The California legislature is considering two bills that will enhance enforcement of the Coastal Act. Both bills were recommended by the Legislative Analyst's Office.
AB 226 gives the Coastal Commission the authority to assess fines against violators. Penalties collected will be deposited in the Coastal Act Services Fund.
Current law requires the commission, with the Attorney General, to take violators to court to seek fines. That is a costly and ineffective process that has lead to a backlog of 1300 enforcement cases. Penalties collected are deposited into the State Coastal Conservancy's Violation Remediation Account.
By allowing the commission to assess fines like other state regulatory agencies, AB 226 will help clear the current backlog of enforcement cases as well as discourage future violations. Those subjected to fines will retain the right to challenge them in court.
AB 291 prevents the Coastal Commission from processing coastal development permits (CDPs) on properties with unresolved Coastal Act violations.
Current law requires the Commission to process new CDPs without regard to existing unresolved violations, even if the violation is relevant to the new CDP. The adverse effect of the current law is that it becomes more costly and more time-consuming for both the commission and the applicant to process new CDPs because of review complications introduced by the violation. Another adverse effect of the current law is that it allows Coastal Act violations to remain unresolved and continue to harm coastal resources.
Adopting AB 291 will improve the commission's ability to process CDPs on properties clear of violations while encouraging property owners to resolve Coastal Act violations on their property.
Please call or write your state legislators and the Governor to ask that they support these bills.
After that, ask them to act on another revision to the Coastal Act recommended by the LAO, which is to grant the commission the power to de-certify Local Coastal Programs. For a good analysis of why that is needed, see pages B-91 through B-94 of the 2000-2001 analysis:
<http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2000/resources/resources_anl00.pdf>
Okay, now you can go to the beach!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
More "Spins" of Commission from Oshen
The film maker Richard Oshen is at it once again, this time spinning a simple subpoena into a claim that the California Coastal Commission is out to "silence" him.
Nothing could be further from the truth. He holds videotape evidence (the documentary) that is relevant in a suit brought against the Coastal Commission. Why is it relevant? Because the plaintiffs are using it as evidence against the defendants -- the California Coastal Commission.
This is simply another drama manufactured by Richard Oshen to promote his film. The Coastal Commission has no interest is stifling anyone's First Amendment rights, let alone a film maker that can't his film released.
And shame on all his minions that help him perpetuate such frauds. They know who they are, and they know the subpoena has nothing to do with silencing Mr. Oshen.
Nothing could be further from the truth. He holds videotape evidence (the documentary) that is relevant in a suit brought against the Coastal Commission. Why is it relevant? Because the plaintiffs are using it as evidence against the defendants -- the California Coastal Commission.
This is simply another drama manufactured by Richard Oshen to promote his film. The Coastal Commission has no interest is stifling anyone's First Amendment rights, let alone a film maker that can't his film released.
And shame on all his minions that help him perpetuate such frauds. They know who they are, and they know the subpoena has nothing to do with silencing Mr. Oshen.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Per the Suggestion of "anonymous"
In recent comments to a previous post, "anonymous" suggested that I do more research on Peter Douglas, Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. (See "Yes, They Can Say No ...") In so doing, "anonymous" believes I will adopt his misguided opinions of the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission.
With a few Google clicks, I found this:
www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/man_and_the_sea/1390/
It's not exactly the expose of Douglas's East Germany roots "anonymous" was hoping I'd find, but I now have a better idea where "anonymous" gets most of his writing material. Seems they've been used time and again by CCC antagonists throughout the years.
Sorry "anonymous," but you remain just as unconvincing as ever.
With a few Google clicks, I found this:
www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/man_and_the_sea/1390/
It's not exactly the expose of Douglas's East Germany roots "anonymous" was hoping I'd find, but I now have a better idea where "anonymous" gets most of his writing material. Seems they've been used time and again by CCC antagonists throughout the years.
Sorry "anonymous," but you remain just as unconvincing as ever.
Monday, May 4, 2009
What Happens When You Combine ...
... these components?
a beautiful lagoon,
a flotilla of lighted kayaks,
a gorgeous bluff trail,
a vendor food court,
a high-volume high-head water pump,
a water intake with an air-bubble screen,
a bluff-top firetruck,
a few dozen fountain lights, and
a community that knows how to have fun?
I have no idea, but I'd like to find out!
Can I be the only one?
a beautiful lagoon,
a flotilla of lighted kayaks,
a gorgeous bluff trail,
a vendor food court,
a high-volume high-head water pump,
a water intake with an air-bubble screen,
a bluff-top firetruck,
a few dozen fountain lights, and
a community that knows how to have fun?
I have no idea, but I'd like to find out!
Can I be the only one?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Yes, They Can Say "No"
The Press Democrat reports this morning that a Mendocino County Superior Court Judge found that the California Coastal Commission can regulate the Gualala Fireworks:
tinyurl.com/c45h43 <-- cut and paste link into your browser window
This is good news for the birds that nest on Gualala Point Island during our Independence Day holiday.
The issue at hand is straightforward -- do property owners along the coast have the right to perform activities that harm natural resources within state lands? The answer is no, they do not have that right, even for patriot displays during a patriotic holiday.
The Gualala Festivals Committee (GFC) is comprised of some of the most capable and well-accomplished individuals that live and work along the Mendonoma Coast. I encourage them to drop their appeal of the Superior Court decision and pursue alternatives to fireworks in Gualala over the 4th of July holiday. There are other holidays were fireworks may not cause the harm they do over Independence Day. There are other activities that would be unique to the coast and could only occur in Gualala.
The GFC wants to do something for the people in the town of Gualala. They can still do so, but must brainstorm to come up with another date for fireworks or another type of display over the 4th of July holiday. I believe they have what it takes to create a unique celebration that puts Gualala on the map and fully conforms to the Coastal Act.
Hopefully, they believe they've got it in them, too.
tinyurl.com/c45h43 <-- cut and paste link into your browser window
This is good news for the birds that nest on Gualala Point Island during our Independence Day holiday.
The issue at hand is straightforward -- do property owners along the coast have the right to perform activities that harm natural resources within state lands? The answer is no, they do not have that right, even for patriot displays during a patriotic holiday.
The Gualala Festivals Committee (GFC) is comprised of some of the most capable and well-accomplished individuals that live and work along the Mendonoma Coast. I encourage them to drop their appeal of the Superior Court decision and pursue alternatives to fireworks in Gualala over the 4th of July holiday. There are other holidays were fireworks may not cause the harm they do over Independence Day. There are other activities that would be unique to the coast and could only occur in Gualala.
The GFC wants to do something for the people in the town of Gualala. They can still do so, but must brainstorm to come up with another date for fireworks or another type of display over the 4th of July holiday. I believe they have what it takes to create a unique celebration that puts Gualala on the map and fully conforms to the Coastal Act.
Hopefully, they believe they've got it in them, too.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Cap and Tax Is Dead!
For now, at least.
This might be a good time for global warming alarmists to reconsider their goals, then work with skeptics to achieve those goals.
In my view, that portion of global warming attributable to anthropogenic causes is minuscule compared to natural causes such as Milankovich cycles, sun spot activity and cloud formation. Nor am I convinced that global warming is all bad as alarmists like Al Gore and James Hansen would have you believe.
That is not to say that governments shouldn't plan for climate change. They should. Knowing how climate change affects population centers, water supply and food production are extremely important planning issues. Prudent governance demands that we acclimate to climate change. That includes avoiding its adverse effects (such as sea level rise) and capturing its beneficial effects (such as increases in arable land).
Spending trillions on programs that won't affect climate change -- such as cap and trade -- is not only bad governance, but deprives us of the resources needed to acclimate to climate change.
There's another reason I oppose implementing cap and trade policies. It will prove to be an unnecessary financial burden on most Americans while enriching a few that trade in carbon credits (think Enron, but on a much larger scale).
Once folks feel the full burden of cap-and-trade and fail to see any of its stated goals achieved, the environmental movement will be doomed. Anyone that professes a desire to protect the environment will be voted out of office and replaced with a candidate less likely to balance the needs of the environment with demands for a high standard of living.
That's why I say alarmists need to reconsider their goals. Stop using global warming as a panacea for all environmental ills. Push for policies that directly improve the health of our natural environment. Push for policies that encourage the development of alternative energy sources such as wave, wind and solar. Push for policies that enhance energy independence, such as clean burning coal technology, coal gassification, hydroelectric and nuclear energy, and yes, even more offshore drilling.
The merits and pitfalls of those policies should be subjected to vigorous public debate on an individual basis. Attempting to roll them into a single policy to fight climate change serves to stifle the essential public debate and will lead to implementing ill-conceived public policy.
Continuing to frame the debate as "settled science" or "more CO2 won't increase global warming" ensures only one thing -- a lack of consensus on several important issues.
In my opinion, a much better public policy can be achieved and the environmental movement enhanced if we concentrate on achieving attainable goals such as cleaner air, cleaner water, alternative energy and energy independence. There are enough folks on both sides of the isle willing to accomplish those goals that a true bipartisan policy can reached. What's more, those policies can be effective and implemented at a substantially lower cost and with far less government interference than the proposed cap-and-trade policies.
This might be a good time for global warming alarmists to reconsider their goals, then work with skeptics to achieve those goals.
In my view, that portion of global warming attributable to anthropogenic causes is minuscule compared to natural causes such as Milankovich cycles, sun spot activity and cloud formation. Nor am I convinced that global warming is all bad as alarmists like Al Gore and James Hansen would have you believe.
That is not to say that governments shouldn't plan for climate change. They should. Knowing how climate change affects population centers, water supply and food production are extremely important planning issues. Prudent governance demands that we acclimate to climate change. That includes avoiding its adverse effects (such as sea level rise) and capturing its beneficial effects (such as increases in arable land).
Spending trillions on programs that won't affect climate change -- such as cap and trade -- is not only bad governance, but deprives us of the resources needed to acclimate to climate change.
There's another reason I oppose implementing cap and trade policies. It will prove to be an unnecessary financial burden on most Americans while enriching a few that trade in carbon credits (think Enron, but on a much larger scale).
Once folks feel the full burden of cap-and-trade and fail to see any of its stated goals achieved, the environmental movement will be doomed. Anyone that professes a desire to protect the environment will be voted out of office and replaced with a candidate less likely to balance the needs of the environment with demands for a high standard of living.
That's why I say alarmists need to reconsider their goals. Stop using global warming as a panacea for all environmental ills. Push for policies that directly improve the health of our natural environment. Push for policies that encourage the development of alternative energy sources such as wave, wind and solar. Push for policies that enhance energy independence, such as clean burning coal technology, coal gassification, hydroelectric and nuclear energy, and yes, even more offshore drilling.
The merits and pitfalls of those policies should be subjected to vigorous public debate on an individual basis. Attempting to roll them into a single policy to fight climate change serves to stifle the essential public debate and will lead to implementing ill-conceived public policy.
Continuing to frame the debate as "settled science" or "more CO2 won't increase global warming" ensures only one thing -- a lack of consensus on several important issues.
In my opinion, a much better public policy can be achieved and the environmental movement enhanced if we concentrate on achieving attainable goals such as cleaner air, cleaner water, alternative energy and energy independence. There are enough folks on both sides of the isle willing to accomplish those goals that a true bipartisan policy can reached. What's more, those policies can be effective and implemented at a substantially lower cost and with far less government interference than the proposed cap-and-trade policies.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Sins of Richard Oshen II
Richard Oshen is the film maker fabricating facts to build a documentary around a clever title.
The lies keep rolling:
<http://www.sinsofcommission.com/California-Coast/learn-more/>
Scroll down to see the clip of Milos and Trisha Douda.
The Douda's claim that the Commissioners wouldn't listen to the wonderful presentation they brought to the hearing for their CDP application 4-01-214 (item Th 9a, April 10, 2003). They also claim that the judge in their suit against the Commission was sympathetic to their cause and agreed with their arguments, but ruled against them anyway.
That tends to happen when the Coastal Commission has a superior legal argument, which is always the case when Commissioners base their actions on the Coastal Act.
This is another case of Richard Oshen misrepresenting the facts to promote his movie. A review of the staff report makes it clear why the Coastal Commission unanimously denied their application -- excessive grading, excessive impacts on a blue line stream, and excessive impact on coastal sage brush and chapparal, an important ESHA in the Santa Monica Mountains.
Mr. Oshen fails to note that staff recommended several alternatives that would make their development comply with the Coastal Act. These included building a terraced building pad for a split level home or re-siting the home for a shorter driveway, both of which would significantly reduce the amount of land form alterations for the project.
The history of this parcel includes prior Commission action (1994) to allow lot line adjustments to 8 parcels that would result in non-conforming long and narrow parcels. The lot line adjustments were approved so that all 8 parcels would have access from Mulholland Highway and the grading needed to develop each parcel could be limited to 3,000 CY. The Doudas plans called for 9,900 CY of grading, over 3 times that needed to develop the home were it properly sited.
It is hard to sympathize with the Doudas when they could have adopted staff recommendations and be enjoying their property in the Santa Monica Mountains right now. Instead, they tried to make the site conform to their development rather than make their development conform to the site. That's never a good idea in the Coastal Zone.
The Doudas and Richard Oshen knowingly mischaracterized Coastal Commission actions in their case. Shame on them!
The lies keep rolling:
<http://www.sinsofcommission.com/California-Coast/learn-more/>
Scroll down to see the clip of Milos and Trisha Douda.
The Douda's claim that the Commissioners wouldn't listen to the wonderful presentation they brought to the hearing for their CDP application 4-01-214 (item Th 9a, April 10, 2003). They also claim that the judge in their suit against the Commission was sympathetic to their cause and agreed with their arguments, but ruled against them anyway.
That tends to happen when the Coastal Commission has a superior legal argument, which is always the case when Commissioners base their actions on the Coastal Act.
This is another case of Richard Oshen misrepresenting the facts to promote his movie. A review of the staff report makes it clear why the Coastal Commission unanimously denied their application -- excessive grading, excessive impacts on a blue line stream, and excessive impact on coastal sage brush and chapparal, an important ESHA in the Santa Monica Mountains.
Mr. Oshen fails to note that staff recommended several alternatives that would make their development comply with the Coastal Act. These included building a terraced building pad for a split level home or re-siting the home for a shorter driveway, both of which would significantly reduce the amount of land form alterations for the project.
The history of this parcel includes prior Commission action (1994) to allow lot line adjustments to 8 parcels that would result in non-conforming long and narrow parcels. The lot line adjustments were approved so that all 8 parcels would have access from Mulholland Highway and the grading needed to develop each parcel could be limited to 3,000 CY. The Doudas plans called for 9,900 CY of grading, over 3 times that needed to develop the home were it properly sited.
It is hard to sympathize with the Doudas when they could have adopted staff recommendations and be enjoying their property in the Santa Monica Mountains right now. Instead, they tried to make the site conform to their development rather than make their development conform to the site. That's never a good idea in the Coastal Zone.
The Doudas and Richard Oshen knowingly mischaracterized Coastal Commission actions in their case. Shame on them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
