Comments by Rick Nelson
February 27, 2010
This is all direct from the NWS web site (the capitalization is thiers not mine): TSUNAMI ADVISORIES MEAN THAT A TSUNAMI CAPABLE OF PRODUCING STRONG CURRENTS OR WAVES DANGEROUS TO PERSONS IN OR VERY NEAR THE WATER IS IMMINENT OR EXPECTED. SIGNIFICANT WIDESPREAD INUNDATION IS NOT EXPECTED FOR AREAS UNDER AN ADVISORY. CURRENTS MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO SWIMMERS... BOATS... AND COASTAL STRUCTURES AND MAY CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THE INITIAL WAVE ARRIVAL. THE INITIAL WAVE WILL NOT BE THE LARGEST. COASTAL…
August 07, 2009
That last sentence should have said affecting the flow of water, not altering. Whether the city caused more water to flow onto the property doesn't really seemed to have mattered, the main thing is they affected the flow of water off of the property, thus creating large "puddles" of water that were never there, thus costing millions of taxpayer dollars. Altering, affecting, call it whatever you want, the city created the mess, and now is going to pay dearly for it.
August 07, 2009
The decision states that the city dug trenches, then installed drains higher than the original ground level, then took the dirt from the trenches and piled it in a way that impeded the water draining from the land as it had prior to the work being done, thus forming "wetlands" that were not there prior to the work done. It also states that the TAAD project "totally altered the topography of Beachwood and consequently affected the flow of surface water onto and off the property" (Weirich, 845:12-21.)…
August 06, 2009
I don't know what you mean by "an appeal would have resulted in a zero sum of money". Are you saying you know how an appeal would have turned out? Why wouldn't the city attorney say that when he just lost a case and won't have to pay a penny either way? I was under the impression that the taxpayers are paying for the fact that the city
decreased the value of the plaintiffs property by having water drain onto it, thus "making wetlands" where there were none.
August 06, 2009
Well, when David P. Hamilton feels strongly enough to put up $40 million and appeal the decision, I will pay attention to him. Until then, we all might as well get used to forking over a huge sum of money for no good reason at all, unless there is some one who thinks that was a good use of the money.
August 06, 2009
Well Mr. Drouillard (sorry about misspelling your name the first time) you can feel free to ridicule my "absurd assumptions", I am not worried about your opinion, they are like you know what's, every one has one, they all stink. I am not worried about any one siezing my property. The point I tried to make is that these rules are hazy at best. The reason I refer to topo maps, is because that was the evidence cited by the judge that cost HMB millions of dollars, irregardless of what is on your property.…
August 06, 2009
Just to be clear, I am not a pro-growth fanatic, and actually I owe a huge thank you to each and every person that fought for the Devil's Slide tunnel long before I moved to Montara. Instead of the freeway that was going to go over Montara Mountain, every time I look out my window and see the unspoiled mountain, or stand on my deck and hear the ocean, I know that without the hard work of these people I would see and hear a freeway. I don't know about every one else, but I feel very lucky and blessed…
August 06, 2009
Mr. Droullard, I read the definition of wetlands according to the CCC (see below), and can find nowhere that says if the activity that caused the "wetlands" is illegal or done before wetlands are established, that it makes any difference. It's kind of hard to read, of course, but from what I see, if I go to the empty lot behind my house, dig a hole, and keep watering it until "natural vegetation" grows there, or even just plant said vegetation myself, it will be a "wetland". I could also seemingly…
August 06, 2009
I thought the wetlands in Montara were being built by Caltrans to mitigate damage from the tunnel, but I reread the article and apparently there were wetlands there at some point, and now water is trucked from Pacifica to keep this area wet. So now if HMB digs holes on every piece of open land, and they fill with water, the City will have all kinds of "wetlands", and the Coastal Comission will protect them all. I'm not sure I think the reason is a measure of the importance of wetlands, being as the…
August 06, 2009
"Is a parcel that sits at the base of a coastal mountain range (thereby channeling water runoff from the hills to ocean) likely to contain wetlands?" Well, not if the entire property drains downhill with no depressions (other than grading done by HMB for streets), as evidenced by topographical maps. I live by Montara Mountain, and with all of the water that runs down that watershed, I am unaware of any wetlands there. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I'm not aware of any. There is a…
August 06, 2009
So with millions of dollars at stake, the city found only one person able to testify as to the wetlands, while all of the topographical maps that were available to use show a completely different conclusion. I guess there is no wonder as to why HMB lost that lawsuit. So, back to the original question, what wetlands are the Sierra Club referring to in regards to the letter they sent? Are they going to attempt, once again to show natural wetlands on this property, or are they going to try to protect…
August 05, 2009
Isn't it true that it has already been decided in court that this property doesn't have wetlands? That in fact the water there was caused by storm drains installed by HMB on bordering property, and grading work that was done in the area? I thought that was the reason HMB lost the recent lawsuit the developer filed. The Sierra Club letter says they have been long studied and well established. It's confusing to say the least. I found this newspaper article that seems to say there never were wetlands…
July 31, 2009
It has been well documented that household income seems to be a factor in the overall success of children in school, health, and behavior. There are many reasons for this I'm sure. Whether a child lives in a single parent household, has drug, alchohol, physical, mental, or sexual abuse in his or her home, doesn't get the love or attention that they need, and a myriad of other factors can always contribute to whatever problems the child already has with learning. When you add in things like language…
July 29, 2009
Cheri, Isn't the bus used to "distribute the Hispanic kids among the elementary schools" actually a bus funded from outside the school district's budget? I thought it was a bus for low income residents that live in the Moonside development. Have they put a "hispanics only" sign on this bus? It seems like that would be illegal.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS