no pleasure in attacking anyone. I will, however, make the time to defend what’s right, and the law. As to off topic & demonization….if the facts, and historical data qualify as such, well, … I’ll let the readers judge for themselves.
  Your 10/7 post was not ignored by me at all. Isn’t that the one where you claim to have seen, and heard, Adam Lingren at the last City Council meeting telling the Council, staff, and audience that Mr. Ferreira’s lame appeal should move forward (post #5)? I thought I was clear in my response the following morning (post #8), where I questioned your vision (as well as your ‘data’), as Mr. Lingren was not in HMB that night. I went on to challenge your ability to acquire accurate data, and even went so far as to advise you where and how to collect it.
  There you go again with your ‘demonization’ theme. I would like to see everyone follow the rules. The rules, as you put it, are a collection or local Resolutions, Policies, Ordinances, coupled with State mandated requirements (Law). Yes, it is nice when people follow those simple, easy to comprehend ‘rules’. Yes, I do think that’s important for everyone.
  Perhaps you were unclear on the point. We’re not talking about ‘discretionary fees’ here. We’re discussing State law, and the clearly mandated penalties for non-compliance, which clearly applies to Mr. Ferreira in this case. That’s another one of those pesky ‘rule’ things, that apparently Mr. Ferreira has a problem with, and that you seem to think of as burdensome as well. Most everyone else in California seem to get it; why can’t you? As a follow-up, Mr. Ferreira did make an attempt to come into compliance that day (10/09/06). He turned in a partially completed Financial Disclosure Form 460; three of the twenty pages required by the State on July 31st, 06. The problem is that it was incomplete, inaccurate, and lacking the $700.00 check for penalties (State mandated $10.00 per/day for non-compliance; there go those pesky rules again, huh?). You are right on a couple points here; we do need to collect these fees, and we do need all the money we can muster….to pay for the ‘park’ that we’re in so much debt for. You mention the litigation you anticipate that my ‘side is apt to inspire’? Let’s see what your side’s track record looks like. Going back from, say, 2000 to date, we’ve been in multiple lawsuits from Ailanto, multiple suits from Beechwood (that’s an interesting one, culminating in the City currently being sued for $30 MILLION, and a budget of $9.5 M.; Hows that for litigation?), the ‘park’ (by our own residents in Cypress Cove, and they won), Wavecrest, and Saso Gail (little problem with property rights), to name a few. I can’t think of one City Council Agenda in the last two + years, that didn’t have pending or anticipated litigation during the ‘closed session’ Agenda.
  Finally, your 5th set of comments refers to illegal Resolution P-19-00, illegal Resolution P-20-00, and former Mayor Grady’s (at the time of occurrence Mr. Grady wasn’t yet on the Council) intricate dance with Mr. Ferreira (Planning Commission Chairman at the time) to get his house through from plans to completion. That is (what I described) the ‘real story’. I have all the data to back it up. Happy to share it with you if your memory is unclear. Talk about ‘gaming the system’, as you put it earlier; WOW. Yes, it did involve other nearby properties. I’m surprised you address that, as it’s even more unflattering to your cause.

In conclusion, Mr. King, I do think it’s important for everyone to follow the ‘rules’. Examples of individuals attempting to get a leg up by violating laws are plentiful everywhere. Perhaps you also believe steroid use is OK; or robbing a bank, or the taking of someone’s property rights. We have laws for a reason. The ones we don’t like, we should change, not violate at our convenience. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Do you, …really?

Anyone interested need simply scroll back through this thread, and all the comments, to see your tired, redundant rhetoric. It’s not ‘revenge’ I seek, but rather fair and equal application of the law… Justice. It makes me feel like I’m walking through a dark alley, with a powerful floodlight watching the rats scurry for those hard to find dark crevices. Until you are willing to discuss the facts, as they are, I see no reason for further engagement. Have a nice day.

Barry, are you going to post Mr. Ferreira’s appeal? To Darin’s point, “…if readers are to evaluate both sides of this argument fairly they surely need to know…”

Definition of a bore: To weary by tedious iteration or by dullness; to tire; to trouble; to vex; to annoy; to pester. If I may say so, you might benefit form cultivating parsimony as a virtue.

I’m just about done with this.

George, I’m finding your approach to be singularly unpleasant and unconstructive.  Your posts are filled with unsubstantiated allegations and rhetorical questions that seem designed more to create uncertainty than to clarify the issues. I’m not surprised that the conversation has degenerated into hostility and name-calling. It’s contrary to the spirit of conversation I’m trying to estable here. I’m closing the topic.

I’m sorry if you feel blindsided by this. This is the unfortunate side-effect of my having to review posts after they’re made public.  In the future, please try to exercise a little more decorum. I’ve seen you be gracious and charming in speaking to the city council.  I’d like to see you treat this forum with the same respect.