By Clay Lambert [ clay@hmbreview.com ]
Published/Last Modified on Monday, Apr 12, 2010 - 02:59:54 pm PDT
Published/Last Modified on Monday, Apr 12, 2010 - 02:59:54 pm PDT
An El Granada landowner won a court decision over the California
Coastal Commission on Monday.
Dan Sterling and his family live on 143 hilltop acres above El Granada. For nearly a decade, the Sterlings have sought to build a house on the land. In 2005, they applied for a permit to construct a 6,456-square-foot house, complete with water storage tanks and a septic system.
The Coastal Commission ultimately stepped in. The Sterlings say they were required to designate all but 10,000 square feet of the scenic, hilly property as agricultural easement in exchange for the right to build the house. Last year, the family filed suit against the Coastal Commission in San Mateo County Superior Court
Monday
the court ruled the requirement unconstitutional.
“While the (Coastal) Commission may have jurisdiction to impose an affirmative agricultural easement under the Local Coastal Plan, the imposition of the easement here constitutes an unconstitutional taking…” wrote Judge George Miram in his writ vacating the requirement.
Dan Sterling and his family live on 143 hilltop acres above El Granada. For nearly a decade, the Sterlings have sought to build a house on the land. In 2005, they applied for a permit to construct a 6,456-square-foot house, complete with water storage tanks and a septic system.
The Coastal Commission ultimately stepped in. The Sterlings say they were required to designate all but 10,000 square feet of the scenic, hilly property as agricultural easement in exchange for the right to build the house. Last year, the family filed suit against the Coastal Commission in San Mateo County Superior Court
“While the (Coastal) Commission may have jurisdiction to impose an affirmative agricultural easement under the Local Coastal Plan, the imposition of the easement here constitutes an unconstitutional taking…” wrote Judge George Miram in his writ vacating the requirement.
Submitted by Jim Alex
3 comments:
Well, Alleluia! Common sense has prevailed.
Finally the word Unconstitutional is being used.
Pacifica City Council often forgets about how unconstitutional they are in stepping on property rights. I just love to hear this. Thank you.
Congratulations to the Coastal Commission!
Glad some one with deep pockets and courage took the Coastal Commission to court and set a new or renewed legal land precedent.
City council sub-committee (Vreeland/Lancelle) directed the private quarry owner to put private public partnerships on that property. And a few years back Lancelle wanted to re-arrange a proposed house development so that an existing unofficial trail through the property (actually where the house was planed) would prevail.
Post a Comment