Comments by Francis Drouillard

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

Steven, You may not be aware of it, but AB 1991 (Mullin) will have disastrous effects up and down the California coast. Unscrupulous bureaucrats and elected officials in counties such as Mendocino will gleefully work with developers and use the AB 1991 template to circumvent CEQA and the Coastal Act. They're already notorious for their utter contempt of state environmental laws and the Coastal Act in particular. With that in mind, you may want to reconsider your statement "...[it]shows the efforts…

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Do you have a problem with Americans freely associating with one another to promote their common point of view? According to the US Constitution, we do. Do we have a right to decry suspending environmental laws in return for cash? Of course we do. The resources being protected are those on state lands. No private property owner within the Coastal Zone has the right to develop in a way that adversely affects those resources. Not sure where you're going with that "eating pollution cake in the East…

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

18. Is AD 1991 constitutional/legal? Yes. Has anybody seriously asked that question? ------------------------------------------ If a settlement is similar to contract and HMB lacks the capacity to pay $18 million, then the "contract" isn't enforceable. I don't know if that's the case, but it would be interesting to know if the settlement could be challenged on that basis. There's also the constitutional question of legislating in a such a way as to effectively change legislation resulting from a…

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

That's the amount negotiated by the city, so we have to presume it's an amount HMB is capable of paying. If the bill fails, as I believe it should, the Commission will likey do everything in its power to help the city develop the lots to the fullest extent allowed by law so they can recover as much of the $18 million as possible. The Commission clearly has compassion for HMB's plight, and it would be good public relations for them to apply their knowledge and expertise to help HMB out of their predicament…

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

"Hopefully now other cities will learn from our mistakes and tread more carefully or they too can stare down the barrel of choking judgments." The best way for HMB -- and other cities -- to learn from HMB's mistakes is for AB 1991 to fail. That will place all of the accountability right where it belongs -- with the City of Half Moon Bay.

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

Steve, Have you ever considered that "these groups" have the law on their side? That the number of Californians concerned about the adverse effects of excessive development is growing? Both explain the influence anti-AB 1991 groups have on legislators. The anti-AB 1991 side is asking for the law to be applied equally and uniformly. The pro-AB 1991 side is seeking to exchange exemptions to the law for a select few that will benefit monetarily or politically or both. I prefer laws that treat folks…

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

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

Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

I believe this presents a tremendous opportunity for HMB. Can the City pursue an appeal? Perhaps. Would the Commission and the Attorney General still assist the city in the appeal? I think so. This case presents an all-round success scenario that would demonstrate the Commission's problem solving capacity. The City Council should talk with the Commission and the Attorney General about this case. Judging by the Coastal Commission's letter, the flaws in the settlement may be sufficient grounds to have…

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

Carl, Just to clarify, I live in Novato and own vacant land in the Gualala area. I also participated in an appeal to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors related to a project that was approved by the Coastal Permit Administrator despite clearly failing to conform to numerous provisions of the LCP. There is no question that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors is very hostile towards state and federal environmental laws and the Coastal Act in particular. If AB1991 passes, they will use special…

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

terry gossett asked of Mr. Ferreira: What is your plan? From what I understand [snip] it appears you prefer to support the interests of the Sierra Club (or possibly the Coastal Commission) over the interests of the City of HMB and its ratepayers. terry, please recognize that the Coastal Commission supports the interests of the people of California. Recall, Californians stated overwhelmingly that we want the coast to remain accessible and its environment protected from development activities on private…

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

Regarding AB1991: I'm not a citizen of HMB and want to see the city solve its legal problems without circumventing environmental laws. I am also opposed to setting the bad precedent of combining legislative acts with civil lawsuits. Regarding private property rights: Owners that have been denied any access or any use of their land by the commission must be compensated for their land. However, such "takings" are rarely the case. If property owners propose development that fits the site (i.e., conforms…

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

Well, that's the point -- we need a definition that isn't open to interpretation, and we have one. You can see if there's standing water on a site. You can analyze the soil to see if it is hydrophytic, and identify plants that are defined as hydrophytic. So where's the problem? Are you arguing that the wetlands identified at Beachwood don't meet these criteria?

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

The presence of either standing water, hydrophytic soils or hydrophytic plants requires the commission to designate any lands meeting those conditions as wetlands. Your argument seems to be founded on the notion that the commission is inconsistent and capricious when it comes to defining wetlands. They are not. All of the conditions described above can be established by scientific means -- there isn't any guesswork required of the commission.

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

Ray, refer to the URL provided in my previous post. Although a wetlands definition isn't provided in the initial act language, so there was a gray area. However, the definition they now use is codified in state law. So again, I do not see how you can claim the commission has any responsibility for the predicament HMB finds themselves in. I believe any attempt to hold the commission responsible will result in the commission suing to have the settlement set aside. Thoat could be a good thing for HMB.

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

All LCPs must conform to the Coastal Act, and the Coastal Act has a more strict interpretation of wetlands than the Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game. You may want to check out the following URL for more details: There are good reasons for having a more strict defininition of wetlands in the coastal zone. Again, the commission enforces state law. If you don't like the definition codified in the Coastal Act you should try to amend the it,…

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

The California Coastal Act applies to the entire 1100 mile California Coast. The Act allows for coastal towns, cities and counties develop to develop and administer their own Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Once those LCPs are reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission they become certified LCPs. The commission can only certify LCPs that conform to the Coastal Act. Once an LCP is certified, it becomes the standard of review, even if a project is appealed to the Coastal Commission. In unincorporated…

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

Why should the Coastal Commission (i.e., California taxpayers) pay for the settlement? The problem was caused by HMB, not the commission. They've done what they're supposed to do -- enforce the California Coastal Act.

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

Brian, your comment doesn't make any sense. I can see how passage of AB1991 will jeopardize the state's ability to protect state property (the coast) from activities on private property. But how does its failure to pass jeopardize ANY private property laws?

HMB’s lawyers “educating” environmental groups about AB1991

From the referenced article: "It's very easy for the Coastal Commission to come out against this settlement without telling us how we pay for the judgment if we lose it," Davis added. "We haven't seen anyone from the Coastal Commission willing to write that check." Why should the Coastal Commission pay, Mr. Davis? The City of HMB is responsible for this mess, not the Coastal Commission.

HMB lawyers issue city’s statement on AB 1991

If we take the attorney at his word, AB1991 will benefit the citizens of HMB and the developer only. I am opposed to any state law that cannot be applied equally to all Californians. Legislators need to write laws that cover all citizens and not get involved in individual legal cases. Otherwise we'll start the short march to the Law of Man rather than the Rule of Law.

Page 4 of 5 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >