MendonomaBlogspot

Validate Your Internet Listing - Yellow PagesUSA

2012-01-28T04:27:00.000-08:00

Dear Customer:

Please verify your Company Data by printing, completing and signing the attached form.

FAX THE COMPLETED FORM TO: 843-282-0035

Or return the form to the following address:

Yellow PagesUSA Corp.
391 NW 179th Ave
Aloha, OR 97006
or
fax the completed form to: 843-282-0035

Phone 843-282-0301
Fax 843-282-0035

E-mail: info@yellow-pages-usa.com,
Website: www.yellow-pages-usa.com

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY FUTURE EMAILS FROM OUR COMPANY, PLEASE REPLY TO: unsubscribe@yellow-pages-usa.com
Removal requests sent to above address will be honored and respected.

Introduction to Zend_Db

2011-07-28T18:49:00.000-07:00

Comments on Chapter 6 of "Easy PHP Websites With The Zend Framework (2011)" by Jason Gilmore. <http://gamenomad.wjgilmore.com/about/book>

This is the chapter where you interact with database tables using Zend_Db. You need to set up a database and a ZF project that interacts with it to follow the examples in the book. Rather than use the scaled down database table the author defines on page 89, it is better to create and populate the database tables for the gamenomad website. (Instructions for doing so are provided by the author in INSTALL.txt. See earlier post regarding changes to the seed.php script and cli.php)

Once you've populated and updated the tables (see other scripts within applications/scripts), you can export copies of the "games", "platforms" and "ranks" tables as SQL files. Import these tables into your scaled down version of the games database (mine is named "gilmore").

Configure your application.ini file using the ZF CLI as described on page 89:

zf configure db-adapter \
'adapter=PDO_MYSQL&host=%&username=user&password=pass&dbname=gilmore' development

The following should now show up in the development section:

resources.db.adapter = "PDO_MYSQL"
resources.db.params.host = "localhost"
resources.db.params.username = "user"
resources.db.params.password = "secret"
resources.db.params.dbname = "gilmore"

You're now ready to create a Games, GamesRow and Platforms DbTable models using the ZF CLI as described in the book. Later, you'll create relationships between these table models, but you can skip it for now.

Some of the field names in the sample code differ from the field names in the "games" table. The scripts provided below are revised from those included in the book to match the actual table names.

// This code is written within indexAction in IndexController
// application/controllers/IndexController.php

public function indexAction()
{
$gamesTable = new Application_Model_DbTable_Games();

$select = $gamesTable->select()->where('asin =?', 'B002BSA20M');
$this->view->game = $gamesTable->fetchRow($select);
}

// This code is written in application/views/scripts/index/index.phtml

<h3><?php echo $this->game->name; ?></h3>
<img src="<?php echo $this->game->medium; ?>" style="float: left;" />
<p>
Release date: <?php echo date("F j, Y", strtotime($this->game->rel)); ?>
</p>

You should get close to that shown in Figure 6.1 on page 87.

Hope it works for you!

The Partial Loop

2011-07-26T17:46:00.000-07:00

Continued comments on "Easy PHP Websites With The Zend Framework (2011)" by Jason Gilmore.

The partial loop is discussed on page 50 of Ch.3. Try as I might, I couldn't get the code to produce the desired output. Here's what worked for me:

Code within partial view script:

<li>
<a href="/games/<?php echo $this->asin; ?>"><?php echo $this->title; ?></a>
</li>

Code within view script:

<ul id="hottest">
<?= $this->partialLoop('_hottestgames.phtml',
array(
array('asin' => 'B000TG530M', 'title' => 'Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare'),
array('asin' => 'B000FRU1UM', 'title' => 'Grand Theft Auto IV'),
array('asin' => 'B000FRU0NU', 'title' => 'Halo 3')
)
); ?>
</ul>

Which results in the following page source:

<ul id="hottest">
<li><a href="/games/B000TG530M">Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare</a></li>
<li><a href="/games/B000FRU1UM">Grand Theft Auto IV</a></li>
<li><a href="/games/B000FRU0NU">Halo 3</a></li>
</ul>

Hope someone finds that useful!

CSS For Your Form Messages

2011-07-08T18:28:00.000-07:00

Continued comments on "Easy PHP Websites With The Zend Framework (2011)" by Jason Gilmore.

On page 72 in Ch. 5, the author notes you can customize the messages of your form. I copied the following code from his companion website that was in public/css/styles.css:

#flash, #errors {
background-color: #0061CE;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid black;
width: 50%;
margin: 3px;
padding: 3px;
}

then modified it slightly and pasted it into application/views/scripts/account/login.phtml as:

<html>
<head>
</head>
<style>
ul.errors {
background-color: #0061CE;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid black;
width: 50%;
margin: 3px;
padding: 3px;
}
</style>

<body>
<?= $this->form; ?>
</body>

</html>

Now I have the same garrish bold error messages in white against a blue background as the companion website. Whoo-hoo! (No offense, Jason.)

$form->getValues

2011-07-08T18:17:00.000-07:00

Comments on "Easy PHP Websites With The Zend Framework (2011)" by Jason Gilmore.

If you have trouble with the code presented on page 67 in Ch. 5, try testing for form validity before using getValue():

public function loginAction()
{
$form = new Application_Model_FormLogin();

if ($this->getRequest()->isPost()) {
if ($form->isValid($this->getRequest()->getPost())) {
$values = $form->getValues();
}
$email = $form->getValue('email');
$pswd = $form->getValue('pswd');

echo "<p>Your e-mail is {$email}, and password is {$pswd}</p>";

}

$this->view->form = $form;
}
}

Sorry for the crappy formatting, but it is blogger!

PHP Short Open Tags

2011-07-08T18:10:00.001-07:00

More notes on using the book "Easy PHP Websites With The Zend Framework 2011" by Jason Gilmore.

Unless you have PHP configured to recognize short open tags, the code in Ch. 2 on page 34 will have to be revised from:

<?= $this; ?>

to

<?php echo $this; ?>

That goes for all other such occurrences throughout the book.

Virtual Hosts

2011-07-08T17:58:00.000-07:00

Notes on getting started with "Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework (2011)."

Configuring virtual hosts is one area that may give you grief. Be sure to include localhost as a virtual host as well as all of your other virtual hosts.

First, edit your httpd.conf file. Configure your document root. Mine is:

# DocumentRoot "/opt/local/apache2/htdocs"
DocumentRoot "/Users/frank/Sites"

(The # comments out the line.)

Next, change the directory a few lines below to match your document root:

# <Directory "/opt/local/apache2/htdocs">
<Directory "/Users/frank/Sites">

Next, change the DirectoryIndex directive to include index.php files:

<IfModule dir_module>
DirectoryIndex index.php index.html
</IfModule>

I needed to put index.php before index.html. YMMV.

And finally, enable virtual hosts by uncommenting the appropriate Include line:

# Virtual hosts
Include conf/extra/httpd-vhosts.conf

Save the changes.

Now you have to edit your httpd-vhosts.conf file. Add the following directives, then save the file:

<VirtualHost *:80>
DocumentRoot "/Users/frank/Sites"
ServerName localhost

<Directory "/Users/frank/Site">
Options Indexes MultiViews FollowSymLinks
AllowOverride All
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
</Directory>

</VirtualHost>

<VirtualHost *:80>
DocumentRoot "/Users/frank/Sites/gamenomad/public"
ServerName gamenomad

# This should be omitted in the production environment
SetEnv APPLICATION_ENV development

<Directory "/Users/frank/Sites/gamenomad/public">
Options Indexes MultiViews FollowSymLinks
AllowOverride All
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
</Directory>

</VirtualHost>

Now, add the following lines to the bottom of your hosts file, then save:

127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.0.1 gamenomad

After you restart apache and create a zf project named gamenomad, typing gamenomad in your browser window should yield the welcome screen shown on page 44 of the book.

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework Part 6

2011-07-03T12:13:00.000-07:00

Chapter 6 of the book provides an excellent introduction to working with database tables in your applications using Zend_Db. In order to follow the examples in the book you need a database with a populated "games" table, but the examples in the book rely on a simpler "games" table than the one seeded with the "seed.php" script.

The following SQL statements can be used to create and seed a table that can be used to follow the examples in the book:

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `games` (
`id` INTEGER UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
`asin` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`publisher` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`rel` date NOT NULL,
`price` decimal(5,2) NOT NULL
);

INSERT INTO `games` (`id`, `asin`, `name`, `publisher`, `rel`, `price`)
VALUES
(1, 'B00269QLI8', 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2', 'Activision Inc.', '2009-11-10', '49.99'),
(2, 'B002I08CJG', 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: Reflex', 'Activision Inc.', '2009-11-10', '19.99'),
(3, 'B0016B28Y8', 'Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare', 'Activision Inc.', '2008-04-01', '29.99'),
(4, 'B000TG530M', 'Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare', 'Activision Inc.', '2007-11-05', '59.99'),
(5, 'B001TOQ8PM', 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Hardened Edition', 'Activision Inc.', '2009-11-10', '79.99'),
(6, 'B002BSA388', 'Super Mario Galaxy 2', 'Nintendo', '2010-05-23', '49.99'),
(7, 'B002BRZ9G0', 'New Super Mario Bros. Wii', 'Nintendo', '2009-11-15', '49.99'),
(8, 'B000XJNTNS', 'Mario Kart Wii with Wii Wheel', 'Nintendo', '2008-04-27', '49.99'),
(9, 'B000FQ9QVI', 'Super Mario Galaxy', 'Nintendo', '2007-11-12', '49.99'),
(10, 'B000LSJKAM', 'Mario Party 8', 'Nintendo', '2007-05-29', '49.99')

You can now add the example queries to the indexAction of the IndexController to learn Zend_Db by using it.

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework Part 5

2011-07-02T14:45:00.000-07:00

Okay, you've fixed "cli.php" and "seed.php" then successfully connect to the Amazon server. But now you're seeing errors from the Amazon server. If so, then try seeding the platforms table in your gamenomad database:

--
-- Database: `gamenomad`
--

-- --------------------------------------------------------

--
-- Table structure for table `platforms`
--

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `platforms` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
`abbreviation` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=4 ;

--
-- Dumping data for table `platforms`
--

INSERT INTO `platforms` (`id`, `name`, `abbreviation`) VALUES
(1, 'Xbox 360', '360'),
(2, 'PlayStation 3', 'PS3'),
(3, 'Nintendo Wii', 'Wii');

Once I did that, the games table in my gamenomad database was seeded with hundreds of game descriptions from their games catalog.

(Note: changed the abbreviation for 'Xbox 360' to '360' -- July 5, 2011 -- FD)

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework Part 4

2011-06-28T20:14:00.000-07:00

The author Jason Gilmore offered these suggestions to get the script "seed.php" working on my machine. First, add the following line to the file "cli.php" after the opening php tag:

// this file is in ~/Sites/gamenomad/public/cli.php
// The line below was added by Jason. You'll have to
// adjust the base path for application.
// (The "/Users/frank/Sites" part of the path.)
//
set_include_path( "/Users/frank/Sites/gamenomad/library:" . ini_get( "include_path" ) );

Second, alter the path in line 9 of the file "seed.php":

/** This file is ~/Sites/gamenomad/application/scripts/seed.php
* You need to change the include path to that shown on line 9
* for the cli.php file where I have it.
*
*/

include "../../public/cli.php";

Of course, you also need an Amazon.com associates ID as well as a public and private key. See previous post.

Good luck!

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework Part 3

2011-06-28T20:02:00.000-07:00

Notes from Skype call with Jason Gilmore on June 21, 2011:

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework (2011)
by W.J. Gilmore

Note that square brackets []are used where <> are normally used. This is because blogger doesn't like HTML in posts.

======================================================================
Chapter 2, page 34

If short tags are disabled in your php.ini file, you'll have to use:

[title][?php echo $this-]pageTitle; ?][/title]

instead of

[title][?= $this-]pageTitle; ?][/title]

Short tags not really bad as rumored ... advocated by author.

======================================================================
Chapter 3, page 45

Under "Managing Views" the author writes:

"When a controller action is invoked, the Zend Framework's default behavior is to look for an appropriately named action to return as a response."

He may have meant "...appropriately named view ..."

If having trouble overriding the default action view, try:

$this-]_helper-]viewRenderer('alternate');

======================================================================

Chapter 3, page 46

Unresolved issue -- overriding the default action view path doesn't seem to work.

My intent was to override the view associated with About/contact and use the view associated with Index/index. From the contactAction() within the AboutController:

$this-]view-]setScriptPath('/application/views/scripts/index/');
$this-]view-]render('index.phtml');

which throws an application error. So does:

$this-]view-]setScriptPath('/application/views/scripts/index/');
$this-]_helper-]viewRenderer('index');

Hard to follow ZF documentation on this issue:

Config issue ... not really something you'd need to do. Action -> view.

======================================================================
GameNomad companion website INSTALL.txt, Step #2

Revisions from the author --

After running the following command;

$ git clone git://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2.git doctrine2-orm

Enter the directory (which should be doctrine2-orm) and execute the
following command:

$ git submodule update --init (that is two dashes before the init)

Looks like Doctrine2 requires the submodules to be manually installed,
they probably did this for efficiency's sake, when I wrote that
chapter I was using a bleeding-edge Doctrine2 release so maybe they
were stuffing everything in for simplicity's sake. I'll get the
install document updated, thanks for pointing this out.

Note -- The Doctrine website now includes these instructions on their website.

Continue with the remaining instructions in Step #2.
======================================================================
GameNomad companion website INSTALL.txt, Step #6

If you're getting PHP errors when pointing your browser to the
GameNomad companion website, try using the absolute paths for the
Doctrine configurations. For example:

resources.entityManager.connection.entities =
"/usr/local/zend/apache2/www/gamenomad/application/models"
resources.entityManager.connection.proxies.location =
"/usr/local/zend/apache2/www/gamenomad/application/models/Proxies"
======================================================================
GameNomad companion website INSTALL.txt, Step #7

The script "seed.php" fails. Issue still not resolved.

Does "seed.php" use any of the configs/application.ini configs?

Partial resolution provided in follow-up post.
======================================================================
Chapter 5, page 67

Try getPost() instead of getValue():

public function loginAction() {
$form = new Application_Model_FormLogin();

if ($this-]getRequest()-]isPost()) {

$email = $this-]_request-]getPost('email');
$pswd = $this-]_request-]getPost('pswd');

echo "

Your e-mail is {$email}, and password is {$pswd}

";

}

$this-]view-]form = $form;

}

Look at gamenomad code! see wjgilmore/gamenomad.com

getPost() shouldn't work with filters!

wont work: $email = $this-]_request-]getValue('email');

will work: $email = $form-]getValue('email'); specific to using form filters.

will validate, not filter.

======================================================================
Chapter 6, page 88 and 89

Instead of the code that starts at the bottom of the page, try:

zf configure db-adapter \
'adapter=PDO_MYSQL&host=%&username=root&password=good98&dbname=tables' production

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework Part 2

2011-06-12T16:41:00.000-07:00

If, like me, you are relatively new to PHP with the Zend Framework there are a few things you need to know that will help you complete the early chapters.

Configuring virtual hosts is one area that may give you grief. Be sure to include localhost as a virtual host as well as all of your other virtual hosts.

You may find that the code on page 34 of Ch. 2 doesn't work for you:

?= $this

The reason is that you don't have short tags enabled in your php.ini file. If you don't want to enable short tags, you'll have to use the following code instead:

?php echo $this

Also in Ch.2, make sure you understand the section "Retrieving POST Parameters" on page 36 -- you'll need it to correct some code errors in Ch. 5.

One last thing about Ch. 2 -- you don't need to create custom routes or define URL parameters to continue with the book. Those are just some of the excellent code snippets and programming methods that the author sprinkles throughout the book.

Newbies may want to read Ch. 11, then come back to the testing sections at the end of each chapter.

Ch. 3 has lots of useful code snippets, but I don't know if they can be used in a "sing along with Mitch" fashion. I'm sure I'll come back to this chapter time and again as I struggle to learn the Zend Framework.

Like Ch. 3, Ch. 4 has lots of useful information and code snippets that I'm sure I'm come back to. It's must reading, but don't get mired by it -- forge ahead.

Ch. 5 had me spittin' nails for the longest time. No matter what I tried, I couldn't echo my username and password back to the browser or get the form validation to work.

Time to review that section in Ch. 2 I mentioned earlier. Turns out that you need to replace this code shown on page 67 of Ch. 5 (change those square brackets to html brackets):

$email = $form->getValue('email');
$pswd = $form->getValue('pswd');

with this code:

$email = $this->_request->getPost('email');
$pswd = $this->_request->getPost('pswd');

After that things began to work as advertized. (I sometimes wonder if those typos on purpose.)

The author mentions that you can customize your error messages and points you in the right direction, but he doesn't really say how to do so. What I did was copy this code from his companion website in /public/css/styles.css:

#flash, #errors {
background-color: #0061CE;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid black;
width: 50%;
margin: 3px;
padding: 3px;
}

then modify is slightly and paste it into /application/views/scripts/account/login.phtml as:

ul.errors {
background-color: #0061CE;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid black;
width: 50%;
margin: 3px;
padding: 3px;
}

all enclosed between html-style tags and placed between the closing html-head and opening html-body tags. (Blogger gets persnickety about html like tags in these missives.) Now I get the same God-awful bold error messages in white against a blue background that come with the companion website!

Installing the GameNomad companion website. I've downloaded and installed all the files I need and have the gamenomad database set up. I'm still struggling with the seed.php script, which is used to seed the database with data pulled from the Amazon.com website. That may require some help from the offer, and I'll be sure to share once I get it working.

Easy PHP Websites with the Zend Framework (2011)

2011-06-11T08:33:00.000-07:00

This book is a great way to learn and develop a PHP website using the Zend Framework. It provides numerous useful code snippets. The author also provides sound guidelines for developing applications with the Zend Framework. The companion website provided with the book pulls it all together to provide a comprehensive and thorough example of a sophisticated website.

Newbies may find that this book has too many stumbling blocks. I certainly encountered a few! But, with patience and persistence (and some timely help from the author) I've been able to overcome those obstacles.

As I proceed through the book and attempt to get the companion website up and running, I'll share how I worked through obstacles I encountered.

Rambo Cat to Eliminate Osprey-harassing Ravens

2011-04-11T18:28:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to see if animated GIFs are actually animated at Blogger. Nope, not on this machine. Check out

http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb3/cautiouslibra/?action=view&current=rambocat.gif&&newest=1

to see the action.

Get on Over to the MendonomaSightings Blog!

2011-03-16T14:43:00.000-07:00

If you haven't yet seen it, check out --

http://mendonomasightings.blogspot.com/

It's the best way to know the best of Mendonoma from afar. Don't forget to say "good dog!" to Huckles.

Sara Wan Deserves Better

2011-01-24T12:10:00.000-08:00

Last week, Sara Wan was dressed down by John Burton in a letter that was leaked to the press. Her offense? Getting elected Chair of the powerful California Coastal Commission by her fellow commissioners.

The previous Vice Chair, Mary K. Shallenberger, thought she deserved the position. Unfortunately, a majority of her fellow commissioners did not feel the same way. They rarely do. Moving from Vice Chair to Chair on the Coastal Commission is not a common occurrence. It fact, it has happened only twice in the last 11 years. Pat Kruer moved from Vice Chair to Chair in 2007 and Bonnie Neely moved from Vice Chair to Chair in 2009.

Sara Wan's election to Chair of the Coastal Commission has brought out the worst in both her foes and her friends. Her foes can be expected to publicly scratch their anti-Sara itch at every opportunity. But even some environmentalists and friends have joined the fray. Whether they want to seize a coveted seat on the Coastal Commission or are guided by an envy of Sara Wan's success and influence is anyone's guess. However, it is irrefutable that they're attacking someone who has served their interests on the Coastal Commission better than anyone else.

Sara Wan did not want to become Chair of the Coastal Commission because it would limit her ability to appeal projects or amend conditions for approving projects. She wanted her friend Mary Shallenberger to become Chair. But, even with Sara Wan's support, Ms. Shallenberger lacked the votes to become Chair. It is both misguided and unfair to blame Ms. Wan for that state of affairs.

Her fellow commissioners elected Sara Wan for several good reasons. One was to push back a serious pro-development contender, namely Dr. Wm. Burke. Another was to keep someone knowledgeable of the Coastal Act as Chair. But with an Executive Director in poor health and 8 commissioners facing re-appointment, experience and continuity were clearly on the mind of those that elected Sara Wan as Chair.

Sara Wan does not deserve the anger directed at her by Mary K. Shallenberger. She did not deserve the "dressing down" by Chairman John Burton of the California Democrat Party. And she certainly doesn't deserve the attacks on her motives and integrity from her friends and colleagues that should know better.

She deserves a fair shake in the press. She deserves a phone call from her friends that have abandoned her. But most of all, Sara Wan deserves re-appointment to the California Coastal Commission.

POFTIDES of Moss Beach Misses the Point

2010-08-27T07:46:00.000-07:00

In a thread at the TalkAbout forum at HMB Review, I argued that it would be better to address issues such as clean air and water, alternate forms of energy and energy independence that to adopt measures intended to stop global warming.

In a classic case of a carbon footprint hypocrite missing the point, POFTIDES of Moss Beach responds:

"We spent the summer flying around the world looking for a place where the weather wasn't all frugged up or close to normal...We aren't the sort to panic, but we did notice that in every country people did nothing but denounce the global change about which you think is just alarmist.

It matters not one way or another, because if you look behind every country's miserable loss of life, and flooding and disasters caused by weather change, you will find a government just like ours which is not willing or trying to do anything. So, relax and deal with the chicken littles."

POFTIDES makes the observation that weather is changing, then leaps to the conclusion that those changes are due to anthropogenic causes. That is an extreme anthropocentric point of view. (So is the belief that mankind can stop climate change.)

Flooding and other disasters have occurred for centuries. They aren't related to "weather" change as POFTIDES argues. There are much better ways to prevent those disasters than to limit the amount of anthropogenic CO2 released into the atmosphere. Moving population centers out of flood prone areas, for instance.

POFTIDES, if you find that reducing CO2 emissions is essential, you can make great strides in that regard by staying home.

Bakers Dozen of Half Moon Bay is Wrong Again

2010-08-27T07:34:00.000-07:00

In a thread at the TalkAbout forum at HMB Review, I argued that global warming alarmists bear the burden of proving that efforts to stop global warming are better that efforts to adjust and acclimate to global warming.

With the arrogance so typical of AGW alarmists, Bakers Dozen of Half Moon Bay responds:

"You don't control the powers that be, so we need to convince you of nothing. Governments and scientists in overwhelming majorities are on board with the IPCC, so it is you that need to do the convincing."

That's just the attitude that allows governments to implement policies that are destined to fail.

Support AB 226 and AB 291

2009-08-29T10:17:00.000-07:00

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!

More "Spins" of Commission from Oshen

2009-06-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Per the Suggestion of "anonymous"

2009-06-14T11:33:00.000-07:00

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.

What Happens When You Combine ...

2009-05-04T17:24:00.000-07:00

... 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?

Yes, They Can Say "No"

2009-04-17T07:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Cap and Tax Is Dead!

2009-04-03T09:02:00.001-07:00

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.

Sins of Richard Oshen II

2009-03-01T13:30:00.000-08:00

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!

Sins of Richard Oshen

2009-02-20T10:13:00.000-08:00

Richard Oshen is a film maker that is fabricating a documentary built around a clever title. It uses innuendo and quotes taken out of context to paint a very dismal picture of the California Coastal Commission.

What inspired Richard Oshen? His friends Peg and Dan, who attempted to develop their 40-acre property in Topanga Canyon without the required Coastal Development Permit.

At the film's website, Mr. Oshen shows the first page of a letter from the CCC to his friends Peg and Dan:

<http://www.sinsofcommission.com/California-Coast/learn-more/>

Mr. Oshen fails to provide a link to the complete staff report or to show the entire staff report on the project. Why? Because the facts enumerated therein refute just about everything he says about the Commission, state law or his sweet innocent little friends Peg and Dan.

The complete staff report can be found here:

<http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2007/2/Th14-2-2007.pdf>

Make sure to also download the exhibits to the staff report, which are linked on the last page of the staff report.

Mr. Oshen uses a variety of dishonest means to thoroughly mischaracterize the Commission's actions. The Kathleen Kenny story is one:

<http://www.sinsofcommission.com/California-Coast/california-coastal-commmission/the-kathleen-kenny-story-in-her-own-words/>

Note how he uses the crimes of some LA County officials to cast the Coastal Commission in a bad light. Note also that he fails to provide any evidence of a $2.4 million judgement against the Kenny estate or who was the beneficiary of that claim. He implies that it is the result of CCC action against Kenny, but the CCC has no record of any judgment or legal action against her. But hey, why let viewers judge for themselves when you can simply tell them what to think?

Richard Oshen had an opportunity to make an informative film that clarifies the goals of the Coastal Commission, highlights the complex issues they face and how they deal with those issues. He could have given small developers insight into the CCC review process of their development plans. He could have shown that staff routinely recommends modest changes to bring plans into compliance with the Coastal Act. He could have shown how most consent to those changes and end up with a better project.

He claims to love animals and the environment, but in order to obtain funding for his work he has thrown in with the likes of the Pacific Legal Foundation and Attorney Ron Sumbrun. He's now fully aligned with those that want to overdevelop the coast at the expense of California's most precious resource.

This film does nothing to provide the information viewers need to evaluate the performance of the Coastal Commission. It only fans the flames of fury against this state agency to appease those willfully ignorant or contemptuous of state environmental laws.

The Sins of Richard Oshen turn folks against the Coastal Commission for no good reason but his own financial gain. Shame on him!

PXP-EDC Deal Busted!

2009-01-31T11:04:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, January 29th, the State Lands Commission held a hearing in Santa Barbara to decide the fate of a proposal by Texas-based Plains Exploration and Production Company, or PXP, to use slant drilling from an existing platform in federal waters to tap oil deposits within state waters. The PXP proposal was supported by the Environmental Defense Center with the approval of roughly 25 environmental organizations.

A small group of environmentalists opposed the deal, largely because it sent the wrong signal to Washington and could result in more oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara and new oil platforms off the coast of San Diego, Orange and Mendocino counties.

Many in that group also opposed the State Lands Commission approving any proposal based on an agreement between PXP and EDC that was negotiated in secret with terms that prevented full public disclosure.

Fortunately for Mendonomans, the SLC voted 2-1 to deny the PXP proposal. Those that are appreciative of that vote should thank commissioners John Chiang, State Controller and John Garamendi, Lt. Governor.

The Lt. Governor deserves special praise for asking those questions that revealed the PXP-EDC deal for what it really was -- bevy of environmental benefits that may never materialize.

Others deserving praise for this vote are SLC Executive Officer Paul Thayer and SLC Chief Counsel Curtis Fossum. They recommended that the commission oppose the PXP proposal because the terms of the secret agreement between PXP and EDC were largely unenforceable.

There are several individuals that should be thanked as well, including Sara and Larry Wan, Penny Elia and Judy Fogel. These environmentalists dared ask "why are we supporting new oil drilling?" As a result they were subjected to a great deal of scorn by members of the many environmentalist groups that did support the PXP deal. These individuals and others whose names now escape me continued to sound the alarm and asked the tough questions anyway.

Please, if you appreciate a pristine Mendonoma coast, take some time to thank all of those that opposed the PXP proposal. I can't share the private email addies, but I can provide the following contacts for public officials:

Controller John Chiang:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/01/serious_concern.html

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi:
http://www.ltg.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=122

SLC Executive Officer Paul Thayer:
E-mail: thayerp@slc.ca.gov

SLC Chief Counsel Curtis Fossum
E-mail: fossumc@slc.ca.gov

Please take the time to send them a note in support of their actions.

For a video of the meeting, see:
http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=CSLC&date=2009-01-29.

Public comment from the opposition starts at about 03:42:00.

No Bailout!

2008-09-24T07:10:00.000-07:00

My gut tells me "no way!" The more I hear about this so-called fix the less I like it. Why not simply buy all the bad mortgages? The total of all mortgages is about $1.3 trillion. Say 5% of all those loans are bad, which leaves $70 billion, a tenth of the $700 billion currently sought.

They're clearly trying to sweep some other problems under the rug. Perhaps it's those pesky mortgage backed securities. Those are nothing but paper and ink.

As a taxpayer, I prefer to pay $70 billion (much of which can be recouped) for real property than $700 billion for worthless paper.

Call or write your representatives in Congress and tell them No Bailout!

Let's ride this one out without destroying the value of the US dollar. We can do it.

Well, Wipe the Egg Off My Face

2008-09-05T07:18:00.000-07:00

Smiling face, that is. Sarah Palin has thus far proved to be a game-changer in this election. The Republicans can now run on Obama's theme of change, and convincingly so.

I must profess I really don't understand the Obama phenomenon. In my view, he's a fundamentally flawed candidate because his resume it too thin. (But it won't always be that way!) When was the last time you saw the need for a presidential candidate to compare their resume with the vice-presidential candidate from the other camp?

Be that as it may, Obama is still a formidable phenomenon because roughly half of our voting populace likes him. Hopefully, his supporters understand that his opponent is a very qualified candidate that is also supported by roughly half the voting populace.

But what if Obama loses? How will his supporters react? Will they accept defeat or deny it? I hope they give that some thought before the first Tuesday in November.

18 Million Voters

2008-08-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

That's the number of votes Hillary compiled during the Democratic Primary, many of whom remain angry at the Obama camp (and the press). In my view, Obama made a huge mistake by failing to secure those 18 million votes. They're now up for grabs by McCain.

Many of those 18 million voters claim they will vote for McCain rather than a Democrat ticket without Hillary. McCain can't count on most of them -- unless he names Hillary his running mate.

Take a moment to clean up that coffee you just splorted all over your keyboard. Now think about it. Independents are attracted to McCain because he's willing to buck the Republican Party establishment, and it is the independents that decide elections, not the far-right or the far-left that select candidates during the primary season. Yes, McCain would lose some of his far-right base, but his net gains from the big middle would outweigh that loss.

Selecting Hillary would be a dramatic game-changer for McCain. It would reinforce his image as a maverick and one willing to "cross the isle" for the benefit of the country.

Any bump in the polls for Obama resulting from the Democratic Party convention would soon be deflated by such a choice. The bipartisan nature of such a ticket would prove very attractive to many independents. I believe it would help restore civility to politics, too.

McCain and Clinton have worked together on bipartisan legislation in the Senate. Were she his VP she could champion their common causes in the Senate rather than remain there as one of his chief adversaries. (The "keep your friends close and enemies closer" philosophy of governing.) Most important, such a ticket could go a long way towards diminishing the crippling partisanship looming over our capitol.

So, while one side claims to be a new kind of candidate, the other actually behaves like one. And, McCain certainly has a legislative record that is compatible with such a ticket. As actions tend to speak louder than words, McCain/CLinton would win the agent of change sweepstakes.

There's another aspect of such a ticket that must be considered -- how could the Democrats campaign against McCain/Clinton? Calling her a turncoat is like the pot calling the kettle black. They can't challenge her credentials or any of the policies she holds near and dear, since that would make them appear to be hypocrites.

Best of all, it would totally flumox all the political pundits, and it would be so nice to see them speechless at least one day this election season. That is something I would really like to see.

Support the Alternative to AB 1991 (Mullin)

2008-08-20T08:27:00.000-07:00

State Senator Leland Yee has proposed an alternative to AB 1991 (Mullin) that would help the City of Half Moon Bay without jeopardizing our state environmental laws or Coastal Act. The proposal will become part of SB 863 (Yee).

According to Barry Parr at Coastsider.com, the proposed amendment to SB 863 would provide the city with up to $10 million in Proposition 1C (2006) money to create a public park on the site. Yesterday, HMB's City Council approved the proposal.

Please write or call your elected representatives in Sacramento to ask that they support Senator Yee's proposed alternative to AB 1991 (Mullin). Time is of the essence as the legislature must wrap things up this week.

Also, please take the time to write state Senator Leland Yee to thank him for his creative efforts to find a suitable alternative to AB 1991 (Mullin). You may contact him at:

Capitol Office State Capitol
Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
jon.kessler@sen.ca.gov

Golden Retriever Love Brigade!

2008-07-03T12:14:00.000-07:00

The Golden Retriever Love Brigade is back! Celebrate our independence and spread the love in Gualala and Point Arena this year!

Bring your Golden to the Cypress Center on Saturday, July 6th or Pt. Arena on Sunday, July 7th. Or come to both!

On Saturday meet uphill at the water company/KTDE parking lot by 12:40 p.m. The Cypress Center parade lasts about one half hour.

On Sunday assemble at the high school tennis courts at 11 a.m. Be prepare to pick up "accidents" by your Golden. Rick and Jeanne Jackson will provide water for the dogs. Red, white and blue scarves will be available for the dogs, courtesy of Peter and Tony. Elise and Davina will again carry the brigade sign, which will have new embellishments by Jeanne Jackson.

Happy 4th of July!

Gualala Dunk Tank Challenge!

2008-07-03T10:33:00.000-07:00

Jan Harris writes:

Since y’all are thinking about alternatives to the fireworks…since they are not happening this year, how about stepping up to participate in Gualala’s Sesquicentennial Independence Day Celebration?

There will be a Dunk Tank at the Second Annual North Coast Pirates Faire and “dunkees” are being lined up. (Beats walking the plank!) So far, both Marshall Sayegh of the Gualala Festivals Committee and "bird nut" Francis Drouillard have agreed to be dunked.

Perhaps others would care to volunteer.

You may contact me through Adventure Rents Canoes & Kayaks 707-884-4386 if you want to sign up as a dunkee. I think this is a good thing. May not solve the conflict, but might smooth feathers (pun intended) for the nonce. Any angst is better out than in. You could come dressed as a Brandt Cormorant for example. Just a thought.

Gualala's July 4th Opportunities

2008-07-03T05:47:00.000-07:00

The GFC chose to have the fireworks to attract tourism (because they saw nearby town reeking the benefits and wanted in on it.....right?) And, no one is arguing that they should be able to have fun and make money doing it. That is not the issue here. The Brandt Cormorants are a vital part of this community each and every day 24/7. For their existence, every minutes counts. If it is determined (and it has been) that the Cormorants are impacted by this specific "15 minutes of fireworks" then, it is a done deal. The decision is easy. Move the event to another time, or another location. Is the GFC seriously wanting and willing to jeopardize this creature or their habitat for 15 minutes of tourism?

With the information provided by reliable, credible sources, like Madrone Audubon and Coastal Commission, the GFC should be appreciative of being able to correct mistakes of the last two years.

Isn't the GFC (pardon the pun) shooting themselves in the foot to try and fight the Coastal Commission's protection of these birds? Did they not have the opportunity to go through a permit process to "put all the cards on the table" and see what could be mitigated? These wonderful creatures were here nesting before the GFC saw dollar signs (which I believe has blinded them and clouded their reasoning and common sense). Doesn't the GFC realize that if
the Cormorants are endangered by the fireworks that this very act could more directly affect tourism and in a much graver way.

Doesn't the GFC realize that these beautiful creatures are part of the attraction to the coast, part of what generates the desired tourism? and the protection of their existence and all other creatures and natural features along the coast will ensure their tourism profits for much longer than the GFC's 2008 Independence Day event?

There other opportunities to encourage more tourism, an event in the fall like suggested perhaps? Or, create a unique festival to the Brandt Cormorant on this day, include fun and profitable contests i.e.... drawing/art of Brandt Cormorant, contest for best photography of Brandt Cormorant, contest for impersonation of Brandt Cormorant call, cry or song, contest for who looks most like a Brandt Cormorant, or a Brandt Cormorant costume contest, the best Brandt Cormorant documentary/video, the best Brandt Cormorant story, etc.. Celebrate the Brandt Cormorant instead of endangering it. You could have a lot of fun with this and make even more money than you every thought this 15 minutes of fireworks might generate? or chose
another wonderful natural feature of Gualala. This could be a win win situation if the community came together to support these wonderful creatures.

I believe that if the GFC worked with their own community and with the Coastal Commission, they could come up with some wonderful alternatives to this "15 minutes" of fireworks on the 4th of July and create an even better, more sincere, and more sustainable event and tourism opportunity. Thanks again for sharing this with me. I hope we can get up there with our scopes soon!

Joyce Carlson and family

Pacific Legal Foundation Loses Appeal

2008-06-27T07:05:00.000-07:00

The Pacific Legal Foundation appealed the decision by a trial judge to deny their request to stay the cease and desist order. That appeal was rejected by the 1st District Court of Appeals.

Further info can be obtained at tinyurl.com/692z4l.
(URL fixed 8:21pm -- FD)

An appeal to the California Supreme Court is anticipated, but there's no guarantee they'll hear the case. In any event, the case won't be resolved before this year's Independence Day holiday.

The GFC knows how to fight but they don't know how to win. They're setting themselves up for yet another failure. Although their opponents are reluctant to fight, they know how to win.

Once the GFC recognizes that Gualala fireworks will not be allowed during nesting season on Gualala Point Island, they'll be in a much better position to devise a winning strategy.

Help the Coastal Commission!

2008-06-23T17:50:00.000-07:00

The California Coastal Commission is facing the loss of nearly 25% of its staff positions due to recently-proposed state budget cuts. Such cuts are unprecedented for a commission that is already chronically underfunded. No other state agency is facing such drastic staff reductions.

These cuts will adversely affect the Commission's ability to meet its legislative mandate to enforce the Coastal Act. What will happen to important development projects that require Commission review? Will those projects be delayed, or will our precious coast become overrun with inappropriate development? The Governor and the Legislature don't say.

But we can say something! Tell your state Assemblyperson, state Senator and the Governor himself to restore Coastal Commission funding to 2007-2008 levels. It is especially important to appeal to Republicans in the Legislature.

The Coastal Commission is an excellent model of small efficient government. No state agency is as efficient at enforcing state law than the Coastal Commission. No other state agency is more accountable to common individuals than the Commission, and no staff are more available to the public than Commission staff. They should be rewarded with reliable funding, not punished for doing their jobs.

Stifling enforcement by slashing funding isn't acceptable with our military or police forces. It shouldn't be acceptable with the agency that enforces the Coastal Act, either.

Restore the Commission's 2007-2008 funding and take the additional cuts necessary from a truly bloated state agency -- Caltrans. With an engineering staff of 11,000 or so, they can easily absorb additional funding cuts that will allow the Coastal Commission to be fully funded. After all, what can you do with 11,000 engineers that you can't do with 10,956?

The Governor and the Legislature should recognize that Californians of all political stripes want the Coastal Act enforced. The only way to do that is to adequately fund the Coastal Commission.

Gualal Fireworks -- What Now?

2008-06-19T12:23:00.000-07:00

It's been a rough week for fireworks proponents and the Gualala Festivals Committee. On June 11th, the Coastal Commission issued a cease and desist order to prevent them from proceeding with a fireworks display without a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). And yesterday, their request for a temporary restraining order was denied.

What now?

They can proceed with a suit against the Coastal Commission, but that suit won't be resolved in time for the 2008 Independence Day fireworks. In my view, their chances of success in challenging the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction are slim.

They can combine resources with the City of Pt. Arena to have a more spectacular display at Arena Cove. Fireworks at that location qualify for a temporary event exclusion from a CDP.

They can move the fireworks display to the Labor Day weekend. Since nesting season on Gualala Point Island is done by then, Gualala fireworks in September may qualify for a CDP exclusion. The GFC can seek a determination from the Coastal Commission and get one in time for Labor Day this year.

A laser light show over the Independence Day holiday likely won't cause nest abandonment which leads to the loss of chicks and eggs to predation. For that reason, it may also qualify for a CDP exclusion.

The GFC should consider seeking such exclusions from the Coastal Commission. It only costs a phone call, it won't jeopardize their pending lawsuit, and it may lead them to a celebration that will really make Gualala shine.

More Time to Oppose AB 1991

2008-06-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

The state Senate Local Government Committee hearing for AB 1991 has been postponed to June 25th -- see tinyurl.com/6z95nf. This leaves you more time to write your state Senators to let them know you oppose AB 1991.

Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, this is a bad bill. Whether or not you love your mother this is a bad bill. Don't let the Clinton apologist Lanny Davis fiddle with California's laws!

A sample letter can be found in a previous post on this subject. Senators to fax immediately include those on the Local Government Committee:

Chair, GLoria Negete McLeod 916-445-0218
Michael Machado 916-323-2304
Tom Harman 916-445-9263
David Cox 916-324-2680
Christine Kehoe 916-327-2188

Since the Senate Rules Committee will get this one again, keep writing to President pro tempore Senator Don Perata at 916-327-1997.

Let's stop this bill. We can find a better way to help Half Moon Bay than to codify an end-run around our environmental laws.

The Secretive GFC?

2008-06-16T14:07:00.000-07:00

In the previous post, I accused the Gualala Festivals Committee of being a secretive group comprised of individuals that do not represent Gualala in any official capacity.

That statement can not be applied to Mr. Marshall Sayegh or Mr. Sid Waterman, both of whom have served as public representatives of the Festival Committee.

Although I may disagree with both of them regarding fireworks during nesting season, neither one has been secretive about their views or what group they represent.

My apologies to both of them for stating otherwise.

Gualala Fireworks Banned?

2008-06-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

The article published June 13th in the Press Democrat (www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080613/NEWS/806130365) has been picked up by several other newspapers. These papers frequently use the headline "Gualala fireworks banned," which is somewhat misleading.

The Coastal Commission did not ban fireworks in Gualala. However, they do require a permit because this temporary event does not qualify for an exemption. Entering the permit process is the best way to develop methods to mitigate abandonment of chicks and eggs by nesting seabirds. (They're eaten as soon as they're abandoned.) Any permit issued would contain conditions that would require implementing those mitigating measures.

The Gualala Festivals Committee refused to comply with any coastal development permit requirements. They believe they're above the law. This secretive group of private individuals does not represent the town of Gualala in any official capacity.

The launch site is in the town of Gualala, but the disturbance is on rocks off the shore of a neighboring community in another county. Both the launch site and the affected site are within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission.

The Festivals Committee refused to address any of the concerns expressed by residents of neighboring communities, or for that matter, any expressed by members of their own community.

The cease and desist order issued by the Coastal Commission was directed at the private members of the Festivals Committee, not the town of Gualala.

The adverse effects of the fireworks are easily mitigated in one of several ways. They can be moved to their traditional location in Pt. Arena to the north. They could be replaced with a laser light show that interacts with the water surface of the river and lagoon below the bluff. Or, they can be moved to the Labor Day weekend when the nesting seabirds are gone. A laser light show could be spectacular and unique to Gualala.

Despite cloaking themselves in patriotism, the Festivals Committee is not above the law. They have several options available for putting on a display. The nesting seabirds have only one chance to breed each year. Surely they can abide by the same laws as everyone else and develop a display that is patriotic, environmentally sound and considerate of their neighbors.

Thank You Coastal Commission!

2008-06-12T09:39:00.000-07:00

Cormorants nesting on Gualala Point Island, June 2, 2008.

Photo courtesy USFW, via Rich Kuehn.

Gualala Fireworks -- Cease & Desist Order

2008-06-11T15:24:00.000-07:00

The California Coastal Commission heard testimony for a Cease & Desist Order against members of the Gualala Festivals Committee (GFC) at the Wednesday morning session of their June meeting in Santa Rosa.

Commission staff made a 30-minute presentation that addressed scientific evidence documenting the adverse effects of Gualala's Independence Day fireworks on nesting seabirds, the history of the Commission's attempts to get the GFC to submit an application for a Coastal Development Permit, the GFC's continued refusal to do so as well as their attempts to seek an injunction that would prevent the Commission from issuing a cease and desist order.

Peter Douglas, Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, concluded the staff presentation by stating that the GFC's fireworks display caused harm to resources within the Coastal Zone, and therefore did not qualify for the exemptions granted other temporary events. Mr. Douglas went on to clarify that the Commission does not take a position on Independence Day celebrations.

The GFC was represented by Sid Waterman as well as Graham Owen of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Mr. Owen argued that the Commission was overreaching, that regulation of fireworks was not within their jurisdiction, and that effects of the fireworks display was temporary.

Mr. Waterman argued that the Commission was singling out the small town of Gualala, and that their actions would stifle other small communities up and down the coast that want to celebrate Independence Day with fireworks.

The Commission Chair then took public comment from 30 individuals who supported the staff recommendation to issue a Cease & Desist order. Each speaker was limited to 2 minutes, and most of those simply wanted to thank the Commission and staff for acting to protect our natural resources.

The Commission voted unanimously to approve Cease & Desist Order No. CCC-08-CD-07.

We'll now see if the Pacific Legal Foundation follows through with their threat of legal action against the Commission and whether the GFC will proceed with the fireworks despite the Cease & Desist order.

I for one hope they choose instead to combine celebrations with those in Point Arena, or apply their immense knowledge and resourcefulness towards developing a display that conforms to the Coastal Act.

They can do it!

Hearing for Fireworks Cease & Desist Order

2008-06-03T12:33:00.000-07:00

Want to stop Gualala's Independence Day fireworks from harming nesting seabirds? Then attend the California Coastal Commission hearing on June 11th in Santa Rosa:

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chambers
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

The meeting starts at 10am. The cease & desist order is agenda item #13. Fill out a speaker slip and let the Commission know what you think about the matter. You can also meet with other fireworks opponents at 9:30am outside the chambers.

See you there!

AB 1991 Moves to State Senate

2008-05-31T10:39:00.000-07:00

AB 1991 (Mullin) passed the State Assembly and now moves to the State Senate. Please fax a letter to President pro tempore Senator Don Perata such as the one below:

Fax: 916-327-1997

May 31, 2008

Senator Don Perata
President pro tempore California State Senate

AB 1991 (Mullin) -- OPPOSE

Honorable Senator Perata,

I urge you and your colleagues in the State Senate to reject AB1991. This legislation exempts two parcels within the Coastal Zone in Half Moon Bay from state environmental laws in exchange for cash. It also exempts those parcels from addressing local school and traffic impacts as well as affordable housing requirements.

AB1991 raises important questions regarding equal protection under California law. It circumvents environmental laws for the benefit of a select few and in so doing creates a template for the future sale of exemptions from environmental laws in exchange for cash.

The City of Half Moon Bay asserts that the $18 million alternative to AB1991 would devastate them financially. Nothing could be further from the truth. The settlement amount was agreed to by the city. Furthermore, the parcel they will own as a result of the settlement can be sold to recover at least $9 million and perhaps much more.

As a member of a remote coastal community in northern California, I am deeply concerned by the precedent-setting nature of AB1991. Many small, cash-strapped coastal municipalities would eagerly collude with developers to follow the process established by AB1991, namely:

1) Botch the review of a proposed development to invite a lawsuit,
2) Mount an ineffective defense to ensure a substantial award for the developer,
3) Negotiate a settlement with the developer in secret, then
4) Seek legislation to exempt the development from state law to avoid bankruptcy.

Please reject AB1991 so that the state agencies entrusted by the people of California to protect our precious natural resources are allowed to review the development on the subject parcels.

Rejecting AB1991 will give the California Coastal Commission an opportunity to demonstrate how they can work with a developer -- in this case the City of Half Moon Bay -- to maximize development while conforming to the Coastal Act. That is a far better legacy to leave than a process for granting exemptions in exchange for cash.

Thank you for hearing me out. I hope you continue to consider the needs of all Californians and not just the City of Half Moon Bay and the developer in this matter.

NO on Proposition 98

2008-05-28T09:11:00.000-07:00

Proposition 98 promises eminent domain reform, but it also eliminates rent control and jeopardizes our state's environmental protection laws.

Proposition 98 is deceptive and overreaching. Vote NO on Prop 98

If you support eminent domain reform, vote YES on Prop 99.

AB 1991 (Mullin) Clears Appropriations Committee

2008-05-22T13:58:00.000-07:00

Ab 1991 (Mullin) just cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The next stop is the Assembly Floor.

Please contact your Assemblyperson and urge them to vote NO on AB 1991. You can reach them by phone at 916-319-20xx or by fax at 916-319-21xx, where xx is your assemblyperson's district.

If you don't know which district you're in, cut and paste the following URL into your web browser:

192.234.213.69/amapsearch/framepage.asp

Gualala Fireworks -- Cease & Desist Order

2008-05-21T19:26:00.000-07:00

During their June meeting the Coastal Commission will hear public comment and take action on Commission Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-08-CD-07 (Gualala Festivals Committee, Gualala, Mendocino County.) See Item 13 on June 11th at the Commission's website:

www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html

Keep an eye on that web site for updates as the meeting date approaches.

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chambers
575 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Save the Coastal Commission! (Again)

2008-05-16T07:00:00.000-07:00

There is more bad news for the Coastal Commission in the Governor's May 2008 budget proposal. It still requires the loss of 14 staff positions out of 144. That 10% reduction in Commission staff would render the Commission unable to fulfill its legislative mandates.

Had funding levels for the Commission kept pace with funding for other state agencies over the decades, the Commission may have been in a better postion to withstand a 10% cut and still fulfill its legislative mandate. But funding for the Commission hasn't kept pace and the demands on the Commission continue to grow. Further cuts will require a moratorium on development within the Coastal Zone. Lacking sufficient numbers of qualified staff to review projects, there is no other way to ensure that development conforms to the Coastal Act.

A better way to grow ourselves out of the state's budget crisis is to fully fund the Coastal Commission. Full funding will enable the Commission to keep pace with coastal development permit applications and ensure that development is consistent with the Coastal Act. It will also enable the Commission to reduce the time needed to review a project, thereby providing developers a quicker return on investment and allowing families to enjoy their dream homes sooner.

A better agency to target for further staff reductions is Caltrans. With a staff in excess of 11,000, that bloated state agency can easily afford the loss of 14 staff positions and still meet its legislative mandates.

Your help is needed again. Please contact your state representatives -- including the Governor -- and demand that they fully fund the Coastal Commission. For contact info, see the links below.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
<http://gov.ca.gov/interact>
(Click on the Contact tab.)

Senator Pat Wiggins, 2nd District
California State Senate
<http://dist02.casen.govoffice.com/>
(Mendocino and parts of Sonoma.)

Senator Carol Migden, 3rd District
California State Senate
<http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/>
(San Francisco and parts of Sonoma and Marin.)

Patty Berg, 1st District
California State Assembly
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a01/>
(Mendocino and parts of Sonoma.)

Jared Huffman, 6th District
California State Assembly
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a06/>
(Parts of Sonoma and other counties.)

Noreen Evans, 7th District
California State Assembly
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a07/>
(Parts of Sonoma and other counties.)

The Commission needs your help. Get going.

Stop AB 1991 (Mullin)

2008-05-09T08:08:00.000-07:00

The AB 1991 (Mullin) Appropriations Committee hearing has been rescheduled to May 22nd. You still have time to contact committee members. Do it today!

AB 1991 will be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, May 14th:

www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/defaulttext.asp

This bill creates a roadmap for future suspension of our state's environmental laws on specific parcels of land in exchange for cash. As such, it sets a horrible precedent and must be defeated.

Please contact Appropriations Committee members and urge them to oppose AB 1991 (Mullin):

www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43

Note that the chair, Mark Leno, is termed out and is seeking Carol Migden's office in the state Senate. (So is former Assemblyman Joe Nation.)

Open Letter to Assembly Republicans

2008-05-02T13:47:00.000-07:00

AB 1991 changes the Subdivision Map Act to exempt two parcels within the City of Half Moon Bay from state environmental protection laws in order to spare the city from an $18 million settlement against it. This attempt to use our state's legislative body to interfere in a specific legal case is unprecedented and appalling.

Legislators should stick to writing more broadly based laws that apply statewide to everyone, and avoid amending previous legislation in order to affect the outcome of a single specific legal case.

AB 1991 represents such legislative abuse. It benefits a very small special interest group and establishes a precedent that will be used in the future to skirt laws designed to protect our special California coast.

If AB 1991 passes, small coastal communities like Gualala in Mendocino County will be targeted by aggressive developers. Where hostility by local officials towards environmental laws and the Coastal Commission are a significant problem already, passage of AB 1991 will make it even more likely they won't enforce their local coastal plans.

Why is AB 1991 so bad? For one, it was crafted by Lanny Davis, the same attorney that defended President Clinton during Judge Starr's investigation. It relies on changes to California's Subdivision Map Act to restrict enforcement of California's Coastal Act and Environmental Quality Act. So, not only does it benefit the very few, it utilizes unprecedented back-door methods to achieve its goals.

As a long time fiscal and social conservative I deplore such legislative methods and the special treatment given to special interests. That is especially true because passage of AB 1991 will jeopardize the future health of our California coast.

AB 1991 isn't a pro-development bill. It is an anti-environment and special interest bill that relies on legislative trickery, things all true conservatives oppose.

The outcome of AB 1991 could be a bell-weather for Republicans holding office in California. Should it pass with their complete support, they will further reinforce the perception that they're beholden to developers at the expense of our environment.

That perception does not bode well for Republicans in a state where concern for the environment is growing -- even among conservative Republicans like me. Although one can find fiscally and socially conservative Democrats to support, there's nary a Republican to be found that supports California's Environmental Quality Act or Coastal Act.

That needs to change and it needs to change soon.

Open Letter to the Gualala Festivals Committee

2008-04-25T13:16:00.000-07:00

This letter was originally published in the ICO in 2006.

OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GUALALA FESTIVAL COMMITTEE

Dear GFC Members,

We are your neighbors, friends and customers living in Gualala, Anchor Bay, Point Arena, Annapolis, Manchester and The Sea Ranch. Our names are below. Who are you? We’re uncertain but we have learned you are not affiliated with the Gualala Municipal Advisory Council. We know you are not a committee of the Redwood Coast Chamber of Commerce. We have been told you are a group of men consisting of John Bower, Robert Sundstrom, Sr., Bill Hay, Marshall Sayegh and Jer Skibbins, who are interested in promoting Gualala and creating a sense of identity.

We applaud your efforts to have all the merchants decorate their businesses for the 4th of July. The lighted truck parade and the community Christmas tree are delightful. We have been told you hope to bring in tall-masted ships for next year’s 4th of July celebration. That sounds intriguing.

But something went terribly wrong this 4th of July weekend. GFC decided to set off fireworks on July 2nd from the back parking area of Surf Super near several wildlife sanctuaries despite letters in the ICO and e-mails from knowledgeable individuals asking that you reconsider. Apparently the only permit you needed was from our local fire chief, Leighton Nelsen. At no time did you ask the public our opinion as you only gave a few weeks’ notice of these fireworks.

Your fireworks display was preceded by two extremely loud “salutes” at 9:15 p.m. These explosions caused every adult bird on Gualala Point Island to rise up into the air, crying loudly in alarm. These are not species adapted for flying at night, like our local Barn Owls, and many were disoriented.

The fireworks followed fifteen minutes later. They were beautiful and many people drove to downtown Gualala to see them. How many of these people would have been so charmed if they knew that two species of nesting birds abandoned their nests on nearby National Monument rocks that night?

How many of the merchants thanked in your ad in this paper would choose to be associated with this harm to our wildlife? The night of the fireworks, the nesting Pelagic Cormorants and the Pigeon Guillemots were frightened off their nests in the middle of incubating their eggs and they did not return. And they still have not returned. It takes a catastrophe for any creature to abandon their nests. This catastrophe was caused by the very loud noise and bright lights of the fireworks.

Point Arena has successfully and mindfully hosted fireworks for years. They specify that the fireworks be of the lowest noise level. Point Arena is a working harbor with no nesting seabird colonies. Al, the Laysan Albatross, is not in residence in the summer. On the other hand, Gualala has never before had fireworks and has many nesting seabirds and other wildlife, including the pinnipeds that haul-out nearby.
We urge you to find an alternative way to celebrate our nation’s birthday. Tall ships would complement Point Arena’s fireworks rather than competing with them.

We have been told that you do not care what we think. We truly hope this isn’t the case. We love living here and part of that love is for our wildlife. It is unacceptable to us that our wildlife has been harmed, even if it was unintentional.

We ask that you not have fireworks again in Gualala.

Roger Anderson, Betty Athens, Mary Austin, Tim Balambao, Peter Baye, Louise Beebe, Michael W. Berry, Markee Biaggi, Sue Bohlin, Jim Bold, Matt Bold, Terry Bold, Linda Bostwick, M. A. Brauer, Sally Bradley, Walt Bradley, Nanette Brichetto, Joyce Broyles, Ron Broyles, George Bush, Sandra Bush, Marti Campbell, Christin Chapman, Gretchen Chapler, Joel Chaban, Lewis Chapman, Pat Chaban, Shirley Chatalian, Ted Chapler, Terry Christ, Dale Claypoole, Jeannie Claypoole, Ray Comeau, Gail Connor, Robert Connor, Ann Cormack, Rob Cormack, Bette Covington, Marty Covington, Cathy Cox, Dale Cox, Jeremy Crockett, Joel Crockett, Bea Curran, Bill Davey, Mary Davenport, Walt Davenport, Patty Dawson, Ron Dawson, Kimberley DeFay, Kate DeForrest, Star DeHaven, Larry B. DeLaney, Pat DeLaney, Francis Drouillard, Alisa Edwards, Fran Ellis, Keith Ellis, Elizabeth Elstun, Elizabeth Escher, John Escher, Cheryl Faconti, Sydney Feeney, Iris Finz, Steve Finz, Laura Franklin, Jeanne Gadol, Steve Gadol, Tim Gallagher, Annabelle Garetz, Jackie Gardener, John Goodman, Hansine Goran, Dina Habe, Marghi Hagen, David Hamilton, Gail Hamilton, Suzanne Hansen, JoAnn Harris, Mari Su Haris, Mark Harry, Jennie Henderson, Bryant Hichwa, Diane Hichwa, Charlie Hitt, Kathye Hitt, Joan Hoffman, Doug Holloway, Peggy Holloway, Dard Hunter, Tom Ingersoll, Laura Ishimaru, Mary Sue Ittner, Jeanne Jackson, Richard Jackson, Jim Jordan, Joan Jordan, Pam Kalustian, Richard Kalustian, Linda Keir, Sumedha Mona Khanna, Kerry King, Jack F. Kirsch, Linda Knebel, Gene Kosso, Lee Kosso, Richard Kuehne, Elizabeth Langdon, Tim Legreee, Irene Leidner, Richard Lewis, Leslie Lindborg, Sherie Lofing, Marcia Lotter, Harry Lutz, Lois Lutz, Don Mahaffey, Elain Mahaffey, Phil Marrinan, Bill Matthews, Cathi Matthews, David Mayer, Claire McPherson, Karl Mellander, Diane Meyer, Joayn Milazzo, Sita Milchev, Dagmar Mosely, Emily Nelson, Gary O’Brien, Lynda O’Brien, Mabel O’Hara, Rhonda Ortman, David Osteraas, Evelyn Osteraas, Buzz Owen, Miriam Owen, Lynne Palmer, Judith Papas, Bobbie Penney, Bill Perry,Al Phillips, Bonnie Plakos, ,Roberta Rams, Rozanne Rapozo, Dianne Rasmussen, Dr. Laura Rasmussen, Dvm, Peter Reimuller, Douglas Rinstrom, Virginia Ringstrom, Trish Rogers, Patricia “Pat” Romeiro, Gene Rosholt, Margie Rosholt, Deninse Roy, Dorothy Ruef, Bob Rutemoeller, Kathleen Sandidge, Jon Sandoval, Susan Sandoval, Robin Sandstad, Connie Schimbor, David Scholz, Steve Serdahely, Dean Shuler, David Skibbins, Marla Skibbins, Harper Smith, Mel Smith, Scott Smith, Tom Smith, Yasmin Soloman, Cyndy Solomon, Grace Steurer, Janann Strand, Gail Taylor, Ellen Thompson, Gail Thompson, Jon Thompson, Kenneth Thompson, Kristine Thomure, Richard Thomure, Jeff Watts, Pearl Watts, Ann Weaver, Robert Weaver, Frank Welsh, Michelle Welch, Anne Westwater, O’Brien Young, Peter Youtz, Teresa Youtz, Mary Zakoor

Gualala vs. Goliath?

2008-04-24T06:46:00.000-07:00

Joel Crockett responds to the Press Democrat:

“Gualala vs. Goliath” (Friday April 18), offers one side of our coastal fireworks controversy.

It states, for example, that the “town of Gualala” has the necessary permits. There is no town of Gualala. It’s a settlement… no mayor, no council, no city manager. If anyone holds permits, it is the Gualala Festivals Committee (GFC); a self-appointed group of about half-a-dozen citizens who’ve taken it upon themselves to decide what holiday events should take place in Gualala. It’s implied that the fireworks are a Gualala tradition, the absence of which will disappoint thousands and provide a “hard hit” to the tourist economy. In fact, the fireworks have been held only twice. We own a retail store in Gualala and saw no relationship between sales volume and the fireworks celebration.

There are many who favor the display for the reasons listed in the article. But many oppose it, too. They cite 3 reasons: legitimate ecological concerns, usurping of the truly traditional display held annually in Point Arena (Gualala’s good neighbor 20-minutes to the north), and the polarization caused by what some call a heavy-handed approach by the GFC, whose lawyers wrote the PD article.

Like most stories, this one has two sides.

Joel Crockett
Four-Eyed Frog Books
Gualala, CA

I couldn't agree more, Joel!

Coastal Commission Opposes AB1991

2008-04-20T06:47:00.000-07:00

The City of Half Moon Bay was sued by a local developer in federal court and lost -- big. Rather than appeal that decision they settled with the developer. The terms of that settlement rely on the passage of AB1991, which excludes the parcel in question from state environmental laws (along with an adjacent parcel arbitrarily added).

The Coastal Commission sent a letter to Assemblymember Gene Mullin, the bill's sponsor. Barry Parr of Coastsider.com posted the letter at his website:

http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/2008/ccc_ab1991_letter.pdf

The Coastal Commission opposes AB1991 because:

It sets a dangerous statewide precedent
The level of development (129 homes) is excessive
The Glencree parcel included arbitrarily
Previously approved Coastal Act mitigations not included
Environmental review is out of date
Excluding property from the Coastal Zone is inappropriate

Details are in the letter, which is only 34 kb in size.

It is also worthy of note that the Coastal Commission and Attorney General offered to assist the city in their appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, but the city declined that offer.

If you haven't done so already, please contact your representatives in Sacramento and demand that they oppose AB1991. Contact information can be found a few headlines below.

Gualala Fireworks and the PLF

2008-04-13T10:22:00.000-07:00

The recent ICO Open Space article by Owen and Breemer, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys for the GFC, is resplendent with factual errors and mis-characterizes opposition to the Gualala fireworks. This post is an attempt to correct those errors and to properly characterize the opposition.

It is debatable whether the fireworks are the biggest event in Gualala. The authors offer no evidence that the fireworks bring more business activity than, say, the local weather and natural beauty of the area or its many natural resources.

To declare that the Gualala fireworks are an annual tradition is also misleading because that "tradition" didn't start until 2006. The real home of traditional fireworks on the Mendonoma coast is Arena Cove in Pt. Arena. [Paragraph revised 4/29/08 -- FD]

Owen and Breemer go on to assert that the California Coastal Commission is a governmental Goliath that wants to stop the fireworks because it upsets birds. That would only be the case if the GFC refused to acknowledge that the fireworks do have adverse impacts or refused to mitigate those impacts, or both as they're now doing.

With an annual budget of about $16 million, the California Coastal Commission can hardly be considered a governmental Goliath. They do a lot of work for that relatively paltry amount. Were all state programs as efficient as the commission, California wouldn't be in its current fiscal crisis.

Moreover, it isn't the intent of the commission to "stop" fireworks. Their intent is to enforce the law, which requires them to ensure that activities along the coast do not harm natural resources within the coastal zone. Those natural resources include protected and threatened bird species nesting at Gualala Point Island.

The best way to ensure that no harm is done is to first identify potential harm, then develop adequate mitigating measures. The best way to ensure that adequate mitigating measures are developed is to require a Coastal Development Permit. That process is fully consistent with the intent of all Californians, who continue to support the California Coastal Act.

Contrary to the claims of Owen and Breemer, the commission did not declare Gualala's fireworks to be illegal "development." Commissioners don't make declarations or proclamations. They enforce the Coastal Act, which clearly defines "development" and which clearly includes fireworks.

As for the commission being an "unelected group of bureaucrats" Owen and Breemer err again. Of the 12 voting commissioners, 6 hold local elective office and the other 6 are public members. All 12 members are appointed by either the Governor, the Senate Rules Committee or the Speaker of the Assembly; each appoints 4 commissioners -- two are public members and 2 are local elected officials.

Our coastal commissioners are constantly under tremendous pressure from both lobbyists and politicians. They serve at the whim of those that appointed them. To suggest that they are rogue and unaccountable bureaucrats is pure fantasy.

Characterizing the commission as intent on shutting down fireworks up and down the coast is off the mark, too. The commission has been quite restrained in their approach to addressing coastal fireworks. However, as harm becomes clearly evident, the law requires them to act to protect our coastal resources. They would fail in their duties if they allowed unmitigated fireworks displays to continue causing harm to local bird populations.

As for developers of small local projects becoming frustrated when a state commission supported by taxpayer dollars determines that their project does not conform to state law -- so what? They can make the changes needed to comply with the Coastal Act and continue with their project. Often, only small changes are necessary for full compliance. Problem solved!

Owen and Breemer offer a canard when they grossly misrepresent the issues involved and the actions of the commission in regards to the two court cases referred to vaguely in their Open Space article. The cases are irrelevant to the Gualala fireworks debate. Views, public access easements and private property rights are not issues for the commission in this case. Specifically, it is the abandonment of nests on Gualala Point Island by protected and threatened bird species due to Gualala's Independence Day fireworks displays that is at issue.

Owen and Breemer go on to identify the town of Gualala as the next "victim" of the Coastal Commission. This presumes that the GFC is representative of the town of Gualala. They aren't. It also presumes that adverse impacts of the fireworks is limited to Gualala. It isn't. Had the authors bothered to refer to a map, they may have noticed that Gualala Point Island is asociated with Sonoma County off the shores of The Sea Ranch.

Many residents along the Mendonoma coast applaud the commission's efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of Gualala fireworks, including many residents of Gualala. The arrogant and secretive members of the GFC need to portray themselves as "victims" in a vain attempt to skirt state and federal laws designed to protect our coastal environment.

The Coastal Commission wasn't prompted to act by a "small group of local birdwatchers." Were that the case the commission would have issued a cease and desist order prior to the 2007 Gualala fireworks. Instead, they waited for the BLM to complete a bird study that documented the response to fireworks of protected and threatened bird species nesting on Gualala Point Island. That study clearly showed that the Gualala fireworks caused the abandonment of eggs and chicks. As a result, the commission had to act to enforce the Coastal Act, which protects all bird species within the coastal zone, not just those that are threatened or protected species.

The California Coastal Commission does not take a position on patriotism or Independence Day celebrations. They merely enforce the Coastal Act. If it becomes evident that coastal activities are harming coastal resources, they must act. The fact that the activities are related to patriotic displays or Independence Day celebrations is not an exemption under the California Coastal Act or the federal Clean Water Act.

That the Coastal Commission hasn't required CDPs for fireworks displays in the past is misleading. Were in not for action by Regional Water Quality Control Boards under the Clean Water Act, displays at SeaWorld in San Diego and at the Monterey Bay Aquarium may have become subjected to Coastal Commission action.

By asserting that the GFC acquired all necesssary permits to conduct the fireworks displays, Owen and Breemer are suggesting that the Coastal Commission does not have the authority to regulate fireworks on California's coast. Traditionally, the commission has not required a permit for this activity, even though a CDP is clearly required. It is only when there is a potential for restricting public access to the coast or for harming coastal resources that the commission requires a permit.

Furthermore, the purpose of requiring a permit isn't to stifle the fireworks along the coast. The purpose is to ensure that all adverse effects of the activity are properly identified and adequately mitigated.

There are many issues related to the Independence Day Gualala fireworks, but private property rights isn't one of them. However, there is a state property rights issue present -- the people of the state of California want access to state waters off the California coast and the natural resources within the coastal zone protected from activities on private property.

Owen and Breemer seem to relate every issue to private property rights. They demonstrate once again that when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

In my view, the money paid to Owen and Breemer for legal advice would be better spent seeking ways to mitigate the adverse effects of the fireworks or developing patriotic displays that are consistent with the Coastal Act. Feasible alternatives include postponing the display until after nesting season (Labor Day, perhaps?), combining resources for enhanced displays at Arena Cove in Pt. Arena, or developing a laser light show that would reflect off the waters of the Gualala lagoon.

Were the GFC to take such an approach instead of engaging in an ill-advised private property rights confrontation, they could apply their talents and resourcefulness in a manner that elevates their standing in the community and benefits everyone up and down the coast.

The Bower Wall and the ICO

2008-04-12T08:42:00.000-07:00

[Title changed 4/15/08 -- FD]

The Independent Coast Observer (ICO) reporting on the "Bower wall" [*appears to be misleading and biased because*] they have failed to provide relevant facts to their readers. [*That failure*] serves to foment distrust between supporters of the Surf Center project and those opposed to the project because of the adverse impacts of the wall.

Had [*the ICO*] properly reported the essence of Mary Sue Ittner's public expression during the [*April 2008 GMAC*] meeting, their readers would have been armed with the knowledge needed to properly evaluate the proposed wall for themselves.

We'll try to clarify the issues on this important project and alleviate some of the distrust generated by [*lack of knowledge of the relevant issues.*]

[*Changes above made 4/15/08 -- FD*]

John Bower of Gualala has proposed improvements to his Surf Center parcels that include drainage improvements, relocating and upgrading underground septic tanks and constructing a 285-foot long GeoWeb retaining wall on the bluff face. These improvements appear to be in support of a future larger developments such as Surf Super expansions, new office building and a paved parking lot.

From an engineering perspective it makes good sense to proceed incrementally with the improvements to these lots. Seeking approval of the underground improvements before the above ground improvements allows for a more efficient design and review process. There is nothing nefarious about this approach to development as it is common practice in many parts of the country. It is not fair to presume that Mr. Bower and his agents are attempting to "cheat" the process by using this approach.

Unfortunately, that incremental approach makes it more difficult to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of the project. This is particularly true within California's spectacularly beautiful coastal zone. Through the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Californians have decided that the entirety of a project must be evaluated for environmental impacts. Those concerned with project "piecemealing" simply want to make sure that potential impacts are not overlooked and that necessary mitigating measures are properly implemented. It is not fair to presume that these individuals want to "stop" the project.

Many aspects of Bower's proposed Surf Center improvements are good for the community. It will open views and provide more downtown parking. It will improve the quality of surface runoff that reaches the Gualala lagoon and [septic or interceptor tanks] will be upgraded and moved away from the bluff face [so they do not] threaten the Gualala lagoon.

[Changes above made 4/14/08 -- FD]

But Mr. Bower's proposed improvements also include a retaining structure built on a bluff face. As pointed out by Mary Sue Ittner at the GMAC meeting on April 3, 2008, such structures are only allowed under certain circumstances, namely:

they must be in support of a coastal dependent use, and
they must be the least environmentally harmful alternative

Those conditions are clearly specified in the Coastal Act, Mendocino County's Local Coastal Plan and the Gualala Town Plan. The proposed wall fails to meet either of these necessary conditions.

The appeal to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (which failed) and the subsequent appeal to the California Coastal Commission (which found substantial issue) were based largely on laws that proscribe project segmentation and ordinances that limit construction on bluff faces.

Unless Mr. Bower can show that the wall is in support of a coastal dependent activity AND that it it the least environmentally harmful solution, it is very unlikely he will obtain the Coastal Development Permit needed to build the wall.

Yes, there are other complicating factors related to Mr. Bower's proposed wall, such as the presence of a bluff top lateral access easement on the property and the requirement that Mr. Bower maintain a retaining wall on the adjacent Surf Super property. However, none of those complicating factors justify neglecting laws against project segmentation or building ordinances that restrict bluff face construction.

I would fully support Mr. Bower's vision of a Surf Center were it not for the proposed wall. I suspect that many other current opponents of the project would also become supporters if he eliminated the wall from his plans or drastically reduced its size.

Same Laws for All?

2008-04-03T06:57:00.000-07:00

The city of Half Moon Bay has reached a settlement with a local developer that relies on legislation that would exempt the developer's property from state law, including CEQA and the Coastal Act. The bill is AB 1991 (Mullin, SSF) and is supported by state Senator Yee (SF). Background and updates to this story can be found at <http://coastsider.com/>.

The City of Half Moon Bay will owe the developer $18 million if AB 1991 doesn't pass.

It shouldn't. AB 1991 sets a terrible statewide precedent to circumvent local coastal plans and the Coastal Act. It should be vigorously opposed. Once again, please contact your state representatives and ask them to oppose AB 1991. See contact info in the post below.

Save the Coastal Commission!

2008-03-27T06:48:00.000-07:00

As a result of California's worsening economy, Governor Schwazenegger has proposed across-the-board cuts of 10% for all state agencies. Such cuts will prove devasting to the California Coastal Commission.

The California Coastal Commission is already chronically understaffed, but they continue to fulfill their legislative mandates, in large part due to its highly qualified and dedicated staff. However, the governor's proposed cuts will result in 17 further staff reductions, which will jeopardize the commission's ability to protect our coast and process coastal development permits.

The Commission is a model of good, efficient government. They should be rewarded with a budget increase and the cuts taken from bloated state bureaucracies such as Caltrans. With upwards of 11,000 staff engineers that agency can easily absorb additional cuts that will allow the Commission to be fully staffed and continue to protect our coast and process coastal development permits in a timely manner.

Your help is needed now. Please contact your state representatives to demand that they reject the governor's proposed Coastal Commission budget cuts. For contact info, see links below.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
<http://gov.ca.gov/interact>
(Click on the Contact tab.)

Senator Pat Wiggins, 2nd District
California State Senate
<http://dist02.casen.govoffice.com/>
(Mendocino and parts of Sonoma.)

Senator Carol Migden, 3rd District
California State Senate
<http://dist03.casen.govoffice.com/>
(San Francisco and parts of Sonoma and Marin.)

Patty Berg, 1st District
California State Assembly
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a01/>
(Mendocino and parts of Sonoma.)

Jared Huffman, 6th District
California State Assembly
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a06/>
(Parts of Sonoma and other counties.)

Noreen Evans, 7th District
California State Assembly
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a07/>
(Parts of Sonoma and other counties.)

The Commission needs your help. Get going.

Support the Redwood Coast Humane Society

2007-08-17T07:26:00.000-07:00

Please, donate generously to the RCHS. Our furry little friends along the coast need your help.

Please send your donations to:

Patricia 'Pat' Romeiro
President
Redwood Coast Humane Society
P.O. Box 1072
Gualala, CA 95445
pat@thesearanch.com

There are other ways to help, too. Please visit the RCHS website at http://www.redoodcoasthumane.org/ for details. Thanks!

An Appeal to Elected Officials

2007-06-26T06:40:00.000-07:00

The following letter was sent to a variety of state and federal elected officials. I hope it will inspire others to write them as well and that some good will result!

Dear (Elected Official),

I am writing to you about a significant threat to wildlife resources within the California Coastal National Monument due to a fireworks display in Gualala, California planned for the evening of July 6, 2007.

Gualala is a small coastal town in southern Mendocino County situated north of the Gualala River, which separates the counties of Sonoma and Mendocino at the coast. On July 2, 2006 fireworks were held for the first time in the town of Gualala, and were observed to cause several species of protected sea birds to abandon their nests on Gualala Point Island off shore of The Sea Ranch in Sonoma County.

The fireworks also had significant adverse affects on bird colonies and marine mammal haul outs at Fish Rocks in Mendocino County and Gualala lagoon along the county border. According to the Resource Management Plan for the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM), both Fish Rocks (among the CCNM’s largest and highest islets) and Gualala Point Island are known nesting sites for protected sea birds. Fish Rocks is also known as a marine mammal site.

After receiving public comment at their meeting in Santa Rosa on June 13, 2007, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) informed the fireworks promoters – a secretive group known as the Gualala Festivals Committee (GFC) – that fireworks within the coastal zone are a development activity that requires a coastal development permit. Furthermore, the CCC informed the GFC that a permit could not be processed in time for this year’s event and that proceeding without one would be in violation of the California Coastal Act.

The GFC has proclaimed their intention to defy the CCC and proceed without a permit. Because this unmitigated activity adversely affects valuable national resources, I ask for your help in compelling the Bureau of Land Management, US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish And Game (a Cooperating Agency of the CCNM) to act now to stop this planned illegal activity.

Thanking you in advance for your timely attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Francis Drouillard
Novato, CA

Coastal Commission Weighs In

2007-06-13T14:27:00.000-07:00

On June 13th in Santa Rosa the California Coastal Commission heard public comment on the issue of Gualala Fireworks. Each individual providing comment was limited to 3 minutes.

Julie Vernan spoke first in opposition to the fireworks on behalf of the Friends of Schooner Gulch. Julie noted that agents of the BLM and CCNM initially opposed the fireworks, then reversed their position after meeting with representatives of the GFC only. She went on to speak of the unique geographical, ecological and cultural features of Gualala and the surrounding communities, and how all those features were adversely affected by the fireworks. She asked that the Commission make a federal consistency determination on the issue.

Marshall Sayegh provided comment in support of the fireworks. He stated the GFC obtained all necessary permits and cited numerous studies of the effects of fireworks on local bird populations. He asserted that disruptions, if any, are temporary and bird behavior returns to normal within 12 hours.

After Marshall's comments, the Commission Chair asked what thoughts Commission Staff had on the issue. Staff said they view the fireworks as a development activity. They intend to send out notices to all appropriate parties that such development requires a coastal permit. They went on to say that it is unlikely a permit would be processed in time for this year's festival, and that if the fireworks proceed the GFC will be in violation of the California Coastal Act.

Marshall was followed by several opponents of the the fireworks in Gualala.

Sandy Bush provided pictures that clearly showed nesting birds on Gualala Point Island, and asked the Commission to lack of enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by US FWS.

Linda Keir provided eye witness testimony regarding the response of the birds on Gualala Point Island during the 2006 Gualala Fireworks.

Diane Hichwa spoke on behalf of the local Audobon Society chapters. She provided data regarding the species, nesting pair quantites, as well as nesting and fledging durations for birds on Gualala Point Island.

Rob Cozens spoke on behalf asked the Mendonoma Marine Life Conservancy. He noted that the GFC failed to obtain necessary permits from FWS and DFG, and asked that the Commission look into the matter.

John Fox spoke as the Community Manager of The Sea Ranch. He noted that the Gualala Fireworks required a temporary closing of Gualala Point Park and the Gualala Bluff Trail. He asked the Commission to assert its jurisdiction regarding coastal access and require the GFC to obtain a permit for the temporary closures.

Yours truly provided anecdotal evidence regarding the level of noise from 3.3 miles away in Anchor Bay. I noted that Fish Rocks are also within the CCNM Corridor, and that they too are recognized in CCNM's Resource Management Plan as one of the more significant monuments within CCNM.

Jim Jordan spoke on behalf of The Sea Ranch Associaion and the Friends of the Gualala River. He noted the thousands of voters opposed to fireworks in Gualala from both north and south of the river.

I believe Julie Vernan is due a special thanks. She wisely chose to put the matter before the North Cental Coast District (Sonoma County) of the Commission rather than the North Coast District (Mendocino County) That strategy proved effective and enabled us all the opportunity to speak before the Commission. Well done, Julie!

So what now?

After the public comment period, I heard Mr. Sayegh inquiring about the email addresses for the Commissioners. Apparently, he isn't aware of this blog. I'll have to invite him to join.

May I suggest we follow his lead? Write the Commissioners to voice your support for their decision. Stay vigilant!

See any errors or omissions? Then please provide comment!

GMAC retrospective

2007-06-10T15:49:00.000-07:00

It's Sunday, and I've just calmed down from the "meeting". While it was a start in the right direction, an open forum is needed to allow sufficient time (there could still be time limits, but 2 minutes ea. by 25 people was not the best use of time, IMESHO) As an official "Gualala resident", I decry the isolationism expressed, esp. given contributions made by neighboring communities.
The fireworks (plus the Patriot's Day hoopla) are the decisions of the Few, the Proud, and the Determined. I'm hopeful that the ground swell in opposition will continue, and the fireworks will remain, as they always had, in Point Arena. If educating the GFC about the environmental consequences of continuing the fireworks, hopefully with help from wildlife and coastal protection agencies, has no effect, I can only hope that some legal means may be found to deny such an event. The formidable range of talents and interests in this community (and I mean the whole community) can surely be utilized to formulate a means of celebrating the 4th that retains the special ambience of Gualala while honoring all forms of life in this very special and magnificent area.

Contact -- Agency Officials

2007-06-06T18:23:00.000-07:00

US Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management

Mike Pool, Director
California State Office
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1834
Sacramento, CA 95825-1886
Phone: (916) 978-4400
Fax: (916) 978-4416
TDD (916) 978-4419
Web: <http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en.html>
Email: Mike_Pool@ca.blm.gov

Rich Burns, Manager
Ukiah Field Office
2550 North State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Phone: (707) 468-4000
Fax: (707) 468-4027
Email: rburns@ca.blm.gov

Rick Hanks, Manager
California Coastal National Monument
299 Foam Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 372-6105
Phone: (831) 372-6115
Email: hhanks@ca.blm.gov
Email: ccnm@ca.blm.gov
----------------------------------------
California Department of Fish & Game

L. Ryan Broddrick, Director
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 653-7667
Fax: (916) 653-7387

Lisa Toof, Executive Assistant
Phone: (916) 651-9702

Banky Curtis, Deputy Director
Habitat Conservation Division
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
----------------------------------------
South Coast Fire Protection District

Leighton Nelson, Fire Chief
P.O. Box 334
Gualala, CA 95445
Phone: (707) 884-4700
Fax: (707) 884-4700
Email: Leighton@mcn.org
----------------------------------------
California Coastal Commission

Steve Blank, Commissioner
45 Fremont St.Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415)904-5200
Email: sblank@kandsranch.com

Bob Merrill, North Coast District Manager
California Coastal Commission
710 E Street, Suite 200
Eureka, CA 95501
Fax: (707)445-7877

North Coast Representative:
(includes Mendocino County)
Bonnie Neely
Board of Supervisors
825 Fifth Street, Room 111
Eureka, CA 95501
Phone: (707) 476-2394
Email: bonnie.neely@co.humboldt.ca.us

North Central Coast Representative:
(includes Sonoma County)
Mike Reilly,Supervisor
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive, Rm. 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887
Phone: (707) 565-2241
Email: mreilly@sonoma-county.org
----------------------------------------

Gualala Point Aerial Photo

2007-06-06T07:36:00.000-07:00

Base image from http://maps.google.com/.

IMAPS ...

2007-06-05T14:46:00.000-07:00

... or Internet Mapping Application Products and Solutions.

IMAPS is a multi-branch/regional group within the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG)responsible for the development and maintenance of innovative tools designed for the management and display of geospatial data on the Internet.

During inquiries into breeding season for Pelagic Cormorants and Pigeon Guillemots, an agent within the Wildlife Branch of DFG referred me to this website:

http://imaps.dfg.ca.gov/

Looks like another great resource for managing and protecting our coast. Pick a viewer and starting browsing!

CCNM Resource Management Plan

2007-06-05T08:06:00.000-07:00

Bureau of Land Management
California Coastal National Monument
Resource Management Plan

A comprehensive and cooperative management plan for the California Coastal National Monument is available at:

<http://www.blm.gov/ca/pa/coastal_monument/ccnm_rmp_index.htm>
or, tinyfied:
<http://tinyurl.com/2oched>

You can view the plan online or download it in PDF format.

Note the paragraph for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the Introduction on page 1-19. This suggests to me that protected birds, if present on Gualala Island, should be managed by the BLM. Also note, per Table 1-2 on Introduction page 1-16 of the RMP, that the US Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

There's a lot more to comment upon in this RMP relative to the Gualala Fireworks, but I have enough time to post the link only. It's a good document to become familiar with before the June 7th GMAC meeting.

Contact -- Elected Officials

2007-06-03T09:20:00.000-07:00

Want to write, email or call your elected officials to express your views? Perhaps ask why the Migratory Bird Treaty Act isn't being enforced at the mouth of the Gualala River? If so, here is a summary of contacts for elected officials representing the Mendonoma Coast:

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

Web: <http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/>
Email: <http://tinyurl.com/2u3tcm>
----------------------------------------
Senator Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3553
Phone: (415) 403-0100
Fax: (415) 956-6701
TTY: (202) 224-4264

Web: <http://boxer.senate.gov/>
Email: <http://tinyurl.com/2dpsff>
----------------------------------------
Mike Thompson, California First District
United States House of Representatives
231 Cannon Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3311
Fax: (202) 225-4335

MENDOCINO DISTRICT OFFICE
430 North Franklin Street
PO Box 2208
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Phone: (707) 962-0933
Fax: (707) 962-0934

Web: <http://mikethompson.house.gov/>
Email: <http://tinyurl.com/2x2jrg>
----------------------------------------
Lynn Woolsey, California Sixth District
United States House of Representatives
2263 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5161
Fax: (202) 225-5163

SONOMA OFFICE
1101 College Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: (707) 542-7182
Fax: (707) 542-2745

Web: <http://woolsey.house.gov/>
Email: <http://tinyurl.com/225ekn>
----------------------------------------
State of California Senate District 02
Senator Patricia Wiggins
State Capitol
Room 4081
Sacramento, CA 94249-0001
Phone: (916) 651-4002

SANTA ROSA DISTRICT OFFICE
50 D St., #120A
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: (707) 576-2771
Fax: (707) 576-2773

UKIAH DISTRICT OFFICE
200 South School Street
P.O. Box 785Ukiah, CA 95482
Phone: (707) 468-8914
Fax: (707) 468-8931

Web: <http://dist02.casen.govoffice.com/>
Email: <http://tinyurl.com/yvq7bm>
----------------------------------------
State of California Assembly District 01
Assemblywoman Patty Berg
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0001
Phone: (916) 319-2001
Fax: (916) 319-2101

MENDOCINO DISTRICT OFFICE
311 N. State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Phone: (707) 463-5770
Fax: (707) 463-5773

SONOMA DISTRICT OFFICE
50 "D" Street, Suite 450
Santa Rosa, CA 94504
Phone: (707) 576-2526
Fax: (707) 576-2297

Web and email: <http://tinyurl.com/27fhk5>

Remember, civil and to the point will achieve the best possible response.

Team Members Wanted

2007-06-02T08:15:00.000-07:00

Anyone may view posts and comments to this blog. Providing comments to posts requires a Google Account. Only Team Members may submit original posts. To sign up for a free Google Account go to:

<https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount>

To become a Team Member, an invitation from this blog as well as a Google Account are required. To obtain an invitation, simply request one from Frank Drouillard at dooly@novato.net.

All topics and all participants are welcome. The only rules enforced are civility and respect for the opinions of others.

Fireworks no worse than jetskis?

2007-05-30T08:48:00.001-07:00

Has anyone ever seen jetskis in use on the Gualala River or in the ocean along Gualala Point Park? Are motorized craft allowed on the river at all? Are they allowed near the island where birds nest?

As with helicopters landing at Gualala Point Park, the use of jetskis in the vicinity of nesting birds seems to be a red herring. With both jetskis and helicopters, the birds will hear them coming long before they arrive. That's not the case with the fireworks. Also, from my perch in Anchor Bay, I've never heard jetskis or helicopters from Gualala Point Park. For those reasons, I don't think that fireworks should be compared to either.

Where am I wrong?

June 7th GMAC Meeting

2007-05-24T18:48:00.000-07:00

The issue of Gualala Fireworks is on the agenda for the next GMAC meeting, which is on Thursday, June 7th, at 6:30 PM in the Gualala Community Center.

What about those Gualala Fireworks?

2007-05-24T09:58:00.000-07:00

Why are fireworks in Gualala on Independence Day such a contentious issue? It's a traditional way for all Americans to celebrate the Fourth of July, and Gualala businesses benefit from the additional crowds drawn to see the fireworks. We should be able to set petty differences aside and celebrate together, right?

But wait! Although Gualala is a great location for viewing fireworks, some people are concerned about the adverse effects the fireworks have on the local environment, particularly the birds nesting on Gualala Point Island or resting in the lagoon. Species affected include Pelagic Cormorants and Pigeon Guillemots. Both are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Adults of both species were observed abandoning their nests after the first Gualala fireworks display in 2006, which is an apparent violation of the Act.

Not good, particularly when there is a better and more traditional location for Independence Day fireworks -- the harbor at Point Arena!

Be that as it may, it is reasonable for fireworks promoters to ask: do protected birds really nest on Gualala Point Island? Did they really abandon their nests last year? In order to perform their duties, enforcers of the Act need answers to those questions, too.

It is my understanding that efforts are underway to better document the presence of protected birds and how they respond to the fireworks. Concerned individuals will observe birds on Gualala Point Island and the lagoon from both sides of the river and document their findings. I hope they use this blog to appeal for help and resources as well as to share and distribute their findings.

Welcome!

2007-05-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

I was inspired to create this blog after observing the tireless efforts of many members of our coastal community working to save nesting birds from the adverse effects of fireworks displays in Gualala, California.

This blog is the place to share information and discuss issues that affect the Mendonoma Coast. All participants and all topics are welcome. Showing respect for the opinion of others and demonstrating common decency are the only requirements. Enjoy yourselves!